[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A question for those who.....

[anonymous person]

So what do you say? Let's see.


That would be adressed to about all atheists here on this forum. We do believe that humans determine meaning, not a (non-existent) deity. And we spend a great deal of time in discussions with Christians, often questioning and arguing about their beliefs.

And that description would include Oafman, just as it includes me, or all the other atheists who responded to your OP.



And it seems you got your answer: we don't. But somehow you are not satisfied with this answer. You still believe that there are people who "want to deny Christians the right to follow the examples of Jesus and His disciples".

You cannot give examples for that. You cannot point out people doing that.

Is that another example of Christians holding irrational beliefs?

If you don't do it then it does not apply to you.

Thanks.

 

[Poster0]

Sooooo much wrong with this post.

But atheists don't bear any burden of proof at all, since they aren't forwarding a positive claim.

Really? Please quote specific details and show me why it is wrong. I can say that about anyone's post but without proving it then its meaningless.

 

[Freodin]

Really? Please quote specific details and show me why it is wrong. I can say that about anyone's post but without proving it then its meaningless.

Please start a new thread and I will respond to your post in detail.

Don't derail this thread any further! (And this goes to those who answer to Poster0 as well... please don't derail this thread.)

 

[Winken]

What we do is stop you from converting others, denying the truth, stopping others from practicing their beliefs.

We find you guilty. However, you can appeal.

 

[fat wee robin]

Who are you to stop someone from doing what is meaningful to them?

You don't sound very tolerant.

I am going to use this post to complain about this site being blocked up by atheists,when it is supposed to be for christians .
Yes allow them to ask questions ,and certainly allow agnostics and seekers ,but Atheists who post thousands and thousands of posts to deride christianity , why is this allowed ???

 

[Poster0]

Please start a new thread and I will respond to your post in detail.

Don't derail this thread any further! (And this goes to those who answer to Poster0 as well... please don't derail this thread.)

Why don't you ask the person i was responding to not to derail? It was his comment that i was responding to. If my response was off topic then surely his original reply was as well. Not to mention, i was referring to Postmodernism which apparently is on topic anyway as another poster already proved. It seems like you only want to avoid proving your assertion. That's ok, no need to answer because this whole debate is going no where anyway.

 

[Davian]

I dont know what beliefs you refer to exactly, but lets be reasonable and rational.

... It also illogical to deny the "possibility" of Gods existence without proof, (notice i only said the possibility)

You would first need to define what you mean by "God" in a coherent, testable, falsifiable manner for that possibility to be considered.

and it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

Define "God" in a coherent, testable, falsifiable manner and get back to me.

Its not scientifically correct to declare or even assume that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence to support such an assumption, its not good science to assume anything without proof or at least some kind of rational basis for an assumption.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, where evidence would be expected. Take the existence of aether, for instance.

Deism however does have a rational basis because it can at least provide a plausible theory to explain the things that science cannot explain. It can close the gap where science fails,

It does not close the gap, it merely fills it. It "solves" a mystery with a mystery.

so Gods existence is completely in the realm of possibility and rationality,

Only in your imagination, at this time.

which at the very least can make a plausible theory.

Not in the scientific sense, no.

Atheism on the other hand does not give any rational explanation for its assertion because it doesn't fill any gaps in scientific knowledge and doesn't make a good theory to explain any scientific mystery, so it doesn't make a good scientific theory for anything and it cannot be proven either.

Atheism is not a truth statement, your misrepresentation of it notwithstanding.

When comparing Deism to either Postmodernism or Atheism, Both postmodernism and Atheism have the greater burden of bearing proof and rationality for their assertions.

"I am not convinced that gods, like that of the Bible, are real" carries no burden of proof.

 

[NumberTenOx]

I believe that meaning and purpose are determined by each individual and not from an external deity. I feel that science has provided a fairly unbroken, reasonable theory that explains everything from the first tiny patch of exotic material to our current system of morals and complex societal norms.

I feel that to rely on an external deity to explain the origin, meaning, and purpose of life is a failure of imagination. I also will defend anyone's right to hold and argue a belief in God and to worship in any way they wish as long as it doesn't trample someone else's rights.

I also feel that being an atheist includes being comfortable with saying "I don't know" when confronted with the question "what came before the big bang?" History has shown that unknown things often become known as science advances, without resorting to any deity.

And to say that everything must have a cause and therefore God, is not an answer. You are only putting a name on the answer, not telling us anything specific about it. What about the existence of a tiny patch of exotic material allows us to deduce the existence of an all knowing, all moral being?

Finally, why am I on this forum? As an atheist I'm in the minority in this country. I'm fascinated by the beliefs of Christians and other deists and love to engage in dialog to test my understanding of the universe and the validity of my beliefs. Any belief worth having is worth testing. I would hope that you would feel the same way and would be as confident in your beliefs and therefore not offended by my questions and statements.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Please start a new thread and I will respond to your post in detail.

Don't derail this thread any further! (And this goes to those who answer to Poster0 as well... please don't derail this thread.)

I don't find that this thread is actually going anywhere, since it deals with a subject that doesn't seem to exist...

 

[Poster0]

Atheism is not a truth statement, your misrepresentation of it notwithstanding.

"I am not convinced that gods, like that of the Bible, are real" carries no burden of proof.

Its you who misrepresent. Define truth statement. Does that mean a belief that something is true? If so then Atheism believes there is no Deity (God) so it is a truth statement, but not a truthful statement. (Im my belief). Why are you guys trying to change word definitions to justify your debate? That only proves your assertions are irrational

 

[Freodin]

Why don't you ask the person i was responding to not to derail?

I did. Not as a direct quote, but most people here read all posts.

It was his comment that i was responding to. If my response was off topic then surely his original reply was as well. Not to mention, i was referring to Postmodernism which apparently is on topic anyway as another poster already proved.

Mentioned. Asserted. Not proved.

It seems like you only want to avoid proving your assertion. That's ok, no need to answer because this whole debate is going no where anyway.

My assertion was that your post is off-topic. As this thread was started with a question about people wanting to stop Christian practicing, not the validity of Christianity, deism, atheism or postmodernism, I think this should be considered as "proven".

I also asked you a number of times to open a new thread about your position, and promised to respond there. If that is "avoiding proving your assertion", I think your dogmatically based persecution complex is showing.

But as the OP does not seem to be willing to have any kind of conversation about his initial question at all, I will humour you.

I dont know what beliefs you refer to exactly, but lets be reasonable and rational.

Don't judge my words on the fact that i'm a Christian. Lets just look at Deism itself verses Atheism. Many people think that science supports atheism and not deism.

Science does not support or contradict deism. It cannot. It is limited on things that are, at some level, observable: deism is by definition not observable - it proposes a deity that does not interact with its creation at all.

However many people have believed many things over the years that had no basis whatsoever. They may think Christians and other religious people are foolish to believe in something like God without any proof.

Do you think that atheists are foolish to disbelieve in something like God without any proof? It seems so. But why... it is basically the same concept. If the one is foolish, so is the other. If you think your position is not foolish, so is the atheist's.

Lets just open our mind and sincerely consider what i am about to say here. Lets look at Postmodernism for a minute because it has been brought up, postmodernism is not logical because two assertions which contradict each other cannot both be true.

But that isn't the position of postmodernism at all. Neither is that wonderful logical dilemma that was posted earlier.

Postmodernism is not scientific nor rational.

That is correct. But it doesn't try to. For that part, I don't even understand what postmodernism has anything to do with the atheism/deism/theism discussion here at all... it just to be a fine strawman to attack.

It also illogical to deny the "possibility" of Gods existence without proof, (notice i only said the possibility) and it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

That depends on the God-concept in question... and from experience I know that especially Christians are likely to change on this concept as it suits their arguments.
It can be proven that certain gods do not exist... logically incoherent gods for example.

Its not scientifically correct to declare or even assume that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence to support such an assumption, its not good science to assume anything without proof or at least some kind of rational basis for an assumption. Deism however does have a rational basis because it can at least provide a plausible theory to explain the things that science cannot explain.

Making assertions that are impossible to verify or falsify is definitly unscientific. If you accept that as "a rational basis"... atheism is as plausible a theory to explain all kinds of things. (Nah, not really. That's not what atheism per se is. It doesn't explain anything. It just doubts the explanatory value of theistic systems. But there are atheistic systems that do have explanatory value.)

It can close the gap where science fails, so Gods existence is completely in the realm of possibility and rationality, which at the very least can make a plausible theory.

Again, that depends on the God-concept in question. But yes, it is a potential explantions.

Atheism on the other hand does not give any rational explanation for its assertion because it doesn't fill any gaps in scientific knowledge and doesn't make a good theory to explain any scientific mystery, so it doesn't make a good scientific theory for anything and it cannot be proven either.

Again, atheism per se doesn't even try to explain anything. It just denies the involvement of deities.
But there are atheistic systems that do "fill gaps in scientific knowledge"... and do that better that the "just make any assertion that you like" that the theistic system uses.
Atheistic systems have to find explanations, and for the scientific systems, have to find evidence for them. Theistic systems can simply assert "God did it"... without having to offer any evidence or explanation.

When comparing Deism to either Postmodernism or Atheism, Both postmodernism and Atheism have the greater burden of bearing proof and rationality for their assertions.

Your version of postmodernism is a strawman... I won't even try to answer that. As for atheism: no, the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. Theists claim : "God did it". Atheists just doubt that. They don't have to prove their doubt.

 

[Poster0]

I believe that meaning and purpose are determined by each individual and not from an external deity. I feel that science has provided a fairly unbroken, reasonable theory that explains everything from the first tiny patch of exotic material to our current system of morals and complex societal norms.

I feel that to rely on an external deity to explain the origin, meaning, and purpose of life is a failure of imagination. I also will defend anyone's right to hold and argue a belief in God and to worship in any way they wish as long as it doesn't trample someone else's rights.

I also feel that being an atheist includes being comfortable with saying "I don't know" when confronted with the question "what came before the big bang?" History has shown that unknown things often become known as science advances, without resorting to any deity.

And to say that everything must have a cause and therefore God, is not an answer. You are only putting a name on the answer, not telling us anything specific about it. What about the existence of a tiny patch of exotic material allows us to deduce the existence of an all knowing, all moral being?

Finally, why am I on this forum? As an atheist I'm in the minority in this country. I'm fascinated by the beliefs of Christians and other deists and love to engage in dialog to test my understanding of the universe and the validity of my beliefs. Any belief worth having is worth testing. I would hope that you would feel the same way and would be as confident in your beliefs and therefore not offended by my questions and statements.

Science itself says that it doesn't know what the big bang singularity was, or where it came from, or where it is now. They have hardly proved anything, but have only gave a theory. They have not proved that God doesn't exist either. Why is it unscientific to believe in a creator? What science would you use to show that God doesnt exist, or at least show that he probably doesn't exist? There is no such science and so it would not be correct to suggest that science doesn't rely on a Deity. It relies upon a deity until it proves otherwise because its completely rational and plausible to theorize that a God may have created the universe.

 

[durangodawood]

....Why is it unscientific to believe in a creator?....

Its not. Thats a matter of faith

But it IS unscientific to assert that evidence or reason demands a creator being as an explanation for things.

 

[Poster0]

I

Science does not support or contradict deism. It cannot. It is limited on things that are, at some level, observable: deism is by definition not observable - it proposes a deity that does not interact with its creation at all.

Making assertions that are impossible to verify or falsify is definitly unscientific. If you accept that as "a rational basis"... atheism is as plausible a theory to explain all kinds of things. (Nah, not really. That's not what atheism per se is. It doesn't explain anything. It just doubts the explanatory value of theistic systems. But there are atheistic systems that do have explanatory value.)

Look at what you have said. You say that science is limited to things that can be seen, yet science has already said that it doesn't know what the big bang singularity is, how it got here or where it is now. So science doesn't see it, it only theorizes its possibility. Both your statements above would not be accurate.

 

[Davian]

Its you who misrepresent. Define truth statement. Does that mean a belief that something is true?

No. It is a claim to having an accurate description of reality.

If so then Atheism believes there is no Deity (God) so it is a truth statement, but not a truthful statement. (Im my belief).

You are welcome to your opinion. That is certainly not how I use the word, or how I see it used by other self-identified atheists in this forum.

Why are you guys trying to change word definitions to justify your debate? That only proves your assertions are irrational

I am not making assertions. I am simply stating that I am not convinced.

 

[Freodin]

Look at what you have said. You say that science is limited to things that can be seen, yet science has already said that it doesn't know what the big bang singularity is, how it got here or where it is now. So science doesn't see it, it only theorizes its possibility. Both your statements above would not be accurate.

As you theorize the possibility of God. So if you deny that atheistic systems have explanatory value (I guess that is the second of my statement that you refer to?), you do also deny that theistic systems have such a value.

Do you?

(And BTW, asking where the initial singularity "is now" is just showing your lack of understanding of that topic. It is here. All around you. In you. It is the universe.)

 

[NumberTenOx]

Science itself says that it doesn't know what the big bang singularity was, or where it came from, or where it is now. They have hardly proved anything, but have only gave a theory. They have not proved that God doesn't exist either. Why is it unscientific to believe in a creator? What science would you use to show that God doesnt exist, or at least show that he probably doesn't exist? There is no such science and so it would not be correct to suggest that science doesn't rely on a Deity. It relies upon a deity until it proves otherwise because its completely rational and plausible to theorize that a God may have created the universe.

Practically the whole point of science is to explain things without needing to resort to the supernatural. Again: to say that "God" is the answer to "what created the universe" is not an answer, it's just a word. There is no mystery left that requires a Christian God to explain, and experience has shown us time and again that the mysteries that are left will be answered without resorting to anything outside of physics.

 

[paulm50]

The real truth?

What is the real truth?

The one backed by evidence that has been studied by people who don't accept it as truth before they read it.

 

[Poster0]

Its not. Thats a matter of faith

But it IS unscientific to assert that evidence or reason demands a creator being as an explanation for things.

No it isn't just a matter of faith. It is also a theory that can explain unseen things that science doesn't yet understand. Just like the big bang theory can not be seen or proven. or just like many other unproven theories. You must admit that science doesn't prove all its theories but will use them anyway. God can surely be a rational scientific theory as well. Science says it doesn't know what the big bang theory singularity is, and so i can theorize that it was an intelligent being who used his power to create the universe via a big bang What you are saying is just anther example of special pleading. Science also has a certain amount of faith involved in it, not everything is proven.

 

[Poster0]

Practically the whole point of science is to explain things without needing to resort to the supernatural. Again: to say that "God" is the answer to "what created the universe" is not an answer, it's just a word. There is no mystery left that requires a Christian God to explain, and experience has shown us time and again that the mysteries that are left will be answered without resorting to anything outside of physics.

No its not. Science is not without a certain amount of super natural theory. The big bang itself is just a super natural theory. A powerful, mysterious, unseen singularity came into being and created everything. Thats faith.