Question to Atheists

[LostWarrior]

G-d and science are in different realms. Neither speak to the other

Science is reasonable. God isn't.
Belief in science is justifiable. Believe in God isn't

Got both of these covered. Forget abut Prophecies from 2 - 4,000 years ago, we have people right on CF who have had them, and had them fulfilled.

Atheism doesn't require there can't be any sobrenatural believes. Therefore, I can explain that as being the Law of Attraction (which is explained by Quantom Mechanics, even tho it isn't proven yet) and it's justified without a need for a God. But I'm gonna go a step further.
If I dream I'm gonna have an accident and I have an accident tomorrow, is it sobrenatural? What if I have an accident in 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? How long will it take until it stops being something sobrenatural. Besides, if in my dream I only have an accident or something bad happens to me, that isn't a prediction; of course I'm gonna have an accident soon or later, there's no way around that.
And what if I have 100 previsions and only 1 comes truth? That isn't anything sobrenatural. It's obvious that after 20-100 previsions, 1 would come true.
And why is it that only believers seem to have this visions. Kinda strange isn't it?

As far as your point b is concerned, you seem not to fathom the Almighty's "effects."

Never heard of it and a search around web and local libraries failled me to. Mind explaining?

Neither does your "should" statement carry any weight, nor does it really mean anything other than what you would wish it to be.

Oh, now that's something new: we have a creator, a powerful, amazing being above us all, but yet anyone can be like him and create more beings like him.

This is simply false; sorry.

No. You are simply being ignorant now. If you are going to be like that, then please stop getting into discussions I'm having with someone else.

This is thoroughly addressed in many books, and not really that difficult a problem. To begin with, we know G-d is a righteous Judge, so the concept of "all good" is false, as plainly stated in Scripture. (Neither does Scripture teach omnipotence, but places some limits upon G-d)

If this isn't all-powerful and all-good, why are you worshipping him?

This is meaningless. Books are written by people, who are clearly flawed.

Not when they are inspired by a God, who can't have flaws.

Prayer has been proven effective in my life repeatedly, in the lives of many I know, and no doubt to Candle Glow here as well.

And again, that only happens with believers. If someone who doesn't believe prays, nothing happens. If someone from a religion that contradicts yours prays, something happens to that person. If that is true, then all religions are true, because they all claim praying has supernatural powers. But then again, most religions are contradictory between themselves... Woops...

 

[LostWarrior]

I will address your arguments after presenting mine here again (thanks for the chance to do so ).

On the issue of proof, my personal belief is that God has set things up specifically so that no single person can conclusively prove his existence for the whole world to see.

It is consistent with God's desire to find people who want what he has to offer more than anything else in the world, including their own comfort and/or lives.

A good god wouldn't desire that. He'd desire that people would be happy wether they liked him or not. Besides, creating Hell for unbelievers is another evil hit.

That element of sincerity is taken away when the truth of his existence is irrefutably shoved in our faces. People will acknowledge him because they have no other choice, rather than because they choose to.

That should be irrevelant for a powerful being.

But, for the sake of making my point, lets say that God did give a piece of himself to the scientists of the world to put into a little test tube so they could heat it up, spin it around, dissect and break it down to finally prove once and for all that he is real.

Then what? What about his teachings? Would you be willing to do what he says? Would that be because you genuinely believe in the reasons behind the teachings, or because you feel you would have no other choice?

To test those questions, we need only look at the teachings of Jesus. If you feel you could follow Jesus' teachings based on the reasoning behind the teachings, then it makes no difference whether God is real or not, because it's the reasons behind the teachings that are the point.
If you feel you could not follow those teachings, even knowing without any doubt that God is real, then what's the point of knowing he is real if you're just going to ignore him anyway?

I would stop debating.

Jesus faced a similar issue in his journey regarding miracles. After once occasion of miraculously feeding people who had gone for days without food to listen to him, he quickly ran away because the people were so impressed that they wanted to make him a king.

When they found him again, he rebuked them because they only cared about eating the food (i.e. what he could do for them) and totally missed the point of thanking God for the miracle. They wanted to make him a king because they felt they could get something from him.

Assuming the Bible is true, for the sake of your argument... Is this explained in the Bible? I mean, from someone in the actual crowd instead of an observer from the outside? How can you be sure they weren't making him king because he had this way to comunicate with this supreme being they also liked?
Besides, that happens with many believers nowadays and it's known as Pascal's Wager. They only believe because believing will get them somekind of reward. So, if Christianity was proven, it couldn't change that much.

It's why he said that people won't even be able to see his kingdom unless they listen to his teachings and DO them, because his kingdom IS the application of those teachings.

In other words talk it cheap. If you want proof, you have to earn it. Just how hungry and thirsty are you?

Being moral to get into heaven or to please an authority isn't being moral at all.
About my hunger, I'm gonna lunch in about 15 minutes, thank you for asking

Where did these rules come from, who made them? Can they be found in any books and if so are you suggesting those books are infalliable books, much like Christians (though not me) claim the Bible is infallible?

Of course. And this isn't a bad belief at all. It's called the scientific method and it clearly shows how to prove stuff. It has been used to prove things like gravity; radiation; the atomic world; etc, and until now, flawless. If you find a problem with it or have a better model, go collect your Nobel Prize.

Is there ever a situation where the key would NOT fall down, according to your prediction? How did people explain gravity before they knew about gravity? Was there anyone who was also "sure" about explanations which history shows were not particularly accurate regarding their understanding of science?

I got a bit lost. Can you tell me how do you explain a thing whose existance has never ocurred to you?

My understanding of the odds of everything in existence coming together the way it has by accident is apparently extremely, super duper, extra fantastically low.

You need to learn order and chaos theory. It isn't anything that out of the ordinary.

All of nature suggests some kind of intelligent design (whether you feel it happened according to the Bible's version of a literal 6 days or a longer version of billions of years).

No. That's relative. What's amazing to you can be nothing special to me.
And, besides, how do you know that (assuming this world was, indeed created), it was created for humans? It can have been created for ants as well.

"Super force"? I don't understand what you mean by that, but okay for the sake of your exmaple, where did this super force come from? Where did atoms and protons come from?

From the Universe. "Where did the Universe come from?". From nowhere. "Right! And nothing can come from nowhere blah blah blah". Yea, I know that one. This is a logical failure, because you say nothing can come from nowhere but then you open an exception and say "Well, nothing can come from nowhere except this amazing being I call God". Of course you could also say "God existed all the time. He never non-existed" but that would open two problems:
1. Prove that something can be timeless.
2. Why can you apply that "timeless" concept to the Universe itself?

Yes, i agree that humans have the tendency to create explanations for existence which suit their personal biases; it's certainly not limited to religion.

The same could be said for scientific theories. History is riddled with such abuses, but we don't say that this disproves science altogether.

We go back to the scientific method above that didn't exist towards most history. When it started (around 1500) most of those problems stopped.

But following from your theory, If you read the OT you will see that over and over and over and over again the God of the OT expressions frustration with his creations at being so selfish, greedy, stubborn, proud and just generally faithless to him.

This hardly seems consistent with what you are saying about people who make convenient God's for themselves.

You are restricting yourself to Christianity. What about other religions that don't share the same OT? What about Jewish people who share the same OT but have completly different believes.
By the way, I don't get how all those expressions can change what I've said that much. One Christian can say "My God is all loving" and justify those as being "attempts to save his people", and someone else can say "My God hates humanity/hates sinners" and justify that as "an attempt to fullfil his disires".

The exact same explanation can be applied to all the various theories in the science world, or are you suggesting that there are no contradicting theories in science?

General Relativity and Mechanic Quantics. But nowhere do you find someone who rejects belief in one of them, or only believe about what he wants about them. Nobody has another interpretation of them, and String Theory is about to solve this problem.
It has nothing to do with religion.

Just because we have suspicions that something COULD be wrong is not rational grounds to conclude that something IS wrong.

Really? Then how can all religions be right? Is God a person or energy? He can't be both at the same time. Can he interact with our world and non-interacting with our world at the same time? Can He exist within time and out of time at the same time? Can he be good an evil at the same time? Can there be only one god and several gods at the same time?

It's not that all religions could be wrong. It's that all religions are most likely wrong and only one can be right.

An assortment of contradictions is NOT grounds for disproving a theory. It simply means that each contradiction must be assessed and tested one at a time to discern where the real answer is amongst all of them, if there is an answer.

No theologist has ever been able to do so.

For example, lets say I ask for lunch at 12oclock. One person thinks I mean 12am and another person thinks I mean 12pm. Over here in Kenya they measure time a bit differently by adding and subtracting 6 hours depending on the time of day, so 12 would actually be 6.

So out of the three, which is it? Let's make things even more complicated by suggesting there are people who don't want me to have lunch because it will affect their schedules, or because they don't want to do the work involved or they just don't like me or they think I'm not really talking about lunch at all, but some kind of gardening project for growing food, etc...

Do all these contradictions prove that I never asked for lunch? Obviously, the best way to know what I actually said is to ask me.

What if those persons don't believe you in the first place, instead of your actions? What if they think you are a girl; other thinks you are a guy; other thinks you are several people; all at once. What about if you can't be seen or spoken with?

 

[candle glow]

A good god wouldn't desire that. He'd desire that people would be happy wether they liked him or not.

I said that the evidence suggests that God does not want to prove himself for the sake of gathering a bunch of robots, but that he wants people to search for him as a sign of their sincerity. Why is that not good, according to you?

That should be irrevelant for a powerful being.

Observations about what should and what should not be, according to your opinion, is not scientific method. You've done this several times now (i.e. saying what your understanding of God should be as opposed to looking at what the recorded evidence suggests).

This kind of side stepping is not genuine discussion and will only ever lead in circles. Anytime someone makes a valid point about what is actually recorded regarding the nature of God, you dismiss it with what you feel the nature of God should be.

I would stop debating.

You did not answer the question. If God was proved irrefutably to your satisfaction, would you obey him?

I would stop debating.

Is this explained in the Bible?

Yes, my explanation is consistent with the biblical explanation. The fact that you are so ready to dismiss written evidence on the basis of what "could be" shows a bias on your part. I don't mind evidence being challenged, but what you are doing is side stepping the evidence and you are doing it consistently

Being moral to get into heaven or to please an authority isn't being moral at all.

Is this you making rules again about something you profess not to believe in anyway? Why should I trust your opinion about the morality of Jesus as explained in the Bible?

You see, over and over again you say you don't believe, that it is unreasonable to believe, but you have no problem being the authority when it comes to telling other people about their own beliefs. You can't have it both ways.

Of course. And this isn't a bad belief at all. It's called the scientific method and it clearly shows how to prove stuff. It has been used to prove things like gravity; radiation; the atomic world; etc, and until now, flawless. If you find a problem with it or have a better model, go collect your Nobel Prize.

Irrational. I expressed no problem with the method. I questioned your understanding of the method. It is a problem if you view them as one and the same...

I got a bit lost. Can you tell me how do you explain a thing whose existance has never ocurred to you?

Explaining things that have never occurred to us before is what ALL learning is about. Is it part of the scientific method to exclude the existence of a life much greater than you on the basis that you have no awareness of that life form according to your understanding of what it means to be aware of this life form?

besides, how do you know that (assuming this world was, indeed created), it was created for humans? It can have been created for ants as well.

Sure, but for whatever purpose it was created, the point is, there is still a purpose. Are you aware that you've changed the topic here?

This is a logical failure, because you say nothing can come from nowhere but then you open an exception and say "Well, nothing can come from nowhere except this amazing being I call God".

No, I'm fine with simply saying "I don't know". It appears that it is the atheist who cannot say "I don't know". I asked you to tell us where the singularity comes from if not from a creator.

The thing is, you don't know. You can't test it. You can't even deduce the conclusion from your 3 previously listed rules about science. All you have is a theory that all the matter in the universe came from a single point at some time as a result of chance.

So there you are, in a situation where you've got this belief in a singularity, but no explanation for it that fits into any of your laws.

We go back to the scientific method above that didn't exist towards most history. When it started (around 1500) most of those problems stopped.

You may not be aware, but you really do harm your credibility with comments like this. It's like you are so busy trying to defend your point of view that you can't see how irrational your comments are.

Are you suggesting that abuses of the scientific method stopped after the year 1500?

You are restricting yourself to Christianity.

Again, you are being irrational. It's like me suggesting that you are restricting yourself to this forum when it comes to talking to other people. It would make no sense for me to say that just because my only experience of you is here on this forum.

I used Christianity as an example. I believe that all of these irrational comments are not a result of your language barrier, or your age, or you using an phone vs your tablet or because of your inexperience in these issues, etc.

I believe it is because you really do hit a wall when it comes to arguing the non-existence of something which you cannot prove one way or the other. I think it would be far more rational for you to take the position that you cannot prove it one way or the other, but that you strongly believe there is no God based on x,y,z.

General Relativity and Mechanic Quantics. But nowhere do you find someone who rejects belief in one of them, or only believe about what he wants about them. Nobody has another interpretation of them, and String Theory is about to solve this problem.
It has nothing to do with religion.

But it does have something to do with reason. I reject your assertion that religion and reason are separate ideals.

The point is that even in science there are contradicting theories and teachings, but because it is science you see no problem with that. But when it comes to religion, you suddenly see the contradictions as proof that there is no merit to anything about religion at all.

You are using two different standards. Is that what happens with scientific method? Either that, or you need a new theory about using contradictions as a reliable way to measure the reason of a particular issue.

Its not that all religions could be wrong. It's that all religions are most likely wrong and only one can be right.

There are many similarities between various religions. Real truth is sometimes like that. To make a blanket statement that only one religion can be right misses the point and shows that you've not thought your conclusions through.

No theologist has ever been able to do so.

Yeah yeah and no atheist has ever been able to solve all the contradictions in science, either. So what?

What if those persons don't believe you in the first place, instead of your actions? What if they think you are a girl; other thinks you are a guy; other thinks you are several people; all at once. What about if you can't be seen or spoken with?

Whether they think I'm one gender or the other, or that I am more than one person, or that I can't be seen or spoken too, or whatever, the point is, I still asked for lunch. Those contradicting points of view ABOUT me do not change the fact.

I believe this push for an argument against the existence of God based on contradictions which come about as a result of people who do not listen to what God wants is a cheap shot and very much irrational.

For example, am I to base my understanding of atheism is general on your example here? Based on the kind of reasoning you've used, I think a lot of more experienced atheists would cringe at that thought.

I've discussed these kind of issues with atheists before who take a different approach than what you've shared here. Does that mean it is a contradiction which disproves the existence of atheism? Because all atheists are not completely united should I feel justified in saying that atheism does not exist?

Yes, that really is the logic you are using for Christianity and it's relationship to God.

 

[quatona]

I said that the evidence suggests that God does not want to prove himself for the sake of gathering a bunch of robots, but that he wants people to search for him as a sign of their sincerity.

I can´t seem to follow that line of reasoning.
How exactly does lack of evidence for the existence of an entity enhance the sincerity of seeking a relationship with it?
Would the sincerity of my relationship with my girlfriend somewhat be increased if I didn´t know she existed?

If God was proved irrefutably to your satisfaction, would you obey him?

Good question. It demonstrates that knowledge or lack of knowledge of someone´s existence has nothing to do with the deepness, sincerity (or - as your question implies - the greatest of all things when it comes to relationships: obedience) of the relationship.
Thus, I still fail to see how God playing hide and seek serves the purpose you tell me it´s meant to serve: If I knew God existed (and what God is like) I could still choose what relationship to have with God - and on top, it would be an informed choice.

 

[quatona]

Yeah yeah and no atheist has ever been able to solve all the contradictions in science, either. So what?

Could you tell me what exactly you think is the link between atheism and science, and why it would be upon me as an atheist - more than anyone else - to solve "contradictions in science"?

I've discussed these kind of issues with atheists before who take a different approach than what you've shared here. Does that mean it is a contradiction which disproves the existence of atheism?

Since nobody has questioned the existence of theism (I am utterly convinced that you are a theist!) I fail to see how this question is analogous to anything.

 

[ziggy29]

IMO, if we keep it open-minded and respectful we all have a lot to learn about each other.

Atheists need to understand that Christians aren't all a bunch of socially conservative, excessively judgmental, science-hating theocrats who want to force their view of Scripture down everyone's throats and oppress anyone who doesn't share our views.

Religious folks need to understand that atheists aren't amoral. Indeed, much of the most common moral codes associated with "secular humanism" would also fit in well with the Social Gospel of Jesus Christ -- that those of abundance have a social duty to share their blessings with the less fortunate, to heal the sick, clothe the naked, house the homeless, feed the hungry.

I also believe that some of the atheists I know act a lot more like Jesus than some of the Christians I know.

If we listened with open minds rather than judging each other with preconceived notions, I think the world would be a much better place.

It saddens me when the hate, intolerance and name-calling begin, though.

 

[razeontherock]

This is why people who deny science are effectively denying God. God gave us brains and the expectation was that we'd put them to good use.

I stand corrected! A better statement than what I originally made would be; religion and science are in different realms, and neither speak to the other.

 

[quatona]

Atheists need to understand that Christians aren't all a bunch of socially conservative, excessively judgmental, science-hating theocrats who want to force their view of Scripture down everyone's throats and oppress anyone who doesn't share our views.

Interestingly, none of the theists I know in RL match this description.

 

[ziggy29]

Interestingly, none of the theists I know in RL match this description.

This is the common perception, at least within the arena of public debate and discussion. You are right, though, at least in that my experience is the same as yours. Yet this is one of the more common complaints among the relatively militant atheists -- religious people trying to force their religious views on everyone. I do know theists like that personally, but they are in a rather small minority.

 

[quatona]

This is the common perception, at least within the arena of public debate and discussion. You are right, though, at least in that my experience is the same as yours. Yet this is one of the more common complaints among the relatively militant atheists -- religious people trying to force their religious views on everyone. I do know theists like that personally, but they are in a rather small minority.

Yes. Then again, I am living in Europe, and things seem to be a bit different over here.

 

[razeontherock]

No, I'm fine with simply saying "I don't know". It appears that it is the atheist who cannot say "I don't know". I asked you to tell us where the singularity comes from if not from a creator.

The thing is, you don't know. You can't test it. You can't even deduce the conclusion from your 3 previously listed rules about science. All you have is a theory that all the matter in the universe came from a single point at some time as a result of chance.

So there you are, in a situation where you've got this belief in a singularity, but no explanation for it that fits into any of your laws.

While this is a complete aside, you might find it interesting that current cosmology no longer holds to the singularity idea, and recognizes that it was always completely irrational, and it only appears in their equations because their equations are wrong.

How 'bout them apples?

Now they have moved on to the idea that instead of a singularity, it was essentially something like a blob of super-dense plasma, with every point being the center. Which might be even harder to explain an occurrence like that, much like the beginnings of life don't work unless you already have a functioning ecosystem.

Back to the topic at hand, your opening volley of this round is exactly my understanding

 

[keith99]

This is the common perception, at least within the arena of public debate and discussion. You are right, though, at least in that my experience is the same as yours. Yet this is one of the more common complaints among the relatively militant atheists -- religious people trying to force their religious views on everyone. I do know theists like that personally, but they are in a rather small minority.

Perhaps it is becaseu Christianity and Strong Athiesm seem to suffer from the same problem. Many of the Christians who speak the loudest do fit that (and other nasty) molds. I'd say the same can be said about athiests. The most visible ones are often the rudest and most abrasive.

In both groups many of the best are ones you do not find out are Christian or athiest for a long tiem as it never get brought up (at least until plans for Easter Sunday are discussed).

 

[ziggy29]

Perhaps it is becaseu Christianity and Strong Athiesm seem to suffer from the same problem. Many of the Christians who speak the loudest do fit that (and other nasty) molds. I'd say the same can be said about athiests. The most visible ones are often the rudest and most abrasive.

True enough. This applies to politics equally well and seems to fit into an 80/20 rule: the extremists on both sides may total 20% of the population but they make 80% of the noise.

 

[candle glow]

Ahh, so many interesting posts to respond to. I'll respond to several people in the one post to save on time.

Would the sincerity of my relationship with my girlfriend somewhat be increased if I didn´t know she existed?

If she were to suddenly disappear, would you look for her? What if you tried calling her, asking her friends, and the reporting to the police? Would you leave it at that? Is there anything more you could or would do? How far would you go?

Do you think your girl friends feelings and assessment of your character will be at all influenced by your actions?

Thus, I still fail to see how God playing hide and seek serves the purpose you tell me it´s meant to serve: If I knew God existed (and what God is like) I could still choose what relationship to have with God - and on top, it would be an informed choice.

But all of us already can make informed choices about what God wants. The teachings are there. The question is, will we act on them or not. If you say you feel you are not informed because you cannot act on the teachings unless his existence is shoved in your face irrefutably, then that still misses the point of responding to the reasons behind the teachings.

Are the teachings worth following or not?

Could you tell me what exactly you think is the link between atheism and science, and why it would be upon me as an atheist - more than anyone else - to solve "contradictions in science"?

Working through contradictory information is just a part of learning. It's something we should all be doing regardless. But the comment you are referring to was specifically in response to lostwarrior who was claiming that contradictions are evidence of nonexistence.

I also believe that some of the atheists I know act a lot more like Jesus than some of the Christians I know.

As a Christian, I would refer to what you are describing as sincerity. The good Samaritan story is a good example of this. The obviously religious people passed the wounded man by, but the guy with all the wrong theology stopped to help and showed love. I feel the title of the story could easily be changed to Hindu, or atheist, or prostitute, or businessman (haha) and the basic lesson would still be the same.

It saddens me when the hate, intolerance and name-calling begin, though.

I think I've seen some obnoxious behavior and hints of name calling but not so much in the way of hatred. Generally I've enjoyed my time here in the past couple days.

religious people trying to force their religious views on everyone. I do know theists like that personally, but they are in a rather small minority.

Something that happens very often in nearly ANY kind of debate (regardless of topic) is for people to use in-group out-group jargon. For example, we educate, but you brainwash. We skillfully manage while you manipulate. We encourage while you pressure. We share ideas while you force your views.

It probably sounds ridiculous when it's pointed out in such an obvious way like I am doing now, but I think it's worth considering.

While this is a complete aside, you might find it interesting that current cosmology no longer holds to the singularity idea, and recognizes that it was always completely irrational, and it only appears in their equations because their equations are wrong.

How 'bout them apples?

Ah, I did not know that! Hmm, I wonder what they'll come up with next, if they ever decide the ball-of-plasma theory isn't quite right, either.

Now they have moved on to the idea that instead of a singularity, it was essentially something like a blob of super-dense plasma, with every point being the center.

They should call it the super-ultra-thunder-dragon-lightning-ninja-fire-shredding-mega-density-plasma-blob, (or sutdlnfsmdpb for short ).

 

[razeontherock]

And while I'm not sure that I have this much correct, I think current theory holds that the sutdlnfsmdpb was the entire Universe, before space itself began expanding.

Back to something appropriate to both the sub-forum and the thread:

thjplgrvp

is the first mnemonmic device the Lord gave me. Without peeking, can you place what it must stand for from Scripture?






"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things." (Pp 4:8)

There is precious little outside of the Gospels that I would elevate to being close to on par with Jesus' own teachings, but this much has tremendous power for anyone, and might merit some discussion? (I'd put the beginning of 2 Peter thru v 11 in the same category, but as only pertaining to Christians)

 

[candle glow]

thjplgrvp

is the first mnemonmic device the Lord gave me. Without peeking, can you place what it must stand for from Scripture?

Gaaaahhh, a gf from highschool used to do this to me. I could never figure them out.

Anyway, the thoughts contained in the verse are quite inspiring. I think all of it could easily apply to anyone or situation outside of religion. Even "praise" (though I think it's obviously meant to be directed towards God in this case) could still be appreciated in the form of compliments towards others.

And while I'm not sure that I have this much correct, I think current theory holds that the sutdlnfsmdpb was the entire Universe, before space itself began expanding.

I find a lot of comfort in being able to say, "The universe in a little blob of plasma; neato" and then get back what's actually important here and now.

 

[LostWarrior]

I said that the evidence suggests that God does not want to prove himself for the sake of gathering a bunch of robots, but that he wants people to search for him as a sign of their sincerity. Why is that not good, according to you?

It is if he punishes the people that don't search for him and instead focus on the existence evidence, since this was his choice in the first place. It's totally find if you don't believe in Hell.

Observations about what should and what should not be, according to your opinion, is not scientific method. You've done this several times now (i.e. saying what your understanding of God should be as opposed to looking at what the recorded evidence suggests).

This kind of side stepping is not genuine discussion and will only ever lead in circles. Anytime someone makes a valid point about what is actually recorded regarding the nature of God, you dismiss it with what you feel the nature of God should be.

If we were to talk about evidence, we wouldn't be here in the first place, since you haven't yet presented any logical, proved evidence.
Therefore, this observations are necessary, but of course they may be wrong. This one, in particular, isn't: a powerful being has enough power in himself that he doesn't need anyone else to follow him. Even tho he may enjoy it, he may never punish people for not doing so. Again, if you don't believe in Hell, ignore this.

You did not answer the question. If God was proved irrefutably to your satisfaction, would you obey him?

No: if a God (yours or any other) was proven and he asked you to kill another parent's childs, would you obey him?

Yes, my explanation is consistent with the biblical explanation. The fact that you are so ready to dismiss written evidence on the basis of what "could be" shows a bias on your part. I don't mind evidence being challenged, but what you are doing is side stepping the evidence and you are doing it consistently

I don't get how the Bible is even considered evidence in this discussion. The very fact you consider it so, is not only a bias but also a circular argument and a logical flaw.

king rules again about something you profess not to believe in anyway? Why should I trust your opinion about the morality of Jesus as explained in the Bible?

Because logically, if I behave nice in order to get a new iPod from my parents or to avoid being locked in my room, I am not being moral.

You see, over and over again you say you don't believe, that it is unreasonable to believe, but you have no problem being the authority when it comes to telling other people about their own beliefs. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not ordering you anything, am I? I'm only tell you what being moral actually is.

Irrational. I expressed no problem with the method. I questioned your understanding of the method. It is a problem if you view them as one and the same...

What's wrong with my view of the method?

Explaining things that have never occurred to us before is what ALL learning is about. Is it part of the scientific method to exclude the existence of a life much greater than you on the basis that you have no awareness of that life form according to your understanding of what it means to be aware of this life form?

You can only learn about things other people considered existing, right?

Sure, but for whatever purpose it was created, the point is, there is still a purpose. Are you aware that you've changed the topic here?

No. That's why I said "besides" - to introduce another idea - and "assuming this world was created" - to explain it has nothing to do with my actual believes.

No, I'm fine with simply saying "I don't know". It appears that it is the atheist who cannot say "I don't know". I asked you to tell us where the singularity comes from if not from a creator.

Where did I (or any other atheist) claimmed they actually knew how the Universe started.

The thing is, you don't know. You can't test it. You can't even deduce the conclusion from your 3 previously listed rules about science. All you have is a theory that all the matter in the universe came from a single point at some time as a result of chance.

So there you are, in a situation where you've got this belief in a singularity, but no explanation for it that fits into any of your laws.

Big Bang Theory explains how the Universe develloped to the point of explaining everything from our planet to the athom world. It's still a theory, but it's a lot more reasonable than god anyways.

You may not be aware, but you really do harm your credibility with comments like this. It's like you are so busy trying to defend your point of view that you can't see how irrational your comments are.

Are you suggesting that abuses of the scientific method stopped after the year 1500?

I'm saying scientifc method only started existed about 1500.

Again, you are being irrational. It's like me suggesting that you are restricting yourself to this forum when it comes to talking to other people. It would make no sense for me to say that just because my only experience of you is here on this forum.

I used Christianity as an example. I believe that all of these irrational comments are not a result of your language barrier, or your age, or you using an phone vs your tablet or because of your inexperience in these issues, etc.

When I'm talking about all religions, you can't step in and say "I'm going to take Christianity as an example to disprove you".

I believe it is because you really do hit a wall when it comes to arguing the non-existence of something which you cannot prove one way or the other. I think it would be far more rational for you to take the position that you cannot prove it one way or the other, but that you strongly believe there is no God based on x,y,z.

Didn't I explain my x,y,z already?

But it does have something to do with reason. I reject your assertion that religion and reason are separate ideals.

The point is that even in science there are contradicting theories and teachings, but because it is science you see no problem with that. But when it comes to religion, you suddenly see the contradictions as proof that there is no merit to anything about religion at all.

Every theory in science fits the method and it's proved. We just haven't found a way to fix the contradictions.
Religion isn't proved and for what we know, those contradictions were human-made, and unsovable.

There are many similarities between various religions. Real truth is sometimes like that. To make a blanket statement that only one religion can be right misses the point and shows that you've not thought your conclusions through.

You only talk about similarities to ignore everything I said.

Yeah yeah and no atheist has ever been able to solve all the contradictions in science, either. So what?

Explained already.

Whether they think I'm one gender or the other, or that I am more than one person, or that I can't be seen or spoken too, or whatever, the point is, I still asked for lunch. Those contradicting points of view ABOUT me do not change the fact.

I believe this push for an argument against the existence of God based on contradictions which come about as a result of people who do not listen to what God wants is a cheap shot and very much irrational.

For example, am I to base my understanding of atheism is general on your example here? Based on the kind of reasoning you've used, I think a lot of more experienced atheists would cringe at that thought.

I've discussed these kind of issues with atheists before who take a different approach than what you've shared here. Does that mean it is a contradiction which disproves the existence of atheism? Because all atheists are not completely united should I feel justified in saying that atheism does not exist? .

Are you comparing atheist (a lack of belief in a god) to a god (a powerful being creator of the universe that runs our lives). How?

 

[razeontherock]

I find a lot of comfort in being able to say, "The universe in a little blob of plasma; neato" and then get back what's actually important here and now.

Yes, that's exactly how I look at such things

 

[quatona]

But all of us already can make informed choices about what God wants.

No, we can make informed choices about what people tell us God wants.

The teachings are there.

Whose teachings?

The question is, will we act on them or not.

Does that mean God´s existence or non-existence is a non-issue?

If you say you feel you are not informed because you cannot act on the teachings unless his existence is shoved in your face irrefutably,

Well, that isn´t even close to what I said , so you may want to discuss it with someone who said it. If you want to respond to my statements, please use my statements. If you respond to your own strawmen, that´s merely a conversation between you and you.

then that still misses the point of responding to the reasons behind the teachings.

Do I get you right: God plays hide and seek so that we can concentrate on the reasons behind the teachings, instead of concentrating the fact that it´s what God commands us to? That would be an entirely different argument than the one you made previously and which I meant to address.

Are the teachings worth following or not?

I can certain judge teachings worth following or not, regardless whether they are or whether I believe they are coming from God or not. So how exactly would clear evidence for the existence of God keep me from askingand considering this key question?

Personally, I consider some of the bible teachings and the reasonings behind them (as far as reasonings are given, at all) good advice, and some not so good advice. So where does that leave me?

 

[candle glow]

Hi lost,

it's getting late for me so I'm going to try to respond and keep it short, too!

It is if he punishes the people that don't search for him and instead focus on the existence evidence, since this was his choice in the first place. It's totally find if you don't believe in Hell.

Sometimes we end up punishing ourselves. As tasty and wonderful as ice cream is, it would soon become hell if it's all I had to eat every day for the next 20 years.

My views on hell as a lake of fire where people go to burn forever and ever are not exactly traditional. Perhaps there really is such a place. Maybe people will burn forever or maybe they burn for a fixed period of time until they've paid for their sins and then burn up into nothing.

Who knows for sure, maybe there is a chance for repentance in hell itself, but who wants to go there to find out?

My personal understanding is that, regardless of whatever "painful hell" may exist, the more significant hell is simply being away from the love of God. Because God has standards and because we have free choice it may not be fair to put all the blame of punishment squarely on to God's shoulders.

For example, if we get caught speeding by the police and are forced to pay a fine, is it really the police punishing us, or did we do it to ourselves? The truth is probably a mixture of both.

I don't get how the Bible is even considered evidence in this discussion. The very fact you consider it so, is not only a bias but also a circular argument and a logical flaw.

Perhaps the roles are reversed here now. It's not up to me to explain why a document containing information on a particular issue is evidence relating to the issue. It's your job to explain why it should be inadmissible.

You can only learn about things other people considered existing, right?

I can't figure out if this is sarcasm of if I'm just not understanding you.

I'm saying scientifc method only started existed about 1500.

I don't want to navigate back to the actual quote cause I'm tired now but you definitely expressed the idea that the abuses were not happening after 1500. Maybe you can go the extra mile and produce the quote yourself? I think it would show a lot of integrity on your part and if I was mistaken then I'm fine to apologize.

When I'm talking about all religions, you can't step in and say "I'm going to take Christianity as an example to disprove you".

I can't say what morality is. I can't use the bible as a source of evidence. I can't use Christianity as an example. I guess you win!