as stated to fossten as well. how can you claim affirmed reality by the same token?
it takes straight reasoning and an absolute lack of evidence to come to the conclusion of another mythology. it doesn't take a leap of faith. just an open mind.
Thought For The New Year
- Thread starter cammerfe
- Start date
as stated to fossten as well. how can you claim affirmed reality by the same token?
it takes straight reasoning and an absolute lack of evidence to come to the conclusion of another mythology. it doesn't take a leap of faith. just an open mind.
It takes a leap of faith to accept God and it ALSO takes a leap of faith to reject God. The ONLY position able to be reached through reason alone is agnosticism. You cannot disprove God and to claim any religion is a "mythology" cannot be logically done. It takes assumption to reach that conclusion; basically, faith.
Atheists are not more "reasonable" in this area then Christians, Muslims, etc. (though many disingenuously like to claim to be). In fact, it is the typical Christian conservative's acceptance of their Utopian vision in the afterlife (due to their faith) which allows them to look at this world more reasonably (from a social causation/political standpoint). They are not fooled by ideologies created through rose colored glasses and attempting to achieve some utopia on earth. They know that this world is flawed (as is man, inherently) and realized that to expect to achieve perfection on such a massive scale is a fools goal.
ground_zero298
Dedicated LVC Member
Why do you guys argue over god? No ones gonna change the other one's mind. We all know that you set in your ways.
It is proven that a small involuntary eletrical pulse keeps your lungs working, not to say something else didn't start it.
Some animals do reason, take time to watch them, I'm sure everyone has stories about things they have seen.
People have the ability to talk, reason, and walk away. Really no good excuse for why u killed someone. Even if you were protecting your life and it was you or him, the other guy could have stopped it.
More people have died in the name of some god then for anything else. Thats the way it always been and will be. If you really think about it with a open mind, that becomes really :q:q:q:qed up. Hell, whole civilizations have been wiped out over the exact same thing you guys are debating. No one or one group will ever win this debate.
Thing that makes me giggle is according to everyone their is one god, praise him you go somewhere good. Everybody who does not believe in your god is going somewhere bad. So 1 religion is right, all the rest are wrong. So out of 6 billion people on this earth, how many will be saved when we finally destroy this planet?
I personaly believe their is something out their. I can't prove it, hell i don't even know why i believe it, but i do. But i've come to the conclusion that americans are not right about everything, their a whole world out their and it does not revolve around us. Any hard core religious nut or non is :q:q:q:qed in the head. WTF is wrong in keeping your ways to your self and just telling the other guy I'm glad your convicted to your ways, even though their not my ways. That level of conciction is something you both share.
It is proven that a small involuntary eletrical pulse keeps your lungs working, not to say something else didn't start it.
Some animals do reason, take time to watch them, I'm sure everyone has stories about things they have seen.
People have the ability to talk, reason, and walk away. Really no good excuse for why u killed someone. Even if you were protecting your life and it was you or him, the other guy could have stopped it.
More people have died in the name of some god then for anything else. Thats the way it always been and will be. If you really think about it with a open mind, that becomes really :q:q:q:qed up. Hell, whole civilizations have been wiped out over the exact same thing you guys are debating. No one or one group will ever win this debate.
Thing that makes me giggle is according to everyone their is one god, praise him you go somewhere good. Everybody who does not believe in your god is going somewhere bad. So 1 religion is right, all the rest are wrong. So out of 6 billion people on this earth, how many will be saved when we finally destroy this planet?
I personaly believe their is something out their. I can't prove it, hell i don't even know why i believe it, but i do. But i've come to the conclusion that americans are not right about everything, their a whole world out their and it does not revolve around us. Any hard core religious nut or non is :q:q:q:qed in the head. WTF is wrong in keeping your ways to your self and just telling the other guy I'm glad your convicted to your ways, even though their not my ways. That level of conciction is something you both share.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Yet you cannot claim absolute lack of evidence. You are as classic an example of a closed mind as there is - lacking absolute knowledge you yet refuse to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a real God.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
We are bidden to have concern for others. If we believers are right, the ultimate result of non-belief is, at the very least, not desirable. I don't wish that on anyone. To some degree, I'm a 'Catcher in the Rye'.
KS
KS
we've gone through this before. put up your proof.
your dismissal of other gods you consider myth makes you athiest as well. i just go one god farther.
yet you dismiss all other gods.
it doesn't take absolute knowledge to throw out that for which there is no evidence for. you've proven that by making a choice of 1 god and throwing away all others.
and you are as closed a mind as there is.
want yet another noah?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/01/noahs-ark-was-circular
rayner601
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm gonna throw my $0.02 in this. While I do believe God exists, it's the churches, bibles, and organized religion I have a serious problem with.
So...it doesn't take a leap of faith to reject God...if you ASSUME it is a myth (something which, again, cannot be conclusively proven). You just demonstrated my point. Thanks!
Where did you come up with that simplistic cliche? Just because you don't accepted something doesn't mean you have to reject it. To accept or reject something is to reach a conclusion on it. Since evidence and reason alone does not support either conclusion, it takes a leap of faith.
Atheism IS the rejection of God/religion. In fact, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God". If you take an Atheist position, you are making a judgement, reaching a conclusion that can NOT be reached through reason alone. Therefore, it can ONLY be reached through a leap of faith. labeling religion as a "myth" doesn't nothing to disprove that fact. To conclude that it is a myth necessitates first reaching an Atheist conclusion through that leap of faith. Essentially, it is flawed, circular reasoning.
You argument seems to reflect the typical Atheist misrepresentation of Atheism as simply a "lack of belief in God" instead of what it truly is; an "active belief that God doesn’t exist." You can read more about this and other deceptive Atheist tactics here. Here is a good line from that article...
… atheism is just as much an assertion as theism. Therefore the burden of proof falls equally, and a fairer debate question would be ‘Does God exist?’
When it comes to churches, I would agree with you. Most "men of the cloth" are narcissistic and in it as much for their own ego as anything else. The internal politics of Church basically tore my family apart...
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You cannot conclusively say or prove that God does not exist without absolute knowledge, which you do not have. It's not about proof, else I would challenge you to prove that God does not exist.
No, it makes me monotheistic. You can't even make an accurate semantical argument. Honestly, this argument makes you sound stupid. You don't even know the terms.
Yes it does. You cannot make that claim unless you have absolute knowledge of all evidence in the universe. If there is evidence of God on planet Earth, or Alpha Centauri, and you don't know about it, you cannot conclusively say there is no evidence. You cannot claim there is no gold in China.
You're just repeating proof by assertion here. Unless you can come up with a new argument, you're just going in circles.
As far as making this about me - I freely admit that I believe in God by faith. That's the difference between you and me - I can admit it (proudly). However, I also have done enough scientific research to verify that my views on Creation are sound. I've repeatedly and consistently used scientific examples to back up my positions in every thread on the subject, and yet I get labeled a Bible thumper. It's a non sequitur.
You refuse to admit the truth, which is that you don't really know if God exists or not, but you're willing to risk that He doesn't so you can live your life any way you want.
You're posturing a 'reasoned, rational' position, but in reality it's just an emotional response.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Except for the Bible, I happen to agree with you.
Joeys Lincoln
Active LVC Member
Dinosaurs?
Religion is always a pointless debate. Everyone has their beliefs/doubts and convincing anyone one way or the other is nearly impossible.
Religion is always a pointless debate. Everyone has their beliefs/doubts and convincing anyone one way or the other is nearly impossible.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Actually, we're not debating religion right now. Just about everybody here agrees that religion is corruptible. We're debating a fine point, which is whether or not a self professed atheist can claim that he knows for sure that there is no God.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
while that statement is true, how do you justify it to your arguement.
What qualifies as evidence of absence:
Absence of Evidence when Evidence should be present
i still see no verifiable evidence. set up some tests. prove it.
but then, maybe your right. god even comes in fruits.(does this mean he's gay)
http://www.ksdk.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=193500&catid=71
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
This is only true when you have seen ALL evidence, which you haven't. At least you're starting to make true statements - instead of claiming THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, now you're saying that you 'see no evidence.'
In actuality, there are mountains of evidence, but you choose to interpret it in a way that suits your preferences.
As far as you moving the goalposts - I don't have to prove anything to you. You'll find out one day, and you won't be happy - and that's a statement of faith. But at least I warned you.
On another note, it is interesting to observe your slavish adherence to requiring some sort of 'scientific method' for belief, considering the stupendous credibility loss modern science has taken in the news lately vis-a-vis the global warming fraud.
Consider this passage in the New Testament:
And this:
And this:
The original point still stands that the Atheist position is no more logical or reasonable then the Theist one. Again, from this article...
From a logical point of view, how could God’s non-existence be proven? The atheist would need to have complete knowledge of all time and space, and all dimensions, to know for sure that God does not exist. However, an atheist with such properties would be virtually ‘divine’ himself.
...T.B. seems to be using the tactic of throwing the burden of proof on those asserting an affirmative proposition, e.g. ‘God exists’ as opposed to the negative proposition ‘God does not exist.’ But then an example of self-refutation occurs: the proposition: ‘The burden of proof falls on the affirmative position’ is itself an affirmative proposition, so requires proof in itself!
But this commonly overlooked point aside, as shown by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, atheism is just as much an assertion as theism. Therefore the burden of proof falls equally, and a fairer debate question would be ‘Does God exist?’ Also, atheists assert many affirmative statements without proof, eg. that the universe is either eternal or came into existence uncaused, non-living matter evolved into living cells by pure undirected chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, design features arose without a designer, moral sensibilities arose out of amoral matter, etc.
...This [the claim that belief in God is irrational] presupposes that it is irrational to believe anything without proof. However, according to the fundamentals of basic logic, all belief systems start with axioms, which by definition are accepted to be true without proof. This applies to atheism, science, mathematics, and propositional logic itself. And there are also many other propositions in everyday life that people believe without mathematically rigorous proof, e.g. that the sun will rise tomorrow, that a mother loves her child, etc. Therefore it is perfectly logical for Christians to use the propositions of Scripture as axioms. This is our bottom line—although the above arguments for God’s existence can be helpful, we believe that the Scriptures are their own authority. We do not ultimately try to prove the Bible with science, for that would place science in authority.
...The difference between the Christian’s axioms and the atheist’s is that ours are self-consistent, make good sense of the evidence, and are consistent with the arguments proposed above. Conversely, the atheist’s axioms are ultimately self-refuting—perhaps the greatest form of irrationality is to believe in rationality when that rationality was supposedly ultimately produced by non-rational random combinations of chemicals. The great English writer and converted atheist, C.S. Lewis, pointed this out
...T.B. seems to be using the tactic of throwing the burden of proof on those asserting an affirmative proposition, e.g. ‘God exists’ as opposed to the negative proposition ‘God does not exist.’ But then an example of self-refutation occurs: the proposition: ‘The burden of proof falls on the affirmative position’ is itself an affirmative proposition, so requires proof in itself!
But this commonly overlooked point aside, as shown by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, atheism is just as much an assertion as theism. Therefore the burden of proof falls equally, and a fairer debate question would be ‘Does God exist?’ Also, atheists assert many affirmative statements without proof, eg. that the universe is either eternal or came into existence uncaused, non-living matter evolved into living cells by pure undirected chemistry, complex specified information arose without intelligence, design features arose without a designer, moral sensibilities arose out of amoral matter, etc.
...This [the claim that belief in God is irrational] presupposes that it is irrational to believe anything without proof. However, according to the fundamentals of basic logic, all belief systems start with axioms, which by definition are accepted to be true without proof. This applies to atheism, science, mathematics, and propositional logic itself. And there are also many other propositions in everyday life that people believe without mathematically rigorous proof, e.g. that the sun will rise tomorrow, that a mother loves her child, etc. Therefore it is perfectly logical for Christians to use the propositions of Scripture as axioms. This is our bottom line—although the above arguments for God’s existence can be helpful, we believe that the Scriptures are their own authority. We do not ultimately try to prove the Bible with science, for that would place science in authority.
...The difference between the Christian’s axioms and the atheist’s is that ours are self-consistent, make good sense of the evidence, and are consistent with the arguments proposed above. Conversely, the atheist’s axioms are ultimately self-refuting—perhaps the greatest form of irrationality is to believe in rationality when that rationality was supposedly ultimately produced by non-rational random combinations of chemicals. The great English writer and converted atheist, C.S. Lewis, pointed this out
‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
C.S. Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.
C.S. Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
C.S. Lewis was brilliant. This quote should be stickied.
This is why I have ultimately decided on the position of strong agnosticism. From what I've seen, I don't think it's possible to completely deny or confirm any God. Atheists seem to argue against the main monotheistic religions, but up against a theory such as Deism, it's quite hard to argue against it. (In this sense I mean to completely and logically disprove it.)
I think the problem with his theory (at least in this quote) is his use of the term "accident." To denote something an accident is to claim that something was supposed to happen and something else happened instead, outside of the plan. To say something is an accident, you'd have to account for the probability of the universe and its motives, which is clearly impossible.
Think of it this way. Personally I think the universe is infinite based on the conservation of energy and logic. Let's say in our subjective reality, the chances of the Earth and everything we know forming without divine intervention are so slim it's mind boggling. When faced with probability and the universe (objective reality), such slim chances don't exist. Either something can happen and will be repeated an infinite number of times, or it will never happen.
Obviously to say that the world has a divine plan is one way of stating it, but on the contrary positing that the universe has allowed something to happen through infinite probability, and the appearance of mankind and everything else we see are causal properties of the initial movement which created the world and what we know. We exist because our situation allows us. Things could not exist if the extraneous situation and physics wouldn't allow us.
Now, the big question is what causes such movement to begin with, especially atomic movement. The atomists defined how such things moved, but never defined the cause. Either A. something caused movement, or B. due to the infinite universe, things have always been moving and there is no cause.
Now from these ideas, the only premise that we can draw is that we see things subjectively. We will not be able to grasp the cause of motion and the universe, the totality and infinite of things, and the infinite occurance of things. Until we can attain the objective knowledge of things, if at all possible, we simply cannot figure out what caused it all. Time bounds us all, the universe is not bound by time.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
No problem. Substitute the word 'random' for 'accidental' and you have a more accurate representation of atheist philosophy. You also have the exact same problem.
I'd agree with random. Even so, everything is random in this sense. It's this "problem" that prohibits me from choosing either side.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Don't let indecision paralyze you. Do research of both sides.
I can recommend a book if you want.