Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[TacoTerrorist]

Thanks for biting.

 

[Enteebee]

0 proof according to your definition of proof. Apparently common sense doesn't count as proof to you.

Yes, according to my definition of proof. Would you like to take up your own so we can see how someone can define proof as to show the existence of a god and not fairies?

 

[Enteebee]

- Is intense bitterness necessary in topics related to the existence of God? If so, what does it stem from? Is it human pride (because of intelligence, if that's what it is) that pushes God out of the picture?

Fear of death. People tend to cling more strongly to such social institutions (i.e. will become more nationalist for example) when in the presence of something which reminds them of their own death. Discussing god, particularly the non-existence of God makes people scared imo.

- If athiests do not believe in higher power, hence reject any form of religion, why would they put in so much energy and time and effort (pretty amazing) in rebuking the beliefs of a thiest? Why would you care anyway?

a) I would love to believe.
b) I love passionate philosophical discussions, this is one of the ones that most every human chooses to engage in.
c) I am intellectually interested in this field of study which is perhaps the largest field of study in all human history - perhaps being the answer/source of the quest for all our questions.

- Why are so many offensive remarks/ challenges targetted at Christianity? apart from what the Bible termed as persecution...

The challenges are put forward towards christianity because that's the religion most of us are familiar with and that the proponents of theism themselves often adopt in this thread. I do think you'll find there is generally more hatred towards muslims though and when muslim students have engaged people in this thread the discussion has been at least as heated.

- Why is there a strong sense of anger and bitterness in athiests on this thread?!

Why is there a strong sense of jerk and stupidity coming from theists? I can play the labelling game too.

the end....

 

[Farfour]

I take Hitchens' stance on belief, I'd rather not ever live than have the idiocies of the bible and the constant dictatorship and absolute lack of privacy of the 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' god. He's right, it's like a spiritual North Korea. Sickening.

 

[Farfour]

Quoting isn't that hard

'initial quote tag [ quote ]block of text [ / quote] response

Second quote block [ quote ] text [/ quote]

response...

Real easy

 

[Graustein]

i have a few random questions:

- Is intense bitterness necessary in topics related to the existence of God? If so, what does it stem from? Is it human pride (because of intelligence, if that's what it is) that pushes God out of the picture?

No, it's not necessary, but some (note: some) atheists are dissilusioned with what they may variously see as a huge delusion, a huge conspiracy, a huge lie - not to mention how many religions, when taken to literal extremes, are not only absurd (Denying evolution for example), but downright oppresive (Fundamentalist Religion and tolerance rarely go hand in hand). It's not so much bitterness as it is resentment of religion.

- If athiests do not believe in higher power, hence reject any form of religion, why would they put in so much energy and time and effort (pretty amazing) in rebuking the beliefs of a thiest? Why would you care anyway?

For some atheists it's because they see religion as evil. Read The God Delusion for a perfect example of anti-religious thinking. Dawkins is outright fanatical in his crusade to eliminate religion. Others just resent being force-fed religion. How would you like it if someone from another religion demanded that you convert to their religion and repent for all your sins, even though, to you, their religion is wrong? If they don't leave you alone it gets more than just annoying. Hence, they lash out.

- Why are so many offensive remarks/ challenges targetted at Christianity? apart from what the Bible termed as persecution...

Because Christianity is the biggest, the most visible, most powerful and often the worst offender.

-Which part of creation does not prove the works of God? Take genetics as a simple example. The world was shaken by the clone of Dolly. But why aren't people in awe about creation? In genetics we can form life out of life, but we can't form life out of nothing.

The fact that creation can be explained to a certain point (that point being the Big Bang) with no mention of God. And since we've gotten so far back, it's only logical that we can go even further without God. Whether or not that's the case is up to us to find out, for better or worse.

- Why is there a strong sense of anger and bitterness in athiests on this thread?!

See my response to your first point

- Fluency and flair in delivering points determines the better debator. But does it necessarily represent truth?

The better you present your case, the more persuasive and believable you are. Whether or not its the truth has little impact on whether people believe you; it's how believable you make it. Naturally, if it happens to BE true, it's often that much easier.

- (again and again!) if there is the label `banned` under someone's username, does it actually mean they're banned?

I believe so

 

[Farfour]

No, what most atheists have a problem with is having Christian 'values' forced on us through government etc. If we had pure pluralism I wouldn't have an issue with it, but we don't. Christians abhor contraception, enforce this idiotic drug war as a deference to the fact that drugs lead to similar circumstances as serious religious experiences, oppress women and minorities and generally make the world a worse place to live, purely for the sake of their myths.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I'm pretty anti-religion and anti-drug prohibition. But I don't think there is a major link between them. Prohibition seems to have widespread support, especially where "hard drugs" are concerned, among a very broad range of people that have otherwise very diverse political and religious views. Imo, it has more to do with the media's portrayal of drugs an innately evil.

The Murdochitler single-handedly convinced just about the entire developed world that drugs are harmful did he?

 

[Farfour]

I'm pretty anti-religion and anti-drug prohibition. But I don't think there is a major link between them. Prohibition seems to have widespread support, especially where "hard drugs" are concerned, among a very broad range of people that have otherwise very diverse political and religious views. Imo, it has more to do with the media's portrayal of drugs an innately evil.

Read End of Faith by Sam Harris and Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser. It was mostly ingroup-outgroup racism/xenophobia but the phobias of harder/all drugs came from the usurpation of revelatory experiences.

 

[BradCube]

I take Hitchens' stance on belief, I'd rather not ever live than have the idiocies of the bible and the constant dictatorship and absolute lack of privacy of the 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' god. He's right, it's like a spiritual North Korea. Sickening.

Idiocies of the bible? I'm a little confused by this statement since for such a thing to be the case, you must show that the concept of Gods omnipotence and omniscience is logically incoherent. Until that point, I can't see how you are saying anything more than "I don't want the God of the bible's existence to be true".

 

[BradCube]

No, what most atheists have a problem with is having Christian 'values' forced on us through government etc. If we had pure pluralism I wouldn't have an issue with it, but we don't. Christians abhor contraception, enforce this idiotic drug war as a deference to the fact that drugs lead to similar circumstances as serious religious experiences, oppress women and minorities and generally make the world a worse place to live, purely for the sake of their myths.

Putting these massive generalizations aside for a second, I think it's worth pointing out that the proponents of ones belief can not be used reliably as proof of a beliefs authenticity or lack thereof.

What that means is that the person that acts in a positive manner and calls themselves a christian (or any other sort of belief), is no more proof of such a belief than the person who acts in a negative way and calls themselves a christian. This is an unreliable method to prove the authenticity of a faith or belief.

 

[BradCube]

- not to mention how many religions, when taken to literal extremes, are not only absurd (Denying evolution for example), but downright oppresive (Fundamentalist Religion and tolerance rarely go hand in hand). It's not so much bitterness as it is resentment of religion.

Ha ha, this one caught my eye because of some podcast listening I've been doing recently. In my mind it now seems to me that moral opposition is a pre-requisite for tolerance. So far from the fundamentalist lacking tolerance - it is they who in fact require tolerance more than anyone (since they are tolerating something they believe to be wrong)! Conversely the person who does not believe there is anything wrong with a particular action has no tolerance at all - they are not tolerating anything which would be in opposition to their own point of view

 

[Farfour]

Idiocies of the bible? I'm a little confused by this statement since for such a thing to be the case, you must show that the concept of Gods omnipotence and omniscience is logically incoherent. Until that point, I can't see how you are saying anything more than "I don't want the God of the bible's existence to be true".

I'm glad it isn't true. I, unlike Chadd, don't wish it was true.

 

[BradCube]

I'm glad it isn't true. I, unlike Chadd, don't wish it was true.

So, with that in mind, would you care to share some arguments for why you hold an atheistic position with such vigor? I'm hoping for it to be a bit more than an agnostic "I lack belief in God" and more along the lines of "here's why I believe God does not exist".

 

[Enteebee]

I do not believe in God as much as I don't believe in anything. I don't believe in red zebras in china because there's no evidence for them, they might exist, but it isn't there yet. I'm willing to make that little jump and say something doesn't exist because there's no evidence for it - it isn't strictly logical but it works well enough for me. As long as there's no contradiction I have no problem with anyone believing anything from the axioms they use for their theory of knowledge.

 

[BradCube]

I do not believe in God as much as I don't believe in anything. I don't believe in red zebras in china because there's no evidence for them, they might exist, but it isn't there yet. I'm willing to make that little jump and say something doesn't exist because there's no evidence for it - it isn't strictly logical but it works well enough for me.

I feel like we've been through this before, but here goes

The reason we don't believe there is red zebras in China, is because we know what evidence one would expect to see if such an animal existed and yet, no such evidence exists. This is in contrast to God who's evidence one would expect, we do in fact find (ie, a seemingly supernatural beginning of the universe, a beginning of time from an eternal state)

As long as there's no contradiction I have no problem with anyone believing anything from the axioms they use for their theory of knowledge.

That's very fortunate for the man that chooses to believe in everything that he sees no evidence for not believing in! (essentially the opposite and valid extreme of what you are currently doing right?)

I think my position would be that we should truly stay agnostic and reserve judgment on such issues unless we have a reason to jump to the theistic or atheistic claims.

 

[Kwayera]

The reason we don't believe there is red zebras in China, is because we know what evidence one would expect to see if such an animal existed and yet, no such evidence exists. This is in contrast to God who's evidence one would expect, we do in fact find (ie, a seemingly supernatural beginning of the universe, a beginning of time from an eternal state)

Since when is there any proof or inkling of a supernatural beginning of the universe, and thus a supernatural creator?

 

[HNAKXR]

in the end there are no facts, only approximations.

follow your heart :rofl:.

 

[BradCube]

Since when is there any proof or inkling of a supernatural beginning of the universe, and thus a supernatural creator?

Well, since we lack any plausible naturalistic explanations for the beginning of the universe. Out of nothing, nothing comes.

 

[fishy89sg]

this thread has reached over 10,000 posts.... but is there a definitive answer to the question "Does God exist??"