Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Festus

Barr125 wrote: »

But it's OK for guys like Festus to say that Atheism and science is quote ''rubbish''?

never said science was rubbish. Only atheism is rubbish.

Festus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If someone doesn't believe in God, then surely matters such as transubstantion, original sin, the resurrection and so on are profoundly irrelevant to them?

They are relevant in this forum

Barr125

Festus wrote: »

never said science was rubbish. Only atheism is rubbish.

Alright. The point still stands however. And did you read my response to your last points? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77615564&postcount=3180

Festus

Barr125 wrote: »

Alright. The point still stands however. And did you read my response to your last points? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77615564&postcount=3180

Yes

Barr125

Festus wrote: »

Yes

No rebuttal?

Fanny Cradock

Barr125 wrote: »

None, yet you have no evidence other than a 2000 year old Holy Book written by Bronze Age farmers about a magic man who created everything, and his supposedly magical Son to believe in God, so have some faith.

I'm not sure that is a definition of faith that the writers of the NT would have recognised. They understood faith to be evidence based. Of course, it is much easier to take the Richard Dawkins line of things and redefine all faith as believing something in absence of evidence or in the teeth of it.

But if you are interested in hearing a cogent response to "the blind faith" smear then perhaps this very interesting podcast by a chap by the name of Glen Peoples would be a good place to start.

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps you would care to provide an example of an element of religion that does not make sense to you.

Why would the San Hedran contrive to make every element of the Jesus prophecy come true as it was written while at the same time denying that Jesus was the Son of God?

That really doesn't make sense.

Remember, John the Baptist's mother Elizabeth was married to the priest Zechariah; unless his wife was keeping secrets from him, he would have known about Mary's claim regarding her conception of Jesus. That would have been considered blasphemy right there but no-one batted an eyelid.

Did Zechariah lie to the San Hedran by omission?

Benny_Cake

himnextdoor wrote: »

Judging by the number of people that turnout for Star Trek conventions, by your logic, Star Trek is a true story.

Star Trek isn't a true story? I've wasted my life...

tommy2bad

himnextdoor wrote: »

Judging by the number of people that turnout for Star Trek conventions, by your logic, Star Trek is a true story.

Just for you;
http://books.google.ie/books?id=FfBJSfmRhm0C&pg=PT62&lpg=PT62&dq=star+trek+religion+memes&source=bl&ots=AERD77ZrhE&sig=ygO4_ovdXtF_7TaTwsIayNQ9lVE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PU9iT8WdOYqnhAeSlKSuCA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Festus

tommy2bad wrote: »

Festus, are you hard of thinking? The bit an atheist finds nonsensical is the God bit. They use the other bits to show how inconsistent the evidence is. An atheist dose not believe in the existence of God. They don't have to agree or disagree with the moral teachings to be atheist just the existence of God, god, gods.

Could you try putting the question back into the context you found it in?

Festus

Barr125 wrote: »

No rebuttal?

What about...

Actually I do know what atheism actually is but the atheists are in denial.

Benny_Cake

Festus wrote: »

They are relevant in this forum

Leaving aside the fact that transubstantiation is a specifically Catholic belief and this is the Christianity forum - the purpose of this thread is to debate the existence or non-existence of God. If someone doesn't believe in God, there is very little point in asking someone who doesn't believe in God to disprove all the minutae of Catholic theology and teaching.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

Judging by the number of people that turnout for Star Trek conventions, by your logic, Star Trek is a true story.

the claim inst that the mass is true. The people attending it may believe in the doctrine of the real presence Other Christians may believe in consubstantiation. the point is that even Star Trek has social significance because people are interested in it.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

It is not reasonable to declare all of theology nonsense!

Which bits of Christian theology still make sense if God doesn't exist?

ISAW

Barr125 wrote: »

But it's OK for guys like Festus to say that Atheism and science is quote ''rubbish''?

I was referring to claims abut theology being rubbish. If you want to discuss claims about the beliefs or philosophies or tenets of atheism then fair enough. Start by stating some of them and while you are at it giv a proper reference to the Festus comment you quoted e.g a message ID.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure that is a definition of faith that the writers of the NT would have recognised.

I think Bar was being facetious, but faith is still commonly understood to be an act of trust and hope, not a rational assessment of evidence. This is even, helpfully, defined in the Bible itself.

Heb 11.1
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

The idea that seems some what popular on this forum that faith is simply the act of assessing evidence and coming to the most rational and reasonable conclusion is not a definition of faith that the NT writers would recognized, nor one used through most of humanity. If it was statements such as "have faith things will be ok" and "faith is a virtue" would be meaningless.

ISAW

Barr125 wrote: »

Alright. The point still stands however.

No it does not!
you were comparing a comment about the field of theology being unreasonable to a comment on atheism being rubbish. What philosophy of atheism are you suggesting is not rubbish?
What journal published an article on it. what writer or teacher in history wrote about it or expounded upon it? What philosopher made a position on it?
All we see here is the claim that atheism is just a lack of belief in God and nothing more than that is implied. But as I continually point out in practice the atheists posting post continual attacks on religion and on those who believe. Atheists posting here also claim science is paramount and atheistic. Yes scientists are believers too. Many do their science based on their religious belief in altruism. It isnt atheistic altruism.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

What about...

Actually I do know what atheism actually is but the atheists are in denial.

So no rebuttal then. You do know that if you have run out of arguments are free to leave, right? Only if you want to mind.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Which bits of Christian theology still make sense if God doesn't exist?

It would still not be reasonable to declare theology nonsense!
Theology is an academic field.
huge developments have come about because of it.
In relation the Christianity missiology would have relevance even to an atheist. As might theodicy or Christian anthropology;

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

It would still not be reasonable to declare theology nonsense!
Theology is an academic field.
huge developments have come about because of it.
In relation the Christianity missiology would have relevance even to an atheist. As might theodicy or Christian anthropology;

I suppose the areas of theology that compare and contrast religions and look at it's effects on societies can be useful. The parts which attempt to understand how people understand gods would be valid too, but the parts of theology which attempt to understand gods themselves as existing beings would not be so. Assuming gods don't exist that is:). Theology becomes religious studies once we remove that though. It would be like counting angels on pin head type academics so, you can see how it could be seen as a futile field.

Festus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that transubstantiation is a specifically Catholic belief and this is the Christianity forum - the purpose of this thread is to debate the existence or non-existence of God. If someone doesn't believe in God, there is very little point in asking someone who doesn't believe in God to disprove all the minutae of Catholic theology and teaching.

you are the one who brought them into the thread.

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Presumably then if you believe atheism to be right then you can prove all of the teachings of the Catholic Church to be wrong. Perhaps you would care to provide an example of an element of religion that does not make sense to you.

As others have said, religion is the one which is making the claim that X happened or that Y is right. The onus is on religion to prove itself to be correct. But in the interest of debate, I'd like to discuss one element of Christianity. I've raise it before, but I don't think it was answered (I tend to drift in and out of this thread, and some days it moves very fast so if it was answered, I missed it)

The Temptation of Christ, where after being baptised Jesus went into the desert for forty days and nights. While alone in the desert, Jesus was tempted three times by the Devil. Each time, he resisted temptation, and afterwards he was helped and received nourishment from angels.

Now from what I understand, it may or may not have been forty days (rather 40 a number chosen to demonstrate that it was an extended period of time) and that Jesus may not have been fully fasting (rather eating what he could find in the desert, which would be less than normal).

That's not the issue I have with it though. Jesus went into the desert for however long, and was tempted by the devil, was helped by the angels, then he returned to civilisation. So how do we know the story of the temptation of Christ? Nobody else was there, so we only have Jesus's word that it really happened. The only way it could have been written into the Bible is if Jesus told his followers that it happened, and they then told others who either wrote it in the Bible or told others who then wrote it in the Bible etc.

So the only proof we have that this happened is that Jesus said it did. No one else was there. No other proof is available. So how can we know it happened? Sure, it's in the Bible, but if Jesus lied about it or embellished certain facts, or if those he told 'spiced up' the story a bit, it would still have ended up in the Bible because the people who wrote the Bible were writing stories of Jesus's life, and that's the story they were told.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

It would still not be reasonable to declare theology nonsense!
Theology is an academic field.
huge developments have come about because of it.

Well then it should be relatively easy for you to point out which bits of theology still make sense without God existing.

ISAW wrote: »

In relation the Christianity missiology would have relevance even to an atheist. As might theodicy or Christian anthropology;

Christian missiology if I'm correct is the study of the correct way Christians should carry out missionary work to be inline with God's teaching.

How is that relevant if God doesn't exist and thus there would be no correct way?

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

The idea that seems some what popular on this forum that faith is simply the act of assessing evidence and coming to the most rational and reasonable conclusion is not a definition of faith that the NT writers would recognized, nor one used through most of humanity. If it was statements such as "have faith things will be ok" and "faith is a virtue" would be meaningless.

Can you show me posts on this form where people have said that faith in God, specifically Jesus as Lord and saviour, is simply that act of assessing evidence and concluding that God exists?

If somebody said "I have faith in your ability to do the job" then this isn't automatically a statement made independent of evidence. If you have previously demonstrated your ability and trustworthiness then this seams like a reasonable assumption. It's how life works. I'm quite happy to say that the journey to faith is about assessing the evidence, concluding that God might just exist and then moving on from there into faith. Of course this isn't the only way to faith. But it's the one that I took.

I think C.S. Lewis had an interesting take on what faith means -

Roughly speaking, the word faith seems to be used by Christians in two senses or on two levels, and I will take them in turn. In the first sense it means simply belief--accepting or regarding as true the doctrines of Christianity. That is fairly simple. But what does puzzle people--at least it used to puzzle me--is the fact that Christians regard faith in this sense as a virtue. I used to ask how on Earth it can be a virtue--what is there moral or immoral about believing or not believing a set of statements? Obviously, I used to say, a sane man accepts or rejects any statement, not because he wants or does not want to, but because the evidence seems to him good or bad. If he were mistaken about the goodness or badness of the evidence, that would not mean he was a bad man, but only that he was not very clever. And if he thought the evidence bad but tried to force himself to believe in spite of it, that would be merely stupid.

Well, I think I still take that view. But what I did not see then--and a good many people do not see still--was this. I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so. For example, my reason is perfectly convinced by good evidence that anesthetics do not smother me and that properly trained surgeons do not start operating until I am unconscious. But that does not alter the fact that when they have me down on the table and clap their horrible mask over my face, a mere childish panic begins inside me. I start thinking I am going to choke, and I am afraid they will start cutting me up before I am properly under. In other words, I lose my faith in anesthetics. It is not reason that is taking away my faith; on the contrary, my faith is based on reason. It is my imagination and emotions. The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other.....

Now just the same thing happens about Christianity. I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of evidence is against it. That is not the point at which faith comes in. But supposing a man's reason once decides that the weight of the evidence is for it. I can tell that man what is going to happen to him in the next few weeks. There will come a moment when there is bad news, or he is in trouble, or is living among a lot of other people who do not believe it, and all at once his emotions will rise up and carry out a sort of blitz on his belief. Or else there will come a moment when he wants a woman, or wants to tell a lie, or feels very pleased with himself, or sees a chance of making a little money in some way that is not perfectly fair; some moment, in fact, at which it would be very convenient if Christianity were not true. And once again his wishes and desires will carry out a blitz. I am not talking of moments at which any real new reasons against Christianity turn up. Those have to be faced and that is a different matter. I am talking about moments where a mere mood rises up against it.

Now faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian, I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable; but when I was an atheist, I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why faith is such a necessary virtue; unless you teach your moods "where they get off" you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of faith.

lmaopml

Penn wrote: »

As others have said, religion is the one which is making the claim that X happened or that Y is right. The onus is on religion to prove itself to be correct. But in the interest of debate, I'd like to discuss one element of Christianity. I've raise it before, but I don't think it was answered (I tend to drift in and out of this thread, and some days it moves very fast so if it was answered, I missed it)

The Temptation of Christ, where after being baptised Jesus went into the desert for forty days and nights. While alone in the desert, Jesus was tempted three times by the Devil. Each time, he resisted temptation, and afterwards he was helped and received nourishment from angels.

Now from what I understand, it may or may not have been forty days (rather 40 a number chosen to demonstrate that it was an extended period of time) and that Jesus may not have been fully fasting (rather eating what he could find in the desert, which would be less than normal).

That's not the issue I have with it though. Jesus went into the desert for however long, and was tempted by the devil, was helped by the angels, then he returned to civilisation. So how do we know the story of the temptation of Christ? Nobody else was there, so we only have Jesus's word that it really happened. The only way it could have been written into the Bible is if Jesus told his followers that it happened, and they then told others who either wrote it in the Bible or told others who then wrote it in the Bible etc.

So the only proof we have that this happened is that Jesus said it did. No one else was there. No other proof is available. So how can we know it happened? Sure, it's in the Bible, but if Jesus lied about it or embellished certain facts, or if those he told 'spiced up' the story a bit, it would still have ended up in the Bible because the people who wrote the Bible were writing stories of Jesus's life, and that's the story they were told.

At the end of the day Penn, I think that's a reasonable question - I think it does boil down to whether you believe Jesus and the fact he said he was 'God' or no - In saying that, there is an element of 'faith' (of course) as Zombrex mentions there, however, it's not an 'unreasonable' position. Imo, it's no more unreasonable than making any truth claim, and although I understand that being a rational creature one must rationalise, there comes a point in time when reductionists become fairly ridiculous to me anyways - That is to say, Atheists who base their stance on naturalism and make truth claims about not being able to really know any truth as the ultimate truth. It's an untenable position and imo not actually the way these same people live, love, laugh, and say something is unfair and argue their points against another who says 'that's not fair' - It seems to me that our objective morality etc. while it may be something we have to bash out the details of is in our recognition of the rule that we should be 'fair'...

There is no other religion quite like Christianity. Some try to feed ones tendency towards the spiritual by meditation or living on a higher plain, by isolating oneself from the world, yet others are based on prophets who are pointing the way towards God and coming in his name - There in fact is only one religion that says pretty much, well 'Here I am', 'I am God, and I've come for you....'

When I became ( many years ago ) uncomfortable living as an agnostic, and really quite unconvinced to be honest in my position or lack of one, doubting people who claimed to be 'learned Atheists', I've come across the ones who think they are ubber scientific..lol... because I knew it was a fact that they were stereotyping the Christians I know, love, in fact was brought up with - listening to either sides of a debate, etc. etc. or sometimes not bothering really because my mind was more centred on other things -

I explored faith; my goodness the freedom it gave me, not just some psycological cocktail of needing a crutch (as very many say ) or indeed a feeling that I was uncomfortable with dying, that's no big deal really, shyte happens to everybody. It took me many years to be honest to know where I belong, I always had that..'But...'

I can truthfully say, that there is nothing quite so rational as belief in Christ. It's as rational as belief in Evolution or that I love my Child, or that I have been loved too.

The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Gospels, in fact Christians believe all Scripture is God breathed, it's a 'revelation' if you will leading to the final 'Here I am, for you...' that Christians believe Jesus proclaimed to the world. The question is not so much imo reading it in order to have 'buts...'...rather reading it in order to get to know God, and Jesus and this can take some time and soul searching too.

Festus

To be honest Penn I cannot better lmaopml on this.

Festus

New question Penn, do you only believe in things that exist?

himnextdoor

And there you have it.

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

New question Penn, do you only believe in things that exist?

Exactly! Only things that exist can be believed in; people believe in God therefore God exists.

Simples.

philologos

Penn wrote: »

Sorry, but I can't predict the future. I think it will, and I believe it will, and all the scientific evidence we have tells us that it will, but I can't absolutely 100% definitely know that it will because that requires personal omniscience, and that would be impossible, wouldn't it?

You're ignoring his point. You have faith that the sun will rise the next day. It ain't necessarily so. I know that when I get on the train every morning that I trust that the driver is capable, even if I cannot know absolutely if that is the case.

Penn wrote: »

So again, do you know God exists (personal omniscience (which is impossible)), or do you believe he exists (faith)?

I would say that I'm more a gnostic theist than an agnostic one. I'm confident strongly that God is there. However, I would be lying if I said that that faith did not waver occasionally.

Knowing God is not "personal omniscience". It is an account of ones relationship with Him that makes that walk make a lot of sense.

Also, faith isn't always blind. God has given me a lot of reason to believe in Him, through seeing Him evident in the world around me, and in comparing the Scriptures with what is occurring in reality. One of the most striking ways that I see that God's word is true, is simply by reading a newspaper, or watching the news and seeing how right God was about our fallen and sinful nature in the Bible.

Zombrex wrote: »

How does reading your quote again answer my question?

You didn't reflect my post accurately in your previous one. God punishes evildoers if they don't repent and accept Jesus as their Saviour. Jesus paying the absolute price for sin.

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you personally agree with this, or is this a Well it must be just because it is God and anything he does is by definition just argument.

I agree entirely with this. If you don't want to know God, then ultimately the option is to be separated from God, and from salvation through Jesus. Rejection of God, is rejection of God as far as Christianity is concerned. Also, if no sin can't be forgiven through Jesus, then no sin is greater or lesser than the other. Essentially the same penalty is given to all on the account of their rejection towards God. That's how I would make sense of it.

Atheists always focus on what will happen if they continue rejecting God rather than actually focusing on what could happen if they accepted Jesus as their Saviour. It's quite interesting how it works. It doesn't have to be this way, and there's no excuse given that God is omnipresent and the Biblical text is probably the most widely published and available text in the world today.

Zombrex wrote: »

For example, do you believe that anyone who commits a crime, say shop lifting, if they do not repent (ie admit guilt and apologise) they should be sentenced to the harshest punishment one can physically sentence another human to, such as life imprisonment with hard labour (which should be pointed out is still infinitely less time than eternity suffering in hell)?

See above. Sin isn't a finite concept. It is a rejection of God. If you reject God, you are in sin. Sin is what separates us from Him. As someone who rejects God you are in separation from Him. This is why Jesus' death and resurrection are so critical. If in that state when before Jesus at judgement, then one will be perpetually in separation from Him.

One of the realisations I made when I decided to follow Jesus was the very notion that I deserved to be in hell for my rejection against Him. It was merely His grace alone that saved me through faith.