Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Benny_Cake

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Who cares Zombrex? One of the first things taught to you as a health professional wanting to practice in mental health is not to argue with delusion.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Awaiting delete of previous post and infraction/banning!

You guessed correctly - infracted. Any more remarks like that and it will be a ban.

Weathering

If you believe in god fine,if you don't fine. Just leave it at that,point scoring is pointless. Simple as that

Turtwig

Weathering wrote: »

If you believe in god fine,if you don't fine. Just leave it at that,point scoring is pointless. Simple as that

Point scoring may be pointless. Insulting definitely is. But debates of this nature can be fun and informative. Whether or not God exists is one of the big questions. So I don't see any reason why people should leave it as is.

Worztron

Why would an all powerful supreme being create humans capable of reason and then demand that they act in a manner contrary to their creation?

J C

Worztron wrote: »

Why would an all powerful supreme being create humans capable of reason and then demand that they act in a manner contrary to their creation?

He didn't ... He Created us with reason ... and He expects us to use it ... and will hold us to account, if we don't.

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

He didn't ... He Created us with reason ... and He expects us to use it ... and will hold us to account, if we don't.

But it is by using reason that we realise there is no proof of 'his' existence!

J C

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But it is by using reason that we realise there is no proof of 'his' existence!

How so?

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

How so?

Because there is no evidence. It cannot be proved. It cannot be proved that gods do not exist either, so this is where reason comes into it. There is no irrefutable evidence to suggest that god or gods exist, only subjective second hand stories written several thousand years ago when people's interpretations of reality were worlds away from the knowledge we have today due to scientific discovery. Therefore due to both lack of any evidence and probable motive for the human 'invention' of such a 'being', I am unable to believe in the existence of gods.

Fanny Cradock

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Because there is no evidence. It cannot be proved. It cannot be proved that gods do not exist either, so this is where reason comes into it. There is no irrefutable evidence to suggest that god or gods exist, only subjective second hand stories written several thousand years ago when people's interpretations of reality were worlds away from the knowledge we have today due to scientific discovery. Therefore due to both lack of any evidence and probable motive for the human 'invention' of such a 'being', I am unable to believe in the existence of gods.

Fantastic post. And this is the reason why I am now an alincolnist. Show me the evidence lincolnists!

(P.S. capitalising the l only reinforces the myth)

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Fantastic post. And this is the reason why I am now an alincolnist. Show me the evidence lincolnists!

(P.S. capitalising the l only reinforces the myth)

Are you suggesting there is no evidence Abe Lincoln existed?

Probably better to pick a better example, perhaps Homer or the city of Troy.

Oh, never mind, this is one of those stupid "We have as much evidence for Jesus as insert historical person X" things. My mistake

Kiwi in IE

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Fantastic post. And this is the reason why I am now an alincolnist. Show me the evidence lincolnists!

(P.S. capitalising the l only reinforces the myth)

I was speaking of gods, not people.

Kiwi in IE

And I did not capitalise because I am referring to all gods that have been worshiped by various religions throughout history, not just the one Christians worship.

robp

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

And I did not capitalise because I am referring to all gods that have been worshiped by various religions throughout history, not just the one Christians worship.

When referring to God in the singular a capital case applies. In all the monotheistic systems there is only one God and using lower case makes no sense whatsoever.

Worztron wrote: »

Why would an all powerful supreme being create humans capable of reason and then demand that they act in a manner contrary to their creation?

That is a misrepresentation. 90% of the rules and teaching of pretty much all mainstream monotheistic religions relate to virtues valued in secular ethics. Greed, stealing or selfishness are very much part of our make up as a species. Does that mean we should be complacent about them?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But it is by using reason that we realise there is no proof of 'his' existence!

Doubts are universal but Christians would argue that ultimately reason will take one towards Christianity. I can think of plenty of decent ethical atheists but I can think of very few who are fully aware of the arguments and who are fully honest about their implications. All thought processes are subject to biases, prejudices and misinformation. I encounter even fewer who acknowledge this and consider how it might enable their atheism. You yourself fall into this trap in post #6549.

Kiwi in IE

robp wrote: »

Doubts are universal but Christians would argue that ultimately reason will take one towards Christianity. I can think of plenty of decent ethical atheists but I can think of very few who are fully aware of the arguments and who are fully honest about their implications. All thought processes are subject to biases, prejudices and misinformation. I encounter even fewer who acknowledge this and consider how it might enable their atheism. You yourself fall into this trap in post #6549.

I would not consider it due to prejudice, misinformation or bias that one does not believe something that cannot be proven to exist.

marienbad

robp wrote: »

When referring to God in the singular a capital case applies. In all the monotheistic systems there is only one God and using lower case makes no sense whatsoever.



That is a misrepresentation. 90% of the rules and teaching of pretty much all mainstream monotheistic religions relate to virtues valued in secular ethics. Greed, stealing or selfishness are very much part of our make up as a species. Does that mean we should be complacent about them?



Doubts are universal but Christians would argue that ultimately reason will take one towards Christianity. I can think of plenty of decent ethical atheists but I can think of very few who are fully aware of the arguments and who are fully honest about their implications. All thought processes are subject to biases, prejudices and misinformation. I encounter even fewer who acknowledge this and consider how it might enable their atheism. You yourself fall into this trap in post #6549.

Maybe those atheists should be sent back to the re-education camps, no ?

robp

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I would not consider it due to prejudice, misinformation or bias that one does not believe something that cannot be proven to exist.

The irony is that very line is typically repeated by the same people who insist there is no absolute truth that we know of.

marienbad wrote: »

Maybe those atheists should be sent back to the re-education camps, no ?

Maybe they should show a little respect, if not to Christians then at least to the English language.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

Oh, never mind, this is one of those stupid "We have as much evidence for Jesus as insert historical person X" things. My mistake

Well that would make it 3 mistakes in a row. This is in fact a page step up to apply freethinking and rational skepticism "toward the myth of Abraham Lincoln's existence and the stories attributed to him". It has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus. It's a growing online community that lacks the belief in lincoln and therefore is not intellectually crippled to the point of needing an "emancipation daddy" crutch.

But even if by some laughably slim chance this page is a parody of arguments put forward by people like Kiwi in IE then that still wouldn't make it what you mistakenly think it is.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well that would make it 3 mistakes in a row. This is in fact a page step up to apply freethinking and rational skepticism "toward the myth of Abraham Lincoln's existence and the stories attributed to him". It has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus.

If you Google for "Did Lincoln exist" you get back a whole host of Christian apologetic websites that have latched on to this idea that comparing the denial of Jesus (both historical and supernatural version) with denying Abraham Lincoln existed is apparently making some sound point about the hypocrisy of New Atheists.

For example -
http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/03/did-abraham-lincoln-exist/
http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2013/03/did-abe-lincoln-really-exist/
http://benstanhope.blogspot.ie/2013/03/top-10-quotes-from-did-abe-lincoln.html
http://www.acts17.net/2013/03/did-abraham-lincoln-exist.html
http://www.thepoachedegg.net/the-poached-egg/2013/03/weekend-apologetics-hit-and-misc-did-abraham-lincoln-exist.html
http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/04/did-abraham-lincoln-exist/

While reading these websites the phrase "spectacularly missing the point" kept popping into my head, thought that might just be me ...

marienbad

robp wrote: »

The irony is that very line is typically repeated by the same people who insist there is no absolute truth that we know of.


Maybe they should show a little respect, if not to Christians then at least to the English language.

Why ? Christians have a poor record in that respect even to this day, and as for the English language - it can take care of itself wouldn't you say.

robp

marienbad wrote: »

Why ? Christians have a poor record in that respect even to this day, and as for the English language - it can take care of itself wouldn't you say.

Moving the goal posts. Nice.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

If you Google for "Did Lincoln exist" you get back a whole host of Christian apologetic websites that have latched on to this idea that comparing the denial of Jesus (both historical and supernatural version) with denying Abraham Lincoln existed is apparently making some sound point about the hypocrisy of New Atheists.

For example -
http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/03/did-abraham-lincoln-exist/
http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2013/03/did-abe-lincoln-really-exist/
http://benstanhope.blogspot.ie/2013/03/top-10-quotes-from-did-abe-lincoln.html
http://www.acts17.net/2013/03/did-abraham-lincoln-exist.html
http://www.thepoachedegg.net/the-poached-egg/2013/03/weekend-apologetics-hit-and-misc-did-abraham-lincoln-exist.html
http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/04/did-abraham-lincoln-exist/

While reading these websites the phrase "spectacularly missing the point" kept popping into my head, thought that might just be me ...

And not one of those links mentions its stated aim as "We have as much evidence for Jesus as insert historical person X". Now if you want to add to your original statement (as you have already done) then fine. But I'm not clairvoyant and I can't be expected to argue against things you haven't yet written.

My advice to you is to put "you are missing the point" into your signature. Given how often you accuse people of this it will save you valuable time and also extend the life of your keyboard.

Turtwig

robp wrote: »

When referring to God in the singular a capital case applies. In all the monotheistic systems there is only one God and using lower case makes no sense whatsoever. .

When you refer to a god as a personal entity e.g God of the bible or Yahweh, a capital case applies. Just like it does when you refer to someone by their name. If you a referring to a non specific deity you use a lower case i.e. "There is no god." Instead of the incorrect "There is no God." Hopefully this will convey the point. "I don't think God exists but I do think there is a god that does."

/pedant

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And not one of those links mentions its stated aim as "We have as much evidence for Jesus as insert historical person X". Now if you want to add to your original statement (as you have already done) then fine. But I'm not clairvoyant and I can't be expected to argue against things you haven't yet written.

I'm not asking you to engage with anything, I originally was querying how anyone could believe that there was no evidence Lincoln existested and then discovered that these sites are parody sites, similar to The Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster, making a point about the demands non-Christians put on Christians to support claims about Jesus.

The point they are trying to make is a pretty bad one, but then since I'm not assuming you agree with their point I'm not asking you to engage with anything.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My advice to you is to put "you are missing the point" into your signature. Given how often you accuse people of this it will save you valuable time and also extend the life of your keyboard.

Oh if only it were that simply Fanny ...

marienbad

robp wrote: »

Moving the goal posts. Nice.

You will have to explain that ?

robp

Jernal wrote: »

When you refer to a god as a personal entity e.g God of the bible or Yahweh, a capital case applies. Just like it does when you refer to someone by their name. If you a referring to a non specific deity you use a lower case i.e. "There is no god." Instead of the incorrect "There is no God." Hopefully this will convey the point. "I don't think God exists but I do think there is a god that does."

/pedant

I hate to be pedantic but Kiwi was referring to God in a specific personal way, otherwise there would obviously be an article (a).

There is no irrefutable evidence to suggest that god or gods exist

marienbad wrote: »

You will have to explain that ?

The use of capitals by a poster is being discussed not the moral culpability of religious people down through the ages.

marienbad

Excuse me robp ! a bit more than that is being discussed- you said ''maybe they should show a little respect ..... ''

And I asked you why and I am still waiting on your reply. That you seem to think you have a duty to police English language usage is of little concern to me .

So I ask you again why should respect be shown ? Everything else is fair game so why not religion ?.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

The point they are trying to make is a pretty bad one, but then since I'm not assuming you agree with their point I'm not asking you to engage with anything.

The only point that alincolnists are making is that there is no evidence to justify the belief in lincoln and therefore any belief in him is delusional. Liberate yourself from the crippling belief in a stovepipe hat wearing emancipator who apparently spent his time slaying vampires and playing 'sweet chin music' in the wrestling ring.

robp

marienbad wrote: »

Excuse me robp ! a bit more than that is being discussed- you said ''maybe they should show a little respect ..... ''

And I asked you why and I am still waiting on your reply. That you seem to think you have a duty to police English language usage is of little concern to me .

So I ask you again why should respect be shown ? Everything else is fair game so why not religion ?.

Since when is everything else fair game? I think your conflating disagreement with respect eg I disagree with smoking but I respect their practice.

johnny-grunge

Belief in something without any sort of proof is madness. Belief in something because a load of others believe in it is even crazier. All ye religion people should put on the unbiased glasses and have a look around.

marienbad

robp wrote: »

Since when is everything else fair game? I think your conflating disagreement with respect eg I disagree with smoking but I respect their practice.

No you are conflating disagreement with lack of respect. By fair game I mean satire jokes cartoons criticism , just as every other organisation has to endure.