Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Soul Winner

recedite wrote: »

If God lets bad things happen to good people, either he is powerless to stop it or he chooses not to stop it. That is the dilemma.

For one the Bible says that there are no good people. "There is none that does good, no not one." Psalm 14:3 "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23. But there are just people and unjust people. Just people being defined by their adherence to a particular covenant given by God. The Old Testament commanded adherence to God's perfect standard of the Law of works and the New Testament commands adherence to the Law of Faith which is simply trusting God's promise and applying them to your life. Nobody is just under the Old Standard of the Law. All have fallen short of that standard and as result death is their portion. All that Old Standard can do is measure you and condemn you. It is powerless to help you. For it it bent down to help you the it would be compromising itself.

God through Jesus in the New Testament put away this standard by first fulfilling it and then nailing it to a tree. He literally became that Law incarnate and when He died on the cross it died too, never to be resurrected to have any kind of hold over mankind. When He rose He instigated a new Covenant or New Testament. These are the contracts that God has st up with men. If you still live by the impossible Old Covenant of works then you will be measured by that standard and if you fall short of it even by one jot then death is your portion. To escape this judgment all you need do is embrace God's New (possible) Covenant of Faith which again is simply living a life of trusting His Word of promise.

So with that in mind we now know that God doesn't let bad things happen to good people. He lets bad things happen to people, be they just or unjust. 'The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike' etc.. Now to your point of being powerless to stop it. Well if He exists then He is obviously powerful enough to create this universe and as such is powerful enough to be able to stop anything bad from happening. So the fact that these things persist in life must not be about power but rather about motive. Are His reasons for allowing bad things to happen sufficiently good? Does He have sufficiently good reasons for allowing bad things to happen? Well nobody knows for sure but as Christians we trust (have faith) that God has sufficiently good reasons for allowing bad things to happen to us. Paul says in Romans:

"1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us." Romans 5:1-5

Ask yourself this question. How many valuable lessons in life have you ever learned through the experience of pleasure? And then ask yourself how many of life's valuable lessons have been learned through pain and suffering? That will tell you that God came bring much good out of pain and suffering but not much out of pleasure. That's not to say that pleasure is altogether bad, its not but our tendency to over indulge in it and recoil from any kind of discomfort or pain can be. As Christians we believe that God is training us for eternity. This is not a playground down here that He has created for us to have fun in all the time. Yes its OK to have good times but like soldiers in war you make sure to stay alert and be ready for the attack of the enemy even when you are on R&R. When bad things happen we trust God's promise that He will deliver us out of them all as long as we call on His name to do so.

The people who have the worst things in life happen to them are usually the poorest people in the world. No wonder Jesus said Blessed are the poor, for their's is the Kingdom of God. And as a foot note. Paul said that our present sufferings are not to be even compared with the glory that is to come.

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Romans 8:18

They will be forgotten in the same way that a mother forgets about the pain she endured in labour after she brings her new born child into the world.

And getting back to the point of power. As Christians we also believe that God will choose to put a stop to all bad things and wipe away all tears and create all things new.

"And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” Revelation 21:4-5

So all your points are unfounded if you look at them from a Christian perspective.

Soul Winner

recedite wrote: »

I think the generally accepted modern definitions are as follows;

Atheist - The view that there is no God. In other words the
belief that there is no God. Doesn't believe in gods. (Just as you said)
Theist Believes in one or more gods.
Agnostic - Does not have sufficient knowledge of a particular proposition to make a definitive pronouncement on whether it is true or false. Not necessarily connected to religion.
Agnostic theist Believes there is a God or gods, but acknowledges it can't be proven. The lukewarm theists.
Agnostic Atheist - Believes there is no God, but acknowledges it can't be proven. The most common atheist.

????????Those who seek proof where none is needed, or those who have it where none is possible. These are the oxymoron positions:)

Excellent. You've just shown that atheism is a belief system about God and as such is a religion of sorts. That is, that it has all the trappings of religion, its not just the lack of belief in God, it is the positive belief that there is no God. Great.

• Atheists believe without having any proof that God does not exist and therefore act in faith like other religious people.
• Atheists act as though what they believe is true and everyone else is wrong just like other religious people.
• Atheists can be intolerant of other belief systems and as such treat with disdain other belief systems they deem to be false.

Welcome to the world of religion :pac:

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Excellent. You've just shown that atheism is a belief system about God and as such is a religion of sorts. That is, that it has all the trappings of religion, its not just the lack of belief in God, it is the positive belief that there is no God. Great.

• Atheists believe without having any proof that God does not exist and therefore act in faith like other religious people.
• Atheists act as though what they believe is true and everyone else is wrong just like other religious people.
• Atheists can be intolerant of other belief systems and as such treat with disdain other belief systems they deem to be false.

Welcome to the world of religion :pac:

Atheism can be described as a belief. It can in no way be described as a religion. Just as the position of theism is not a religion. We argue that there is no evidence of God. Theists argue that there is evidence of God.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Atheism can be described as a belief. It can in no way be described as a religion. Just as the position of theism is not a religion. We argue that there is no evidence of God. Theists argue that there is evidence of God.

Point well made and taken. However if theism as belief system about God or Gods can be categorized as religious in nature then can that be applied to atheism also?

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Point well made and taken. However if theism as belief system about God or Gods can be categorized as religious in nature then can that be applied to atheism also?

"Religion" is often associated with emotional investment, devotion, and ritual worship. I know people who believe in God in some form or other, but I would not call them religious unless they are actively engaged in some observance or worship.

The Quadratic Equation

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Nice as that sounds, it isn't what happens here. Out in the real world I am completely tolerant of my peer's views and beliefs, but the whole idea of this thread doesn't allow for that. Each side is only trying to promote their own view and destroy the argument of the other as ruthlessly as possible. How can one be sincere when discussing beliefs they genuinely think idiotic?

On the contary you'll find that the conflict arises when you patronisingly try to pretend what Christians actually believe, and pretend what their sciptures say. That is a whole different level from not agreeing with someone elses beliefs, e.g. I may not agree with Islamic, Athiest, Hindu beliefs/non beliefs, but I also won't be wasting my life pretending to myself what they believe/don't believe, and misrepresenting their beliefs/non beliefs.

nickcave

Soul Winner wrote: »

Point well made and taken. However if theism as belief system about God or Gods can be categorized as religious in nature then can that be applied to atheism also?

You'd have to note a couple of things here:

Firstly, there is no centralised authority or establishment which regulates or pushes atheism to those who consider themselves 'atheist'. Nor is there a text which defines the position.

As a result, many people who consider themselves atheist will disagree with each other on a whole heap of issues - especially with regards to how they define themselves. Trying to band everyone who takes the atheist position together can't be done nor should it be done.

Atheism is a scientific method, or rather the resulting position when one applies the method of skepticism to the issues that religion typically dictates on (the origin of humanity etc.). So in the first instance it is the position that you do not accept as true any proposition unless there is - at the very least - overwhelming evidence if not deductive proof of the underlying proposition.

So the only 'belief' associated with atheism is that the skeptical method is valuable. Whatever truths become accepted within that framework are those which emerge as a consensus following the work of millions of independent scientists and thinkers worldwide, without any central regulation.

Or at least, this is the ideal picture of non-theism. And I don't see that it can in any way be characterised as religious. To describe this as religious would be to impoverish the English language - it has none of the characteristics of religion.

Ciaran0

nickcave wrote: »

You'd have to note a couple of things here:

Firstly, there is no centralised authority or establishment which regulates or pushes atheism to those who consider themselves 'atheist'. Nor is there a text which defines the position.

As a result, many people who consider themselves atheist will disagree with each other on a whole heap of issues - especially with regards to how they define themselves. Trying to band everyone who takes the atheist position together can't be done nor should it be done.

Atheism is a scientific method, or rather the resulting position when one applies the method of skepticism to the issues that religion typically dictates on (the origin of humanity etc.). So in the first instance it is the position that you do not accept as true any proposition unless there is - at the very least - overwhelming evidence if not deductive proof of the underlying proposition.

So the only 'belief' associated with atheism is that the skeptical method is valuable. Whatever truths become accepted within that framework are those which emerge as a consensus following the work of millions of independent scientists and thinkers worldwide, without any central regulation.

Or at least, this is the ideal picture of non-theism. And I don't see that it can in any way be characterised as religious. To describe this as religious would be to impoverish the English language - it has none of the characteristics of religion.

Excellent post. A lot of posters here need to realise the difference between atheism, agnosticism, theism and deism and what they actually mean. Many otherwise good arguments are lost in the confusion of these terms.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

"Religion" is often associated with emotional investment, devotion, and ritual worship. I know people who believe in God in some form or other, but I would not call them religious unless they are actively engaged in some observance or worship.

If we strip away the religiousness of theism then we are still left with a belief system, and as such it is just like atheism except both having different end points of belief. Theism: That there is a God and Atheism: That there is no God.

So after stripping away the religiousness from theism, which of these two belief systems is better supported by science today and why? Can we have evidence that there is no God? No, we can never have evidence that there is no God because if there really was no God then how could we have evidence for it?

But if there is a God then we can or could have evidence for His existence. Even if we currently had no evidence for His existence (and theists believe that we have good evidence, hence why a lot of them became theists in the first place) then it would still be the better belief system to go with because you'd at least have the hope of finding evidence to keep you going, whereas with atheism you will never be able to prove or have good evidence that there is no God, which means that you will never know nor have the hope of knowing that your belief system is right. You can only find out if its wrong. And the only way that you could find out that atheism is wrong is to find evidence for God. But if atheism is right you will never know. But as we oft say: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence." But with atheism you never will have evidence.

So I suppose it depends on whether you care if atheism is right or not. If you really did care then you'd look for evidence for God. Is there evidence for God? Depends on how you interpret the evidence doesn't it? If something screams Creator/Designer then the theist will latch onto it and say "See? There you go." All the atheist can do is say, no, that apparent design can be explained without invoking a supernatural creator. And off we go.

But if we admit that it has the appearance of design at least, then there is one of two explanations for that:

A) Due to a long process of evolution over many millions and billions of years the very simple has evolved into the very complex through a process of natural selection acting on random mutations, adaptation and environmental changes.

It actually is designed

Which explanation can be observed in the lab? None of them. Which explanation is more true to the principle of Occam's razor? That would be B. It looks designed because it is designed. But A has other problems. Even the simplest of living organisms we know are extremely complex at the cellular level and cannot be explained by blind forces.

So theism and especially Christian theism has a better footing in reality and the world we actually live in that atheism will ever have, and that's just based on science. We stripped away all the other stuff remember? If we went into that we'd be here all day. Christian theism is not even reliant on science to show that it is the better belief system over or types of theism. Christianity has historic, philosophic and moral arguments that can be added too. But I will leave it that for now.

The Quadratic Equation

nickcave wrote: »

Atheism is a scientific method, or rather the resulting position when one applies the method of skepticism to the issues that religion typically dictates on (the origin of humanity etc.). So in the first instance it is the position that you do not accept as true any proposition unless there is - at the very least - overwhelming evidence if not deductive proof of the underlying proposition.

So the only 'belief' associated with atheism is that the skeptical method is valuable. Whatever truths become accepted within that framework are those which emerge as a consensus following the work of millions of independent scientists and thinkers worldwide, without any central regulation.

Sound great, except for ingnoring the glaring fact that many of the world greatest scientists were, and are, theists. Science does not conflict in any way with theism. Science only deals with the physcial.

nickcave

@ Soul Winner: (sorry I didn't want to quote your whole post)

I don't think that any of what you've said about atheism is true. I'd contest against your notion that it is a belief system and also that there can be no evidence to substantiate it, but I just want to comment on the later part of your post (the A/B choice).

There are only two principles which need to be affirmed in order for evolutionary development to be water-tight, and they are both quite simple:

1. That in reproducing itself, an organism always produces a copy with some associated error. Genetic variance is a visible and demonstrable feature of cellular reproduction. This is the tougher of the two principles - get thee to a biochemistry lab or trust in all the scientific text surrounding it. In any case, it is something that you can see with your own eyes if you need to.

2. The second principle is much more simple - that any generation of a species is made up of the descendants of the last. I don't think anyone could have a problem with this...

And that's it. If those two principles hold then evolution is logically certain to take place.

If you let a system like that rip for a few thousand generations then cats will have whiskers and giraffes long necks - and we'll be smart enough to figure the whole thing out.

Evolution is the simpler proposition of the two.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

That will be answered to your satisfaction, when you explain to my satisfaction why there should be no free will and God should have heaven on earth ?

As has been explained many times before it would not remove free will for God to decide to not allow bad things to happen, any more than it removes free will for God to decide you can't fly or walk through walls.

It is interesting though that you think there has to be a good reason why God allows bad things to happen. Surely simple by virtue of God allowing them to happen they are not in fact bad things, if God is the source of all goodness.

nickcave

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Sound great, except for ingnoring the glaring fact that many of the world greatest scientists were, and are, theists. Science does not conflict in any way with theism. Science only deals with the physcial.

The level of theism among scientists is way below the ambient figure. Science is fundamentally opposed to theism because of the method of discerning truth from non-truth.

And science does not just deal with the physical.

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

As has been explained many times before it would not remove free will for God to decide to not allow bad things to happen

Indeed it would if you decided to harm another in some way. That's your choice not Gods.
So again I ask (1) why should there be no free will (2) Why should there be heaven on earth ?

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Science only deals with the physcial.

Yes but there is a very good reason why this is the case, it is not that science simply picked the physical world, it is that scientific philosophy (the reasons why the scientific method is one way and not another way) imposes standards on what we can confidently say we know, and so far the only methodologies humans have come up with that pass these standards deal with the physical.

Thus anyone who presumes to know about the supernatural is in effect stating that science is wrong, or (more likely) doesn't understand these standards in the first place.

If it were possible to know about the supernatural to the degree that would satisfy standards that arise out of scientific philosophy then these methodology would be part of science and science would regularly explore the supernatural.

This doesn't happen precisely because such exploration of the supernatural fails the standards for scientific enquiry.

This most certainly does conflict with theism which puts forward the claims that it is possible to know about the supernatural realm despite the methods used to explore the supernatural realm failing scientific standards.

old hippy

We have free will because we are a product of higher evolution, simple as that. It was not "given" to us.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Indeed it would if you decided to harm another in some way. That's your choice not Gods.

No, its a product of God's choices as well.

We have free will to choose been the options God has presented us with. You can walk, you can't fly. You can breath air you cannot breath water. You can survive some places not others.

This ranges of things we can and cannot do is limited by God based on his construction of the universe. That is all God's choice. We merely choose based on the outcome of his original design decisions.

Now there are plenty of things we cannot do based on God's design decisions. Yet we still have free will. We still have free will because despite the limitations on our choices we still have choices.

It would be infinitely easy for God to produce a universe, a planet Earth, and humans (of some variety) that could not be harmed, could not suffering pain, could not be stabbed, could not starve to death, could not burn in a fire.

Would this remove our free will? Not at all. We would still exist within the limitations that God has presented us with, we would still choose between the limited options God created. We would simply not have the option to harm others because it would not be physically possible to harm others, but we would no more notice this than we notice that we do not have the option to teleport or walk through walls.

The idea that bad things must be allowed to happen in order to maintain free will is a crock, it is the product of (ironically) limited imagination and lack of appreciate of what an omnipotent being like God could actually do.

It is also (getting back to my original point) a glaring contradiction to the idea that theists truly believe that God is the source of all morality and the source of all goodness. If that was the case the idea of explaining the good reason why God allows bad things to happen would be moronic.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

... scientific philosophy (the reasons why the scientific method is one way and not another way) imposes standards on what we can confidently say we know, and so far the only methodologies humans have come up with that pass these standards deal with the physical.

Ill agree that empirical science is about measurement and that means actual physical measurement in predefined physical units.

It might get a bit ropey however in social science where the units are say units of "fear" or "surprise" rather than kg seconds and meters. In fact a lot of science is "exploratory talk" and not as definite as physics. Say for example the first ideas about atmospheric pressure
referring to "springiness" of the air.

Thus anyone who presumes to know about the supernatural is in effect stating that science is wrong, or (more likely) doesn't understand these standards in the first place.

Well science may also accept things as scientific and not wholly understand them or explain them. For example electricity in the early days; modern cosmology; quantum physics. There are a whole load of things from non physical sciences. But say for example psychic powers did exist and someone passed a fair test ( say telekinesis). WE might not be able to explain it but we can measure it scientifically and accept it is happening.

If it were possible to know about the supernatural to the degree that would satisfy standards that arise out of scientific philosophy then these methodology would be part of science and science would regularly explore the supernatural.

What is a "non physical methodology" in your own definition?
What is a supernatural phenomenon?
If a methodology can explore or describe supernatural phenomena is it not already scientific by definition?

This doesn't happen precisely because such exploration of the supernatural fails the standards for scientific enquiry.

How? In what way does it fail?

This most certainly does conflict with theism which puts forward the claims that it is possible to know about the supernatural realm despite the methods used to explore the supernatural realm failing scientific standards.

But you are therefore asserting that the only way to know abut anything is through scientific enquiry. How can science tell us all about peace or art or love or sport?

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

No, its a product of God's choices as well.



It would be infinitely easy for God to produce a universe, a planet Earth, and humans (of some variety) that could not be harmed, could not suffering pain, could not be stabbed, could not starve to death, could not burn in a fire.

Which apparently was the world before the Fall. But human choice changed that.

[
Would this remove our free will? Not at all.

True Adam apparently was not limited in choosing to reject that world.

We would still exist within the limitations that God has presented us with, we would still choose between the limited options God created. We would simply not have the option to harm others because it would not be physically possible to harm others, but we would no more notice this than we notice that we do not have the option to teleport or walk through walls.

Ah! But Adam didn't realise the consequences of his own free choice was to introduce a world where death harm etc. would be allowed.

The idea that bad things must be allowed to happen in order to maintain free will is a crock,

Actually the point is that bad things happen because people in the past freely chose to allow bad things into the world.
Also, ignorance of the implications of a choice does not remove the choice.

it is the product of (ironically) limited imagination and lack of appreciate of what an omnipotent being like God could actually do.

Indeed we can assume God could remove logic and reason but we assume God is a reasonable and benevolent god who chooses not to do that. Nor do we assume that because we live in a universe with death and pain that another universe without suffering is impossible. In fact we already such a universe can and did exist but man rejected it.
Well "unimaginative " Christians believe it anyway.

It is also (getting back to my original point) a glaring contradiction to the idea that theists truly believe that God is the source of all morality and the source of all goodness. If that was the case the idea of explaining the good reason why God allows bad things to happen would be moronic.

And restricting people's choice in order to prevent them from harming each other would be more reasonable? so if a civilization scientifically discovers the atomic bomb or doomsday weapon they should destroy it and all their knowledge about it. Why is it they didn't do that? the greatest scientific advances in weapons technology was all done by morons?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

As has been explained asserted without any substantiation many times before it would not remove free will for God to decide to not allow bad things to happen, any more than it removes free will for God to decide you can't fly or walk through walls.

FYP

Such an argument would only hold true in a world where all actions were morally neutral (ie in a world where no-one can make any choices that are immoral). I seriously doubt whether such a world could logically exist and still provide for free will. Free will, as understood by moral philosophers of all belief systems, means more than making a morally neutral choice whether to wear a blue shirt or a red shirt.

Of course one possible way this could be done might be God fooling us that our decisions really mattered - when in reality we are simply experiencing an illusion. So we could think that we are making genuine moral choices, but really we are like the people in the Matrix who are just quietly sleeping in pods (or Jude Law on the beach at the end of Repo-Men). The real bitch with that, however, is that instinctively I think all of us would choose the real world, complete with pain, cancer and earthquakes, over an illusory world with no real consequences to our actions.

So I think it is a philosophically valid argument to suggest that a world with free moral choices (one in which qualities like love and bravery mean something) must by definition include at least the possibility of hurting someone else.

In that case the debate shifts somewhat. The issue is not really about the existence of evil or suffering - it is about why there is so much of it. Would any of us be having this debate if the worse thing you could do to another human being was to wake them up in the middle of the night, causing sleeplessness?

And that is what Dostoyevsky wrestled with in The Brothers Karamazov, in his conversation between Ivan and Alyosha about a child torn to pieces by a lanndlord's dogs (I think Fanny Cradock already referred to this). The existence of evil is not the problem - it is the intensity and unfairness of such incidents. Is such suffering as we see in the world really worth the gift of free moral choices, of love, of compassion?

I actually think that is a debate worth having - but I doubt if we will have it, because the next few pages will probably be dominated by a poster making repeated assertions without proving or demonstrating his point.

It is interesting though that you think there has to be a good reason why God allows bad things to happen. Surely simple by virtue of God allowing them to happen they are not in fact bad things, if God is the source of all goodness

And there's an example of what is wrong, and will continue to be wrong, with this thread. That certainly isn't what I believe - and you continually asserting that it is won't make it my opinion.

nickcave

PDN wrote: »

I think all of us would choose the real world, complete with pain, cancer and earthquakes, over an illusory world with no real consequences to our actions.

Agreed. But I'm not sure if you're saying that all 'evils' in the world are present because of human action or choices. Are you?

If so, I'd certainly like to hear more.

If not, then how does the 'gift' of free will impart on the existence of suffering in the world at all?

beerbuddy

old hippy wrote: »

We have free will because we are a product of higher evolution, simple as that. It was not "given" to us.

Well thats one for the books nearly all Darwinist Athiests would deny that and say that we are the puppets of our genes.
As for social darwinism thats a great barrel of laughs. The survival of the fittest is a great theory and puts the idea of morality as you and me know it on its head.

recedite

PDN wrote: »

Such an argument would only hold true in a world where all actions were morally neutral (ie in a world where no-one can make any choices that are immoral). I seriously doubt whether such a world could logically exist and still provide for free will.

If God took on a policing role, and smited (with lightning or such) the odd evil-doer who stepped over the mark, there would be both fairness and genuine free will (with all the associated consequences).

The existence of evil is not the problem - it is the intensity and unfairness of such incidents. Is such suffering as we see in the world really worth the gift of free moral choices, of love, of compassion?
I actually think that is a debate worth having - but I doubt if we will have it, because the next few pages will probably be dominated by a poster making repeated assertions without proving or demonstrating his point.

That debate is unlikely to happen in this thread because it concerns two theistic hypothetical propositions, neither of which atheists subscribe to.
ie free will with suffering due to the inherent "badness" of a fallen humanity, or no free will and no suffering.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If we strip away the religiousness of believing in the celestial teapot then we are still left with a belief system, and as such it is just like atheism except both having different end points of belief. Teapotism: That there is a giant teapot floating in the sky and Atheism: That there is no teapot.

So after stripping away the religiousness from celestial teapotism, which of these two belief systems is better supported by science today and why? Can we have evidence that there is no celestial teapot? No, we can never have evidence that there is no celestial teapot because if there really was no celestial teapot then how could we have evidence for it?

But if there is a celestial teapot then we can or could have evidence for its existence. Even if we currently had no evidence for its existence (and celestial teapotists believe that we have good evidence, hence why a lot of them became teapotists in the first place) then it would still be the better belief system to go with because you'd at least have the hope of finding evidence to keep you going, whereas with atheism you will never be able to prove or have good evidence that there is no teapot, which means that you will never know nor have the hope of knowing that your belief system is right. You can only find out if its wrong. And the only way that you could find out that atheism is wrong is to find evidence for the celestial teapot. But if atheism is right you will never know. But as we oft say: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence." But with atheism you never will have evidence.

So I suppose it depends on whether you care if atheism is right or not. If you really did care then you'd look for evidence for the celestial teapot.

......So celestial teapotism and especially (insert any random teapot sect here)teapotism has a better footing in reality and the world we actually live in than atheism will ever have, and that's just based on science.

I hope you don't mind Soul Winner, but I have modified and paraphrased your argument quoted above to give theists some idea of what atheists are seeing when they read this kind of thing. After all, its good to see things from the other persons perspective now and again.

Eminent philosopher Bertrand Russell's analogy of a debate over the existence of a giant teapot floating in the sky is still as valid today as it ever was.

To be agnostic would seem to be the default position, unless someone else can prove otherwise, but after a certain length of time investigating a matter, it is reasonable for the agnostic to come to the conclusion or belief that no evidence is, or will ever be, forthcoming, and at that point he/she becomes an agnostic atheist. What you might call "an educated guess". Hence Russell saying he should really be an agnostic, but...
That sort of conclusion is not in itself a "belief system" and certainly not a religion.

The paraphrased quote also shows up an assertion that might otherwise slip by unnoticed; that atheists have never looked for evidence. I'd suggest they have all looked for it, at some point, and found none.

lmaopml

beerbuddy wrote: »

Well thats one for the books nearly all Darwinist Athiests would deny that and say that we are the puppets of our genes.
As for social darwinism thats a great barrel of laughs. The survival of the fittest is a great theory and puts the idea of morality as you and me know it on its head.

Too true. Really really..too true!.. it's a philosophy that stems from naturalism, there is no other truth but determinism can be derived, learned moral systems etc. etc. the 'boomerang effect'...

Yet, some defy outright....how quaint, how precious..How absolutely part of humanity they are too - God bless them.

Dimithy

PDN wrote: »

Because free will has consequences. None of us want to be pre-programmed robots. Why? Because free will is important.

Did Jesus' actions in the story of the loaves and fishes have an effect on the free will of the people he fed?

lmaopml

Dimithy wrote: »

Did Jesus' actions in the story of the loaves and fishes have an effect on the free will of the people he fed?

Yes it did - obviously.

Dimithy

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes it did - obviously.

Surely this is a bad thing, God does not interfere with our free will. This is why were are told he will not feed the starving people around the world, as this would effect our free will.

lmaopml

Dimithy wrote: »

Surely this is a bad thing, God does not interfere with our free will. This is why were are told he will not feed the starving people around the world, as this would effect our free will.

He did a hell of a lot more than feeding the poor with bread, and opening the gates - He asked us to pray, taught us to pray...and yes he does intervene. He holds us directly responsible for the poor, sick, dying, imprisoned too - go figure! Nobody said it was easy.

beerbuddy

Dimithy wrote: »

Surely this is a bad thing, God does not interfere with our free will. This is why were are told he will not feed the starving people around the world, as this would effect our free will.

The Christian answer to this is man determines his own future while the Athiest responce is we dont control it we are prisoners of our genes.Open the prisons they couldnt help themselves.

Who has the weaked standpoint christian or athiest ????

Why not stand up to the plate and say yes man is responsible for his own actions.

Dimithy

beerbuddy wrote: »

Athiest responce is we dont control it we are prisoners of our genes.Open the prisons they couldnt help themselves.

Who has the weaked standpoint christian or athiest ????

Why not stand up to the plate and say yes man is responsible for his own actions.

Please quote 1 atheist saying this.

We are told that god allows people to starve, as to intervene would interfere with free will.
Why did this not apply with the loaves and fish?

And did't the destruction of the tower of babel interfere with our free will?