Religion?

[zmikecuber]

There is nothing that you can possibly say that will change the opinion of any of the atheists here. I'm not sure how many people keep this thread alive out of a genuine interest in debating you, and how many just find your logic, or lack thereof, highly amusing at this point.

ah yes, I noticed that. atheists are pretty narrow minded, eh?

 

[d4m4s74]

Some things can not be explained by science. Take for example, rainbows. Rainbows are a mystery and you can not touch them, just like god. Despite this fact, they are still there even though there is no scientific explanation for them. So next time you find yourself doubting your faith, think of god as a rainbow. I know that this can be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp. It is just like air you can't see it but you know its there.

Is this a joke or what you really believe? I need to know so I can decide whether I have to laugh at or with you

 

[Muesli]

you have a flawed definition of God. God isnt a person in the way we understand a person to be. He didnt create rules. He IS the rules, and we have gone against his essence.

So he's intrinsically good? Have you read the old testament?

He is all forgiving. He forgives people who want to be forgiven. He doesnt punish anyone. People in hell are there because they want to be in hell, because they hate him. We also have a very flawed view of hell... hell isnt the flames its made out to be. Its just a place were God does not come into.

I don't want to go to hell, yet he will send me there because I can't believe in him. I also don't hate god, because I don't believe in him. I can't hate something I don't believe exists.

I dont choose my views on whats most entertaining. I was just making a point that atheism is quite boring in reality. I dont know why anybody would hope that atheism is true...

There's no hoping. It's true until you can prove otherwise, which you haven't and can't until you can demonstrate any gods.

Once again, you have a flawed view of sin. God never orders something evil, because that is self contradictory. God cant sin against Himself because thats a contradiction.

Again, have you read the old testament? Hundreds upon hundreds are people are killed in god's name and by god himself. Read the entire book, not just the bits you like.

thats a quite common mistake. Sin and evil is the absence of God. Like darkness. Darkness doesnt exist. Its just the absence of light. Yet it takes a form. Same with evil.

This all just seems to be wishful thinking. Prove god exists and that sentence would become more than fiction.

 

[Godmil]

Is this a joke or what you really believe? I need to know so I can decide whether I have to laugh at or with you

Don't worry Kirjava isn't that stupid... but he is that sarcastic

 

[d4m4s74]

There is nothing that you can possibly say that will change the opinion of any of the atheists here. I'm not sure how many people keep this thread alive out of a genuine interest in debating you, and how many just find your logic, or lack thereof, highly amusing at this point.

I think you can convert most atheists by giving good, unambiguous, REAL evidence for the existence of god.
I mean. Name any recent (recent as in the time the oldest person on earth has been alive) miracle that can't also be explained by dumb luck or a skilled human being (like the "miracle" on the Hudson can be explained by a skilled pilot)

 

[Specs112]

ah yes, I noticed that. atheists are pretty narrow minded, eh?

No, we'd be completely open to you saying something that you could back up with a rational argument.

Don't worry Kirjava isn't that stupid... but he is that sarcastic

Rule 1 of this site: do not take anything Kir says at face value.

 

[stoic]

Some things can not be explained by science. Take for example, rainbows. Rainbows are a mystery and you can not touch them, just like god. Despite this fact, they are still there even though there is no scientific explanation for them. So next time you find yourself doubting your faith, think of god as a rainbow. I know that this can be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp. It is just like air you can't see it but you know its there.

Dawkins does a pretty decent job of explaining exactly how rainbows occur in his book "Unweaving the Rainbow".

It's a good read, and his central theme is well put-together. (Basically: that explaining how a world without a god works through science - rather than religion and dogma - can increase the beauty of life rather than diminish it)


Edit: doh. I just broke Rule 1

 

[zmikecuber]

Ok, well Peter Kreeft does a very good job explaining first cause as discovered by Thomas Aquinas.

http://peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

Ok, Im done...for now.

 

[chrissyD]

I base my beliefs on evidence and not on what a story book tells me. There is absolutely no evidence of god so to me he does not exist. If people want to spend their lives believing in complete crap then it doesn't bother me and it shouldn't bother them if I don't believe in a made up character.

 

[Rpotts]

I'm truly baffled by the fact that Nihilism is lumped together with Atheism, not believing in a magic wizard man who knows everything has nothing to do with thinking life is trite and pointless.

The bible is not infallible. I dislike how many "devout" believers think they get to decide which parts of the Bible god wrote, which parts are metaphorical, and which parts can be disregarded entirely. If you believe in the Old Testament and the Bible then you better not shave your face, cut the hair around your temples, touch a pig's skin, work on the sabbath, knowingly allow a homosexual to live or allow women to be in public on their period. Also, you should be able to own slaves from neighboring countries, sell your daughter into slavery, murder homosexuals, those who commit adultery, those who don't observe the sabbath and those who use the lord's name in vain etc. Furthermore you can rape any virgin and have yourself a wife that must obey your word til death. Awesome god is awesome.

 

[Specs112]

Ok, well Peter Kreeft does a very good job explaining first cause as discovered by Thomas Aquinas.

http://peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

Ok, Im done...for now.

This argument deserves no response besides condescending laughter. First cause is literally the easiest of your "proofs" to debunk. I'll leave the demonstration to one of the other gentlemen of leisure who is frequenting this thread, as they are no doubt better versed in philosophical debate than I am.

 

[AgentKuo]

Let me reiterate: A lot of people are saying the same things I already said. It's a bit redundant.

Okay, this thread seriously goes too fast for me to follow it all, but I'm gonna give my perspective on three of the major points that people have brought up:

1.The Biblical Flood:
-the flood story predates the Bible by hundreds of years. The first time we see this story is probably in The Epic of Gilgamesh (ancient Mesopotamian mythology). The story was changed from the original mesopotamian one to the Biblical account, with the characters changed, and again changed to include a monotheistic god (Mesopotamian believed in multiple gods). Now because the flood story was around and many different religions and non-religions wrote down an account of it, the possibility that there was an actual flood is very likely. Of course, the flood definitely did not cover the entire earth, and most likely only covered a large portion of land, and because at the time, the world was believed to be flat, and much smaller than we know it is today, the assumption that the whole world was flooded probably seemed very realistic. So that's my take on the flood story.
(I'll also mention that Mesopotamian mythology is one of the biggest precursors, and one of the biggest influences Judaism and Christianity take from -possibly Islam too, but I don't know enough about Islam-)

2.Historical accuracies in the Bible:
-The Bible does have some historical accuracies, there's no question about it. (locations, landmarks, some wars even) However, they are few, and none of the supernatural aspects (god, visions, miracles, etc.), nor the accounts of the life of Christ have any evidence for them. The Bible is not a history book, and it should not be treated as one.

3.The Beginning of the Universe:
-This one I think is kind of pointless to debate. The universe began, that much we know. How it happened we haven't figured out yet. "goddidit" is not an acceptible answer and "sciencprovesit" isn't either.

Ok, well Peter Kreeft does a very good job explaining first cause as discovered by Thomas Aquinas.

http://peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

But who's to say that everything does have significant meaning. I certainly don't believe that.

 

[shelley]

The biblical flood was just an example of many more out there. Even some of its prophecys that have been fulfilled in the last century. Many of these things the education system don't want you to know about.

This is no way to carry on a debate. Without actual examples you're just arguing out of your ass. If you're trying to show the Bible is true, why insist there are things we're not supposed to know about?

Even so, the original argument still stands. Just because one part of the Bible is based on a true event doesn't mean the entire thing is true. And when prophecies are so vaguely written that they can be twisted to fit any event, that's not a prophecy.

A lot of people in our culture just get spoon fed their information believing whatever people who can use long scientific words say. I highly respect people who go out think about what there being talked instead of being indoctrinated.

I hope you see the irony here. The difference is that you can study science and use experiments, observation and scientific reasoning to verify this information for yourself. When people "use long scientific words" to spread misinformation, they can be disproved and discredited. In fact, this is why it is important to be educated and informed about science. This is why creationists' insistence that "alternative theories" need to be taught in science classes in the US is a terrible idea, and it says something about our society when politicians are listening to them.

On the other hand, when people stop taking what their pastor says at face value, start really studying the Bible and looking at religion with a critical eye, what happens?

Also for examples for Shelly, the only ones I could think of on the spot is Galileo and Greek philosophers.

Really? Galileo? Galileo was a scientist. He didn't just one day decide to believe the earth revolved around the sun without any justification. He could prove his beliefs, which arose from observation, were correct. The religious authorities who insisted he was wrong were the ones that persisted in an incorrect belief (that the sun revolved around the earth), could not prove it, and were eventually shown to be wrong.

ah yes, I noticed that. atheists are pretty narrow minded, eh?

What's your religion? When you think about why you subscribe to the beliefs of one religion but not any of the others, that seems pretty narrow minded too. You probably didn't even look into all of them in depth before rejecting them.

As an atheist, I don't see my attitude as narrow minded. In fact, I'm quite open to your ideas as long as they can be defended with reason and/or evidence. If I saw irrefutable evidence that an invisible pink unicorn existed, I would admit I was wrong and change my beliefs in an instant. I just have yet to see that evidence, so I have no reason to believe, any more than I have reason to believe in the Easter Bunny or fairies.

Being open minded doesn't mean you have to take every nonsensical and half baked idea you encounter seriously. As they say, if you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.

 

[asportking]

Arguing about whether God exists or not is pointless. You can't prove without a doubt that God doesn't exist, and neither can you (at least without a miracle) prove that God does exist. The way I see it, even if religion is false, it doesn't make it a BAD thing. Religion can give people morals and ethics on how to be better people. Sure, they might have the occasional "odd" traditions, but so what?

 

[Hershey]

Sure, they might have the occasional "odd" traditions, but so what?

The problem is when stuff like this happens:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...d_abolish_courts_and_legislate_morality_.html

or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_israeli_conflict

and many other things.

 

[Muesli]

Arguing about whether God exists or not is pointless.

No, it's not. Religious belief underpins many politicians legislature and the choices they make in office. If it can be shown that there is no reason to assume a god exists we will have a more rational society and one less prone to making choices based on the voices in their head.

 

[shelley]

Religion can give people morals and ethics on how to be better people. Sure, they might have the occasional "odd" traditions, but so what?

It also gives them justification to be less than good. Killing people in the name of an imaginary god may be an "odd" tradition, but it's nothing to say "so what?" over.

 

[asportking]

It also gives them justification to be less than good. Killing people in the name of an imaginary god may be an "odd" tradition, but it's nothing to say "so what?" over.

So you're saying every religious person believes killing is justified? That's a rediculously small percentage of people; you can't possibly say that religion is bad because of that.

 

[Godmil]

First cause is literally the easiest of your "proofs" to debunk. I'll leave the demonstration to one of the other gentlemen of leisure who is frequenting this thread

It makes it to paragraph 4 before demonstrating it's first logical fallacy: the false dicotemy. 'either there is no first cause or god is the first cause'. It doesn't take into account that the big bang itself could be the first cause, it ignores the fact that if a major premise is that everything must have a cause then God must have a cause (otherwise you have special pleading). Also it assumes if there is a supernatural first cause then it must be the Judeo-Christian god (while if you follow this argument there is no reason why it shouldn't be Chronos, Odin, etc.)... You're right First Cause is a really easy one, I bearly mentioned half of the known logical problems with it.

 

[PatrickJameson]

Quite simply because all other religions lack or err in something which God obviously wouldnt put in His religion.

You might be right. I heard of a passage in a religious book(maybe the Koran) where some children were making fun of a bald man. The bald man cursed them in the name of his lord and right after, two bears came out and tore the children apart. What do you think of that passage?