CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Christianity or Atheism?
Oh no, did I ask the great question that atheists can't stand to hear? Perhaps the negative position may be that the term "atheism" is incorrect? The argument that a person cannot be a christian because of his or her flaws is also quite weak. Christianity will stand the test of time as God is the one and the only. Scientists make scientific errors all of the time. Jesus Christ has never made a mistake and prophecies in the Bible have been and are still being fulfilled today. God has been a gracious Father to provide both the atheist and christian the solid evidence of His truth.
I would also like to point that atheism predates Christianity, destroying your "test of time" argument (which was bullshit to begin with- argumentum ad populum). In fact, by definition, atheism predates religion.
For someone who considers himself so "logical," you're spending an awful lot of time arguing against something you don't believe it. Sound's illogical to me. Seems like if you really had some special logical knowledge than you'd be putting it to better use than prosecuting Christians all day. But hey, that'd only be the logical thing to do, right? :)
And yes Apollo, atheism is a religion. You have chosen your religion according to your belief in what is evedentiary to your presuppositions. I don't blame you for denying atheism as your religion but denying it doesn't prove it exists.
Where is our temples? Where is our prophets? Where is our "holy" scriptures composed from divine beings? Where is our Saints? Where is our angels and demons and spirits and souls and all the things that make up a religion? Where is it all?
Would Richard Dawkins ever acknowledge that his rabid atheism is actually a religious view?
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1
Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:
“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2
However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about “religion”. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.
Atheism creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.
Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural.4 But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun)5; they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also don’t deal with religious movements centred around UFOs—which believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings.
A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart,6 commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.
The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the “secularisation” of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential.
Narrative
Every religion has its stories. Almost all religions have stories explaining where the universe came from and what humanity’s part in it is. Smart calls this Narrative.
Narrative is a particularly important aspect of western Atheism. As the prominent Atheist Richard Dawkins said, referring to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution:
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”7
Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big bang—nothing exploded and became everything); humans evolved from non-human creatures, hence humanity’s place in the cosmos is being just another species of animal. Some have gone so far as to say that humanity is a parasite on earth, and advocate killing up to 90% of humanity.8 There are some who attempt to combine belief in God with belief in evolution, not realizing the foundational nature of evolution’s connection to Atheism.9 The testimony of those who after learning about evolution in “science” reject Christianity should alert church leaders to the incompatibility between evolution and the Gospel.
Experiential
There are two aspects to the experiential dimension. The first is the events experienced before someone founded a religion (for example the Disciples physically saw and touched the bodily resurrected Jesus). It is often asserted that Charles Darwin, after observing evidence from around the world during his voyage on HMS Beagle, developed the theory of evolution. (In reality, he had already learned a version of evolution from his grandfather Erasmus’s book Zoonomia and similar ideas were around at the time).
According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it.
The second aspect of the experiential dimension concerns the experiences of latter adherents. Many people feel certain emotions when they participate in certain religious ceremonies. Atheists often believe that Atheism is freedom from religion, and some Atheists have reported feeling liberated after converting.10 Karl Marx said that the removal of the illusion of happiness by the removal of religion was a step towards true happiness. Atheistic denial of the divine entails denial of an afterlife. If there is no afterlife,11 then ultimately is no higher purpose in life for Atheists than to be happy. According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. In the Humanist Manifesto III, this was changed to finding meaning in relationships. Belief in evolution also causes people to aim for self preservation and to spread their own genes.12
Smart also seems to include “faith” as part of the experiential dimension. The meaning of the word “faith” is often twisted to make it mean things it does not. In Christianity, faith is logical, being defined in Hebrews 1:11 as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is not blindly believing the impossible (which is how many Atheists define faith), but rather trusting the promises of God, whose past promises have all been fulfilled. I would classify Christian faith as part of the doctrinal dimension rather than experiential. On the other hand, Atheism requires “faith” (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution.
Social
The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion, such the Hindu caste system. In missionary religions, it also includes how people get converted and how missionaries go about their work.
Contemporary Atheism has been fueled largely by authors promoting their Atheistic beliefs. In the preface to The God Delusion, Dawkins says,
“If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”
Dawkins is saying he hopes that his book converts “religious” people to his worldview – exactly what a missionary of any religion hopes to do.
Communist countries often made the state religion Atheism, often to the point of persecuting (other) religions.13 This followed from Karl Marx’ statement:
“It [religion] is the opiate of the masses. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.”14
Marxists saw the removal of religion as a step toward true happiness for the common people, although in practice this did not occur, and contemporary critics see Marxism itself as a religion15. (I would contend that Marxism is a sect of a larger religion: Atheism).
Many scientists are high up on the social hierarchy of Atheism because their research enhances their understanding of the world. Particularly honoured are those scientists who write extensively about evolution. Because of this, many scientists include a little about evolution in their research papers, even when there is little or no relevance (one recent example concerns research into the chameleon’s catapult tongue and suction cap; see Created, not evolved)
Atheism is also taught to children in many schools in science classes as evolution. As atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse admits, “evolution is a religion”, and it could be considered the narrative dimension of Atheism. Thus teaching evolution is teaching Atheism. Several Atheists even support teaching lies, as long as the end result is more children believing evolution.16
Doctrinal
Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion (not necessarily being specifically stated in the religious narratives, etc). For example, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, while not directly stated in the Bible, is logically derived from it.
Contemporary Atheism gained popularity in the 18th and 19th centuries, after the “enlightenment”. In 1933, some prominent Atheist philosophers realised the effects the lack of a belief in a god would have on the morals of society and wrote what they believed would be a suitable set of beliefs and goals for a secular society in the 20th century. In doing so, they formed the branch of Atheism known as Secular Humanism. By and large, Atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they don’t know the specifics of the document. After all, many Atheists do want to do what is good.
The doctrines, ethics and goals outlined in the Humanist Manifesto, while being atheistic and accepting evolution as true, are opposite of what would be expected if they were solely derived from the evolutionary narrative. This is because Humanism also makes the assumption that humans are basically good.
In 1973 however, the Humanist Manifesto was updated because of the atrocities that humans inflicted upon other humans during the intervening years (specifically mentioned are Nazism and communist police states).
Ethical
Atheism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as atheists Dawkins and Provine admit. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one.
Some people have taken a further step by creating ethical systems based on the evolutionary narrative and the principle of “survival of the fittest”. People who have lived by such principles include the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre, the Jokela School Shooting in Finland, and on a much larger scale, the Nazis.
Most people (Atheist or not) inherently know that systems that lead to such atrocities must be wrong, but Atheists cannot give a logical reason for why it is wrong. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” It was also graphically shown when two evolutionists wrote a book claiming that rape is an evolutionary mechanism to spread male genes—and see how one of them squirmed to justify why he agreed that rape is objectively wrong under his philosophy.
A world governed purely by Atheistic, evolutionary ethics has been shown by history to be a horrible place to live. Most Atheists recognise this and choose to live by the ethical systems of other religions instead, or at the very least, live by the laws enforced by the government.
Ritual
Ritual is the only dimension which on the surface might appear to be absent from the religion of Atheism. In some religions, rituals have meanings attached to them, such as Passover commemorating the Israelites’ escape from Egypt. Because Atheism is a relatively recent movement, it doesn’t have much of a history to commemorate. In other religions, rituals such as sacrifices and dances are done to appease the gods or the spirits. Because Atheism denies the existence of gods and spirits, it doesn’t have the second type of ritual either. Many Atheists do practice “secular rituals” such as their birthday celebrations, or the ‘ritual holidays’ of other religions such as the Christmas and Easter public holidays of Christianity, but this is usually to simply maintain the tradition of a public holiday, and the original meaning of the celebrations are rejected. It’s noteworthy that in recent years, the atheists’ public commemoration of the anniversary of Darwin’s birth each February (and even of the publication of his Origin of Species in November), along with calls for the general public to do the same, is rapidly becoming something of an annual ritual, even in some “churches”. One might even say that this modern Atheistic commemoration is being ‘celebrated’ with greater fervour and passion than many longstanding religious rituals.
Material
While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.
The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.
There are two extremes in the range of ideas held by Atheists on the ‘material’:
natural resources are here to be exploited because of “survival of the fittest” and humans are obviously the fittest species; or
we should respect all of nature, particularly living things because to kill them is tantamount to murdering a cousin. This second view essentially holds that all life is ‘sacred’.
Both ideas can be derived from the evolutionary narrative, but views tending towards the second idea are more prevalent than the views tending towards the first. But as G.K. Chesterton said a century ago:
“Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. … The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.”
An Atheist’s view of the material dimension is strongly influenced by their view of the ethical dimension.
Conclusion
Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a “hairstyle”. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.
I insist that I have stated my opinion from the very get go. You must prove that your answer is worthy of an answer now and then I just might answer it.
I can go on a lot longer if we're going to play this game.
Albert Einstein was never a Christian.
Darwin - Discovered the Theory of Evolution by natural selection
Sigmund Freude is the father of psychoanalysis (which you're in dire need of, by the way).
Sir. Patrick Bateson FRS is the Emeritus Professor of ethology at Cambridge University, UK, and the president of the Zoological Society of London.
Paul D. Boyer. A biochemist and Nobel Laureat in Chemistry.
Francis Crick is the English molecular biologist, physicist and neuroscientist who discovered the DNA molecule at Cambridge University and is a Nobel Laureate.
Thomas Edison, who is arguably one of the most celebrated inventors in history and has patented over 1,000 inventions to his name.
Richard Feynman is an American theoretical physicist, most renowned for renormalising Quantum electrodynamics and his path integral formulation of quantum mechanics.
Alan Guth American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who helped formulate the Theory of Cosmic Inflation.
W.D. Hamilton, a British evolutionary biologist, regarded in the academic circle as one of the greatest theorists of the 20th Century.
Stephen Hawking needs no introduction.
Peter Higgs is a British theoretical physicist and is most famous for the existence of the Higgs boson particle or "God particle".
Sir. Julian Huxley is a British evolutionary biologist, the first UNESCO Director and founder of the World Wildlife Fund.
Pierre-Simon Laplace was a French mathematician and astronomer, who lived in the 1700s, widely regarded for his correct prediction of galaxies apart from the Milky way and the existence of black holes.
Sir. Peter Medawar is a Nobel Laureate best known for his ground-breaking work on the immune system and tissue transplant.
Sir. Roger Penrose an English mathematical physicist, Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He worked with Stephen Hawking to contribute to general relativity and cosmology.
Alan Turing is the English mathematician, logician and cryptographer who invented the computer.
I can go on and on, but I don't think I need to for obvious reasons. And by the way, Sir Isaac Newton's religion was what stopped him from developing calculus to what it is today. Laplace took his work and came up with the Laplace Complex, without which modern cosmology wouldn't have advanced.
Okay, so you are being hateful because we disagree. I would give you a drink if you wanted it. I am a kind person who loves everyone. Call me a baby, whatever. I still don't dislike you because we disagree.
Why is it .....................I feel like you are not an Agnostic and just stated something like a complete fact? If I said something like that you would say the same.
No, I am just tired. But yes all religions are man made and I have already stated this. If I am terrible at this, I am sure am doing pretty good for my first day. ; )
How do you think you're doing good? Go ahead and make a debate asking everyone if they you're a good debater. I'm sure you'll find the replies interesting.
Then how is atheism wrong if it's man made, but Christianity is not if it's man made too?
I am not interested in what everyone thinks. This is what you must realize. Only followers worry about things like that. I am an individual who doesn't need anyone else's approval. It's me against the world when it comes to me proclaiming Jesus. Of course, I will join hands with those who deny him in prayer or just to let them know I care. We must be still talking because, well - I don't know. But either way, take care.
I am not interested in what everyone thinks. This is what you must realize. Only followers worry about things like that. I am an individual who doesn't need anyone else's approval. It's me against the world when it comes to me proclaiming Jesus. Of course, I will join hands with those who deny him in prayer or just to let them know I care. We must be still talking because, well - I don't know. But either way, take care.
You are ignoring the argument I made and rambling about why you're such an amazing person. I though you were only supposed to worship god? So why are you worshiping yourself and bragging?
You are being hateful and contrite by stating what you just said. I never said I was amazing but God has made me amazing. I am beauty from ashes now and you can be that too. I do only worship God but God is in me so I do have love for others because God is love. I am not bragging and I am sorry if you feel I am. I must go to sleep now but will check in tomorrow.
I am not being hateful. Not at all. I'm being honest from what I've observed.
LOL, I don't want to be from ashes X)
Anyway, I don't want to continue talking with you about religion. Any other topic maybe, but talking to you about religion is just running in circles, and it's gotten boring. I'm done with that.
I've not gotten a message. Check to make sure you didn't send it to yourself. EVERYONE does it at some point, but we all did it a lot when we started. It's easy to do.
I think it's more accurate to say non-theism predated religion. Atheism is just a rejection of the belief of all religions. Non-theist eventually explained things with deities, gods, whatever supernatural beings and created cults/religions and some people disagreed with their ideas and became atheists to that particular religion.
Atheism isn't a religion, its a lack thereof. We are all atheists in a sense. Do you believe in Allah, or Zeus, Thor, Shiva, or any other Gods of various other religions, no? Then you are an atheist towards them, much like how I'm going one step further in saying that i don't believe in the christian god.
Oh i wasnt replying to you i was replying to Apollo. He said that the fallacy in "Christianity and the test of time" was ad populum, but it is really chronological snobbery.
To my knowledge, that was the fallacy that because idea x predates idea y, idea x must be inferior to idea y. It is ad populum because he/she claimed that because many people have believed in it (for a long period of time), it is true.
Example of ad populum: five million people believe idea x, thus x is true
Example of chronological snobbery: idea x has been around for five thousand years, while idea y was just recently invented. Therefore x is true and y is false. (assuming that both y and x cannot be true at the same time)
The former assumes something is true or false based on how many people think it is true or false, while the latter assumes something is true or false based on how old or new it is. Ad populum usually does accompany chronological snobbery, but they are still two distinct fallacies.
The fallacy is false because you are incoherant as to where idea y actually was predated before idea x. Just think about it. The ad populum has no proof of what anyone believed.
Apollo....your statement is contradictory. How can you have a rejection of religion or God, if neither exists yet? That's like saying that sailboats predate water.
That's not what atheism is. Atheism is disbelief in the existence of god (or gods).
How can one believe something that doesn't exist? It is like saying that not being a soccer fan predates the invention of soccer. How can one be a fan of a sport that doesn't exist? We are all born atheists...
As for the "atheism" existed before Christianity argumentators,
You are all correct: The Dinosaurs, cockroaches, and apes that preceded us did not have the brain power to form religions as we do.
And it is sad that this is your best argument against atheism, why? because by doing so you all are already claiming that Atheism existed before God, meaning there was a time that God did not exist. After all, according to some old person: "I think therefore I am" meaning God HAD to have believed in himself and what he was doing in order to have existed, because according to christian doctrine, "God is eternal and sees and IS the past present and future, meaning there has and always was Christianity!"
But by claiming Atheism existed before Christianity, all of you are rejecting doctrine that God is eternal (Or you are claiming that God really has no idea what the fuck he his doing and just creates random shit just to see what it does), meaning that to everyone who has agreed to this argument and are Christians:
Congratulations! You have just created a new offshoot of Christianity:
Here I'll help you name it: Hypocrisy At it's Finest. or H.A.I.F Christianity.
-The name of the church is called: God is not eternal as According to us Atheism existed before God therefore SOME of the christian doctrine, including half the Bible is wrong on some and or many parts.
-Mass starts at 7 AM, those who fail to attend will burn in hell.
Children are happy believing in fairy tales, that doesn't make them true. Wanting something to be true because you're afraid of the truth won't make it so.
Well, as an active Pastafarian, I am disappointed at the lack of recognition of our religion. Along with Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Roman mythology, Greek mythology, Norse mythology, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Egyptian mythology, and Buddhism.
But seeing as I am a theist, I must be on this side.
Don't you wish there was a sarcasm feature on the internet?
There is no prejudice in you choosing to be religious. I am a Christian and I am not religious, but quite spiritual. The religions you speak of have nothing to do with a spiritual belief thus you and your religion are excluded from being part of Christianity.
I'm offended that you left out the other religions. My relationship with the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as strong as yours with God. I have been touched by his noodly appendage, and I ask you to join me.
This is the most idiotic debate i have ever seen. HOW you tell me please hoe did we get so perfect were the earth and sun and moon is in the right spot and are bodys function perfectly are hands made distinctively. Cause we were made after his own image.
The Universe is a big place, no, REALLY big. That means that chemicals can mix in all sorts of ways in many different places. In most of those places nothing comes of it, millions upon millions of dead star systems. In a few (at least one) the conditions for life are just right, with a sun of the right temperature, a planet at the right distance and made of the right mix of chemicals.
This planet and star are perfect for us because this was the one that had the right conditions for us to exist. It's silly to argue that god must exist because of how perfect this is, it's perfect because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here, you don't need a god in the picture to explain that.
HOW you tell me please hoe did we get so perfect were the earth and sun and moon is in the right spot and are bodys function perfectly are hands made distinctively. Cause we were made after his own image.
Aah, the teleological argument. It has been so mercilessly obliterated in so many different ways, I must share all of them.
1. The Ultimate 747 Gambit. Proposed by Richard Dawkins, it states that a designer complex enough to create complex life would need that complexity from an infinitely more complex designer. This leads to infinite regress.
2. The universe is wasteful. We can estimate that there 3x10^21 planets in the universe. Yet we only know one that has life. What sort of intelligent designer would be so wasteful with his design?
3. Careless designer. Much is made of the "fine tuning" of the universe. If we change just one number, life would be impossible. This is supposed to be evidence for God. But I say the opposite is true. Why would an omniscient God, who has the knowledge to create a perfect universe, and an omnipotent God, who has the power to create a perfect universe, create one on such a precarious knife edge? Moreover, if we are referring to Christianity, their God would be omnibenevolent, and have the desire to create a perfect universe.
4. Complexity does not imply design. Being ignorant of something does not make it designed.
5. Occam's Razor. We have a fairly decent understanding of how everything works. Implementing God violates Occam's Razor.
I didn't mention the multiverse, we already have M-theory and QLG to explain the universe. So God does violate Occam's Razor in comparison to those two models.
Guess what, when I'm on my death bed taking my last breath, I'll be the most content person on this Earth. That's because I'll have no doubt in the back of my mind that I should not have to worry because I take the time in my life to practice my religion. I will have an inner joy and ecstasy with the thought of going to a perfect place. And what does it hurt to think like that? I sure wouldn't want to be the Atheist who decides in their final moments that maybe there actually is a God and then have to plead for forgiveness. No sir, I'm going to set myself up for a joyful passing. If you don't want to ensure that in yourself, be my guest. But you better be pretty darn sure of it.
Atheists rely on proof even though they have none... So if my religion has no proof so that gives your religion proof atheists? Makes no sense. Where atheists have nothing to back themselves up with, when Christians do. And the thing they have to back themselves up with is the Bible, what do the atheists have? Evolution? Everyone knows evolution is a load of crap.
So if my religion has no proof so that gives your religion proof atheists?
Saying atheism is a religion is like saying not playing soccer is a sport.
Makes no sense.
I agree, your logic makes no sense.
Where atheists have nothing to back themselves up with
What are atheists backing up? God's nonexistence? Atheist aren't claiming god's non-existence (thanks ThePyg), they look at the evidence given for a belief (or lack thereof) and and form a belief accordingly. Christians have no evidence their god exists, so atheists realize it is illogical to believe in something that has no evidence backing it. It asserts nothing so it needs defend nothing.
when Christians do.
HA! Like what?
the thing they have to back themselves up with is the Bible
Ahh. The bullshit bible?
The bible contradicts itself THOUSANDS of times. It is, therefore, not fact. It is full of historical inaccuracies, scientific impossibilities, self-refuatitions, etc. All of this means the bible is not in any sense of the word, fact. If I write down in a book that I am both 32 and 600 years old and claim that they are both facts, I would be labeled INSANE. If that book is the bible, however, I will be called a Christian.
Everyone knows evolution is a load of crap.
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
This is too good. Disprove evolution. 100% of gathered evidence supports evolution. 99.99% of the scientific community accepts it as fact. Creationism is bullshit.
Why do you ask Christians for proof all the time? You are using such a cliche' response when stating about atheism in reference to a sport. If black is a color then atheism is a religion. It is logically impossible to have no beliefs. Get with the program.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one with the positive assertion, that's why.
The lack of belief is not a belief.
Saying it's logically impossible to not have any beliefs requires you to now define what you mean by "beliefs".
I, myself, go by knowledge and ideas. I don't have beliefs. Then again, we could be defining the word "belief" differently.
In any case, atheists do NOT believe in any god, and most will tell you they also don't posit any religion. That's what you can really know, so no, atheism is NOT a religion.
No, if a mirror has a colour then atheism is a religion. Black is a colour, just as much as red or blue.
And proof is needed where a claim is made. Atheisms make no claim, therefore no proof is needed. Why do you ask for proof all the time, yet provide none?
Also, in the future, I have two suggestions. Try to be less condescending. And quote the arguments you're disputing, and address each sentence, or whatever, individually. Both of those should help you be a better debater :)
100% of evidence supports micro evolution, there is a difference between that and life coming from some sort of "primordial soup", something that atheistic scientists are scrambling to prove because quite frankly all their ideas about how such a mechanism would work fall horribly short.
1. If you are somehow using science's lack on an explanation as evidence for god, that is the God of Gaps fallacy.
2. You are right. There is no scientific explanation.
But we know many things.
a. the molecules needed to form basic membranes existed.
b. the molecules needed to form RNA nucleotides existed. Not only do we know that, science has shown that RNA nucleotides (the building blocks necessary for life) can be formed in early earth conditions.
With a membrane and functioning RNA, you have a primitive form or Archaea.
all their ideas about how such a mechanism would work fall horribly short.
"99.99% of the scientific community accepts it as fact. Creationism is bullshit."
This coming from someone who believes all of humanity formed from a primordial soup that just happened to be laying in the right spot at the right time. You do realize how stupid that sounds, right? Your credibility just gets better and better. :O
Wouldn't you agree that we were created by God and evolved? Like, you can say, I think it is possible for us to have evolved because we stopped evolving at the right moment, this can be criticized but you can still say that because it does not contradict science but rather, it merges perfectly. Creationism and Evolution are compatible.
I'm not sure if I believe in any evolution at all, but I can say with absolute certainty I don't believe in total evolution. I believe humans and animals can learn to adapt to their environments, but that's about it. As for the idea that we share a common ancestor with monkeys, that's ludicrous, and not just because I'm a Christian. The whole theory of evolution makes no sense. If evolution is real, why are there still monkeys? For that matter, what are other animals? Are they "humans" that haven't evolved yet?
actually, we did not come from monkeys, we evolved from one origin and the monkeys evolved from the same origin. It's kind of like father's son= man father's brother's son=monkey. At least that is what I learnt.
To say that humans and monkeys both came from God is what I believe too, if that's what you're saying. But to believe that two separate species originated from one primordial soup is too far-fetched for me.
Hey hey no need to call creationism bullshit. Evolution being true, does not mean creationism is incorrect, in fact, Islamic creationism is compatible with some aspects of evolution, (I know this side is Christian but I am still taking it) The Quar'an says: 6 ayums, here, ayum is a stage in the creation of the Universe not necessarily 24 hours. Islam has its own school of evolutionary creation. More amazingly there were Muslim scientists way before Darwin who had concepts of evolution. In the 13th century, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi explains how the elements evolved into minerals, then plants, then animals, and then humans. Tusi then goes on to explain how hereditary variability was an important factor for biological evolution of living things:[1
"The organisms that can gain the new features faster are more variable. As a result, they gain advantages over other creatures. [...] The bodies are changing as a result of the internal and external interactions." See, maybe Adam and evolution both existed.
Yes, they claim they have proof and I don't even see the common sense in arguing with a book - the Holy Bible who stands the test of time. You are exactly right, how they defend theirselves really turns them into hypocrites. They have no basis to stand on.
Well , if I'm not wrong , Atheism is that they don't believe in God . Prove me if I'm wrong . But in my view , no one can pretty much prove that God exist UNLESS you experience His love . And yes , i have experience His love for me . And not just me , for EVERYONE . Once ? No . Twice ? No . Thrice ? No . Well how about 4 times ? No . More than those . I have experienced God's love AND mercy . And His presence too . Probably this is just ONE of the reason why i still love God . I have felt Him that I have no reason not to love Him anymore . And I am not saying that I'm perfect . In fact , i still sin . But i repent . Not easy but with God nothing is impossible ( Luke 1:37 ) . And only by our Heavenly Father that we will go to His kingdom . John 3:16 " For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life " . God bless guys :D !
I was raised in a Freewill Baptist Church and was lucky to encounter a church full of people who were actually kind and practiced what they preached. Now, I consider myself a non-denominational who still wholly believes in the beliefs and teachings of the Christians, only now I see it like this: I believe in God, not religion.
If God doesn't exist, how come there are loads of predictions, sent by God, written thousands of years before Jesus saying exactly what happened to Jesus?
Atheism is based on science, but faith is based on the soul. An atheist is always looking for the absence of God, but religious person just believes. Atheism should be constantly fed, but faith shouldn't be.
Although I'm religious person, I think atheist can stand to hear besause everyone is indepent and everyone has to have his own opinion.
Christianity strives to promote better morals and ethics. What does atheism contribute? Nothing. To believe that one should follow the ways of Christ, what harm is there. Real or not, Christ is still a better example to follow than any atheist. For a ideology to be better than any human must really piss off those that fall way short of it.
I am glad to see theists embracing that the only logical position to be a theist is from a moral perspective, as you're eventually giving up your position that theism is truth. But does Christianity really strive to promote better morals and ethics, or its own morals and ethics? It supports domestic abuse, racism, torture, homicide, and a vast number of other such horrors.
And your entire moral argument is a straw man. Atheism promotes no moral code because it promotes nothing. That is not to say that atheists have no moral code, simply that it does not come from a crazy belief (that at least 5.5 billion people have wrong - 7 billion total, largest religious group is 1.5 billion).
It does not promote any of those things...Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version (NIV)
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Yes, I agree that the vast majority of the Bible does support good practices. But, when a book is supposed to be written by God, and commands the attention of billions of people, I don't accept a single quote that goes against what I feel is morally correct.
The first claim you made is in no way true. Even if you consider the moral propositions of the bible false, you cannot have any moral propositions without a universal, invariant, immaterial mind from which they are derived. And for that, I apologize Christianity does not suit your specific moral needs. Perhaps if you pray, God will adapt. Plus, I would like NT references for the claims you dropped about what the Bible does/does not support.
Back on track: There are plenty of logical arguments for the existence of God. In fact, one of the best is the TAG, which asks why we should accept logic in the first place? It is strange that it exists; what determines its validity, is it universal, and is it a reliable mode for determining what is true? And Why? Of course, being a Christian I can accept the validity of logic because it is the way God operates intelectually, and being created in his image, I should also operate like him.
The first claim you made is in no way true. Even if you consider the moral propositions of the bible false, you cannot have any moral propositions without a universal, invariant, immaterial mind from which they are derived. And for that, I apologize Christianity does not suit your specific moral needs. Perhaps if you pray, God will adapt. Plus, I would like NT references for the claims you dropped about what the Bible does/does not support.
OK, I'll change my tune. Anyone who thinks that murder is wrong, disagrees with God's actions. They therefore believe that God is immoral. I'm not going to quote exact references to God killing people, it happens often, if you have any experience with the bible at all, you would know this.
In fact, one of the best is the TAG, which asks why we should accept logic in the first place?
TAG doesn't work though. You haven't proved that all knowledge comes from God, or is reliant on him. I could just as easily argue that as God is all powerful, he would break all logical laws, and therefore the existence of logic defies God. Zero proof.
Atheism is just a man made religion which adheres to destroying the of any belief system which is contrary to the atheist's beliefs. Atheism IS an immoral system. Romans 1 verses 28 through 32 states "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder,...."
What the fuck are you talking about? Open a dictionary and stop embarrassing yourself.
Atheism is just a man made religion
1. All belief systems are man made.
2. Atheism predates all religion.
3. Atheism is not a religion. By that logic, not playing piano makes you a pianist, not watching Star Trek makes you a Trekkie, and being a virgin makes you a sex machine.
adheres to destroying the of any belief system which is contrary to the atheist's beliefs.
Wrong again. In its most general form, atheism is the lack of belief in God(s). Destruction of other systems doesn't even come into it.
Atheism IS an immoral system
I will pose to you the challenge that Christopher Hitchens used. Tell me one moral action that can be done by a theist, but not by an atheist (I guarantee it will take you a while). Now think of an immoral action that can be done by a theist, but not an atheist. I've already thought of several.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder,...."
Yup, a perfect description of most of the "main characters" of the Bible.
I have a nice story to tell of the madness of atheism! Okay, okay, okay everyone be quiet so I can tell the story! Alright Man1 is Atheism, Man2 is Christianity! Man1 says in front of a crowd- "There is no exact truth!!!" and Man2 responds with- "Is that the exact truth?" Good story huh? I thought it was good.
A dictionary only gives definition of words and doesn't explain the idiocracy of atheism. On the other hand, the Bible contains the knowledge and wisdom that every man on this earth needs daily. No, you are wrong about all belief systems being man made and I am sure you cannot prove that or you would have to be "god." Atheism is a religion. Do your homework.
If atheism didn't adhere to destroying other belief systems, then why do you atheists spend so much time studying the Holy Bible and attempting to discredit it? Could it be that you really do believe in the Bible but you are just attention seekers? One example of a Christian being moral is not being "of the world" and rejecting the filth of the world and being a light unto others. Atheists are as bad as liberals. Now, that's the next topic and I bet you are a liberal, lol. Wrong, that Bible verse is about non-Christians which you would fall into that category. Even some Christians do as we are all fleshly. The difference is that Christians want to be obedient and strive for it daily.
A dictionary only gives definition of words and doesn't explain the idiocracy of atheism.
Yes, but when you insult a system which you have no understanding of, a dictionary is very useful indeed. Read this, it proves how ignorant your point is.
No, you are wrong about all belief systems being man made
How? Belief is subjective, it doesn't exist without humanity.
I am sure you cannot prove that or you would have to be "god."
Why?
Atheism is a religion. Do your homework.
Let me ask you a question: do you play piano?
If atheism didn't adhere to destroying other belief systems, then why do you atheists spend so much time studying the Holy Bible and attempting to discredit it?
We may have some common ground here. I believe that the Bible is the greatest piece of literature humanity has ever produced. But this is where our vies diverge. To me, it is fiction, and to you, it is non-fiction. As for trying to discredit it, we don't have to try. Any book that says plants came before the Sun does a pretty fine job of discrediting itself.
Could it be that you really do believe in the Bible but you are just attention seekers?
No, no it couldn't. I refuse to believe in a book that has children put to death for cheeking their parents. I'd be completely screwed if I believed it!
Atheists are as bad as liberals. Now, that's the next topic and I bet you are a liberal, lol.
Please explain to me why atheists are so unoriginal and love to refer to the Bible. If you didn't believe in the Bible, then why do you atheists love to use references from it? If the Bible weren't true, then you would not need to use references from it. It's evident you believe in Jesus Christ or you wouldn't be referencing Him.
No he did not. He claimed that Christians believe in the bible.
If you want to convince someone they're wrong, you must use sources that they accept as fact. Therefore, to convince Christians they're wrong, using the bible is a valid method, and the Atheist themselves does not need to believe in the bible. Essentially, you're wrong.
We may have some common ground here. I believe that the Bible is the greatest piece of literature humanity has ever produced. But this is where our vies diverge. To me, it is fiction, and to you, it is non-fiction. As for trying to discredit it, we don't have to try. Any book that says plants came before the Sun does a pretty fine job of discrediting itself.
He said it's a fictional piece of literature. Either you don't understand English, or you're in denial, or both. Which one is it?
You are exactly right. I don't see why any person(s) would choose to follow a belief that they have to spend their life defending based on human data. Yes, the ideology is an attribute that just makes some cringe. I find the atheist arguments to be so repetitive. If these Atheists don't believe in God, I don't understand why they take the time to find out why they don't. They must have questions in their own minds.
I don't see why any person(s) would choose to follow a belief that they have to spend their life defending based on human data.
You mean defending evidence that we've found? It's not hard to defend proof.
I find the atheist arguments to be so repetitive.
The same thing could be said about Christians. All I tend to hear from Christians is "It's what the bible says", very repetitive and lacking of evidence.
If these Atheists don't believe in God, I don't understand why they take the time to find out why they don't. They must have questions in their own minds.
Of course people have questions in their minds. Everyone does. And people take the time to discover how things came to be, not to prove that what they think is right. Just to further expand their minds and learn.
You mean defending evidence that we've found? It's not hard to defend proof.
Why would you have to defend solid evidence?
The same thing could be said about Christians. All I tend to hear from Christians is "It's what the bible says", very repetitive and lacking of evidence.
Yes, it is because that is what the Bible says.
Of course people have questions in their minds. Everyone does. And people take the time to discover how things came to be, not to prove that what they think is right. Just to further expand their minds and learn.If you read the Bible, you wouldn't have to spend so much time figuring out how things came to be.
Let me explain part of the reason is NOT evidence, I believe these words are from Apollo:
"Why do you believe in God"
"Because the bible says to"
"Who wrote the bible?"
"God"
Do you see the problem with that? It's a circle and holds no proof whatsoever.
If you read the Bible, you wouldn't have to spend so much time figuring out how things came to be.
How do you know I've not read the bible? And I refuse to follow a religion where killing, rape, and slavery are condoned. Your bible talks about all those things and more.
You need to read the Bible. In the Old Testament, many horrific acts happened. It's a shame that God's people were acting just as much as the world is today but God didn't allow that to happen for long - and then he flooded the world and started a new civilization. He is coming back and He is coming with a wrath. And by the way, the Bible was written by men whom were inspired by God.
Have you ever read the bible in it's entirety? From the way you respond to "long arguments" on here, I highly doubt it.
God, men inspired by god, not much of a difference. And that would make the argument that the bible is evidence more lacking in my mind. Those men "inspired" by god could easily have altered whatever they wanted. Not to mention how old the book is and that it's been translated, anyone along the way could have altered it.
Sure sure, god's coming back. Whatever. Satan is bringing whipped cream.
Even if you think I am uneducated, I am still going to have eternal life with Jesus. It's impossible for any man to understand all of the Bible though I do study it often as well as spend time in prayer with Jesus. There is a difference. Men wrote the book but God inspired them. The men literally wrote it through God's inspiration. Don't try and back out of your own mistake. No, those men who wrote the Bible had the Holy Spirit in them and the Holy Spirit is honest. So no, it's impossible that they could have altered it. Man, here on earth, even some preachers - do alter the Word. That's why God says we are to test the spirits to see which ones are good. Well, Jesus will return. You still have time to repent, just remember that and stop trying to portray yourself as some billy bad a@@ because you really are like much of the world "a follower of the world. That is completely unoriginal and a sell-out.
Stop trying to SHOVE your belief down my throat. It's really rude. Even if you think you're doing good, you're not. It's rude, and it can be really annoying to most people.
I'm not trying to "back out" of anything. I don't believe in God, so I believe those men wrote whatever the hell they wanted.
I'm not trying to act like anything. And do you think calling me unoriginal and a sell-out is succeeding in anything? lol Seriously, what do you think you're accomplishing right now? X)
It doesn't matter if I am new here or not. I will not change. I would never bend to any members who here who are "of the world" anyways. I am not shoving anything down any person's throat. I am stating why I support Christianity and what it means to non-believers. You don't have to read any of my debates if you can't handle them. You keep believing what you want but you will think about what I have said. The seed has been planted and Jesus wants you to be one of His. He wants you to just stop fighting it and turn your life over to Him. You don't have to live in anger, you don't have to hurt in this world, He will carry all of your burdens for you. It's your choice. What I accomplish is irrelevant although I do know I have accomplished the planting of the seed of Jesus Christ in you. Salvation is a free gift and if you accept it, you will experience life like never before. Well, take care.
What the hell did I say about anyone changing? I don't want you to change. You're a Christian, and that's your choice. And that's not what I meant by saying you're new, I meant your lack of idea of how to debate.
How is talking about the "joys" of being a Christian, and why I should be one and how wrong I am for not being one NOT shoving your religion down my throat?
You haven't planted any "seed". lol You are not, by any means, the first Christian who has tried to convert me. My mother has been trying to convert me nearly all my life. Anything you say or do won't plant a seed of doubt or anything in my mind.
You said I couldn't convert you and I let you know I won't change how I am. I don't care how you all debate. I do it MY way. I am not shoving anything down your throat. Nothing you aren't coming back for - to hear. If you didn't want to hear me, you wouldn't keep conversing with me. Yes, I have planted the seed of Christ and whether it grows or not, remains to be seen. I do think I could really plant a seed if I were able to share my full testimony with you but I refuse to do that here. Really, try and be open and not hostile against me. You must be very young? I don't know but I do enjoy speaking with you. I am starting to get tired though. Will be up a little longer.
What kind of "man" especially an evil one as it seems you are suggesting would write about a heaven where there is no sex? Or tell of their own faults repeatedly? No men are lustful and prideful and no worldly man would do these things, none of Jesus disciples gained anything in this life, money, power, prestige? No they were dirt poor, the lowest of the low, and they were executed most brutally.
It would not seem like it. Real debate requires the use of logic and supporting evidence, something which is dearth in your fallacious arguments. Don't attempt to cover up or prevaricate when people argue opposing views (with evidence, quite often), counter their evidence with more evidence.
Debating with an atheist is just impossible. I will enjoy a different topic as I am bored with the repetitiveness of atheists. It's just a bunch of rhetoric. God is and will always be the Only God.
i'm not a Christianity but i mean if your a Christianity, you really can't argue with them at all unless your argument is base on on the same subject. kinda of like Street fighting and UFC. different platform.
That site you provided is making a whole lotta noise without actually saying anything worthwhile. It all boils down to "humans don't know this, so God did it". I wonder if the author actually knows that we do have two theories of everything already. God has no more gaps left to hide in.
PS: Their use of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is laughably bad. Magic does not solve it.
Sigh, about 4 other people have shown me that before. I'll rebut the points of the site.
Intelligent design in biology
There is no need for a God here. Starting with abiogenesis, evolution through natural selection explains biology without God.
Law of physics
Firstly, the event need only happen once. So, no matter how unlikely, the odds are slashed by occurrence. Secondly, complexity does not imply design. Ignorance of something does not then necessitate a leap to the supernatural. And thirdly, I think this could be turned against God in a way which I don't think has been spotted yet. I need a name for the argument, but allow me to present it.
1. If God exists, then he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
2. If God is omnipotent, then he has the power to create a perfect universe.
3. If God is omniscient, then he knows how to create a perfect universe.
3. If God is omnibenevolent, then he has the desire to create a perfect universe.
4. The universe is not perfect.
Ergo
5. God does not exist.
Now, what do I mean by "perfect universe"? I mean a universe where all the conditions are comfortable for humanity. That would be a universe with no black holes, or Andromeda collisions, or the arbitrary constants that we depend on for existence. I am not referring to morality. I am referring to God's efficiency.
The other points were tied to the two I highlighted, so don't accuse me of cherry picking.
1. If God does not exist, Objective Morality does not exist.
2. Objective Morality exists.
C: Therefore, God exists.
Most people already accept the truthfulness of both premises. And, since the argument is logically valid, the conclusion also follows from the premises.
Dispute over P1:
Imagine if God does not exist. Empirically, we have been able to explain phenomena through scientific means which satisfy most people. However, the rigor and agressiveness of atheistic science movements have removed the 'humanity' from being human; there is no blatant reason not to kill another person in cold blood, or play tennis with the decapitated heads of babies. To assume otherwise would be committing a fallacy; after all, we are only the composition of our parts. Killing a human being would be no different from smashing a bug, or hurting the enviroment, or even damaging a rock. Evolutionary Psychology attempts to explain morality through evolutionary means, that is, what ever helps you survive is moral. But this renders it arbitrary in logical debate, as it assumes one "ought" operate in accord with his evolutionary psychology, which is a moral statement that requires one to identify a person as a whole, and not the composition of his parts.
By contrast, if God exists, everyone has a soul, and we can derive our senses of goodness from the way he would have acted towards humans. We would derive our morality from our creator.
Defending P2:
I'm sure a lot of people who are hardcore, internet trolling atheists might just abandon the idea of objective morality all-together to avoid the horrible conclusion of God. Now, I really don't have time for moral relativists, as political discussions immediately turn stale due to the fact no action is truly beneficial to the lives of those affected. But imagine if there were no true "ought" statements. "Ought" we believe science? Of course! It helps us understand creation (or the Universe). "Ought" we think rationally? Why, yes! I would imagine society would love it if we could operate in ways that are predictable and make sense. What I am getting at here is that nobody really operates as if objective morality doesn't exist; they feel bad when they things that they perceive as wrong, and would rather not kill other people even if it means they would benefit themselves. To accept morality is relative is to deny your worldview and succumb to mere animal behavior, devoid of rational. We "ought" to think rationally, and only listen to arguments that are true, not just appealing. If not, why not believe in heaven?
The Christian God loves his people enough to send His Son for us. Its the deepest expression of his love. thats why Jesus says John 3:16- For God so loved the world that he gave his only BEGOTTEN SON that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
which means that he gave his one Son to atone for our sins. He handed overhis son as an offering to take our place for our iniquities and shortcomings. This action is consistent with God's personality. it makes sense as to why he would go through all the trouble to save us because he made us in his image for the sole purpose of interaction see Genesis 1:26.
"Your God is so gracious and forgiving he sends people to burn for eternity if they dont belive in him"
His loving personality allows him to forgive any and every sin that is done on earth. some sins in the eyes of men are simply unforgiveable but in the eyes of the Christian God every sin is forgiveable
A senseless and unneeded torture of his own son is an expression of love?
-- casper3912(1160)
I like how you look at the sacrifice of God's son from a pecimistic perspective. If you look at it as senseless torture (which means Jesus endeavor amounted to nothing) then of course you wont see as an expression of love. Let me ask you a question:
How many people do you know are willing to die for you like that?
Im sure you have a very short list. But jesus loved everyone so much he was willing to lower himself and suffer death on the cross. Read Philippians 2:5-11 and it will be put in perspective.
Jesus said it himself when he said the greatest measure of love is to lay down your life for your friends.
What is a mortal's sin to such a being as god? Is it truly deserving of a never ending punishment?
God is higher than us in all ways imaginable so naturally he has a higher sense of morality. I can put it this way: think of a police officer whos job demands a higher sense of morality and a normal civilian. The cop is naturally going to do things a civilian wouldnt, like step in the way of danger, break up dangerous disputes etc. If he didnt you would be disappointed. Wouldnt you be disappointed in god if he didnt have a higher sense of morality. God's morality is so high that you cant meet his standards. But thats he gave us christ as a sin offering so we may be able to live to his standards and be free from sin. One can look at it another way. Im surev everyone is familiar with the thief on the cross story. One got into heaven just by believing. He was ariminal. Did he do anything to deserve heaven Certainly not! BUt jesus was so merciful he said "Today you will be with me in paradise."
I am neither Christian nor Atheist , but despite I beleive that Christianity is better than Atheism.If there is no place for God in your life , it can not even be callad as a "life".
I support the O.P. Christianity is a legitimate belief. The Christ/Messiah who came, did fulfill Scriptures by His appearance. While among us, He claimed that the Scriptures spoke of Him, and he claimed to be one with the Father. An Atheist cannot claim that He doesn't exist, but only claim that that they don't believe in Him, or accept Him, and thus deny Him, and that is our free will in action.
Actually other religions can take a part in this argument. While not a choice, they can show the weaknesses in either Christianity and atheism.
For instance the argument that there had to be a creator because the earth and humans are too complicated can be questioned with why does it have to be a CHRISTIAN god when it can be other gods.
Yes other religions can dispute this too, but when someone write "I DON'T BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY NOR ATHEISM. I AM A MUSLIM, THATS THE BEST RELIGION..." They are not taking part in the argument, but only really walking all over Christians and atheist alike like we are some worthless animals to him... He comes with no reason, he comes with a personal statement which he doesn't even back up. All he really is saying is that being muslim is "awesome for him". Which is good for him, but frankly I don't care about that, at least not when he has to so arrogant and ignorant about the other two beliefs. You could also just say that he/she who wrote this is a childish little kid.
Oh lol. People to point this out believing in God is called "faith" and we don't need proof to deal with this atheist's. The idea of God is false is your own words, and I don't have to deal with this , whatever you think is your faith so we won't stop you. Both side contradicts each others belief and no one truthfully wins. This is probably a fight between two armies where both doesn't win until the end. Mainly , I support Christianity because of my "faith to God" and your proof that God doesn't exist doesn't change the case or turn it the other way around.
all this debate proves is that the internet is full of conceded, stuck up, narcissistic, atheists who are totally bigoted and intolerant of other peoples beliefs and cant leave people alone to worship or not worship as they chose athieists are biggots plain and simple
Aetheists always say that the reason why people believe in christianity ( or religion) is to cope with otherwise uncopable scenarios like life after death, the issue of salvation and judgement. Similarly Aetheists also use aetheism as a coping mechanism to answer unanswered questions like 'If God is real then why is their so much war in the world?", or " if god is real why do people get away with horrible things?'" or "If God is loving then why does he order mass genocide and wars?" Aetheists have problem with all these unanswered questions and anyone who says they dont is simply lying. i for one can answer these questions but that would take a while. aetheists also believe that god is some bearded sadist in the sky who calls all the shots. first of all i never understand where they get that from because every christian believes God is a spirit who doesnt exist in space or the sky and is capable of manifesting in any form he sees fit. They call God a sadist but they ignore how gracious and forgiving the Bible protrays him as or how just he is He is so just a God that he deals with Israel how he deals with every other nation. i would be more inclined to believe he is a sadist if he dealt with his chosen people biasedly, but unfortunately he does not. Other information on christianity they have is either not consistent with the accepted belief of Christianity or is an unadressed rumour/lie. I for one believe aetheists have a lopsided j1
I assume everyone on this side of this argument was raised in a Christian home, grow a pair and ask yourself, why do I worship a scruffy sandal wearing cultist.
Well though I behave as an atheist certainly I don't forget the principles and norms of Christianity;As this argument has heated up,Its better to conclude that this trend of atheism has not really gained that much ground and it would be anomalous to conceal our religion and say we support atheism.
One of the key component to Christianity is FAITH. Just you because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Gravity, for example, you can't see it, feel it, or hear it, but you know it's there. Faith to Christians is the same way.
Not believing in God is one of the worst things you could ever do. I'm not saying your a bad person but it's just dumb. I'll give you reasons why:
1. The theory of design.
The theory of design is about with everything that was made, there was a designer. For example: if you saw a house on the wooden house next to the beach, you would know that that house wasn't put together but the waves or the wind. You would (logically and hopefully) know that a person or people took there time to design and build that house. So why do atheists think nobody made the universe. It's a good reason to think that a designer, just like the house, would design and build this beautiful universe.
2. Pascals Wager.
For the debate of God being real, Pascals Wager says that before you die, you need to make a Wager on what's gonna happen. If you believe that God is real but when you die nothing happens then your fine. But if you don't believe in God and when you do die then your kinda screwed. Now think about that. Which one would be the better, more logical choice.
3. The theory of morality.
Everyone knows what morality is. It's the difference between rights and wrong and having morals means we know what's right to do. It's common sense. But without a God, how can morality be possible? According to atheists, after we die nothing happens and since, to them, nothing happens then why would you need morals? With God, we are put on this earth to do what he says so we can go to heaven and what he says is good so he brings us morality. So if your an atheist then morality doesn't even matter because to atheists were just a small spec in the universe so why would it matter to have morals. God gave us morals.
Then who designed the designer? Clearly something as amazing as a god that has the power to create an entire universe is far more complex than an amoeba. If you say god doesn't require a designer then you're using special pleading, which is a logical fallacy. Your comparison of a house is flawed because you're comparing something that we know is designed and we know can't come about via natural processes to something that is a biological organism that is capable of evolving from something simple to something complex via mutation and natural selection. Even if we had conclusive evidence that life was designed, that doesn't tell us any information about who or what the designer is. It definitely doesn't tell us that a specific god did it.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that life was designed by a god. Now let's examine what the designs tell us about that god. Most, if not all, forms on life on this planet have flaws in them, like wisdom teeth in humans that need to be removed, otherwise we have dental problems. There is a whole slew of genetic problems humans have such as harlequin ichthyosis, fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, treacher-collins syndrome, crouzon syndrome and progeria. If you want to see just how horrible those things are, take a look, just be warned they are pretty gruesome. There are over 14,000 diseases and mental disorders just in humans. Are all of those things part of this gods design? How about all these things? WARNING: The links take you to some graphic content.
· Mosquitos that have infected 700 million people with disease in Africa alone, killing millions of them.
· Kissing bugs which have infected 16 to 18 million people with Chaga’s disease, killing 20,000 of them each year.
· Naegleria Fowleria (AKA The Brain-Eating Amoeba) which gets inside your brain and causes headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, confusion, hallucinations, loss of muscle control, seizures, and eventually death.
So, what do all these things tell us about the designer? They tell us that he is either highly incompetent and his designs have gone horribly wrong or he intentionally designed them that way and is therefore extremely malicious and evil.
Pascal's Wager presents a false dichotomy that doesn't take into account all the other gods. There have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of gods invented throughout history. Many of those gods, like the Christian one, go on massive killing sprees when people worship other gods. So, who do you think a god would be more likely to be upset with, someone who doesn't worship any god because they haven't seen any conclusive evidence for their existence, or someone that is worshiping a different god?
Morality is a product of evolution. Let me explain with an example. Lets say we have two groups of people, the selfies and the groupies. The people in the selfies group only look out for themselves. They will lie, cheat, steal, and murder as long as it benefits them in some way. Then we have the groupies; they work together as a group, share responsibilities, and look out for each other. Which of those groups do you think will be more likely to survive, find mates, and have children? The answer is the groupies. By working together they can accomplish more and protect each other, increasing their likelihood of survival. The selfies on the other hand kill each other off, have a harder time finding a mate because who wants to be with a selfish, murderous bastard, and therefore be less likely to have offspring.
"According to atheists, after we die nothing happens and since, to them, nothing happens then why would you need morals?"
Do you want to live in a society where people rape, murder, and steal each other? Of course not, and neither do atheists. We want to live in peace just like the vast majority of people in the world, and the only way to do that is to be peaceful ourselves and hope that people follow our example. Plus we have empathy just like theists do. If the reason you do good things is for a reward in heaven, you're not being moral, you're being greedy. If the reason you don't do bad things is fear of punishment in hell, that's not morality, it's fear. Being moral is doing good regardless of the consequences.
Christians often claim that they believe in the existence of God. But that's all there is to it. They believe that God exists, but they don't know. In order to win this debate, they first needs to bear the burden of proof that God exists. To illustrate this, I turn to the words of the celebrated Cambridge philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. In an article entitled "Is There a God?", Prof. Russell wrote:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
Atheists would recognise this as Russell's famous Celestial Teapot Argument. But let me ask, "What does it actually mean to 'bear the burden of proof'?" Since Christianity is a form of monotheism, in order to bear the burden of proof, Christians need to:
1. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.
2. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of theism (i.e. deism, pantheism and the rest).
3. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of monotheism (i.e. mainly Judaism and Islam).
Until and unless she can do this, we must accept that the atheist position is the more rational position.
However, I am not going to stop here. Let me briefly present two arguments that make atheism seem to be the more plausible position vis-a-vis Christianity.
First, I'll present the logical Problem of Evil:
1. If the Judeo-Christian God exists (henceforth referred to as "God"), He possesses the characteristics of omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing and all-wise) and omnibenevolence (perfectly good and morally perfect).
2. If God exists and is omnipotent, he is able to eliminate all evil and suffering.
3. If God exists and is omniscient, he knows about all potential sources and occurrences of evil and suffering.
4. If God exists and is omnibenevolent, he has the absolute desire to eliminate all evil and suffering.
5. Evil and suffering exists.
Ergo,
6. God does not exist.
Next is the evidential form of the Problem of Evil:
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
Ergo,
3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being.
What are the implications of the Problem of Evil? If Christians want to solve the Problem of Evil, they must deny one of the three characteristics God is said to possess (i.e. omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness). If Christians want to hold that God is good, then they must necessarily assert that God is either not omniscient or not omnipotent. However, the burden of proof is still on the Christian to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is true.
Your excess use of words have no bearing and lack proof. It's a good attempt but I find your statement here cumbersome and as text book as one can get. It's amazing how the Bible doesn't require some textbook idiocy to prove correct. Kudos for your attempt. The copy and paste feature is wonderful, isn't it? How about using your own mind once in a while?
Prove I stated an unjustified assertion. You reading and getting your stupid answers from a text book shows that you are putting your faith into another man's belief. That really is pitiful. The Bible will always be correct and will stand the test of time. Why do you think it is still around now after many centuries? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer that one. No, you copy and paste a majority of it. I doubt you come from a family of lawyers but even if you are, most lawyers suck at what they do and are corrupt.
Simple. You made a claim without evidence. All the while taking a cheap shot at me. Well, seeing as you're the biggest ignoramus this site has had in awhile, that's probably the best you're capable of.
You reading and getting your stupid answers from a text book shows that you are putting your faith into another man's belief.
I don't need to put faith into another person's belief because I analyse the evidence and conduct studies on my own. How many dissertations have you written? How many degrees do you have? How many professors, Christian and non-Christian, have you ever talked to?
The Bible will always be correct and will stand the test of time.
Unjustified assertion.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer that one.
Obviously, since rocket scientists generally are atheists...
No, you copy and paste a majority of it.
And yet, this doesn't prove my statement is wrong.
I doubt you come from a family of lawyers but even if you are, most lawyers suck at what they do and are corrupt.
You do realise this is the stupidest thing to say to a lawyer, right? I can easily sue you for libel.
I do not need to give you any of my personal information but I can tell you I work in the legal field. Your argument is this simple:
This atheist actually believed he knew for a fact that there was no God. I found that position to be interesting and, quite honestly, not possible.
Also, he and I discussed faith a bit towards the end.
Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.
Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
Matt: Then you know there is no God?
Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes..Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism... Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist...
Matt: That is what I said...which are you?
Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained...
Matt: So, you know there is no god?
Atheist: Yes.
Matt: How can you know that?
Atheist: It's a reasonable assumption. If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.
Matt: Then you cannot KNOW there is no God. Your strong atheism is illogical.
Atheist: Let's look at Christianity. It runs on faith. Faith is not logical. It gives credence to unicorns, goblins and thing s that go bump in the night.
Matt: Nope. The subject is your atheism. Please don't try to change the subject.
Atheist: The subject can jump where ever.
Matt: Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God.
Atheist: I will defend, but also place in attack. Try to defend faith
Matt: One subject at a time....You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
Atheist: You can never see all evidences but that does not mean there is a god.
Matt: Correct.
Atheist: No, that means there is not enough information for a conclusion. So we make assumptions as best we can according to our knowledge...
Matt: But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical.
Atheist: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe there is no god...
Matt: Then that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.
Atheist: And so must you... But you picked a side.
Matt: Then it [your atheism] is not logical, but only assumptions you base your atheism on. Your atheism is untenable.... You must admit that agnosticism is more logically viable. If you admit that, we can discuss my faith.
Atheist: I'm not ignorant to say I don't use faith. But only the usage of faith in a situation that remains provable.
Matt: So, are you agnostic or atheist? which is it?
Atheist: Atheist.
Matt: You've lost the argument. Sorry...
Atheist: Wrong. What you're doing is a ploy. You bring me over.. but you stay the same. Either you must move over as well or the argument is mute in the first place. One can not keep faith and call his beliefs logical. For a bit I will stray over to the agnostic side. But I am willing to state instances where I believe prove my contention that there is no god.
Matt: You have been cornered.... It is not logical for you to claim strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God's existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation. Alright, Let's talk faith.
Atheist: Alright faith. you first.
Matt: I believe God exists. I have faith that he exists.
Atheist: Proof.
Matt: I have none.
Atheist: No proof with faith. So, do you always believe in things that you can not prove?
Matt: No... not at all... I have evidences, but they cannot lead to 100% proof or else all could be forced to believe. But, if there is enough evidence, I do believe.
Atheist: So you must be agnostic in that sense as well.
Matt: No... because I make choices. Though it is possible for my faith to be proven wrong, I still rest on the evidences and draw logical conclusions.
Atheist: Evidence....
Matt: Yes....
Atheist: Then you disregard one of the most fundamental rules of the game...
Matt: Which is?
Atheist: "Where ever knowledge is incomplete, there is a place for "faith;" but where ever knowledge and "faith" conflict, it is "faith" which must be modified or abandoned."
Matt: Or the understanding must be reevaluated.... 'Facts' have been found to be wrong before.
Atheist: Facts are not Truths. They are reasonable assumptions. I will get a dictionary definition for that one...
Matt: That's fine. So what about it? What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to conclude there is a god?
Atheist: Fact - Reality or actuality as distinguished to from conjecture or fantasy; Something known by observation or experience to be true or real.
Matt: That's good.... Now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
Atheist: An instance of superiority... Something humans could not do.. OR not be able to explained through phenomena but event then...
Matt: That's good... now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
Atheist: A universal movement. A stoppage of the planet. Nothing earthly.
Matt: If that were to happen, would you conclude there was a god? Couldn't it be explained in other ways?
Atheist: I would of course doubt it at first. I would look for an explanation... And for something like that I would probably find no reasonable explanation..
Matt: If you had could not find one, what would you conclude? Would you conclude that there is a god? or that you simply don't have all the facts?
Atheist: You never have all of the facts... Reasonable assumptions, remember?
Matt: Then you could not safely conclude it was the hand of God, could you?
Atheist: Nope. that would be the only explanation that I could think of that would have the three means, opportunity. (forget motive) [I did not understand him here...]
Matt: Then you couldn't know anything for sure, right? That is, if you don't have all the facts, all of them.
Atheist: Haven't we already agreed you can never have all the facts?
Matt: What you are telling me is that you have no real way of proving or disproving God. So then, doesn't it come down to faith based upon evidence? I have evidence....
Atheist: I have to go. Friends just arrived. Can we finish this later?
Matt: If you want....
I'm not sure how it went with this atheist. But I hope some seeds were planted.
I do not need to give you any of my personal information but I can tell you I work in the legal field.
You're right. I don't need to get it from you. I just need to file a suit.
As to your dialogue, the entire dialogue is illogical because that particular pair (Matt and the atheist) made fundamental mistakes. The burden of proof is on the theist and not the atheist.
Who says the "burden of proof" is on the theist? Positive Atheism magazine said, "One cannot prove a negative existential claim (that is, a claim that a thing does not exist)." So it would seem both sides are at an impasse as far as "logically" proving their points. Furthermore, I don't see how atheists naturally assume the "burden of proof" is on theists since "we're the ones claiming God exists." What about atheists claiming God doesn't exist? The double standard confuses me.
I don't think I could have worded that any better. Seems to be that atheists have few real argument thus they use words in an attempt to twist everything off of them.
no the burden of proof is on theists. We say there is no god because there is no proof. That is one of our underlying reasons! your job then as a debater is to refute our argument. How do you refute this? with proof! or maybe not proof but at least valid evidence!
how do atheists have little arguments? your entire case is built on the premise "god is in my life i feel him, and the bible says so"
Christians often claim that they believe in the existence of God. But that's all there is to it. They believe that God exists, but they don't know. In order to win this debate, they first needs to bear the burden of proof that God exists. To illustrate this, I turn to the words of the celebrated Cambridge philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. In an article entitled "Is There a God?", Prof. Russell wrote:
Ok, first there is no real way of proving God does or does not exist. I'm familiar with the celestial teapot argument, but it's a stupid argument because it assumes that the idea of God is silly. Fact is that you can't prove the non-existence of God... which kind of leaves us at a standstill because so many people claim to feel God in some way.
1. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.
If I die as a Christian I could potentially go to heaven, if I die as an atheist nothing happens. It makes more logical sense to believe than not to believe provided it doesn't require massive amounts of suffering.
Therefore, shouldn't the burden of proof be placed on proving God doesn't exist?
2. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of theism (i.e. deism, pantheism and the rest).
Now you have moved beyond the idea of atheism and you are agnostic. My thought is that the most logical choice is the one that gives you the best after death options while providing the least requirements during life.
3. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of monotheism (i.e. mainly Judaism and Islam).
I will say this however, 99% of religions are based around the idea that you do X and you get Y. There is a form of Christianity that believes God just gives you heaven based on his own divine choice regardless of human action. Now that is unique.
That said I don't see anything wrong with Judaism or Islam.
First, I'll present the logical Problem of Evil:
1. If the Judeo-Christian God exists (henceforth referred to as "God"), He possesses the characteristics of omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing and all-wise) and omnibenevolence (perfectly good and morally perfect).
Ok
2. If God exists and is omnipotent, he is able to eliminate all evil and suffering.
Ok
3. If God exists and is omniscient, he knows about all potential sources and occurrences of evil and suffering.
Ok
4. If God exists and is omnibenevolent, he has the absolute desire to eliminate all evil and suffering.
This step assumes that your definition of evil and suffering matches that of God.
5. Evil and suffering exists.
Ergo,
6. God does not exist.
Again you are making some assumptions that don't logically fit the situation. You are assuming to know what God considers suffering.
In the Judao-Christian tradition the story of Job is all about human suffering serving God's will. Remember, part of religion is the idea that no matter how much things suck here on earth there is something better awaiting you in death.
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
If there is a God... why would you assume it would act in the same manner as a human? Or even see the world in the same way as humans?
Actually an Omnipotent and Omniscient being with an unlimited lifespan would probably have radically different goals and ways of thinking than a human being.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
Impossible to know what goals or motivations such a being would have.
Ergo,
3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being.
What are the implications of the Problem of Evil? If Christians want to solve the Problem of Evil, they must deny one of the three characteristics God is said to possess (i.e. omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness). If Christians want to hold that God is good, then they must necessarily assert that God is either not omniscient or not omnipotent. However, the burden of proof is still on the Christian to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is true.
God could easily be all three provided his definition of evil doesn't match yours. A great example is the idea that the only thing God considers evil is a failure to recognize the greatness of God, at which point God will choose to punish those in an afterlife. Which leaves the human condition unchanged... and your thesis a giant waste of time.
Anyway... your greatest point is the idea that Religion must prove itself or be rendered invalid. However, since religion technically lies within the realm of myth... not science, it's the other way around.
"1. If the Judeo-Christian God exists (henceforth referred to as "God"), He possesses the characteristics of omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing and all-wise) and omnibenevolence (perfectly good and morally perfect).
2. If God exists and is omnipotent, he is able to eliminate all evil and suffering.
3. If God exists and is omniscient, he knows about all potential sources and occurrences of evil and suffering.
4. If God exists and is omnibenevolent, he has the absolute desire to eliminate all evil and suffering.
5. Evil and suffering exists."
I contest premise 4. It does seem at least plausible that there exist morally sufficient reasons for God allowing evil. Alvin Plantinga used the concept of free will, for example, to justify the existence of evil, and most scholarly philosophers are satisfied by his rebuttal.
It is actually up to the atheist to present evidence that suggests it is impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, a tall feat, that so far nobody has been able to argue successfully.
I'm not really convinced why Christians need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. They're faith in God is for personal reasons, not to win (or lose) popularity contests.
Secondly, can't that argument work both ways? Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that God doesn't exist? As far as "logical reasons," logical absolutes exist and they:
1.) are conceptual by nature, not physical,
2.) are not dependent upon human minds,
3.) transcend space and time.
The problem with your "logical problem of evil," is that you're assuming balance can exist and be maintained without good OR without evil. The two must stay in constant equilibrium and harmony. Without evil, God wouldn't exist. This argument is false. On the other hand, the problem with your evidential form of the problem of evil is that God, once again, would not exist without evil. God helps those who help themselves - He doesn't hand everything over to us on a silver-platter. No one, not even God, is simply going to carry you through life.
God is all of these things, and yet evil still exists. Why? Because He made us all with free-will. We contribute to evil, not God.
Christians need to prove god exists because they're making the claim, more specifically, they're making statements on who this god is and how it works, a whole variety of assertions that should be tested. If a swindler makes an outrageous claim, you'd want him/her to back it up, right? Same thing.
Why does it matter that they believe in something that can't be verified? It wouldn't if that belief didn't impact their actions that affect others. False beliefs can encourage people to support legislation or practices that harm other's rights, example: banning gay marriage.
The reason the argument doesn't work the other way for proving god doesn't exist is because it's a null position. Science alone works pretty well at explaining things so there's no reason to introduce an unnecessary concept to the picture.
The rest of the argument is invalid since the concept of good and evil are defined by humans, cultures, and religions. Nature has no such concepts: the sun doesn't care that it's keeping us warm and that earthquake here or there doesn't care that it's killing people. WE define good and evil, without us they mean nothing.
-All atheists believe in evolution, which means they don't believe in morality and think we should all act like animals.
-Atheists try to shift the burden of proof unfairly upon theists (ie, atheists make the wild and unprovable claim that God does not exist, and then unfairly expect us Christians to prove that He DOES exist)
-The Bible says atheism is wrong, and the Bible is always right (see: Genesis 1:1, Psalms 14:1, Psalms 19:1, Romans 1:19-20)
-Some famous atheists have shown they occasionally have doubts about their disbelief, which proves that all atheists really do believe in God. Of course, no Christian has ever doubted the existence of God.
-Everybody who has ever been in the army will tell you that there are no atheists in foxholes. That is, once they are in danger of death, the atheist will strip himself of his irrational disbelief in God, and come to admit he believed in God all along. Only liberal slimebags like MSNBC report otherwise.
-Communism, which is inherently evil, is founded by atheism, and all atheists are probably secret communists.
-Because we can think of the existence of God, God must obviously exists, and therefore atheists are illogical.
-Everything in the universe shows obvious and undeniable signs that it was created by a mind far superior to our own.
-a lot of mass murderers were atheists, and all atheists, having no morality to guide them, are only a bad day away from going on a genocide spree. There have no exactly zero cases on Christian mass murderers throughout all of history.
-no atheists contribute to charitable causes, and all Christians do. This is because of atheist's beliefs in Darwinism.
-I quote: "The Barna Group found regarding atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality" Despicable.
-I quote: "
Atheism The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs."
-atheists don't believe in miracles, although many Christian philosophers disagree.
-atheism cannot explain the origins of the universe, therefore God exists.
-Atheists have more mental and physical health problems than Christians. This is attributed to theists having something more to life for. Therefore, God exists.
-Friedrich Nietzsche went crazy and was an atheist, therefore atheism drove him insane (although there is an ongoing debate on the matter...)
-Countries with large numbers of atheists have higher suicide rates, therefore atheism makes you want to kill yourself. Of course they would take the easy way out, not realizing like normal people that God sends suicide cases to hell. Also, developed nations also tend to have higher rates of both atheism and suicide, so we must conclude that technology and wealth are evil.
-Sigmund Freud said religious belief was unhealthy, but many doctors think Freud is wrong, therefore atheism is evil.
-many famous atheists tell lies, therefore atheists are deceptive.
-Fewer people believe now as opposed to x number of years ago (usually around twenty) in evolution, therefore evolutionary theory is wrong and by proxy atheism is wrong, since it's the same thing.
-Non-Christians are more likely to believe in silly superstitions, like palm reading and astronomy (note: Non-Christian = atheist). Christians believe only in the cold, hard logical of the world around them.
-Some theologians say atheist is on the decline, therefore it is. However, this is no reason to lose caution of the atheist threat!
-There are a number of anti-atheist blogs (isn't that good to know? )
-there is a pro-atheist bias in the liberal controlled media, but as we know from stated above that atheism is on the decline, this hardly matters.
-Causes of atheism (I quote): moral depravity, rebellion, superficiality, error, state churches, poor relationship with father, division in religion, learned times, peace, and prosperity, negative experiences with theists, scientism.
-atheists question why evil exists since God is good, but don't ask why good exists if God isn't real.
-early scientists were Christian, therefore Christianity owns a monopoly on science and atheists are not allowed to say there is discrepancy between the beliefs in the two.
-Sir Francis Bacon said he'd rather belief in any silly old legend then believe that God doesn't exist
-Some Christian apologists have problems with the beliefs of Bertrand Russell
-Creation scientists tend to win creation-evolution debates
-Notable atheists have converted to Christianity. The reverse never happens.
A poll found these results =
Position: This group does not at all agree with
my vision of American society: I would disapprove if my child wanted
to marry a member of this group: Atheist 39.6% 47.6%
Therefore, the majority of normal people clearly know atheism is evil.
-atheists criticism of the Bible can't be trusted because, I quote: "a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields.... Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect"
Of course, I quote: The Bible is still loved by millions, read by millions, and studied by millions.
-atheists make bad arguments on the internet, says Christian apologist.
-atheists try to convert young people to atheism over the internet. Christians, of course, never stoop to such behavior.
-Nearly a quarter or a third of philosophy professors are theists, therefore, I quote: "God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the 1960's and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments."
-atheists do not really exist, they just pretend that they don't believe in God.
-atheism brought upon the French Revolution, one of the most evil events of all of history.
-atheists make up a small percentage of the world population, therefore it is wrong.
-a lot of famous people said bad stuff about atheists
which means they don't believe in morality and think we should all act like animals.
Untrue.
The Bible says atheism is wrong, and the Bible is always right
You cannot use something as a source proving that itself is right. That goes against all the rules of debate and logic.
Some famous atheists have shown they occasionally have doubts about their disbelief, which proves that all atheists really do believe in God.
Nothing a famous person does proves anything for everybody; and doubt by one person does not mean that all fellow doubters are equally unsure.
Everybody who has ever been in the army will tell you that there are no atheists in foxholes. That is, once they are in danger of death, the atheist will strip himself of his irrational disbelief in God, and come to admit he believed in God all along.
This is another generalization.
Communism, which is inherently evil, is founded by atheism, and all atheists are probably secret communists.
I am starting to really think that you don't really believe all this stuff. How else can one explain your idiocy here?
Because we can think of the existence of God, God must obviously exists, and therefore atheists are illogical.
I can think of the existence of a gigantic breast capable of eating up the planet, but that does not mean that there is in existence a gigantic breast capable of eating up the planet.
Everything in the universe shows obvious and undeniable signs that it was created by a mind far superior to our own.
Everything is an awful lot.
no atheists contribute to charitable causes, and all Christians do. This is because of atheist's beliefs in Darwinism.
I am a Christian, and I disbelieve in "charitable causes".
'
I really do not feel like going on any longer. Surely you get my point.
No, I do not get your point as you are blowing hot air. Your comebacks are weak and all that you are disagreeing with is clearly already explained and stands true. I appreciate you commenting on each part you felt you needed to comment on, but your comments change nothing about the text in which you are disagreeing with. And I didn't take the time to really read what you have to say because after the first few, I was laughing too hard.
My comebacks are not weak; they are of great logicality. Your arguments are the weak ones, filled with generalizations and illogical reasoning.
And I didn't take the time to really read what you have to say because after the first few, I was laughing too hard.
Perhaps you then should take as a lesson the following:
When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
What am I assuming? you may wonder. Well, I'll tell you. You are assuming that every one of my rebuttals is unworthy of your time, something which is not true. Merely by the fact that I bothered to respond to your garbling idiocy shows that I am a force which ought not be toyed with. Besides, I think you'll find something quite intriguing in one of the last remarks.
I find your logic quite a flawed. When man lives off of logic, this is what happens. My arguments are God inspired. I do not have the time nor energy to read such unworthy reponses. I am not considered with your idle of threat of you being a force that shouldn't be toyed with.
-All atheists believe in evolution, which means they don't believe in morality and think we should all act like animals.
Believing in Evolution has nothing to do with morality. Evolution states that we have evolved and ascended from our ancestors. It doesn't say that we should act like our ancestors.
-Atheists try to shift the burden of proof unfairly upon theists (ie, atheists make the wild and unprovable claim that God does not exist, and then unfairly expect us Christians to prove that He DOES exist)
Firstly, atheists just don't accept god as presented by christianity (or any religion for that matter). Christians have to prove that the Christian God exists. Atheists don't have the burden of proof.
-The Bible says atheism is wrong, and the Bible is always right (see: Genesis 1:1, Psalms 14:1, Psalms 19:1, Romans 1:19-20)
The bible is supposedly a book about Jesus and His Teachings written down by man. Man is fallible, thus the bible is fallible.
-Some famous atheists have shown they occasionally have doubts about their disbelief, which proves that all atheists really do believe in God. Of course, no Christian has ever doubted the existence of God.
Examples? Sources? Some Christians have doubted God. (http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/It_is_decided_I_m_gonna_be_an_Atheist)
-Everybody who has ever been in the army will tell you that there are no atheists in foxholes. That is, once they are in danger of death, the atheist will strip himself of his irrational disbelief in God, and come to admit he believed in God all along. Only liberal slimebags like MSNBC report otherwise.
Proof? Sources? Have you personally interviewed each and every person who was/is in the army?
-Communism, which is inherently evil, is founded by atheism, and all atheists are probably secret communists.
Probabilistic comments are not treated as a proper argument.
-Because we can think of the existence of God, God must obviously exists, and therefore atheists are illogical.
This argument is illogical. If you can say that, then I can say 'Because we can thing of the nonexistence of God, God obviously doesn't exist, and therefore theists are illogical.'
-Everything in the universe shows obvious and undeniable signs that it was created by a mind far superior to our own.
The universe is extremely big. There is a chance, how small it may be, that our universe might occur.
-a lot of mass murderers were atheists, and all atheists, having no morality to guide them, are only a bad day away from going on a genocide spree. There have no exactly zero cases on Christian mass murderers throughout all of history.
There are examples of Christian mass murders. Ever heard of the crusades?
-no atheists contribute to charitable causes, and all Christians do. This is because of atheist's beliefs in Darwinism.
Proof? There are charitable atheists. There are some non-charitable Christians. This has no correlation with Darwinism.
-I quote: "The Barna Group found regarding atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality" Despicable.
The Bible states even more immoral ideologies. (http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-bibleshocking.shtml)
-atheists don't believe in miracles, although many Christian philosophers disagree.
So?
-atheism cannot explain the origins of the universe, therefore God exists.
This is illogical reasoning.
-Atheists have more mental and physical health problems than Christians. This is attributed to theists having something more to life for. Therefore, God exists.
This is illogical reasoning.
-Friedrich Nietzsche went crazy and was an atheist, therefore atheism drove him insane (although there is an ongoing debate on the matter...)
This is, once again, illogical reasoning. Just because something was X and Y doesn't mean that X caused Y or Y caused X.
-Countries with large numbers of atheists have higher suicide rates, therefore atheism makes you want to kill yourself. Of course they would take the easy way out, not realizing like normal people that God sends suicide cases to hell. Also, developed nations also tend to have higher rates of both atheism and suicide, so we must conclude that technology and wealth are evil.
Sources? Prove that it is not just correlation, but it is causality.
-Sigmund Freud said religious belief was unhealthy, but many doctors think Freud is wrong, therefore atheism is evil.
Just because many people think X is wrong doesn't make X evil.
-many famous atheists tell lies, therefore atheists are deceptive.
Sources? Proof? Have you personally counted how many lies each and every person said AND made a record if they were theist or not? Again, Prove this is causality.
-Fewer people believe now as opposed to x number of years ago (usually around twenty) in evolution, therefore evolutionary theory is wrong and by proxy atheism is wrong, since it's the same thing.
Just how illogical will your reasoning become?
-Some theologians say atheist is on the decline, therefore it is. However, this is no reason to lose caution of the atheist threat!
Not everything theologians say is true. Proof?
-There are a number of anti-atheist blogs (isn't that good to know? )
So? No, that is not good to know.
-there is a pro-atheist bias in the liberal controlled media, but as we know from stated above that atheism is on the decline, this hardly matters.
Proof that atheism is on the decline?
The other arguments, are, like the others, either illogical reasoning or without proof. I don't need or have the time to address and dispute each one of these other arguments.
I just had to clarify that although I myself am not atheist, I agree with one of your points, and that is when the other person said "no Christian has ever doubted God." That would be very inaccurate. I've done it, most of the Christians I know have done it. That doesn't make them any less Christian. That's part of having faith - when you begin to question it, and yet hold onto it, that makes your faith as strong as, if not stronger than, if you had never wavered at all.
Believing in Evolution has nothing to do with morality. Evolution states that we have evolved and ascended from our ancestors. It doesn't say that we should act like our ancestors.
Evolution has so much to do with morality. For one, believing in evolution places at the level of an animal. Come on, it's easy to see how wrong and immoral that is. This is why so many of you believe beastiality is okay. People like you are the ones who create diseases like HIV which are all of the devil.
Firstly, atheists just don't accept god as presented by christianity (or any religion for that matter). Christians have to prove that the Christian God exists. Atheists don't have the burden of proof.Christians don't have to prove God is real because the Holy Bible proves it for us. On the other hand, you atheists have nothing to stand on. You try and stand on science which fails all of the time. FAIL!!!
The bible is supposedly a book about Jesus and His Teachings written down by man. Man is fallible, thus the bible is fallible. You are surpassing the main point. God is who omnipotent manifested himself into the men who wrote the Bible thus the Word of God is Supreme. And if this statement you just said abut man being fallible means that something is fallible, well, you just proved how fallible atheism is.
Examples? Sources? Some Christians have doubted God.C.S. Lewis is one of the most famous Christians who was once an atheist. He wrote the wonderful book The Pilgrim's Progress which I would recommend you read. JR Tolken is another. Richard Dawkins is another one. The youtube user Shockofgod is also one that you should listen to. The list goes on and on.
Proof? Sources? Have you personally interviewed each and every person who was/is in the army?Why don't you go join the army and get in a foxhole and find out for yourself. Go look death in the face and see how you react.
Probabilistic comments are not treated as a proper argument.
So who gave you the authority to claim what is proper in argument and what is not?
This argument is illogical. If you can say that, then I can say 'Because we can thing of the nonexistence of God, God obviously doesn't exist, and therefore theists are illogical.'
I annoy you therefore I exist.
The universe is extremely big. There is a chance, how small it may be, that our universe might occur.
Our Universe is infinity and limitless just like the power and Glory of Jesus.
There are examples of Christian mass murders. Ever heard of the crusades?
Any mass murders that you are speaking of were not committed by any Christian. Perhaps they were committed by some religious group or cult, but surely not a true Christian.
Proof? There are charitable atheists. There are some non-charitable Christians. This has no correlation with Darwinism.
It has all to do with Darwinism.
The Bible states even more immoral ideologies.
You don't understand the Bible at all. Under the new convenant, all is different.
You are surely driving yourself insane with this atheism you believe in. The statistics of suicide rates in you atheists says it all. I have answered enough to prove my point. You figure the rest out on your own. It's obvious you have questions about your beliefs. Jesus is always ready for you to repent and change.
Evolution has so much to do with morality. For one, believing in evolution places at the level of an animal. Come on, it's easy to see how wrong and immoral that is. This is why so many of you believe beastiality is okay. People like you are the ones who create diseases like HIV which are all of the devil.
Evolution doesn't say that we should behave like animals. It says that we have evolved and advanced from animals. Evolution also means evolution of the mind and behavior, not continuation of behavior. We do not create HIV, viruses do.
Christians don't have to prove God is real because the Holy Bible proves it for us. On the other hand, you atheists have nothing to stand on. You try and stand on science which fails all of the time. FAIL!!!
The bible is fallible and is not evidence. Man could just have faked writing god's word. Even if they heard god speak, they could have done errors. Mistakes are also made by translating the bible into all of the different languages of the world.
You are surpassing the main point. God is who omnipotent manifested himself into the men who wrote the Bible thus the Word of God is Supreme. And if this statement you just said abut man being fallible means that something is fallible, well, you just proved how fallible atheism is.
Read Above. Man is fallible. The people who wrote the bible cannot have written the exact transcription of God's work.
Why don't you go join the army and get in a foxhole and find out for yourself. Go look death in the face and see how you react.
This is just an insult and not a proper argument.
So who gave you the authority to claim what is proper in argument and what is not?
It is proper debate etiquette. I didn't make it. (http://www.ncteamericancollection.org/literary_debate_guidelines.htm)
I annoy you therefore I exist.
Not an argument.
Our Universe is infinity and limitless just like the power and Glory of Jesus.
Proof?
Any mass murders that you are speaking of were not committed by any Christian. Perhaps they were committed by some religious group or cult, but surely not a true Christian.
According to wikipedia: The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by the Pope and the Catholic Church, with the main goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem.
The Pope and the Catholic Church are true christians.
It has all to do with Darwinism.
Proof?
You don't understand the Bible at all. Under the new convenant, all is different.
This doesn't address my argument.
You are surely driving yourself insane with this atheism you believe in. The statistics of suicide rates in you atheists says it all. I have answered enough to prove my point. You figure the rest out on your own. It's obvious you have questions about your beliefs. Jesus is always ready for you to repent and change.
Prove that increased suicide rates in atheists is Causality. You haven't answered enough. You haven't proved the existence of a Christian God and the infallibility of the bible. How is it obvious that I question my beliefs?
This isn't an evolution topic but I will create one soon. If you say the Bible is fallible then so is science, lol. Viruses do not create themselves such as HIV. Man cannot be fallible when he is manifested with the Holy Spirit. My response to the foxhold comment was true and I guarantee you would be acting just the same and begging for God to help you. If you are looking for evidence of something you can't just accept certain evidence and deny all other evidence just because it's not the evidence YOU want. Also, you can't tell the evidence what to do and only except the evidence if it does what YOU want. For example: Lets say that my brother was outside mowing the grass. All of a sudden he bursts through the front door and announces that there is a snake in the middle of the yard. When looking for proof that what my brother is saying is true I must go look at the evidence provided. I can't say, "I don't believe you. The only way I will believe that there is a snake in the yard is if it comes into the house and shows itself to me." That's not only illogical it's just plain dumb.
Even if God did appear before you in blazing glory, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Simply put, the criteria demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists puts a requirement on logic that is not realistic.
In other words, are you OBJECTIVELY examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn't scientific or because it isn't what YOU want? Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur? If you have a presupposition, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position. Finally, If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. Again since it is impossible to know everything, especially those things that happen outside of our limited space-time continuum, then you are simply making an assumption which is irrelevant and illogical.
My response to the foxhold comment was true and I guarantee you would be acting just the same and begging for God to help you.
Fear is a lowly and crippling emotion, which is why religion feeds and relies upon it with such relish. This is Pascal, the idea that fear should outweigh freedom, that you should submit because you are afraid of earthly or eternal torture.
This is terribly biased :o As a fellow debater earlier replied to this message, your logic is flawed in so many ways. The Bible condemns a lot of things, some of which aren't actually wrong... I am not an atheist, but a catholic... but even a person from the same side as you can tell that your arguments are daily weak D;
I am not speaking out of my own logic. I speak out of my faith for Jesus Christ. It is solid and will not be shaken because it is from the Word of God. I do not believe or practice in religion as you do. I am a fully spiritual being. We are not on the same side.
You sound just like me God is going to bless you in a lot of ways because He is getting all the glory from you comments. Check out this debate the title is off the wall but go to it.
Supporting Evidence:
God Is Evil
(www.createdebate.com)
Yes and He is so worthy of all that and so much more. If this is the only way I can spread His name, then I will spend my days doing it. I am a sinner and may not be perfect in how I do it and I will pray daily that He give me the wisdom to do His will. When I fall short, I will ask repent and do better. Thanks for your support - to God give the glory. ; )
All atheists believe in evolution, which means they don't believe in morality and think we should all act like animals.
This is a hasty generalisation. Morality is not grounded in religion but the human experience and through interaction between humans within the community and society. And by the way, we are a species in the animal kingdom.
Atheists try to shift the burden of proof unfairly upon theists
How is it unfair? The burden of proof always lies on the claimant.
The Bible says atheism is wrong, and the Bible is always right
Not only is this an unjustified assertion, you are also committing the genetic fallacy.
Some famous atheists have shown they occasionally have doubts about their disbelief, which proves that all atheists really do believe in God.
"Some famous Christians have shown they occasionally have doubts about their beliefs, which proves that all Christians really do not believe in God."
Your argument here fails entirely because your are committing the fallacy of composition.
Everybody who has ever been in the army will tell you that there are no atheists in foxholes. That is, once they are in danger of death, the atheist will strip himself of his irrational disbelief in God, and come to admit he believed in God all along. Only liberal slimebags like MSNBC report otherwise.
Excuse me. I served 2 years in the Commando unit, the Singapore equivalent of the Marines.
Communism, which is inherently evil, is founded by atheism, and all atheists are probably secret communists.
Communism cannot be inherently evil because it is a metaphysical concept.
Because we can think of the existence of God, God must obviously exists, and therefore atheists are illogical.
Wrong. Existence is not a predicate.
Everything in the universe shows obvious and undeniable signs that it was created by a mind far superior to our own.
Unjustified assertion.
a lot of mass murderers were atheists, and all atheists, having no morality to guide them, are only a bad day away from going on a genocide spree.
There have been Christian mass murderers as well.
no atheists contribute to charitable causes
Really? I think you'll find yourself wrong there. I have donated to Oxfam and the Red Cross. They actually do something to help the poor. And I'd rather donate my money to an established organisation where I can see that it has been put to good use rather than donating it to a church for renovations.
"The Barna Group found regarding atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality"
Christians have been equally guilty, if not more so, of most of these crimes.
Atheism The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs."
Nope. Wrong again. There is nothing "magical" about cosmological processes. In fact, one of those who confirmed the Big Bang theory, Alan Guth, is an atheist.
atheists don't believe in miracles, although many Christian philosophers disagree.
Why should anyone believe in miracles?
atheism cannot explain the origins of the universe, therefore God exists.
The Big Bang. And therefore, God does not exist. This is a false dilemma.
Atheists have more mental and physical health problems than Christians. This is attributed to theists having something more to life for. Therefore, God exists.
Your premises do not logically lead to the conclusion. And furthermore, at least half of the top 10 fattest cities in America are predominantly Christian cities or at least, cities with a majority Christian population.
Friedrich Nietzsche went crazy and was an atheist, therefore atheism drove him insane
Again, fallacy of composition.
Countries with large numbers of atheists have higher suicide rates, therefore atheism makes you want to kill yourself.
The last I checked, suicide mass murderers were religious fanatics, including Christians (e.g. Andres Brevick)
Of course they would take the easy way out, not realizing like normal people that God sends suicide cases to hell.
So, a God that doesn't exist is sending people to hell?
Also, developed nations also tend to have higher rates of both atheism and suicide, so we must conclude that technology and wealth are evil.
No proof whatsoever that God exists.
Sigmund Freud said religious belief was unhealthy, but many doctors think Freud is wrong, therefore atheism is evil.
Really? And these doctors are? The last I checked, most psychologists still emulate Freud's methods of psychoanalysis.
many famous atheists tell lies, therefore atheists are deceptive.
By saying that the Bible is true and indoctrinating children, Christians are already lying everyday.
Fewer people believe now as opposed to x number of years ago (usually around twenty) in evolution, therefore evolutionary theory is wrong and by proxy atheism is wrong, since it's the same thing.
What is "x number of years ago"? If you can't even be specific in your premises, then they are not true to believe. And atheism and evolution are not synonyms.
Non-Christians are more likely to believe in silly superstitions, like palm reading and astronomy (note: Non-Christian = atheist). Christians believe only in the cold, hard logical of the world around them.
Non-Christians include people of other religious faiths. And I haven't met one Muslim or Hindu that believes in palm reading. Conversely, Muslims and Hindus can also say that Christian beliefs are superstitious as well, and indeed many of them do.
Some theologians say atheist is on the decline, therefore it is. However, this is no reason to lose caution of the atheist threat!
-There are a number of anti-atheist blogs (isn't that good to know? )
-there is a pro-atheist bias in the liberal controlled media, but as we know from stated above that atheism is on the decline, this hardly matters.
And your point is?
Causes of atheism (I quote): moral depravity, rebellion, superficiality, error, state churches, poor relationship with father, division in religion, learned times, peace, and prosperity, negative experiences with theists, scientism.
All wrong. Atheism is a result of logical, rational people, looking at the evidence, and concluding that Christianity is a flawed belief.
atheists question why evil exists since God is good, but don't ask why good exists if God isn't real.
Which still doesn't answer the Problem of Evil.
early scientists were Christian, therefore Christianity owns a monopoly on science and atheists are not allowed to say there is discrepancy between the beliefs in the two.
No proof that God exists.
Sir Francis Bacon said he'd rather belief in any silly old legend then believe that God doesn't exist
And that is Sir Fracis's personal opinion. I can quote many other scientists and philosophers who have no religious convictions and are strongly opposed to the Christian conception of God.
Some Christian apologists have problems with the beliefs of Bertrand Russell
And so?
Creation scientists tend to win creation-evolution debates
And so?
Notable atheists have converted to Christianity. The reverse never happens.
Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, George Carlin, Christopher Hitchens, myself, and the list goes on.
A poll found these results =
Position: This group does not at all agree with
my vision of American society: I would disapprove if my child wanted
to marry a member of this group: Atheist 39.6% 47.6%
Therefore, the majority of normal people clearly know atheism is evil.
Argumentum ad populum.
atheists criticism of the Bible can't be trusted because, I quote: "a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields.... Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect"
And ditto for religious studies. Thus, theologians can't be trusted as well.
The Bible is still loved by millions, read by millions, and studied by millions.
And so is Harry Potter, the Twilight saga, Artemis Fowl, Roald Dhal, Enid Blyton, Shakespeare, Tennyson, Lord Byron, Oscar Wilde, etc.
atheists make bad arguments on the internet, says Christian apologist.
And so?
atheists try to convert young people to atheism over the internet. Christians, of course, never stoop to such behavior.
No, they stoop even lower by threatening sick people on their death beds with fire and brimstone.
Nearly a quarter or a third of philosophy professors are theists, therefore, I quote: "God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the 1960's and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments."
And the other three quarter or two-thirds are atheists, and so if we are going to appeal to "majority wins", then atheism is the default intellectual position.
atheists do not really exist, they just pretend that they don't believe in God.
Unjustified assertion.
atheism brought upon the French Revolution, one of the most evil events of all of history.
Unjustified assertion. And, Christians brought about many of the most evil events in all of history, such as the Inquisitions, the Crusades, etc.
atheists make up a small percentage of the world population, therefore it is wrong.
Argumentum ad populum.
a lot of famous people said bad stuff about atheists
And many famous people said bad stuff about Christians. It works both ways ;)
Give me one logical reason to believe Christianity. Just one.
I have yet to see one gad damn shred of evidence for Christianity. I have also seen mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Once you have discredited ALL evidence against Christianity, create an argument for Christianity with empirical fact (or a damn solid priori argument).
Once you have done this, disprove ALL logical arguments against Christianity.
Once you have done this, disprove all other religions.
-
Until such a time that you have done ALL of these things, it is illogical to believe in this bible bullshit.
"Playboy: Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?
Ayn Rand: Qua religion, no - in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith."[Playboy interview with Ayn Rand]
Also, one does not "belief" atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief, or for the more intelligent the recognition that logical reasoning is the medium of knowledge and that which cannot or isn't testable or reasonable cannot be considered valid.
This atheist actually believed he knew for a fact that there was no God. I found that position to be interesting and, quite honestly, not possible.
Also, he and I discussed faith a bit towards the end.
Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.
Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
Matt: Then you know there is no God?
Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes..Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism... Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist...
Matt: That is what I said...which are you?
Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained...
Matt: So, you know there is no god?
Atheist: Yes.
Matt: How can you know that?
Atheist: It's a reasonable assumption. If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.
Matt: Then you cannot KNOW there is no God. Your strong atheism is illogical.
Atheist: Let's look at Christianity. It runs on faith. Faith is not logical. It gives credence to unicorns, goblins and thing s that go bump in the night.
Matt: Nope. The subject is your atheism. Please don't try to change the subject.
Atheist: The subject can jump where ever.
Matt: Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God.
Atheist: I will defend, but also place in attack. Try to defend faith
Matt: One subject at a time....You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
Atheist: You can never see all evidences but that does not mean there is a god.
Matt: Correct.
Atheist: No, that means there is not enough information for a conclusion. So we make assumptions as best we can according to our knowledge...
Matt: But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical.
Atheist: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe there is no god...
Matt: Then that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.
Atheist: And so must you... But you picked a side.
Matt: Then it [your atheism] is not logical, but only assumptions you base your atheism on. Your atheism is untenable.... You must admit that agnosticism is more logically viable. If you admit that, we can discuss my faith.
Atheist: I'm not ignorant to say I don't use faith. But only the usage of faith in a situation that remains provable.
Matt: So, are you agnostic or atheist? which is it?
Atheist: Atheist.
Matt: You've lost the argument. Sorry...
Atheist: Wrong. What you're doing is a ploy. You bring me over.. but you stay the same. Either you must move over as well or the argument is mute in the first place. One can not keep faith and call his beliefs logical. For a bit I will stray over to the agnostic side. But I am willing to state instances where I believe prove my contention that there is no god.
Matt: You have been cornered.... It is not logical for you to claim strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God's existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation. Alright, Let's talk faith.
Atheist: Alright faith. you first.
Matt: I believe God exists. I have faith that he exists.
Atheist: Proof.
Matt: I have none.
Atheist: No proof with faith. So, do you always believe in things that you can not prove?
Matt: No... not at all... I have evidences, but they cannot lead to 100% proof or else all could be forced to believe. But, if there is enough evidence, I do believe.
Atheist: So you must be agnostic in that sense as well.
Matt: No... because I make choices. Though it is possible for my faith to be proven wrong, I still rest on the evidences and draw logical conclusions.
Atheist: Evidence....
Matt: Yes....
Atheist: Then you disregard one of the most fundamental rules of the game...
Matt: Which is?
Atheist: "Where ever knowledge is incomplete, there is a place for "faith;" but where ever knowledge and "faith" conflict, it is "faith" which must be modified or abandoned."
Matt: Or the understanding must be reevaluated.... 'Facts' have been found to be wrong before.
Atheist: Facts are not Truths. They are reasonable assumptions. I will get a dictionary definition for that one...
Matt: That's fine. So what about it? What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to conclude there is a god?
Atheist: Fact - Reality or actuality as distinguished to from conjecture or fantasy; Something known by observation or experience to be true or real.
Matt: That's good.... Now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
Atheist: An instance of superiority... Something humans could not do.. OR not be able to explained through phenomena but event then...
Matt: That's good... now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
Atheist: A universal movement. A stoppage of the planet. Nothing earthly.
Matt: If that were to happen, would you conclude there was a god? Couldn't it be explained in other ways?
Atheist: I would of course doubt it at first. I would look for an explanation... And for something like that I would probably find no reasonable explanation..
Matt: If you had could not find one, what would you conclude? Would you conclude that there is a god? or that you simply don't have all the facts?
Atheist: You never have all of the facts... Reasonable assumptions, remember?
Matt: Then you could not safely conclude it was the hand of God, could you?
Atheist: Nope. that would be the only explanation that I could think of that would have the three means, opportunity. (forget motive) [I did not understand him here...]
Matt: Then you couldn't know anything for sure, right? That is, if you don't have all the facts, all of them.
Atheist: Haven't we already agreed you can never have all the facts?
Matt: What you are telling me is that you have no real way of proving or disproving God. So then, doesn't it come down to faith based upon evidence? I have evidence....
Atheist: I have to go. Friends just arrived. Can we finish this later?
Matt: If you want....
I'm not sure how it went with this atheist. But I hope some seeds were planted.
This atheist actually believed he knew for a fact that there was no God. I found that position to be interesting and, quite honestly, not possible.
Also, he and I discussed faith a bit towards the end.
Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.
Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
Matt: Then you know there is no God?
Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes..Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism... Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist...
Matt: That is what I said...which are you?
Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained...
Matt: So, you know there is no god?
Atheist: Yes.
Matt: How can you know that?
Atheist: It's a reasonable assumption. If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.
Matt: Then you cannot KNOW there is no God. Your strong atheism is illogical.
Atheist: Let's look at Christianity. It runs on faith. Faith is not logical. It gives credence to unicorns, goblins and thing s that go bump in the night.
Matt: Nope. The subject is your atheism. Please don't try to change the subject.
Atheist: The subject can jump where ever.
Matt: Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God.
Atheist: I will defend, but also place in attack. Try to defend faith
Matt: One subject at a time....You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
Atheist: You can never see all evidences but that does not mean there is a god.
Matt: Correct.
Atheist: No, that means there is not enough information for a conclusion. So we make assumptions as best we can according to our knowledge...
Matt: But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical.
Atheist: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe there is no god...
Matt: Then that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.
Atheist: And so must you... But you picked a side.
Matt: Then it [your atheism] is not logical, but only assumptions you base your atheism on. Your atheism is untenable.... You must admit that agnosticism is more logically viable. If you admit that, we can discuss my faith.
Atheist: I'm not ignorant to say I don't use faith. But only the usage of faith in a situation that remains provable.
Matt: So, are you agnostic or atheist? which is it?
Atheist: Atheist.
Matt: You've lost the argument. Sorry...
Atheist: Wrong. What you're doing is a ploy. You bring me over.. but you stay the same. Either you must move over as well or the argument is mute in the first place. One can not keep faith and call his beliefs logical. For a bit I will stray over to the agnostic side. But I am willing to state instances where I believe prove my contention that there is no god.
Matt: You have been cornered.... It is not logical for you to claim strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God's existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation. Alright, Let's talk faith.
Atheist: Alright faith. you first.
Matt: I believe God exists. I have faith that he exists.
Atheist: Proof.
Matt: I have none.
Atheist: No proof with faith. So, do you always believe in things that you can not prove?
Matt: No... not at all... I have evidences, but they cannot lead to 100% proof or else all could be forced to believe. But, if there is enough evidence, I do believe.
Atheist: So you must be agnostic in that sense as well.
Matt: No... because I make choices. Though it is possible for my faith to be proven wrong, I still rest on the evidences and draw logical conclusions.
Atheist: Evidence....
Matt: Yes....
Atheist: Then you disregard one of the most fundamental rules of the game...
Matt: Which is?
Atheist: "Where ever knowledge is incomplete, there is a place for "faith;" but where ever knowledge and "faith" conflict, it is "faith" which must be modified or abandoned."
Matt: Or the understanding must be reevaluated.... 'Facts' have been found to be wrong before.
Atheist: Facts are not Truths. They are reasonable assumptions. I will get a dictionary definition for that one...
Matt: That's fine. So what about it? What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to conclude there is a god?
Atheist: Fact - Reality or actuality as distinguished to from conjecture or fantasy; Something known by observation or experience to be true or real.
Matt: That's good.... Now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
Atheist: An instance of superiority... Something humans could not do.. OR not be able to explained through phenomena but event then...
Matt: That's good... now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
Atheist: A universal movement. A stoppage of the planet. Nothing earthly.
Matt: If that were to happen, would you conclude there was a god? Couldn't it be explained in other ways?
Atheist: I would of course doubt it at first. I would look for an explanation... And for something like that I would probably find no reasonable explanation..
Matt: If you had could not find one, what would you conclude? Would you conclude that there is a god? or that you simply don't have all the facts?
Atheist: You never have all of the facts... Reasonable assumptions, remember?
Matt: Then you could not safely conclude it was the hand of God, could you?
Atheist: Nope. that would be the only explanation that I could think of that would have the three means, opportunity. (forget motive) [I did not understand him here...]
Matt: Then you couldn't know anything for sure, right? That is, if you don't have all the facts, all of them.
Atheist: Haven't we already agreed you can never have all the facts?
Matt: What you are telling me is that you have no real way of proving or disproving God. So then, doesn't it come down to faith based upon evidence? I have evidence....
Atheist: I have to go. Friends just arrived. Can we finish this later?
Matt: If you want....
I'm not sure how it went with this atheist. But I hope some seeds were planted.
I'm not interested in seeing what another atheist said, if you disagree wih my gnostic stance then question me. Whatever discussion might have occurred is irrelevant unless the atheist in question was a white male, objectivist libertarian. Even if this criteria was met the arguments he presented would have nothing to do with my assortment of contentions.
And? I'm a gnostic atheist, you're an apparently spiritual Christian. What criteria of the debate is not being met? You still as of this time haven't addressed the articles I have presented on this debate.
I have no time at the moment but I will get with you tomorrow and anyone else who responds. I have a long day at work so I must log off. Thanks for the debate and will return when I can spend more time on site. Good night and chin up.
You will be waiting a long time. I have too hectic of a schedule and as I said, I would enjoy getting to know how you stand on things but I am ready for another topic with you. I am sure we can debate on many things and since you declared me your enemy, I guess we will always be trying to prove each other wrong, lol. Have a good one.
" I would enjoy getting to know how you stand on things"
Wouldn't take very long, my username gives you about 60% of my views.
" I am ready for another topic with you. I am sure we can debate on many things and since you declared me your enemy, I guess we will always be trying to prove each other wrong, lol. Have a good one."
I don't see the topic at hand finished, as you actually haven't disputed me in the slightest. I will be stubborn about it.
I leave you with this to chew on. Perhaps you will agree with this conversation:
This atheist actually believed he knew for a fact that there was no God. I found that position to be interesting and, quite honestly, not possible.
Also, he and I discussed faith a bit towards the end.
Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.
Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
Matt: Then you know there is no God?
Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes..Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism... Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist...
Matt: That is what I said...which are you?
Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained...
Matt: So, you know there is no god?
Atheist: Yes.
Matt: How can you know that?
Atheist: It's a reasonable assumption. If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.
Matt: Then you cannot KNOW there is no God. Your strong atheism is illogical.
Atheist: Let's look at Christianity. It runs on faith. Faith is not logical. It gives credence to unicorns, goblins and thing s that go bump in the night.
Matt: Nope. The subject is your atheism. Please don't try to change the subject.
Atheist: The subject can jump where ever.
Matt: Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God.
Atheist: I will defend, but also place in attack. Try to defend faith
Matt: One subject at a time....You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
Atheist: You can never see all evidences but that does not mean there is a god.
Matt: Correct.
Atheist: No, that means there is not enough information for a conclusion. So we make assumptions as best we can according to our knowledge...
Matt: But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical.
Atheist: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe there is no god...
Matt: Then that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.
Atheist: And so must you... But you picked a side.
Matt: Then it [your atheism] is not logical, but only assumptions you base your atheism on. Your atheism is untenable.... You must admit that agnosticism is more logically viable. If you admit that, we can discuss my faith.
Atheist: I'm not ignorant to say I don't use faith. But only the usage of faith in a situation that remains provable.
Matt: So, are you agnostic or atheist? which is it?
Atheist: Atheist.
Matt: You've lost the argument. Sorry...
Atheist: Wrong. What you're doing is a ploy. You bring me over.. but you stay the same. Either you must move over as well or the argument is mute in the first place. One can not keep faith and call his beliefs logical. For a bit I will stray over to the agnostic side. But I am willing to state instances where I believe prove my contention that there is no god.
Matt: You have been cornered.... It is not logical for you to claim strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God's existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation. Alright, Let's talk faith.
Atheist: Alright faith. you first.
Matt: I believe God exists. I have faith that he exists.
Atheist: Proof.
Matt: I have none.
Atheist: No proof with faith. So, do you always believe in things that you can not prove?
Matt: No... not at all... I have evidences, but they cannot lead to 100% proof or else all could be forced to believe. But, if there is enough evidence, I do believe.
Atheist: So you must be agnostic in that sense as well.
Matt: No... because I make choices. Though it is possible for my faith to be proven wrong, I still rest on the evidences and draw logical conclusions.
Atheist: Evidence....
Matt: Yes....
Atheist: Then you disregard one of the most fundamental rules of the game...
Matt: Which is?
Atheist: "Where ever knowledge is incomplete, there is a place for "faith;" but where ever knowledge and "faith" conflict, it is "faith" which must be modified or abandoned."
Matt: Or the understanding must be reevaluated.... 'Facts' have been found to be wrong before.
Atheist: Facts are not Truths. They are reasonable assumptions. I will get a dictionary definition for that one...
Matt: That's fine. So what about it? What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to conclude there is a god?
Atheist: Fact - Reality or actuality as distinguished to from conjecture or fantasy; Something known by observation or experience to be true or real.
Matt: That's good.... Now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
Atheist: An instance of superiority... Something humans could not do.. OR not be able to explained through phenomena but event then...
Matt: That's good... now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence?
Atheist: A universal movement. A stoppage of the planet. Nothing earthly.
Matt: If that were to happen, would you conclude there was a god? Couldn't it be explained in other ways?
Atheist: I would of course doubt it at first. I would look for an explanation... And for something like that I would probably find no reasonable explanation..
Matt: If you had could not find one, what would you conclude? Would you conclude that there is a god? or that you simply don't have all the facts?
Atheist: You never have all of the facts... Reasonable assumptions, remember?
Matt: Then you could not safely conclude it was the hand of God, could you?
Atheist: Nope. that would be the only explanation that I could think of that would have the three means, opportunity. (forget motive) [I did not understand him here...]
Matt: Then you couldn't know anything for sure, right? That is, if you don't have all the facts, all of them.
Atheist: Haven't we already agreed you can never have all the facts?
Matt: What you are telling me is that you have no real way of proving or disproving God. So then, doesn't it come down to faith based upon evidence? I have evidence....
Atheist: I have to go. Friends just arrived. Can we finish this later?
Matt: If you want....
I'm not sure how it went with this atheist. But I hope some seeds were planted.
It has all the bearing you just refuse to accept it. I have proved my point. Case closed with you. No more debate left for you as I am finished debating here with you. Perhaps another day and on one of your topics which I am excited to visit.
Can you not comprehend that a transcript of a conversation with somebody is of no fruit in arguing with people? Other individuals and their interpretations of anything are completely irrelevant to debate.
"It has all the bearing you just refuse to accept it. "
It's not a matter of acceptance, it is a matter of upholding my individuality. My arguments should be taken on their own merit, not limited by a discussion you witnessed with a seperate individual.
That's just it, they can give a real logical reason, my friend in Christ. And they can't give any solid proof of what any person would gain in believing in atheism. Glad to see that someone else believes in the only real God - Jesus Christ. Amen, brother.
This shows how little you know about the subject. Atheism needs defend nothing as it asserts nothing (Thanks yet again to ThePyg for enlightening me). Christianity is making a claim (that that the Judeo-Christian god of classical theism exists). The Burden of proof is on you. You have done nothing to prove your point.
tell me what I would gain from believing in atheism!
I don't know. This is irrelevant. If you want a feel good, lovy dovy religion to believe in just to make yourself feel better about not accomplishing anything meaningful in life, fine. But know that it is BS. And Christianity is not a loving religion. An omni-benevolent god that massacres innocent children?! That is a loving god? Wow.
Christianity is not a religion. I have already stated this. I am not religious. If atheism doesn't have to be defended, then why are you defending it? I have stated my burden of proof and it's all in the pages of the Holy Bible. What more could anyone when ask for when we have it right there in the Bible. I don't have a feel good lovey dovey "religion." I have a spirituality that is Christ based and it's full of trials where I am refined more each time into what Christ wants me to be. I learn through these trials and it's not an easy walk. A Christian faces spiritual warfare and must keep the spiritual armour on. We are all sinners and satan has nothing better he wants to do than to attack the Christian. satan could care less about the non-believers, they are already doing what he wants. I have a fiery walk but getting to Heaven requires a walk of obedience to the Lord Jesus.
If atheism doesn't have to be defended, then why are you defending it?
I am not.
I have stated my burden of proof
You have done no such thing.
it's all in the pages of the Holy Bible.
How many times do I have to say this? I have shown the bible to be bullshit. It is not evidence. Period.
I have a spirituality that is Christ based and it's full of trials where I am refined more each time into what Christ wants me to be. I learn through these trials and it's not an easy walk. A Christian faces spiritual warfare and must keep the spiritual armour on.
So your belief is based on fallible personal experience and unfounded faith.
I have a fiery walk but getting to Heaven requires a walk of obedience to the Lord Jesus.
Yadadada. Prove god exists first, then we will get there.
I am serious. True Christianity is not a religion. You are defending atheism. You have yet to show any such thing about the Holy Bible and that task is impossible. My faith is in Jesus because the Bible is God inspired and I will not be shaken to be of this world. You already believe in God, I don't have to prove it.
Atheism leans towards reasoning. You would first of not loss cash a church, you would have more time, you would open your eye's and see the pain that your upposed God caused...
There is no reasoning in debate and I just proved it in the below question. If you believed in atheism, evolution, whatever - you would have no doubt nor would you take the time to find out from me. I will share any of God's plan and what I have learned by following Him, if you like though.
He has no choice but to doom the ones who don't believe to Hell. He is a loving God but as I said, a jealous and wrathful God. He gives us ample opportunity to accept Him as Lord and Savior. Anyone who does not believe in Him and has heard of Him and still denies Him, will be doomed to Hell forever and ever. The gift of Salvation is a free gift to all who will receive it.
Does he give proof to those who do not see his love ? This is if he really loves everyone, and nothing about a jealous god, if he was so jealous he would do everything he could to get us.
The proof is all around us. If even a non-believer prays to Him, He hears the words. God can speak in so many ways of his truthfullness and He has even been known to speak in dreams. All of man's trials are part of the refining process. God wants each of us to be as close to perfect as He can get us. When we are tested by fire, this is where the dross (any trashy stuff) is burnt off. It's not through anything except trials that we learn how to be more like Him. Christians will have trials for the rest of their days and this is because God refines us to be more like Him. We also learn unconditional love. You see, God doesn't need us but we need Him. He WANTS us and LOVES us though.
Atheism has the highest criminal, suicide, immorality level. I choose to follow my Jesus who provides me with peace and the patience to debate with people such as yourself.
I am sorry you are a close-minded person. All of the questions you asked are all in the pages of the Bible. If you have ever picked the Bible up and read it, you would see what I say is true. It's impossible for anyone to discredit all aspects and evidence of any belief so you are asking an inhumane task.
If you are looking for evidence of something you can't just accept certain evidence and deny all other evidence just because it's not the evidence YOU want. Also, you can't tell the evidence what to do and only except the evidence if it does what YOU want. For example: Lets say that my brother was outside mowing the grass. All of a sudden he bursts through the front door and announces that there is a snake in the middle of the yard. When looking for proof that what my brother is saying is true I must go look at the evidence provided. I can't say, "I don't believe you. The only way I will believe that there is a snake in the yard is if it comes into the house and shows itself to me." That's not only illogical it's just plain dumb.
Even if God did appear before you in blazing glory, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Simply put, the criteria demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists puts a requirement on logic that is not realistic.
In other words, are you OBJECTIVELY examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn't scientific or because it isn't what YOU want? Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur? If you have a presupposition, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position. Finally, If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. Again since it is impossible to know everything, especially those things that happen outside of our limited space-time continuum, then you are simply making an assumption which is irrelevant and illogical.
If you are looking for evidence of something you can't just accept certain evidence and deny all other evidence just because it's not the evidence YOU want.
I know. I accept ALL forms of evidence. Sadly, the bullshit bible isn't fact by any stretch of the word.
Lets say that my brother was outside mowing the grass. All of a sudden he bursts through the front door and announces that there is a snake in the middle of the yard. When looking for proof that what my brother is saying is true I must go look at the evidence provided. I can't say, "I don't believe you. The only way I will believe that there is a snake in the yard is if it comes into the house and shows itself to me." That's not only illogical it's just plain dumb.
What a terrible analogy. I will gladly accept that there is a snake, even walk outside, but you have to show me the snake. There is no snake (HAHA...UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THE BULLSHIT BIBLE IN WHICH CASE SNAKES CAN TALK!).
Even if God did appear before you in blazing glory, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you?
This has never happened. Ever.
Simply put, the criteria demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists puts a requirement on logic that is not realistic.
All I ask is that you give even a shred of evidence. You have given none.
In other words, are you OBJECTIVELY examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn't scientific
Both. Not only is not scientific, science CONTRADICTS the bullshit bible.
but are you being as objective as you can or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?
HA! You were born a Christian. This statement invalidates your own beliefs. And no, I don't have a predisposition to atheism. I'm not even an atheist.
Finally, If you assume that science can explain all phenomena
It has not yet. Regardless, this is the God of the Gaps fallacy.
there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof.
You are right. If there is no evidence pointing to divine intervention, there is no logical reason to believe it. Regardless, miracles aren't evidence for the bible, nor even god.
it is impossible to know everything
HAHA! The Judeo-Christian god is supposedly omniscient. You are contradicting your religion's beliefs. So if you are saying omniscience is not possible, your god doesn't exist.
especially those things that happen outside of our limited space-time continuum, then you are simply making an assumption which is irrelevant and illogical.
God of the Gaps. You are saying a lack of evidence for your God is evidence for your god. That makes no sense.
Sadly, the bullshit bible isn't fact by any stretch of the word.
I have no idea why I used the word "sadly." "Thankfully," would have been the better choice. I certainly would lament the existence of a narcistic, egomaniacal, perverted child killer like the Judeo-Christian god.
"Psychologist Douglas Haldeman, who is on the clinical faculty of the University of Washington and has published evaluations of reparative therapy, said the study offers no convincing evidence of change.
He said there is no credible scientific evidence that suggests sexual orientation can be changed, 'and this study doesn't prove that either.'"
There is still some research to be done until now, both sides cannot say for certain, but we can say it is possible. For one very good reason, we do not really now what causes homosexuality.
Why are you so biased the scientific community has not even come to a conclusion. No body said it is a behavioral choice, there is a difference between choice and change.
Christianity conflicts with historical, archaeological, astronomical, biological, and many other forms of evidence. It denies rational & impartial common sense. Its teachings, written by an all powerful, all knowing, creator of the universe, are filled with contradictions. The arguments for Christianity just don't hold ground (bar one or two, and those are close). Atheism is not perfect, but it is the more logical position of the two.
There is no dispute in Christianity. In order to prove what you are stating, you need full knowledge of this entire universe and at the exact same time you need that knowledge of each of the items you listed: historical evidence, all knowing evidence, creator of the universe evidence, and "many other forms" of evidence. If you can do this, you are "god" yourself and this is where I prove you have already disputed your own theory of God not existing. God is Omnipotent and this is where the real common sense belief lies. You have such strong "faith" in atheism, which is illogical but tell me why you have faith at all?
Why would you create this debate if you cannot accept valid points that go against your own beliefs? Why would you claim that I have to provide proof? How can you assume that God is real, and that you are right? In your short time on this website, you have shown awful debating technique.
Regardless ....
you need full knowledge of this entire universe
No I do not.
each of the items you listed
historical: Big Bang, contradictions between historical sources + the bible (there are hundreds - no I will not give you hundreds of examples)
archaeological: Bones of dinosaurs, fossils in general
astronomical: The fact that the earth is not the centre of the universe, that the bible makes no mention of the earth being round, that the universe stretches much further than the earth, moon + sun
biological: Evolution
all knowing evidence, creator of the universe evidence
Google the problem of evil.
"many other forms" of evidence
I hardly feel I need to give you more arguments to refute. But, if you do, I shall.
If you can do this, you are "god" yourself and this is where I prove you have already disputed your own theory of God not existing.
Once I remove your justification for full knowledge, which is a straw man argument, then your above statement is fallacious. I do not need to know everything about the universe to say that there is no God, because in debate, philosophical, and scientific procedure states that we must assume that the negative is true, and that those claiming the affirmative must provide proof. Until you give me proof of a God, Atheism is the assumed position of the two. Using your logic, I could claim that unicorns are true. Do you need to know everything about the universe to tell me I'm wrong? No. I would need to provide you proof.
God is Omnipotent and this is where the real common sense belief lies.
Why? Why does a floating man in the sky make any sense in the slightest? Why does life after death make sense, why does worldwide floods make sense, why does parting the red sea make sense, why does anything about religion fall under real common sense?
It does for you, because - I would assume that - you were raised as a Christian, and have never been taught to critically think about your beliefs? Have you ever considered that you might be wrong, and given it serious thought? Have you ever considered other religions? I would guess, that like most theists, you have not. Please, prove me wrong and start good debate, if I am wrong. But stop asserting your beliefs as facts until you can back them up.
You have such strong "faith" in atheism, which is illogical but tell me why you have faith at all?
Why is it illogical? I have faith in atheism because I reject religion, and the idea of a creator. Simple enough really. That's all it takes to be an atheist, that's all it means, nothing else. Hardly difficult.
And anyway, I already told you that Atheism is not perfect, and yet you assert that ['I have such strong faith in atheism']? Don't you dare tell me what I think, especially when I imply otherwise. To do so is insulting, and just makes you look unintelligent.
Why would you create this debate if you cannot accept valid points that go against your own beliefs?
If this is the case, why don't you follow your own words and accept my valid beliefs against your own belief? Who said anyone has to accept anyone's beliefs in the first place?
you need full knowledge of this entire universe
You just don't get it do you? Point in stance, there is only One that knows this entire Universe. If God weren't real, there wouldn't be so many earthlings attempting to refute him time and time again but yet the Holy Bible still stands.
Google the problem of evil.
Why would I do so when I have already stared evil in the eyes in my lifetime. I surely know what "evil" is and I know how to combat evil.
I hardly feel I need to give you more arguments to refute. But, if you do, I shall.
I didn't request you to give me anything, I merely referred to your inadequate list of arguments.
Until you give me proof of a God, Atheism is the assumed position of the two. Using your logic, I could claim that unicorns are true. Do you need to know everything about the universe to tell me I'm wrong? No. I would need to provide you proof.
You can claim whatever you want to claim is true, but when referring to whether God is true, the Holy Bible says it's trust so it's true. If the Holy Bible said that Big Foot was real, I would believe it with no proof needed.
Why? Why does a floating man in the sky make any sense in the slightest? Why does life after death make sense, why does worldwide floods make sense, why does parting the red sea make sense, why does anything about religion fall under real common sense?
Why do you struggle with all these questions because they must go through your head. I have no question about these things being true. And there is a difference between religion and spirituality. You explain the question about religion to me as you are the one who is religious, and I am the spiritual one here. I am not religious.
Get back to me on these statements and we will take it from there.
If this is the case, why don't you follow your own words and accept my valid beliefs against your own belief? Who said anyone has to accept anyone's beliefs in the first place?
I have accepted all points you made. I refuted them in logical manner. You did no such thing to my arguments.
You just don't get it do you? Point in stance, there is only One that knows this entire Universe. If God weren't real, there wouldn't be so many earthlings attempting to refute him time and time again but yet the Holy Bible still stands.
OK. So if we all start refuting the Quran, or Hindu Gods, or the Flying Spaghetti monster, and notice that some argument still remains, then that's considered proof? You refuse to think objectively, and your arguments are fallacious.
Why would I do so when I have already stared evil in the eyes in my lifetime. I surely know what "evil" is and I know how to combat evil.
I'm trying to help you be educated on debate between Christianity and atheism. The problem of evil is not just 'evil', it's a philosophical proof that disproves the possibility of an all powerful, all knowing, and good, creator, on the grounds that evil exists. An all powerful & good person would end all evil. As evil exists, the only logical answer is that there is no all powerful, all knowing, and good, creator, aka, your God.
I didn't request you to give me anything, I merely referred to your inadequate list of arguments.
In debate, that's the same thing. Stop being so petty , when you ignore massive arguments that I put forward.
You can claim whatever you want to claim is true, but when referring to whether God is true, the Holy Bible says it's trust so it's true. If the Holy Bible said that Big Foot was real, I would believe it with no proof needed.
How do you know the Bible is true? There is no proof. How can you even consider starting a debate on this topic if you refuse to listen to empirical reasoning, to any form of critical thinking, to anything that is necessary to proper debate?
Why do you struggle with all these questions because they must go through your head. I have no question about these things being true. And there is a difference between religion and spirituality.
Because the world is much more complex than you claim. Things aren't black and white. There aren't easy answers.
You explain the question about religion to me as you are the one who is religious, and I am the spiritual one here.
What you mean, is that I know the topic much better than you do. I'm interested debating this topic, it intrigues me. But, I do not enjoy ignorance and denial.
I am not religious.
You are religious. You believe in the Christian God. Therefore, you are religious. Either you are wrong, you were previously lying, or you are mistaken on definitions.
I have accepted all points you made. I refuted them in logical manner. You did no such thing to my arguments.
You have not accepted the points I have made nor have you refuted them (proved what I have said wrong). If I weren't refuting your arguments, you wouldn't still be trying to prove yourself correct.
OK. So if we all start refuting the Quran, or Hindu Gods, or the Flying Spaghetti monster, and notice that some argument still remains, then that's considered proof? You refuse to think objectively, and your arguments are fallacious.
You see, we aren't proving the Qr an, Hindu "gods" or anything else, we are on the topic of Christianity or Atheism. You are going off topic here therefore your arguments are fallacious. (Please note: you are using the word fallacious too much). Get a little more creative and be somewhat inspired when you reply. Are you a robot?
I'm trying to help you be educated on debate between Christianity and atheism. The problem of evil is not just 'evil', it's a philosophical proof that disproves the possibility of an all powerful, all knowing, and good, creator, on the grounds that evil exists. An all powerful & good person would end all evil. As evil exists, the only logical answer is that there is no all powerful, all knowing, and good, creator, aka, your God.
Your attempt to "try" and help me is a wasted as attempt as I believe I am teaching you a few tricks on debate though you will never admit. Your reference to evil via "google" and man made statements is null and void when it comes to referring to my Jesus. You see, you don't understand the Holy Bible. In the Old Testament, yes, God was showing his wrath because He had to because of the poor choices of man. We live under the New Covenant and if you did your studying, you would understand the Old and New law. There isn't enough space here for me to break that down though that is a separate topic.
In debate, that's the same thing. Stop being so petty , when you ignore massive arguments that I put forward.
You would show much more intelligence if you would attempt not to say a person is "petty" in any debate. That would mean we are all "petty" for having our opinion.
How do you know the Bible is true? There is no proof. How can you even consider starting a debate on this topic if you refuse to listen to empirical reasoning, to any form of critical thinking, to anything that is necessary to proper debate?
I know the Bible is true because firstly, I understand what the word true means, first off. Also, there is physical evidence that the Bible is true. There are copies and copies of manuscripts which show the interpretation of the Bible is true. Also, the New Testament records are so true, it's just incredible. There may be a few variants, but none of the small variants change the core of Christian beliefs. There are archaeological findings that support the Bible as well. Also, being that the Bible was written by several different writers over several centuries, the words remained quite consistent.
Because the world is much more complex than you claim. Things aren't black and white. There aren't easy answers.
Because the world is much more complex than you claim. Things aren't black and white. There aren't easy answers.
Who said I thought the world wasn't complex. In fact, it is extremely complex. God created each creature with such complexity it is quite hard to fathom, now isn't it?
What you mean, is that I know the topic much better than you do. I'm interested debating this topic, it intrigues me. But, I do not enjoy ignorance and denial.
What you mean, is that I know the topic much better than you do. I'm interested debating this topic, it intrigues me. But, I do not enjoy ignorance and denial.
You do not know what I mean and if you did, you would again, be "god". it is clear you are pulling straws here and your attempt to do so is a failure. I think you are just mad at yourself for your own ignorance. Stop being so hard on yourself.
You are religious. You believe in the Christian God. Therefore, you are religious. Either you are wrong, you were previously lying, or you are mistaken on definitions.
You see, we aren't proving the Qr an, Hindu "gods" or anything else, we are on the topic of Christianity or Atheism. You are going off topic here therefore your arguments are fallacious.
You may have heard of the Celestial Teapot Argument? It may better describe what I'm trying to say. I'm not going off topic, I'm trying to demonstrate what you're asking me to accept. In all debate, the one claiming something must offer proof. Since I'm arguing for atheism, which claims nothing, I have to prove nothing. The burden of proof is on you.
Your attempt to "try" and help me is a wasted as attempt as I believe I am teaching you a few tricks on debate though you will never admit. Your reference to evil via "google" and man made statements is null and void when it comes to referring to my Jesus. You see, you don't understand the Holy Bible. In the Old Testament, yes, God was showing his wrath because He had to because of the poor choices of man. We live under the New Covenant and if you did your studying, you would understand the Old and New law. There isn't enough space here for me to break that down though that is a separate topic.
You are telling me that you're teaching me about religious debate, and yet you haven't heard of the Problem of Evil, and fail to rebut it effectively by any means. The validity of your first claim is evident. Try again, if you please.
You would show much more intelligence if you would attempt not to say a person is "petty" in any debate. That would mean we are all "petty" for having our opinion.
I care little of your opinion of my intelligence. I would rather you recognise that distinguishing between telling me my arguments are wrong, and requesting me to refute your claims, despite that being the assumed idea of a debate, is petty.
I know the Bible is true because firstly, I understand what the word true means, first off. Also, there is physical evidence that the Bible is true. There are copies and copies of manuscripts which show the interpretation of the Bible is true. Also, the New Testament records are so true, it's just incredible. There may be a few variants, but none of the small variants change the core of Christian beliefs. There are archaeological findings that support the Bible as well. Also, being that the Bible was written by several different writers over several centuries, the words remained quite consistent.
There is physical evidence in that there is an earth, and the bible talks about an earth. Unfortunately, that does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is true. There are not copies that show that the 'interpretation of the bible is true', and interpretation is an interpretation. What New Testament records? Please justify your claims, until then they are assumed to be false. Fossils are archaeological findings, they go directly against biblical teachings. There are numerous contradictions within the Bible. If you cannot accept these accepted facts, or prove why they're wrong, then I fail to see how you can claim to be a superior debater.
Who said I thought the world wasn't complex. In fact, it is extremely complex. God created each creature with such complexity it is quite hard to fathom, now isn't it?
Unjustified assertion of truth.
You do not know what I mean and if you did, you would again, be "god". it is clear you are pulling straws here and your attempt to do so is a failure. I think you are just mad at yourself for your own ignorance. Stop being so hard on yourself.
You call me ignorant, because I think critically about the possibility of a God, because you can't proof what you claim is absolute & obvious truth, because my beliefs differ to yours? If that is what you define as ignorant, I have no problem with that.
The only argument in the article was 'religion is bad, Christianity must be good, so Christianity isn't a religion'. Just in case you're wondering, I reject that argument. Please define religion, and explain why Christianity does not fall under it.
Ben, Ben, Ben.....I am not even going to copy each question as I lack the time here at work but I will give it my best to answer in the time I have available. No, I haven't heard of the Celestial Teapot Argument nor am I interested in it if it's coming from an atheist. But, feel free to explain as I am not here to make enemies but I am hard headed when it comes to where I stand and what I believe in. I feel that in debate the burden of proof is on both sides of debate if we must prove anything, which I don't have to prove anything. Debate can be also based off of a person's feelings, remember that. I know all about evil and evil is all of satan, the prince of the air. Call me petty, call me pretty, neither matters Ben. I cannot accept any scientific findings because science is unreliable Ben. And on the argument where you feel I have stated an unjustifiable statement, please refute. I am glad you accepted you are ignorant for not believing in Jesus Christ. I won't define religion because I want no part of religion. You are the religious one, why don't you define it?
*'I don't care what Atheists have to say, they're wrong. It makes sense to believe the ridiculous, and we shouldn't question our beliefs, even where they don't make sense, because I just know God is real. I know nothing of the standard arguments that atheists have against Christianity. I don't like science, because science says the bible isn't real and we know the bible's real because God said so and we know God's real because the bible said so, so there, all science is wrong. I can't explain things, but they must be as I want them to be, because Christians said so, even though I don't understand their arguments. I'm right and you're wrong'.
That's how I view your argument. Interesting how different our perspectives are, isn't it?
And also, I've stopped debating until you bring something to the table, you haven't even began to offer proof yet. As you said, both of us should take the burden of proof.
Why don't you show me proof that atheism is truth. Here's a video for you since you like to use other references. This should clear it all up for you Ben.
You know what, I don't have any proof of atheism. I don't believe there can ever be proof, if there was, everyone would 'believe' the same thing, or be ignorant fools. I have never claimed that I was an atheist, simply that I was an atheist over a Christian. I am an agnostic atheist. But, atheism is the starting belief of people, if you take them away from human contact, would they be atheist, or Christian? Therefore, it is the Christian who needs to provide proof. The Celestial Teapot Argument shows how unreasonable you are being to suggest otherwise. The Problem of Evil disputes your claims. Almost the entire list of scientific discoveries throughout history supports either atheism, or is impartial. And since you have not rebutted any of my claims so far in any meaningful way, I will not reply any more to any rebuttals. I will, however, reply to your own claims of proof, and encourage you to prove me wrong. I look forward to the 'challenge'.
All things considering, I think that my position as an agnostic atheist is perfectly well justified.
Not for your Great grand parents, not for your Great Great Grand parents and not even for your Great Great Great Great Great Great Grand parents... it goes on and on.
They waited for him. And they died waiting.
And it will be the same for us, and for our grand children.
Have you ever heard of the Rapture? Even if we don't see Jesus return while we are here on earth, we will indeed see His return. Many will fall for the anti-Christ who will come to earth before Christ's return. One tell tale difference between the anti-christ and Jesus Christ is that the anti-christ will actually walk the earth where Jesus will call us up in the air. Remember this, because when the anti-christ comes, this is the very last chance for non-believers to convert.
If you have given up rebutting my arguments, may I assume that you have given up trying to claim that atheism is unjustifiable? It was only yesterday that you said you had proof of Christianity, I'd hate for you to have forgotten it so quickly.
You have got to be kidding me. Not only are there thousands of disputes of Christianity, there are thousands of contradictions and self-refuations within Christianity.
In order to prove what you are stating
Stop right there. Atheism is proving nothing (a fact I was so ignorant to until ThePyg enlightened me). It makes no claims, and, therefore, it need defend nothing.
you need full knowledge of this entire universe and at the exact same time you need that knowledge of each of the items you listed: historical evidence, all knowing evidence, creator of the universe evidence, and "many other forms" of evidence.
This is a textbook example of the argumentum ad bullshit logical fallacy.
You have such strong "faith" in atheism
Atheism requires no faith. And even if it did, your argument is irrelevant as theism does as well.
which is illogical
OK. You have now claimed that faith-based beliefs are "illogical." Christianity is a faith-based belief. Therefore, Christianity is illogical. You have successfully disproven your own argument.
You have got to be kidding me. Not only are there thousands of disputes of Christianity, there are thousands of contradictions and self-refuations within Christianity.
It doesn't matter how many disputes from man there are. That was prophesied by Jesus in the Bible, that many would dispute His word.
Stop right there. Atheism is proving nothing (a fact I was so ignorant to until ThePyg enlightened me). It makes no claims, and, therefore, it need defend nothing.
Cliche'. Typical response of an atheist. Atheists have a track record of not wanting to prove Atheism is correct yet they expect Christianity to be proved correct. Atheism makes so many claims that it is pitiful. Just read all of the claims you atheists have already made on my topic.
This is a textbook example of the argumentum ad bullshit logical fallacy.
Your response is al'a textbook bullshit.
Atheism requires no faith. And even if it did, your argument is irrelevant as theism does as well.
In order to believe in something that is unseen such as your religion of Atheism, yes, it requires faith. And yes, I have a strong faith and freely admit it. Faith is good.
OK. You have now claimed that faith-based beliefs are "illogical." Christianity is a faith-based belief. Therefore, Christianity is illogical. You have successfully disproven your own argument.
No, I did not claim that and if that is what you believe, please show my text where I said that.
How can you believe in logic without any hope in your life? How can you live a life without hope? I don't believe you really understand what you just said.
The biggest difference between Christians and atheists is their belief on th character of God. This is the core dispute. Atheists have an inability to to comprehend just how holy God is. I recommend you read The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul and then get back with me.
No it isn't, unless you mean within the context of this particular debate. The primary issue is whether or not an unjustified assertion can be considered possible or not. I contest that by all logical reasoning it can not.
" I recommend you read The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul and then get back with me."
How dare you give me material to analyze when you disregard the multiple sources I have presented to you. You have disputed none of them. Also, I care not for your feeble attempts to justify the pure evil exhibited by your deity in your fiction book, I care more for dealing with relevant debate(like the before mentioned issue).
My deity is not fictional and what you state is mere hear say. Yes, the core dispute because you are quite aware that atheists operate off of what they call "logic" while Christians are driven by faith in Jesus. I did give you material to read and I still urge you to read it. I don't care if you don't care about my feeble attempts, I will present them to you anyways just as you present feeble attempts to me.
"My deity is not fictional and what you state is mere hear say"
Hahahahahaha you are hilarious. The status quo is that he doesn't exist. In order for the topic to even be debatable, you must provide challenging evidence that brings the status quo into question.
"Christians are driven by faith in Jesus"
An irrational position in honor of an evil individual.
"I did give you material to read and I still urge you to read it."
I will look into it once you actually contest my points and evidence.
" I will present them to you anyways just as you present feeble attempts to me."
My position is defined by logic(no exaggeration, I am an Objectivist).
No, because you atheists are in search of some formula that "allows" God to exist. God needs no burden of proof to be proved. It's a matter of faith in Him or not. Please go and watch Paul Washer on youtube.
Hahahahahahahaha this is the funniest comment I have ever read. If you are unable to realize the absolutely fallicious nature of that statement, then you have no reason to be on a debate website.
"It's a matter of faith in Him or not. Please go and watch Paul Washer on youtube."
Lol you just don't get it. You still haven't logically disputed even one of my points and haven't addressed my evidence in the slightest. I find you to be intellectually dishonest to a very high degree. You obviously are avoiding answering posed contentions. And if you find a certain piece of evidence relevant, quote it or link it. I won't explore YouTube mindlessly. But of course, only after you have addressed the evidence I presented to you.
If you are looking for evidence of something you can't just accept certain evidence and deny all other evidence just because it's not the evidence YOU want. Also, you can't tell the evidence what to do and only except the evidence if it does what YOU want. For example: Lets say that my brother was outside mowing the grass. All of a sudden he bursts through the front door and announces that there is a snake in the middle of the yard. When looking for proof that what my brother is saying is true I must go look at the evidence provided. I can't say, "I don't believe you. The only way I will believe that there is a snake in the yard is if it comes into the house and shows itself to me." That's not only illogical it's just plain dumb.
Even if God did appear before you in blazing glory, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Simply put, the criteria demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists puts a requirement on logic that is not realistic.
In other words, are you OBJECTIVELY examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn't scientific or because it isn't what YOU want? Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur? If you have a presupposition, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position. Finally, If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. Again since it is impossible to know everything, especially those things that happen outside of our limited space-time continuum, then you are simply making an assumption which is irrelevant and illogical.
False hypothesis, I am looking for nothing, the proposing party has the burden of proof.
"you can't just accept certain evidence and deny all other evidence just because it's not the evidence YOU want"
You ma'am are a true hypocrite. You do not dispute my contentions. You do not reply to evidence I present. You play the victim to no avail. I presented my evidence beforehand to establish the conditions under which I call myself a gnostic atheist. No intelligent discussion, just more irrelevant blather. Truly pathetic.
"When looking for proof that what my brother is saying is true I must go look at the evidence provided. I can't say, "I don't believe you."
You are ridiculous. This example works within reality, snakes and yards are proven to exist. God on the other hand is not and therefor it becomes a matter of the status quo.
"Even if God did appear before you in blazing glory, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you?"
Being the logical being I am, I would come to blame too much DMT. But at the time such event were occuring I'd probably shun him for being pure evil.
"How would you know? Simply put, the criteria demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists puts a requirement on logic that is not realistic."
It is quite realistic. There aren't special rules when it comes to god, in order to be able to proof an assertion that something exists, it must comply with the axioms(preconditions for proof) of reality.
"because it isn't scientific or because it isn't what YOU want?"
Want I want has no bearing on the validity of anything.
"but are you being as objective as you can or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur"
I am upholding the Objective standards proposed by Ayn Rand, whose position on the subject is within the evidence I posted that you refuse to contest due to your intellectual dishonesty.
"If you have a presupposition, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence."
You are really quite dim. Read carefully, Axioms, Axioms, Axioms.
"assumption which is irrelevant and illogical."
Sticking to the status quo is irrelevant and illogical? Study your claim carefully and hopefully you'll come to realize the pure idiocy of it. Oh and again, Axioms.
If you are looking for evidence of something you can't just accept certain evidence and deny all other evidence just because it's not the evidence YOU want.
That's a bit big coming from one who hasn't provided any valid, cogent, sound and/or binding arguments thus far.
Also, you can't tell the evidence what to do and only except the evidence if it does what YOU want.
You're attacking a straw man. Since when has anyone said anything about telling a piece of evidence what to do? And I didn't expect your English to surpass your dismal intellect.
Lets say that my brother was outside mowing the grass. All of a sudden he bursts through the front door and announces that there is a snake in the middle of the yard. When looking for proof that what my brother is saying is true I must go look at the evidence provided. I can't say, "I don't believe you. The only way I will believe that there is a snake in the yard is if it comes into the house and shows itself to me." That's not only illogical it's just plain dumb.
False analogy. God, if he exists, is not a properly basic belief. Neither is he empirically evidential. Thus, for you to make such a claim, you would have to be suffering from a severe mental illness or that you're under a grave delusion.
Even if God did appear before you in blazing glory, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you?
No, I wouldn't. Because that God must be proven to be maximally great.
Simply put, the criteria demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists puts a requirement on logic that is not realistic.
Really? Then the benchmark for evidence for a Christian must be abysmally low.
In other words, are you OBJECTIVELY examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn't scientific or because it isn't what YOU want?
You haven't provided any good arguments, scientific or otherwise.
Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?
And your definition of "objectivity" is?
If you have a presupposition, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence.
You are obviously overly presumptious and ignorant.
Finally, If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof.
Straw man.
Again since it is impossible to know everything, especially those things that happen outside of our limited space-time continuum, then you are simply making an assumption which is irrelevant and illogical.
Aha! Since it is impossible to know everything, then there isn't a being that can be said to be omniscient (all-knowing). Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist!
Just out of interest, have you heard of Bertrand Russel's 'Celestial Teapot Argument'? It states that, he may claim that there is eternally a teapot, flying around earth, that is so minute that no one may see it. As no one can see it, there is no way to falsify his claims. Is he wrong?
By your logic, he is not. But my all forms of rational thinking, common sense, and by scientific logic, he is.
Would you apply the same logic here, or is God an exemption to the norm?
Oh no, did I ask the great question that atheists can't stand to hear?
Which question is that now? The debate title assumes that Christianity is the opposite to Atheism, I'm sure there's a few Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc, that would disagree.
Perhaps the negative position may be that the term "atheism" is incorrect?
Why?
The argument that a person cannot be a christian because of his or her flaws is also quite weak.
Has anybody made this argument here?
Christianity will stand the test of time as God is the one and the only
Christianity has already failed the test of time, logic has won.
Scientists make scientific errors all of the time
You are assuming that an Atheist believes with faith everything that a scientist says, and that science is somehow an Atheist doctrine. This is a false assumption.
If a scientist makes an error, which logically they always will, it is the job of the next to work on correcting that. If there were no errors there would be no science, but I'd rather be a round earth theorist than a flat earth theorist, even though both of these stances are wrong, one is evidently closer to the truth.
Jesus Christ has never made a mistake and prophecies in the Bible have been and are still being fulfilled today.
On what authority do you make a claim such as this? Which prophecies are being fulfilled?
God has been a gracious Father to provide both the atheist and christian the solid evidence of His truth.
Your God is so gracious and forgiving he sends people to burn for eternity if they dont belive in him. He so so Gracious to starve thousands of children, and lets not forget how nice he was to give us Cancr and AIDS and how it ruin's lives.
No lets just turn a blind eye to all that. Even if we do though, there is murder, rape, torcure, and dont fucking say that its mostly atheisits who do it. I dont care who does. If your God is all mighty let him do something.
Tell me why he kills innocent children, tell me why he lets us kill each other for personal gain, tell me why he puts all his beloved children though so much pain.
And if you say it is a test. Then how is small child under the age of 4, who was raped, slashed, and killed ment to belive that this God is a good God, a forgiving God, a ever Mercifull God...
Oh no... did i ask the question you didnt want to hear...
Good afternoon, I was reading through your post and felt compelled to comment. First of all God has great mercy and compassion, you may not see it around you now but it is there. What you are seeing all around you is the result of war (1 Peter 5:7-9 8.Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour); Just as God is real so is our enemy. That enemy (Satan) does not want you happy, healthy, in love, or in heaven; he wants you in Hell.
All the crimes that you list here rape, murder, torture, etc. these are the crimes men and not of God. God has given us free will and we miss use it all the time, the free will we abuse is yet another indication of his love. God wants from us what we want from each other, simply Love, that’s all just love. The catch is he wants us to love him because we want to not because we have to. If God forced you to do anything you would no longer be free you would become a slave; that’s not what God wants.
Remember God does not want you in Hell, and does not send you there; if you end up in Hell it will the Sin of unbelief that lands you there. God built you a bridge to heaven through Jesus. All the hard part is done for you all you have to do is ask for forgiveness, and you will be forgiven and Heaven will be your home when this life is done.
I will be happy to answer, you see, when natural disasters kill a human being the chances of him going to heaven are very high. Stomach cancer is very painful and again the chances of you going to heaven are high. Remember, we believe that in the end, there will be justice. Little kids who die have a 100% chance of going to heaven. Now don't tell me I can't prove myself because your argument is IF there was a God, we are not discussing his existence, we are discussing his justice.
Yes, God has to have this wrath. God is a jealous God and wants no God before man except Him. It's surely worth it - to sacrifice living in idolatry and to be obedient to the Almighty for eternity with Him where there will be no more hurting, no more pain. He doesn't starve children, all of this is a result of man's free will and much of it is a result of the enemy being able to dictate man's life. As far as disease, we may not always understand each and every thing, one thing is for sure - God's plan is always best. I don't turn a blind eye to anything and I used to battle with the very same questions. I prayed and still pray for more wisdom. If you only read the Bible, all the wisdom is there. Prayer is essential as God will draw closer to those who pray. The horrendous crimes you speak of are committed by those whom are demon possessed or opressed. It has nothing to do with God. He doesn't allow any evil, he gave us free will. We can choose to live obedient to Him or to follow the plan of satan. We will all give account for what our choices in life are. We can be forgiven if we repent - which means to turn away from sin. Yes, we may stumble but God knows your heart. As far as what you say about the child something may have happened to, well - satan is the god of the air here. Perhaps you should hold him accountable for much of this evil. God is merciful and always will be. You didn't say anything I didn't want to hear.
He has given you truth. You just reject it and allow the enemy to control your choices. Being a Christian requires sacrifice and that means turning away from much that the world loves such as pre-marital sex, gluttony, greed, etc. You must be open to receiving the Words of the Bible into your heart. Having faith is a choice and not a feeling. He doesn't have to give you proof though if He doesn't want to. God's plan is simple if you just accept He is Lord. In my personal testimony, I was just as hard headed as you. It wasn't until I faced death that I realized Jesus was really real and that's a separate story. I am here and praying that there are people out there who won't be as hard headed as I was. No, He doesn't have to be jealous but He is. He is going to give you all another chance but you must remember what I am telling you. You take a chance with doing it this way because you may not be here when the anti-christ returns. But if you are here when the anti-christ come to reign, many Christians and sinners alike will fall for this anti-christ as he will be miraculous and beautiful. There is a major contrast in how the anti-christ will come and how Jesus' return will be. Remember this, the anti-christ will walk the earth. Jesus will call up on in the air and the rapture will being. Then the 7 years of tribulation will begin. For those who are in tribulation, it will be hard times. It's all very complicated but the one main concept required is just having unseen faith- yes, unseen faith and believing in Him. Take that first step, hand it all over to Jesus and let Him move in your life.
Which question is that now? The debate title assumes that Christianity is the opposite to Atheism, I'm sure there's a few Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc, that would disagree.
I can't believe you are asking me what question I am asking. No other person had a hard time understanding my debate question. Please refer to the debate question. This topic is between atheists and Christians. I could write a separate topic between Christians and Muslims, etc. Please stay on topic here.
Christianity has already failed the test of time, logic has won.
Christianity has and will stand the test of time as your "logic" will be crying out to God to give you one more chance. Get yourself right with God now before it's too late.
So now you are saying scientists will always make an error. Of course they will, because they are humans. But Jesus Christ makes no mistake. As far as your earth theorist comment, that just gave me the best morning chuckle and I thank you for that.
this is my big problem with christianity: why is it about belief. there have been horrible people who are believers. what about wonderful people who do great things for the world and are atheists. is it fair to punish them for not knowing what the nature od reality is??? I AM an atheist and im a good person. the idea that a mere belief difference can seal ones fate is beyond preposterous, its madness!!
I'm not really convinced why Christians need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. They're faith in God is for personal reasons, not to win (or lose) popularity contests.
Secondly, can't that argument work both ways? Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that God doesn't exist? As far as "logical reasons," logical absolutes exist and they:
1.) are conceptual by nature, not physical,
2.) are not dependent upon human minds,
3.) transcend space and time.
The problem with your "logical problem of evil," is that you're assuming balance can exist and be maintained without good OR without evil. The two must stay in constant equilibrium and harmony. Without evil, God wouldn't exist. This argument is false. On the other hand, the problem with your evidential form of the problem of evil is that God, once again, would not exist without evil. God helps those who help themselves - He doesn't hand everything over to us on a silver-platter. No one, not even God, is simply going to carry you through life.
God is all of these things, and yet evil still exists. Why? Because He made us all with free-will. We contribute to evil, not God.
"I'm not really convinced why Christians need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. They're faith in God is for personal reasons, not to win (or lose) popularity contests."
Provided faith remains in a personal domain, no justification, proof, or evidence should be required; I am in agreement here. The problem comes when such beliefs serve as grounds for initiatives, laws, or actions which have very real and tangible effects on others who may not share in them. In these situations, such beliefs should be subject to scrutiny, and require some degree of justification, proof, or evidence.
"The problem with your "logical problem of evil," is that you're assuming balance can exist and be maintained without good OR without evil. The two must stay in constant equilibrium and harmony. Without evil, God wouldn't exist."
The "Problem of Evil" doesn't serve as proof of God's non-existence, but rather that certain popular claims of God's properties are incompatible with each other and known reality. It forces one to discount at least one of the claims that God is omni-benevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient in order to answer it (which you have done here by discarding His omnipotence).
You assert that good cannot exist without evil, and that both must maintain a certain balance. Would you consider this to be a universal law? One which governs all possible planes of existence? If so, and God is subject to this universal law, He cannot, by definition, be omnipotent.
Also, if God is truly the creator of the universe, and of all planes of existence, it stands to reason He is also the creator of all universal laws which govern said existence. Why make such a law to begin with? An omnipotent being should be capable of shaping the fundamental laws of the universe in anyway they saw fit. If this being is omni-benevolent as well as omnipotent, it seems contradictory they would create a universal law which not only allows evil to exist, but deems it necessary to exist. It's also paradoxical that God's existence could rely on a rule of His own creation.
"God is all of these things, and yet evil still exists. Why? Because He made us all with free-will. We contribute to evil, not God."
What if it could be scientifically argued (and someday even proven) that free-will (as we think of it anyway) didn't actually exist?
"If this being is omni-benevolent as well as omnipotent, it seems contradictory they would create a universal law which not only allows evil to exist, but deems it necessary to exist."
This takes care of omni-benevolent. Unless of course Dani's point is evil is proof of God's benevolence, given that it's a critical component of our exercise of free-will. This begs why he would punish us for exercising it in the first place. Certainly to the degree that the entire human race is cursed to be born in sin for one mistake of being tempted by knowledge. This seems like teaching a child about the dangers of fire by having her hold her hand over a match for a moment to see how it can hurt, vs burning the hand away altogether. All in the name of love.
"It's also paradoxical that God's existence could rely on a rule of His own creation."
This should cover omniscient...I mean, if He knows everything, He would certainly know that!
How about if you find yourself in the fire of Hell unable to escape, dying in the fire and frying like an eternal sausage? Will that make you believe God is in control? Probably not......
So how about if you are pulled up from Hell to appear as a criminal before the Judge, and He is Jesus, and all of your sins are shown openly in front of everybody proving your guilt?....your whole life flashing not only before your own eyes, but openly in front of everybody else's eyes.......so everybody knows you are guilty and not worthy to be in Heaven? Will that make you believe? Maybe for a minute of two, but when you are cast away into the Lake of Fire, you surely will deny it all and say it's wrong for you to be left in Hell.......
and when God gets what he deserves from you, to be honored as your creator, and at the name of Jesus your knees bow in the fire of Hell, and your tongue says "Jesus Christ is Lord", against your will, and then you return to your feet or whatever you feel like doing when you can only burn in Hell.....then will you believe?
Maybe a little? Probably not....you will probably still say like you are saying now, IT CAN"T BE TRUE!!!! I'M DEAD AND I CAN'T EXIST!!!!! THIS CAN'T BE REAL!!!!!!!!
You'll just have to wait and see, won't you, fool?
If god loves everyone then y does he hate gays and the bible is just a book, have you ever wondered that the one cardinal who translated it changed some things to make "god" look good
One thing no one ever mentions. Everyone says Jesus was fair, he healed, he was, Racist? All you Bible lovers out there, all you christians, not even half of you have ever read the Bible, and if you had, you would see that Jesus refused to teach certain people because of their ethnicity. Why only the Jews. If this truly was the son of God (God having created all men in his own image) then why so prejudiced. I'm not even going to mention the fact that God clearly doesn't exist. Just a man made thing. If a massive comit hit the earth and killed off all man kind, no one would be around to contemplate God. He is just a figment of peoples imagination. He, the mentalists imagination, offers false hope. Mankind made up religions. Check out any other religious debates, i'm sure to have had a say (recent ones) God, Religion or anything else of this sort does no good to humanity. Or any other species of animal. Islam, they slit the throats of millions of animals every year for Allah. Nice isn't it. NO! This shitey love affair all you religious people ave is stupid. And the sooner you realize that, the better.Sure, i will respect your views, If an intelligent man comes up to me and starts talking about God, i will listen, i will be polite. I just hate it when they are in your face with all the "Repent!" and "God will smite you!" It's just so ridiculous!
The greatest reason to find any given deity unreasonable is that you can replace it with one who has lied to humanity about literally everything it says, and we wouldn't be the wiser.
What makes it even weaker is that you can also replace it with a series of lies of humans or hallucinations.
There is no a single prophecy in the Bible, and certainly none that have come true.
I think it's safe to say ™ and/or a huge majority of people who identify themselves as Christians are merely people who adopted the culture they were brought in and that culture included religion. That said that big group of people do not strictly follow the bible for instance in a big city such as new york I believe it would be near impossible to find one practicing Christian who doesn't cut his hair, doesn't wear two different cloth fibers, and all the other doctrine that most Christians say they abide by so it's only the extremely fundamentalists that are true Christians if you think about it that way. So why isn't ever Christian that faithful? Because deep down all of those people have doubt and/or a sliver of acceptance about the reality of the world we live in. You simply can't live a True Christian lifestyle and not back track on a lot Rights, Liberties, luxuries, and freedoms that this world holds. Christianity is just one religion among hundreds and even in Europe they have increasingly have non-religious people become the majority when they were the country who brought the Christian religion to America in the First place and Created the Church of England to allow divorces. So to end, with the passage of time even a religion you may hold dear whether it's Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, or Islam the world will change, grow, and become more educated to that absurdity of it all.
Religion in the past has caused many wars. It encourages racism , sexism and homophobia. It is something that gives us prejudice. It makes us hate one another. the time has come to put a stop to it.
I find it funny how Xtians are always talking about God and the bible and Jesus and " His Truth " and etc etc as if they heard it themselves. But, lets be honest. You've never seen God. You have read a book that has been transcribed about 100 times or more into a hundred languages, back and forth and back and forth to where the real meaning (if there even WAS one) has been long gone.
Okay, but not only that, I just find it so silly to have an imaginary friend past the age of say, 7. I remember, when I was 4 I had an imaginary friend. His name was Steve. My mom said she came into the living room one day, and there I was, plain as day, talking to Steve. "Who's that?" My mom asked, --- " Oh, that's Steve, my friend. " I replied. My mom couldn't see Steve, so she figured, this must be an imaginary friend.
Thing is, I only kept Steve for about a year. Then I let go of him. That's what you Christian's gotta do. Let go of your imaginary friend. God doesn't save lives. People save lives. God doesn't give you money. You earn money. God doesn't patrol space, NASA does. So, get a grip and come to your senses.
I am Atheist because I believe in facts, not fiction.
And if you say Xtianity or the Bible is " fact ", you're wrong. Every word in the bible or in your religion is based on 'faith' which is just another word for fiction. Faith begins when fact cannot be found.
Have you even read the Bible? Clearly you don`t understand the practices of religion and you argue that there is no truth about it wherein religion does not revolve only on facts. Its teachings help us put ourselves in our place. Keep in mind that some people live in faith . You just stereotype Christians because you don`t understand their practices.
You are atheist because you believe you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell, and if you keep on insisting you have that right you are in for an eye opener you won't like..in fact, you will like it less then than you do now, because now you have some comforts outside of Hell.
I'm sad to see the way this turned out. With not so little respect and so much spamming. I choose atheism over a Christianity because their is not enough evidence to soothe my curiosity. Christianity raises too many questions that it never answers.
Oh hogwash. You have decided you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell, so your curiosity is dead.......or it's only going to be satisfied by the fire of Hell, however you want to say it.
You decided you have the answers, and the answer cannot be satisfactory, and that's good enough for you since you believe you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell.
No one ever said science is PERFECT. That's the difference between Religion and Science, Science admits it doesn't have all the answers while Religion is SO dogmatic enough to not even recognise FACTS. And even just what TRUTH really stands for.
I find most religions absolutely ridiculous and illogical, the only people who follow them are those who were brainwashed in childhood and really have no individual thought process. Most of the followers at least. Then there are theists who will twist ANY logic to fit their views. They're intelligent ones that you have to watch out for ;)
I'm not an atheist by any means, but I'd rather call myself an atheist than a Christian.
I don't believe in religion either but I call myself spiritual. I had so many argues going on at that time, perhaps I did falter and not read it correctly. Big deal. I see where you are coming from, okay.
Well my understanding is, what with how most Christians work, considering what their messiah did, Jesus'll forgive me for all of my sins. Including ignorance. So if the Christian god turns out to be true, then I'll be peachy. Even more so if it's the Mormon rendition, and you know, them mormons are dedicated people.
So why fret so much on aligning myself with any one given religion when the 'correct one' has me covered anyways? Gee, I sure hope it isn't Islam. I am so fucked if it's Islam.
Ah, but my point. Logic is important. Logic in everything, not just in some things. Evidence is as evidence is, and faith is as faith is, but as far as what I believe, I tend to want to hold my faith in people. See. I know they exist. Like, you know, because I can reach out and pinch the cheek of a person. Can't really do that with a god. I mean hey, maybe he is real, but if that dick doesn't want to come down and have a beer with us, he should be ready for people to be a little ignorant, eh? That is, if he exists. See. That's the thing.
You can't really use fear against people who have logic. That's the point. We don't fear shit we can't prove or disprove. We fear shit we know.
Religion is... To use Christianity as an example (I dont mean to offened anyone), was created by the Roman's as a way of controling people.
If you have 200 thousand supersitious people roiting accross the empire what do you do. You exploit their weakness, their naivity in beliving anything. Then you do some fucking research, and plot your own religion around historical event's. Such as the birth of Jesus, he was a very, very religious man. But he was still human. So all they needed to do was change the facts, and because there was no internet of research sites back then, no one could contradict the theory and so thousands of people start obaying law's. Beliving that if they do not, a "God" will punish them.
As a matter of fact Christianity is often cited as one of the reasons for the downfall of Rome, it caused divisions because many Conservative Romans did not want to give up their old gods. 200 thousand, not a very high number in an Empire that boasted 60 million...
You started your argument out completely wrong. Christianity isn't a religion like atheism is. And the Bible was written to give man a book of wisdom and guidelines on how to live. You must have no understanding of the New Testament and or the new convenant. Jesus was spiritual and not religious. He walked this earth in human form. Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost - the Trinity. God will come back with his wrath. There is no escaping that truth.
So, you remember Adam and Eve right ? What nationality where they, what skin colour, what eye colour, what hair colour, even if you dont know. There is no way that they could reproduce enough people for the entire world.
How could they make Black, Coloured, White people ?
How could they get redhead's, blonde's, black head's, brunette's ?
How could they get people with green, blue, brown, copper, and a million other eye colour's ?
It is obvious that Adam and Eves children had children and so on while they laid with different races and it created the races we have now. You don't have to have the same races to produce the same God can change how the baby will look like and how it will be formed while it is in the womb.
He can do anything He wants but if He did what you are asking, then it would be impossible for His prophecy to be fulfilled. You see, man is going to live with his free will and God wants us to CHOOSE HIM not because He is perfect to us but because we love Him and we love Him for the sacrifice on the cross - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (the Trinity). We are called to worship Him. You see, if you accept Him as Lord and Saviour, there is a peace He gives the believer to endure this earth even if it means life or death - until His return or we die. Either way, He is coming back to rescue those who have been faithful and those who put away the things of the earth to be HIS disciple.
Sin entered into the world and that is when everything changed. LOL, even the animals were vegetarians long ago. Everything about man changed once sin entered, even the height we grow to, the lifespan, all of it. It shouldn't surprise you just how simple it is that sin changed the race of man just as it changed physical attributes. Sin touched EVERY gene of man. We have different languages because God scattered language at the tower of Babel. People began to group themselves when God scattered man throughout the earth. It may be impossible to tell what our original color was. All of this is contrary to what matters and that is that we can all have immortal bodies when Christ returns, if we only believe in Him.
I'd like to point out how few disputs there are on the Christian side, that's cuz free minded people dont need to convince other's. We know that there isn't a god, and that its up to us to make our lives.
Dont take me the wrong way, im completely open minded. I'm just looking for proof before i convert ot anything. Anyway we can debate about this another day. Thanks for the debate man, your a good Opponent :)
But I am a woman, lol. And anytime. I enjoyed the debate as well and hope to hear from ya soon. We can be an ally and not have to see eye to eye. I will send you a request.
religious people are always using the same argument: you cant prove he doesn't exist!!!!you CANNOT disprove a negative. meaning, you cant prove something is not there,which already is not there.
we have scientific evidence that the flood of noah could not have happened. THINK ABOUT THIS : IF THE FLOOD OF NOAH HAPPENED, WE SHOULD EXPECT TO FIND THE REMAINS OF LONG DEAD ANIMALS AND PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD, BUT WE DO NOT FIND THIS AT ALL. DINOSAUR BONES ARE FOUND IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT LAYERS OF ROCK STRATA, AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS. IF THE FLOOD HAD HAPPENED, WE SHOULD EXPECT TO FIND DINOSAURS AND ALL OTHERE REMAINS IN THE SAME LAYER OF ROCK BUT WE DONT.
In my own opinion i find that religion offers more excuses to wage horrific events such as war, a good example would be the Holy Wars and the countless fights for Jerusalem (which may i add was completely absurd). One thing about religion and religions like Christianity which focus on one god or deity is that despite there being no proof to their "god" they continue to believe, sure we can argue Jesus Christ and the Bible but there is no conclusive evidence that who was the son of god nor anything he did backed-up with countless non-religious and multi-religious evidence, in-fact the only bit of evidence that goes in detail about "miracles" Jesus performed is the Bible which i believe to be a hoax seeing as at this time period lots of wars we're being waged and religion proved it's self to be a good moral boost and motive as such Christianity can be seen as a method of control of weak minded people (my opinion). If one man one day started believing that computers we're his "god" everyone would declare him crazy yet when a bunch of people believe in this entity to be the one "true god" it's ok, but lets not forget how many time the Bible and the Church for that matter not only contradicts itself but uses lies as a weapon and belief as a control method. Much of todays society are pretty much forced into religion with out really having a choice or for that matter any reason to at all. I personally think religion (Christianity being the worst) is non other than a method of control and a pointless way of life, i mean because praying does you good doesn't it? You may as-well be talking to your self, you pray for money, sex, a better job, whatever, how about this, stop asking a fake being it and go out and get it for yourself, use those pointless minutes you spend on "praying" to something more productive, heck even if it's bazaar go for it, because it's way better then waiting for a 2000 year-old lie to "happen" again assuming that anything happened at all for that matter so in that case waiting for it to happen at all. C.R
Neither. Agnostic is the true answer. People can believe there is a God or they can believe there isn't- but they can never know. I personally believe there isn't a God but I can never prove this definitely.
As humans, we cannot know exactly if there is a higher force or not. Christianity however is not it. Firstly because it is not one belief that every Christian shares, it lacks solidarity. I compare it to a road with all different kinds of sideways. Ask a question about religion, and lots of people will find one of those sideways to adjust their religion to their personal beliefs.
With Atheïsm, the concept is pretty clear. It is more scientific, and I like that.
I was raised a Catholic growing up, and I can honestly say that Atheism makes a lot more sense to me. I never really thought about what I actually believed in until I was a junior in high school, and everything started coming together when I finally sat down and asked myself if this belief actually sounds accurate.
There are many reasons why I believe Atheism is much more logical-I'll list some of them below.
The Bible is supposed to be the word of God himself, right? Allow me to mention some of the things written in it, and I'll explain why they don't make sense.
1. The Bible says the Earth is flat, and that God himself is responsible for rain, earthquakes, thunderstorms, hurricanes etc.
This is obviously false, and it's impossible to honestly believe this growing up in today's modern world. We know today that the Earth is round. We know about evaporation. We know about plate tectonics. If we were living 3-400 years ago, this probably would've made a lot more sense.. but it doesn't in today's world.
Despite that God is supposed to be all-knowing, his knowledge was limited to the knowledge of humans from 3-400 years ago! Or maybe he's lying to us? But then again, why would he lie? He's supposed to be our heavenly father who's all good (but then Agni, he's not that heavenly of a father, considering he created a place called Hell and would make us burn there for all eternity JUST because we didn't believe in him even though a lot of us atheists are very nice people who just don't happen to believe in an imaginary judgmental homophobic racist being in the sky). He must just be ignorant of his own creations.
2. The Bible claims that God made the Earth 6-12 thousand years ago.
This is false. We know from radio-metric dating, the distance of stars, and the amount of distance light has to travel to reach the Earth, the rate of expansion of the universe, etc, that the Earth is actually BILLIONS of years old, not thousands.
3. The bible claims that God made men from the dust, women from the rib of a man, created all the animals in one day.
This is false. Animals (including humans) emerged from a very gradual process of genetic mutation, adaptation, mate selection, etc, what we know today as evolution. Now most Christians today don't believe in this, but it IS a scientific fact-and saying that animals gradually emerged from evolutions is a much more logical than saying an invisible man created all the animals in one day. It sounds like a fairy tale-something that sounds obviously stupid.
4. The Bible claims that diseases are caused by demonic possessions.
We know this is not true after discovering viruses, bacteria, etc. Would you really believe this in today's world? Viruses and bacteria have been proven to exist, where demons have not.
The only way to really prove atheism is true is by disproving every single religion out there-but that's not what I'm doing. These are just some reasons why Atheism makes more sense than Christianity, even if Atheism is false because of another god that exists (that isn't the Christian god).
You should preserve your life for all future generations? How are you going to do that? Are you going to put yourself in a magic jar so people can open it in the future to turn your goodness loose on the planet?
Many Christians believe in some sort of Christian exceptionalism similar to the feeling of many Americans. Christianity has an equal, if not more bloody history than Islam or any other organized religion. It has been continuously manipulated throughout the last 2000 years to serve a purpose of controlling people. Until the 1500s, the Church limited human progress by telling people what to think and collecting taxes from everyone. Europe's progress was stalled, millions of heretics, women, Jews, and others were killed in the name of Christianity. The crusades alone led to thousands of deaths. It is no coincidence that the center of knowledge and learning at that time period of the world was Baghdad. In the 1500's ideas from the East finally began arriving in Europe and the Church lost its stranglehold on Europe. Christianity then travelled with the settlers in the Americas. The Christian Spanish conquistadors slaughtered millions of Inca and Aztec people in the name of exploration and bringing Christianity. American "Manifest destiny" in the 1800's fueled by Christianity led to the displacement and killing of hundreds of thousands of Native American peoples, not to mention the slave trade and use of Christianity to justify this harsh and unjust system. European colonization of Africa is perhaps the bloodiest of all these events. This span of rule over African countries led to the killing of countless Africans and enslavement of many.
In today's world, it is easy to see Islam as the only religion whose fighters are causing death across the world, but what people fail to realize is that Christianity is what is used by governments and institutionally, unlike the separate groups of Islam terrorist fighters. What separates them and George Bush, who said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a "crusade", whose bombing campaigns left a conservative estimate of over a million civilians, except for the backing of the most powerful military on earth.
Why Atheism?
Because God, Christianity, the warped use of the Bible, etc. have been one of the main forces limiting progress for two thousand years and there needs to be a change.
Matthew 25:1 Jesus says: "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom."
John 20:17 Jesus says to Mary: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father," as though the touch of a woman is somehow improper, but a few verses later, is happy to have Thomas touch him.
In Genesis chapter 3, God punishes Eve, and all women for thousands of years, with greatly increased pain during childbirth. No such pain is inflicted on Adam.
In Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
In 1 Peter 3:7 we find: "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."
In 1 John 2:13, John says, "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father." No mention is made of women.
You're right Christ isn't a "deal" - he is your eternity. Christ knows all about pain as he bore the pain on the cross for you and me. He did so that we can have everlasting life.
Yes, it's so many people to respond to and my hands are tired. There isn't enough support but I already expected this. So many are "of the world" these days and it breaks my heart. I used to be there.
there is no god. Science has proven it. It was just an excuse made up so people from simplier times didnt have to think to hard on those big questions.
For 17 years, I was in about 4 different bunch of christian groups. I was bullied profusely because of my autism. For example: 1 girl refused to shake my hand during the peace be with you because I was "awkward".
I was
Then I joined up 4 non religious groups. And for the past 3 years I can say I have made the most amount of strong friendships in my entire life.
What's funny is this: at first I was mad at christianity, after all, religion was a tool used by politicians to create wars, great schisms, mass genocides, needless crusades, iquisitions, slavery, etc. To me Christianity and Islam were the most destructive religions on earth because of how easy it was for kings and politicians to manipulate the believers into killing and murdering and hating.
I also hated it because when I was in these religious groups, we would go to church and pray, and make discussions and games to help us show love to God and one another. But during the breaks, I was left out of conversations, picked on, gossiped about, etc.
After a year of hating christianity, I finally realized this:
It doesn't matter what religious or non-religious belief/ideal that you have, it depends on your individuality.
If your a totally dickhead and you believe in a God that punishes the wicked and sends them to hell, then you are a total hypocrite.
If so many "church goer's" and "God-loving christians" don't practice what they preach and say they believe in God then according to what I have experienced this is what I have to say about their God:
a) God may not exist. But if he does, then he is either too weak to punish the guilty, or HIS version of GOOD does not match our version of good. Meaning: rape, robbery, intolerance, hatred, murder, is all part of God's plan. Because he is either evil, weak, or non-existant.
In the end:
I chose to believe that God is non existent, because his existence is both an unimportant waste of searching and never finding (like trying to find a needle in a haystack, or maybe it was never put there?), and has caused much grief over the past centuries as all major religions have.
I am atheist, and I live my life based on being a productive, loving, caring, and tolerant member of society. And will not bow to such a destructive religion that politicians and kings have in the past and even today (as seen with ISIS leaders and some conservative congressmen) can easily take advantage of. *Note- Islam and Christianity are simply offshoots of Judaism. While Islam was technically older, the Qu'ran, which had the same aura that Christianity's bible had was made 500 years AFTER the Bible. As such, I see Islam as no different that Christianity which is why I made that comparison of ISIS leaders to some conservative congressmen as both are conservative and share very very similar values.)
As for the "atheism" existed before Christianity argumentators,
You are all correct: The Dinosaurs, cockroaches, and apes that preceded us did not have the brain power to form religions as we do.
And it is sad that this is your best argument against atheism, why? because by doing so you all are already claiming that Atheism existed before God, meaning there was no God before God. After all, God had to have believed in himself. And according to christian doctrine, God is eternal and sees and IS the past present and future, meaning there has and always was Christianity!
But by claiming Atheism existed before Christianity, all of you are rejecting doctrine that God is eternal, meaning everyone who has agreed to this argument and are Christians:
Congratulations! You have just created a new offshoot of Christianity:
Here I'll help you name it: Hypocrisy At it's Finest. or H.A.I.F Christianity.
-The name of the church is called: God is not eternal as According to us Atheism existed before God therefore the Bible is wrong on some parts.
-Mass starts at 7 AM, those who fail to attend will burn in hell.
A war proclamation does not always reflect the actual intentions.
There have been plenty of wars fought under the banner of religion for secular reasons. In fact, most (if not all) wars are fought over "limited resources".
Stalin and Mao were fighting/killing under the banner of Nationalism. It had nothing to do with atheism or theism. Blaming everything that is not religious on atheists does not make sense. There are many non-theistic issues that have nothing to do with atheism.
"Raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin became an atheist. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the anti-religious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s, it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[99]
Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[100][101] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, and thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression during Khrushchev's rule. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted. Many religions popular in ethnic regions of the Soviet Union, including the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism underwent ordeals similar to that which the Orthodox churches in other parts of the country suffered: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed. Stalin had a different policy outside the Soviet Union; he supported the Communist Uyghur Muslim separatists under Ehmetjan Qasim in the Ili Rebellion against the anti-Communist Republic of China regime. In addition to this, he supplied weapons to the Uyghur Ili army and Red Army support against Chinese forces, and helped them establish the Second East Turkestan Republic of which Islam was the official state religion." (wikipedia)
The intention of removing religion was the same as Hitler's ultimate goal (Goebbels Diaries), for a better country. In the end, it is under a banner of nationalism.
Removing something that you believe to be a root of problems for your country is a justified nationalist action. When that something happens to be religion, it does not imply his actions were rooted in anti-theism. He also supported soft inheritance, but that does not mean he was anti-science. He was just ignorant. He obviously wanted to foster the agriculture industry through his collectivization policies, but his stance on genetics was obviously detrimental.
PS: He just wasn't smart enough. Same with Mao. They needed someone like Deng Xiao Ping who fostered unbridled economic growth. Religion was fine in China as long as it did not oppose the Communist Party.
