Atheism's Wrong Turn II

[Shogun]

Atheism is a belief but it certainly is not a religion.

I BELIEVE that I will have lunch today; I don't worship my lunch.
I BELIEVE that it might snow tonight; I don't worship the weatherman.
I BELIEVE that the earth moves around the sun; I don't worship the sun.

Atheism is the BELIEF of no god: A-Theism; But this doesn't incite worship.

Atheist are quick to BELIEVE in the physical properties of nature and the deducive truth in science; but None of us are praying to Isaac Newton.


It's hubris to insist that atheists are equally reliant upon FAITH in their BELIEFS since I rely on EVIDENCE while theists rely on malleable traditions and various interpretations. I can laugh at the overt errors and misnomers in the evolved history of science; who here that believes in a god can say the same thing about their alpha and omega, beginning and the end faith in ageless doctrines?

 

[AllieBaba]

Theists have every bit as much evidence, if not more, to support their beliefs as atheists. You can deny it if you like, but it's just sticking your head in the sand and pretending when you do.

 

[Shogun]

I'm talking about physical evidence beyond historic referance in the bible, Allie. If a mid eastern city is mentioned int he Koran such doesn't prove that mohammed was a messiah or that his version of god is any more real than yours.


What else do you have? Be specific and toss me some sources.

 

[Larkinn]

Abscence of belief is agnosticism...that is withholding belief. Believing that something is NOT there is just as much of a belief as believing something is there.

And no Allie. Theists have exactly no decent evidence to support their beliefs. Which is fine, believe whatever you want, but as I said before don't pretend its rational.

 

[AllieBaba]

Besides the evidence that supports the life of Christ, you mean.

Besides the genetic evidence that supports the belief that we all descend from one man, you mean.

Besides the evidence which points to the existence of a creator of the universe, you mean.

 

[Larkinn]

Besides the evidence that supports the life of Christ, you mean.

Oh, I was thinking when you said theist you meant belief in God, not belief in everything Christianity claims. Did Jesus exist? Probably. Is that evidence in God? No.

Besides the genetic evidence that supports the belief that we all descend from one man, you mean.

Cite? And again, not evidence in God.

Besides the evidence which points to the existence of a creator of the universe, you mean.

Considering there isn't any, I don't feel the need to exclude it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Gee, that's a real convincing argument in the non-existence of God.

"He doesn't exist."

You must have really worked on that one.

 

[Shogun]

Besides the evidence that supports the life of Christ, you mean.

Besides the genetic evidence that supports the belief that we all descend from one man, you mean.

Besides the evidence which points to the existence of a creator of the universe, you mean.


Evidence that supports that there was once a man named jesus or that he was, in fact, the son of god? Does the evidence that there was a man named mohammed verify HIS claim to god too then?

GENETIC EVIDENCE? Do you understand the process of evolution? Such genetic evidence doesn't validate your theistic beliefs. Science suggests that humans are the derivative of common ancestors too. How does this become evidence for theism?

Sure, go ahead and drop the evidence that points to the exhistance of a creator. PLEASE do. You;d be the first with tangible proof of a god. But, i'll bite. Throw it at me.

 

[mattskramer]

Gee, that's a real convincing argument in the non-existence of God.

"He doesn't exist."

You must have really worked on that one.

What irrefutable proof is there?

One can no more prove that God does not exist than he can prove that unicorns do not exist. At the same time, I have yet to see irrefutable proof that God exists. Just about every apologetics book that I have seen has been soundly criticized.

 

[Shogun]

Gee, that's a real convincing argument in the non-existence of God.

"He doesn't exist."

You must have really worked on that one.

this is why I asked you for your EVIDENCE that he does... Lay it on me. Put your faith through the rigors of the scientific process. Just so you know, rhetoric about faith is not evidence.

But, again, i'll bite. Let's play. Show me your cards.

 

[Shogun]

[INSERT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR A GOD HERE]


[OR HERE]





[MAYBE HERE EVEN]


I;ll wait.

 

[Larkinn]

Gee, that's a real convincing argument in the non-existence of God.

"He doesn't exist."

You must have really worked on that one.

Oh there aren't any good arguments against God either. But generally when we have an idea and there arent any good arguments for it or against it, we disbelieve it. If we used the crappy standards you want to use for God, for scientific theories like evolution or global warming, well they would pretty much be proven by now. But yet you doubt them, but say there is ample evidence for God. What a surprise.

By the way..abscence of evidence against God is NOT evidence for God.

 

[Shogun]

nudge nudge, Allie.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sorry. I'm working. Sort of. And I'm not tracking and can't remember what I was going to say.

Son's having a baby today. There's your proof that God exists.

Well, HE'S not having the baby....

 

[Shogun]

Congrats on the new grandchild!

I probably won't take that as tender of proof but I'm happy for you regardless.



Well, whenever is better for you we can continue this.

 

[Diuretic]

Threads about atheists, agnostics and other non-believers pitted against believers (or the other way around if you wish) tend to end up the same way. Deadlocked. But we continue to do it as if we think by somehow keeping at it we'll come up with an answer.

On reflection, I really get ticked when I'm told by a believer what my "beliefs" are. I fairly well ignite when a believer tells me that "atheism is a religion" and then the dictionary definitions come out.

Religion requires faith, not logic. The three-card trick used by theologians to convince people that there is a god, is, paradoxically, logic. But it proves nothing. I've read Aquinas' proof of God. It's actually a very interesting read and elegant in its logical structure, he was a brilliant man. But in the end he proves nothing. So, faith is necessary for religion. Faith is personal, you have it or you don't.

I'm not anti-religion except where religion becomes harmful to wellbeing, then I'll object.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Threads about atheists, agnostics and other non-believers pitted against believers (or the other way around if you wish) tend to end up the same way. Deadlocked. But we continue to do it as if we think by somehow keeping at it we'll come up with an answer.

On reflection, I really get ticked when I'm told by a believer what my "beliefs" are. I fairly well ignite when a believer tells me that "atheism is a religion" and then the dictionary definitions come out.

Religion requires faith, not logic. The three-card trick used by theologians to convince people that there is a god, is, paradoxically, logic. But it proves nothing. I've read Aquinas' proof of God. It's actually a very interesting read and elegant in its logical structure, he was a brilliant man. But in the end he proves nothing. So, faith is necessary for religion. Faith is personal, you have it or you don't.

I'm not anti-religion except where religion becomes harmful to wellbeing, then I'll object.

You may not have a religion but arguing you do not believe no god exist pretty much shoots your whole claim to pieces. Further claiming you do NOT have faith no god exists is pretty silly as well.

 

[Diuretic]

You may not have a religion but arguing you do not believe no god exist pretty much shoots your whole claim to pieces. Further claiming you do NOT have faith no god exists is pretty silly as well.

Once again.

I don't have a religion. That is I don't pray, I don't go to religious meetings, I don't go to places of worship to worship (some neat architecture and works of art though). I don't take part in religious rituals.

I don't believe gods exist. I'm fine with people who have a religion and who do believe in a deity or deities but I prefer not to be affected by someone else's belief.

My feeling about religion is probably akin to that of a Christian looking at Hinduism with its pantheism of gods. Interesting but not convinced.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again.

I don't have a religion. That is I don't pray, I don't go to religious meetings, I don't go to places of worship to worship (some neat architecture and works of art though). I don't take part in religious rituals.

I don't believe gods exist. I'm fine with people who have a religion and who do believe in a deity or deities but I prefer not to be affected by someone else's belief.

My feeling about religion is probably akin to that of a Christian looking at Hinduism with its pantheism of gods. Interesting but not convinced.

So again, YOU have a belief.... That Belief is No Gods exist. Further you have a very strong FAITH in that belief. With no evidence Gods do not exist you chose to believe they do not, that is faith. I suspect your faith that no Gods exists is stronger than a hell of a lot of people that sorta believe Gods do exist.

 

[Gunny]

Threads about atheists, agnostics and other non-believers pitted against believers (or the other way around if you wish) tend to end up the same way. Deadlocked. But we continue to do it as if we think by somehow keeping at it we'll come up with an answer.

On reflection, I really get ticked when I'm told by a believer what my "beliefs" are. I fairly well ignite when a believer tells me that "atheism is a religion" and then the dictionary definitions come out.

Religion requires faith, not logic. The three-card trick used by theologians to convince people that there is a god, is, paradoxically, logic. But it proves nothing. I've read Aquinas' proof of God. It's actually a very interesting read and elegant in its logical structure, he was a brilliant man. But in the end he proves nothing. So, faith is necessary for religion. Faith is personal, you have it or you don't.

I'm not anti-religion except where religion becomes harmful to wellbeing, then I'll object.

Wrong-o. Religion requires belief, not faith. Atheism is a belief. It requires a conscious decision to deny the existence of a God (or Gods).

Having said that, I pretty much agree with the rest. There is no proof one way or the other; which, pretty-much has been my argument all along here. I'm trying to convince anyone there IS a God, or that there is concrete evidence to support His existence.

My argument has been against those who with no more evidence than I have, try to tell me there absolutely is not, and speak consescending to those who DO believe there is a God as if disbelief makes one intelectually superior.

On the scale of who is "brighter" than who, I would say those who at least have an open mind are brighter than those who have closed theirs.