Atheism

@xris,

xris

your challenge was "prove God exists," to which I replied, "there is no proof". How is this ignoring you!?

If you consider the idea of debating any aspect of God to be fruitless because one cannot prove that God exists, then my question to you is, why do you bother joining in to such debates? I agree with you, any debate about God is fruitless and amounts to nothing more than chit chat. But I'm content to debate the fruitless and the unprovable. If you are not willing to, then just don't.

2 Replies

@jknilinux,

GUYS --

This thread is getting a bit too testy. Take a breath for a second.

Thanks.

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7;34558 wrote:

Belief in god is not a neccesisty for a meaningful life, but god is a neccesity for meaningfull life. Does that make that clear?

That's fair. It allows theists to account for atheists claiming meaning without God -- the argument is that there is a God, we just don't realize it.

And without delving into the existence of God, that's a perfectly fair, reasonable, diplomatic, and conciliatory point of view for a theist to take.

And an atheist can, similarly, divest their meaning from any necessity of a God and surmise that theists project meaning onto their theistic belief system.

This way we can all be friends without having to be right or wrong or hammer out tired arguments about whether God exists or not.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

That's fair. It allows theists to account for atheists claiming meaning without God -- the argument is that there is a God, we just don't realize it.

And without delving into the existence of God, that's a perfectly fair, reasonable, diplomatic, and conciliatory point of view for a theist to take.

And an atheist can, similarly, divest their meaning from any necessity of a God and surmise that theists project meaning onto their theistic belief system.

This way we can all be friends without having to be right or wrong or hammer out tired arguments about whether God exists or not.

good post but discussions as to god's existance are helpful for both sides- we both need to justify our views. Still it would be good if the discussions were less confrontational.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

xris

your challenge was "prove God exists," to which I replied, "there is no proof". How is this ignoring you!?

If you consider the idea of debating any aspect of God to be fruitless because one cannot prove that God exists, then my question to you is, why do you bother joining in to such debates? I agree with you, any debate about God is fruitless and amounts to nothing more than chit chat. But I'm content to debate the fruitless and the unprovable. If you are not willing to, then just don't.

Oh but i am but im not prepared to accept his existance without question his validity or not deny my right to ask for proof of his existence...accepting this preconceived notion is tantamount to accepting his existance..

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

GUYS --

This thread is getting a bit too testy. Take a breath for a second.

Thanks.

Yes it is testy but it still does not create a reason to withdraw my questions... on two fronts one..one that was instigated by a believer who even then refuses to substantiate his claim of proving god but makes a new thread to emphasize my question..red rag bull..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

Yes it is testy but it still does not create a reason to withdraw my questions... on two fronts one..one that was instigated by a believer who even then refuses to substantiate his claim of proving god but makes a new thread to emphasize my question..red rag bull..

you have not yet met my terms- name the form of proof that you would require and justify that. simple enough. just to ensure that we don't spend our time doing this:brickwall:at each other

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

you have not yet met my terms- name the form of proof that you would require and justify that. simple enough. just to ensure that we don't spend our time doing this:brickwall:at each other

WE have been here before and i made requests and questions where asked but it becomes a trail with one end..do you remember me asking you if miracles where gods work? im off now because i must cool down ..peace unto you friend..see you soon..

1 Reply

@xris,

bye, sry you think I'm not responding but as to the miracle thing I wasn't offering up as proof as you thought I was, just saying I thought miracles happened.

0 Replies

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

xris

your challenge was "prove God exists," to which I replied, "there is no proof". How is this ignoring you!?

If you consider the idea of debating any aspect of God to be fruitless because one cannot prove that God exists, then my question to you is, why do you bother joining in to such debates? I agree with you, any debate about God is fruitless and amounts to nothing more than chit chat. But I'm content to debate the fruitless and the unprovable. If you are not willing to, then just don't.

Isn't the problem that there may be no proof that God exists because God does not exist, and you cannot prove what is false is true; or, there may be no proof that God exists not because God does not exist, but because nothing would constitute proof that God exists?
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

1 Reply

@jknilinux,

Solace is right, of course. Debates about the existence and nature of God are futile. Ultimately, it seems, the religious are always reduced to appeals to paradox, or mystery, or the unknowable, or the undefinable. There comes a point where intelligent argument is not possible. Not unreasonably, those who are not religious find this frustrating. Some of those who believe in God find it frustrating as well.

I find it fascinating, though, that those who attempt the futile task of establishing God's existence through reason (that I am aware of) end up "proving" the existence only of a very abstract, impersonal, indeed non-human entity that bears little or no resemblence to the personal God (e.g. Jesus) that so many purport to worship.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Isn't the problem that there may be no proof that God exists because God does not exist, and you cannot prove what is false is true; or, there may be no proof that God exists not because God does not exist, but because nothing would constitute proof that God exists?

Yes, that's absolutely true. I don't know that God exists. I just believe it. All I would ask for anyone to keep in mind when debating a belief is that it is only that, a belief. Some beliefs are less rational or justifiable than others, but that doesn't make them less valid. Plenty of scientific and philosophical theory gets talked about around here that cannot be proven. Yet rarely, if ever, does someone try to hold up the conversation by insisting on proof. Except where God is concerned.

Now, if someone wants to take a theist who thinks he can prove God exists up on the offer, then that's fine. Go for it. All I'm saying is that my admitting that there is no proof (or better put, that I cannot prove it, since someone else seems to think that they can,) is not something that I am admitting because I am trying to dismiss your concerns. I don't require nor desire proof to consider these matters. For those who do need or want proof, my simple advice is to join the sort of conversation/debate where proof can possibly be provided, and leave those of us who want to discuss the irrational and unprovable to our futile chit chat.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7;34641 wrote:

good post but discussions as to god's existance are helpful for both sides - we both need to justify our views

Well, this I don't agree with. Unless your aim is to actually change someone's mind through argumentation, then I think it's both unnecessary and futile to debate the issue.

You know as well as I that it is not possible for a theist to convince an atheist that god exists, and it is not possible for an atheist to convince a theist that god does not exist. It's as simple as that. Or at least not by virtue of some rational exposition. Sure, people can go back and forth -- but neither side will ever "win" an argument like this.

Belief in God is seldom truly intellectual and rational alone -- it's a form of relationship that is visceral to people who believe -- and it may be justified intellectually and scripturally and other ways, but fundamentally it is visceral.

And disbelief in God is usually not visceral -- because people who self-consciously don't believe feel that way simply because they don't see it. The standards by which we understand anything else existing are not met by God -- so why believe? I mean why is it that it's easier to prove something trivial, like the fact that I have a mole on my cheek or the fact that there is a dent in my car, than it is to prove the existence of the creator of the universe? You don't have to answer that -- it's rhetorical -- I'm just showing one common denominator of atheism.

So unless your aim is to have a friendly conversation, a sort of 'show and tell' about why you believe something and why I believe something different, I fail to see the utility of debates about God's existence.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

It allows both sides to develop a greater framework of logic for both arguments- debating these things will probably never convince anyone but it can help each argument avoid becoming overly assumptive.

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

I think ive calmed down sorry for the show of frustration...i am always in a quandary when the faithful make statements of what appears facts..i agree faith is blind but telling me it is built on facts and then refusing to give me these facts always brings out the nasty me..Giving miracles as proof of a benevolent god can send me into a seething rage with all the necessity for a benevolent god all he can do is make a statue cry or a rock bleed...oh my oh my..

0 Replies

@jknilinux,

I agree, you can never prove or disprove God's existence. I see atheists commonly say god can't exist, because He leads to a contradiction. Just to clarify this, I'd be willing to disprove any arguments against His existence here. How do I know I can? Well, everything is inductive, so there's one way to disprove you. Another is that you're only finding your contradiction only from Catholic doctrine, or you're using an incomplete and/or inconsistent system for disproval, etc... If you find one that's not in the above categories though, I'd like to see it.

Summary:

Anyway, the point of this discussion was whether it is better to believe or not. Here's what is usually brought up by some religious people who've mostly met immoral atheists:

Atheists are immoral, theists are moral, so everyone should believe at least in order to preserve morals.

I find that this is sometimes, but definitely not always, true. From experience, I know that there are immoral atheists. However, these people seem not to be immoral because they're atheists, but instead are atheists because they are immoral. So, this is a moot point.

The point I brought up was Pascal's wager. Basically, I thought that without God, you're left with schopenhaur-esque nihilism. In which case, there's no reason not to believe in God. Three problems brought up by the atheists:

1: A premise is faulty: Without God, you're not in fact left with nihilism. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this- I feel I almost understand this, but not quite. I'll keep thinking about this one. However, right now, it seems to me that the atheists are still using their robotic instincts as goals- the goal to survive, the goal to discover, the goal to be happy, the goal to make others happy. These are all just instincts, so IMO there's still no meaning.

2: Even though it shows that it is better to believe than not to believe, it seems dishonest. It seems to force you to believe, but belief cannot be forced. So, you cannot base your belief on this.
Well, IMO, there are a few problems here:
a: This is almost off-topic. Here, you're debating on whether the results have any application, but right now we're only interested in what the results are.
b: If using this to found your views doesn't result in belief, what does it result in? Knowledge? Whatever it is, God will still accept it, so long as you have faith, and follow His laws.

3: It's fear mongering/meaningless hypotheticals. What if we believed every meaningless superstition, just to be safe?
Well, if you're a schopenhauer-esque nihilist, then you should.
I mean, the reasonable, non-self-contradictory, give-meaning-to-your-life ones. There's no point to life, so just do anything and everything you can in the hope that one of them is right, to give worth to your life. You're a robot, but you want to be something more, you want to have meaning, so do every superstitious thing just in case it gives your life meaning in the afterlife.
Now, I don't exactly agree with my response here, but I used to. After a long while in this limbo, I finally found a church that solved my problem of "which church should I join?".

So, I think that's everything so far. If I've left out anything, let me know!

Cheers! :a-ok:

1 Reply

@jknilinux,

xris-

Could the atheists not focus on Catholicism? It's just an easy target because it contains self-contradictory doctrine, and I've heard people "disproving" Christianity too many times when all they're really doing is disproving Catholicism.

Sometimes there are things the theists always do that annoy the atheists, and sometimes there are things the atheists do that always annoy the theists.
Anyway, sorry for my little rant, but everyone else got their turn. Very Happy

2 Replies

@jknilinux,

jknilinux wrote:

xris-

Can atheists please stop focusing on Catholicism? It's just about the most self-contradictory thing out there, and I am tired of people "disproving" Christianity when all they're really doing is disproving Catholicism.

Sometimes there are things the theists always do that annoy the atheists, and sometimes there are things the atheists do that always annoy the theists.
Anyway, sorry for my little rant, but everyone else got their turn.

Its not me that brought a certain faith into question...i am not an atheist i am agnostic and i do not deny gods existance nor do doubt the worth of certain moral beliefs in a god..If you look at criminal records the claimed atheists are in the very small minority of criminals so the argument that faith maketh the man is a misnomer...My argument is with the certainty of faith the undeniable fact that believers have in their god...i wont deny the possibility of god but it is beyond our comprehension to even imagine a creator let alone describe him..

0 Replies

@jknilinux,

jknilinux wrote:

xris-

Can atheists please stop focusing on Catholicism? It's just about the most self-contradictory thing out there, and I am tired of people "disproving" Christianity when all they're really doing is disproving Catholicism.

Sometimes there are things the theists always do that annoy the atheists, and sometimes there are things the atheists do that always annoy the theists.
Anyway, sorry for my little rant, but everyone else got their turn.

who mentioned catholics? they aren't the crazy ones by a long shot.

0 Replies

@jknilinux,

xris-

The reason why the amount of atheist criminals is a minority is because atheists are a minority, not because atheists are nicer.

avatar-

Well, just now xris mentioned bleeding rocks and crying statues, which is obviously catholic. Earlier, he mentioned the paradox of the trinity, which is also confined to the catholics. And, from experience, I know catholicism-related paradoxes are cited quite often in atheist vs. theist arguments.

Anyway, that's all off-topic, because, like I said, this thread was meant to be about whether one should be atheist or not, not about whether atheism is right or not.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know