52
   

Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

Forums: Atheism, Christianity, Religion, Xx Stands For, Born Again Atheist
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:11 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
I see nothing wrong whatsoever asking such questions but I do compare it to a question like,

example. What would be simpler for all the power and knowledge to have always existed in one thing an intelligent "God" or many intelligent things "Gods" and then this one God or many Gods intelligently design every thing. or would it be simpler for every thing to just exist in an infinite chaotic way and just by random chance you end up with life on a planet out of billions of galaxies.

I do not know the answer to how we came about but it seems simpler to me for all of this to come together and be scattered chaotically than for all of it to come together by chance in the hand of one or many gods.


Your suggested way IS simpler.

Sometimes the simpler answer is not the correct one.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:12 am
@spendius,
Quote:
I bet Frank does shoe polish and unisex hair salons.


Have not used shoe polish of any kind for over 35 years.

Have not had a haircut by a barber or stylist in over 35 years.

Any other guesses?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:13 am
@spendius,
Quote:
It does really because your position demands that it is timelessly true and I very much doubt you would present your position if the Inquisition was showing you the white hot poker. An intellectual position is not a flavour of the century.


No, my being a hypocrite would not impact on the answer to my question.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:18 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:

Sometimes the simpler answer is not the correct one.


That is true but it is often the correct one.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:20 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Your suggested way IS simpler.

Sometimes the simpler answer is not the correct one.


It also fundamentally misinterpretes the concept of many gods. This is similar to comparing a belief in the tooth fairy to a belief in God/gods. The fact that RL thinks this is a witty rejoindre says more about him than anything else.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:22 am
@igm,
Quote:
Theism is the faith to believe that God exists even though there is no evidence for that.


Okay.

Quote:
Atheism is evidence based, and therefore is without faith. As there is no evidence for God or gods, the notion of gods is ignored and life is lived ‘without gods’.


Nonsense. As Setetanta pointed out earlier, there are many different kinds of atheists. Many are people of faith. They insist WITHOUT EVIDENCE that gods do not exist. To suggest that atheism is evidence based is one of those things some atheists like to think about themselves. (By the way, I am asking you for some evidence. Since you think you atheists have so much of it, why not provide it.? More about that at the end.)

Quote:
Agnosticism is therefore completely unnecessary because there is no middle ground as there is no evidence for gods.


Stop thinking of it as middle ground.

I am trying not to even use the word "agnostic" unless I am asked about it in a way that makes it almost unavoidable.

I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST...I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS DO NOT EXIST...I do not see the existence of gods as impossible or improbable...I do not see the existence of gods as necessary.

That is a reasonable position to take.

Quote:
When there is no evidence you have to have faith alone. If you must have some evidence then you must ignore faith based belief. This gives rise to theism and atheism there is no need for any other category in the absence of evidence. There is no evidence so Agnosticism is not a relevant term.


So don't use it. I am not a theist...I am not an atheist. That works for me.

Quote:
Agnostics can only show they are relevant if they can show that there is some evidence for a God or gods and there is none, so the term they use to describe their position is irrelevant.


Really. How very interesting.

NOW...earlier you suggested you were going to provide the reason for the assertion that the existence of gods is near zero.

Why don't you do that?

Anyway...Happy Easter. Hope the Easter Bunny treats you nicely.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:24 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Religion is so little a part of my life that i was surprised at the beginning of the week when The Girl told me the stores would not be open Friday or Sunday. I asked her why and it was her turn to be surprised, and then she told me Good Friday and Easter. I don't get out much, religiously speaking.


Actually, Nancy being home took me by surprise also. I forgot the holiday aspect of it. And the golf course was packed on Friday, so my round took forever.

Tell "the girl" I said hello! In fact, you can tell her I said, "Happy Easter."
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:28 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Existence is something very strange but I would think that things can just exist without a creator "God", because if there is a God he is able to exist without a creator.


Agreed! But existence can "just exist" without many things that DO exist.

A more relevant question might be: Is it impossible for gods to exist?

I think "NO."

So then we come to, "Well do they exist?"

I DO NOT KNOW.



Quote:
I think that there will always be things that we do not fully understand and existence will always be one of those things.


Seems like a good guess.

I wonder if we ever make contact with other civilizations who have wrestled with this question...if they have come to any better answers than we.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:37 am
@Frank Apisa,
Watch the video frank I think you will enjoy it. It talks about the things you enjoy talking about.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:41 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Watch the video frank


This type of sentence is known as a command.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
A more relevant question might be: Is it impossible for gods to exist?

I think "NO."


I can only guess you think it is possible for a God to create things, meaning that something or a God could make things out of things that preexist and are at a Gods disposal? Or do you think that a god can create things with magical power, meaning just by thinking things into existence?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:50 am
@reasoning logic,
You'd be better off putting this argument forward yourself and then use the video as an addition to your argument... perhaps just the link. The video is good but your take on it would be more effective in a debate. All the ingredients are there and you're right Frank should listen to it... but... you'd be better off using those arguments in posts to Frank... IMHO.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:51 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
I can only guess you think it is possible for a God to create things, meaning that something or a God could make things out of things that preexist and are at a Gods disposal? Or do you think that a god can create things with magical power, meaning just by thinking things into existence?


I can only say that I do not see the existence of gods as impossible. What a god can or cannot do...I do not know.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:53 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Watch the video frank I think you will enjoy it. It talks about the things you enjoy talking about.


Thanks for recommending the video, RL. If you want to make a point about it, I'll be happy to listen to what you have to say. I am not going to spend 16 minutes watching someone talk knowing I will not be able to discuss what he is saying with him.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 06:57 am
@igm,
...but by the way I don't agree with the axioms.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 07:03 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I am not going to spend 16 minutes watching someone talk knowing I will not be able to discuss what he is saying with him.


Why is it important to discus the logic that he is sharing with him? I like to discuss all logic no matter what the source is.
If it is really logically imperative to be able to discuss it with him you can leave your comment at YouTube under the video and often people will respond to comments to their videos.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 07:07 am
@reasoning logic,
You do this all the time, why won't you do what Frank asks?

If you think the arguments that are made in the video are so important, why won't you say what they are?

Why do you think people should watch videos you post, rather than discuss the points you think are important?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 07:34 am
@Frank Apisa,
We all agree that is theory that there could be gods but that is meaningless when there is zero signs that such gods exist and there is surely repeat surely no backing for the details listings of the god or gods desires and wishes that mankind had come up with since the first gods was created in the mind of man.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 07:47 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
We all agree that is theory that there could be gods but that is meaningless when there is zero signs that such gods exist and there is surely repeat surely no backing for the details listings of the god or gods desires and wishes that mankind had come up with since the first gods was created in the mind of man.


I disagree…and let me tell you why.

There was a time when there were ZERO signs that atoms existed. But to assert that they do not exist was NOT meaningless. To assert that because there were ZERO signs that they existed was NOT evidence that the likelihood of them existing is near to zero.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that horse like creatures exist on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol exist. But to suppose that a negative inference about their possible existence can be made from that…is illogical.

There was an assertion made that the likelihood of the existence of gods is near to zero. I do not think that assertion can be sustained in any meaningful way.

I would love to hear the individual who made the assertion acknowledge that is unsustainable.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2012 08:04 am
I'd like to see someone go from the notion that there are 'no gods' (the logical starting position) to a position that evidence or logic shows that there might be a god or gods i.e. the agnostic position.

Faith is all that theists need.

Being 'without' faith and gods is all that atheists need.

Neither atheists nor theists need to get involved in the logical dead-end mentioned in the first paragraph above.
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
The "atheism" thread locked, yet again, eh? - Discussion by layman
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
@MyFellowAtheists: How Big an Atheist Are You? - Question by Kolyo
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
The Atheist/Theist unity thread (a Discussion) - Discussion by Smileyrius
Can atheists believe in an immortal soul? - Question by neologist
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity
  3. » Page 148
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/14/2025 at 06:29:33
▲ ▼