Total Posts:94|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Question to Atheists

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:30:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

I have a lack of belief in God because there is no evidence to prove that he exists. Anybody who claims that he exists or does not exist without evidence is wrong.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:31:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

It depends. If you told me that, I would ask you:

What is "God"
Why do you believe "God" exists

I would then think about your answers and make a decision as to whether I found them persuasive or not.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:34:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:29:48 AM, Nosaj5q wrote:
yes but if you said "i believe in god" then you would be telling the truth

But what if God really exists? If he does I would still be correct, even if there is no absolute proof that He does.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:34:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:30:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

I have a lack of belief in God because there is no evidence to prove that he exists. Anybody who claims that he exists or does not exist without evidence is wrong.

What would you consider to be evidence that God exists?
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:36:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:31:52 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

It depends. If you told me that, I would ask you:

What is "God"
Why do you believe "God" exists

I would then think about your answers and make a decision as to whether I found them persuasive or not.

Do you believe that the existence of God could ever be conclusively proven or disproven?
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:38:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I get it. He's saying if a native american didn't believe in horses, and another one did, the first guy couldn't say the second guy was wrong for stating there are horses. However, I don't know how this help a Christian's case.

Btw, horses didn't were not in America.
kfc
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:38:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:34:34 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:30:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

I have a lack of belief in God because there is no evidence to prove that he exists. Anybody who claims that he exists or does not exist without evidence is wrong.

What would you consider to be evidence that God exists?

I would like all of the theists to, on live television, use their powers to rejoin the corpse of an individual who has been completely dismembered and revive him.
Nosaj5q
Posts: 175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:39:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that god s being looked at all wrong something as scientifically implausible as god should not be real until proved fake. god should be fake until proved real. if I said there's a giant anus that floats above me and will suck me up if I misbehave but its invisible and untouchable . should you believe me just because it can't be disprove.
Slimy yet satisfying"
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:42:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:36:00 AM, KeytarHero wrote:

Do you believe that the existence of God could ever be conclusively proven or disproven?

I don't know, it would depend on the 'God'. I would think that if a God existed, then there should be fairly persuasive arguments/evidence for that God. I do not see any such arguments or evidence though. So I am not convinced.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:00:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:38:16 AM, Koopin wrote:
I get it. He's saying if a native american didn't believe in horses, and another one did, the first guy couldn't say the second guy was wrong for stating there are horses. However, I don't know how this help a Christian's case.

Btw, horses didn't were not in America.

But this native American would be agnostic toward horses, not "atheistic" toward horses (aequarianist?). The first guy couldn't say the second was wrong without evidence to the contrary.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:02:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:38:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:34:34 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:30:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

I have a lack of belief in God because there is no evidence to prove that he exists. Anybody who claims that he exists or does not exist without evidence is wrong.

What would you consider to be evidence that God exists?

I would like all of the theists to, on live television, use their powers to rejoin the corpse of an individual who has been completely dismembered and revive him.

So in other words, you would only accept evidence that is beyond a Theist's power to provide? Miracles were rare events. I can't raise anyone from the dead because I'm not God, nor am I a prophet or disciple. Despite what some Christians may assert, miracles were never meant to be common occurrences and they were never meant to be performed by every believer.

Besides which, there have been people raised from the dead, especially Jesus, and there are still those who don't believe. If Theists went on live television and performed this miracle, atheists would still claim it was trickery somehow.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:04:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:39:58 AM, Nosaj5q wrote:
I think that god s being looked at all wrong something as scientifically implausible as god should not be real until proved fake. god should be fake until proved real. if I said there's a giant anus that floats above me and will suck me up if I misbehave but its invisible and untouchable . should you believe me just because it can't be disprove.

God is not scientifically implausible, unless you're saying that science is a narrow-minded pursuit. Besides, scientists believe in other scientifically implausible things like other universes, or even atoms. In fact, quantum mechanics deals in the scientifically implausible.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:07:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:42:42 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:36:00 AM, KeytarHero wrote:

Do you believe that the existence of God could ever be conclusively proven or disproven?

I don't know, it would depend on the 'God'. I would think that if a God existed, then there should be fairly persuasive arguments/evidence for that God. I do not see any such arguments or evidence though. So I am not convinced.

Well, that depends on who you ask. I believe that there are persuasive arguments for God's existence.

Now, someone like Stephen Hawking may come along and say there is no need for God because we can answer everything through naturalism, but this is just a cop-out. What really happens is that atheists can come up with all sorts of conjectures about how we got here, and they do because they start from the premise that God can't exist. Many atheists are just as dogmatic about that as Theists are about the existence of God.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:11:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:02:27 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:38:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:34:34 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:30:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

I have a lack of belief in God because there is no evidence to prove that he exists. Anybody who claims that he exists or does not exist without evidence is wrong.

What would you consider to be evidence that God exists?

I would like all of the theists to, on live television, use their powers to rejoin the corpse of an individual who has been completely dismembered and revive him.

So in other words, you would only accept evidence that is beyond a Theist's power to provide? Miracles were rare events. I can't raise anyone from the dead because I'm not God, nor am I a prophet or disciple. Despite what some Christians may assert, miracles were never meant to be common occurrences and they were never meant to be performed by every believer.

The reason that many people believe in Christianity is that miracles were performed. That's even written in the Gospels. People bowed to Jesus because he performed miracles. I don't see why asking for empirical evidence of miracles is wrong.

It's not my fault that you don't have the ability to prove your position true. That's your fault.
Besides which, there have been people raised from the dead, especially Jesus, and there are still those who don't believe.
There is no evidence that Jesus was actually resurrected. Can you provide evidence (not a bunch of ramblings, but actual evidence) that he was raised from the dead?
If Theists went on live television and performed this miracle, atheists would still claim it was trickery somehow.

LOL, that's a pathetic excuse. I built safeguards anyways. I said that the corpse has to be thoroughly dismembered. I am not sure how one can claim that a dismembered corpse that his magically rejoined and revived on live television is living as a result of trickery.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:12:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:42:42 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:36:00 AM, KeytarHero wrote:

Do you believe that the existence of God could ever be conclusively proven or disproven?

The existence of a God who offers holy texts can be conclusively disproven. I think the Gods of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can be disproven by observing:

1) inconsistencies/contradictions within the texts and with other books within the same religion
2) inconsistencies/contradictions between the texts and what we know about the universe (in terms of science)
3) inconsistencies/contradictions between the texts and what we know about history
4) inconsistencies/contradictions between the texts and universally accepted features of modern morality

However the existence of a deity itself can never be disproven. In that sense, nobody is ever truly an atheist - you can't prove a negative. But for those who would use this as an argument for theism, I refer them to Russell's Teapot:

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong."
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:29:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:11:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:02:27 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:38:30 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:34:34 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:30:51 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

I have a lack of belief in God because there is no evidence to prove that he exists. Anybody who claims that he exists or does not exist without evidence is wrong.

What would you consider to be evidence that God exists?

I would like all of the theists to, on live television, use their powers to rejoin the corpse of an individual who has been completely dismembered and revive him.

So in other words, you would only accept evidence that is beyond a Theist's power to provide? Miracles were rare events. I can't raise anyone from the dead because I'm not God, nor am I a prophet or disciple. Despite what some Christians may assert, miracles were never meant to be common occurrences and they were never meant to be performed by every believer.

The reason that many people believe in Christianity is that miracles were performed. That's even written in the Gospels. People bowed to Jesus because he performed miracles. I don't see why asking for empirical evidence of miracles is wrong.

It's not my fault that you don't have the ability to prove your position true. That's your fault.
Besides which, there have been people raised from the dead, especially Jesus, and there are still those who don't believe.
There is no evidence that Jesus was actually resurrected. Can you provide evidence (not a bunch of ramblings, but actual evidence) that he was raised from the dead?
If Theists went on live television and performed this miracle, atheists would still claim it was trickery somehow.

LOL, that's a pathetic excuse. I built safeguards anyways. I said that the corpse has to be thoroughly dismembered. I am not sure how one can claim that a dismembered corpse that his magically rejoined and revived on live television is living as a result of trickery.

Yes, *Jesus* performed miracles. I cannot. I can't show you miracles to suddenly make you believe. But we do have the miracles of Jesus to look back on, which were recorded as observed by eyewitnesses. It's not my fault I can't perform miracles; that's just silly of you to accuse me of being at fault for.

There are several lines of evidence that suggest Jesus resurrected. If you'd care to debate me on them, I'll be happy to debate it with you. But responses here in the thread may get too bogged down as our responses grow in length.

As for the dismembered corpse, again, I can't work miracles. I can't bring anyone back from the dead, so it's kind of a moot point. The problem is that Atheists require evidence that is beyond a Theist's ability to provide (maybe you should ask some Charismatics, who believe that we're still supposed to be working miracles today). I believe that the philosophical arguments for God's existence are strong enough to show that the existence of God is more likely than not.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:31:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:07:20 PM, KeytarHero wrote:

Well, that depends on who you ask. I believe that there are persuasive arguments for God's existence.


Okay.

Now, someone like Stephen Hawking may come along and say there is no need for God because we can answer everything through naturalism, but this is just a cop-out.

Not sure how it's a cop-out.

What really happens is that atheists can come up with all sorts of conjectures about how we got here, and they do because they start from the premise that God can't exist.

The models we have are not mere conjectures. Further, even if we had no models, that wouldn't justify a belief in God.

Many atheists are just as dogmatic about that as Theists are about the existence of God.

Okay.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:37:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

Yes. Because while atheism is merely a "lack of belief in God" my set of beliefs includes more than just atheism.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:38:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:12:45 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:42:42 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:36:00 AM, KeytarHero wrote:

Do you believe that the existence of God could ever be conclusively proven or disproven?

The existence of a God who offers holy texts can be conclusively disproven. I think the Gods of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can be disproven by observing:

1) inconsistencies/contradictions within the texts and with other books within the same religion
2) inconsistencies/contradictions between the texts and what we know about the universe (in terms of science)
3) inconsistencies/contradictions between the texts and what we know about history
4) inconsistencies/contradictions between the texts and universally accepted features of modern morality

However the existence of a deity itself can never be disproven. In that sense, nobody is ever truly an atheist - you can't prove a negative. But for those who would use this as an argument for theism, I refer them to Russell's Teapot:

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong."

First, you *can* prove a negative. I can prove to you that there is no elephant in the room I'm sitting in.

Secondly, there are no contradictions in the Bible. The only contradictions arise when atheists pull verses out of context, fail to take into consideration the social or historical aspect, fail to account for known transcription errors, etc. Every alleged contradiction has a reasonable explanation.

Thirdly, the Bible is not a science book. It can't be expected to completely adhere to scientific reality because God was speaking to scientifically primitive people.

Fourth, what contradictions are there between the Bible and history?

Fifth, what contradictions are there between the Bible and modern morality, and how does this disprove the existence of God? Is it really reasonable to suppose that because God's standard of morality differs from yours, that God doesn't exist?

Sixth, there is no reason to believe in Russell's teapot. Russell didn't believe in a teapot so there's really no need to disprove it. However, this is what J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig has to say on the matter:

"...the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in cases in which, were the postulated entity to exist, we should expect to have some evidence of its existence. Moreover, the justification conferred in such cases will be proportional to the ratio between the amount of evidence that we do have and the amount of evidence that we should expect to have if the entity existed. If the ratio is small, then little justification is conferred on the belief that the entity does not exist.

"Again the advocates of the presumption of atheism recognized this. Michael Scriven, for example, maintained that in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed. But if this is correct, then our justification for atheism depends on (1) the probability that God would leave more evidence of his existence than what we have and (2) the probability that we have comprehensively surveyed the field for evidence of his existence. That puts a different face on the matter! Suddenly the presumer of atheism, who sought to shirk his share of the burden of proof, finds himself saddled with the very considerable burden of proving (1) and (2) to be the case."

--J P Moreland & William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, (Intervarsity Press, 2003), p. 157.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:40:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:31:31 PM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:07:20 PM, KeytarHero wrote:

Well, that depends on who you ask. I believe that there are persuasive arguments for God's existence.


Okay.

Now, someone like Stephen Hawking may come along and say there is no need for God because we can answer everything through naturalism, but this is just a cop-out.

Not sure how it's a cop-out.

What really happens is that atheists can come up with all sorts of conjectures about how we got here, and they do because they start from the premise that God can't exist.

The models we have are not mere conjectures. Further, even if we had no models, that wouldn't justify a belief in God.

Many atheists are just as dogmatic about that as Theists are about the existence of God.

Okay.

I consider it a cop-out because just saying that a God is not "needed" is no disproof of God. It still doesn't prove that there isn't actually a God who set all the natural laws in motion.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:40:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:37:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

Yes. Because while atheism is merely a "lack of belief in God" my set of beliefs includes more than just atheism.

How can you say I'm wrong without evidence to the contrary?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:47:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:40:36 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:37:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

Yes. Because while atheism is merely a "lack of belief in God" my set of beliefs includes more than just atheism.

How can you say I'm wrong without evidence to the contrary?

I can't. Thankfully, I have evidence to the contrary.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:49:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:38:54 PM, KeytarHero wrote:

First, you *can* prove a negative. I can prove to you that there is no elephant in the room I'm sitting in.


While I agree that you can essentially prove a negative, I disagree that your proposed example (no elephan in the room you are sitting in) can do this.

Secondly, there are no contradictions in the Bible. The only contradictions arise when atheists pull verses out of context, fail to take into consideration the social or historical aspect, fail to account for known transcription errors, etc. Every alleged contradiction has a reasonable explanation.


This is a statement of faith. A reasonable interpretation of various passages show there are contradictions. The Christian who is seeking to reconcile these passages will strain credulity and reach for any possible resolution, no matter how outlandish or how implausible.

The idea doesn't even make sense, since we do not have the original Bible. I mean, are you asserting that I cannot copy the Bible and insert a contradiction? If I can do that, then why can't others?

Thirdly, the Bible is not a science book. It can't be expected to completely adhere to scientific reality because God was speaking to scientifically primitive people.


This is odd, are you saying that God couldn't put it in terms those people would understand? In any event, I don't think the Bible was written in terms of science anyway.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:51:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:40:01 PM, KeytarHero wrote:

I consider it a cop-out because just saying that a God is not "needed" is no disproof of God. It still doesn't prove that there isn't actually a God who set all the natural laws in motion.

Why do you think it's presented as a disproof?

That's not how I read it. Hawking is simply saying that God isn't needed because there are models that fit the bill. He might be right, he might be wrong. If he's wrong that doesn't mean God exists though.
Nosaj5q
Posts: 175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:54:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:04:36 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:39:58 AM, Nosaj5q wrote:
I think that god s being looked at all wrong something as scientifically implausible as god should not be real until proved fake. god should be fake until proved real. if I said there's a giant anus that floats above me and will suck me up if I misbehave but its invisible and untouchable . should you believe me just because it can't be disprove.

God is not scientifically implausible, unless you're saying that science is a narrow-minded pursuit. Besides, scientists believe in other scientifically implausible things like other universes, or even atoms. In fact, quantum mechanics deals in the scientifically implausible.

Science- systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. to say that atoms are scientifically implausible is just ignorant and shows that you barely have a grasp of science at all. as soon as we can observe god or some sort of god connected phenomena without an atheistic explanation the day that is possible is the day god becomes scientifically plausible
Slimy yet satisfying"
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:55:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:47:02 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:40:36 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:37:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

Yes. Because while atheism is merely a "lack of belief in God" my set of beliefs includes more than just atheism.

How can you say I'm wrong without evidence to the contrary?

I can't. Thankfully, I have evidence to the contrary.

So if you have evidence to the contrary, can't you say there is no God rather than simply claiming a lack of belief in God?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:57:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:55:48 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:47:02 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:40:36 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:37:39 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:28:04 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

Yes. Because while atheism is merely a "lack of belief in God" my set of beliefs includes more than just atheism.

How can you say I'm wrong without evidence to the contrary?

I can't. Thankfully, I have evidence to the contrary.

So if you have evidence to the contrary, can't you say there is no God rather than simply claiming a lack of belief in God?

I do say that. But we're not talking about what I would say, we're talking about what atheism entails.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 1:00:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:49:17 PM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:38:54 PM, KeytarHero wrote:

First, you *can* prove a negative. I can prove to you that there is no elephant in the room I'm sitting in.


While I agree that you can essentially prove a negative, I disagree that your proposed example (no elephan in the room you are sitting in) can do this.

Secondly, there are no contradictions in the Bible. The only contradictions arise when atheists pull verses out of context, fail to take into consideration the social or historical aspect, fail to account for known transcription errors, etc. Every alleged contradiction has a reasonable explanation.


This is a statement of faith. A reasonable interpretation of various passages show there are contradictions. The Christian who is seeking to reconcile these passages will strain credulity and reach for any possible resolution, no matter how outlandish or how implausible.

The idea doesn't even make sense, since we do not have the original Bible. I mean, are you asserting that I cannot copy the Bible and insert a contradiction? If I can do that, then why can't others?

Thirdly, the Bible is not a science book. It can't be expected to completely adhere to scientific reality because God was speaking to scientifically primitive people.


This is odd, are you saying that God couldn't put it in terms those people would understand? In any event, I don't think the Bible was written in terms of science anyway.

Can you give me some examples of verses that strain credulity by explaining away the contradictions?

It's true that we don't have the original Bible, but we do have very, very old manuscripts that date back to about a century after they were written. We have about a 98.5-99.5% probability that they have been faithfully transmitted, and any errors do not change any Christian doctrines at all.

I do believe that God *could have* said things in terms of what the people would understand, but it still wouldn't make sense to them. I don't believe there are any verses that specifically contradict science if you really look at the verse in the context of its passage. But again, the Bible wasn't a science book. So while Genesis 1 speaks of a six-day creation, it's not very specific about the creation. Just that God spoke, and these things happened.