Total Posts:220|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are There Any Good Arguments For Atheism?

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 2:04:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

Yes it does.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 2:06:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 2:04:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

Yes it does.

Why?
Cortney.ewing86
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 11:44:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

What is your reason for not believing.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 2:04:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 2:06:52 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/29/2013 2:04:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

Yes it does.

Why?

Because it's the only logical default position. There are thousands of gods who are all equally unsubstantiated. If you try to pick one to believe in without any reason, you're just guessing for no good reason. You ask for logical reasons for atheism, and then say that you don't need logical reasons for theism. That's inconsistent.

There's no good reason to believe in Yahweh, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in Allah, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in Zeus, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in Thor, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in alien abductions, so you shouldn't believe in them.
There's no good reason to believe in ghosts, so you shouldn't believe in them.

Remember, your statement applies equally to Allah, Zeus, Thor, and the multi-dimensional student named Fred who created our universe for a science fair project.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in Fred, that means you shouldn't believe in him.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2013 2:09:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 2:04:48 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/29/2013 2:06:52 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/29/2013 2:04:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

Yes it does.

Why?

Because it's the only logical default position. There are thousands of gods who are all equally unsubstantiated. If you try to pick one to believe in without any reason, you're just guessing for no good reason. You ask for logical reasons for atheism, and then say that you don't need logical reasons for theism. That's inconsistent.

There's no good reason to believe in Yahweh, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in Allah, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in Zeus, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in Thor, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in alien abductions, so you shouldn't believe in them.
There's no good reason to believe in ghosts, so you shouldn't believe in them.

Remember, your statement applies equally to Allah, Zeus, Thor, and the multi-dimensional student named Fred who created our universe for a science fair project.

Well................you can't prove fred doesn't exist.

Check mate atheists
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 5:33:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

1) If there is no sufficient evidence for something, there is no reason o believe in it

2) There is no sufficient evidence for God

3)There is no reason to believe in God
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 5:40:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

Life is like a Rorschach test. Some people look at it and see God - some people don't. Only now you have all those who are just staring at it and looking for God along with those who are staring at it and refusing to see even a hint of a possibility of him.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 7:11:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 5:40:29 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

Life is like a Rorschach test. Some people look at it and see God - some people don't. Only now you have all those who are just staring at it and looking for God along with those who are staring at it and refusing to see even a hint of a possibility of him.
Your ink blot is male? WOW. Does it have an elephants head as well?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 8:11:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 7:11:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/1/2014 5:40:29 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

Life is like a Rorschach test. Some people look at it and see God - some people don't. Only now you have all those who are just staring at it and looking for God along with those who are staring at it and refusing to see even a hint of a possibility of him.
Your ink blot is male? WOW. Does it have an elephants head as well?

Uh . . . yeah! How'd you know?
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 8:33:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/31/2013 2:04:48 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 12/29/2013 2:06:52 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/29/2013 2:04:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

Yes it does.

Why?

Because it's the only logical default position. There are thousands of gods who are all equally unsubstantiated. If you try to pick one to believe in without any reason, you're just guessing for no good reason. You ask for logical reasons for atheism, and then say that you don't need logical reasons for theism. That's inconsistent.

There's no good reason to believe in Yahweh, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in Allah, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in Zeus, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in Thor, so you shouldn't believe in him.
There's no good reason to believe in alien abductions, so you shouldn't believe in them.
There's no good reason to believe in ghosts, so you shouldn't believe in them.

Remember, your statement applies equally to Allah, Zeus, Thor, and the multi-dimensional student named Fred who created our universe for a science fair project.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in Fred, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

Only someone who hasn't studied the uniqueness of such gods in contrast with the others would think that (bolded) true.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 9:13:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 8:11:08 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/1/2014 7:11:47 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/1/2014 5:40:29 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

Life is like a Rorschach test. Some people look at it and see God - some people don't. Only now you have all those who are just staring at it and looking for God along with those who are staring at it and refusing to see even a hint of a possibility of him.
Your ink blot is male? WOW. Does it have an elephants head as well?

Uh . . . yeah! How'd you know?
I'm Bog's God.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
PGA
Posts: 4,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 10:00:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 5:33:14 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 12/29/2013 1:42:24 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
By good, I mean arguments whose conclusion can be derived from the premises by the rules of logic, whose premises are true, and which have premises which are more likely true than their negations.

It doesn't follow that just because there's no good reason to believe in God, that means you shouldn't believe in him.

1) If there is no sufficient evidence for something, there is no reason o believe in it

2) There is no sufficient evidence for God

3)There is no reason to believe in God

The Bible is one evidence for God that most unbelievers dismiss without thoroughly examining its claims. The unbeliever assumes the biblical text is no different from any other ancient religious historical text.

Then there is the question and explanation of why anything exists. Without God how does a universe begin and how does it sustain uniformity in its laws if it just happened without intentionality behind it?

Without God I see all kinds of roadblocks where you find that nothing about origins can be known for certain. Its one persons 'informed' opinion or 'knowledge', lead by his/her starting suppositions and how /she funnels the information, against another persons.

Morality becomes a matter of relativism. One persons 'good', one cultures good becomes another person or cultures evil. There is no objective reference for best, nothing to compare good to other than one mans or one cultures might and preference. Anything can be justified.

In an atheistic universe the only meaning and purpose is what each of us makes it. It gives no ultimate hope, no ultimate meaning. Death is thought to be the end of existence. That may be fine for the decadent West with its blinding fixation on pleasure and self gratification, but for some in Third World squalor Christianity gives hope and meaning that helps one overcome their immediate circumstances. What hope does atheism give such people? They are in an uncaring, impersonal universe where nothing ultimately matters. Dog eat dog!

Truth is objective in the sense that if something is true it is true and can't be anything but true. If we are wrong on origins our whole epistemology can be faulty. How do you know unless Someone who knows for certain has told us the certainty of our origins? You can't go back to the beginning and recreate it. You have to presuppose that what we see in the present is the key to our past. You have to assume that you are building on the correct premises concerning origins. Science has had many paradigm shifts when something that was thought true in the past has now been proven wrong. There is lots of speculation. No one comes to the table neutral. We all build on our core foundational beliefs. An atheist or unbeliever starts with the supposition there is no God and has faith that is based on his/her reasoning from these core beliefs, just like I have faith that is built upon my reasoning from the Bible. It is not a blind faith. There is also a relational side to this belief which an unbeliever denies is even possible because an unbeliever will not lay aside his subjective, relative, limited, self-centered, man-centered authority as the highest authority and trust God.

An unbeliever can't know a God of whom they do not believe in, or at least deny. They keep asking for evidence but their bias stops them from seeing the evidence. Those basic core foundational beliefs filter their thinking. I think there is always that doubt on whether the unbeliever is right because the unbeliever has no solid, sustainable foundation for his belief.

Hebrews 11:6
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

I believe my worldview has better justification than that of an unbeliever. I believe God is necessary for true belief.

Peter
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 11:24:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Bible is one evidence for God that most unbelievers dismiss without thoroughly examining its claims. The unbeliever assumes the biblical text is no different from any other ancient religious historical text.

How is the Bible different from any other historical texts to an atheist?

Then there is the question and explanation of why anything exists. Without God how does a universe begin and how does it sustain uniformity in its laws if it just happened without intentionality behind it?

Why do your answers need to be limited to God? I would suggest this is the same type of bias you condemn atheists for.

Without God I see all kinds of roadblocks where you find that nothing about origins can be known for certain. Its one persons 'informed' opinion or 'knowledge', lead by his/her starting suppositions and how /she funnels the information, against another persons.

"With God" could be substituted instead of "Without God" and your thought will still be true. I point to Young Earth Creationist, Old earth Creationist, theistic evolution and others to illustrate dissonance within the circle of believers as well.

Morality becomes a matter of relativism. One persons 'good', one cultures good becomes another person or cultures evil. There is no objective reference for best, nothing to compare good to other than one mans or one cultures might and preference. Anything can be justified.

Does this not happen with the religions Islam, Christianity, and Judaism and their followers?

In an atheistic universe the only meaning and purpose is what each of us makes it. It gives no ultimate hope, no ultimate meaning. Death is thought to be the end of existence. That may be fine for the decadent West with its blinding fixation on pleasure and self gratification, but for some in Third World squalor Christianity gives . What hope does atheism give such people? They are in an uncaring, impersonal universe where nothing ultimately matters. Dog eat dog!

Giving hope is a heart warming story, but it does not validate Christianity.

Truth is objective in the sense that if something is true it is true and can't be anything but true. If we are wrong on origins our whole epistemology can be faulty. How do you know unless Someone who knows for certain has told us the certainty of our origins? You can't go back to the beginning and recreate it. You have to presuppose that what we see in the present is the key to our past. You have to assume that you are building on the correct premises concerning origins. Science has had many paradigm shifts when something that was thought true in the past has now been proven wrong. There is lots of speculation. No one comes to the table neutral. We all build on our core foundational beliefs. An atheist or unbeliever starts with the supposition there is no God and has faith that is based on his/her reasoning from these core beliefs, just like I have faith that is built upon my reasoning from the Bible. It is not a blind faith. There is also a relational side to this belief which an unbeliever denies is even possible because an unbeliever will not lay aside his subjective, relative, limited, self-centered, man-centered authority as the highest authority and trust God.

We have differing opinions about the certainty of our origins, and this may go back to my first question about what the Bible should mean to non believers. Science has had many paradigm shifts, but this is the beauty of it! If science was never wrong it could be called religion. That may be a little harsh, but science grows better because it admits to mistakes and continues to search for the truth.

An unbeliever can't know a God of whom they do not believe in, or at least deny. They keep asking for evidence but their bias stops them from seeing the evidence. Those basic core foundational beliefs filter their thinking. I think there is always that doubt on whether the unbeliever is right because the unbeliever has no solid, sustainable foundation for his belief.

I was a believer at one time, did I forget the evidence I knew then? Not at all. My former belief wasn't based on evidence, but my current disbelief is fueled by lack of it.

Hebrews 11:6
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

I believe my worldview has better justification than that of an unbeliever. I believe God is necessary for true belief.

Respectfully, I disagree with your justification. There is huge contrast between our views on the need for God and the necessity of belief in Him.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 11:54:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 10:00:52 PM, PGA wrote:
The Bible is one evidence for God that most unbelievers dismiss without thoroughly examining its claims. The unbeliever assumes the biblical text is no different from any other ancient religious historical text.

Cite? I would wager that most atheists have thoroughly examined the Bible, at least where Christianity is the prevalent religion. The Bible is the ultimate evidence against the existence of God. Atheists also tend to score better on religious tests than believers.

Then there is the question and explanation of why anything exists. Without God how does a universe begin and how does it sustain uniformity in its laws if it just happened without intentionality behind it?

Quantum mechanics answers that. Have you thoroughly studied QM?

Without God I see all kinds of roadblocks where you find that nothing about origins can be known for certain. Its one persons 'informed' opinion or 'knowledge', lead by his/her starting suppositions and how /she funnels the information, against another persons.

Morality becomes a matter of relativism. One persons 'good', one cultures good becomes another person or cultures evil. There is no objective reference for best, nothing to compare good to other than one mans or one cultures might and preference. Anything can be justified.

Christianity cannot be claimed as a source for objective morality. God has presented contradictory moral guides, so the Christian morals are fully dependent on what God says. If God says to start killing infants and raping women again, then that would be moral again.

In an atheistic universe the only meaning and purpose is what each of us makes it. It gives no ultimate hope, no ultimate meaning. Death is thought to be the end of existence. That may be fine for the decadent West with its blinding fixation on pleasure and self gratification, but for some in Third World squalor Christianity gives hope and meaning that helps one overcome their immediate circumstances. What hope does atheism give such people? They are in an uncaring, impersonal universe where nothing ultimately matters. Dog eat dog!

Exactly. Religion promises false hope, especially to poor nations. Religion holds poor nations down. Religion oppresses women, who are one of the driving forces of the development of a country. Religion is extremely harmful in poor nations.

Atheism doesn't dictate anything. What you are looking for is human reasoning. We are intelligent enough to figure out that slavery is bad, no matter if your god says to practice it. We are intelligent enough to figure out that women should be equal, rather than property. Humans improve moral codes. Religion holds progress back.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
JustAnotherKid
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 12:35:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
While religion may have many contradictions when you look at it in a primitive view, ( as in origin of the universe), atheism does also. Right now I'm somewhere between Muslim and Atheist....I was raised as a Muslim, was taught all the important things of Islam, the stories, etc. But now as I've been using the internet an awful lot, there are many things that religion can in no way answer where science is in the lead. I'd have to say the fact that being an Agnostic may be the best option if you don't find theism or atheism reasonable for you. I mean being an Atheist may sound stupid, but it is in many cases far more logical. I believe in the Big Bang, the Quantum Field Theory, BUT I also at the same time believe that God or a greater being created this Quantum field or Singularity to expand. Now while being an Agnostic may sound stupid, since you want to believe in both science and God, Deism would be the option.
PGA
Posts: 4,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 2:23:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 11:24:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
The Bible is one evidence for God that most unbelievers dismiss without thoroughly examining its claims. The unbeliever assumes the biblical text is no different from any other ancient religious historical text.

How is the Bible different from any other historical texts to an atheist?

Prophecy for one, the number of manuscripts we have for another, the claims made in the Bible, the unity and consistency of the sixty-six books, other external evidences such as the writing of the early church fathers, the archeological verification of people, places and events, the necessity of God to make sense of this, etc.

Then there is the question and explanation of why anything exists. Without God how does a universe begin and how does it sustain uniformity in its laws if it just happened without intentionality behind it?

Why do your answers need to be limited to God? I would suggest this is the same type of bias you condemn atheists for.

Well, you avoided answering the question. Why does something exist rather than nothing?

I fail to see how the universe can exist without intentionality. It would mean that what began to exist began by chance happenstance. How does chance sustain anything?

If I roll a dice there is as much probability of me rolling a 1 as there is me rolling any other number unless the dice is loaded or I have the knack of rolling with the same variables every time - same height, same weight same rotation, same consistency. I would have to intentionally do this as well as being able to.

Why would a universe that began to exist and is not personal be able to consistently and uniformly produce Laws that hold it together?

I never said I was without bias. I already stated that neutrality is a myth. We all come to the table with our worldview bias.

Without God I see all kinds of roadblocks where you find that nothing about origins can be known for certain. Its one persons 'informed' opinion or 'knowledge', lead by his/her starting suppositions and how /she funnels the information, against another persons.

"With God" could be substituted instead of "Without God" and your thought will still be true. I point to Young Earth Creationist, Old earth Creationist, theistic evolution and others to illustrate dissonance within the circle of believers as well.

What is necessary for you to know for certain how things began, why you are here? Please do not beg the question with something like 'I know because we are here.'

Morality becomes a matter of relativism. One persons 'good', one cultures good becomes another person or cultures evil. There is no objective reference for best, nothing to compare good to other than one mans or one cultures might and preference. Anything can be justified.

Does this not happen with the religions Islam, Christianity, and Judaism and their followers?

I only support the God revealed in the Bible as being true. Judaism does not recognize the Lord Jesus Christ for who He is, neither does Islam. I am discussing from a Christian perspective. That is the only position I defend.

In an atheistic universe the only meaning and purpose is what each of us makes it. It gives no ultimate hope, no ultimate meaning. Death is thought to be the end of existence. That may be fine for the decadent West with its blinding fixation on pleasure and self gratification, but for some in Third World squalor Christianity gives . What hope does atheism give such people? They are in an uncaring, impersonal universe where nothing ultimately matters. Dog eat dog!

Giving hope is a heart warming story, but it does not validate Christianity.

Sure you can give a smug answer. I've lived in Africa, in fact I was born there. What comfort do you have for a dying person, living in poverty his whole life, who has experienced little justice? 'Don't worry, none of this will matter when you are dead! It's all meaningless ultimately. Man up and stop complaining about the pain. None of this will matter shortly.'

Truth is objective in the sense that if something is true it is true and can't be anything but true. If we are wrong on origins our whole epistemology can be faulty. How do you know unless Someone who knows for certain has told us the certainty of our origins? You can't go back to the beginning and recreate it. You have to presuppose that what we see in the present is the key to our past. You have to assume that you are building on the correct premises concerning origins. Science has had many paradigm shifts when something that was thought true in the past has now been proven wrong. There is lots of speculation. No one comes to the table neutral. We all build on our core foundational beliefs. An atheist or unbeliever starts with the supposition there is no God and has faith that is based on his/her reasoning from these core beliefs, just like I have faith that is built upon my reasoning from the Bible. It is not a blind faith. There is also a relational side to this belief which an unbeliever denies is even possible because an unbeliever will not lay aside his subjective, relative, limited, self-centered, man-centered authority as the highest authority and trust God.

We have differing opinions about the certainty of our origins, and this may go back to my first question about what the Bible should mean to non believers. Science has had many paradigm shifts, but this is the beauty of it! If science was never wrong it could be called religion. That may be a little harsh, but science grows better because it admits to mistakes and continues to search for the truth.

What can you tell me about origins that you know with 100% certainty?

An unbeliever can't know a God of whom they do not believe in, or at least deny. They keep asking for evidence but their bias stops them from seeing the evidence. Those basic core foundational beliefs filter their thinking. I think there is always that doubt on whether the unbeliever is right because the unbeliever has no solid, sustainable foundation for his belief.

I was a believer at one time, did I forget the evidence I knew then? Not at all. My former belief wasn't based on evidence, but my current disbelief is fueled by lack of it.

You may have had an intellectual belief but I believe if you were saved you would not have left the faith/trust/reliance/dependency that is found in Jesus.

Hebrews 11:6
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

I believe my worldview has better justification than that of an unbeliever. I believe God is necessary for true belief.

Respectfully, I disagree with your justification. There is huge contrast between our views on the need for God and the necessity of belief in Him.

Sure, I realize that. I also realize that I could not convince you otherwise. That is a major difference between us. You find what you expect to find and you look for it.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 2:58:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 11:54:05 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/1/2014 10:00:52 PM, PGA wrote:
The Bible is one evidence for God that most unbelievers dismiss without thoroughly examining its claims. The unbeliever assumes the biblical text is no different from any other ancient religious historical text.

Cite? I would wager that most atheists have thoroughly examined the Bible, at least where Christianity is the prevalent religion. The Bible is the ultimate evidence against the existence of God. Atheists also tend to score better on religious tests than believers.

They may well have, but from my talks over the last ten years on debate forums it is obvious that they have not understood the message or the confirmation God has given us. If I was a betting man I would bet you do not either.

QUESTION: What age is Jesus speaking of in Matthew 24:3, and when did/will that age end?

Then there is the question and explanation of why anything exists. Without God how does a universe begin and how does it sustain uniformity in its laws if it just happened without intentionality behind it?

Quantum mechanics answers that. Have you thoroughly studied QM?

No, so how does it explain why something exists rather than nothing?

Without God I see all kinds of roadblocks where you find that nothing about origins can be known for certain. Its one persons 'informed' opinion or 'knowledge', lead by his/her starting suppositions and how /she funnels the information, against another persons.

Morality becomes a matter of relativism. One persons 'good', one cultures good becomes another person or cultures evil. There is no objective reference for best, nothing to compare good to other than one mans or one cultures might and preference. Anything can be justified.

Christianity cannot be claimed as a source for objective morality. God has presented contradictory moral guides, so the Christian morals are fully dependent on what God says. If God says to start killing infants and raping women again, then that would be moral again.

What is many times practiced in the name of Christianity can't. Jesus summed up the Commandments with two. What kind of contradictory moral guides are you talking about. Is it right to murder, steal, lie? Please give one or two examples with biblical verses.

In an atheistic universe the only meaning and purpose is what each of us makes it. It gives no ultimate hope, no ultimate meaning. Death is thought to be the end of existence. That may be fine for the decadent West with its blinding fixation on pleasure and self gratification, but for some in Third World squalor Christianity gives hope and meaning that helps one overcome their immediate circumstances. What hope does atheism give such people? They are in an uncaring, impersonal universe where nothing ultimately matters. Dog eat dog!

Exactly. Religion promises false hope, especially to poor nations. Religion holds poor nations down. Religion oppresses women, who are one of the driving forces of the development of a country. Religion is extremely harmful in poor nations.

I would say false religion does or a false belief system. If you have a wrong belief about God there is a good chance you are worshiping a false god, an idol.

Are you aware of the stats for twentieth century atheistic regimes alone on the killing fields as compared to say the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials? Are you aware of the greatest holocaust of human history to date and who is responsible?

QUESTION: What do you think is the greatest holocaust in world history to date?

If you want to find out something about someone find out who most influences them. It is an interesting study.

Atheism doesn't dictate anything. What you are looking for is human reasoning. We are intelligent enough to figure out that slavery is bad, no matter if your god says to practice it. We are intelligent enough to figure out that women should be equal, rather than property. Humans improve moral codes. Religion holds progress back.

Again I suspect you probably do not understand ANE codes, especially as they relate to the Bible. Please elaborate a little on this.

Humans improve moral codes? How is legalized abortion an improvement? How are all the wars and disagreements, the different ideologies that create conflict and disagreement an improvement? How is flying a plane into a building an improvement. What happened to love your neighbor and go the extra mile for them?

How many countries of this world are safe to live in, where you do not have to worry about locking your doors at night? It depends on who you are, what kind of privileges you have in some, doesn't it.

Peter
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 9:52:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 2:58:04 AM, PGA wrote:
They may well have, but from my talks over the last ten years on debate forums it is obvious that they have not understood the message or the confirmation God has given us. If I was a betting man I would bet you do not either.

QUESTION: What age is Jesus speaking of in Matthew 24:3, and when did/will that age end?

What you mean is, they don't accept the mental contortions and justifications that are required to believe it. Most atheists understand the message(or messages, since it is all very subjective, especially in English). This sounds a lot like the 'well you were never *really* a Christian then' argument.

If you want to claim that there is only one way to interpret that verse, then I think you are being unfair with your question. If you accept that there are different interpretations, then I think the question is pointless.

No, so how does it explain why something exists rather than nothing?

I'm not a physicist, so I can't do the explanation justice. Basically, the total energy of the universe is zero, and matter/energy can and does spontaneously pop into and out of existence. Our universe is essentially a very large quantum fluctuation.

I would highly recommend Hawking's book The Grand Design, or Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing.

Also, this video, which is an overview of Krauss' book in lecture format:

What is many times practiced in the name of Christianity can't. Jesus summed up the Commandments with two. What kind of contradictory moral guides are you talking about. Is it right to murder, steal, lie? Please give one or two examples with biblical verses.

The moral code of the NT is as far removed from the OT as the east from the west. Either the commandments of God in the OT weren't moral, which makes God imperfect, or they were moral, which makes morality subjective on the commands of God.

You don't need me to give you verses, if you really know the Bible as well as you claim you do. God commanded genocide. God commanded infanticide. God commanded taking the property(including the virgins) of the people Israel conquered. That's murder, theft, and rape all rolled into one.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, read your Bible. If you do it with an objective mind, instead of through the justifying filter of belief, I promise you will stop believing in it. The OT makes it painfully clear that it speaks of the man-made god of a primitive society.

I would say false religion does or a false belief system. If you have a wrong belief about God there is a good chance you are worshiping a false god, an idol.

Well, at least we agree in principle.

Are you aware of the stats for twentieth century atheistic regimes alone on the killing fields as compared to say the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials? Are you aware of the greatest holocaust of human history to date and who is responsible?

Atheism is not a framework for anything. It doesn't provide morals or motivation. It's absurd to label 'atheistic regimes', just as it's absurd to say 'Do you know how many people water-drinking regimes have slaughtered?'.

QUESTION: What do you think is the greatest holocaust in world history to date?

Depends on your definition of greatest. Are we talking percentages or sheer numbers? Probably God, if you really believe in him. All the fires, earthquakes, floods, diseases, even starvation only exists because He created it that way.

QUESTION: How many instances of complete slaughter are described in the OT, either the genocide of an entire people, or killing everyone in a small area(including women and children, but excluding virgins)?

Again I suspect you probably do not understand ANE codes, especially as they relate to the Bible. Please elaborate a little on this.

Humans improve moral codes? How is legalized abortion an improvement? How are all the wars and disagreements, the different ideologies that create conflict and disagreement an improvement? How is flying a plane into a building an improvement. What happened to love your neighbor and go the extra mile for them?

Religious disagreement causes wars too, so don't act like that's some special non-religious thing. Flying planes into buildings? You know that stems from religion.

What about treating women as equals? What about treating homosexuals as equals? Those didn't come from Christianity.

I didn't say we are perfect, but we are improving. I'm glad we aren't stuck with the morals of 2000 years ago.

How many countries of this world are safe to live in, where you do not have to worry about locking your doors at night? It depends on who you are, what kind of privileges you have in some, doesn't it.

Peter

What does that have to do with anything? Some of the safest countries are the least religious ones. Safety has more to do with wealth than anything, and religion is one of the greatest obstacles to developing nations.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
PGA
Posts: 4,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 10:56:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 9:52:00 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/2/2014 2:58:04 AM, PGA wrote:
They may well have, but from my talks over the last ten years on debate forums it is obvious that they have not understood the message or the confirmation God has given us. If I was a betting man I would bet you do not either.

QUESTION: What age is Jesus speaking of in Matthew 24:3, and when did/will that age end?

What you mean is, they don't accept the mental contortions and justifications that are required to believe it. Most atheists understand the message(or messages, since it is all very subjective, especially in English). This sounds a lot like the 'well you were never *really* a Christian then' argument.

A great way to avoid answering the question.

If you want to claim that there is only one way to interpret that verse, then I think you are being unfair with your question. If you accept that there are different interpretations, then I think the question is pointless.

Oh, I'm aware there are countless ways of interpreting it. In order to communicate effectively the proper meaning, the authors meaning needs to be understood. What is the proper meaning of 'age' spoken in verse 3?

It is a simple test to see if you understand what is being related in this passage by the Author and in relation to what. Like I said, if I were a betting man I would bet you are missing something here and that you rejected Christianity because you did not understand the message in its proper context.

If words have meaning, and you will have to decide that for yourself, then you would have to understand which age Jesus is referring to and in relation to what.

QUESTION: What age is Jesus referring to in the verse below?

Matthew 24:3
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the [a]end of the age?"
Footnotes:

Matthew 24:3 Or consummation

Since you are so ready to sit in judgment of God's word I wanted to see how well you understood it and how well you can back up that understanding.

No, so how does it explain why something exists rather than nothing?

I'm not a physicist, so I can't do the explanation justice. Basically, the total energy of the universe is zero, and matter/energy can and does spontaneously pop into and out of existence. Our universe is essentially a very large quantum fluctuation.

I would highly recommend Hawking's book The Grand Design, or Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing.

Also, this video, which is an overview of Krauss' book in lecture format:


I'll consider what you have said once I view the video. It seems that what you are conveying must be difficult to understand since you can't phrase/express it yourself. You need someone else to phrase the concept for you.

What is many times practiced in the name of Christianity can't. Jesus summed up the Commandments with two. What kind of contradictory moral guides are you talking about. Is it right to murder, steal, lie? Please give one or two examples with biblical verses.

The moral code of the NT is as far removed from the OT as the east from the west. Either the commandments of God in the OT weren't moral, which makes God imperfect, or they were moral, which makes morality subjective on the commands of God.

Subject to His command, but how does that make them not objective? If God knows all things then He is capable of making known what is actually right and what is not. Murder is wrong. Do you agree with this? Adultery is wrong. Do you agree with this? Stealing is wrong. Do you agree with this? Lying is wrong. Do you agree with this?

The Law of Moses, the Old Covenant, was put in place to lead men to God. It showed they could not fully obey the righteous requirements of God. More on this later once you answer my question in Matthew 24:3

You don't need me to give you verses, if you really know the Bible as well as you claim you do. God commanded genocide. God commanded infanticide. God commanded taking the property(including the virgins) of the people Israel conquered. That's murder, theft, and rape all rolled into one.

God set in place the standard of righteousness that is a reflection of His nature, who He is. In the Garden He said if man ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil man would die. He also said as much when He set down the Ten Commandments. The soul that sins will die.

No man is guilt free. All have sinned. God is right as a just Judge to punishing man. How could God be good if He was not also just? These people that He told His people to destroy were evil. They were being judged. They would only contaminate His people with false beliefs and idolatry. The biblical text gives reason for God sending judgment on these peoples before it happened. They practiced evil and they would not repent of their evil.

God as Creator has the right to take the life of the guilty. You don't live and have your being for no reason. God is gracious in letting you live. He does not take the life of an innocent person without cause. As for children, Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these, referring to children.

The reason there is so much murder, hatred, greed, selfishness, etc., is because man has chosen to do his own thing. Good to man is a relative term that depends on the person or culture. Hence we have so many wars, religions, hatreds, inhumanities in this world. It is man worshiping himself and asserting his sinful nature. All you have to do is turn on the news and listen to the conflicts around the globe to know this is true. Man, without God, or the proper guidance of God, is responsible for all evil in this world. It is man who does evil.

You, being an atheist have no scape goat. You point to God or gods and say 'look what evil religion has done, but if there is no God as you say then man must take the responsibility himself, alone. It is easy for the atheist to point to religion, but look at the twentieth century in the hands of these atheistic regimes. What a bloody mess.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, read your Bible. If you do it with an objective mind, instead of through the justifying filter of belief, I promise you will stop believing in it. The OT makes it painfully clear that it speaks of the man-made god of a primitive society.

Objective mind? You are under the fallacy that your mind is objective in regards to the Bible, or anything for that matter. You are just as ready to justify your own subjective belief. You push your subjective belief.

I would say false religion does or a false belief system. If you have a wrong belief about God there is a good chance you are worshiping a false god, an idol.

Well, at least we agree in principle.

The question is whether or not one worships God in spirit and in truth. If you don't then you are not worshiping God as He is.

Running out of space and time. Back later.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 12:01:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 9:52:00 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/2/2014 2:58:04 AM, PGA wrote:

You don't need me to give you verses, if you really know the Bible as well as you claim you do. God commanded genocide. God commanded infanticide. God commanded taking the property(including the virgins) of the people Israel conquered. That's murder, theft, and rape all rolled into one.

I gave you one verse to answer. I am testing your knowledge of the Bible. The Olivet Discourse is a passage that covers much of the Bible in its scope. I want to see how well you understand it by the one verse.

Are you aware of the stats for twentieth century atheistic regimes alone on the killing fields as compared to say the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials? Are you aware of the greatest holocaust of human history to date and who is responsible?

Atheism is not a framework for anything. It doesn't provide morals or motivation. It's absurd to label 'atheistic regimes', just as it's absurd to say 'Do you know how many people water-drinking regimes have slaughtered?'.

Sure it is a framework for a worldview. The denial of God or gods is a belief system. Your answer is just a convenient pat answer to get out of justifying what you believe and having the spotlight removed by claiming it is not a belief system, a faith system.

Your worldview as an atheist centers on core/foundational beliefs, such as 'there is no God' or 'Macro evolution explains life.' These are tenets your system of belief is based on. You have faith in these because you filter the evidence through this belief system.

QUESTION: What do you think is the greatest holocaust in world history to date?

Depends on your definition of greatest. Are we talking percentages or sheer numbers? Probably God, if you really believe in him. All the fires, earthquakes, floods, diseases, even starvation only exists because He created it that way.

Most in number.

He did not create it that way. He imposed decay after man sinned. He gave man so long to live on the earth before judgment. Hardship was put in place to either bring us to God or repel us from Him. It was a consequence of sin. Sin - evil - is something man chose. Adam had free will to choose. God explained the consequence. Adam chose to do the opposite of what God commanded. Hence, all the evil in the world.

QUESTION: How many instances of complete slaughter are described in the OT, either the genocide of an entire people, or killing everyone in a small area(including women and children, but excluding virgins)?

I don't know? What is the exact number? Please do tell.

Again I suspect you probably do not understand ANE codes, especially as they relate to the Bible. Please elaborate a little on this.

Humans improve moral codes? How is legalized abortion an improvement? How are all the wars and disagreements, the different ideologies that create conflict and disagreement an improvement? How is flying a plane into a building an improvement. What happened to love your neighbor and go the extra mile for them?

Religious disagreement causes wars too, so don't act like that's some special non-religious thing. Flying planes into buildings? You know that stems from religion.

Sure religious disagreements cause wars, because man makes his own religions. Logically all religious belief systems are contradictory to each other. They all preach different contradictory things. Yet I believe one is true and all the rest are false. Jesus said that if someone slaps you on the cheek to offer the other as well, to go the extra mile for ones neighbor, summed up with the two commands to love God (for love comes from God) and love your neighbor as yourself. There would be no conflicts if man was capable of practicing these two commands. James said that pure religion was to keep ones tongue pure and to help the needy and widowed in their distress. Driving planes into buildings does none of these things. It is a false belief system.

What about treating women as equals? What about treating homosexuals as equals? Those didn't come from Christianity.

Sure treating women as equals comes from the Bible. We are designed with different roles. Some things men are more apt at doing and some things women are. It depends in what setting you define equal. Equal in God's eyes? Equal in strength and physical ability to lift heavy objects? Equal as human beings, both having equal right to life, liberty, happiness? Equal in respect? Equal in dignity?

Treating homosexuals as equal? They have the same man made rights that I do in my country, Canada. I believe that every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of race, religion or belief. I just believe there are certain practices that are considered wrong in the eyes of God. It is wrong to rape. It is wrong to have sex with someone other than your wife.

In a relative world, without objective moral values, where ideologies oppose each other it all depends on where you live as to what is right or wrong, doesn't it? Why do you want to impose your belief system on a country like Saudi Arabia? To them homosexuality is wrong. Just because your culture thinks differently what makes your 'right' right everywhere? Nothing, unless there is an objective moral law and law Giver that is the measure of what is best. How do you even arrive at good unless there is an objective measure to compare goodness too?

You want to know how you do it? You impose your might on someone else and you tell them this is the way it is going to be. If you don't like it then I'll kill you or put you in jail or make your life a living hell. Look at all the dictatorships in this world that do just that.

But I can take a look at such dictatorships and say. 'This is wrong' only if God exists. If He doesn't it is only a matter of my personal opinions and preferences. You prefer chocolate, I prefer vanilla. Some prefer to love their neighbors, others to hate them.

It all depends, in your way of thinking, where you live and who is on control. Yet I bet deep down that you do not live true to your atheistic belief system. You do believe that certain things are objectively wrong. It is obvious as soon as someone cuts in front of you in line or steals your wallet. If it is just wrong to you then why don't you let it be or why don't you eliminate the source of the wrong? Could it be because deep down you adopt Christian principles such as 'Do unto others?'

I didn't say we are perfect, but we are improving. I'm glad we aren't stuck with the morals of 2000 years ago.

Improving in your opinion and in your society. Try living in Saudi Arabia or North Korea. Try living in the ghettos. Try living in a Third World country in the slums, like I experienced in the Philippines, Davao City.

How many countries of this world are safe to live in, where you do not have to worry about locking your doors at night? It depends on who you are, what kind of privileges you have in some, doesn't it.

What does that have to do with anything? Some of the safest countries are the least religious ones. Safety has more to do with wealth than anything, and religion is one of the greatest obstacles to developing nations.

Safety, outside of God, is a relative term and it depends on who is in control. It can and does change. Safety does not have to do with wealth, it has to do with sharing what we have in abundance with those who are less fortunate, IMO, so it has to do with sharing wealth. What type of wealth are you talking of, anyway? Some of the riches people on the planet have the most expensive security systems because they understand they need them.

Like I said before, I only defend Christian belief. I wholeheartedly agree that man-made religion poisons everything. I also believe that Jesus has called us to true belief.

Peter
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 1:04:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Watch the video, read the books if you're interested. You still won't understand it, but you'll be aware of the concepts.

I'm really not interested in debating scripture. Anything you say, I've heard before. It's all boring, illogical, and myth.

What I'm interested in is the fact that these man-made religions cause people to justify horrible acts like infanticide. It makes me angry, it's a cancer.

You say murder is wrong, yet you justify genocide and infanticide. With God, all things are possible. With God, murder is justified, rape is justified, killing children as 'judgement' is justified.

Atheism isn't a framework. It is a word describing the lack of a specific framework. Atheism no more causes me to do anything than your lack of belief in Thor causes you to do anything.

What was the last thing you did because you don't believe in Thor?
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 1:23:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 12:01:02 PM, PGA wrote:
I gave you one verse to answer. I am testing your knowledge of the Bible. The Olivet Discourse is a passage that covers much of the Bible in its scope. I want to see how well you understand it by the one verse.

Again, I really have no interest in theological discussion. No more than I have interest in discussion any other sacred text. I'm interested in the reality of the effects of religion, not the mythology of the doctrine of religion.

Sure it is a framework for a worldview. The denial of God or gods is a belief system. Your answer is just a convenient pat answer to get out of justifying what you believe and having the spotlight removed by claiming it is not a belief system, a faith system.

No, not a belief system. You don't make choices because of not believing in Thor. You don't do something because you don't worship Zeus. You don't structure your life around your lack of belief in Allah. My actions are no more based upon not believing in God than your actions are based upon not believing in Mother Earth Goddess.

Your worldview as an atheist centers on core/foundational beliefs, such as 'there is no God' or 'Macro evolution explains life.' These are tenets your system of belief is based on. You have faith in these because you filter the evidence through this belief system.

No, atheism is an effect, not a cause. My worldview is based on evidence. Your worldview is not built on 'there is no Allah'.

Evolution is not related to atheism. If you insist on calling atheism a belief system, we'll get nowhere. It's absurd.

Most in number.

Definitely God then. Between the Spanish flu and the plague, 100 million people or so? Count every natural disaster and who knows how many. Let's include animals too, and the flood which nearly wiped out humanity entirely.

He did not create it that way. He imposed decay after man sinned. He gave man so long to live on the earth before judgment. Hardship was put in place to either bring us to God or repel us from Him. It was a consequence of sin. Sin - evil - is something man chose. Adam had free will to choose. God explained the consequence. Adam chose to do the opposite of what God commanded. Hence, all the evil in the world.

Sorry, if you created a robot, even if it had actual AI, and you did so knowing it would murder somebody, you would be responsible for the murder. Foreknowledge is a terrible burden.

I don't know? What is the exact number? Please do tell.

I was hoping the biblical expert would know.

Sure religious disagreements cause wars, because man makes his own religions. Logically all religious belief systems are contradictory to each other. They all preach different contradictory things. Yet I believe one is true and all the rest are false.

Yeah, you and every other believer.

Jesus said that if someone slaps you on the cheek to offer the other as well, to go the extra mile for ones neighbor, summed up with the two commands to love God (for love comes from God) and love your neighbor as yourself. There would be no conflicts if man was capable of practicing these two commands. James said that pure religion was to keep ones tongue pure and to help the needy and widowed in their distress. Driving planes into buildings does none of these things. It is a false belief system.

It's too bad God didn't see fit to tell mankind, all of mankind, to be nice right from the start. Instead, he told them how to properly kill nations, how to properly trade slaves, how to properly 'take' virgins. Your own religion is contradictory with itself, but you can't see that.

Sure treating women as equals comes from the Bible. We are designed with different roles. Some things men are more apt at doing and some things women are. It depends in what setting you define equal. Equal in God's eyes? Equal in strength and physical ability to lift heavy objects? Equal as human beings, both having equal right to life, liberty, happiness? Equal in respect? Equal in dignity?

No it doesn't. Women were property in the OT, and in the NT they weren't much better off.

Treating homosexuals as equal? They have the same man made rights that I do in my country, Canada. I believe that every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of race, religion or belief. I just believe there are certain practices that are considered wrong in the eyes of God. It is wrong to rape. It is wrong to have sex with someone other than your wife.

Yet that didn't come from religion. That came from humans. Your god ordered homosexuals to be killed, not treated equally.

In a relative world, without objective moral values, where ideologies oppose each other it all depends on where you live as to what is right or wrong, doesn't it? Why do you want to impose your belief system on a country like Saudi Arabia? To them homosexuality is wrong. Just because your culture thinks differently what makes your 'right' right everywhere? Nothing, unless there is an objective moral law and law Giver that is the measure of what is best. How do you even arrive at good unless there is an objective measure to compare goodness too?

I would suggest The Moral Landscape. We determine what is good and what is bad. It's too large of a topic to cram into this one. We are intelligent creatures, we can reason out what is right and what is wrong.

You want to know how you do it? You impose your might on someone else and you tell them this is the way it is going to be. If you don't like it then I'll kill you or put you in jail or make your life a living hell. Look at all the dictatorships in this world that do just that.

Sure, that's how I do it.

But I can take a look at such dictatorships and say. 'This is wrong' only if God exists. If He doesn't it is only a matter of my personal opinions and preferences. You prefer chocolate, I prefer vanilla. Some prefer to love their neighbors, others to hate them.

Your argument is only valid if you claim there is no difference between sitting in an armchair watching tv and being cooked alive in an oven. We naturally have an instinct for survival, and things like cooperation and empathy help us survive. That's what we base good and bad off of, things like that.

It all depends, in your way of thinking, where you live and who is on control. Yet I bet deep down that you do not live true to your atheistic belief system. You do believe that certain things are objectively wrong. It is obvious as soon as someone cuts in front of you in line or steals your wallet. If it is just wrong to you then why don't you let it be or why don't you eliminate the source of the wrong? Could it be because deep down you adopt Christian principles such as 'Do unto others?'

I don't have an atheistic belief system, so I couldn't possibly live true to it. It doesn't exist. Do unto others is not an exclusive Christian principle. Cooperation has been around for much, much longer than Christianity.

We have to define things like good, bad, right, wrong. Once we do that, we can define logically best morals.

Improving in your opinion and in your society. Try living in Saudi Arabia or North Korea. Try living in the ghettos. Try living in a Third World country in the slums, like I experienced in the Philippines, Davao City.

Wow... I'm just going to leave this for now.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
PGA
Posts: 4,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 2:39:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 1:04:56 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Watch the video, read the books if you're interested. You still won't understand it, but you'll be aware of the concepts.

I'm listening to the video now.

I'm really not interested in debating scripture. Anything you say, I've heard before. It's all boring, illogical, and myth.

'Anything you say.' What are you omniscient. Do you know how many fingers I'm holding up now as I type? You presume to know yet you are ignorant because you have not heard the evidence I am prepared to offer. You just assume, just like you assume the Bible has no sufficient grounds to believe there is a God, one true and living God.

You were the one who made these outrageous claims and yet you are not willing to show me and others that you know what you are talking about.

What I'm interested in is the fact that these man-made religions cause people to justify horrible acts like infanticide. It makes me angry, it's a cancer.

You say murder is wrong, yet you justify genocide and infanticide. With God, all things are possible. With God, murder is justified, rape is justified, killing children as 'judgement' is justified.

You are not interested in facts.

Again you just want to pontificate your belief with straw-man arguments. If you are going to attack my belief then be prepared to defend what you have said. Like I said, I believe you do not understand the Bible well enough to have an accurate knowledge of what God spoke of. What age was Jesus speaking of and what is the relevance of the age?

You have not taken account of the actual evidence that supports my claim regarding the Bible in your rash judgment. You do not even let me explain what or why, you just jump to your conjectures that only those who think like you know what is and what is not, and you side with people who offer what you want to hear.

You make all kinds of prejudicial conjectures yet you do not want to defend your stance. You want to state your belief yet you do not want to offer evidence that you know what you are talking about concerning the Bible as evidence. As soon as I try to establish your credibility you make excuses.

I would suggest that you do not make such claims unless you are ready to defend them.

Atheism isn't a framework. It is a word describing the lack of a specific framework. Atheism no more causes me to do anything than your lack of belief in Thor causes you to do anything.

What was the last thing you did because you don't believe in Thor?

I do not believe Thor exists, but I believe the God revealed in the Bible does. It is my belief that Thor does not exist, just like it is your belief that you do not believe the biblical God exists. You build on your belief that no God or gods exist, just like I build on my belief that one true God does exist.

Believing there is no God or gods is a belief. You try to dismiss it as not being one. You believe this world did not come about by the providence of a Creator, it just magically appeared. How does a universe that began with no intentionality, with no purpose sustain itself and its uniformity? How does it even begin to be uniform in its functions? Chance does not have intent in it. It just randomly happens. It is just as possible to roll a 1 as a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 with every roll of a dice unless you are able to fix the outcome. Chance does not fix any outcome.

You have these laws that govern the universe just appearing and then just sustaining themselves without any intent involved. I want to know how that is possible.

Krauss' worldview is apparent. He smuggles into the talk his views over and over again like: 'So forget Jesus, the stars died so that you can be here today.' That is part of his foundational belief coming through. Can he prove it? He is not neutral, neither are you, neither am I. It is a worldview that he sees the whole of life through and it begins without sentient conscious being and means nothing without conscious sentient being, yet here you are debating something that you believe has meaning.

Peter
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 3:13:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 2:39:42 PM, PGA wrote:
'Anything you say.' What are you omniscient. Do you know how many fingers I'm holding up now as I type? You presume to know yet you are ignorant because you have not heard the evidence I am prepared to offer. You just assume, just like you assume the Bible has no sufficient grounds to believe there is a God, one true and living God.

You were the one who made these outrageous claims and yet you are not willing to show me and others that you know what you are talking about.

Fine, then tell me the amazing message and I'll let you know if I've heard it or not. I've spent far too much time looking for truth in the Bible. I'll apologize if you can tell me something I haven't heard before.

You are not interested in facts.

Of course I am. Just because something is written in a book doesn't make it fact though. Without supporting evidence, your scriptures are no more valid than the Quran or the Book of Mormon or the Book of the Dead.

Again you just want to pontificate your belief with straw-man arguments. If you are going to attack my belief then be prepared to defend what you have said. Like I said, I believe you do not understand the Bible well enough to have an accurate knowledge of what God spoke of. What age was Jesus speaking of and what is the relevance of the age?

You have not taken account of the actual evidence that supports my claim regarding the Bible in your rash judgment. You do not even let me explain what or why, you just jump to your conjectures that only those who think like you know what is and what is not, and you side with people who offer what you want to hear.

Then go ahead. Explain what, and why, and the supporting evidence. I would love to hear something new. You seem to think I have never studied the Bible. I have found nothing special or convincing in it. That's all the defense of my lack of belief I need to present. If you think some part of it is so convincing, then share it. Again, I'm not interested in theological discussion of the Bible anymore than theological discussion of the Quran.

You make all kinds of prejudicial conjectures yet you do not want to defend your stance. You want to state your belief yet you do not want to offer evidence that you know what you are talking about concerning the Bible as evidence. As soon as I try to establish your credibility you make excuses.

The creation story is absurd and false. The obsession with donkeys and children makes sense sociologically, but not from a standpoint of inspired religion. The treatment of women and children is indefensible, especially from the viewpoint of commands from a perfect god.

I wonder, have you given the Quran the same consideration that you expect any disbeliever in the Bible to give it?

I would suggest that you do not make such claims unless you are ready to defend them.

Huge difference between rejecting something and caring to expand on that. If you say Greek mythology is absurd, must you always be ready and willing to spend time defending that position? You would spend your entire life defending disbelief.

I do not believe Thor exists, but I believe the God revealed in the Bible does. It is my belief that Thor does not exist, just like it is your belief that you do not believe the biblical God exists. You build on your belief that no God or gods exist, just like I build on my belief that one true God does exist.

That's not what I asked. What was the last thing you did because of your lack of belief in Thor?

You don't build your life around your lack of belief in Thor, you build it around your belief in God. It's the same for me, I don't build my life around my lack of belief in God.

Believing there is no God or gods is a belief. You try to dismiss it as not being one. You believe this world did not come about by the providence of a Creator, it just magically appeared.

It's not. You're clearly capable of more intelligent thinking than this. My lack of belief in gods frames my worldview exactly as much as my lack of belief in fairies. By your argument, your non-belief in fairies is a driver, your non-belief in invisible unicorns is a driver, your non-belief in Allah is a driver, your non-belief in Russell's Teapot is a driver. It's nonsense.

Seriously, if you insist on such illogic, we're done.

How does a universe that began with no intentionality, with no purpose sustain itself and its uniformity? How does it even begin to be uniform in its functions? Chance does not have intent in it. It just randomly happens. It is just as possible to roll a 1 as a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 with every roll of a dice unless you are able to fix the outcome. Chance does not fix any outcome.

That's what the information I linked you to explains. There is no need for a creator of the universe, anymore than there is a need for a creator of the particles that constantly pop in and out of existence.

You have these laws that govern the universe just appearing and then just sustaining themselves without any intent involved. I want to know how that is possible.

If you really want to know, you should go into physics. The brightest minds have dedicated their lives to giving us the knowledge we have now, but if you really want to understand it, you have to be able to look at the math.

Krauss' worldview is apparent. He smuggles into the talk his views over and over again like: 'So forget Jesus, the stars died so that you can be here today.' That is part of his foundational belief coming through. Can he prove it? He is not neutral, neither are you, neither am I. It is a worldview that he sees the whole of life through and it begins without sentient conscious being and means nothing without conscious sentient being, yet here you are debating something that you believe has meaning.

Peter

He throws in humor, but if you're focusing on that, you are doing yourself a disservice. He can prove the scientific statements he makes. You sound ready to dismiss the likes of Krauss and Hawking, yet you don't understand it. I don't understand it. To truly understand it, you have to understand the math, and it's far beyond me.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 3:14:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How is the Bible different from any other historical texts to an atheist?

Prophecy for one, the number of manuscripts we have for another, the claims made in the Bible, the unity and consistency of the sixty-six books, other external evidences such as the writing of the early church fathers, the archeological verification of people, places and events, the necessity of God to make sense of this, etc.

There are obvious discrepancies in the Bible, and it is a long list. I don't intend to go into all of them, but I will mention the different Genealogies of Jesus in Luke and Mathew, and the different tales of Jesus's resurrection (One involving earthquakes and zombies, yet the others failed to mention this spectacular event!).

Well, you avoided answering the question. Why does something exist rather than nothing?

Your argument is, "we exist, therefore God exist?" I could actually get behind that argument. :)

Why would a universe that began to exist and is not personal be able to consistently and uniformly produce Laws that hold it together?

My answer is irrelevant. You have claimed a supernatural explanation to the universe. The burden of proof is yours.

Without God I see all kinds of roadblocks where you find that nothing about origins can be known for certain. Its one persons 'informed' opinion or 'knowledge', lead by his/her starting suppositions and how /she funnels the information, against another persons.
"With God" could be substituted instead of "Without God" and your thought will still be true. I point to Young Earth Creationist, Old earth Creationist, theistic evolution and others to illustrate dissonance within the circle of believers as well.
What is necessary for you to know for certain how things began, why you are here? Please do not beg the question with something like 'I know because we are here.'

Now you're avoiding the question. If God provides the "certainty", why do his followers disagree on so many Biblical issues. It seems to me God should have been a little more concise when having the Bible written. He, being omniscient, should have foreseen this, no?

Morality becomes a matter of relativism. One persons 'good', one cultures good becomes another person or cultures evil. There is no objective reference for best, nothing to compare good to other than one mans or one cultures might and preference. Anything can be justified.

Does this not happen with the religions Islam, Christianity, and Judaism and their followers?

I only support the God revealed in the Bible as being true. Judaism does not recognize the Lord Jesus Christ for who He is, neither does Islam. I am discussing from a Christian perspective. That is the only position I defend.

Judaism and Islam also believe in Yahweh yet there are severe cultural differences. There is an objective reference (your own God), yet Christians, Jews, and Muslims are at odds with one another. Your premise is flawed.

Giving hope is a heart warming story, but it does not validate Christianity.

Sure you can give a smug answer. I've lived in Africa, in fact I was born there. What comfort do you have for a dying person, living in poverty his whole life, who has experienced little justice? 'Don't worry, none of this will matter when you are dead! It's all meaningless ultimately. Man up and stop complaining about the pain. None of this will matter shortly.'

I will not argue Christianity gives hope in certain cases, death and suffering, for example, but this in no way proves God. If anything, human suffering points to an impotent god.

Truth is objective in the sense that if something is true it is true and can't be anything but true. If we are wrong on origins our whole epistemology can be faulty. How do you know unless Someone who knows for certain has told us the certainty of our origins? You can't go back to the beginning and recreate it. You have to presuppose that what we see in the present is the key to our past. You have to assume that you are building on the correct premises concerning origins. Science has had many paradigm shifts when something that was thought true in the past has now been proven wrong. There is lots of speculation. No one comes to the table neutral. We all build on our core foundational beliefs. An atheist or unbeliever starts with the supposition there is no God and has faith that is based on his/her reasoning from these core beliefs, just like I have faith that is built upon my reasoning from the Bible. It is not a blind faith. There is also a relational side to this belief which an unbeliever denies is even possible because an unbeliever will not lay aside his subjective, relative, limited, self-centered, man-centered authority as the highest authority and trust God.

We have differing opinions about the certainty of our origins, and this may go back to my first question about what the Bible should mean to non believers. Science has had many paradigm shifts, but this is the beauty of it! If science was never wrong it could be called religion. That may be a little harsh, but science grows better because it admits to mistakes and continues to search for the truth.

What can you tell me about origins that you know with 100% certainty?

I direct you to my previous statement. "My answer is irrelevant." I have claimed nothing supernatural.

An unbeliever can't know a God of whom they do not believe in, or at least deny. They keep asking for evidence but their bias stops them from seeing the evidence. Those basic core foundational beliefs filter their thinking. I think there is always that doubt on whether the unbeliever is right because the unbeliever has no solid, sustainable foundation for his belief.

I was a believer at one time, did I forget the evidence I knew then? Not at all. My former belief wasn't based on evidence, but my current disbelief is fueled by lack of it.

You may have had an intellectual belief but I believe if you were saved you would not have left the faith/trust/reliance/dependency that is found in Jesus.

You're welcome to believe what you like, as it makes no difference to me, however, I considered being a priest for a brief period (a very brief period), I was a lay eucharistic minister (for a time I was serving in all three masses), an acolyte, and children's minister. I felt my belief was strong, but I came to realize my relationship with God was all make-believe, and there was never a second party to the relationship.

I believe my worldview has better justification than that of an unbeliever. I believe God is necessary for true belief.

Respectfully, I disagree with your justification. There is huge contrast between our views on the need for God and the necessity of belief in Him.

Sure, I realize that. I also realize that I could not convince you otherwise. That is a major difference between us. You find what you expect to find and you look for it.

I may be biased, but I am open to the possibilities (are you?). I could be swayed by evidence for the existence of God..got any?! :P
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PGA
Posts: 4,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 3:19:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 1:23:34 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/2/2014 12:01:02 PM, PGA wrote:
I gave you one verse to answer. I am testing your knowledge of the Bible. The Olivet Discourse is a passage that covers much of the Bible in its scope. I want to see how well you understand it by the one verse.

Again, I really have no interest in theological discussion. No more than I have interest in discussion any other sacred text. I'm interested in the reality of the effects of religion, not the mythology of the doctrine of religion.

If you are not interested in theological discussion then don't make the claims you do and expect to be seen as credible. The effects of man-made religion are evident, just like the effects of man without God is evident.

Sure it is a framework for a worldview. The denial of God or gods is a belief system. Your answer is just a convenient pat answer to get out of justifying what you believe and having the spotlight removed by claiming it is not a belief system, a faith system.

No, not a belief system. You don't make choices because of not believing in Thor. You don't do something because you don't worship Zeus. You don't structure your life around your lack of belief in Allah. My actions are no more based upon not believing in God than your actions are based upon not believing in Mother Earth Goddess.

Your core values eliminate believing in Thor and rightly so. Yet I do not believe the same can be said about your beliefs and understanding concerning God as revealed in the Bible. You are running with the crowd of popular opinion. Someone shook you intellectual core. You decided to rebuild on another foundation with new core beliefs. You do not believe He exists. That is a belief. It doesn't just pop into your head. You build on it concept by concept as you filter information and once you reject the biblical foundation you start building on man as the ultimate measure.

The problem is on which subjective, relative, limited in knowledge and lacking in wisdom man do you build? You build on those who support you new core values. They would not be core unless you defended them with all your being and attacked what opposed them.

Your worldview as an atheist centers on core/foundational beliefs, such as 'there is no God' or 'Macro evolution explains life.' These are tenets your system of belief is based on. You have faith in these because you filter the evidence through this belief system.

No, atheism is an effect, not a cause. My worldview is based on evidence. Your worldview is not built on 'there is no Allah'.

Again, it is a belief. You believe this world is here not because of the result of God or some god.

Evolution is not related to atheism. If you insist on calling atheism a belief system, we'll get nowhere. It's absurd.

Yes, it is. It is an explanation that is used to support the 'fact' that there is no God and agrees with and feeds this core belief.

Most in number.

Definitely God then. Between the Spanish flu and the plague, 100 million people or so? Count every natural disaster and who knows how many. Let's include animals too, and the flood which nearly wiped out humanity entirely.

God, as Creator has the right to take life. It is His creation and He is sovereign over it. He does not take innocent life without restoring it.

All religious wars, all religious persecutions by man, all things done in the name of 'religion' do not compare to what has been done by atheistic regimes and atheistic ideology in the 20th century.

He did not create it that way. He imposed decay after man sinned. He gave man so long to live on the earth before judgment. Hardship was put in place to either bring us to God or repel us from Him. It was a consequence of sin. Sin - evil - is something man chose. Adam had free will to choose. God explained the consequence. Adam chose to do the opposite of what God commanded. Hence, all the evil in the world.

Sorry, if you created a robot, even if it had actual AI, and you did so knowing it would murder somebody, you would be responsible for the murder. Foreknowledge is a terrible burden.

A robot does not have freedom to choose. It is programmed to do what its creator wants it to do. Man, in Adam, had freedom to choose.

Yes, God knew, but God did not program Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge. Adam chose that of his own accord. Evil is the absence of good.

I don't know? What is the exact number? Please do tell.

I was hoping the biblical expert would know.

You were the one who made the statement. You tell me. the onus of proof is on you making such a statement.

Sure religious disagreements cause wars, because man makes his own religions. Logically all religious belief systems are contradictory to each other. They all preach different contradictory things. Yet I believe one is true and all the rest are false.

Yeah, you and every other believer.

That would include you. You are a believer. You just do not believe the same thing I do. Atheism is a religion in the sense that it attempts to answer the same questions that religious beliefs do. Why are we here? What does it matter? What is the meaning of life? How do we know? What happens to us when we die?

Jesus said that if someone slaps you on the cheek to offer the other as well, to go the extra mile for ones neighbor, summed up with the two commands to love God (for love comes from God) and love your neighbor as yourself. There would be no conflicts if man was capable of practicing these two commands. James said that pure religion was to keep ones tongue pure and to help the needy and widowed in their distress. Driving planes into buildings does none of these things. It is a false belief system.

It's too bad God didn't see fit to tell mankind, all of mankind, to be nice right from the start. Instead, he told them how to properly kill nations, how to properly trade slaves, how to properly 'take' virgins. Your own religion is contradictory with itself, but you can't see that.

God let man find out just how well he could live without a relationship with Him. Adam chose to know evil. We don't have that choice. We are stuck with his decision. That is why the Second Adam reversed what the first has begun.

We live in a fallen world in which man continues to ignore his Creator and do his own thing. That is why we have the evil we do in this world. Man wants to do his own thing without consequences. God reminds man just how puny and fragile man by the curse of death and decay. This world was created good. Man brought judgment and decay by his choice. And man without God treats his fellow man, made in God's image, however he wants to just as long as it is of benefit to man. It is a power game. Man wants power by promoting his faulty worldviews. He wants to be the measure of all things while he thumbs his nose at his Creator.

Peter
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 3:28:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 3:19:25 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/2/2014 1:23:34 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/2/2014 12:01:02 PM, PGA wrote:
I gave you one verse to answer. I am testing your knowledge of the Bible. The Olivet Discourse is a passage that covers much of the Bible in its scope. I want to see how well you understand it by the one verse.

Again, I really have no interest in theological discussion. No more than I have interest in discussion any other sacred text. I'm interested in the reality of the effects of religion, not the mythology of the doctrine of religion.

If you are not interested in theological discussion then don't make the claims you do and expect to be seen as credible. The effects of man-made religion are evident, just like the effects of man without God is evident.

Sure it is a framework for a worldview. The denial of God or gods is a belief system. Your answer is just a convenient pat answer to get out of justifying what you believe and having the spotlight removed by claiming it is not a belief system, a faith system.

No, not a belief system. You don't make choices because of not believing in Thor. You don't do something because you don't worship Zeus. You don't structure your life around your lack of belief in Allah. My actions are no more based upon not believing in God than your actions are based upon not believing in Mother Earth Goddess.

Your core values eliminate believing in Thor and rightly so. Yet I do not believe the same can be said about your beliefs and understanding concerning God as revealed in the Bible. You are running with the crowd of popular opinion. Someone shook you intellectual core. You decided to rebuild on another foundation with new core beliefs. You do not believe He exists. That is a belief. It doesn't just pop into your head. You build on it concept by concept as you filter information and once you reject the biblical foundation you start building on man as the ultimate measure.

The problem is on which subjective, relative, limited in knowledge and lacking in wisdom man do you build? You build on those who support you new core values. They would not be core unless you defended them with all your being and attacked what opposed them.

Your worldview as an atheist centers on core/foundational beliefs, such as 'there is no God' or 'Macro evolution explains life.' These are tenets your system of belief is based on. You have faith in these because you filter the evidence through this belief system.

No, atheism is an effect, not a cause. My worldview is based on evidence. Your worldview is not built on 'there is no Allah'.

Again, it is a belief. You believe this world is here not because of the result of God or some god.

Evolution is not related to atheism. If you insist on calling atheism a belief system, we'll get nowhere. It's absurd.

Yes, it is. It is an explanation that is used to support the 'fact' that there is no God and agrees with and feeds this core belief.

Most in number.

Definitely God then. Between the Spanish flu and the plague, 100 million people or so? Count every natural disaster and who knows how many. Let's include animals too, and the flood which nearly wiped out humanity entirely.

God, as Creator has the right to take life. It is His creation and He is sovereign over it. He does not take innocent life without restoring it.

All religious wars, all religious persecutions by man, all things done in the name of 'religion' do not compare to what has been done by atheistic regimes and atheistic ideology in the 20th century.

He did not create it that way. He imposed decay after man sinned. He gave man so long to live on the earth before judgment. Hardship was put in place to either bring us to God or repel us from Him. It was a consequence of sin. Sin - evil - is something man chose. Adam had free will to choose. God explained the consequence. Adam chose to do the opposite of what God commanded. Hence, all the evil in the world.

Sorry, if you created a robot, even if it had actual AI, and you did so knowing it would murder somebody, you would be responsible for the murder. Foreknowledge is a terrible burden.

A robot does not have freedom to choose. It is programmed to do what its creator wants it to do. Man, in Adam, had freedom to choose.

Yes, God knew, but God did not program Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge. Adam chose that of his own accord. Evil is the absence of good.

I don't know? What is the exact number? Please do tell.

I was hoping the biblical expert would know.

You were the one who made the statement. You tell me. the onus of proof is on you making such a statement.

Sure religious disagreements cause wars, because man makes his own religions. Logically all religious belief systems are contradictory to each other. They all preach different contradictory things. Yet I believe one is true and all the rest are false.

Yeah, you and every other believer.

That would include you. You are a believer. You just do not believe the same thing I do. Atheism is a religion in the sense that it attempts to answer the same questions that religious beliefs do. Why are we here? What does it matter? What is the meaning of life? How do we know? What happens to us when we die?

Jesus said that if someone slaps you on the cheek to offer the other as well, to go the extra mile for ones neighbor, summed up with the two commands to love God (for love comes from God) and love your neighbor as yourself. There would be no conflicts if man was capable of practicing these two commands. James said that pure religion was to keep ones tongue pure and to help the needy and widowed in their distress. Driving planes into buildings does none of these things. It is a false belief system.

It's too bad God didn't see fit to tell mankind, all of mankind, to be nice right from the start. Instead, he told them how to properly kill nations, how to properly trade slaves, how to properly 'take' virgins. Your own religion is contradictory with itself, but you can't see that.

God let man find out just how well he could live without a relationship with Him. Adam chose to know evil. We don't have that choice. We are stuck with his decision. That is why the Second Adam reversed what the first has begun.

We live in a fallen world in which man continues to ignore his Creator and do his own thing. That is why we have the evil we do in this world. Man wants to do his own thing without consequences. God reminds man just how puny and fragile man by the curse of death and decay. This world was created good. Man brought judgment and decay by his choice. And man without God treats his fellow man, made in God's image, however he wants to just as long as it is of benefit to man. It is a power game. Man wants power by promoting his faulty worldviews. He wants to be the measure of all things while he thumbs his nose at his Creator.

Peter

Man has NO FREEDOM to choose because man is CREATED, not the CREATOR. When are you Christians ever going to listen to us saints who have the hidden knowledge of God to understand who we are within His mind? Our flesh and the things of this world are only illusions that are NOT real. We CANNOT make choices because God created every choice for us before any visible world appeared on the retina's of our eyes.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 3:31:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 3:19:25 PM, PGA wrote:
If you are not interested in theological discussion then don't make the claims you do and expect to be seen as credible. The effects of man-made religion are evident, just like the effects of man without God is evident.

I didn't make any theological claims like that, I made a claim about the Bible being nonsense. I'm not required to get into a deep discussion about every religious text I don't believe in just because someone else wants to.

Your core values eliminate believing in Thor and rightly so. Yet I do not believe the same can be said about your beliefs and understanding concerning God as revealed in the Bible. You are running with the crowd of popular opinion. Someone shook you intellectual core. You decided to rebuild on another foundation with new core beliefs. You do not believe He exists. That is a belief. It doesn't just pop into your head. You build on it concept by concept as you filter information and once you reject the biblical foundation you start building on man as the ultimate measure.

Could you dodge the point any more than you have? You still haven't told me how your viewpoints are structured on your own non-beliefs.

My core values eliminate believing in anything without evidence. Your god and Thor are currently on equal terms, unless you can provide evidence.

The problem is on which subjective, relative, limited in knowledge and lacking in wisdom man do you build? You build on those who support you new core values. They would not be core unless you defended them with all your being and attacked what opposed them.

My core values are nothing more than requiring evidence. There is nobody who I worship, nobody who I believe whatever they say. You confuse the concept of looking at evidence with the concept of building up authorities to follow.

Again, it is a belief. You believe this world is here not because of the result of God or some god.

Yes, it is. It is an explanation that is used to support the 'fact' that there is no God and agrees with and feeds this core belief.

Alright, you're not even listening to me. Your own posts have all but admitted that I'm right, but I don't think you realize it. Your lack of belief in Thor doesn't structure anything for you. Your lack of belief in fairies doesn't dictate your actions.

I'll point out the other examples of your apparent willful ignorance and intentionally being obtuse, then I'm done.

You said a robot doesn't have freedom to choose. I said a robot with true AI. Strawman.

You said I made a statement and have the onus of proof. I didn't. I asked you a question. There is no burden of proof for asking a question. Again, you doing that has to be intentional.

You again call atheism a belief and a religion. Absurd by every meaning of the word. Atheism is not a cause. It is an effect. But you don't listen. Has to be intentional.

Have a nice day.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
PGA
Posts: 4,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 5:28:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 1:23:34 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/2/2014 12:01:02 PM, PGA wrote:

Sure treating women as equals comes from the Bible. We are designed with different roles. Some things men are more apt at doing and some things women are. It depends in what setting you define equal. Equal in God's eyes? Equal in strength and physical ability to lift heavy objects? Equal as human beings, both having equal right to life, liberty, happiness? Equal in respect? Equal in dignity?

No it doesn't. Women were property in the OT, and in the NT they weren't much better off.

In Christ there are no distinctions.

Galatians 3:28
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [a]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Footnotes:

Galatians 3:28 Lit not male and female

Treating homosexuals as equal? They have the same man made rights that I do in my country, Canada. I believe that every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of race, religion or belief. I just believe there are certain practices that are considered wrong in the eyes of God. It is wrong to rape. It is wrong to have sex with someone other than your wife.

Yet that didn't come from religion. That came from humans. Your god ordered homosexuals to be killed, not treated equally.

Different covenant but God still considers sexual relationships outside of marriage as sin. He still tells us that man with man is not natural and not what He intended. The world does not heed His commands, hence the messed up relations we have with one another.

He gave the definition of marriage in Genesis 2:18-24. Marriage He instituted is between a man and woman. Regardless of sin, Jesus paid the penalty for those who would put their utter faith in Him.

In a relative world, without objective moral values, where ideologies oppose each other it all depends on where you live as to what is right or wrong, doesn't it? Why do you want to impose your belief system on a country like Saudi Arabia? To them homosexuality is wrong. Just because your culture thinks differently what makes your 'right' right everywhere? Nothing, unless there is an objective moral law and law Giver that is the measure of what is best. How do you even arrive at good unless there is an objective measure to compare goodness too?

I would suggest The Moral Landscape. We determine what is good and what is bad. It's too large of a topic to cram into this one. We are intelligent creatures, we can reason out what is right and what is wrong.

Are you citing a book - The Moral Landscape?

Why should I live by your definition of right and wrong if I am not forced to? Even in our different societies we have different cultural values between neighbors depending on a number of factors. We see this distinction right down to each individual. Why is what you decide actually 'right?' Is it 'right' because you believe it to be right and therefore I must conform to what you believe? Your measure of 'rightness' is what is dictated by your society. On such grounds you have no moral grounds to object to what Hitler did in his society if you migrate or visit that society because society determines 'rightness' and whereas it may be deemed wrong for your society it is not in another. What happens if you live on the boarder of two countries with opposing views? Whose right then?

We can see these moral distinctions in most societies, and much of the time it is dictated and enforced by those in control. Moral values in a society can chop and change depending upon who comes to power. It wasn't too long ago that abortion or same-sex marriage was considered wrong in our very societies - Canada and the USA. The agenda changed when enough people got behind the issue and changed it by mass media. What is to stop the reversal happening in the future again? There are shows on TV now pushing polygamy. We don't have our token polygamist in every show on TV yet but how long before this is deemed 'right' if we are not already there. How long before incest or sex with minors is considered 'right' between two consulting people? There are already groups pushing for this such as NAMBLA.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Where does it stop? With no objective, universal moral reference anything is possible. It just depends on preference and might. Yet, as I stated before, I think most of us know in our deepest convictions, that somethings are objectively morally wrong unless we have a screw loose. Not many would advocate torturing a baby for pleasure, not many would advocate murder, or stealing or lying. They seem to be universally condemned in almost every culture and in every age.

You want to know how you do it? You impose your might on someone else and you tell them this is the way it is going to be. If you don't like it then I'll kill you or put you in jail or make your life a living hell. Look at all the dictatorships in this world that do just that.

Sure, that's how I do it.

Sure, its okay for you until you are on the other side of the issue, or someone you love is, then I'm sure you would be screaming bloody murder over the injustice.

But I can take a look at such dictatorships and say. 'This is wrong' only if God exists. If He doesn't it is only a matter of my personal opinions and preferences. You prefer chocolate, I prefer vanilla. Some prefer to love their neighbors, others to hate them.

Your argument is only valid if you claim there is no difference between sitting in an armchair watching tv and being cooked alive in an oven. We naturally have an instinct for survival, and things like cooperation and empathy help us survive. That's what we base good and bad off of, things like that.

To you it is only good if it is beneficial as you perceive beneficial to be. That is the problem with relative, subjective moral values. There is no objective best to compare good to. It is just do as I say or I'll beat you to a pulp. That is just dandy if you happen to be the one who is in control.

It all depends, in your way of thinking, where you live and who is on control. Yet I bet deep down that you do not live true to your atheistic belief system. You do believe that certain things are objectively wrong. It is obvious as soon as someone cuts in front of you in line or steals your wallet. If it is just wrong to you then why don't you let it be or why don't you eliminate the source of the wrong? Could it be because deep down you adopt Christian principles such as 'Do unto others?'

I don't have an atheistic belief system, so I couldn't possibly live true to it. It doesn't exist. Do unto others is not an exclusive Christian principle. Cooperation has been around for much, much longer than Christianity.

Sure you do. An atheistic worldview is a system of belief that builds and filters everything through its core beliefs. You are just not aware of it. The ideas you are expressing are not built on nothing. They come from a certain mindset.

We have to define things like good, bad, right, wrong. Once we do that, we can define logically best morals.

Defined according to whose standard? Yours? Those you like. Right = what you like. It smacks of contradiction. When you and I have a difference of opinion of 'right' then who is actually right? It smacks of irrationality. It denies the very definition of good. It says A does not equal A unless I say it is so. Who are you? Why is your definition the one that everyone MUST bow down to?

Improving in your opinion and in your society. Try living in Saudi Arabia or North Korea. Try living in the ghettos. Try living in a Third World country in the slums, like I experienced in the Philippines, Davao City.

Wow... I'm just going to leave this for now.

Sure.

Peter