Best Posts in Thread: Is God real?

I'm an atheist too, for me, the only reason I would see someone believing in god or worshiping a religion is because they think love and religion are correlated. Probably people feel as thought they have some kind of inner peace, believing they will be in a way rewarded for their good deeds here in the material world. Another thing why people are religious might be because it brings people closer, no matter the religion, groups of people, big or small all gather and celebrate their holidays etc.

Another thing worth mentioning, God isn't what they say he is in the bible or the quran, you can't blame some imaginary person in books for deaths of many people like you did. God is what you want him to be, you can believe in a god but not believe in religion, it doesn't have to be related in any way.

 

Although I get your intention to point at the bible as silly, I do dislike the way you are approaching it because I feel it's fundamentally flawed and I mean that in the nicest way.

Making this argument inherently reveals and ignorance regarding this topic. If you approach it as an Athiest of some sort you also have to recognize what the Bible was in reality. You are reading the literature from the point of a modern human being ignoring the fact that people simply did not write literature that way in the era all these ancient documents were written. This way of literature really only came to prevalence in the middle ages through aristotelian scholasticism - the concept which our education is essentially based from.

The old testament was written in ancient Hebrew which is no longer even being spoken then translated into ancient greek then to latin until it finally reached old English, which by itself is very very different than the English we speak today. The new testament was originally written in ancient greek and took the same route as OT. Even ignoring this fact for a moment we still have the issue that the people then did not write in a way that relied on factual chronological accountings of events and time to tell the story. The story was always being told with the "moral of the story". For example the Epic of Gilgamesh, in no way did the story portray a factual chronological accounting of the events but the moral of the story has always been true - Death is inevitable.

The thing is, the people of these times that read and spoke their stories knew this and they did not take it literally.

So why would we?

 

Some people simply don't want to leave their beliefs, and that's fine, but how can anyone seriously debate for the existence of any god in a legitimate debate? There plainly is no proof for or against the existence of a supreme being, and it is fallacious to ask atheists to "disprove" the existence of a god(s). This is the burden of proof fallacy; if someone believes in something and wants to prove it in a debate, it's their job to prove it, not anyone else's to disprove it.

My apologies if I'm being lazy or shortsighted here, but I've read through a few of the 23 pages, and seen nothing except for personal opinions (I'm a Christian, or I'm an atheist, but who cares about that alone? The point of the debate is to prove or disprove the existence of a god). Has the existence of a supreme being been proven?

The way I see it is, how exactly can one say that the Bible is the word of God? It might be written by a mortal man, or it might actually be the word of God. This goes for every religious text; how do we know that it wasn't written by a random person looking to control people? Perhaps someone misinterpreted something they saw as a sign of there being a higher power? You can't point at a tree over there and tell me that it was created by God and not by nature. Well, how about complex life? Evolution is all but proven at this point, and abiogenesis has been proven to be possible.

I bring that up because religion was, historically, used to explain what could not be explained. Why do you think that the Greeks and Romans had a thunder god, or a god of the sea? Because they did not understand the very complicated reason for natural occurrences that we can today explain by scientific methods. Look at polytheistic religions and you'll see that they had a god for pretty much everything that they couldn't explain with logic.

Also - people need a solution. They need something to make them believe that this life isn't pointless, that this isn't just a temporary life. How can something be so ridiculously complex, but just end for us after (millennia ago it would have been less than 40) 80 years or so, if you're lucky enough to live in a developed country? It would have seemed a bit silly to believe in something like that when you can at least take solace in believing there's an afterlife. Religion provides community as well, more people who think the same way as you do.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 11, 2017, Original Post Date: Jul 11, 2017 ---

So you believe that there might be in another galaxy, but not this one? Why do you feel that life must arise so far apart?

 

My apologies for the delay in responding, I will explain why later on.

Thank you very much for your honesty. In truth, no one knows all the answers.

This is an intriguing idea. However, this is essentially another form of the Big Bang. Essentially, this means our universe was formed from another. If you follow the logic, we end up with, "Where did that universe come from?" The only way to follow this logic as you have suggested would conclude the universe has always existed, which is currently assumed to be false. We have fairly solid evidence the universe began somewhere, which is why we have theories such as the Big Bang.

I don't believe I conveyed my idea as well as I originally had envisioned, allow me to explain. My personal belief is once a person is condemned to the Lake of Fire, it is not 100% permanent, no way out. Several Biblical passages refer to repentance as the way out. Think of it this way, a child rebels against his father. Though the father does not wish to punish the child, he knows said child has done wrong. Therefore, it is the punishment of waiting them out. Letting them to make their own conclusion to change, as a way of apologizing. Sin, depending on your perception of it, is an infinite crime because not only are you rebelling against God, but not changing is essentially the same as doing it over and over.

This area is my reason for a delayed response. Now, to address this area fully, I am currently researching to support my claim of New Testament historical accuracy. Due to the differences in both time period and origin, I do not feel the Old and New Testaments prove or disprove the other. Remember, they were written in vastly different environments. Much more of the New Testament can be tested, due to its newer age (compared to the Old Testament). One thing I would like to point out regarding historical accuracy, a very common arguement is the Gospels were written late enough after Christ's death that legend had corrupted the story. Therefore, I would like to remind everyone of Alexander the Great. His biography is considered accurate by historical definition, but it was written approximately 450 years after his death. Depending on your assessment, the Gospels were written between 40 AD and 100 AD. Considering the maximum possible is sixty years, I would propose legends would not be as likely. Again, I am currently conducting further research in this area, to address your desire for a BoP. In the meantime, I will answer your questions.

1. Obviously, a debate in which I do not care if I am right is not even worth arguing. Therefore, I answer yes.
2.My primary reason for belief is not "It's how I was raised," as some have said. My own reason is personal experience. Several instances in my life that are very large "coincidences" after doing something that would be considered religious.
3. If you can prove experiences wrong based on my limited viewpoint, than very well. Consider it the incredulity logical fallacy, but based on sheer probability, the exact miracles in my own life have a next to nonexistent probability.
Thank you, for well though-out questions. If I may, would you answer the same questions in reverse? It does not add data to our debate, but it is helpful to comprehend where the opposition is coming from. Once again, I am currently researching historical and archaeological accuracy of the New Testament, and will address this when I have collected sufficient data.

 

Allow me to quote a passage from the very book whose author was claimed to be "unforgivably ignorant," does this seem ignorant?

Regarding apologetics. One can be ignorant about a particular topic, but that doesn't meant they're an ignorant person. Otherwise, we'd all be classified as ignorant.

......

Essentially, this passage would indicate those who do not follow Christ are given opportunities to change. It would seem one would be judged more on actions than beliefs. Faith in Christ is quite pointless, in my opinion, if you do not live it out. This does not mean "doing good" gets you into Heaven alone, but goes with belief in Christ.

I'd rather not tackle Christian apologetics yet. You've asked many questions thus far, while I'm still waiting on the 2 I asked earlier. Whether or not you care about the truth value of your beliefs, as well as your reasons as to why you believe in a god? I think those are the most important things to discuss here.

To address the above simply, the assessment of God's character is much more than his decision to send particular people to Hell. Though, for what this is worth, if exists an is accurately described in the Bible? The Christian god is by definition immoral. Infinite punishment for a finite crime is by it's own definition, an immoral act.

1. The Big Bang, though a credible theory, describes a transition of matter in a centralized location to across the universe. Where then, did the matter come from?

We don't know.

2. Obviously, all Atheists believe the Bible is false, can you show me any archeological evidence against the New Testament?

Atheists don't typically claim that the entirety of the Bible's claims are false. The same obviously applies for the NT. There are some events described in the Bible that we know to be false, such as the flood. But I doubt you'll find many Atheists that claim all of it is untrue.

[Not intended to be as confrontational as this will sound] Do you understand the 'Burden of Proof'? I've mentioned this a few times now, but it doesn't seem to be "sticking". Do you disagree with it? Do you not care for it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

"When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition."

You're saying that some/most/all the claims in the Bible are true. Thus, the BoP falls on you to support these claims. Otherwise, without evidence+argument for either side, we're left in an agnostic position of 'unbelief'.

3. Isn't the argument "there is no God" also an https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
since this falls under options 1-4 depending on your position?

I don't think it would be the AfI fallacy, but I share your concerns with that position, sure. Most Atheists (the overwhelming majority) are agnostic-Atheists. They don't believe, and they don't claim to know that no gods exist. Very rarely will you come across an Atheist that claims "there is no god/gods". In such a case, the BoP would be on them to support their claim. I do not hold this view, though this all depends on your definition of the word 'knowledge'.

Again, I merely want to hear the opposition's stand on these three questions.

Sure thing. Keep them coming!

Though, I would really like to press on an answer the 2 key questions I've asked previously. Heck, let's push for 3.

(1) Do you care whether or not your belief in a god is true?

(2) What is the primary reason you believe in a god?

(3a) If this reason were shown to be fallacious/incorrect, would you change your mind? (3b) If not, what would change your mind?[/QUOTE]

 

Why not?

If Nazism included the belief in god, and became a religion, would it be wrong to attack the ideas in Nazism?

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 5, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 5, 2016 ---

Try not to do that bro. Correct people in a nice way and move on. S'never nice when people publicly make fun of you for little mistakes like that. Be constructive and help a brother out. I'm sure our own grammar isn't perfect. Fix honest mistakes, rather than making fun of people for them.

 

So basically God is like a guy who watches a building burning down, and hears the people in it screaming to be rescued, but ignores it and doesn't call the fire department because "They can make their OWN decisions and rescue themselves".

 

But... you're only defending the Christian god because you were raised that way. As you said yourself. If you were raised in the Middle East, you'd be defending Allah. Your belief in a god is not tied to what's true, it's tied to mere geography.

 

TMW you want a girlfriend but knowledge is bae

 

Where is the page? Entertain me.

 

Yes because it is possible to challenge an Christian with using good hard evidence.

That's exactly what I'm in favour of. Good, hard evidence. Not 'Videos that are just likely to offend'. If you genuinely think that out-and-out mocking their beliefs is a better way to get through to them (not to mention, how callous that is) than to critique what they believe and why? Then you are the reason why Atheists have such a bad stereotype online. The fedora-tipping know-it-alls that seem to be more interested in showing their superiority than actually educating and helping people

It's not like people have showed millions of christians through the evidence of evolution with undeniable evidence of fossils with radiometric dating.

Really? Says who? Prove it. The idea is to get people to question their holy books. Once you show it's fallibility, their worldview can crumble relatively quickly. Evolution is a good way to go about it, but I'd never start there. You can be a Christian and believe in Evolution. I'd rather point out fallacies and flaws in thinking, than tell them how stupid I think their god is. That'll just get their backs up, especially knowing that thousands of Atheists are laughing at their expense. It breeds hostility, not education.

It's not like people have made millions of reasons why Christians don't have any evidence to prove their ideas.

Yes, and they should be challenged on their lack of evidence. Citing videos where Atheists laugh at their core beliefs doesn't do that.

This video is just a different way of expressing reasons why Christianity doesn't work.

We can do better. MUCH better. There's a way to go about it. The ends don't always justify the means.

You don't have to be a professor to explain why Christianity doesn't make sense as long as you can give testable evidence of why it's unreliable.

Well, why don't I see you refuting points and arguments then? You tend to talk down to others, instead of exposing fallacious arguments or debunking claims. Let's see more of THAT, and less of 'Here's a video in which your beliefs get laughed at by hundreds of thousands of Atheists!'.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 21, 2015, Original Post Date: Nov 21, 2015 ---

It's worth adding that... what if they're right? Sure, I find it incredibly unlikely that evidence for any god will surface any time soon, but that doesn't stop me from being open-minded to any sufficient evidence that presents itself.

Some elements of Christianity may sound silly, but that never stops me from ruling it out entirely. Let's not burn bridges. Stay skeptical, be reasonable. Always be open to evidence of the contrary.

 

Again, false. They have a right to believe whatever they want. However, this does not mean that they are justified to believe it.

To be justified, you need justification. Without justification, you are not justified. Giving no justification, you have yet to demonstrate that you are justified in your belief.

Please, stop for a second. Every single reply (to me) is littered with lies and fallacies. The links you post are demonstrably garbage, and just a few seconds of analytical thought is enough to show this.

THINK about what you post, before you post it. Please. READ your links before you post them.

1) The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

No it doesn't. You do not detect design by how complex it is. You do so by contrasting it by that which is seen in nature. This is the classic 'Watchmaker' argument, and has been thoroughly debunked.

2) The universe had a start - what caused it?

Prove it. Even if you could prove that the universe had a beginning, this would be the 'Argument from Ignorance' logical fallacy. "We don't know, so... God".

You've committed this fallacy on numerous occasions. Do you understand why this argument is fallacious?

3) The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Another 'Argument from Ignorance'. "We don't know where these laws came from, so... God."

4) The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

It's not a 'code'. It is 'like' a code. The current scientific consensus is that Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life on our planet, and Evolution explains the diversity of life. (including DNA)

5) We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

Oh, okay. I guess Vishnu exists too. Because Hindus would claim...

"We know Vishnu exists because he pursues us. He is constantly iniating and seeking for us to come to him."

It's not an argument, it's an assertion.

It also asks why Atheists spend so much time on religious arguments. Well, I care about people. I care about my own well-being, and the well-being of others on this planet. And I want to put an end to the suffering and injustice done in the name of Christianity. The minute that you keep your beliefs to yourself, and stop using them to legislate? The moment you stop harming others because your religion said it would be a good idea? We're good. Until then, I'll continue to rail against harmful ideas that promote lies and misinformation. Whether they come from religion, or otherwise.


6) Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

Another assertion. It's just... nonsense. Prove that Jesus existed. Prove that the Bible is a reliable source for truth. Prove that your god even exists.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 11, 2015, Original Post Date: Nov 11, 2015 ---

The Bible. https://www.quora.com/According-to-the-Bible-who-killed-more-people-Satan-or-God

 

Where's the evidence? For ANY of these gods? The fact that we're still wasting our time with this debate should be a wake-up call to our objectivity.

As for your link? The question at the top is malformed. Science cannot claim that 'No, a god does not exist.' It's an attempt to argue from ignorance. 'Science can't prove that there is no god, therefore, I'm justified to believe one does exist!'

The very FIRST line claims that Atheism is a worldview. It isn't. Is the lack of belief in Pixies, a worldview? Atheism is not a worldview. Just as 'Theism' is not a worldview.

The site then goes on to continually link Atheism to science. As if all Atheists, or Atheism, believe in everything that science discovers about the universe we inhabit. This is categorically false.

Do you want to link to a better site? One that doesn't fall at the first hurdle? I mean, this is BASIC stuff, really basic stuff. Something that a Lehmann like me shouldn't be able to swat away without a seconds thought.

 

I like how most of the people who are talking about how god exists are totally ignoring the topic and are just now debating whether god is a she or a he! I DON'T IF GOD IS A SHE OR A HE, IT'S NOT REAL!

 

Actually, @the boss, according to some sources the epic is based off the Bible in some ways, rather than the other way around. The elements to both stories almost line up perfectly, so that is why people believed it was based off the Bible.

 

I hate bumpers on almost a year old threads. But whatev.

Noobslayer, there's no need to have to offend someone because they disagree with you. Saying it's the stupidest thing is only going to cause stronger flame wars.

Yes, I'm a Christian. But I'm also a human. Humans do great things, become smart, be social, and have happy lives (ok some, I don't mean to put emphasis on that, so don't quote me on it). But they can also make stupid mistakes, bad decisions, and form negative relationships. It's bound to happen to anyone.
Why is Christianity so big? People realize, that, well, their lives are in miserable shape and they need to re-analize the difference between right and wrong, and that they want to change their lives to become more righteous. I'm in no way saying it's bragging rights to do try to do the right thing, because what they do is personal to them. They turn to Christ and the Bible for a reference to a better future.
And it can work! Not saying that it always will, but, if they try they'll succeed. Then when they do, they'll go out and be missionaries, preaching to lead people to Christ so that He can make an impact on their lives as He did with the first people. It's hard to convince people, very. Some will stay with their original beliefs. If they don't want to be converted, that's perfectly fine. If they're better off having a happy life on Earth, that is their own decision and no one else's. But to the other people that do, slowly, very slowly, they will see God's work. And then the cycle happens again.

Please, if what I say in any means is unreasonable or offensive to anyone, I'm sorry. Don't take it personally. I'm trying to stay away from pinpointing anyone who may be against my views. I hope I didn't come off too strong and angry. That's not my purpose for being here.

 

Evidence in support of your statement is needed if you want it to actually hold weight. I for one and not offended, and I'm sure I can list several other players who aren't/wouldn't be by TheDebatheist's comments.

I don't see how he's being offensive, I see him being critical. If you can't take someone being critical of your perspective, that's a serious concern to me. Not all opinions are infallible, and you should aim to challenge your beliefs frequently rather than blindly believe them. That's what TheDebatheist is forcing many people to do with his comments, and it's clearly making people not used to this process uncomfortable.

Fallacious; your description of him being "ridiculously aggressive" is a matter of opinion. I don't find him aggressive, I find him curt.

Again not true, I've had many beliefs I've held strong to me changed after solid reasoning with someone else, and I've forced people to think hard on some strongly-held beliefs of their own. That's what a debate is for - if you don't want to participate in this process then by all means don't participate, but don't tell us how to run the show you're not actively a part of.

This is called an ad hominem attack. You aren't responding to his ideas, you are resorting to calling him names. This isn't a constructive way to handle a debate, instead it turns debates into flame wars.

 

This isn't a literal meaning of religion, it's a metaphor. Good example.

I like how you selected the 5th and 6th definitions, not the 1st through 4th. Also, atheism doesn't follow anything devoutly, it doesn't follow anything. It encourages people to doubt everything and ask questions about validity and credibility based on empirical observations.

That's not true, in fact your logic is backwards. Most forms of Buddhism believe in a divine entity, while a few dispersed sects of Buddhism are atheistic.

Read example here: "Only in one sense can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal omnipotent God or God-head who is the creator and ordainer of the world."

You didn't attempt to tackle any of the points I've made in my previous posts. Deflecting =/= debating.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 17, 2014, Original Post Date: Nov 17, 2014 ---

A better question to ask is if God truly is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent why did he knowingly and willingly create a whole swathe of people who don't believe in him? And then why would he condemn them to hell for not believing in him when it was him who made us this way?

 

You said and I quote

Ok lets break that down here, So you're trying to tell me that the Faith(s) that promote Charity and Love for Everyone causes this?? No, it is the People that do this.