TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- God
Pages (25): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 »

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Richard Dawkins isn't even 100% atheist.

For what it's worth, unless you're talking the .001% that the scientist within him must leave open for unforeseen discoveries, you're wrong.

It depends on how you define Atheism.

It also quite depends on how you define 'God'- as usual.

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Dawkins is not an Atheist in the narrower sense. He leaves room for the possibility of there being a god, in the same way that he leaves room for Santa Claus to exist.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res For what it's worth, unless you're talking the .001% that the scientist within him must leave open for unforeseen discoveries, you're wrong.

Really? Well then why does he class himself as a 6 on his scale of belief?

http://books.google.com/ebooks?id=y...atb&pg=GBS.PA74

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectr...tic_probability

Because that .001% makes all the difference. He looked at all the unbiased evidence and upon that evidence concluded that there is no god and that one existing is improbable if not impossible. But if somehow someone came up with definitive, undeniable scientific proof that there indeed is a god, by virtue of that .001% he would be swayed by the evidence while those that dont allow even that small a possibility woudnt believe in god even if she appeared naked before them performing a lap dance.

back to the Political Discussion / Debate forum with ya!
you are scaring the trolls with all your running about, sheesh!

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles How would you test a historical claim in a lab? History is not a science, and the Bible is a collection of historical documents, or at least claims to be. The key historical claims of Christianity are weak not because they fail to adhere to some "lab test" standard of science, but because they are corroborated only by other Christian sources.

Archeology is certainly a science. There is nothing to prove anything about Jesus. Everything written about Him, about his miracles and such, was written decades after His death, by people who saw Him as the Son of God, and so it would be expected they'd write awesome things about Him to reassure themselves of this belief. I'd love to believe as they do, that this is all true, but not knowing whether it is true or having the means to find out, prevents me from believing the New Testament is 100% true.

The American Civil War happened. Did I see it? No. So how do I know it really happened 150 years ago. There archeological evidence everywhere to support the notion that it happened. Dead bodies, bullets, weapons, fortresses, ships, etc. What do we have about Jesus? Again, copies of texts written overwhelmingly by His own followers, decades after His death. That is unfortunately for Alex, the reality. There is no proof.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby You know why you wont find me in a church? Because I chose to think for myself, and not have my ideas or perceptions of the world taught to me by someone else, like a pastor or priest or rabbi, or mullah, or whomever it may be. The world is for you to understand, not to be told how to understand it by someone else. If you chose that path your are selling yourself short and choosing a life of easy answers and ignorance. Anyone who takes a look at the world with out the blinders of a church upbringing will clearly see that there is no higher power than humanity itself. We are our own masters.

Believing in God has not been an easy life and it has caused me to research much more deeply than I have ever done so. In fact, I get regularly criticized in the same way you have about my beliefs. It has caused me to evaluate my worldviews, flip them upside down, and it has been anything to me but ignorance. I had constantly questioned God's existence, felt emptiness in my life, and have had many struggles. Yet, through those philosophical and intellectual struggles I have faced in coming to grasp with the reality of God, it has brought me a deep sense of peace and joy; one which no one can remove from me.

People may attack the belief and keep drawing examples of Christians doing stupid things as an attack to the intellectual integrity of the belief. Every thing related to God will just cause an atheist to roll his/her eyes and dismiss it as rubbish because that is not your worldview and I'm fine with it. They love bringing in the crusades, examples of killing in Biblical Scripture, Biblical innerancies because apparently it shows that God does not exist, or God does not love.

There are ignorant Christians that will have nothing to do with any thoughts that would say that God does not exist. These are the Koran burning, anti-gay rallying, crusaders of Christianity that are more concerned about spreading their worldview to others instead of God's plan for redemption.

In the same way atheists can look at theists and say they are ignorant, uneducated people unwilling to think for themselves, theists see ignorant atheists who are stubborn and unwilling to even consider the possibility of a God lest their worldview be shaken.

I don't intend to argue my way into convincing people to believe, but for theists and atheists, unless you have truly experienced viewing the world from the opposing philosophy, you cannot make a convincing argument that what you believe is true.

quote:

Originally posted by J.L. Believing in God has not been an easy life and it has caused me to research much more deeply than I have ever done so. In fact, I get regularly criticized in the same way you have about my beliefs. It has caused me to evaluate my worldviews, flip them upside down, and it has been anything to me but ignorance. I had constantly questioned God's existence, felt emptiness in my life, and have had many struggles. Yet, through those philosophical and intellectual struggles I have faced in coming to grasp with the reality of God, it has brought me a deep sense of peace and joy; one which no one can remove from me.

So at the heart of your belief, is not empirical, hard evidence...but rather, you believe because it makes you feel good inside. Don't you think that's a little self-deceiving? Think about it. All this all-powerful mighty god has to do is show himself. I would certainly believe if that were so. But it isn't so. What other logical conclusion could you come up with for why this deity chooses not to show himself. He's either not there or playing a cosmic practical joke. I think it takes more balls to admit there is nothing there or there is most likely nothing.

quote:

I don't intend to argue my way into convincing people to believe, but for theists and atheists, unless you have truly experienced viewing the world from the opposing philosophy, you cannot make a convincing argument that what you believe is true.

Why should one believe? For you, it's about feeling warm and fuzzy inside, as "it has brought me a deep sense of peace and joy." But what has religion done for this world that even compares to science? Is that computer you're typing on the result of religion or science? Did religion help us land on the moon, invent computers, or contribute to the development of high civilization? By my count, scientists invented computers and landed on the moon. Highly developed countries tend to move away from religion while the poor and uneducated flock to it.

When all your focus is on the after-life, why focus on the here and now? In my Methodist high school, they told us this was called "Secular Humanism", and to believe it was akin to atheism and damnation to hell. Clearly, focus on the here-and-now, has produced far more advances for our civilization than holding our hands in the air, singing songs to a deity that never physically responds, and whose supposed supernatural responses can only be guessed at by you, and unquestionably believed by the rest of us without any physical evidence to support it.

If it's peace you believe you have in believing something that is probably not true, I'd have to say it's a false peace. How do I have peace not knowing for certain what's out there and what happens after my death? Well, if there is a God and everything, then that God will show Himself. Otherwise, He can't reasonably expect me to believe in something that is factually speaking, no different from a postulation that a pink elephant orbits the sun. If He can read my thoughts, then He knows I genuinely would like to believe, but He needs to show Himself. He hasn't so I am content believing He's not there until He does so.

quote:

Originally posted by J.L. In the same way atheists can look at theists and say they are ignorant, uneducated people unwilling to think for themselves, theists see ignorant atheists who are stubborn and unwilling to even consider the possibility of a God lest their worldview be shaken. I don't intend to argue my way into convincing people to believe, but for theists and atheists, unless you have truly experienced viewing the world from the opposing philosophy, you cannot make a convincing argument that what you believe is true.

Proof. PROOF!

Show compellable proof for the existence of god and youll see every ignorant atheist change their minds on the spot. Thats the only thing you need to provide. Proof. Yet nobody has done so in akk of history.

Thousands of true gods in our history, not one of them is powerful enough to make his presence known.

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Stalin Why should one believe? For you, it's about feeling warm and fuzzy inside, as "it has brought me a deep sense of peace and joy."

I've been participating in alot of religious debate forums over the past few months and in my experience it is indeed all about emotion. People come to their faith for non-rational reasons, either through inheritance or an intense emotional experience that they attributed to the Christian god for one reason or another. All of the "arguments" are based on logical backflips attempting to justify beliefs that they did not arrive at through reason. It's the rational part of the brain protesting and trying to resolve cognitive dissonance that arises from realizing one's beliefs sound intrinsically crazy, but being strongly attached to them anyway. The god arguments they come up with can bolster faith for those who already accept the conclusion, but to outsiders they are not convincing at all. The problem is that believers desperately want to believe this stuff and their emotion colors the way they see things, so the logical flaws in their perspective are not obvious to them.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Proof. PROOF! Show compellable proof for the existence of god and youll see every ignorant atheist change their minds on the spot. Thats the only thing you need to provide. Proof. Yet nobody has done so in all of history. Thousands of true gods in our history, not one of them is powerful enough to make his presence known.

Proof is a strong word.. I don't think they need to prove it beyond any doubt. Just some evidence would be a nice start. The problem is they have nada. The Jeebus story has many problems from a historical perspective. Anecdotal testimony is not permissible in a courtroom today, yet AT BEST what we have with Christianity is anecdotal evidence recorded 40-70 years after the fact in one of the most primitive and superstitious parts of the world..translated like the children's game "telephone", only instead of children with no motive to intentionally exaggerate, this particular game was played with evangelists with a vested interest in embellishing the story in order to "save souls". Bottom line: Everything we know about the magical events surrounding Jesus are based on hearsay. This doesn't even qualify as ordinary evidence, much less the extraordinary evidence needed to establish such extraordinary claims. This guy lays out a few of the problems with the resurrection accounts in particular from a historical perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Why do you stoic atheists continue to crusade around trying to make theists see the error of their ways? Woscar, Capitalizt? If someone is too fucking thick to have worked out that religion is a furphy under their own steam, the chances are slim to none that they will be swayed by your well constructed, logical arguments. In the same vein, I sometimes wonder what purpose Dawkins et al serve. While I enjoyed The God Delusion somewhat, I spent the whole duration of the novel wondering whom it might be of use to. Besides the small proportion of the population he mentions at the beginning--who don't realise it's okay to disbelieve--that is.

It's not a complete waste of time. Many of the atheist posters in this forum helped me transition from a hardcore evangelical christian to pseudo atheist through those exact well though-out, logical posts. And I'm thankful for it.

While I don't deny the unlikely possibility of a god creator existing, I no longer believe in the religious model of God, the giant, vengeful baby-sitter in the sky. And I owe a lot of that move from religious to non-religious to people like woscar et al.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam It's not a complete waste of time. Many of the atheist posters in this forum helped me transition from a hardcore evangelical christian to pseudo atheist through those exact well though-out, logical posts. And I'm thankful for it. While I don't deny the unlikely possibility of a god creator existing, I no longer believe in the religious model of God, the giant, vengeful baby-sitter in the sky. And I owe a lot of that move from religious to non-religious to people like woscar et al.

Well I suppose if you're impressionable enough to be a hardcore evangelical in the first place...

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Well I suppose if you're impressionable enough to be a hardcore evangelical in the first place...

Hah, good one

The term "hardcore" is probably being used loosely by me. There were certainly a large number of people who buy into the whole religious thing much more firmly than I ever did. Either way, it's amazing what childhood indoctrination can do to a person.

It can take years to break out of the sort of brainwashing the children in religious families experience, and my experience is very common among evangelicals-turned-atheist. Especially if you spend your childhood surrounded by believers, and don't interact with people capable of seriously challenging your belief.

I describe myself as a pseudo atheist. I'm probably agnostic, as I don't know whether or not there is a god, but I believe that there isn't one. I think I summed up my current theory on God's possible existence pretty well a couple of years ago in the TOTA section of this forum, and I'll update it to portray my more current thoughts.

quote:

If a God/Creator actually exists "The problem with science being used to prove God is that science is limited to what we can observe within our universe. If there is a creator, the creator doesn't live within this universe, the creator lives outside the realms of time and space. I picture someone like me playing Sim City, I'm not IN the city I create, I live in my own world, yet the city exists, and I have control over it. I don't really care about the sims in my city, so long as the big picture is working the way I want, I even destroy buildings, reshape the land, and summon monsters and volcanoes to decimate it just for fun. Do you suppose there are little sims running around my city questioning my existence? Probably not, it's just a computer game, but if there were, they would no sooner be able to prove my existence than we are capable of proving the existence of our creator. Now, if a little message popped up on my screen one day from one of my little sims saying "Hey, I know you're out there Matt, I need some help, I'm stuck on this piece of deteriorating road down on H-78, think you could help me out?" And I help that little sim, I've proved my existence to him. But it wouldn't strengthen the argument from my religious sims that I'm a loving, all-caring God who provides eternal paradise to believers, and torture for the non. Only that I exist, and sometimes, I help a brother out. Anyway, he would share his experience with others, yet there'd be no physical evidence, no witnesses... Just one believer among the throng (for all that's worth, since there's no eternal paradise for him when he sim-dies). I just performed a miracle for that little dude, and yet his belief would still be rejected because the miracle I performed would be impossible to recreate. And some little sim-scientist would say "Well, the wind must have blown away the debris." or some such 'logical' explanation. Yet I go on existing, watching over my little city, protecting and caring for it some days, destroying it on others, until I get bored or it's time for bed, and I turn the damn computer off."

Hahahaha, that is excellent.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Hahahaha, that is excellent.

It's amazing what I can come up with when I take a break from trolling people for a reaction.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Really? Well then why does he class himself as a 6 on his scale of belief? http://books.google.com/ebooks?id=y...atb&pg=GBS.PA74 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectr...tic_probability

out of 7

and the scale is clearly curved. 6 out of seven might as well be the 99th percentile.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex23 Ever heard of a guy called NT Wright? He offers plenty of factual evidence regarding Christianity and the New Testament.

Don't know him, but what is "factual evidence " in this context? It doesn't say anything on Wikipedia, so could you link to or mention any?

quote:

Same with William Lane Craig.

No, he does not. All W.L. Craig's arguments can be refuted with elementary school learning. His primary argument. The Kalam argument is just a reformulation of earlier arguments that have been refuted by philosophers and skeptics through centuries.

The premise of the argument is:
1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2: The universe has a beginning.
Conclusion: The beginning of the Universe has a cause. This is what we call God.

There are several things wrong with it.
Firstly, he has not shown that everything that has a beginning has a cause. Everything we know of so far has, but the universe's creation, regardless of how it happened is such an extreme event that we can not use our experience of current laws of nature as conclusive evidence.
Secondly, he lacks the proof that the universe has a beginning.
Most scientists believe the universe present form has a beginning, but not necessarily the substance.
Thirdly: Even if we assumed the first two premises were true, then it would still only mean that there was a cause for the beginning of the universe - not that this is a thinking being and certainly not that it is the Christian god.

quote:

Originally posted by mr.bison but there aren't many people who claim that it is incorrect that Jesus lived.

There is actually no evidence that Jesus ever lived as an ordinary, non-divine human either. Of course it is possible that a teacher/carpenter named Yeshu was around in Palestine shortly after the year 0, but there is no reason to believe it.

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi

ah classic tune

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Everything we know of so far has, but the universe's creation, regardless of how it happened is such an extreme event that we can not use our experience of current laws of nature as conclusive evidence.

Huh.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack There is actually no evidence that Jesus ever lived as an ordinary, non-divine human either. Of course it is possible that a teacher/carpenter named Yeshu was around in Palestine shortly after the year 0, but there is no reason to believe it.

It's possible there is no evidence, but name, job description and such was pretty common ... so it could be likely?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.