Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is "behaving like a Christian?" Behaving morally? That is not exclusive to the Christian faith. Christians are the only people who have a moral code.
Did you perhaps mean to say that Christians are NOT the only people who have a moral code?
The stories have endured which proves that they are true.
No. That doesn't prove that they are true. It proves that they are popular. If longevity proved that they are true I shall look forward to you conceding that the stories of Hinduism are also true... because they have endured for 2000 years longer than Christianity. But I won't hold my breath on you doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northsouth
You do realize you resurrected a three year old thread?
What's wrong with that. Every thread that hasn't had anything posted in it for a while has a message at the end of it saying....
Please update this thread with any new information or opinion. This open thread is still read by thousands of people so we encourage all additional points of view.
Oh, I'm not surprised. I'm just telling you that throwing scriptures at atheists is ineffective.
But in the same vein as your admonition, if you're going to come here and discuss christianity, don't be surprised -- and stop whining -- when others argue against your beliefs.
Yet, they all can recognize that there is truth in the stories. It's the same kind of truth which is found in any story or legend. Yet this could be a deeper truth since it is inspired by our faith.
You're groping in the right direction. There is a common factor in human story -telling. Especially myths, legends and fantasy. I totally subscribe to trying to fathom these Truths in all stories, religious, legendary of fiction.
And I agree that there is a deeper truth inspired by this human activity called Faith. What is this faith? It is a desire for the individual (and indeed the like -minded group) to be Right, Justified and to have an appropriately respected position in human society. It tells us nothing about reality outside of the human mind.
You're groping in the right direction. There is a common factor in human storytelling. Especially myths, legends, and fantasy. I totally subscribe to trying to fathom these Truths in all stories, religious, legendary of fiction.
And I agree that there is a deeper truth inspired by this human activity called Faith. What is this faith? It is a desire for the individual (and indeed the like-minded group) to be Right, Justified and to have an appropriately respected position in human society. It tells us nothing about reality outside of the human mind.
That's my theory, anyway.
Have you ever actually engaged the reality inside the human mind, Arq? Since it manifests within our reality it MUST be some form of the unified field (energy/mass/momentum) and we know those are real. I find this post of yours most encouraging if only you would actually consider the reality of it ALL.
he does consider it. Then he runs it through the central dogma of "anti-religion". Then he renders it "not personally practical" and doesn't "sell atheism". so he just changes, minimizes, shuns, and finally dehumanizes it to maintain the less valid claim of anti-religion" as determining what he uses to "save people with his faith".
Perhaps you really are an atheist, but, as you see, everyone is puzzled. It isn't anything to do with the argument, but we are just wondering.
No. "Just wondering" is asking the question and then when you get the answer, you accept it. You're wanting to attack my character (because you cannot refute anything I've said), which is why even when I jump through the hoops of "Oh but you didn't say 'I don't believe in any gods'" and then say it you still come back with this alleged skepticism.
Quote:
Honesty would at least have you acknowledge that we have reason to be puzzled.
Your "reason" can only be that you confuse atheism with anti-theism. You conceive of atheism as a religion, wherein if we do not hold to anti-theistic doctrines we are not "real atheists".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
That's irrelevant to the point. Whether atheists have good, bad, or indifferent evidence does not alter the fact that atheism as such does not claim to know absolutely that there is no god.
"Atheism" is not a person. Neither is "theism". So as far as that goes, neither atheism nor theism actually make claims. But atheists (especially anti-theists) have made plenty of claims, not the least of which is "God is a delusion" or "Religion is child abuse" that they continuously fail to support. Usually they just back away from the claim only to return when they think the coast is clear. But of the few who recognize that they should substantiate their claims, they still fail miserably.
Quote:
You would also know that the Christian mindset is completely different because they operate on Faith - which means that they 'Know' though Faith, not evidence.
And depending on how you define your terms, there's nothing wrong with that, and/or we all actually take things on faith. As for claiming certainty, I've known plenty of Christians who admit they're not certain there's a god.
Quote:
As to evidence, that the universe and world does not seem to be designed, that a god without origin is counter intuitive,
I'm not sure what that second bit is even supposed to mean...
Quote:
more so even that 'something from nothing'.
...that's a sentence fragment. What are you even disputing here?
Quote:
Life is perfectly explainable without a god and - as discussed extensively - the world does not exhibit any valid trace of a god operating here.
The world shows no signs of either being managed or unmanaged. Positive people tend to think everything falls into place, karma's a ***** who's very much alive, etc. Negative people tend to think the entire universe is against us. Take your pick.
And "life" is quite a large topic! But yes, we can come up with explanations for pretty much anything. That's not the question, though, whether we can explain the entire universe without appealing to god. The question is, "Should we?" Or more precisely, "Should everyone else?"
Quote:
when we get onto Biblegod, we are sure - the Bible is not reliable and the claims in it are not believable.
Which would disprove biblical inerrancy/literalism at best. Many Christians reject this but still feel they have reasons to believe in "Biblegod".
Have you ever actually engaged the reality inside the human mind, Arq? Since it manifests within our reality it MUST be some form of the unified field (energy/mass/momentum) and we know those are real. I find this post of yours most encouraging if only you would actually consider the reality of it ALL.
When I engage my human mind, what else am I engaging but the reality within it? Energy/mass/momentum...yes, though you may as well talk in terms of relativity as 'adding, subtracting, dividing'. Working together to do what it does. I fail to see what valid point you are making, far less why you should find it 'encouraging', which I rather translate into "Coming around to my way of thinking". You have said that before, and it has been nothing of the kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
he does consider it. Then he runs it through the central dogma of "anti-religion". Then he renders it "not personally practical" and doesn't "sell atheism". so he just changes, minimizes, shuns, and finally dehumanizes it to maintain the less valid claim of anti-religion" as determining what he uses to "save people with his faith".
Arach activates his 'Bias' circuit and ascribes to me all manner of dark and cynical motives - just to underpin his prejudiced view of Atheists that he sees as his enemy.
No. "Just wondering" is asking the question and then when you get the answer, you accept it. You're wanting to attack my character (because you cannot refute anything I've said), which is why even when I jump through the hoops of "Oh but you didn't say 'I don't believe in any gods'" and then say it you still come back with this alleged skepticism.
Your "reason" can only be that you confuse atheism with anti-theism. You conceive of atheism as a religion, wherein if we do not hold to anti-theistic doctrines we are not "real atheists".
This is irelevant, a strawman and ignoring everything I said. I accepted you claim to be an atheist (as distinct from not accepting the previous evasions) but that does not alter the fact that your mindset is so theistic when you argue, that merely being an atheist that is testing atheist arguments does not account for it. It doesn't account for it. It's a puzzle.
Quote:
"Atheism" is not a person. Neither is "theism". So as far as that goes, neither atheism nor theism actually make claims. But atheists (especially anti-theists) have made plenty of claims, not the least of which is "God is a delusion" or "Religion is child abuse" that they continuously fail to support. Usually they just back away from the claim only to return when they think the coast is clear. But of the few who recognize that they should substantiate their claims, they still fail miserably.
What a mix of claims that do not go together. Atheism and theism are not persons; they are a body of though and that body of though makes claims which a theist or atheist will probably make. 'religion is child abuse' is Not a claim that we make. That religious people are being found to do it, is causing some horror amongst theists, especially when the religions appear to engineer a cover -up.
We do say that God is a delusion. This (like "No-God") is not a claim to total certainty. But it is a proposition based on the best assessment of the (largely negative) evidence. You will do your case no good by strawmanning so clumsily. And it's odd how, if we fail as miserably as you claim, we are winning the debates anddriving Theism from the debating -field.
Quote:
And depending on how you define your terms, there's nothing wrong with that, and/or we all actually take things on faith. As for claiming certainty, I've known plenty of Christians who admit they're not certain there's a god.
I cannot believe that you still peddling this one, especially when you betray that you know better (how we difine our terms) how we define it is 'Faith' (belief based on reasonable evidence) and Faith - belief held to without reasonable evidence or even in spite of it. Faith of the first kind is in principle, Bad, and there is indeed something wrong with it.
Quote:
I'm not sure what that second bit is even supposed to mean...
...that's a sentence fragment. What are you even disputing here?
If you do not understand these points, your expertise in the religion/atheism debate is letting you down. The various first cause and I/D claims fail, and that is negative evidence that makes the God -claim invalid, and the various 'natural' origin explanations more plausible than a complex (intelligent) creative being that apparently is not supposed to have an origin. That's what i was saying and, if you knew the apologetics, you would have seen that. In fact I recall that you have seen it but you were trying it on.
Quote:
The world shows no signs of either being managed or unmanaged. Positive people tend to think everything falls into place, karma's a ***** who's very much alive, etc. Negative people tend to think the entire universe is against us. Take your pick.
But Karma etc are faith -claims, not based on the evidence but rather explaining away the way it looks (e.g unmanaged) using unvalidated faith -claims. And Faith is invalid, and as I say, not a good thing to use.
[quote]And "life" is quite a large topic! But yes, we can come up with explanations for pretty much anything. That's not the question, though, whether we can explain the entire universe without appealing to god. The question is, "Should we?" Or more precisely, "Should everyone else?"[quote]
avoiding the trap you lay here - yes, we should, and so 'should' everyone else. The evidence is that a god is not necessary to explain the universe (unknowns do not validate a God -claim) and logically, "We", should take that as a position on what we elect to believe and logically, so should everyone else.
Quote:
Which would disprove biblical inerrancy/literalism at best. Many Christians reject this but still feel they have reasons to believe in "Biblegod".
I agree. Some base their faith upon trust in the Bible; then it become a Bible validity debate. Others reject the Bible as the basis of their faith (though we get a lot of cherry -picking on the way) and turn to Other reasons for Godfaith. Then the argument becomes a different one, usually based on the ID claims.
but that does not alter the fact that your mindset is so theistic when you argue,
No, my mindset is still I-don't-believe-there's-a-god when we argue. It's just also I-don't-believe-the-antitheists-have-a-case.
Quote:
What a mix of claims that do not go together. Atheism and theism are not persons; they are a body of though and that body of though makes claims which a theist or atheist will probably make.
Incoherent.
Quote:
'religion is child abuse' is Not a claim that we make.
It is a claim some atheists have made, yes, right along with "God is a delusion".
Quote:
This (like "No-God") is not a claim to total certainty.
It is no more/less, necessarily, a claim of certainty than when the theists say "There's a god".
Quote:
But it is a proposition based on the best assessment of the (largely negative) evidence.
And when it is that, it is also unfounded, since there isn't any evidence to help issue in the conclusion that god doesn't/probably doesn't exist.
Quote:
And it's odd how, if we fail as miserably as you claim, we are winning the debates anddriving Theism from the debating -field.
I'd like to know just how you figure theism is being driven "from the debating -field". And of course, it's a non sequitur anyway. All it would show is that anti-theists are generally more skilled debaters than theists. So what?
Quote:
I cannot believe that you still peddling this one, especially when you betray that you know better (how we difine our terms) how we define it is 'Faith' (belief based on reasonable evidence) and Faith - belief held to without reasonable evidence or even in spite of it.
I can't believe you keep peddling all this "we" talk. Atheists do not all communicate or define these terms the same way! Or, if we have a bible which gives us such rules to follow, I haven't received my copy yet?
So of course defining terms is important. And if we define "faith" as "belief without evidence", then I'll simply remind you that evidentialism is (still) dead.
Quote:
The various first cause and I/D claims fail, and that is negative evidence that makes the God -claim invalid,
Nonsense. It only makes those specific claims fail (if indeed they do, you're being quite vague).
Quote:
But Karma etc are faith -claims, not based on the evidence but rather explaining away the way it looks (e.g unmanaged) using unvalidated faith -claims.
One could just as easily reverse this statement on you: The belief that there is no moral management is a faith claim, not based on evidence but rather explaining away the way it looks (e.g. Karma) using unvalidated faith claims. Again, people see what they want to see on this issue; neither side has any basis for their beliefs here.
Quote:
The evidence is that a god is not necessary to explain the universe
So your argument is, "The theists should stop believing... because they can"? Again, these people feel like they have reasons to believe. They're personal experiences if nothing else. Yes, they could write them off as something befitting an atheistic worldview, but they can also believe there's a god. You're making it sound as if they should do it your way instead, but giving no reason other than they can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
