atheists

[cathym112]

Mega - I'm sure you have heard the same arguments. I'm guess I would know before joining which ones you heard and haven't heard then, eh?

It's ironic - I haven't heard a single new thing from you. But I don't begrudge you being here. Or act like an internet chat room is somehow an elite club. Get over yourself.

If you came to an atheist forum, you would be treated with respect and dignity by most people. I can't say the same here, I really can't.

Part of the reason I came is to hear the arguments that theists make. It's ironic that the arguments for who is right and who is wrong can be said of the other. The reasons you say I'm blind and deaf to the "truth" is ironic because atheist feel exactly the same way about Christians (ie, being blind and deaf to "truth") Yet no one can see the fallacy of this. I find it comical and disheartening.

You want a new idea, mega? Again knowing that I can't know what you have and haven't heard - is it possible our belief in God, especially a loving God, is based on our primal need for a caretaker? I see the striking similarities between an adult raising their arms to the sky in prayer and a toddler in a "pick me up and hold me gesture"

Forgive me, if anything I say is a repeat of something you've already heard. I'd hate to offend your delicate sensibilities regarding reiteration. Sheesh.

 

[cathym112]

Ichabod - I would love to answer that! Great question!! I need some time to put together a thoughtful answer but I'm too tired tonight but I will this weekend

 

[Josh321]

Alright, fair point there. But we already have atheists. Are you telling me you go around the internet searching Christian sites looking for threads calling out atheists, and that's why you join Christian forums? Did you think there weren't enough atheists here already?

his conscience brought him here but he doesn't realise, you see our soul knows what the body needs but the flesh does everything in it's power to go against it, it's like on every christian testamony on youtube there is an atheist there, they have no idea why they are there but they are, hopefully a few of them will be the predestinated seed waiting to get the light shine on it

 

[Josh321]

Cathym112
What, to you, is the most convincing argument against the existence of God?

Alternatively, what do you think is the strongest piece of evidence for God?

know what i did today, i step out of my house took a huge breath in and look took a look at life itself, took a look at the sky and realising that there is something call " life " if that isn't convincing enough i don't know what is that tells us there is a God look at creation itself how did the universe get here how did we get here? why do we look like this alot of things point us to God

 

[megaman125]

Mega - I'm sure you have heard the same arguments. I'm guess I would know before joining which ones you heard and haven't heard then, eh?

Well, if it isn't apparent, I've heard everything Richard Dawkins had to spew from his book The God Delusion, I've certainly run into plenty of atheists parroting that book, or parroting other atheists like Hictens or claims about contradictions in the Bible. Give me something different from that.

It's ironic - I haven't heard a single new thing from you.

That's becuase you said you weren't here to be convinced of anything, so why should I bother? What would you want to hear from me?

If you came to an atheist forum, you would be treated with respect and dignity by most people. I can't say the same here, I really can't.

Lol, what a joke. The last time I went to an atheist forum, some arrogant atheist not knowing me or my life, said I should be arrested and thrown in jail for life becuase I trusted God like Abraham did. And don't come back and say "that's just one example." Most, if not all of them, were like that.

Part of the reason I came is to hear the arguments that theists make.

That doesn't make any sense considering you said you're not here to be convinced of anything, so there's no logical reason for you to care about the arguments of theists.

You want a new idea, mega? Again knowing that I can't know what you have and haven't heard - is it possible our belief in God, especially a loving God, is based on our primal need for a caretaker? I see the striking similarities between an adult raising their arms to the sky in prayer and a toddler in a "pick me up and hold me gesture"

Indeed, there are similarities. Those similarities don't invalidate anything about Christianity.

Forgive me, if anything I say is a repeat of something you've already heard. I'd hate to offend your delicate sensibilities regarding reiteration. Sheesh.

And to think, you get all bent out of shape when someone "falsely" accuses you of being arrogant, and then it's some big mystery to you why you're getting the responses you're getting.

 

[Red_Tory]

Mega - I'm sure you have heard the same arguments. I'm guess I would know before joining which ones you heard and haven't heard then, eh?

It's ironic - I haven't heard a single new thing from you. But I don't begrudge you being here. Or act like an internet chat room is somehow an elite club. Get over yourself.

If you came to an atheist forum, you would be treated with respect and dignity by most people. I can't say the same here, I really can't.

Part of the reason I came is to hear the arguments that theists make. It's ironic that the arguments for who is right and who is wrong can be said of the other. The reasons you say I'm blind and deaf to the "truth" is ironic because atheist feel exactly the same way about Christians (ie, being blind and deaf to "truth") Yet no one can see the fallacy of this. I find it comical and disheartening.

Okay. If you're interested in the arguments theists make, maybe one should go with the traditional arguments from theists, starting with the classics. Pretty sure Richard Dawkins had something to say about this one...

Whatever is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover. - Summa Contra Gentiles 1.13.3

...

Then, too, we see something in the world that emerges from potency to act. Now, it does not educe itself from potency to act, since that which is in potency, being still in potency, can therefore not act. Some prior being is therefore needed by which it may be brought forth from potency to act. This cannot go on to infinity. We must, therefore, arrive at some being that is only in act and in no wise in potency. This being we call God. - Summa Contra Gentiles, 1.16.7

There is the traditional argument for the truth of theism - the argument by the way of an Unmoved Mover. The second rendition of the argument in 16.7 simply explains motion in its proper sense - the elevation of something that exists potentially (e.g. a statue potentially exists within a block of stone) to a state of actuality (e.g. the statue is actualized when it is carved out of the stone). The premises can be arranged as such, as far as I can tell:

~
1. If Moved objects exist, then prior Movers exist;
2. Moved objects exist;
3. Prior Movers exist;
4. Any given prior Mover is itself either a Moved object or not a Moved object;
5. If every Mover is itself Moved, then the regression of Moved Movers proceed to infinity;
6. The regression of Moved Movers cannot proceed to infinity;

Therefore, there is a Mover that is not also a Moved object.
~

In an abstract form:

1. If A's exist, then B's exist
2. A's exist
3. Therefore B's exist
4. Any given B is either A or Not A
5. If all B's are A's, then C
6. Not C
Therefore, not all B's are A's

It can be broken down even further, with the first half demonstrating the existence of Movers and the second dedicated to showing that not all Movers can themselves be Moved:

1. If A, then B
2. A
3. Therefore B

1. If A, then B
2. Not B
3. Therefore, Not A

The argument appears to be valid, and the premises seem to be true. What do you think of arguments such as Aquinas', Cathy?

 

[IntoTheVoid]

CathyM, I can see why your getting a hard time on here. Your not coming across as very engaging with how you present yourself.

Now if a Christian came onto your site or came into your house then let them have it but you can't walk into their house and speak to people the way you do.

You do raise some valid points on beliefs and the people here will debate and discuss with you all day, but due to how you present yourself your wasting most of the argument defending how your speaking to people who call you out on it rather than discussing the actual issues at hand.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

And as for the 'possibility of being wrong' statement.

I actually commend the person who says they are right and don't believe that they are wrong.

All this 'well I may be wrong' or 'I'm open to the possibility' talk is nonsense. Because the people who say that are the first ones to shoot down any other persons opinion and viewpoints.

I've got no problems shooting down other peoples views, because I am convinced I am correct. Same as these guys here are convinced they are correct about God. What's the point in debating someone who is not 100 percent convinced of their beliefs (or lack of)?

I think the atheist community would be best served outright stating that they beliefs are immovable and accurate, rather than being concerned with 'intellectual honesty' etc.

You'd never hear an atheist say "I can't say for 100 percent sure that Santa Clause doesn't exist... " No they will just outright say that Santa Doesn't exist. By saying you can't be 100 percent sure that god doesn't exist means your immediately placing the Christian belief on a higher pedestal and giving it more status than other myths (forgive my wording).

Why would an atheist do that? For the sake of 'intellectual honesty'?

Grow a pair and stand 100 percent behind your belief.

 

[hdb]

Mega - I'm sure you have heard the same arguments. I'm guess I would know before joining which ones you heard and haven't heard then, eh?

It's ironic - I haven't heard a single new thing from you. But I don't begrudge you being here. Or act like an internet chat room is somehow an elite club. Get over yourself.

If you came to an atheist forum, you would be treated with respect and dignity by most people. I can't say the same here, I really can't.

Part of the reason I came is to hear the arguments that theists make. It's ironic that the arguments for who is right and who is wrong can be said of the other. The reasons you say I'm blind and deaf to the "truth" is ironic because atheist feel exactly the same way about Christians (ie, being blind and deaf to "truth") Yet no one can see the fallacy of this. I find it comical and disheartening.

You want a new idea, mega? Again knowing that I can't know what you have and haven't heard - is it possible our belief in God, especially a loving God, is based on our primal need for a caretaker? I see the striking similarities between an adult raising their arms to the sky in prayer and a toddler in a "pick me up and hold me gesture"

Forgive me, if anything I say is a repeat of something you've already heard. I'd hate to offend your delicate sensibilities regarding reiteration. Sheesh.

Hi cathym,

I see you have a hard time here

I want to say something about the loving God you mention. Beautiful it is not, having a loving God who want to take care? And yes, that is want he will want to be. But, the problem is, are we willing to have a loving God? Is it not so, that we want to make a God for our self? A God we can understand, a God we can call and give Him a list we want to do. A christian believes that God is the creator.

Rom 9 vers 20:
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

God has many properties: Loving, righteous etc... We can't put God in some box we want Him to. God is God we are the creation of Him. He want us to believe in Him and trust Him with our whole hart. That's the faith I cannot explain. So, I see not only a loving God, but also a righteous God.

That's the God I believe in. That's the Father where Jesus is telling about. Jesus said ones, I you have seen me, you also have seen the Father. Jesus loves people, but He is also righteous.

Joh 3 vers 3:
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

The Maker want His workmanship believes in Him.

God bless you!

 

[danschance]

And as for the 'possibility of being wrong' statement.

I actually commend the person who says they are right and don't believe that they are wrong.

All this 'well I may be wrong' or 'I'm open to the possibility' talk is nonsense. Because the people who say that are the first ones to shoot down any other persons opinion and viewpoints.

I've got no problems shooting down other peoples views, because I am convinced I am correct. Same as these guys here are convinced they are correct about God. What's the point in debating someone who is not 100 percent convinced of their beliefs (or lack of)?

I think the atheist community would be best served outright stating that they beliefs are immovable and accurate, rather than being concerned with 'intellectual honesty' etc.

You'd never hear an atheist say "I can't say for 100 percent sure that Santa Clause doesn't exist... " No they will just outright say that Santa Doesn't exist. By saying you can't be 100 percent sure that god doesn't exist means your immediately placing the Christian belief on a higher pedestal and giving it more status than other myths (forgive my wording).

Why would an atheist do that? For the sake of 'intellectual honesty'?

Grow a pair and stand 100 percent behind your belief.

I can't click like on this post. Void, you are saying to her that it is best to say "Yea, I am right" even if you are not certain. That is not intellectually honest. Again, this is a matter of perspective. You like the world to be black or white but the real world is shades of grey. So I hope you can be a bit more gracious with others who are different from you. We do not all come from the same cookie cutter.

She is obviously new here and has not got the picture on how to discuss topics but she is learning. Who knows, maybe in a few weeks, if she doesn't get banned, she while lose her obnoxious "baby seal clubbing" veneer and act like a lady.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

The second post was directed at everyone, sorry if I didn't distinguish it from the other.

My take is If you aren't certain of your own beliefs then your in no position to question anyone else's Dan.

 

[Cycel]

Well, if it isn't apparent, I've heard everything Richard Dawkins had to spew from his book The God Delusion, I've certainly run into plenty of atheists parroting that book, or parroting other atheists like Hictens or claims about contradictions in the Bible. Give me something different from that.

Just jumping in here so I've not followed the train of thought that inspired your response, but I do agree that many atheists and evolutionists occasionally parrot Dawkins and/or Hitchens, but – and this is the counter point – creationists often only parrot what they hear or read, as well. Parroting is not an offense. You know what they say: parroting is the highest form of flattery. The question then becomes, can we defend the parroted words or do we know not enough about our subject to back-up what we ourselves are saying?

It seems to me the retort, "Is that all you've got? Give me something better!" is in itself a failure in communication. The parroted response might, after all, be worth its weight in gold.

 

[Cycel]

If you came to an atheist forum, you would be treated with respect and dignity by most people. I can't say the same here, I really can't.

I caught Megaman's annoyance with your comment and I understand his reaction. Some atheist forums tolerate religious view points like the Taliban tolerates women in miniskirts. The best we can do is hope to reform the views of others by setting the proper example ourselves. It may be that you have simply not come across intolerance of this sort in an atheist forum, but it does exist.

 

[Marc]

Living in a "post-catholic" country, most people here really don't want to bother themselves with thinking about the existence of God I think. Lives are filled with work, social activities, raising children, ... Most people don't seem to be ready to make "serious adjustments" that could be involved in accepting there is 'a god'. So people prefer to let the matter rest, for now.
Many people, I would say, are practical agnostics.

Also what's called "the church", with all it's tradition, scandals and dead religion, has left people with an impression they know how matters of faith look like, and they aren't very impressed. Who could blame them. My dad once said: "You should now about all the stuff 'they' (priests, ...) made us believe." Those things had clearly become a stumbling block for him, and he's definitely not the only one to blame.

On the other hand, a biologist/philosopher like Richard Dawkins who is atheist, publicly declared it is good to ridicule "religious people". Such atheists cannot stand believers, it seems. A loving, truthful believer indeed challenges everything an atheist stands for. Mockery seems to people like Richard Dawkings 'a very reasonable response'. Such atheists want to and have to prove that a believer is wrong. If not, everything he/she stands for collapses.

I won't expand on the matter of creation versus evolution here. I just want to say that it's obvious that a theory that reduces the whole existence to coincidence and survival of the fittest, has detrimental effects on individuals and society as a whole. When people are robbed of every sense of higher purpose, a very bleak, hollow, yes meaningless existence is what remains.
So we are called to be salt and light, to love people to life. The Lord has entrusted the world to His children.
As I am writing this, the stark contrast of the 'mockery of the atheist' and the 'love of the believer (and I do mean Christian)' comes to my mind. It's a clash of kingdoms. Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Let's stand for the truth in love.

 

[Cycel]

Hi Cycel,

You still never answered me on that one thread about how Paul contradicted Jesus?

Sorry Bryan, I've been side-tracked. Some posts I can pump-out off the top of my head, others require a bit more diligence and research, and this one about Paul is one of those. I am going to try and come up with a well thought out reply. Keep me on my toes and don't let me off the hook. I'm counting on you.

 

[Cycel]

On the other hand, a biologist/philosopher like Richard Dawkins who is atheist, publicly declared it is good to ridicule "religious people". Such atheists cannot stand believers, it seems.... Mockery seems to people like Richard Dawkings 'a very reasonable response'. Such atheists want to and have to prove that a believer is wrong. If not, everything he/she stands for collapses.

Wrong. Not to be rude, but the ‘New Atheists’ are using a deliberate tactic and they are doing it for a specific reason which has nothing to do with propping up their own beliefs.

Dawkins does sometimes mock the believer, though not nearly as thoroughly, nor as often, as Hitchens was wont to do. Believers frequently comment on this treatment by some atheists but in the case of Dawkins it has become something of a deliberate tactic and I think it is important to explain why.

There have been discussions in atheist circles about whether it is appropriate or not to disparage religious beliefs. Sam Harris and Neil deGrasse Tyson have been categorical in calling it bad form. Dan Dennett (the only, actual, philosopher among them) has said he once thought it inappropriate but has since begun to wonder if perhaps it is not a valid tactic after all. Dawkins has frequently explained why he now does this, at least in some circumstances, and Hitchens did it because being insulting was just part of his shtick. I tend to side with Harris and Tyson on this issue.

I am going to leave this just for now and look for Dennett’s summation of this tactic used by the New Atheists. His explanation of it is articulate and well formed. A counter to it might be to post the link to Tyson’s public criticism of Dawkins on this same tactic.

The point to make is that Dawkins does not do this just because he is uncouth and rude. He is doing it for a reason. I don’t know whether most atheists you encounter are even aware of the debate surrounding this issue.

(Now I need to get back to Dan, Bryan, you as well Marc. Just one more thing to keep me from Warcrafting, which is what I’ve been meaning to get to this last hour. )

 

[cathym112]

Void - I guess I really don't see that I'm coming off as arrogant, or mean. From my very first post, I was sure to qualify my statement by saying this was my thought. How can anyone be upset because of a way that you, personally, view things? "I personally, disliked the the book, the girl with the dragon tattoo, because of x,y,z." Why should a die hard fan be insulted or give a hoot?

When theists come to an atheist website - I don't get my nose all bent out of shape and tell them they are snobby because they *know* there is a god. To them, they do, even if they are wrong.
We are all adults and capable of handling a straightforward conversation without the need to sheepishly apologize for calling their God a myth or tiptoe around something because it's their house. I am in the correct section of their house (atheist thread)...it's not like I busted into a church and yelled, "this is crazy!!". I will admit that while diplomacy is not my strong suit, I did not call anyone a snob, or a "baby seal about to be clubbed and thus childlike", i did not accuse anyone of something thy didn't actually say (and take 15 more posts to come clean that they didn't actually say that). I did not swear, imply anyone was stupid or illiterate just because they didn't understand what I wrote. I remained respectful. I rubbed someone the wrong way? So what? There are lots of people that rub me the wrong way - I do not treat them the way I've been treated.

Stand by my convictions? I respectfully disagree with you that you shouldn't concede the possibility of being wrong. After all, both theists and atheists could both be wrong: what if there is a god, but he doesn't care about you anymore than we care about a one particular Ant colony (out of thousands) deep in the savannah? And that all this religious restriction, ritual, dogma of heaven/hell and intolerance is for naught?

I think a smart person knows they don't know everything.

Mega - if you think about it, everything you are saying is a parrot of something someone said or wrote. If you speak about gravity - you aren't coming up with something "new" about gravity. Unless you invented and/or discovered something, you are just repeating what someone else said. Everytime I talk about evolution, I am parroting what scientists say about their discoveries. Everytime you talk about creation, you are parroting what someone else said about it. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

So as an atheist, explain to me how there is a remote possiblity of a ghost imptegnating a woman, a snake and a donkey that can talk, dead people coming back to life etc. In the atheists 'logical' and 'intellectual' way of thinking... How can you concede there's the slightest chance of any of those happening?

 

[megaman125]

Mega - if you think about it, everything you are saying is a parrot of something someone said or wrote. If you speak about gravity - you aren't coming up with something "new" about gravity. Unless you invented and/or discovered something, you are just repeating what someone else said. Everytime I talk about evolution, I am parroting what scientists say about their discoveries. Everytime you talk about creation, you are parroting what someone else said about it. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

Fair point. If you don't mind me parroting what other Christians or the Bible say, good for you. I however, cannot say the same thing about the typical atheist aruguments. So when I see an atheist come and start making those arguments in the same way they typically do, I tend to categorize the atheist with generallizations that fit them. For the record, typical atheist arguments I hear include: The crusades, Hitler was a Christian, God is evil for judging sin, God doesn't exist becuase of the problem of evil, The Bible has thousands of self-contradictions, The Bible is false because big bang/evolution/abiogenesis, the Bible is wrong because there are many religions and therefore they're all wrong, God doesn't exist just like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Harry Potter, nonsensical teapots floating around mars, Zeus, etc. Then the typical atheist will makes these arguments while throwing around ad hominem insults just like Richard Dawkins told them to do at the Reason Rally, and claim absolute knowledge to know that atheism is the correct position.

If you can distinguish yourself from that, I'd be happy to chat with you more. The only reason I responded to your post is because your post just took a step in that direction. Now I believe you were asking me about how people lift up their hands during worship. If you'd like to continue that discussion, then by all means start it up and add something to it and we'll continue.

 

[CoooCaw]

Wrong. Not to be rude, but the ‘New Atheists’ are using a deliberate tactic and they are doing it for a specific reason which has nothing to do with propping up their own beliefs.

Dawkins does sometimes mock the believer, though not nearly as thoroughly, nor as often, as Hitchens was wont to do. Believers frequently comment on this treatment by some atheists but in the case of Dawkins it has become something of a deliberate tactic and I think it is important to explain why.

There have been discussions in atheist circles about whether it is appropriate or not to disparage religious beliefs. Sam Harris and Neil deGrasse Tyson have been categorical in calling it bad form. Dan Dennett (the only, actual, philosopher among them) has said he once thought it inappropriate but has since begun to wonder if perhaps it is not a valid tactic after all. Dawkins has frequently explained why he now does this, at least in some circumstances, and Hitchens did it because being insulting was just part of his shtick. I tend to side with Harris and Tyson on this issue.

I am going to leave this just for now and look for Dennett’s summation of this tactic used by the New Atheists. His explanation of it is articulate and well formed. A counter to it might be to post the link to Tyson’s public criticism of Dawkins on this same tactic.

The point to make is that Dawkins does not do this just because he is uncouth and rude. He is doing it for a reason. I don’t know whether most atheists you encounter are even aware of the debate surrounding this issue.

(Now I need to get back to Dan, Bryan, you as well Marc. Just one more thing to keep me from Warcrafting, which is what I’ve been meaning to get to this last hour. )

SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT DAWKINs is being deliberately provocative in order to provoke a reaction

the thing about reactions is that people do not take time to stop and consider; they then find they have allowed the provoker to set the agenda

this is typical debating tecnique and we see it on this site all the time; those who actually hold to sound doctrine give a half baked reaction to something and find they have fallen for the 3 card trick

I always stop and try to see where the person is coming from and then zero in on that - I call them on it