CALLING ALL ATHEISTS TO A CHALLENGE!!!

[jimmydiggs]

Jimmy Diggs using your information here about miracles, there could be no way of knowing when a miracle happens.

I would take the resurrection of Christ to be a miracle, and I doubt it would be strictly a natural event. I don't know that I said all would be, but some... I do believe God works within his own creation, but is not limited to that.. Which I should have clarified. Christ certainly was within the creation of God.

Me sending you this message could be a miracle!

Depends on what constitutes a miracle.

As you can tell I'm not good at logic but that doesn't mean that I am on the wrong side of the argument, just because my arguing skills are lacking!

Right, now can we extend that courtesy to Christianity or any other religion? This is why we must examine all arguements, or atleast the ones presented.

Here is one for you!

Just for arguments sake let's say that there really is no god. And everyone on the planet becomes aware of this. What would happen? Mass chaos? Business as usual? World peace? Or a mix of all of the above?

My bet is on the mix!

I suspect it would probably become more chaotic...

Ok how about this situation - God shows him/herself but informs us all that there is no heaven or hell. I still bet on a mixed reaction.

If heaven and hell are a persons sole motivation, that's a bit shallow don't you think? Even you and I can see the deal-breaking going on.

Or how about no heaven but hell still exist?

For the Christian, I don't know that it would matter if there was no heaven.... (assuming the bible was in-line with this) However, if hypothetically there was a God, and there was some sort of after-life eternal punishment, but no reward... again... as with the previous, if the only motivation is to escape hell, isn't that just a brokering a deal?

Or the funnest one, heaven exist but only atheist get to go there!

In all honesty, I'm not even sure how to respond to this one....

I suppose I would be bamboozled by a God that chooses to reward those who hate him...

I'm not sure how this relates to the actual existance of God.... I would say though that anytime you remove certain parts, things won't get any better.

 

[Tobby17]

]

What if there not Christian what if there Muslim ? Im sure it's happened. Or atheist or Budhist what then huh ? they coincidentally survived. But if its christian it was devine intervention right ?

Forlorn-Hope we could go on beating about d bush all day but it still doesn't change anything.

Now muslims claim to serve God, so dat could be divine intervention from God. And as for budhist, they will give credit to their idols even though it is the doing of God.And atheist, can also be divine intervention bcoz God doesn't want such a person to die yet but to see another day of grace. So he could have the chance to accept God's love. Which might be a reason you are still alive!

As the bible says, that God doesn't please himself in the death of sinners. Why do u think Saul now called Paul didn't die while persecuting christians?. Isn't it bcos God had a plan for his life?

Now let's have assumption number 2. God doesn't exist (of course he does). I'll ask you d following questions.Do you believe

1) Human beings just started existing like that?
2) If the answer to number 1 is yes, where did they come from?
3)If the answer to number 2 is that "They just started existing". It means that it is possible for God to just start existing
4)If the answer is *We just came out of nowhere*.Then it is possible for God to just come out of nowhere.

Finally, i will believe that there is no God, when scientists can explain *Life*

 

[Michelle94]

Wow...there is a great deal of immaturity here on both sides of the arguement. It is very late where I live and I am very tired, but I can address the morality issue,or "how can morals exist without God"? Nature and survival determine morality. Not religion. People do what they have to do...They create whatever laws they need to create in order to live as free and as happy as possible. Some people consider this democrocy. Some people think Communism is a better example. It is evident when looking at the most primitive of trives, there is a code of conduct in order to coexist together. Even in the animal kingdom there are laws. Does the christian God monitor these laws too? We are very similar to the animal kingdom. Survival of the fittest is still very relevant in todays world, and always will be. There will always be the elite. There will always be the alpha's. The aggressive and submissive. I don't believe in any god or sin. But basic human law of course will exist. Don't kill each other. Don't steal from eachother. In order to get along and function as a society there are certain rules we all must abide by. Those who break the rules (rapists, and serial killers for example) must be locked up for they disrupt the peace and the wishes of other humans. Again, I don't believe in evil or satan or anything like that. I do consider myself a Satanist. And I've made my views very clear here before. Nature dictates the law. We must get along with eachother or there is no hope. There are certain filmmakers whom I respect that have played with the social order. George A. Romero comes to mind. For those of you unfamiliar with his work, he is most famous for his "living dead" franchise. Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, etc... These films are more political than anything. Replace the zombies with any natural disaster. Stupid people watch these films for just the thrill of the murder. It's really about what happens when humans fail to get along with one another. They argue. They die. No morality. Ethics certainly exist without religion. Also, personal responsibility plays a great role as well.

Sorry for going a bit off topic. I'm enjoying the read.

 

[Forlorn-Hope]

We must end war... or war wil end us haha

 

[VikkiKate89]

We must end war... or war wil end us haha

 

[Ramon]

I think articles one, three, seven, eight and ten are based on evidence rather than logical validity, meaning people could bicker about them endlessly, which is why I wanted to stick to discussion of argument patterns rather than points based on subjective scales.

I only commented on nine and eleven because I thought they were the most obvious, but if we're looking to expand the discourse...

"4) religious documents have proved to be inaccurate and contradictory, illogical and blatantly fraudulent (Not good evidence) I was trying to insert a link to an article about how the bible has been changed over the years but i don't know how to get the link to work for you all. (you can find it at Beliefnet."

Ramon will jump all over me for saying this, but religious beliefs are capable of change. I think this notion of many religious being contradictory and inaccurate (giving a nod to instances where they are correct, however) is an important one. I know that my own Bible (or more accurately the one I used to have) had huge notes in margins and big blocks of study sections aside from the main text, discussing which parts come from rather dubious sources or were/weren't included in certain early manuscripts.

Remember that this purported to be a search for the universal truths of all existence. The truth does not change, only our own human ideas and perceptions surrounding it do. Therefore it's important to be able to say "we are wrong; let us now turn to the right".

It's a valid criticism of many religious texts, but hardly disproves the existence of a deity. In essence, this is a case against certain beliefs, but not a case in favour of atheism.



"5) humans have made up thousands of gods throughout their history."

Perhaps you could provide some form of elucidation, as I'm not sure how this differs from article eleven (religion as a cultural phenomenon).




"6) arguments for god are illogical, (circular arguments etc.)"

Aye, many arguments used in favour of God in colloquial discourse are illogical. We could say the same of arguments used in favour of atheism, which is what I was trying to demonstrate in my previous post. What's the point here?

LOL. I AM NOT JUMPING ON THAT. lol. Of course religious beliefs are subject to change man, because men who create these things are subject to change. But God said, ''I AM THE LORD I CHANGE NOT, THEREFORE YOU SONS OF JACOB ARE NOT CONSUMED.'' If God changed he would just destroy everyone right now and not think twice, which would make him unloving. And he is loving, not because he hasn't destroyed us, but that he is willing that we be saved from his wrath.

That is why I said what I did to this guys point that science is more accurate than religion. Man religion is hardly accurate and neither is man science. Both are off. As it was also written: They are blind guides, and they are all gone back. And how can the blind lead the blind? They will both fall into a ditch. Go figure.

 

[Ramon]

Can you explain why existance is evidence of God?, given my refutations of your analogies by demonstrating why evidence linking the source (how light works) to the object (blue sky) was needed... and how your 3 liars situation relates to this logical dilemma.


a) when a person experiences a near death experience -outer body or experience of afterlife- they cannot derive information that their body has not been subjected to (auditory, touch, sight and memory) that can cross reference with reality (e.g. a sign only visible from birds-eye view in hospital). I have been scouring the internet today for related evidence on this as its a hot-topic but when I went to the controlled experiements,...
Paranormal claims: a critical analysis By Bryan Farha, Michael Shermer
Near-death experiences: A neurophysiologic explanatory model
Melvin L. Morse, David Venecia and Jerrold Milstein
(you can find via google scholar) there is lack of evidence for a seperation of body and conscience.
...and the afterlife experience have a strong correlation with their personal beliefs i.e. a Christian will see Jesus/God and their family/acquaintences etc, a hindu will see an afterlife coloured by their religious beliefs and experiences, a child will meet 'living friends' as opposed to relatives (Farha & Shermer).
b) Some electrical impulses -brain activity- and the cells within the body die off and others parts will increase temporarily due to reduced electrical inhibitor. The body physically is changed during the process of death; physical changes within the brain are demonstrated to be causes of death, amenesia, personality changes, spatial awareness and hallucinations. Conscienceness is the active neuro-network of a brain, fed by nutrients and oxygen and scripted for through its relationship with the sensory network.bad and good ports of protein-kinase c (and potentially other learning molecules [protein kinase a]).
Protein kinase C, learning and memory: a circular ... [Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1997] - PubMed result -circular determinism for physiology on behaviour
c)What evidence do you have that a soul exists?

Also please expand on the method you use to ascertain absolute truth.

Okay Then. I will give you the steps if you want it scientific and all.

1) HUMBLE YOURSELF. CONSIDER YOURSELF WRONG!

Is this too hard for you? Or are you 100% sure you are right and cannot be told anything different. Remember now, humans opinions are subject to change as your friend says.

2) SEEK HIM AND YOU WILL FIND HIM!

Have you sought him or do you presuppose by so called evidence you scientists say. Like those three men that went to the far country? You live in a box.

3) AND WHEN, I SAY WHEN YOU FIND HIM, OBEY HIM.

This is the part when people mess up, they find out the truth, but they are repelled by it, so they ignore the True God and then they create false gods. That is how ANYONE will arrive at the truth.

I will even give you a hint:

Read the Bible, and find out about who Jesus Christ is. And don't count on Christians to help you. Ask him to reveal himself to you, AND I AM 100% sure he will.

 

[Red_Tory]

Wow...there is a great deal of immaturity here on both sides of the arguement. It is very late where I live and I am very tired, but I can address the morality issue,or "how can morals exist without God"? Nature and survival determine morality. Not religion. Even in the animal kingdom there are laws... We are very similar to the animal kingdom. Survival of the fittest is still very relevant in todays world, and always will be. There will always be the elite. There will always be the alpha's. The aggressive and submissive. I don't believe in any god or sin.

Again, this sets up an essentially evil foundation of morality whereby that which is regarded as good and righteous is based purely on what moral code can create more effective methods of savagely destroying or oppressing other individuals and societies. If a great economic and military global power existed, a society based on a great evil, then the group's immoral actions would be considered morally good.

For instance, if there is a society that reaps economic benefits through slavery and political solidarity through the ostracisation and oppression of a sub-culture, then there's absolutely nothing "wrong" with committing these acts.


I've always found it ridiculous that people living in free nations - particularly the United States and other English nations, where it is claimed that rights come from God and not "evolution" - can hold this idea. Survival of the fittest, when applied to human societies, is morally abhorrent; it defies all notions of absolutism, human dignity, freedom, and an authority higher than the state (which, without these principles, essentially derives its legitimacy from its ability to commit violence more efficiently than the individual). It seems like a good idea until you are on the receiving end of the oppression that it engenders.

 

[Thomas60]

Okay Then. I will give you the steps if you want it scientific and all.

1) HUMBLE YOURSELF. CONSIDER YOURSELF WRONG!

Is this too hard for you? Or are you 100% sure you are right and cannot be told anything different. Remember now, humans opinions are subject to change as your friend says.

2) SEEK HIM AND YOU WILL FIND HIM!

Have you sought him or do you presuppose by so called evidence you scientists say. Like those three men that went to the far country? You live in a box.

3) AND WHEN, I SAY WHEN YOU FIND HIM, OBEY HIM.

This is the part when people mess up, they find out the truth, but they are repelled by it, so they ignore the True God and then they create false gods. That is how ANYONE will arrive at the truth.

I will even give you a hint:

Read the Bible, and find out about who Jesus Christ is. And don't count on Christians to help you. Ask him to reveal himself to you, AND I AM 100% sure he will.

Now, what you learn from this method to finding 'absolute truth', can it be tested against reality?
e.g. Assume I find 'God', what sort of test can I make to prove what he is 'telling me' is:
a)factual?
b)specific enough to be unguessable?
thus c)not a product of brainwashing myself into latching onto the nearest thing my creative mind could interpret as god speaking?

If it can consistently make specific, improbable claims that I can have no knowledge of or intuitively forecast better than what can be expected by chance of successes amongst failures, e.g. what time my next 3 text message will be recieved [hh:mm], I'd reconsider.

Refutations still in demand.
Existance as proof of God?
Evidence of Soul?

 

[Michelle94]

Again, this sets up an essentially evil foundation of morality whereby that which is regarded as good and righteous is based purely on what moral code can create more effective methods of savagely destroying or oppressing other individuals and societies. If a great economic and military global power existed, a society based on a great evil, then the group's immoral actions would be considered morally good.

For instance, if there is a society that reaps economic benefits through slavery and political solidarity through the ostracisation and oppression of a sub-culture, then there's absolutely nothing "wrong" with committing these acts.


I've always found it ridiculous that people living in free nations - particularly the United States and other English nations, where it is claimed that rights come from God and not "evolution" - can hold this idea. Survival of the fittest, when applied to human societies, is morally abhorrent; it defies all notions of absolutism, human dignity, freedom, and an authority higher than the state (which, without these principles, essentially derives its legitimacy from its ability to commit violence more efficiently than the individual). It seems like a good idea until you are on the receiving end of the oppression that it engenders.

You totally took what I said out of context and seemingly didnt read the rest of it...

What I meant was that EVERYONE should be happy....or, if happiness isnt possible, atleast the easiest possible lifestyle should be the lifestyle of choice. Again, morality such as Don't kill eachother. Don't steal from eachother. The Golden Rule is good, so we'll keep that in there. Survival of the fittest is still very much around, except people dont really see it the same way. It's a bit more psychological. Any way you choose to look at it, the upper 1% still control the whole world. You have no rights really. If the government enforces a draft, you have to go or be imprisonated. Look at "The Partriot Act". Americans agreeing to sign away their rights...if there were ever any rights to begin with.

Anyway, all I meant was the morals that exist or obvious things that we should do in order to keep the peace with one another i.e. dont kill, dont steal, dont rape, etc....

If it doesnt hurt you, or anybody, it's not wrong TO ME.

 

[Zoomer239]

What is god made of?
I know what we are made of (energy in the form of matter), but what would a deity be made of?
What made this deity?
If god assembled us out of matter and energy, and we exist. And I have a sense of what existence is from my perpective. What is it to say a god exist if it is not made of matter and energy. What is existence without matter and energy? Rocks and dirt exist but that is not the quality of existence we think of for us or for a deity. So if a theist claimes that god exist, what is he really claiming?
The reason I ask is, if I as an atheist am to argue against the theist claim of god existing I need to know what existence for a god would be and what a god is.
That is also very key, what is a god? What is one made of? How does it work? What are it's attributes? Does it have a size, shape, color? Does it have limits?
I need to know what it is that I am claiming doesn't exist.
I need it explained to me in the simplest language, like I am a child. Explain it to me like you are the first person to every explain god to me.
So far as god is concerned I am a blank slate. What os it that you are claiming a god is?

 

[astro]

I'm aware (and pretty bored) of the atheist/theist narrative; the Bible teaches that many are called but few are chosen. From a Christian point of view, you really can't "convert" the staunchest atheist,universalist or whatever by yourself. God ultimately decides who will be saved or lost. Consider yourself damned by God if you don't care ; anything else is just really rude and hurts my precious feelings.

 

[Red_Tory]

You totally took what I said out of context and seemingly didnt read the rest of it...

What I meant was that EVERYONE should be happy....or, if happiness isnt possible, atleast the easiest possible lifestyle should be the lifestyle of choice. Again, morality such as Don't kill eachother. Don't steal from eachother. The Golden Rule is good, so we'll keep that in there. Survival of the fittest is still very much around, except people dont really see it the same way. It's a bit more psychological. Any way you choose to look at it, the upper 1% still control the whole world. You have no rights really. If the government enforces a draft, you have to go or be imprisonated. Look at "The Partriot Act". Americans agreeing to sign away their rights...if there were ever any rights to begin with.

Anyway, all I meant was the morals that exist or obvious things that we should do in order to keep the peace with one another i.e. dont kill, dont steal, dont rape, etc....

If it doesnt hurt you, or anybody, it's not wrong TO ME.

Are you sure I did? I'm taking the basis of morality that you propose to its extreme (i.e. logical conclusion).

You say that the fundamental basis of morality is to "keep the peace" within a society, but this naturally leads to the case in which we are faced with a situtation where something incredibly immoral must be done to keep the peace.

Essentially, the case is thus:

You establish that we have laws against murder, stealing etc. to promote social solidarity, which is often necessary for survival.

What happens when:

a) Prohibition of these activities no longer promotes social stability. A hypothetical society that is capable of existing in a state where murder is often regarded as acceptable or theft the norm (I say "hypothetical", but such societies have existed in the past, and I'd be willing to wager that some still do). Do they then become morally acceptable acts?


b) Overtly oppressive laws must be enacted or repressive social systems put into place to promote social solidarity. Society itself (typically the state) commits these activities in the name of social solidarity. Union-breaking, silencing demonstrations, political prisoners, a virtually endless list.
Or is the government incapable of committing murder/theft in the same way that an individual is?

You say that "If it doesnt hurt you, or anybody, it's not wrong TO ME", then cite "keeping the peace" within human societies as the fundamental basis for morality? Without natural law (Blackstone's concept, not your survival of the fittest), the sole source of authority in society - human or "animal" - is force. This is a huge idea in modern philosophy of law, it's referred to as the Monopoly on Violence.



tl;dr version:

If something fundamentally immoral or oppressive becomes part of a human structure designed to "keep the peace", does it automatically become morally right simply because it maintains social cohesion and stability?

 

[jimmydiggs]

If it doesnt hurt you, or anybody, it's not wrong TO ME.

It may or may not be wrong to you, but subjective morality isn't exactly the beginnings of a universally applicable moral standard by which someone acting in violation, actually has done something wrong.

 

[jimmydiggs]

What is god made of?

Likely immaterial.

I know what we are made of (energy in the form of matter), but what would a deity be made of?

Immaterial.

What made this deity?

Uncaused first cause.

If god assembled us out of matter and energy, and we exist. And I have a sense of what existence is from my perpective. What is it to say a god exist if it is not made of matter and energy.

God transcends several dimensions. God also has to be immaterial.

What is existence without matter and energy?

An immaterial one.

Rocks and dirt exist but that is not the quality of existence we think of for us or for a deity. So if a theist claimes that god exist, what is he really claiming?

That God exists?

The reason I ask is, if I as an atheist am to argue against the theist claim of god existing I need to know what existence for a god would be and what a god is.
That is also very key, what is a god?

Which "god" are we referring to?

What is one made of?

Assuming you are asking of the Judeo-Christian God, it would be immaterial. So whatever the immaterial would be I suppose is another question, of which I'm not sure I have an answer other than; "spirit".

How does it work?

8-5, weekends are off...

/jokes

I haven't delved into this idea, but I would assume naturally and supernaturally.

What are it's attributes? Does it have a size, shape, color? Does it have limits?
I need to know what it is that I am claiming doesn't exist.

We can ask questions like this of Christ, sure... size, shape, color, etc are all natural qualities. I don't think we can apply these questions of material qualification to that which is supernatural.

Limits; that which is logical. Can't make a one-ended stick. Although the rock question, I suppose God the father created a rock that God the son couldn't lift.

I need it explained to me in the simplest language, like I am a child. Explain it to me like you are the first person to every explain god to me.

God isn't simple. I don't think I could explain it to you that way if you want an intelligent answer.

So far as god is concerned I am a blank slate. What os it that you are claiming a god is?

My claim to God is of the Judeo-Christian tradition.


Also;
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekWgk1jKShI[/video]

 

[Zoomer239]

What is an immaterial thing? How many different immaterial things are there and how do I tell them apart? They have to have a quality other than being immaterial. What are those other qualities? How can I tell the difference between an immaterial thing and something that doesn't exist? You mentioned other dimentions what are these other dimentions? Are they any thing like the 11 or so dimentions that mathmaticians like to use to discribe the interactions of matter? How does one measure these other dimentions? Has anyone ever conducted any experiments on these dimentions that I could read? You asked which god I am refering to - I don't know of any god so i don't know which one. I guess it is the one that exist? Isn't that the one we are discussing? Are there more than one god? How many are there?

 

[Zoomer239]

How do you know that this god you talk about is immaterial? where did you get your information? Has your source been verified by multible means. Where can I read the peer reviews of this source? Is there any way to test the validity of your claims? If so has the test been attempted and by whom? Where can I read about this research? How do I know that you are making truefull claims? How can I verify your claims? What evidence do you have to backup your claims?

 

[Red_Tory]

I would say it's a personal postulation.

Debating or disproving certain ideas about God or characteristics that he may or may not have does not affects his existence, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

[Ramon]

Now, what you learn from this method to finding 'absolute truth', can it be tested against reality?
e.g. Assume I find 'God', what sort of test can I make to prove what he is 'telling me' is:
a)factual?
b)specific enough to be unguessable?
thus c)not a product of brainwashing myself into latching onto the nearest thing my creative mind could interpret as god speaking?

If it can consistently make specific, improbable claims that I can have no knowledge of or intuitively forecast better than what can be expected by chance of successes amongst failures, e.g. what time my next 3 text message will be recieved [hh:mm], I'd reconsider.

Refutations still in demand.
Existance as proof of God?
Evidence of Soul?

Haha. I haven't known of one man yet that can even stand in his presence, without fear and trembling. You aren't really tough. Anyhow, maybe even seeing is not enough for you? Hmm. Oh well anyhow, God is not open for interpretation. You will be sure when it is him. And I have been through the whole mind thing. But you already serve your mind, so you would know the difference. Anyhow. May Jesus bless you.

 

[Ramon]

How do you know that this god you talk about is immaterial? where did you get your information? Has your source been verified by multible means. Where can I read the peer reviews of this source? Is there any way to test the validity of your claims? If so has the test been attempted and by whom? Where can I read about this research? How do I know that you are making truefull claims? How can I verify your claims? What evidence do you have to backup your claims?

There are two ways my claim will be verified. Either did and find out the truth, or seek him now while the truth may be found. You think I want to convince your mind? Your mind is easily swayed, because you believe anything a scientist says, until another finds out it is not fully true, then you follow that. You believe your text books though you haven't been there. You believe dates and times written in there. You believe the wars fought in there, and isn't this by faith? And in whom? And if this is the way you work, surely you know nothing. Right?

So tell me my friend, what do you know that you haven't been taught? Tell me then, did you see the first president? Or did you see who started WW2? Go ahead, but you will only contradict yourself. And then you will end up believing in nothing. Then everything you believe will be subject to you, thus you will be your own god, and common sense will escape you, as it has many atheists already. And if they wait too late, when they will finally desire to know the truth. The truth will escape them, and by that time the world would have done away with any hope for truth. That is why it was written, SEEK HIM WHILE HE MAY BE FOUND. God will not tolerate ignorance much longer. May Jesus bless you.