Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

[nec]Christianity vs Atheism

Thread Locked

Posted May 21, '10 at 10:20pm

chz08

chz08

208 posts

There is absolutly no proof any religion exists, I don't have a religion, but I was raised as a Christian. I honestly don't care about religion.

 

Posted May 21, '10 at 10:39pm

thepossum

thepossum

3,096 posts

I have faith... and we all know that faith = fact.


No-one's saying faith is fact. We're simply saying that that's why we believe. We're not saying it's irrevocable fact that you can't prove wrong. Though we all know saying 'we have faith' has no grounds in an argument such as ours...
 

Posted May 22, '10 at 5:52am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

Though we all know saying 'we have faith' has no grounds in an argument such as ours...


Then why are you always using it?
 

Posted Jun 25, '10 at 6:00pm

n00bie1296

n00bie1296

59 posts

chz08 is Right their is not prof for that im am atheist

 

Posted Jun 25, '10 at 6:27pm

Avorne

Avorne

3,265 posts

Chz, you are wrong there. Religions do exist - we see churches, mosques, holy books and symbolism everywhere that comes from religions. The deities that those religions worship however? They don't exist.

 

Posted Jun 25, '10 at 8:45pm

MRWalker82

MRWalker82

4,200 posts

Moderator

The fundamental issue at hand is that there is NO religion that can offer up empirical evidence as proof. All we have are stories, personal perceptions, and personal feelings. These are NOT evidence. These are OPINIONS. As we all know, opinions do not make anything a fact, no matter how many people share the same opinion.

Atheism is not saying there is no such thing as a god. It is a position that there is no evidence for god, and we choose to not believe without evidence. I can't speak for others, but I know that if I saw real evidence I would convert immediately, and it's a safe wager that most other atheists would as well.

My fundamental issue with religion is that it demands acceptance without evidence, and that is spilling over into other aspects of society. The religious zealots and extremists of many faiths are demanding that the rest of the world not only accept their religion as true and right without any evidence, they are trying to pass laws to force their views of other things, which we CAN prove and test, on us.

When religion crosses the boundaries of personal belief and become the basis for law it is inevitable that civil liberties are going to be infringed upon, for no other reason than the members of that faith believe they are right and we must all follow them, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Not only is this illegal in the United States, but as we have seen time and again throughout history, it impedes our advancement as a species and as a civilization.

 

Posted Jun 25, '10 at 8:52pm

Nurvana

Nurvana

2,598 posts

My fundamental issue with religion is that it demands acceptance without evidence, and that is spilling over into other aspects of society. The religious zealots and extremists of many faiths are demanding that the rest of the world not only accept their religion as true and right without any evidence, they are trying to pass laws to force their views of other things, which we CAN prove and test, on us.


Um.. Links or something?
Not only is this illegal in the United States, but as we have seen time and again throughout history, it impedes our advancement as a species and as a civilization.


Yes because the Vatican City is in turmoil :P
 

Posted Jun 25, '10 at 9:12pm

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,094 posts

Moderator

The fundamental issue at hand is that there is NO religion that can offer up empirical evidence as proof.


I think most theists would disagree wholeheartedly. They would say that the evidence of God's love and presence is literally all around us. It's simply that you're denying these empirical phenomena as empirical evidence for a god.
Many scholars have advocated something called a sensus divinitus, or a divine sense that can detect God's presence. So, imagine I'm blind and you're not and there's an island off in the distance. You can tell me all day that there's evidence for the island's existence right there. Yet, because I lack the sense necessary to detect the island, I just don't believe you.
The point of the analogy was to show that not seeing evidence is quite different from there not being any evidence whatsoever.

These are OPINIONS. As we all know, opinions do not make anything a fact, no matter how many people share the same opinion.


There's plenty of philosophy to refute this claim, even insofar as what constitutes a "fact". But this point aside, there do exist some pretty convincing proofs out there for some kind of creator. Maybe not the Judeo-Christian God, but some sort of entity with a purpose. While I reject these theories as well, at what point does my view become opinion versus their view? I don't have any fancy proofs to counter theirs, so who's to say what really constitutes an opinion?

Atheism is not saying there is no such thing as a god. It is a position that there is no evidence for god, and we choose to not believe without evidence.


This is a misconstrued version of atheism that verges on agnosticism. Atheists must, to be an atheist, assent to the proposition that no god/deities exist. It is not a lack of belief in a god, which would qualify as agnosticism. It is an assent to the proposition that is essentially the negation of the theist's position.
There is also the sticky matter of whether or not we can actually choose what we believe. Your statement here puts the atheist in a tough position to get out of because you're committed to the view that we can pick and choose what we believe. And that just seems false.

I can't speak for others, but I know that if I saw real evidence I would convert immediately, and it's a safe wager that most other atheists would as well.


Even if God Himself came down and spoke to me, I would sooner believe that I've completely lost it rather than some magical man from the sky is talking to me. My beliefs on this matter deal with probabilities, and I find the notion of a God close to being logically inconsistent.

My fundamental issue with religion is that it demands acceptance without evidence, and that is spilling over into other aspects of society.


Fruit from the poisoned tree. The premises, as I have shown, are contentious at best. This makes for nothing more than a strawman of the theist's position.
If part of your faith is to evangelize and spread the news of God's love, then how we can really fault people for trying to do this? Sure, it's irritating as hell. But it's not the worst thing in the worlds. Besides, it's typically good fun messing with those guys.
 

Posted Jun 25, '10 at 9:18pm

Nurvana

Nurvana

2,598 posts

This is a misconstrued version of atheism that verges on agnosticism.


More like a misconstructed version of atheism to make them look more appealing.
If part of your faith is to evangelize and spread the news of God's love, then how we can really fault people for trying to do this? Sure, it's irritating as hell. But it's not the worst thing in the worlds. Besides, it's typically good fun messing with those guys.


Hey God exists. And he loves you and wants your salvation. And I want to help you to see him.

*Random attack on theism.*

Yeah okay see you around.


Yep that's some jolly good fun.
 

Posted Jun 25, '10 at 9:35pm

MRWalker82

MRWalker82

4,200 posts

Moderator

Um.. Links or something?


I'm sorry, thought it was common knowledge. Let's just look at a couple here.
Abortion
Homosexuality
Capital punishment
War
The environment
Evolution and Creationism
Prayer in schools
Christmas trees
Display of religious symbols in public places
Medical care ΓΆ" euthanasia, blood transfusions and taking the case out of the hands of the Deity in general.

In every case here there are citizens and politicians who have made or are attempting to make policy based solely on their religious beliefs.

Yes because the Vatican City is in turmoil


This isn't even applicable in the situation. Vatican city is the sole property and under the sole government of the Roman Catholic church. There is no one that lives there that DOESN'T support everything they say.

If you want to take a look at every time religious dogma has impeded civil liberties or advancements as a society then lets consider the crusades, the inquisition, the Pope's recent visit to Africa where he stated that condoms are ineffective at preventing HIV and encouraged people to throw them out, thus perpetuating the spread of the disease.

Let's not forget the wars between the Jews and the Palestinians for the past few thousand years, causing countless deaths.

Or the fact that the ancient Greeks proved the world was round and that the earth revolved around the sun as early as 360 BC, but the idea was rejected as heresy in the christian nations until almost 1800 years later, despite all evidence.

I can go on and on about how the influencing of policy and law by religious dogma having a negative effect on society and impeding on civil liberties. I would like to see some evidence to the contrary.