Forums → WEPR → [nec]Christianity vs Atheism
| 3094 | 508409 |
I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
- 3,094 Replies
religion is just a way to keep the mindless dopes under control. we all know god isn't real, and that christianity and the bible both belong in the same pile of bull shit. science is the answer. when the sun is on the verge of death, what will take us to earth like planets deep in the outer reaches of space? the bible? faith? god? christianity? hell no. what we discover will take us further then what we believe in, guaranteed.
Well I missed the last conversation, but it has been answered enough... So I will ask my own question, or rather the Muslim book will.
2:111 And they say: None entereth paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. These are their own desires. Say: Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful.
Or that is how the Quran words it.(I wonder how the Muslims would bring there own proof?)
Okay, well it looks like my position has been thoroughly torn to pieces. I was going to stop, but I would like you guys (Mage and Walker, specifically) to consider the path of empirically verified evidence. I think it's a shaky road to go down, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.
So I'm thinking here about evidence. My contention is that we can't just reject the theist's evidence. I think we'd better just stick to Christianity here specifically, since that is (as you guys pointed out) the topic of the thread. It's also, I believe, the religious discipline with which we're all the most familiar.
So the objection, if I understand it, is that we can't accept the evidence that Christians provide for God's existence for numerous reasons. Among these are that the evidence begs the question (since it's justified in the very scripture under debate) and there's no way to verify this evidence as proving the existence of God. The beauty of nature, etc. could simply be proof that nature is beautiful - nothing more.
But to get this objection to work, it would seem one would have to accept verificationism as a maxim. So, evidence can only be rationally applied to justify a belief if it is somehow empirically verifiable.
But of course there's plenty of non empirical evidence (or at least justification) out there for many different beliefs. My belief that the square root of 25 is 5 can't be empirically verified. Yet, we wouldn't question that there's evidence for this proposition or that it's not justified.
So my worry is that by demanding verification, you're committed to holding a view that is either a) arbitrary or b) useless, since it would have to deny the truth of, say, arithmetic.
Any sort of strict verificationism is just about as false as it gets. Godel showed that any sufficiently strong system of logic (i.e., strong enough to generate the theorems in arithmetic) will contain statements that can't be proven within that system.
Now we're not even talking about empirical verification. These statements, although we can understand them, are incomplete within a system of logic.
My suggestion here is that there's a parallel between these statements and statements about God. They, by their nature, can't be empirically verified. And perhaps there's no way of verifying them at all. But that doesn't necessarily imply that they're irrational beliefs to hold.
I'll leave it at that. I think there's much more to say on the topic, but if you guys want to give your initial impressions of this arguments, that could be fun. If not, that's cool too.
My belief that the square root of 25 is 5 can't be empirically verified. Yet, we wouldn't question that there's evidence for this proposition or that it's not justified.
That is because mathematics is based on a system of widely accepted assumptions. We know that 5 is 5 because we all agree that is what it is. We accept that the root of 25 is 5 because the system which gives us the root of a number is that number multiplied by itself. Mathematics is an abstract. There is no way to verify mathematics empirically.
On the other hand, evidence which shows something to exist in the natural world would by necessity be empirically verifiable. Mathematics do not 'exist' in the material world in the way that you and I do, or that which we can observe and interact with.
The existence of deities is not an abstract, as mathematics is. Deities are purported to exist, therefore they are subject to the same burden of proof which all else in existence is bound to. Namely, observation, verification, and duplication of results. Until such evidence is brought forth then there is no logical or rational reason to purport their existence as fact.
However, if we allow that deities do not exist in such a sense then they are not obliged to be proven by such methods. That would also mean that it would still be an illogical position to claim them as being factual beings, or something with which one can interact in any manner. This still would negate claims that one can communicate with deities, or that in any portion of our personal existence that we may meet them, cohabitate with them, or observe them as is put forth by nearly all theistic dogma.
In summary:
Either deities exist and as such are bound to empirical evidence as proof, or they do not exist in such a manner, are not bound to empirical evidence, and as such theistic dogma is incorrect. Either way we find theistic dogma to be contradictory and illogical.
That is a good post there, but you fail to notice that if god created the universe and it's laws, he does not have to oblige to them and maybe he created laws so that people in the universe could not deduse his existence.
That is a good post there, but you fail to notice that if god created the universe and it's laws, he does not have to oblige to them and maybe he created laws so that people in the universe could not deduse his existence.
And as I said, if we allow that deities are not constrained by our understanding of physical laws and are not bound by empirical evidence then theistic dogma is still inaccurate and proclamation of such things as fact remains a position without evidence sufficient for its assertation as fact.
I still keep coming up with the same argument and it's a personal one.
If we, (as Christians), are called by the Holy Spirit, (which I say is ether and can't be weighed, measured, give us a blood sample, etc.), and this calling is a sense of knowing then how in the world can I prove that what I believe is tangible and logical? This is the work of the supernatural, not the natural. The natural knowledge is only known to this world but The God of Abraham and Isaac is the supernatural GOD. The Greeks and Romans created mythical gods but these were nature based, or worldly deities and can easily be explained away.
What I can't explain to you, collectively, is my personal experience that has had a long lasting effect. I didn't have to think about stopping this habit or try to love my husband, etc. I just started changing from a angry, miserable me to a calm, happier me. It can be argued that I matured mentally? I don't hold a PhD but wouldn't this type of change require an active participation on my part? In other words, wouldn't I have to think myself into a better mindset before the maturity happens?
Life is so much simpler when we compartmentalize everything and only focus on the tangible, verifiable world. Humans are complex creatures and we think and reason with ourselves and others. If I find something extraordinary that works for me isn't it natural for me to want to share this knowledge with others? You, collectively, demand proof of this knowledge but all I have to offer you in response is my testimony.
If we, (as Christians), are called by the Holy Spirit, (which I say is ether and can't be weighed, measured, give us a blood sample, etc.), and this calling is a sense of knowing then how in the world can I prove that what I believe is tangible and logical?
You cannot. You are having a psychological reaction to external stimuli based on preconceptions. Let me pose you this. Had you never even conceived of, or been introduced to, the concept of the Judeo-Christian deity, would you have interpreted these experiences in the same way, and thus attributed them to a deity which you had no prior concept of?
The God of Abraham and Isaac is the supernatural GOD. The Greeks and Romans created mythical gods but these were nature based, or worldly deities and can easily be explained away.
And how are the deities of the Greeks and Romans different than the Judeo-Christian god? They are ascribed many of the same properties and were revered in much the same way. How can you dismiss the Greek and Roman deities off hand without applying the same process of elimination to the Judeo-Christian deity?
It can be argued that I matured mentally? I don't hold a PhD but wouldn't this type of change require an active participation on my part? In other words, wouldn't I have to think myself into a better mindset before the maturity happens?
Not consciously, no. Most likely what happened is that you had a preconceived notion of what a faith in the Judeo-Christian deity would accomplish for you and your mind, mostly subconsciously, made the changes based on that concept. Just as a strong faith in voodoo witchcraft causes people to literally die of fright if the bones are cast in such a manner as to predict their immediate death. Studies have shown that cause of death in such instances is cardiac arrest induced by fright. They were literally scared to death because their faith was that strong. Is it then too much of a stretch to assume that your mind alone made those changes in itself based on your notion of what your faith would cause?
This is the work of the supernatural, not the natural.
How do you know this sense is supernatural and not something else?
I didn't have to think about stopping this habit or try to love my husband, etc.
Many if not all of these things could have happened on a subconscious level that you consciously wouldn't have been aware of. The result would have seemed like these changes were coming from some external source when they really where coming from you.
I just started changing from a angry, miserable me to a calm, happier me. It can be argued that I matured mentally? I don't hold a PhD but wouldn't this type of change require an active participation on my part? In other words, wouldn't I have to think myself into a better mindset before the maturity happens?
Not necessarily, such changes often happen rather unnoticed over a period of time.
If I find something extraordinary that works for me isn't it natural for me to want to share this knowledge with others? You, collectively, demand proof of this knowledge but all I have to offer you in response is my testimony.
Yes it is natural for you to want to share it, but in order to be sure that your information is accurate we require proof.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"-Carl Sagan
And how are the deities of the Greeks and Romans different than the Judeo-Christian god? They are ascribed many of the same properties and were revered in much the same way. How can you dismiss the Greek and Roman deities off hand without applying the same process of elimination to the Judeo-Christian deity?
There IS a difference. Greek gods are much closer to that world, they had a hand in everything, and also they have more humane character, are closer to us and not so distant than monotheistic gods. Which gives them more weak points against arguments, more possibility to prove they don't exist if you want..
There IS a difference. Greek gods are much closer to that world, they had a hand in everything, and also they have more humane character, are closer to us and not so distant than monotheistic gods. Which gives them more weak points against arguments, more possibility to prove they don't exist if you want..
Please elaborate. How were they closer to man than the judeo-christian deity?
Yes it is natural for you to want to share it, but in order to be sure that your information is accurate we require proof.
I think it is time to repeat my kind of rant I posted a few pages ago.
"I think I see the problem. The cristian side is very similar to the atheist side. What is evidence on one side is faith for the other. What is close-mindedness on one side is unbelief on the other. Frankly, the atheist side is very materialistic in their world perspective, while the cristian side is very emotional. An anology I came up with is that the atheist side would say that the number of calories in a cake is x calories. It's accurate, it's good for calculation, but it is a cold number that is very unintresting and unhelpfull for the average person. On the other side, a cristian would say that you will get fat and that you will have a tummyache after eating it. It isn't accurate, but it has more connection to the average persons life.
p.s. I think that if there was the fact that there is no god it will destroy with time the good social life that is given by going to church every sunday."
/RANT
There IS a difference. Greek gods are much closer to that world, they had a hand in everything, and also they have more humane character, are closer to us and not so distant than monotheistic gods. Which gives them more weak points against arguments, more possibility to prove they don't exist if you want.
The old concept of the Abrahamic God was that he existed up in the sky near the planet. He also regularly walked around the Earth and interacted with humans. Once we got to flying around this God suddenly became far more distant. Once we began really being able to examine the universe God became that much more distant.
Many now claim he exists everywhere but just in some unseen way.
It seems to me as our knowledge advanced Gods presence God further and further away until he became invisible and not existing in reality.
It's a bit like being told there is $1,000,000 dollars under a rock but when you turn over the rock and the money isn't there you get told, "No not that rock the one next to it."
I intentionally ignored that rant the last time you wrote it tomer because it makes no sense. Repeating it does not make it make any more sense this time around. The christian view is NOT similar to the atheists view, it IS closed minded, and the only thing that was correct about your rant is that it is inaccurate.
Atheism covers a wide spectrum of people who are 'without a belief in deities'. Many of these are simply skeptical, some are questioning, some are opposed to the idea of deities altogether. The only thing that is constant is that we do not profess a belief.
What do you mean by 'materialistic'? Do you mean that if something is said to exist then it must have proof? Because that's my position. And that's not materialistic, it's scientific. Not the same. And how is a scientific view 'cold, uninteresting, and unhelpful for the average person' as you said in your post? Science is very fascinating, extremely helpful, and not at all cold. It isn't based on emotion, but that's because emotions are fallible, inaccurate, typically misleading, and not constant from one to another.
Thread is locked!