Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1393756 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
I agree, all we require is theist to post some concrete proof that isn't cyclic logic from the bible, abusing probabilities and based on faith.
This does not speak for all atheist. Many of us also believe that theism is false because its implications are false.
a site called 'condoms4life' is going to be biased, just like every time an atheist will condemn a christian website for i being biased. So you both claim that a latex condom has NEVER let an AIDS virus through?
a site called 'condoms4life' is going to be biased, just like every time an atheist will condemn a christian website for i being biased. So you both claim that a latex condom has NEVER let an AIDS virus through?
In terms o proof we call it having citations.
âCondoms for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases,â Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1998; 37:133-137.
This does not speak for all atheist. Many of us also believe that theism is false because its implications are false.
Sorry, I was thinking of people who based their world more on science than philosophy. But philosophy is really discrete math that is based on science. So the argument still applies I just didn't word it as well as I liked.
a site called 'condoms4life' is going to be biased, just like every time an atheist will condemn a christian website for i being biased. So you both claim that a latex condom has NEVER let an AIDS virus through?
Appropriate research doesn't lie it only lies if people change it or hide it. I don't claim that all christian website are biased so your argument does not address this naysayer therefore falls apart. They never claimed that, they said it was non-porous and doesn't let the virus through. Condoms can have defects.
The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence...Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith....The purpose of man's life...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. [Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual]
Above is a quote from Ayn Rand. The implications of God, above, are ridiculous and irrational.
And renewing the old argument:
1. ~(p ^ ~p) - Law of Non-contradiction.
2. (p --> q) --> (~q --> ~p) - Reductio Ad Absurdum. By denying the consequent, you disprove the antecedent.
3. ~D --> (p ^ ~p) - Not-Determinism (~D) implies a contradiction.
4. (~D --> (p ^ ~p)) --> (~(p ^ ~p) --> ~~D) - Use of Reductio Ad Absurdum (2) in this particular instance.
5. (~(p ^ ~p) --> ~~D) - Modus Ponens (3,4).
6. ~~D - Modus Ponens (2,5).
7. ~~D --> D - Not-Not something implies something.
8. Therefore, D - Determinism is inevitable!!!
Now, one might say that Determinism doesn't necessarily preclude God. However, this proof still implies that if D, (G --> D), because anything implies a true statement. Determinism, therefore (God --> Determinism).
This is the first thing that religion must surrender - there can be no randomness in the universe: everything is deterministic. No rational Christian cannot accept Determinism.
My second argument:
God cannot "create" morality. Without God's existence, the universe would still have virtues. For instance, why is it immoral to murder? Surely not because of God?! For murder would be wrong whether God existed or not!
My hypothesis is that the universe would still have virtues without God's existence. This contains that it is immoral to murder.
Thus, theists must believe that if God didn't exist, murder would not be wrong. More generally, theists must deny the existence of virtues independent of God's existence.
The third statement:
Evolution proof (descent with modification)
1) There will be genetic variation within a population.
2) There is inheritance within a population, in which the offspring inherit traits from their parents.
3) There will be certain traits that benefit survival and reproduction more than other traits.
4) Over time, we can observe traits that benefit survival and reproduction to be more common than other traits, as these traits directly increase the chance that these traits will be passed on to offspring.
All theists must accept that evolution is inevitable, and is true, independent of God's existence.
Einfach, the problem is that christians can't assume God doesn't exist, because in their belief God is the only absolute. To assume he doesn't exist is to assume NOTHING exists.
As far as morals go, doesn't there have to be a first of everything? Thus someone may propose that since there was a fist of everything, then there was some 'something' (awkward) that was the first of everything (God)?
Einfach, the problem is that christians can't assume God doesn't exist, because in their belief God is the only absolute. To assume he doesn't exist is to assume NOTHING exists.
The argument still holds in this eventuality. And this is a completely unjustified argument. Because we are already presented with a universe in which, we reason, there either is a God or isn't a God. And regardless of this, certain truths do exist outside of this in this given universe.
Second, this doesn't disprove the arguments. Deductive reasoning exists independent of a God, being a truth that exists independent of a God.
Or aliens just put us here five seconds ago, implanted with memories that never really happened.
Einfach, the problem is that christians can't assume God doesn't exist, because in their belief God is the only absolute. To assume he doesn't exist is to assume NOTHING exists.
Is this why it's often asserted that atheists believe in nothing? I can tell you first hand reality doesn't break down because you stop believing. in fact the world seemed to become that much bigger.
As far as morals go, doesn't there have to be a first of everything?
Morals are just personal and cultural constructs subjective from one person to the next and subject to change depending on the persons perspective.
Or aliens just put us here five seconds ago, implanted with memories that never really happened.
My friend had a counter for such a thing. For the life of me I cannot remember what it is.
Or aliens just put us here five seconds ago, implanted with memories that never really happened.
Brain in a vat seems much more likely. There are so many holes in your original proposition.
My friend had a counter for such a thing. For the life of me I cannot remember what it is.
Heh.
I've always thought about that though, how do we know that our memories are accurate?
I am curios when religious folks will actually pick up Nietzsche.
This is the core of existentialism. If morality derives from god, then where does he get his? Did god arbitrarily pick certain things to be moral vs immoral? If so, then god is superfluous in regards to morals. If certain morals are innate, then god is superfluous, since he is unneeded in regards to morals.
This may be half-trolling, but it had to happen.
"God is dead."-Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead."-God
You must be logged in to post a reply!