Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1390644 |
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
Wrong, you haven't debated my arguments about complete lack of knowledge and theories about the first 1e-15 seconds of the universe's existence. God does not need anything more to create the universe, you know
We can only go back to the smallest measurable point. So yes there are gaps in our knowledge but that doesn't mean we automatically insert "God did it". That means we say "we don't know better keep looking". The God of the gaps argument is yet another fallacy.
It's not closed mindedness when your "evidence" are a bunch of fallacies. ... Your making the positiveness claim so you have to provide the evidence.Negative claims require proof as well. Can you provide proof for your negative claims?
We can only go back to the smallest measurable point.Currently, we can measure as small amount as 3e-25 seconds (estimated time of Z0-bozon's life), and 1e-15 is 3 billion times bigger than this.
yes there are gaps in our knowledge but that doesn't mean we automatically insert "God did it".Well, indeed we can't say this automatically, but also we can't say God did not do this. And this indetermination is all what we are arguing about. Also, this isn't a "gap", a gap is the interval between borders, while I'm speaking about starting time, there is no border at the other side of this period.
Negative claims require proof as well. Can you provide proof for your negative claims?
There is no sufficient evidence for God. That's all I need for a negative claim.
There is no sufficient evidence for God. That's all I need for a negative claim.I need more, since I have an evidence of God existing, and the topic started has obviously received some evidence of this as well.
The word "sufficient" can mean a huge variety of values, from a single evidence or word to "the whole world is already screaming God exists, but I still say this isn't sufficient for me". Yes, this isn't an argument, but using the word "sufficient" means that you are the one who decides whether the given information is enough or not. This, in turn, makes you the judge, while you are the one that has to prove something.
I need more, since I have an evidence of God existing, and the topic started has obviously received some evidence of this as well.
Funny feelings and a hand full of fallacies isn't evidence. For a bunch who has a guiding principle of being honest you sure are a dishonest lot. You do show a sever lack of critical thinking skills. Which is not surprising considering the religion tends to frown on such methods.
The word "sufficient" can mean a huge variety of values, from a single evidence or word to "the whole world is already screaming God exists, but I still say this isn't sufficient for me".
Sufficient means being what is needed without excess. With an incredible claim like God you need equally incredible evidence. Though you guys can't even seem to figure out what evidence is to begin with.
Yes, this isn't an argument, but using the word "sufficient" means that you are the one who decides whether the given information is enough or not. This, in turn, makes you the judge,
Yes I'm the judge of what is sufficient evidence to convince myself. For me that's something that I can observe and independently verify.
while you are the one that has to prove something.
No, again your making the positive claim so your the one that has to provide evidence for that claim. If you say my house is on fire and I see no fire and smell no smoke. I have no reason to believe you. You don't go and turn around and say well prove your house isn't on fire.
"Sufficient" is speaker-oriented word. So if you say "insufficient" you're implicitly adding "for me" unless you provide information about what is sufficient. Say it's sufficient for a car to have 1 liter of fuel to run 10 km, but when you ask the driver to run 20 km on that liter, he'll say "insufficient fuel".
With an incredible claim like God you need equally incredible evidence.One heavy claim against this phrase is the word "incredible" (both of them). If you're given evidence that satisfies this requirement you can just say "I don't believe, it's incredible!" Use another word please. If you mean "undoubtable", check Fatima's miracle, as the very bright and heavily documented evidence.
If you mean "undoubtable", check Fatima's miracle, as the very bright and heavily documented evidence.
There are no photos of the changes in the sky or any physical evidence. One of the first things you learn in law school is that witnesses lie; eyewitness testimony is amazingly unreliable.
Anyhow, I have read -a bit- about this alleged miracle, the testimonies of the witnesses do not match, their stories are -quite- different, some claim "I saw clearly and distinctly a globe of light advancing from east to west, gliding slowly and majestically through the air", to others the sun seemed to be falling toward the spectators and still others saw "white petals shower down and disintegrate before reaching the earth".
Sorry, but -numerous- inconsistent statements are not enough to be considered prima facie evidence.
Something else: ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies)
*grins*
these are parts of the miracle, which were appearing one after another. Also you should know that there was no ability to make colored photographs in 1917, but there are photos, you have not searched probably. The very first request given is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBIs8cuIwTo
Also check this: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4110 there are links to several photos of the event, one of them with the picture of the sun.
the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who deniesWeak atheism detected. This basically means "I don't want to provide proof of me being right, but I will stand on this". Well, then, probably you would like to hear or read Gloria Polo's testimony, since you won't believe if someone else would say the things she does, about meeting God in person. Also do check her files about being damaged beyond repair and being then healed fully.
"Sufficient" is speaker-oriented word. So if you say "insufficient" you're implicitly adding "for me" unless you provide information about what is sufficient.
1. This God actually showing up right in front of me, he can take any physical form he likes. He can then show me he is God by created a small amount of matter. To prove that I'm not just seeing things he can do this in front of other people in a controlled environment. That would be sufficient evidence.
I would also accept...
2. Verified specific prophecies that couldn't be contrive. This means specific dates, unambiguous, not self fulfilling (Jewish people return to their home land because the Bible said they would for example of this), It can't be vague, and isn't having a high record of failure. I know you guys claim that you have this but looking at these claims they fall into self fulfilling, ambiguous, and/or vague as such are disqualified leaving a poor track record. Now this wouldn't get me to believe out right but it would be compelling evidence.
3. Information that the author couldn't possibly have known. For instance if we found a Biblical manuscript with E=mc^2 written in English (a language that didn't even exist yet). This would also be compelling.
2 and 3 would also require eliminating the possibility of time travel.
4. Miracles occurring especially as a direct result of prayer with a measurable consistent rate that. If we see odds showing a direct correlation that theists of a particular religion have far less negative things occur to them such as being rob being struck by lighting so forth then anyone else.
Physically impossible things happening with a direct connection to prayer such as an amputee regrowing their leg or a huge gash or sever burn disappear in moments. People claiming to be terminally ill then getting better is disqualified as we can't observe this and there are possibilities of a misdiagnosis.
A double blind study conducted by a hospital showing that prayer helped the sick and it was determined that a significant higher percent of the patients prayed for recovered. And this study could be repeated with the same results, this would be sufficient. (BTW we have conducted such a test on prayer and there was no significant difference between the test groups)
I would think this one would be easy considering your suppose to be able to work miracles through prayer.
5. If there was a religion that transcended cultural boundaries, meaning even those in isolated groups still held the same beliefs. Going further then this, finding extraterrestrial life with the same beliefs. This would give me reason to consider the possibility more seriously.
A single holy book that anyone of any language can open and read and completely understand in clear concise ways what it says. I mean I should be able to pick up that book and be able to read and understand it and the person next to me who only understands Japanese could pick up that same book and be able to read and understand it with the same clarity I could. Also if this result could be repeatably tested under controlled conditions. That might get me to believe.
Other things that while wouldn't convince me to believe but at least give me reason to think about it more would be these below, this could still be the result of human work though so it wouldn't be conclusive.
A truly noncontributory completely accurate holy book. As it stand with the Bible I find loads of contradictions and errors.
A truly unified religion, no denominations within bickering about what the holy text really says, it can only have one interpretation. I shouldn't need to have to interpret the holy text.
A religious text that consistently promoted peace and the religious followers had not committed atrocities. (This would have to be consistent) and the people of that religion truly behaved in a good manner. (In most cases my experience with Christianity has been less then stellar in this department, even when I was a theist myself.)
If you mean "undoubtable", check Fatima's miracle, as the very bright and heavily documented evidence.
Odd lights in the sky are no more evidence of God then it is of extraterrestrial visitation. This could very easily have been optical illusion resulting from atmospheric conditions.
Now I have to ask you what would convince you that you might be wrong?
After all that I forgot with #4 the miracles have to be well documented.
Sorry for the triple post. Non of it would be accepted at face value. Repeatability in any of it is also very compelling.
Weak atheism detected. This basically means "I don't want to provide proof of me being right, but I will stand on this".
No it means, the proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.
Your whole argument is based on an "argumentum ad ignoratiam", you propose that we accept the truth of the proposition "God exists" unless an opponent can prove otherwise.
That's absurd and frivolous!
Sure there is no "conclusive evidence" that God does not exist, however absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth. What we don't know could nevertheless be so.
oh dear. About #1 - you will stand before Him, and He will prove you that He is God, but by other means - by showing you what have you done, thought, could do but failed to do, for your entire life. In case of God you are not the one who will determine the "experiment"'s conditions.
About #2 - you might want to check this: http://www.stjosephpublications.com/book_manuscripts_pages/book6.htm there are even some dates when and where will a miracle occur. This says the date will be known 8 days prior to it happening, but it will be between 07 April and 17 April, on Thursday, on the feast day of a saint devoted to the Eucharist. No given year though. However, "when you would know when will the thief come, would you not be vigilant?"
About #3 - check Torino's shroud of Christ and its investigations, in terms of 3-D picture of Christ's body.
About #4 - what, a rate of miracles? They would stop being miracles then, if a person would do this and that, and then God will always do this. This is unable to be provided.
About #5 - you mean that those who have never contacted with representatives of some religion would believe in this? This has already happened, when the magi (Zarathustra believers) came to Jesus the infant and brought Him gifts. Other variants, however, are highly improbable to ever exist. About "truly unified religion" - see, people cannot always behave like a true unity, being imperfect and selfish in average, so there will always be people who seek the power to themselves, regardless of society and its type, religious or not.
Odd lights in the sky are no more evidence of God then it is of extraterrestrial visitation.Well then, you won't believe in anything else, since you will always say "Aliens could do that with ease".
Now I have to ask you what would convince you that you might be wrong?Me? I don't think anything will convince me about being wrong, though I would look closely if you would provide me a complete flawless theory of how did the universe appear, and where it has been prior to the Big Bang, AND HOW.
goumas13, you're asking for evidence of existance, I'm asking for evidence of absence. I'm providing evidence for existance (not sufficient for at least MageGrayWolf to accept), you're providing none.
And "by the nature of things" is wrong. Have you heard of "alibi" or proof that one could not do a thing over there? These things prove the denial of a given fact.
You must be logged in to post a reply!