We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 572662 |
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
We weren't there, so how do we know it really happened
I'm assuming you are against forensic science, after all, we weren't at the scene so how could we know what happened. We should just leave the crime scene and not bother trying to figure out what happened. Screw justice.
@Highfire
Thats some pretty redonkulous trolling/debating, and I respect that.
I did actually have a pretty good day, thank you. Still having trouble putting plugins on my minecraft server though; I'm not technologically gifted. And I can't see my girlfriend for a long time. But other than that, I'm doing pretty dandy.
Plus I realized forever ago that the atheism v theism debate is just pointless. Really and truly.
...As I continue the debate.
But you can choose what the truth is.
Don't we also have faith in evolution, the Big Bang, and others? I mean, the theists could argue that everything around you is proof of some divine power. And logic and reason isn't always correct. Granted, we know lots of it is. I mean, I'm a future chemistry major and I love science, and I don't have all the answers on religion versus logic. I'm still figuring it out.
I'm assuming you are against forensic science, after all, we weren't at the scene so how could we know what happened. We should just leave the crime scene and not bother trying to figure out what happened. Screw justice.
I believe that was a somewhat extreme example taking my words out of context...
I mean, if there are two crumpled cars right next to each other, we obviously deduce they crashed. But if we didn't see it happen, how do we know if it did? I feel like this is the general argument against religion. If we don't see some divine signs or figures, how do we know if they exist? I feel that works with logic and reason as well.
Don't we also have faith in evolution, the Big Bang, and others?
No we don't. We have observation, experimentation, we have evidence and facts.
I believe that was a somewhat extreme example taking my words out of context...
How is it out of context? We can deduce the cars crashing in the same way we can deduce things like the Big Bang and all those other things we can't directly observe. It's not a matter of just believing this is what happened and going with it. That would be the further example of an invisible flying elephant wrecking the cars.
I mean, if there are two crumpled cars right next to each other, we obviously deduce they crashed. But if we didn't see it happen, how do we know if it did?
Indirect evidence we see that two cars are smashed up. We can then deduce using predictive models how they got that way. the model that best fits the crash pattern of all the objectively verified evidence at the scene of the two wrecked cars is the one accepted to be what happened. Yes this prediction is subject to change if new pieces of evidence are presented. But that's to improve the model. That's how we know what happened. We don't just suppose something and believe that without anything supporting it.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Theist: So what church do you go to/what religion do you believe?
Atheist: I don't go to church/I don't believe any religions are true.
Theist: Why don't you go to church? Why are you so against God? Do you want to end up in hell?
Yeah, in situations like that than then the atheist didn't star the argument. Or in a situation where someone uses god as evidence for something and then are told they can't use god as evidence. Then things just spiral with no one in particular to blame.
Sorry for the DP, I missed one.
Seems like a lose lose situation. If I were to go out on the street and proclaim I'm an atheist it woulds likely not take long for someone to start berating me.
Well than it would of course be their fault. Although not many people would see it that way. I think it doesn't really matter if an atheist or theist proclaims themself, if you try to tell them they're wrong they'll want to argue with you. It's like feeding a troll. Unless of course you're starting a debate, in which case you want to oppose each other.
My observation on all of this...
I think that we both accept that god does or does not exist through faith. Sure we both have found 'solid' facts to prove that he does or does not exist, (Same goes for the creation-evolotion thing.) but in reality, have the athiests fully proved their theory? No. Have the theists proved theirs? No. Now, to some extent each party has found evidence, but no party, again, has actually proven their belief. In short, I believe God exists, but cannot fully prove it. Athiests believe he doesn't exist, but cannot fully prove it. Therefore, we are all to some extent, no matter how much scientific evidence we produce, riding on belief that his or her party is correct. And if I may, I myself am a christian, and I believe that God exists, and don't really care to prove it. Because I believe that God is real. No evidence, no science, I believe.
You're putting your views out there and if you're not open to not just a disagreement but the reasons why, then you shouldn't have said anything in the first place.
Well of course they should be open to disagreements. People should constantly be open to disagreements and the evidence supporting them. But I was just talking about who starts the argument in whatever case. I didn't mean to imply arguing is wrong, or whomever starts the argument is in the wrong.
I think that we both accept that god does or does not exist through faith.
it doesn't take faith to not believe in something without evidence. Just like it doesn't take faith to not believe in leprechauns, fairies, or invisible purple dragons. It doesn't take faith to not believe a god claim. It does however take faith to believe something that has no objectively supporting evidence.
Sure we both have found 'solid' facts to prove that he does or does not exist, (Same goes for the creation-evolotion thing.)
If the theist had solid proof for what they believe if wouldn't be faith based.
but in reality, have the athiests fully proved their theory? No.
If you mean that god doesn't exist, it's not up to us to provide evidence of non existence. It's the positive asserted claim that needs backing up.
Have the theists proved theirs? No. Now, to some extent each party has found evidence, but no party, again, has actually proven their belief.
Have you noticed yet just how much you're contradicting yourself? You first state that both have faith, then you claim both have proof (which contradicts faith), then you claim neither has proven their case, then say both have evidence.
It seems you might be confusing what sort of evidence is acceptable.
"If I go into my front yard and I see a large sauropod walking down the middle of my street, I will of course be quite convinced of what I see. I may be even more satisfied when I follow the thing and find that I can touch it, maybe even ride it if I want to. When I gather sense enough to run back for my camcorder, I may not be able to find the beast again, because I don't know which way it went. But that doesnât matter because I saw it, I heard it, felt it, smelt it and I remember all that clearly with a sober and rational mind. But somehow I'm the only one who ever noticed it, and of course no one believes me. Some other guy says he saw a dinosaur too, but his description was completely different, such that we canât both be talking about the same thing. So it doesn't matter how convinced I am that it really happened. It might not have. When days go by and there are still no tracks, no excrement, no destruction, no sign of the beast at all, no other witnesses whoâs testimony lends credence to mine, and no explanation for how a 20-meter long dinosaur could just disappear in the suburbs of a major metropolis, much less how it could have appeared there in the first place, -then it becomes much easier to explain how there could be only two witnesses who canât agree on what they think they saw, than it is to explain all the impossibilities against that dinosaur ever really being there. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -AronRa
-Subjective evidence is evidence that cannot be evaluated, it simply has to be accepted or rejected based on what the person says. Science is not concerned with subjective evidence because of it's inability to be evaluated.
-Objective evidence is evidence that can be examined and evaluated by a third party. This information can be based on facts. This evidence can become disputed at a later date, that which is never disputed becomes a fact.
In short objective evidence can be verified by a third party, subjective evidence is opinion and can not be verified.
Like in the example above seeing the dinosaur would be subjective evidence for the dinosaur. This is why objective verifiable evidence is required. Until then the extraordinary claim is not accepted as true.
And if I may, I myself am a christian, and I believe that God exists, and don't really care to prove it. Because I believe that God is real. No evidence, no science, I believe.
This says to me that you don't care about what's real or not. Given your post it seems you wish to project this on everyone.
See?
This entire thread is just proving why I haven't admitted that I'm atheist (until recently).
I'm tired of people yelling: what is rong wit u, your going 2 HELL!!!11!!1
Well, the same thing was happening when I was still Hindu . . .
have the athiests fully proved their theory? No.
Not to but in, but atheists aren't presenting a theory, they are rejecting a claim as unsupported. Stealing an example I hear from Mage quite often, if I claimed that there was an invisible flying elephant causing natural disasters, but couldn't provide any real evidence, would you have any reason to believe me? Of course not. You don't need to prove that the invisible flying elephant doesn't exist, and you aren't making a claim simply by rejecting the claim that I've made. The same thing goes for theism vs atheism. Theism is the assertion that a god or gods exist. Atheism is the rejection of that assertion, not an assertion that it is impossible for those things to exist. Granted, there are some atheists that do take a step further and say that they believe god doesn't exist, but there is a distinction between "I don't accept the claim that god exists" and "I accept the claim that god doesn't exist".
In short, I believe God exists, but cannot fully prove it. Athiests believe he doesn't exist, but cannot fully prove it.
I think you might be confusing atheism with anti-theism. Anti-theism asserts that god(s) doesn't/don't exist. Atheism rejects the assertion that god(s) do exist. Theism asserts that god(s) do exist.
No evidence, no science, I believe.
So why does faith trump science and evidence? I can't think of any other arena where faith is given as a valid excuse. For example, could a judge call someone guilty without sufficient evidence simply because they have faith that the defendant is guilty? Could a teacher give you a grade without looking at the evidence (tests, papers, etc) of what grade you deserve simply because theyh have faith that you deserve a certain grade?
Here's the problem. You can have faith in evidence, but your reason for believing something or accepting a theory as the most credible isn't faith. It's evidence. Much the same, faith isn't a reason for believing. You have faith in... what? Your belief? So your reason for believing is because you believe? Btw I'm not trying to twist up your words or draw conclusions to questions that you haven't gotten a chance to answer yet, but just trying to get to the core of why faith in your beliefs is valid enough to justify them.
I mean, the theists could argue that everything around you is proof of some divine power.
That argument would fall on its face because, as Mage has very neatly demonstrated in his picture, drawing conclusions on evidence is different that having a conclusion, finding evidence, and forcing it to fit the conclusion with which you started.
I feel like this is the general argument against religion. If we don't see some divine signs or figures, how do we know if they exist?
We don't know if they exist or not. We don't have to shut the door on religion but should we shouldn't accept it as true any more than we should accept the invisible flying elephant.
I didn't mention, as hard as it is to accept, smething that is absurd to you, can make sense to me. I am not arguing that He exists, I am saying Everything is through belief. You Okay, example: Say you've never seen a lion, only on TV. How do you know it exists? You believe. Same concept goes in this situation. Niether of us can fully prove what we say is true. I am not arguing, I am siply sying it all comes down to you and I believing.
Faith... Faith... Now, if I believe in an all powerful God, I don't need facts, I need faith. It is a personal veiw that you do not have to believe if you don't want to.
I didn't mention, as hard as it is to accept, smething that is absurd to you, can make sense to me.
Yep. But that does not make it real.
I am not arguing that He exists
Then you are doing something wrong.
You Okay, example: Say you've never seen a lion, only on TV. How do you know it exists? You believe.
Actually, you have evidence. Video evidence, in this case.
And lets say you where having a huge, nation wide argument that lions do not exist. Someone could easily bring in proof of a lion, or an actual lion, as actual evidence. You believe with proof, as logic dictates.
Same concept goes in this situation.
No it isn't. This is like saying I ate a magic chocolate bar that allows me to control the universe. It is simply absurd, even if you believe that it does not make it true.
Niether of us can fully prove what we say is true
Yes...Yes we can. If you say lions don't exist, and I say they do, I can show you a lion. That proves I am correct. It is simple...That is how science works.
I am not arguing, I am siply sying it all comes down to you and I believing.
Lets take this with something else, something tangible, like medicine. Lets say that one person has a bacterial disease, and another person has a similar disease. Who is going to get better first, the man who uses penicillin, even if he doesn't believe it will work, or the man who gets the demons beaten out of him?
This says to me that you don't care about what's real or not. Given your post it seems you wish to project this on everyone.
I was just saying that I am not trying to argue. I just wanted to show my opinion. So Disect what I say, catch my every slip of the toungue. But it will not change what I believe. Solid reason, facts, examples. You bring all of this up, but if I were to sit here and argue about weather or not God exists, I would not be doing the very thing he wanted me to.
I didn't mention, as hard as it is to accept, smething that is absurd to you, can make sense to me.
The question is, is it absurd to me because I lack a piece of knowledge that you possess, or does it make sense to you because you don't use that evidence and logic to point out flaws in the claim?
I am not arguing that He exists, I am saying Everything is through belief.
I wouldn't call it belief so much as objective reality. There are very few things we know for certain, outside of our own existence. What makes a theory sound and valid is its repeatability. Can someone perform the same test and get the same result?
Say you've never seen a lion, only on TV. How do you know it exists? You believe.
A lion existing is not nearly as extraordinary as a being that created the universe yet somehow existed before it, and left no evidence behind (and to avoid a tedious argument, religious texts aren't evidence: these are claims. They don't offer any reason to think things happened, they simply state, this happened.
So yes, I don't know absolutely that lions exist even if I have seen and touched one, but within the context that is useful to use in perceiving reality, I know that it exists. However, I must point out that if I haven't seen a lion, and I want to know if it exists, I could go to a zoo or something, but there is no verifiable way to know if god exists. It is impossible to make any real life analogy to a god's existence that matches or exceeds the extraordinary claim being made.
Niether of us can fully prove what we say is true.
I haven't claimed that god doesn't exist, I simply don't accept that he does exist. I don't have faith that he doesn't exist because I am not claiming that he doesn't exist. Atheism isn't about picking what to believe, it's the rejection of other beliefs.
You must be logged in to post a reply!