Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

But you can choose what the truth is.

Then you just took away what makes it truth. Truth is indisputeable, you can't pick and choose what feels best.
Anything that is subjective has no truth -- you can't look at something and say it's truth, however with the evidence supporting many theories that make them worthy enough to be considered 'truth', it's quite easy to see using this simple logic what you're actually trying to do.
It's essentially truth vs opinion. Which one takes precedence?

Don't we also have faith in evolution, the Big Bang, and others?

Under the meaning of the term "faith" as it's commonly understood -- it's belief without reason. There is certainly enough supporting the Big Bang, evolution and et cetera, thus it isn't really based on faith.

I mean, the theists could argue that everything around you is proof of some divine power.

You and I are both humans.
Therefore we are both the same people.

^ The logic applied to putting it towards a divine power.
You'd be jumping logical steps with knowledge. There is nothing to say that it is a divine power, and simple facts (that are construed good) representing the divine power is the same as the simple fact that we're humans representing us being the same identity.

Sure, sometimes you would be busted and have no idea what's going on -- but it's far far better to just find out and history of religion has shown pretty poor reactions with curiosity.
Now, the hindrances I mentioned in my previous post will just show how it can impede the understanding people have because they don't attempt to find out, et cetera.

And logic and reason isn't always correct.

You never have it 'incorrect' if you do it right. If you lacked information but made the right decision based on what you had (and that would include considering that you did not have all the information because there is no reason to assume you do) then you did the best possible thing, which makes it correct. As MageGrayWolf's picture on page 409 shows, a new factor coming in can change stories, but nonetheless any situation I've been in and considered strongly I've been able to base the best action for each situation that could present itself, based on the flaws in my understanding or simple lack of understanding.

I believe that was a somewhat extreme example taking my words out of context...

Yeah I do think it seemed to take things a step further, unnecessarily.

I feel that works with logic and reason as well.

Well, it is using logic and reason as it is. Surely you can consider other situations that change it, but it's often the case of probabilities with the car crash scenario. Even so, you have to ask how much it makes a difference towards you -- it may come to a point of never having an objective, indisputeable conclusion, and thus there will be no general consensus. With that in mind, I believe that most people would decide to pick either:
1) Believe the most probable scenario or,
2) Remain tentative on the entire thing as it is.

If there was some judgement from an entity at some point then it would be wrong to let him / her / it leave us in the dark without possibly (physically impossible to) deducing which is the sure-fire case. Therefore, the risk of not making a decision and the consequences involved are actually not really that large when you consider something like that (because an unreasonable being would probably screw with you either way).

Plus, it's just moral values vs fear / pain in that situation. But I digress.

I think that we both accept that god does or does not exist through faith.

Can someone verify whether this is even a correct sentence?

Sure we both have found 'solid' facts to prove that he does or does not exist,

Wrong.

but in reality, have the athiests fully proved their theory? No.

Atheists don't have a universal theory that applies to all of them. But for the ones you're probably referencing -- are you seriously putting forward that something that isn't fully built should be disregarded?

Now, to some extent each party has found evidence,

*facepalm* No, they haven't.

but no party, again, has actually proven their belief.

I'm just going to assume you're putting the atheists involved in this thread into that 'arty'. If not, then stop generalizing.

I believe that the Big Bang happened because of the information that supports it. As MageGrayWolf pointed out in the other picture on page 409, creationists often try and draw a conclusion, then try to support it.

One is based on logic, reason, experimentation and observation. The other is based on faith.

In short, I believe God exists, but cannot fully prove it.

Oh? And how can you prove it even just a little? Your 'theory' probably doesn't consider all the other possibilities and as such just seems to show that you're bridging your belief to what information you have. It's not going to work out for you if you attempt to explain your belief and it follows something under those lines.

riding on belief that his or her party is correct.

Yours, more accurately, is faith - belief without reason.
Ours is belief - we have reasons to.

and don't really care to prove it.

Even though it's supposed to be a massive part of your life and the explanation to great philosophical points of contention (meaning of life, origination of life, et cetera et cetera)?
You care not to prove it even to yourself. That doesn't warrant respect, that deserves pity to let yourself willingly believe in something you have truly no reason to. Now, if you could tell me you have a very logical, indisputeable reason to believe in God and don't care to share it, I would judge both why you would be withholding such information and whether it's actually what you just said it was (very logical and indisputeable).

I didn't mean to imply arguing is wrong, or whomever starts the argument is in the wrong.

I was directing it towards everyone, it was nothing personal (despite the style it was written in). I think we do have a general agreement on the matter, then.

I'm tired of people yelling: what is rong wit u, your going 2 HELL!!!11!!1

Often it's people wanting me to get off their backs for calmly pinpointing errors in their beliefs. Can't say I'm going to persist much in such a scenario where their mentioning of their beliefs (especially as an answer to mine or someone else's question) wasn't really up to be debated for.

I didn't mention, as hard as it is to accept, smething that is absurd to you, can make sense to me.

Wrong. 'Sense' is logic and reason. You're just being intentionally ignorant. You look at it from our perspective that isn't so frivolously narrow, and you actually see the sense in it.

I am saying Everything is through belief.

Why you believe is the point of contention. Yours is faith -- belief without reason.

Say you've never seen a lion, only on TV. How do you know it exists? You believe.

What is to gain from lying in this case? There's no conceivable point in doing so, and thus yours is pretty much based on cynicism, not necessarily scepticism.

Same concept goes in this situation.

Nope, because there was a reason to lie -- comfort. And as they could not explain in truth, they generated stories instead. Why did the volcano erupt and destroy the village? They angered Hades, of course.

It is a personal veiw

Nice attempt at sugarcoating, I suppose, by adding &quotersonal" -- but all views ought to be personal, otherwise you tend to lose your individual self, or a piece of, that is.

I don't need facts, I need faith.

Congratulations. Except that's something to be ashamed of if you actually do it.

that you do not have to believe if you don't want to.

Whilst that may be your belief, I'll hold to a point that many religious people - particularly Christians in America, constantly try and push their beliefs on others.

But it will not change what I believe.

So because you're not trying to put something into our open minds, you figure you need not have an open mind whether we have something to put in their or not, regardless of what it is?
I say 'regardless' because what would be put forward to you is pretty much indisputeable to any reasonable folk.

I would not be doing the very thing he wanted me to.

Showing one of the reasons your religion is actually pretty dangerous, no? It is in your unfounded belief that you do not dispute with that belief even to external conflicts.

You can't help but get into an argument...

Because something so productive as stating what you believe without getting in an argument and expecting impunity is better?
The 'roductive' part was sarcastic, incase you didn't realize.

Gods will for those that follow him is that we lead as many people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Don't try and spread your beliefs if you're not willing to defend them, that's disgusting.

I hope somebody reading this knows where I pulled that from. :P

Someone who has not the right to speak for every Atheist. Nit-picking, I'm sure, but no, there is no code for an Atheist ^^

Although I do respect and partially agree with the philosophies behind what is said

If I was able to prove the existence of a divine entity in a way atheists find acceptable, atheism would cease to exist.

Atheists are defined solely by their lack of belief in a deity. It sounds like you're trying to show the idea that we'd lose logical prospects, but in truth we actually just gain belief in a deity.

Not all atheists would find it acceptable, I'm sure. Some may be too stubborn - others are much more easily pleased than others (because not all atheists are logical, and etc).

Why he doesn't pop down for a visit and boom for everybody, I don't know. Why he makes his very possible existence illogical and ill-reasoned, I don't know.

Which extends to conflict between humans and philosophies of the God that would hypothetically be proven in the first place.
Now, MageGrayWolf did also have a list of injustices and I believe murders by God linked somewhere, I fail to find it, I'm afraid.

.....Wait, did you just admit that his very existence is illogical and ill-reasoned?

I don't remember Wyrzen saying he was religious. As far as I know (though I could easily be wrong), you jumped the gun a bit
Of course, I haven't checked Wyrzen's profile and I haven't seen every comment he's made so. . . could easily be wrong about that

...I'm trying my best to have a stand point without preaching or 'condemning everybody to hell', or whatnot.

You're doing well, considering I couldn't even tell if you was religious :P the only thing that hinted to me that you are religious is:

but not without effort.

Please, elaborate? What effort do you speak of concerning being 'saved' by God?

- H

Yeah I do think it seemed to take things a step further, unnecessarily.

Why thank you.

I don't remember Wyrzen saying he was religious. As far as I know (though I could easily be wrong), you jumped the gun a bit
Of course, I haven't checked Wyrzen's profile and I haven't seen every comment he's made so. . . could easily be wrong about that

You're doing well, considering I couldn't even tell if you was religious :P

I like you Highfire. Yes, I am a theist, but I'm glad that I'm able to argue, well attempt to argue, a point without it seeming like my 'religion' or lack of playing a massively blinding factor in it. And I'm doing my best to explain without seeming like I'm trying to convert everybody.

Please, elaborate? What effort do you speak of concerning being 'saved' by God?

Let's see....how to explain without seeming like I'm giving a sermon...

It's like...good-deeds. Which sounds awfully lame. Okay, how about this. Let's pretend we all love and believe in a divine entity, and it's judgment day...but who cares, because we're all saved anyways. Everybody from MLK Jr. to Hitler are saved, happy, and high-fiving in heaven, or whatever you envision as the 'next place' as you pretend to be a theist. Doesn't that seem a bit flawed?

Atheists are defined solely by their lack of belief in a deity. It sounds like you're trying to show the idea that we'd lose logical prospects, but in truth we actually just gain belief in a deity.

Not all atheists would find it acceptable, I'm sure. Some may be too stubborn - others are much more easily pleased than others (because not all atheists are logical, and etc).

I guess I generalized a bit much there. I'm sure there are atheists with 'blind faith' in no God, just because they don't feel like believing, just as we all know there are many many many blind faith religious people.

Many. And I'm trying to avoid seeming like that.

Many. And I'm trying to avoid seeming like that.

I was careful on not saying you actually was doing that ^^ ahaha.

Why thank you.

Not a problem. I respect people who can defend another even if they have fairly substantial disagreements, based on pure moral values / logic & understanding of the situation; it's the reason I try and imitate it, I guess.

but I'm glad that I'm able to argue, well attempt to argue, a point without it seeming like my 'religion' or lack of playing a massively blinding factor in it.

Certainly not a blinding factor, you've gone a step further than showing recognition of some 'flaws' that are apparent but also pushed some of the ideas further yourself.

And I'm doing my best to explain without seeming like I'm trying to convert everybody.

The only other person I can think of who did this well was samy, who was beginning to change views on religion as it were -- it's quite difficult to find someone willing to see those 'flaws' in their own belief system (though possibly not their own beliefs) and not defend it. I think that critical stance on the matter shows a much less pervasive attitude that some theists would rather have, I'd think.

It's like...good-deeds. Which sounds awfully lame.

It does :P but I'm not one for how it sounds, I'm for how it is. I see exactly what you mean by what you said and the comparisons drawn, but I guess the main issue that arises was that it was hypothetically put forth that we all believed in God.
However you have mentioned yourself that "Why he makes his very possible existence illogical and ill-reasoned, I don't know." so I guess you take a familiar stance to samy?

Which I should elaborate on, considering you've likely never spoken with him. He was an Armor Games debatee, as it were, with religion and politics(?). Well experienced and was favouring theistic views on what I'd imagine was a fairly strong level, but over the course of I believe 2 years (or more, now) he's changed a substantial degree and isn't so adamant on his beliefs now.

I don't know him as well as others, but he's a good example of approaching a faith in pretty much the best way you could. (Although I do hold the belief that a faith shouldn't be approached at all, but I respect that he recognises the elements involved and how he doesn't really seem to let them dictate his own morals / attribute his morals to his religion).

just because they don't feel like believing,

I've found that there seems to be a bit of a cultural implication as well. Younger people that are not raised in a strongly religious household don't seem to hold much of a religion at all and are more lenient towards calling themselves "atheist", but don't really know much about religion either.
That being said, many of them have mentioned that they know that it isn't proven / has nothing supporting it, and thus seem quite content with avoiding the subject and its influence on their life.

I'd say it's sufficient knowledge to base a decision off of, though big philosophical questions (and philosophy in general) seems painfully ignored by many adolescents, and I think it should be introduced in a less invasive manner than is currently in UK curriculum.
-- Talking about Religious Education. Now, I think it's good to understand religious views because, whether it's liked or not, it's here. But I dislike how they base subjects of debate around religious views and not so much religious views around subjects of debate. I mean sure, they ask for your views, quite often, but it contributes so little to the actual exam and it feels like you're being made to learn unnecessary things in order to be at another's standard of intelligence concerning their subject.

Based on how religion is -- based on faith -- I think it's fair to say that you shouldn't need to learn about it if you don't want to, and whilst an optional course would be nice, I think philosophy needs more leeway in school for the simple reason that it doesn't inspire enough thought in most people - particularly just thinking about all the moral views of the situation.

I guess I generalized a bit much there.

Considering the 'arty' you're discussing the issue with, I'd place bets on the majority of us becoming a theist were what you proposed to be the case. Of course, we're not all atheists so it's a fair bit of nit-picking to go on, but it's worth mentioning for future reference and so you're not misleading anyone that reads.

(I've had times where I've posted from a pretty far back thread page from the latest one where a view would change throughout and a segment of my post would be deleted because it was no longer relevant. Good to be prepared, though )

- H

Wryzen, I've seen you make this point a few times and I wanted to ask you something...

You say that if God/Jesus/a god was always walking around doing miracles, then there would be no religion. I agree, but you seem to imply that that is a bad thing. Why is that? Isn't what God wants is for everyone to believe in him so that they can be saved?

I just feel there will never be any evidence that atheists will accept as viable proof of the deities the theists believe in.

There are plenty of things that could convince me that a god of some sort exists. There are fewer things which could convince me that the specific god as according to a certain religion exists.

You say that if God/Jesus/a god was always walking around doing miracles, then there would be no religion. I agree, but you seem to imply that that is a bad thing. Why is that? Isn't what God wants is for everyone to believe in him so that they can be saved?

Fair enough question, I don't mean to imply this as a bad thing. I mean, let's say he was down here, rocking miracles. That would be absolutely fantastic! But what I obviously failed to get through is that, although it would wonderful, it would eliminate the need for religion. A meaning of religion is the belief in a deity, higher power, etc and you worship that power. But if Jesus was walking around casting miracles like fireworks on the fourth of July....who needs to believe? He's right there! So there would be no need for religion, since that 'religion' would be walking around us.

I hope that kind of answers your question. I tend to get off track when I type too much.

it would eliminate the need for religion.

Why is there a need for an organized set of beliefs which have certain traditions and ceremonies?

A meaning of religion is the belief in a deity, higher power, etc and you worship that power.

You really think people wouldn't worship the one running around doing miracles? More people than ever would.

But if Jesus was walking around casting miracles like fireworks on the fourth of July....who needs to believe? He's right there!

Exactly. Then everyone would believe. You believe the color orange exists right? Why? Because you can see it.

If someone claimed that there was a color Thajsfahc which no human can see, how many would believe that? What if that color just then appeared all over the place and we could suddenly see it? How many would believe then?

I hope that kind of answers your question. I tend to get off track when I type too much.

I think I can see where you're coming from -- the whole stance of mysticism in some of the biggest questions would be quite easily answered and many hardships that have been a tradition could be removed.

Now, whilst I think that some things should just be slit out of nature entirely - arthritis, cancer, alzheimer's, I do think that the hardships to gather resources should remain and the like. It's. . . well, what we're made for, I suppose.
Now of course, I'm not suggesting that the complete lack of resources and the poverty present in some areas is acceptable, but I think the general need to get what you need is something I wouldn't really want to let down. Having the situation where you need to sustain yourself (and sometimes others) is quite a thrill, having everything taken away in regards to that -- whilst great, will also take out an element of life that everyone is accustomed to.

So, whilst there is nothing to be truly lost in removing that kind of hardship, I have to say I'm not incredibly fond with parting ways with it either.

And nevermind the questions -- what I think is actually exhilerating for a lot of people. I mean, it's kind of what Science's principles are based on! Discovery and curiosity!

I can't say I'd feel too great if a God shown itself and then turned the world into a paradise, honestly. . . it's strange. O.o

You really think people wouldn't worship the one running around doing miracles?

To be fair. . . I don't think I'd worship a being as such -- don't get me wrong, I'd certainly respect said being and love it but. . . worship seems belittling, and being as I value morality the most, as long as I have that at the highest standard then I'm a respectable peer of the deity as it is.

I doubt a deity would want us to worship it -- create something weaker than itself so it can put it above them in their hierarchy? It sounds a little twisted. Maybe I'm misinterpreting 'worship' -- though I get the idea of people bowing down incessantly or going on their knees in prayer.

I would expect the same from it if I were to do that for it, but aside from something simple to show such respect (such as a single bow), I wouldn't go any further as I would find it extraneous.
"It" referring to God, by the way.

I am sorry. I'm done on this forum.

I believe you said that before. Good to know for finals, in any case.

I don't feel too good about this post, not entirely sure why. I'm finding what I said still a little contentious in my head so if there's any point you disagree with, feel free to bring it up but don't expect me to believe the same if something like this is next brought up. I'm kind of taken aback at this particular topic honestly :P

- H

If you believe there is no God, then there is no God, because you are adamant that the evidence against Him is correct.

I don't believe in a god for three main reasons.

1) We have no evidence for a god.

2) There are many claims of varying gods, all of which claim to be the only correct one.

3) We have evidence which goes against claims of spontaneous creation/creation stories.

If someone could provide some sort of evidence, I would be open to it. However, personal testimonies, circular logic, "goddidit" claims and more aren't real evidence.

Speaking of Einstein, I've seen quotes that seem to say he did believe in a God, and others that contradicted that. So, my parentheses'd point isn't for or against anyone, since Einstein contradicted himself. If you want examples, look 'em up yourself.

Einstein wasn't religious. I have looked up quotes by him before and they aren't contradictory. Post some here if you want an explanation of how they're not.

I just feel there will never be any evidence that atheists will accept as viable proof of the deities the theists believe in.

I mean, what do you want?

If I was able to prove the existence of a divine entity in a way atheists find acceptable, atheism would cease to exist.

I would be fine with atheism ceasing to exist. This could also essentially be accomplished by religion butting out. If what religious view you held didn't matter and was just some personal thing a title for lacking a belief in a deity would become archaic. It would be like having a term for those who lack belief in leprechauns.

As for what I would want in terms of evidence I did make a list. I will repost it so you don't have to go through 400+ pages.

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 doing something only a god can do like created a small amount of matter. To prove that I'm not just seeing things or being tricked he would have to do this in front of other people in a controlled environment. That would be sufficient evidence.
Though while this would e enough for me to accept this being claim, I would still consider the possibility of some form of advanced technology at work.

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. All of this would have to be well documented.

5. If there was a religion that transcended cultural boundaries, meaning even those in isolated groups still held the same beliefs. Going further than this, finding extraterrestrial life with the same beliefs. This would give me reason to consider the possibility more seriously.

6. 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.

Other things that while wouldn't convince me to believe would at least give me reason to think about it more. This could still be the result of human work though so it wouldn't be conclusive.

A truly non-contradictory completely accurate holy book. As it stands 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.

All of the above would need to be repeatable to eliminate errors. That's how you could go about proving a god exists.

What would you accept as evidence against what you're religion claims? Or in other words what could convince you that you might be wrong?

If you believe there is no God, then there is no God, because you are adamant that the evidence against Him is correct.

What one believes or disbelieves has no baring on what is actually existent. Using the lion example, I could disbelieve lions exist while you believe, but that would mean nothing to whether they actually exist or not. I'm willing to change my position if reasonable evidence is presented. Yes This evidence would need to be scrutinized for accuracy.

If you believe there is a God, then you are adamant that the proof that he exists is correct, and possibly even that he has spoken to you.

But the believer is not going on evidence but faith, as has been admitted to many times.

You can't prove or disprove either of them unbiased, because they are both opinions. No human can fathom where God came from, just as no human can fathom where the spec that exploded came from.

Yet we have more supporting evidence for a singularity expanding then for God.

Speaking of Einstein, I've seen quotes that seem to say he did believe in a God, and others that contradicted that. So, my parentheses'd point isn't for or against anyone, since Einstein contradicted himself. If you want examples, look 'em up yourself.

Einstein tended to equate god with the universe. His views were at most pantheistic.

"Pantheism is the view that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical " -wiki (citation: The New Oxford Dictionary Of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. pp. 1341.)

If you believe there is no God, then there is no God, because you are adamant that the evidence against Him is correct.

Actually, most don't believe do to lack of evidence....

You can't prove or disprove either of them unbiased, because they are both opinions. No human can fathom where God came from, just as no human can fathom where the spec that exploded came from.

No. This is not an opinion topic. This is a fact. If you put a gun to a man's head, and he thinks he can block the bullet if he focuses hard enough, he will die. His belief did not change the bullet' effect, his belief has nothing on reality.

No human can fathom where God came from, just as no human can fathom where the spec that exploded came from

We can fathom it, and we are working on that right now.

(the latter being in denial of Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed)

....Please,please, please, please, pleases please tell me you be trolling. Einsteins theory of relativity has nothing to do with that, your thinking of the law of conservation of mass and energy....

Speaking of Einstein, I've seen quotes that seem to say he did believe in a God, and others that contradicted that. So, my parentheses'd point isn't for or against anyone, since Einstein contradicted himself. If you want examples, look 'em up yourself.

He was an atheist. He just used "God" in a sentence, so people went and yelled "HEY LOOK HE IS RELIGIOUS! WHY WOULD HE SAY GOD NO PLAY DICE IF HE NO RELIGIOUS!"

That's why they have faith, because He doesn't do that for any of them either.

Why not?

Which is also why the almost completely lack of viable theists rock-solid data.

Lets see. Lack of data either means that big foot does not exist, or that he is hiding for some reason. Just have faith, and bigfoot must be real. Just as real as god, ah?