Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[syo]

Do you believe that magic was real at one time or another?

It depends on people at how they approach magic. If they do ''magic'' to win the lottery, or fall in love, or other nonsense, then it's mumbo-jumbo. The real definition of magic is simply timing and insight. It's a matter of approaching the world, nothing to do with wishes or commands.

 

[infrabenji]

It depends on people at how they approach magic. If they do ''magic'' to win the lottery, or fall in love, or other nonsense, then it's mumbo-jumbo. The real definition of magic is simply timing and insight. It's a matter of approaching the world, nothing to do with wishes or commands.

I believe it was Alister Crowley who said the key to magic is to "Invoke often". Other than that I have no experience with magic.

 

[syo]

I believe it was Alister Crowley who said the key to magic is to "Invoke often". Other than that I have no experience with magic.

Invoke what? the winning lottery ticket numbers? invoke a ''demon''?

or gain insight?

the line to hoax and real is very thin sadly.

 

[infrabenji]

Invoke what? the winning lottery ticket numbers? invoke a ''demon''?

or gain insight?

the line to hoax and real is very thin sadly.

I think he meant the key to magic is making oneself believe it is real by repetition. Like saying it over and over again till you believe it. Then what happens next I don't know. Maybe whatever your repeating is supposed to manifest? I don't know I never tried it. lol

 

[syo]

I think he meant the key to magic is making oneself believe it is real by repetition. Like saying it over and over again till you believe it. Then what happens next I don't know. Maybe whatever your repeating is supposed to manifest? I don't know I never tried it. lol

this is self-delusion.

anyway, I have no respect for crowley.

 

[infrabenji]

this is self-delusion.

anyway, I have no respect for crowley.

Me neither and I agree. It must be a form of delusion.

 

[leroy]

No, it’s not. It’s an assertion you are using to support your claim, i.e., conjecture.

Ok ok

Exactly what is the assertion that I am making?

 

[Deeje]

I would say that studying theology is the fastest way to become atheist.

I couldn’t agree more.....theology is the study of what religion teaches, not what the Bible teaches. My own studies have revealed a vast discrepancy between the two. The Bible is not wrong....but flawed human interpretation definitely is.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is false; a universe with say high entropy can’t support any kind of life.

You ignored what I said in that very post -- that other sorts of universes may support other kinds of life -- "or none at all."

The point is, any kind of universe in which life can arise and continue will look -- to that life -- as if that universe was created just for it.

 

[Nimos]

ok and what characteristic does something has to have in order for you to conclude..... "That is designed intelligently""

When it comes to the natural world, I don't see it, so im not sure. But you asked the OP to be more specific in what could convince him. And showing that something is clearly intelligently designed would be a good start.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Skipping ahead 14 pages...

In general, we of the various paths of Modern Paganism (myself of Heathenry, or Norse Paganism) don't like to proselytize or seek to convert people. We're not in a race to "win souls" or be the "One True Path". However, I am open to answering questions that you might have regarding my path and our general theology.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ok ok

Exactly what is the assertion that I am making?

That God exists...

Lets start with the question that 99% of atheist can’t answer.

What would convince you that God exists? Is there any discovery, or observation etc. that would convince you that there is a God?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would say that studying theology is the fastest way to become atheist.

Ciao

- viole

I would say that studying theology is actually quite impossible. The study of theology is supposed to be about gaining knowledge about God. But unlike geology (where you can go out and pick up rocks, look at them, check out how rivers carve canyons, and so on), all you can ever do about "studying God" is actually studying what other humans have said about God. Therefore, it can never be a direct study, but rather can only be a study about beliefs -- which in my view makes it another study about humans.

 

[infrabenji]

I would say that studying theology is actually quite impossible. The study of theology is supposed to be about gaining knowledge about God. But unlike geology (where you can go out and pick up rocks, look at them, check out how rivers carve canyons, and so on), all you can ever do about "studying God" is actually studying what other humans have said about God. Therefore, it can never be a direct study, but rather can only be a study about beliefs -- which in my view makes it another study about humans.

I have a bachelor's in theology and an associates in religion. And I couldn't agree more. lol

 

[infrabenji]

Ok ok

Exactly what is the assertion that I am making?

I'm the OP. I understand another poster asked you to direct your questions towards me. Please do. I'm here to answer any questions you have.

 

[infrabenji]

When it comes to the natural world, I don't see it, so im not sure. But you asked the OP to be more specific in what could convince him. And showing that something is clearly intelligently designed would be a good start.

I'm the OP. I hit up Leroy. Let's see what he can bring to the table. We'll see if he has what it takes to respond.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I've kind of run into a problem of my own with debates, which may reveal my lack of skill debating.... it's, it kind of seems like some atheists may be looking for objective truth behind God. But in my world, nothing's really objective truth. I could also take on the view that there is objective truth, but no person knows it.

 

[Magical Wand]

I know this was not directed at me, but I'll reply anyway. Hope that you don't mind.

No, I don't mind! You're welcome to discuss this topic with me whenever you wish. I'm happy to answer your objections.

I take issue with the phrasing "begins to exist." It seems to me that it's just a way to get out of requiring the "cause" thing to apply to God, so it's really just defining God in a way that avoids the issue.

Well, that may be so. But unfortunately this observation isn't sufficient to refute the argument unless you can show God began to exist. God has been defined by theologians as eternal for many centuries (even millennia).

Also, the Big Bang being the beginning of the universe is somewhat misunderstood, at least from my interpretation of it. The universe could have existed prior, but in a way that we can never observe. As such, the Big Bang is an event that marked the point where the universe became what it is now, removing any evidence for what was there before. So it may not have been the "beginning" of the universe, rather a transition into its present state.

I agree with that, but Craig is aware of this argument and has written two papers with a physicist named James Sinclair in which both argued for the old big bang model that requires an initial singularity that represents the beginning of space, time and matter. In any case, I didn't mention the Big Bang, but rather the 2nd law of thermodynamics and logical arguments that (allegedly) show an infinite past is impossible. So, even if the universe extends prior to the Big Bang (contra Craig), one could still argue it must have a beginning at some point due to the 2nd law and paradoxes. As a consequence, the argument can be run again to that point.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Is there a pantheon of Pagan gods?

(With foreknowledge that this was asked of someone else)

There are many, as the term "Pagan" is an often unagreed upon Umbrella Term for non-Abrahamic religions. I myself find that to be too broad to be of any use, and hinging a religious movement upon a synonym for "non-Christian" seems lacking.

Myself, I define "Paganism" (adherent: Pagan) as Modern revivals of the pre-Christian cultural beliefs and traditions of Europe, the Mediterranean, and West Asia. I am aware not all agree with this definition, but it is what I see consistently represented. This covers the cultures and pantheons of the following peoples: Germanic (Saxon, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Norse), Celtic (Irish, Pictish/Scotish, Welsh, Gaulish), Greek, Roman, and Slavic peoples and gods. Properly the term is "Modern Paganism" (with "Ancient Paganism" being applied retroactively,) but factually it's not a term the ancient peoples would have used. Often they didn't really have a "religion" as we tend to think of it today, and some of these sub-groups (e.g. Forn Seid) follow with this non-religious model of theism.

Kemeticism (Egyptian polytheism) isn't included because Kemeticists themselves don't identify organizationally as Pagan. Hinduism for the same, and they are of their own rich culture. Taoism and Shintoism as well, though also in that (sadly) their theologically represented numbers are dwindling. Indigenous American (North and South) beliefs, as well, are not included under this umbrella for much the same; they do not self-identify under the umbrella of Paganism, and I personally feel their culture is too endangered by colonialism to try and force inclusion for inclusion's sake.

Wicca, while often crossing paths with Paganism, is more closely associated with Occultism than it is any authentic root of pre-Christian cultural tradition. Though they hold to the term "Neo-Pagan", I do not see them as Paganism.

 

[Truthseeker]

Personal paths is the easy way to deflect from having any responsibility to show evidence as to the truth of ones beliefs and not surprisingly is usually accompanied with an argument from personal experience which has been shown to be useless. Doesn't it bother you that you can't demonstrate that your own beliefs are real except in your head?

I'm sure his answer is to one question is that it doesn't bother him. Personal experiences are not useless to the person who's experiencing them as to the existence of God.