Atheist vs Theist

[Shadow Wolf]

Why? You will never get the other side to budge, you will never prove your side, you will never disprove their side. You can no more prove the universe was created by God than you can there is no God.
If God is to be controlling the universe, understanding how the universe functions certainly won't change how it appears to operate. And yes life being here on earth does depend on alot of "fine tuning" and had things happened even slightly differently we probably wouldn't be here, but since it did happen that doesn't automatically mean God created life.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

To me there is no "Atheist vs Theist". Atheist and Theist are two sides of one coin, two roads to one end. I am content in being a Theist and in an Atheist being an Atheist. I also understand why many are Atheists.

 

[ellenjanuary]

If I hadda go hunt like a sensible animal; I'd be on the prowl... I'd be getting fed. But, no; I'm a stupid, pampered, sedate, American animal... atheism... theism... chasing rabbits...

But really, it ain't "some obscure philosophy" versus "some other obscure philosophy," as far as I'm concerned. It's more like the big game hunt, where the rampaging bull of religious nonsense should be brought down before more people are killed; kinda thing...

 

[outhouse]

One could not make a court case for the existance of any god, and stand any sort of a chance.

One can however make a solid case that ancient hebrews created the abrahamic god using previous pagan religions in there past and compiling them into their own semetic religion. And win it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's more like the big game hunt, where the rampaging bull of religious nonsense should be brought down before more people are killed; kinda thing...

But really when looking at religion as a whole, not just the Abrahamic brands, religious societies as a whole have done good and bad, just like any other society. And even within Christianity, there have been many good societies in contrast to the Dark Ages. And even in the Dark Ages, it's arguable the religion was a tool of the politicians to maintain control. Being proclaimed king by divine right is about as a convenient of an excuse as it gets.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One could not make a court case for the existance of any god, and stand any sort of a chance.

But if we go under the assumption that God exist, you can't win that case either.

One can however make a solid case that ancient hebrews created the abrahamic god using previous pagan religions in there past and compiling them into their own semetic religion. And win it.

And that disproves God how?

 

[Penumbra]

Why? You will never get the other side to budge, you will never prove your side, you will never disprove their side. You can no more prove the universe was created by God than you can there is no God.

I've personally seen people deconvert from religion due to successful logical arguments. And from what I hear, there are some people that convert to a religion because it was explained in a way that convinced them.

I've personally deconverted from religion due to a number of reasons, and partly due to logical argumentation. My partner can say the same (he actually deconverted due to forum discussions, mainly). I've even seen that people on this forum have said that their views have changed regarding various things.

Debating is a necessary process to dispose of falsehoods, or at least make them less credible. Truth is desirable for its own sake, and in the present and past where religion has also been involved in politics and wars, it's very important. On a broader scale, it's a matter of reason vs. irrationality, or truth vs. falsehood.

If God is to be controlling the universe, understanding how the universe functions certainly won't change how it appears to operate. And yes life being here on earth does depend on alot of "fine tuning" and had things happened even slightly differently we probably wouldn't be here, but since it did happen that doesn't automatically mean God created life.

If there is no evidence for gods, then there is no reason to believe in them. If there is evidence for them, it should be presented.

Understanding how the universe operates would say a lot about a proposed entity that created it.

 

[outhouse]

But if we go under the assumption that God exist, you can't win that case either.

so your saying if we got a biased jury god might stand a chance?????

And that disproves God how?

by showing god created nothing, that in fact he was created by imagination alone! Exactly like the thousands of gods and spirits before him

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why? You will never get the other side to budge, you will never prove your side, you will never disprove their side. You can no more prove the universe was created by God than you can there is no God.

I think this is a rather cynical view of people in general. People are not all so stubborn and narrow-minded. When I debate theism with people, no matter how deluded they appear to be, I will always maintain some kind of hope that logical argumentation and reasoning can change their mind. Likewise, I maintain that there is still a possibility that a theist may yet conjure up an argument for theism that is logically consistent enough to convince me to become a theist.

There is just as much reason to debate the subject of theism and atheism as there is to debate any subject ever. I do not set about in this debate to "prove my side", I set about this debate to try and introduce rationality and reason to theists in the hopes that, at the very least, they can understand my objections to their position. This is an extremely important subject to a great many people, so of course debate should be encouraged.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Understanding how the universe operates would say a lot about a proposed entity that created it.

Not if said entity merely started the universe (the big bang) and then just left to the universe function on it's own. It certainly does not mean this creator is a god, but it rather means that some entity that exists outside of this universe in a larger universe created our own. I would think that is a logically sound position, but it leaves the same question for the entity that exist outside of this universe.

 

[ellenjanuary]

But really when looking at religion as a whole, not just the Abrahamic brands, religious societies as a whole have done good and bad, just like any other society. And even within Christianity, there have been many good societies in contrast to the Dark Ages. And even in the Dark Ages, it's arguable the religion was a tool of the politicians to maintain control. Being proclaimed king by divine right is about as a convenient of an excuse as it gets.

Well, I have been avoiding the forum...

I see that religion has done good, is good for some, and is not in itself the source of others' wickedness. But then I see death worship, moral ambiguity, social regression, licence...

 

[Penumbra]

Not if said entity merely started the universe (the big bang) and then just left to the universe function on it's own. It certainly does not mean this creator is a god, but it rather means that some entity that exists outside of this universe in a larger universe created our own. I would think that is a logically sound position, but it leaves the same question for the entity that exist outside of this universe.

It certainly does provide information regarding the entity.

It leads to the conclusion that the entity is indifferent.

 

[Thief]

[/color]I've personally seen people deconvert from religion due to successful logical arguments. And from what I hear, there are some people that convert to a religion because it was explained in a way that convinced them.

I've personally deconverted from religion due to a number of reasons, and partly due to logical argumentation. My partner can say the same (he actually deconverted due to forum discussions, mainly). I've even seen that people on this forum have said that their views have changed regarding various things.

Debating is a necessary process to dispose of falsehoods, or at least make them less credible. Truth is desirable for its own sake, and in the present and past where religion has also been involved in politics and wars, it's very important. On a broader scale, it's a matter of reason vs. irrationality, or truth vs. falsehood.


If there is no evidence for gods, then there is no reason to believe in them. If there is evidence for them, it should be presented.

Understanding how the universe operates would say a lot about a proposed entity that created it.

So...you gave your God when you gave up religion?....pity.

Religion can be surrendered, and God retained.
If it was the religion you could not reconcile...fine.
No need to go off the 'deep end'.

As for evidence that God does exist?....
Look in the mirror....and consider what looks back.
Accident?.....really?
So much detail...so much science....and no belief?

 

[Penumbra]

So...you gave your God when you gave up religion?....pity.

Religion can be surrendered, and God retained.
If it was the religion you could not reconcile...fine.
No need to go off the 'deep end'.

No, it was god that I could not reconcile, along with every other aspect of religion.

As for evidence that God does exist?....
Look in the mirror....and consider what looks back.
Accident?.....really?
So much detail...so much science....and no belief?

With your time spent on this forum, I'm sure you've seen the response before.

If it's argued that complexity could not have come from something simple, then people that make such a claim have to explain how something as complex as God came about. And any argument that they put forth for god typically works as well or better for the universe.

 

[Thief]

No, it was god that I could not reconcile, along with every other aspect of religion.

You are at liberty to change the terms of your belief.
Obviously...you've drawn a line...and God cannot cross it.
You have to remove the line.

With your time spent on this forum, I'm sure you've seen the response before.

If it's argued that complexity could not have come from something simple, then people that make such a claim have to explain how something as complex as God came about. And any argument that they put forth for god typically works as well or better for the universe.

Complexity can come from something simple.

The numbers you love so much would be one example of that.

Your chemistry is another example.
It just took a lot of evolution to 'gel' the form.

God set it into motion.....it just took this long to get here.

 

[outhouse]

God set it into motion.....it just took this long to get here.

anything more then opinion to back that up????

 

[Shadow Wolf]

anything more then opinion to back that up????

But saying "God put the universe into motion" cannot be disproven. I tend to think given the violent nature of the universe, it is plausible the "creator" is a delinquent teen who set up his high school chemistry project to yield violent results, complete with many explosions. Really we don't even know what is outside of this universe, if anything, so as of now it's anyone's guess.

 

[Penumbra]

Complexity can come from something simple.

The numbers you love so much would be one example of that.

Your chemistry is another example.
It just took a lot of evolution to 'gel' the form.

God set it into motion.....it just took this long to get here.

Where did god come from? Who created him?

If you argue that god has always existed, or came from nothing, the same could be argued for the universe (and the universe is simpler than a god). To say that the universe is like a complex clock, and had to have been created by a powerful being, but then arguing that this powerful being (which is even more complex than the clock it supposedly made) doesn't need an explanation, is a rather poor argument.

Putting god into the model doesn't answer anything, and actually adds more questions.

But saying "God put the universe into motion" cannot be disproven. I tend to think given the violent nature of the universe, it is plausible the "creator" is a delinquent teen who set up his high school chemistry project to yield violent results, complete with many explosions. Really we don't even know what is outside of this universe, if anything, so as of now it's anyone's guess.

Yes, but it doesn't make sense to take a guess and turn it into an argument. I could guess that faeries created the universe, but it would be ridiculous for me to say I believe it.

It's important to just stick to what is known and to look for more information.

 

[Thief]

Where did god come from? Who created him?

If you argue that god has always existed, or came from nothing, the same could be argued for the universe (and the universe is simpler than a god). To say that the universe is like a complex clock, and had to have been created by a powerful being, but then arguing that this powerful being (which is even more complex than the clock it supposedly made) doesn't need an explanation, is a rather poor argument.

Putting god into the model doesn't answer anything, and actually adds more questions.


Yes, but it doesn't make sense to take a guess and turn it into an argument. I could guess that faeries created the universe, but it would be ridiculous for me to say I believe it.

It's important to just stick to what is known and to look for more information.

Something had to be first.
That's the paradox your argument can't deal with.

At some 'point'....everything disappears.
All movement...all light...all sound....
The void.

Your equations can't follow.....your lab experiments are useless.

And yet....here we are.

You want to insist you are an accident of chemistry?....and there is no God?....really?

Cause and effect doesn't always contain reason.
Ask any artist.

 

[Penumbra]

Something had to be first.
That's the paradox your argument can't deal with.

Sure it can deal with it. Mainly because it simply points out the irrationality of assuming the necessity of god in the system.

If god neither answers any questions, and even adds more questions, then it isn't really playing a useful role.

At some 'point'....everything disappears.
All movement...all light...all sound....
The void.

Your equations can't follow.....your lab experiments are useless.

And yet....here we are.

You want to insist you are an accident of chemistry?....and there is no God?....really?

Cause and effect doesn't always contain reason.
Ask any artist.

You've completely avoided the problem. If this universe is complex and needs a creator, who created the complex creator? A complex creator just adds another layer, so there's no reason to claim it's necessary.

Getting a god involved doesn't provide any answers.