Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[Guy Threepwood]

In all these years debating with religious people I ve never been faced with an argument that I ended up to find challenging or hard to dismantle. They go from the clever ones to nonsense one ( like "cause I feel it in my heart" ) to the most stupid and elementary ones ( like the classic "what if you're wrong" ) but in the end they always can be rejected by use of reason and logic (even if they usually find unsatisfactory those answers cause they dont praise reason and logic ). Maybe I ve been unlucky and found only weak debaters. So my question is both to religious and not religious people

To non believers I ask, Have you ever faced an argument that really represented a challenge for you or that you weren't able to dismantle?

To believers I ask, is there an argument that you think you can present and that no unbeliever has ever been able to provide a good answer to? ( assuming it wasn't only because you would reject every possible explanation going against your faith, like for example creationists rejecting all the arguments against Noah s ark )

It's always easier to scrutinize others' beliefs rather than your own.
Theism or atheism, there is no proof either way. So ask yourself what you feel is the best argument for atheism, scrutinize that and compare the two- In doing so most conclude that chance does not adequately account for the world we see around us. But either way we all believe something. As long as we acknowledge that we are open to examining our beliefs. Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself, and so can never be questioned.

 

[outhouse]

The very notion of an observer and an intelligible universe implies and presupposes a unifying principle that transcends yet includes both the observer and the observed

Malarky my new friend. That is nothing but a bunch of 7 dollar words strung together so that you can put ranch dressing on and call word salad.

No such thing as a intelligible universe.

By any other name or howsoever dressed, that “principle” is what human beings call “God.”

False again.

No mythology or theology describes the concept as such. Your are requiring leaps of imagination.

In other words, you cannot employ reason without invoking God.

You cannot employ mythology and call it reason. A person well educated on philosophy cab argue forever and ever. And never once provide a decent credible conclusion.


I deal with history, what is known with many degrees of certainty and plausibility. Men create gods, they always have and very well may continue to do so.

Only men factually defines these concepts that have mythological origins.

And the more you study, the more mythology you will factually uncover.


I would suggest a study in the evolution of Canaanite mythology if you would like to understand how the abrahamic god concept was defined.

 

[outhouse]

Theism or atheism, there is no proof either way

Factually false.

Theism is factually founded in ancient mythology.

 

[Reflex]

Malarky my new friend. That is nothing but a bunch of 7 dollar words strung together so that you can put ranch dressing on and call word salad.

No such thing as a intelligible universe.

False again.

No mythology or theology describes the concept as such. Your are requiring leaps of imagination.

You cannot employ mythology and call it reason. A person well educated on philosophy cab argue forever and ever. And never once provide a decent credible conclusion.

I deal with history, what is known with many degrees of certainty and plausibility. Men create gods, they always have and very well may continue to do so.

Only men factually defines these concepts that have mythological origins.

And the more you study, the more mythology you will factually uncover.

I would suggest a study in the evolution of Canaanite mythology if you would like to understand how the abrahamic god concept was defined.

Which brings me back to my first post in this thread: "Oh, for heaven's sake. Of course atheists believe there is no argument that can stand up to reasoned scrutiny. That's because the arguments they encounter are either puerile or beyond their ability to grasp."

 

[outhouse]

Which brings me back to my first post in this thread: "Oh, for heaven's sake. Of course atheists believe there is no argument that can stand up to reasoned scrutiny. That's because the arguments they encounter are either puerile or beyond their ability to grasp."

That is not an "ability" to grasp.

One cannot grasp personal imagination and fantasy.

You have brought no concept I cannot grasp. I would say can you grasp historical reality theist often refuse from bias and lack of education.

A philosophy class will not educate you enough to debate religion, nor will theological training. Both are small aspects required to determine what biblical history is and can be.

 

[Reflex]

That is not an "ability" to grasp.

One cannot grasp personal imagination and fantasy.

You have brought no concept I cannot grasp. I would say can you grasp historical reality theist often refuse from bias and lack of education.

A philosophy class will not educate you enough to debate religion, nor will theological training. Both are small aspects required to determine what biblical history is and can be.

What do Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens (to name a few) and Outhouse have in common?

 

[cambridge79]

It's always easier to scrutinize others' beliefs rather than your own.
Theism or atheism, there is no proof either way. So ask yourself what you feel is the best argument for atheism, scrutinize that and compare the two- In doing so most conclude that chance does not adequately account for the world we see around us. But either way we all believe something. As long as we acknowledge that we are open to examining our beliefs. Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself, and so can never be questioned.

Well the chance that any of the gods presented by religions are unlikely to exists is pretty much high.
Actually I can prove with no possible counter argument that at least all but one of the gods presented by religions dont exist.

Now if you put them aside we re left with just a vague concept of god. Can i prove that some sort of supernatural being doesn't exists somewhere in the universe or outside it? Of course I can't. But facing the fact that i have no chance to know anything about this being that may or may not possibly exist I can live my life simply not caring, just like my life isn't affected by the fact that an alien lives or not on a planet a million light years away.

 

[outhouse]

What do Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens (to name a few) and Outhouse have in common?

You don't know me yet

so non sequitur

But I will tell you, not one has the biblical education I do

 

[Theunis]

......

1 - if god wasn't explicitly forbidding you to kill people would you go around killing whoever you feel to kill, only cause no supreme being is gonna punish you? If the answer is yes, you're a vile and evil person. If the answer is no, the commandment itself is useless.

2 - you really think in the world before the 10 commandments everyone was doing what they pleased? So how do you think egiptians for example handled thieves and murderers? do you think they weren't punished in those civilization that predates the 10 commandments? how do you think it was even possible to build civilizations if that was the case?

3 - the whole part of the exodus where the commandments are presented is just a copy&paste of laws already in place in other civilizations. Ever heard the code of Hammurabi? it predates the 10 commandments by centuries. Do you think God tought that the jews were so dumb and stupid that they needed to be given by god himself rules that people had come up by themselves centuries before in other civilizations?
It's like if in today's time god open the sky and gives his prophet the gift of electricity, two centuries after the world have come to it by its own.

4 - do you realize that after the ten commandments, just a couple of pages after, god gives other commandments telling the Jews how to deal with slaves? telling them they could be hit, and sold for example? Do you personally feel entitled to own slaves and beat them since God himself allow you to do that?

please tell me your faith is not all based on this poor kind of arguments

May I throw in my pennies worth as per my views, observations and opinion ?
The point is that people regard the "Ten Commandments" as commands where as in fact they were merely meant to be guidelines to a better life.

1. There were two Americans who did so pointing to the fact that if there were no laws forbidding it people would do as they pleased. Yes there were existing American Laws but they felt they could do whatever pleased them and murder was still their free choice.
When Moshe introduced those Laws it would appear as if they were necessary and their aims was in all probability was to curb the barbaric ways of life by many of the somewhat primitive Jews of those times.

2. Those commandments - Seen as the Laws of Moses - were specific to the Jews and their then present way of life and guidelines to a somewhat better life. Yet - No Law are perfect.

3. When looking at King Hammurabi we find that "a God" also gave him scrolls, much more comprehensive than the ten commandments. It is also said that when Moshe came down the mountain with writings similar, or maybe the same as those of King Hammurabi, him on seeing the idols that had returned, withing the month he was away on the mountain, he saw the "Jews" were not ready for those comprehensive teachings, destroyed those tablets and went back up the mountain to get a simplified version.

4. Slavery was universal and a way of life. The Jews were apparently treating their's badly and the Jewish Laws concerning them would appear to be an effort to change this, to treat them humanely and set them free after a certain time of service. Even until this day we find indentured slaves. Look at Islam and not so long ago when the British brought sugar cane workers from India to work their (the British) sugar cane farms in Natal.

Yes some comments anger us to the point that we must ask pertinent questions.

 

[Reflex]

I've read books espousing atheism written by former evangelicals who undoubtedly know more about the bible than you ever will, and guess what? They are theological morons who who have all the intellectual/spiritual depth of a dehydrated sponge.

So, don't expect me to be impressed by your assertions, outhouse

 

[outhouse]

I've read books espousing atheism written by former evangelicals

Well that says it all then X apologist writing on atheism

who undoubtedly know more about the bible than you ever will, and guess what?

Malarky,,, you have a bad habit of talking about things you know nothing about.

So, don't expect me to be impressed by your assertions, outhouse

Ill prove my worth over time, if you make it that long.

 

[outhouse]

I would really like something worthwhile from you, I love a challenge and you let me down

 

[Theunis]

Dust is a general term in which many types of materials form it, some which are not found in the human body at all and are toxic to us. You are equivocating a general term as if was a specific which is just post hoc rationalization. It is no better than me says QM is made of "stuff" then have an actually physicist discover what QM is made of just to have me inject my unspecific "stuff" is really the specific the physicist discovered. Also I can argue that since the human body decomposes letting people to assume that since we appear to become dust after death that we are made of dust.

No as Mo's stance is against objective conclusion with a subjective opinion, namely evolution. Followed by tinfoil hat rants about "science".

You missed the point me - saying he used the dust of the earth was merely indicating an existing element of earth and not to dust being the actual element.

I think the dust of earth is allegoric and may also indicate, in the greater scheme of things, the insignificance of much of the things found on this mud-ball, situated on the outskirts of the Universe, that we live on.

Hmm maybe you should look at the writings concerning the Annunaki, It is said they did some gene splicing from their own DNA onto the DNA of earth creatures and in doing so created the first man and woman not as "mules" but capable of reproduction.

 

[Reflex]

Well that says it all then X apologist writing on atheism



Malarky,,, you have a bad habit of talking about things you know nothing about.



Ill prove my worth over time, if you make it that long.

You already proved your worth with your inability to grasp something as elementary as the implication of the subject/object dichotomy.

 

[outhouse]

dichotomy.

You don't have a clue what your debating do you?

Your great at personally attacking others. Not so much on anything of value though.

I would really like something worthwhile from you, I love a challenge and you let me down

 

[Theunis]

Factually false.

Theism is factually founded in ancient mythology.

Really? How so why it is said mythology is mere fairy tale and cannot be proved?
Atheism is then also based on an illusion.

Have your felt the spirit move?
Now let us see - "Which way the wind blows, no one knows, but as you look upward you plainly can see from which way it comes to which way it goes"
A simile (?) from old thoughts -You cannot see the air, taste it, eat it nor have sex with it so in the thoughts of an atheist of old who knew no better, it should/does not exist.
I stood there in silence contemplating the world and the Universe and thought how nice it would be for rain to fall as succour for the flora and fauna, the birds and the bees and animals. I asked without words for it to be and Suddenly it was like there was champagne bubbles in my veins, ripples passing over my body and the song of the universe embraced me; The next day against all weather signs, it rained.

 

[outhouse]

Really?

Yes.


The abrahamic deity is a compilation of two deities, redacted after monotheistic reforms of King Josiah.

Both of these deities have Canaanite heritage

How so why it is said mythology is mere fairy tale and cannot be proved?

Mythology can be proved to be mythology. In many cases we know certain biblical characters are literary creations.

Atheism is then also based on an illusion.

Factually false.

One does not have to reject your theism to be an atheist

Have your felt the spirit move?

They don't scientifically exist, but thanks for playing.

They area also born in mythology.

 

[Reflex]

Yes.


The abrahamic deity is a compilation of two deities, redacted after monotheistic reforms of King Josiah.

Both of these deities have Canaanite heritage



Mythology can be proved to be mythology. In many cases we know certain biblical characters are literary creations.



Factually false.

One does not have to reject your theism to be an atheist



They don't scientifically exist, but thanks for playing.

They area also born in mythology.

You seem to specialize in irrelevancies, outhouse. Why not try reading something written by a theologian, something like Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart?

 

[Theunis]

Yes.


The abrahamic deity is a compilation of two deities, redacted after monotheistic reforms of King Josiah.

Both of these deities have Canaanite heritage
Mythology can be proved to be mythology. In many cases we know certain biblical characters are literary creations.

Factually false.

One does not have to reject your theism to be an atheist
They don't scientifically exist, but thanks for playing.

They area also born in mythology.

My theism ? Let me repeat what I have previously said -
1. I have no affiliation with any religion or non-religions
2. I embrace the Universe.
3. I am not here to cut the anchor points of anyone. (To do so is to set them adrift in a stormy ocean of no hope and despair)

Abraham's god seen from other viewpoints could be an alien or one of the "gods" of old. (Zeus, Odin, The leader of the Annunaki etc)
Then again "fathered" Jesus so it seems that your theory falls flat.

Hmm so you say mythology can be proven as mythology - So go ahead and prove it.
It is on record that it could be a reference to things that may have existed but because of the passage of time it cannot at this stage be proved to be true or not.

So what do you consider as factually true? Your own thoughts and opinions?
By rejecting their god you reject their beliefs and in the process you reject them because they, their beliefs and their god are one !
But I can reject your belief that there is no god because as I see it Maya obscures your view of reality and when I enter your world I see the light of possible logic and reason flickering as a candle light where you, not knowing all things, to you it shines brightly in that little your puddle that you consider to be the only world of significance; but I see it surrounded by darkness.
So why attack theism if they did not have, according to your opinions, a leg to stand on. Are you from those days of yore one who saw it all?

 

[Theunis]

What is it I am not able to grasp ? What part of religion do you have knowledge of, that I do not?????

I think that you do not wish to grasp the fact that there are many thoughts and sayings in the bible that are still applicable in our times and they, because of this, have stood the test of time.
Your opponent in the matter also appears to be on a path of non-understanding for his reply is based on subjective assumptions. Not that you at times do not suffer from the same malady as he.