It all started a couple days ago, when a teacher casually asked us whether we believe in ghosts.
"No'', I replied, ''otherwise the atmosphere would've been filled with ghosts of dinosaurs, trilobites, ants and cats.''
''I believe only humans have souls.'' said another guy.
The guy--let's call him Sean--was a friend of mine. We've met for a few weeks and we both love music. However, I'm not a fan of the ''humans are special'' thinking, so I had to counter his statement.
Me: Why do you believe only humans have souls?
Sean: So you think there's no different between humans and animals?
Me: Well...there isn't, since all life on Earth are related.
Sean: But humans have special capabilities, like speech!
Me: There are many ways animals communicate with each other. Speech happens to be how humans do it.
(And then the teacher intervened.)
Teacher: So what are your religious beliefs? I'm Buddhist, by the way.
Me: Atheist.
Sean: Christian.
Teacher: Cool. See ya! (leaves the room)
(The teacher probably didn't want to get involved in a debate, I guess.)
Sean: So you don't believe in God, huh?
Me: Yeah.
Sean: Why?
Me: Because there's no evidence.
Sean: So you just don't believe anything that you can't see?
Me: Uh...yeah, but it depends on what you mean by ''seeing''.
Sean: How do you think the universe came to be?
Me: The Big Bang, of course.
Sean: But you can't see the Big Bang.
Me: Neither can I see bacteria or atoms, which are real things.
Sean: But the Big Bang took place way before humans existed! So how can you be sure that the Big Bang was real?
Me: By your logic, a policeman shouldn't investigate anything that took place prior his birth!
Sean: So how did the Big Bang happen in the first place?
Me: Scientists don't know yet. But they're working on it, trying to find out the answer. They don't make up explanations and pretend to know the answer, like how religion does.
Sean: But look at how complex life and the universe are! It couldn't just...happen! It needs a Creator.
Me: Who or what created the Creator?
Sean: The Creator exists beyond past and future. It doesn't need to be created.
Me: I'm afraid that's an unfalsifiable claim. Ever heard of ''Russell's teapot''? It goes like this: I can claim there's a teapot between the orbit of Earth and Mars, and if you can't disprove that, my claim would be correct. See anything wrong?
Sean: How can you compare God with a teapot?
Me:............Okay, here's another example--Carl Sagan had a famous ''dragon in my garage'' analogy. I say there's a dragon in my garage. 'Where is it?' you ask. I say it's invisible so you can't see it. 'How about we spread flour on the floor to capture it's footprints?' you say. 'it won't work,' I say, 'because the dragon floats in the air.' You say you'll spray-paint the dragon to make it visible. I say it won't work because the dragon is incorporeal. Now, Sean...what's the difference between an invisible, floating dragon and no dragon at all?
Sean: How can you compare God with a dragon? Do you seriously not tell the different?
Me:............Again, I was talking about unfalsifiability, not dragon superpowers! Urghhhh...okay, listen to this: when the concept of God was first invented, God lived in a cave. When people realized it doesn't, they say 'so God lives in the mountains'. Then they climbed the mountains and say 'so God lives in the skies'. Now we've conquered space and they say 'so God lives beyond space and time'. You see what I mean, right?
Sean: But life would be meaningless without an afterlife, don't you think?
Me:......Well, I don't care if there were an afterlife. I care about making my present life the best it can be.
Sean: Then how do you explain why some people feel confused and misguided in their lives, leading to self-doubt and suicide?
Me: What does that have to do with God? You gotta learn to take control of your own life. I had my times in the suicidal abyss too.
Sean: And what about miracles? Some cancer patients recovered just before the brink of death. People with broken legs sometimes recover miraculously, too. How do you explain that?
Me: Those instances don't happen everyday, but they certainly don't break the laws of physics.
Sean: Okay, class is about to start...I'll send you a link for you to read.
Me: Sure. I'll send you something too despite you being a hopeless case.
(Leaving awkwardly)
So, anyway...I got home and clicked on the link Sean sent me. It was an article from a religious website, and it was the stupidest thing I have ever seen in my entire life.
To sum up the article he gave me, well…I swear…it LITERALLY states that:
1. Atheism and Evolution are immoral and will lead to the demise of humanity.
2. Evidence for God is not required because God is undetectable.
3. You can't disprove God.
4. Flying saucers are real and they come from another dimension.
5. Some Japanese soldiers during WWII failed to demolish a temple. Miracle!
6. There are people around the world with super powers. Miracle!
7. The same side of the Moon always face the Earth. Miracle!
8. Earth is in the habitable zone of the Sun. Miracle!
9. The Sun undergoes nuclear fusion. Miracle!
10. Near-death experiences are evidence for an afterlife.
11. Paranormal events are evidence for ghosts.
12. Many scientists believed in God, including Einstein and Newton.
13. Atheism is the reason why Chinese people are rude.
(Here’s the link by the way: http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/17/7/19/n9430518.htm. I know it’s not in English, but you can use google translate. Trust me, it didn't change much.)
Cringing all the way through, I couldn't believe that any author could be this stupid. I send him several wikipedia pages about logical fallacies, and he replied:
''God has nothing to do with logic and rationality. It's about personal experience!''
That dispelled all my further thoughts to save him from his insanity. I've had decided to end the conversation by not replying.
I've seen creationists failing miserably at trying to use logic. But I've had never met someone who boldly claimed that ''logic ain't required''!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I don't believe Einstein was a theist. He use the word "god" metaphorically. I believe he is once reported to have said something along the lines of "I could never subscribe to a system of beliefs that required me to check my brain at the door."
Indeed! That article took a bunch of Einstein quotes out of context, making it seem as if Einstein disproved atheism.
Well he followed a very predictable path in religious apologetics, lining up logical fallacies one after the other. Your answers exposed these as well, sadly you can't force people to think logically or rationally, especially after a lifetime of religious indoctrination.
"''God has nothing to do with logic and rationality. It's about personal experience!''
That was the only claim he made that I can agree with, and personal experience of a deity is no more valid than sailors claiming they were rescued by mermaids, or people claiming they abducted onto spaceships in the dead of night by aliens. Sadly theists and apologists think they have absolute truth, so why would they need logic. They're also irony impaired.
Indeed. Sadly he apparently thought it was a powerful claim to say.
Equally sadly I doubt you can make him understand why lining up logical fallacies is not only not compelling argument, but that it means no assertion can be rationally true if it contains logical fallacies. Religion is very cleverly constructed, it wouldn't survive otherwise, and we are predisposed to be superstitious and irrational. Methods like science and logic with complex and strict methods and principles of validations are counter intuitive, we never have needed to create them otherwise, as the truth of claims would have been self evident to ancient humans, leafing through the bible of the koran shows us this was not the case.
Don't give up though, it's a useful exercise for you to examine why you think things are true or not, and test them against claims by those who think otherwise.
Totally agree. Occasionally a deep echo-y voice still pops up in the bronze-age part of my brain, saying ''do you really want eternal damnation?!'' or something. Religion really is toxic...
Many theist amazing ability to deny fact and the obvious to this day astounds me. I could sort of see someone being a theist that did not think about what a theist is too much, (which seems like the majority of theist in my experience,) and those type of theist can claim there is a god basically on their ignorance. But there
Do be careful though, the big bang is an explanation of what happened "right after" singularity, the big bang explains the expansion of the universe and current physics/laws that everything abides by, but it does not explain how everything came to be. That remains unknown, and may well be unknowable, or quite possibly there always was "something." in an endless cycle. Who knows. Of course many theist love to enter their "god of the gaps" there.
Truly, religious apologist have painted themselves in a corner and are now grasping at invisible, and completely undetectable "proof" to claim their god is real in this day and age of readily available knowledge. They do not even realize, that: to anyone not wearing their rose tinted glasses, they look like a 5 year old trying to prove they did not steal their siblings toy fire truck while holding said fire truck behind their back to the adult that can clearly see them holding the fire truck behind their back from their height.
Amusingly, some theists even gave up ''god of the gaps'' and just said God created science.
That's a logical fallacy as well, next time you hear a theist use it, tell them to look up a "begging the question fallacy". It's where an argument uses the thing it's arguing for in the actual argument. Religious apologists do this all the time, even those that claim to be professional philosophers like William Lane Craig.
We know science exists, we know humans exist, adding god without evidence denies two epistemological razors, Occam's and Hitchens's.
Tell them to look those up as well, they're sound epistemological methods for denying the validity of his claim.
Then stand back and wait for him to either deny logic is relevant or claim that god created logic, without a hint of irony.
Just recalled something else about my debate with that guy.
I told him that the origin of the universe can be better explained by quantum mechanics than god. He asked ''then who created quantum mechanics''. I answered ''the law of physics doesn't require god'', but damn...could've just said he was begging the question.
@How do you think the universe came to be?
First mistake: "Big Bang" is not a theory of cosmology. The Big Bang is a theory of the expansion of the universe. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. The Big Bang, by the way is about as much a fact as Evolution. Everything we know about the universe supports is. HOW THE UNIVERSE came to be is a mystery. We don't know and Religions don't know.
This is a typical Christian response to any and all inquiries about their belief system.. One thing you can do differently is REFUSE to allow them to change topics. This guy is bouncing around all over the place and you are following him and attempting to debunk every twist and turn he makes. Keep him on one argument until he admits defeat. Tell him he is changing topics when he tries to shift away from one.
@Why do you believe humans have souls?
So you think there is no difference between humans and animals?
I didn't say that. I asked you why you thought humans have souls.
Humans have special capabilities like speech.
So, speech is a soul? Whales, Dolphins, Chimpanzees and many other animals have speech too?
So you don't believe in a God huh?
I'm sorry? Are you trying to change the topic. Weren't we talking about souls? Why don't we finish discussing souls before we move on to God? You just told me that speech was a soul.
HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE. DO NOT LET THEM SQUIRM AWAY FROM THE TOPIC AT HAND.
Thanks for pointing out! I'll try that next time. I've always hated it when people bounce around the topics.
Rushing or Dragging,
"Sean: But life would be meaningless without an afterlife, don't you think?"
You may want to ask Sean why he would want to exist forever and what does he think he will doing during all of that time.
Hmm...bet it'll be a tricky question for him.
Hey, Rushing! This may be just a tad off topic, but here's a little discussion you could have with "Sean" just for shits and giggles whenever you get a chance:
IF (hypothetically) God/Heaven and Satan/Hell are real, then it is understood (at least the way I was taught as a kid) that God rules over heaven, and Satan has dominion over hell, right?
So, God is "good" and does good in the world for all of his adorable pets he loves so dearly. And "good" people go to heaven to be rewarded for doing the good things God wants done. Pretty standard belief by most so far.
Along that same line, Satan is supposedly "evil", and he supposedly is the culprit running amok doing all the "evil" things in the world. And all the "evil" people go to hell to be punished by Satan for doing the "evil" things Satan wants done. (See where I'm going with this? *chuckle*)
So that begs the question (if you haven't figured it out already), "Why would the 'evil' people be PUNISHED in hell for doing all the 'evil' things Satan wanted done in the first place?" Seems to me they would be REWARDED by Satan instead. Matter of fact, in that respect, hell could possibly end up being more fun than heaven. LOL
Again, just a little something to screw with his brain should you ever get the chance. *grin*
Hahaha I've had been thinking about exactly the same thing too :)
Theists might argue that Satan is a metaphor and God rules both heaven and hell. Then why does God let evil things happen, now without Satan as an excuse? Oh yeah...it works in mysterious ways, so...
The idea that people who go to hell are punished by Satan is unBiblical. Also people don't go to heaven because they have done good things, salvation is through believing in Jesus Christ and being baptised not through works. Going to heaven is the reward of faith.
Let me get this straight--according to your statements, then--
1. A Christian, no matter how badly-behaved, goes to heaven. A non-Christian, no matter how well-behaved, goes to hell (by behaving I mean in a societal sense).
2. God is neither good nor evil, since good deeds are not of his concern.
3. God is a troll, because he expects people to believe in his existence while not providing hard evidence.
Feel free to point out mistakes.
Zevix,
"salvation is through believing in Jesus Christ and being baptised not through works. Going to heaven is the reward of faith."
According to the biblical fairy tale no one goes to heaven. They go to the gaudy bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem.
In Matthew 19:28-29 when Yeshua is telling his Apostles how they will be rewarded for following him he based their reward upon their works, not upon their faith.
In Revelation 20:12 when the dead are judged it is by their works, not by their faith.
Revelation 20:19 (KJV) = "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
According to the fairy tale Yahweh has evil angels who do his dirty work. So if the angels are doing the evil things what evil is left for Satan to do?
Psalm 78:48-50 (KJV) = "48 He gave up their cattle also to the hail, and their flocks to hot thunderbolts.
49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.
50 He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence;"
@Dio
So, how does one go about getting the job of an evil angel? Sounds like a pretty good gig. Wonder what the employee benefits are?
Tin-Man,
"So, how does one go about getting the job of an evil angel? Sounds like a pretty good gig. Wonder what the employee benefits are?"
You read about them every day. They are the criminals. The benefits include death or prison sentences. There's a technical difference between evil angels and demons. Someone could write a whole fairy tale about it. Sure, evil angels commit all kinds of mayhem but their actions are sanctioned by Yahweh. Demons don't do too much damage. They just inhabit some people and pigs. The Pope has a squad that takes care of demons. Those evil angels are some real pesks.
@Tin-Man: Unfortunately, you are too moral for the position; however, there is a loophole. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost will get you there. The one unforgivable sin. Do it once and you are practically guaranteed a job as an evil angel. That's because God is mysterious.
@Cog Re: "@Tin-Man: Unfortunately, you are too moral for the position..."
What-huh?.... Whoa-whoa-whoa! Hold on a sec.... I'm too moral???... Hey, not cool. What no-good rat-faced dirty-rotten so-n-so told you I have good morals? Dammit, I'm an ATHEIST! How the hell do I have good morals?
Wait.... Would it have anything to do with that one time I helped that little old lady across the street? Okay, look, in my defense, I was drunk at the time. But - hey - when I realized I had done a good deed, I at least smacked her on the ass as she walked away. Although, I think that actually backfired on me, because she just turned around, smiled, and winked at me. Woke up the next morning in a cheap motel smelling like Ben Gay with what appeared to be Denture Cream on me in strange places. *shudder*
Anyway, my point is, it just ain't fair. Bust my ass my whole life trying to be a deplorable scumbag, but then commit just ONE good deed and suddenly I'm a Pillar of Morality. Shit just ain't right. *shaking head sadly*
I know people often say they spit out their coffee reading a post, but in this case, I'm really glad I was not drinking coffee when I read:
"Woke up the next morning in a cheap motel smelling like Ben Gay with what appeared to be Denture Cream on me in strange places."
because I actually would have splayed it against the wall. Anyway, glad you and she had such a rip-roarin' time.
Interesting debate. I had a hard time trying to figure out where your friend was going with his questions, they seemed to bounce around a lot and didn't really bring up much of a defense for his faith.
Unfortunately most Christians are like this. I am also a Christian but freely admit there is no verifiable proof to prove there is a God. Just like there is no verifiable proof to prove there is not one. I personally believe in God because I believe there is such an intelligent design and order to the universe that I would say it is more probable that it indicates an intelligent creator more so then an accident that brought order from chaos in every aspect of the world in such an intelligent way that we are still just scratching the surface of the depth of it all.
Also like others have said the big bang does not prove there is a God but what it does do is provide us with enough feasible evidence to believe that the universe had a beginning. With that we know that time, matter and space were the Effect of whatever caused the big bang but leaves us wondering what the cause could be. All that we know that could be left is nothingness. But nothing cannot create something. Therefore it is only reasonable to believe whatever caused the universe to begin must be:
- Spaceless
- timeless
-immaterial
But science can not help us discover things in those categories so we are left in the dark from here. I believe these to be attributes of God not because there is proof but because all evidence we have continues to point to it being a more logical conclusion in my mind.
As for Christianity itself? Historians of all kinds acknowledge Jesus was a real person but that does not prove that Christianity is true on its own. Christianity requires Jesus to have risen from the dead to be true. This is something I also believe has enough evidence to put ones trust into. In order to not take up too much space I will just leave a link of someone who has already laid it out quite well:
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurre...
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 NASB
Titus,
"Unfortunately most Christians are like this. I am also a Christian but freely admit there is no verifiable proof to prove there is a God. Just like there is no verifiable proof to prove there is not one. "
According to the biblical fairy tale people love to worship gods they just don't believe in gods. Noah spoke to Yahweh and built a boat and went on a year-long cruise with the animals and his immediate family. By the time he had grandkids they were worshiping idols because the grandkids didn't believe Noah and his sons.
When Moses was wrangling the Israelites around Egypt and the desert they supposedly witnessed all kinds of miracles with their own beady little eyes. Within two minutes they were worshiping idols.
Yeshua supposedly did all kinds of miracles but whole towns thought he was full of BS and rejected him. So the people who should have been convinced that the God character was real based on their interaction with family members who had first hand experience with the God character rejected him. And people who supposedly experienced godly miracles first hand were not impressed by any of it. Yet today countless people claim to believe in such a character without any evidence whatsoever. Isn't that insane?
@ Titus
"As for Christianity itself? Historians of all kinds acknowledge Jesus was a real person but that does not prove that Christianity is true on its own."
There is no evidence for a Jesus as described in the synoptic gospels being a real person. None. If you have some then share. That some historians are christians who believe that Jesus was a person then say so. But there is no evidence for the claim.NONE.
" Christianity requires Jesus to have risen from the dead to be true. This is something I also believe has enough evidence to put ones trust into"
Again if you have evidence for this extraordinary claim then please share. I can find no contemporary evidence at all .
(edited for brevity)
As far as an agreed general consensus of Jesus of Nazareth being a real person which is what I stated in my original comment I can point you to wiki:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
You will find this there:
"Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain"
"While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed"
There are plenty of sources you can look up or read about why there is very little doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Most do not debate this but will bring up questions about what he taught, did, or his resurrection.
As far as his ressurection you can go back to my original comment to find the link I provided there and the context of why I provided it.
I hope this answers your questions.
@ Titus
"Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain"
Ok, just to please you, let us accept the historicity ( without a shred of actual contemporary evidence) of an itinerant Rabbi who wandered around Galilee preaching, Lets assume he had some magic parlour tricks. Let's assume he had a few followers.
That is it. A probability. There were many of those in 1st century Judea and the middle east. Many were mentioned by contemporary writers and historians. This Jesus of yours never was, not once.
Then we have to look at your next comment about resurrection.
Again not a shred, jot or tittle of contemporary evidence at all. No one recorded any unusual phenomena, no one thought that the sight of several hundred Jewish zombies wandering around Jerusalem, preaching, was worth even a cursive line to Rome. No one reported an eclipse, booming voices, nothing, nada zilch. Silence.
So using the same "balance of probabilities " argument you use in your first paragraph then the resurrection probably did not happen as described.
The 'probability' that a man called jesus existed in the 1st century and annoyed the authorities enough to be punished is one thing.
That he is divine, and the son of a god born of a virgin is an extraordinary claim and cannot be assumed to be true from mere probability of one man's existence. They are separate. It is a fallacy to draw the second conclusion even if the first probability was proven beyond doubt.
Please do not assume my stance, I am not a "Jesus Mythicist" which is just a label made up by believers to conveniently package those who demand some intellectual rigour regarding these tales you so ardently believe,
I think that the existence of a Jesus character as an itinerant Pharisee and teacher is a distinct possibility, but there is no contemporary evidence to confirm that conclusion.
A verdict of "not proven"
That a Jewish Pharisee teacher would be the son of god born of a virgin, crucified and resurrected to sit on an unprovable god's right hand: that's pure hokum.
Not only is there no contemporary evidence at all for this extraordinary claim, there is ample evidence that the later stories surrounding this claim were edited, added to, re edited, interpolated into older, unrelated stories and generally fraudulent. That is the balance of probability for those events.
Verdict: Untrue/did not happen as described.
I hope this answers your questions.
(Edited for grammar and "non" removed)
Pages