I know that it will be almost impossible to convince atheists about the existence of god but theists have reasons also why their belief in god is certain. One of my reasons why I believe is perfection. Disregarding what the bible said and what religion teaches, there are other good reasons to believe in god.
The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas is quite a good explanation as seen here: http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_a...
I also found this interesting article about reasons to believe in god: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
I hope atheists out there will take time to read those links too.
Let us know your view.
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.
Hi Mysticrose, I've had a look at your links and here's my thoughts.
1) What do you mean by perfection? If you mean "things are too perfect for there not to be a God" then you only have to look to nature to see that things very much aren't perfect, even without human influence. More than 99.9% of species that have ever lived have gone extinct, and the only way that happens is by death. The number of creatures that die in the wild every day is a vast number - passing away from old age just doesn't happen. Most animals are mauled by predators or starve to death. The world isn't perfect. It's amazing, but far from perfect.
2) To Aquinas' first, second and third arguments which are pretty much all the same, I post simply "What made God?" I've said this before and I'll say it again, there is no good reason to assume that God is infinite and all-powerful. There is a huge assumption made in all 3 about this. His fourth argument just doesn't make sense. I'm not even sure I've properly understood him because it makes so little sense. If he's saying that there has to be something perfect to compare to how good/hot something is, then no there doesn't. Think about it for a second. His fifth argument is in direct contradiction of evolution, so I'm not even going to get started on that. Evolution exists, ergo fifth argument is wrong.
3) The second link is pretty big on content so I'll try and tackle it briefly. For one, the Earth isn't perfect as I said above. It is able to sustain life, which isn't likely I'll admit. Earth is in a 'Goldilocks zone' where conditions are favourable for life. But as unlikely as that is, when you consider that there are tens, if not hundreds of billions of planets, the chances of at least one planet sustaining life is deceptively high. Also, our distance to the sun varies hugely in our orbit because it's an oval, not a circle, so that part is wrong. Next, we do have evidence for the development of the brain, the eye, and non-living matter into living matter. If you like I can expand on this, but it's quite in-depth so I won't go over it here. Try Googling it. The second argument is another case of "What made God?" and at this point I'd like to state that some scientists actually are beginning to work out how things began. Lawrence Krauss' idea I find compelling. To the third argument I ask, "why does God want to keep things constant? It seems strange that a God could make a Universe with laws that change or where things pop in and out of existence, and yet he has made an ordered Universe." Fourth argument has ignored evolution again, so we'll move on. Fifth argument is just awful. Not all atheists always argue about God - in reality, not that many. Personally, I do so because I believe that religion does quite a lot more harm than good, and holds society back by perpetuating intolerances and reluctance to change their views. And finally, the Bible is untrue. It's a storybook. You can't prove the Bible's truthfulness by quoting the Bible itself - a mistake too often made.
You said it will be almost impossible to convince atheists about the existence of God, and I agree, but I think for different reasons. I think you mean that we are reluctant to change our minds, and in most cases, that's not right. I want to change my mind about everything; as soon as I find enough evidence for something to make it more likely than what I currently believe in, I am all too eager to change my opinion, and that goes for many atheists. You will find it almost impossible to convince them though, because the amount of evidence you would have to show me that God exists is phenomenal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. God is so unlikely to exist that yes, I don't think anyone will successfully change my mind. But all the best luck to anyone who tries, because I really want you to try and prove me wrong.
Like Matty said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There is just so much proof that needs to be delivered in order to convince those who doubt the exitence is this entity that punishes humans in the must injust ways.
Hello Matty Arnold, I'm a christian and by definition, a theist. I really like your attitude towards the theist and atheist debate. I've met more then a few "Angry Atheists" who's only desire is to pummel me into submission. But I have to agree with you on some your points. Thomas Aquinas' arguments aren't all that great. I don't like his 4th or 5th arguments, like you said, but his first three, even though pretty much identical, do make a certain point. The point he proves is that the creation of the universe had to come from something supernatural and eternal. Aquinas made the assumption it was God. But his argument doesn't prove it was God. His argument proves that something eternal, we don't know what, created the universe. With that logic, the flying spaghetti monster could have created the universe. So his argument for the christian God could work for any other theistic religion. But one of your arguments I don't think is very strong. You ask the question "what created God?" This is a confusing argument or point to make. Because even if God was created, an eternal and all-powerful entity had to have created him, and if that eternal entity was created, then something eternal had to create it, and so on and so forth. But that progression couldn't go on infinitely as stated by his arguments. Aquinas' arguments go back to the beginning, when everything started. He logically proved that an eternal entity that existed outside this universe, created the universe at the beginning of time. He thinks its God. So to ask "What created God?" is missing the point of his arguments.
The point i'm trying to make is that there is a placeholder for an eternal entity that exists outside our universe. I think it's perfectly logical to think that God fills that placeholder. It's not an air tight argument but it's what i've come to believe.
On your last point that you made about the bible being a storybook, is completely false. If you don't believe in the spiritual or philosophical truth of the bible, you at least have to recognize the historical validity of the bible. It's the mostly historically preserved book on planet earth. It has no equal in historical and archeological evidence. The Iliad written by homer has 624 manuscript copies in existence. Yet no one bothers to question it's accuracy. The bible has more then 20,000 surviving manuscript copies. And i have seen some of these copies with my own eyes in a museum exhibit. Yet the bible's accuracy is debated all the time. One of the things I always say to atheists is this: "if you want to attack the bible, don't go attack it on historical or archeological grounds, because you run the risk of converting." I've examined the weaknesses of the bible, but they aren't found in history or archeology. I don't have enough knowledge to argue against atheism in the realm of science and evolution, i'll let the creationists handle that one. But hopefully my arguments have made sense and you'll give them some thought.
Yes a lot of atheist have angry feelings, but don't forget all the Christians who have killed in the name of god. Both sides have people who let their feelings get a little carried way.
Disagreement isn't pummeling. And taking out our hob-nailed boots to stop all over your illusions....is for your own good, and your mental health.
As for the historical accuracy of the Bible -- that is the easiest argument to shoot down. Even setting aside the passages in key books such as Genesis and the Gospels which contradict each other, and the obvious scientific lunacy of Genesis, passage after passage in the Bible has been disproved by history: the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians or marched across Sinai or got the commandments there or conquered the Holy Land under Joshua -- all made up. The Romans didn't force Joseph to return to his birthplace for the census, and the holy family didn't flee Israel to avoid Herod's massacre of the innocents because the massacre never happened. Also, the oldest Biblical manuscripts date back to a time when everyone depicted in the book had been dead for centuries.
And by the way, EVERYONE questions the historical accuracy of the Iliad -- it has gods and monsters all over it.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/best-argument-against-... Check this out.
Thanks for the reply Paul :)
Thanks for pointing out the problem with the question "What created God?", though I do maintain that assuming 'if something must be infinite, it must be God' is an unfounded conclusion to come to - in fact, it doesn't even have to be "supernatural" as you say. Could the infinite thing not be the Universe itself? There is no reason to believe that God is the eternal missing piece.
I would have expanded on my rather blasé comment about the Bible some more had my original post not been getting absurdly long, so I'll explain myself here :P The Bible does indeed contain historical accuracy, and indeed historical inaccuracy. There are many internal contradictions in the Bible, as well as many internally agreeing and supporting passages. This is not what I mean when I say it is a storybook. To take a quick example, the James Bond novels are set on Earth, in genuine locations and referencing genuine institutions like MI5 etc. That doesn't mean that the story itself really happened though, and for all the Bible's accuracies, there is no reason other than the Bible itself to believe that the miracles Jesus performed really happened. Personally, I like to entertain the idea that Jesus was the world's first street magician; there's just as much reason to believe that than there is to believe he really performed miracles. The Bible is nothing but anecdotes, and anecdotes don't hold up well under scientific scrutiny.
One final thought: there's no need to argue against evolution simply because you're Christian - take a quick look at the mountains of evidence for it and you'll agree that it's correct ;) I've never heard a Creationist give an argument even approaching being slightly plausible against evolution. Anyone in this day and age denying evolution is - and I don't say this lightly - almost definitely wrong and simply refusing to change their own opinions in the presence of overwhelming evidence.
Yes it is an unfounded assumption to assume that the "infinite thing" is God. I was pointing out that there is a perfectly good spot where God fits in the universe. However, I don't think either of us will ever have proof that he is, or isn't there. And when you say, could the infinite thing be the universe itself? Do you have any evidence to support that the universe is infinite? I recall you saying in another post that you believe the universe had a beginning. I believe the same. I believe this beginning was caused by something outside the universe. It makes sense to me.
And about the bible, I see your point about it being a storybook. Just because the places and people surrounding the events recorded, doesn't mean they happened. This is a very valid point. However, I have to point out that the bible isn't written like a storybook. It's written with witnesses. The first four gospels were written by, or recorded, from people who actually walked and talked with Jesus. They really did witness his miracles, and they really did see him die on a cross and rise again. And the events of the bible are recorded elsewhere. The jewish historian Josephus makes references to john the baptist being beheaded, and jesus dying on a cross. There are outside sources that support REAL events just as the bible said they happened. I have a really large book that expands on the historical evidences for the bible and the person of jesus. If you like, I can expand on that.
But you also say that there are inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the bible. I would really like it if you were to point them out. However, before you do that, in the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins devotes a very small section of his book to the inconsistencies in the bible. So, if you don't mind, i'd like to go through them and explain why they're false or why there are perfectly plausible explanations. And afterwards you can point out the inconsistencies that you found if they're not covered. :)
But if i do go into the historical accuracy of the bible for which REAL events happened and were recorded. It will be a long answer. So i'll only do it if you feel up to reading through it. :P
And i am biased towards evolution. I have to be. If evolution is correct, the bible creation story is wrong and my God is now a liar. By believing evolution I through my entire faith out the window. So I approach evolution cautiously for two reasons.
1) The bible has stood the test of scrutiny and time far longer then evolution has. Biblical christianity has a better track record then evolution does. So when I do get around to looking at the evidence for evolution seriously, which I will, I will do so cautiously.
2) I've been to seminars and workshops in which creationists who have there PhD's in chemistry or biology or physics, argue solid cases against evolution. They do this in the face of the "overwhelming evidence". These guys are incredibly intelligent, they're not stupid or ignorant. They just honestly look at the evidence and think that evolution is false.
Again if you want me to expand on anything please let me know. :)
The Bible has not been getting real scrutiny for 2000 years. For most of that time you could be jailed or executed for even questioing it.
Oh my Zeus,
*(And i am biased towards evolution. I have to be.) - Only because you hold the Bible up as divine, and not a collection of sermons etcetera from fallible preachers no different or more so "inspired" than any other preacher today.
*(If evolution is correct, the bible creation story is wrong and my God is now a liar.) - Yes and no.
The Creation account is incorrect, and if you hold to the inerrant word of God bit, then most definitely yes; God is a liar... and God cannot be a liar therefore God is not real, blah blah blah. (Also no I do not believe using apologetics to reinterpret the passages and force them to fit modern science is the way out of this predicament, the text is the text)...
If you hold the Bible as a collection of sermons and selected tales from men doing the best they could to describe the God the felt to be real and true in human terms to other men and women in a particular area in a particular time, then you can exclude the things proven false or ridiculous etcetera. (Now I am aware this bodes another issue... Where do you get your definition of God? and what should I take away from this dogma? And on and on... Neat thing about faith, you can just "know" and not really worry about this for some time I suppose).
The main point is that accepting evolution is only a "God killer" if your defined faith makes it so... There are, albeit fewer, theist and or Christian evolutionary biologists out and about who are good scientists and good sceptics for all intents and purposes... Read up on Dr. Francis Collins and others.
*(By believing evolution I through my entire faith out the window.) - Again this is solely on you. You only throw your faith out the window because your faith has boxed you into a logical paradox. In essence holding onto your defined faith (as in currently seems to stand) is currently having you throw maths, physics, reason and logic out the window due to an irrational fear.
Oh by Thor (peace be upon he who controls the thunder)... This is the part the really gets me
*(So I approach evolution cautiously for two reasons.) - Always approach science with scrutiny and critical thinking... However you are not really being cautious as much as you are being biased in all likelihood.
Anyway,
1) The bible has stood the test of scrutiny and time far longer then evolution has. Biblical christianity has a better track record then evolution does. So when I do get around to looking at the evidence for evolution seriously, which I will, I will do so cautiously.
- What does time have to do with anything? This makes little to no sense, Ra stood the test of time for many years in Egypt. Zeus stood the test of some time. No one really could effectively question some of these things (or were punished for doing so), the tools were not understood and the scientific developments were lacking or less refined. We can learn far more now far more accurately in far less time than anyone in the ancient past could. And evolution has stood a far longer amount of time than any text (It's been around a while).
- Track record? What in Odin's mighty name are you getting at? The less "biblical" Christianity has become the better the track record has gone... And evolution does not "do" anything to yield a track record.
- Try to stave off confirmation biases and learn by understanding what evolution is and how it actually works. Do not do what Ray disComfort does... actually look at the evidence and why it is evidence... And I am not saying you need to ultimately put God on trial, but your Young Earth Creationist faith yes... most decidedly goes under scrutiny here.
2) I've been to seminars and workshops in which creationists who have there PhD's in chemistry or biology or physics, argue solid cases against evolution. They do this in the face of the "overwhelming evidence". These guys are incredibly intelligent, they're not stupid or ignorant. They just honestly look at the evidence and think that evolution is false.
- No these folks are not very intelligent... And there are precious little of then with actual Ph.D's in chemistry, biology and physics... Many actually hold honorary Ph.D's or have obtained them from suspicious institutions... That said there are many interviews where you can flat out hear that they (creationists with proper degrees) refuse to accept evolution solely due to "the bible says" and not scientific study (e.g., the two nut jobs over at AiG I am aware of)... Fear of "Hell" makes them academically dishonest. ... And again there are far more Christian evolutionist than there are creationists with legitimate degrees in biology and chemistry and physics.
So no they do not honestly look at the evidence and find evolution false...
More importantly, they falsely use and abuse and twist science to support biblical accounts that there is not evidence for... If they rejected the age of the Earth, and rejected evolution, and rejected modern genetics supporting these things, and at least said that they are just still searching for the answers, then I would not be ticked off... But they lie, and they lie a lot. It baffles me. There is no evidence that proves a young Earth. here is no evidence that proves man and dinosaurs coexisted... But they abuse there "authority" and mislead an ignorant public like a snake-oil sales person, using fancy diagrams and big words (opium for the masses).
*(Again if you want me to expand on anything please let me know. :) - This bloody, rotting, zombie of a horse has been beaten ad nauseum... There is nothing to expand on really... truly the questions are yours to ask... And please do
I really loved and found great humor in the use of pantheons in your response!
Wait a *minute* here...
You are utterly and profoundly wrong about (at least) one thing!
The books of the bible, while named for the disciples that did in fact walk and talk with Jesus, were not actually written by any of those disciples! They were written by those taught by those disciples, but in fact the books written were, on average, not recorded until several hundred years after Jesus's and his disciples deaths. Each book has a very interesting and well documented story about how it came to be, it seems that Christians are the only ones who do not know how their own religious texts came into existence.
The only exception to this is Corinthians, which are actually the letters that Paul sent to his congregation during his travels.
Hmmm, interesting, with that in mind I will be reading Corinthians again soon!
Do you mind quoting your sources for "the very interesting and well documented stories" :-)
According to scholars Paul/ Saulus wrote 7 letters to the "churches".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Authorship
My research suggests that Roman Emperor Nerva may have been responsible for the authorship of the Roman Christianity's NT Gospels and not those taught by disciples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva#Imperial_service
I'd suggest that the Gospels, Book of Acts and the Works of Flavius Josephus all find their beginnings with this Nerva and the Flavian Dynasty. Of course, they were tweaked right through to Eusebius and Constantine the Great in 325AD as this example suggests.
In the Book of Revelation, written sometime after 60AD, the following information was presented as one of the apostle John's later predictions. This particular "prediction" relates to an event that occurs during the third of three woes. To some people, these three woes have been taken to mean that the author of "revelations" was predicting or prophesising the 3rd of three world wars and an Armageddon scenario.
“14:20 They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.”
Yet, from another independent source from the same era, the Jewish Talmud, we have this historical event recorded.
“The struggle lasted for three years before the revolt was brutally crushed in the summer of 135 CE. After losing Jerusalem, Bar Kokhba and the remnants of his army withdrew to the fortress of Betar, which also subsequently came under siege. The Jerusalem Talmud relates that the numbers slain were enormous, that the Romans "went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils".[10]The Talmud also relates that for seventeen years the Romans did not allow the Jews to bury their dead in Betar”
The Bar Kokhba revolt occurred between 132-136AD. It was the third of three Jewish conflicts with Rome.
These "wars" occurred during the first and second centuries AD. I'll show how we may have been mislead to misinterpret these end of days scenarios in the main volume of this series.
To be honest, I was not considering Revelations, and isn't it the same author for both Luke and Acts?
But here are several fun books I've read, to answer your question about *my* sources. Of course, I'm not a real biblical historian, I just play one when I'm not studying facial recognition, aesthetics and other amazing neurological phenomenon :)
Understanding the Bible by Stephen Harris (it's really good, I got it in undergrad)
John Jesus and History by Paul Andersen and Felix Just (which is an awesome name)
The Four Gospels by Burnett Hillman Streeter (really dry, I only partially recommend)
I really recommend the Stylometric Study of the New testament (I can't remember who wrote and my copy is half-wrecked) as it goes into exactly the parallels that you bring up here...
Do you mind quoting your sources for "the very interesting and well documented stories" :-)
And Zaphod, might I suggest, when you read Corinthians notice how it draws aware from some undeclared teachings and draws the listener back to the OT and authority. Also note that you will not see any mention of Jesus Miracles. further you should also know that the Pauline Letters were not authored until post 51AD. The explanation: He was a Pharisee and the Miracles were a creation of the Flavians and Nerva.
According to scholars Paul/ Saulus wrote 7 letters to the "churches".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Authorship
My research suggests that Roman Emperor Nerva may have been responsible for the authorship of the Roman Christianity's NT Gospels and not those taught by disciples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva#Imperial_service
I'd suggest that the Gospels, Book of Acts and the Works of Flavius Josephus all find their beginnings with this Nerva and the Flavian Dynasty. Of course, they were tweaked right through to Eusebius and Constantine the Great in 325AD as this example suggests.
In the Book of Revelation, written sometime after 60AD, the following information was presented as one of the apostle John's later predictions. This particular "prediction" relates to an event that occurs during the third of three woes. To some people, these three woes have been taken to mean that the author of "revelations" was predicting or prophesising the 3rd of three world wars and an Armageddon scenario.
“14:20 They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.”
Yet, from another independent source from the same era, the Jewish Talmud, we have this historical event recorded.
“The struggle lasted for three years before the revolt was brutally crushed in the summer of 135 CE. After losing Jerusalem, Bar Kokhba and the remnants of his army withdrew to the fortress of Betar, which also subsequently came under siege. The Jerusalem Talmud relates that the numbers slain were enormous, that the Romans "went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils".[10]The Talmud also relates that for seventeen years the Romans did not allow the Jews to bury their dead in Betar”
The Bar Kokhba revolt occurred between 132-136AD. It was the third of three Jewish conflicts with Rome.
These "wars" occurred during the first and second centuries AD. I'll show how we may have been mislead to misinterpret these end of days scenarios in the main volume of this series.
I did agree with someone that the Universe is around 13.7 billion years old, but personally I think that the Universe could well be infinite, exploding in Big Bangs and then collapsing back in on themselves in Big Crunches, only to explode again, going on indefinitely. Rather than calling it the age of the Universe, it's maybe more appropriate to say that the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago. As for evidence, at least as much as there is for God being infinite ;)
The events that you've said are agreed in several texts are events I'm not doubting - I believe Jesus existed and probably that he was executed. The events I question are the supernatural ones and the ones that just happen to be in the Bible alone: the miracles, the burning bushes and such. And saying that the authors were part of the story and that it's not written like a story doesn't matter. For one, I've read fictional books like read like diary entries or letters, but they're still fictional. Plus, the people who wrote the Bible were trying to convince people that their stories were true which storybooks usually don't try and do.
The fact that there are historical inaccuracies in the Bible isn't really a point I care to expand on for a few reasons. I wasn't making that point as an important point I was making, I just mentioned it in passing really. Even if there were absolutely no inaccuracies in the Bible, that wouldn't change the fact that the miracles and godly appearances in the Bible are completely made up. I've had the discussion about inconsistencies before and the fact that there are so many translations and interpretations of the Bible that the argument ends up going nowhere because people can use the Bible to back up pretty much any historical interpretation.
You should be skeptical when you look at the evidence for evolution, as with anything. That said, view it independently of your religion - don't discount it because it contradicts your current beliefs. If there is enough evidence to convince you of it, then change your current beliefs to fit it, don't ignore evolution anyway. To be fair, many Christians even believe in evolution and don't believe that their God is a liar etc. I'm intrigued to know what the PhD creationists' convincing arguments were. As far as I'm concerned, making a convincing argument against evolution is like trying to make one against gravity.
If you're planning on seeking out the evidence for evolution soon, as a biology student I'd love to take you on a tour of what science has to offer and answer any of your questions ^^
Matty, you're definitely right on. I can't really say much that you haven't covered, but I will add -
From the point of view of physics, it is highly, *highly* likely that the Big Bang our Universe experienced was not the only one, and there are actually several concurrent systems who have experience similarly large bangs both before and after ours :) Our universe will most likely be sucked into another Big Bang at some point, either in it's entirety or in pieces - we do not have enough of a spatial understanding of this Universe to predict when and where.
My personal conjecture is that the whole thing looks somewhat like a normal atomic reaction. It would only make sense.
I'm sure you've heard that the term Universe is vastly outdated by about 3-5 years. The term that is favored now by cosmologists more accurately reflect our understanding of the system - The MultiVerse. Wikipedia should fill you in on the rest. It's pretty heady stuff for people that don't love math.
I'm intrigued by the multiverse idea, and I also believe that the Big Bang is one of a long chain (maybe an infinite chain) of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. I wasn't aware that physics currently holds that the ongoing Big Bang/Big Crunch repetition was very likely, so that's good to know :D
Of all the arguments from the second article, this is the one that made the absolute least amount of sense to me: "What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that?"
That statement, first of all, makes a large assumption that most every "atheist" goes out of his/her way to constantly attack religious folks about their religion. Most people who don't believe in god don't worry about it so much, as far as I have seen in my thirty-eight years. Moreover, for those of us who do find a need to do so at times, the primary reason (at least for me, when it has happened) is that (especially in the rural town where I live) being a "non-believer" makes my family feel like outcasts. People here would rather hear me call myself a terrorist or a criminal than an atheist. That is not a hyperbolic statement. In this town, almost everyone is a "Christian," there are more churches here than I can count (that section in our phone directory is longer than any other section, and that's just in the yellow pages), and pretty much everyone here feels some obnoxious obligation to assume we are Christians, too, and if we're not, well, then we are worthless and need help. We are constantly affected by the religious assumptions of everyone around us.
How many times at work (I work in a store) have total strangers asked me while buying something, "Which church do you belong to?" or "Do you belong to a good church?" I get so tired of having to deal with that, because if I tell them the truth, they immediately begin looking down on me and trying to convince me to go to their church right away. It is extremely frustrating, because I have never once gone out of my way to tell anyone that they SHOULDN'T be going to church. I would never do that, yet I am frequently treated that way by these people. So, I do not feel that the author's implication that "God" is driving me to get closer to "Him." That is not what motivates me to feel this way. It's his "believers" who sometimes make me feel this way, because, quite frankly, they are rude and in my face and it drives me crazy.
Lol. Do we really spend that much time refuting it? Personally, I've got a job (plenty of them, really), a life, and no time for church. Or anti-church, if that's what they think we're doing while they're spending hours in worship.
I think that theists spend *way* more time maintaining their beliefs than any atheist actually thinks about the non-existence of the gods.
You're right, that did make just about the least amount of sense possible, lol.
The other team has spent 2000 years travelling to every corner of the world, selling their version of reality, and killing everyone who disagrees. So perhaps the theists shouldn't be so pissy when we shoot down their lies in a nonviolent way.
Not a single reason as to why there is a god is actually solid enough to turn the tides of thought of an atheist. There are so many things people attempt to do and say and they can turn blue in the face for all I care, as long as they do not provide any REAL logical explanations that are not somehow derived from faith or from what someone said a long time ago, there is no way any intelligent person would fall for any of it.
There have been religious experts from all over the world who have thought long and hard about ways to persuade peopleto believe in god, and they are always too weak to really provide any substantial proof.
Paul, you seem very sincere in your beliefs and also one who can keep a level head in a conversation. I applaud you for that, I have found that is rarely the case.
In your earlier post you mentioned the God Delusion and you would like to dispel the inaccuracies of the Bible mentioned there. If you care to do that I would be interested in reading them. I have read the God Delusion but without going back and looking at the book couldn't tell you which inconsistencies he presents there.
As far and other inaccuracies, one of the big ones that I have seen and seems to be such a large part of the Christian faith is the actual birth of Christ. There are so many important things centered around it. Before you answer this I would encourage you to read, first, the first few pages of the book of Matthew. Especially chapter 1 starting with verse 18, the first part in just genealogy, and continuing on through the end of chapter 2. Read it a couple times if you need to and really put the story together in your head, what was happening to Jesus and his family, where did they go, where did they live beforehand and where did they live after. etc.... I mean really get a good picture.
Once you have done that flip over to Luke chapter 2 and do the same thing there. You can skip chapter 1 as it deals with the birth of John the Baptist rather than with Jesus. But get a really good picture of what was happening there as well.
Then would you please explain to me how those two stories are not in harmony with each other?
This is a good debate topic and it seems that there will be not enough reason for atheists to consider and rationalize so they will believe that there is god. But same as theists, there are also no good reason to believe that there is no god. But, isn't it amazing to see atheists become theists and vice versa? It only means that people can rationalize what they want to believe no matter what it is...
I would argue that any creature, on any planet, in any multiverse where they evolved, might be persuaded to think that their surroundings seem to be designed to accommodate them...if they were creatures capable of thinking.
Really, the truth is that we are designed to suit our accommodations, not the other way around. This should not be news, as it's been a long time since Darwin showed us the effects of evolution.
I agree with TW and Sammy here, anything capable of thinking can think anything and therefore could be persuaded to think their surroundings seem to be designed to accommodate them, I also agree that we are designed to suit our environment and all is designed to to some degree suit everything's accommodations of its environmental surroundings. Anything that can be capable of thinking is capable of thinking wrong.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure that my dog feels perfectly designed for her environment as well. God made her cute, so that people would say "aw!" and give her food. Or else how would she get fed? Or why would she be cute? Obviously divine plan, end of discussion.
I like that last line of yours, Zaphod :)
I think I just got a headache from all of that reading! I need more coffee to be able to read more. That is the best thing about this forum, if you don't feel like talking much one day, someone else will be and the ensuing conversation becomes addicting.
Pages