I am currently involved in two arguments about how God exists. They seem so sure of this, but they have posted 0 proof besides to quote their bible. Is there anything I am missing, should I continue or quit, as they seem like they are so sure of themselves?
Is there any reason I should believe in a God?
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 Fievel,
You asked:
“Is there anything I am missing, should I continue or quit, as they seem like they are so sure of themselves?”
You’re probably not missing anything. You should continue if you want to. The seem so sure because they need to...there’s a chance their surety is to continue to convince themselves, not you.
“Is there any reason I should believe in a God?”
This is entirely up to you to discover for yourself.
Good reply LN. I would add that it is also entirely up to each theist to decide the truth of his/her claims.
Its not your responsibility Fievel to convince them. Theists are particularly resistant to reasoned arguments and prefer preserving unevidenced persuasions particularly those that promote their own morality and immortality.
Besides as I noted before, its well known their god lurks around AR, reads their posts and judges them on committed persistance and spelling.
@Fievel Mousekewitz
My 2 cents:
This is normal behavior, at least that I have noticed. And the fact that they consider bible proof (it most certainly is not!) is also normal behavior.
Not that I know of. I been posting and reading here for 4 years, never seen any religious apologist actually offer any sort of proof for their religion ideas. I am increasingly confident that is because there is none. You have to remember, billions of people for thousands of years have been trying to justify their god ideas and trying to prove them real, and all of them have failed so far. Most of the ideas represented and spouted today by apologist are recycled from decades or centuries ago. They have no new material. All their old material has been completely discredited as any sort of "evidence" that we should actually base our decisions off of.
If you are trying to change their minds, I suggest you quit, it is very unlikely you will change their minds or even win the argument. If you feel you need to stand up for yourself, create boundaries etc, then you need to finish out the argument well enough to set that boundary, for yourself.
From an evidence standpoint. No. And to me, a decision in believing in god or not, should be an evidence based one, largely because the god concept/religion is open to so much abuse if it is not evidenced. (And it is being abused, like crazy.)
@Fievel
Christians arguments for they certainty in their god almost always is based on a circular argument. It goes something like this:
"I believe god exists because it says so in the Bible. How do I know the Bible is correct? Because god wrote it (or inspired it). How do I know god wrote it (or inspired it)? Because it says so in the Bible."
So, since they start, or presuppose, the Bible is correct as first principal, their entire epistemology is flawed.
You are asking a bunch of atheists, who disbelieve gods exist because we do not find good reasons (evidence, and valid and sound logic) to believe, if there is any good reasons to believe. I think the answer to that question is pretty easy.
Belief is the psychological state in which one is convinced a premise or proposition is true, or likely true. There are good reasons to be convinced, and there are bad reasons to be convinced.
Good reasons are: demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, valid and sound logic.
Bad reasons are: ancient texts, feelings, "I was brought up that way", faith, religious leaders.
The bible is the assertion, not the proof.
Here’s some Good evidence we have. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, The Objective Moral Law, The Existence of Evil,etc... I have some good links to all these and podcasts and some books I’d recommend if anyone is interested.
@Vasily
The second law has zero to do with whether a god exists or not. Interesting that the majority of physicists who actually work in the field, and understand physics better than you (are you a physicist?) or I could ever hope understand it, disagree with you. You should publish a paper and submit it to physics journals. .
There is no "objective moral law", there is a claim that there is an "objective moral law".
People do evil things, true. How does this provide evidence of a god?
By claiming there is no objective moral law , why is there such a thing as right or wrong? Biological can’t give us that because it is descriptive not prescriptive. And if all of these so called “arguments” have been discredited give some examples of someone discrediting then. Great philosophers like Augustine and Thomas Aquines would Disagree with you. John Lennox of Oxford University would disagree with you. C.S Lewis a atheist turned Christian in the 19 century become one of the most renown Christian apologists to have ever lived.
By what standard are using the term evil, in order for you to use it you have to have a source or moral law giver because if there is no such thing as moral law which you claim and just because you say there is not one doesn’t refute it, nothing is objectively wrong and it’s all subject, who is to say that is wrong.
@Vasily Dimitrivich
You say...
By what standard are using the term evil, in order for you to use it you have to have a source or moral law giver because if there is no such thing as moral law which you claim and just because you say there is not one doesn’t refute it, nothing is objectively wrong and it’s all subject, who is to say that is wrong.
Why do you think moral's have to be objective ?
They could be simply universally accepted? Morals for instance vary from culture to culture never has their been what you call objective moral standards.
I can derive my own moral standards based on a society's well being. For instance I don't need to consult a higher power to work out that speeding near a school at turn out times is not beneficial to either my well being or a child's. Just because I can't attach any God to it to make it valid does not mean I'm not going to see driving slowly as a good idea.
In the example I gave above , most people would recognise driving slowly round a school is in fact a great idea, and beneficial to all and therefore become universally accepted as a standard we should all adhere to.
There is absolutely no god required, and further just because you believe there is a god that gave morals does not mean there actually is one, nor aside from some theological point does it make them objective in any way.
And.. an apologist comes in, disagrees with everyone, agrees with himself, and does exactly what they always do, state old, already thoroughly discredited ideas defending their god idea.
All 3 examples Vasily Dimitrivich gave have been fully discredited long ago many many times, and are most certainly not evidence for any god idea.
@LogicFTW
Yeah, even creationist websites recommend theists no longer use the 2nd law argument.
Even they are smart enough (just barely) to understand it has been refuted repeatedly.
By claiming there is no objective moral law , why is there such a thing as right or wrong? Biological can’t give us that because it is descriptive not prescriptive. And if all of these so called “arguments” have been discredited give some examples of someone discrediting then. Great philosophers like Augustine and Thomas Aquines would Disagree with you. John Lennox of Oxford University would disagree with you. C.S Lewis a atheist turned Christian in the 19 century become one of the most renown Christian apologists to have ever lived.
@Vasily Dimitrivich
Please realize, for most of the regulars here, we have seen this argument dozens of times. This board has seen this argument probably hundreds of times.
Why are you trying to argue that a thought, an idea, is objective? It's silly. I mean I get it, you think your god created objective morality and that makes it reality, and that works when you believe in god, but please realize, for anyone that does not believe in your kind of god, as your god idea is completely unevidenced. What you are doing is: "putting the cart before the horse." Evidence does not work that way, that is faulty evidence.
It is foolish, you should not try to evidence a non evidenced idea (your god), with another completely unevidenced idea, if you did do this, you could make any idea, no matter how absurd be "true."
We know so much more as a human race then we did even 100 years ago, additionally so much information is available to us in a two second google search, the ignorance that existed 100's of years ago is no longer an excuse today.
Also, just so you are aware, agreeing to your own posts does not help, but instead hinders people taking you at all seriously.
Calling people basically dumb from 100 years or so doesn’t make a case, so in your own view if you so seen it dozens of times tell me why it would be wrong to kill someone, or tell. What standard are you using. Frank Turek has a fantastic book on it called stealing from God. And you keep saying evidence but yourself have not presented any. Expecting me to believe that the human genome that remarkably is quite long put itself together is just a foolish idea.
@Vasily Dimitrivich
I called no one dumb, those are your words, not mine. Your dishonesty is noted.
I do not have to evidence anything, all I have to do is point out that for those want to claim their god idea is real, that: they have presented zero actual real evidence.
I do not expect you to "believe" anything that you do not want to believe. I know better. But what you are doing is trying to present "evidence" for your god, and I am stating that is not evidence. Or at best, very poor/weak evidence that reeks of desperation and in any normal argument should not even remotely be considered evidence.
You keep saying that’s not evidence. What’s your evidence? You just keep talking but proving nothing. Atheism has been the illness of the past century more than 100 million people killed because of it, Stalin who shook his fist on his death bed and died, why so much hate? Mao in China, and Hitler. If you wanna be on the same side as them go for it, they didn’t believe in the objective moral law so what was to stop them, why was it wrong that they did?
Allright, I will humour you. Not for you, but for anyone that is not sure on these things that read these threads. (I have seen older threads here surpass 100,000 views.)
You keep doing this, you keep trying to reverse the burden of evidence. This is childish and makes your argument weaker.
First, you made the assertion that 100 million people were killed directly because of "atheism" you back it up with Stalin, Mao and Hitler. With zero actual evidence to back your claim can we at least get a link to a reputable (not christian affiliated!) source link to this huge claim?
Hitler was undoubtedly christian, Nazi germany neatly fits in the category of "christian" their is powerful written and video evidence of this. Go ahead, feel free to challenge me on this. I promise you, you will regret it.
Stalin, and Mao may not have been traditionally theist, Mao mostly created his own religion where made himself god. Hardly an atheist.
Stalin while a self declared atheist, and directed government to anti-religious campaigns, did not murder 10's of millions of people in the name of "atheism." finally if we want to tally up death totals from various religious (or not) groups, christianity wins this morbid race by a mile. Especially when you consider % of the total population. And seriously if the best you can do is say is: well religious people are not as bad as Stalin, that is an extremely low bar to set, and is not an argument "for" religion. Your ignorance is showing here, HARD. Read up and come back if you do not want to be considered ignorant on this subject.
If anything, through your ignorance you basically argued that atheist are responsible for hitler/nazi germany, but its actually abundantly obvious that by your measure, really is christians that are. Are you on the same side as hitler and nazi germany? I know you are not, but that is the very flawed argument you just made about atheist.
So where does this objective morality you say comes from? Where do you learn about it and know how to follow it? Your particular religion/religious books? Please share with us exactly which book you follow for these instructions and what particular religious sect you are in. I promise you with a two second google search I can make you regret those words when you think some book written by humans has all the answers and must be followed word for word.
If you really want, we can go into the whole morality debate, but realize, I, and others here have been thinking about this, arguing this, researching this and so on for likely much longer then you have. And we are not burdened by a fairy tale of some magical completely unevidenced sky wizard.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@Vasily Dimitrivich
Hitler was christian, and Stalin hijacked religion, replacing it with communist dictatorship, where dissent was actively discouraged, all the good ideas flowed from the top, and everyone is supposed to bow to authority without question. Japan had an Emperor, the divine being and considered a god. WW1 was definitely religion, and presently we are engaged in nasty wars and terrorism all based on theology.
"If you wanna be on the same side as them go for it, they didn’t believe in the objective moral law so what was to stop them, why was it wrong that they did?"
I am not on the same side as those monsters. The only difference between Stalin and Cromwell is that Stalin did what he did based on personal goals, while Cromwell justified his acts based on theology.
@VD (Hmmmm.... How appropriate.) Re: "Great philosophers like Augustine and Thomas Aquines would Disagree with you. John Lennox of Oxford University would disagree with you. C.S Lewis a atheist turned Christian in the 19 century become one of the most renown Christian apologists to have ever lived."
Ummmm... For starters, who are those folks, and why should I give a flippin' drop of frozen chocolate-covered rat piss whether or not they agree with me? And, secondly, why would ANYBODY here care what some religious apologist from the 1800's believe/think? Are these really the best "arguments" you are able to pull out of your ass? So sad... So very sad... *heavy sigh*...
Oh.... Hey! Old Man! I think another one of your missing socks has resurfaced! And based on the "fragrance" of this one, it would seem the longer they are gone, the worse they get... *opening windows*... *generously spraying air freshener*...
https://youtu.be/4vJkGzbLkxY
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@V.D. Re: Vid link
Aaaaaaaand your point would beeee.... ???
If you don’t know these men and there are plenty more than you haven’t even experienced the atheist world.
@V.D. Re: "If you don’t know these men and there are plenty more..."
What in the unholy name of blue pig belly hotdogs does my knowing or not knowing any of those guys have to do with my being an atheist? I became an atheist loooong before I ever even heard of any of those names.
Re: "...you haven’t even experienced the atheist world."
What the fuck is an "Atheist World"???... *calling out to forum*... Hey, you bunch of bozos! Do we have our own theme park or something, and you guys have been holding out on me?!? What the hell?
It would be very nice if you stopped acting childish and actually acted like an adult.
@V.D. Re: "It would be very nice if you stopped acting childish and actually acted like an adult."
This coming from the guy who keeps hitting "Agree" for his own posts. Priceless... LMAO...
Oh, and when dealing with obvious sock puppet trolls like you, I will act any way I choose, thank you very much... *sticking out tongue*... *thumbs in ears while waggling fingers*...
@tin-man
V.D. also thinks hitler/nazi germany is atheist, and atheist are to blame for the holocaust.
Seems like he is pretty well indoctrinated by whatever religion he subscribes to.
@THE OBVIOUS ANSWER:
Their bible is all they got. You continue until you have simply had enough. Go into the site and look at what the theists post. Jo, Catholicray, and others; All simply post repetitious random lines of nonsense, over and over and over again. THAT IS all they have.
DAVID: Said something very important above. "THE BIBLE IS THE ASSERTION, NOT THE PROOF." This bears repeating. When a Christian begins quoting the bible, remember that they are simply making another assertion. They want to pretend the Bible is evidence but it is merely a book with an assertion. An appropriate response is always "How do you know the book is correct." That takes you back to "God Wrote it." How do you know god wrote it? "It says so in the book." Round and Round we go. Clearly understanding that the Bible is an assertion can help out a lot in any discussion. The BIBLE is not evidence.
Instead of finding one person to bash on how about you look into how many great theologians and apologetics content there is out there and not trying to find one thing.
@Vasily Dimitrivich: I'm sorry; If you expect to be taken seriously on the site, you should probably take an English class or warn us that you are not a native speaker prior to making unintelligible comments.
There are no great apologetics. If there were great apologetics, atheists would not exist. If there were great apologetics, there would be no reason for the millions of different religions out there. There would be no reason for 30,000 different Christian sects. If there were just one great apologetic, we would all be able to agree it was a great apologetic and we would all be believers. What you actually have is a shit load of REALLY BAD APOLOGETICS, and no reason at all to believe in God or gods.
Pages