Atheism vs. God-Belief (the final debate).

There's been a lot of confusion over this issue.

I myself think that in regards to the notion of the weight of evidence i.e.: everything, that there's rather more in favor of God than that there is no God..

It just seems exceedingly presumptuous to me the position of the atheist. I mean like how does he/she KNOW there's no God?

Might not everything including our own selves be evidence of an intelligent creative agency?

And what if I could come along and demonstrate superintelligent design in the creation of our earth-moon-sun system, would that suffice?

Would anything satisfy the atheist?

Don't get me wrong, freedom rules and people are free to think whatever they like obviously, and to each his own as they say, but both sides of this debate can't be right, or can they?

Anyway, our motto is to "deny ignorance" and I am committed to that concept which could also be translated as being committed to truth and reality at all cost except at the cost of truth and reality itself.

In conclusion, I would like to offer this lecture by Manly P. Hall, for deep consideration



and ask the atheists to consider the possibility that the modern world isn't better off for it's lack of faith in things that are invisible, and that this cosmos we inhabit, including our world and we ourselves may well have been formed with intent and an intelligence of vast proportion, even with we ourselves in mind (beginning with the end in mind). Can I prove this? Honestly I think I can..

Furthermore, it's either meaningless and purposeless, or meaningful and intentional. Is life absurd and meaningless, or by virtue of our own existence and inclusion is it of the highest meaning and significance imaginable?

I just don't see how the former can be the conclusion of a logical and reasonable mind. And how nihilistic such a conclusion - which to me appears not in alignment with life and of life meeting life, but death including death of the spirit of life, which to me is joyful, humorous, playful, creative and loving..

On what basis can a person conclude that there's no God? That's ridiculous isn't it?

Furthermore, how can I as a rational and scientifically minded person, and philosopher (one who inquires into truth) be put to ridicule by atheists who presume to know better?

I'd like to see their argument, which cannot have anything to do with disproving a negative, no it must show and prove that the universe and life including ourselves is NOT the product of an intelligent designer but that instead is an absolutely random happenstance and coincidence with the universe itself and life itself being completely impersonal or just a "thing".

But I warn you that if this is your argument, evidence might come flying in capable of smacking you upside the head with a reason and a logic you can't deny or defy.

Let's get to it let's have this debate...

Let me start by asking the atheist -- How do you KNOW there's no God?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Let me start by asking the atheist -- How do you KNOW there's no God?

Atheism is not the statement that gods do not exist.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

If you do not understand this then go study logic.

ETA: What you are talking about is anti-theism.

I like the ambition in the thread title. The thought of a complex debate neatly wrapped up on a niche internet forum is a pretty big expectation. Good luck.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Atheism Knowledge vs. God Belief (the final debate)

Nonsense.

The fact that it can be neither proven nor dis-proven, completely rules out the possibility of your opinion becoming anything even remotely close to 'the final debate' of this issue.

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Let me start by asking the atheist -- How do you KNOW there's no God?

Atheism is not the statement that gods do not exist.

Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief in gods.

If you do not understand this then go study logic.

ETA: What you are talking about is anti-theism.

An interesting and a very slippery argument, if you could call it that. I also noticed the s at the end of the word god also interesting.

Based on what you're saying, there's no debate to be had and atheists could care less and have no interest whatsoever in having a debate about whether or not there's a God or that in other words they have no opinion on it at all and do not hold to the notion or idea that there's no God i.e.: that it's simply a lack of belief, not a contention of any kind that there is or isn't a God.

I don't know, something seems kind of disingenuous about that position no, especially when you call it pure logic..

reply to post by NewAgeMan

I also noticed the s at the end of the word god also interesting.

I do not see why, as theistic propositions have included multiple divine beings throughout history, some polytheistic others monotheistic.

Based on what you're saying, there's no debate to be had and atheists could care less and have no interest whatsoever in having a debate about whether or not there's a God or that in other words they have no opinion on it at all and do not hold to the notion or idea that there's no God.

I'm actually quite interested in the prospect of a god or gods existing, others may not be so keen on it. However that does not change my position I'm still intellectually speaking an atheist as well as an agnostic, because I have seen no proof of a god or gods existing.

My first post was specifically to point out that atheism makes no claim of knowledge.

I don't know, something seems kind of disingenuous about that position no, especially when you call it pure logic..

My mention of logic was directed at the concepts of knowing vs believing. Again atheism is not a statement of knowledge, but in fact a lack there of.

It's actually exceedingly presumptuous to attempt putting a face on, or anthropomorphisizing anything and everything you don't understand about the Universe.

Besides that, What happened to the ancient Egyptians? Hundreds of millions of Egyptians paid homage to Ra, and all the other gods in that pantheon. It didn't do them one little bit of good.

Besides that, What happened to the ancient Greeks and Romans? Hundreds of millions of ancient Greeks and Romans paid homage to their panoply of gods, and where did it land them? It didn't do them one little bit of good.

What about Babylon and Summer?
The Vikings?
The Mayan Empire?

Consider all the DEAD religions.

They didn't believe any less in their gods than anyone today believes in their gods.

Billions of people throughout history have shown over and over the absolute worthlessness for adherence to some fantasy woo woo belief in magical mystery invisible people through not only the failure and death of the Religion, but the entire civilization that went with it.

The big 3 fantasy cults of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all derived from the superstitious ramblings of filthy desert nomads will see their day in dust as well.
Buddhism will dissipate like morning fog over time, and even Hinduism the oldest continually practiced faith going back some 6000 years with textual mythology claiming roots back some 15,000 years will one day also die.

Religion is a remnant security blanket from the childhood of mankind; something to clutch at in the darkness of night as reassurance against the shadows of mystery, fear, and lack of understanding how the universe works.
It's a child's belief in invisible friends or Santa Claus.

You're more than welcome to keep pretending tea party with your dollies, of course, but, so long as you hang onto the beliefs of childhood, you'll never grow up, and it's really kinda embarrassing.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Atheism Knowledge vs. God Belief (the final debate)

Nonsense.

The fact that it can be neither proven nor non-proven, completely rules out the possibility of your opinion becoming anything even remotely close to 'the final debate of this issue.

I said I was prepared to bring forward evidence in favor of there being a God, which for the purpose of this thread I will call The Creative Agency, but I just wanted to see what the atheist has to offer in the way of helping us to understand what he presumes to know about there being no God. Usually they are pretty forceful in their ridicule of those who believe in or claim to have knowledge of God.

Therefore surely it's not unfair or unreasonable to ask for their argument and the basis of such ridicule. They must have some reason for saying and holding to the idea that there's no God. I'm just asking what that reason is and on what basis they maintain their position and actively put forward the contention that there's no God.

I'll do my part in the debate, no worries there and I have a few ideas in mind.

But what, other than opposition to certain primitive views of God is the basis for the atheist's contention? There must be a compelling argument, say as to why someone who suspects there's a God should adopt the position that that's not true, and that the atheist is right.

If you cannot argue the position, then why hold it in the first place? It makes no sense.

reply to post by Openeye

So if it's not a statement of knowledge then atheism is an honest admission of ignorance then in the face of this question..? Wouldn't that make it agnostic?

reply to post by Druscilla

But do you honestly think our world is better off today than say back in the days of the Indus River Valley Civilization or ancient Egypt for that matter ie: a Golden Age?

Please watch the video from the OP when you have the time, if you will, it's very interesting and puts forth a powerful argument contrary to the one you've made.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Wouldn't that make it agnostic?

Same difference.

It is a common misconception that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive, they are not.

The anti-theist (or strong/implicit atheism) does in fact make the claim that a god or gods do not exist. I find this position to be pretty illogical as well, but slightly more logical than the theistic one as they use a lack of evidence to support that belief.

reply to post by Openeye

Ah, smart!

That's certainly the easiest position to take that's for sure.

I will be offering evidence however, just don't have the time right not to put my presentation together.

I could never let things just be as they are when I was a kid I HAD to know precisely how and why no matter what it takes, so I can't console myself with the agnostic viewpoint as much as the lazy part of me would like to.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Druscilla

 

But do you honestly think our world is better today than say back in the days of the Indus River Valley Civilization or ancient Egypt for that matter ie: a Golden Age?

"Better" is all a matter of perspective and over all irrelevant as it comes to religion and faith.
Speculating on what history might have been like absent religion is speculation and the very stuff of fantasy that religion itself is.

If, however, you want to play the 'better' game; without the invention or training wheels crutch of religion as an 'easy' explanation for all the hard questions, mankind may very well have arrived at the level of technological sophistication and knowledge we exhibit today, but 1000 years ago or sooner.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

.....I just wanted to see what the atheist has to offer in the way of helping us to understand what he presumes to know about there being no God. Usually they are pretty forceful in their ridicule of those who believe in or claim to have knowledge of God.

One major problem that so often accompanies discussions of this subject, is that many(on both sides) often wrongfully view it as being an Us & Them type of situation, which it most definitely is not. It's not that cut & dry.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Therefore surely it's not unfair or unreasonable to ask for their argument and the basis of such ridicule. They must have some reason for saying and holding to the idea that there's no God. I'm just asking what that reason is and on what basis they maintain their position and actively put forward the contention that there's no God.

The fact that I do not believe in any god, does not mean that I am absolutely positive there is not one. There will always be a small part of me which harbors a slight fear that I may be wrong.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

If you cannot argue the position, then why hold it in the first place? It makes no sense.

It's extremely simple, as 'OpenEye' has already clearly explained to you. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend.




[color=E0D677]Not believing that there is, is not the same thing as believing there is not.

It is a lack of belief, not an opposite belief.

There's a difference.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

I said I was prepared to bring forward evidence in favor of there being a God......

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

I will be offering evidence however, just don't have the time right not to put my presentation together.

lmao(X2)

Hi Op, this has potential for being a good thread (the final debate may be a tad ambitious though )

Both positions can suffer from passionate viewpoints which may spiral into an unholy (forgive the pun) row.
Druscilla made an excellent point as the rise and fall of various religions in human history show that religion is simply humans creating god to explain what he doesn't understand. Religions grow as man uses these gods to reinforce whatever controls he wishes to impose upon society.

The concept of god, as all powerful, all knowing and an all loving creator is just too convenient to mankids inate fear of nothingness.

The world is just too full of suffering and mediocracy to be the work of any god that mankind can envisage or understand.

reply to post by Openeye

Fair enough.

Question: If intelligent design by a Creative Agency could be shown, would the atheist be open or receptive to that information or knowledge, or, at that point would they be forced, by their own preconceptions and prejudice or bias, to dig into a hole of ignorance?

We know what BrokenCircles thinks about it.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

I said I was prepared to bring forward evidence in favor of there being a God......

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

I will be offering evidence however, just don't have the time right not to put my presentation together.

lmao(X2)

Could be funnier than you know..

I will say that this is shaping up to be one of the more entertaining debates on this subject. But the final one? Highly unlikely.

Here are my 2 cents.

Whether or not a god exists is irrelevant.
If there is one, fine. If not?, just as well.
It changes nothing. Everything still is, the way it is.
It doesn't effect how I view the world, and it doesn't alter my behavior.

But I would imagine that if one were to exist, it probably wouldn't care what anyone thinks or believes.

I don't require a god to justify my existence or give meaning to my life. The fact that I am is sufficient.


reply to post by NewAgeMan

Why would you create this thread if you are unable to present you case?
A rational human being would have their ducks in a row before jumping into the deep end.

reply to post by Druscilla

Based on the argument being put forward so far it would appear that atheism could very well be the easiest and therefore the least courageous position to take where all the religious POV's represent man's attempt to really understand the cosmos and to come to grips with his true place in it.

reply to post by watchitburn

To the contrary by your avatar, you demonstrate something otherwise in a rather cynical view and outlook that is not hope or faith-based, so your belief has affected your worldview and behavior. See the link in my signature for the alternate view in the hope for a faith-based messianic age of grace, spirit and reason combined.

As to plunging right in without having all my ducks in a row, that's a big part of faith. It's called courage.

You'll note that I seem to be the lone spokesman here who appears to have thrown himself to the lions!

Like Daniel, I must remain calm..

I am not without reason and logic however - but this is a weekend project because right now I must get back to work.

Later,

NAM