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

reply to post by Openeye

The only fact of their (the atheist's) knowledge is that they know they don't believe in God. Ok.

I suppose there's an opportunity for some self knowledge there in knowing what one does not believe in, but there's another kind of belief whereby we believe what we come to know is true.

And since the "believers" (who just believe, but without any proven reason) say it's all a matter of faith and belief the atheist is forced, as a rational person, not to accept anything on blind faith, particularly when it comes to the matter of an all-knowing all-loving God who's responsible for allegedly causing to manifest the whole of all creation, including one's own self both morphologically as well as spiritually, that is if there's even a transcendent self or consciousness of some sort, like a soul, in the first place.

I can see that, taking that position as a starting point, and asking for some sort of authentic evidence or authentification.

However, although an outward appearance or sign of some kind would indeed be very helpful, there are a variety of human experiences which can be called knowledge not the least of which is deep and profound personal knowledge of the variety that cannot be discounted - a knowing unique and personal to each person separately because it's an inner knowing.

Furthermore, while we're looking for a visible manifestation of evidence or proof (presumably upon which we can all agree is reasonable), real knowledge and understanding and comprehension could come and does in other forms as well, like when we satisfactorily solve a mathematical equation and just KNOW that it's right, or when we intuitively know Virtue and Quality when we see it in just about any area or arena of human endeavor. There are many many examples of real and authentic knowledge which do not have to come in the form of a material something in a bottle, I would like to make that perfectly clear.

I get where the atheist is coming from and why they would see the believing world as insane, brainwashed etc. Like I said in an earlier post, when I was a kid I HAD to know precisely WHY and HOW something I was being taught really was the way it was. I read and "grokked" Descartes treatise when I was about 10 years old. Most people don't know it but aside from "I think therefore I am" he actually seemed to prophecy the discovery by modern science that we interact with the world as a tangled hierarchy wherein to be is to be perceived and it was at this point that he felt he had proven the existence of God (as a mind perceiving the objective reality) philosophically, starting with the only thing that can be known (I think therefore I am).

Blind faith is unacceptable to me also. I'm serious.

But so too is blind and willful ignorance in the face of a well reasoned and well presented argument for no other reason than to hold to a preconceived belief (even if it's "I don't believe"), position or opinion, a very strong one, potentially, if given a self-reinforcing label like "atheist".

Question: Is the atheist open and willing to consider the possibility of God if given sufficient reason and knowledge and information to do so?

And if so, how could an atheist no longer be an atheist if they're already an atheist to begin with?

Thanks.

Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan

But that technique for isolating tiny segments of a persons post, or pulling apart it's context by isolating each frame of reference and addressing it individually, is a very lame debating tactic that I abhor, and I realize of course that that wasn't your intention,

If I reply to a segment it's because you made it interesting or it gave me a thought that I wish to share. Look, I say there is no biblical god. You say there is. Our stances will never change. The best we can hope for is to find something interesting in what we think and feel.

reply to post by jiggerj

The Biblical God is not and will not be the basis of this "argument" (reasoned truth) or presentation.

One could look back if they want to see if the Bible might have gotten anything right about God's nature or has anything to say, but that's another matter and another thread altogether.

If by quoting scripture you think that's somehow and in some way the basis for my evidence, you're wrong.

Just don't assume and please try to keep an open mind Pops, even if only just for fun and to have an interesting exchange of information and ideas, thoughts and feelings. Thanks.

Best Regards,

NAM

To quote a often used set of words on ATS.

Pictures or it didn't happen

Seriously, there's no proof bar scripture from an age of story telling that any or all of these people existed and the fact that many religions use the same principle story but change it to suit their claim to fame only proves for me its all hog wash.

I say yet again that its my belief that at some point we may have been visited by others from planets we know have the ability to support some form of life and that these are the actual basis for all the god idea's.

Creatures technically superior (its a very old and vast space, there's been plenty of time for others to evolve well beyond us) who would appear as gods to the humans they met, items to be worshipped. Its a darn sight more plausible idea than those currently slapped in peoples faces daily.

Religion should be a personal faith that keeps the believer happy and NOT the mass control device used to promote conflict and violence daily and over the course of thousands of years, Everything religion does turns its head towards wealth, ownership of lower class people and control, there's very little dignified about it in my book.

reply to post by NewAgeMan



[color=F2EE6F]Your entire spiel here is about ripping apart that which you consider to be 'The Atheists Argument'. Said argument is extremely easy to rip apart, because it does not exist. There is no such thing as a common Atheist argument and/or viewpoint.

You're simply attempting to weaken that which you claim to be the opposing side, with hopes of creating the illusion that your side is somehow being strengthened. As I mentioned before, it's not that 'cut & dry'. This particular topic is far from being some sort of simple 'Us & Them' type of scenario.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

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..

Did you bring it yet?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

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

Actually, it's called BS. (ie. A big load of crap.)[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ai500829c4.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

If you say to me, prove that certain animals fly, I will show you creatures with wings - birds, bat, flying insects.

If you say to me, prove that gravity exists, I will drop things so that you may watch them fall.

Now, if you ask me to prove there is a god, what can I show you that has magical powers, can create life from dust, and lives forever? Nothing! There is nothing on this earth or in the entire universe that offers evidence of a god.

Of all the mythical creatures, the god is the most unprovable. If you ask me to prove that unicorns exist I can point to horses, then to creatures with wings, and to creatures with horns. If all three can exist, then it is not impossible to fathom one creature with all of these attributes.

But where are there any creatures with any of the attributes of a god? There are ZERO.

Man has the attributes of God. Maybe you don't believe it but we do because we are his children. We are his reason for creation. We are to be made "like him".

Originally posted by bb23108

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
You too are trying to do away with God, and by becoming one with everything edge the fundamental beloved relationship out of the equation

I am not sure how you came to this conclusion from what I posted. By no means am I somehow trying to do away with the Divine Person or even abstract Him as elsewhere - quite the contrary, as you must actually know from my various other posts re: Jesus, etc.

However, this myth of God as Creator is another matter. It is a myth that stunts us spiritually and altogether, really, because most of us immediately tend to assume God as Other - in other words, objectify him, separate from him, and therefore make him unavailable for direct communion. This is what ego does with everything arising, and especially by tendency in the face of dissolution in the Divine or real communion.

I know you are trying to bridge that gap by using the Creative Agency terminology - but still you are saying that such a one actually created this world, is in charge, etc. - and this is what I am arguing about.

edit on 15-3-2013 by bb23108 because:

I see only two possibilities.

Either everything that has happened has happened according to a specific plan. That where you are right this second is exactly where God intends you to be. Every choice you have ever had to make was put in front of you by God. He knew your decision and created the outcome. Look at the perfect laws of the universe, does it not make since that we all also are bound by those same perfect laws?

Quite simply you are right where you are supposed to be because God made no mistakes. Or it is all random and by chance and God is rather aloof to what happens to us.

The bible says God is love

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.” Elie Wiesel.

I do not believe in a God of indifference. Although many of us suffer from this terrible sickness. In the 60's man decided it was time to get off the indifference ride as the world leaders plunged us into war. It is time to let go of our lazy indifference, stand up and do something.

If we would all just stand up and do love, maybe we could overcome the destruction of indifference. Then and quite honestly only then will who is right become meaningless. If we all choose love over indifference surly we will make the changes that we have been waiting for God to make.

Could this be the point? God is pushing us to do!! He wants men that "do" love because the world is full of people with guns who "say" love.

Anyway like I said God is love, if we all choose to love by doing loving things for others, than we will no longer be in search of God because we will all feel his presence within.

Here's where I stand in this, on the Atheistic side of terms...

I am Atheistic in my (dis)belief, purely on common sense and reason. Common mans logic if you will. That being said, I am truly with my mind wide open to both sides of the argument. I will accept there is a God(s), and I will accept there is none. Science can not at this point in time, point in any direction to a statement of fact, so what we are left with is belief. Where does belief come from? Surroundings. It is that which we are surrounded by that justifies our common sense and our understanding of how life and the universe works, and as such, this why the Atheists approach makes quite a deal more sense to me at this point. The vast majority of ATS God arguments are that of the Christian faith. Now with that as it is, your Christian Holy land of Jerusalem has dwindled to a mere less than a third of the population at large being of a Christian belief, with a large sum diverting elsewhere in 'modern; religions and even, yes, non belief. It too rises in numbers as the years go on. Now tell me, where does that place ones common sense?

Further, I keep getting this feeling that you are about to pull the all mighty proof of God out of your pocket by way of your speech, but as of yet this hole "bear with me while I will show you soon" thing is getting a tad tiring. I am trying not to be rude, I enjoy this thread, I appreciate your views and enthusiasm on such, but, like the Captain said, Make It So.

reply to post by Druscilla


This man says nothing about God, he is only against religion.

If he spent more time contemplating God and less time bashing others, because of his great self-righteousness, he may find what Newage and me have found. "love" But since he is looking only further to create hate and separation by condemning me for my beliefs he will not find "love".

Quite simply one can only find love when one looks for it. The NT says God is love. Believe what you want about every other concept that religion has told you and stick to God is love. Because love is the only thing worth pursing as with worship. Love is the only thing worth praying for.

This man is not for love. He displays the exact same qualities of the religious folk that he condemns. Why can we not see that the HATE must stop now? Any message of hate is bad no matter where it comes from or what the intentions are. Eventually we will give birth to another War. This time the war will be atheist and be anti-theist. Simply trying to blame all forms of worship as the sole cause for all problems on earth and will seek to destroy those who are theist, all in the name of peace.

Why not rather except my belief as my belief, and I will do the same for you. We need only agree that love, mixed with logic and reason, should be the foundation for all belief. Then we can openly debate without the need to attack and defend. If anyone is right surely they will be able to win the debate. If no one wins than we should still respect our foundation which is love.

Debates do not need to arguments, they can end unsettled yet still end in love and peace. What is not acceptable in a debate is an attack on my faith and that is what the man in this video is doing.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by kimsie

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Now, if you ask me to prove there is a god, what can I show you that has magical powers, can create life from dust, and lives forever? Nothing! There is nothing on this earth or in the entire universe that offers evidence of a god.
.

Go out in the daylight and look up. There you will see a magical star that can create Life from Dust it is the Sun. Can anyone prove the Sun is not conscious and thinking?

The Sun can also create Dust from Life.
Is the Sun's power to destroy life on this planet random and unconscious?

The sun is not a MAGICAL STAR. It works on very natural processes. And now we have to prove that the sun is not conscious and thinking? Can you prove that the moon is not conscious and thinking? How about a cloud?

Can I be 6 for just a second.

The sun is quite MAGICAL if you ask me. Every time I look at it I remain mystified by its simple yet complex beauty. Proof to me that something created it, but I am sorry no consciousness.

But definitely MAGICAL.

reply to post by sacgamer25

The sun is quite MAGICAL if you ask me. Every time I look at it I remain mystified by its simple yet complex beauty. Proof to me that something created it, but I am sorry no consciousness.

Proof that something created it?

www.scientificamerican.com...

That link explains the science of how stars are formed. They aren't created anymore than the Rocky Mountains were.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You realize that you simply linked me to something even more amazing than our sun. Something even more magical. Science cannot eliminate a creator no matter how much you would like it to.

Cloud Nebula are even more MAGICAL than our sun. Currently we can only speculate how they are formed. I mean how they were created

I'll give you something for science. Einstein's theory of relativity explains perfectly the relation of everything we see in the cosmos and correctly predicts everything we see

"Except" Black Holes.

Those Nasty Black Holes that lead mathematicians down an ever tiresome road to infinity. Because of science unwillingness to accept infinity as a rational answer they keep coming up with new theories trying to explain Black Holes. Still nothing.

Einstiens theory of relativity actually proves the supernatural because we know that by natural law infinity is irrational. The bible says God always was and always will be, he can only be mathematically quantified by one term, infinity.

Did God break his own laws with the Black Hole to stump science and prove the supernatural? At this time science cannot disprove my claim.

reply to post by sacgamer25

Did God break his own laws with the Black Hole to stump science and prove the supernatural? At this time science cannot disprove my claim.

Nothing in the link I posted implies anything about a deity being related to stars. Pure science. You are using cognitive dissonance.

The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.

You can find that little excerpt on the Wikipedia article concerning cognitive dissonance. There is no way you can spin that article I linked about stars to prove the existence of a deity, unless you heap in a huge pile of speculative whimsy.

One thing I know for sure is that I can make choices and so can anyone here. I can chose to do good or evil, to say yes or no... Even if we are all one, a fundamental fact about our conscience is that we can individually assess and chose for ourselves or for the whole.

I know that when I want to find an answer, I put my heart into it and I end up finding the answer. God did say that you need to look for him with all your heart if you want to find him. Meaning do the knowledge folks. Read the books of the past and don't take somebody else's account for them. That's the key if you want my opinion.

I feel like many here are not using all their hearts and looking honestly for answers. Read the actual scriptures, you will see it is not that easy to debunk and you might not be so quick to dismiss the Word. After all, even if this is all bunk, these stories are very old, in fact some of the oldest man has kept. I think it is worth reading them. No? This requires effort and time and......heart.

Peace of mind body and soul.

reply to post by bitsforbytes

I know that when I want to find an answer, I put my heart into it and I end up finding the answer. God did say that you need to look for him with all your heart if you want to find him. Meaning do the knowledge folks. Read the books of the past and don't take somebody else's account for them. That's the key if you want my opinion.

I feel like many here are not using all their hearts and looking honestly for answers. Read the actual scriptures, you will see it is not that easy to debunk and you might not be so quick to dismiss the Word. After all, even if this is all bunk, these stories are very old, in fact some of the oldest man has kept. I think it is worth reading them. No? This requires effort and time and......heart.

Have fun with that...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


How would God test his creation if we only did what He wanted us to do? If we did exactly what He wants us to do then He would of created robots, not man.

Are you not free to decide what ever you want?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

both are based on faith.. one has faith there is no God the other has faith there is....

Both can claim proof for their claims yet there is no conclusive proof. If there was irrefutable proof this debate would be dead.


Both are teh same in practice as we have seen athiest commit atrocities and believers in god commit atrocities.

Both can be zealots about their beliefs.

Both can be just as stupid about their beliefs.

THey are just polar opposites.

reply to post by bitsforbytes

How would God test his creation if we only did what He wanted us to do? If we did exactly what He wants us to do then He would of created robots, not man.

Where does he say we can do what we want, even if he doesn't like it? Exactly. The stupidest thing he did was giving us free will. He obviously didn't want us to use it.

look at the words-

a-theist= no gods
theist= gods

nostic= gods can be known
ag-nostic= gods may exist, but can not be known.

there is more evidence for the big bang than there is for a god. now a god could have created the big bang, but we have no evidence for it.

however, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

so the most logical approach to the god debate is maybe, maybe not. after all, just because you dont know about it, or have no evidence for it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

p.s. for most of human history, there was no knowledge of radio waves, or evidence for them, yet they existed.
an atheist would say there is no evidence for radio waves, so they dont exist.
a theist would say they exist even if there is no evidence
an agnostic would say maybe, we just can figure it out yet
a gnostic would say "it can be learned"

reply to post by BrokenCircles

You never answered the question I posed although out of fairness it wasn't addressed to you specifically.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
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..

And no I haven't "brought it" yet (Last night was hockey night in Canada), but as you'll come to see, the atheist position does and will involve an argument and a very specific one at that as an argument for random coincidence and a meaningless and purposeless universe not by intent (by accident). That will be the argument on the atheist side of the debate, which isn't "us vs. them" (as much as atheists like to play that game more than anyone) but moreso a question of what is reasonable and logical vs. what is founded in preconceived negative bias and prejudice, although the true definition of atheism implies absolute open mindedness, and if anything nothing but a statement of belief (of unbelief). However, I don't think that's a tenable or reasonable, rational or logical position to take in light of all evidence to the contrary and I intend to show that here by putting forward a well reasoned argument and evidence, relative to which I don't think that the atheist position can effectively rebut as a counter argument and thus losing the debate (the final debate).

Best Regards,

NAM