1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured A Challenge to the Theist and Atheist

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Segev Moran, Mar 24, 2017.

  1. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,393
    Ratings:
    +2,741
    My understanding is that us atheists are supposed to be arguing the other side.
     
  2. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    10,855
    Ratings:
    +12,137
    Religion:
    None.
    Ooops! Correct, I missed the nuance. Give me a minute (a day or so, in board-speak)...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. ThePainefulTruth

    ThePainefulTruth Romantic-Cynic

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    3,220
    Ratings:
    +451
    Religion:
    Agnostic-Deist
    Since there is a complete absence of evidence for or against the existence of God, or rather of a God created universe, the only reasonable position is an agnostic one. That said, you can discount ALL revealed religions as 100% hearsay. So is there a reasonable position on the possibility of God as creator? Yes, deism--that is, a non-interactive God.
     
  4. davidroemer

    davidroemer New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    6
    Ratings:
    +0
    Religion:
    Catholic
    It is very easy to refute the cosmological argument for God's existence. It assumes that the universe is intelligible even though there is much we don't understand. The argument is also contradictory and has no content.
     
  5. davidroemer

    davidroemer New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    6
    Ratings:
    +0
    Religion:
    Catholic
    You can only rationally call yourself an agnostic if you understand the arguments for God's existence.
     
  6. Robert Vincelette

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2015
    Messages:
    87
    Ratings:
    +26
    Religion:
    agnostic tend towards Zarathustra
    In order for such a debate to work you can't have too many, if any at all, assumptions about what is God and that makes it difficult to pin down such things as "all powerful" which need not be true, or what was there before there was time, a question that contradicts itself. With these rules let the debaters begin. I can only spectate because I realize that I do not know.
     
  7. chinu

    chinu Passenger

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,804
    Ratings:
    +1,288
    Understanding God = Becoming God

    Hence, no need of any debate thereafter.


    Religion means.. Reunion with from where we all started the journey of life in the beginning.

    All the best..
    Chinu.
     
  8. Brian M. Leahy

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    17
    Ratings:
    +1
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    This is a much more complex matter than what I have read above shows. It might help were the participants read the 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God between Father Copleston and Bertrand Russell:
     
  9. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,681
    Ratings:
    +7,783
    Religion:
    None
    Maybe you should have taken the OP's suggestion and played devil's advocate: Defend atheism. I suggest that you don't know what it is. You wrote, "how you come to your conviction of there being no God" and "that is why you are ever into very shallow water when you argue against God existing."

    You wanted to define what a god was (or who "God" is), which is a good idea in a discussion about existence for the reasons you gave.

    Is suggest that you do the same with "atheist." I am an atheist, and neither of your comments apply to me. My arguments are not about the existence of gods, but about the lack of evidence for any and the logical consequences of that.

    Of course, if what you are referring to is a specific god, as the capital-G-o-d spelling implies, then rejecting that god also does not define atheism. One need not be an atheist to reject any particular god. In fact, most theists reject almost all of them.

    For what it's worth, I can't defend any god belief. I have seen the arguments, and find them fallacious - not compelling. How could I make such a case when everything that I would be writing I would know is fallacious? Even in a court of law where an attorney is defending a client he believes is guilty, he is not expected to make a false argument, just the best case he can while being honest.
     
  10. omega2xx

    omega2xx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,767
    Ratings:
    +298
    Religion:
    Christian--Presbyterian
    The only reasonable explanation for a creation, is Creator.

    The only way one can say reasonably say all revealed religions is 100% hearsay is if one is omniscient. This post proves you are not.

    How do you explain the origin of matter, energy and life originating from lifeless elements?
     
  11. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,681
    Ratings:
    +7,783
    Religion:
    None
    Nice job playing the role of atheist.
     
  12. Fire_Monkey

    Fire_Monkey Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2017
    Messages:
    143
    Ratings:
    +51
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism

    So, to begin, let my offer an opinion of your Yahweh.....

    He is without a doubt one of the most loathsome and despicable characters in fiction and literature. He is a jealous, malevolent, petty, tyrannical, and homicidal sky god.

    He demands constant obsequious worship, and he has a penchant for necessary cruelty. He has gone to great lengths to prolong the suffering and mayhem he inflicts, when there is no need to do so.
    As when he "hardened Phahro's heart" so he could inflict more plagues.
    A child killer as well, is your Yahweh. See: The Passover.

    Also examine that delightful story where he had bears maul dozens of children just because they called one of his prophets "baldy."

    A killer of innocents, is Yawheh. As he admittedly visits death upon the innocent relations and children and their children of folks who he thinks did him wrong.

    Those are some of the reasons I detest Yahweh and am so glad that he is of course fictional. The Jews only invented him cuz they needed a pretend make-believe sky god to rally around since their enemies had Baal, who btw was a far more useful god, since he helped crops grow. And he was not nearly as evil
    I am so happy you chose Yawheh as your god to defend. He is the easiest god, IMHO. of them all to criticize. Had a person ever done half the things Yawheh did, he would go down as the worst psychopathic murderer in the history of the world. Yahweh killed more than Hitler and Stalin combined.

    Uh...your turn.

    LOL

    Sure ya wanna argue with me on this one? Be careful. As an atheist I believe in knowing my enemy. So I have read the Kanakh and the OT many times.

    God is Impossible – Evil Bible .com

    FM
     
  13. Robert Landbeck

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Messages:
    150
    Ratings:
    +29
    Religion:
    'Christian' when it finally begins
    "I would love having a challenge".

    If that is indeed the case, the gauntlet has already been thrown down to both religious and atheist alike. And there is no greater spiritual test. I'm undertaking it for myself at the moment.

    The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!

    Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His 'Word' of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Thus is a man 'created' in the image and likeness of his Creator.

    So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at The Final Freedoms
     
  14. Vancouversailor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    86
    Ratings:
    +49
    Religion:
    agnostic
    A debate of this nature is similar to the one children go through in their minds, after receiving the first indications that Santa Claus doesn't in fact exist.
    Initially they are torn between their desire to continue believing, and their desire to know the truth, both because of the good things that Santa brings and because they are reluctant to concede that their parents have been lying to them all these years. Next time Christmas comes around they start investigating more seriously, peeking into their parents cupboards only to find gift packages marked 'from Santa, or perhaps a Santa suit on a dry cleaners hanger.
    At this point their investigations have taken them far beyond where most theists are able or willing to go in their search for proof of God's existence.
    For a while, the child goes along with the parents deception, pretending to not know that Santa is a fake, conveniently stowed away in the parental closet. Then one day they tell their parents not to bother with Santa this year, because they KNOW their secret.
    Again, that is not something that you will ever experience from theists who hide behind some misty, metaphysical thing they call Faith. That faith is as deceptive as the childrens' reluctance to abandon their belief in Santa Claus, but affects the course of the lives of tens of millions of people entwined in the deceptions of the many churches on Earth.
     
  15. Sanmario

    Sanmario Active Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2015
    Messages:
    276
    Ratings:
    +9
    Religion:
    Christian
    Thanks, Brian, you bring in the debate between Russell and Fr. Copleston.

    Part One is on the cosmological argument, i.e. the universe exists and has a beginning, and therefore God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

    Part One ends with Russell declaring that he does not accept the concept of a cause of the world; so Fr. Copleston proposed that it would be impossible to debate with a party who does not accept the concept of a cause of the world.

    And Russell proposed that they go to another sphere of the issue God exists or not, namely, the religious experience argument for God existing.

    They then launched into the religious experience for God existing or not existing.

    That is my memory of that debate in BBC World in the year 1948.


    You know everyone here, let us leave aside this silly thread, or not play silly roles of atheists acting theists, and theists acting atheists.

    Let me propose that we all talk about evidence, as the way I see it, lack of evidence for God existing is the only sensible ground for atheists to hold to their position that God does not exist.

    Now, there is the idea which I know is commonly held by all critical thinkers, namely: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    So, atheists here, do you understand that idea, namely, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, when it is invoked in the issue of God existing or not, and atheists to my certainty have only one serious ground to deny God existing, namely, absence of evidence.


    Is there a board here on One on One Debate? I like to debate an atheist one on one, on evidence for the existence of God, I hold the affirmative contention, and of course the atheist the negative contention.


     
  16. ADigitalArtist

    ADigitalArtist Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Messages:
    9,061
    Ratings:
    +13,813
    Religion:
    Irreligious Agnostic Atheistic Apatheist
    No. Make your own thread for that. Stop trying to control this one. Last warning.
     
  17. JustWondering

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,886
    Ratings:
    +793
    Religion:
    No thanks.
    Wasn't this thread supposed to be for atheists to defend the abrahamic god and theists to present atheist arguments?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    10,855
    Ratings:
    +12,137
    Religion:
    None.
    Well, it seems abundantly clear to me that if we are going to use the argument "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in the defense of God's existence, then surely we must also -- on the same grounds and with exactly the same rationale and authority -- assert the existence of pretty much everything for which that holds true. There is, in fact, no evidence for the Tooth Fairy nor for Santa Claus. Yet, millions upon millions of humans have not only believed, but have (just ask them) received presents and/or money from both of them. The Gods of Egypt, of Greece and of Rome -- not to mention the Gods of the Aztecs and Mayans, nor the spirits so well-known to the aboriginal people's of the Americas, of Australia and New Zealand, and elsewhere -- were are strongly and religiously believed in. In fact, the people who believed in those Gods also in their own way "knew" them. They were as real to them as the Christ is to Christians or Allah to Muslims. And they, too, had no evidence for the existence of their Gods -- and because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is only proper that we should accept those existences as just as real, for all the same reasons, and whatever God you happen to be worshipping now.

    You have nothing better than they did, and they had nothing better than you do now. I used to be an atheist, but I find arguing on this line makes me something more of an ultra-democratic polytheist.
     
  19. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,681
    Ratings:
    +7,783
    Religion:
    None
    There weren't many takers.
     
  20. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,518
    Ratings:
    +1,711
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    I tried that once and ended up talking myself out of atheism! :)
     
Loading...