Challenge to an athiest

[awfulthings9]

Awesome, Ryan. I haven’t had the time to carry on the GW is a myth thing like I hoped when starting the thread, but you’re doing it right.

 

[clarkal]

1. GW is a myth, as was Davie Crocket and Johnny Appleseed. The stories surrounding them are mythologized to such an extent that if a person with that name did exist, it’s safe to say that there is only a minimal resemblance remaining. Killing bears when 3 years old, planting all the apple trees in America, or never telling a lie - are any of these really believable? It’s pure myth, and any intelligent person can see that.
RyanL

Just a question:

Tempted by the devil, turning water into wine, walking on water, casting out demons, curing illnesses, raising the dead, multiplying fish and loaves of bread, rising from the dead, walking through closed doors, flying into heaven… Are any of these really believeable? It sounds like myth to me. What is the difference?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Also, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Ben Franklin were mythical figures created to support the likelihood that George Washington really lived. Likewise, there was no Consitutional Convention, and therefore a non-existing Ben Franklin could not have uttered the following remarks supposedly recorded by a non-existing Madison.

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – *that God governs in the affairs of men. *And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

"I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

 

[awfulthings9]

clarkal:

Just a question:

Tempted by the devil, turning water into wine, walking on water, casting out demons, curing illnesses, raising the dead, multiplying fish and loaves of bread, rising from the dead, walking through closed doors, flying into heaven… Are any of these really believeable? It sounds like myth to me. What is the difference?

I think that’s the point. Just as it would be silly to discount GW because some of the stories don’t jive with our understanding of things or seem myth-like, this thread is designed that it would be wrong for someone to declare himself an athiest or to deny Christ just on the knee-jerk reaction to some of the incredible stories about him. Unlike with GW, though, we have a system of logic (see the tract on Proving Inspiration in the CA library) that helps us verify the stories of Christ, but such does not apply to mere historical figures.

 

[awfulthings9]

I think that the man George Washington really existed, but he was elevated to “President” status when, according to my new book, The George Washington Code, he secretly married and had a child so that his British bloodline would continue on to this day. The power-hungry American Republic has murdered and deceived over the years to hide this, but a secret organization, headed by the famous artist Andy Warhol, holds the real truth and - while they are being hunted down from an albino from the Young Republicans - they will some day reveal the truth to all of our society.

 

[Everstruggling]

the phoenix:

I don’t personally FEEL that George Washington was the president. It doesn’t impact my life in any way. Since reality as I know it comes through my thoughts, feelings, and perceptions, then how can anybody reasonably expect me to believe in George Washington if it’s impossible for me to FEEL that it was true?

Interesting, you are not so much arguing the case against history, but instead arguing the case against sanity.

Reality, if it has any meaning at all, is based not on your individual experiences, but on shared experience. It must be based on a common frame of reference. This is why I went to careful trouble to define the term president, so that we could make sure that we were talking about the same thing.

Your argument would be valid, if I were to propose that the only way in which you could experience George Washington, was through your feelings and perceptions, or if I told you that he had already been involved in your life you just didn’t percieve him there.

If I told you, “Look there HAD to be a George Washington, or else the United States wouldn’t exist.” Then you justified in saying, “Okay then, we are obviously abandonning logical arguments. I am going to base my arguments on personal feelings.”

But as it is, you are simply abandonning a common definition, for a arbitrary one that is impossible to satisfy.

As for the tooth fairy, I agree that concept doesn’t exist … in which case, the tooth fairy can be neither a he nor a she.

I love Snow White, it is one of my favourite characters. I was sad when it’s genderless step-parent sent it off with the wood personage with orders to kill it. Good thing it’s not real, so it can’t die.

Ever

 

[AndyF]

Everstruggling:

The best way to counter discussions with Atheists is simply to use their own logic. The concepts of intellect and other obvious indicators in the existance of God are over the heads of most of these existentialists. They expect us to react to the expectation that the onus is on us to explain ourselves. They raise all debate from the platform that their lives are finite, therefore making their existance and activities purposeless other than to have finite effect. From their belief that this is true for everyone, then the belief in God is purposeless as well, which places us in the same predicament as themselves from their point of view, so they have no argument that we are wasting our time, as they by default of their own belief are doing the same.

In such a belief situation, then it is apparent that making good use of time would be paramount. Debates then become illogical, as it wastes finite time convincing us that we should change to another belief which is also inevitably just as finite.

But these debates mask the real reason for debating, in that the thought that someone possibly may gain something they cannot have is too much to take.

Andy

 

[RyanL]

clarkal:

Just a question:

Tempted by the devil, turning water into wine, walking on water, casting out demons, curing illnesses, raising the dead, multiplying fish and loaves of bread, rising from the dead, walking through closed doors, flying into heaven… Are any of these really believeable? It sounds like myth to me. What is the difference?

As this is not on-topic, I will only offer what has already been said by someone much smarter than I:
G.K. Chesterton:

But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant’s word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant’s word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism – the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence – it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred.

-G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[clarkal]

RyanL:

As this is not on-topic, I will only offer what has already been said by someone much smarter than I:

-G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.

God Bless,
RyanL

I apologize if I went off topic a bit. In that case, I will just say that I think Chesterton is wrong. That’s sort of blasphemy to you, I know, but it is my honest opinion, whatever that’s worth (not much, I guess)…

 

[clarkal]

awfulthings9:

I think that’s the point. Just as it would be silly to discount GW because some of the stories don’t jive with our understanding of things or seem myth-like, this thread is designed that it would be wrong for someone to declare himself an athiest or to deny Christ just on the knee-jerk reaction to some of the incredible stories about him. Unlike with GW, though, we have a system of logic (see the tract on Proving Inspiration in the CA library) that helps us verify the stories of Christ, but such does not apply to mere historical figures.

I agree, and so do a lot of atheists who believe in an historical Jesus. Personally, I’ve come to the conclusion that I have no conclusion on the historicity of Jesus. However, I have judged his words and acts as recorded in the gospels and his religious system, and I personally do not believe that he is a god or his system godly.

That’s just my 2 cents, of course. I mean no offense.

clarkal

 

[MrWhy]

AndyF:

Everstruggling:
In such a belief situation, then it is apparent that making good use of time would be paramount. Debates then become illogical, as it wastes finite time convincing us that we should change to another belief which is also inevitably just as finite.

But these debates mask the real reason for debating, in that the thought that someone possibly may gain something they cannot have is too much to take. Andy

This debate is no more a waste of time than a political debate. There are critical issues here that have impact with major events in the world. Like war, ethnic cleansing, and overpopulation,

There is no theist envy among any atheist I know. Just the opposite. Atheist usually view theist in a way similar to how theist would see those who fervently believe in ESP, UFO’s, astrology, or voodoo.

The half dozen atheist is know personally are active, involved people. They often have a deep appreciation of nature and because they see life as finite try to make good use of the time they have.

Attempts to divert a debate on “the big question” to some problem or weakness in the non-believers personality are common. It usually occurs after one side has given up on reason. It would be difficult to evaluate a debater’s motivation from this distance. Good logic and reason can stand alone, and in some areas of debate, the debater’s personality and motivation are irrelevant.

 

[RyanL]

clarkal:

I apologize if I went off topic a bit. In that case, I will just say that I think Chesterton is wrong. That’s sort of blasphemy to you, I know, but it is my honest opinion, whatever that’s worth (not much, I guess)…

1. It’s not blasphemy…Chesterton is not God.
2. Off topic? A bit, but not wildly. Easily corrected, in any event. Apology accepted.
3. It’s fine to think Chesterton is wrong, just be sure you’re doing so for logical reasons. Objectively, his logical construct appears both reasonable and sound.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

clarkal:

Personally, I’ve come to the conclusion that I have no conclusion on the historicity of Jesus. However, I have judged his words and acts as recorded in the gospels and his religious system, and I personally do not believe that he is a god or his system godly.

1. No offense taken by any here, I’m sure.
2. Please make sure that when you say you have “no conclusion” you actually mean no conclusion. In any event, sound thinking should require that you eventually resolve this question.
3. If Jesus is God, you really have no place judging his words or acts. Just FYI.
4. Are you sure you know what is taught by “his religious system”? You might try C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and see if it fits what you believe “his religious system” to be. If you click here soon, they have a copy for $3.25.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[AndyF]

MrWhy:

This debate is no more a waste of time than a political debate. There are critical issues here that have impact with major events in the world. Like war, ethnic cleansing, and overpopulation,

For the atheist, the definitions of war, ethnic cleansing and overpopulation are debatable, and there could be as many points of view as there are atheists, one being that one should do nothing, another that debates are useless, which is just as acceptable as the rest.

A debate that deals with the mystical and philosophical is pointless for the atheist who believes that all beliefs and their activities have no infinite purpose. This belief poses a barrier on being convinced of the argument of the debatee prior to initiation by him. It follows then thatby doing so, he wastes his own time as he believes his time is limited.

Atheist usually view theist in a way similar to how theist would see those who fervently believe in ESP, UFO’s, astrology, or voodoo.

I don’t think so. These you mention do not impose the element of risk. I have found that most atheists who debate are attached to this topic and take this subject personally. The true atheist who is firm in his belief doesn’t need this exposure, nor would he waste his time in it.

 Attempts to divert a debate on “the big question” to some problem or weakness in the non-believers personality are common.

There is nowhere I imply personality is a factor. 

They often have a deep appreciation of nature and because they see life as finite try to make good use of the time they have.

Interesting. For the atheist who believes every man can live for today and the pleasures of this world, and finds pleasure making bad use of it appealing, you would have nothing to object to, has that is his belief? What particular purposeful code of conduct would you recommend to a person of short stay and short commitments and has his own concept of morals and ethics?
Andy

 

[predator_CA]

awfulthings9:

I know that there may not be physical evidence that Jesus existed, yet, unlike GW, there was no way to test his remains because nobody - even those who hated him, seemed to be able to produce a body. This was confirmed even by Jewish sources who wanted to deny the resurrection. Wow.

So, you’re admitting that Jesus did not exist, wow.

 

[predator_CA]

awfulthings9:

Seeing as how science can’t seem to explain what existed before the Big Bang and can’t reproduce the first molecule of life or explain where the first ingrediants came from. Considering that they can’t give an explanation for the “purpose” that unintelligent life, such as the Venus Flytrap, has in its design or the explanation for a first movement or a first cause, I’ll have to admit, friend, you have a whole lot more faith than I do. Talk about illogical beliefs.

It is illogical to querey about what existed before the big bang, since the big bang was the beginning of the universe. However, it is a theory that I admit may be very wrong. The thing about science that makes it much more sound than religion is that we can admit this. Science seeks answers through testable hypotheses, and making and analysing observations. If some observation or evidence comes up that disproves our current theory, then we can modify our theory accordingly.

Where does religion get it’s answers from? What existed before god? Who created god? If god is unknowable, than how can you know he loves us? If god is omniscient, than he created murderers knowing that they would go on to murder people, and after doing so he sends them to suffer in hell?-How does that make sense? The list of religious absurdities goes on and on: How do we know the people that supposedly talked to god aren’t just lunatics or frauds or liars. Scientists are of a much more reliable pedigree and devote their work to finding out what is fact, or most likely, not making up (Edited offensive term) answers that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside like theists do. And most importantly of all, what is god anyway? It is not possible to defend something when there is no description of what that something even is. I mean it blows my mind that people can conclude that some made-up, unsubstantiated being, god, whatever, just came into existence or always was and created the universe for whatever reason and he loves us all, but if we don’t love him back enough he sends us to burn in hell, (I mean come on) What a joke!!!

How are my beliefs illogical? A venus fly trap is completely explainable, do some resurch, read a biology book, maybe you’d learn something instead of making up some (Edited offensive term) like intelligent design.

Why do you feel it necessary to know everything anyway? As compicated as the universe is, it seems logical to me that it will take us some time to figure it all out, and perhaps we will never explain everything. That doesn’t mean we have to make up answers for the gaps in our knowledge.

And lastly, I have no faith in anything. If I trust someone/something, this trust is based on some past precidents and experiences that showed reliability and responsibility.

Faith is unjustified and illogical and dangerous.

Thanks, predator.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

predator CA:

It is illogical to querey about what existed before the big bang, since the big bang was the beginning of the universe. However, it is a theory that I admit may be very wrong. The thing about science that makes it much more sound than religion is that we can admit this. Science seeks answers through testable hypotheses, and making and analysing observations. If some observation or evidence comes up that disproves our current theory, then we can modify our theory accordingly.

Where does religion get it’s answers from? What existed before god? Who created god? If god is unknowable, than how can you know he loves us? If god is omniscient, than he created murders knowing that they would go on to murder people, and after doing so he sends them to suffer in hell?-How does that make sense? The list of religious absurdities goes on and on: How do we know the people that supposedly talked to god aren’t just lunatics or frauds or liars. Scientists are of a much more reliable pedigree and devote their work to finding out what is fact, or most likely, not making up (Edited offensive term) answers that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside like theists do. And most importantly of all, what is god anyway? It is not possible to defend something when there is no description of what that something even is. I mean it blows my mind that people can conclude that some made-up, unsubstantiated being, god, whatever, just came into existence or always was and created the universe for whatever reason and he loves us all, but if we don’t love him back enough he sends us to burn in hell, (I mean come on) What a joke!!!

How are my beliefs illogical? A venus fly trap is completely explainable, do some resurch, read a biology book, maybe you’d learn something instead of making up some (Edited offensive term) like intelligent design.

Why do you feel it necessary to know everything anyway? As compicated as the universe is, it seems logical to me that it will take us some time to figure it all out, and perhaps we will never explain everything. That doesn’t mean we have to make up answers for the gaps in our knowledge.

And lastly, I have no faith in anything. If I trust someone/something, this trust is based on some past precidents and experiences that showed reliability and responsibility.

Faith is unjustified and illogical and dangerous.

Thanks, predator.

I’m a Scientist.

I believe in God.

 

[predator_CA]

Lady Cygnus:

I’m a Scientist.

I believe in God.

awfulthings9 made the generalization that science is more illogical and requires more faith than religion. I was defending science from his religious “attack” (for lack of a better word).

I know many scientists believe in god, and that perhaps the two subjects can be reconciled, but awfulthings9 seems not to believe so.

And just so I don’t come across as sounding like I think science killed god, I have no problem with scientists believing in god, and I even would expect many of them to, seeing as religious is such a dominant position in our society. I do think, however, that scientists, as a result of the methods of their work, tend to look at the world more objectively and consequently are more predisposed to being not religious.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

predator CA:

awfulthings9 made the generalization that science is more illogical and requires more faith than religion. I was defending science from his religious “attack” (for lack of a better word).

I know many scientists believe in god, and that perhaps the two subjects can be reconciled, but awfulthings9 seems not to believe so.

And just so I don’t come across as sounding like I think science killed god, I have no problem with scientists believing in god, and I even would expect many of them to, seeing as religious is such a dominant position in our society. I do think, however, that scientists, as a result of the methods of their work, tend to look at the world more objectively and consequently are more predisposed to being not religious.

Perhaps you are right, there are certainly a lot of scientists who refuse to look at the evidence for religion on the basis that it is all absurd. I’ve been attacked more than once because I believe in something more than can be proven, but has too much evidence to reject.

And being religious certainly doesn’t make me feel warm and fuzzy. It’s absolutely wonderful being attacked as a crazy and illogical when you’ve spent years studying the world in the most logical way possible. I’m feeling a lot of pain right now, and it’s all too familiar.

Oh, it would be so nice to be able to say there is no God, to be able to turn away and deny Him. To no longer be laughed at by my scientific peers because I believe, to no longer be shunned by my religious peers because I think science holds truth.

But following Truth doesn’t mean you do what is easy.

 

[RyanL]

predator CA:

It is illogical to querey about what existed before the big bang, since the big bang was the beginning of the universe.

Steven Hawking doesn’t think it’s illogical. Perhaps you’re not as experienced at this whole “science” thingy as you like to think. Or perhaps you know better than Steven Hawking.

However, it is a theory that I admit may be very wrong.

That’s the first step.

The thing about science that makes it much more sound than religion is that we can admit this

I cannot agree with you here. Ever read Thomas Aquinas? Plato? What about these guys?

Science seeks answers through testable hypotheses, and making and analysing observations. If some observation or evidence comes up that disproves our current theory, then we can modify our theory accordingly.

So does religion (well…the Catholic faith, anyway). Further reading: Natural Law.

Where does religion get it’s answers from?

Natural reasoning, objective analysis, and finally divine revelation. If there is a God, and if He did reveal Himself, it would be quite silly to reject this; now you only have to analyze whether (1) there is a God and (2) whether He revealed Himself to us. Quite objective so far.

What existed before god? Who created god?

Both of the words “before” and “created” require time. As we know from science, time itself came into being at the Big Bang. If God was the Prime Mover of the Big Bang, He exists outside of time, and thus there is no “before God” or a requirement for His “creation”. It doesn’t seem like you’ve looked into this very well…

If god is unknowable, than how can you know he loves us?

Only by divine revelation

If god is omniscient, than he created murderers knowing that they would go on to murder people, and after doing so he sends them to suffer in hell?-How does that make sense?

The problem of evil…don’t think you’re the first to wonder about this. You might try reading the book of Job. Or, for direct analysis, the Summa. Again, it doesn’t really seem like you have analyzed the data or even slightly researched the arguments involved.

How do we know the people that supposedly talked to god aren’t just lunatics or frauds or liars.

As far as I know, psychoanalysis is a science, and that science has shown that they are not. Additionally, how do you know that the Holocaust happened? What if all of those people are lunatics, frauds, or liars? That’s the approach that Iran is taking. My point is that if you’re going to disbelieve everyone but yourself, you aren’t going to learn very much and you’ll look pretty silly in the process. It’s a rather closed-minded and dogmatic approach, if you ask me. You might be interested in reading some more objective analysis, like C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity.

Scientists are of a much more reliable pedigree and devote their work to finding out what is fact

A pedigree like leaches and bleeding? Cold fusion? The knife cuts both ways, my friend. Maybe you should read Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), and see that Catholics want facts as much as the next guy.

It is not possible to defend something when there is no description of what that something even is.

What is thought? What is reality? I guess these things don’t exist either…

How are my beliefs illogical?

You argue against straw men and have not done your research. You do not present logical arguments, and make wild generalizations that aren’t rational. Is that enough or should I continue?

Why do you feel it necessary to know everything anyway?

We don’t know everything, and believe we never will (as we can never fully know the infinite, for to do so we must also be infinite - which we are not). Why do you?

…cont’d…