The Atheism vs Theism Debate: I'm frustrated

[crazzeto]

Assuming you’re implying that was my argument, you’re using a strawman.

It sure seems like it, considering you keep trying to come back and suggest that because we need “context” there can never be objective truth. Context is what determains whether or not a killing is murder or self defence. Just because some killings are self defence, that doesn’t mean murder is anything other than evil. It just means that there are some killings (of human beings) which are not murder.

If there is a mis-understanding here then I first appologies, and secondly would ask you to clear up what you were saying. Because it seems like I’m not the only one here who understood you to be heading in that direction.

 

[JackQ]

I listen to debates between atheist and theists (mostly evangelicals). There isn’t many outside of Dinesh D’Sousa in the Catholic camp. This Rock had a March special on the new atheists but it was mostly about Richard Dawkins, in my opinion one of the least compelling in my opinion for the atheist viewpoint and he is usually dripping in vitriol for Christianity even when he sometimes tries to veil it.

Richard Carrier (atheist) makes good arguments for mythisim of Christ but some of them are weak too like other mythisists. Listening to him, I notice deliberate attempts to doctor up and repackage up old theories. Ex: He says the parallels between Pagan myths and the Christ story are not because they copied like some mythisist theorist say, but because of the general prevalence of mystery religions common in that time. But Richard defends himself by claiming it was patterned out of Judaism beliefs and practices not copying of from any particular pagan religion.

Bart Ehrman talks about Scribal errors and writing note from notes from previous scribes into the main text, and deliberate changes to correct for prevailing theology. Etc on that one.

Why I’m frustrated:

Catholic Answers plays short shrift to these topics. This is a fertile apologetic landscape (new frontier) and I’d rather not loose my faith but I’m moving in that direction. Also where are the Catholic Heavy hitters to debate these type.

If you want to know more about what I am talking about, go to infidelguy.com/index.php or talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=49897&cmd=tc and listen to some of his guests and debates.

Help, I need credible resources, I’m loosing this battle.

Summa8447

Well, I went to the infidelguy website, clicked on “arguments against God’s existence,” went to the first argument, and found this:

Arguments Against God’s Existence
TEN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENTS:

Submitted by Ted Drange
Definitions of “God”
Before getting to the arguments, it is important to present the various definitions of “God” that they employ:

D1: God is the eternal, all-powerful, personal being who created and rules the universe. (Being eternal, God cannot come into or go out of existence. Being all-powerful, he can perform any action that is logically possible to perform. Being personal, he has some characteristics in common with humans, such as thinking, feeling emotions, and performing actions. The universe is understood to consist of all the space, time, matter, and energy that has ever existed.)
************************************************************

D6: God is the deity described in the Bible as interpreted by evangelical Christianity.

It will be indicated for each argument which of the above definitions of “God” it employs.

Arguments Against God’s Existence
The Anti-creation Argument (D1, D6):

(a) If X creates Y, then X must exist temporally prior to Y.
(b) But nothing could possibly exist temporally prior to time itself (for that would involve existing at a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction).
(c) Thus, it is impossible for time to have been created.
(d) Time is an essential component of the universe.

(e) Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have been created.

(f) It follows that God, as defined by D1 and D6, cannot exist.

I have to say, I’m not very impressed. There is absolutely no reason in the world why it must be true that if X creates Y that X must exist temporally prior to Y.

I know there’s other arguments on the site, but that’s a start.

 

[gearhead]

how do they get around Messianic Prophecy? there were prophecies about Christ for millenia before He was born. they were written by different people hundreds of years apart, yet they were fulfilled in Christ. a mathematically and historically undeniable fact.

Jesus didn’t fulfill the Jewish messianic prophecies. There are many messianic prophecies that even the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus fulfilled… after all, has war come to an end? Do all Jews know the Torah without study?

Also, many of the “prophecies” listed in the Gospels aren’t actually Jewish messianic prophecies at all.

If you do some quick Googling, you can see the actual list of prophecies that the Jewish messiah is supposed to fulfill. Jesus fails to meet many of them, if not most.

As well, the Gospel records that several of the “prophecies” were self-fulfilling. For instance, at one point Jesus says (roughly) “go get me a colt and a donkey so I can ride into Jerusalem on them, because that’s what the prophecies say the messiah is going to do.” Heck, I could do that. It means nothing.

To top it all off, there’s no extra-biblical evidence that many of the “prophecies” were fulfilled at all. For instance, what reason do you have to think that Jesus came out of Egypt except for the fact that the Bible conveniently tells you so?

 

[liquidpele]

It sure seems like it, considering you keep trying to come back and suggest that because we need “context” there can never be objective truth. Context is what determains whether or not a killing is murder or self defence. Just because some killings are self defence, that doesn’t mean murder is anything other than evil. It just means that there are some killings (of human beings) which are not murder.

If there is a mis-understanding here then I first apologies, and secondly would ask you to clear up what you were saying. Because it seems like I’m not the only one here who understood you to be heading in that direction.

Think back to my original argument about whether you should be skeptical or not. My point is that you can’t be skeptical all the time or believe everything all the time, it depends on the context of what you are being asked to believe and the people involved. For some people, religion or even topics within the realm of religion, will fall somewhere on the scale but it’s different for each situation and person.

Now, I do happen to believe that there is not absolute evil or good, at least in any context that humanity can currently grasp, but this is not the argument I was trying to make here so I’m sorry if I fueled the tangent unintentionally.

 

[liquidpele]

I have to say, I’m not very impressed. There is absolutely no reason in the world why it must be true that if X creates Y that X must exist temporally prior to Y.

I know there’s other arguments on the site, but that’s a start.

It was saying that for God to create the universe, he would have to exist before the universe. That’s all.
But I do agree arguments attempting to disprove God are a fools errand.

 

[M0nkey]

I didn’t claim he made the claims Jesus made, what are you talking about? And I meant the Judaism in present day, Jesus himself was Jewish after all, it would be a bit silly to say no Jews *ever *believed in Jesus.

Just wanted to clear that up in case, most people don’t realize that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism so to insinuate it doesn’t belong to the Jew is simply silly.

You realize there is not a universal law of gravity right? General relativity breaks down at the quantum level and black holes.

Actually, Einstein worked on a universal law of relativity that could explain quantum mechanics and black holes. Needles to say, this has not been discovered yet, but to say that “general relativity breaks down” is not quite right either.

 

[crazzeto]

Think back to my original argument about whether you should be skeptical or not. My point is that you can’t be skeptical all the time or believe everything all the time, it depends on the context of what you are being asked to believe and the people involved. For some people, religion or even topics within the realm of religion, will fall somewhere on the scale but it’s different for each situation and person.

Now, I do happen to believe that there is not absolute evil or good, at least in any context that humanity can currently grasp, but this is not the argument I was trying to make here so I’m sorry if I fueled the tangent unintentionally.

Ok, well then I was on target the whole time, as you admit here. Yes I understand what you’re trying to say, but ultimatly it was easy to see where you were really coming from. You assert there is no objective good and evil. My arguements all stand, no starwman here.

 

[gearhead]

Just wanted to clear that up in case, most people don’t realize that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism so to insinuate it doesn’t belong to the Jew is simply silly.

Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism only in the mind of the Christian.

 

[M0nkey]

To top it all off, there’s no extra-biblical evidence that many of the “prophecies” were fulfilled at all. For instance, what reason do you have to think that Jesus came out of Egypt except for the fact that the Bible conveniently tells you so?

I’d like to see some evidence for your wild claims. To start off, Jesus went to Egypt for the same reason Jews did, this was to fulfill that God shepherd the Jews from the land of Egypt. Why do you think He said: “destroy this temple I will, and build it in three days,” in light of the resurrection?

 

[M0nkey]

Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism only in the mind of the Christian.

Not according to the Apostles who were Jewish. Christianity does not originate with Gentiles as much as revisionists would like to think.

 

[gearhead]

I’d like to see some evidence for your wild claims. To start off, Jesus went to Egypt for the same reason Jews did, this was to fulfill that God shepherd the Jews from the land of Egypt.

Wait… Jesus went to Egypt because he was sold into slavery?

Why do you think He said: “destroy this temple I will, and build it in three days,” in light of the resurrection?

Because he can’t count, maybe?

One day and two nights does not equal three days and three nights.

 

[gearhead]

Not according to the Apostles who were Jewish. Christianity does not originate with Gentiles as much as revisionists would like to think.

Okay… you go to your local synagogue and tell them that your religion “fulfills” theirs and tell me what they say.

By the same logic, Islam “fulfills” Christianity.

 

[M0nkey]

Wait… Jesus went to Egypt because he was sold into slavery?

Well, Joseph welcomed the Jewish people to come to Egypt when he became governor during a famine. The point is that God drew His people out of the land of Egypt the same way He drew His Son.

Because he can’t count, maybe?

One day and two nights does not equal three days and three nights.

Jesus died on Friday, resurrected on Sunday, Friday: 1, Saturday: 2, Sunday: 3, you follow?

 

[M0nkey]

Okay… you go to your local synagogue and tell them that your religion “fulfills” theirs and tell me what they say.

By the same logic, Islam “fulfills” Christianity.

That is not using the same logic, in no way did a Christian begin Islam. Of course, you have to know a little history to understand that. Again, there were no Christians before Christ, and Jesus Christ was a Jew. In fact, the word “Christ-ian” denotes a person who’s a follower, a part of Christ. It was first used in Antioch as a way to mock this new Jewish cult.

 

[IronHammer]

All I can say is, I struggled with atheism at a time in my life. By God’s grace, I have come to love and trust in God, Jesus and Holy Mother Church and I am so much more complete and hopeful and happy. Just imagining a world where people just…die…? And that’s it?

Very, very depressing thought. I wouldn’t have a reason to live, I don’t think.

 

[liquidpele]

Ok, well then I was on target the whole time, as you admit here. Yes I understand what you’re trying to say, but ultimatly it was easy to see where you were really coming from. You assert there is no objective good and evil. My arguements all stand, no starwman here.

So just to be clear, you are claiming that a person must either be sceptical about every single thing brought to their attention, or they must accept as truth every single thing?

 

[crazzeto]

So just to be clear, you are claiming that a person must either be sceptical about every single thing brought to their attention, or they must accept as truth every single thing?

I beleive what I said should be clear because I took some time to be explicite. So I would suggest that you need to go back and re-read my postings. Particularly the bit I wrote about the invalid POV being propagated as a result of the baby boomers growing up.

 

[liquidpele]

I beleive what I said should be clear because I took some time to be explicite. So I would suggest that you need to go back and re-read my postings. Particularly the bit I wrote about the invalid POV being propagated as a result of the baby boomers growing up.

Okay… lets replay:

Originally Posted by liquidpele

Originally Posted by crazzeto

Originally Posted by tonyrey
Why do you think sceptical reasons are more reliable? If you take scepticism to its logical conclusion you believe nothing - which of course is self-refuting…

Yeah… There is definetly a false idea being evangalized that unless you’re skeptical of everything everyone says then you’re being foolishly lead by everyone. This philosophy doesn’t work any better than just gullably believing everything everyone says. One must listen intently and in good faith, apply reason to what you’re hearing (reading) and process it, see if it makes sense. Only then make the call.

Ultimatly there is an objective, real truth, an objective real good. Opposing it there is an objective, clear falsehood, and objective clear evil. Denying this basic fact is pure foolishness.
It’s not black and while, you guys are making a false dichotomy. If someone tells me they went to the store today, I’m not going to be skeptical, that would be silly. However, for everyone there is a point where they are skeptical because it’s dangerous not to be. Would you be skeptical of a sister’s boyfriend who had just got out of prison?

My point was simply that I lean more towards skeptical reasoning than perhaps some others would. Unless you’re a pessimist or evangelical I would consider it all within the “moderate” range of reasoning though. In the case of religion, I perfectly understand why many are not skeptical of it, but they are not me.

So… tonyrey says that scepticism is essentially invalid because you’d have to be sceptical of everything. Actually, your response isn’t that bad, I suppose my point was more directed at tonyrey and is more in agreement with your comment, beyond your mention of absolute right and wrong of course.

 

[StillWondering]

Can I offer my 2cents?

If you go into a discussion or argument hoping to “win” you will hurt your spiritual peace. If you go into a discussion and avoid arguments with the intention of offering an understanding for those souls interested in the truth, then you will have the energy and love to support them on their journey.

What I’m saying is to pick and choose your fights. We have a duty to help others and evangelize but those who are not ready to hear at this time are not ready to hear at this time. Plant a seed and come back later. For those that are ready, teach them how to cultivate the soil, plant the seed with them, and keep watch to ensure the plant is well cared for till it is ready to grow on it’s own for the most part.

 

[summa8447]

Well, I went to the infidelguy website, clicked on “arguments against God’s existence,” went to the first argument, and found this:

Arguments Against God’s Existence
TEN ATHEISTIC ARGUMENTS:

Submitted by Ted Drange
Definitions of “God”
Before getting to the arguments, it is important to present the various definitions of “God” that they employ:

D1: God is the eternal, all-powerful, personal being who created and rules the universe. (Being eternal, God cannot come into or go out of existence. Being all-powerful, he can perform any action that is logically possible to perform. Being personal, he has some characteristics in common with humans, such as thinking, feeling emotions, and performing actions. The universe is understood to consist of all the space, time, matter, and energy that has ever existed.)
************************************************************

D6: God is the deity described in the Bible as interpreted by evangelical Christianity.

It will be indicated for each argument which of the above definitions of “God” it employs.

Arguments Against God’s Existence
The Anti-creation Argument (D1, D6):

(a) If X creates Y, then X must exist temporally prior to Y.
(b) But nothing could possibly exist temporally prior to time itself (for that would involve existing at a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction).
(c) Thus, it is impossible for time to have been created.
(d) Time is an essential component of the universe.

(e) Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have been created.

(f) It follows that God, as defined by D1 and D6, cannot exist.

I have to say, I’m not very impressed. There is absolutely no reason in the world why it must be true that if X creates Y that X must exist temporally prior to Y.

I know there’s other arguments on the site, but that’s a start.

Some of Infidel Guy (Reginald Finley)'s arguments are okay but the strong points is many of his guests.

But you are incorrect. If X or anything at all does any creating it must be first positioned within the realm of temporality (TIME) since creation occurs in a linear manner. Movement in time. So God can only create once the universe along with its time exists, and then god would have to operate within time space for the progressive creation process. Otherwise we have to redefine what we are talking about without using temporal terminology.

Don’t you see we are talking about something (God) about which we cannot even articulate and we are elevating what ancient people had to say about it who didn’t even understand germ theory or scantly anything about the way the world in which they lived operated. We evolved originally to be hunter gatherers, but our curiosity which helped us survive evolutionarily made us curious about more and more that has little to do with physical survival and more to do with social, psychological, and spiritual survival.

Summa8447