A god that would cause infinite torture for unbelief disgusts me. I would gladly revolt against this ugly god of yours, even if the revolt be hopeless. It would be just. How would you enjoy your eternal life, knowing others are enduring infinite torment simply for non-belief? How would you enjoy your eternal life, knowing that an otherwise just person is condemned to infinite torture simply because of a thought crime?
I hope you do not get your morals from this same, petty god. To believe something out of such fear is neurotic. Free yourself from guilt and immortal fear. I argue these topics because I find the alternative liberating and healthy. Free yourself from this celestial North Korea.
This is not the same as an imaginary friend, why would I try to remove that from someone’s life? This is an imaginary oppressor.
It has been said that atheists have no purpose. That is not true, though it is true that Atheism conveys no such purpose; that is because it is only a position on religion, not a religion in itself. For purpose, we must look in other places, much of philosophy is dedicated to such a quest.
Some Atheists believe that religion is dangerous because it is often used to brain wash and exploit people to do things that aren’t righteous. However, I believe such Atheists, or followers of this idea, have confused theism (belief in god/s) with religion - and the two are most definitely not the same.
You can I’m sure sympathise with their concerns, after all the Catholic church is very rich, and with it’s money it could help people rather than hoard it all in the Vatican. To say the cliché phrase, what would Jesus do?
Fortunately, I’m a strict agnostic in that I don’t think we can really ever know the truth. Science is limited to questions of how the universe works and cares little for why things are the way they are. As such evolution and the big bang do not conflict with the idea of a God being the ultimate cause. In trying to find an answer to why, we must hold all possibilities, not just the idea of a creator, to be equally likely until evidence points to one - which of course it never will.
EDIT: Amorphis, I’d argue that no one forms their opinions through reasoning. When we see something we don’t agree with, firstly we nit pick it and then we start questioning the premises. When we do agree, we make every attempt to defend it. Rarely do we look at the content of an argument. Debate is all about persuasion through several different ways:
Our own point is shown to be unworkable, and so we default to the arguer’s point instead (rather than consider if their point is unworkable too)
The arguer’s point suits us more than our current held opinions
We are continuously exposed to a certain opinion stated as fact, and so begin to agree with that opinion
There is nothing logical about an idea, it just has to sound logical and be well presented to be accepted as correct.
Bombax, do you need proof to realise that jumping off a cliff results in death? Even though lots of people tell you it will - but you’ve never seen it for yourself?
Surely it’s not so much about proof but more about what, in your mind, defines the existence or otherwise of a creator to be more or less likely?
Look Bombax, we can’t prove out theroys and neither can you, we’ve booth presented our proofs and our proofs are completly illogical. you’ve presented your book as we have ours. Both sides are so arrogant that we will continue with the debate until our bodys crumble away and the dust gets stuck in the keyboard .
Now we can go on in one of three directions .
WE can continue what we are doing, where we have a livly debate, and you come in and point out the christians flaws.
SPOILER - Click to view
Also i do not mean this to affect said debate, but it seems that you have been pointing out logical flaws in perfectly fine sentences because they did not provide proof out within the topic, while it could be found in obvious places outside said topic. I realize that i am not mentioning where this happened nor mentioning that you did the same thing, you shoul be able t find it easily
2.We can continue our livley debate with you taking part in the debate.
3. You leave the topic, or at least point out flaws via PM
The reason I point out your logical fallacies is to show you that your arguments are invalid, and that you must present new material to hold a debate regarding this matter.
A dialogue per definition means listening to others’ material, analyzing it, then making a contributing addition to propel the dialogue. So far, people have responded to each others’ arguments, and thus it is at least in part dialogue.
Exhaustively, I say again: Provide valid, logical evidence to show that it is so.
Non sequitur, it does not follow. Provide valid evidence that it is true.
It doesn’t make it true either.
By saying this, you are dismissing the logical fallacies I pointed out earlier against many of these quotes. Argumentum ad nauseam, because it is repeated does not mean that it is true. I suggest that you go back and indulge yourself with these logical fallacies to realize why they do not found support for your point.
Everything can be discussed - you cannot logically put a period and say that the discussion of something is over. Neither does your “strong belief” imply that your argument is truthful.
Most certainly. Here you will find an incomplete (meaning not all) list of evidence for evolution. Because I do not know if this material has gone through peer review, where logical fallacies are checked for, I cannot tell you if everything is logically valid, but I suspect the very most of it is.
False analogy. Everything that exists cannot be likened to a painting at all. For example, creatures replicate with genetic variation - paintings don’t. Therefore, this analogy is invalid.
Non sequitur. Provide valid evidence.
Non sequitur.
Everything can be discussed. False analogy. EVVVIDENCE.
The absolutely most reliable system we have in the world is the logical system, which, compared to the illogical system, is incomparably more sensible. But if you believe in something, despite having seen the lack of logically valid evidence for, you are being illogical (e.g. sentimental fallacy), and thus, unsensible and unattached to reasoning.
No, I’d let them convince themselves by asking them to prove it. If they fail to prove it, then, if they operate under the logical system (under which all sensible things operate) then they would convince themselves.
No, I do not “argue because God is truly present in [my] life.”
This demonstrates that you do not argue under the logical system and argue on a purely emotional level, on which any conclusion can be made. Then, what is the point of arguing with me? I know that you know that you will not refute your belief because it is completely emotional. Thus, we cannot reach a sensible conclusion and therefore, it is pointless to argue with you.
But I have seen proof/evidence that jumping off a cliff results in death. I have seen people die of severe injuries - I have seen that falling a long distance can cause injuries. Therefore it is sensible to conclude that falling a long distance can cause death, and should therefore be avoided.
This is not the case, it has to do with repenting for your wrongs, or whatever. If you are going to say that you don’t have any faults, then you are simply arrogant. You have not done your research if you think that way
so you wouldn’t remove an imaginary friend, because it brings joy? I assume. But you would remove God, who i might state also brings joy for those who believe in his existence, simply because you see him as an oppressor?
You’ve only read that jumping off cliff’s can kill you in the media. And the media isn’t exactly a scientific document, so if you believe the media, why not the bible? Inductive logic is all well and good, but it’s limited to your biased and opinionated knowledge of injury, death, and cliffs. You can hardly call logic a fair way of assessing things.
Mathematics is the only way to even start removing such bias.
Of course, concerning the bible, I think it’s likely to be a made up story to control people. That doesn’t discount the existence of a “god”
Knowledge does not have to be perfect to be useful (just perfect “enough”) as stated in the Nirvana fallacy. Thus, my “biased and opinionated knowledge of…” is good enough for a logical conclusion, because I have seen sufficient amounts of different kinds of evidence to make it. By contrast, I have not seen sufficient amounts of different kinds of evidence to prove that the bible is correct, and thus I do not make any conclusions based on it.
I have faults, but my soul is unblemished by the black, Christian (Catholic) mar of sin and metaphysical guilt. I answer to myself for my mistakes, and to those I cause harm to in the process of committing them. I will not “repent” of any Christian sin, that sin is being human. I would not repent of that.
I do not need fear of ultimate pain to be a just person. The doctrine of the infernal hell of torment disgusts me beyond words, and it is interesting to note that it took Jesus to bring it to us. Why does it not move you that your “loving” god has created such a place? Eternal torture! That is a blasphemy against the human sense of decency! What crime could anyone commit to deserve eternal torture?
I was told an interesting anecdote once: a child in Sunday school was asked to paint her soul. What she painted was a human-shaped body with black marks over it. The black marks were her sin. This is your Christian guilt, that would cause a child feel her soul covered in sin. This world does not want this doctrine, take it back to the abyss from whence it came!
Bombax aright I grant you that. But in reference to the Nirvana fallacy, you have no evidence for or against god. Indeed, you hear a lot about god’s existence, and a lot about cliff deaths. How can you make a conclusion based on “reasoned” evidence that jumping off cliffs kills but then use a completely contradictory argument about the existence or non existence of god?
Assuming any evidence for god is considered to be not “reasonable”, how can you be sure of the non-existence of god with no “reasonable” evidence to point one way or the other? And why should their be an earnest to prove rather than disprove in the absence of any “reliable” knowledge?
Lastly, who decides what knowledge is to be considered reasonable?
Another thought, we have never detected dark matter or energy, but mathematically it makes sense. This is why I say we can only rely on mathematics to help us find any truth. We must cast away our logic, for the very ideas of the Nirvana fallacy, as surely we are all guilty of falling victim to the Nirvana fallacy.
Bombax, have you read the bible?
EDIT:
I agree 110%. We are the ones at fault for doing bad things. There is no escape from the guilt, we must forgive ourselves, however we achieve that, but not by delegating responsibility.
an analogy is anything that you use to help compare things; if they were perfectly alike it wouldn’t be an analogy at all. you threw out the whole point because you wanted to. the funny thing is that the point wasn’t for or against the argument in the first place. You just refuted it to make it look like you had more evidence.
There is some proof to the existence of god, although it may be possible to refute it, just as it is to refute evidence for evolution.
the odds of a planet being capable to support life are so small, that they provide some evidence pointing to a greater force behind the universe. just as the universe expanding provides evidence for an explosion starting the universe.
but since you don’t consider this proof in your argument, you don’t think there is any at all.
but in their head they really are flying, and they cant understand why you don’t think they are too. Thus neither side can prove anything.
Because i make one statement based on my emotions, you assume that anything i ever said is invalid, and throw it out the window.
Why do people think that the Big Bang started the whole Universe, when, in fact, it was just evidence of a massive chemical reaction? What evidence can you provide that nothing existed before that?
This may be partially irrelevant, but I have no time to read through the whole five pages of debate, but: If a = b, then does that automatically mean that b = a? No, it doesn’t.
I go for the belief of God, but not for eternal torture/pleasure. Instead, I ultimately go for free expression.
“God is not a name, God is a title.”
Square-Circle Theories (ones I came up with) :
You can’t imagine something that is logically impossible or is very highly improbable, like a square-shaped circle. Likewise, you can’t properly imagine consciousness ceasing to exist (you can imagine the concept but not play it out in your imagination properly), so this pretty closely supports my belief in the survival of consciousness after death.
Conflict resolves nothing. Religion will continue to exist even if most of the population in 2000 years may be atheist. It’s subjective.
Everything in this universe is physical, all except time itself. Physical things have specific beginnings and specific endings:time doesn’t.
Everything, relevant or irrelevant, harmful or helpful; physical or not physical, ALL coexist and coincide with each other, some in different ways than others.
That was just a way for me to analyze and ponder existence. This thread is quite interesting watches it
Please elaborate, I could not understand the question.
That is not the assumption. That never was the assumption. To clarify, all so-far presented evidence for God in this topic has shown to be invalid. However, we cannot refute that there is evidence for God - nevertheless, no valid evidence has been presented thus far.
Where did I say that I was sure of the non-existence of God? In fact, I believe I opened this topic with “I’m an agnostic”. Can you rephrase your second question?
There is no entity that decides whether something is considered to be “reasonable”, but rather, there is a logical principle which so far encompasses the method to argue sensibly, until even more sensible methods to argue are found.
Mathematics is the field of science which encompasses all and is applied by most known fields of science thus far - physics being its closest (but still extremely distant) cousin. While it is true that mathematics is the most accurate of all sciences, because it relies only on intuitive “empiricalities”, that does not mean that the less “perfect” of sciences, such as physics, is useful and “accurate enough” as well (accurate enough meaning the most accurate of all theory-of-physics-alternatives).
Yes.
Indeed, but what makes an analogy a false analogy is that something very relevant to explain the concept is missing in the analogy, or is distorted to unsensible inaccuracy. I have already said why your analogy was invalid; it was missing several subconcepts, the most vital one being that “creatures can be likened to paintings. Creatures reproduce - paintings don’t.”
Show this proof/evidence, or you have no point.
There are billions of rock-like formations in our universe. Have you ever considered that it will be on the planets which can support life that intelligent life will arise and perhaps start wondering what’s so special about their planet?
Will you correct that statement?
Not really. By the way, non sequitur, it does not follow that logic usually fails because of religion. In addition, logic is a fundamental part in mathematics. Both are applicable in reality, as well.
Define “before”.
Loki’s Wager - just because you cannot imagine it does not mean that it cannot be discussed. And non sequitur, say explicitly why “since you can’t properly imagin consciousness” implies “consciousness after death”.
How did people get God so twisted? Finding God is a journey of self. As soon as you follow someone else’s path you become lost. It’s real people, don’t mistake that. When other peoples interpretations seem wrong, improve them. There is no room for atheism in a logical debate. Thats a shallow train of thought caught up in self righteousness and defensive ego. God is love.
Smeester, your right. We’re right. They will see one day. We must be a light, an example, and walk away in triumph. Their life will lack purpose. They will lack understanding. Lack insight and truth. I love it. It makes they’re turn around all so much better. When you see the light it’s brighter to those who have been in the dark longer.
There has to be a creator. Know why? I’ll spell it out. Using a tree, again.
We have a tree? Did you design the tree? Truck, canopy, seasons, foliage…? Oh no you didn’t? Neither did I. So what did? God. Do not picture an old man, clock in hand stroking a beard. Picture logic/science… a cosmic consciousness.
You mustn’t be blinded. The tree is everything. I could’ve used yourself. Or a bird, or a plant, or a donkey, your mother… a raccoon, water, your future daughters and sons. I could have used oxygen, sand, grass, our planet, or the sky.
WHO CREATED RIGHT AND WRONG? There is a compulsion, a purpose in goodness. Why?
More Evidence: Lucid Dreams. Follow me.
When your in a lucid dream, what are you. What separates you from every character you encounter. Are you the actor? The director? Are you the puppet master of your dreams, the architect? The sculpture, the painter… your own genie… a magician? What would you call yourself. You would be the ultimate consciousness in control; you would be what God is to us. It’s simple.
Now lets just say that since you get your own private world to control while you sleep maybe… just maybe someone or something designed our waking life. A purpose driven life striving to be better than the day before. A test-run. A trial.
If you can create your world, God can create this one. Check the signature some time.
(I): Premises must be established on empirical findings, meaning that you must find evidence in reality, then make a logically valid conclusion. You have thus far presented no valid evidence (a tree is not evidence of God; non sequitur) to prove God’s existence.
(II):
Non sequitur, again. It does not follow logically from “We have a tree” and “No human designed the tree” that “God designed the tree”.
Non sequitur, a form of false analogy. Lucid dreams are not analogous to reality in the sense that you describe them. Regardless, it doesn’t even follow from the fact that lucid dreams exist that God would exist.
You have still failed to provide empirical evidence from which you draw a logically valid conclusion.
Bombax, you answered pretty much my questions, but now I have one: What and how does the logical principle for determining reasonability work?
I didn’t say logic fails because of religion. What we want to be the truth usually affects our ability logicise (which is now a verb). If we could properly logicise, we wouldn’t have religion. If you get rid of religion, you’ve still got the fact that people cannot properly logisise. No one can, it is endemic to human nature and the way we live.
You could have the son of god before you preforming miracles, and I think still you would dismiss it. Not because it’s not logical or reasonable, but because you are so set on the idea that no reasonable evidence could ever come forth. Which isn’t unreasonable considering none has so far - or has it? Is the evidence unreasonable? In who’s view?
I disagree. The magical lesbian witch abortionist unicorn with rainbows coming out of its backside created trees. Why not? I mean if you’ll go for god, why not another option? Besides, I believe a magical lesbian witch abortionist unicorn with rainbows would be a much more amusing truth.
.