Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sharpshooter

Atheism On The Rise In America

548 posts in this topic

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So with regards to a "god" what is extraordinary evidence anyway?

That's meant for everyone not just atheists/agnostics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So with regards to a "god" what is extraordinary evidence anyway?

That's meant for everyone not just atheists/agnostics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If at the end of the first paragraph in the Bible, god said, "Oh yeah....and it's round".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we need to prove anything?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we need to prove anything?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So with regards to a "god" what is extraordinary evidence anyway?

That's meant for everyone not just atheists/agnostics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha and that would have been enough eh? :P

On second thought I think my question is going to pull the thread even more off-topic and possibly turn this more into another God thread.

Though on the other hand dajusta seems to have already done that...so I'm not sure what to do now....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So with regards to a "god" what is extraordinary evidence anyway?

That's meant for everyone not just atheists/agnostics.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If at the end of the first paragraph in the Bible, god said, "Oh yeah....and it's round".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If at the end of the first paragraph in the Bible, god said, "Oh yeah....and it's round".

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question. I think some sort of evidence that is able to be repeatedly testable, and that a deity is the most parsimonious explanation for these observations. It's sort of like how our current understanding of physics would be an extraordinary claim to someone a few centuries ago, but we have a multitude of experimental evidence to back these claims up. I'd probably settle for the deity talking to me directly combined with a clean bill of mental health, though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Church and state are separate and I endorse that. Where are you getting at?

I was pointing out that our founding fathers exemplified Christian values and they saw that it was necessary for free worship. Not just Christianity but of all religions. And let's not get too far off from the topic that Puck n Icehole said "people shouldn't be able to teach religious values to kids".

And when I start to explain the notion of God comes with an entire library worth of why he is supreme, and limitless, and the omnipotent being he is, you will start to reject all logical implications from all of it, simply because we are mere humans - not fully understanding GOD.

How fruitful would that be? Not very.

It would all make sense if you could just for one minute assume that God exists. Is there any possible way for us to measure such a being? Is there a way we can put his entire nature onto line paper? Then ask yourself, then why should belief in God require such evidence?

I never claim that God intended for 6 million Jews to die. Where did you get that from?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With every post the futility of my actions are more and more apparent...

The reason I form my argument to you with god being real in mind is so it applies to you. Do you know why atheists dismiss easily any sort of damnation? It's because we don't believe in anything that would make damnation a viable threat. For you to present an argument to me that makes sense is to present an argument without presupposing god exists.

What you're asking me to do is take on the persona of a believer in order for you to make your argument. Sorry, it simply doesn't work that way.

You didn't claim so? Who are you to question god's motives? What else isn't part of god's plan according to you?

The rest of your drivel doesn't even deserve a response. Just nails on a chalkboard.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creation itself is the biggest evidence of a creator.

Basic laws of thermodynamics shows that nothing is self sustaining. Everything has a beginning - and an end.

To say that a book that is full of words and intellect was written by itself, or the very monitor you use to surf the net actually boomed itself into creation is ludicrous in itself. The universe as we know it cannot have just "be eternal"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creation itself is the biggest evidence of a creator.

Basic laws of thermodynamics shows that nothing is self sustaining. Everything has a beginning - and an end.

To say that a book that is full of words and intellect was written by itself, or the very monitor you use to surf the net actually boomed itself into creation is ludicrous in itself. The universe as we know it cannot have just "be eternal"

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Church and state are separate and I endorse that. Where are you getting at?

I was pointing out that our founding fathers exemplified Christian values and they saw that it was necessary for free worship. Not just Christianity but of all religions. And let's not get too far off from the topic that Puck n Icehole said "people shouldn't be able to teach religious values to kids".

And when I start to explain the notion of God comes with an entire library worth of why he is supreme, and limitless, and the omnipotent being he is, you will start to reject all logical implications from all of it, simply because we are mere humans - not fully understanding GOD.

How fruitful would that be? Not very.

It would all make sense if you could just for one minute assume that God exists. Is there any possible way for us to measure such a being? Is there a way we can put his entire nature onto line paper? Then ask yourself, then why should belief in God require such evidence?

I never claim that God intended for 6 million Jews to die. Where did you get that from?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Which is why I love asking atheists what they believe in, since they believe God doesn't exist.

Where do your morals come from? Or do you have any at all?

What makes up your morals? How do you make up your morals?

Do you value life? Not just your own, but life in general? Why or why not?

Do you believe in altruism?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If life were created by some intelligent designer, then that designer must be pretty complex itself, and would therefore also need to be created by an even more intelligent designer.

It becomes an infinite loop of more and more intelligent creators, and that's why the whole idea is bunk. At some point, something has to exist spontaneously.

A great article was written on this and went something like this:

Intelligent Design is the disguise by which Creationists are attempting to infiltrate American schoolrooms and textbooks with their theology. There is no problem at all that they believe God created the heavens, earth and Man, and on the seventh day, he rested. They can even believe that this happened around 10,000 years ago, as about 46% of Americans do.

The objection is the fraudulent "science" by which they attempt to smuggle this religious belief into classrooms. A Biblical explanation for creation no more belongs in a textbook than any other creation myth, such as the Native American belief than we were all given birth by an Earth Mother, with a Spider Women acting as midwife. Now that ID has been thoroughly debunked, the tactic has shifted to: "Teach the controversy." In science, there is no controversy.

"Purpose is the core of ID. If you can detect design, infer a designer. Design is scientific." This is often followed by the parable of a man finding a stopwatch and inferring that it had to have been designed, because it could hardly have assembled itself. From there it is but a short step to assume that the complexities of the human body must have been designed, and that the Designer must have been God.

"This is science." Actually, no, it is a religious belief. There is a scientific hypothesis called the Theory of Evolution that suggests how life might have evolved over an immensity of time into the countless varieties we find on Earth. This hypothesis has been described as the most proven and valuable of all scientific theories, and holds up to the rigor of the Scientific Method. Intelligent Design fails that test.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know quite a few skeptics who are on the same page as you. It's hard because I feel like even if it spoke to me directly and I had previously had a clean bill of mental health, I would still question whether or not I had a hallucination, or maybe I was in the state between sleep and reality, or maybe it was a practical joke. I don't know but I feel like I would be able to come up with some sort of natural explanation which even if it seemed less plausible would still ultimately trump a supernatural explanation.

But good answer. It's a tougher question than it seems I think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.