The Great Faith Debate

[Simulacrum]

I'm an atheist. It's just that I can't make any sense out of what Anonymous is saying, and the part that I could decipher (what I quoted earlier) just seems to ignore many aspects of religion. Edited January 26, 2010 by Simulacrum

[SeVeR]

An atheist, meaning you know there is no God? Or you just don't believe God? Or you think God could exist because you can't disprove him/her/it/whatever?

[Lera]

agnostic

[Simulacrum]

I believe that God doesn't exist. I'm not sure that it makes sense to say that I "know" this.

[kid]

Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.

 

The omnibenevolent/omnipotent argument is the reason I am an atheist. I cannot offer any justifications for the suffering I have either seen or know to exist.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Courage

[Anonymous]

I believe that God doesn't exist. I'm not sure that it makes sense to say that I "know" this.

I took you for someone who was religious.

Hence why I said

"One who does not show a clear side in this argument"

My argument (If you could call it that) would only make sense had you been attacking SeVeR on a religious basis, which is what it seemed like to me, from what I can read though, it almost appears to be the other way around.

Pardon me for the confusion.

 

-Anon

 

E: What do you believe Sev? Excuse me if you have already posted your beliefs, but I don't feel like rummaging through 20 pages while my internet is acting off.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Anonymous

[SeVeR]

Being a scientist I am agnostic, but that doesn't stop me from being vehemently irreligious.

 

Atheists who claim knowledge of the non-existence of God are just as illogical as religionists, but then it all depends on the definition of God. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang so a simple creator God has no evidence against it. A God who's existence depends on his direct interference in our history is a God you can disprove, but then this is irrelevant, because religionists will remove this dependence to preserve their faith, descending further into the unknown and closer to the simple creator God that cannot be disproved. Many Christians regard the Old Testament as a metaphor, or they have completely reinterpreted it in the face of modern science and culture to be more plausible. I had Christians tell me that a day in the creation story is actually millions of years in our time, the days were just much longer then. It just gets more and more desperate, but the faith remains, because it rests on the original creator God claim, the ultimate unknown, the first cause, the reason why I can only be an agnostic, despite how much I despise religion.

 

I have no problem with anything Simulacrum has said, I was only asking questions.

[BDwinsAlt]

There is no evidence that says God does not exist because there is so much stuff in the universe we don't know. We would be arrogant to think we know 1% about the universe.

No one can disprove there is a God. It seems like ever arguement someone brings up about there couldn't be a God, has already been argued in the Bible.

 

For instance, Courage doesn't see how a God would allow suffering. The Bible clearly says God punishes his children. He wants you to go to him for comfort. You might think he is jealous and maybe a little selfish, well it says that in the Bible, too. God wants you to love him more than anything or anyone on Earth. If you don't like that, he has a place for you. You might not like that, but if you choose his path it's a lot easier. That's the side Christians don't normally show or maybe don't know. But God gets angry. He can be loving, but he does not spare the rod.

 

If you don't believe in God, just look around at everything. Some people try to use science to disprove God's existence, but everything I see leads to me believe more. It's easy to be an atheist when you know nothing or little about the Bible. Was anyone brought up Christian and then decided to leave their faith? Has anyone been to a church where you can actually feel something else there? You see people on those dumb ghost shows talking about it feels colder, and they have goose bumps and shit. That's what it gets like in a good church. Except it doesn't feel threatening. You could argue that it's all in someone's head, but the brain is a link between our reality and other places.

 

EDIT: Oh, sever, about the millions of years things. Time in the bible is weird. A week = 7 years. And sometimes a day = 1000 days. The guys who wrote it didn't use actual numbers. Telling time in the bible is almost impossible unless you study it a lot.

Edited January 29, 2010 by BDwinsAlt

[Simulacrum]

For instance, Courage doesn't see how a God would allow suffering. The Bible clearly says God punishes his children. He wants you to go to him for comfort. You might think he is jealous and maybe a little selfish, well it says that in the Bible, too. God wants you to love him more than anything or anyone on Earth. If you don't like that, he has a place for you. You might not like that, but if you choose his path it's a lot easier. That's the side Christians don't normally show or maybe don't know. But God gets angry. He can be loving, but he does not spare the rod.

You make God sound like an abusive SO.

 

Courage's claim is basically that God, if he exists, is acting like an asshole, which is a problem for religions that claim that God is not an asshole. Your response is to point to passages in the Bible where God is described as an asshole.

 

You describe this as an argument, but it's really a bunch of ad hoc redefinitions that reduce certain claims about God (particulary the claim that he is good) to meaninglessness. Is God an asshole or not? If he is, how can he be good? If not... how can you say so while holding up descriptions of him coercing us into submission and false love under duress?

Edited January 29, 2010 by Simulacrum

[SeVeR]

In a hundred years I still see there being Christianity, but it will be less to do with the Bible than ever before. The more we learn, the more we disprove the Bible, and the more Christianity will retreat into the unknowns that still exist, such as 'what created the Big Bang?'. I don't think the Bible can ever be rejected though, merely watered down, re-interpreted, and accepted more as being more dependent on the writers of the Bible than on God's actual word. If you can say "the writer embellished that part of the story" then that doesn't mean the story didn't happen.

 

Oh, sever, about the millions of years things. Time in the bible is weird. A week = 7 years. And sometimes a day = 1000 days. The guys who wrote it didn't use actual numbers. Telling time in the bible is almost impossible unless you study it a lot.

Is this an example of writer's embellishment then? Why is a day sometimes a 1000 days and a week 7 years? Is the original text of the Bible different and actually has a time-scale more in line with science?

[BDwinsAlt]

The catholic church ran countries so politics were involved. So the Bible has changed a lot since about 330 AD. I can't tell what is real or not. I don't know how time is defined. But it doesn't really bother me about time and trying to see when something happened. Whether or not your believe something happened is the main thing. You either believe in God or not for what ever reason. I think if you don't believe in God, you at least think there is a chance there is something out there, you just choose not to embrace it in whatever form it may be. God could be simple as an Alien life form

 

Surely you believe in something more, fate, destiny...

[SeVeR]

Saying "whether you believe in something is the main thing", whilst also saying that the evidence doesn't matter, just makes me think you're trying awful hard not to mention the F-word, meaning faith (not f*** lol). Faith doesn't do mental patients any good and faith doesn't become any more valid if lots of mental patients possess the same faith. Faith is just stupidity in my eyes. Faith in something without evidence, coupled with that particular faith being desirable to possess for reasons of immortality (heaven), perfection, moral rectitude, security, and so on, just screams of believing in something because you want to believe in it, not because you should believe in it. Scientists do this all the time, they look for evidence to support a conclusion, to convince themselves it's right, it's bad science, it's religion.

 

I don't believe in fate or destiny, that would be the same thing. I don't think I believe anything enough to have faith in it. I believe my toilet will flush when I push the handle, but then it might be broken... so, meh.

[BDwinsAlt]

LOL at the F-Word. Everybody believes in something. As for mental patients, if you don't know you're doing something wrong, it isn't a sin. So they go to heaven if you believe in one. Everybody believes in something , it just might not be God. Didn't you ever believe in Santa, the Easter bunny, or the flying spaghetti monster or something once. Edited January 29, 2010 by BDwinsAlt

[Simulacrum]

Everybody believes in something , it just might not be God.

And how are non-religious beliefs relevant to a religion thread?

[BDwinsAlt]

Everybody believes in something , it just might not be God.

And how are non-religious beliefs relevant to a religion thread?

The title talks about faith.

[Simulacrum]

Which, in this context, pretty clearly refers to religion. There is no "Great Santa Claus Debate."

[BDwinsAlt]

Which, in this context, pretty clearly refers to religion. There is no "Great Santa Claus Debate."

It goes along with religion. Believing in something you don't see. Anyway I guess I'll topic getting semi-off topic. Just making this thread even more useless I guess.

[SeVeR]

I believed in Santa between maybe four and seven years old. I don't believe now. Are you comparing your faith to the faith I had then? That would be admitting your faith is stupid.

 

I believe in one thing: It is impossible to know whether we know anything. If you believe that, then you can't believe in anything else.

[BDwinsAlt]

I believed in Santa between maybe four and seven years old. I don't believe now. Are you comparing your faith to the faith I had then? That would be admitting your faith is stupid.

 

I believe in one thing: It is impossible to know whether we know anything. If you believe that, then you can't believe in anything else.

I do believe it's impossible to know the whole truth. God even tells us that. There is way to much information and space out there. To say there can't be a God is kind of silly. But to say there is a God would require a personal experience to prove to yourself that there is a God. My point with santa was that, at one point you did believe in something magical like that, and you were excited about Christmas. It's kind of like that for Christians.

[Simulacrum]

Which doesn't make it true.

[SeVeR]

I understand how evidence and experience can lead you to believe the existence or non-existence of God is probable, but faith is to 100% believe in something, without any doubts at all. If you believe it is impossible to know anything with certainty, then you can't have faith. Or is that what faith is? Not knowing, but convincing yourself it is true. If so, this is my definition of stupidity. Edited January 30, 2010 by SeVeR

[BDwinsAlt]

Which doesn't make it true.

Which is why they call it faith.

[SeVeR]

So you have doubts, you just don't acknowledge them?

[Simulacrum]

Hmm. Can't say I object to your believing whatever. It's when you start interfering in others' lives (e.g. pressuring people to have a particular sexual orientation) that faith isn't a strong enough standard of evidence.

 

Thing is, most religions I know of cross that line sooner or later. Usually sooner.

[NBVegita]

but faith is to 100% believe in something, without any doubts at all.

 

I would disagree Sever.

 

It would be more accurate to say that faith is believing in something in spite of the doubts you have.