Religion vs. Atheism Thread

[Duff McGee]

Sure I do.  I know people believe in God. I can not prove or disprove it. Really I don't care if they believe in God or not. For me to ask for evidence is just rude in my opinion. This is a belief they have. A firm belief that shapes who they are as a person. This isn't someone saying, "The golf ball starts where the path is going, not where the face points." If belief in a God brings them happiness. If a belief in a God brings them peace of mind. If belief in a God lets them have a solid moral compass to be a good person in life then who am I and who are you to challenge that by demanding proof. It does nothing at really. It's an empty question with no value.

So why are you in this thread then? If we can't talk about these things then this thread should not exist. Is that what you are saying? That seems off topic.

[Golfingdad]

Im not trying to be mean but isn't the answer plainly obvious? They are making a claim: God exists Then we say "please show us evidence." Why is that wrong? Do you make any decisions in your life without evidence And if you are merely saying "don't concern yourself with others' beliefs, then I would agree if you are talking about an atheist going door to door to try to convert people, but this is a discussion about these exact topics. There is no discussion without this topic so I'm not sure what you are trying to make happen.

But you're making a claim too. You're atheist, not agnostic, so you're specifically stating "God DOES NOT exist." That's no less definitive even though you have an equal amount of proof of your claim as they do.

[Pretzel]

This is supposed to be a "debate" thread. You don't have to be here.

You are religious. You came to this thread. You believe in God. I ask why......so are you guys just wanting for me to ask the admins to delete it? Because I'm not sure what you want me to do on a discussion thread about religion and atheism.

I never said anything about deleting it. I'm just saying that it's not a debate when one side says, "Prove it" over and over again and is consistently unsatisfied with the results he gets.

It's a circular argument because neither side can prove anything about their own side to be true or false. The only thing they can do is speak to their own personal convictions. So once a person has done so you need to not press them with the same "Prove it" or "Provide evidence" statement that you've stuck to this whole time.

It can't be proven definitively, but it also can't be disproved. It's something that nobody truly knows the answer to, so your calls for evidence will not be answered anywhere, much less a golf forum. I'm just trying to understand the point of the thread right now if that's all it will be is a call for proof answered by a "We can't" over and over again.

[Duff McGee]

But you're making a claim too. You're atheist, not agnostic, so you're specifically stating "God DOES NOT exist." That's no less definitive even though you have an equal amount of proof of your claim as they do.

I like you Golfing Dad but I have to say that both of your statements are wildly incorrect. The general public thinks that there is a difference between atheism and agnosticism. Like agnostics are somehow open minded and atheists are militant. Actually, most atheists are agnostics. We don't claim that there is no God in one sense or another. You are thinking of an "anti-theist." Anton-theists take it one step further and actually shift the burden of proof. Even notorious atheist Richard Dawkins is an agnostic, not an anti-theist. As for the "equal amount of proof" thing: first, I think you mean evidence, not proof. There is tons of evidence that the bible, Koran, Talmud, Greek myths, etc. are man made books and full of errors and also added to decades and centuries later. I don't know if you've read all the things I've posted but again, one cannot prove a negative. So there is no evidence that an atheist shows to disprove God, since God is a positive claim.

[Duff McGee]

I never said anything about deleting it. I'm just saying that it's not a debate when one side says, "Prove it" over and over again and is consistently unsatisfied with the results he gets. It's a circular argument because neither side can prove anything about their own side to be true or false. The only thing they can do is speak to their own personal convictions. So once a person has done so you need to not press them with the same "Prove it" or "Provide evidence" statement that you've stuck to this whole time. It can't be proven definitively, but it also can't be disproved. It's something that nobody truly knows the answer to, so your calls for evidence will not be answered anywhere, much less a golf forum. I'm just trying to understand the point of the thread right now if that's all it will be is a call for proof answered by a "We can't" over and over again.

That isn't entirely true. Again, atheists are not saying "prove it." We are asking for evidence to support your claim. Let me put it to you this way: If you come up to me and tell me that I have a pet invisible unicorn in my yard that eats my weeds, I'm not going to say "well that could be true or might not be true, but we both can't say so both propositions are equally likely." I will ask "why do you think there is a pet Invisible Pink Unicorn in my yard? I'm certainly not going to think that it's equally likely that you could be right without any evidence.

[Duff McGee]

[JazzFatCat]

So then it's okay for people to believe what they want, except for people in positions of power who then have to believe what you believe?

You just contradicted yourself within the same sentence. As a Christian I don't care if a person in power is Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Athiest etc. so long as they make good decisions while holding said power.

Can you point to where I said that they have to believe what I believe?

[cipher]

I never said anything about deleting it. I'm just saying that it's not a debate when one side says, "Prove it" over and over again and is consistently unsatisfied with the results he gets. It's a circular argument because neither side can prove anything about their own side to be true or false. The only thing they can do is speak to their own personal convictions. So once a person has done so you need to not press them with the same "Prove it" or "Provide evidence" statement that you've stuck to this whole time. It can't be proven definitively, but it also can't be disproved. It's something that nobody truly knows the answer to, so your calls for evidence will not be answered anywhere, much less a golf forum. I'm just trying to understand the point of the thread right now if that's all it will be is a call for proof answered by a "We can't" over and over again.

I tried explaining this in the other thread as well. I am afraid he and his friend won't hear it though. It is just a massive waste of time. They want to put the burden of proof on us even though they are the ones out to disprove. As we know neither side can prove the origins of life and each takes a leap of faith. Their entire point has just been to make anyone with religious beliefs into idiots and nothing else. It is best just to move on.

[Pretzel]

Can you point to where I said that they have to believe what I believe?

You just said it made you nervous if they were religious and in a position of power, leading to the natural conclusion that you would greatly prefer they were atheist instead. What I said there was a tad bit extreme.

This would apply, if there was any evidence presented in this thread that worked against the beliefs of the religious. There has been none, so I'm not sure where that point is going

Since I don't see this thread moving anywhere in the near future, I will step out and return at a later date to see if anything has changed.

[saevel25]

So why are you in this thread then? If we can't talk about these things then this thread should not exist.

Is that what you are saying? That seems off topic.

I already said that there isn't anything to really discuss between Religion and Atheists in terms of Theists. They are opposites of each other. What else is there to discuss about?

I am in this thread because it's fun :)

You ask before why people are religious. Here are some reasons off the top of my head.

1) They find a sense of meaning in it

2) It can be a set of rules and brings order to ones life when they once had chaos

3) They might believe in a higher being

4) It brings people together around a core beliefs that enhance their lives

I am curious if there is a religion out there that does not worship a deity but still worships the supernatural. As such they would be considered atheist but also be religious and pretty much fly in the face of all typical atheists because they believe in stuff that might not have any evidence of actually existing. Most Atheists are very logic based and demand evidence, hence your starting these thread ans what you posted. It would be fun to run into a religion that doesn't believe in deity but still something supernatural that can not be proven by evidence or has not been proven by evidence. ;)

Actually, most atheists are agnostics. We don't claim that there is no God in one sense or another. You are thinking of an "anti-theist." Anton-theists take it one step further and actually shift the burden of proof.

Agnostic still do not take the stance that deities do not exist. They basically take the neutral stance on it. As an agnostic I will not claim to be an atheist because honestly I will not rule out the possibility because of the fact if deities do exist then they are extremely powerful and stand outside our realm of logic and laws of the universe.

" a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

There is tons of evidence that the bible, Koran, Talmud, Greek myths, etc. are man made books and full of errors and also added to decades and centuries later.

Or that is how God meant it to be ;) The ultimate argument buster. In the end it doesn't matter if all the miracles are busted. If you are dealing with an all powerful being then it throws all logic out the window. In the end I can just say it's all meant to be this way, and is parts of God's plan.

That isn't entirely true. Again, atheists are not saying "prove it." We are asking for evidence to support your claim.

In the end, even with lack of evidence religious people have faith. This means, with out evidence they still believe. So in the end it doesn't matter if you ask or not. They are going to believe what they are going to believe, evidence be damned. That is what faith is. A belief in something that can not be defined or understood.

Even though Indiana Jones saw a chasm before him he put his faith in God taking that step only to find the camo stone bridge was there the whole time. You can't argue against faith.

Oh @Duff McGee tiquote. You have nearly 1000 posts, you should know this.

[boogielicious]

@Duff McGee please use multi quote.

[Duff McGee]

@Duff McGee please use multi quote.

I caught it but wasn't able to go back and edit it.

[JonMA1]

That isn't entirely true. Again, atheists are not saying "prove it." We are asking for evidence to support your claim.

Let me put it to you this way:

If you come up to me and tell me that I have a pet invisible unicorn in my yard that eats my weeds, I'm not going to say "well that could be true or might not be true, but we both can't say so both propositions are equally likely."

I will ask "why do you think there is a pet Invisible Pink Unicorn in my yard? I'm certainly not going to think that it's equally likely that you could be right without any evidence.

Not trying to pile on Duff, I just want to explain a point of view.

There's a difference between those who believe in something, and those who claim to know the truth. While it occurs far too often outside this thread, I don't think anyone on either side of the discussion (thus far) has claimed "I know I am right and I know you are wrong".

As far as "evidence", I can provide plenty of reasons why I ponder this subject as often as I do, but I'm guessing we'd get into a pissing contest on whether these qualify as evidence.

[Duff McGee]

Not trying to pile on Duff, I just want to explain a point of view. There's a difference between those who believe in something, and those who claim to know the truth. While it occurs far too often outside this thread, I don't think anyone on either side of the discussion (thus far) has claimed "I know I am right and I know you are wrong". As far as "evidence", I can provide plenty of reasons why I ponder this subject as often as I do, but I'm guessing we'd get into a pissing contest on whether these qualify as evidence.

Thanks. As I said in the other thread, I am 100% willing to be convinced of any religion. Afterlife is better than eternal death, so if anyone has evidence, please provide it. The problem is not the "quality" of the evidence, it's the fact that I've never heard actual evidence. Evidence is evidence. Speculation is not evidence. God of the gaps is not evidence. "Look around you at the magnificence of the universe" is not evidence. Life's complexity is not evidence. All of these things have been tested and explained using the scientific method. That is why the miracles of the bible are crucial to Christianity. Evidence of an actual miracle shows that there is something other than the physical. But, get this (and this is huge): even IF there was evidence of creation, it provides ZERO help in claiming a specific God. Are the bible stories true or are they not? I disagree with one of the posters that miracles don't matter. I think it's the very most important thing. It would show that there is something outside of the physical universe. Theists don't want to talk about that and change the subject. What we have right now is this: 1) a claim. Various billions of people claiming their religion is the one true religion, the majority of whom were born into that religion. 2) some kind of book or writings written over a thousand years ago or more claiming to be inspired by a god or gods. These books are as insightful as every other writing you would expect in that day and age. 3) not one of these religions that have claimed millions of miracles has ever validated any of them 4) the God or gods of these religions have decided to hide themselves now that we would be able to show they are real. 5) every single thing we have as "evidence" is from people claiming they saw this or that. Never once has a god revealed himself or even given us something to show he or she or it is there. 6) believers balk at the audacity of people asking for evidence.

[saevel25]

5) every single thing we have as "evidence" is from people claiming they saw this or that. Never once has a god revealed himself or even given us something to show he or she or it is there. .

That's not true. Though God has not shown himself in his true form. He has directly interacted with people in the Old Testament. He directly talked to Noah. He directly talked to Moses. I'm a bit fuzzy on other stories. Still, the only counter to these is saying you can't trust the actual written word of the Old Testament. The Old Testament isn't as shaky as the New Testament is with when books were actually written and manipulation of the order of the books. Saying, there are written accounts of God interacting with people.

[Dave2512]

Certainly not siding with Duff, his position is weak. But I invited a priest friend I know to dinner, we owed him a bday dinner anyway and had been talking about getting together for weeks. I showed him this thread and he disagreed with a lot of the lay Christian points tossed around. He is going to email me tomorrow with something I can post here.

[JonMA1]

As I said in the other thread, I am 100% willing to be convinced of any religion. Afterlife is better than eternal death, so if anyone has evidence, please provide it.

If you think this is what my post was about, you're not even trying to pay attention.

I am 100% fine with you knowing you're right, exactly as I am with a Southern Baptist knowing he or she is right. From my point of view, you're both very much the same.

Evidence is evidence. Speculation is not evidence. God of the gaps is not evidence. "Look around you at the magnificence of the universe" is not evidence. Life's complexity is not evidence. All of these things have been tested and explained using the scientific method.

Yup, pretty much what I thought you'd say.

We're not even close to common ground, Duff (and I'm not a religious person). I'm ok with that if you are.

[Duff McGee]

That's not true. Though God has not shown himself in his true form. He has directly interacted with people in the Old Testament. He directly talked to Noah. He directly talked to Moses. I'm a bit fuzzy on other stories. Still, the only counter to these is saying you can't trust the actual written word of the Old Testament. The Old Testament isn't as shaky as the New Testament is with when books were actually written and manipulation of the order of the books. Saying, there are written accounts of God interacting with people.

[quote name="Dave2512" url="/t/84478/religion-vs-atheism-thread/60#post_1200838"]Certainly not siding with Duff, his position is weak. But I invited a priest friend I know to dinner, we owed him a bday dinner anyway and had been talking about getting together for weeks. I showed him this thread and he disagreed with a lot of the lay Christian points tossed around. He is going to email me tomorrow with something I can post here.[/quote] Please explain: 1) what my position is, and 2) what is weak about it. I have been trying to be patient and polite in this thread and have let probably 100 fallacies go without critiquing so as not to sound combative, but I can guarantee that if we had an unbiased logic professor come in and review this thread that he or she would very much disagree with you that my position is weak. That is like somebody coming on a 9/11 conspiracy board and telling someone that is merely asking for evidence for claims that his position is weak. Your priest friend, WHO IS A PRIEST, sees all the fallacies being set forth by theists on here. This will likely cement everyone's opinion of me as arrogant (even though I have not been arrogant; cognitive dissonance blinds people to the actual points I have been trying to make) but I will say that most of what I said is 100% agreed upon by elite theist debators and atheist debators alike. I listen to the greatest minds in the world on both sides of the debate as a hobby. Nothing I said is even a question at these debates bc they are accepted as fact. Things such as the burden of proof, atheism is a faith, God of the gaps, etc. are all there for people to research. It is not subjective. Just because a majority says you are wrong does not make it so.