Why I Don't Believe In God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Would Juniper ever change hers?

---

Every day. You'll have a hard time convincing me that Jesus rode a dinosaur, though.

Also, no one seems to understand the definition of the word "theory" as it's defined in science. I can tell, because they write the phrase "it's just a" beforehand. In science, a conclusion has to get battered and tested over and over, other scientists have to try their hardest to disprove the conclusion (and believe me, at the prize of having their names in textbooks all over the planet for decades, maybe for as long as textbooks exist, they tried their damned hardest to replace Darwin's theories with their own), and then, and ONLY THEN, after tireless research, does a conclusion earn the right to be called a "theory" in the scientific community. It's not just something that some random guy chucked out willy-nilly, it's a THEORY. Bien, YOU seem to be looking for a "law." You're not going to find one in this case, so you've invented one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I said the evidence "indicates" that its true. Of course its just a theory. I see that the main thrust of my response has been dodged. None of the supernatural claims in the bible can be verified, nor supported in any meaningful way. The theory of evolution has volumes of naturalistic observations backing it up, not proving it, but indicating the incredible likelihood of its being true.

A scientific claim refers beyond itself to the world at large. The bible refers to back onto itself. In the end all the believer can say is "its true because its true."

---

I'm sorry, but the whole idea of something from nothing, intelligence from non-intelligence, order from chaos seems pretty supernatural to me. It doesn't even make good sense.


I'm done arguing here. The funny thing is that you guys think that I'm the narrow minded one here.

Theory in the scientific context means a set of tested hypotheses and applications that explain a specific phenomena. Such that the theory of gravity is the scientific explanation of the phenomena of gravity. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation of the phenomena of evolution. Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence.

The meaning here being derived from the original greek meaning, which is a way of looking at something.

If science could be 'self-corrective' beliefs too. The number of planets keeps on increasing, new diseases are evidencing themselves, which fact itself tells upon the
inadequacy and impermanence of science with time. Beliefs are also self-corrective but depend on how to take them to be, when and where?

What is good at one place cannot definitely be the same at other. compare for instance, the Western beliefs against those of the Chinese or Japanese. There is always room for improvement both in science as well as belief but all depends on how one fairly and open-mindedly delves on his thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

If science could be 'self-corrective' beliefs too. The number of planets keeps on increasing, new diseases are evidencing themselves, which fact itself tells upon the
inadequacy and impermanence of science with time. Beliefs are also self-corrective but depend on how to take them to be, when and where?

What is good at one place cannot definitely be the same at other. compare for instance, the Western beliefs against those of the Chinese or Japanese. There is always room for improvement both in science as well as belief but all depends on how one fairly and open-mindedly delves on his thoughts.

---

There is definitely some truth in what you say here. Being a believer by no means makes one close-minded or unreasoning, not at all. Religion, including Christianity, can be a dynamic, enlightened thing. The difference I think though is that with science EVERYTHING is on the table, nothing is above being potentially discredited. With faith that is not the case. In fact its this constant flux which has been science's greatest strength and claim to legitimacy. Nothing is sacred before the fact. It all depends on what the research shows. Every theory out there could be overturned, every law and every fact disproven, and still, science itself, the process and method, would remain unaltered. Again, with faith this is not the case.

One needn't search out a debate in an internet forum between atheists and theists to witness a group of persons ganging up another one. It is perhaps a fundamental aspect of human nature exhibited on every school blacktop. Of course, secular philosophy tells us that the term "human nature" is unhelpful and prefers "the human condition"--all while presenting a fairly convincing demonstration of the former.

I have a question for all the atheists.

First, I want you to think about the most important person in the world to you. This could be a spouse, a parent, a child, a lover, a friend; it doesn't matter who, so long as none other is more important to you. I want you to imagine that this person is, in the next five minutes, struck by a moving automobile. You are then summoned to the hospital, where this persons is in the process of dying. You are at this person's bedside to receive his last words. He asks you whether there is a heaven, and if so, whether you two will meet again. My question involves neither proofs nor arguments, and we will presume that the person answering the question is an atheist.

Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?

I ask you this not to persuade you to theism, but to demonstrate the stakes of the question. You see, this is precisely the question I asked myself a few years ago when I was, myself, an atheist. My answer was that I would lie; moreover, I would want the lie to be true. My theism is now no lie, but defeating my innate hostility to the idea was a necessary precursor.

The reason I mention this is because I also began to realize, in more than an academic sense, how we are all members in a community of the dying and how to disabuse any theist of his theism is to place him in that bed and tell him the truth, and so you will have to excuse me for finding your zest vulgar and thoughtless.

I don't think it is an accident that New Atheism is largely restricted to a younger demographic. We're all five metaphorical minutes away from that bed, but it's incredibly hard to understand this when you're young. The reason belief in God has been so historically persistent has nothing to do with the intellectual failings of people.

My point is not to suggest that theism is a lie or even self-deception, but rather to point out how the treatment of Bievenu is representative of the worst aspects of human nature.

It is an interesting questions, surely, and I am sure that the answer would really depend on the individual... As for my answer:
Beyond the love I have for humanity, and the love I have for the most important person in my life, I believe in being true to myself and to others. In this way, I would not lie. But I wouldn't say that there is no Heaven either... I would answer that I don't know (for almost nothing is certain), and that we may yet see one another in some next life.

If there is Heaven then that person's last thoughts won't matter, for they will go to a beautiful place. And if there is not, then there is nothingness, and in nothingness my answer won't matter. But at least I would not have betrayed my truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PoeticPassions

It is an interesting questions, surely, and I am sure that the answer would really depend on the individual... As for my answer:
Beyond the love I have for humanity, and the love I have for the most important person in my life, I believe in being true to myself and to others. In this way, I would not lie. But I wouldn't say that there is no Heaven either... I would answer that I don't know (for almost nothing is certain), and that we may yet see one another in some next life.

If there is Heaven then that person's last thoughts won't matter, for they will go to a beautiful place. And if there is not, then there is nothingness, and in nothingness my answer won't matter. But at least I would not have betrayed my truth.

---

Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?

How important is your "truth"?

The classic thought experiment involves having the Nazis come to your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. If you are, do you tell the truth? How important is your truth then?

Regarding stuntpickle's deathbed scenario, which is quite real, I have no problem in saying to a dying loved one that bodily death is not the end, but a beginning, a new phase, and I would use the evidence of near and shared death experiences to justify it if need be.

This doesn't imply anything about the existence of a particular kind of God, but it doesn't hurt any such argument either.

I disagree with stuntpickle's claim that BienvenuJDC is being unfairly treated. However, in BienvenuJDC's defense, those opposed to him did not provide the evidence that he requested. He showed more of his own evidence than his opponents did. OrphanPip, for example, dogmatically states, "Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence." We need to get out of a habit of expecting other people to swallow dogmatism. What is that fossil and genetic evidence? If it is too complicated to summarize, provide a link.

The main issue with evolution, as I see it, is whether it occurred by chance or whether an assortment of conscious choices were involved. It is not the issue of creationism denying it happened at all and a pseudo-scientific dogmatism expecting belief without putting the data on the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?

---

This is what I told my young son when he asked me what I think happens after we die: "I don't know, and we can't know for sure, but energy doesn't die, it moves. When we're born there is pain, and we're taken out of the world we know, but we have no memory of that pain and we will have no memory of the pain of death. Our selves might be gone, but if for some unknown reason we go on, I promise I'll find you." He seems very content with that. He imagines worlds and dimensions much more interesting and complex than the bible's heaven. He's open to all possibilities. He thinks it would be neat to be reincarnated as a chipmunk, or for the energy powering his movements to go toward powering a tree or ocean waves. Our physical particles after we die go back into the earth. They become other things. There isn't anything scary about that, other than knowing we should be aware of it and try not to screw things up for future generations.

If you're not raised with dogmas, you won't be so effected by dogmas. You can just enjoy life and understand that making the best of it is important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Regarding stuntpickle's deathbed scenario, which is quite real, I have no problem in saying to a dying loved that bodily death is not the end, but a beginning, a new phase, and I would use the evidence of near and shared death experiences to justify it if need be.

This doesn't imply anything about the existence of a particular kind of God, but it doesn't hurt any such argument either.

I disagree with stuntpickle's claim that BienvenuJDC is being unfairly treated. However, in BienvenuJDC's defense, those opposed to him did not provide the evidence that he requested. He showed more of his own evidence than his opponents did. OrphanPip, for example, dogmatically states, "Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence." We need to get out of a habit of expecting other people to swallow dogmatism. What is that fossil and genetic evidence? If it is too complicated to summarize, provide a link.

The main issue with evolution, as I see it, is whether it occurred by chance or whether an assortment of conscious choices were involved. It is not the issue of creationism denying it happened at all and a pseudo-scientific dogmatism expecting belief without putting the data on the table.

---

You know, YesNO, I'll never claim to be a nice guy simply because I'm not. I do, however, find trying to disprove someone's faith in God to be subtly horrible. I understand that my question doesn't settle the disagreement, but I also think this unjustifiably optimistic atheism is fairly myopic. Nietzsche, who was himself an atheist, considered atheism something of a catastrophe.

Let me put it to you this way: if I were in the situation I describe, I would sacrifice evolution, literature, music, reason, itself, to provide five minutes of comfort to that person; moreover, I might be persuaded to sacrifice myself if that would just make it true. Trying to disabuse bienvenu of his theism is to fail in understanding that for someone, he is the person in the bed, and that he, himself, would be by some bedside. For anyone who answers that they would lie, I think they make the mistake of caring insufficiently for Bienvenu, whoever he is, because he is, after all, that person in the bed in a very real sense.

Again, it may seem hypocritical for me, who has proven himself something of a jerk, to chastise others, and yet it seems to me to be the truth.

Also, if 23 people in a classroom answer a test question 1 way, and 1 student answers it another way (perhaps incorrectly), it doesn't mean the 23 are ganging up on the 1. Not even in a sort of open discussion forum. I try not to coddle people to the point of supporting and encouraging delusions, which I think are ultimately harmful to a society that is judged based on said delusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Also, if 23 people in a classroom answer a test question 1 way, and 1 student answers it another way (perhaps incorrectly), it doesn't mean the 23 are ganging up on the 1. Not even in a sort of open discussion forum. I try not to coddle people to the point of supporting and encouraging delusions, which I think are ultimately harmful to a society that is judged based on said delusions.

---

Of course, that presumes that belief in God is, in fact, delusional, and demonstrating that is a tall order--something the foremost atheists have failed to do convincingly. Contrary to what many current atheists have said, believing in God is a fairly uncomfortable thing; Christians call it "being convicted in the spirit," and it involves the admission that you have been largely wrong throughout your life. So let us call it a humbling belief, which cannot be said of the belief that one knows what precisely is harmful to society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

You know, YesNO, I'll never claim to be a nice guy simply because I'm not. I do, however, find trying to disprove someone's faith in God to be subtly horrible. I understand that my question doesn't settle the disagreement, but I also think this unjustifiably optimistic atheism is fairly myopic. Nietzsche, who was himself an atheist, considered atheism something of a catastrophe.

Let me put it to you this way: if I were in the situation I describe, I would sacrifice evolution, literature, music, reason, itself, to provide five minutes of comfort to that person; moreover, I might be persuaded to sacrifice myself if that would just make it true. Trying to disabuse bienvenu of his theism is to fail in understanding that for someone, he is the person in the bed, and that he, himself, would be by some bedside. For anyone who answers that they would lie, I think they make the mistake of caring insufficiently for Bienvenu, whoever he is, because he is, after all, that person in the bed in a very real sense.

Again, it may seem hypocritical for me, who has proven himself something of a jerk, to chastise others, and yet it seems to me to be the truth.

---

By giving respect to the one theory over all of the others are you not then, by your logic, disrespecting the other opinions? You're making it way too personal. No one has personally attacked Bien. His arguments are likely not credible. It's not a hate crime for me to say that. This is a discussion. It's not a dog fight on a playground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

By giving respect to the one theory over all of the others are you not then, by your logic, disrespecting the other opinions? You're making it way too personal. No one has personally attacked Bien. His arguments are likely not credible. It's not a hate crime for me to say that. This is a discussion. It's not a dog fight on a playground.

---

Belief in God is a different variety of belief than, say, being a capitalist or a Marxist. I mean, to discuss someone's spiritual beliefs for the purpose of disproving them seems a little like trying to deprive someone of the mechanisms of comfort in the situation I earlier described.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Of course, that presumes that belief in God is, in fact, delusional, and demonstrating that is a tall order--something the foremost atheists have failed to do convincingly. Contrary to what many current atheists have said, believing in God is a fairly uncomfortable thing; Christians call it "being convicted in the spirit," and it involves the admission that you have been largely wrong throughout your life. So let us call it a humbling belief, which cannot be said of the belief that one knows what precisely is harmful to society.

---

Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard. Add to that a person claiming to know how God wants us to live and treat others, and society has a problem. We should be accountable for our actions as individuals effecting other individuals. The burden of proof is with the religious. Atheists aren't asserting a knowledge of an afterlife or a prelife. Oftentimes, physical events can and have been proven to the best of our physical abilities. All of the evidence "supporting" atheism can't be found in a single link. It can be acquired over time and with much education which is, hopefully, offered in all schools.

I'm not talking about some belief set. I'm talking about identifying things in our physical world which we can all commonly witness and possibly interact with. If you want to say creationism is one of many possibilities for the answer to the big question, that's fine, but I don't have to support that narrow view, and I don't have to prove anything to deny that support; other than to say, perhaps, that I have never seen anything physical that does support it.

Again, who or what created God? Who created the thing that created the thing that created God? The universe seems pretty big, why must it have a beginning and an end? Maybe it just "is" and there's nothing scary or wrong with that. Maybe it's more like a wheel than an open and shut door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Belief in God is a different variety of belief than, say, being a capitalist or a Marxist. I mean, to discuss someone's spiritual beliefs for the purpose of disproving them seems a little like trying to deprive someone of the mechanisms of comfort in the situation I earlier described.

---

I'm not saying they can't believe it, but I am saying that they can't assert that it's my reality and everyone else's without something to support that. I'm not depriving them by saying "Hey, we both see the sun. We don't both see an angry, blue, giant goblin dancing on the sun". Religious belief has to happen without support from the physical world and, therefore, has no need for support from atheists.

It also can't be benefited by support from atheists. It still wouldn't make sense to the atheist earth we live on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?

How important is your "truth"?

The classic thought experiment involves having the Nazis come to your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. If you are, do you tell the truth? How important is your truth then?

---

The truth I speak of is not just based on sole facts (the sky is blue, there are people hiding in my attic, etc)... so of course I would lie to protect a life (in your hypothetical scenario). But that would be true to myself and my character. True to the way I feel about humanity and true to my integrity. That type of truth is very important to me.

I would tell the dying person the truth-- which is that I do not know-- because that would remain true to my existence and to theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard. Add to that a person claiming to know how God wants us to live and treat others, and society has a problem. We should be accountable for our actions as individuals effecting other individuals. The burden of proof is with the religious. Atheists aren't asserting a knowledge of an afterlife or a prelife. Oftentimes, physical events can and have been proven to the best of our physical abilities. All of the evidence "supporting" atheism can't be found in a single link. It can be acquired over time and with much education which is, hopefully, offered in all schools.

I'm not talking about some belief set. I'm talking about identifying things in our physical world which we can all commonly witness and possibly interact with. If you want to say creationism is one of many possibilities for the answer to the big question, that's fine, but I don't have to support that narrow view, and I don't have to prove anything to deny that support; other than to say, perhaps, that I have never seen anything physical that does support it.

Again, who or what created God? Who created the thing that created the thing that created God? The universe seems pretty big, why must it have a beginning and an end? Maybe it just "is" and there's nothing scary or wrong with that. Maybe it's more like a wheel than an open and shut door.

---

Okay, you asked for it. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as nice as Bienvenu.

You make the assertion that "Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard." Please try and, consequently, fail to demonstrate that assertion logically. I would assert that there are any number of things I have never seen or heard that, nonetheless, exist such as the set of real numbers, love, logical absolutes, morality. Perhaps if you didn't subscribe to some 19th Century materialism you wouldn't say such things. Of course, it's fairly common for New Atheists to make sweeping indefensible assertions about the nature of existence. So please, I await your logical justification eagerly. Please also demonstrate how you navigate the treacherously inductive impasse of determining that no one has ever, anywhere, heard or seen God--unless, of course, you admit that it is possible that someone has in fact seen or heard Him, but then one would wonder why you're calling it delusional. Your justifications, if you succeed should be worthy of publication in the academic presses.

By the way, no one believes in a physical or contingent God; therefore, a discussion of identifying physical objects is irrelevant, as is asking who moved the prime mover, which is by definition impossible. That the universe had a beginning isn't simply Christian apologetics but current cosmology. Do you disbelieve the Big Bang theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

I have a question for all the atheists.

Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?

---

The scenario is nonsensical. Your premise is that you are at the bedside of the person closest to you in the world. Obviously, if you communicate at all, this person already knows your deepest beliefs on this matter and would know if you were lying anyway.

As for disproving whether or not god is a delusion: Unbelievers have no burden of proof. One needs no reasons or explanations or proofs to not believe something. Only those making a positive assertion (e.g., god exists) need proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

The scenario is nonsensical. Your premise is that you are at the bedside of the person closest to you in the world. Obviously, if you communicate at all, this person already knows your deepest beliefs on this matter and would know if you were lying anyway.

As for disproving whether or not god is a delusion: Unbelievers have no burden of proof. One needs no reasons or explanations or proofs to not believe something. Only those making a positive assertion (e.g., god exists) need proof.

---

Thanks. Said way better than I would have thought to say it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

The scenario is nonsensical. Your premise is that you are at the bedside of the person closest to you in the world. Obviously, if you communicate at all, this person already knows your deepest beliefs on this matter and would know if you were lying anyway.

As for disproving whether or not god is a delusion: Unbelievers have no burden of proof. One needs no reasons or explanations or proofs to not believe something. Only those making a positive assertion (e.g., god exists) need proof.

---

Wrong! Anyone making an assertion has the explanatory onus insofar as the assertion is concerned. The statement "God is a delusion" is an assertion and, thus, requires logical justification.

Traditionally, "nonsensical" refers to language having no sense or meaning. Since you have understood the content of my post, you cannot mean that it was this variety of nonsense, so I suspect you mean that the situation is inconsequential, which would seem wrong. Also, I think you ignore the fact that a person on his deathbed will necessarily act in accordance with his past behaviors. I think it's also presumptuous that this person will just take your previous beliefs for granted. I think death has the affect of making people reconsider things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Okay, you asked for it. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as nice as Bienvenu.

You make the assertion that "Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard." Please try and, consequently, fail to demonstrate that assertion logically. I would assert that there are any number of things I have never seen or heard that, nonetheless, exist such as the set of real numbers, love, logical absolutes, morality. Perhaps if you didn't subscribe to some 19th Century materialism you wouldn't say such things. Of course, it's fairly common for New Atheists to make sweeping indefensible assertions about the nature of existence. So please, I await your logical justification eagerly. Please also demonstrate how you navigate the treacherously inductive impasse of determining that no one has ever, anywhere, heard or seen God--unless, of course, you admit that it is possible that someone has in fact seen or heard Him, but then one would wonder why you're calling it delusional. Your justifications, if you succeed should be worthy of publication in the academic presses.

By the way, no one believes in a physical or contingent God; therefore, a discussion of identifying physical objects is irrelevant, as is asking who moved the prime mover, which is by definition impossible. That the universe had a beginning isn't simply Christian apologetics but current cosmology. Do you disbelieve the Big Bang theory?

---

I don't know who you're talking about at this point, and I don't think you do either. It seems like you are fighting just to fight. Most Christians do believe in a physical God. If a thing created a physical world with physical beings, that thing should continue to be able to interact with the physical world.

Numbers are a system created by humans. Love and morality come from people, they are ideas. They are ideas that are still based on more physical cause and effect than religion is, but they're concepts. No one is claiming love and morality have their own consciousness and created a universe and thinking beings, no one I know of anyway.

The big bang theory is based on something you clearly don't understand. The universe we are familiar with is expanding. It doesn't shrink. It isn't constant. That, and other factors, mean that it used to be smaller. At some point it was probably very condensed, very very minuscule, before things began to grow into our universe. The big bang theory doesn't say what caused the big bang, it doesn't say what happened before, or what existed outside of compressed matter. Scientists and atheists don't use this as theism. It's not an answer to why we are here in a metaphysical sense, it's just another step in a physical timeline.

Man came along late in the game. He tried to insert a lot of different God and myth stories into our void of information (long before Christianity - see ancient China, Egypt, Greece), but we don't know what happened. It's ludicrous to say we do.

I keep forgetting how futile these conversations are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I don't know who you're talking about at this point, and I don't think you do either. It seems like you are fighting just to fight. Most Christians do believe in a physical God. If a thing created a physical world with physical beings, that thing should continue to be able to interact with the physical world.

Numbers are a system created by humans. Love and morality come from people, they are ideas. They are ideas that are still based on more physical cause and effect than religion is, but they're concepts. No one is claiming love and morality have their own consciousness and created a universe and thinking beings, no one I know of anyway.

The big bang theory is based on something you clearly don't understand. The universe we are familiar with is expanding. It doesn't shrink. It isn't constant. That, and other factors, mean that it used to be smaller. At some point it was probably very condensed, very very minuscule, before things began to grow into our universe. The big bang theory doesn't say what caused the big bang, it doesn't say what happened before, or what existed outside of compressed matter. Scientists and atheists don't use this as theism. It's not an answer to why we are here in a metaphysical sense, it's just another step in a physical timeline.

Man came along late in the game. He tried to insert a lot of different God and myth stories into our void of information (long before Christianity - see ancient China, Egypt, Greece), but we don't know what happened. It's ludicrous to say we do.

---

You're just wrong--and arrogantly so. You don't simply get to avoid the logical justification of a flat assertion by making other flat assertions. Since you are unwilling to offer an argument ending with the conclusion "therefore belief in God can only be a delusion when he cannot be seen or heard," then I am justified in discounting the assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

It seems like you are fighting just to fight.

---

Following several pages of persons picking on one guy, I am all of a sudden fighting just to fight. Is it not possible that you are wrong? Being persuadable is the first criterion for engaging in reasonable dialogue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Most Christians do believe in a physical God.

---

This is factually wrong. At most, Christians believe in a physical manifestation of an aspect of God in the person of Jesus. No Christian believes that Jesus, God or what is called the Holy Spirit ("Spirit" is a clue) is now physical. In fact, from Maimonides to Aquinas, Judeo-Christian theologians are united in the belief of God's immateriality. Just because you have already made the blunder, repeatedly insisting upon it doesn't change its wrongness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

If a thing created a physical world with physical beings, that thing should continue to be able to interact with the physical world.

---

I never stated that God couldn't interact with the physical world. So why the straw man? Is this getting to your argument with the conclusion that God is a delusion? You see, this is how rational conversations go. When you say something and fail to substantiate it, you generally lose the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Numbers are a system created by humans.

---

Care to demonstrate the truth of this one while you're working on the other one? Ever hear of Roger Penrose? He's the guy who was working with Hawking on the blackholes and is considered one of the foremost mathematicians in the world. He thinks human minds are incapable of generating mathematical systems and that numbers are a part of manifest reality. Of course, he's probably deluded too. I'm sure he'd be interested in your logical justification of this bald assertion, as would every mathematician alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Love and morality come from people, they are ideas.

---

Morality as simply an idea derived from people is a philosophically rare notion. Most philosophers, regardless of their religion, consider it within the realm of metaphysics. So just out of curiosity, do you believe that morality exists as an idea? If so, does God exist as an idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

No one is claiming love and morality have their own consciousness and created a universe and thinking beings, no one I know of anyway.

---

You see, this isn't how logic works. When someone makes an assertion, they imply that the assertion is true. The logical absolute concerning an excluded middle means that any assertion is either true or false with no third option. If one makes the assertion that belief in God can ONLY be a delusion exclusively on the basis that He is not heard or seen, one is also making the implicit assertion that believing in something unheard and unseen qualifies as being delusional. To disprove your assertion, I need only provide one example in which your assertion fails, so if I find one thing unseen and unheard that we both agree isn't a delusion, then it is reasonable to conclude that your assertion is false. Morality is NOT a delusion. Is this statement true or false without qualification? YOU don't get to wander aimlessly through unrelated ideas. The law of excluded middle means it MUST be true or false. Is the set of real numbers a delusion? You see, the vast majority of reasonable persons agree that morality and the set of real numbers are NOT delusions, and it is reasonable to assume that your criteria of judgment based on seeing and hearing are false. It does not matter what you have to say about God's personal attributes because they were not a part of your assertion. So do we agree that your assertion is false? You should be careful because your assertion is necessarily false and to say otherwise is to prove your own irrationality. You see, I have neither seen nor heard you. If I believe in you is it a delusion? I have neither seen nor heard every single automobile on the planet; are the ones I haven't seen delusions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

The big bang theory is based on something you clearly don't understand. The universe we are familiar with is expanding. It doesn't shrink. It isn't constant. That, and other factors, mean that it used to be smaller. At some point it was probably very condensed, very very minuscule, before things began to grow into our universe. The big bang theory doesn't say what caused the big bang, it doesn't say what happened before, or what existed outside of compressed matter. Scientists and atheists don't use this as theism. It's not an answer to why we are here in a metaphysical sense, it's just another step in a physical timeline.

---

Scientists gave up on eternal matter with the static models of the universe, and they gave up on static mechanisms with the steady-sate model. The orthodox Big Bang theory is, in fact, a theory of the universe's beginning. I never stated that the Big Bang named the cause. You, however, suggested a an eternal and wheellike universe in direct contradiction with the Big Bang. When you do that, you don't get to pretend I don't know anything about the theory. And reproducing here some wiki-style summary is completely irrelevant to justifying your assertion about God being a delusion. I simply want you to logically justify your assertion.

A reasonable response by you to this post can only be a justification of the assertion that belief in God who is unseen and unheard can only be a delusion. Any other response (besides admitting you were wrong) will be obviously irrelevant. If you cannot do this, you must admit to being wrong, which would demonstrate some measure of reason since the assertion is, by the way, evidently wrong.

Stuntpickle many if not most Christians do believe in a physical God. You are taking your own more sophisticated kind of Christianity and projecting it as the norm. And likening God to numbers and morality in that they are all things to believe in despite their being things we cannot see or hear is false. We cannot sense numbers or morality but we can perceive them. Not only can you not see or hear God, but you can find no trace of Him, no indication of His presence, whatsoever. Numbers and morality are apparent. God is not.

And I know very little of physics and cosmology, but I do know that in his most recent book Stephen Hawking came out with the claim that the universe did not need God in order to begin. Considering the esteem in which he is held by the scientific community, I think this ought to mean something.

I think the reason we all argued with Bienvenue is not that he believes in God, but that he believes dinosaurs existed alongside humans and that those fabricated Peruvian stones were evidence of this. I doubt you hold the same belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Stuntpickle many if not most Christians do believe in a physical God. You are taking your own more sophisticated kind of Christianity and projecting it as the norm. And likening God to numbers and morality in that they are all things to believe in despite their being things we cannot see or hear is false. We cannot sense numbers or morality but we can perceive them. Not only can you not see or hear God, but you can find no trace of Him, no indication of His presence, whatsoever. Numbers and morality are apparent. God is not.

And I know very little of physics and cosmology, but I do know that in his most recent book Stephen Hawking came out with the claim that the universe did not need God in order to begin. Considering the esteem in which he is held by the scientific community, I think this ought to mean something.

I think the reason we all argued with Bienvenue is not that he believes in God, but that he believes dinosaurs existed alongside humans and that those fabricated Peruvian stones were evidence of this. I doubt you hold the same belief.

---

See, this is the problem. I never "likened" God to numbers or morality. Someone else made a sweeping statement about the nature of existence and I tested the truth of those statements by using numbers and morality. This is how logical arguments are supposed to go: someone makes an assertion and then someone else tests the truth of the assertion in all cases. What happens in these discussions is that the atheists continue to confuse the issues. I'm not making statements of equivalency between God and numbers; I'm simply demonstrating the falsity of someone else's assertion.

I was making no logical arguments about Beinvenu. I was appealing to perhaps a common humanity. Someone then made the wild assertion that belief in God can only be a delusion since He is unseen and unheard. I do not defend Bienvenu's ideas about dinosaurs. And your assumption that my Christianity is somehow a rare breed of sophisticated theism is a little funny since my theological views are fairly mainstream. You do realize that even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, right? The only group of Christians that believe dinosaurs existed alongside humans is a fairly small portion of American Evangelicals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

You're just wrong--and arrogantly so. You don't simply get to avoid the logical justification of a flat assertion by making other flat assertions. Since you are unwilling to offer an argument ending with the conclusion "therefore belief in God can only be a delusion when he cannot be seen or heard," then I am justified in discounting the assertion.




Following several pages of persons picking on one guy, I am all of a sudden fighting just to fight. Is it not possible that you are wrong? Being persuadable is the first criterion for engaging in reasonable dialogue.



This is factually wrong. At most, Christians believe in a physical manifestation of an aspect of God in the person of Jesus. No Christian believes that Jesus, God or what is called the Holy Spirit ("Spirit" is a clue) is now physical. In fact, from Maimonides to Aquinas, Judeo-Christian theologians are united in the belief of God's immateriality. Just because you have already made the blunder, repeatedly insisting upon it doesn't change its wrongness.



I never stated that God couldn't interact with the physical world. So why the straw man? Is this getting to your argument with the conclusion that God is a delusion? You see, this is how rational conversations go. When you say something and fail to substantiate it, you generally lose the argument.



Care to demonstrate the truth of this one while you're working on the other one? Ever hear of Roger Penrose? He's the guy who was working with Hawking on the blackholes and is considered one of the foremost mathematicians in the world. He thinks human minds are incapable of generating mathematical systems and that numbers are a part of manifest reality. Of course, he's probably deluded too. I'm sure he'd be interested in your logical justification of this bald assertion, as would every mathematician alive.



Morality as simply an idea derived from people is a philosophically rare notion. Most philosophers, regardless of their religion, consider it within the realm of metaphysics. So just out of curiosity, do you believe that morality exists as an idea? If so, does God exist as an idea?



You see, this isn't how logic works. When someone makes an assertion, they imply that the assertion is true. The logical absolute concerning an excluded middle means that any assertion is either true or false with no third option. If one makes the assertion that belief in God can ONLY be a delusion exclusively on the basis that He is not heard or seen, one is also making the implicit assertion that believing in something unheard and unseen qualifies as being delusional. To disprove your assertion, I need only provide one example in which your assertion fails, so if I find one thing unseen and unheard that we both agree isn't a delusion, then it is reasonable to conclude that your assertion is false. Morality is NOT a delusion. Is this statement true or false without qualification? YOU don't get to wander aimlessly through unrelated ideas. The law of excluded middle means it MUST be true or false. Is the set of real numbers a delusion? You see, the vast majority of reasonable persons agree that morality and the set of real numbers are NOT delusions, and it is reasonable to assume that your criteria of judgment based on seeing and hearing are false. It does not matter what you have to say about God's personal attributes because they were not a part of your assertion. So do we agree that your assertion is false? You should be careful because your assertion is necessarily false and to say otherwise is to prove your own irrationality. You see, I have neither seen nor heard you. If I believe in you is it a delusion? I have neither seen nor heard every single automobile on the planet; are the ones I haven't seen delusions?



Scientists gave up on eternal matter with the static models of the universe, and they gave up on static mechanisms with the steady-sate model. The orthodox Big Bang theory is, in fact, a theory of the universe's beginning. I never stated that the Big Bang named the cause. You, however, suggested a an eternal and wheellike universe in direct contradiction with the Big Bang. When you do that, you don't get to pretend I don't know anything about the theory. And reproducing here some wiki-style summary is completely irrelevant to justifying your assertion about God being a delusion. I simply want you to logically justify your assertion.

A reasonable response by you to this post can only be a justification of the assertion that belief in God who is unseen and unheard can only be a delusion. Any other response (besides admitting you were wrong) will be obviously irrelevant. If you cannot do this, you must admit to being wrong, which would demonstrate some measure of reason since the assertion is, by the way, evidently wrong.

---

You think you have corrected me on several counts, but you have not. I compared the existence of matter to a wheel rather than an open and shut finite situation like Christianity. What I said in no way contradicts the big bang theory. Until God is proven, God is an idea of man. When a person has an imaginary friend, it's easy for other people to discern that the invisible person isn't there. Do you know what delusion is?

You can call me and cars delusions if you want to, but you're witnessing a physical manifestation of my self in text. The text is being witnessed by other people as well. The text can be replicated (I've posted hundreds). Many undoctored photographs of me exist. Videos and recordings of me too. Pictures I have drawn. Sculptures I have made. I am easily proven. Lots of people have seen and touched cars. They have ridden inside them, built them, repaired them. They appear in undoctored photos and videos. Do I really need to explain this to you? I don't think you are obtuse, I think you are obstinate. I hope you can be more comfortable with your choices (whatever they are) and less threatened by people who disagree with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

See, this is the problem. I never "likened" God to numbers or morality. Someone else made a sweeping statement about the nature of existence and I tested the truth of those statements by using numbers and morality. This is how logical arguments are supposed to go: someone makes an assertion and then someone else tests the truth of the assertion in all cases. What happens in these discussions is that the atheists continue to confuse the issues. I'm not making statements of equivalency between God and numbers; I'm simply demonstrating the falsity of someone else's assertion.

I was making no logical arguments about Beinvenu. I was appealing to perhaps a common humanity. Someone then made the wild assertion that belief in God can only be a delusion since He is unseen and unheard. I do not defend Bienvenu's ideas about dinosaurs. And your assumption that my Christianity is somehow a rare breed of sophisticated theism is a little funny since my theological views are fairly mainstream. You do realize that even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, right? The only group of Christians that believe dinosaurs existed alongside humans is a fairly small portion of American Evangelicals.

---

The person you are defending is of the mind that Catholicism is a robbery and a mockery of Christianity. He said most Christians are nothing like Catholics. So which sect is mainstream? He would probably also tell you that he doesn't need defending. You're acting like a frequent contributor here is some kind of weakling who can't handle himself in debate. Here's an idea for everyone involved, be nice. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Stuntpickle many if not most Christians do believe in a physical God. You are taking your own more sophisticated kind of Christianity and projecting it as the norm. And likening God to numbers and morality in that they are all things to believe in despite their being things we cannot see or hear is false. We cannot sense numbers or morality but we can perceive them. Not only can you not see or hear God, but you can find no trace of Him, no indication of His presence, whatsoever. Numbers and morality are apparent. God is not.

And I know very little of physics and cosmology, but I do know that in his most recent book Stephen Hawking came out with the claim that the universe did not need God in order to begin. Considering the esteem in which he is held by the scientific community, I think this ought to mean something.

I think the reason we all argued with Bienvenue is not that he believes in God, but that he believes dinosaurs existed alongside humans and that those fabricated Peruvian stones were evidence of this. I doubt you hold the same belief.

---

I'm sorry, Darcy, but you are wrong. You seem to know nothing about God. He is not physical, but He is spirit. There is far more evidence that man existed with dinosaurs than just a stone. There's even Biblical accounts of the dinosaur. There's descriptions of dinosaurs in the book of Job. Not ONLY in the bible, but in many writings in many cultures. I can't help it that you are too narrow minded to accept anything beyond your own belief, but there's truth out there. Truth that you are just unwilling to accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I keep forgetting how futile these conversations are.

---

But you keep going with it.:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I'm sorry, Darcy, but you are wrong. You seem to know nothing about God. He is not physical, but He is spirit. There is far more evidence that man existed with dinosaurs than just a stone. There's even Biblical accounts of the dinosaur. There's descriptions of dinosaurs in the book of Job. Not ONLY in the bible, but in many writings in many cultures. I can't help it that you are too narrow minded to accept anything beyond your own belief, but there's truth out there. Truth that you are just unwilling to accept.

---

The so called references to dinosaurs in the bible are vague and prove nothing. Only through confirmation bias of the most abject kind can they be taken as definitive descriptions of dinosaurs. I've looked them up before after hearing a similar claim. You essentially have to believe that pretty much all scientists are corrupt in order to uphold this belief that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind. If your beliefs were supported in any meaningful way by the evidence gathered then they would become part of the science. God's intervening in the world would become part of the science if it were empirically demonstrated to have occurred. It has yet to be and I would not hold my breath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

But you keep going with it.:wave:

---

True. :)

I always start in with the intention of sharing why I enjoy being an atheist, and how a person doesn't need a God or a savior to be happy. It's supposed to be comforting, but it gets taken as an attack and I get sucked into someone else's battle. It's really not important though. Mostly I hope people are happy and not using excuses to hurt others.

And about lying on one's death bed and hoping for life after death..... I think I'd prefer that there be the nothingness that I expect. Supposing there is a God, how could I be sure that its not only the Jews or the Muslims or the Mormons who will be saved? Better nothing than the chance of hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

There is definitely some truth in what you say here. Being a believer by no means makes one close-minded or unreasoning, not at all. Religion, including Christianity, can be a dynamic, enlightened thing. The difference I think though is that with science EVERYTHING is on the table, nothing is above being potentially discredited. With faith that is not the case. In fact its this constant flux which has been science's greatest strength and claim to legitimacy. Nothing is sacred before the fact. It all depends on what the research shows. Every theory out there could be overturned, every law and every fact disproven, and still, science itself, the process and method, would remain unaltered. Again, with faith this is not the case.

---

Change is forever. even science keeps on changing. Check out for history of science.

Yes, with science everything is on the table but also a shaker can turn the table anytime !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

The so called references to dinosaurs in the bible are vague and prove nothing. Only through confirmation bias of the most abject kind can they be taken as definitive descriptions of dinosaurs. I've looked them up before after hearing a similar claim. You essentially have to believe that pretty much all scientists are corrupt in order to uphold this belief that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind. If your beliefs were supported in any meaningful way by the evidence gathered then they would become part of the science. God's intervening in the world would become part of the science if it were empirically demonstrated to have occurred. It has yet to be and I would not hold my breath.

---

If you want to go that route, the evidence you put your faith in for evolution is vague as well, and proves nothing. I don't believe that all scientist are corrupt, there are MANY scientist that believe in a young earth. As we have seen through the ages, there has been corrupt science forever. Take the global warming scandal for example. Al Gore has made millions on a hoax. People are getting filthy rich off this stuff, and you're buying it (at a high price). You haven't really researched much about dinosaurs' existence, except that which supports your claims, have you? Have you checked out any sites that support the idea that dinosaurs have coexisted with humans? Or have you only checked out sites that try to disprove the idea? Be honest. Did you ever hear of the dead dinosaur-like sea creature that was recovered by a Japanese fishing vessel? I'm sure that it was just a hoax. Seems that those scientists that claimed that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago will do everything in their power to discredit all information that proves them wrong. That's the way people are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

And about lying on one's death bed and hoping for life after death..... I think I'd prefer that there be the nothingness that I expect. Supposing there is a God, how could I be sure that its not only the Jews or the Muslims or the Mormons who will be saved? Better nothing than the chance of hell.

---

This world is infact hell or heaven depending upon how you spent your life here! The hereafter is merely a 'bonus' or 'penalty' for your deeds in this very world!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Better nothing than the chance of hell.

---

Your belief in nothingness won't make it a reality, it will merely ease your conscience for the time...

Caterpillars to butterflies, tadpoles to frogs - yeah, that's pretty vague, probably not even provable in the former case because it happens behind closed cocoons - all smoke and mirrors probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

You think you have corrected me on several counts, but you have not. I compared the existence of matter to a wheel rather than an open and shut finite situation like Christianity. What I said in no way contradicts the big bang theory. Until God is proven, God is an idea of man. When a person has an imaginary friend, it's easy for other people to discern that the invisible person isn't there. Do you know what delusion is?

You can call me and cars delusions if you want to, but you're witnessing a physical manifestation of my self in text. The text is being witnessed by other people as well. The text can be replicated (I've posted hundreds). Many undoctored photographs of me exist. Videos and recordings of me too. Pictures I have drawn. Sculptures I have made. I am easily proven. Lots of people have seen and touched cars. They have ridden inside them, built them, repaired them. They appear in undoctored photos and videos. Do I really need to explain this to you? I don't think you are obtuse, I think you are obstinate. I hope you can be more comfortable with your choices (whatever they are) and less threatened by people who disagree with them.

---

See, this is the problem: you are so wedded to your atheism that you can't even admit when you make flagrantly indefensible assertions. Delusional status accorded to belief in things unseen and unheard was not my argument, but yours. You don't get to side step your original assertion by multiplying your selective criteria. You don't get to pretend that I was somehow conflating belief in you to belief in God. I was just following your own premise to its logical conclusion. See, you don't seem capable of justifying that assertion. All you are doing now is making more indefensible assertions. I could ask you to justify those logically, but I would prefer to come to some mutual agreement about the first one. I will assume that you agree that the assertion is false since you are now changing your criteria. I will be happy to demonstrate the falsity of these new claims, the minute you admit the falsity of the previous one. If you do not believe the first assertion is false, then you should be able to easily to provide a logical justification for it, which should end with "therefore, belief in an unseen and unheard God can only be delusional."

You don't get to wriggle out of it. You're making wild claims that no philosopher, theistic, atheistic or otherwise, would agree with. You don't just get to wander aimlessly through new assertions because you don't know how to defend the first one. Moreover, when you are clearly demonstrating an unwillingness to justify the things you say, you don't then get to pretend that I am somehow "threatened."

This is my experience with New Atheists. They like to talk about reason and rationality, but when held to rational standards they try to escape them. If you can't form any logical justification for your assertion, then everyone is justified in ignoring it and anything you say after it, without you first admitting the wrongness of it. This is how rational discussions work.

Perhaps you think you're being clever, but I could make similar demands of most everything you are saying here. All you are doing is making bald assertion after bald assertion. When having a rational discussion, one should try to arrange one's statements in some sort of rational order of increasing consequence--not wildly flit from assertion to assertion.

By continuing to ignore your own original assertion, you impeach your credibility. This is what we call poor form when losing an argument. It's what people do when winning is more important than truth.