Thread: I would probably give $1,000,000 to anyone that could convince me that God exists.

Can't convince you since I don't believe in the Bible myself. (Even though I'm Catholic lol)

Originally Posted by spockman

Before I come back to this, I will research humanism. Since I don't know that much about it.

Same here.

Originally Posted by spockman

I'm projecting? How? By providing examples of wicked atheists in response to people providing examples of wicked Christians?

The original point was that the bible can easily be mis-interpreted to justify violence. So, in reply, you say that Atheists are violent to?

First of all, if your point is that simply all people are violent, then you may notice that I already agree.

However, when we speak about justifying cruelty via beliefs, we do not. Stalin did not do those things because he was Atheist. As a side note, he did teach his daughter to believe in Christ, so obviously his religious code is a bit misconstrued.

The point is;
+ Atheism is the lack of belief in God
- How do you use this to justify cruel acts?

Remember, atheism is a constituent belief in other belief systems. It is prepositional when you ask a Humanist Existentialist, like myself, "what do you believe?" when I really do not "believe" in anything. Thus, I am forced to answer "Atheist" - perhaps more for the sake of brevity.

And the detestable religious acts put forward are unbiased? At the very least, they are manipulations. While we are at it... Let's just say that Muhammad taught we should all wage bloody wars killing children to take back Israel. And that's projecting bias. Talking about Stalin is no more biased or distracting than bringing up any other example. How is it different? It is not a pot shot- unless we just have to have a one sided fling-fest with only occasional apologetics thrown in from the believers.

Find one instance when a Humanist justifies murder because of Humanism and I will shut up. (Of course, he ought to be obviously in a proper state of mind; I won't quote insane Theists murders like Jeffrey Dahmer).

The point was that I was strictly speaking of the good in the bible and instead of debating that, the rebuttal pointing the finger elsewhere. If you say, "Humanism justifies murders because of X" I won't say, "Ohhh but.. uhm.. crusades!" I will try to look further into X, question it, and either admit you are right or try to show how you are wrong (or some reconciliation).

As far as saying that many acts of violence in and of themselves are immoral, (in the Bible that is,) well, it is an honest argument. (And more feasible than a lot of the attempts to show how Christianity is in line with evil stuff outside of it.) I won't try and pretend it didn't happen.

Listen, Stalin is not a fair comparison at all because his views are not even remotely the ones I am addressing. It is irrelevant.

Your point ought to be that violence is ubiquitous regardless of religious beliefs.

In that case, the point is still moot because how can you justify cruelty via Humanism? I beg of you to prove that point and I would humbly admit being wrong.

Either way, the point I was making was; religion can be used to justify cruelty. But the good in religion can exist independently without the dogmatic potential to be misinterpreted for justifying cruelty. That independent ideal is Humanism (for me).

And you can justify terrible acts through atheism. Easier than with Christianity, actually. At least it is not required to find various verses and try and find a way how they apply in any given scenario. Nope. Just say that since there is no objective morality, nothing is wrong. The whole ethics dilemma is solved. Could, let's say humanism, explain why they believe differently? Sure. It's why I am not attacking your belief system. Yes, atheism is the lack of belief in something. Not the belief in something itself so I can see where one would think that without a standard you can't lump them together. Fair enough. I guess talking about atheism as a whole is as broad as creationism. If you would rather I bring up humanism for sake of argument, (since it wouldn't be that fair to assault Christianity with examples from the ancient Greeks.)

Yes, it would be much fairer because how the hell can you justify anything with just Atheism alone? Let alone Theism alone? Do you realize that you are arguing that the non-belief in something can justify murders? Are you really prepared to argue that Stalin did not believe in anything?

Before I come back to this, I will research humanism. Since I don't know that much about it.

EDIT: I'd like to touch on the whole mind set thing. There are many different mind sets within any belief system. I can mostly understand your mind set, O'nus, parts of it for sure. I've been on the other side of this discussion before. (Though I was never a humanist. More of a... Rationalist. And even today I consider myself an existentialist.) So yeah. Just to let you know that I get where you are coming from. I should hope you would do the same- or try to- for everyone else.

I will post a thread on humanism tomorrow and then existentialism's injection. Remember that I really consider myself a Humanist Existentialist, and have for a while. It is just that Existentialism is a difficult step after accepting Humanism. I think you will understand, considering the above quote. If it seems that I do not try to be insightful to others points, please, by all means, let me know.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

The original point was that the bible can easily be mis-interpreted to justify violence. So, in reply, you say that Atheists are violent to?

I'll concede this one, since I mis-interpreted your point as simply pointing towards instances where Christians have been violent, not a point about the actual text.

First of all, if your point is that simply all people are violent, then you may notice that I already agree.

Well, that is what I was getting at with the post before my last post. (The one about fealty and such.)

However, when we speak about justifying cruelty via beliefs, we do not. Stalin did not do those things because he was Atheist. As a side note, he did teach his daughter to believe in Christ, so obviously his religious code is a bit misconstrued.

I probably could have found a better/more creative example. Stalin is kind of the new Godwin's law. Try and ignore any laziness on my part since the general point that atheists can use their lack of belief to justify stuff. Later in my post, I clarified that this doesn't apply to you, or humanists specifically, because I realized atheism is too broad- thus unfair- to look at collectively at all.
EDIT: I'll have to research that daughter thing, it is interesting.

The point is;
+ Atheism is the lack of belief in God
- How do you use this to justify cruel acts?
Okay. As of right now, I am not budging on this one. You can use the lack of belief in God to justify cruelty.
Remember, atheism is a constituent belief in other belief systems. It is prepositional when you ask a Humanist Existentialist, like myself, "what do you believe?" when I really do not "believe" in anything. Thus, I am forced to answer "Atheist" - perhaps more for the sake of brevity.

After reading about humanism, it seems some parts of existentialism are inherent in humanism. At the very least, I can see how they would go well together.

Find one instance when a Humanist justifies murder because of Humanism and I will shut up. (Of course, he ought to be obviously in a proper state of mind; I won't quote insane Theists murders like Jeffrey Dahmer).


The point was that I was strictly speaking of the good in the bible and instead of debating that, the rebuttal pointing the finger elsewhere. If you say, "Humanism justifies murders because of X" I won't say, "Ohhh but.. uhm.. crusades!" I will try to look further into X, question it, and either admit you are right or try to show how you are wrong (or some reconciliation).


Listen, Stalin is not a fair comparison at all because his views are not even remotely the ones I am addressing. It is irrelevant.

Agreed.

Your point ought to be that violence is ubiquitous regardless of religious beliefs.

In that case, the point is still moot because how can you justify cruelty via Humanism? I beg of you to prove that point and I would humbly admit being wrong.
Alright. Well, the crusades doesn't apply to myself either, then. Messianic Jewish acts of violence could be, if they can be justified through the new testament. Even if you may think that using the 'new testament' argument is illogical/inconsistent, not acknowledging the new testament as the new covenant would mean that it doesn't apply to my beliefs, thus not to me. (In the same way that someone saying ''atheism shouldn't defend morality'' wouldn't change the fact that your branch of atheism does believe in morality.) Does that make sense?
Either way, the point I was making was; religion can be used to justify cruelty. But the good in religion can exist independently without the dogmatic potential to be misinterpreted for justifying cruelty. That independent ideal is Humanism (for me).

Okay. However, as a Christian, I accept everything within the Bible as from God and thus positive- I should analyze it- but synthesizing it based on the parts that make me feel good would be hypocritical. As an atheist, you can find the ideal that works best for you. (Heck, one could say that doing so is a major part of many types of existentialism.)

Yes, it would be much fairer because how the hell can you justify anything with just Atheism alone? Let alone Theism alone? Do you realize that you are arguing that the non-belief in something can justify murders? Are you really prepared to argue that Stalin did not believe in anything?

Eh, I don't want a semantics argument but believing that God is false is still a belief. Just an exclusive belief is all.

I will post a thread on humanism tomorrow and then existentialism's injection. Remember that I really consider myself a Humanist Existentialist, and have for a while. It is just that Existentialism is a difficult step after accepting Humanism. I think you will understand, considering the above quote. If it seems that I do not try to be insightful to others points, please, by all means, let me know.

I wasn't trying to say that you don't. But I wonder in what spirit was Richard Dawkins quoted. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am sure others will agree with me when I say that religion is or should be a search for truth.
~

There you go.

Originally Posted by spockman

There you go.

You bastard - that is such a pain to quote and reply to, lol.

Okay. As of right now, I am not budging on this one. You can use the lack of belief in God to justify cruelty.

Listen, just because someone has no belief in God does not mean that they are a fundamentalist anarchist.

Obviously, there are people who are existential atheists and have no quarrel with murdering people in a war. However, these people are only atheists because it is a constituent of their beliefs.

Actually, I think we just agree really. All people do violence. I just argue that Humanist Existential Atheists are the most flourishing morality systems available - no dogma and beneficial to all people.

Alright. Well, the crusades doesn't apply to myself either, then. Messianic Jewish acts of violence could be, if they can be justified through the new testament. Even if you may think that using the 'new testament' argument is illogical/inconsistent, not acknowledging the new testament as the new covenant would mean that it doesn't apply to my beliefs, thus not to me. (In the same way that someone saying ''atheism shouldn't defend morality'' wouldn't change the fact that your branch of atheism does believe in morality.) Does that make sense?

Not really. The new testament is still used to justify cruelty. How could you possibly think otherwise? The NT was used to justify the crusades.. you claim to still believe in the same testament.. where's the point here? Are you saying that you still take a medieval scripture as a provident guidance to life?

Okay. However, as a Christian, I accept everything within the Bible as from God and thus positive- I should analyze it- but synthesizing it based on the parts that make me feel good would be hypocritical. As an atheist, you can find the ideal that works best for you. (Heck, one could say that doing so is a major part of many types of existentialism.)

But.. if you accept everything from the bible as from God and positive.. then why are you not killing people on sabbath and homosexuals? Not to mention all the other things.

Of course, you would be inclined to argue that those are misconceptions. Which is exactly my point. The good you would likely advocate is easily extrapolated and exists independently out of a potentially mis-interpreted context known as Humanism. There is no mis-interpretations of it and I do not think there is any possible way to twist it to justify cruelty - that would actually be a contradiction of its core quintessence.

Eh, I don't want a semantics argument but believing that God is false is still a belief. Just an exclusive belief is all.

I really get irritated when people say this. Tell me if I got it wrong, but from this sentence I get that you would say:

People either:
A) Believe in God
or
B) Do not believe in God

But what about this:
A) Believe in God
B) Do not believe in God
C) Unsure/open

Of course, you must realize that I am arguing that my form of Atheism would fall into C. You cannot possibly argue that it is known fact that God exists, and neither could I deny it. Thus, I find it best to sit at C.

Also, I should note, Agnostics are the people that argue we can never know the truth or understand it with our feeble comprehension.

I wasn't trying to say that you don't. But I wonder in what spirit was Richard Dawkins quoted. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am sure others will agree with me when I say that religion is or should be a search for truth.

If you mean the creationist quote, it is because creationists completely neglect all forms of reasoning to favour their own conjured ones.

Also, I, as an academic, find it a bit offensive to imply that religion is the search for truth and not science.

What exactly is science then? The search for non-truth? Religion makes the presumptions and prepositions and then tries to prove them right. The onus is on them for the truth. Science does the exact opposite and you can see my arguments for it in my "Scientific Method" link in my signature.

The bottom-line though, it seems to me that we relatively agree on most matters. I am just curious to clear up these few things to be sure I understand you correctly.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You bastard - that is such a pain to quote and reply to, lol.

Hehe

Listen, just because someone has no belief in God does not mean that they are a fundamentalist anarchist.

Obviously, there are people who are existential atheists and have no quarrel with murdering people in a war. However, these people are only atheists because it is a constituent of their beliefs.

Actually, I think we just agree really. All people do violence. I just argue that Humanist Existential Atheists are the most flourishing morality systems available - no dogma and beneficial to all people.


Yeah. Although, as a religious existentialist myself I do not believe that there is some magical quality which is who we inherently are individually- that is we become who we choose to be, (not discrediting genetic disposition, though,) - I do believe we have inherent qualities as a species. Human nature. Which I get from you.

Not really. The new testament is still used to justify cruelty. How could you possibly think otherwise? The NT was used to justify the crusades.. you claim to still believe in the same testament.. where's the point here? Are you saying that you still take a medieval scripture as a provident guidance to life?

[COLOR="rgb(255, 140, 0)"]To be honest, the NT didn't have to justify the crusades. To the ancient Catholics the clergy was the religion since the literacy rate was so low. My point is that seeing as I am not a Catholic and don't believe the pope is a special guy, it isn't fair to em burden me with their faults just like it isn't fair for me to em burden you with the flaws of the atheist Soviet union.[/COLOR]

But.. if you accept everything from the bible as from God and positive.. then why are you not killing people on sabbath and homosexuals? Not to mention all the other things.

Because we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant.

Of course, you would be inclined to argue that those are misconceptions. Which is exactly my point. The good you would likely advocate is easily extrapolated and exists independently out of a potentially mis-interpreted context known as Humanism. There is no mis-interpretations of it and I do not think there is any possible way to twist it to justify cruelty - that would actually be a contradiction of its core quintessence.



I really get irritated when people say this. Tell me if I got it wrong, but from this sentence I get that you would say:

People either:
A) Believe in God
or
B) Do not believe in God

But what about this:
A) Believe in God
B) Do not believe in God
C) Unsure/open

Of course, you must realize that I am arguing that my form of Atheism would fall into C. You cannot possibly argue that it is known fact that God exists, and neither could I deny it. Thus, I find it best to sit at C.

Any reasonable person can admit that they may be wrong, sure.

Also, I should note, Agnostics are the people that argue we can never know the truth or understand it with our feeble comprehension.



If you mean the creationist quote, it is because creationists completely neglect all forms of reasoning to favour their own conjured ones.

See, and that is where I implore you to try and understand everyone else's mind-set. If you truly believe the quote, than I am saying that you aren't trying to be insightful because the way I see it I've made it clear that my reason for being here is not to be some fanatically pushy, ignorant creationist. Rather, I enjoy this. That being socializing, discussing. Is there a mutual respect here? Because if we can't both believe that we aren't both here to learn than I am inclined to believe that you aren't.

Also, I, as an academic, find it a bit offensive to imply that religion is the search for truth and not science.

And that is because they are separate issues to you. See, I don't think that there is science and religion, both searching for different types of truth. I believe that there is the search for truth and that it is a thing in and of itself. Religion and science are both sub-sets of that. The same difference to me, really.

What exactly is science then? The search for non-truth? Religion makes the presumptions and prepositions and then tries to prove them right. The onus is on them for the truth. Science does the exact opposite and you can see my arguments for it in my "Scientific Method" link in my signature.

Religion does that. It does not mean that all religion does that. Heck, people accuse me of being too logical, if anything. A very point a proves point b proves point c kind of mind. Frankly, not only does it avoid the actual topic but it is presumptuous to say that someone else has made conclusions before he or she did any research.

The bottom-line though, it seems to me that we relatively agree on most matters. I am just curious to clear up these few things to be sure I understand you correctly.

I agree. At the core of things, anyway, there are a certain fundamental items which we don't agree on but more things which I think we do agree on. If you are curious where I am coming from on moral or philosophical issues, I've written some short papers on it if you are interested. As I will likely follow the link in your sig.

~

Apparently the message I have entered is too short. Howzabout this, then?

I'd just like to say something, since I noticed the title of this thread, and if it's already been said I apologize.

Now I'm a devout athiest. I really think it makes sense and I generally pity Christians for being deluded, especially if they've had all the arguments for Athiesm explained clearly for them. It's a powerful and scary kind of brainwashing.

However, I'm an open minded Athiest. I used to be a Catholic, until I started thinking about my faith. I'd like to think that as an Athiest I still have that trait. If someone were to present me with a fairly convincing argument for the existence of god (and no arguments for Athiesm are quite 100% definite proof), I would seriously consider rethinking my beliefs.

My point is, someone who says "I'll give you a million dollars if you change my mind" isn't gonna have their mind changed by anything. They've already decided. And this is equally as bad for Christians or Athiests.

Athiesm isn't a religion. It's a rationalised, logical way of looking at life. And most importantly, it's a way of thinking that's open minded.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

I'd just like to say something, since I noticed the title of this thread, and if it's already been said I apologize.

Now I'm a devout athiest. I really think it makes sense and I generally pity Christians for being deluded, especially if they've had all the arguments for Athiesm explained clearly for them. It's a powerful and scary kind of brainwashing.

However, I'm an open minded Athiest. I used to be a Catholic, until I started thinking about my faith. I'd like to think that as an Athiest I still have that trait. If someone were to present me with a fairly convincing argument for the existence of god (and no arguments for Athiesm are quite 100% definite proof), I would seriously consider rethinking my beliefs.

My point is, someone who says "I'll give you a million dollars if you change my mind" isn't gonna have their mind changed by anything. They've already decided. And this is equally as bad for Christians or Athiests.

Athiesm isn't a religion. It's a rationalised, logical way of looking at life. And most importantly, it's a way of thinking that's open minded.

Atheism isn't an open minded way of thinking any more that new age or Buddhism is an open minded way of thinking. How open minded someone is has nothing to do with their belief system. Insead, it's how they they approach that system. A Christian can be more or less open minded than an atheist and, in my experience, there is an equal chance for either to be more or less open.

Originally Posted by spockman

Atheism isn't an open minded way of thinking any more that new age or Buddhism is an open minded way of thinking. How open minded someone is has nothing to do with their belief system. Insead, it's how they they approach that system. A Christian can be more or less open minded than an atheist and, in my experience, there is an equal chance for either to be more or less open.

I'm not saying that all Athiests are open minded, and it is true that a lot are just as fundamental as many christians. And many christians are more open minded than some athiests.

I was just saying that in my opinion, athiesm is not so much a religion as a rational and clear headed way of looking at the world. Ideally, and athiest should be open to all possibilities, but has an opinion based on the most likely way things are.

I agree with you in that other ways of looking at the world (such as Buddhism) may be more 'open minded' per se, but an ideal athiest is open to new evidence and other possibilities.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

I'm not saying that all Athiests are open minded, and it is true that a lot are just as fundamental as many christians. And many christians are more open minded than some athiests.

I was just saying that in my opinion, athiesm is not so much a religion as a rational and clear headed way of looking at the world. Ideally, and athiest should be open to all possibilities, but has an opinion based on the most likely way things are.

I agree with you in that other ways of looking at the world (such as Buddhism) may be more 'open minded' per se, but an ideal athiest is open to new evidence and other possibilities.

Okay. I follow you now, Pat. Think I misunderstood you at first is all.

Originally Posted by spockman

Okay. I follow you now, Pat. Think I misunderstood you at first is all.

Cool

God created evolution, If you ask who created God , He created him/her/it self. God always was , is and will be.

Originally Posted by mowglycdb

God created evolution, If you ask who created God , He created him/her/it self. God always was , is and will be.

I do hope you're being sarcastic here...

XD lol

sadly for you... I'm not.

Originally Posted by mowglycdb

God created evolution, If you ask who created God , He created him/her/it self. God always was , is and will be.

God is Evolution

will you still give me the million if I can convince you of this? I have a good arguement but I ain't writing nothing till I see them GreenBacks

Go for it, I'm offering a more realistic £100. :l

Originally Posted by mowglycdb

XD lol

sadly for you... I'm not.

*shoots self*

I'm officially giving up on the human race. That's it, game over.

Originally Posted by mowglycdb

God created evolution, If you ask who created God , He created him/her/it self. God always was , is and will be.

It seems to me that evolution created God. If you ask who created evolution - it always was , is and will be.

The idea that god created itself is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard (no offense to anyone). If infinitely powerful beings could summon themselves into existence at will, why don't we worship hundreds of gods, like the Greeks or Romans used to? I agree with Bonsai; the first claim about gods spontaneously popping into existence is absolutely ludicrous when compared to the crushing logic of eternal evolution and increasing complexity.

Originally Posted by Mario92

The idea that god created itself is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard (no offense to anyone). If infinitely powerful beings could summon themselves into existence at will, why don't we worship hundreds of gods, like the Greeks or Romans used to? I agree with Bonsai; the first claim about gods spontaneously popping into existence is absolutely ludicrous when compared to the crushing logic of eternal evolution and increasing complexity.

Unless the inherent nature of the universe had God with it, almost a conciousness of the universe binding it all together. For every God paradox, there is a paradox that exists in a universe without a creator.

Granted, that's just throwing around theoretical stuff for the sake of argument, but my point is that there are ways it can work.

Originally Posted by spockman

Unless the inherent nature of the universe had God with it, almost a conciousness of the universe binding it all together. For every God paradox, there is a paradox that exists in a universe without a creator.

Granted, that's just throwing around theoretical stuff for the sake of argument, but my point is that there are ways it can work.

Granted, but I think probability should also play a role here. We have little to no evidence of any sort of divine being or consciousness within the universe, but we observe increasing complexity and evolution all the time. When you think about it, it really makes sense that religion would be a part of the evolutionary process.

Let me start off by saying I'm taking a pantheist explanation of what God is (somewhat).

Well to be honest putting it the way I did makes no sense, but I have had no sleep last night and I was mainly responding to the idea God created evolution. "God is Evolution" sounds like I am comparing 2 nouns and saying they are the same thing. Basically I was just saying God is nature and nature is a constantly evolving collective. Evolution is the process which that collective continually goes through.

I could try and explain this in depth or develop some method to prove this to you, but that would be useless. Using logic to try to come to understand God is useless. The only reason I have any belief in God is my own mystical experiences. And even with those experiences I'm still skeptical. I just think it seems that so many people have had an experience of God, it seems that one would need to make some sense of those experiences if one really wants the truth about this matter.

I have another theory of how all this shit relates from the vantage point of Occult or Eastern Mysticism too, but I'm not gonna write more now. Basically it has to do with the idea of understanding your True Will(or Higher Self), which I believe is actually in some sense an evolutionary progression towards being much more effective at being a human.

Again my apologies if this makes no sense I'm very tired. Particularly the last par.

Originally Posted by mini0991

Some parts of it can be verified by simple reason. For example, the world was almost certainly designed by something above us. There's simply too much complexity and order in the universe to suggest something we may not immediately understand. Does this mean things were just "dropped" here by God as creationists believe? Absoleutely not, simple reason and accepted science states the irrefutable fact of evolution is in our biosphere. But this doesn't mean that something higher didn't get the ball rolling by starting the universe so that everything happened to develop to where we are today.

Now, the fact that there's ample evidence of design in nature doesn't validate the Bible. There are numerous things in there which defy accepted science and fail basic tests of logic. One is what I like to call the "problem of cancer." God says he loves us. God answers prayers. Person X prays to God that person Y lives through their cancer. Person Y dies.

Reject mainstream religious dogma, Google "deism," and discover the thinking man's belief.

I disagree with you there on paragraph 1 because of logic. Say you have a pair of billion sided dice and infinite time. Eventually you will have to get 987,654,321 on both. It's just logical. The same can be said about the earth and it's relatively close surroundings. The universe IS chaotic. But it got us right by the same randomness which made the chaos

On paragraph two, you could have made a better case for yourself. The first page defies science and logic. Defy Science: by saying Woman came from Man. It was the reverse. Defy Logic: Why does an omnipotent being need exactly one Earth day to rest? Or any rest? Or a concept of time?

But I am also deist, and I do think you made some good points.

And I just wanna leave with this; Religion is a business. Don't be a shareholder.

Well if there was nothing at all before the big bang, what caused the big bang? Answer, god