8 'undred

(found it)

edited - double post

Did he do the Fandango?

NO that was scaramouche

The trouble arises because "private beliefs" (on both sides) often spill out into public areas like laws, education and justice.

Atheism isn't a belief, it's knowledge

dogmatix: I don't think anyone on the thread has argued otherwise.

Surely there must be somebody in 800 posts? Somebody go and have a check.

Wiktionary offers

(narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes, excluding other religious beliefs). ?[quotations ?]

CharlieMungus - Member
The trouble arises because "private beliefs" (on both sides) often spill out into public areas like laws, education and justice.
Atheism isn't a belief, it's knowledge

Actually, I don't think that even Richard Dawkins would agree with you on that, Mr Mungus.

But whatever.

can't be bothered to read the thread.did I miss anything?

Actually, I don't think that even Richard Dawkins would agree with you on that, Mr Mungus.

But whatever.

So, you're saying Atheism is just a belief.

No. I'm saying that by any definition of knowledge, neither theism nor atheism count as such.

As any good epistemologist would say.

"By definition, no one knows what lies outside their tiny circle of knowledge. To claim you know there is no God is to claim you have exhaustively searched every part of every universe and dimension with an infallibly accurate method of detecting every non-physical entity that could possibly exist. The claim that God has taken the initiative and chosen to reveal himself to some people is not nearly as unbelievable". Grantley Morris.

To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

When Christians and atheists debate the question "Does God exist?" atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This, however, is a false assertion. When an interrogative such as "Does God exist?" is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer.

Ultimately, no amount of evidence can convert an unbeliever to belief. That is solely the work of God.

Indeed.

To some extent, I agree with the great atheist Betrand Russell who declared that there was no point in arguing God's existence, because it was by definition unarguable.

Some people have faith that God exists. Some do not. End of.

Looks like I've missed a humdinger here. Can anyone point me to the best summary on these 21 pages?

There is no summary. It's a black hole. 🙄

When Christians and atheists debate the question "Does God exist?" atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This, however, is a false assertion. When an interrogative such as "Does God exist?" is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer.

He who makes the positive statement must provide the proof.

If I were to say "There is *no* god" then I would have to stump up proof. Similarly if someone says "There *is* a god" then they have to prove it.

I'm the same as Dawkins (yes, I've read the book). He's an agnostic insofar as you cannot prove a negative. There is a minuscule chance that the christian/muslim/whatever god exists or even one made out of blancmange so you can't rule any of them out logically.

So why don't we all just shut up about it then, and get back to drooling over mountain bikes/making fun of the Tories/placating hurt feelings/posting LOL cats/making fun of TJ?

Not forgetting this parallel thread...another belter

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/doorstep-god-botherers

PhilAmon is a proper believer, we tried to out him as a rabid homophobe using AdamW as the bait. Didnt work, he's a nice fella.

No. I'm saying that by any definition of knowledge, neither theism nor atheism count as such.

So are you saying it isn't a belief?

There is a minuscule chance that the christian/muslim/whatever god exists

A conclusion based on? ...

Ultimately, no amount of evidence can convert an unbeliever to belief. That is solely the work of God.

so you're saying God chooses who believes in him, and by extention who goes to heaven?

seems somewhat arbitrary?

A conclusion based on? ...

Based on the fact that you cannot prove a negative. The only logical position would be (to my view):

"I see no evidence of X existing at this time, while this is not proof of not-X I don't see any reason to consider X to exist unless evidence is forthcoming."

Therefore I believe that there is an infinitely small chance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Yahweh/blancmange god(chocolate) existing but so small as it is insignificant.

Until any evidence shows otherwise.

EDIT: chocolate, of course would be god. Raspberry is an abomination! 😀

Jeremiah 29:13 - "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart."

1 Chronicles 28:9 - "...If you seek him, he will be found by you..."

So until you've tested God by the above, you can't genuinely say He doesn't exist.

"By definition, no one knows what lies outside their tiny circle of knowledge. To claim you know there is no God is to claim you have exhaustively searched every part of every universe and dimension with an infallibly accurate method of detecting every non-physical entity that could possibly exist

If that is the case, then this "god" thing must have set up a universe in part of which (that is, the increasingly larger, over time, bit we are able to study) there is no evidence of it's existence.

Seems unlikely to me, but let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is so.

This suggests that the supposed being is constantly withdrawing beyond our ever-expanding sphere of enquiry, as if it does not want to be discovered.

Well that's a slightly more sophisticated scenario than the traditional "god is invisible but everywhere", but you'd still need "faith" to believe it, there being no evidence.

...and given the exclusivity built in to religion, social control/tribal construct thingy, each religion insists that their god is the only one. Given this lack of consensus among believers, the logical position is to assume its all made up.

I'm late to this party so this may already have been done, but as someone who teeters between atheist on a grumpy/argumentative day and agnostic on a sitting-on-the-fence day, I was surprised how much I enjoyed this read:

[img] [/img]

CharlieMungus - Member

No. I'm saying that by any definition of knowledge, neither theism nor atheism count as such.

So are you saying it isn't a belief?

What?!? I'm saying exactly what I said. Neither atheism nor theism can be counted as knowledge.

I'm not interested in whether you want to call either a 'belief'. I took issue with your comment above that declared atheism to be knowledge.

In the terms of this debate - if that's what it can be called - neither side is talking about knowledge according to any classical definition.

Jeremiah 29:13 - "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart."

1 Chronicles 28:9 - "...If you seek him, he will be found by you..."

And?

AdamW 1:7-9 - "I could murder a curry."
AdamW 5:98-129 - "You know that Flying Spaghetti Monster? I'm sure I have been touched by his noodly appendage. Bit sticky. Red. Quite tasty sauce though, but it could do with a bit more salt."

Please don't do that: the final fall-back of the religious is usually to give quotes from their own book as fallback to their beliefs.

At this point someone usually goes nuclear with: Psalm 14:1 - "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god" which is basically insulting.

Jeremiah 29:13 - "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart."

1 Chronicles 28:9 - "...If you seek him, he will be found by you..."

So until you've tested God by the above, you can't genuinely say He doesn't exist.

that settles that then. oh actually no it doesn't. the existence/ non-existence debate does not have to follow rules written in a pro-god book.

crikey - Member
...and given the exclusivity built in to religion, social control/tribal construct thingy, each religion insists that their god is the only one. Given this lack of consensus among believers, the logical position is to assume its all made up.

First of all, your logic is faulty. You could say that [i]a[/i] position to take is that religion is made up, but not that it is [i]the[/i] position to take - and especially not that it is the (only) logical position to take.

Secondly, your supposition of exclusivity, while true in some cases, is by no means true in all. Therefore your premise is faulty.

I do not suggest that your point of view is entirely invalid; only that it presents a number of problems.

Sorry, I have a cold...

I think what I'm trying to suggest is that a lack of consensus among those who believe in god, in any of the organised religions, would seem to add weight to the theory that such religions have a far more earthly origin.
In the common language, if you fellas can't even decide on a story, do you have a credible position from which to suggest atheists are mistaken?

And the answer to that will depend on the theologian (of any religion) one talks to, as there are some who will maintain a militant exclusivity, and some who will maintain a generous, coherent universality.

And while I can see why this would present a problem to an inquirer seeking objective 'proof', I would equally say that subjective beings as we are, there will always be those who will come to appreciate one view or another and place their faith in it, and some who will not.

Which is fair enough, I think.

Fair enough indeed. I suspect that the arguments for and against existence and for and against religion come down to individuals, which is ultimately the way things should be.

What?!? I'm saying exactly what I said. Neither atheism nor theism can be counted as knowledge.

I'm not interested in whether you want to call either a 'belief'. I took issue with your comment above that declared atheism to be knowledge.

Surely it can only be knowledge or belief. what else is there?

What's that cult, you know the one where they worship a human sacrifice and have a ritual with cannibalism at it's centre, oh what's it called? You know the one, the main symbol of it's followers is a torture device?

^^ Not my own but I really like it...

The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god" which is basically insulting.

A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left

Ecclesiastes 10:2

God said we are all stupid

Its is just a stupid arcane belief stystem that explains the world in a simple way understood by people who dont have much knowledge and were not scholarly at the time- it is part of the human condition to explain th eworld and these are the simplest ways. When we reject them we call them myths ...how this unevidenced BS account of life is not considered a myth is lost on me tbh. Nothing is unprovable and anthing could concievably happen no matter how unlikely.
It is just delusional - it is culturally accpetable so its rude to call them mad for following a non existent entity and feeling its presenc ein their life
its not rude for them to say homosexuals should be killed or to tell me I will burn in hell but hey kids remember they are special and we should respect them whilst they are as rude as they like as it is in their made up book

Thanks, consciousness. We only have you to thank for this.

> There is a minuscule chance that the christian/muslim/whatever god exists
A conclusion based on? ...

I'd agree with that, just based on straight odds.

If we agree (unlikely I know) that every god is equally likely to actually exist. And accept that most religions insist this is an exclusive deal (or at least have very serious flaws in their mythology if it isn't). Then you are looking at odds of tens-of-thousands-to-one that your particular brand of deity is the one that actually exists.

i.e.

p = 1 / (n + 1)

where
n is the total number of different gods/deities/spirits worshipped in the history of mankind
p is the chance your deity is the real one

No? 🙂

But if it helps, I also accept that atheism is a "belief", albeit one that doesn't require "faith".

Ah, but million to one chances work nine times out of ten, allegedly.

its not rude for them to say homosexuals should be killed or to tell me I will burn in hell but hey kids

Yes it is. No one is saying that is acceptable either, and particularly no one on here is saying those things about homosexual or you. Well, not from religious standpoint anyway.

joao3v16 quit quoting the bible at us. It's insulting and makes you sound like a zealot with no mind of your own.

PhilAmon is a proper believer, we tried to out him as a rabid homophobe using AdamW as the bait. Didnt work, he's a nice fella.

no one on here is saying those things about homosexual or you

Our evangelist essentially said, paraphrasing, "I'm not homophobic, but if you wanted to find god you'd have to put all that behind you and leave your husband and pray to god that he sorts that out for you."

The Book Of Dave...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/may/27/fiction.hayfestival2006

Our evangelist essentially said, paraphrasing, "I'm not homophobic, but if you wanted to find god you'd have to put all that behind you and leave your husband and pray to god that he sorts that out for you.

yeah, that's pretty different from saying that they should be killed

Jeremiah 29:13 - "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart."

1 Chronicles 28:9 - "...If you seek him, he will be found by you..."

So until you've tested God by the above, you can't genuinely say He doesn't exist.

that settles that then. oh actually no it doesn't. the existence/ non-existence debate does not have to follow rules written in a pro-god book.

What I was meaning is, to test for oneself the existence of God why not 'challenge' Him using his own words/promises?

I'd rather watch paint dry...

What I was meaning is, to test for oneself the existence of God why not 'challenge' Him using his own words/promises?

Based on the number of religions with similar claims wouldn't you end up having to do this for the rest of your life?

Well, not from religious standpoint anyway.

No you are right they are just lovely to non believers and those who dont follow their 3 thousand year old moral code. Th ebibkle sppeak s of tolerance at all times and there is no fore , brimstons or vengenace there at all ...my mistake.

What I was meaning is, to test for oneself the existence of God why not 'challenge' Him using his own words/promises?

I'd rather read a good novel, or spend time with my children, or enjoy a meal with my wife, or go cycling. Anything, frankly than talk to a big imaginary man in the sky who demands my obedience or he's going to send me to burn in hell.

yeah, that's pretty different from saying that they should be killed

Don't worry, the "Good Book" takes care of that:

[i]"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."[/i] -- Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)

It's not too hot on transsexuals (or victims of unfortunate industrial accidents) either:

[i]"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD."[/i] -- Deuteronomy 23:1 (ESV)

Lovely.

Probably best not to swear at your parents either:

[i]"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."[/i] -- Leviticus 20:9 (KJV)

😀

"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD."

I would have thought they'd need all the help they can get. Poor form.

I can't be arsed reading back - anyone brought up the anthropomorphisation of this God being yet...?

who demands my obedience or he's going to send me to burn in hell

God granted Man free will. Obedience is a choice. Faith in Him is a choice.

You can choose living in obedience to Him (in a similar way that you'd hope your own children be obediet to you), or reject Him.

Assuming God is real, of course 😉

Oh. So now it's an assumption...

joao3v16: genuine question, how do you reconcile using "the word of God" as the basis of your logic (as you did above) when the you (presumably) don't follow the words of God that I quoted here?

Do you only follow the good bits?

Given the probability of the bible being

a] The word of god
b] The writings of men

i'm going to go for "god not real"

You can choose living in obedience to Him (in a similar way that you'd hope your own children be obediet to you)...

[sarcasm] I can see the parallels between children having faith that their parents exist when they get another rollicking for making a mess with the toothpaste and having faith in a god. [/sarcasm]
😯

Do you only follow the good bits?

no I do what the bible says and its is worlking as treat in israel I thik you will find

‘Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24 But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations.

I wouldn't want a sticky smelly land, to be honest.

Although if there's a nice bit of cheese about I could be tempted.

A land flowing with milk and honey will get very messy very quickly.

Ed. Gah, beaten to it. Sod.

its is worlking as treat in israel I thik you will find

Aren't they supposed to kill everyone without mercy?

[i]"the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than yourselves, 2 and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then [u]you must devote them to complete destruction[/u]. You shall make no covenant with them and [u]show no mercy[/u] to them."[/i] -- Deuteronomy 7:1-2 (ESV)

(Incidentally, http://www.evilbible.com is a great source for this stuff)

What I was meaning is, to test for oneself the existence of God why not 'challenge' Him using his own words/promises?

again, you are asking us to test something using a method prescribed to aid the belief in it's own existence. i don't believe in god, so i'm not going to use god's words or promises to test this. that would be ridiculous.

anyway. peace to you all.

Th ebibkle sppeak s of tolerance at all times and there is no fore , brimstons or vengenace there at all ...my mistake.

That is all old testament, there was supposed to be a new covenant after Christ. If you got a problem with the old testament you need to go complain to the Jews.

again, you are asking us to test something using a method prescribed to aid the belief in it's own existence. i don't believe in god, so i'm not going to use god's words or promises to test this. that would be ridiculous

But that is exactly the way to test it. So if no God, then his way is just made up and you don't find him. If there is a God, then his way would work and you would find him.

That is all old testament, there was supposed to be a new covenant after Christ. If you got a problem with the old testament you need to go complain to the Jews.

So, lets get this straight:

The christians should rip out the old testament and throw it away. The new testament is a new covenant with Jesus that makes it redundant (BTW I have heard this before from a christian friend)?

If so then we can ignore all arguments pro- and anti- that come from the old testament?

I'm determined now that we'll get to a thousand 🙂

I'm determined now that we'll get to a thousand

Well, here you go, never let it be said I'm not willing to do my bit to help.

Yes Charlie I hadn't noticed christianity had junked the old testament.

If you got a problem with the old testament you need to go complain to the Jews.

Jesus was a Jew......in fact Jesus was THE Jew.

Look it's all dead simple.

If your prejudices agree with part of the bible you can take it literally - kill all homosexuals.

If your view is contradictory to the bible then that bit is not meant to be taken literally - Blessed are the cheesemakers

If the part of the bible is self contradictory or plain batshit crazy you either ignore it completely or say it's an analogy or an error or misunderstanding - Stone your kids if they are rude

Politics is the same all over even when it's disguised as faith.

This has been discussed on here before. I'm sure of it. Trying to remember who won last time.

Jesus was a Jew......in fact Jesus was THE Jew

Then how come he had a Mexican name?

Ooooh LOLing at myself for getting that joke into this thread!

If you got a problem with the old testament you need to go complain to the Jews.
Jesus was a Jew......in fact Jesus was THE Jew.

Actually I think he may have been a Christian too.

But that is exactly the way to test it. So if no God, then his way is just made up and you don't find him. If there is a God, then his way would work and you would find him.

my friend is a genius btw way, but the only way to test this is to ask the question that i give you to ask him. and if he doesn't know the answer to that specific question then yes, he is not a genius.
that's called a parable btw. Atheists can use them too.

but enough, i feel like i'm being trolled.

Actually I think he may have been a Christian too.

Don't get that. He worshipped himself? People who came after him (his disciples) are christians. He was the alleged christ of the, erm, 'ians'. 😀

The christians should rip out the old testament and throw it away. The new testament is a new covenant with Jesus that makes it redundant (BTW I have heard this before from a christian friend)?

If so then we can ignore all arguments pro- and anti- that come from the old testament?

Depends who you are arguing with really. But the story goes that God made a new deal when he sent Christ down, he'd be more of a forgiving God and less of the fire and brimstone.

I think there is a sliding scale of opinion wrt the OT. Some folks reckon it was just allegorical others think that it was and is all completely true other folks are somewhere in between. The differences vary both between and within faiths and flavours of Christianity

That is all old testament, there was supposed to be a new covenant after Christ. If you got a problem with the old testament you need to go complain to the Jews.

ay yes I keep forgetting its a different god obviously that all the children of abraham worship despite all having the same book of god - And some say it is a bit illogical eh

Perhaps you could you tell me the bit whwere Jesus recants the decress of god that god said we should all follow ?
It is unequivocal even if some christians/jews/muslims want to cherry pick the tolerant bits of the faith

I'm determined now that we'll get to a thousand

PS DR CM well done you are doing more than most to get to the thousand you are right the forum needs stuff like this ..I recant

EDIT: sorry work got in the way hence the debate has moved on since i last looked

But the story goes that God made a new deal when he sent Christ down, he'd be more of a forgiving God and less of the fire and brimstone.

So he admitted his actions were wrong and promised to change?

The differences vary both between and within faiths and flavours of Christianity

If they can't even agree on the basis of their beliefs in the same god, clearly he is not doing a very good job of guiding them.

If they can't even agree on the basis of their beliefs in the same god, clearly he is not doing a very good job of guiding them.

Or maybe said god is a fan of free will.

Or maybe said god is a fan of free will.

"Believe in me or you'll go to hell" - what's so free about that?

iDave - Member
This has been discussed on here before. I'm sure of it. Trying to remember who won last time.

Please make it stop! 🙄

iDave - Member
This has been discussed on here before. I'm sure of it. Trying to remember who won last time.

I was coming to that conclusion as well. Didn't we manage to get it to look back to the beginning of the thread so it went on forever

EDIT: Found it and I think it was actually you who one in the end

iDave - last poster
Good random stuff = god's hand
Bad random stuff = the devil himself
With god allowing it all to happen for your own good

God people have a cop-out answer for everything from

But it only got to 674