Author Topic: Why not produce God and end the debate?  (Read 326 times)

Eddie Schultz, xyzzy, eh! and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jdawg70

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2597
  • Darwins +483/-9
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why not produce God and end the debate?
« Reply #29 on: Today at 05:42:42 PM »
Perhaps God has been proven to exist and certain atheists just disregard the proof because it goes against their worldview. Or they could make themselves think that the proof is not good enough.

Or perhaps god isn't actually real, and certain theists just interpret books and events in the world as if they were the result of the presence of the divine in order to match up with their worldview.  Or they could make themselves think that the case supporting the existence of god is actually good enough.

I wonder which one of these possibilities better explains the varying, sometimes mutually-exclusive, descriptions of god that are so prevalent in the world today?  I wonder which one of these possibilities better explains how their can be such variety in the nature of the divine?  I wonder which one of these possibilities better explains why there is such a variety of holy books circulating about?

If there were one billion a-sun-ists in the world, and they were a-sun-ists because the existence of the sun goes against their worldview, or they've convinced themselves that they need more evidence of the sun's existence before accepting that the sun does, in fact, exist, how many different interpretations of what the sun actually is do you think there would be among the other 6 billion sun-ists?  Do you think that there'd be several sects that believed the sun produced heat via a large coal deposit, several that believed the sun emitted radiation via thermonuclear fusion, sects that believed that the sun revolved around the Earth, other still that believe that the sun sets in the east and rises in the west while another ground believes that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west?

What better explains the vast and disparate descriptions of god?  The actual existence of a god that some people just reject, or the non-existence of a god that some people just pretend to think is real?

Perhaps some atheists just disregard the 'proof' because it goes against their worldview.  But I think it more likely that the 'proof' is disregarded because it really, really sounds like the people presenting these 'proofs' don't know what they're talking about.  Especially the ones that present us with ironclad and covered in gold arguments and respond with silence when people start actually scrutinizing those arguments[1].
 1. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26994.msg636307.html#msg636307
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online Eddie Schultz

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
  • Darwins +6/-0
Re: Why not produce God and end the debate?
« Reply #30 on: Today at 06:02:06 PM »


Yes of course it is. If one single god was proven to exist then it would be impossible for anyone to be an atheist. To be otherwise would require a person to be wilfully ignorant of the facts. You should know this.

Perhaps God has been proven to exist and certain atheists just disregard the proof because it goes against their worldview. Or they could make themselves think that the proof is not good enough.


What evidence is there that proves your god exists?

You've been told this many times, atheist means "a lack of a belief in gods" there is no link between atheism and a world view.

I was commenting on a Youtube video that had something to do with "god", and this one guy said to me that people who say they believe that their god (because all the other gods are false) exists, don't honestly believe that. He said that it's just something that has been engrained into our heads since we were old enough to understand. In his opinion, people couldn't be that dense to actually believe all the stories in the bible to be true. He was from somewhere in Europe.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again...Most people believe in gods because it was something that they were brought up to believe as the truth. We wouldn't think that our parents would steer us wrong, so we took it as something that should be believed.

Another thing is "The Statement of Faith" that Christians must accept if they want to belong to a certain sect of Christianity. When a statement such as that one says that you MUST believe, a red flag should go up in a believers head.

What Must We Believe?
The Content of Faith

http://www.gospelway.com/salvation/faith-content.php

This is why people like my Christian brother says so many false things about science, because he MUST believe what is said in the "Statement of Faith". It pretty much tells a person who chooses to believe what is said in their "statement" that everything else is not to be believed if it goes against what is said in their statement.

They can't produce a god and they know it. They just want to be safe (Pascal's Wager) and feel as if they're special in some sort of way (for believing and not doubting  their god). My brother says that no matter what I show him that proves his belief false, that he will not waver from his belief in his god. His way of showing his god that he's special.

Any Christians on the board care to address this? Oh, and I still say that Christianity is untenable. Anyone care to try and defend it?

Thanks

Online eh!

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3319
  • Darwins +150/-51
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why not produce God and end the debate?
« Reply #31 on: Today at 06:39:41 PM »
eh, half the time I can't make heads or tails of your posts. Why would you ask me to produce a theist argument that advanced me toward theism? I haven't suffered a brain-damaging injury recently, and I haven't lost my mind in the run-up to mid-terms - I'm just as much an atheist as ever. I just don't get why you so frequently post a theist "argument" in a thread, given how we generally respond to them when an actual theist uses them. You said it yourself - do they advance anything or do they just make them look even more ridiculous? If that's how you see them, why say the same thing ? I was making a half-assed joke, which apparently was even less than half-assed. Whatever dude.


relax man, people here like to argue for the joy of arguing, I was just helping the cause.
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7429
  • Darwins +185/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Why not produce God and end the debate?
« Reply #32 on: Today at 06:41:11 PM »
Interesting point, Eddie Schultz.

I've never thought about this from a "must believe" perspective. It makes intuitive sense that a lot of people are literally being told something they must believe - now we know there is hell fire for eternity involved, and when this is done to children, what choice do they really have? Now that I think about it, it's precisely why Islam is so bad - because you are literally not allowed to disbelieve. How sad.

But on that topic, why must a human being "believe" anything specifically? What is belief, and why is it valuable? As I've said in other threads, I accept science - I don't have a reason to believe in it. I can also reject science, but what would be the point? There is no practical value in rejecting science unless you are an actual scientist who is working on falsifying a particular theory or hypothesis.

Do beliefs have any practical use in this age of human evolution?

Online natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1906
  • Darwins +96/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: Why not produce God and end the debate?
« Reply #33 on: Today at 06:59:14 PM »
Interesting point, Eddie Schultz.

Do beliefs have any practical use in this age of human evolution?

Interesting point, jetson. And I would say NO.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Online eh!

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3319
  • Darwins +150/-51
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why not produce God and end the debate?
« Reply #34 on: Today at 07:05:09 PM »
^ I see on a secular pamphlet given out by a gov paid nurse in a secular organisation that religion has been listed as a possibility for folks to join to get some balance in their lives and a sense of community and belonging.

struck me as odd coming form the source, same list had sporting clubs etc on it.
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Online Eddie Schultz

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
  • Darwins +6/-0
Re: Why not produce God and end the debate?
« Reply #35 on: Today at 07:32:09 PM »
Interesting point, Eddie Schultz.

I've never thought about this from a "must believe" perspective. It makes intuitive sense that a lot of people are literally being told something they must believe - now we know there is hell fire for eternity involved, and when this is done to children, what choice do they really have? Now that I think about it, it's precisely why Islam is so bad - because you are literally not allowed to disbelieve. How sad.

But on that topic, why must a human being "believe" anything specifically? What is belief, and why is it valuable? As I've said in other threads, I accept science - I don't have a reason to believe in it. I can also reject science, but what would be the point? There is no practical value in rejecting science unless you are an actual scientist who is working on falsifying a particular theory or hypothesis.

Do beliefs have any practical use in this age of human evolution?

As for beliefs, I read the first article from Nobeliefs.com on "Problems with beliefs". It's rather long, but really explained the origins of beliefs very well, and the consequences that come with those beliefs.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/problemswithbeliefs.htm

No, beliefs benefit nothing, and havent for a long time.

Thanks