andrewgprv
Second Class Citizen
Or maybe you simply accept the fact that we DONT KNOW how we got here. I certainly think admitting ignorance on a subject is much more admirable then believing in a fairy tale.
The Resurrection- How do you refute it?
- Thread starter Giotto
- Start date
Or maybe you simply accept the fact that we DONT KNOW how we got here. I certainly think admitting ignorance on a subject is much more admirable then believing in a fairy tale.
Civvin
Warlord
Ill grant your rubbish smackdown powers are put to good use with that quote of Giotto's but...
To deny the points I have posted out regarding the improbability of life is to deny the work of men chiefly responsible for the furtherance of spontaneous generation of life as a theory. This only BUTRESSES my original point. Since we dont know how life was generated, atheists have no clue as to whether God exists or not and to BELIEVE as atheists believe (check the definition), that THERE IS NO GOD, is not a view SUPPORTED, PROVED, or VERIFIED by the facts. It may seem logical, the facts may be leaning that way but it is not PROVEN, and so until it is atheism
requires FAITH, just like believing in God does.
I urge all atheists with an open mind to reexamine their belief and come over to the agnostic side, as a side point I will soon be starting up the umm First Unity Agnostic Church and hefty donations are encouraged.
Civvin
Warlord
Bro, do you actually read through the posts before posting?
Personally I am an agnostic, and if you want to look up the definition go ahead but it is posted here somewhere.
Civvin
Warlord
From dictionary.com
a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.
1 aDisbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
bThe doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2 Godlessness; immorality.
The second definition can obviously be ignored.
This is what atheism is defined as, if on the other hand you believe that 'you do not know whether god exists or not' then you are an agnostic. I think we are arguing over semantics, but a PROACTIVE DENIAL of God's existence is one of the requirements for classification as an atheist. Of course you are free to believe what you want and call yourself what you want.
Semantically speaking, I am convinced and sure that there is no God, but scientifically I am comfy with the idea that I could be wrong. But I'm certain I'm not, if you know what I mean.
Put it another way, I know for a fact that the Bible is wrong. That much is certain.
Put it another way, I know for a fact that the Bible is wrong. That much is certain.
andrewgprv
Second Class Citizen
God I hate the word Agnostic it is the most misused word in the English Language.
I guess I am an agnostic in regards to the Easter Bunny and Santa too. Because I do admit there is a possability that they exist!
I guess I am an agnostic in regards to the Easter Bunny and Santa too. Because I do admit there is a possability that they exist!
Civvin
Warlord
We agree on something
The sad thing is that lots of folks who share this view automatically have to lock out any intelligent design no matter that it can't be proven because the existance of God is a gateway drug.
If God exists, then anything in the Bible becomes probable, and therein lies the root of the atheists dogmatism.
EDIT I should have said possible, not probable
Giotto
Eagle
A much better way of putting your argument would be to put forth historical evidence that would point to other possible ways of death for christ, instead of being rude. First of all, maybe you are more of a math person (I guessed this from your forum name, I could be wrong
) but when I say "any event in history" it doesn't make much sense to sit there and cite news that happened yesterday. It was merely a way of saying that a lot of scholars think that there was substantial evidence of Jesus' resurrection. It should have been aparrent that I did not literally mean that the resurrection of Jesus 2000 years ago has more evidence then, say, 9/11. And by scholars, I did not mean simpletons. Again, a much more convincing way of going about your argument would be to present a historical hypothesis for how jesus died, with evidence, instead of just dismissing what I said as garbage without even hearing it. Again, this threads posters (with a couple exceptions) have regressed into more of a "who can be more condescending" thread then an intellectual discussion.How do you (some of you) expect to get your point across by needlessly being rude? I'm sure all of you would laugh or get upset or something, and generally not take me seriously, if I said "I know there is a god because everyone who is an atheist is dumb!!", which is what some of you seem to be doing. Why can't this be an intelligent discussion instead of a harassment of other people's opinions?
Also, many believers in the historical validity of christ are among the most prolific scholars of law and history around. I don't mean to illustrate any point with this other then they are not "simpletons" just because they do not agree with you.
Civvin
Warlord
Um so you believe that a fat man in a red suit lives at the north pole surrounded by hard working elves, something easily disproved by current observation? Yet you deny the existance of God, something that CURRENT observation cannot do?
And I generally use the word in the way its used in the dictionary, works for most otherwords too!
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
As an atheist I am certain that God doesn't exist, but as a scientist I would never claim to know either way. It's not a case of knowing God doesn't exist, I simply believe it to be the case.
As far as the bible goes, it can in some areas be refuted scientifically, but science is not incompatible with either the belief in God or the belief that there is no God.
Agnosticism is probably the most scientifically sound belief since it is fence-sitting of the highest order. Since agnosticism requires no faith, it could be said that atheism has more in common with theism than with agnosticism. Agnostics are merely sceptical of Gods existence rather than actually believing there is no God.
Since you say that you are convinced and sure that God doesn't exist, I'd put that down as atheism, though you're free to disagree. Acknowledging that science doesn't disprove God does not detract from atheism.
Giotto, my point was that what you wrote was plain wrong - that's all.
I have zero attention span for what is written in the bible about Jesus since it was written decades after his death, and is almost certainly biased to present a single point of view, and was also almost certainly altered time and time again over the centuries. The real question is, why should I believe the resurrection? The universe operates according to certain laws and so do we, one of which is that if you die, you stay dead (unless you are revived with chest pounding and mouth-to-mouth or suchlike, of course). Therefore, I suggest that the Resurrection never happened. It was made up to impress the credulous. That's my honest take on the matter. It seems to have worked very well. That's my honest take on the matter.
I could write volumes upon the apparent limitlessness of human credulity and stupidity.
('polymath' means someone who knows a lot about everything - I am a wannabe polymath, not by any stretch a real one. )
Enkido - I'd call myself an atheist, too. I'd only call myself an agnostic if I was feeling polite.
I have zero attention span for what is written in the bible about Jesus since it was written decades after his death, and is almost certainly biased to present a single point of view, and was also almost certainly altered time and time again over the centuries. The real question is, why should I believe the resurrection? The universe operates according to certain laws and so do we, one of which is that if you die, you stay dead (unless you are revived with chest pounding and mouth-to-mouth or suchlike, of course). Therefore, I suggest that the Resurrection never happened. It was made up to impress the credulous. That's my honest take on the matter. It seems to have worked very well. That's my honest take on the matter.
I could write volumes upon the apparent limitlessness of human credulity and stupidity.
('polymath' means someone who knows a lot about everything - I am a wannabe polymath, not by any stretch a real one.
)Enkido - I'd call myself an atheist, too. I'd only call myself an agnostic if I was feeling polite.
How Jesus died is not greatly relevant to the debate - the question is whether he rose from the dead afterwards. What you are asking for are possible explanations for the empty tomb, etc. - here are a few simple ones:
- the stories in the gospels are just that, stories. The authors viewed them as fiction intended to convey an important symbolic message.
- the stories in the gospels are stories. The authors wrote things that appeared to support their principle claim, the divinity of Christ, either knowing that they were not true or were exaggerated, or simply having no idea if they were true. They did this because the IDEA of Jesus Christ and the future of the church founded in his name was far more important to them than some abstract notion of literal historical truth.
- the stories in the gospels, being written down some 50 years after the events described, contain elements of hearsay, third hand information, accidental distortion, misunderstanding etc. that mean the events that took place are not accurately described. Consequently the event we are being asked to explain is not the event that actually requires explanation.
Does this address your question? If not, can you clarify what you are asking further?
An appeal to higher authority is a classic example of invalid argument - cite sources and demostrate their expertise or it is struck out as invalid, at least by me!
betazed
Seeking...
- Joined
- May 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,224
Civvin, if this is what the PhD guy wrote then I must say that he must be a Phd in something else entirely because he has not even grasped the basics of abiogenesis (is he like one of those Phd's I come across from time to time who got their Phds for no other reason but the fact that their advosirs wanted to get rid of them ASAP?). No one in their right minds ever said that the fully functional cell came to existence all at once. There are many competing theories as to how the cell came to evolve. Also, the DNA-protein chicken and egg problem too has some solutions (RNA world).
Let me also say something else. Let us assume that we do not know any of the above possible solutions. Does that make evolution wrong? No. You cannot refute a theory by saying that it does not explain something. Whatever it does not explain is the theory's limitation. It does not prove the theory is wrong. An as example, General Relativity does not explain what happens at singularity. That does not make GR wrong. Singularity is outside the scope of GR. That is GR's limitation.
To prove a theory wrong, you have to make a testable hypothesis that the theory makes and then test the hypothesis. If that test shows that hypothesis is wrong then you can use that as an argument against the theory. This is basic scientific method (which unfortunately the above Phd has not learnt). Evolution makes a host of such testable hypothetical predictions. And all of them bar none has been proved right. Much like GR.
I keep hearing that Creationism is a theory just like Evolution. No it is not. Creationism is not a theory because it does not make any testable hypothesis. You cannot prove it wrong. Just like the belief in God. That belief is not testable. So it is not a theory.
The same goes for the theory of Intelligent Design. I enjoyed reading Micheal Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" in which he lays down a spirited attack on Evolution and advocates ID. The problem is he gets some data wrong and ID is not a testable theory. It makes no hypotheses. Worse, it is like a moving goalpost. He argues that somethings are irreducibly complex (to understand the concept read the book - it will do you some good) and cannot have intermediate stages. An an example he took up the eye, the immune system and a few others. Since he wrote the book many people have come up with proper documentation of the evolution of some of these systems. He immediately switched goal posts and pointed out to other systems.
Lastly, you accuse others in this forum as having not an open mind which you claim to have. May I add that an open mind is a necessary condition of intelligence but not a sufficient condition. You can very well have an open mind but one that is completely devoid of knowledge and data. An empty mind to boot.
One of the hallmarks of intelligence that I have seen is the ability to have two conflicting ideas in ones mind and to evaluate each according to its merits. On that count you fail miserably.
EDIT: As an aside the "warm little pond" theory is under considerable scientific attack. The current favored theory is "deep, dark, trench". But I am sure you have not heard of that either.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
Several of us have repeatedly tried to get across to you that atheism is not linked to a belief in evolution. Please, rather than just repeatedly stating this as fact, try and justify why you consider this to be the case given that my existence and the existence of many others would seem to make this assertion invalid.
Atheism requires faith, but does not imply the belief in anything unplausible. The belief that there is no god can never be proven, but science cannot label it is unplausible, so I disagree with you there.
Please try to address my central point, it's frustrating that you ignore it yet continue to rely on this assumption to make your arguments. This is an enjoyable debate though.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
Atheists are convinced that there is no god because it is a matter of personal belief. While we cannot claim to have proof, we have faith that we are right. Why is this any different to believing that there is a god? Since neither of us actually know either way, why is it surprising that people choose to believe differently?
Iggy
Deity
The source material is a dubious account written some time after the event. It was written by someone who had an interest in promoting the story. The story itself does not seem very feasible and it was written for a people who took to fanciful stories.
Like anything one reads or is taught you have to read between the lines and evaluate the information. The information we have does not stack up too well in its favour for anyone who is open minded.
---
I am struck how some people like to group or categorise atheists. My view is the atheists are people who would turn to God tomorrow if he provided 100% proof he existed and was relevant to them. Whereas the fundies would always believe in God if provided with 100% proof he did not exist. The problem is that God will not do this because if (A) you are an atheist he does not exist or if (B) you are religious you say he does not need to. The only thing being resurrected here is the "does god exist" question.
Like anything one reads or is taught you have to read between the lines and evaluate the information. The information we have does not stack up too well in its favour for anyone who is open minded.
---
I am struck how some people like to group or categorise atheists. My view is the atheists are people who would turn to God tomorrow if he provided 100% proof he existed and was relevant to them. Whereas the fundies would always believe in God if provided with 100% proof he did not exist. The problem is that God will not do this because if (A) you are an atheist he does not exist or if (B) you are religious you say he does not need to. The only thing being resurrected here is the "does god exist" question.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
Originally posted by Iggy
I am struck how some people like to group or categorise atheists. My view is the atheists are people who would turn to God tomorrow if he provided 100% proof he existed and was relevant to them. Whereas the fundies would always believe in God if provided with 100% proof he did not exist. The problem is that God will not do this because if (A) you are an atheist he does not exist or if (B) you are religious you say he does not need to. The only thing being resurrected here is the "does god exist" question.
An atheist believes there is no god as a matter of faith. If you are sceptical as to god's existence but basically don't believe either way (sitting on the fence as it were), you are agnostic.
100% proofs of god or no god are inherently impossible.
Iggy
Deity
I am not so sure "faith" is the right word, but I cannout think of another at the moment. When I fill out a form which has a box against the word "faith" I tend to write "None" rather than "Atheist".
I find it very interesting that after who knows how many threads on "is atheism a religion" here in OT, we have a thread where atheists flat-out state that their beliefs are also based on faith.
*returning to my agnostic corner of the room*
*returning to my agnostic corner of the room*
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
I apologize for rehashing what I've said many times, but in response to your point:
God can neither be proven to exist nor can gods existence be disproven. This is widely acknowledged and I certainly assume it to be the case.
This being the case, believing in god requires faith. If you believed in god because you had seen proof, religious faith would be meaningless.
If you do not believe in god, but you accept that god may well exist since you can't prove it either way, you are agnostic. You don't need any faith to say this, you acknowledge that maybe theists are right but you don't share their beliefs. You will remain sceptical of god until you see proof. Many people who think of themselves as atheist are in fact agnostic.
Atheism is different though. Rather than just not believing in god as a point of scepticism, you absolutely believe that there is no god. Since there can be no proof of this , this is a belief that requires faith.
Oh and before I forget, I must remember to declare my atheist jihad on dictionary.com for their description of me. How dare they describe me as immoral, I am deeply offended.
Similar threads
