The Futile Arguments Thread

[Stevil]

I don't pretend that I can or believing in God and God's powers is at all factual. Believing in God is purely being faithful and nothing more. However, some of you on here are acting like not believing in a God is factual when it's the same exact concept as believing in God. It's all being faithful, so I would appreciate you people not acting like it's fact. Or you can continue to bath in your own ignorance.

ChristianWarrior, I think it would be great if there was a god or gods. That provided me with unconditional love and help guide me in this life and provided me with eternal happiness in the after life or even reincarnation. There are many, many theories of gods out there, some which have become more popular today and some which are less popular today. Reading and hearing about some of the ideologies of some of the faiths out there I have major concerns with regards to the "love" that is being taught and encouraged by these faiths. I have read that the Orthodoxy won't let its followers marry non Christians. That they want a childless pregnant woman in medical difficulties to die rather than terminate a life threatening pregnancy, I hear the non tolerance that many faiths have towards other faiths or non faiths, I hear the non tolerance faiths have towards people based on gender, sexual preferences, I hear faith leaders advise people in high risk countries not to use protection when having sex.
This is certainly not aligned to my tolerant, loving and peacefull values.
Unless someone can prove to me that a certain god exists and that there are negative consequences of not adhering to the faith rules, I will stick to my own well thought out and tolerant values.

[Byronazriel]

Not believing in garden gnomes or believing that Superman is real isn't faith. That's just stupid because it CAN be proven that Superman is fictional and garden gnomes are real. I assume you mean the plastic gnomes. To the man who said why not believe in something more fun, why don't you believe in something more fun? Because you think Atheism is perfect for you, I believe Christianity is perfect for me. That's why I believe in it.

Prove that Superman isn't real. Prove that nowhere in this possibly infinite universe exists or existed a person by the name of Kal El (Or Kal L, or Clark Kent, or just Superman) who has is the last son of a planet called Krypton and has a myriad of super powers which he uses to fight crime in garishly coloured tights.

Whoever said that I was an atheist? If I had to quantify my belief I'd say I was more or less a three on the dawkins scale... A weak theist.

I'm assuming you overlooked my Eclectic Pagan worldview, and just assumed I was an atheist due to my being on an atheist forum.

[Whitney]

Which is perfectly fine. You're entitled to not believing in a god(s). My point is that it isn't ok to act and say that that's fact though. Which only applies to some people on this board, not all.

Then it would help that you not address all atheists when you really only want to address strong atheists.  You read the link I posted to the theists area of the board "what is an atheist"...right?

[dloubet]

Good grief, ChristianWarrior, you've just figured it out for yourself, but you don't see it.

The fact that you say "I can't prove that God exists." means that it's stupid to believe in it.

[Heretical Rants]

Good grief, ChristianWarrior, you've just figured it out for yourself, but you don't see it.

The fact that you say "I can't prove that God exists." means that it's stupid to believe in it.

Meh, I can´t even prove that I exist.

BTW, Byronazriel: Pwnage.

[Baggy]

Which is perfectly fine. You're entitled to not believing in a god(s). My point is that it isn't ok to act and say that that's fact though. Which only applies to some people on this board, not all.

Not many I fancy. Even Dawkins takes the position of 'there is almost certainly no god' and a lot of atheists view themselves in terms of what sort of percentage their view is - I would say I am a 98% atheist for example. I don't actually 'know' of course and probably never will unless, to my astonishment something spectacular, totally irrational and illogical happens when I stop breathing and die.

Of course once we get past that issue there is the knotty issue of whose god is the correct version. The Roman pantheon? No of course not. Allah? Hm...maybe? Yahweh? The vengeful god of the old testament? The god who is all love..

And then there's the dogma. How many angels actually *can* sit on the top of a pin?

It really isn't sensible or in the least likely that there are gods.

[Inevitable Droid]

Prove that Superman isn't real. Prove that nowhere in this possibly infinite universe exists or existed a person by the name of Kal El (Or Kal L, or Clark Kent, or just Superman) who has is the last son of a planet called Krypton and has a myriad of super powers which he uses to fight crime in garishly coloured tights.

The universe would be so much cooler if Superman was real.

I could actually participate in a Superman church.  No one would believe Superman was real.  We would just wish that he was, and then, in our personal lives, we would do our best to manifest the Superman ideal, using our non-super powers for the good of humanity.  A perfectly workable religion could be built out of this.  Faith in nothing.  Hope in the Superman way.

[Wilson]

ChristianWarrior, the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved 100%.  As an atheist, I recognize that there is a chance that God exists.  The odds for that depend on the working definition of "God".  The chance that Christianity has it right - that Jesus is the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, died for our sins, and ascended into heaven - is theoretically possible, but so incredibly unlikely, in my opinion, that I disregard the possibility.  The chance that there is a personal god - an intelligent entity who is aware of each of us and intervenes on Earth and/or offers eternal life - is somewhat more likely - but still extremely unlikely.  The odds that there is an intelligent entity that created the universe but does not intervene in our lives - the Deist god - is much more likely but in my view still not very - and besides, if a Deist god does exist, it wouldn't matter whether we believed or not, anyway.

The odds that a religious person believes in his or her God because he was born into the faith by accident of his parents' homeland and his parents' religion, and that he or she believes in God mostly because that's what he or she was taught and because the belief is comforting - those odds are extremely high.

[The Magic Pudding]

I could actually participate in a Superman church.  No one would believe Superman was real.  We would just wish that he was, and then, in our personal lives, we would do our best to manifest the Superman ideal, using our non-super powers for the good of humanity.  A perfectly workable religion could be built out of this.  Faith in nothing.  Hope in the Superman way.

Belief in Superman could lead to a decline in aircraft maintenance.
Belief in Superman could lead to self-consciousness in people fearing ex-ray vision perverts.
Belief in Superman could make human achievement seem less significant.
Belief in Superman could lead to an unsightly increase in the use of lycra suits.

Would I get to wear a cape if I went to Superman church?

[Byronazriel]

I assume you'd have to be a clergyman to wear the cape, otherwise it'd cheapen it.

To the other points: Superman would be dissapointed in people if they thought that way, except for the tights thing. Then he'd recommend working out.

[The Magic Pudding]

I assume you'd have to be a clergyman to wear the cape, otherwise it'd cheapen it.

To the other points: Superman would be dissapointed in people if they thought that way, except for the tights thing. Then he'd recommend working out.

But Byron, aren't we always destined to disappoint our gods?
(Says the pudding with a wistful faraway look in his eyes.)

It's his fault though, the the bastard should have made us right in the first place.

[dloubet]

Hey ChristianWarrior, does the god you're asking us to disprove provide any testable claims?

Is it the god that says its followers can drink any poison without ill effect?
Or is it the one that says followers can move mountains through prayer alone?
Or maybe the one that says it will give whatever two or more followers ask for?
Or the one that says it freed the Hebrew slaves from Egyptian bondage?
Or the one that says the freed slaves wandered the desert for 40 years?
Or the one that says the dead rose from their graves and walked around when its son was killed?
Or the one that says it caused a worldwide flood?

These things, and more, are all testable. Which god do you want disproven first?

[blindshock19]

Re: the Christian guy. I was once a Christian, I'm not about to bash you or your beliefs, I understand they're something you hold dear. But consider this...

-Existence is defined as energy and matter in the scientific community
-Humans say that god exists
-But they have yet to prove his possession of energy or matter
-So scientifically, he doesn't exist.
 You could technically say, that his way are "higher" than ours, and that he lives in an alternate dimension or something. But until we see it proven, why should anyone believe it? If his way is higher than ours, than we are all truly agnostic, and aren't capable of knowing god, therefore a-religious.

[McQ]

Re: the Christian guy. I was once a Christian, I'm not about to bash you or your beliefs, I understand they're something you hold dear. But consider this...

-Existence is defined as energy and matter in the scientific community
-Humans say that god exists
-But they have yet to prove his possession of energy or matter
-So scientifically, he doesn't exist.
 You could technically say, that his way are "higher" than ours, and that he lives in an alternate dimension or something. But until we see it proven, why should anyone believe it? If his way is higher than ours, than we are all truly agnostic, and aren't capable of knowing god, therefore a-religious.

Welcome to the forum, Blindshock. Our friend the Christianwarrior is not around anymore. Thanks for taking time to try and reach out to him.

[Existentialist]

In my opinion, everybody who's answered this thread, with the exception of the odd theist, is an agnostic, not an atheist.  You have all put forward the argument that the existence of God cannot be proved and for that reason they don't believe in him.  This is a classic agnostic position.  An atheist, in my opinion, is someone who believes there isn't a god of any kind.  The Dawkins categorisations and the strong/weak atheist definitions are just ways of deconstructing atheism, not clarifying it.

What passes for rationality depends totally on a mind state that is impossible for human beings to achieve - that mind state being objectivity.  The model of objective testing of hypotheses is useful in the science lab, but cannot be applied to human experiences which science cannot test.  The existence of God is one of them.  As human beings we are subjective.  We can only know things from the basis of our own individual experience.  Christians think that there is a God - something greater than each of us which has greater knowledge, wisdom and awareness than any one of us.  In this sense, Christians hold objectivity dear, since they subordinate their subjectivity to a greater objective being who has an independent existence outside of themselves.  Rationalist agnostics also hold objectivity dear, applying the scientific method to all kinds of things which cannot be tested in controlled conditions.  They also hold that there is an objective truth - a point of view that can only be envisaged outside of themselves.  

In these respects, Christians and Agnostic Rationalists ('Atheists', as they sometimes like to call themselves) are very alike - they both submit to an external objectivity.  It is not surprising that they go at each other hammer and tongs, because they are both trying to secure control of the same limited territory.  True atheists, on the other hand, people who take responsibility for examining all the consequences of the position that God does not exist, take no part in the 'proof' argument.  It is redundant, since all proof depends on the ability to take an objective viewpoint, which we can only model, we cannot actually do.  

Therefore the biggest question for an atheist - one who believes there is no god - is what would you do if you were presented with a valid proof of the existence of God?  The answer is that it would make no difference to a true atheist.  Yes, we might spend a bit of time plotting to overthrow this upstart God in irritation at his vexatious existence, but that wouldn't be our primary reaction.  Our primary reaction would be indifference, since the existence of God can't make any difference to our subjective experience.

The existence or non-existence of God is therefore irrelevant to our human experience.