Happy Atheist Forum

Hi all,

For some time I've been looking for a good forum where there's friendly but passionate discussion and debate about all the questions and subjects that matter - hopefully, this is the one!  I'm a theist, more specifically a Christian, who perhaps doesn't fit within any particular denomination belief-wise.  I'm interested in discussing arguments for atheism and agnosticism as well as arguments against the truth of Christianity.

I'm a secondary school teacher based in Hampshire, UK, go to a C of E church, and enjoy playing and listening to all kinds of music, chess, the Great Outdoors, and good ales!

Look forward to meeting some of you!
T

Huzzah! Welcome! I'm hopelessly new too. I'm very much an atheist (although if I had to pick an afterlife, I'd say Valhalla sounds pretty tempting.) but I like theists who're capable of arguing with the power of rational logic. If it makes my brain work, it's a good thing.

Welcome.

sup, from newb to newb

Hi Theo

Welcome aboard!

Regards
Chris

Welcome to the forum!

Quote from: "Theo"Hi all,

For some time I've been looking for a good forum where there's friendly but passionate discussion and debate about all the questions and subjects that matter - hopefully, this is the one!  I'm a theist, more specifically a Christian, who perhaps doesn't fit within any particular denomination belief-wise.  I'm interested in discussing arguments for atheism and agnosticism as well as arguments against the truth of Christianity.

I'm a secondary school teacher based in Hampshire, UK, go to a C of E church, and enjoy playing and listening to all kinds of music, chess, the Great Outdoors, and good ales!

Look forward to meeting some of you!
T

Welcome Theo! - Be forewarned however.  Saying things like "the truth of Christianity" doesn't really paint the picture of an open minded theist.  Atheism doesn't require an argument either, since non-belief in the unseen does not require proof.

ello Theo

Quote from: "DropLogic"Welcome Theo! - Be forewarned however.  Saying things like "the truth of Christianity" doesn't really paint the picture of an open minded theist.  Atheism doesn't require an argument either, since non-belief in the unseen does not require proof.

My apologies - I didn't mean to sound dogmatic!  What I meant was that I am interested in arguments against the proposition 'Christianity is true' (with 'Christianity' defined minimally as a particular set of propositions about God, the world, Jesus, etc).

Quote from: "DropLogic"Atheism doesn't require an argument either, since non-belief in the unseen does not require proof.

Under the modern definition (as "nonbelief" with respect to the existence of God or gods) atheism makes no claims, so of course requires no argument.  But by this definition, agnostics are "atheists" as they don't believe in God, as are babies, plants and rocks (as they have no beliefs whatsoever).  So really, it's not a very useful definition.  

You do make the claim, though, that God is "unseen".  By this, do you mean that God has not been observed with the five senses, or that God has not been observed whatsoever?  If it is the first, then that does not seem to be sufficient reason for nonbelief.  If it is the latter, then you are making the positive claim no religious experience has ever been an actual experience of God, which itself requires justification.  A final possibility is that you mean that you yourself have not experienced God - but that is obviously not sufficient for nonbelief (I have never observed a quark, for example).

Your thoughts?

Quote from: "necrobitsch"Huzzah! Welcome! I'm hopelessly new too. I'm very much an atheist (although if I had to pick an afterlife, I'd say Valhalla sounds pretty tempting.) but I like theists who're capable of arguing with the power of rational logic. If it makes my brain work, it's a good thing.

Thanks for your welcome!  If I may ask a question: what do you consider to be the strongest argument for theism?

Quote from: "Theo"Thanks for your welcome!  If I may ask a question: what do you consider to be the strongest argument for theism?

Quaint novelty attraction for tourists.

Quote from: "Theo"

Quote from: "necrobitsch"Huzzah! Welcome! I'm hopelessly new too. I'm very much an atheist (although if I had to pick an afterlife, I'd say Valhalla sounds pretty tempting.) but I like theists who're capable of arguing with the power of rational logic. If it makes my brain work, it's a good thing.

Thanks for your welcome!  If I may ask a question: what do you consider to be the strongest argument for theism?

Hm. I'd say Fear of the Unknown.

I was raised in the tropics and moved from Thailand to Scotland from university. I never knew how dark and cold winter could get despite being warned that it would be a shock to the system.

Around Midwinter I began to realise just why ancient man would sacrifice fellow human beings to ensure the sun returned. And if it wasn't for the awesome power of science that made me understand that the earth rotated and that spring and summer would return, I would have been first in line to stab the offering up good and proper to get the sun to come back again.

When things are so bewildering that there is seemingly no rational or logical argument, or the arguments that exist are too bewildering and intimidating to grasp, faith steps in. Which isn't really an argument for proof in there being a higher power, but it certainly explains (for me, at least) why putting your faith in a higher power can be so appealing.

Howdy! You're gonna like it here if your mind is always open.

Quote from: "Theo"

Quote from: "DropLogic"Welcome Theo! - Be forewarned however.  Saying things like "the truth of Christianity" doesn't really paint the picture of an open minded theist.  Atheism doesn't require an argument either, since non-belief in the unseen does not require proof.

My apologies - I didn't mean to sound dogmatic!  What I meant was that I am interested in arguments against the proposition 'Christianity is true' (with 'Christianity' defined minimally as a particular set of propositions about God, the world, Jesus, etc).

Quote from: "DropLogic"Atheism doesn't require an argument either, since non-belief in the unseen does not require proof.

Under the modern definition (as "nonbelief" with respect to the existence of God or gods) atheism makes no claims, so of course requires no argument.  But by this definition, agnostics are "atheists" as they don't believe in God, as are babies, plants and rocks (as they have no beliefs whatsoever).  So really, it's not a very useful definition.  

You do make the claim, though, that God is "unseen".  By this, do you mean that God has not been observed with the five senses, or that God has not been observed whatsoever?  If it is the first, then that does not seem to be sufficient reason for nonbelief.  If it is the latter, then you are making the positive claim no religious experience has ever been an actual experience of God, which itself requires justification.  A final possibility is that you mean that you yourself have not experienced God - but that is obviously not sufficient for nonbelief (I have never observed a quark, for example).

Your thoughts?

So, because I have not heard, seen, tasted, felt, or smelled god, I don't have sufficient lack of evidence to dismiss he/she/it's existence?  Perhaps unseen was the wrong word to use.  Humanity has set God up to be conveniently invisible.  I fully agree that religious experiences do happen to people legitimately.Edit: By this I mean, people who are indoctrinated or feel a need to belong so badly that they let themselves be brainwashed by charismatic religious 'leaders' often claim religious experiences.  I full disagree, however, that the invisible sadist in the sky (as defined by man remember) is the cause of those experiences.  
Comparing religious experience, which is a personal and individually observed phenomena, to quarks, which have tangible proof of existence is incorrect as well.
Why do you subscribe to the christian god and none others?

the goblin showed, saying "...if one settles for belief, either for or against god, then one does ones religion, or ones atheist stance too for that matter, a disservice here, for simply one hasn't bothered to find out for oneself...", actually the goblin often saw this whole stupid argument as "those stubborn mules on one side against those compliant sheep on the other", where the answer was staring them in the face all along, uttering "...be not a mule, nor a sheep, where one makes those decisions to the best of ones judgment here and if one gets dammed for being honest to oneself about it, so be it then, for god or no god, the humbug is when ones faking it  just for the reward if offers, where god wouldn't want that of his followers then, no, for he wants those who actually know him, not those who just believe in him..."

(//i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj91/moosetash/jesusagrees.gif)

Quote from: "necrobitsch"I'd say Valhalla sounds pretty tempting.

Norwegian military agrees. Ale, battles and willing wenches. What more would a modern day viking with a sniper rifle want?!  :bananacolor:

flea, I can't understand any of the crap you say but posting an image of jesus that says "get the fuck out" on an intro thread is against the rules...maybe you should read them...

Quote from: "Whitney"flea, I can't understand any of the crap you say

We do seem to have become a third person haven, have we not..?  

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Quaint novelty attraction for tourists.

Quote from: "necrobitsch"Hm. I'd say Fear of the Unknown.

These are obviously not arguments.

Quote from: "DropLogic"So, because I have not heard, seen, tasted, felt, or smelled god, I don't have sufficient lack of evidence to dismiss he/she/it's existence? Perhaps unseen was the wrong word to use. Humanity has set God up to be conveniently invisible.

Well, God is posited as the explanation of the existence of space, time and energy, so we shouldn't expect to hear, see, taste, feel or smell God unless we knew that He had entered space and time in a particular place and time in some kind of physical form.

Quote from: "DropLogic"I fully agree that religious experiences do happen to people legitimately.Edit: By this I mean, people who are indoctrinated or feel a need to belong so badly that they let themselves be brainwashed by charismatic religious 'leaders' often claim religious experiences. I full disagree, however, that the invisible sadist in the sky (as defined by man remember) is the cause of those experiences.

Most theists I know don't define God as an invisible sadist in the sky (that seems to be your definition).  That aside, on what basis do you conclude that no religious experience is an actual, legitimate experience of God or gods?
 

Quote from: "DropLogic"Comparing religious experience, which is a personal and individually observed phenomena, to quarks, which have tangible proof of existence is incorrect as well.

I wasn't comparing the nature of religious experience and the experiences scientists have of quarks.  I was comparing my status of not having observed a quark with yours of not having "observed" God.

QuoteWhy do you subscribe to the christian god and none others?

I "subscribe" for a large number of reasons.  Most importantly, only the Christian scriptures stand up to historical scrutiny.  But also, I think only the particulars of Christian theology make sense of the world, including my own personal experience and those of the people I have met from various backgrounds and with different belief-systems.  We can go into more detail as there is a lot to unpack here, and I'm sure you have plenty of questions about these strong claims that I've made.

Quote from: "Theo"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Quaint novelty attraction for tourists.

Quote from: "necrobitsch"Hm. I'd say Fear of the Unknown.

These are obviously not arguments.

They could be.
Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Theo"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Quaint novelty attraction for tourists.

Quote from: "necrobitsch"Hm. I'd say Fear of the Unknown.

These are obviously not arguments.

They could be.
Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

From my perspective, I'm hard-pressed to find any argument for a higher being in the sense you seem to be looking for. What some call miracles, I see in terms of science. Questions such as "why are we here?" I attribute to scientific explanations. The big bang, the planet we inhabit occupying a particular piece of space whereby conditions are right for the development of microscopic organisms to thrive, develop, and most importantly, mutate. Other random miracles? There's a logical explanation for most of them, even if we lack the terminology and understanding to explain. It's all one big Work In Progress. Not to mention the fact that "miracles" can happen to anyone. Some would say that being saved by a detonated bomb because of the bomb's proximity to a shock-absorbing table rather than the intended victim would be a miracle. Yet this is what happened to Hitler, allowing him to continue his murderous regime. For me, a miracle is an improbably unlikely event that's occurred despite huge odds being against it happening. The fact that it happens to good and evil people indicates that higher powers don't have much say in it. That, and you have tragedies that are in terms of numbers equally unlikely to occur but do and instead of bringing joy, bring devastation. However, because they are so rare and unlikely it can be argued that they are no less 'miraculous.'

I find that being confronted with unknown phenomena can be frightening, particularly if you have no conception as to why what you are witnessing is happening. Therefore people invent things, be they deities or fairies, to explain that which they cannot comprehend. Thunder used to be thought of as the result of Thor fighting giants since back in the pre-Christian days of Europe nobody had any conception of ions and static electricity. The seasons happened because Persephone ate six pomegranate seeds in Hades and was bound to return there each year, leaving the earth dark and cold to mourn her.

Religions serve to provide answers for the unknown and justify a moral code. It's much easier to get people to adhere to that moral code if they're threatened with some form of punishment (Hell) or a reward (Heaven.) I honestly can't find a convincing argument for their being a higher power (and believe me, I've had more than my fair share of arguments hurled my way) but I can understand why people would seek out a higher power to put their faith in to alleviate those dark fears of the unknown.

If you'd like to provide a few arguments in favour of a higher being of power please do, but also expect it to be thoroughly dissected and analysed.

Folks, a reminder that intro threads are for just that. Intros and initial responses to them. If the conversation begins to go in a specific direction towards a worthwhile topic, we ask that you then move the conversation into a new thread. This intro has definitely reached that point, so feel free to create a worthwhile topic for it and continue the discussion there.

Quote from: "Theo"Hi all,

For some time I've been looking for a good forum where there's friendly but passionate discussion and debate about all the questions and subjects that matter - hopefully, this is the one!  I'm a theist, more specifically a Christian, who perhaps doesn't fit within any particular denomination belief-wise.  I'm interested in discussing arguments for atheism and agnosticism as well as arguments against the truth of Christianity.

I'm a secondary school teacher based in Hampshire, UK, go to a C of E church, and enjoy playing and listening to all kinds of music, chess, the Great Outdoors, and good ales!

Look forward to meeting some of you!
T

Hi there! I used to go to school near Southampton. Nice to see another Brit addition to the board

I've posted a new thread on Religious Experiences (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5945) in the Religion Forum.