Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[Ex Lux lucis]

How do you know? Do remember what you thought coming out of the womb? Have you quized any newborns on the subject?

I'd say it stands to reason that no newborn would profess a belief in any God even if they could. But no, ultimately no way of verifying it.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

your mindset SCREAMS liberty

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

your mindset SCREAMS liberty

What about it do you take issue with?

 

[trey4sports]

I'm not really a big fan of this debate, but the one thing i would say is this..... what do the people who study the origins of life conclude? From everything I've seen the scientific community is overwhelmingly atheist.

 

[low preference guy]

I'm not really a big fan of this debate, but the one thing i would say is this..... what do the people who study the origins of life conclude? From everything I've seen the scientific community is overwhelmingly atheist.

What do people who study economics conclude? From everything I've seen the economics community is overwhelmingly Keynesian.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

What about it do you take issue with?

Just wondering the reason to debate FAITH and divide us when we are all on the same side here.

How can you prove there is a god besides faith?

its a b.s. arguement

after this we can discuss gay rights, black rights, womens rights and a million other things that divide us and keep us from being productive.

 

[hard@work]

I'm not really a big fan of this debate, but the one thing i would say is this..... what do the people who study the origins of life conclude? From everything I've seen the scientific community is overwhelmingly atheist.

These types of debates do nothing but breed friction where there is no need. It is a wedge topic when presented in this format. One that inevitably leads to a complete lack of logical discourse among lay persons as personal belief (see: faith) injects itself as supposed absolute truth. The exploration of existence and of the universe is not an evil act nor is it a religion. There is no friction between God and science except that which man creates. Theist, atheist, agnostic, or what have you.

On a personal note ...

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” ~Werner Heisenberg, the father of Quantum Mechanics

I have little respect for arguments that attempt to equate the complex machinery of the cosmos, and the potential of a consciousness comprising of the sum of all equations, with a plate of noodles and some balls. Philosophically, when I gaze at the night sky and see the vastness of eternity and countless worlds staring right back at me?

Any dogma that denies possibility is laughably absurd.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just wondering the reason to debate FAITH and divide us when we are all on the same side here.

How can you prove there is a god besides faith?

its a b.s. arguement

after this we can discuss gay rights, black rights, womens rights and a million other things that divide us and keep us from being productive.

Kant said that deontology was sufficient to "prove" God. There are other proofs, but I don't have a full grasp of them yet-interesting as they are.

 

[Ireland4Liberty]

Science is my god.

 

[low preference guy]

Kant said that deontology was sufficient to "prove" God. There are other proofs, but I don't have a full grasp of them yet-interesting as they are.

Think again about what you just said. You said (or Kant) that the validity of an ethical system proves the existence of God. That's a laughable statement.

It's like saying: "Christian Ethics is valid, therefore God exists". That's backwards. You need to know that God exists, and THEN you can ask whether obeying God is a good thing. You can't say "Obeying God is a good thing, therefore He exists".

Kant was a fraud and his philosophy is a mess. His objective was to create a view of the world that supported his ethics. He didn't do an impartial and objective investigation of what the world and reason are. In his own words:

I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.

 

[squarepusher]

False premise.

It seems to me that, given the history of humankind and the fact that religions of some sort often seem to pop up even in isolated cultures, people are not born atheist. They are born agnostic. There is "something" out there, but it's unknown, unquantified, unexplained. From here, there are various routes this can take.

Your family's religion may explain and quantify the answers to the natural questions you were born with and developed as you grew up. This religion, since it's also confirmed by people you are around so often, seems "right" and complete to you. You may or may not grow up with the idea others should be of your same religion; that is a separate issue from merely having faith.

You may, either due to your family or on your own, discover that you are certain there is no God of any sort. You may or may not have the idea that others should be of your same anti-religion; that is a separate issue from merely having faith.

You may become either rebellious against the religion (or lack of it) you grew up with, too, whether to just spite your parents or due to some sense of spiritual incorrectness or some other reason. You may or may not have the idea that others have to "wake up," too.

Obviously there are individual experiences within those categories, and subcategories that could be generated.

Your original question has a very simple answer. If you look for proof, and every avenue you go down says "No, God didn't do this; it was ______________," then you may well come to the conclusion that there is no God. You may even feel very justified in saying so, since you have found nothing concrete that you can attribute to God.

Atheism requires quite a bit of faith as well. On the one hand, you have people who are certain (though they really only have faith) that some events in the remote past happened just so, and had supernatural elements, and meant this and that. On the other hand, you have people who are certain (though they really only have faith) that some events in the remote past absolutely did not happen just so, and did not have supernatural elements, and they mean nothing more than the sum of their mundane parts.

Your statement about the flying spaghetti monster is a real :eyeroll: to me. To people of faith, almost anything you see around you is proof that there's a God. It is at least a suggestion of an intelligence behind the organization and creation of all the myriad compounds, processes, and interactions that govern our daily life. If you consider even the many steps just to take a breath... one side will say it is science without God, another will say it is God's work entire. The certainty with which religious folks and atheists both say their way is the correct way is the very same hubris.

The reason I ended each category above with the point that it may or may not be in their nature to demand others believe the same is that this is what it comes down to. Religion doesn't start wars, or even maintain them. It is people needing to have everyone else see things their way that's the culprit.

What is the motivation for ridiculing or even questioning someone else's faith? I can think of little more private than the sort of reflection and questioning that involves the potential of eternity, or the decision that there is no eternity to ponder.

I agree with Meli. Given that there is religion all over the globe, I wouldn't assume we are all born with or without religion.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Think again about what you just said. You said (or Kant) that the validity of an ethical system proves the existence of God. That's a laughable statement.

It's like saying: "Christian Ethics is valid, therefore God exists". That's backwards. You need to know that God exists, and THEN you can ask whether obeying God is a good thing. You can't say "Obeying God is a good thing, therefore He exists".

Kant was a fraud and his philosophy is a mess. His objective was to create a view of the world that supported his ethics. He didn't do an impartial and objective investigation of what the world and reason is. In his own words:

Fair enough. I was just replying to newyearsresultions' question "How can you prove there is a god besides faith?". I myself haven't researched Kant enough to make a decision about his ideas one way or another.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Science is my god.

LoL

 

[Bman]

Logical. This thread is going to be a hoot. I am an atheist under admission that I don't understand anything else. While the concept of something greater and bigger than myself exists, it is not an element of life that I can put a finger on. I could look and see the sun and say the sun is greater and bigger than me. Is there anything about the sun that makes me feel compelled to get on my knees and worship it, ask it for guidance on my morals? No, but many have and do. When I see things, I see many cool things. I just don't see a god.

 

[emazur]

Someone posted this comment on one of my youtube vids:
Everyone is an atheist, unless you believe in all the gods that man has created. And men have created them all.

 

[Ireland4Liberty]

LoL

If you understood M-theory you would realise there is no need for a god in the creation of our universe. Yes, it maybe a theory and so is god but at least its a rational one.


"..It is at least a suggestion of an intelligence behind the organization and creation of all the myriad compounds, processes, and interactions that govern our daily life..." - MelissaWV

Most can be explained if not all. There is no need to create a deity to explain them.

 

[MelissaWV]

...Most can be explained if not all. There is no need to create a deity to explain them.

Perhaps you will be the one, then, to explain how matter was originally created if, as science states, matter can neither be created nor destroyed

 

[TER]

"The saints attain that which is unattainable to nature, because nature does not possess qualities to understand that which transcends it. Indeed, the feeling of adoration is not accessible to nature because it is incapable of knowing God. Only God’s grace possesses the ability to communicate adoration to creatures through means accessible to them. Then their nature shines with extraordinary light and, through their surfeit of glory, is elevated beyond their natural boundaries."

- St. Maximos the Confessor

 

[Ex Lux lucis]

I agree with Meli. Given that there is religion all over the globe, I wouldn't assume we are all born with or without religion.

I would still say that no one is born with a belief in God because no one is even born with the knowledge of God. Just like we aren't born with the knowledge of what a train is. But I do believe that we are, as humans being, very much inclined to develop and accept religious explanations.

 

[Maximus]

Why is there something rather than nothing?