• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

Not a parable--an alleged anecdote from the life of Jesus.

That said, if one believes the Bible in any fashion one must admit that Jesus was not representative of the human race. It's rather disengenuous to say "Because Jesus did it, obviously it's allowed", to say the least. One may as well argue that humans can turn water into wine instantly as argue that since Jesus engaged in theological discussions at 12 therefore non-theologians should be granted equal footing to theologians in matters of theology.

Well, I've seen magicians do many of the tricks of the bible. I bet there's more than one out there who can also turn water into wine. Why must one assume that Jesus was not representative of the human race? Because the bible says so? That just seems a circular argument.

Bear in mind (again), I'm not saying that I accept theological arguments. I am merely stressing the importance of allowing the other side to make their own arguments, and the absolute necessity to not cram our arguments or viewpoints into the place of their arguments. Theology is important to these discussions because theology is where and how religion defines God. Once everyone's on the same page regarding the definitions, THEN we can evaluate them.

Everyone will never be on the same page regarding religious or theological definitions.
 
Scroll up. The first part is not Chapter 1.

Chapter 1: On the Kinds of Monks

Jan. 8 - May 9 - Sept. 8

It is well known that there are four kinds of monks.
The first kind are the Cenobites:
those who live in monasteries
and serve under a rule and an Abbot.

The second kind are the Anchorites or Hermits:
those who,
no longer in the first fervor of their reformation,
but after long probation in a monastery,
having learned by the help of many brethren
how to fight against the devil,
go out well armed from the ranks of the community
to the solitary combat of the desert.
They are able now,
with no help save from God,
to fight single-handed against the vices of the flesh
and their own evil thoughts.

The third kind of monks, a detestable kind, are the Sarabaites.
These, not having been tested,
as gold in the furnace (Wis. 3:6),
by any rule or by the lessons of experience,
are as soft as lead.
In their works they still keep faith with the world,
so that their tonsure marks them as liars before God.
They live in twos or threes, or even singly,
without a shepherd,
in their own sheepfolds and not in the Lord's.
Their law is the desire for self-gratification:
whatever enters their mind or appeals to them,
that they call holy;
what they dislike, they regard as unlawful.

The fourth kind of monks are those called Gyrovagues.
These spend their whole lives tramping from province to province,
staying as guests in different monasteries
for three or four days at a time.
Always on the move, with no stability,
they indulge their own wills
and succumb to the allurements of gluttony,
and are in every way worse than the Sarabaites.
Of the miserable conduct of all such
it is better to be silent than to speak.

Passing these over, therefore,
let us proceed, with God's help,
to lay down a rule for the strongest kind of monks, the Cenobites.

That is Chapter 1
 
wareyin said:
Why must one assume that Jesus was not representative of the human race?
There is absolutely no obligation to do so. Hell, there's no obligation to take anything in the Bible seriously at all.

However, if you wish to have any understanding of Christians/Catholics, who DO take the Bible seriously, you are obliged to accept that THEY view Christ as God, which makes him very, VERY different from the average human. In fact, the term "presumption" comes into play regarding your arguments.

Everyone will never be on the same page regarding religious or theological definitions.
And you know this from extensive study of comparative religion, I take it. I'm sure you can point to the coursework you enrolled in, the textbooks involved, and some primary sources for each of the religions you studied?

Or perhaps is this an unvidenced statement?
 
In the grand scheme of things, I think God has the better cards.

I recently noticed how disappointed my dog is with my "walkees" policy. Apparently, I'm letting the dog down by not going as often, nor to the places the dog wishes to go. And I must be a cruel and uncaring pet owner, since none of this keeps me up at night.

It's a pretty big bucket of hubris to sit in judgement of God. Can we do gravity next? Cause I've had some real disappointments with gravity when coupled with hard, slippery surfaces.

Then we just accept god with no examination?
 
There is absolutely no obligation to do so. Hell, there's no obligation to take anything in the Bible seriously at all.

However, if you wish to have any understanding of Christians/Catholics, who DO take the Bible seriously, you are obliged to accept that THEY view Christ as God, which makes him very, VERY different from the average human. In fact, the term "presumption" comes into play regarding your arguments.

I see the term "presumption" coming into play regarding yours as well. It falls in with that circular argument: I presume the bible is true because the bible says it is true.

And you know this from extensive study of comparative religion, I take it. I'm sure you can point to the coursework you enrolled in, the textbooks involved, and some primary sources for each of the religions you studied?

Or perhaps is this an unvidenced statement?

The simple observation that there are different religions to compare makes my statement obviously true. One need not have extensive coursework to understand that different religions are indeed different and have different religious definitions.
 
Then we just accept god with no examination?

Makes as much sense as rejecting God with no examination. The question is more about just what an examination might be like. Is it enough to think about it for a few minutes, say, "It makes no sense to me" and call oneself a good and noble skeptic?
 
It's a puzzler for sure. In all other areas, we honor the scientific method where primacy is given to discovering how a thing may be. Not God. I bring my own God box into the discussion and, if He don't fit, it's God's bad.

OK, let's honor the scientific method to finding out how a god may be.

What experiment should we do first to test for god?
 
It's not really, given God doesn't even exist.

To theists, the given is that God DOES exist.

That's my primary issue with this thread--and the way this board handles religion. People here seem to want to view theism through the eyes of atheism. What you said makes perfect sense TO AN ATHEIST. To a theist is makes as much sense as "The ground doesn't exist, it's just an illusion".

I don't give rat's fuzzy butt what you think or believe; my point is that you need to UNDERSTAND what the other side believes--and simply shoe-horning a few theistic concepts into a fundamentally atheistic worldview doesn't cut it. Jabs like that don't cut it. All they do--all they will ever do--all they CAN POSSIBLY DO--is demonstrate to theists that you are completely unwilling to take them seriously and therefore any discussion with you is a waste of their time. You look as ignorant of theology as a pig does to the theists when you make comments like that and expect to be taken seriously, and who wants to get into a debate with a pig?
 
Ask a theologian. That's their job. If you can't be bothered to find out what they have to say on the matter, that's YOUR problem, not that of theists. They've presented the evidence, copiously.
To a theist, your question is an outright confession of being too ignorant to take part in this discussion. It's no different to them than a Creationist asking an evolutionary biologist "Where's the evidence for evolution?"

You're right--the Skeptics have their own issues, including repeatedly telling believers what they believe. It's one reason I've all but abandoned this forum.

So again--feelings take center stage.

The real issue is why love enters into the equation at all. No one says "Mass murders disgust me, therefore they don't exist". But it's commonplace to say "God allegedly killed people, that disgusts me, therefore God doesn't exist". The question of God's existence is separate from the moral evaluation of it. And feelings don't matter in either case (ethics is far more than just how one feels about something).

Copiously they have presented it, evidence it is not.
 
I have read the Rule of St. Benedict more times than an atheist should. The first part IS NOT Chapter 1. Read the prologue.

The prologue does not explain how mass murder is the act of a loving god, either. If you can't state it in your own words, I'm not wasting any more time reading more.
 
There's another element in the skeptic community that does us no credit.

It's the inability to accept relevant authority. In other areas, we readily grant that education and expertise grants some status to an opinion. Not so with theology, where any new entrant into the field gets just as much sway as someone who has devoted their life to the matter. Odd, that.

The faces change the arguments stay the same.
 
wareyin said:
I see the term "presumption" coming into play regarding yours as well.
Two things.

1) My argument isn't circular. THEIR argument may be, but "They get to say what they believe, not you" is hardly circular. Please do not attribute to me arguments I am relating.

2) Presumption is a specific sin, one which, if you know anything about it, I am clearly not guilty of. Your statements about being able to debate theology without any knowledge thereof because Christ did is very, very close to the line; one would have to be exceedingly careful to avoid crossing it, if in fact it's possible.

The simple observation that there are different religions to compare makes my statement obviously true.
)Okay. So you based this on the equivalent of "The eye is complex, therefore Godidit." Seriously, this level of "evidence" would not fly in ANY other debate. All I'm doing is calling for maintanence of intellectual standards here. I see no reason to abandon our standards simply because God is involved.
 
OK, let's honor the scientific method to finding out how a god may be.

What experiment should we do first to test for god?

Not the place to start. The place to start is learning everything we can about the subject matter. What has preceded us? What worked, what didn't?

If we don't do that, we can't claim our experiment is grounded in the topic. We need to construct a hypothesis to test, and a hypothesis we think will usefully inform us either way.
 
The prologue does not explain how mass murder is the act of a loving god, either. If you can't state it in your own words, I'm not wasting any more time reading more.

Read my edit up-thread. I've already done that. Though I must say, if you read the prologue and still can't understand my arguemnt, the problem is on you. It's quite clearly stated.
 
Not the place to start. The place to start is learning everything we can about the subject matter. What has preceded us? What worked, what didn't?

You mean we should treat this like we treat literally EVERY OTHER QUESTION? :jaw-dropp Heresy!!!
 

Back
Top Bottom