"Atheism is a superstition."

[PDoug]

No. You are biased towards a particular conclusion. Faith doesn't lead to good behaviour.

You can have legitimate faith yourself, and see for yourself, whether I'm being biased.

That's precisely the issue: your conclusion isn't correct because it's not built upon valid and sound premises.

Please show me where I'm wrong.

That makes no sense. They are mutually exclusive.

It is true that on the surface they appear to contradict one another. But true Christianity, true Judaism, true Buddhism, true Gnosticism, etc., all talk about a common perfection, which can only be attained and understood, by having legitimate faith. Again, anyone can have this legitimate faith, and disprove or confirm that what I attest to is true.

 

[PDoug]

If complex things require more complex things to explain them then a complex god needs a more complex god to explain him.

See here.

 

[PDoug]

Because things make things all things are made… ...

Quite simply, yes. Also it is far more sensible than saying, "Some things are not made by intelligence. How do I know this? I don't. I'm just guessing."

 

[Bad vibe]

See here.

So everything needs a cause except your particular god because your book of myths says so? Well thats convincing.

 

[Belz...]

There is myself. There are also the prophets, apostles, and other righteous people listed in the Bible. What I'm proposing is testable, and anyone can have legitimate faith, and see for him / herself, that the thing actually works.

That's not how objective observation works. How do you determine who has legitimate faith ? And how would this definition be not circular ?

You can have legitimate faith yourself, and see for yourself, whether I'm being biased.

No. You are basically dodging the question. Your line of argument works for any other faith, which would make all of them equally true. But they cannot all be true, so something is missing; and we call that something "evidence".

It is true that on the surface they appear to contradict one another. But true Christianity, true Judaism, true Buddhism, true Gnosticism, etc., all talk about a common perfection, which can only be attained and understood, by having legitimate faith.

Irrelevant. They are mutually exclusive because they disagree about the most basic aspects of their teachings. You adding "true" to the names doesn't change that. You just want all religions to be Christianity.

 

[arthwollipot]

You can have legitimate faith yourself, and see for yourself, whether I'm being biased.

I love this line of reasoning, I really do.

Using this idea of legitimate faith, a statement like 'The evidence of God's existence, is that those who have legitimate faith, produce a constant, unassailable fundamental goodness, which can only be produced by beings consistent with the description of God' can not possibly be countered.

If you try and bring up an example such as Fred Phelps, who most certainly has faith, and is far from being a paragon of 'unassailable fundamental goodness', then one can always simply say that he does not have 'legitimate' faith.

The problem is that you're defining legitimate faith as that which produces pure good, and defining pure good as that which is produced by legitimate faith. Anything that isn't pure good can't possibly be legitimate faith. You've circled the rhetorical wagons, as it were, and made an impenetrable barrier against attack.

Unfortunately, with the wagons circled like that, you go nowhere. The only kind of progress you can make is around and around in a circle, unending.

 

[tsig]

Yes. Because I've tried most everything to be righteous, and I've found the only thing that works, is to have legitimate faith. (I've observed the same in others as well.) Trying to do good directly does not work; trying to follow religious laws directly does not work either. Self help books do not work; positive thinking does not work. Believing in God directly, and in his salvation does not work. Again, the only think that works (in my observation), is the practice of asking God for things, and believing that you will receive them (Mark 11:22-24) - and trying to accomplishing things with this practice, through persistent prayer. Now the above may sound counter-intuitive, but my experience is that the above is actually so, and is consistent with the claims of the Bible, and harmonious scriptures.

I tried that and She threw me out of the house and got a restraining order on me!

 

[tsig]

Would but that I could touch the hem of your robe.

Puttin' on airs there are we, you'll be lucky to drown in the water he walks on.

 

[tsig]

The Father, in his most pure, elevated state, exists outside of creation, and is not subject to its observable laws. Therefore there is no requirement for Him, the First Cause, to have a precursor.

The Apocryphon of John

"4 And [I asked so that I might [know.

And he said] to me, "The Monad [is a mo]narch[y with]out any*thing existing over it. [It exists as the God] and Father of the [A]ll., the [invisi]ble which dwells above [the All, ...] imperishableness which exi[sts as the] pure light upon which it is not possible for any eye to] gaze.

[It is the] invisible [Spirit], and It is not appropriate [to consider It] to be like the g[o]ds or that It is something similar. For It is more than divine, [without anything] existing over It. For nothing lords [over It].

[. . .] not [...] in an[yth]ing less [... exists in It.

It alone [is eternal] since It does not need [anything.] For It is totally perfect. [It] does not [lack] anything such that [anything] would perfect It, [but] It is [al]ways completely perfect in [light]. It can*not be [limi]ted because there is nothing [before It] to limit It. [It is] inscrut[able because there] is no one who exists before It [to scrutinine It.] [It is im]measurable because there is nothing [which exists before It to measure] It. [It is] in[visible because there is] no one to see [It. It is an eternity existing] eternally. [It is ineffable because] there is no one able to comprehend It in order to sp[eak about It.] It is [un]nameable because [there is no one before It] to name [It.] It is [the immeasurable light,] which is pure, [holy, and unpolluted. It is in]effable [being perfect i]n incorruptibility. (It does) [not] (exist) in per[fection], blessed[ness, or] divini[ty] but It is [far] supe*rior (to these).

It is neither corporeal [nor in]corporeal. [It] is not large or small. [It is not] such that one could [say] that It has quantity or [quality]. For it is not possible for anyone [to know It]. It is not something among [existing things, but It is] far [super]ior—[not] as [being supe*rior] (to others as though It is comparable to them) but as that which belongs to Itself. It does [not partici]pate in the aeons or in time (as a constitutive part of them). For that which participates i[n an aeon] was first prepared (by others). It was [not given a p]ortion in time [because] It does not receive anything [from anoth]er- for [what*ever] It received would be received as a loan. For what exists prior] to anything else is not deficient such that It should receive [from any*thing].

For this one gazes marveling at Itself [alone] in Its light. [...] For It is a vastness. [It possesses the immeasurable [simpli]city. [It is] an aeo[n gi]ving aeon, life giving [life, a ble]ssed one giving blessedness, a knowledge giving understanding, a goo[d one giving] goodness. It is mer[cy giving] mercy and salvation. It is grace giving grac[e—not] such that it possesses it but that It gives. "

It comes while it's going, runs walking above the road, is the ultimate answer and the ultimate question, does not exist while it is existence itself in short It's a complete contradiction in terms.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Yes.

Yet your legitimate faith did not lead you to the basic courtesy of finding out what atheism is before commenting on it. Atheism and theism are not claims, they are states of belief. Atheism is not believing any supernatural deities exist, and theism is believing at least one does. They are opinions. Either opinion could, in theory, be mistaken. However being possibly mistaken about something doesn't mean your opinion is illogical. Note the double standard you are holding: you say it is illogical to hold the atheist opinion without absolute proof, but you do not say it is illogical to hold the theist opinion without absoute proof. None of your arguments are proof, you merely note some things which you think are evidence your opinion is correct. You could be mistaken, as you are about what atheism is. That doesn't make your postion that God exists illogical. It does make your opinion that not believing in God is illogical inconsistent.

If you had bothered to learn anything about us, you would have found that many of us, perhaps the majority, don't believe in God because we don't find the evidence presented to be convincing. We don't say some sort of God is impossible, we say we don't find belief in God to be justified by the available evidence and reasoning; and many of us are only a dramatic miracle away from changing our minds. Also, the sources of information about these proposed beings are highly suspect and contradictory; so there's the additional issue of why we should believe anyone has inside information on the matter.

As you proceed, having been informed about what atheism actually is, maybe your legitimate faith will give you the honesty and integrity to address your audience as who they are and not who you wish them to be because it's convenient for your arguments if we all claim to know there's no God.

 

[Mister Agenda]

If God predetermines what will happen to all things, this means that God establishes that things will work out the way they do. This makes God not only subject to his design, but also the author / master of his design. How is this possible? Because God is many, but one - which is to say, God are many beings, that function as a single unit (like cells, tissues, organs, and systems, that each has its function, but which all work together as a single body.) Therefore the most elevated members of the godhead predetermine the way things are, and those below them and everything else, become subject to that predetermination.

How do you know this?

 

[Mister Agenda]

The Father, in his most pure, elevated state, exists outside of creation, and is not subject to its observable laws. Therefore there is no requirement for Him, the First Cause, to have a precursor.

The Apocryphon of John

"4 And [I asked so that I might [know.

And he said] to me, "The Monad [is a mo]narch[y with]out any*thing existing over it. [It exists as the God] and Father of the [A]ll., the [invisi]ble which dwells above [the All, ...] imperishableness which exi[sts as the] pure light upon which it is not possible for any eye to] gaze.

[It is the] invisible [Spirit], and It is not appropriate [to consider It] to be like the g[o]ds or that It is something similar. For It is more than divine, [without anything] existing over It. For nothing lords [over It].

[. . .] not [...] in an[yth]ing less [... exists in It.

It alone [is eternal] since It does not need [anything.] For It is totally perfect. [It] does not [lack] anything such that [anything] would perfect It, [but] It is [al]ways completely perfect in [light]. It can*not be [limi]ted because there is nothing [before It] to limit It. [It is] inscrut[able because there] is no one who exists before It [to scrutinine It.] [It is im]measurable because there is nothing [which exists before It to measure] It. [It is] in[visible because there is] no one to see [It. It is an eternity existing] eternally. [It is ineffable because] there is no one able to comprehend It in order to sp[eak about It.] It is [un]nameable because [there is no one before It] to name [It.] It is [the immeasurable light,] which is pure, [holy, and unpolluted. It is in]effable [being perfect i]n incorruptibility. (It does) [not] (exist) in per[fection], blessed[ness, or] divini[ty] but It is [far] supe*rior (to these).

It is neither corporeal [nor in]corporeal. [It] is not large or small. [It is not] such that one could [say] that It has quantity or [quality]. For it is not possible for anyone [to know It]. It is not something among [existing things, but It is] far [super]ior—[not] as [being supe*rior] (to others as though It is comparable to them) but as that which belongs to Itself. It does [not partici]pate in the aeons or in time (as a constitutive part of them). For that which participates i[n an aeon] was first prepared (by others). It was [not given a p]ortion in time [because] It does not receive anything [from anoth]er- for [what*ever] It received would be received as a loan. For what exists prior] to anything else is not deficient such that It should receive [from any*thing].

For this one gazes marveling at Itself [alone] in Its light. [...] For It is a vastness. [It possesses the immeasurable [simpli]city. [It is] an aeo[n gi]ving aeon, life giving [life, a ble]ssed one giving blessedness, a knowledge giving understanding, a goo[d one giving] goodness. It is mer[cy giving] mercy and salvation. It is grace giving grac[e—not] such that it possesses it but that It gives. "

There is also no requirement for a first cause to have a mind. Absent the laws of the universe, there is no requirement for the universe to have a precurser except for a condition that does not preclude it from coming into being; such as a state where the laws internal to the universe do not hold.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I can prove I didn't commit a crime by supplying an alibi. I can also show that the laws of the universe are such, that they do or do not support a particular claim. So there are in fact ways to prove, at least, certain negatives.

If you cannot prove there is no God, then how can you claim there is no God? All you can do is state that you believe there is no God, making atheism, a belief system.

See here and here.

True, it's only non-contradictory universal negatives that can't be proven. I can prove there's no unicorn, as usually described, in my attic. I can't prove there's no unicorn anywhere in the universe. If the unicorn has contradictory attributes, we can establish it doen't exist anywhere in the universe because the concept of unicorn is incoherent. Now if the description of the unicorn were falsification-proofed the way God's is (can't be detected, doesn't act overtly) I can't even prove one's not in my attic. Define God and we can talk about whether your version contains contradictions.

My statement is that I don't believe there is a God. Not having a belief is not a belief. One belief does not a belief system make. So you fail on the belief system claim on two levels.

Just because I have doubts your legitimate faith will allow you to understand my point, I will illustrate: The difference between not believing in God and believing there is no God is similar to the difference between not believing you have a fifty dollar bill in your pocket and believing you don't have a fifty dollar bill in your pocket. Get it?

And just because you may not be conscious of why you desire atheism to be a belief system, I will explain it to you: you know it's reasonable not to believe something based on inadequate evidence, which is the position you are in; and what you are fundamentally trying to do is level the playing field by claiming that our postition is also an unjustified belief, and therefore just as weak as yours. 'So are you!' is not a valid argument, that is, even if true it doesn't support your position.

Besides lack of evidence, the main thing that persuades me God is highly unlikely is that even people of self-proclaimed legitimate faith seem to be unable to present an argument for existence of such a being that doesn't contain a fallacy. For instance, your 'legitimate faith' argument is a non sequitur: even if true, it doesn't follow that God exists, the most you can establish is that certain spiritual practices result in people being consistently good. In fact, these practices having the same result for people of different faiths indicates that it's not the object of these faiths that matter, it's how they believe whatever it is they believe.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Quite simply, yes. Also it is far more sensible than saying, "Some things are not made by intelligence. How do I know this? I don't. I'm just guessing."

What you are saying is:

P: Some things are made by conscious beings.
C: Therefore, all things are made by conscious beings.

How do you know this? You don't. You're just guessing.

Plus, there's a step missing in your 'argument'.

P1: Dogs are mammals.
P2: Rex is a dog.
C: Therefore, Rex is a mammal.

Where's your P2? Your argument is like saying:

P: Dogs are mammals.
C: Therefore, Rex is a mammal.

 

[PDoug]

So everything needs a cause except your particular god because your book of myths says so? Well thats convincing.

Because my credible book on the mysteries of the universe says so. How is it credible? Because it speaks of things, which over the course of time, I've discovered to be true. Just as people regard texts and individuals to be credible, based on a subset of claims they made which have been verified, I've found this text to be credible, based on the same criterion. Also I have affinity for this text, and truth in all forms are attracted to one another – you know, like birds of a feather, flock together.

 

[dafydd]

Because my credible book on the mysteries of the universe says so. How is it credible? Because it speaks of things, which over the course of time, I've discovered to be true. Just as people regard texts and individuals to be credible, based on a subset of claims they made which have been verified, I've found this text to be credible, based on the same criterion. Also I have affinity for this text, and truth in all forms are attracted to one another – you know, like birds of a feather, flock together.

You're not using the word credible in connection with the bible,are you?

 

[hgc]

Yes. Because I've tried most everything to be righteous, and I've found the only thing that works, is to have legitimate faith. (I've observed the same in others as well.) Trying to do good directly does not work; trying to follow religious laws directly does not work either. Self help books do not work; positive thinking does not work. Believing in God directly, and in his salvation does not work. Again, the only think that works (in my observation), is the practice of asking God for things, and believing that you will receive them (Mark 11:22-24) - and trying to accomplishing things with this practice, through persistent prayer. Now the above may sound counter-intuitive, but my experience is that the above is actually so, and is consistent with the claims of the Bible, and harmonious scriptures.

YOU tried everything [else] and failed. But not I. I am fundamentally good without having to do what you claim is necessary. You have not observed me, so you can't possibly know that I am wrong on this. Have you any real evidence to disprove my claim?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[dafydd]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Or in his little book of christian fairy stories.