Atheist vs Christian debate summary
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
Re: monkey...
i had a point, but apparently i didn't understand the previous posts correctly, otherwise you might have understood my posts. my apologies for not understanding you people.
i thought that a claim was made that atheist can't be objective because they do not know the truth either. My claim would be that you can only be objective if you realize you are not objective. With atheism this is possible, with theism this is not.
does this clarify my random typing urges better?
i had a point, but apparently i didn't understand the previous posts correctly, otherwise you might have understood my posts. my apologies for not understanding you people.
i thought that a claim was made that atheist can't be objective because they do not know the truth either. My claim would be that you can only be objective if you realize you are not objective. With atheism this is possible, with theism this is not.
does this clarify my random typing urges better?
Ok reply
Sorry if I sounded bitchy monkey... some people in here discourage my image and faith in humanity.
What I was saying, not Raithere badly quotting what I was saying, is that Theism and Atheism have the same foundation.
Both have assumed conceptual foundations:
1-The Bible
2-The traditional empirical method
Both interpret the world from there own point of view.
One states that God exist and the other that He does not. Yet both systems are making value judgments... none of the two can compellingly show that what they claim is true.
1- Theism claims they don't have to prove God, they rely on faith and scriptures... thus he exists.
VS (the reversed belief system)
2- Atheism claims they don't have to prove God for his inexistence, 'cuz anything unmeasurable must be considered as non-existent.
=
One big stalemate.
The only thing that makes Atheists and Theists believe they actually got the right answer is that they BOTH subjectively prefer a method or approach over any other. This is a value judgement.
Thus, Atheism and Theism are equivalent.
Now a lot of people will bitch about the fact that science is more founded in its methods and bla bla this and bla bla the scriptures are bs....
All I am saying is that both approaches, like it or not, are on the same ground only reversed.
They are both no closer to truly finding the answer:
DOES GOD EXIST?
Prisme
copyright
Sorry if I sounded bitchy monkey... some people in here discourage my image and faith in humanity.
What I was saying, not Raithere badly quotting what I was saying, is that Theism and Atheism have the same foundation.
Both have assumed conceptual foundations:
1-The Bible
2-The traditional empirical method
Both interpret the world from there own point of view.
One states that God exist and the other that He does not. Yet both systems are making value judgments... none of the two can compellingly show that what they claim is true.
1- Theism claims they don't have to prove God, they rely on faith and scriptures... thus he exists.
VS (the reversed belief system)
2- Atheism claims they don't have to prove God for his inexistence, 'cuz anything unmeasurable must be considered as non-existent.
=
One big stalemate.
The only thing that makes Atheists and Theists believe they actually got the right answer is that they BOTH subjectively prefer a method or approach over any other. This is a value judgement.
Thus, Atheism and Theism are equivalent.
Now a lot of people will bitch about the fact that science is more founded in its methods and bla bla this and bla bla the scriptures are bs....
All I am saying is that both approaches, like it or not, are on the same ground only reversed.
They are both no closer to truly finding the answer:
DOES GOD EXIST?
Prisme
copyright
no worries mate...i'm bitchy myself..and you didn't come accros as very bitchy.
2- Atheism claims they don't have to prove God for his inexistence, 'cuz anything unmeasurable must be considered as non-existent.
tja....i'm not sure I can totally agree with this, although I do agree with the statement in itself.
It sounds very reasonable, but if I look at myself, I must say that personally 'I do not have to prove the existence of god because it is an obvious human ideological construction.'
Then there are all the individual arguments that have been mentioned a million times on this forum and hence I shall spare you by not repeating them.
2- Atheism claims they don't have to prove God for his inexistence, 'cuz anything unmeasurable must be considered as non-existent.
tja....i'm not sure I can totally agree with this, although I do agree with the statement in itself.
It sounds very reasonable, but if I look at myself, I must say that personally 'I do not have to prove the existence of god because it is an obvious human ideological construction.'
Then there are all the individual arguments that have been mentioned a million times on this forum and hence I shall spare you by not repeating them.
...
I do not agree that the concept of God to be a simple man made creation. Religion is man made, but a God that is our Creator cannot be easily dismissed or proven.
Even if it would be the case that God would be man made, then God would be as natural to our existence as reproduction, langage and thought... (since all primitive settlements have their version of God(s)) thus God would be an intricate part of our psychological constitution as human beings which we should not alieanate ourselves from.
Peace
I do not agree that the concept of God to be a simple man made creation. Religion is man made, but a God that is our Creator cannot be easily dismissed or proven.
Even if it would be the case that God would be man made, then God would be as natural to our existence as reproduction, langage and thought... (since all primitive settlements have their version of God(s)) thus God would be an intricate part of our psychological constitution as human beings which we should not alieanate ourselves from.
Peace
Re: ...
I will give a partial response to your statement if you do not mind.
i'm sure that you are aware of the fact that it has been disproven that man was not created by god and that no god is necessary to explain our universe. In that case it is really easy to dismiss that god is our creator.
Of course some people do not accept these kind of explanations. But that doesn't change the fact that the existence of god can easily be dismissed. Many people have done it and many will continue to do it. Dismissing is not a problem. Some people choose not to for different reasons. Often because they don't like the answers they get from a world without god.
I will give a partial response to your statement if you do not mind.
i'm sure that you are aware of the fact that it has been disproven that man was not created by god and that no god is necessary to explain our universe. In that case it is really easy to dismiss that god is our creator.
Of course some people do not accept these kind of explanations. But that doesn't change the fact that the existence of god can easily be dismissed. Many people have done it and many will continue to do it. Dismissing is not a problem. Some people choose not to for different reasons. Often because they don't like the answers they get from a world without god.
Re: One last thing...
I found the initial post to be an extraordinarily weak argument and pointed out what fallacies and errors in reasoning that I observed. There are far stronger arguments for theism; ones that I cannot refute though, personally, I do not find the premises convincing enough to warrant my belief. Additionally, I find certain arenas of theistic philosophy very useful and interesting. Still this does not mean I should accept a bad argument. You believe in God. That is fine with me but belief based in such obvious fallacies as were originally presented seems a rather shaky foundation for the structure of one's primary principles.
~Raithere
No, the question you asked at the beginning of the thread was, "Whats so half-assed about those arguments?" And I answered. Our discussion has gone on from there. I have no desire to try to dissuade you from your belief in God. However, I do have a desire to discuss and debate various arguments and assertions.
I found the initial post to be an extraordinarily weak argument and pointed out what fallacies and errors in reasoning that I observed. There are far stronger arguments for theism; ones that I cannot refute though, personally, I do not find the premises convincing enough to warrant my belief. Additionally, I find certain arenas of theistic philosophy very useful and interesting. Still this does not mean I should accept a bad argument. You believe in God. That is fine with me but belief based in such obvious fallacies as were originally presented seems a rather shaky foundation for the structure of one's primary principles.
~Raithere
Re: Ok reply
I find it odd though that you find empiricism to be unfounded. How is it that you resolve this argument without falling to pure subjectivity?
Second, you're not really arguing Theism vs Atheism but subjectivism vs empiricism. The empirical approach is not subjective but is strongly objective. (e.g. The empirical observation that pure water freezes at 0 centigrade at 1 atm is an objective observation.)
~Raithere
This only demonstrates that you do not really understand the scope of atheistic beliefs and arguments. Atheism is not necessarily based upon a purely objectivistic/mechanistic philosophy. Certainly it may be, but this is not at all mandatory. Personally, I agree that a purely objectivist/mechanist philosophy is lacking.
I find it odd though that you find empiricism to be unfounded. How is it that you resolve this argument without falling to pure subjectivity?
First, I would query what you consider the Theistic approach to be; faith and scripture do not constitute a method or argument.
Second, you're not really arguing Theism vs Atheism but subjectivism vs empiricism. The empirical approach is not subjective but is strongly objective. (e.g. The empirical observation that pure water freezes at 0 centigrade at 1 atm is an objective observation.)
~Raithere