Greetings all,

Krehlic,

I don’t disagree, if I claim God exists and enter such a thought into the market place of ideas then I should be prepared to support such a belief with evidence of its merit. By the same token, if I disparage such a thought, thoroughly bash it and hold it in contempt as this site does then I should be prepared to defend that notion and not claim the burden rests solely with the theist, right? Often that’s not what you people do, after having bashed theism from pillar to post you then become weak theists and claim you only lack belief in God, an intellectual dodge.

Theism Krehlic, is belief in the existence of a transcendent Creator of the universe not Zeus or Yahweh. If atheism were disbelief in specific Gods, then theists would be atheists too. See what I mean? You have uncritically bought into one of the many atheist sound bites and mental constructs without applying some ‘freethinking’ to it.

This is why I think you guys calling yourself freethinkers is a joke. If I came in here with a different handle and called myself a freethinker, you would just assume I don’t believe in God, I don’t go believe in any religion and I am an atheist materialist and probably politically to the left.

If you want to see the basis of my claim God exists I have a thread in the Atheism vs theism forum titled Debate Challenge. Just a prediction you don’t really want to see the evidence, you want to disagree with it so you can then claim there is no evidence. I know this because even though you call yourselves freethinkers, you often buy into the same sound bites and espouse the exact same rhetoric and atheist sound bites. If you were freethinkers you’d think there would be real diversity of opinion.

I could be guilty of judging a book by its cover but I don’t get a warm fuzzy that theists or their beliefs are respected in the least on this website. You may not hold your theist friends and family in contempt but I suspect you hold most anonymous theists in contempt.

Is your belief God doesn’t exist testable?

MrRage,

It is going on by the very fact you are a participant in a board that puts on a very strong atheist face knowing full well that doesn’t represent the majority of atheists who are actually ‘weak atheists’. If atheists boards were to acknowledge the fact most atheists are weak atheists who don’t actually deny the possibility that God might exist they wouldn’t be nearly as inflammatory as this board is.

Do you acknowledge this board is actively seeking to evangelize and ‘save’ people from their theistic beliefs?

Further, in the post of MrRage, I could have replied to any number of things in your post, but I merely refer you to my argument on the immorality of destroying embryotic stem cells regardless of whether we believe them persons or not, which is found in the thread "Abortion is murder."
Lastly, there seems to be no reason to paint all Christians into the same corner with Benny Hinn and crazy Christians who retreat into apocalyptic nonsense. Most do not believe this. I also see atheism and secularism with a great deal more deaths under its belt in the likes of merely Stalin, Hilter, and Mao, and all other crazy communist tinpot dictators who have ruled the world over. Christianity in particular cannot hold a candle to the many other groups that have led to mass killings.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

My purpose wasn't so much to debate these issues, but to point out that these are things that a weak atheist can take issue with.

Maybe so. My point is, in the US the main opposition comes from evangelical Christians and their metaphysical beliefs. I think there needs to be a great deal of consideration and dialog on the ethics of such things as stem cell research. But I see no need to consider faith based metaphysical beliefs about souls and such things.

I understand. Please, don't think I mean all Christians throughout the Earth are the same. My point is in the US it's a taboo to question people about their religious faith. This creates an environment where frauds like Hinn can thrive unchecked.

I'm curious if you've ever spent much time in the "Bible Belt" in the US.

This is a red herring. You know the answer to this.

Anyway, secularism doesn't necessarily mean that religion is wiped out. It just means crazies like Falwell shouldn't govern based on religious, faith-based principles. To me the US is a secular country, for now.

True, but the Church of the middle ages didn't have the technology, and the large population, that Stalin, Hitler, etc. had. This is no way invalidates the dangers of making important decisions based on faith.

If you only accept what other people have called "reliable" without checking things out for yourself, can you truly be a free-thinker?

Or are you saying that you've read everything (as opposed to just those things that match your position)?

Edit : I'm too stinking slow!

Krehlic,

I don’t deny I have a burden of evidence (not proof I’m not making a knowledge claim about Gods existence). The point I am making is that the other side of this argument has an equal burden when they claim God doesn’t exist particularly considering how strong their conviction is that God doesn’t exist.

Krehlic you seem like a smart guy but you’re not a freethinker at all, or better yet you’re not a critical thinker.

First of all your analogy is predicated on the mistaken belief accepted uncritically by atheists that there is no evidence whatever in favor of theism. To the contrary the mere fact the universe and sentient being like humans exist is evidence in favor of theism because people believe that was more likely the result of a Creator than any competing notion no matter how sincerely you believe in some other cause.

The fact is scientists could offer very strong evidence such a creature doesn’t exist. They could point to the fact a biological creature could not support twenty heads. They could point to evidence that even two headed creatures rarely survive for long, they could point out no other sightings and on and on. You probably subscribe to another atheist sound bite to which you applied no freethinking that you can’t prove a negative. I agree you may not be able to prove a negative but you can provide a preponderance of evidence in favor of a negative claim. Scientists have made a powerful case that Nessie (the Lockness monster) doesn’t exist.

If I ran a website and radio show attempting to persuade people the US didn’t land on the moon and attempted to ‘save’ people from such a belief and encouraged people to tape themselves disavowing the idea the US landed on the moon and mocked and ridiculed anyone as ignorant who subscribed to such a belief wouldn’t you think it was an intellectual dodge that when confronted about this claim, I then confessed I actually just have a ‘lack of belief’ that the US has landed on the moon and the burden of evidence rests with those who claim we did land on the moon? You don’t think that would be the height of chicken scratch? C’mon try to put on your freethinking cap.

Then no matter what evidence someone offers in favor of the US landing on the moon I offer nothing but logical counter possibilities. For example

All the films are faked.
The government bought off all the employees of NASA.
They did it to bilk the US taxpayers
They send out black helicopters to anyone who would spill the beans.
The ‘moon rocks’ were extracted from a cave in Peru.

Notice how I don’t actually offer any evidence such counter possibilities are true I merely fabricate whatever logical possibility comports with my belief held in advance. I demand incontestable proof from anyone who contradicts me but accept mere possibility of something as evidence in favor of my own belief.

Not at all Krehlic, I am making a case in this thread for what I believe.

If you believe the Creator is no longer alive or is no longer involved in the affairs of the universe or people. Either way deism is a form of theism, not atheism.

Don’t you even know what theism is? Theism is not a religious belief and it is not necessary to believe in any specific God to be a theist. Theism is a philosophical belief about the origin of people and the universe just as materialism is.

Good, then you should provide evidence of how unlikely the existence of God (creator of the universe) is just as I provide evidence that it is likely we owe our existence to such a cause. About religion that depends, if no God exists then any religious belief about God is ridiculous however, since you concede God might exist then we can’t dismiss the possibility religious beliefs (ridiculous as they might be) could be true.

I have been debating atheist for over 15 years and I am telling you, you all chew the same cud and spew it out nearly verbatim and rarely put on your ‘freethinking’ caps. You come to believe there is no God and then swallow any sound bite that agrees with that line of thinking without applying any critical thinking skills.

We will see how weak the arguments are I am presenting. So far no one is willing to challenge me to a formal debate.

And is there some reason people, planets or stars should exist?

Good question and I have no idea, but I’m not attempting to answer that question, I am attempting to give an explanation why there is something rather than nothing. For example the reason cars exist is because car companies create cars. You might ask why car companies exist. I never claimed knowledge of why car companies exist, only why cars exist.

I agree with you the development of the universe is due to the laws of physics. I will submit later that the existence of the laws of physics favors a theistic model, not a materialistic one.

Is your belief God doesn’t exist testable?

The point you were going to make is my belief is irrational because it isn’t testable until you realized your own belief isn’t testable either but you have no problem with thinking it is rational, right?

Whose holy book? I never stated I subscribe to a specific theistic belief. Talk about judging a book by its cover…

Edit: I just changed some wording and fixed some spelling. I was pressed for time before.

As long as you are speaking in theistic terms and not deistic, the claim of the existence of God is utterly ridiculous. Just read the Bible, or whatever holy book you subscribe to, without rose colored goggles. This site challenges theism, not deism. Though, deism is certainly up for discussion and certainly not favored by the majority of people here.

First of all, there is no evidence in support of theism. If you don’t count the gap in scientific knowledge then there is no evidence for deism either, but I’m not questioning the validity of deism as it is philosophical and not faith based dogma.

And as for your points about my sea monster, fair enough, but you still get my point. I could have made up something supernatural, which could not be tested.

Tell me the difference between here and people preaching their religion, aside from that most of them won’t admit a possibility of being wrong.

No, wrong again. Deism is the belief of a god, or an original intelligence, responsible for the creation of the universe. This being has no defined parameters aside from its ability to create our world. A deistic god does not deal in human affairs.

I never said theism was a religious belief, but it does include nearly all of them. I'm not sure about Buddhism.

***Sorry about the dark font, I don't know why its doing that***

The definition, from Webster’s New World Dictionary, of deism is…





Fr dé




isme < L deus, god

belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; esp., the 17th- and 18th-cent. doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning

Obviously, if no one has known of this god from revelation then it cannot be defined.

A person can be a deist and be a freethinker. My understanding of this is evident from my first post on this thread as deists do not have any kind of sacred book from which to dictate their morals and beliefs.

______________________________

Now, theism goes beyond philosophical speculation and asserts the existence of a defined god. Again, the definition from Webster is…





THE(O)- + -ISM

belief in one God viewed as creator and ruler of the universe and known by revelation: distinguished from DEISM

A god known by revelation is defined, somewhat. As I have stated before, belief in such a god according to a holy book or teaching which dictates right from wrong, etc, is neither rational nor freethinking.

I assure you, I understand very well the difference between theism and deism. I am afraid it is you who does not.

This ‘evidence’ that you have presented does not support any particular theistic god. It would support the existence of a god, which I acknowledge to be a possibility.

So, the longer I debate the more right I become? Good to know.

By the way, if what you say is true, then the following is most definitely true (and I only had to change two words ) :

I am telling you, you all (theists) chew the same cud and spew it out nearly verbatim and rarely put on your ‘freethinking’ caps. You come to believe there is a God and then swallow any sound bite that agrees with that line of thinking without applying any critical thinking skills.

I fail to see how I can’t be a freethinker for using, as you say, common arguments by atheists, and how you can, even though you use, I’d say, the most common theist argument of them all.

To illustrate my freethinking I have written up a brief summery of my rise as an atheist and my rejection of my lifelong religion. I could write a book about it, but I’ll make it as short as possible.

Keep in mind that I grew up in the heart of the Bible belt in a devout Christian family and went to a private Christian School from start to graduation.

I have two huge notebooks packed full of articles, printouts from books, comprehensive notes, lists of sources, etc, that supposedly prove the existence of God. I constantly spat out arguments for the existence of God and had sources, many of which from atheists, to back it up. I must admit, your argument for why there is something rather than nothing was one of my favorites. My main focus was on the Mathematical argument, using mainly scientific notation and referring to the abiogenesis, the Cosmological argument, dealing mainly with the first cause and first mover and your argument already mentioned, and the Teleological argument, dealing with the supposed uniqueness of Earth and various examples of irreducible complexity (which have all been disproved). There is much more in those notebooks, but those were my specialty. I wrote several research and argumentative essays in some college English classes using the three main topics. I realized along the way that I was taking many of the points out of context. An example of this is the supposed impossibility of matter randomly arranging itself into life. I knew no scientists, aside from other theists, thought matter arranged itself by shear chance all at once. I knew that the individual steps of the process would bring the chances of life forming down into the realm of the possible, but I still argued the points in hopes that everyone would buy into it and not question. The same goes for the other arguments.
Somewhere along the way I realized that none of these arguments offered any real evidence at all. They merely pointed out things that science doesn’t yet know. I realized what I was doing; believing in something based on evidence that I knew was false or irrelevant. My God was the God of the Gaps. Furthermore, I also realized that even if my evidence was valid, it did not prove or suggest the existence of my God, only the existence of a god. But still, it really didn't.
I lost my faith by rationally reading the Bible and considering obvious contradictions. I became a deist (for a little while at least), but not long after that, continuing to research, I became an atheist. I went through this change without ever speaking with another athiest. I refer back to those notebooks I have, regularly, to second guess myself. Though, if anything, it strengthens my stance as an atheist.

You seem to think so, but I don’t. My question of why there is a god rather than no god deals with the same principle and has the same consequence.

I ask why there is a god instead of none. Your answer:

You attempt to explain existence with something far more complex. If matter cannot just exists, then how can a supernatural intelligence capable of creating it exist?
I’m sure you have heard this response a hundred times, but commonality does not negate validity. If it did, then the original question would also be invalid.

Do you not have a holy book? You admit you haven’t said what your religion is. I only assumed you were some kind of Christian. For that, I apologize. But if you adhere to any religion I know of, you have a holy book or teaching. That is, unless you just made it up.

It is apparent that our understanding of some terminology is conflicting. If by theist you meant you were deist, then please clarify. If it is so, then this thread needs to shift gears.

I was about to ask the same thing...

Greetings all,

I don't know anything about a swatiska if one is attached to my post it wasn't my idea. 

I agree. If this is a new badge they invented, they are far worse than I thought. You need to call this BS on Sapient to make him remove this crap. It's worse than insulting.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Oh how quickly you forget.

"But sure tell me where I can get my badge with a star on it and I’ll wear it. Seig Heil!"

Faith is not unjustified at all. We have already talked about this. You just keep claiming that it is without any reason to do so.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

I am not lying. I am not ignoring your claims either. I cannot sit in front of my computer all day, like some people can. I wrote you three times because I saw your e-mails. Only just recently did I see your post and respond. Stop the name calling and address my arguments.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael