Glenn, with all sincerity, I find it very difficult to address the points you raise due to the fact that they aren't even part of the discussion these days. I mean, you are raising points that have just been dealt to death already in so many other places, it's ridiculous. For us to address them here would be an insult to those great minds who have lived before us and who advanced the conversation so much farther. I know this all sounds very condescending, like "You are below me," but your arguments really haven't had any force for anyone important since the seventeenth century. Honestly, I'm not trying to put you down. I just cannot engage in this discussion unless I see something interesting on your side.

I honestly do want you to come back here and debate us all and kick all our asses. But you're not going to do it with those tired arguments. I suggest you read a little on Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Theology" to get a sense for the arguments that have really moved this debate forward. Thanks for joining us!

I don't think I can prove to you or anyone that God doesn't exist.  If it keeps you sane to think God did stuff and feels certain ways, then by all means believe that.

My disbelief in god didn't come from observations of the world alone but more from observation of the Bible.  When it didn't make any more sense the second time I read it, I gave up on the concept.

 As far as morality goes, someone with a book of guidelines to follow may be better at practicing morality (wtf) than those without guidelines.

Somehow this doesn't seem like it is helping.  If you are so secure with you religion, why are you on an athiest site argueing with people? 

I forgot one important answer that I meant to include.

Some people are taught how to think logically from an early age.

Adam 

Many thanks for having me. This was more so to see where some of you are coming from. Clearly it's somewhere I've not been. I'm trying to get a perspective from your point of veiw not insult or degrade. Just asking questions I mean no disrespect. You seem confident enough in your beliefs to treat it all with respect so thanks again. Some people get pretty razed. It's not my intention to stir up the pot only to see how you all think. Take care man.

glenn   

It's not my intention to piss people off. Call it a general concern for my fellow man, as comanded by God. But thats all I will say about it any more. I'm sure thats not what any one here wanted the hear any way.  

You seem pretty clear that you mean no disrespect by your questions.  Unfortunately, the subjects that are often covered here tend to raise a few defenses, and tempers on both sides of the religious fence.  As with any sensitive topic, the general rule is not to be offended.  

So, welcome to the forums and let the games begin!   

Yeah, thanks for joining us. It is always admirable seeing people really interested in fruitful discussion. Even if we don't agree, it is always beneficial to understand each other. Understanding is best achieved when we can feel the force of the "other sides'" arguments.

This isn't true.   I cannot definitively prove there is no supernatural deity at this time.  You cannot prove that there is a supernatural deity at this time. 

I'm not going to attempt to comment on logic, since I am no expert and those who have more knowledge on the subject have already commented.  

Why does god have to be there to solve the dilemma? You talk about having no explanation for reason, ethics, science, etc. Perhaps we don't.  Perhaps we just haven't found the answer yet.  Why use god to fill in the blank when you can't be sure?  

Hey thanks for your input. I hope this is a little more clear.

  My argument was that if the the universe has no meaning than we would not know about it. As in a world with out light and thus creatures with no eyes, the word "dark" would have no meaning. This is C.S. Lewis.

It was then said that there is no reason to relate things we can't explain to God, Things like logic,science and ethics. All good things, and all attributed to God. (From my point of veiw that is)

It was then pointed out to me that: Logic exists indepedent of all biological functions. It simply exists as the result of a natural universe which follows self-evident truths called tautological axioms, because the denying of such truths is to affirm them (stolen concept fallacy).

So thats how far we got and here's where I'm at now.

If Logic just exsists in the universe and would go on to exist apart from humanity, than it must "logicaly" be something we can't explain. Atheism is almost seems similar to Christianity for a moment there. Consider what is happening.

You've more or less just taken the Name of God and his title and called it a Natural Universe. For this to exisist, one must have a great deal of faith. The athiest has faith in the logic and the Christian has faith in his God. And we don't stop there. We believe that God encompasses logic and much more. Like morals, reason, truth, love and hate. I know it must sound strange but hate as well. God hates sin as I'm sure every one knows. The list of qualities is near endless. 

Ok back on track. To end, both of us Atheist and Christians alike exibit a large amount of faith in our own system. The fact that we both let the system we have faith in rule the way we run our lives. We do this buy trying to figure the problem out, to solve the dilemma, day in and day out. Were doing it in this conversation. So weather you call it God or Logic we are both worshiping and idoliizing some thing.

In other words: 

If we were apart from some thing from the begining, how could we know a feeling of absence from that some thing. Picture your self blind from birth and have never seen any thing. You wouldn't know what your missing.    Thusly there would be no great concern in your head over it. Sure you would have to live your daily life differently, seeing eye dogs and all. But You might just say something like,           " Apparently theres this thing called sight. They tell me it's wild but I don't see whats so great about it."

Also a blind person would have to believe that there is this thing called sight. And he is different from every one else. If he refused based on the logical situation for him, ( Never expeirencing sight) He would be wrong to us but not to him self. But think now if he suddenly awoke one day and saw for the first time ever.   

   Sorry, I was trying to keep thas short  but you know how it is. Any way thats what I got so far. Hope it cleared atleast one or two things up . Take er easy

-Glenn-

We have witnesses to describe light consistently, who can speak to the presence, absence and color of light in consistent terms. We could use systematic methods to confirm that light is indeed the phenomena we're each experiencing, and use other methods to confirm the presence of light.  Sensors based on selenium or cadmium, or photovoltaics, would form the basis for detecting light in a world of blind scientists. Light would just be another invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is not unprecedented.
Let's move on to "gods." How would the universe be different if this proposition was valid? Do we have a reason to ask whether there are actually "gods," apart from what was written down in unconfirmable accounts?
Your remark that science or atheism require faith is completely false. I'd like to go back in time and abort CS Lewis.

But consider this: let's suppose there was a God who did have some purpose for humanity. Why should that mean that this God's purpose was important for us to adopt? Again, even if there is a God whose purpose we could know, we still have to choose to adopt its purpose. Thus, we ultimately do give the world meaning, even if we are believers.

I frankly don't care what God's purpose could be. I find submitting to the will of an almighty dictator far more meaningless than choosing the meaning I give my life from my own mind.

Honestly, Glenn, these arguments are so old and outdated and rehashed that their usage will make anyone smirk. They were prerefuted, blown apart, destroyed, smashed, by philosophers 400 years before you were born,  and then, for good measure, they were ground to pulp by their successors. By their mere invocation, you do a disservice to everyone who has made a genuine contribution to Western Philosophy in the last several centuries.

May I simply point out, despite what you might personally believe, atheism is NOT a religion.  Therefore, we atheists needn't supply explanations for every single question you have on the world for our opinions on the existence of god to be valid.  We perhaps can't explain exactly where logic came from, just as we can't tell you the answers to a great number of questions about life and humanity.  The reason we can't answer these questions for you is because we don't make up the answers.  We don't take the answers from one book and feed them back to you as fact.  We don't go out of our way to explain every single thing about the world when we know we have no ability to be sure about those things at this point.  This isn't a game.  It's not "Whatever world view provides the most explanations to life's many questions, regardless of whether they make sense or have any basis, WINS!"  If we wanted to win that game, we'd invent answers, like the theists do.

As I said at the start of all this, "I am new here." Debating Atheisim is something I've taken up recently for reasons of trying to understand a girl I met. I wanted a wide picture on the whole veiw. And yes I got more than I asked for. I have learned allot from the past week. As far as continuing with  the discussions, I'm not sure. I very much respect all of your ideas there not simply fluff like so many others you meet on day to day basis. All of this was just to see how you all think, and try to understand why.  

A few more things, faith is not a disease. It's actually been tied to genetics, and labeled "The God Gene"  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041025-725072,00.html

Second, with regard to doing a disservice to Western Philosophy, you may eat shit sir. Your ideas do a great disservice to my beliefs, but I still respected them. 

They are my ideas and I'm entitled to them. If they are old and out dated then perhaps I'm just an old fashion guy. God made me so.  

 Glenn

Notice that some people's being programmed for faith by their DNA does not prove anything about the validity of that faith. Do you see why? Think about it.

I'm sure that there is a reason besides "god" that mamals take care of their young and befriend members of their own pack(or clique).

If this isn't evidence of natural goodness in mammals, consider other relationships like when that dog took in an orphaned baby squirrel as it's own.(I'm sure you can find pics on-line.)

I think humans have a much greater capacity to care for others than dogs have and that is just one area of natural moral behavior.

 Adam

While obviously I have tons of criticisms of the original post, I'm curious about the "atheist contradiction." It wasn't very clear to me, what specifically is "the contradiction?"

[edit: Glenn I didn't realize that was you.  I'll try to write up something on all of this.  Although I think it would be easier to convey my points to you via phone, if you were interested.  (I'd record our conversation for the audience)   Glenn and I have been firing short emails back and forth for a few days]

I think Glenn is referring to one atheist specifically who said those words in his Blasphemy Challenge video, I've never heard it anywhere else.  Nevertheless I do believe it takes only basic observations of the world around you to determine that no gods are needed to explain it.  Saying "there is no god" there is akin to saying "there is no tooth fairy."  The speaker has taken a conversational liberty.  To bring this in to question is to assume that the speaker would not be willing to accept Gods existence should evidence present itself.  That is the point I believe Glenn is trying to make here.  However, seeing as how I know the person who spoke the words in question, I can assure you that his stating "there is no god" was simply a statement of such high probability of accuracy that there is no reason it to lengthen it by qualifying it with the words "unless someone can prove his existence to me."

I'm sure Glenn would take little issue with someone saying  "Through basic observation of the world around me and logical thinking I have come to the conclusion that there is no tooth fairy."

And that's my point.  There is about the same probability that a tooth fairy exist and that a god exists.  Let's not quibble over someones language about their certainty of gods absence, let's instead look at whatever arguments you actually have that can prove a gods existence.  The atheists in the Blasphemy Challenge are showing you that it's gonna require a better argument than this to convert them to a world of faith.

I saw deludedgod really took some good time on the arguments, I'm not sure how much more I can add to that.  I'll take a look.

Well it's good to get that out of the way. I'm assuming this is code for "even if the atheists are flawed, this does not make their message any less valid." If you agree, then let's move past both parties flaws and instead discuss arguments for or against certain gods.

How we can ONLY assume that?

With things like cancer, aids, polio, smallpox, racism, war, violence, tornadoes, hurricanes, deadly heat waves, starvation, suffering, sudden infant death syndrome, down syndrome, and autism I'd believe either God is not on our side, God is incompetent, or God doesn't exist.

I keep forgetting you're a Christian. Out of all the religions Glenn, Christianity is the one I'm most sure is bullshit. I'm more sure that the Christian God doesn't exist, than I am sure of my own existence.

The whole idea of a devil being used in conversation without you first proving a devil exists, sits odd with me. It's hard to have conversations like that Glenn.

I have countless reasons why yahweh couldn't possibly exist, but allow me to show you just one recent video I saw. Check this out, it's short:

Out of the thousands upon thousands of atheists that I have personally interacted with over the last 8 years, I can't recall ever hearing a single one of them who arose at atheism due to a bad life experience. I know many atheists who recognize their religious upbringing was mental abuse and that it wasn't a good belief system to teach to a child, but they don't look at it as a bad experience that brough them to atheism. Most say they came to atheism after researching religion or non belief further. It is theism that often is the bad life experience, that leads you to research, and research that usually leads you to atheism. This is the most common story I know, not the "bad life experience" propoganda created by the Christian right while they unknowingly havn't a clue that the "bad life experience" itself is generally: CHRISTIANITY.

I can agree with that, you should qualify it by mentioning though... there aren't any GOOD reasons.

From my brain, which I can prove exists.

You believe we got our logic from god, which you can't prove exists.

Glenn, seriously look at it closely, reject the desire to ask "what created your brain," realize the answer to that question wont be god. Research it, find out how our brain evolved, and then research abiogenesis. Look at how we have a very good understanding of how life could've arose from non life. We could go back further, but to disprove Christianity, one need only have an 11th grade understanding of evolution, and a realization that if any of the bible is wrong, it's all wrong to abandon Christianity. Between evolution and abiogensis, there's really no reason to even touch on cosmological origens, which tend to be even harder to understand.

So you think atheists don't have a right to care where they got their logic from? It's ironic that your statement is illogical.

I have meaning, I have tons of it. I was just talking about that the other day. Nature conservation is one of hundreds of things that make up my created purpose on Earth. Check it out...

First, we get our ideas of just and unjust from our logic, reason, and a moral code we inherit from our past. However i find the irony here to rich to pass up. Religion contrives it's rules of just and unjust from societal code that existed before it. And if you think for a second that the old testament has a better handle of just and unjust than I do, you're kidding yourself.

Religion is often psychological torture, Glenn, I really hope you try to step outside of your preconceived beliefs on this and disect what we're saying here.

First, thanks for the insult. Second, since we have authority do you now agree that our version of just and unjust is dictated to us by government and law enforcement, and not by god?

FWIW: Christians do good because of the ultimate fear (eternal punishment). Atheists do good because they want.

If you want to peg atheists as people who only do good because they'll be arrested if they don't, then I hope you're willing to be consistent and state that Christians only do good because of a fear of hell that they can't even prove exists. I'll take the atheist position if that's the argument, at least I can prove the police station exists.

I tend to think most Christians are good because of the fear of hell, not because they simply think it's wrong. And I know this, because they've told me time and time again.

As dumb as that quote was from C.S. Lewis, I'll leave it alone and address only your thoughts.

Obviously the last sentence isn't a logical possibility.

Wow Glenn, there's another one I have never heard. What brainwashing network are you pulling this stuff from? Online Preacher, Church, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News?

Now there's good advice... tread lightly as you continue to grow in faith, or maybe more appropriately turn around and run as fast as you can back to reality.

Give your atheist girlfriend a kiss from all of us.

I never said the genetics prooved the faith true. I. only stated that some people have faith because it might be in there genes.

And as far as volentaraly choosing it, there comes a point (with faith that is) when it's no longer a choice. It becomes part of you. It may be up and down,weak or strong at some points, but it's always there. This I believe to be the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:29-30 says, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be first born among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called, those he called, he also justified; those he justified he also glorified." This I admit may piss allot of people off, including me for a long time. However the more I think about it, I am in a sense honored and humbled because of it. It's not to say I go around all day thinking this. Ok. They are merely ideas which define a small part of my personallity. Perhaps they remind me not to judge others.   

Also I will try not to quote the Bible to much as it is bias to my arguments. I relise the topic at hand is God or no God.  I'm only doing it to make a point here. As a person's faith gets stronger and they grow as a Christian, They get a feeling that Christianity chooses us we don't choose it. I'm not trying to prove any thing with faith. It's not possible.  I can't see the need for Christianity if it were possible. That hense, is the sacrafice Christians give up. I gave my life to Christ. (And there is much more to say just on that sentence.)  

Belief in something with out proof is faith, which is necessary for the whole thing to work. If we could prove it, where is the trust and where is the risk? Trust is everything in faith, and I have trusted and have to believe I've seen it work.    

There are several levels to faith. And every Christian is different.

This is not to say that there is a certain point of faith every Christian needs to reach.  

I will say he should try his hardest to  be consistent in his search.

Allot was said here and it's clearly Christian based. It was only my intention to say that proof isn't necessary for Christianity to work, faith is. It comes from The Holy Spirit, which is the relationship between a person and God. 

This reply was not intended to try to prove anything to you. Only to express the need for faith in life, which ever system you put your faith into.

And one more thing.......

faith    

But you have not justified in precisely what the atheist has "faith", nor why faith would be an inherent necessity (it obviously is not). I can assure you that only the atheist is operating within correct epistemological boundaries of rationality.

As a scientist, I view "faith" as a worthless endeavor, and a useless word. I value, above all, empirical evidence and reason, as said Spinoza and Einstein. You have not even remotely begun to justify why on Earth anyone would regard faith as a good epistemological system, after all, that would be inherently contradictory to the term "epistemology", which means faith is not a method by which we gain knowledge. It's worthless, unless you have a logical proposition which would convince me otherwise, otherwise, the whole post was a mere ad nauseam fallacy, a proof by assertion, whereby you have still, as of yet, not justified, precisely what the atheist is supposed to have "faith" in. Any atheist worth his salt will be (or should be) versed in basic epistemic rights, and will know what is a rational reason for believing in claim x is. To my knowledge, "faith" is not covered under epistemic rights.

For further reading on this matter:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/what_are_epistemic_rights_a_basic_primer_in_critical_thinking

You will notice that "faith" is not a valid epistemology, for obvious reasons.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_argument_from_ignorance_and_its_uses_and_abuses

And by the way, "old fashioned" is not an inherent justification for holding long-since debunked arguments. It would be "old fashioned" the same way the geocentricism is old fashioned, or flat-earth hypothesis is "old fashioned". In Western philosophy, this is more or less analogous.

Fallacy of equivocation.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/doesnt_everyone_take_things_on_faith

Fallacy of non sequitor. Neither of you have justified the statement whereby the existence or non existence of conscious control would inherently give meaning to the universe, as such it is absurd. As I pointed out here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/religion_and_the_anthropocentric_fallacy

The notion that such conscious control aka God gives meaning to the universe is absurd and fallacious.

And as I showed in the last paragraph of this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_matter_information_conjecture_is_a_crisis_for_the_existence_of_god

It would be irrelevant, since such an entity would have no way of communicating with us.

The latter is impossible to defend, hence, why hold such a position? It’s untenable.

This is a contradictory statement, you realize that, do you not? You are making a fallacy of hypocrisy by the invocation of an entity “beyond logic” to explain such tautologies, but you have not even begun to justify why this would be necessary, so it is absurd. A self-evident way to see this is to point out:

P1 God is ‘above’ logic
P2 Therefore he is not bound to it
P3 Which means he can do the logically impossible.
P4 We cannot represent anything that contradicts logic.
C1 Therefore we cannot represent god. At all.
C2 Hence talking of god is necessarily incoherent and meaningless. QED

Your arguments are beginning to transcend basic fallacy into the realm of impossible incoherency. I am struggling to come to grips with what you are talking about most of the time.

Ad nauseam fallacy

Fallacy of equivocation.

Fallacy of non sequitor. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

“Faith in logic” is a contradictory phrase and an epistemological absurdity.

Did I not say before that any tautological proposition could be defended via retortion? Hence, the accusation of “faith” is surely utterly absurd. Even now, you are attempting, however feebly, to attack the epistemic viability of logic by constructing a premise-conclusion argument, and precisely what system are you using to build this? Hey, suprise, suprise! Logic, of course! So, you see, regardless of how you attempt to dodge the issue, inherently, you are doomed seeing as the function is so neurologically ingrained that you cannot hope to even function without it. Logic is the one thing you should never be stupid enough to attempt to refute, because, by your own admission, you would fail. 

Fallacy of equivocation. Again.

Sin is an absurd and contradictory concept. It has no meaning. And it is especially worthless when discussing the universe with an atheist, hence, I would ask you never to pretend as though he hold that absurd concept as well, because it is mind-numbingly idiotic. Otherwise, I will consider this a personal insult.

Ok back on track. To end, both of us Atheist and Christians alike exibit a large amount of faith in our own system

I believe I have already addressed the absurdities and contradictions in this statement.

So weather you call it God or Logic we are both worshiping and idoliizing some thing.

Hat trick fallacy of equivocation. And psych projection.

If we were apart from some thing from the begining, how could we know a feeling of absence from that some thing. Picture your self blind from birth and have never seen any thing. You wouldn't know what your missing. Thusly there would be no great concern in your head over it. Sure you would have to live your daily life differently, seeing eye dogs and all. But You might just say something like, " Apparently theres this thing called sight. They tell me it's wild but I don't see whats so great about it."

Also a blind person would have to believe that there is this thing called sight. And he is different from every one else. If he refused based on the logical situation for him, ( Never expeirencing sight) He would be wrong to us but not to him self. But think now if he suddenly awoke one day and saw for the first time ever.

Despite earnest efforts, I can find precisely nil link between your analogous description and the matter you are attempting to discuss, so I will simply write this off as a non sequitor.

Agreed, the only difference is my beliefs are held in peer reviewed journals that can be consistently verified and yours derive from an old holy book written by sexist ignorant men who were most likely shrooming (that, or they were senile).

Yes you should've considering your first argument was an attack on the language used by someone else, you probably should've held yourself to the same journalistic(or logical) standards you were espousing.

No it wouldn't be like saying that. The whoping difference here is we can prove a brain exists and can show you how it functions, you can do neither with god. The analoogy is ridiculous, and Glenn you're old enough and wise enough to have seen that first.

Prove it.

You should read books on this issue Glenn. It's not likely you'll grasp this stuff if you're making ridiculous analogies like above and presupposing devils and gods in place of the science here.

What you're doing is called an "argument from ignorance," you should look that up as well.

Share your own customer images

Search inside this book

Share your own customer images

Search inside this book

Share your own customer images

Search inside this book

It's actually more like a broken strawman than a non sequitor. The logic didn't change, you're point is innacurate. The logic is...

1. man needs food to survive

2. in order to survive man must put food in mouth

3. man is responsible for arranging to have someone else put his food in his mouth, or he must do it himself

4. because man wants to survive, man seeks food

5. man eats food

6. man survives

This is a humorous logical proof, but that's the jist. Mans logic was the same both times, simply his means of attaning food vary based on the environment he is in.

It's more accurate to call it a disease, and if you think the disease is actually a cure not a disease, then you in fact most likely have the disease. A disease that helps anyone live a life of delusion, so powerful that'll make you think your disease is actually a cure.

Just curious Glenn... what exactly do you think faith CURES?

Glenn... you've been brainwashed. My professional opinion is to watch this video 6 times a day for the next 5 years (it'll help deprogramming, say it aloud as well) and accompany it with as much research you can do on the issue.

Greg there's no nice way to put this. The TAG argument is only embraced by the dumbest people of our society. It is the little yellow school bus of arguments for god.

Feel free to read this, then read as much as you need to, look for things that debunk TAG: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/billings_tag.html

Here is another from one of our core members: http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

I can't speak with you further at this time as it is futile. I make it a practice to avoid wasting my time with TAGers as they are generally incapable or unwilling to ever understand how reality works. Sorry to just get up and walk away from this, but I'm just too busy to engage with a TAGer.

Good luck Glen, I will look back and hope to engage you again if you can overcome TAG.