There is no evidence or logical basis for Mcgrath's statement that Dawkins is helping creationists and fundamentalists. Although moderate, he has shown a prejudice here in and a lack of smarts. He still can not refute dawkins central argument: what does the Christian religion offer as evidence, apart from their sincere faith and scripture (which most religions have), that their religion/God is true? None. And they criticise others for pointing this FACT out?
@StateOfHead I really hope you're kidding. Haven't you followed the Kalam cosmological argument, the auspicious fine tuning of the universal constants, the moral argument-there's evidential basis for faith other than revelation. But I agree that McGraph for all his education in the sciences takes a very revelatory/historical approach which disappoints me. And as I anticipate a retort which says there is nothing that proves God, you are quite correct. I'm only talking evidence-nothing more.
@jerrydecaire1 You are not talking evidence, your talking arguments. Nothing more. Lets give the benefit of the doubt, and say ok lets assume there is some type of creator. On what basis do you massively leap to the very explicit Christian explanation of the universe? There is no evidential basis that is truth. In fact, Christian explanation for the creation of the universe is proven completely false. So, you would certainly dump Christianity and move on to something else!.
@StateOfHead No, I won't concede that. I'm talking evidence AND argument. The one does not preclude the abcense of the other. Background radiation and the red shift are "evidence" for the big bang-not just an argument. Similarly, fine tuning is evidence for some vague "bearer of intention" or "primal mind," due to the improbability of chance accounting for dead matter alligning itself to make manifest self awareness and consciousness. But then you leap to Christianity being proven false? How?
@jerrydecaire1 Well this is evidence there is no point trying to reason with closed minds. So you don't need to prove the truth of Christianity, you are saying I need to prove its false. I need to prove somehting is false you say is true with no evidence! You give no basis to go from a "vague" creator to Christianity. When it comes to the crunch, religious people can only weedle and worm out of the crushing logic that shows there is no evidence their religious beliefs are true.
@StateOfHead What would be the evidence that my mind isn't closed? That i agree with you? Is that the measure of intellect for you? If they agree=open minded, if they don't agree=closed minded. Nice formula you've got going there. I never said you need to prove Christianity false-you claimed that you DID prove it false and I asked how? As for the "crushing logic" (and that is how you perceive yourself-right? The man with the crushing logic), I've yet to see it.
@jerrydecaire1 Weedle and worm. Look at what I originally said "what does the Christian religion offer as evidence, apart from their sincere faith and scripture (which most religions have), that their religion/God is true? None. And they criticise others for pointing this FACT out?". What if I was open to persuasion? Its an unequivocally logical question, and you have provided no answer. Its still "none". Poetic and emotional arguments, as seductive as they are, is not evidence.
@StateOfHead Worm and weedle. I wasn't even making the case for Christianity if you would bother to read. I was making the case for consciousness being primal rather than some secondary epipehnomenon of a bottom-up theory. As for Christianity, you are right-absolutely! There is no proof to the larger public platform though some insist they have their proof on a more personal level and that science isn't the only way to knowledge. If you need to knock on God like wood then knock on consciousness.
@jerrydecaire1 You have made no such case. You suffer the same conceptual problem as Christianity. Where is the evidence? It will come down to poetic and emotional arguments. Nice talking with you though.
@StateOfHead Glad you asked. The two-slit experiment has been replicated for nearly 80 years and it keeps coming up the same-a conscious observer determines the behavior of a wave/particle with all variables taken into account. You can review one experiment in 2002 : Physical Review A (65, 033818). Another similar experiment ran by Dean radin will be published in the peer-reviewed Physics essays this summer. Any peer reviewed research proving god isn't real? Ah yes, the burden of proof schtick!
@jerrydecaire1 Oh dear. I studied physics - I know double slit and how little we know of the sub-atom. The burden is not on me to prove you false because you have proven nothing! The double slit does not prove what you say. The rules of physics get very seemingly bizarre with sub-atoms and big bang, but you don't explain it with snake oil and call it true. I'll leave it to you dude.
@StateOfHead Well then, since you studied physics (undergrad?) you will have a retort for the results of that experiment. lay it on me. I'm all ears. But those experiments made Max Planck say "“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” -Max Planck
I take it you know more than Max Planck? Niels Bohr?
@jerrydecaire1 So to make "the case for consciousness being primal rather than some secondary epipehnomenon of a bottom-up theory." you rely on the double slit (which was a little more about waves and particles) and what Planck hypothesised (but never proved) about consciousness, and you throw in a school-boy "nah naha nah" about me not knowing more than Plank (despite the massive findings since his death over 60 yrs ago). Brilliant. Oh well you got me there...
@StateOfHead Well, you're always welcome to try and discredit those findings that have been redone in 2002 and will be published again in 2012 with the same results-a conscious observer seems to cause a wave of potentials to collapse into a particle reality. They have tried it every way to ensure the camera or whatever was done to observe wasn't causing the collapse-everything was considered and it came up the same.
@jerrydecaire1 I find it fascinating how the atheist boasts they go with the experiemntal evidence but when it counters their worldview, all of a sudden the science is nonsense.
@jerrydecaire1 scientists like learning new things and correcting their perspective when wrong, as even Stephen Hawking did when he found a flaw in his black hole theories. If there was anything at all that even remotely proved god existed then scientific opinion would take it seriously and examine it. That is the issue, that even when Christianity is proven wrong, theists just back pedal further.
Don't let your ignorance guide you. There is evidence that man made god, not the other way around.
@jerrydecaire1 Nothing to discredit. I agree the "findings show a conscious observer seems to cause a wave of potentials to collapse into a particle reality". Thats not new dude. But that is not what you seem to be saying (although you are not clear). It ceratinly doesn't show "consciousness being primal" or the cosmic implications of that. A massive leap with no evidence just like religions. This kind of thing has the pungent smell of Deepak Chopra nonsense.
@StateOfHead Okay, at least we are in agreement as to what the results show. All I am saying is that it STRONGLY suggests that somehow mind is intrinsically a player in the grand scheme of things-that mind may be tied up with matter in a way we can't comprehend at this time. I thought it would be obvious that this may be a pointer that consciousness is foundational and not just an epiphenomenon of matter-counter to bottom-up theories. Primal mind, or "GOD" is not so impossible anymore.
@StateOfHead As for Deepak, I go more for Robert Lanza. Chopra is far too "guru" from the sixties for me-and though I don't agree with Shermer's materialism, I agree with his assessment of Deepak with his cosmic "flapdoodle." All the people I have mentioned are mainstream scientists except outer-fringe Dean radin who I think has been dealt a bad rap unfairly. He's been characterized as some "voodo guy" by mainstream science but science shouldn't be about popularity.
@IPFreely1021 Abiogenesis hypothesis' are demonstrating better results with top-down applications rather than bottom-down applications suggesting "mind" is operating as an agent in the creation of life. Mechanism is not a replacement for agency. And probs not working backwards is true for a singular and simple event, like tossing a ring and having it land on a thin post or winning the lotto, but not an array of improbs multiplied by one another until they defy reason to think its only chance,
Dawkins is in a way though. Dawkins has said numerous times that he don't think religion and evolution is incompatible. Just like creationists says. For people in America for example, where there's sometimes troubles around teaching evolution its difficult because some religious folks deems it as anti-religious. According to Dawkins, it is.
@Svankmajer creationists and evolutionists have the common belief that religion and science are incompatible. but they are essentially agreeing that the two of them are deeply opposed. so it logically follows that Dawkins is creationists best ENEMY, and not friend. I never heard Dawkins say that he doesnt think religion and evolution are incompatible. he always made it clear that they are INcompatible.
Your message is a bit confusing to me, but yeah, of course Dawkins is the enemy of creationism. What I'm saying is that Dawkins has said he gives creationism to at least take the Bible as real, and not just cherrypick. Dawkins kind of says evolution makes The Bible obsolete, which is what creationists want to hear.
@Svankmajer yes its true, creationists ARE honest and take the bible literally. but why would creationists want to hear how the bible is obsolete by evolution. I just dont understand why alister would imply that dawkins is in a way creationists best friend.
even if dawkins made it clear that he proposed that evolution is compatible, he would stil be rendered an enemy to creationists and not a friend. I dont get alister.
Well, creationists usually have problems with theists claiming you can believe in evolution and religion at the same time. In USA there has been problems with teaching evolution because some christians has with success preached evolution = atheism, but their case has falled. Dawkins "kind of" gives creationists what they want to hear in that sense, because he has said that evolution was the reason he gave up faith as a youngster, and that he don't see what role god can have in it.
@Svankmajer Once again youve mentioned what creationists and dawkins have in common, and thats xtianity and evolution incompatibility. I think what you mean to say, or what alister means to say is that, dawkins seems to force people to "choose" xtianity or evolution. and creationists will then choose xtianity. but lol its not that simple. alister just wanted to sound bold in that statement and instead sounded idiotic. dawkins is obviously just being divisive is anything...
@hello83558 actually, I'd say they do. that's what ultimately makes them so special and significant. if science can explain it then it's just another thing that happened. that's the way I look at it, at least.
@Klash92 well, we have substantial evidence to say that there is no man on the north pole going around the world in one night, we have substantial evidence to say that Elvis really is dead, we have substantial evidence to say that fairies aren't real. we have substantial evidence to say that Jesus existed as did his apostles and the resurrection being the most logical reason for the explosion of christianity out of judaism.
@kubrox91 Hippo from the zoo? Haha just kidding. They can say what they like to make their religion more in tune with science. But the plain words of the ancient text are there for all to read. Next I guess they (or apologists like them) would say that rising from the dead doesn't really mean rising from the dead. Walking on water isnt really walking on water. Jesus was merely walking on a puddle.
@Klash92 Actually, I'd say you should take the Gospels literally on the sense of the miracles and more importantly the Resurrection, because the resurrection is the basis of the Christian faith. physically speaking, not metaphorically speaking. Saint Paul didn't go into a city screaming RESURRECTION to convey a guy's ideas are passing on, he was screaming it to convey a guy came back to life.
@Klash92 okay, for me it's the fact that all of the apostles did exist and Jesus most likely existed, as well, being referenced in the acts of phillip, josephus' antiquity of the Jews, the talmud, the dead sea scrolls, and as I said before, the reason for Christianity exploding out of Judaism being an actual resurrection which all the apostles ended up dying to prove, as well as the fact that the first witnesses were women, who were not allowed to hold witness in that era of palestine.
@Klash92 as for the existence of God, I'd say that it would be mathematics, like the universe cannot be both infinite in past and expansion, you cannot subtract infinity from infinity, and existence cannot create itself, X creates Y but X creates X is a contradiction.
@kubrox91 My math sucks. Don'y understand what u mean. I would say that if the universe cannot be both infinite in past and expansion, what makes u think yr god is? If existence cannot create itself, how does yr god exists?
@Klash92 and sometimes it comes down to miraculous claims, like the nun who had been cured of her parkinsons' after prayer or a man being cured of spinal stynosis, all of which claims have boggled medical people.
@kubrox91 Every religion has its miraculous claims, Why not believe them rather than the gospels? The nun's case seems more probability if true. I would be more impressed if an amputee nun grew her legs and arms back. ;-)
@Klash92 I think sometimes it takes shear will to be skeptical. As Dostoyevsky wrote in the Brothers Karamasov: the genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find the strength and the ability to disbelieve in the miraculous and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact, he would rather deny his own senses than admit.
@Klash92 But we should just stop arguing. I believe that I have evidence to believe in God, you have your own evidence to say there is no God. can't we just put it beside us and get along?
@kubrox91 We are not arguing. I replied to you as best I could (I am not a Sam Harris or Dawkins after all). You haven't pointed out anything wrong with what I said. I accept it if you prefer to believe things based on little or no evidence.
I actually like McGrath's parting shot here, where he says that Dawkins' position on science and religion gives theists credibility.
Because it's a horrible logical fallacy being made that discrediting one view automatically gives weight to any other view. It's obviously false, but creationists have been using this for ages, and rational minds who hear this immediately see McGrath for the intellectual microbe he is.
Thank you, McGrath, for shooting yourself in the foot some more.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
By what long stretch of his imagination does McGrath think science is consistant with the Christian faith?
Men walking on water? Resurrection from the dead? A 6 day creation? A Global flood? A man being kidnapped by a "Great fish"? The ages of the ancestors of Abraham in Genesis 5? I would love to see testable peer review observations that these things can happen-Lol!!
@Thensolomonsaid "If you study the texts of other cultures it seems there was a great flood."
Ha ha!!- If you study the birth of civilisations, you'll see that they mostly formed on deltas. Floods were a big problem and fear.
If you study the geological history of the world, you'll discover there were many "great floods".
If you study middle eastern archeology, particularly Sumarian mythology you'll see that all the floods in "Noah's" area had the same source which predate biblical chronology.
@Thensolomonsaid "If you study the texts of other cultures it seems there was a great flood"
If you study science and physics you would know that the Genesis flood could not have happened
If you understood medical chemistry, genetics, molecular biology, you would understand that life on earth, as described in Genesis, did not bottleneck to 2 individuals of each species around 4500 years ago.
Physics and geology will tell you that a global flood couldn't happen! - Zoology that it didn't!
Ty,pical irrational theist! He thinks science can be "interpreted" the way his "Holy scriptures" are.
McGrath had his chance to put this bullshit to Dawkins face, and wound up squirming, on the rationality of his own dogma, like a schoolboy in the headmasters study!
As for Dawkins' attitude giving creationism credibility, I see very little of McGrath, challenging creationists directly anywhere, nor justifying his compromised interpretation of the same text, which he claims, inform his belie!f
As an atheist, I have to admit I admire Dr. McGrath. Far from being a dogmatic evangelist, his arguments are lucid, cogent, and well-presented. I feel I need to be challenged by intelligent counter-views, and appreciate his honesty, his common sense, and his logic. Thanks for uploading this video.
Religious people in the past want to edge out science.Today they claim science proof the existence of god. Why? Obviously when it comes to religious believes, they can say whatever they choose to believe.I will not be surprised someday they will claim space-time is god!
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
the problem for you is that we atheists dont see god at all and neither in fact does anyone and therefore we dont need to disprove the existence of a spiritual being untill you prove it.
@northernvibes1 Can't argue with that.I hope some day the light will enter your life and bring the relief from your ,no point to it, existence. God bless you.
you may say light you could also say darkness, the point for me is to sit in wonder and ponder how we came to be and i dont need a blessing from any real or imagined entity thank you very much
@Thensolomonsaid "The problem with most atheists is they think all christians see God as some white robed Charlton Heston figure sitting on a cloud"
No, what bothers you believers about atheists, is that we don't see YOUR definition of "God" as any kind of a plausible possibility at all. We have no picture of any "god" at all, except what is painted by the fantasised claims of believers, or the texts they are informed from.
@Tobytrim It dosn't bother me at all.I was an atheist for all but the last three years.I was the last person you could expect to believe in a God.But sometimes things happen that change your perceptions.I wish you well.
@Thensolomonsaid" It dosn't bother me at all.I was an atheist for all but the last three years"
Forgive my apparent cynicism, but who's "God" did you eventually decide on? Was it the god of another culture? Did you simply make your own up?
Or did you suddenly and finally, abandon the rationality, and respect for empirical evidence, which kept you from believing in the superstitious and metaphysical twaddle which your cultural upbringing has been programming you towards since you were born?
@Tobytrim I used to talk like you.I did not decide on a God as you put it.I can not prove there is a God to you no more than you can prove anything about the creation of the Universe to me.I read the Bible as a guide only.I am not saying the Bible was not manipulated by the hand of man.But overall the message of peace and love for your fellow man is good.I believe in a Universal spirituality and that is my God but being born in the west means i practice it in a way i find familiar.
They're the first line of the old song "I used to be an atheist like you".
Sung by all the more prominent apologists with no better argument to resort to. Strobel, Mcgrath, Kirk Cameron, McDowell
The big problem is that not a single one has a reasoned argument to offer, as a theist, to negate the reasoning that inform current atheists rejection the superstitions THEY now adopt!
@Thensolomonsaid ".I believe in a Universal spirituality and that is my God but being born in the west means i practice it in a way i find familiar. "
I take it you assume as much validity exists in Buddhism? That Ganesh or Shiva are as much a true "God" as Yahweh, or Jesus? You seem to be admitting that if you had lived in a different culture you would have opted for a different "God".
If the very defined MONOtheistic god is not unique, by it's own definition, it doesn't exist.
@Thensolomonsaid "But overall the message of peace and love for your fellow man is good"
The "message" works for atheists too. Why do you need to posit the superstitions and irrational fairy tales, of an ancient and less enlightened culture, as fact, to think peace and love are a good idea?
I can assure you that the followers of Jesus have been virtually universal in our western culture for almost 20 centuries without showing much interest in peace, love, or empathy for their fellow man.
The problem with most Christians is that they fail to define the God they believe in. Or they say something very wet and meaningless like "God is Love" or " God is the prime mover"
P.S. Charlton Heston in a white robe sitting on a cloud would be really cool!
defining would probably be very arrogant since God did never define Himself in the Bible. The only time God is describing Himself is in exodus 3. God says "I AM"
I think what we can only define is one side of God, what we experience. God cannot be put in a box (and yes it would be cool with the white robe thing ^^).
Arrogant? It's not arrogant to give something a definition. A set of properties that a hypothetical thing X must be to satisfy "being a God (or The God)"
I'm not asking for a huge amount of precision here. I use plenty of words that are hard to define (like "thing" or "justice" or "light") but I don't use any word without having kind of definition in mind.
If you talk about God and expect me to understand what you're saying you have to give some working definition of God.
It seems we have misunderstood eachother. I was trying to point to the pointlessness of trying to give a complete and precise definition of God, whereas it seems like you thought I was saying there no definition at all.
There are some adjectives that apply to God. Eternal is one, creator should be another one (for the God of the Bible). caring, loving, powerful, mighty, just and others can also be used.
@Thensolomonsaid The problem with most Christians is that they think that atheists think all Christians see God as some white robed Charlton Heston figure sitting on a cloud.
When science has an answer for all the questions,one will remain unanswered,what was there before the big bang.This will be theoretically answered and then taught as fact like a lot of other questions they can't answer with absolute proof.
@Thensolomonsaid It goes even further than that. Lets say hypotheticall they can prove without a doubt what happened before the big bang. What they can not answer is why is there existence at all?
@northernvibes1 No not at all.If there were no living entities at all.Nothing in the whole universe /multiverse that had the means to see or feel or be.Would the universe/multiverse exist ?
It is amazing to see a person of science speak with such disregard for logic. You can talk pretty all you want, but in the end, unless you can provide evidence for your claims, then it is a mute point and purely argumentative. Religion is very poweful and a huge business, they can buy anyone they want. So, now we have scientists speaking on behalve of religion. Money is everything, isn't it? If there ever was a god, it has to be money.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
@OrthodoxDarwinist Atheism: the (lack of a) belief that In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Really makes much more sense
To be entirely honest and I'm not trying to offend anyone here, this is just what I think is happening. I think that religion in general, mainly Christianity are afraid in a sense that religion is slowly dying and maybe some of them see that they way they think cannot be used in a modern world of science and reason and so they are trying to have their cake and eat it by suggesting silly claims that religion can work with science and reason but I don't think it can. Its contradictory to say so.
@NavXD Thank you for your respectful tone. We need more people like you in debates. I believe I can provide a partial answer to your post. I think the 'crisis' in religious faith is really the end process of the Enlightenment, which taught that no objective truth can be found in religion. It is not that science and religion clash; it is about competing visions of looking at reality. Many people USE science to justify atheism, but science and religion are about different things. Is that helpful?
@AchillesShield Yes, it does help... to a certain extent. I thank you for your respectful tone also but I think your missing my point entirely. Religion on its own, I have no problem with, In fact, one of my best friends believes in god. The part that I think is wrong is when religious nutcases try to shove their faith in other peoples faces, it can't be done that way. Science and religion cannot work together, science works, religion doesn't. (I would type more but the character limit sucks)
Alister McGrath is illogical and deluded, he makes no sense at all and has simply mastered the art of answering questions without answering anything so often used in politics. I don't believe for a second he was an Atheist in the manner he often claims. Yet another delusion from a Christian mind. Waste of time watching someone who can't even make valid points to justify his imagined conversion.
You realize you have simply just decided he is a liar, before anything is said? Of course you won't agree with someone if you judge them beforehand. That get's you nowhere, and is unfair.. Argue with his points, claiming he is a liar and delusional is immature and unhelpful.
@vmcnick assuming me to be immature based on far less information than the countless videos I have seen of McGrath to develop my opinion of his delusional state is far less helpful. The more you watch him, the more you too will understand that he never actually comes up with any valid points to discuss. How could I argue with the pointless and silly?
It is absurd to suggest Dawkins "gives Creationists intellectual credibility". Creationists have NO intellectual backing for their claims at all..
If you think they have no credibility, you haven't been watching enough. You've DECIDED before anything else that they are wrong, and therefore fail to see anything worthwhile in their arguments. Have an open mind. If you want Christians to have an open mind, then do the same. Atheists are as delusional as Christians, honestly. No one's doctrine is perfect. In fact, everyone's is so flawed. Everyone puts faith in their own system, because we cannot understand enough on our own.
@vmcnick I assume given you say creationists have credibility you're a fundamentalist christian or a comment troll? No rational person of sound mind would say "Atheists are as delusional as christians". Atheists simply have no belief in a god, but would believe in one if there was evidence. Many christians are unshakable in faith that they know this supernatural being intimately and a book written at the infancy of intellect holds all his truths and are willing to kill over its interpretations.
"Simply no belief in God" is the most loaded simple statement I have ever heard. It is just as ridiculous as saying "I simply believe in God." Both statements come with a whole slew of implications.
No rational person? Why does God have to be rational? If God exists, he certainly doesn't have to play by your rules.
Willing to kill...? You are making a straw man there... I'm sure there are atheists willing to kill christians too but that is an insignificant representation of both.
@vmcnick I think your issue is you don't understand the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist and have chosen to remain ignorant of definition.
Vince, try re-reading what I wrote. I can only assume you didn't read it to make such a bizarre leap from
"No rational person of sound mind would say 'Atheists are as delusional as christians'"
Does dodging questions consist of "highlighting how wrong someone is?" Atheists are indeed good at that I guess...
By saying "fundamentalist Christian" you have already missed the point. You imply that fundamentalist is a "bad word" or something. I am Christian. I might as well call you a fundamentalist who is reacting to Christian beliefs as much as I am one reacting to modern atheism... But it is clear to me that you don't really understand anything you're saying. Keep spouting.
@vmcnick you're adorable. What questions have you asked that you think I dodged?
Anyone reading this thread can see I have indeed pointed out your flawed logic and lack of credibility, how is it that you cannot?
"fundamentalist" relating to religion IS a bad word as it generally implies someone with no capacity for reason or critical thought. In extreme cases it implies someone who is willing to kill for no intelligible reason.
Nothing is clear to you Vince, you have demonstrated that.
Again, you just played into EXACTLY what I said... You say fundamentalism "implies" something, yet you have no understanding why. You are just using it as a way to delegitamize another's views. Fundamentalist just means "reactionary." Christians are reacting to modern atheism by positing their own beliefs. You understand nothing. What did you not answer? Let me quote myself : "Why does God have to be rational?" Also, you never addressed your "I simply don't believe in God" statemnt
So if you admit God doesn't have to be a rational being, your entire argument for believing in his existence being "irrational" is swept away. That was my point of the question... Since you admit he does not have to be rational, your entire system of thought on how you know something has been rendered useless, leaving other ways a possibility. Say, faith? Revelation? All are up for discussion. Thank you. Let's discuss.
@vmcnick not sure why you wrote that, I never said believing in god's existence is irrational. I said calling an atheist delusional was irrational, which it still is true, so your trailing argument are also incorrect.
@vmcnick "I simply don't believe in God" WAS addressed, as I said: "I think your issue is you don't understand the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist". Look it up and learn something.
"You say fundamentalism 'implies' something, yet you have no understanding why" um I think everyone alive on the earth now except you understands why 'religious fundamentalism' implies a negative connotation. Have you not heard of 9/11, Suicide bombers, Doctor killing christians? Learn some logic.
I'm also curious to see where you "proved" anything. The only thing you have said so far is that Christians are deluded, and yet you supply no evidence why other than saying... well... that they are deluded. Which makes you deluded, because you believe something to be true and yet can't explain why... Oh, and you also brought up that meaningless point about killing that served no purpose. Oh, and that Christians are "unshakable in faith," which I find ironic because you are too.
@vmcnick "Christians are 'unshakable in faith,' which I find ironic because you are too."
Interesting thought to bring up. To call me unshakable in faith suggests I have faith in something. What exactly do you think I have faith in? Do you think it takes faith to not believe in faith? That is misguided logic and wrong by definition.
Re "meaningless point about killing" no atheist would ever kill because they are atheist, but people kill because of faith. It gives license to immoral behaviour.
@anthropic1 Your faith resides in the belief in the improbable occurence of unintentional dead matter aligning itself into 3 billion letters of DNA with associated quaternary protein structures/enzymes all by itself. You BELIEVE they then gave rise to self awareness and was a means for the universe to become self aware and introspective through us and all by chance. That is definitely a belief system no matter how you slice it or dice it. I'm sure you'll argue it as you're a Dawkins groupie.
@vmcnick "proved" eh? What are you talking about? Atheists have nothing to prove, people of faith do.
To steal a quote from someone I heard once, "when you can understand why you don't believe in Zeus or the Egyptian God Ra, then you will understand why I can't believe in yours" (something like that).
"Which makes you deluded, because you believe something to be true and yet can't explain why" I can explain why, I can discuss in email if you like, these character count messages are annoying?
You have nothing to prove? You have to prove that there is nothing. You have faith that there is nothing beyond you. You have no way to prove that God doesn't exist - you are making an assumption. You have to prove to me that there is no God as much as I have to prove there is one. It DOES take faith to say there is nothing... Who told you there was nothing? Are you really trusting your own reason to tell you that? If so, why is your reason the ultimate judge? Feel free to message.
@vmcnick My reason for saying there is nothing is that I see no reason to say there is something. Well, let me be more precise, I see no reason to say that there is a Christian God, or Russell's teapot, or a host of other overly specific ideas that there is no evidence for. You see, the point is that it takes only a LACK of evidence to believe something is NOT the case, but it takes the PRESENCE of evidence to believe something IS the case. Therefore it requires much less faith to be an atheist!
Yes, but that means all you can say is "I do not know if there is something or nothing at all." I understand being unsure, but I'm tired of people saying "Prove it to me" when they have just as hard of a time proving to me that there is no God as there being one. A lack of evidence suggests nothing other than a lack of evidence. Just because you lack evidence doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means you haven't found any evidence yet...
@vmcnick Yes, but the point of that is Russell's teapot - you can make an equally strong case for its existence based on those arguments. A lack of evidence DOES suggest something more, at least it does when people have been looking, wanting and needing evidence, and have not found any. That strongly suggests that the evidence is not there to be found, because what it would defend simply isn't true/doesn't exist. There is a question of burden of proof here and it's not on the atheists' side.
Again, I understand you, but to say "there is no God" versus "there is no proof of God" are two very different claims. One suggests they have already proved God's non existence, while the other merely claims there is nothing to suggest to them that God exists. However, that does not mean he does not exist, and there is still the burden on you to tell me why you know he doesn't exist. If you said "I'm not convinced he exists" I would understand.
@vmcnick Of course, I don't technically "know" that he doesn't exist, but I am, as an acquaintance of Richard Dawkins once said, "toothfairy agnostic". I don't "know" that the toothfairy doesn't exist either, but I don't feel that I have to justify that claim and produce evidence before I can assert my relative conviction. I feel more or less the same way about Russell's teapot, the flying spaghetti monster, and the Christian God. Again, that's not "knowing", and there would be ...cont
@vmcnick cont... a burden of proof on me if I was to be able to say that I "know". But I maintain that without any evidence, after people have indeed looked for such evidence, it is quite a lot more plausible to say that he (probably/most likely/almost certainly) doesn't exist than it is to say that he does.
Of course, I agree it could be seen as less plausible. That's all I am saying. It is not impossible, but if you think it is less probable that is completely different.
@vmcnick I'm a Christian but I can see where this is going. The atheist will say the positive claimant has the burden of proof because you can never disprove a negative. Actually, that's not true as you can prove there have been no Arab presidents in the US. But that's a category mistake as Arabs are not invisible-like Santa Claus-another negative which cannot be disproven. If you claim Santa or God is real, you must show they are-or so they say. But burden of proof can be fallacious argument
@jerrydecaire1 no less than any other. And why? Absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence. We didn't always know that Pluto was there but in time, we discovered it. Did it not exist when we didn't have proof? Of course it did and so may God. The Zeus argument may be weaker than realized as even Zeuss may have been a reflection of a greater truth-that man has suspected some primal mover for a long time and its definition has grown more sophisticated as in monotheism which is far more
@jerrydecaire1 likely. It's our experiential relationship with God that makes us go there in the first place-answered prayer, precognitive dreams that pan out, deja-vu that is validated by thrird parties, spiritual elation and epiphany, and people coming back from NDE's with talents they never had, etc. Paul said things like these are spiritually appraised and are foolishness to the natural man-that said 2000 years ago and it's alive, here, today in these posts. You have your proof.
@jerrydecaire1 But your subjective experiences will only be counted as deusions though you and I know better. The door doesn't open for them because they never knock-sincerely knock! They never find because they don't seek. They don't want to. The atheist says hell is absurd too and I once thought so. But if God is the incarnation of love, and you want nothing to do with him, as a gentleman he will allow that and separation from love will only get you a dark and evil place=hell! They made their
@anthropic1 I'm a Christian and I agree. McGrath is a historical theologist first and is less scientific in his arguments though he is a scientist-or was. A lot of fluff, hyperbole, and verbose language getting us nowhere. I keep asking, "Please get to the point." If you want a more scientific view John Lennox is the man. But even this is no proof but he does make a case for evidence. And before I hear there is none, atheists: look up evidence and proof in the dictionary-PLEASE!
@jerrydecaire1 I'm familiar with Lennox and know well the flaws in his arguments, but I'm concerned based on the initial comment you sent me and some of the lame arguments used against @StateOfHead that you are just a flame baiter, copy & pasting from ideological & discredited "how to argue with an Atheist" type books.
Sorry if that's not the reality, but I'm just not interested.
If you want people to respond to you, try being less condescending, especially when your own arguments are so weak.
@anthropic1 I never copied and pasted anything. I can think well enough on my own but i do research these topics as do you. Unless you'd have me believe you are responsible for civilization.
As for my arguments being weak, pick one and tell me why. My arguments may indeed be weak, but this last post from you is not even an argument, just an insult-that's an adhominem attack.
@jerrydecaire1 congratulations on knowing what adhominem means, you must have been dying for a chance to use it. Being a condescending ass as you are (and I just was), you really don't make people want to discuss a topic with you.
Your comment is a lazy non sequitur and quite insepid, if you can't see that then you betray yourself to the truth in my perceptions of you. I challenge you to find your own flaws before asking others to find them for you. It will improve your conversations if you do.
@TimofAwsome Both science and christianity aprehend the rationality that exist in the whole reality. Reason and logic are not creation of the mind, but the apprehension of something that is out there. Remember, science is only possible because the whole reality is rational, what allows the very existence of the scientific method.
@prk30 But christianity doesn't follow rationality. Science says the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that living things evolve, christianity says the earth is about 6000 years old and rejects evolution. One of them is clearly failing at properly "apprehending what is out there", and I'm betting it ain't science
@TimofAwsome Christianity not only follows rationality, but it is the ground of modern science. Divergences about how old is earth come mainly from the ones who take the Bible literally, instead of understanding its context. And when I say that logic and rationality are "out there", I mean it. Science is only possible because reality is full of rationality, so that you can predict scientific laws. Philosophers realized that since ancient Greek.
@TimofAwsome Divergences about an hypothesis does not mean lack of rationality: even scientists (many of them atheists) don't believe in evolution at all.
@prk30 So your admitting that christianity taken in a literal sense is irrational? As in literally believing everything that the holy book of the religion says.
And coming from a jew with the same story of creation as christians, the context appears to be in a literal sense, which is why christians believed in the young earth until science kicked in.
@prk30 Oh, and are you saying that evolution is only a hypothesis? And:
"even scientists don't believe in evolution at all" I find this a pretty poor choice of words. I really hope you meant to say SOME because you phrased it as if scientists in general don't except it. And polls certainly show that the % of scientists who reject evolution entirely is a VERY small minority, and most of them (maybe some) aren't athiests.
@TimofAwsome Maybe you don't remember, but it all started with you asking a simple question: How is science consistent with christian beliefs"?" I answered your question. But we can move on. When I say "even scientists.. at all", it's obvius I mean some scientists. Science is not about agreement, but confrontation of different hypothesis.
By the way: Yes, I am saying that evolution is only a hypothesis. If an hypothesis can not be refuted, it's not scientific. Read Karl Popper.
@prk30 You never gave a solid answer to why Christianity is conisistent with science. You said christianity is the ground of modern science. Is that your answer to my original question? Explanation please? And you said logic is absolute, which is true, but how does christianity follow that logic and rationality? Saying things that contradict evidence, fact, and common sense seems to be very irrational, and thats not my opinion, that's "ABSOLUTE".
@TimofAwsome You say that most of scientists believe in evolution. Let me tell you something: the truth of an hypothesis does not come from the number of people who believe it is right. A single scientist can be right, and thousands can be wrong. I am not saying that evolution did not happen, but majority is meaningless if they they are wrong. Most of materialistic scientists DO NOT believe human beings have a mind or a real "self", and we are nothing but genetic machines.
@prk30 You're right, the truth of a hypothesis comes from the overwhelming evidence and facts that support it. THAT is what makes evolution true. In other words, it isn't true because most scientists believe it, most scientists believe in evolution because it's true.
There is no evidence or logical basis for Mcgrath's statement that Dawkins is helping creationists and fundamentalists. Although moderate, he has shown a prejudice here in and a lack of smarts. He still can not refute dawkins central argument: what does the Christian religion offer as evidence, apart from their sincere faith and scripture (which most religions have), that their religion/God is true? None. And they criticise others for pointing this FACT out?
StateOfHead 1 month ago
@StateOfHead I really hope you're kidding. Haven't you followed the Kalam cosmological argument, the auspicious fine tuning of the universal constants, the moral argument-there's evidential basis for faith other than revelation. But I agree that McGraph for all his education in the sciences takes a very revelatory/historical approach which disappoints me. And as I anticipate a retort which says there is nothing that proves God, you are quite correct. I'm only talking evidence-nothing more.
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 You are not talking evidence, your talking arguments. Nothing more. Lets give the benefit of the doubt, and say ok lets assume there is some type of creator. On what basis do you massively leap to the very explicit Christian explanation of the universe? There is no evidential basis that is truth. In fact, Christian explanation for the creation of the universe is proven completely false. So, you would certainly dump Christianity and move on to something else!.
StateOfHead 1 week ago
@StateOfHead No, I won't concede that. I'm talking evidence AND argument. The one does not preclude the abcense of the other. Background radiation and the red shift are "evidence" for the big bang-not just an argument. Similarly, fine tuning is evidence for some vague "bearer of intention" or "primal mind," due to the improbability of chance accounting for dead matter alligning itself to make manifest self awareness and consciousness. But then you leap to Christianity being proven false? How?
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 "absence"
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 Well this is evidence there is no point trying to reason with closed minds. So you don't need to prove the truth of Christianity, you are saying I need to prove its false. I need to prove somehting is false you say is true with no evidence! You give no basis to go from a "vague" creator to Christianity. When it comes to the crunch, religious people can only weedle and worm out of the crushing logic that shows there is no evidence their religious beliefs are true.
StateOfHead 1 week ago
@StateOfHead What would be the evidence that my mind isn't closed? That i agree with you? Is that the measure of intellect for you? If they agree=open minded, if they don't agree=closed minded. Nice formula you've got going there. I never said you need to prove Christianity false-you claimed that you DID prove it false and I asked how? As for the "crushing logic" (and that is how you perceive yourself-right? The man with the crushing logic), I've yet to see it.
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 Weedle and worm. Look at what I originally said "what does the Christian religion offer as evidence, apart from their sincere faith and scripture (which most religions have), that their religion/God is true? None. And they criticise others for pointing this FACT out?". What if I was open to persuasion? Its an unequivocally logical question, and you have provided no answer. Its still "none". Poetic and emotional arguments, as seductive as they are, is not evidence.
StateOfHead 1 week ago
@StateOfHead Worm and weedle. I wasn't even making the case for Christianity if you would bother to read. I was making the case for consciousness being primal rather than some secondary epipehnomenon of a bottom-up theory. As for Christianity, you are right-absolutely! There is no proof to the larger public platform though some insist they have their proof on a more personal level and that science isn't the only way to knowledge. If you need to knock on God like wood then knock on consciousness.
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 You have made no such case. You suffer the same conceptual problem as Christianity. Where is the evidence? It will come down to poetic and emotional arguments. Nice talking with you though.
StateOfHead 1 week ago
@StateOfHead Glad you asked. The two-slit experiment has been replicated for nearly 80 years and it keeps coming up the same-a conscious observer determines the behavior of a wave/particle with all variables taken into account. You can review one experiment in 2002 : Physical Review A (65, 033818). Another similar experiment ran by Dean radin will be published in the peer-reviewed Physics essays this summer. Any peer reviewed research proving god isn't real? Ah yes, the burden of proof schtick!
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 Oh dear. I studied physics - I know double slit and how little we know of the sub-atom. The burden is not on me to prove you false because you have proven nothing! The double slit does not prove what you say. The rules of physics get very seemingly bizarre with sub-atoms and big bang, but you don't explain it with snake oil and call it true. I'll leave it to you dude.
StateOfHead 1 week ago
@StateOfHead Well then, since you studied physics (undergrad?) you will have a retort for the results of that experiment. lay it on me. I'm all ears. But those experiments made Max Planck say "“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” -Max Planck
I take it you know more than Max Planck? Niels Bohr?
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 So to make "the case for consciousness being primal rather than some secondary epipehnomenon of a bottom-up theory." you rely on the double slit (which was a little more about waves and particles) and what Planck hypothesised (but never proved) about consciousness, and you throw in a school-boy "nah naha nah" about me not knowing more than Plank (despite the massive findings since his death over 60 yrs ago). Brilliant. Oh well you got me there...
StateOfHead 1 week ago
@StateOfHead Well, you're always welcome to try and discredit those findings that have been redone in 2002 and will be published again in 2012 with the same results-a conscious observer seems to cause a wave of potentials to collapse into a particle reality. They have tried it every way to ensure the camera or whatever was done to observe wasn't causing the collapse-everything was considered and it came up the same.
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 I find it fascinating how the atheist boasts they go with the experiemntal evidence but when it counters their worldview, all of a sudden the science is nonsense.
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 scientists like learning new things and correcting their perspective when wrong, as even Stephen Hawking did when he found a flaw in his black hole theories. If there was anything at all that even remotely proved god existed then scientific opinion would take it seriously and examine it. That is the issue, that even when Christianity is proven wrong, theists just back pedal further.
Don't let your ignorance guide you. There is evidence that man made god, not the other way around.
anthropic1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 Nothing to discredit. I agree the "findings show a conscious observer seems to cause a wave of potentials to collapse into a particle reality". Thats not new dude. But that is not what you seem to be saying (although you are not clear). It ceratinly doesn't show "consciousness being primal" or the cosmic implications of that. A massive leap with no evidence just like religions. This kind of thing has the pungent smell of Deepak Chopra nonsense.
StateOfHead 1 week ago
@StateOfHead Okay, at least we are in agreement as to what the results show. All I am saying is that it STRONGLY suggests that somehow mind is intrinsically a player in the grand scheme of things-that mind may be tied up with matter in a way we can't comprehend at this time. I thought it would be obvious that this may be a pointer that consciousness is foundational and not just an epiphenomenon of matter-counter to bottom-up theories. Primal mind, or "GOD" is not so impossible anymore.
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@StateOfHead As for Deepak, I go more for Robert Lanza. Chopra is far too "guru" from the sixties for me-and though I don't agree with Shermer's materialism, I agree with his assessment of Deepak with his cosmic "flapdoodle." All the people I have mentioned are mainstream scientists except outer-fringe Dean radin who I think has been dealt a bad rap unfairly. He's been characterized as some "voodo guy" by mainstream science but science shouldn't be about popularity.
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
I wish I could meet Mr McGrath and tell him that probabilities don't work backwards! Poor guy.
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
@IPFreely1021 Abiogenesis hypothesis' are demonstrating better results with top-down applications rather than bottom-down applications suggesting "mind" is operating as an agent in the creation of life. Mechanism is not a replacement for agency. And probs not working backwards is true for a singular and simple event, like tossing a ring and having it land on a thin post or winning the lotto, but not an array of improbs multiplied by one another until they defy reason to think its only chance,
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
Alister: " I think Richard Dawkins is one of creationisms best friend.." wow. I cant believe my ears
nickallah 1 month ago
@nickallah
Dawkins is in a way though. Dawkins has said numerous times that he don't think religion and evolution is incompatible. Just like creationists says. For people in America for example, where there's sometimes troubles around teaching evolution its difficult because some religious folks deems it as anti-religious. According to Dawkins, it is.
Svankmajer 1 month ago
@Svankmajer creationists and evolutionists have the common belief that religion and science are incompatible. but they are essentially agreeing that the two of them are deeply opposed. so it logically follows that Dawkins is creationists best ENEMY, and not friend. I never heard Dawkins say that he doesnt think religion and evolution are incompatible. he always made it clear that they are INcompatible.
nickallah 1 month ago
@nickallah
Your message is a bit confusing to me, but yeah, of course Dawkins is the enemy of creationism. What I'm saying is that Dawkins has said he gives creationism to at least take the Bible as real, and not just cherrypick. Dawkins kind of says evolution makes The Bible obsolete, which is what creationists want to hear.
Not sure if I'm clear enough, but oh well.
Svankmajer 1 month ago
@Svankmajer yes its true, creationists ARE honest and take the bible literally. but why would creationists want to hear how the bible is obsolete by evolution. I just dont understand why alister would imply that dawkins is in a way creationists best friend.
even if dawkins made it clear that he proposed that evolution is compatible, he would stil be rendered an enemy to creationists and not a friend. I dont get alister.
nickallah 1 month ago
@nickallah
Well, creationists usually have problems with theists claiming you can believe in evolution and religion at the same time. In USA there has been problems with teaching evolution because some christians has with success preached evolution = atheism, but their case has falled. Dawkins "kind of" gives creationists what they want to hear in that sense, because he has said that evolution was the reason he gave up faith as a youngster, and that he don't see what role god can have in it.
Svankmajer 1 month ago
@Svankmajer Once again youve mentioned what creationists and dawkins have in common, and thats xtianity and evolution incompatibility. I think what you mean to say, or what alister means to say is that, dawkins seems to force people to "choose" xtianity or evolution. and creationists will then choose xtianity. but lol its not that simple. alister just wanted to sound bold in that statement and instead sounded idiotic. dawkins is obviously just being divisive is anything...
nickallah 1 month ago
@WSSIIWarlordII No, we don't. Your ignorance is precisely what is the problem.
bayanimills 2 months ago
I thought McGrath was an evolutionist, not a creationist... or did I pick that up wrong?
kubrox91 2 months ago
Virgin births, rising from the dead, walking on water are consistent with science?? Wake up McGrath.
Klash92 2 months ago
@Klash92 miracles don't contradict with science
hello83558 2 months ago
@hello83558 actually, I'd say they do. that's what ultimately makes them so special and significant. if science can explain it then it's just another thing that happened. that's the way I look at it, at least.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@kubrox91 I guess that means you would consider it worthwhile to search for Elvis, fairies and santa claus as well.
Klash92 2 months ago
@Klash92 well, we have substantial evidence to say that there is no man on the north pole going around the world in one night, we have substantial evidence to say that Elvis really is dead, we have substantial evidence to say that fairies aren't real. we have substantial evidence to say that Jesus existed as did his apostles and the resurrection being the most logical reason for the explosion of christianity out of judaism.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@kubrox91 Sorry man. I don't agree with your last sentence. Jesus, santa, fairies...it's all the same to me.
Klash92 2 months ago
@Klash92 that's what it all boils down to: does it seem believable? and it's respectable enough if you're just not convinced by it.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@kubrox91 Christianity is not believable. It makes too many claims which don't square with science.
Klash92 2 months ago
@Klash92 ...or reason and logic.
Klash92 2 months ago
@Klash92 what like Genesis creation? because since the 4th or 5th century, Augustine of Hippo said you don't have to take it literally.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@kubrox91 Hippo from the zoo? Haha just kidding. They can say what they like to make their religion more in tune with science. But the plain words of the ancient text are there for all to read. Next I guess they (or apologists like them) would say that rising from the dead doesn't really mean rising from the dead. Walking on water isnt really walking on water. Jesus was merely walking on a puddle.
Klash92 2 months ago
@Klash92 Actually, I'd say you should take the Gospels literally on the sense of the miracles and more importantly the Resurrection, because the resurrection is the basis of the Christian faith. physically speaking, not metaphorically speaking. Saint Paul didn't go into a city screaming RESURRECTION to convey a guy's ideas are passing on, he was screaming it to convey a guy came back to life.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@kubrox91 Yep I know Resurrection means came back to life. I am not buying that just because some guy screams it or wrote it down. Not how I operate.
Klash92 2 months ago
Comment removed
kubrox91 2 months ago
@Klash92 ultimately ending up with they are either true or lies. these are the claims that these beliefs are based on.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@kubrox91 Beliefs based on sketchy evidence.
Klash92 2 months ago
Comment removed
kubrox91 2 months ago
@Klash92 alright, so just elaborate what you mean by sketchy evidence?
kubrox91 2 months ago
@kubrox91 Give me the evidence first.
Klash92 2 months ago
@Klash92 okay, for me it's the fact that all of the apostles did exist and Jesus most likely existed, as well, being referenced in the acts of phillip, josephus' antiquity of the Jews, the talmud, the dead sea scrolls, and as I said before, the reason for Christianity exploding out of Judaism being an actual resurrection which all the apostles ended up dying to prove, as well as the fact that the first witnesses were women, who were not allowed to hold witness in that era of palestine.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@Klash92 as for the existence of God, I'd say that it would be mathematics, like the universe cannot be both infinite in past and expansion, you cannot subtract infinity from infinity, and existence cannot create itself, X creates Y but X creates X is a contradiction.
kubrox91 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kubrox91 My math sucks. Don'y understand what u mean. I would say that if the universe cannot be both infinite in past and expansion, what makes u think yr god is? If existence cannot create itself, how does yr god exists?
Klash92 2 months ago
Comment removed
kubrox91 2 months ago
@Klash92 and sometimes it comes down to miraculous claims, like the nun who had been cured of her parkinsons' after prayer or a man being cured of spinal stynosis, all of which claims have boggled medical people.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@kubrox91 Every religion has its miraculous claims, Why not believe them rather than the gospels? The nun's case seems more probability if true. I would be more impressed if an amputee nun grew her legs and arms back. ;-)
Klash92 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Klash92 I think sometimes it takes shear will to be skeptical. As Dostoyevsky wrote in the Brothers Karamasov: the genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find the strength and the ability to disbelieve in the miraculous and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact, he would rather deny his own senses than admit.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@Klash92 But we should just stop arguing. I believe that I have evidence to believe in God, you have your own evidence to say there is no God. can't we just put it beside us and get along?
kubrox91 2 months ago
@kubrox91 We are not arguing. I replied to you as best I could (I am not a Sam Harris or Dawkins after all). You haven't pointed out anything wrong with what I said. I accept it if you prefer to believe things based on little or no evidence.
Klash92 2 months ago
@Klash92 alright, then. peace be upon you bro.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@Klash92 AND SHAME ON YOU! RIPPING ON SANTA DURING THIS JOYOUS MONTH!
kubrox91 2 months ago
@hello83558 rising on the dead and virgin births don't contradict with science? Sorry. That's just silly.
Klash92 2 months ago
I actually like McGrath's parting shot here, where he says that Dawkins' position on science and religion gives theists credibility.
Because it's a horrible logical fallacy being made that discrediting one view automatically gives weight to any other view. It's obviously false, but creationists have been using this for ages, and rational minds who hear this immediately see McGrath for the intellectual microbe he is.
Thank you, McGrath, for shooting yourself in the foot some more.
EdwardHowton 3 months ago in playlist Dawkins Debate
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
By what long stretch of his imagination does McGrath think science is consistant with the Christian faith?
Men walking on water? Resurrection from the dead? A 6 day creation? A Global flood? A man being kidnapped by a "Great fish"? The ages of the ancestors of Abraham in Genesis 5? I would love to see testable peer review observations that these things can happen-Lol!!
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@Tobytrim If you study the texts of other cultures it seems there was a great flood.
Thensolomonsaid 5 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid "If you study the texts of other cultures it seems there was a great flood."
Ha ha!!- If you study the birth of civilisations, you'll see that they mostly formed on deltas. Floods were a big problem and fear.
If you study the geological history of the world, you'll discover there were many "great floods".
If you study middle eastern archeology, particularly Sumarian mythology you'll see that all the floods in "Noah's" area had the same source which predate biblical chronology.
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid "If you study the texts of other cultures it seems there was a great flood"
If you study science and physics you would know that the Genesis flood could not have happened
If you understood medical chemistry, genetics, molecular biology, you would understand that life on earth, as described in Genesis, did not bottleneck to 2 individuals of each species around 4500 years ago.
Physics and geology will tell you that a global flood couldn't happen! - Zoology that it didn't!
Tobytrim 5 months ago
Ty,pical irrational theist! He thinks science can be "interpreted" the way his "Holy scriptures" are.
McGrath had his chance to put this bullshit to Dawkins face, and wound up squirming, on the rationality of his own dogma, like a schoolboy in the headmasters study!
As for Dawkins' attitude giving creationism credibility, I see very little of McGrath, challenging creationists directly anywhere, nor justifying his compromised interpretation of the same text, which he claims, inform his belie!f
Tobytrim 5 months ago
As an atheist, I have to admit I admire Dr. McGrath. Far from being a dogmatic evangelist, his arguments are lucid, cogent, and well-presented. I feel I need to be challenged by intelligent counter-views, and appreciate his honesty, his common sense, and his logic. Thanks for uploading this video.
torch2k 5 months ago
Religious people in the past want to edge out science.Today they claim science proof the existence of god. Why? Obviously when it comes to religious believes, they can say whatever they choose to believe.I will not be surprised someday they will claim space-time is god!
Mr123javen 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,and ever hearing but never understanding;otherwise they might turn and be forgiven"
Thensolomonsaid 7 months ago
The problem with most atheists is they think all christians see God as some white robed Charlton Heston figure sitting on a cloud.
Thensolomonsaid 8 months ago 20
@Thensolomonsaid
the problem for you is that we atheists dont see god at all and neither in fact does anyone and therefore we dont need to disprove the existence of a spiritual being untill you prove it.
northernvibes1 7 months ago
@northernvibes1 Can't argue with that.I hope some day the light will enter your life and bring the relief from your ,no point to it, existence. God bless you.
Thensolomonsaid 7 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid
you may say light you could also say darkness, the point for me is to sit in wonder and ponder how we came to be and i dont need a blessing from any real or imagined entity thank you very much
northernvibes1 7 months ago 2
@Thensolomonsaid "The problem with most atheists is they think all christians see God as some white robed Charlton Heston figure sitting on a cloud"
No, what bothers you believers about atheists, is that we don't see YOUR definition of "God" as any kind of a plausible possibility at all. We have no picture of any "god" at all, except what is painted by the fantasised claims of believers, or the texts they are informed from.
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@Tobytrim It dosn't bother me at all.I was an atheist for all but the last three years.I was the last person you could expect to believe in a God.But sometimes things happen that change your perceptions.I wish you well.
Thensolomonsaid 5 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid" It dosn't bother me at all.I was an atheist for all but the last three years"
Forgive my apparent cynicism, but who's "God" did you eventually decide on? Was it the god of another culture? Did you simply make your own up?
Or did you suddenly and finally, abandon the rationality, and respect for empirical evidence, which kept you from believing in the superstitious and metaphysical twaddle which your cultural upbringing has been programming you towards since you were born?
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@Tobytrim I used to talk like you.I did not decide on a God as you put it.I can not prove there is a God to you no more than you can prove anything about the creation of the Universe to me.I read the Bible as a guide only.I am not saying the Bible was not manipulated by the hand of man.But overall the message of peace and love for your fellow man is good.I believe in a Universal spirituality and that is my God but being born in the west means i practice it in a way i find familiar.
Thensolomonsaid 5 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid "I used to talk like you"
Ha ha!! Yeah I know these lyrics very well!
They're the first line of the old song "I used to be an atheist like you".
Sung by all the more prominent apologists with no better argument to resort to. Strobel, Mcgrath, Kirk Cameron, McDowell
The big problem is that not a single one has a reasoned argument to offer, as a theist, to negate the reasoning that inform current atheists rejection the superstitions THEY now adopt!
You never knew them!
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid ".I believe in a Universal spirituality and that is my God but being born in the west means i practice it in a way i find familiar. "
I take it you assume as much validity exists in Buddhism? That Ganesh or Shiva are as much a true "God" as Yahweh, or Jesus? You seem to be admitting that if you had lived in a different culture you would have opted for a different "God".
If the very defined MONOtheistic god is not unique, by it's own definition, it doesn't exist.
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid "But overall the message of peace and love for your fellow man is good"
The "message" works for atheists too. Why do you need to posit the superstitions and irrational fairy tales, of an ancient and less enlightened culture, as fact, to think peace and love are a good idea?
I can assure you that the followers of Jesus have been virtually universal in our western culture for almost 20 centuries without showing much interest in peace, love, or empathy for their fellow man.
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid
The problem with most Christians is that they fail to define the God they believe in. Or they say something very wet and meaningless like "God is Love" or " God is the prime mover"
P.S. Charlton Heston in a white robe sitting on a cloud would be really cool!
TheOmegajuice 5 months ago
@TheOmegajuice
defining would probably be very arrogant since God did never define Himself in the Bible. The only time God is describing Himself is in exodus 3. God says "I AM"
I think what we can only define is one side of God, what we experience. God cannot be put in a box (and yes it would be cool with the white robe thing ^^).
God bless you
yeshuaissaviour 4 months ago
@yeshuaissaviour
Arrogant? It's not arrogant to give something a definition. A set of properties that a hypothetical thing X must be to satisfy "being a God (or The God)"
I'm not asking for a huge amount of precision here. I use plenty of words that are hard to define (like "thing" or "justice" or "light") but I don't use any word without having kind of definition in mind.
If you talk about God and expect me to understand what you're saying you have to give some working definition of God.
TheOmegajuice 4 months ago
@TheOmegajuice
It seems we have misunderstood eachother. I was trying to point to the pointlessness of trying to give a complete and precise definition of God, whereas it seems like you thought I was saying there no definition at all.
There are some adjectives that apply to God. Eternal is one, creator should be another one (for the God of the Bible). caring, loving, powerful, mighty, just and others can also be used.
yeshuaissaviour 4 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid The problem with most Christians is that they think that atheists think all Christians see God as some white robed Charlton Heston figure sitting on a cloud.
They don't.
bayanimills 5 months ago 13
@bayanimills Yes you do...
WSSIIWarlordII 2 months ago
When science has an answer for all the questions,one will remain unanswered,what was there before the big bang.This will be theoretically answered and then taught as fact like a lot of other questions they can't answer with absolute proof.
Thensolomonsaid 8 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid It goes even further than that. Lets say hypotheticall they can prove without a doubt what happened before the big bang. What they can not answer is why is there existence at all?
AegeanKing 8 months ago
@Thensolomonsaid
ok so does that mean we stop using the scientific method to make sense of and continue to gain new insights into the universe?
northernvibes1 7 months ago
@northernvibes1 No not at all.If there were no living entities at all.Nothing in the whole universe /multiverse that had the means to see or feel or be.Would the universe/multiverse exist ?
Thensolomonsaid 7 months ago
It is amazing to see a person of science speak with such disregard for logic. You can talk pretty all you want, but in the end, unless you can provide evidence for your claims, then it is a mute point and purely argumentative. Religion is very poweful and a huge business, they can buy anyone they want. So, now we have scientists speaking on behalve of religion. Money is everything, isn't it? If there ever was a god, it has to be money.
cobachaamplia 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
OrthodoxDarwinist 10 months ago
@OrthodoxDarwinist You forgot "shared the magic apple with her dirt husband."
foxmcloud555 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrthodoxDarwinist Atheism: the (lack of a) belief that In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Really makes much more sense
gogolplex74 7 months ago
Richard Dawkins has a vagina on the back of his knee. Google image it!
wallymeldrum 10 months ago
no such thing as a rational atheist.
COREYBASSE 10 months ago
To be entirely honest and I'm not trying to offend anyone here, this is just what I think is happening. I think that religion in general, mainly Christianity are afraid in a sense that religion is slowly dying and maybe some of them see that they way they think cannot be used in a modern world of science and reason and so they are trying to have their cake and eat it by suggesting silly claims that religion can work with science and reason but I don't think it can. Its contradictory to say so.
NavXD 1 year ago
@NavXD Thank you for your respectful tone. We need more people like you in debates. I believe I can provide a partial answer to your post. I think the 'crisis' in religious faith is really the end process of the Enlightenment, which taught that no objective truth can be found in religion. It is not that science and religion clash; it is about competing visions of looking at reality. Many people USE science to justify atheism, but science and religion are about different things. Is that helpful?
AchillesShield 1 year ago
@AchillesShield Yes, it does help... to a certain extent. I thank you for your respectful tone also but I think your missing my point entirely. Religion on its own, I have no problem with, In fact, one of my best friends believes in god. The part that I think is wrong is when religious nutcases try to shove their faith in other peoples faces, it can't be done that way. Science and religion cannot work together, science works, religion doesn't. (I would type more but the character limit sucks)
NavXD 1 year ago
Alister McGrath is illogical and deluded, he makes no sense at all and has simply mastered the art of answering questions without answering anything so often used in politics. I don't believe for a second he was an Atheist in the manner he often claims. Yet another delusion from a Christian mind. Waste of time watching someone who can't even make valid points to justify his imagined conversion.
anthropic1 1 year ago
@anthropic1
You realize you have simply just decided he is a liar, before anything is said? Of course you won't agree with someone if you judge them beforehand. That get's you nowhere, and is unfair.. Argue with his points, claiming he is a liar and delusional is immature and unhelpful.
vmcnick 10 months ago
@vmcnick assuming me to be immature based on far less information than the countless videos I have seen of McGrath to develop my opinion of his delusional state is far less helpful. The more you watch him, the more you too will understand that he never actually comes up with any valid points to discuss. How could I argue with the pointless and silly?
It is absurd to suggest Dawkins "gives Creationists intellectual credibility". Creationists have NO intellectual backing for their claims at all..
anthropic1 10 months ago
@anthropic1
If you think they have no credibility, you haven't been watching enough. You've DECIDED before anything else that they are wrong, and therefore fail to see anything worthwhile in their arguments. Have an open mind. If you want Christians to have an open mind, then do the same. Atheists are as delusional as Christians, honestly. No one's doctrine is perfect. In fact, everyone's is so flawed. Everyone puts faith in their own system, because we cannot understand enough on our own.
vmcnick 10 months ago
@vmcnick I assume given you say creationists have credibility you're a fundamentalist christian or a comment troll? No rational person of sound mind would say "Atheists are as delusional as christians". Atheists simply have no belief in a god, but would believe in one if there was evidence. Many christians are unshakable in faith that they know this supernatural being intimately and a book written at the infancy of intellect holds all his truths and are willing to kill over its interpretations.
anthropic1 10 months ago
@anthropic1
"Simply no belief in God" is the most loaded simple statement I have ever heard. It is just as ridiculous as saying "I simply believe in God." Both statements come with a whole slew of implications.
No rational person? Why does God have to be rational? If God exists, he certainly doesn't have to play by your rules.
Willing to kill...? You are making a straw man there... I'm sure there are atheists willing to kill christians too but that is an insignificant representation of both.
vmcnick 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vmcnick I think your issue is you don't understand the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist and have chosen to remain ignorant of definition.
Vince, try re-reading what I wrote. I can only assume you didn't read it to make such a bizarre leap from
"No rational person of sound mind would say 'Atheists are as delusional as christians'"
into
"Why does God have to be rational?".
anthropic1 10 months ago
@vmcnick you didn't confirm if you are a fundamentalist christian or a troll.
Don't worry though, I'll keep highlighting how wrong you are either way if you like :)
anthropic1 10 months ago
@anthropic1
Does dodging questions consist of "highlighting how wrong someone is?" Atheists are indeed good at that I guess...
By saying "fundamentalist Christian" you have already missed the point. You imply that fundamentalist is a "bad word" or something. I am Christian. I might as well call you a fundamentalist who is reacting to Christian beliefs as much as I am one reacting to modern atheism... But it is clear to me that you don't really understand anything you're saying. Keep spouting.
vmcnick 10 months ago
@vmcnick you're adorable. What questions have you asked that you think I dodged?
Anyone reading this thread can see I have indeed pointed out your flawed logic and lack of credibility, how is it that you cannot?
"fundamentalist" relating to religion IS a bad word as it generally implies someone with no capacity for reason or critical thought. In extreme cases it implies someone who is willing to kill for no intelligible reason.
Nothing is clear to you Vince, you have demonstrated that.
anthropic1 10 months ago
@anthropic1
Again, you just played into EXACTLY what I said... You say fundamentalism "implies" something, yet you have no understanding why. You are just using it as a way to delegitamize another's views. Fundamentalist just means "reactionary." Christians are reacting to modern atheism by positing their own beliefs. You understand nothing. What did you not answer? Let me quote myself : "Why does God have to be rational?" Also, you never addressed your "I simply don't believe in God" statemnt
vmcnick 10 months ago
@vmcnick hehe you're funny, "Why does God have to be rational?" simple, he doesn't?
What a stupid question, I had assumed that you only asked that because you misread my question given it had no logical relevance to anything said.
anthropic1 10 months ago
@anthropic1
So if you admit God doesn't have to be a rational being, your entire argument for believing in his existence being "irrational" is swept away. That was my point of the question... Since you admit he does not have to be rational, your entire system of thought on how you know something has been rendered useless, leaving other ways a possibility. Say, faith? Revelation? All are up for discussion. Thank you. Let's discuss.
vmcnick 10 months ago
@vmcnick not sure why you wrote that, I never said believing in god's existence is irrational. I said calling an atheist delusional was irrational, which it still is true, so your trailing argument are also incorrect.
anthropic1 10 months ago
@vmcnick "I simply don't believe in God" WAS addressed, as I said: "I think your issue is you don't understand the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist". Look it up and learn something.
"You say fundamentalism 'implies' something, yet you have no understanding why" um I think everyone alive on the earth now except you understands why 'religious fundamentalism' implies a negative connotation. Have you not heard of 9/11, Suicide bombers, Doctor killing christians? Learn some logic.
anthropic1 10 months ago
@anthropic1
I'm also curious to see where you "proved" anything. The only thing you have said so far is that Christians are deluded, and yet you supply no evidence why other than saying... well... that they are deluded. Which makes you deluded, because you believe something to be true and yet can't explain why... Oh, and you also brought up that meaningless point about killing that served no purpose. Oh, and that Christians are "unshakable in faith," which I find ironic because you are too.
vmcnick 10 months ago
@vmcnick "Christians are 'unshakable in faith,' which I find ironic because you are too."
Interesting thought to bring up. To call me unshakable in faith suggests I have faith in something. What exactly do you think I have faith in? Do you think it takes faith to not believe in faith? That is misguided logic and wrong by definition.
Re "meaningless point about killing" no atheist would ever kill because they are atheist, but people kill because of faith. It gives license to immoral behaviour.
anthropic1 10 months ago
@anthropic1 Your faith resides in the belief in the improbable occurence of unintentional dead matter aligning itself into 3 billion letters of DNA with associated quaternary protein structures/enzymes all by itself. You BELIEVE they then gave rise to self awareness and was a means for the universe to become self aware and introspective through us and all by chance. That is definitely a belief system no matter how you slice it or dice it. I'm sure you'll argue it as you're a Dawkins groupie.
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 actually not a Dawkins 'groupie', but nice way to unethically start a conversation with someone you know nothing about via insult.
How very Christian of you.
I hope you let go of your bitterness one day and can get on with living. Good luck.
anthropic1 1 week ago
@anthropic1 My apologies. It's just that Dawkins uses that dodge as well-the anti-theist schtick
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@vmcnick "proved" eh? What are you talking about? Atheists have nothing to prove, people of faith do.
To steal a quote from someone I heard once, "when you can understand why you don't believe in Zeus or the Egyptian God Ra, then you will understand why I can't believe in yours" (something like that).
"Which makes you deluded, because you believe something to be true and yet can't explain why" I can explain why, I can discuss in email if you like, these character count messages are annoying?
anthropic1 10 months ago
@anthropic1
You have nothing to prove? You have to prove that there is nothing. You have faith that there is nothing beyond you. You have no way to prove that God doesn't exist - you are making an assumption. You have to prove to me that there is no God as much as I have to prove there is one. It DOES take faith to say there is nothing... Who told you there was nothing? Are you really trusting your own reason to tell you that? If so, why is your reason the ultimate judge? Feel free to message.
vmcnick 10 months ago
@vmcnick My reason for saying there is nothing is that I see no reason to say there is something. Well, let me be more precise, I see no reason to say that there is a Christian God, or Russell's teapot, or a host of other overly specific ideas that there is no evidence for. You see, the point is that it takes only a LACK of evidence to believe something is NOT the case, but it takes the PRESENCE of evidence to believe something IS the case. Therefore it requires much less faith to be an atheist!
Whatsifsowhatsit 9 months ago
@Whatsifsowhatsit
Yes, but that means all you can say is "I do not know if there is something or nothing at all." I understand being unsure, but I'm tired of people saying "Prove it to me" when they have just as hard of a time proving to me that there is no God as there being one. A lack of evidence suggests nothing other than a lack of evidence. Just because you lack evidence doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means you haven't found any evidence yet...
vmcnick 9 months ago
@vmcnick Yes, but the point of that is Russell's teapot - you can make an equally strong case for its existence based on those arguments. A lack of evidence DOES suggest something more, at least it does when people have been looking, wanting and needing evidence, and have not found any. That strongly suggests that the evidence is not there to be found, because what it would defend simply isn't true/doesn't exist. There is a question of burden of proof here and it's not on the atheists' side.
Whatsifsowhatsit 9 months ago
@Whatsifsowhatsit
Again, I understand you, but to say "there is no God" versus "there is no proof of God" are two very different claims. One suggests they have already proved God's non existence, while the other merely claims there is nothing to suggest to them that God exists. However, that does not mean he does not exist, and there is still the burden on you to tell me why you know he doesn't exist. If you said "I'm not convinced he exists" I would understand.
vmcnick 9 months ago
@vmcnick Of course, I don't technically "know" that he doesn't exist, but I am, as an acquaintance of Richard Dawkins once said, "toothfairy agnostic". I don't "know" that the toothfairy doesn't exist either, but I don't feel that I have to justify that claim and produce evidence before I can assert my relative conviction. I feel more or less the same way about Russell's teapot, the flying spaghetti monster, and the Christian God. Again, that's not "knowing", and there would be ...cont
Whatsifsowhatsit 9 months ago
@Whatsifsowhatsit
How many posts have you made arguing with people who believe in tooth fairies? Do you spend as much energy and time with that?
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 Well no, but then, not as many people believe in tooth fairies I think. I should hope so, anyway :)
Whatsifsowhatsit 1 week ago
@vmcnick cont... a burden of proof on me if I was to be able to say that I "know". But I maintain that without any evidence, after people have indeed looked for such evidence, it is quite a lot more plausible to say that he (probably/most likely/almost certainly) doesn't exist than it is to say that he does.
Whatsifsowhatsit 9 months ago
@Whatsifsowhatsit
Of course, I agree it could be seen as less plausible. That's all I am saying. It is not impossible, but if you think it is less probable that is completely different.
vmcnick 9 months ago
@vmcnick Well there you go :)
Whatsifsowhatsit 9 months ago
@vmcnick I'm a Christian but I can see where this is going. The atheist will say the positive claimant has the burden of proof because you can never disprove a negative. Actually, that's not true as you can prove there have been no Arab presidents in the US. But that's a category mistake as Arabs are not invisible-like Santa Claus-another negative which cannot be disproven. If you claim Santa or God is real, you must show they are-or so they say. But burden of proof can be fallacious argument
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 no less than any other. And why? Absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence. We didn't always know that Pluto was there but in time, we discovered it. Did it not exist when we didn't have proof? Of course it did and so may God. The Zeus argument may be weaker than realized as even Zeuss may have been a reflection of a greater truth-that man has suspected some primal mover for a long time and its definition has grown more sophisticated as in monotheism which is far more
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 likely. It's our experiential relationship with God that makes us go there in the first place-answered prayer, precognitive dreams that pan out, deja-vu that is validated by thrird parties, spiritual elation and epiphany, and people coming back from NDE's with talents they never had, etc. Paul said things like these are spiritually appraised and are foolishness to the natural man-that said 2000 years ago and it's alive, here, today in these posts. You have your proof.
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 But your subjective experiences will only be counted as deusions though you and I know better. The door doesn't open for them because they never knock-sincerely knock! They never find because they don't seek. They don't want to. The atheist says hell is absurd too and I once thought so. But if God is the incarnation of love, and you want nothing to do with him, as a gentleman he will allow that and separation from love will only get you a dark and evil place=hell! They made their
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 beds and now are sleeping in them.
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@anthropic1 I'm a Christian and I agree. McGrath is a historical theologist first and is less scientific in his arguments though he is a scientist-or was. A lot of fluff, hyperbole, and verbose language getting us nowhere. I keep asking, "Please get to the point." If you want a more scientific view John Lennox is the man. But even this is no proof but he does make a case for evidence. And before I hear there is none, atheists: look up evidence and proof in the dictionary-PLEASE!
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 I'm familiar with Lennox and know well the flaws in his arguments, but I'm concerned based on the initial comment you sent me and some of the lame arguments used against @StateOfHead that you are just a flame baiter, copy & pasting from ideological & discredited "how to argue with an Atheist" type books.
Sorry if that's not the reality, but I'm just not interested.
If you want people to respond to you, try being less condescending, especially when your own arguments are so weak.
anthropic1 1 week ago
@anthropic1 I never copied and pasted anything. I can think well enough on my own but i do research these topics as do you. Unless you'd have me believe you are responsible for civilization.
As for my arguments being weak, pick one and tell me why. My arguments may indeed be weak, but this last post from you is not even an argument, just an insult-that's an adhominem attack.
jerrydecaire1 1 week ago
@jerrydecaire1 congratulations on knowing what adhominem means, you must have been dying for a chance to use it. Being a condescending ass as you are (and I just was), you really don't make people want to discuss a topic with you.
Your comment is a lazy non sequitur and quite insepid, if you can't see that then you betray yourself to the truth in my perceptions of you. I challenge you to find your own flaws before asking others to find them for you. It will improve your conversations if you do.
anthropic1 1 week ago
how is science consistant with christian beliefs?
TimofAwsome 1 year ago
@TimofAwsome Both science and christianity aprehend the rationality that exist in the whole reality. Reason and logic are not creation of the mind, but the apprehension of something that is out there. Remember, science is only possible because the whole reality is rational, what allows the very existence of the scientific method.
prk30 1 year ago
@prk30 But christianity doesn't follow rationality. Science says the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that living things evolve, christianity says the earth is about 6000 years old and rejects evolution. One of them is clearly failing at properly "apprehending what is out there", and I'm betting it ain't science
TimofAwsome 1 year ago
@TimofAwsome Christianity not only follows rationality, but it is the ground of modern science. Divergences about how old is earth come mainly from the ones who take the Bible literally, instead of understanding its context. And when I say that logic and rationality are "out there", I mean it. Science is only possible because reality is full of rationality, so that you can predict scientific laws. Philosophers realized that since ancient Greek.
prk30 1 year ago
@TimofAwsome Divergences about an hypothesis does not mean lack of rationality: even scientists (many of them atheists) don't believe in evolution at all.
prk30 1 year ago
@prk30 So your admitting that christianity taken in a literal sense is irrational? As in literally believing everything that the holy book of the religion says.
And coming from a jew with the same story of creation as christians, the context appears to be in a literal sense, which is why christians believed in the young earth until science kicked in.
TimofAwsome 1 year ago
@prk30 Oh, and are you saying that evolution is only a hypothesis? And:
"even scientists don't believe in evolution at all" I find this a pretty poor choice of words. I really hope you meant to say SOME because you phrased it as if scientists in general don't except it. And polls certainly show that the % of scientists who reject evolution entirely is a VERY small minority, and most of them (maybe some) aren't athiests.
TimofAwsome 1 year ago
@TimofAwsome Maybe you don't remember, but it all started with you asking a simple question: How is science consistent with christian beliefs"?" I answered your question. But we can move on. When I say "even scientists.. at all", it's obvius I mean some scientists. Science is not about agreement, but confrontation of different hypothesis.
By the way: Yes, I am saying that evolution is only a hypothesis. If an hypothesis can not be refuted, it's not scientific. Read Karl Popper.
prk30 1 year ago
@prk30 You never gave a solid answer to why Christianity is conisistent with science. You said christianity is the ground of modern science. Is that your answer to my original question? Explanation please? And you said logic is absolute, which is true, but how does christianity follow that logic and rationality? Saying things that contradict evidence, fact, and common sense seems to be very irrational, and thats not my opinion, that's "ABSOLUTE".
TimofAwsome 1 year ago
@TimofAwsome You say that most of scientists believe in evolution. Let me tell you something: the truth of an hypothesis does not come from the number of people who believe it is right. A single scientist can be right, and thousands can be wrong. I am not saying that evolution did not happen, but majority is meaningless if they they are wrong. Most of materialistic scientists DO NOT believe human beings have a mind or a real "self", and we are nothing but genetic machines.
prk30 1 year ago
@prk30 You're right, the truth of a hypothesis comes from the overwhelming evidence and facts that support it. THAT is what makes evolution true. In other words, it isn't true because most scientists believe it, most scientists believe in evolution because it's true.
TimofAwsome 1 year ago