Will God accept you if you renounce religion?
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
Answered this, told you its been answered myself, other people have pointed that out to you as well.
Religious people get drestroyed in intelligent debates, because it is a foolish position to hold.
You keep telling me it has been answered but I'm yet to see any evidence from anyone supporting the belief that God does not exist.
Your comment about debates works both ways. You can also find debates where religious people destroy atheists so your comment is neither here nor there.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Funny how the 'free will argument' gets ignored to suit your argument isn't it.
God 'made' Dawkins a millionaire and yet ask why God made Hitler do what he did and suddenly it's not God but 'free will'.
Same with film stars, when they win an Oscar they thank God, as if it was him who purposely made them win it. But as soon as you mention things like world famines, cancer, AIDs etc and suddenly God plays no part, we brought in on ourselves with 'free will'.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Depends how you define winning an argument.
In my experience (and I have watched hours upon hours of non-believer versus believer debates) the non-believer, usually a scientist, bases their arguments on evidence and logic whereas the believer bases their arguments on emotional reasoning and what you want to be real.
For example, William Lane Craig is often used an expert pro-religion theologian but pretty much all his arguments are based on emotion. The old "who wants to believe nothing happens after you die, isn't it nicer to believe you go to heaven" kind of logic.
If you're basing the winner of the debate purely on presentational skills then sure some Thiests will 'beat' non-theiests in a debate, but if you judge it on evidence and indisputable logic given I've yet to see it.
Last edited:
It's up to hurf to define what he means by it. I was purely illustrating that there are two sides to it.
I've watched tons of these debates too. They often have scientists attempting to answer a metaphysical question using the wrong tools.
Maybe you could help out hurf by posting some of this evidence for the non-existence of God.
Bill Craig is a philosopher and I don't recall his arguments being based purely around emotion. I think he uses philosophical,moral, logic and historic arguments to support his view.
Made him a millionaire not made the person or persons...oh dear...
or watch this from 4.20 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQWdMftKT3Q
"So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and ******** each other off in the popular press, you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life."
As I, and others have pointed out, I have answered this for you.
If you cannot get your head around those very simple messages, such as it being explained to you that not stamp collecting is not a hobby, or if you want to disegenuously slip down the spiral to solopsism, that's up to your deeply flawed self. I for one argue in good faith and do not use those tactics, which is why I have ignored your pleas to answer the same question over and over again.
Ok hurf, maybe we can just agree then that you hold a belief with no evidence, which is no different from a theist bringing no evidence. You have claimed in this thread that there is no God therefore the burden of proof is on you.
You claim the intellectual high ground over theists. At the very least they will use a holy book as supporting evidence. Of course you would ignore/reject that evidence but at least they bring more supporting evidence to the table than you!
You claim the intellectual high ground over theists. At the very least they will use a holy book as supporting evidence. Of course you would ignore/reject that evidence but at least they bring more supporting evidence to the table than you!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Eh?
If you think God 'made' Dawkins a millionaire then by definition you believe that God made people go out and buy his books (his main source of income I'm guessing).
Either humans have free will or not. If they don't then sure God could have made the millions of people around the world buy Dawkins' book thus making him a millionaire, but you then also have to accept God made Hitler (sorry Godwin) gas 6 million Jews too.
You can't pick and choose when God intervenes with free will.
If your argument is God made Dawkins a smart man and capable of becoming a best selling author at birth and played no part after that then fine, but then you have to question why he made him an atheist too.
I've been happy to argue thus far in this thread, however I think you are banging your head against a brick wall here estebanrey
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
No it's not.
I've never been to Australia yet I believe it exists. Not going there means I have no proof that Australia exists but I'm willing to accept that it probably does from the evidence I currently have.
Do you think where two people who have never been to Australia, where one accept it exists but the other doesn't believe it does are the same?
There was a brilliant post earlier on critical thinking. Tell me you own a dog and I'll probably believe you without needing evidence, tell me you have a dragon in your back garden and by default I think you're lying. Neither situation has proof, but clearly it is more reasonable to believe the former than the latter.
The argument that you have to accept anything is equally likely, 50/50, to be true or false without absolute evidence either way is just asinine.
What are you on?
As long as Dawkins says there is not a god and people say there is then Dawkins is on the gravey train for life...simples...really
Best way of making money yet. Do you get it?.
So do you believe his purpose was to make money and nothing more.
I think what deuse means to say is that the concept of God(s)/religion may have made Dawkins a millionaire in that he has been able to exploit his opposition to such a concept for financial gain.
Without religion and the idea of deities then Dawkins wouldn't have had such a concept to argue against and become famous for doing so.
That does however ignore the fact that he'd probably have done so with something else he were passionate about, were religion and God something that had never come into being.
Without religion and the idea of deities then Dawkins wouldn't have had such a concept to argue against and become famous for doing so.
That does however ignore the fact that he'd probably have done so with something else he were passionate about, were religion and God something that had never come into being.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I don't get your claim that 'God made Dawkins a millionaire' no.
And your argument applies to William Lane Craig and other professional theist debaters too so it serves no purpose as point in this discussion. I would also add that Dawkins could probably make more money (giving globally there are more theists than atheists) by having a 'conversion' and doing speeches on that.
If you think being an atheist is more lucrative than being theist you are delusional. Just flip through the Sky channels and tell how many 'send us your donations' type religious channels exist versus atheist fund raising ones.
Last edited:
NOM8
See, you are arguing disingenuously there aren't you. It is kind of pathetic of you. Argue in good faith and you might get some where.
Do you believe that not stamp collecting is a hobby? What about not believing in Unicorns or the Alien race the Blorgons?
You clearly haven't been reading my posts. I never mentioned probability or likelihood of anything.
Hurf has a positive belief in the non existence of God with NO evidence yet he claims religious people are daft for belief without evidence.