Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[Nitefly]

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Proving negatives actually brings its own philosophical debate.

Really it all depends on what you mean by proof. If we are saying that evidence gives a high level of certainty then we might fairly comment that something can be proved. It is rather unnecessary to substitute in 'I believe the evidence available shows that something is most likely to be true taking into considerations the limitations of our abilities to make the correct observations' when you can simply say 'there is proof'. On the other hand, I think that the only science that has any proof in the strict sense of the word is maths.

In the context of this discussion, where there are obvious and overwhelming limitations on our ability to make what we might perceive to be the correct observations, proof is a word that is best avoided. All parties are better off sticking to 'merely' weighing the evidence.

 

[RDM]

Equally, if it isn't true then your statement quoting all the terrible acts of evil aren't valid either.

Well they are, in so much as the fictional Christian God is evil or more accurately committed evil acts before deciding to be more hands off.

Where did I suggest that was the view I held? I didn't.

No, but you suggested that it is possible they are not evil acts. So if you want to argue from that point of view, go for it. I have no real desire to tread the moral quagmire that would be required to justify genocide and infanticide.

I would be interested to know if you think they are objectively evil or more of an illusion due to social conditioning.

Personally I would put such acts as objectively evil. But for me it doesn't really matter, even if they are only subjectively evil the it makes the Christian God unworthy of worship.

 

[Jason2]

If God does not exist, then moral objective values do not exist, either. You can't say infanticide is evil simply because "it's wrong". That makes no sense at all if God doesn't exist. Not only that, we seem to have no trouble killing a baby in the womb yet if it occurs after it's just been born then it's classed as murder. What's the difference?

And in regards to oxy, he says if God exists then bad stuff wouldn't happen. Again, this is stupid logic. For free will to be free will, a creature has to be able to make choices without constraints. If the creature weren't capable of evil then it's not truly free. Or if God were to step in to stop someone committing an evil crime, then again, is free-will is taken away and thus, he is not a free will being. Can God create a being that is not capable of doin evil? Sure. But he wouldn't be truly free. I've yet to hear an atheist offer an alternative to how a creature can be free yet not capable of committing evil. I'm all ears.

 

[m4rk84]

If God does not exist, then moral objective values do not exist, either.

What an emphatically insulting and completely and utterly false thing to say. It is a good marker of how truly deluded religious people are if they believe this. Just sad.

 

[RDM]

If God does not exist, then moral objective values do not exist, either. You can't say infanticide is evil simply because "it's wrong". That makes no sense at all if God doesn't exist.

No, you can however work out rationally what is and isn't wrong. Genocide is generally considered a pretty bad thing. If you are happy worshipping a god that commits genocide then go for it, but I would certainly struggle with it personally and couldn't take the moral high ground if did.

 

[Jason2]

No, you can however work out rationally what is and isn't wrong. Genocide is generally considered a pretty bad thing. If you are happy worshipping a god that commits genocide then go for it, but I would certainly struggle with it personally and couldn't take the moral high ground if did.

Hitler did no different to what people do today. In that I mean, he didn't believe the Jews were people. Isn't that what abortionists do? It's just a blob so it's justified.

 

[RDM]

Hitler did no different to what people do today. In that I mean, he didn't believe the Jews were people. Isn't that what abortionists do? It's just a blob so it's justified.

Unsure of the relevance to the current argument?

 

[wannabedamned]

lols. If god doesnt exist we cant set our own morals?? Are you kidding me? What a load of ****

 

[StriderX]

Hitler did no different to what people do today. In that I mean, he didn't believe the Jews were people. Isn't that what abortionists do? It's just a blob so it's justified.

Oh dear, time to leave.

 

[Castiel]

As i said before:

Religion is the origination of the claim that God exists, therefore the burden of proof shall always rest on religion and the religious..

Religion is not the origination of the claim that God exists, to begin with you can have a belief in God without Religion, you can also be committed to a religion without a belief in a God.

Religion is not necessarily associated with a concept of God and vice versa.

The burden of proof lies with whoever is making a definitive statement of fact...be it the existence of or the non-existence of God or any other concept. A theist can believe using what they consider to be evidence that a God exists as can an Atheist believe that a God doesn't exist using evidence they consider valid...that doesn't mean either side will accept the evidence of the other, but neither does it mean either has a burden to prove to the other the validity of their belief. That all changes however, when either or both sides decide to make definitive and explicit statements that they are correct and the other side is wrong...then they have the burden to explain and offer consensual evidence of their claim and why it is correct.

The issue will always be determined by the definitions being argued, which will always be largely pointless as one side generally offer Empirical Reasoning, the other side Ontological Reasoning.

Atheists conclude that the evidence and arguments are insufficient to believe, Theists conclude that the evidence and arguments are sufficient to believe, some Agnostics like myself simply do not assess the question as having any particular value and therefore conclude that until some relevant information is forthcoming then the evidence and arguments are insufficient to conclude anything.....neither side has any evidence to support a definitive position and as there is no universally accepted definition regarding God(s) it is unlikely there will be unless the dude appears and demonstrates his/her/its existence themselves. I suspect that even then their will be those who will either disbelieve or believe something else...such is Human nature.

 

[Horse Pop]

Veyron?

 

[estebanrey]

You clearly haven't been reading my posts. I never mentioned probability or likelihood of anything.

And you clearly haven't understood.

You said....

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.

..which sounds like you are saying both positions are equally as irrational. But because the probability of a God existing is pretty low then not believing he exists he clearly more logical and rational than the believing he does.

You can't just ignore those probabilities for your argument to be valid.

 

[estebanrey]

It would seem that the theist who uses the Bible as evidence at least has some sort of basis for their beliefs.

Does Harry Potter and Hogwarts exist? I have a book that says they do, in fact I have several.

It must be true.

Is this you on the phone?

 

[Castiel]

Does Harry Potter and Hogwarts exist? I have a book that says they do, in fact I have several.

Do you?

I would love to see the books that state Harry Potter (I assume you mean the JK Rowling Character and not some chap who lives next door to you with the same name) and Hogwarts exist?

 

[wannabedamned]

There are plenty of books out there stating that "Once upon a time"

All fables and parables like the bible. Yet I dont know of many people fearing a rumpelstiltskin based kidnapping

 

[FutileBreadMachine]

Ok so this is directed at anyone interested but mainly the religious folk in this thread.

Watch the first 20minutes of this Hitchens debate, mainly his opening speech however the entire thing is good. Now give me an articulate well thought out retort to his position on religion, explaining in length how in fact what he is saying is in any way wrong or poorly represented.

It's one of the best speech's I have heard and I think accurately portrays the position of the typical atheist (me) better then near on anything else I have seen.

We can keep going back and forth all day poorly arguing our points, however why bother when Hitchens explains it so well?

Finished watching this. The Rabbi Boteach didn't have very strong arguments. He opens with a rather ineffectual "atheism makes life seem harsh but religion means there is a god who loves us", which is simply choosing to believe something because it makes us happy rather than because it is true.

He used the "religion gives us morality" argument, which is false since apes display morality, as do most pack animals to an extent, otherwise they would not survive (and the way people cherry pick the good parts from the bible whilst ignoring the bad indicates it is not the bible which provides morality).

He quotes some evolutionists as saying that most mutations are detrimental to the organism, but he doesn't go much further than these quotes, not providing any concrete basis for this. He also does the cop-out of believing in evolution but saying it is guided by a creator. He also says a famous evolutionist doesn't believe in evolution, but later when under pressure, he changes the claim to him not believing in gradual evolution.

He also states that there should be many alien civilsations visible to us if life is possible elsewhere, but this disregards that fact that other galaxies are many thousands of light years away, so all we can do is try to detect radio waves from them which would actually be thousands of years old. He makes it sound like we should just be able to see them through a telescope.

 

[m4rk84]

Finished watching this. The Rabbi Boteach didn't have very strong arguments. He opens with a rather ineffectual "atheism makes life seem harsh but religion means there is a god who loves us", which is simply choosing to believe something because it makes us happy rather than because it is true.

He used the "religion gives us morality" argument, which is false since apes display morality, as do most pack animals to an extent, otherwise they would not survive (and the way people cherry pick the good parts from the bible whilst ignoring the bad indicates it is not the bible which provides morality).

He quotes some evolutionists as saying that most mutations are detrimental to the organism, but he doesn't go much further than these quotes, not providing any concrete basis for this. He also does the cop-out of believing in evolution but saying it is guided by a creator. He also says a famous evolutionist doesn't believe in evolution, but later when under pressure, he changes the claim to him not believing in gradual evolution.

He also states that there should be many alien civilsations visible to us if life is possible elsewhere, but this disregards that fact that other galaxies are many thousands of light years away, so all we can do is try to detect radio waves from them which would actually be thousands of years old. He makes it sound like we should just be able to see them through a telescope.

Well I was referring and was far more interested in what Hitchens was saying obviously, his views in any of his speeches seem to align with mine perfectly as I always find myself nodding my head and smiling.

The Rabbi's argument sounds like any other poorly thought out religious argument I have heard. I have never heard a convincing religious viewpoint in any of these debates ever, not even close.

 

[Castiel]

There are plenty of books out there stating that "Once upon a time"

All fables and parables like the bible. Yet I dont know of many people fearing a rumpelstiltskin based kidnapping

Indeed, the Bible is full of analogies, allegories and parables. The Parable was central to the methodology of the Gospels for example....however the Bible is not, and has never been a single cohesive parable in itself, it is a canon or collection of texts used to instruct and illustrate the Christian Faith. It is not to be confused with or compared to a specific cohesive Novel or even a set of fables (which incidently also offer a way of conveying examples of universal truths...the story of Rumplstitskin included).

However, I would like to see these books that state Harry Potter and Hogwarts are extant, as the versions I have all specify they are works of fiction.

 

[Naffa]

snip

The Hitchens/Boteach debates are good for nothing except entertainment. Boteach is a thoroughly unimpressive person with zero to offer, intellectually. If you want to see Hitch put through his paces, watch him debate William Lane Craig (a debate which he actually loses, in my opinion). Even though Craig's arguments are pretty much universally fallacious (from my own reasoning and research), he presents a better challenge than most.

 

[Jason2]

William Lane Craig pretty much destroys Hitchens.