Atheists unite

mrk said:
But!

Surely it could be argued that the proof is all around us :p After all, if God really did love all of his children then why are countless millions killed each year through utterly horrible circumstances from abuse to torture to terrorism, starvation the list goes on? Are they simply going through this hard time in life to be blessed in heaven?
Click to expand...

I had a discussion about the above a few days ago, off the back of this article:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-starvation-of-children-slavery-and-genocide/
 
mrk said:
But!

Surely it could be argued that the proof is all around us :p After all, if God really did love all of his children then why are countless millions killed each year through utterly horrible circumstances from abuse to torture to terrorism, starvation the list goes on? Are they simply going through this hard time in life to be blessed in heaven?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure the "he gave us free will" excuse comes into play here but I fully understand what you mean.

I agree though, looking around the are only two logical conclusions any rational person can draw:

A: The is no god.
B: The is, and he is a piece of **** excuse for a [lifeform] undeserving of anybody's worship.
 
mrk said:
But!

Surely it could be argued that the proof is all around us :p After all, if God really did love all of his children then why are countless millions killed each year through utterly horrible circumstances from abuse to torture to terrorism, starvation the list goes on? Are they simply going through this hard time in life to be blessed in heaven?

I'm on neither side but I usually follow the "question everything" brigade, if it's not logical then question it.
Click to expand...

The Lord works in mysterious ways :)
 
Castiel said:
It was an example, not a judgement on the truth value of the example. You could easily substitute Odin for any other specific manifestation of God(s).
Click to expand...

It does seem to be a judgement though, unless you include the Abrahamic God too. You seem to be saying that the Abrahamic God is more likely to be true than one of the Neopagan gods.
 
Castiel said:
The burden is on the claimant, any claimant has the same burden of proof. That doesn't mean that the actual claim requires an equal level of evidence. There is a difference between the Claimant and the Claim.
Click to expand...

Genuine question, If I said god xyz does not exist im not really a claiment am I? Im just resposnding to someone elses claim the god xyz does exists. Even If I start the conersation of first with I dont believe god xyz exist im still not the claiment as someone must have claimed god xyz does exist for me to say that god xyz does not exist? Im just a responder am I not?
 
RDM said:
It does seem to be a judgement though, unless you include the Abrahamic God too. You seem to be saying that the Abrahamic God is more likely to be true than one of the Neopagan gods.
Click to expand...

I don't quite know how you have arrived at that. It isn't something he's said.
 
Drizmod said:
Genuine question, If I said god xyz does not exist im not really a claiment am I?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you are. Whether responding or not you are talking in absolutes. If you say something does not exist, and you do so without proof, that is a faith-based position.

If you were to say 'in all likelihood I reckon you're talking rubbish' that would be better ;)
 
Gilly said:
I'm afraid you are. Whether responding or not you are talking in absolutes. If you say something does not exist, and you do so without proof, that is a faith-based position.

If you were to say 'in all likelihood I reckon you're talking rubbish' that would be better ;)
Click to expand...

But that still doesn't cut it with me as nobody ever thinks that with anything other than god. Sorry to play the unicorn example but everyone says that unicorns don't exist, however this is no way that we can disprove that unicorn's exist. So should everyone say that they 'probably don't exist' instead?
 
MikeTheNative said:
But that still doesn't cut it with me as nobody ever thinks that with anything other than god. Sorry to play the unicorn example but everyone says that unicorns don't exist, however this is no way that we can disprove that unicorn's exist. So should everyone say that they 'probably don't exist' instead?
Click to expand...

It may not cut it with you, and if you had millions (billions?) of people that were staunch in their belief that unicorns did, in fact, exist, you would share some burden of responsibility for your faith based positions.

It does also hark back to the narrow definitions that Castiel was talking about, and how you define the concepts.
 
Gilly said:
The Lord works in mysterious ways :)
Click to expand...

Funny thing is I got that response a lot from people I know and they are deadly serious about it too. I agree though with posts above, it raises too many questions resulting in likely 1 of 2 answers (as mentioned above) and nobody who strictly follows a faith wants to touch on the subject because of it and instead respond with “It’s God’s will don’t question it”.

Another good question is when was the last time a prayer was answered? Is God really listening like we’re told? I know a lot of people that pray daily but not a single one of their prayers have yet to be answered. Things only come to resolution after someone physically gets up and does something about it.

I know this all probably sounds like religion bashing but it really isn’t! I know plenty of people who follow religion but they’re also people who are open to being asked about why they do it and how it benefits them and what they make of the opposite end of the spectrum. At the end of the day it’s peace of mind. If something gives meaning to someone’s day and it’s not affecting anyone else negatively then I don’t think anyone has the right to tell them they’re wrong or worshiping a something that may not even exist. It keeps them happy, it makes them function and that’s all that matters right?

But here’s another but, there’s a quote fron Rust Cohle in True Detective that had some impact:

If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward then, brother, that person is a piece of ****. And I'd like to get as many of them out in the open as possible. You gotta get together and tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe just to get through the goddamn day? What's that say about your reality?
Click to expand...

The problem arises when you get hard-line followers who push their views on everyone in their path and they won’t be open to discussion or reason. I think we all know those kinds of people and they give a bad rep to everyone else which is a shame.
 
Gilly said:
It may not cut it with you, and if you had millions (billions?) of people that were staunch in their belief that unicorns did, in fact, exist, you would share some burden of responsibility for your faith based positions.

It does also hark back to the narrow definitions that Castiel was talking about, and how you define the concepts.
Click to expand...

Isnt that known as Argumentum ad populum?
 
Gilly said:
I'm afraid you are. Whether responding or not you are talking in absolutes. If you say something does not exist, and you do so without proof, that is a faith-based position.

If you were to say 'in all likelihood I reckon you're talking rubbish' that would be better ;)
Click to expand...

Interesting, So if I said to you that in the Andromeda Galaxy exists an Invisble Unicorn your reply would be what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom