Kvalhion

Welcome, Apologetix. You'll find a lot of valuable information here at II, if you are truly interested in seeking it.

Let me point out that atheism requires no proof or disproof. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. The only way you could consider atheism to be something that needs to be proven is if you presuppose a god or gods do exist. However it is generally accepted that someone making a positive claim on the existence of the supernatural assumes the burden of proof to show such a claim has validity. Otherwise I could presuppose invisible pink bunnies exist and challenge you to prove your position that they do not. I hope you agree that doing so would be an excercise in futility.

It seems to me that you have adopted a comfortable myth in Christianity, and are content to accept its claim without serious inquiry. Appealing to philosophy to deny that there are no facts is simply dodging the issue. That you believe what you believe and find comfort in it is great. I would urge caution, however, in trying to justify or promote that belief for others.

To me, a 'god of love' loses any intrinsic value when I open my eyes to the reality around me. Reality can be harsh and cruel; believing there is some supernatural god who will protect me and not others (even those who would profess the same faith) seems ignorant at best.

joedad

Hello Apologetix,

Indulge my curiosity.

What is a "hardened atheist?"

What is a "good atheist?""Evidence" such as .... what exactly? Your answer should help me understand what you mean by "facts" at least in this specific application.

joe

Apologetix

You're asking for solid evidence in a physical world of something that is outside of the physical world. I hope you realize the flaw of this and I do not have to point it out any further.

As for what God is made out of, again, you can stick to the analysis given above in that we cannot know because we are limited while under the philosophy of God He is not. You are asking for physical evidence of something that isn't physical.

Actually I posted my testimony to prove a point to someone else on another website. Thus far my point has been proven However people like you are helping to prove the point I was making wrong (trust me, this is a good thing that you are).

I have looked at Christianity in depth and I have debated many well educated Athiest. I have had my faith challenged and likewise I have challenged many. One thing I've learned in many of my debates is that no matter how many facts either side presents, no one is truly convinced. I've debated great minds, yet I am not changed in my ways. It is not out of stubborness or a knack for ignorance, but instead that I have been able to counter the claims.

The reason I have no desire to present "facts" on this site is like I said, my post was made simply to prove a point to someone else. On top of that, you realize that you labeled me ignorant simply because it seemed that I was relying merely upon faith. To you, faith is the antithesis of intellectual integrity. It defies reason and instead relies upon what the person wants to know, what they "need" to know. This, of course, is your view upon things. Also, the moment I say I believe in Christ, and say that I have "facts" yet chose not to do it, you automatically assume I have nothing. Why? Because you have been blinded by "intellectual elitism" into thinking that if someone doesn't present facts, then they must not have them. It has not crossed your mind that maybe the person has nothing to prove. That they've done their debating and could possibly post the entire arguements made without anyone responding. This is why I offer no facts, because I've been down that road. I know what you will say before you say it . So what fruit, what learning, can possibly come from it for me?

Gooch's dad

What does that mean to be 'outside of the physical world'? How do you know this 'god' is outside of the physical world? This sounds to me like an ad hoc definition, one that conveniently places your 'god' into the realm of the non-falsifiable.

Does your god interact with our physical world at all? I would expect your answer would be yes, correct? Then your god IS in the realm of epistemology, and you owe us answers.

Oh, and you brought up the issue of the bible being historically reliable. Are you really willing to take on that issue? There are quite a few clear errors in the bible, that contradict with known history. The only way I've seen Christian inerrantists deal with this is to simply presuppose that the bible is true, regardless of any evidence that is presented. Is that your approach, or are you actually openminded enough to examine the evidence?

By the way, welcome to the IIDB

-Kelly

avalanche:ix

the problem in thinking that you are able to counter the arguments is just that, you just think you are able to. considering how you felt the need to bring up the notion that god is outside of phsyical reality and thus not subject to our desires for proof and so forth, i hardly think you could logically counter any arguments presented by these 'great minds'. no offense. well, actually a huge amount of offense, i was just being polite.

Apologetix

One who has simply studied their faith and has based their faith upon what they have learned from studying and not from action. A hardened athiest is one who is not an athiest because they hate Christians, but they are an athiest because they desire to learn.

There is no such thing as a "good athiest". Athiest are humans, and humans are not good by nature. Just like there is no such thing as a "good Christian".

Look at what I said in context. When I said that I was speaking about the historical applications of the Bible.

Apologetix

Wow, the responces come very quickly on here.

You are asserting that we must prove that God is in a realm that is outside of physical evidence. This sets up an impossible requirement, one that cannot be met.
The logic can be offered that there is a God who does interact with humans. However I think that many times Athiest attempt to look at it through their point of view without seriously considering the full theology of who God is. Instead they take a blanket theology and go from there. And if one attempts to use any true theology of God, it is often times ignored.

I'm very open to it. For me, the Bible cannot be true if it contains major errors, such as getting events wrong. I mean, to assert that the Bible could possible be true when there is proven evidence against it is simply ignorance on a whole new level.
I think you ignored the major problem I had in that proof cannot be defined.

Brahe

In case anyone's wondering, the thread which inspired this one is here:

Christians (Intolerant?)

[Apologies for misplaced carriage returns. Can anyone recommend a solution?]

[Well...I tried. Weird. -d]

Kvalhion

This statement really doesn't have much meaning as far as I am concerned. How do you define a "well educated Athiest[sic"? Not all people who lack belief in gods present the same arguments nor do they accept the same beliefs. Would it be meaningful to you for me to say "I have spoken to many Christians", and then make sweeping generalizations about Christianity?

In all honesty, I would have to say that based upon your few posts thus far, what you use to "counter the claims" may be accpetable to you, but will likely not hold any water with many people here. It is not up to others to convince you to accept reality as it is. If you choose to see it in your own perspective, nothing anyone can say or do will change that. I do not necessarily see ignorance as something to be proud of, however.
Note that I am not calling you ignorant. I am saying that someone who denies what is real to believe what they believe is by definition ignorant.

This is based upon my own experience. I have witnessed many occasions where people have claimed to have evidence to support a claim yet the "evidence" they accept really is not evidence at all. In hundreds of thousands of posts regarding religion and the supernatural, not one has ever offered evidence of the supernatural. So yes, when you claim you have "facts" but conveniently do not with to give them, I, in my opinion, justifiably assume you have no facts at all.

Care for an example? Recently a man tried to buy a home in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. He claimed he was the Minnesota Twins' newest player, who received a 17 million dollar signing bonus. Yet when it actually came time to prove he was a multi-millionaire who could afford the house, he didn't have any "facts" to support his claim. "I could prove it to you, but why should I have to?" It seems, according to your argument, that his claims should be sufficient enough for him to be given the house. Unsurprisingly, he was arrested for fraud. The Twins had never heard of him.

You're right; it hasn't crossed my mind that those who make outrageous claims have no need to support them. Especially when such claims invariably end up involving me against my will.

Eudaimonist

But, according to Christian belief, Jesus didn't actually die, did he? I think I'd be more impressed if he had actually passed out of existence.

BTW, there were are many ancient religions that have some sort of Solar hero (typically a demigod) who dies and is reborn (just as the Sun "dies" at night and is "reborn" in the morning). I'm afraid that Christianity isn't really unique in this regard.