Vinnie

Atheism only has merit with certain types of deities. For example, I disbelieve in the Christian God. One is free to lack belief in the existence of God as well. That is rational given the nature of things. But to positively deny any sort of God's existence is just as absurd as positively accepting some God's existence.

There is no proof either way. Only convoluted arguments that simply assume what each side wants them too. Take evolution and this oversimplication as an example:

Theist
We are religious creatures. Many people have amazing personal experiences and religious transformations and experiences with God. They deem this evidence for God on the basis of prayer and personal experience. Thus Goddica exists.

Atheist
Evolution oriented us to be religious creatures. It helps our species. There is a god-spot in the brain. Thus there us no evidence for Goddica. Only science-evilca

Vinnie

If there was a God, wouldn't it make sense that he would design us to be religious creatures? Further, its possible God is real on the basis of the experiences, its also possible its just evolution. How does one tell?

The obvious answer is that one can't.

Thats why I am an agnostic theist. I am a religious creature. I consider spirituality healthy and beneficial (not the conservative variety) and having good macro and micro social benefits. Placebo prayer does work. Its like mediation.

But I know there really is no striking or conclusive or other evidence for God's existence. Religious experience can be explained solely by evolution or by evolution designed by God. There is no way to tell. Occam's razor certainly does not help us out of this pickle.

Some args for Goddica:

* Existence itself. There is something rather than nothing which is curious. (of course this reeks of being a non sequitur). Maybe its a similar route to the ontological argument or one of metacrock's arguments. I don't know. I'd throw the cosmological argument into this category as well. Of course this opens up lots of cans of worms that we can only speculate on. Theism tends to have as many problems as atheism here (a being outside of time created the world when the act of creating something appears to be a time-based phenomenon). When the laws of physics break down and we have no way of knowing anything more, just stop talking is my philosophy. Also, I don't place my image of God as outside time. Thats the beauty of panentheism (not pantheism!) though its not entirely explainable either.

* Advanced life exists. This is not your ID argument which is nonsense. Its a philosophical modification of the design argument to actually make it worth a penny or two. It says that in a theistic framework with a loving God life is more probable than in a nontheistic one of just random chance. Of course, many arguable assumptions are made in this. (scientific (given current knowledge that is lacking and disputed as to the probability of life) and religious (a perfect good God would *WANT* to create other life)

* Moral argument. Morality is true therefore Goddica exists. Well, hate to burst the Bubble but evilution explains morality just as well as Goddica. There also is no need to bifurcate or not bifurcate between the two.

* TAG, I always used to like Tag but it does some assuming about a lot of things we don't know. Specifically the brain, the mind, how it works, why we think what we do.

Theism in TAG suffers from the same problem as non-theism. The TAG guy wants to go on to the non-theist about how do your know your thoughts correspond to reality? But what arguments does the TAG present for such a correspondance? He merely hopes to show that the atheist "assumes" truth and correspondance of thought thus he can pass this assumption.

But if we carry TAG on, what, ultimately is morality, thought and so forth, other than brain gas? It simply may be operated by certain rules and principles governed by intracranial phenomenon (which is why its "consistent" and "corresponding to reality" if done properly). Distinguishing between "truth" and "false" are a beneficial product of evolution. Why we need a "transcendental metaphysical and immaterial standard" is not shown. How this immaterial and metaphysical standard interacts with our brains and "free will" opens up a whole other host of questions.

Its no wonder theists are so opposed to evolution in general. It completely undercuts their "transcendental" (e.g. moral, truth, thought) and "origin of life" arguments.

So when you say:

I could care less. My theology and worldview is MUCH MUCH different than your garden variety skeptic and theist. The fact that you, a "theist" can argue very well for "atheism" should tell you all by itself that there is something wrong with the picture.

Vinnie

Vinnie

""""Why because you dont like the answers?"""""

No. The reason is because in your extensive studying and breathtaking knowledge of "all the major philosophies in the world", you've managed to not bother reading critical scholarship in regards to Christian origins and your own holy book.

If I am wrong please provide me with a small bibliography of critical tomes you have read in regards to Biblical criticism. Books and authors please. We will set the bar low at 15 for starters.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours

Vinnie

Amaleq13

No, the "I am" passage is contrary to ALL of the statements attributed to Jesus in the other Gospels. Everywhere except this statement, Jesus is clearly depicted as considering God to be a entity entirely independent of himself.

Why should we accept this singular statement over all the others?

Do you have any answers to my earlier questions?

Vinnie

Hey!Thats my line. Stop using multiple attestation, heathen!

Amaleq13

Unfortunately for your argument, there is no good reason to accept the 2nd century attribution as legitimate. Even as conservative a reference as the Catholic Study Bible seems to recognize there is more faith than evidence involved in the assumptions of your comment (all quotes from p.146 of the NT section):

"Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person."

"Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style."

"Although tradition identifies this person [beloved disciple] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this."

Do you really believe that, in the garden at Gethsemane, Jesus was praying to himself, asking himself to consider letting himself out of being crucified, and then submitting himself to whatever his own will desired? If so, I guess the answer to the classic trilemma is "lunatic".

I've got a brother-in-law in Maryland, maybe I can trick him into buying you a beer to forget about it.

Vinnie

Ooh. Beer. Yummy.

Vinnie

I just saw this. :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Bottom of the barrel, indeed! I eagerly await your bibliography!

Jesus under Fire,
New Evidence that Demands a Verdict
The Case For Christ.

Which books did I miss?

Maybe a Tom Wright work if lucky?

Straight Hate

Suckering a Christian into debating the religious aspects of atheism on the notion that an official (evilTM) atheist handbook exists will be one of the fondest memories I have of this board.

You guys rule.

Vinnie

You forgot to mention his detailed study into atheism....

Vinnie

Fitz009

Ive never read a Josh McDowell. Most Christians can think that up on their own. And no, just because I study other religions does not mean there is something wrong with Christianity, it means I wanted to have a grounding in all faiths for discussion such as this. You want a list of 15? Try these
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
The Anti-Christ
The Gay Science
The Will to Power
Case Against Christianity
God's Defenders
All Thomas Hardy, not quite agnostic or atheist but a meliorist
Why Atheism?
Mencken on Religion
Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism
Atheism - The case against God
Arguing for Atheism
Atheism: A Philosophical Justification
The Miracle of Theism
Agnosticism and Christianity

Apart from Atheism/Agnosticism I have also read
The Book of Mormon
The Quran
And several books on Buddhism, Hinduism, witchcraft (mainly Wiccan) and various smaller cults

Im waiting?