Bathrone

Being an athiest, I am debating with this Christain Apologetic on the failure of the various religions to prove God exists.

I have provided critical reasoned inquiry to the debate, in that, since no reasoned evidence has ever been provided for the existence of God, that nothing has ever been structured which could demonstrate any merit of truth whatsoever to support such a claim, that it was invented by man for emotional reasons......for an emotional response to the human condition.

The Apologetic has responded by trying to claim the following;

"Neither you nor I could prove or disprove whether God has proven himself to me or even whether he has or hasn't spoken directly to some people. Some religions (especially in the late 20th century) were obviously invented. But you can't scientifically prove that ANY of the older religions were invented. And lastly, depending on which god/God may be real, if he/she/it is real, who is to say why he/she/it isn't scientifically obvious. Perhaps there is intent, or perhaps we are simply unable. Ants can not comprehend our existence. Can we comprehend something that makes us as mere ants? Let's be scientifically consistent now and stick with "I believe" when no proof exists in either direction, just like the scientists who believe there was an intelligent Prime Mover that kicked things off. They don't say "there was", they say "we believe"."

It seems to me, this level of "thinking" is an utter farce, and worse, attempting to label it "scientifically consistant" is just appauling.

I mean, according to that, I could make a new religion that workships Our Lord The Pink Spotted Girraffe, who rules over Earth from Venus. I could say that our Pink Spotted Girraffe is so powerful, and so omnipresent that it is impossible for any human to prove that the Girraffe God does not exist, ruling over us from Venus.

I honestly feel that these Apologetics are mentally deluded.

How am I supposed to respond to this guy?:banghead:

Vinnie

Why would you want to try to take away the hope that he has?

Vinnie

tk

If God can't produce any physical effects in the world we live in, even if He exists, He will be pretty irrelevant.

(What about "spiritual" effects? That's something else to think about.)

Bathrone

Should "truth" be secondary to human emotion?

Are you suggesting the only way for morality, ethics and human passion for betterment is through Christanity? Or indeed, through any belief at all in God(s)?

Please explain, if God(s) exist without needing any reasoned critical evidence to provide burden of proof, how is it Christains are able to discredit the existence of thousands more Gods that thousands more religions have calimed to exist?

Vinnie

See Paul about not causing brothers to stumble.

There are also many cases where people do not say the truth that they are feeling out of concerns of politically correctness and or the feelings of others. Its a common part of life in my experiences. If a religious claim is false there is no inherant reason to expose it. but if it causes a person to be happy, have hope, causes them to morally grow etc. what "truthful" reason do you have for purposefully going out of your way to argue with them?

Obviously when Christians start trying to get yecism taught in schools and infringe on other's rights with various rules its time to speak out. But in some cases different from these, discretion is the better part of valor.

Nope.

True fellowship with God naturally produces a better and more happy life in my opinion. There are exceeptions and this is a multi-dimensional issue whereby simplification of it will always lead to distortion.

God by definition is singular in a qualitative sense to me. I do not even think it is coherent to view God in a quantitative sense any more. God is the supreme being behind everything. To speak of more than one God is to speak nonsense in my opinion. To speak of different manifestations or revelations of the supreme being of which none greater can be thought is not.

And I don't necessarily discredit the veracity of the "thousands more religions " that have existed. Certianly all the mutually exclusive claims of varying religious faiths cannot all be true but that does not mean there is not truth behind them all or that they do not effectively do what a religion should do: reconcile people to God and help them lead better lives.

Vinnie

Bathrone

Should "truth" be secondary to human emotion?

Yes, it should be.

Would you like to me to ellaborate on how the "wonder" and "hope" of Xtny has brought untold malice into our world? Yes, our history is riddled with the problems that Xtny has brought.

The harm Xtny and other religions has caused, and which continues to cause, is a concern.

It is also a failure to open up to Human potential. Each of us, has the faculties within us to have hope, ethics and morality without any emotional belief in crazed supernaturlaism.

Vinnie

If you feel dwelling on and only on all the negative aspects of "Christian" history will present a biased picture or prove your point feel free to lay out your case. I doubt you will teach me anything new about Christian history and the harm done by Christians but who knows, you just might.

Do you feel the positive outweighs the negative or vice versa?

*cough*naturalism*cough*

By the way, maybe you could list all the good "atheism" has done? Then list all the evil along side it??

:boohoo: :notworthy

Bathrone

Vinnie you have an emotional faith that provides you with a crutch to lead your life against.

There has never been any reasoned critical evidence to support the supernatural.

There has been reasoned critical evidence to demonstrate categorically that the buybull has numerous scientific falsehoods in it.

The ability to create the idea of what does not exist, the ability to create an illogical question, the ability to have faith in something not matched to reality, is no ability to have certainty of truth.

Vinnie

Faith is based partially on emotion. I would say "heart, mind and soul" myself. I would also say that my faith is a crutch. I focus and rely on God. His strength is made perfect in my weakness so I agree with that

I won't hand-wave and dismiss every miraculous claim ever made in light of a philosophical prejudice. But it seems you have no trouble doing so. To each his own.

Yes. The Bible has scientific, historical and internal errors. What exactly is your point here? Is that supposed to undermine my faith? Maybe you should try coming to the land where Christian academicians play. In that playground many consider "verbal plenary inspiration" to be a naive form of inspiration. Read their writings like me and you would know that

Are you describing naturalism?

Vinnie

Kosh

Take the guy to the site of a murder, and show him the ants crawling all over the body, then ask if he still believes that they can't comprehend our existance.... ;-)

Maybe then he'll realize what a poor analogy that is.