Douchebag Thread for Politics & Religion Spill Over

[JJ Husker]

How is NUance being certain of God and his glory any different than knapplc being certain that God is merely a made up entity?

The difference is that only one of those is based off of rational evidence.

I don't think knapp makes a factual claim that God doesn't exist. I could be wrong, and let me know if I am, but I seem to always encounter him talking about God not existing only within his own personal conclusion. Not saying anything along the lines of, "I know this is true, and that people who don't believe it are wrong."

My stance is that the god of the Bible is not dissimilar to the gods of that region and time when it was created. A good analogy to this is the Israelites' desire to have a king because all of their neighbors had a king, so they made a king (Saul). All their neighbors had gods, so they came up with a god.The Christian god hasn't been seen in 2,000 years or so, there is no factual evidence of said god actually existing, and many, many portions of the god's origin story can be seen in the origin stories of other gods.Based on that, I reasonably conclude that "god," as he is referred to in this conversation, is no more real than Zeus or Odin. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but until that is provided, there's no reason to believe any of this story is true.

But, he'll also say it is required to provide proof (facts) of any claims that God does exist while at the same time saying it is not required to provide proof that he does not exist. It may be his own personal conclusion but he sure does treat it like fact. And how would that be any different than a believer approaching and presenting his viewpoint as fact based on their personal conclusion?I understand the logical fallacy of asking someone to provide proof that something does not exist but I would hope people have the ability to think far enough outside the box that they realize it is equally as impossible to provide evidence of a supernatural being such as God.

It should NOT be impossible to provide evidence of a god who describes himself as a loving father engaged in the lives of his children. It should be exceedingly easy, as easy as proving to a new acquaintance that your father exists - take him over to your dad's house and introduce them in person.

I'm curious what your position really is?

1- You don't believe the Christian God of the Bible exists but possibly there is a higher power, creator type entity?

2- You don't believe any higher entity or creator exists?

3- Or you're just mad at God for not doing things the way you think the Christian God should?

My confusion stems from the fact that you constantly use manmade things and religion as the basis for your disbelief. When you say "a god who describes himself as a loving father engaged in the lives of his children", I assume you are talking specifically about the Judeo Christian God, the God of the Bible. But you also consistently bring laundry list of mostly myth like creatures as some sort of evidence against there being one true God. Is it possible there is a one true God but no religion (man) has got him figured out perfectly? Wouldn't that help explain how man has come up with so many variations and seemingly similar takes on him?

Anyway I'm just curious if you think a one true God/Creator exists. Not necessarily the God of the Bible. (Sorry if you've answered this prior but I've forgotten your position)

 

[knapplc]

Funny. This comes up nearly every time we talk about this - asking if atheists are "mad" at god. People who don't believe gods are real aren't mad at nonexistent things.

I don't believe gods exist. They are man-made things invented to explain what prehistoric humans didn't understand. They are the vestigial tail of humanity's attempts to understand the universe.

 

[JJ Husker]

Funny. This comes up nearly every time we talk about this - asking if atheists are "mad" at god. People who don't believe gods are real aren't mad at nonexistent things.I don't believe gods exist. They are man-made things invented to explain what prehistoric humans didn't understand. They are the vestigial tail of humanity's attempts to understand the universe.

Thank you for answering....again, if that's the case. My short term memory could give Dory a run for her money.

 

[Redux]

A further difference is, if evidence is provided that shows the existence of a god, I'll change my stance.

That would be what NUance described happening to him. An event that made him truly believe.

And that's not really a difference because you know that no proof is known to exist, so you stating it is a smoke screen.

 

[knapplc]

I'm talking about concrete proof to all of humanity that a god exists. I'm not talking about the religious experience of one individual.

If the god of the Bible really existed, he'd make himself known to the beings he describes as his "children." It's as simple as that.

 

[Redux]

How is NUance being certain of God and his glory any different than knapplc being certain that God is merely a made up entity?

The difference is that only one of those is based off of rational evidence.

Um no. They are both based off beliefs and lack of evidence.

I get what you're saying, and I'm Christian.

But the problem is you could say the same thing about Santa Clause. We can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist. We can't prove ghosts don't exist.

I think there is a difference between the 2. NUance is saying something exists even though it can't be seen. knapp is saying he can't see it with his eyes or with any scientific means, so it doesn't exist. NUance is asking people to believe in something that he is sure exists, but he can't show it to them other than to say "trust me I'm right." knapp is saying "I can't see it, you can't see it, science can't see it, so it doesn't exist." That's what makes them different. knapp is telling people to use their own eyes, not to just trust him.

That doesn't mean either of them is more convincing than the other, but knapp has something tangible, NUance is telling people to trust him.

We know Santa isn't real. And people are working on both sides of the "ghost" aisle. (Side note, I think your assumption on my belief in the ghost regard is off)

The only reason knapps argument is remotely tangible is because it uses understood science and known history. That does not take into account any forgotten or misinterpreted or lost history that may strenghten NUance's argument and it certainly leaves out unknown science that could prove NUances faith correct or incorrect.

 

[knapplc]

We know Santa isn't real. And people are working on both sides of the "ghost" aisle. (Side note, I think your assumption on my belief in the ghost regard is off)

The only reason knapps argument is remotely tangible is because it uses understood science and known history. That does not take into account any forgotten or misinterpreted or lost history that may strenghten NUance's argument and it certainly leaves out unknown science that could prove NUances faith correct or incorrect.

How do we know that Santa isn't real?

 

[zoogs]

"The only reason knapps argument is remotely tangible is because it uses understood science and known history."

Only and remotely are interesting qualifiers to put here.

 

[Redux]

I'm talking about concrete proof to all of humanity that a god exists. I'm not talking about the religious experience of one individual.If the god of the Bible really existed, he'd make himself known to the beings he describes as his "children." It's as simple as that.

Why? Why would he have to do that?

 

[Redux]

"The only reason knapps argument is remotely tangible is because it uses understood science and known history."Only and remotely are interesting qualifiers to put here.

Using the throw something to the left to cause a distraction method?

 

[Redux]

We know Santa isn't real. And people are working on both sides of the "ghost" aisle. (Side note, I think your assumption on my belief in the ghost regard is off)The only reason knapps argument is remotely tangible is because it uses understood science and known history. That does not take into account any forgotten or misinterpreted or lost history that may strenghten NUance's argument and it certainly leaves out unknown science that could prove NUances faith correct or incorrect.

How do we know that Santa isn't real?

Because I'm not 6"taller and my hair is still thinning.

But really because we all know who is buying our gifts. Yes you can compare it to God but it isn't the same thing.

 

[knapplc]

I'm talking about concrete proof to all of humanity that a god exists. I'm not talking about the religious experience of one individual.If the god of the Bible really existed, he'd make himself known to the beings he describes as his "children." It's as simple as that.

Why? Why would he have to do that?

Why would a father take an active role in the lives of his children?

That's really a question you need to ask?

 

[zoogs]

If any argument can be characterized as throwing things random directions to distract, it's "but what if things that aren't known or empirical are equally valid as scientific knowledge?"

If we accept that premise, then anything goes. It's frankly ludicrous to assign these doubt-casting qualifiers to views shaped "only" by that marginal little corner consisting of everything we know. Such views are the exact opposite of "only remotely" acceptable ideas hinged on a single, flaky support beam.

 

[Redux]

I'm talking about concrete proof to all of humanity that a god exists. I'm not talking about the religious experience of one individual.If the god of the Bible really existed, he'd make himself known to the beings he describes as his "children." It's as simple as that.

Why? Why would he have to do that?

Why would a father take an active role in the lives of his children?That's really a question you need to ask?

Because our expectation of God and our understanding of what God may be is likely way off base.

 

[Redux]

If any argument can be characterized as throwing things random directions to distract, it's "but what if things that aren't known or empirical are equally valid as scientific knowledge?"If we accept that premise, then anything goes. It's frankly ludicrous to assign these doubt-casting qualifiers to views shaped "only" by that marginal little corner consisting of everything we know. Such views are the exact opposite of "only remotely" acceptable ideas hinged on a single, flaky support beam.

Both Christianity and Atheism only hold validity because people accept what each ism suggests. Both isms argue and attempt to persuade the other towards their line of thinking. Only Atheism uses history, understood logic and science to support itself. Christianity uses history, mythos and personal faith.