Atheism makes you smart, but don't take my word for it...

#76
#76
T-TownVol said:
It all boils down to the simple fact that I beleive that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The athiest does not and goes about trying to find evidence to the contrary. There are many archeological finds that prove the words of the Bible to be true.
The athiest only acknowledges the Bible as a history book. I beleive that it takes far more "faith" to make the Evolution Theory leap than it does to believe in the one true God. Your "rational thinking" dig is noted.
Click to expand...

Actually I couldnt care less what anyone chooses to believe. I dont believe in any God, but if someone wants to then that is their right. In my opinion, many atheists can be just as boring and narrow minded as committed god followers. As long as religious people do not judge others based on that persons beliefs, then I have no problem. I'm a moral person who strives to lead a good life, I don't need to God to do that.

I have to say though that the idea that the onus should be on the Atheist to disprove God is so ridiculous I cant even comprehend how someone could think it. I cant be bothered to get into a debate about it, because neither side can win. I just find it hard to believe that there are adults in the world who believe the story of Adam and Eve in a literal sense, or that dinosaurs were around just a few thousand years ago. It truly boggles my mind.
 
#77
#77
IPorange said:
No matter what you believe, both belief systems are dealing with the same problems, which come down to the limitations of the human experience and the human intellect.
Click to expand...

I rarely see atheists admit this. Either view takes "faith".
 
#78
#78
pejp said:
I have to say though that the idea that the onus should be on the Atheist to disprove God is so ridiculous I cant even comprehend how someone could think it.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle but the topic of this thread is how atheists often claim intellectual superiority primarily because they don't believe in God. In such a situation, proving the non-existence is a critical component of establishing said intellectual superiority.
 
#79
#79
volinbham said:
I agree in principle but the topic of this thread is how atheists often claim intellectual superiority primarily because they don't believe in God. In such a situation, proving the non-existence is a critical component of establishing said intellectual superiority.
Click to expand...
What I was thinking. Without context, he's right. In this context, he couldn't be more wrong.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#82
#82
volinbham said:
I rarely see atheists admit this. Either view takes "faith".
Click to expand...

But the difference is the atheist will generally change his point of view as new evidence or data becomes available. He has "faith" the current explanation is the best one available, but not necessarily the right one. For example, given the claims of many religious people, I can think of any number of things that cause me to believe the creator story is more reasonable. But such evidence is regularly explained away or reasoned out of the religious faith purview.

I don't think this is the case with religious faith. It is unshakable and as new data and evidence arises they find ways to conform it to a preconceived notion of God .

In a sense, one "faith" is open to change and continually does...the other is elastic and unchanging.
 
#83
#83
rjd970 said:
But the difference is the atheist will generally change his point of view as new evidence or data becomes available. He has "faith" the current explanation is the best one available, but not necessarily the right one. For example, given the claims of many religious people, I can think of any number of things that cause me to believe the creator story is more reasonable. But such evidence is regularly explained away or reasoned out of the religious faith purview.

I don't think this is the case with religious faith. It is unshakable and as new data and evidence arises they find ways to conform it to a preconceived notion of God .

In a sense, one "faith" is open to change and continually does...the other is elastic and unchanging.
Click to expand...
so ever changing is of merit?
 
#84
#84
rjd970 said:
But the difference is the atheist will generally change his point of view as new evidence or data becomes available. He has "faith" the current explanation is the best one available, but not necessarily the right one. For example, given the claims of many religious people, I can think of any number of things that cause me to believe the creator story is more reasonable. But such evidence is regularly explained away or reasoned out of the religious faith purview.

I don't think this is the case with religious faith. It is unshakable and as new data and evidence arises they find ways to conform it to a preconceived notion of God .

In a sense, one "faith" is open to change and continually does...the other is elastic and unchanging.
Click to expand...

Except for the most hardcore Christians that believe in the Bible word for word the same is true for Christianity. Christians can read the same sentence in the Bible and take away different meaning. There are many subtleties that they spend way too much time arguing about. It is the overall message that matters most.

The difference between many Atheists and many Christians is that Christians like myself see science as another way to understand and learn about God and his creation. Many Atheists see it as evidence he doesn't exist, I don't see how they could argue this point, one makes no more sense than the other if you think about it.
 
#86
#86
rjd970 said:
Absolutely. Reasons for belief should be primary, not the belief itself.
Click to expand...
fooled me. Seems the reasons for refuting a creator constantly changing to reflect the flavor of the month is a weakness, rather than strength.
 
#87
#87
rjd970 said:
Absolutely. Reasons for belief should be primary, not the belief itself.
Click to expand...

And when so many of those reasons have been scrapped and abandoned for the newest flavor of the month?

edit: a day late and a dollar short, I'll have to type faster next time BPV.
 
#88
#88
KB5252 said:
The difference between many Atheists and many Christians is that Christians like myself see science as another way to understand and learn about God and his creation. Many Atheists see it as evidence he doesn't exist, I don't see how they could argue this point, one makes no more sense than the other if you think about it.
Click to expand...

What evidence would it take for your beliefs about Christianity to be proven wrong?
 
#89
#89
rjd970 said:
What evidence would it take for your beliefs about Christianity to be proven wrong?
Click to expand...

Predict the weather accurately in middle Tennessee would be a start.

Science would have to accurately describe and explain everything and it's origins.
 
#90
#90
rjd970 said:
What evidence would it take for your beliefs about Christianity to be proven wrong?
Click to expand...
probably something similar to what it would take you to believe the opposite.

I've said it a lot to you here: we all end up at the same point in this debate when we think hard about it. You choose to believe that there will be a scientific answer in the future that will satisfy what you don't know. I don't believe that answer is coming because I believe a greater power willed it. We're really not that far apart. I'm skeptical of much and hate the narrow minded on both sides of the argument.
 
#91
#91
rjd970 said:
But the difference is the atheist will generally change his point of view as new evidence or data becomes available. He has "faith" the current explanation is the best one available, but not necessarily the right one. For example, given the claims of many religious people, I can think of any number of things that cause me to believe the creator story is more reasonable. But such evidence is regularly explained away or reasoned out of the religious faith purview.

I don't think this is the case with religious faith. It is unshakable and as new data and evidence arises they find ways to conform it to a preconceived notion of God .

In a sense, one "faith" is open to change and continually does...the other is elastic and unchanging.
Click to expand...

my conceptualization has changed quite a bit over the years.

what hasn't changed is the overall belief in a Creator of some type.

For the "rationalist" atheist, the theory of our beginnings changes but the unshakable faith in man's ability to uncover the "truth" of the beginnings doesn't change. There is a constant view that all things eventually will succumb to man's ability to apply "science" to the situation and gain understanding. This is a leap of faith.
 
#92
#92
BigPapaVol said:
fooled me. Seems the reasons for refuting a creator constantly changing to reflect the flavor of the month is a weakness, rather than strength.
Click to expand...

With science and evidence based approaches, absolutes are rare and certainty is rarely achievable. This drives discovery, innovation, and continual knowledge gain. The uncertainty involved is its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

The religious faith based approach is "There is a God". Everything else conforms to that and the reasons will continually change so this makes sense. And then to take it a step further, specific religious doctrines attempt to explain how he thinks and what he wants.

IMO, it is far better to work in uncertainty on a road to real truth than to continually play the same game over and over again so your primary belief will never have to change.
 
#93
#93
volinbham said:
my conceptualization has changed quite a bit over the years.

what hasn't changed is the overall belief in a Creator of some type.

For the "rationalist" atheist, the theory of our beginnings changes but the unshakable faith in man's ability to uncover the "truth" of the beginnings doesn't change. There is a constant view that all things eventually will succumb to man's ability to apply "science" to the situation and gain understanding. This is a leap of faith.
Click to expand...

What evidence is there that would tell us this isn't possible?
 
#94
#94
rjd970 said:
What evidence would it take for your beliefs about Christianity to be proven wrong?
Click to expand...

one of your favorite games. How about this one:

what evidence would it take to prove wrong your belief that "science can explain all"?
 
#95
#95
rjd970 said:
With science and evidence based approaches, absolutes are rare and certainty is rarely achievable. This drives discovery, innovation, and continual knowledge gain. The uncertainty involved is its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

The religious faith based approach is "There is a God". Everything else conforms to that and the reasons will continually change so this makes sense. And then to take it a step further, specific religious doctrines attempt to explain how he thinks and what he wants.

IMO, it is far better to work in uncertainty on a road to real truth than to continually play the same game over and over again so your primary belief will never have to change.
Click to expand...
but the world doesn't care about what you believe the relative merits of your position to be.

What has science done to alter the primary beliefs of a guy like me?
 
#96
#96
rjd970 said:
What evidence is there that would tell us this isn't possible?
Click to expand...

What evidence is there that what science attempts to understand isn't God? What if everything science has been working on eventually explains what God is?
 
#97
#97
See as a believer I believe Jesus is the ultimate key to science, not that science is the key to God.

If God created the Earth using evolution or by speaking it into existence He holds the key.

Therefore I would expect science and archaeology to validate His existence and to this point how has either field proven otherwise?
 
#98
#98
It is kinda hard to argue with someone who is a Christian that has had a real change in their lives because of God. Nobody can argue what someone has done for them personally.
 
#99
#99
Ohio Vol said:
Atheists make the claim that their belief system is not a religion; to dismiss calls for proof of their system as being unnecessary means that they act on philosophy and faith alone....thus making atheism a religion.
Click to expand...

That is a generalization. Certainly many atheists have their own dogma and have "faith" in aspects of scientific theory, but not all. Some simply can't accept something without evidence, and are sold on neither unproven scientific explanations, or unproven religious ones.
 
#100
#100
BigPapaVol said:
probably something similar to what it would take you to believe the opposite.
Click to expand...

A booming voice from the sky or a burning bush would be a good start, and he's done it before. This isn't a smartass remark, I am being serious. Why not show conclusive proof? Because "faith" is the important part? I mean, if faith is so important and central to being a Christian or anything else, then I rest my case.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top