Atheism vs. God-Belief (the final debate).

reply to post by stormson


I was told I'm agnostic recently. I said that I'm not agnostic...the closest term would be atheist, but I feel that the word "atheist" detracts from the veneration I feel for the vast wonders of the universe. I don't have to believe in a god to appreciate that a few spare chemicals can, given enough time, become a living masterpiece that puts Michelangelo or Da Vinci to shame. The stars, the universe, the complexity of our world, the way our entire reality converts into numbers which determine the behavior of absolutely everything...I can hardly even describe all the pieces of this majestic puzzle.

All I can say is - I don't need a god to give me purpose, and I sure as hell don't need a god to look up at the Alaskan night sky or observe the waterfalls in Zimbabwe and love the universe for making the simplest things in the world so damn easy to appreciate.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It's not a question of what we need or do not need, but what is true or not true.

And in the end and in the final analysis, if talking about it and debating the issue, it's not the kind of thing you can fence sit while claiming some higher ground, special knowledge, or enlightened state of awareness.

Don't take this the wrong way as it's apparent what your personal opinion and viewpoint is as an agnostic and it's good to share our thoughts and ideas, but that's not any type of reasoned argument just a statement of personal preference which takes no sides and makes no claims regarding the existence of God.

reply to post by Openeye


Atheism is an Abbreviation of Anti-Theism, what I believe you are talking about is AGNOSTICISM from the classical Greek (roughly translated were ag means no and gnosis is knowledge) I don't know,. Agnostic's are not Atheist's they are merely I don't Know open minded and a heck of a lot more logical than Atheists.

To take a few statement's from the bible/Torah/Septuagint (yes there are other faith's)
Moses to the entity in the burning bush said "Who are you" the entity replied "I am that I am" and de'cart paraphrased, did he say I am god "no" but long before a tired Jacob was awakened at the place he there after renamed Bethel by a being whom said can you count the sand's of the earth or the star's of heaven yet I alone whom made them know there number.

Why does the human species live at the one time the moon is just the right distance from the earth to appear to be the same size as the sun and when it can eclipse in such a way as to have a corona visible around it even during full eclipse.
Why after nearly 4.25 billion year's and no undisputable evidence of previous intelligent life does the human race appear just at this right time for such celestial wonder.
I could go on and on indicating evidence of intelligent design or intervention through out the solar system and in our own biology,.

What I do know is I can not define god unless it is as the force that imposes order on chaos and creates reality yet that somehow feel's just too little, and from a logic point of view to the atheist's if you were not and will not be are you there or should I decide not to believe in you any more.

Eventually a bunch of chimp's randomly typing in a eternal universe (eternal is just another infinite and Atheism is not compatable with that concept) might turn out the complete work's of William Shakespear and the concise encyclopedia Britannica as well as the Oxford and Harvard English dictionary's but in a finite universe that is only 14 odd billion year's old, well can the atheists give me a plausible explanation, is Atheism a form of ultimate self denial or just an ostrich putting it's head in the sand.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
The bible says God is love

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.” Elie Wiesel.

I do not believe in a God of indifference. Although many of us suffer from this terrible sickness. In the 60's man decided it was time to get off the indifference ride as the world leaders plunged us into war. It is time to let go of our lazy indifference, stand up and do something.

If we would all just stand up and do love, maybe we could overcome the destruction of indifference. Then and quite honestly only then will who is right become meaningless. If we all choose love over indifference surly we will make the changes that we have been waiting for God to make.

Could this be the point? God is pushing us to do!! He wants men that "do" love because the world is full of people with guns who "say" love.

Anyway like I said God is love, if we all choose to love by doing loving things for others, than we will no longer be in search of God because we will all feel his presence within.

Exactly! God is Love - indivisible non-separate Love. We are not separate from that Love in Reality. However, in this egoic gesture we make moment to moment in order to feel a sense of inward identity, we divorce ourselves from the obvious fact that is right in front of our noses - that we are in a condition of indivisible relatedness. Explore this deeply and it becomes obvious that this relatedness is non-separation or Love. Such a process is hardly indifferent!

But most religions say that man is separate from the Divine and only through various rituals, prayers, offerings, etc., can we be approved by such a God. This is the God as the Great Other that is a myth based on our own myth of being a separate ego-I.

No such ego-I exists, and when this is truly discovered, no such God as Other exists either. Rather our prior condition of indivisible relatedness, Conscious Light, Love is discovered - but not until this core myth of separate ego-I is understood and transcended in any given moment.

For me, this is the main purpose life really has - the rest is one illusion after another based on this fundamental myth of separate ego, separate others, and separate God as the Great Other.

I have debated many an "atheist" and can confirm that at least in my experience, although no two are alike, they do tend to share some common characteristics.

An aversion to "Faith" or at least their own concept of it. (which they like to assert is the same as belief in the irrational, or make believe, or in a thing which has no basis of proof.)

A fairly robust confidence in what science and scientists can supposedly "prove"

Most hold that it is more intelligent or wise to only accept knowledge which can be "proven" via "scientific methods" then to seek after knowledge which is beyond the abilities of man to test via repeatable experiment.

Most use arguments that are not "scientific" in nature to discredit positions held by theologians and thus participate in "speculative reasoning" based on "foundational premises" or "presuppositions of truth" which places their arguments decidedly in the same realm as those arguments of a philosopher or theologian whom they berate for using "appeals to authority", and "non-provable" premises. Most are the classic definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

If you think these are unfair observations of atheists, i'd be interested to be shown differently...

I also would argue that faith is misunderstood by atheists and provides man with a means to attain knowledge that would otherwise be unattainable. Or in other words, faith is not at odds with science, but is rather a conduit which allows man to grab hold of truth which is beyond his immediate reach, which is beyond the bounds of the scientific method.

In the same vein i would argue that the atheists confidence in science and only science actually limits his ability to perceive things which are "bigger" then himself, which is why many atheists fall into humanism and see man as the highest form of "consciousness" and the closest thing to "god" that we will ever perceive. Thus it is ironic that the very method by which they seek to be free of the "shackles of religion" actually binds them into an even smaller box.

Finally i would argue that any good and honest theologian will hold that a good number of his positions are arrived at via a process which is foreign to the mind of any atheist and should not be surprised that atheists see it as foolish or whatever other adjective they prefer to use. It is worth clarifying that theologians pursue knowledge of matters which are infinite, eternal, and for all intensive purposes, invisible to the human perception. As such an atheist commenting on the musings of a theologian would be like a blind person attempting to correct the perceptions of a person with sight. I do not mean that in a derogatory fashion, I am merely pointing out that a theologians conduit for arriving at knowledge of truth is as alien to the atheist as the concept of seeing is to a blind person. I could attempt to describe it to you with words, but the words will not suffice I am afraid.


I can further clarify my position beyond these short starters if needed and love to engage with reasonable and calm headed atheists regarding these matters.

Good day,
Soul

reply to post by LABTECH767

Good points. Atheism apparently claims no knowledge (except it's own non-belief in God of any kind) and is not an "argument" of any kind.

It will be interesting therefore, as a "position" of some kind what it would do and how it would react in the face of evidence for intelligent design from the boundary condition of a first/last cause..

Presented with such evidence, the argument of the atheist therefore will and must be, that the nature of the universe and our own existence is unintentional (accidental), meaningless, purposeless, random and devoid of any sort of intentionality or creative will. However, if the evidence points to the contrary, then the argument will become a biased and willful act of ignorance in order to support a "position" that claims no knowledge and that it has no argument. I'd call that a real predicament. We shall see..

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Based on the argument being put forward so far it would appear that atheism could very well be the easiest and therefore the least courageous position to take where all the religious POV's represent man's attempt to really understand the cosmos and to come to grips with his true place in it.

If there is no emperical proof for or against 'God' or 'Gods', then how can any position be seen to be more superior or inferior? They simply are what they are until otherwise proven or disproven.

I would like to add at this point however that because the true nature of our existence as intended is absolute freedom - I honor the "atheist's" (although I think it's sad to label one's self and run the risk of constraining or limiting one's own viewpoint and receptivity to new information) right, not to believe in God and I personally do not think that God requires our "belief" in God as an external deity but would rather see us and experience life through us, in the form of a type of partnership by which we are able to realize the good life as intended, a study and practice (of Virtue) performed by the ancients but all but lost in today's modern "civilization".

reply to post by Arles Morningside

All I really meant was that one was more challenging and more risky than the other and therefore more daring more courageous because it's a search for meaning within a context that is rather vast to say the least.

reply to post by SoulReaper


I can agree upon the vast majority of that. Though, for myself, I have chosen to not believe in a 'God' both upon the facts (yes), and my own personal belief, or faith if you will? I use the term Atheist loosely as it is which that closer resembles my view, and I have and will always remain open to both sides of any argument. My thoughts are, that if 'God' is the way he is explained to be, then there is no way I would want to worship or follow that, but I would never deny his or her existence if it was proven, or we met. It just comes down to 'each their own', so rather than debating until someone turns blue, I prefer to gather knowledge through, ANYONE who speaks on the matter. Like I say, believing in 'God' is one thing, its more the religion I am not 'cool with'. I feel there is no'God', but I will gladly say you are right if the time comes. You just wont find me involved in any following, worshiping, etc.. I think that is best how I can describe my outlook.

CHEERS

Pointers as to my upcoming argument or presentation ie: coming attractions (or repulsions as the case may be).

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
What I'm saying is that he's so infinitely intelligent and so ahead of the curve and so ingenuitive that "he" (as infinite intelligence) doesn't have to be (in control or in charge).. and that the whole thing from the very instant the creation flung itself into existence, had this very moment in creation already embedded into the original design by anticipation whereby our universe represents an intelligent subtraction from the very end state that everything is evolving towards and relative to as a first/last cause in eternity (Alpha and Omega aka Infinitely Intelligent Godhead).

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Coming soon .. Alpha and Omega - The first/last cause (the first and the last), of the Creative Agency of Super-intelligent Design.

Originally posted by CashStronomer
reply to post by SoulReaper

 

I can agree upon the vast majority of that. Though, for myself, I have chosen to not believe in a 'God' both upon the facts (yes), and my own personal belief, or faith if you will? I use the term Atheist loosely as it is which that closer resembles my view, and I have and will always remain open to both sides of any argument. My thoughts are, that if 'God' is the way he is explained to be, then there is no way I would want to worship or follow that, but I would never deny his or her existence if it was proven, or we met. It just comes down to 'each their own', so rather than debating until someone turns blue, I prefer to gather knowledge through, ANYONE who speaks on the matter. Like I say, believing in 'God' is one thing, its more the religion I am not 'cool with'. I feel there is no'God', but I will gladly say you are right if the time comes. You just wont find me involved in any following, worshiping, etc.. I think that is best how I can describe my outlook.

CHEERS

Fair enough,

There is a good possibility that I would also not want to worship or follow your perception of "god", if you were to allow that he existed at all. All to often ones perception and the thing perceived are far from the same thing.

In fact it is a principle of my theology that man in his flesh struggles mightily to perceive God correctly, after all, how difficult is it for the finite to perceive the infinite, or the mortal the immortal.

In the end I believe only God can enable man to see him in the proper way and that with out his assistance, man will always view God as oppressive, disagreeable, and rather a being they would like to ignore or assert does not exist. So if you find yourself in such a place, I actually think you are quite honestly embracing your very nature and can only hope that God would reveal himself via a very specific and special revelation to you. For without it, i am sure no number of words or arguments could move you otherwise.

Soul

reply to post by SoulReaper

I agree with you in regards to the mystery of God i.e.: that we can't get there from here so to speak. However, I think it's possible to logically posit the existence or presence of God however inscrutable or mysterious. In fact, if my theory bears out, so as to leave no mistake I think that none other than God as the Creative Agency of this existence has already given us a "wink and a nod" as a sign that he exists, and, no less astounding, that we are made in his image to be in "partnership" with God as an intimate, participatory communion or koinonia.

Originally posted by stormson
look at the words-

a-theist= no gods
theist= gods

nostic= gods can be known
ag-nostic= gods may exist, but can not be known.

there is more evidence for the big bang than there is for a god. now a god could have created the big bang, but we have no evidence for it.

however, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

so the most logical approach to the god debate is maybe, maybe not. after all, just because you dont know about it, or have no evidence for it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

p.s. for most of human history, there was no knowledge of radio waves, or evidence for them, yet they existed.
an atheist would say there is no evidence for radio waves, so they dont exist.
a theist would say they exist even if there is no evidence
an agnostic would say maybe, we just can figure it out yet
a gnostic would say "it can be learned"

edit on 17-3-2013 by stormson because: (no reason given)

Amazing, A non-atheist stating what an atheist thinks....you must be some kind of Dynamo/Blane type mind reading magician.

So far, all this thread has shown, is that religious types have a view of what THEY think and atheist is, and therefore the atheistic view is wrong.

Its obvious that the only thing you're arguing against is you own iterprtation of atheism...and you're right....its wrong.

Your statement above regarding radio waves.....at a time when they were unknown the question would never have arisen, and if the effects were noted for some reason , the actual conversation would have been more like:

religion : It is the work of god, move on
atheism : I see no evidence of god, we should investigate further.

An atheist (and I know this has been said over and over on this thread...but I feel it bears repeating) view is not that there is no god(s)..(that would be an anti-theist) it is that there is no evidence in support of god(s)

ETA after re-read----
You talk about existence, the denial of existence is not an atheistic view point. Yes some atheist will clearly state that they believe that god(s) does not exist. If you are a thiest, then in most cases you are a selective theist.

To be an honest theist you would have to accept equal probability for existence of ALL gods, not just the one you brought up to believe in.

If it the christian god that is your main stay...as an honest theist, you must also accept that:

Aphrodite
Apollo
Apsu
Ares
Artemis
Asclepius
Athena
Athirat
Athtart
Atlas
Baal
Ba Xian
Bacchus
Balder
Bast
Bellona
Bergelmir
Bes
Bixia Yuanjin
Bragi
Brahma
Brigit
Camaxtli
Ceres
Ceridwen
Cernunnos
Chac
Chalchiuhtlicue
Chang Hsi See Heng-O.
Charun
Chemosh
Cheng-huang
Cybele
Dagon
Damkina (Dumkina)
Davlin
Dawn
Demeter
Diana
Di Cang
Dionysus
Ea
El
Enki
Enlil
Eos
Epona
Ereskigal

Farbauti
Fenrir
Forseti
Fortuna
Freya LOVE GODDESSES
Freyr SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Frigg
Gaia
Ganesha
Ganga
Garuda SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Gauri
Geb
Geong Si
Hades
Hanuman
Hathor LOVE GODDESSES
Hecate (Hekate)
Helios SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Heng-o (Chang-o or Chang Hsi) MOON GODS AND GODDESSES
Hephaestus
Hera
Hermes
Hestia
Hod
Hoderi
Hoori
Horus
Hotei
Huitzilopochtli
WAR GODS AND GODDESSES | SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Hsi-Wang-Mu
Hygeia

Inanna
LOVE GODDESSES | WAR GODS AND GODDESSES
Inti SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Iris
Ishtar LOVE GODDESSES
Isis LOVE GODDESSES
Ixtab
Izanaki
Izanami
Janus WAR GODS AND GODDESSES
Jesus
Juno
Jupiter
Juturna
Kagutsuchi
Kartikeya WAR GODS AND GODDESSES
Khepri
Ki
Kingu
Kinich Ahau
Kishar
Krishna
Kuan-yin
Kukulcan
Kvasir
Lakshmi
Leto
Liza SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Loki
Lugh SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Magna Mater
Maia
Marduk
Mars WAR GODS AND GODDESSES
Mazu
Medb
Mercury
Mimir
Min
Minerva WAR GODS AND GODDESSES
Mithras SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Morrigan WAR GODS AND GODDESSES
Mot
Mummu
Nammu
Nanna MOON GODS AND GODDESSES
Nanna (Norse)
Nanse
Neith WAR GODS AND GODDESSES
Nemesis
Nephthys
Neptune
Nergal
Ninazu
Ninhurzag
Nintu
Ninurta WAR GODS AND GODDESSES
Njord
Nugua LOVE GODDESSES
Odin
Ohkuninushi
Ohyamatsumi
Orgelmir
Osiris
Ostara
Pan
Parvati
Phaethon
Phoebe
Phoebus Apollo
Pilumnus
Poseidon
Quetzalcoatl
Rama
Re SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Rhea
Sabazius
Sarapis
Sarasvati
Selene MOON GODS AND GODDESSES
Shiva
Seshat
Seti (Set) WAR GODS AND GODDESSES
Shamash
Shapsu
Shen Yi
Shiva
Shu
Si-Wang-Mu
Sin MOON GODS AND GODDESSES
Sirona
Sol SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Surya
Susanoh
Tawaret
Tefnut
Tezcatlipoca
Thanatos
Thor
Thoth
Tiamat
Tianhou
Tlaloc
Tonatiuh SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Toyo-Uke-Bime
Tyche
Utu SUN GODS AND GODDESSES
Ullr
Uzume

Vediovis
Venus LOVE GODDESSES
Vesta
Vishnu
Volturnus
Vulcan
Xipe
Xi Wang-mu
Xochipilli
Xochiquetzal
Yam
Yarikh
Yhwh
Ymir
Yu-huang
Yum Kimil
Zeus


are real.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

You never answered the question I posed although out of fairness it wasn't addressed to you specifically.

Actually, there would be a few reasons for that. You were talking about me, not to me. Nothing in that post was addressed to me. You also claimed to already know my answer/opinion.




[color=CAE6DF]Regardless though, and despite of those other reasons, the question is completely invalid, making it impossible for me to answer.

To be honest, I am slightly baffled as to why you cannot comprehend that there is NO SUCH THING as 'The Atheist'. It is NOT A BELIEF. There are NO COMMON TRAITS.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

And no I haven't "brought it" yet (Last night was hockey night in Canada),

Yeah, I know. Couldn't do it on Friday, because of work. Waiting for the weekend. Oops, Saturday is game day. Don't have the time. Ut-Oh, Sunday is the day of the Lord. Back to work on Monday. You gonna try it again next Saturday?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

......but as you'll come to see, the atheist position does and will involve an argument and a very specific one at that as an argument for random coincidence and a meaningless and purposeless universe not by intent (by accident). That will be the argument on the atheist side of the debate, which isn't "us vs. them" (as much as atheists like to play that game more than anyone) but moreso a question of what is reasonable and logical vs. what is founded in preconceived negative bias and prejudice, although the true definition of atheism implies absolute open mindedness, and if anything nothing but a statement of belief (of unbelief). However, I don't think that's a tenable or reasonable, rational or logical position to take in light of all evidence to the contrary and I intend to show that here by putting forward a well reasoned argument and evidence, relative to which I don't think that the atheist position can effectively rebut as a counter argument and thus losing the debate (the final debate).

Of course it cannot rebut it. Why? Because there is NO SUCH THING AS THE ATHEIST POSITION.



Are you a Lawyer? I bet you're probably an expensive one too, aren't ya?

If you've got it, then bring it. If you don't, then don't. Either way, just stop with this nonsense of......

"Throughout this trial, you will come to see that the evidence I am going to present will show you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client is in fact God, and that he does exist, and deserves the right to be worshiped by all."

Originally posted by idmonster
religion : It is the work of god, move on
atheism : I see no evidence of god, we should investigate further.

An atheist (and I know this has been said over and over on this thread...but I feel it bears repeating) view is not that there is no god(s)..(that would be an anti-theist) it is that there is no evidence in support of god(s)

As I tried to point out earlier the mythos of man and the masks of God within a comparative mythology and religion frame of reference is really a type of ancient and primitive science in it's own right, and one that wasn't entirely wrong in the final analysis, so it's not quite as simplistic as you're making it seem, unless you are using modern American Conservative Evangelical Christianity as your bar and standard of comparison in which case I would agree, but the origin and the root and the source goes back to Ancient Egypt and beyond even into the mists of early human history and "time" with the first lunar calendar depictions on bone or cave wall, whereby something was intuited, deep within, and not merely born of childish fears and primitive urges to make sense of it all, or in fearing death, but more often than not looking up at the stars and the Milky Way and the Cygnus constellation with the swan being the earliest and most prominent depiction and asking in all honesty "why?" and more importantly "what am I?". It's a deep and profound inquiry, and as we know it wasn't entirely monotheistic at the time primarily because of all these various manifestations of nature the likes of which if man did not understand as a cyclical process we surely wouldn't survive the darker, colder months of winter!

Just a little due respect is warranted I think in regards to early man's inquiry and ancient wisdom teachings which have simply gotten distorted beyond all recognition within the framing and the context of modern man who's largely turned it into a farce as a purely exoteric, literalist interpretation only with God as Great Other in the sky - by far much more primitive in fact that modern man's attempting to lend symbolic, archetypal meaning and significance to powerful processes and observances in the nature world including if not most especially the sun, the moon and the stars, including those curious brighter ones that move in strange ways relative to the background, and among those a precession of equinox leading to the 12 signs of the zodiac.

In some circles ancient man and ancient priest were absolute masters of these domains of awareness as Magi of old.

But in regards to modern religious interpretations of God, the atheist is right to take the position that he takes, and thus is by far many orders of magnitude further along in the authentic inquiry of man (what is this? who am I? Where did it all come from?) than the person who just goes along with the crowed and states confidently that he has faith, when the very object of his faith is not only without apparent reason and logic and meanwhile here he is asking that I accept it on faith along and "belief" but without evidence and worse still that if I do NOT accept it that I'm going to hell for an eternity - HA! That's absurd - I agree with this and in this regard I must say that I applaud the atheists courage to hold to reason in the face of an ocean of delusion. I get it!

And from what you are saying, the atheist isn't an anti-theist at all, but is simply refusing to believe in any one of these infinite myriad interpretations and conceptions of "God" - that's funny you guys have a good sense of humor I like that, and integrity - to a degree.

The question therefore becomes one of the degree of open-mindedness on the part of the atheist, in regards to the possibility of the existence of God or Godhead (with infinite intelligence) implicit in your statement i.e.: receptivity towards evidence and therefore to increased knowledge and understanding not excluding the possibility of God if there's sufficient reason and evidence put forward. I mean like "why should I have to accepting something on faith or belief or alone, I cannot" says the atheist. However, this does not imply for a moment that by "atheist" it means that he's in some way opposed to any reasonable argument or evidence in favor of God i.e.: would not argue against it as a default position, is not opposed to it, to any reasonable or verifyable set of facts, both external or materially as well as internal or in the domain of personal knowledge in the knowledge of experience, as in an ah HA at solving a mathematical equation, which when you think about it is the only kind of real and authentic knowledge that there is, and you either know something or you don't.

There's no axe to grind in other words by your definition of atheism, and nothing to oppose, just the refusal to accept on faith some conception of an almighty, all embracing, infinitely intelligent super-being aka God

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
Yeah, I know. Couldn't do it on Friday, because of work. Waiting for the weekend. Oops, Saturday is game day. Don't have the time. Ut-Oh, Sunday is the day of the Lord. Back to work on Monday. You gonna try it again next Saturday?

A lot of my free time and energy has gone into this thread so far. Don't worry I've been giving it a lot of thought, and to be honest, yes it could be next Saturday - it takes TIME and a LOT of energy putting all these ideas together in a meaningful and sensible manner while at the same time trying to keep up with the thread. Who knows, it might take me a month to fully present the information within a sufficiently rich context by which to fully appreciate the nature of the philosophical argument that's being put forward.

It's very clear however by now that atheism isn't a position or an argument just a personal lack of faith or belief in a God of any kind until and unless given a sufficient reason, which is particularly reasonable given that which the faithful are asking on to accept on faith and in some cases accept or face damnation for refusing to do so, which is the most absurd proposition that I've ever heard as well as the most unloving and ignorant that is imaginable and possible (but funny when you see it for what it is.).

I just wanted to make certain that you guys had no axe to grind and nothing to prove and that your approach to the idea of the existence of God even as an "atheist" is something that you are not firm in but hold lightly since it's easily changeable in the light of new information, new knowledge and knew understanding, so indeed it's not an us vs. them debate at all, but instead a dialogue, a philosophical dialogue.

And that this thread has so quickly shot to 7 pages isn't anything that I have control over. But this takes work and it will take a lot of work and time to put together my presentation as well, and I do have a busy week coming up so I can't promise that you won't get it until next Saturday on page 20 if need be I don't care. I'm doing my best here and will continue to do so.

It's not just a one-liner, unless it were told by God himself I suppose.

Uhm, did the big thing happen yet? Did I miss it?

Is this leading up to the second coming?

reply to post by CashStronomer

I'm sorry but it's an elaborate two part presentation to effectively join the circle, and it won't be as good if I just present the first half, and then leave the other half to later on in the thread - it wouldn't work that way because I know that teeth are on edge and knives raised, and the first part is the weaker of the two, so it would be fair to my argument to present it in any other way except with both parts presented together in very close proximity.

So it's on hold, and I'm not doing it on purpose I just do not have sufficient time and it might take me a week or two in fact to "get it out".

I was about to leave ATS altogether when I made this thread. And it's a good thread.

The lack of my "evidence" at this point doesn't detract from the quality of the thread or the discussion and I reserve the right to bring that out as I am able, and if you can't handle it oh well.

In the interim others are free to offer their own POV's and whatever evidence or argument they wish and they have and for the most part they've been high quality.

I certainly don't profess to have a monopoly on evidence for or against the existence of God and if that were the case let me just say that we'd all be in deep trouble, or maybe I would be..?

See it in the context of the OP, and I'll do my best that's all I can say.

Best Regards,

NAM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by idmonster
religion : It is the work of god, move on
atheism : I see no evidence of god, we should investigate further.

An atheist (and I know this has been said over and over on this thread...but I feel it bears repeating) view is not that there is no god(s)..(that would be an anti-theist) it is that there is no evidence in support of god(s)

And from what you are saying, the atheist isn't an anti-theist at all, but is simply refusing to believe in any one of these infinite myriad interpretations and conceptions of "God" - that's funny you guys have a good sense of humor I like that, and integrity - to a degree.

No..thats not what I am saying at all.

Speaking for myself...I am not "refusing" to believe in a god. That would suggest that there is some evidence thats points to a deity that I am wilfully ignoring, this is not the case.

I can not see my bathroom from where I am, and right now its possible that it is full of cats. I do not own a cat and I'm sure I closed the window...however, it is a possabilty that some how, cats have got into my bathroom and right now, the room is full. To all intents and purposes, I am willing to accept the possabilty that my bathroom is full of cats.

Do I believe that right now, my bathroom is full of cats?

Absolutly not! There is no evidence to suggest that my bathroom is full of cats. This does not mean that I dont believe in cats, merely that there is no evidence to support the existence of cats, (in my bathroom as opposed to elsewhere...theres plenty of evidence that cats exist...just not in my bathroom)

Back to god.

If I could nail down the part of me that is happy to go along with being labled as an athiest, rather than an agnostic, (the cat metaphore leans more towards agnostcism i think) I would probably use the following statement:

A lack of evidence for gods prevents me from holding any belief in gods, the lack of neccesity for gods in order for the universe to function, probably means there are none. No requirement for them, no evidence.