There is no God. The Absence of God: Debate on Religion

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Debate on Religion






Hi everyone, sorry for not posting in a while. I am currently having a debate with a religious blog visitor writer (http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com) on religion and thought it would be worth your time to read. I'll update this post regularly so as to share with you all the comments made.

Visitor Comment:April 9, 2012.
Religion is not going anywhere at any time. It will still exist and grow unless Atheismprovides empirical proof of its claims. Religion has passed the test of time and change. Faith has its demonstrable aspect that transcends the scientific method. Try convincing someone who has experienced God that God is not real. Good luck! http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com
Response Comment:
April 18, 2012.
Your first sentence I will concede. But while it is true, as you say that Religion has stood the test of time, it is only because of religion's appealing nature, as well as the fact that their are a certain few who profit greatly from it. The bible was written by a bunch of old men 2000 years ago, and you're telling me that they could know what happened on Earth without any idea of the recent scientific developments of the last few years?
Also, keep note of the fact that different cultures have different religions, unless a religion was imposed upon a people, just as a language might be. So when you say that religion has stood the test of change, that is not true when you get down to the specifics.Atheism meanwhile, is the lack of belief in anything. We use scientific evidence, but do not claim to have proof of anything, as we do not pretend to know everything as you do. How do we know their is no God you might ask? Well, the chances are one in a trillion. The existence of God is as likely as that of Santa Clause, no proof to back up either, but still, millions of people believe in them. The difference is, kids are willing to accept Santa Clause does not exist while their parents won't do the same thing for their own imaginary being.
And maybe not being able to convince someone who is religious that God is not real has more to do with their stubbornness than anything!


VC:
April 18, 2012.

I wouldn't call religion necessarily appealing. There are religions out there that are either too demanding, too easy, too intellectual or just too strange.
People are religious because they see the fruits of it in their lives. No one wakes up, "oh gee, let me be a Christian today.." they experience something and that experience to them is proof that they are in the right place in life, so to speak.The Bible is God's Word that shows the Salvific plan from Adam to Christ in human language and experience. It is not meant to answer worldly things because what will scientific knowledge about the universe do to change people's morals?
However, there are some things there that give a hint of recently discovered scientific ideas (earth as a sphere, the universe expanding, evolution in Genesis etc), but again that is not the purpose of Scripture.
Yes each culture may have different religions, but if you take the ti
me to place them all alongside each other you will see they all have a lot of common ideas. Religion has indeed stood the test of time. Many major religious still adhere to their ideas and tenets. Only those that separate from them and do their own thing are the ones who add to those original tenets.
Atheism is not a lack of belief. The word comes from the Greek "a- Theos" which means "without god or gods" and is used in the negative in that it is a rejection of gods. The "a" means "without" for example:asexual or "without sex." This is also used in the word Agnostic which means "without knowledge" which is in turn translated as someone who doesn't think anything is knowable. So the word "Atheism" cannot mea
n lack of belief in anything. A word that would better fit your definition is "Apisteuo" which literally means, "lacking belief, without belief." So you're an Apisteo not an Atheist.
Scientific evidence is fine and dandy, but it is not objective. Years pass and ideas thought to have been fact are then rewritten. Science is only useful as far as our understanding of anything allows it. Religion doesn't pretend to know everything. We just use abstract thought to think outside the box of nature.
You say the chances are one in a trillion that there is no God, but how did you get these statistics? Santa Clause is different because we know of its origin in a Catholic saint. We know how secularism twisted the image of this saint.
"Proof" is subjective. You can give your wife a rose and to you that means you love her. However, I might say "no, that is not proof. You need to give her a diamond. That gift will show tru
e love." Who is right? You or me? Which is the real proof that you love her your rose or a diamond?
If you want proof of God, you have to go to the source. You have to ask God to reveal Himself to you and He will. Spoiler alert: it can be in any way so you have to have a keen mind and heart. God doesn't take orders from man so He will do things on His terms while taking into account your limitations as a finite being.
You say God is imaginary but that has no substance. What is your contrast for this? In order for you to make this claim you would have to know everything about everything. You would need to know about matter, space, time, dimensions. You would need to know for a fact that this universe is really all there is and there isn't a multiverse or other dimensions with other beings existing in other space/time continuum's.
People who are really religious will not be convinced because they saw the fruits of their faith. It would be like someone telling you to divorce your wife who you love and
adore. How can you? Who are they to tell you to dump her if you see her as the best thing in your life?
RC:
April 21, 2012.
A lot of points to get to:
First of all, religion is most certainly appealing to the human mind. It is our nature to want to know things that cannot be explained and the belief in God is a great example of that.
You're right, religion is just too easy. There are so many questions that we want answered, which really should be looked at one by one, but instead, are all explained by the existence of a super natural being. It was an explanation that, until 300 years ago, stood its ground, but with the recent developments of the scientific age, have been put into question and rightfully so.
Regarding morals, science won't just write our values out for us. But as an atheist, I can tell you that I am at no shortage of values. For example, I know what is right and what is wrong, without needing to be threatened by the prospect of going to hell. The point is, you do not need to have faith in something to be a good person.
You are right that many of todays prominent religions are similar in nature, and that all of those religions have survived for relatively long amounts of time. But that can be connected to the point I made earlier: religion is an easy way to answer our most pressing questions, and to fulfill the human curiosity.
I'll pass over you trying to define atheism because that's just not a conversation worth having. I do not believe in God, that's atheism. Not believe = the absence of belief. I would think that to be obvious.
Finally the part I've been eager to get to. You seem to be saying that science being rewritten through every new discovery takes away its legitimacy. Are you implying that stubbornly keeping the same theories/beliefs for thousands and thousands of year makes religion more legitimate? Does it not bother you that a man living 2000 years ago believed the exact same things that you do now?
OF COURSE religion pretends to know everything. It claims to know how the world began, the values I should hold, that a super-being is watching over us at all times etc.
Okay fine, if my Santa Clause argument wasn't good enough for you I'll give you another example. Does the Boraflora mean anything to you? Well, I could claim him to be my God. How about the pasta monster, or Mr. Meatballs, or Palamania? I could come up with a trillion of those (hence the statistic).
Now, your right that proof was perhaps not the best word to use. But your paragraph about finding the proof of God at its source disgusts me. How do you claim to know all of these things about God if you indeed believe that religion does not claim to know everything? Also, the fact that I have to bow to him and do everything on his terms makes me a bit of slave doesn't it?
By saying that God is imaginary, I mean that the chances of him existing are not even worth considering. Again, if tomorrow I saw Jesus on T.V, I would say, "crap, I was wrong." But that won't happen. Your whole rant about needing to know all these things about the universe to know whether God is imaginary could be used by me to challenge the existence of God. For example, I could say:
"You say God is imaginary but that has no substance. What is your contrast for this? In order for you to make this claim you would have to know everything about everything. You would need to know about matter, space, time, dimensions. You would need to know for a fact that this universe is really all there is and there isn't a multiverse or other dimensions with other beings existing in other space/time continuum's."
This would give me the exact same affect. An argument that could be used on both sides of dispute is not a credible one.
Finally, your example of a wife is interesting but again, I don't think it proves anything. As a child, I could have loved Santa Clause (sorry to use this example again but its a good one) and wanted him to exist more than anything. But when my parents told me to dump him, I did even though I liked him so much. Loving God does not prove his existence.

3 comments:

  1. http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/04/atheist-crusader.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'the more you shall honor Me, the more I shall bless you' -the Infant Jesus of Prague

    What does that comment mean to YOU?
    Tell this ex-mortal in Seventh-Heaven.
    trustNjesus, brudda, the only way Home

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete