[CornBurrito]

there is evidence, you just deny the evidence. You have so many resources available to you now, go search for God and you will find him.

Can you humor me and post at least one example?

[Slightly Live]

there is evidence, you just deny the evidence. You have so many resources available to you now, go search for God and you will find him.

lol

I don't think your definition of "evidence" is correct.

[Orayn]

there is evidence, you just deny the evidence. You have so many resources available to you now, go search for God and you will find him.

This is news to me. Links? Pics? Peer-reviewed studies from reputable journals?

Oh. You don't mean evidence, you mean "evidence," i.e. non-falsifiable claims and bare assertions. That's sweet, bro.

[MuseManMike]

there is evidence, you just deny the evidence. You have so many resources available to you now, go search for God and you will find him.

That's the problem, no?

And just to be clear, I'm not a fan of the "I need evidence to believe in God" argument. The rejection of religion can and should function autonomously; conditions need not be established for when such an assertion should be accepted.

[Raist]

This is news to me. Links?

Duh.

[Lothar]

there is evidence, you just deny the evidence.

Because it's not evidence. Look no further than these threads. No theist in all of these pages has managed to provide anything but losing arguments. None of them have ever raised a single good point. But maybe you'll finally be the one to do it. Raise one good point in favor of evidence for Christianity.

[Vaporak]

there is evidence, you just deny the evidence. You have so many resources available to you now, go search for God and you will find him.

You don't know what the word evidence means.

[leadbelly]

This goes back to the argument that I was having with you the other day. If the Bible is not literally true (whilst considering genre, syntax, narrative, etc.) - what is the point in believing anything that it says? You could relegate it to "literature" which would make sense to me but anything beyond that seems very strange.

I am a person who isn't deeply religious or abide to any organised religion. I suppose you could describe me as someone who is looking, or searching. You're talking about a Christian perspective, and a Christian perspective I imagine that is orthodox. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't gain influence though from other religions just as long as it doesn't contradict the core doctrine of your own. There are schools of thought that interprets the bible more esoterically as opposed to literally. In other words, they view the stories of the bible as allegory, communicating a deeper esoteric meaning. The Jewish Kabbalah is a good example of this.

The Kabbalah in some ways has similarities to other religions. It believes in reincarnation and the idea that we will continually be reincarnated in the world until we reach perfection. Once perfection is reached we will return to the absolute. Of course this is contrary to Christian thought.

In the more esoteric schools of thought, not just christianity, but all religion is viewed in a similar way. The stories are metaphor, allegory communicating a deeper truth. In that sense all religion is viewed as being similar on an esoteric level, having the same core ideas and views of god. A universally accepted view for instance is that god is infinite. He is without form, the nothing, or rather the no-thing; He is no thing. He has no beginning or end. Time has no meaning. The universe is mental. It is conceived within the infinite mind of god. Absolute reality is infinite. Finite reality then is merely how WE perceive it. It is there simply because we observe it. Behind our perception of it, there is no past or future only the NOW. The infinite no-thing.

Of course such a concept doesn't need you to believe any specific religion it is universal. Based on the logical conclusions of an infinite god.

If original sin is preposterous/if God commands immoral things/if Jesus never died for anyones sin - why believe in heaven or hell? Because you want to? Because it's a nice thought? What evidence do you have for your opinion?

Another way of viewing sin is simply being the opposite of god. We are opposite simply because that is the nature of the created. The creator has no beginning or end. That which he creates is of course the opposite; that which has beginning and end. However, absolute reality is infinite. There is no space outside of absolute reality for a finite reality and universe to exist. Perception then is what separates us. It is like the sun shining through a stained glass window. The light does not change, it is merely how the stained glass window filters that light. Perception could be seen as the veil that protects us from the burning light of the sun(god). To be completely exposed to the light would bring us to the realisation that the world we perceive is an illusion, which would also mean WE are an illusion. Observation of absolute reality brings us to the realisation that only god exists; no-thing exists.

In esoteric schools of thought there is this idea that god is becoming. That creation is god experiencing himself. There is a concept known as Yesh and Ayin. Yesh is everything that there is and Ayin is nothing. The world in which we live is essentially an illusion. All that exists is ayin. To confused things, god is both. Yesh and Ayin are one and the same. This brings me to Atzmus (the essence). This is the paradox of paradoxes. The atzmus consciousness, the essence of god, is neither absolute nothing or absolute something; rather it is both. While god as no-thing is limited by infinite expression, the essence of god is neither absolute nothing or absolute something. Nothing and something are one and the same thing. The illusion exists infinitely within the mind of god, therefore it is very much a part of god. Of course this can not be explained or understood fully as it is incomprehensible.

Perhaps you could view evolution in the sense of becoming gradually perfected to the point where absolute reality within the Atzmus can the be revealed. Where we are not burned by the perfection and purity of god.

This also gives you a unique view of orthodox Christianity. This view states that no one can see the face of god because everyone has sinned. If finite reality infinitely exists then the corruption of physical existence, the animalistic self exist for all eternity. In other words through the revelation of god we are returned to the fire and sent back to the essence. Christ in the literal sense then would be that which unites the finite with the infinite. God is flesh. He was conceived within the womb of Mary(beginning) and died on the cross (end). However, He exists before the creation of the earth and lives forever (resurrection). He is neither one nor the other but both. God is all and god is nothing. Christ unites the physical making it REAL bringing heaven down to earth. In other words the 'I' the ego, the self exists infinitely. The individual YOU exists infinitely within the body of christ. Through which you experience the atzmus.

And here lies the reality. It is all interpretation. Gnosticism for instance is shown as one universal theory, but in reality there were different gnostic sects that, while having very similar beliefs, also interpreted things differently. The same in organised religion of course. No one person can state they have the absolute answer, they can only interpret those scriptures, create views and theories that they feel best fits.

I don't know for sure what the truth is, but what I do know is, it isn't completely far-fetched to believe god exists. I live quite earthly really, it is hard not to as that is the reality we experience, but a part of me wants to live my life the best I can. I at least try to treat people the way I want to be treated myself. And that is the main principle of my living at this point. Maybe one day I will find what I am truly looking for,

[onemic]

I was hoping for something more along the method of how you came to define rational as capable of holding "it is rational to believe something for no good reason and without sufficient evidence". Teasing, poking fun at, heckling, and snark are some of the more innocent methods humans and many social animals use to keep our social groups in check, namely keeping certain members or ideas from gaining too much control over the group as a whole. I don't see much harm at the occasional "well shucks, there you go again doing that crazy thing you do, I frankly don't see the rational". If you want to be part of a group that while in power makes decisions irrationally and tries to limit their opposition, be prepared to be poked a bit by the group you are oppressing.

Against forum members that aren't doing anything to deserve said poking? I see something wrong with that. Structural criticism(ie the church) I have absolutely no problem with.

[leadbelly]

Because it's not evidence. Look no further than these threads. No theist in all of these pages has managed to provide anything but losing arguments. None of them have ever raised a single good point. But maybe you'll finally be the one to do it. Raise one good point in favor of evidence for Christianity.

Yeah, but it is like saying what is the absolute cause of the universe. It is beyond our comprehension. It also reminds me of an episode of horizon: What is reality?

The answer: No one knows.

And that unfortunately is where the problem lies. We know that gravity exists because we observe it, but we don't actually know if what we observe is actually real. lol

[Dude Abides]

This is news to me. Links? Pics? Peer-reviewed studies from reputable journals? Oh. You don't mean evidence, you mean "evidence," i.e. non-falsifiable claims and bare assertions. That's sweet, bro.

Centuries-old hearsay is evidence. It's just not very good evidence.

[Patapwn]

This is a huge thread, so pardon my ignorance, but has any debate been waged over human tendencies to attach consciousness to inanimate objects and the relation that has towards divinity?

[BocoDragon]

This is a huge thread, so pardon my ignorance, but has any debate been waged over human tendencies to attach consciousness to inanimate objects and the relation that has towards divinity?

I've often mused about how people who give the universe a name and personality characteristics are not that far off from people who assign a name and personality to their car.

[soul creator]

I've often mused about how people who give the universe a name and personality characteristics are not that far off from people who assign a name and personality to their car.

Hey now, leave Bessie out of this!

back on the whole "message board etiquette" thing, it's actually kind of funny because I've been (indirectly) called way worse things than "irrational" or "dumb" on these very message boards (and others), but I guess I'm just used to message board snark, lol. And plus, don't numerous religious believers claim to have god on their side, and a direct relationship with him? Seems strange to let some mocking on a message board affect someone that much :P

Against forum members that aren't doing anything to deserve said poking? I see something wrong with that. Structural criticism(ie the church) I have absolutely no problem with.

They "deserve" it due to the irrational beliefs they hold. Just like how everyone mocks millions of other silly beliefs, and hardly anyone bats an eye.

Sure, as with anything, one can always go too far, but it often seems that any mocking is automatically seen as off limits, when it comes to religious beliefs. We must be 100% serious at all times, and all beliefs should be equally respected! I'd wager it's because people are generally taught from a very young age to incorporate religious beliefs as a direct part of their identity, in comparison to other types of beliefs. So something like:

Jesus came back from the dead 3 days later? And people claim this is literally true? That's pretty dumb.

is automatically translated as

Jesus came back from the dead 3 days later? And people claim this is literally true? WHY ARE YOU AND YOUR ENTIRE BRAIN SO FUCKING DUMB, RELIGIOUS BELIEVER I'M TALKING TO RIGHT NOW!

Some may say that's a distinction without a difference ("hate the sin, love the sinner" lol), but that essentially seems to where the issue occurs.

But if I was to replace the religious claim with political beliefs, sports beliefs, opinions on video games, incorrect claims about vaccinations, whatever, hardly anyone makes that big a deal of it, unless in the most extreme cases. But "lol, seriously you believe that? That idea is stupid" seems relatively tame in the grand scheme of things. *shrug*

Vaccines cause autism? And people claim this is literally true? That's pretty dumb.

The Knicks are the best team in the league? And people claim this is literally true? That's pretty dumb.

Skyward Sword is the best Zelda game ever? And people claim this is literally true? That's pretty dumb

Lil Wayne is the best rapper alive? And people claim this is literally true? That's pretty dumb.

There's an invisible being that can create universes from scratch, and has special feelings for one species of animal on one planet? And people claim this is literally true? That's pretty dumb.

[F#A#Oo]

So many problems with this. 1. You start this off with a unsubstantiated belief - that you believe the universe had a beginning, that it isn't eternal. But lets pretend that's the case, it isn't eternal. 2. If the universe is infinite, WHY must we know something that is infinite in our world? That doesn't follow, you're going from A to Z, skipping all the letters in between - is our world the end all be all representation of the known and unknown universe? 3. You don't believe that anything can be eternal, yet you believe a deity who must be eternal created the non-eternal universe? Or are deities allowed to be eternal, and universes not? None of this is rational.

1) Big Bang model is unsubstiated?

2) Because that's how some theories can be supported. If we can find evidence elsewhere of such examples one can start developing further.

The universe may be infinite, but we can only see a finite section of it due to the finite speed of light. We can only see those parts from which light has had time to reach us since the beginning of the universe.

3) God by definition is uncreated.

[onemic]

Hey now, leave Bessie out of this! back on the whole "message board etiquette" thing, it's actually kind of funny because I've been (indirectly) called way worse things than "irrational" or "dumb" on these very message boards (and others), but I guess I'm just used to message board snark, lol. And plus, don't numerous religious believers claim to have god on their side, and a direct relationship with him? Seems strange to let some mocking on a message board affect someone that much :P They "deserve" it due to the irrational beliefs they hold. Just like how everyone mocks millions of other silly beliefs, and hardly anyone bats an eye. Sure, as with anything, one can always go too far, but it often seems that any mocking is automatically seen as off limits, when it comes to religious beliefs. We must be 100% serious at all times, and all beliefs should be equally respected! I'd wager it's because people are generally taught from a very young age to incorporate religious beliefs as a direct part of their identity, in comparison to other types of beliefs. So something like: is automatically translated as Some may say that's a distinction without a difference ("hate the sin, love the sinner" lol), but that essentially seems to where the issue occurs. But if I was to replace the religious claim with political beliefs, sports beliefs, opinions on video games, incorrect claims about vaccinations, whatever, hardly anyone makes that big a deal of it, unless in the most extreme cases. But "lol, seriously you believe that? That idea is stupid" seems relatively tame in the grand scheme of things. *shrug*

You already answered your own question. It's because religion is apart of ones identity. It's not the same as making fun of someones favourite sports team as it(in most cases) doesn't identify someone to their core being to the point that you draw certain ideals and ways of living from there. It's not even close to being similar beyond a superficial level. As for that statement I don't know how the one you posted would go down. Once again it all depends on the intent and the way it is delivered. As stated it seems pretty fine as it's a general statement that doesn't attack the particular person on a personally, although I can see some sensitive people maybe reacting negatively to that due to the lack of explanation within the statement and it being rather dry in its execution. But on another note, how exactly do these people deserve to be open to criticism(I'm assuming you mean on a personal level) when they have done nothing to deserve said criticism? Have they hurt you in such a way that personal insults are just? That doesn't make much sense. It seems like you're looking for ways in which you can insult people on a personal level rather than religion on a structural level, which goes pretty counter to what the aim of most atheists(Dawkins etc.) seem to be striving for.

[Erigu]

religion is apart of ones identity.

If there's a difference with political beliefs, what is it?

[onemic]

If there's a difference with political beliefs, what is it?

You often are born into a religion rather than choosing it of your own volition down the line as it is with political beliefs. Therefore those instilled beliefs are usually more intertwined with ones fundamental ideology than with political beliefs.

[Erigu]

You often are born into a religion rather than choosing it of your own volition down the line as it is with political beliefs.

That also happens with political beliefs, actually...

[HP_Wuvcraft]

there is evidence, you just deny the evidence.

As others have stated, you're getting actual evidence mixed up with made-up evidence in order to support your own beliefs.

Unless you actually think all evidence is just interpretation.

In which case, you're fucked, because that's not what it is at all.

You have so many resources available to you now, go search for God and you will find him.

By resources, what do you mean?

Google?

Are you honestly saying that I'll instantly be converted to your religion by Googling the lord?

In which case, how fucking stupid do you think everyone else is?

[Log4Girlz]

there is evidence, you just deny the evidence. You have so many resources available to you now, go search for God and you will find him.

This may come as a horrifying shock to you, but scientists around the world have not produced a single shred of evidence suggesting there is a god. God only exists in the realm of human ignorance. When we did not know what caused lightning, it was god who wielded it. When it was disease we did not understand, it was god who caused it. Everywhere we look, everything we study have perfectly natural explanations.

You do not understand what evidence is or you are a troll.

Edit: Probably already posted but "Born again" religious awakenings possible tied to brain atrophy due to aging http://www.philly.com/philly/health/132456883.html

[Buckethead]

I am a person who isn't deeply religious or abide to any organised religion. I suppose you could describe me as someone who is looking, or searching. You're talking about a Christian perspective, and a Christian perspective I imagine that is orthodox. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't gain influence though from other religions just as long as it doesn't contradict the core doctrine of your own. There are schools of thought that interprets the bible more esoterically as opposed to literally. In other words, they view the stories of the bible as allegory, communicating a deeper esoteric meaning. The Jewish Kabbalah is a good example of this. ,

Yes, I'm familiar with that line of interpretation and I understand a certain value in saying that The Bible is "more like guidelines than actual rules".

But I have tremendous amounts of problems with this because:
1. Hasn't been interpreted that way historically. Seems revisionist.
2. If The Bible is not divinely revealed, It's all someone's bias and opinion. You are then providing your opinion of an opinion.
3. You can't interpret some things about hell and damnation liberally. They provide no levity for that. What about the moral claims?

If you poke holes in literal translation of the bible, it all falls apart.
If you interpret it liberally, mythologically but still hold it as God's word, then look at blatantly literal passages then that too falls apart.

Liberal translations just strike me as terribly modern and as a desperate attempt to hold on to an ancient relic and possibly the hope of heaven.

[Log4Girlz]

Liberal translations just strike me as terribly modern and as a desperate attempt to hold on to an ancient relic and possibly the hope of heaven.

Nothing else matters.

[captainnapalm]

This may come as a horrifying shock to you, but scientists around the world have not produced a single shred of evidence suggesting there is a god. God only exists in the realm of human ignorance. When we did not know what caused lightning, it was god who wielded it. When it was disease we did not understand, it was god who caused it. Everywhere we look, everything we study have perfectly natural explanations. You do not understand what evidence is or you are a troll. Edit: Probably already posted but "Born again" religious awakenings possible tied to brain atrophy due to aging http://www.philly.com/philly/health/132456883.html

Reducing the entire history of human spiritual thought and philosophy to a simple desire to explain supposedly inexplicable natural phenomena is gross oversimplification.

[Kurdel]

Reducing the entire history of human spiritual thought and philosophy to a simple desire to explain supposedly inexplicable natural phenomena is gross oversimplification.

On the other hand, you are making it out to be more complicated than it actually is.

Millenia of ridiculous arguments doesn't mean anything.

[Raist]

1) Big Bang model is unsubstiated?

As in? No evidence? Not enough?

3) God by definition is uncreated.

So why exactly can't the universe be uncreated? Or eternal or infinite. I mean, there's no indication than before the big bang there it was an absolute nothing.

[captainnapalm]

On the other hand, you are making it out to be more complicated than it actually is.

I don't think I am. The history of civilisation is vast and complex and can't be summed up that easily. As to the Bible being interpreted literally versus symbolically, the pro-symbolic group have a very valid point.

The origins of the written word are deeply esoteric. It's there in the etymology. It's no coincidence that the word 'spell', a magical incantation, still remains as the word we use when we talk about constructing language. A spellbook, or grimoire, is also the origin of the word grammar.

To the people who first started writing things down, the ability was seen as deeply magical and valuable, so much so that information or truth was never revealed plainly. The intention was always to hide the actual meanings through hidden codes or symbolism, because the knowledge was seen as highly sensitive and was only meant to be available to a select few enlightened ones.

The story of Adam and Eve, for example, was clearly intended to be symbolic. Living in a free, natural state like animals, only to eat from the "tree of knowledge" and become self-conscious and aware and ashamed could not more plainly be symbolism meant to refer to changing mental states in human consciousness. It's meant to communicate the very real price we pay for being self-conscious and aware, something animals don't have. It introduced a fundamental duality to our existence that animals don't have, the ability to create either heaven or hell in our own minds.

I suspect what happened was that, as religion increasingly became a political instrument of power and control, these meanings were purposefully changed or obscured and reduced to literal interpretations. That's not to say the Bible isn't still an untrustworthy source in some ways. It's been edited too much in the past.

[Buckethead]

As to the Bible being interpreted literally versus symbolically, the pro-symbolic group have a very valid point.

[UrbanRats]

By resources, what do you mean? Google? Are you honestly saying that I'll instantly be converted to your religion by Googling the lord? In which case, how fucking stupid do you think everyone else is?

Second result on Google, made me chuckle.
Maybe he has a Twitter or something, too.

But more seriously:

Reducing the entire history of human spiritual thought and philosophy to a simple desire to explain supposedly inexplicable natural phenomena is gross oversimplification.

But isn't this:

The story of Adam and Eve, for example, was clearly intended to be symbolic. Living in a free, natural state like animals, only to eat from the "tree of knowledge" and become self-conscious and aware and ashamed could not more plainly be symbolism meant to refer to changing mental states in human consciousness. It's meant to communicate the very real price we pay for being self-conscious and aware, something animals don't have. It introduced a fundamental duality to our existence that animals don't have, the ability to create either heaven or hell in our own minds.

Trying to explain natural phenomena, through an allegoric and symbolic tale? I don't think the history of spiritual needs goes far beyond a need of order, through answers and transcendental rules.

[leadbelly]

Yes, I'm familiar with that line of interpretation and I understand a certain value in saying that The Bible is "more like guidelines than actual rules". But I have tremendous amounts of problems with this because: 1. Hasn't been interpreted that way historically. Seems revisionist. 2. If The Bible is not divinely revealed, It's all someone's bias and opinion. You are then providing your opinion of an opinion. 3. You can't interpret some things about hell and damnation liberally. They provide no levity for that. What about the moral claims? If you poke holes in literal translation of the bible, it all falls apart. If you interpret it liberally, mythologically but still hold it as God's word, then look at blatantly literal passages then that too falls apart. Liberal translations just strike me as terribly modern and as a desperate attempt to hold on to an ancient relic and possibly the hope of heaven.

You're wrong about that. There are other books outside of the bible that describe certain stories in a more esoteric way. The Book of Adam and Eve for instance. Even orthodox Christians see certain passages as being symbolic of something. The symbolism in ceratin places within the bible is quite easy to see.

This was written over 2000 years ago. It is from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

(The ...) is that whi(ch ...all) the divine beings. The visitation is the Day of Salvation that He has decreed through Isaiah the prophet concerning all the captives, inasmuch as Scripture says, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion "Your divine being reigns"." (Isa. 52;7) This scriptures interpretation : "the mountains" are the prophets, they who were sent to proclaim God's truth and to prophesy to all Israel. "The messengers" is the Anointed of the spirit, of whom Daniel spoke; "After the sixty-two weeks, an Anointed shall be cut off" (Dan. 9;26) The "messenger who brings good news, who announces Salvation" is the one of whom it is written; "to proclaim the year of the LORD`s favor, the day of the vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn"

http://www.gnosis.org/library/commelc.htm
I find their interpretation of 'mountains' here very interesting. The mountains are the prophets. It reminds me in some way of the story of Moses. He climbs mount Sinai to speak to god. Why does he have to climb a damn mountain to speak to god? Why can't he speak to him on normal ground? lol

He is climbing the mountain to reach a higher place. God dwells in a higher place. An interpretation of that would be he reached a higher level of consciousness, his higher self. Of course the prophets were those who spoke to god. They were those who communicated with god and had a much higher level of understanding.

It doesn't effect what the story is telling you in anyway. Moses spoke to god, it is quite simple. It is simply finding a much deeper meaning to the story.

[Raist]

I find their interpretation of 'mountains' here very interesting. The mountains are the prophets. It reminds me in some way of the story of Moses. He climbs mount Sinai to speak to god. Why does he have to climb a damn mountain to speak to god? Why can't he speak to him on normal ground? lol

Gotta get closer to the sky. God's a bit deaf.

[leadbelly]

Gotta get closer to the sky. God's a bit deaf.

Well, also reminds me of mount Olympus. The gods live on mount Olympus.

As I said though, does it make it true? Who knows?

I would like to think god exists in some way, but I have no idea if he does.

[soul creator]

You already answered your own question. It's because religion is apart of ones identity.

yet more evidence why it's a terrible idea to teach people :P

It's not the same as making fun of someones favourite sports team as it(in most cases) doesn't identify someone to their core being to the point that you draw certain ideals and ways of living from there. It's not even close to being similar beyond a superficial level. As for that statement I don't know how the one you posted would go down. Once again it all depends on the intent and the way it is delivered. As stated it seems pretty fine as it's a general statement that doesn't attack the particular person on a personally, although I can see some sensitive people maybe reacting negatively to that due to the lack of explanation within the statement and it being rather dry in its execution. But on another note, how exactly do these people deserve to be open to criticism(I'm assuming you mean on a personal level) when they have done nothing to deserve said criticism?

If someone openly posts on a message board, and publicly states their ideas, they're "open to criticism" just like the millions of other things people post on message boards.

As you mentioned, the defensiveness comes from the fact that religion is considered a core part of one's identity, as opposed to some other beliefs, but I suppose the difference is I don't see any reason to continue to support that privilege (especially within the confines of a message board). You seem to imply we should take special care to avoid stepping on toes.

Have they hurt you in such a way that personal insults are just? That doesn't make much sense.

I suppose this goes back to the point made earlier where the same snarky comments and poking fun that happens everywhere else on a message board instantly elevates to "personal insults" and serious business simply because it's a religious belief. And of course, even if you're the most completely harmless atheist, you can often still be seen as "attacking" a religious person. So at some point, I understand the idea to just stop trying to tiptoe around how to talk about a religious belief, and instead just treat it like the millions of other things we talk about on message boards.

I guess we just disagree how common these so called extreme personal insults are. They seem relatively rare in my opinion, once you take away the special privilege religious beliefs have. And even if we were to grant that atheists are the most insulting type of message board poster in existence, and we're insulting people 100% of the time, that still pales in comparison to the years of actual, real-world damage that religious ideas have perpetuated throughout human history.

It seems like you're looking for ways in which you can insult people on a personal level rather than religion on a structural level, which goes pretty counter to what the aim of most atheists(Dawkins etc.) seem to be striving for.

Again, "insulting people on a personal level" (which often is actually relatively tame by other standards) on a message board seems to be ok with every other idea, but religion is exempt. Instead of continuing to treat that exemption as a valid thing, I prefer to ignore it.

And of course, different approaches depends on the audience. I'm not saying we should go into the middle of a church service and use the same comments someone may use on a message board. But within the specific confines of GAF for instance, treating a religious belief like any other belief (which sometimes includes a lot of snark, because GAF's gonna GAF) seems to be a valid approach.

As far as what approach "works", the "nice" or the "mean" version, I don't know. I see no reason to limit to one or the other though. Often the idea is mentioned that "mocking/jokes won't work on religious believers, and will just make them hate atheists more!", but that seems like a weird concern, because plenty of religious believers hated atheists long before message boards came around, lol.

[Buckethead]

You're wrong about that. There are other books outside of the bible that describe certain stories in a more esoteric way.

God... All powerful, all knowing, the divine creator of the universe... occasionally authors books.

You don't find that preposterous?

Good explanation here: http://bigthink.com/ideas/3123

The Book of Adam and Eve for instance.

Also Adam and Eve stuff is revisionist and reinterpreted through the eyes of modernity. Literalism is historically the belief and is still today the belief.

But this is "the problem of religion": presumption of truth vs. skepticism/discovering the truth as it comes along.

[leadbelly]

God... All powerful, all knowing, the divine creator of the universe... occasionally authors books. You don't find that preposterous?

lol

Well, I don't actually state god does or doesn't exist of course. I made that quite clear. My only point was, it isn't so far-fetched to believe there is a possibility that god does exist. Certain views and concepts about god (as I have described them to you) are not that absurd. They seem to have a degree of logic to them.

You've put me in a position of defending a book I have never stated to be either right or wrong.

[The_Darkest_Red]

I listened to a few debates on the topic of "Does God Exist" recently that I found pretty interesting. They're part of a speaking tour featuring philosopher William Lane Craig (probably my favorite Christian apologist). The first one was probably the better of the two, between Dr. Craig and Oxford Chemistry professor Peter Atkins.

William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?", University of Manchester, October 2011

The second was held just a few weeks ago and is between Dr. Craig and analytical philosopher Klemens Kappel who is a professor at the University of Copenhagen. It was slightly more disappointing since Kappel didn't really seem very invested in a back and forth style debate (but rather just with presenting his personal view) but it's still worth a listen. I really respect some of the views Kappel has, he seems to be more of an old-school atheist who isn't quite so interested in the complete demolition of religion.

Does God Exist? Craig-Kappel Debate in Copenhagen

I also think the Q&A section of Dr. Craig's site would be an interesting place to pull some topics from for discussion here if anyone is interested. I really admire his stuff and I'm hoping some other people here will find it interesting as well. Here's the link to the Q&A portion of the site:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer

[Buckethead]

What do you like about William Lane Craig?

I don't really care for him and don't see how anyone could.

[captainnapalm]

Second result on Google, made me chuckle. Maybe he has a Twitter or something, too. But more seriously: But isn't this: Trying to explain natural phenomena, through an allegoric and symbolic tale? I don't think the history of spiritual needs goes far beyond a need of order, through answers and transcendental rules.

If it was a symbolic tale, it obviously was not meant to serve as an explanation of how the process of gaining self-consciousness actually happened. Because that's not how symbolism works.

What it does show, if you acccept that it is a symbolic tale, is that these were clearly not simple sheep herders making up a fairytale about a spaghetti monster, but highly intelligent people who were reflecting on the nature of human consciousness. The mere fact that they were able to write at all sort of confirms that.

[The_Darkest_Red]

What do you like about William Lane Craig? I don't really care for him and don't see how anyone could.

He presents a lot of arguments that I find sound and convincing in a polite and humble way. I also feel like our brains work similarly, although he is about 100 times more intelligent than me. What don't you like about him?

Either way what we think about his character doesn't really mean much when it comes to evaluating his debates, does it? I'm not exactly a fan of the way Dr. Atkins carries himself but I still enjoy listening to his views. :p

[Raist]

I listened to a few debates on the topic of "Does God Exist" recently that I found pretty interesting. They're part of a speaking tour featuring philosopher William Lane Craig (probably my favorite Christian apologist). The first one was probably the better of the two, between Dr. Craig and Oxford Chemistry professor Peter Atkins. William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?", University of Manchester, October 2011 The second was held just a few weeks ago and is between Dr. Craig and analytical philosopher Klemens Kappel who is a professor at the University of Copenhagen. It was slightly more disappointing since Kappel didn't really seem very invested in a back and forth style debate (but rather just with presenting his personal view) but it's still worth a listen. I really respect some of the views Kappel has, he seems to be more of an old-school atheist who isn't quite so interested in the complete demolition of religion. Does God Exist? Craig-Kappel Debate in Copenhagen I also think the Q&A section of Dr. Craig's site would be an interesting place to pull some topics from for discussion here if anyone is interested. I really admire his stuff and I'm hoping some other people here will find it interesting as well. Here's the link to the Q&A portion of the site: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer

WLC? Again? Seriously?

Watched the first 5 minutes of his speech in the second link (oh hey, he's going in first again, ehat a surprise) for lolz. Was not disappoint, it's like a carbon-copy version of all his other debates. He shouldn't bother travelling around and just send the moderators a tape with his argumentation, since it's been identical for 20 years. Although I guess free trips and easy money is a perk.

[The_Darkest_Red]

WLC? Again? Seriously? Watched the first 5 minutes of his speech in the second link (oh hey, he's going in first again, ehat a surprise) for lolz. Was not disappoint, it's like a carbon-copy version of all his other debates. He shouldn't bother travelling around and just send the moderators a tape with his argumentation, since it's been identical for 20 years. Although I guess free trips and easy money is a perk.

You expect the opening statements of debates to be completely different when they are covering the same topic? I expect them to start similarly, but that doesn't mean the entire debate will flow the exact same way. If his opponents presented reasonable enough objections to his arguments then Dr. Craig would have to change his game plan, wouldn't he?

And about him going first, I'm sure his opponents agreed to the terms of the debate structure beforehand.

[Buckethead]

He presents a lot of arguments that I find sound and convincing in a polite and humble way. What don't you like about him?

He tries to control debates in way that favors him. "Don't bring up Thing X or Thing Y because that makes God/The Bible look bad".
He also starts small, irrelevant fires that have really nothing to do with an issue at hand and then claims victory when someone doesn't respond to that point. He then tries to shame them or attack their personage in some sly way.

It's a shady, underhanded, pseudo ad-hominem way of debating that is very intellectually dishonest.

Also I find his approval of Divine Command Theory and the genocide of the Canaanites, Amalekites, etc. to be morally reprehensible.

[Amir0x]

If his opponents presented reasonable enough objections to his arguments than Craig would have to change his game plan, wouldn't he?

hahaha it's so cute you think that

his opponents have eviscerated Craig about a billion times; Craig is just a disingenuous little shit who intentionally abuses the debate format to try to claim victory. That he's your favorite Christian apologists says a lot about what the "Christian apologist lineup" really looks like. One has to almost feel bad that's who you have to pick from

[Raist]

You expect the opening statements of debates to be completely different when they are covering the same topic? I expect them to start similarly, but that doesn't mean the entire debate will flow the exact same way. If his opponents presented reasonable enough objections to his arguments than Craig would have to change his game plan, wouldn't he? And about him going first, I'm sure his opponents agreed to the terms of the debate structure beforehand.

He usually insists for going first a LOT. It's been mentioned by debate organizers.
For a simple reason: he can expose his arguments, then comclude his bit with "so that's my point of view, my opponent now has to expose HIS argument AND refute mine". And when of course that does not happen, because that's not how it works, he then proceeds to say "my opponent hasn't refuted any of what I said, looks like to me, I WIN!"

He also quote-mines, uses logical fallacies and appeals to authority, lies, misrepresents his opponents' position, and so on and so forth. His main arguments (kalam and the likes) have been exposed as extremely poor philospohy in and out of debates, but he keeps repeating them like a broken record.

[The_Darkest_Red]

He tries to control debates in way that favors him. "Don't bring up Thing X or Thing Y because that makes God/The Bible look bad". He also starts small, irrelevant fires that have really nothing to do with an issue at hand and then claims victory when someone doesn't respond to that point. He then tries to shame them or attack their personage in some sly way. It's a shady, underhanded, pseudo ad-hominem way of debating that is very intellectually dishonest.

Interesting, I've always admired the way he handles himself in debates. Do you have a specific example of this?

Also I find his approval of Divine Command Theory and the genocide of the Canaanites, Amalekites, etc. to be morally reprehensible.

Yeah, I kind of figured this is where you'd go after you said you didn't like him, that seems to be the main issue that people find unappealing about him.

hahaha it's so cute you think that his opponents have eviscerated Craig about a billion times; Craig is just a disingenuous little shit who intentionally abuses the debate format to try to claim victory. That he's your favorite Christian apologists says a lot about what the "Christian apologist lineup" really looks like. One has to almost feel bad that's who you have to pick from

Ah, I see.

He usually insists for going first a LOT. It's been mentioned by debate organizers. For a simple reason: he can expose his arguments, then comclude his bit with "so that's my point of view, my opponent now has to expose HIS argument AND refute mine". And when of course that does not happen, because that's not how it works, he then proceeds to say "my opponent hasn't refuted any of what I said, looks like to me, I WIN!" He also quote-mines, uses logical fallacies and appeals to authority, lies, misrepresents his opponents' position, and so on and so forth. His main arguments (kalam and the likes) have been exposed as extremely poor philospohy in and out of debates, but he keeps repeating them like a broken record.

Why do atheists keep agreeing to debate him then?

[Buckethead]

Interesting, I've always admired the way he handles himself in debates. Do you have a specific example of this?

Probably his debate with Sam Harris.

I can't think of exact time codes or things of that nature.

Yeah, I kind of figured this is where you'd go after you said you didn't like him, that seems to be the main issue that people find unappealing about him.

It's not just his defense of that but his way of defending it.

When I went to church my minister told me that he struggles with all the killing.
A little intellectual honesty goes a long way.

Craig on the other hand totally, unflinchingly thinks it's okay. I just find that, to put it frankly - fucking crazy.
And it doesn't help when his rationale for the genocide in the Old Testament is literally 1:1 with what Nazi SS said back in WWII.

[The_Darkest_Red]

Probably his debate with Sam Harris. I can't think of exact time codes or things of that nature.

I haven't watched that one yet, I'll try to check it out sometime.

It's not just his defense of that but his way of defending it. When I went to church my minister told me that he struggles with all the killing. A little intellectual honesty goes a long way. Craig on the other hand totally, unflinchingly thinks it's okay. I just find that, to put it frankly - fucking crazy. And it doesn't help when his rationale for the genocide in the Old Testament is literally 1:1 with what Nazi SS said back in WWII.

I agree with you, it's a very uncomfortable subject for obvious reasons. It's certainly not something I can reconcile as easily as Dr. Craig but I feel like I'm familiar enough with him to understand that he isn't some crazy lunatic who would promote modern day genocide or anything like that. I'm sure if you had the opportunity to sit down and talk with him about it you could get a lot more detail and clarification on his particular view of the subject but let's be honest, it's not something that's easy for any Christian to explain away (there's a bit of honesty from me).

I guess primarily I admire his work as a philosopher. Some of the papers he's written as well as the answers in a lot of those Q&A's have been very enlightening to me on a personal level.

For me the biggest issue that arises from criticizing his moral views from an atheistic standpoint is that you don't really have a firm foundation to base your morals on to begin with. You can call Dr. Craig "evil" or "bad," but what does that ultimately mean in a world where we are just random assortments of atoms striving to survive?

I honestly don't really want to go down that road right now though, I had a pretty long discussion on morality a week or so ago here and I'm not really up for round 2 at the moment.

[UrbanRats]

If it was a symbolic tale, it obviously was not meant to serve as an explanation of how the process of gaining self-consciousness actually happened. Because that's not how symbolism works. What it does show, if you acccept that it is a symbolic tale, is that these were clearly not simple sheep herders making up a fairytale about a spaghetti monster, but highly intelligent people who were reflecting on the nature of human consciousness. The mere fact that they were able to write at all sort of confirms that.

I don't see why it can't be both, honestly.
How about intelligent sheep herders who reflected on the nature of human consciousness, while gaining power through these philosophies and scriptures? Besides, the intent of the author is only partially relevant, the public's recemption was very much literal (and it shows, since a LOT of people still take those tales at face value).
Reflecting on the human consciousness can also lead to arbitrary answer and stories that are in a middle ground between literal AND symbolic, which is the conflict that is also present in Christians today, some rationalize these stories as highly symbolic, others see them as somewhat symbolic, other as factual history.

[msv]

Interesting, I've always admired the way he handles himself in debates. Do you have a specific example of this?

Then you need to start analyzing what is being said, instead of merely going by what WLC is saying. If you do that, you'll realize that WLC isn't actually making any logical sense, he's purely calling on the public's shallowly percieved advance of the debate. He's never actually discussing or debating the topic at hand in any intelectually honest fashion. He tells straight up lies like claiming that he's here holding an academic debate, not a political one, and if you follow what he says after, it ends up being exactly that, a political type debate purely for show and style.

[The_Darkest_Red]

Then you need to start analyzing what is being said, instead of merely going by what WLC is saying. If you do that, you'll realize that WLC isn't actually making any logical sense, he's purely calling on the public's shallowly percieved advance of the debate. He's never actually discussing or debating the topic at hand in any intelectually honest fashion. He tells straight up lies like claiming that he's here holding an academic debate, not a political one, and if you follow what he says after, it ends up being exactly that, a political type debate purely for show and style.

See, I just completely disagree with your assertion that he isn't making any logical sense. I've spent a decent amount of time reading some of his work as well as work by other apologists and atheists who disagree with his views and I feel like his arguments are all quite sound. Of course there is always plenty more for me to see and learn about and I'm not claiming to have all the answers but I don't want you to think that these debates are the full extent to which I've looked into these issues.

As far as the dishonesty, lies, and "political show" stuff I just don't buy it. Why would so many prominent atheists agree to debate him over the years if they all knew he was just a dishonest liar? Obviously Dawkins has taken this route to some extent but it isn't like Dr. Craig is dismissed entirely as some crazy old lunatic within the academic world is he?