Hi folks,

 

I should say at the start that I am a christian, but don't hold it against me!  I am always interested in what other people think, and enjoing reading the posts on this website.  So i'd like to throw some questions out to get more insight into atheism.  Your help is appreciated.

 

Qn:  If there were two universes, one with a God, and the other without, which one would you want to live in and why?

 

Qn:  If scientific theory began to support theism (more than atheism) would you change your position

       (like Antony Flew)?

       Try really hard to avoid answers like: 'that would never happen.. etc.'

 

Qn:  Would you describe your position as "There definitely is no God"  or "Naturalism does not need a divine being and so God is improbable" or something else?

 

All respectful discussion welcome!

     

 

 

Tags: Belief, God, in

Views: 1998

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Qn:  If there were two universes, one with a God, and the other without, which one would you want to live in and why?

That would of course depend on which 'God' decided to show up. If we are talking about a Christian God...is it the fire and brimstone God of the Old Testament or the God of 'peace' that the New Testament? Also one of the largest problems I have with God are the hypocritically actions undertaken on his behalf - So in the Godless universe..do people still believe in God regardless of the fact that he does not exist? In the same line of thought - Do people distrust God knowing that he exists and that the Universe is still so flawed?    I think it is not God but man who make the Universe livable. So I would choose to live in the Universe with the MOST RATIONAL INHABITANTS. 

 

Qn:  If scientific theory began to support theism (more than atheism) would you change your position

       (like Antony Flew)?

       Try really hard to avoid answers like: 'that would never happen.. etc.'

 I would if it was provable. Unequivocally...but that doesn't mean I would like it.

 

Qn:  Would you describe your position as "There definitely is no God"  or "Naturalism does not need a divine being and so God is improbable" or something else?

The various laws by which God exists in each religion are so contradictory that even if religious texts are true they render God impossible to exist as depicted - coupled with the lack of evidence for God we must simply assume he does not exist.

Qn:  If there were two universes, one with a God, and the other without, which one would you want to live in and why?

 

That would depend on which version of God, presumably the Christian one, you mean. Do you mean the vengeful one or the forgiving one? I would only want to live in the universe with a god if he was how i believe the ideal Christian God would be. To me the ideal God would be not caught up in if people believe in him/her, they would rather have people do good in the world and help each. Rather then condemn someone simply for not bowing to his ego. The reason I would select this universe is because assuming there is a God that would mean there would be Heaven and Hell. Obiviously the existance of heaven is a good thing assuming your get in by being a good person and not just killing or hurting people for selfish reasons ect.

Qn:  If scientific theory began to support theism (more than atheism) would you change your position                (like Antony Flew)?

Try really hard to avoid answers like: 'that would never happen.. etc.'

 

If that were the case then yes I would support theism. I do not believe in God because there is more evidence, from what I have observed or researched, leading to the conclusion that an all powerful such as this does not exist. However if this was somehow to be changed and scientific theory began to support theism then it would only make sense to believe in a God.

 

Qn:  Would you describe your position as "There definitely is no God"  or "Naturalism does not need a divine being and so God is improbable" or something else?

 

The way I see it is there more then likely is not, or ever was ever a God. My favourite way to see it is I think of "God" as the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the moment that gave our universe the ability to have life, thereby creating all life and everything that is existence today. If there was a God that created all things, it would be the big bang and god is in everything. "God" is life and existence itself.

SNAP.

Snap indeed.

Qn:  If there were two universes, one with a God, and the other without, which one would you want to live in and why?

 If the god in question behaved in the way that Christians believe he is acting in this universe, I'd have to say "What's the difference? He never helps."  Ultimately I'd have to agree with other atheists on this board. I don't really want a god who created me and can see everything, and that whole ineffable judgement thing...Don't get me started. Christianity was a confusing thing for me since age 5 and it took me 23 years to get the stones to leave it.

Qn:  If scientific theory began to support theism (more than atheism) would you change your position

       (like Antony Flew)?

       I wouldn't change my position even if the creator kicked me in the shin himself. To quote Terry Pratchett's Granny Weatherwax "I don't go around believing in gods. It only encourages them." If there is a god, I'm not about to start praising him, just like I don't spend my days praising numerous inventors who have made my modern life what it is.

 

Qn:  Would you describe your position as "There definitely is no God"  or "Naturalism does not need a divine being and so God is improbable" or something else?

My position is that I don't believe in a god, but if I were proven wrong I don't believe in divine worship. If any religion so far has been right, then the gods are madmen.

1) (maybe there is ... we'll just never know!). Without. I dislike the idea of something so superior to - well - everything else existing. Regardless whether that being (or beings) is or is not perfect , seeing that something else has so much control over everything would make my existence feel rather constrained.

 

2) A beginning wouldn't be enough to change my beliefs in the slightest. If there were a full on theory, proven beyond the doubts of others and accepted by (almost) all, then I would probably still be wondering what it is that was missed. We're humans. We miss things. We make mistakes. It's just what we do.

 

3) My position is that if there is a god (or gods) she/he/they hasn't/haven't made him/herself/themselves known, and given the limited knowledge of the human race we've yet to be able to prove that such a being (or beings) exist (on the other hand, it's nigh impossible to prove nonexistence). Therefore such a being (or beings) must not want to be known, and the questions surrounding it must be merely academic, so I mostly don't care. Places to be, things to do!

I would love to believe in a God, but one that gave the explanation for intense suffering as it is out of his control, but that would make him not omnipotent, and thus, his street cred would be lost.

If Christianity, as I had believed in it, were true, I would be extremely happy about it.  For one, if I was really in need I could pray and get some help. Hateful Christians, like the one's who protest funerals, wouldn't prosper and so they would learn, eventually, that their way of doing things wasn't what Jesus would want.  I would feel bad about people who rejected Jesus, under those circumstances, but I would have a great ally in proving to them that he was real - perhaps I would be granted something as simple as an ability to detect sutble shifts in their emotions so that I could convince them the supernatural actually did exist and could be experienced through Jesus.  Yahweh and El would still kinda scare the hell out of me though.

I don't actually need science to support the supernatural - all I need is evidence of anything supernatural in order to think its even possible.  The whole 'supernatural' concept, however, seems to be nothing more than an invention of conmen who like to take money from dreamers.

My position is that I've never encountered evidence of anything supernatural.  The word 'god' hardly has any meaning to me anymore, since it's more of a general concept to refer to that which cannot be defined but which is hoped to be true.  If one god concept seems even remotely plausible to me, it migth be the god of Spinoza

Hi Heather

 

You seem quite reasonable and open.  Can I recommend a book to you before you close the door completely to God.  Its called, I don't have enough faith to be an athiest by Frank Turek.  I am sure you have read a lot of books on athiesm, this one would be a good counter balance.

 

I also had a post on this thread somewhere as to why I am a christian and my worldview.  You might find that interesting too.

 

Thanks for the helpful contribution.

 

Trevor

Unfortunately, for theists, "books" are all the physical evidence that's been presented, ever, and there are untold millions of books, ranging from that nefarious volume, your operator's manual, better known as the bible at the top of the pile, down to volumes of prayer books, holy-roller stories, instructions on proper and "correct" prayer methodology and tracts of every form, fashion and modes of bullshit imaginable.

If there was actually any, or ever been in the entire history of mankind even a sub-atomic smidgeon of physical, objectively supportable evidence that the supernatural and gods were anything more than mental fabrications by minds infected with the belief virus, the "faith" word, and especially the concept thereof would have disappeared immediately upon its emergence or discovery.

The number of books on atheism is far outpaced by theistic based books, but we have actual evidence of science, physics, and related material and proof of concept.

You loose!

Hi Ken

 

I like to think in terms of truth discovery than pitting athiests against theists and point scoring to get to a 'you lose' scenario.  Were all on the same rock hurtling through space, its good to discover what reality consists of - and we can help each other with that.

 

i wasn't sure about what you said above.  Books contain information and therefore a good source of knowledge, depending on their content.  The book I recommended has a great deal about science in it, if thats what you mean.  You would be quite mistaken to think that all Christians come up with are prayer books.  I would suggest you look up William Lane Craig on youtube and watch one of his many debtates with prominent and world famous athiests.  Another athiest website commented, for example that Craig spanked Hitches on the evidence for God.  I'm not into pejorative stuff, im just saying that you are comforting yourself with false notions. 

 

Thats why Richard Dawkins has turned down a debate with WLC tomorrow night, even though he is welcome to attend.  His own athiest Oxford professor colleague has called him a coward and that he is avoiding the strongest arguments.  Which he is (avoiding).  The sterotyping of athiests being scientific and christians being superstitious is long over due for removal. WLC uses cosmology, biology, physics, natural law, philosophy of science and religion, logic and reason.  Whilst the athiests he debates offer no positive evidence of athiesm and usually just resort to, 'God is evil, so is the bible and christians."  Not impressive or useful.

 

My point is that such stereotypes, while making you feel good, do not help on the globale scene in furthering the discussion.

I've seen William Lane Craig debate and speak through online videos, but I've never read any of his written works.  I can't comment on whether or not his views represent the strongest arguments for any particular branch of theism, from what I've seen of both Craig and Dawkins, my bet is that the debate would end up being two people talking past each other using vaguely similar terminology.  Craig is heavier on philosophy and syllogisms, but light on science.  Dawkins doesn't seem prone to philosophize too heavily in his criticisms of theology and religion, and leans more heavily into science.  My assessment could be off, but a lot of these atheist vs. theist debates seem to be more for show than anything else.   I'm not sure how many viewers watch to explore new ideas, and how many watch just to reinforce the ideas they had at the outset.

 

I don'd doubt that Craig is an intelligent man, but I can't see why Dawkins would want to debate him.  The Kalām Cosmological Argument is not compelling from a scientific viewpoint, and I'm not sure what credentials Dawkins has to really debate the historicity of Christ.  I can't recall other arguments Craig commonly makes off the top of my head.  On the reverse side, Craig doesn't seem to have a strong command of evolutionary biology, which is Dawkins' forté.  It just seems like a bad pairing.

RSS

Forum

Sunday Disassembly

Started by Reg The Fronkey Farmer in Society. Last reply by Pope Beanie 6 minutes ago. 1 Reply

Genesis 3 - Quality Propaganda

Started by Aiken Drums Sister in Politics 1 hour ago. 0 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Erock68la 1 hour ago. 43 Replies

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Aiken Drums Sister 2 hours ago. 17 Replies

Blog Posts

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 1 Comment

Cool Vehicle Inspection!

Posted by Ed on October 18, 2014 at 9:03am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service