Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Theists vs Atheists/Agnostics


Orcamute

Do you believe in a God?  

2 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe in a God?



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just another bitter Atheist .. why am I not surprised

 

Bitter? Last time I checked churches were closing everyday and the only religious demographic that is growing is the nones. I was giving you solid advice. I wouldn't hold this guy up to be some sort of christian hero because every time you guys do that (C. dollar, haggard, swaggart) they end up falling from grace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the two questions are the exact same, just worded differently. If you were to ask an atheist “do you believe in God?”, they will say no. Likewise they will also answer no if you asked them “does God exist?.”

Moreover, an agnostic would answer, “I can’t know, and I’ll never know” to both questions. And finally, a theist would answer yes to both questions.

 

Your second paragraph doesn’t make sense, because as an atheist you’re saying that it is definite that God does not exist. Without faltering. How can you take such a black and white approach to the question “does God exist” and then do a 180 degrees and say “from a scale of 1-7, I’m around a 6 with regards to God not existing”? That’s like saying, “I’m 90% sure God doesn’t exist.” Okay… so you’re 10% sure God exists?

 

This is why Dawkins calls himself an agnostic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the two questions are the exact same, just worded differently. If you were to ask an atheist “do you believe in God?”, they will say no. Likewise they will also answer no if you asked them “does God exist?.”

Moreover, an agnostic would answer, “I can’t know, and I’ll never know” to both questions. And finally, a theist would answer yes to both questions.

 

Your second paragraph doesn’t make sense, because as an atheist you’re saying that it is definite that God does not exist. Without faltering. How can you take such a black and white approach to the question “does God exist” and then do a 180 degrees and say “from a scale of 1-7, I’m around a 6 with regards to God not existing”? That’s like saying, “I’m 90% sure God doesn’t exist.” Okay… so you’re 10% sure God exists?

 

Highly unlikely based on what? And how did you come to that conclusion? That’s my point, you don’t have any evidence. You say you’re someone that will believe in something only if there is evidence . . . you’re believing in non-existence based on zero evidence.

 

My final point, is that yes you can prove a negative claim. A negative claim being defined as “X does not exist” in response to “does X exist?.” A positive claim would be “X exists”. That aside, there’s nothing special or unique about not being able to prove non-existence, because there are cases where you can’t prove existence either (in general). There are also cases where you can prove a negative claim (non-existence), just as can with a positive claim. If you don’t believe me that it is possible to prove non-existence, then go read up on some propositional logic or just google “evidence of absence”. Can you see how it’s such a weak argument against theism by saying “you can’t prove non-existence” when there are cases when you can?

 

Now with regards to God, neither atheists nor theists can prove his nonexistence (negative claim) or existence (positive claim), respectively. Simple conclusion? Both sides have a doxastic attitude with regards to the existence of a God, without evidence. From an evidentialist perspective, both beliefs are equally irrational.

 

But god is a man made concept. It is purely fictional.

 

Like I'll never know for sure that unicorns don't exist... in fact, I'll never for sure know anything at all. But I can be pretty close to 100% sure in many instances, especially when something is 100% fictional with zero evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why Dawkins calls himself an agnostic.

I actually googled this and was surprised to learn that he did in fact say he is now Agnostic because he can't prove God's non-existence

 

But god is a man made concept. It is purely fictional.

 

Like I'll never know for sure that unicorns don't exist... in fact, I'll never for sure know anything at all. But I can be pretty close to 100% sure in many instances, especially when something is 100% fictional with zero evidence.

You can't be pretty close to knowing something with a 100% certainty if you do not have significant evidence either against or for it. If you're believing in something blindly, then go for it, but don't say it's logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But god is a man made concept. It is purely fictional.

 

Like I'll never know for sure that unicorns don't exist... in fact, I'll never for sure know anything at all. But I can be pretty close to 100% sure in many instances, especially when something is 100% fictional with zero evidence.

 

Medigeek, you should really do some more research before say things like that. Obviously belief in God requires a certain amount of faith, but it does not mean there is 0 evidence (i.e. there is evidence of Jesus Christ's resurrection and missing body). You've repeated the same thing over and over and it honestly seems like you yourself have not done ay sincere pursuit of evidence for both sides. And no, googling "10 most violent Quran/Bible verses" does not mean you have at all done any kind of comprehensive research to say that the existence of God has 0 evidence (which is what you usually cite in these types of threads).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medigeek, you should really do some more research before say things like that. Obviously belief in God requires a certain amount of faith, but it does not mean there is 0 evidence (i.e. there is evidence of Jesus Christ's resurrection and missing body). You've repeated the same thing over and over and it honestly seems like you yourself have not done ay sincere pursuit of evidence for both sides. And no, googling "10 most violent Quran/Bible verses" does not mean you have at all done any kind of comprehensive research to say that the existence of God has 0 evidence (which is what you usually cite in these types of threads).

 

The idea that Jesus physically existed isn't so farfetched, but even if anyone were to prove that, that wouldn't prove his divinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now with regards to God, neither atheists nor theists can prove his nonexistence (negative claim) or existence (positive claim), respectively. Simple conclusion? Both sides have a doxastic attitude with regards to the existence of a God, without evidence. From an evidentialist perspective, both beliefs are equally irrational.

 

This reasoning and conclusion apply only to deism. Its true we can neither prove nor disprove a God or a tea pot setting up the big bang. That said the debate is centered around theism - books that make falsifiable claims. If a text says the earth, men, women, and other animals were created in such a way and in such a time frame - this is falsifiable. If a text says a particular God gives favor to its followers, answers prayers, intervenes in the physical world - this is also falsifiable. If a book claims perfection or moral authority yet contains at best ambiguous passages and at worst contradictory ones then it can call the perfection of the book into question. If the book is recorded in many different parts with inconsistencies between different authors - as with most human publications - it calls the book into question.

 

You can technically believe in Thor and just believe that the Norse literature that makes falsifiable claims about him is wrong, that Thor still exists and these people just didn't write it down properly, but why would you grant Thor any more validity than Hercules?

 

As for the "belief" in science - if its proper science then its just an observation. If I can measure changing gene frequencies over time that isn't a belief, that's a number that any person in any culture or religion can agree upon. If I say a prayer and wait some period of time and a leaf blows and lightening strikes the science would be that a leaf moved a certain way and lightening struck a certain way. That's not belief. Belief would be persons of different religions seeing that and saying, "Oh that's a sign that your prayer will/won't be answered!"

 

They are demonstrably not equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When one rejects religion by default that means you believe in Science. Would putting all your faith into Science not be considered a religion in its own right?

 

Science isn't a philosophy to be believed in, its a method for describing data and relationships. There is no "accepting" science. You measure something, you report about it. You manipulate something, you report about it.

 

Sometimes you discuss hypotheses or theories but these are always available to being disproved by new evidence. This is exactly why there is no "accepting". If Einstein's equations fare better than Newton's, there is no belief involved. You observe the data and the fit. When we found Einstein's equations breaking down at quantum levels we found new variables and better ways to describe them. Again no belief - just looking at whether it fits.

 

Such a mechanism does not exist for religion and thus they are not comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Jesus physically existed isn't so farfetched' date=' but even if anyone were to prove that, that wouldn't prove his divinity.[/quote']

 

Pretty much all scholars agree that Jesus existed and was crucified by Ponctius Pilate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus).

 

And exactly, his physical existence does not prove His divinity, but that's what I was saying - is that there is evidence for Jesus' resurrection and empty tomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your second paragraph doesn’t make sense, because as an atheist you’re saying that it is definite that God does not exist. Without faltering. How can you take such a black and white approach to the question “does God exist” and then do a 180 degrees and say “from a scale of 1-7, I’m around a 6 with regards to God not existing”? That’s like saying, “I’m 90% sure God doesn’t exist.” Okay… so you’re 10% sure God exists?

 

2 second comment:

I think a majority of self-identifying atheists will acknowledge that it's irrational to say that you know there's no god with absolute certainty. The term agnostic, however is a bit more charged in the sense that it seems they acknowledge some kind of "higher" being existing or think that there's a decent chance that such a thing exists. If you were to say that something prooooobably doesn't exist though, you might as well say that it doesn't exist for all intensive purposes. That's the basis of science; we're never 100% sure anything's valid but we carry on as if it is anyways *P test, anyone?*.

To put it into perspective- you step out of your house every day knowing that a plane can fall out of the sky and crush you to death. It's unlikely to happen but it's defintiely possible. Most people *with the exception of agoraphobes*, however will not spend their lives living in a bunker, refusing to step out because it's possible that a plane will fall on them. Drawing from the same analogy, you can brand atheism as "functional agnosticism", where you can say that there might be a god but only from the perspective that literally anything, no matter how obscure is theoretically possible.

 

Also people need to calm down, we're all athiests. Except some people are atheist to all gods and others are atheist to all but one, or more if you're a polytheist I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually googled this and was surprised to learn that he did in fact say he is now Agnostic because he can't prove God's non-existence

 

You can't be pretty close to knowing something with a 100% certainty if you do not have significant evidence either against or for it. If you're believing in something blindly, then go for it, but don't say it's logical.

 

SCIENCE!!!

 

If you are going to say that something most definitely IS real without any evidence or if you are going to say something is most definitely NOT real without any evidence (or with evidence) to a 100% degree..well, you are full of ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people say "this dude believed in this... so therefore my point is valid" ..if you want to play that game, I am sure I can name a lot more brain power of alive agnostics on one finger of my hand than you can of two with theists.

 

Oh yeah? Well I can name 10x more brain power on my fingernail! Take that ridiculously valid argument!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where?

 

10char.

 

There is quite a bit of evidence from different types of investigation. I personally like "The Case of Christ" book b/c it neatly compiles the evidence and support. It is written as a sort of interview dialogue with multiple people being interviewed.

 

Source in PDF: http://resonate.adventurechurch.org/high/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/caseforchrist.pdf

 

Synopsis:

The Case for Christ records Lee Strobel's attempt to "determine if

there's credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of

God." The book consists primarily of interviews between Strobel (a former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune) and biblical scholars such

as Bruce Metzger. Each interview is based on a simple question' date=' concerning historical evidence (for example, "Can the Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted?"), scientific evidence, ("Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?"), and "psychiatric evidence" ("Was Jesus Crazy When He Claimed to Be the Son of God?"). Together, these interviews compose a case brief defending Jesus' divinity, and urging readers to reach a verdict of their own.

 

Content in terms of evidence:

 

PART 1: Examining the Record

 

1. The Eyewitness Evidence

Can the Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted? with Dr. Craig Blomberg

2. Testing the Eyewitness Evidence

Do the Biographies of Jesus Stand Up to Scrutiny? with Dr. Craig Blomberg

3. The Documentary Evidence

Were Jesus' Biographies Reliably Preserved for Us? with Dr. Bruce Metzger

4. The Corroborating Evidence

Is There Credible Evidence for Jesus outside His Biographies? with Dr. Edwin Yamauchi

5. The Scientific Evidence

Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies? with Dr. John McRay

6. The Rebuttal Evidence

Is the Jesus of History the Same As the Jesus of Faith? with Dr. Gregory Boyd

 

PART 2: Analyzing Jesus

 

7. The Identity Evidence

Was Jesus Really Convinced That He Was the Son of God? with Dr. Ben Witherington III

8. The Psychological Evidence

Was Jesus Crazy When He Claimed to Be the Son of God? with Dr. Gary Collins

9. The Profile Evidence

Did Jesus Fulfill the Attributes of God? with Dr. D. A. Carson

10. The Fingerprint Evidence

Did Jesus-and Jesus Alone-Match the Identity of the Messiah? with Louis Lapides, M,Div., Th.M.

 

PART 3: Researching the Resurrection

 

11. The Medical Evidence

Was Jesus' Death a Sham and His Resurrection a Hoax? with Dr. Alexander Metherell

12. The Evidence of the Missing Body

Was Jesus' Body Really Absent from His Tomb? with Dr. William Lane Craig

13. The Evidence of Appearances

Was Jesus Seen Alive after His Death on the Cross? with Dr. Gary Habermas

14. The Circumstantial Evidence

Are There Any Supporting Facts That Point to the Resurrection? with Dr. J. P. Moreland

 

And just a small part of the book of supporting evidence:

 

[u']The Evidence of the Missing Body[/u]

 

WAS JESUS REALLY BURIED IN THE TOMB?

 

Before looking at whether the tomb of Jesus was empty, I needed to establish whether his body had been there in the first place. History tells us that as a rule, crucified criminals were left on

the cross to be devoured by birds or were thrown into a common grave. This has prompted John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar to conclude that Jesus' body probably was dug up and consumed by wild dogs. "Based on these customary practices," I said to Craig, "wouldn't you admit that this is most likely what happened?"

"If all you looked at was customary practice, yes, I'd agree," came his reply. "But that would ignore the specific evidence in this case." "OK, then let's look at the specific evidence," I

said. With that I pointed out an immediate problem: the gospels say Jesus' corpse was turned over to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the very councilthe Sanhedrin-that voted to condemn Jesus. "That's rather implausible, isn't it?" I demanded in a

tone that sounded more pointed than I had intended.

Craig shifted on the couch as if he were getting ready to pounce

on my question. "No, not when you look at all the evidence for

the burial," he said. "So let me go through it. For one thing,

the burial is mentioned by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians

15:3-7, where he passes on a very early creed of the church."

I acknowledged this with a nod, since Dr. Craig Blomberg had already described this creed in some detail during our earlier interview. Craig agreed with Blomberg that the creed undoubtedly goes back to within a few years of Jesus' crucifixion, having

been given to Paul, after his conversion, in Damascus or in his subsequent visit to Jerusalem when he met with the apostles James and Peter.

Since Craig was going to be referring to the creed, I opened the

Bible in my lap and quickly reviewed the passage: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures . . ." The creed then goes on to list several appearances of the resurrected Jesus. "This creed is incredibly early and therefore trustworthy material," Craig said. "Essentially, it's a four-line formula. The first line refers to

the Crucifixion, the second to the burial, the third to the Resurrection, and the fourth to Jesus' appearances. As you can see, the

second line affirms that Jesus was buried."

That was too vague for me. "Wait a minute," I interjected. "He

may have been buried, but was it in a tomb? And was it through Joseph of Arimathea, this mysterious character who comes out of nowhere to claim the body?"

Craig remained patient. "This creed is actually a summary that corresponds line by line with what the gospels teach," he explained. "When we turn to the gospels, we find multiple, independent attestation of this burial story, and Joseph of Arimathea is specifically named in all four accounts. On top of that, the burial story in Mark is so extremely early that it's

simply not possible for it to have been subject to legendary corruption."

"How can you tell it's early?" I asked.

"Two reasons," he said. "First, Mark is generally considered to

be the earliest gospel. Second, his gospel basically consists of

short anecdotes about Jesus, more like pearls on a string than a smooth, continuous narrative.

"But when you get to the last week of Jesus' life-the so-called passion story-then you do have a continuous narrative of events

in sequence. This passion story was apparently taken by Mark from an even earlier source-and this source included the story of

Jesus being buried in the tomb."

 

HOW SECURE WAS THE TOMB?

 

Having heard convincing evidence that Jesus had been in the tomb, it seemed important to know how secure his grave was from outtside influences. The tighter the security, the less likely

the body could have been tampered with. "How protected was Jesus' tomb?" I asked. Craig proceeded to describe how this kind of tomb looked, as best as archaeologists have been able to determine

from excavations of first-century sites.

"There was a slanted groove that led down to a low entrance, and

a large disk-shaped stone was rolled down this groove and lodged into place across the door," he said, using his hands to

illustrate what he was saying. "A smaller stone was then used to secure the disk. Although it would be easy to roll this big disk down the groove, it would take several men to roll the stone back up in order to reopen the tomb. In that sense it was quite

secure."

However, was Jesus' tomb also guarded? I knew that some skeptics have attempted to cast doubt on the popular belief that Jesus'

tomb was carefully watched around the clock by highly disciplined Roman soldiers, who faced death themselves if they failed in

their duty. "Are you convinced there were Roman guards?" I asked. "Only Matthew reports that guards were placed around the

tomb," he replied. "But in any event, I don't think the guard

story is an important facet of the evidence for the Resurrection.

For one thing, it's too disputed by contemporary scholarship. I

find it's prudent to base my arguments on evidence that's most widely accepted by the majority of scholars, so the guard story

is better left aside." I was surprised by his approach. "Doesn't

that weaken your

case?" I asked.

Craig shook his head. "Frankly, the guard story may have been important in the eighteenth century, when critics were suggesting that the disciples stole Jesus' body, but nobody espouses that theory today," he responded.

"When you read the New Testament," he continued, "there's no doubt that the disciples sincerely believed the truth of the Resurrection, which they proclaimed to their deaths. The idea that the empty tomb is the result of some hoax, conspiracy, or theft is simply dismissed today. So the guard story has become sort of incidental."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to post the source here again instead of pasting parts of the book: Source in PDF: http://resonate.adventurechurch.org/high/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/caseforchrist.pdf

 

That book is long. Can you outline the main arguments?

 

From the part you posted it seems like their stance revolves heavily around references from the bible and religious scholars/writers of antiquity, which in itself is sketch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...