Any Theists on AF, I Challenge You to a Debate on the Existence of God

[Jenny A]

I'm not moving the target Jenny I'm following your diversion here. We've covered that I'm addressing reality/ not ever discounting it, and you moved onto trying to make me/ faith out to be selfish whilst promoting yourself as morally pure on your own steam. You see the problem with that? Good. Now carry on with your self delusion.

Where did I say religion was selfish? Or claim to be morally pure for that matter. You suggested that my world view might be selfish.

I said:

I'm talking up one side and down the other about my world view. That view looks to the facts about reality, not my wishes about reality. I think it's dangerous to mistake what we want to be, for what is.

To which you responded:

So does mine (look to facts). Why I submit to organised religion is so that I don't introduce personal failings. How do you know your world view isn't selfish?

The diversion from the question of whether there is a god is yours as is the introduction of any idea of selfishness.

The question of whether there is a god, is a question about reality, which is to say a question of fact.

[fr0d0]

It seems to me Jenny that you strolled back into this thread without reading any of it. Your sloppy responses are annoying.

I certainly never assert that anyone is better than anyone else. The introduction of that topic was a diversion by you. An avoidance of the topic in hand, one which you will not address.

You insinuated from your previous postings that no thought about world views was better than a thoughtful approach. My challenge to you was about that. Again: how can you you assert that ignorance is better than knowledge? This is what you are saying right?

The question of fact, is a question impossible to know the answer to. Waste your time with it by all means. Don't expect me to join in with such idiocy.

[Jenny A]

You insinuated from your previous postings that no thought about world views was better than a thoughtful approach. My challenge to you was about that. Again: how can you you assert that ignorance is better than knowledge? This is what you are saying right?

The question of fact, is a question impossible to know the answer to. Waste your time with it by all means. Don't expect me to join in with such idiocy.

Where no knowledge is possible, knowing that you are ignorant is better than thinking you have knowledge.

[fr0d0]

We both think we can have no knowledge. So what is your damn point Jenny???

[Jenny A]

No, merely that it's foolish to believe when you have no knowledge. But I'll grant you that it's better to know what you have is faith rather than proof.

But I don't think this little argument between us began there. We began with your insinuation that without organized religion, there is no moral check. If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry. If it was, I disagree. There are other possible moral checks: the opinion of others; moral philosophy; conscience (either learned for genetic); etc. I further disagree that religion necessarily provides a moral check. That organizer religion might provide one for you, I'm perfectly willing to grant. But it does not appear to do that for all religious persons.

[abaris]

I further disagree that religion necessarily provides a moral check. That organizer religion might provide one for you, I'm perfectly willing to grant. But it does not appear to do that for all religious persons.

I would go further in saying, it provides a moral crutch for those weak enough to need encouragement to act morally. And this crutch is built out of fear rather than respect.

[robvalue]

Secular morality beats the balls off religious objective morality any day of the week. Even Sunday. Especially Sunday.

Religious morality is a total joke.

[watchamadoodle]

You insinuated from your previous postings that no thought about world views was better than a thoughtful approach. My challenge to you was about that. Again: how can you you assert that ignorance is better than knowledge? This is what you are saying right?

The question of fact, is a question impossible to know the answer to. Waste your time with it by all means. Don't expect me to join in with such idiocy.

Where no knowledge is possible, knowing that you are ignorant is better than thinking you have knowledge.

fr0d0, I haven't read the previous posts, but here is something I wanted to add to the discussion:

Most theists have specific ideas about God, and atheists can show those specific ideas contradict science or contradict logic. For example, we have lots of knowledge that the Christian definition of God is false. Of course there are 40,000 denominations. It would be interesting to debate the specifics of your belief and see if it holds-up.

[fr0d0]

No, merely that it's foolish to believe when you have no knowledge. But I'll grant you that it's better to know what you have is faith rather than proof.

But I don't think this little argument between us began there. We began with your insinuation that without organized religion, there is no moral check. If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry. If it was, I disagree. There are other possible moral checks: the opinion of others; moral philosophy; conscience (either learned for genetic); etc. I further disagree that religion necessarily provides a moral check. That organizer religion might provide one for you, I'm perfectly willing to grant. But it does not appear to do that for all religious persons.

All of the things you cite are influences on your world view APART from your understanding of physical causes of the universe. The information I was trying to get from you.

So like me, you draw information from outside sources.

I don't give a shit who's effin sources are better than who's. Point is, they're there. Bullshit all you like about your bias against religion. Personally I don't give a fuck. That's your problem.

---

Where no knowledge is possible, knowing that you are ignorant is better than thinking you have knowledge.

fr0d0, I haven't read the previous posts, but here is something I wanted to add to the discussion:

Most theists have specific ideas about God, and atheists can show those specific ideas contradict science or contradict logic. For example, we have lots of knowledge that the Christian definition of God is false. Of course there are 40,000 denominations. It would be interesting to debate the specifics of your belief and see if it holds-up.

I have zero ideas which contradict science or logic, so that would be a non starter.

[IATIA]

I have zero ideas which contradict science or logic, so that would be a non starter.

Any belief or idea of a god or gods defies science and logic.