Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[fr0d0]

are you forever bound to the belief of religion, regardless of the evidence put forth against it?

Your blind ignorance of the subject leads you to make such embarrassing statements.

---

What instance, or discovery, or scientific theory (much more than just conjecture - based on mounds of facts), would it take to free you from your faith?

What would convince me that two unrelated subjects were related? A miracle for sure. And I'm sure you're just the guy for that job.

[Esquilax]

What would convince me that two unrelated subjects were related? A miracle for sure. And I'm sure you're just the guy for that job.

Listen, unless you can actually provide reasoning for why the two subjects are unable to interact, then all this is just empty air.

[Cyberman]

Not entirely empty...

Would someone open a window?

[Bad Writer]

Not entirely empty...

Would someone open a window?

Why do fart jokes make us all feel better?

[Cyberman]

They clear the air. Or the room.

[Locke]

If so, what would it be? What instance, or discovery, or scientific theory (much more than just conjecture - based on mounds of facts), would it take to free you from your faith? I hope you'll weigh in. I'm quite interested in the responses to this question. Thanks!

God will not force us to follow Him; it's our decision. Does God exist? Absolutely. Does He seem distant, unreal? Perhaps because you prefer it that way. When the Apostle Paul shared his faith with Governor Felix, he challenged Felix on his personal life. Felix responded, "That's enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you." (Acts 24:25)
Many people today have the same response as Felix. Nobody has ever proven God does not exist. When most people decide there is no God, at least one underlying reason for their decision is that God's existence would extremely inconvenience them. Unfortunately for them, God's existence does not depend on our decision to accept it. God exists regardless of whether we choose to acknowledge Him. God will never force us to make a decision.

Atheism fails on account of several factors.. and when I say it fails, I mean it is logically and reasonably unsound.

1) Amorality
While I don't believe that all atheists are amoral (and yes, I am referring to 'amoral', not 'immoral'), I would however argue that they do not possess morals because of their atheistic stance, but rather in spite of it. Without God, "Might makes right" as Thrasymachus would say. Since you may ask, examples include Armenia, Ethiopia, Darfur, Bosnia, Kurdistan, Combodia, the Soviet Union and many more. Atrocities are always rationalized, and a persecutor will justify their actions with religious pretext where opportunity presents itself.. but this goes against the Bible (the only religious stance I will argue for, as I've found the rest to be very faulty), so the truth remains; amoral actions under religious pretext (such as the Crusades) are done is opposition to God's standard, while moral actions done under atheistic pretext are done in spite of atheistic principles - I need not resurface my uncontested point on torture in the world, which can be found in the thread Abusive Theology 101.

2) Meaninglessness
Without God life is meaningless. We can only be a drain on the planet, pursuing our personal advancement. Nothing will last. If you'd argue that we can find purpose in preserving the planet, then obviously that would be accomplished better by reducing the amount of humans on it, in fact total extinction of ourselves would help it the most.. though in the spirit of carrying on a pointless existence, we could follow Hitler's philosophy and only keep the best. We can attempt to distract ourselves from this depressing emptiness through education, medication, indoctrination, recreation, trying to prove theists wrong.. think about it. Carl Jung might of been on to something when he said the central neurosis of our time is emptiness. Regardless, you aren't helping the case for Atheism.

3) Incoherent
As an anti-position, Atheism is not verifiable. It's not possible to prove the non-existence of God. Atheism affirms the very thing it denies; In order to be sure that no omniscience, all-powerful being exists in all the cosmos, you would have to be omniscient and all-powerful. Another reason for incoherency is that Atheism claims there's no absolute truth.. but again, for that statement to be trustworthy, there must be absolute truth. Relativism stems from wishful thinking, and trying to defend it while holding on to science and reason just comes across as uneducated. Whether speaking of physical, or metaphysical, an external measurement must be used - this is known as absolute truth. I've also heard it argued that reality is empty of meaning, and that meaning is in the mind of the thinker. Again, by claiming everything is meaningless, the statement itself must also be meaningless.

4) Incomplete
Atheism argues that God cannot be real because He is not physical. This is an incomplete view, because it does not include all aspects of reality. None of us can deny the existence of anger, love, justice, etc. For example, when was the last time you measured how many ounces of anger you plow through in a day? How many kilowatts of rage will fuel your response to this post..?
For another example, lets say someone says, "An opera is simply black ellipses on paper, connected to vertical strokes, appearing on parallel lines in certain mathematical relationships to one another."
The statement isn't wrong.. just incomplete.
Atheism also fails to answer the seven basic questions of human existence: Origin, Destiny, Identity, Relationship, Morality, Meaning, and Purpose.

5) Inconsistent
A final reason Atheism fails is inconsistency. One cannot reason consistently when restricted by unbelief in anything. Let me elaborate briefly on six areas this is the case...
First off, while Atheism rejects absolute morality, atheists are unable to do so. On one hand, an atheist can claim that evil does not exist (to excuse the concept of sin), since evil is, after all, the product of evolution. But on the other hand, atheists reject God either because of suffering in the world that He does nothing about, or because He is evil. We see this constantly on these forums when an Atheist says something like, "I don't believe in the existence of God because I reject a God that would be evil enough to condemn people to hell." Feel free to substitute in the word 'value' for morality, but the concept stays the same, and the argument employs circular reasoning. You cannot say there is not evil in the world because there's so much evil in the world (at least, I wouldn't).

Secondly, Atheists reject the idea of a Designer, saying reality has no design.. then they go on to use the laws of science to say there is no proof of God, because everything is natural (as opposed to supernatural). I would point out that design and laws prove the same argument. Science is made up of laws that prove a design.. otherwise science cannot be used. I'm sitting here at a computer, surrounded by walls, floors, ceiling, tiles etc. Would you consider me reasonable if I said there's no evidence of a design, and thus no designer, but instead attributed all of it to the laws of engineering? It's the same thing.

Third on the list: Atheists claim to have higher philosophical ground than theists. But.. there's a weakness in epistemology; if you claim the brain is our means of cognition, and it is the result of a process that was driven by chance, in a universe driven by chance, then there is no good reason to trust its perceptions. According to theism, however, the brain is sufficient for comprehending reality, because God designed it to do so, through the processes of biology he set in place (or evolved.. it's irrelevant in this case). This puts theism on more solid ground.

Fourth reason: While I have seen this very infrequently on these forums, some Atheists will use circumlocutions to try to get around using the word 'God'. They will say things like, 'Mother Nature', creation, fate, 'Gaia', or or other all-powerful entities. Going back to neopaganism only weakens the argument...

Fifth: Ecology. I mentioned this previously, but it also contributes to inconsistency. I will add, though, that responding to ill-informed theists' stance that we are above nature does not mean we are only a part of it.. why not both, as the Bible teaches? After all, it is clear that we share certain aspects of nature, but it is also clear that we have dominion over other species on earth at this point.

The sixth inconsistency I will mention is on the subject of judging. Atheists often ridicule believers for being intolerant. The Bible only condemns hypocritical, selfish, and arrogant judging. While theists often do this too, I would argue it is never the Bible they are really supporting in those cases, but their own cause. After all, if it is simply wrong to tell someone they are wrong, then how can you tell a theist they are wrong?
In light of this I think a slight distinction is necessary: It is one thing to judge something (decide whether a statement is incorrect or a behavior is immoral) and quite another to be judgemental (to judge without grace or concern for others).

Because of all of this, nobody can live as a fully consistent atheist, because there is no absolute standard.

I don't mean this to attack Atheism (believe it or not =P), but when someone showed me all of this, I decided for myself that I couldn't take myself seriously as an Atheist.

I also want to say, though I'm sure I've done a far from perfect job, that I keep this in mind every time I post on these forums:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1st Peter 3:15

In that spirit, I may not reply to many of the posts in response to this. After all, you just said you thought our responses would be interesting. I don't mean to proselytize, nor do I mean to quarrel. However, if you want to talk then inbox me or, more preferably, email me.

[fr0d0]

What would convince me that two unrelated subjects were related? A miracle for sure. And I'm sure you're just the guy for that job.

Listen, unless you can actually provide reasoning for why the two subjects are unable to interact, then all this is just empty air.

Who said they were unable to interact?! Is that an unwritten rule of separate subjects that you just made up?

[Chas]

If so, what would it be? What instance, or discovery, or scientific theory (much more than just conjecture - based on mounds of facts), would it take to free you from your faith? I hope you'll weigh in. I'm quite interested in the responses to this question. Thanks!

God will not force us to follow Him; it's our decision. Does God exist? Absolutely. Does He seem distant, unreal? Perhaps because you prefer it that way. When the Apostle Paul shared his faith with Governor Felix, he challenged Felix on his personal life. Felix responded, "That's enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you." (Acts 24:25)
Many people today have the same response as Felix. Nobody has ever proven God does not exist. When most people decide there is no God, at least one underlying reason for their decision is that God's existence would extremely inconvenience them. Unfortunately for them, God's existence does not depend on our decision to accept it. God exists regardless of whether we choose to acknowledge Him. God will never force us to make a decision.

You assert that God exists, without providing evidence. I will dismiss your assertion.

Atheism fails on account of several factors.. and when I say it fails, I mean it is logically and reasonably unsound.

1) Amorality
While I don't believe that all atheists are amoral (and yes, I am referring to 'amoral', not 'immoral'), I would however argue that they do not possess morals because of their atheistic stance, but rather in spite of it. Without God, "Might makes right" as Thrasymachus would say. Since you may ask, examples include Armenia, Ethiopia, Darfur, Bosnia, Kurdistan, Combodia, the Soviet Union and many more. Atrocities are always rationalized, and a persecutor will justify their actions with religious pretext where opportunity presents itself.. but this goes against the Bible (the only religious stance I will argue for, as I've found the rest to be very faulty), so the truth remains; amoral actions under religious pretext (such as the Crusades) are done is opposition to God's standard, while moral actions done under atheistic pretext are done in spite of atheistic principles - I need not resurface my uncontested point on torture in the world, which can be found in the thread Abusive Theology 101.

You leap from 'no morals' to 'might makes right' morals without even blushing. Remarkable.
Morals are arrived at by reason and emotion - by people making judgements, trying out ideas, criticizing those ideas, and make progress.
Don't you see that ethics and morality are better today than those described in the Bible?

2) Meaninglessness
Without God life is meaningless. We can only be a drain on the planet, pursuing our personal advancement. Nothing will last. If you'd argue that we can find purpose in preserving the planet, then obviously that would be accomplished better by reducing the amount of humans on it, in fact total extinction of ourselves would help it the most.. though in the spirit of carrying on a pointless existence, we could follow Hitler's philosophy and only keep the best. We can attempt to distract ourselves from this depressing emptiness through education, medication, indoctrination, recreation, trying to prove theists wrong.. think about it. Carl Jung might of been on to something when he said the central neurosis of our time is emptiness. Regardless, you aren't helping the case for Atheism.

Again, you make an unsupported assertion. We each find meaning as we may - I'm sorry that you don't have the courage to do so, that you are so afraid that you have to have meaning and morals given to you.

3) Incoherent
As an anti-position, Atheism is not verifiable. It's not possible to prove the non-existence of God. Atheism affirms the very thing it denies; In order to be sure that no omniscience, all-powerful being exists in all the cosmos, you would have to be omniscient and all-powerful. Another reason for incoherency is that Atheism claims there's no absolute truth.. but again, for that statement to be trustworthy, there must be absolute truth. Relativism stems from wishful thinking, and trying to defend it while holding on to science and reason just comes across as uneducated. Whether speaking of physical, or metaphysical, an external measurement must be used - this is known as absolute truth. I've also heard it argued that reality is empty of meaning, and that meaning is in the mind of the thinker. Again, by claiming everything is meaningless, the statement itself must also be meaningless.

Now you are just being ignorant or stupid. Atheism makes no claims - there is nothing to verify. Burden of proof is on you who claim some god exists. The one for which there is no evidence.

4) Incomplete
Atheism argues that God cannot be real because He is not physical. This is an incomplete view, because it does not include all aspects of reality. None of us can deny the existence of anger, love, justice, etc. For example, when was the last time you measured how many ounces of anger you plow through in a day? How many kilowatts of rage will fuel your response to this post..?
For another example, lets say someone says, "An opera is simply black ellipses on paper, connected to vertical strokes, appearing on parallel lines in certain mathematical relationships to one another."
The statement isn't wrong.. just incomplete.
Atheism also fails to answer the seven basic questions of human existence: Origin, Destiny, Identity, Relationship, Morality, Meaning, and Purpose.

Atheism is not a philosophy - it answers no questions. You don't understand the meaning of the word 'atheism'.

5) Inconsistent
A final reason Atheism fails is inconsistency. One cannot reason consistently when restricted by unbelief in anything. Let me elaborate briefly on six areas this is the case...
First off, while Atheism rejects absolute morality, atheists are unable to do so. On one hand, an atheist can claim that evil does not exist (to excuse the concept of sin), since evil is, after all, the product of evolution. But on the other hand, atheists reject God either because of suffering in the world that He does nothing about, or because He is evil. We see this constantly on these forums when an Atheist says something like, "I don't believe in the existence of God because I reject a God that would be evil enough to condemn people to hell." Feel free to substitute in the word 'value' for morality, but the concept stays the same, and the argument employs circular reasoning. You cannot say there is not evil in the world because there's so much evil in the world (at least, I wouldn't).

Actually, not so. There may well be objective morality. It may be evolutionary at its base. But morality does not come from books written and assembled by ignorant, pre-Enlightenment people.

Secondly, Atheists reject the idea of a Designer, saying reality has no design.. then they go on to use the laws of science to say there is no proof of God, because everything is natural (as opposed to supernatural). I would point out that design and laws prove the same argument. Science is made up of laws that prove a design.. otherwise science cannot be used. I'm sitting here at a computer, surrounded by walls, floors, ceiling, tiles etc. Would you consider me reasonable if I said there's no evidence of a design, and thus no designer, but instead attributed all of it to the laws of engineering? It's the same thing.

Yes, there is no designer required. The 'Laws' of science are descriptions of observed behavior in mathematical terms.
Are you really dragging out Paley's argument dressed up for the computer age?

Third on the list: Atheists claim to have higher philosophical ground than theists. But.. there's a weakness in epistemology; if you claim the brain is our means of cognition, and it is the result of a process that was driven by chance, in a universe driven by chance, then there is no good reason to trust its perceptions. According to theism, however, the brain is sufficient for comprehending reality, because God designed it to do so, through the processes of biology he set in place (or evolved.. it's irrelevant in this case). This puts theism on more solid ground.

Evolution by natural selection is not chance. You need to understand evolution before you disagree.

Fourth reason: While I have seen this very infrequently on these forums, some Atheists will use circumlocutions to try to get around using the word 'God'. They will say things like, 'Mother Nature', creation, fate, 'Gaia', or or other all-powerful entities. Going back to neopaganism only weakens the argument...

Who does that? Certainly not me.

Fifth: Ecology. I mentioned this previously, but it also contributes to inconsistency. I will add, though, that responding to ill-informed theists' stance that we are above nature does not mean we are only a part of it.. why not both, as the Bible teaches? After all, it is clear that we share certain aspects of nature, but it is also clear that we have dominion over other species on earth at this point.

We are part of nature. However, we are the only organism that understands evolution and can therefore get outside of the game.

The sixth inconsistency I will mention is on the subject of judging. Atheists often ridicule believers for being intolerant. The Bible only condemns hypocritical, selfish, and arrogant judging. While theists often do this too, I would argue it is never the Bible they are really supporting in those cases, but their own cause. After all, if it is simply wrong to tell someone they are wrong, then how can you tell a theist they are wrong?
In light of this I think a slight distinction is necessary: It is one thing to judge something (decide whether a statement is incorrect or a behavior is immoral) and quite another to be judgemental (to judge without grace or concern for others).

I judge theism as without basis because it has no evidence.

Because of all of this, nobody can live as a fully consistent atheist, because there is no absolute standard.

I don't mean this to attack Atheism (believe it or not =P), but when someone showed me all of this, I decided for myself that I couldn't take myself seriously as an Atheist.

I also want to say, though I'm sure I've done a far from perfect job, that I keep this in mind every time I post on these forums:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1st Peter 3:15

In that spirit, I may not reply to many of the posts in response to this. After all, you just said you thought our responses would be interesting. I don't mean to proselytize, nor do I mean to quarrel. However, if you want to talk then inbox me or, more preferably, email me.

Well, I live a full and rich life. I don't squander my time, money, love, or attention on imaginary friends. I love this - my only - life, and shall be sorry when it ends.

I feel sad that you waste so much of yours on fantasy.

[fr0d0]

[Cyberman]

I think someone's getting their mythologies all mixed up.

Frodo was a hobbit, not a troll.