"If your worldview can be dismantled within eight seconds, then get a better one."

The above quote is from Bob Enyart.

The following is from one of my favorite Christian debaters, Dracargen/SilverDragon_17, on Gamespot.

"Atheist Cliché 1: There is no truth!
Theist Rebuttal: Is that true? [1 second]

Atheist Cliché 2: There are no absolutes!
Theist Rebuttal: Absolutely? [1 second]

Atheist Cliché 3: Only your five senses provide real knowledge!
Theist Rebuttal: Says which of the five? [2 seconds]

Atheist Cliché 4: Great suffering proves that a loving God cannot exist!
Theist Rebuttal: The unstated assumption is false, that suffering can have no value or purpose. [4.5 seconds]

Atheist Cliché 5: Atheism is scientific, because science does not allow for a supernatural interpretation of an event!
Theist Rebuttal: Such circular reasoning forces science to assume that which atheists claim it supports. [5 seconds]

Atheist Cliché 6: Widespread evil proves that a righteous God cannot exist!
Theist Rebuttal: The two unstated assumptions are false: that love can be forced; and that some love is not worth enduring much hate. [6.5 seconds]

Atheist Cliché 7: If theists claim that the universe could not have always been here, then God couldn’t have always been here either.
Theist Rebuttal: The natural universe is subject to the physical laws, so it would run out of useable energy; a supernatural, spiritual God is not subject to physics. [7.9 seconds]"

Thoughts?

 

This makes no sense whatsoever, what you just posted and is all skewed and twisted. If you believe this is the argument, I am afraid that you should reevaluate things. The arguments even that are answered by the Christian side are as stupid as the Atheist side.

In the end, faith is up to the believer. If you believe, you do. Logic cannot be used to argue the existence of something someone else believes in.

There are those who are imbalanced mentally and have been serial killers...believing that people are out to get them, or they hear their mothers' voice telling them to kill people, or their fathers'. Delusional serial killers are very fun to study. Many have schizophrenia which is a mind altering disease that actually eats away at brain cells.

Schizophrenia makes people delusional and think that voices in their head come from outside it and even with examinations of the brain, when they say something verbally, they do not always acknowledge it the same way others do to show that it is 'their voice'. Just because some woman believes there are Nazis out to get her and she kills her roommate because of it, doesn't mean there are real Nazis out to get her, regardless of how many letters she wrote to the CIA, FBI, to relatives etc. However, you tell someone with this that it is fake. It won't work. Zealots have the same wild look in their eye. Regular people, regardless of belief in God or not, they don't look that freaking imbalanced, glassy eyed and are generally not people with I.Q.s under 100.

No matter how logical your argument it is, a person who is absolutely committed to something is not going to believe you. Just give up. They even do what this with writing this whole statement skewed as to what Atheists believe versus what fanatical Christians do. Extremists are bad. Period. This list is ridiculous and is so taken out of context, for shame.

 

Well from the other point of view the argument "against" faith began with a few extreme scientists with some underlying desire to prove the non-existence of a God. Granted almost all modern scientific views have retracted away from such outward subjectively guided agendas, but there are still sides of both communities that maintain the petty and frivolous debate of "faith versus empiricism".

These tussles of faith and empiricism posted by the doctor are more of the run-of-the-mill philosophical statements that can spiral onward into a zero-sum debate. In a sense it's not really about what can be right or what can be wrong because no one knows and will probably never know. It's more about the philosophical view points of bare faith and bare empiricism.

 

I actually adjusted this to my new statement, not liking much how the former one rolled. This repost I did above makes more clear what I was getting at. The revelation hit me after.

The point though is that this is entirely skewed and the statements by the 'Atheist' aren't even complete, and the answers by the religious guy are empty as well. It is stupid and trying to make the zealot fanatic look like he's so smart when in fact most zealots just say what preachers tell them on repeat patterns to defend against those 'evil' atheists. Add in a 'you are going to Hell when you die' and it just shows how ridiculous this is.

 

Oh most definitely, as are most arguments are against empiricism on the subject of a god. Each statement, law, or whatever it may be is usually presented impartially or incorrectly to provoke flaw, which is why I usually frown when someone sparks a thread on the debate.

If you really read into the work of some theologians the arguments on either side merit an equal amount of weight (hence the frivolity of the argument). I've always looked to the debate as a means of more of an insight into the universe as opposed to a dividing line where each side is just screaming at the other. No one can be right on the subject so you might as well just indulge in the good that each has to offer.

 

Oh, I agree. In the end it is a matter of personal philosophy and examination. That is why when someone skews the deal though, it annoys me. It entirely cancels out the possibility of debate because what is said is totally slandered to one side. So really if it starts out lame, there's no point to a debate at all because the subject matter as it is goes off of personal belief. Faith can't be reasoned out. The details of a book; sure. The belief in a deity, no. It is a personal thing.

The man-made details sure can be torn asunder. This includes any book or mythos or philosophy or tales told by mouth. This doesn't mean, however, that you can disprove a deity but to say it cannot be as 'man' views it in the book. If there is a God out there or not, a book won't validate it, but personal faith will. Even if I do not personally believe in "God" of the Bible, it does not mean I can prove that -any- God exists or not by anything other than personal belief. So the argument to me is pointless since everyone always twists it around pathetically using what exists around them. If religion though wasn't such a mind bending and controlling thing which garners public reaction, I suppose it would not be debated as much as it is.

 

Would someone kindlly explain what a "god" is?

It is all very well to throw arguments around about whether one exists, but when it comes down to it, what properties do you believe your "god" to have?

Can I consider myself a god? Why not? What qualities do I lack? (apart from a book about me and a following of millions)

You can argue for ages about faith, but what do people have faith in? The existance of god, I hear you say. But what is a god? Do these people have faith in the word comprised of the letters "G" "O" and "D"?

 

Text book philosophy ftw! Simply naming characteristics or imposing them onto something implies nothing of its existence. For all we know there could two gods where they each punish those that believe in the opposing deity.

 

I did not mean to...

But still, you just said there could be two "Gods" that punish people who worship the other. But what do these 'gods" have? From what you told me, I assume they have some control over Earth, and are not benign. Sounds a lot like a guy with a shotgun, eh?

 

That's an interesting question, and one that can be as complex really as asking 'do any gods exist' truly. I will answer that with 'my' point of view and realize that of course it can be labeled as incorrect to someone else, because this also comes down to an opinion on the part of each person. Since people give and assign various attributes to any deity, including even just a singular entity, it changes. God (the monotheistic one) has many characteristics assigned to it.

Omnipotence (all powerful), Omniscience (all knowing), All Loving, Jealous, All Creator, the Great Mover, etc.

Gods, regardless of who they are, tend to be beings that are assigned various tasks of life, death, nature, etc, showing that something is behind what goes on around us. If you want a good harvest, you'd pray to a god to make it happen. If you want to be healed of some disease, praying to a god who specializes in healing would save you, etc. We have conditions of existence and a deity can change those as they (or he, or she) are able to manipulate fate, motion, existence, life and death to do so. The other trait is that they are immortal, though in some mythologies they required a magical fruit or something to prolong their existence. Some gods are bad or what would be coined as tremendously hideous and evil, some are good, some represent emotional things such as Aphrodite is about love and relationships. Others represent states of the moment such as Ares is the God of War.

The monotheistic God of Jews, Christians and Islamic faith is supposed to be above all Gods out there and be capable of doing anything at all. If something happens it is 'God's will'. He is the force behind all things that transpire in a person's life and though loving, when bad things happen, you accept it because that's how it is just meant to be. Belief in any deity in the end means that you believe in an outside force that yet is very much a part of your life and can make things right, and if you are not living well, you may have upset this being. They control your fate and the fate of all existence. Some control 'aspects' of life they are assigned to while the one monotheistic deity is able to control them all.

Of course, there are also Deists, which believe in God, but do not believe after a certain point that God involves himself in the lives of mortals and lets them make their own choices, to include not hopping in when someone prays for help. This isn't to say they think the God doesn't care, but more to say he wants people to figure out their own dilemmas and live without a controlled or altered fate.

That would be my take on it. I am interested to see other people's ideas on what a god is. As for why you would not be considered a god, you don't really meet the criteria of having mass control over some aspect of life where you can make things happen on an immense scale to control it, nor would you be considered immortal. Some humans though, in mythologies such as Egyptian, were able to later 'transcend' to a god-like status, such as pharaohs. Also, some people are said to be an 'avatar' of a deity which means a god lives inside them and uses them as a vessel, which is either permanent or occurs now and then so that they can do miracles (something extraordinary that no one can possibly yet just explain with science) in the name of that god. So, if you get some freaky powers, let us know!

 

Well I can read in the shower...

Interesting. I know you said that those were only your understanding on it, but what about Norse gods, such as Loki and Thor and such? I believe they were somewhat weaker that other gods, as they were destroyed by the giants and Fenris.

But that is off topic, isnt it?

I think that everything is set in stone, and that there is randomness. I think that if you could view the original matter from the big bang, you could (with the right knowledge) trace the reactions to find out the future. I do not believe in divine intervention, as that would be a "miracle" and there is no recent record for them.

 

Thoguh i am a christian, alot of these rebuttals could still be countered with enough effort and thought. People can belive what they want.

 

No true. When you believe in a false god, you will eventually do irrational things. For example mass cult suicide.

If I believe in a god that will doom me to hell if I do not kill over 50 people, if I truly believe this is real, eventually my state of mind will alter, and I will start doing malicious things.

See? While Christianity is one of the more benign religions, eventually it will get out of hand. Even holding back humanity from learning more about cloning is an effect religion is having.

 

Kudos to this debator- those are some of the most annoying atheist cliches.

Science is just as dangerous as religion- cults stemming off of religion can be just as bad as scientific wars. Both are double-edged swords.

 

Logic makes no sense...... Anyway, your either a creationist or a Darwinist.... Creationist is
we were created from a higher power.... Darwinist is from a lower.... Which do you choose?:star-wars-smiley-02

 

Lol, logic exists to make sense. Also there are the group who couldn't care less about how everything was created. Why should they care? It happened long before they were born, and it isn't going to end in their lifetime (hopefully lol). Thinking about things so big and deep takes away from your life, and we don't have a lot of time on this Earth, why waste it? =/

Although, if I had to choose sides I would say some form of Darwinism.

 

True, but science has an overall aim to improve the human race.

I cannot see what Religion is trying to achieve. There is no proof that it is making any progress. It is just a corn on the foot of humanity. It seems as if Religion is not a double edged sword, but a single edged one. The thing is, we are getting cut by that single edge.

Also Science is logical. Religion is not, and it can cause people to make irrational decisions.

 

Hmmm, except that to those who are religious, they are the ones trying to improve the human race and science is destroying it xD there will never be an end to this whole science vs Religion thing. Though to completely denounce one or the other is wrong IMO

Science isn't always logical, just like religion isn't always irrational xD​

 

Um, no. Theistic Evolution brings the best of both worlds from either side. If anything it has the potential to make the most sense out of any viewpoint on this matter.

 

Actually religion seems to be the only form of consistence..... Logic is always changing......
Forever learning but never coming to the acceptance of religious truth....
Religion stays the same.... It is all of the facts layed out so no more can be discovered....
In my opinion, it feels nice to have some consistency......