A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.

Author: zedvictor4

Posts

Total: 436
#31
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Athias
I'm not sure what "typical' atheism is. In one sense, atheism doesn't have to be rooted in logic as it isn't incumbent on one who has not seen proof that God exists to use logic and prove THAT God does not exist. It is also important to say that "typical theists" (if such a thing exists) are rooted in dogmatic belief, not logic.
#32
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
"Becoming God would convince someone that God exists"

Yeah I reckon that would do the trick too. There are millions of things that might potentially convince someone that god exists, you can't expect me to list out each and every one of them.

Would a debate titled "It is not possible to convince atheists that god exists" interest you? If you really are as confident in that assertion as you act like you are then you should consider that an easy win.
#33
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@rosends
Does that mean that there was no God during the days of creation before life was created? Or how about before the days of creation? Was there no God then? Making God's existence contingent on man's existence seems risky. If the earth blows up tomorrow, then does God disappear?
I did not misread your point. I read your previous commentary quoted above. And I responded by advocating that God has existed infinitely into the past, exists now, and will into the infinite future. One of His names is "Eternal." Another is "I Am," [implying that it is, has been, and will always be so - it is so Descartes]. God is not dependent on man; it is the reverse. Your ending question regarding the demise of earth implies that you've already satisfied your own question whether or not God depends on man. Why ask?
#34
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@rosends
I'm not sure what "typical' atheism is.
I'm referring to the "brand" of atheism that is popularly sustained, which is not necessarily restricted by its actual definition.

In one sense, atheism doesn't have to be rooted in logic as it isn't incumbent on one who has not seen proof that God exists to use logic and prove THAT God does not exist.
Actually, yes it is. It is incumbent on anyone who affirms any claim to use logic in support of their claim. The claim, "I have not seen proof that God exists" is entirely different from "God does not exist." The former is subjective, while the latter is ontological. In essence, the latter claim is an affirmation of the claim "God's nonexistence is true." And that claim requires no less substantiation than one that would claim, "God's existence is true." Some atheists have argued that they don't have to "prove a negative." This is erroneous. If one claims a negative, then one would have to prove said negative. The inconsistency in logic manifests only when that failure to prove the negative is argued to inform proof of its inverse--i.e. positive (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)

It is also important to say that "typical theists" (if such a thing exists)
They do.

are rooted in dogmatic belief, not logic.
Agreed.

#35
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
"Your ending question regarding the demise of earth implies that you've already satisfied your own question whether or not God depends on man. Why ask?"

Again, you are missing the point. I am asking Alpheus, based on what ALPHEUS WROTE. My question to Alpheus was whether he was of the belief that God's existence is contingent on man's, as can be concluded by what HE WROTE. That ending question is a logical conclusion which I am presenting to Alpheus to see if his thesis stays consistent. None of this is about what I think, just about testing what Alpheus wrote.
#36
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Athias
"Actually, yes it is. It is incumbent on anyone who affirms any claim to use logic in support of their claim. The claim, "I have not seen proof that God exists" is entirely different from "God does not exist.""

Then you and I understand the "typical" atheist differently. To my understanding, it is someone who has been given no reason to know that God exists - an absence of belief not a rejection (a weak atheism to some degree). This typical atheist can go through his entire life not thinking about God's existence.
#37
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@rosends
Then you and I understand the "typical" atheist differently. To my understanding, it is someone who has been given no reason to know that God exists - an absence of belief not a rejection (a weak atheism to some degree). This typical atheist can go through his entire life not thinking about God's existence.
That is what an atheist "ought" to be, especially if we're going by definition. If one were truly "without a God," they would meet  your apt description. Perhaps, I'm in the wrong for conceding the label to the hijack of dogmatic materialists.

#38
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@rosends
Who made you tester? Who says you have the answers? Who says that's even necessary? Give your opinion, allow others theirs. Otherwise, make your question honest posits, not logic traps.
#39
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@rosends
I note, for example, that you do not engage in debate, and have not done so for 2.5 years. If you want to challenge, there's your venue.
#40
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Who made me "tester"? No one. But anyone who engages in a conversation is allowed to ask clarifying questions and figure out the implications of another person's statement. A forum can be a wonderful place in which to exchange ideas and present positions which invite feedback and, often, demand clarification. If you say "all dogs go to heaven" can't I ask "even evil dogs who kill people"? Are you the arbiter of what constitutes a conversation here?
#41
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
The debate section is for formal debates. I try to engage in enlightening conversation. If you are not interested in that, then don't engage.
#42
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@rosends
 just about testing what Alpheus wrote.
Who made you a tester? By your word, you.
#43
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Theists only assume. They do not prove.

Assume what?

What you explain is delusion.

Thanks for the opinion, but why are you here then? to discuss our delusions lol? get a life.

Nonetheless, you are honest.

Well at least you have one honest bone in your body. 

And intelligence is as intelligent does....Adolph Hitler was no doubt intelligent.

Are you comparing me, a dynamic individual.... to a one dimensional maniac? 

I think it fair to suggest that all people of all faiths and persuasions have intellect.

Okay, how about we go back and discuss the OP?
#44
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yeah I reckon that would do the trick too.
Actually, like the other, it wouldn't do the trick either.

There are millions of things that might potentially convince someone that god exists, you can't expect me to list out each and every one of them.
I only expected one or two logical ones. You listed none.

Would a debate titled "It is not possible to convince atheists that god exists" interest you?
No, because I have seen atheists become convinced that God exists. I was one.

If you really are as confident in that assertion as you act like you are then you should consider that an easy win.
I have not argued that atheists cannot be convinced that God exists, I argued that God coming down for a "chat" with an atheist would not convince the atheist.

God coming down for a chat is an impossible thing, and an impossible thing cannot be used as proof for an actual thing.

But atheists become Christians everyday, I see, and have seen it happen often.
#45
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I will throw a concept that may disturb, thrill, confuse, and maybe you reject. Up to you.

"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." - Lorenzo Snow.

It's as Occam's razor as I can conceive of the relationship man has to God, who declared, upon the making of his ultimate creation, "...Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness..." Genesis 1: 26. Since we are made in His image, albeit imperfectly for now, in our mortal state, why should we aspire to anything but to become like Him? Since we are created in His image, that image is a physical being, perfect, ultimately holy, ultimately omnipresent and omnipotent, and eternally our Father, the Great I Am.

However, for any ladies out there, I refer you to the Sistine Chapel ceiling painting by my hero, Michelangelo, specifically the center panel he called The Creation of Adam. Note that Adam's creation is at arm's length, not quite even touching as Adam reclines, on earth, separate from the Eternal Father. Meanwhile, observe who is directly to God's left, held in the embrace of His left arm and shoulder, a red-headed woman, whose hand upon His arm is lovingly placed in adoration. This, ladies, is Eve, so Michelangelo, himself, said, and I consider this to be the true ultimate creation: the Mother of all Living. Adam's creation at arm's length; Eve's is within God's embrace, just as it should have been. Never sell yourselves short, ladies. That is how much you are loved by your Creator, and we sholud follow suit.
Topic's author
#46
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Yes one admires your cognitive and literary capabilities.

Nonetheless your reply was self explanatory. In so much has your reply was only confirmation of what I expressed previously.

Clever but ultimately futile.



Topic's author
#47
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Just words that can be manipulated....Neither disturbing nor thrilling....Though there may be an attempt to confuse the gullible.

As man is, so God became....
Topic's author
#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
So modest.
#49
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
You might as well have said, "becoming God would convince someone that God exists"
Yeah I reckon that would do the trick too.
Actually, like the other, it wouldn't do the trick either.

You just went on record saying that becoming god would not convince a person that god exists. This only makes sense if it is possible that god does not believe god exists. Is that really the direction you want to go with this?
#50
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Read my 2 last posts again. Slowly this time and with your intellect crippling bias off. You'll be surprised at what you missed.
#51
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you think about these statements relative to the OP besides your assertion about delusions??

Can't prove to another person, but understanding the terms of definitions certainly a person can have proof and evidence that God exists.....for themselves. That's all that matters, then it can be articulated for inquiries to be considered.

It's hard to prove a reality that pervades all of creation while at the same time eludes the physical sense perception, it's not the way we are used to proving something like that of say like material phenomenon. That's the biggest factor at play why that reality can't be collectively proven.

If you take into consideration that the universe is developed through processes and processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind then you're half way there already.

One has to be willing to accept the fact that God exists independent of physical matter, as it seems atheists are controlled by what they can physically and immediately see, hear, smell and touch only. But God is not an object of creation, we all exist within the entirety of God so the rules change here dramatically in relation to Theism and it becomes very challenging to debate with people who are used to a certain method and way of viewing reality.

To experience things outside the immediate physical sense perception takes getting involved and participation/practice.



#52
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
I flip on religion a lot, so I'd figure I'd say this:

God decides to ban premarital sex in the bible.  Science much later confirms that premarital sex is bad for you on the grounds that it causes STD spreading.  

If God doesn't exist, how did the bible predict it much before science confirmed that it was bad for you?

#53
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes one admires your cognitive and literary capabilities.
That's not relevant.

Nonetheless your reply was self explanatory. In so much has your reply was only confirmation of what I expressed previously.
That words don't constitute proof? So let's dial it back: what do you, zedvictor, consider appropriate in the context of proof?
#54
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Just words that can be manipulated.
Sure. Manipulate away. But the original document we have is not the Bible, though it claims "...Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness." [Genesis 1: 26] That is God speaking. God is a title, not a name. And the references "our image" and "our likeness" would indicate we have a quorum of gods effecting the creation, not just one. Sure, you can argue that its the royal third person at play, but that God, who, in the Torah, is identified as "Elohim" is a term signifying a plurality.
Before the Bible, we have a document of Creation, itself, which continues to unroll, as a scroll, to demonstrate its "...grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." [Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 2nd - 6th editions] A grandeur that exhibits a pattern set by the gods who organized it. There are generations of all life, all producing the same effects as their ancestry, with the wonder of diversity of variation, some variations good, and some not, but still, at the root, demonstrating an inherited pattern: such as god being a man, once, and a man becoming a god. It's called evolution, dummy.
Topic's author
#55
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Show me God.


Nonetheless lets dial back.

The truism nor the atheist has ever sought to deny the existence of a god. 

In fact the atheist and the truism emphatically state that the existence of a god cannot be disproved.

Nor has the truism or the atheist asked that the theist should prove the existence of a god. 

Nor has the atheist or the truism suggested that the theist should stop believing in a god.

Therefore the atheist is being honest.

All that the atheist asks is for the theist to also be honest and accept the truism.

So why can theists not be honest?

Topic's author
#56
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Yep.

A reasonable exposition until you let yourself down with the last word.

Nonetheless... Straying completely from the proposition.
Topic's author
#57
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
I just love your logic.

But what has this got to do with the proposition?
#58
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
down with the last word.
sorry, that was entirely in jest. Don't take it personally. Besides, I'm called that all the time. But, no excuses. I am ashamed on myself and beg your forgiveess
#59
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
I might have to make my own forum for that.  My fault.
Topic's author
#60
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
No problem.

Things like that don't bother me.

I just thought that it spoiled a good piece of composition.

Regards.