it's objectively possible to argue there's no evidence for God, it just lacks common sense

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 51
#31
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,347
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas,

YOUR QUOTE REGARDING THE GOD OF THE BIBLE: "Do you think that n8nrgim was just to SCARED to discuss the the two propositions of mine in showing that my serial killer JESUS AS GOD exists?"

All those people killed by your God are indeed proof that God exists. He is in God prison now, thats why he doesnt show up anymore.
Topic's author
#32
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,001
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
dont make brother thomas 'bible slap you silly', like he does me and everyone else who isn't a TRUE christian. we smell sulfur and are preparing to be satan's bitch for all eternity, and God can glorify himself by bringing with wrath down upon us, praise!
#33
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea


.
Best.Korea,

YOUR REVEALING AND DISTURBING QUOTE: "All those people killed by your God are indeed proof that God exists. He is in God prison now, thats why he doesnt show up anymore."

Hmmmm, I would hate to think that you may have a point here in your quote above, whereas, if this were true, who put my bloody serial killer Jesus in a God prison?  The only one that I can think of, is the God ZEUS, where as stated in His historical writings, ZEUS is the king of all Gods!

"As the chief Greek deity, Zeus is considered the ruler, protector, and father of all gods and humans. Zeus is often depicted as an older man with a beard and is represented by symbols such as the lightning bolt and the eagle."

ZEUS FORBID!

.
#34
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
 i like to think the new testament is where the truth is,

Do you have any particular part of the New Testamant in mind when you say that ?


and jesus liked to heal people.

When the New Testamant speaks of  Jesus "healing people" what do you take that to mean? And he didn't seem to happy or  too keen about healing a certain daughter. he called her a dog.


there's not a lot of evidence of non healing miracles in the new testament.

He somehow forgot to raise his cousin John the Baptist "the greatest prophet that ever lived" from the dead.   Indeed he didn't shed a tear when he heard of the greatest prophet that ever lived  had died as he did with his friend Lazarus . He both wept and raised Lazarus from the dead.
One has to wonder what was so special about Lazarus.

i like to think Jesus still heals people with things that look like miraculous healing.

Do you have an example of Jesus "still healing" people with supporting evidence Just one example will do.



we're meant to walk by faith to a large degree. 

Indeed - faith - a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.


Topic's author
#35
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,001
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
i've always been posting examples of the miraculous, and ya'll skeptics just choose to ignore it. here is an example. 


the catholic church has a whole section of itself that investigates miracles. it's irrational to deny that things that look supernatural happen... the question is how to interpret them. 

dont get me wrong, i still think there is evidence for God, the afterlife, and the supernatural. i just think a person could rationally argue that there is no evidence for God, to disagree with me. also, dont get me wrong, anyone who says there's objectively no evidence for God, is being irrational. they should at least allow that it's open to interpretation. 
#36
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,470
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
the catholic church has a whole section of itself that investigates miracles. it's irrational to deny that things that look supernatural happen... the question is how to interpret them. 
I think I said this in another thread, people can heal with the mind, it's just that people don't know how capable they are. Cases like those you presented here is not uncommon in people that hold other beliefs or even don't hold any belief at all because it has to do with the state of the mind and not the religion they advocate, so it's not necessary to join a church or pray to an imaginary being to achieve it. I met a man that cured his cancer with laugh therapy, just to say an example. He started to rent dozens of comedy films to heal.

As for "God", you have to make it clear what kind of God you refer to. For example, the philosopher Spinoza thought God was the universe and that everything, including all of us, is God because it is rather stupid and retarded to think that God is as described in the bible.
#37
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,470
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
No, it's, if religions for some reason disappear, then atheism is correct.      Remember that Bill Gates is an atheist.
Not necessarily, my friend. That would be a fallacy.

Topic's author
#38
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,001
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
i would need examples to believe your claims. maybe the mind causes healings, but it's always associted with belief in God from what i can tell. i'd even go so far as to say christians receive healings, and non christian claims are suspect. you say you know of a cancer healing, but cancer healings can sometimes spontaneously manifest... so that's not a good example. 
it's a correlation versus causation thing, maybe it's not belief in God, but something that the mind causes. i wouldn't think so but who knows. 

for "God" to mean anything, it has to be a being,or at least a higher power, like 'source' that NDE people often talk about. 
#39
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,470
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
There are thousands of testimonies about it. Even atheists could heal and it has to do with the faith Jesus used to talk about, not necessarily a faith in an imaginary being, it could be the faith in yourself. If you want to have faith in the universe (I prefer this term instead of God), it's the same shit because we are only one. In the end you're the one who is doing the miracle, not a "high power".

I always thought that Jesus, if ever existed, was like Buddha, taught buddhist stuff and tried to subvert the judaism for the sake of his people but he failed because his teachings were distorted and he ended up being deified by his followers. Despite all this, I think Jesus left valuable teachings that we have to search carefully in all the nonsense of the gospels, like the miracles. If you look carefully through it, you will realize he didn't make the miracles: “Your faith has made you well”, Matthew 9, 22.

I started to know about all this when I got interested in UFO sightings. According to some people that had encounters with these alien beings, they were told that human minds are capable of doing things we have never imagined and proof of that is that these aliens have the same genetic roots of that of humans and can do lot of psychic stuff. Of course, there is no evidence of what I'm saying, it's only testimonies. But whatever it is, I believe in it because most of the testimonies are logically consistent.
#40
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,997
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Belief is futile.

If you know something you know it.

If you don't you don't.
#41
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,997
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
NDE.

Not Dead Experience.
#42
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim

i like to think Jesus still heals people with things that look like miraculous healing.

Do you have an example of Jesus "still healing" people with supporting evidence Just one example will do.

i've always been posting examples of the miraculous, and ya'll skeptics just choose to ignore it. here is an example. 

Your link.
You must have missed the part where the monk Fr. Akiki and the woman Dafne Gutierrez both prayed over the remains of a long dead man Saint Charbel a Lebanese monk.  Which clearly  smacks of "graven images" worship to me.

I should imagine sales in statues of  Saint Charbel the Lebanese monk went through the roof after this particular "miracle".



the catholic church has a whole section of itself that investigates miracles.

Which is like asking Hitler to investigate the unruly behaviour of his SS.




it's irrational to deny that things that look supernatural happen...

Some say "supernatural" while others will simply say unexplainable.


the question is how to interpret them [supernatural things]. 

The question is how  the scientific world  or the individual may interpret them? Simply to say "Jesus did it"  is faith faith -  a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

I will have to concede though, n8nrgim, that there is  one  unexplainable thing about the story in your chosen example and it really does have me puzzled and scratching my head..  



#43
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,623
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim

an atheist here made a good point... sometimes things look more like they are 'consistent' with God theory, rather than 'evidence for' God theory. any time you see evdience for God, ask if it would be better or at least possible to not call it evidence but merely consistent with God theory. 

there's lots of philosophic arguements for God. id group those with things like casuality arguments and design arguments. the thing about these is that there's at least plausible arguments that can be made that are counter those. so it's easy to just call these consistent with God and not evidence.
The basis of faith is not inferential reason, it is personal encounter. The experiential reality of a human being involves a wide range of disparate cognitive states that result in conscious, sentient, rational beings that perceive quality, value, purpose, and meaning.  Human beings experience a many-leveled, multifaceted reality that is mediated by means of our senses and involves our whole cognitive equipment, the “God theory” is not an explanatory hypothesis, it is a way of relating to reality in its most significant aspects.

In the end, reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raised here, the “God theory”, is not logically coercive, it’s a matter of faith, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of values, qualities, meanings, and purposes.


#44
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,171
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
any time you see evdience for God, ask if it would be better or at least possible to not call it evidence but merely consistent with God theory. 
You're putting the cart before the horse. You cannot argue something is consistent with a god until you have an example of a god to compare it to.

when healings that look supernatural happen, it still looks like impossible things are occurring. you can try to rationalize it, but that's what it looks like. 
Again, you don't have any examples of a supernatural healing to be able to say what one would look like. If you did there would be nothing left to prove.

The reason you don't have an example is because the concept of the supernatural itself is deeply flawed. We have the natural world. We have limitations we know the natural world is confined to. If we observe something breaking those limitations you'd call them supernatural. But in order to conclude that, we have to presume that the limitations we started with are valid, which we only affirmed through observation in the first place.

This is the problem, you cannot argue something is supernatural without breaking the consistency of your own logic. In other words, it's necessarily self defeating.

there's no explanation that we know of that can explain how life started on earth, or how something as complicated as human consciousness occurrs.
Not having an explanation does not mean you get to make one up. "I can't explain something therefore I can explain it" Is a logical contradiction.

im more curious if you think being an atheist makes sense from a common sense perspective. i've finally concluded after decades of thinking about this sort of stuff, that it's plausible to say there's no evidence for God. but, from a common sense perspective, i'm still as strong a theist as ever. 
Common sense used in this context is just an excuse to hold onto an irrational belief because it feels right. The idea of debating these things is to dig inside yourself to see where those feelings are coming from and whether they are valid.

I fully embrace the notion that nothing should be believed until there is sufficient evidence to justify it. Don't know if I consider that common sense because it doesn't appear to be as common as it should.
#45
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,470
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief is futile.

If you know something you know it.

If you don't you don't.
It's good you doubt about it because it's the only way to reach the truth.

Nevertheless, I don't think a belief is futile, at least not if it has some consistency in its arguments. And I think you might be referring to the psychic stuff. In most of the reports of contacted people, they communicate with these aliens using telepathy, so I guess it counts as a psychic ability. There are also testimonies of spontaneous healing in the encounters and before you mention anything about mental illness, take into consideration that this kind of communication usually come about in a group of people, so you can't say everyone is mentally ill.

A belief can be based on intuition which to me is the first step to know something. I don't just take this belief from one only source but from several and I compare to one another in order to draw previous conclusions before going any further. I know there still are loose ends to tie up but I think I am on the right track.
#46
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,422
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8


List of atheists in science and technology

#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW

Speaking of lists
I asked   @n8nrgim if he had one example after he said  "i like to think Jesus still heals people with things that look like miraculous healing".#12

I responded here> #42

So speaking of lists, I could also offer a list of my own of people being cured of blindness where it wasn't prayed for or any intervention by Jesus , or Pastor, or Priest of Chaplain or even in a church setting with prayers.
And although some will call these incidents "miraculous" the causes for the cures ranged from, banging head on coffee table. Run over by a car. Falling from a ladder, being scared by a dog suddenly barking and many more. The most common is being admitted to hospital for a totally unelated operation for a totally unrelated complaint.

#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,997
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Depends how one defines belief I suppose.

Though the general definition is acceptance without proof.

So for example, one accepts that a god exists even though one cannot prove that a god exists.

As the acceptance is based upon supposition, then the proposition is futile, in so much as the outcome cannot be definitive.


Though for sure, wider use of the word also describes a looser sort of indefinite expectancy, based upon supposition.


But as I see it...When the proposition is momentous rather than casual, then certainty should be vital. 
Topic's author
#49
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,001
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
i didn't respond to your post cause it was so weak. i typically only engage in responses that are quality worth responding to. 

the fact of the matter, is that something happened to that lady that looks like it reaches beyond the realm of what is possible. a damaged optic nerve as far as humans know, dont just spontaeously just heal themselves, especially when it was after praying for intercession. you call it just inexplicable and not supernatural. but you are rationalizing it. again, it looks like something happened that is beyond the realm of what is possible. you deny it to cling to your own preocnceived notions, when the evidence is plainly right in front of you. i understand that your theories are true, that there could be something naturally occurring that we dont understand... but with common sense, even acccording to our known science.... the most straight forward way of looking at it is something beyond the realm of possible actually occurred. why dont these sorts of things happen to atheists? to follow your belief, we would have to believe your big assumption that they do occur,and it's just not reported.  you claim there's no evidence, only because you have a dark heart, and a dark mind. 
#50
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,593
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
i didn't respond to your post cause it was so weak.

Which still makes  my "weak argument" much stronger than your imagined and fallacious faith based argument for the presence of a "miracle" that you believe a long dead  Jesus performed in the 21st century. .


AND you should take the time to read your link very slowly and carefully. SHE WASN'T BLIND in the first place she was temporarily blind. The headline is very misleading.



#51
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@n8nrgim



.
n8nrgim,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE IN YOUR POST #49 TO STEPHEN:  "i didn't respond to your post cause it was so weak. i typically only engage in responses that are quality worth responding to. " 

GREAT!  Then using your proposition towards my TRUTHFUL biblical axioms that I presented in my post #7 to you regarding your initial post, then when are you going to respond to them?  Surely you're not SCARED of biblical truths, are you?  NO, I didn't think so, therefore I will await a cogent response from you, praise Jesus' TRUE words as shown in my post #7!

Here is the post link that at this time, you are RUNNING AWAY from in front of the membership: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9969/posts/412469

BEGIN:

.