News2 mins ago
A theologian answers the usual atheist arguments
71 Answers
I have joined this site today to contribute to the believers/non believers discussions in this section. I would like to present a counter balance to some of the atheists arguments against religious beliefs. There is a book written by a theologian to answer many of the same things said on here - religion breeds violence, religious people are less intelligent than non believers, religious faith is irrational etc
It makes interesting reading. Here is a brief summary of the book:
http
I am interested to find out what the resident atheists think of Father Williams' answers to their arguments.
It makes interesting reading. Here is a brief summary of the book:
http
I am interested to find out what the resident atheists think of Father Williams' answers to their arguments.
Answers
Straw man discussion
This has some merit, there is much good in religion however I'd refer you to Stephen Weinberg's observation:
Without religion good people would still do good things, bad people would do bad things but for good people to do bad things - that takes religion.
It would be wrong to suggest that the lunatic fringe represents all...
This has some merit, there is much good in religion however I'd refer you to Stephen Weinberg's observation:
Without religion good people would still do good things, bad people would do bad things but for good people to do bad things - that takes religion.
It would be wrong to suggest that the lunatic fringe represents all...
12:16 Fri 30th Nov 2012
I rather think that it is because religion *demands* tolerance, exemption, special status and deference.
Atheists see no good reason why it should be accorded any of these.
How long would you be prepared to indulge someone who, despite all your logical arguments, continued to insist that the Tooth Fairy existed.....and got both deeply wounded and not a little unpleasant in their rebuttal of your 'facts'?
Atheists see no good reason why it should be accorded any of these.
How long would you be prepared to indulge someone who, despite all your logical arguments, continued to insist that the Tooth Fairy existed.....and got both deeply wounded and not a little unpleasant in their rebuttal of your 'facts'?
I would allow them to continue to believe in the tooth fairy if they wanted to as I dont mind at all about the non beliefs of atheists or try to convert them. They are the intolerant ones as you can read here every day. They are like moths drawn to the light that can fly around it but not extinguish it, much as they would like to.
"And your irrefutable item of evidence that there is not a god is?"
I don't need irrefutable evidence that there is not a god. That's not how it works. I need evidence that there is a god in order to believe in one.
To imply that you need irrefutable evidence to NOT believe in something simply leads to the need to believe everything.
I don't need irrefutable evidence that there is not a god. That's not how it works. I need evidence that there is a god in order to believe in one.
To imply that you need irrefutable evidence to NOT believe in something simply leads to the need to believe everything.
I will give you my proof for the non existance of God, Latypov - I doubt you'll agree with the second part but I'd be interested in your opinion on the first.
Whether there exists an all powerful being or not is irrelevant - One might consider an allpowerful alien external to the Universe that created it as some science project - this would not be recognised as God by almost anyone. The key element of God is such a being interested in Humanity and in ensuring their individual survival of death to an ever lasting existance.
In short God presupposes the existance of an immortal humal soul and there is no meaningful concept of God without this.
So to disprove God we only have to disprove the immortal human soul
I approach this in 2 ways
1 - logically - Souls if they exist must be created or at least come into being. Our souls if they exist are not identical and so must have features that make them individual. If something can be created it can be distroyed by the removal of subcomponents, features.
2 - from observation - I have sadly seen the inside of too many stroke wards and dementia wards this year. I have watched my father and have to say there is little left of him that I knew when growing up.
For a soul to survive death it must first survive life - this evidently does not happen
Therefore the concept of an immortal human soul is a fallicy as is the existance of God.
So which bits of that do you disagree with?
Whether there exists an all powerful being or not is irrelevant - One might consider an allpowerful alien external to the Universe that created it as some science project - this would not be recognised as God by almost anyone. The key element of God is such a being interested in Humanity and in ensuring their individual survival of death to an ever lasting existance.
In short God presupposes the existance of an immortal humal soul and there is no meaningful concept of God without this.
So to disprove God we only have to disprove the immortal human soul
I approach this in 2 ways
1 - logically - Souls if they exist must be created or at least come into being. Our souls if they exist are not identical and so must have features that make them individual. If something can be created it can be distroyed by the removal of subcomponents, features.
2 - from observation - I have sadly seen the inside of too many stroke wards and dementia wards this year. I have watched my father and have to say there is little left of him that I knew when growing up.
For a soul to survive death it must first survive life - this evidently does not happen
Therefore the concept of an immortal human soul is a fallicy as is the existance of God.
So which bits of that do you disagree with?
//"I just wonder why they are constantly drawn to a forum about religion."
Indeed. Some seem to have an almost evangelical fervor about their disbelief.//
I was drawn quite simply because, when I arrive at AB, I see all the latest questions, regardless of the section or forum. As far as I understood the question, it was an invitation to debate, which I accepted. I didn't come to AB and post a question that was provocative to religionists, Latypov63 posted a question that was a clear invitation to atheists.
Indeed. Some seem to have an almost evangelical fervor about their disbelief.//
I was drawn quite simply because, when I arrive at AB, I see all the latest questions, regardless of the section or forum. As far as I understood the question, it was an invitation to debate, which I accepted. I didn't come to AB and post a question that was provocative to religionists, Latypov63 posted a question that was a clear invitation to atheists.
@Laty Thanks for the clarification as to your status as a long time reader :)
JtH and Rojash Have both made it very clear why atheists, non-theists, agnostics and those of other persuasions are willing to commentate on this issue - that religion casts a long shadow still on society, and demands more.
Where religion impacts upon the workings and decisions of our secular society, it is the right of all to offer an opinion. And where we get posts evangelising, or making religiously inspired claims that reject consensus scientific opinion I personally think that is worth challenging- not necessarily to correct the contributor but to offer an alternative view that long time readers can digest.
And others have made the point - faith demands belief in the absence of any credible evidence. Why is that a virtue? There is no other walk of life where having that mindset would be regarded as a good thing.
And jtp has offered a well argued commentary pointing out that an immortal human soul is highly improbable.
Theism and Atheism are not equal and opposite belief systems. For theism to assert what it does, and influence society so profoundly, it really should present some evidence.........
JtH and Rojash Have both made it very clear why atheists, non-theists, agnostics and those of other persuasions are willing to commentate on this issue - that religion casts a long shadow still on society, and demands more.
Where religion impacts upon the workings and decisions of our secular society, it is the right of all to offer an opinion. And where we get posts evangelising, or making religiously inspired claims that reject consensus scientific opinion I personally think that is worth challenging- not necessarily to correct the contributor but to offer an alternative view that long time readers can digest.
And others have made the point - faith demands belief in the absence of any credible evidence. Why is that a virtue? There is no other walk of life where having that mindset would be regarded as a good thing.
And jtp has offered a well argued commentary pointing out that an immortal human soul is highly improbable.
Theism and Atheism are not equal and opposite belief systems. For theism to assert what it does, and influence society so profoundly, it really should present some evidence.........
Disproving the existence of that which does not, can only be achieved through demonstrating why the existence of such an entity is impossible by virtue of that which does. Increasing knowledge and an improved understanding of the nature of existence have disproved the existence of a divine creator and overseer of reality at every turn and that is why the unquestioning belief and devotion demanded by religion puts it at odds with science, mortal enemies in the conquest for the hearts and minds of humanity, an entity which has evolved along with its ability to reason and question those who pose as divine authorities of the truth.
To continue the conversation here:
Jomifl. I dont notice believers saying anyone here is doomed to hell. I dont really see many believers saying anything much. Andy - you are intriguing. Why if I may ask do you go to mass? Jake the peg. Thank you for your input. If we are created than there must be a creator, and this entity would be interested in their creation. That we have souls is a fact. We have a body with a brain, a soul and a conscience, dare I say it a spiritual side. The body that we have on earth eventually dies, either old age, accident or the sadest, I think, way of slowly dying of illness. I am very sorry to hear about your father and like you have been inside stroke wards and dimentia wards recently. Awful places.
Rojash, I did invite atheists to read my post link, and I appreicate your input. The quote was about constant atheist input, not on this thread in particular. They seem to be on every thread in this section without fail and in greater numbers than the religious.
Argostran - you talk a lot of sense for a hollow dog. Lazygun. Well thought out good post.
Jomifl. I dont notice believers saying anyone here is doomed to hell. I dont really see many believers saying anything much. Andy - you are intriguing. Why if I may ask do you go to mass? Jake the peg. Thank you for your input. If we are created than there must be a creator, and this entity would be interested in their creation. That we have souls is a fact. We have a body with a brain, a soul and a conscience, dare I say it a spiritual side. The body that we have on earth eventually dies, either old age, accident or the sadest, I think, way of slowly dying of illness. I am very sorry to hear about your father and like you have been inside stroke wards and dimentia wards recently. Awful places.
Rojash, I did invite atheists to read my post link, and I appreicate your input. The quote was about constant atheist input, not on this thread in particular. They seem to be on every thread in this section without fail and in greater numbers than the religious.
Argostran - you talk a lot of sense for a hollow dog. Lazygun. Well thought out good post.
@Laty - Once again, you fall into the same pit that every theist does.
You assert as fact what can only be faith.
1.You say this ;
"If we are created than there must be a creator, and this entity would be interested in their creation"
You have faith that we are created, but you have no evidence. You Speculate that there is a creative force, but it is illogical to assume that this entity would necessarily be interested in their creation.For instance, the "creator" might be some kind of mindless lifeforce, throwing off a creative spark wherever it visits, indifferent to any life that follow.
2.You make another assertion, derived from your faith, but with no evidence,
"That we have souls is a fact. We have a body with a brain, a soul and a conscience, dare I say it a spiritual side."
This is a supposition. You do not have the evidence to claim your hypothesis as fact. We do indeed have a body. That is an observable fact. We do have a brain - that too is an observable fact, a organ within us. Most of us, but not necessarily all, have a conscience - part of our suite of abstract thought processes that form our minds, which are themselves an emergent proporty of the neurological impulse and biochemical reactions. That much is also observable, measurable, falsifiable.
You can dare to call it a spiritual side if you want, but again that phrase will have different meanings for different people - you have nothing to anchor that term to a specific, observable fact.
What you cannot claim as fact is that we have a soul. Such a thing is a hypothetical construct only.To believe otherwise is to have faith - belief in the absence of evidence, and faith itself could be described as being somewhat irrational.
Now,I have absolutely no objection to anyone believing that they have an immortal soul, or that their is a supernatural creator entity. Believe whatever you want :)
I do get quite exercised when people with of faith attempt to influence society to shape it to better fit their beliefs though, or who claim a scientific or factual basis for their belief :)
You assert as fact what can only be faith.
1.You say this ;
"If we are created than there must be a creator, and this entity would be interested in their creation"
You have faith that we are created, but you have no evidence. You Speculate that there is a creative force, but it is illogical to assume that this entity would necessarily be interested in their creation.For instance, the "creator" might be some kind of mindless lifeforce, throwing off a creative spark wherever it visits, indifferent to any life that follow.
2.You make another assertion, derived from your faith, but with no evidence,
"That we have souls is a fact. We have a body with a brain, a soul and a conscience, dare I say it a spiritual side."
This is a supposition. You do not have the evidence to claim your hypothesis as fact. We do indeed have a body. That is an observable fact. We do have a brain - that too is an observable fact, a organ within us. Most of us, but not necessarily all, have a conscience - part of our suite of abstract thought processes that form our minds, which are themselves an emergent proporty of the neurological impulse and biochemical reactions. That much is also observable, measurable, falsifiable.
You can dare to call it a spiritual side if you want, but again that phrase will have different meanings for different people - you have nothing to anchor that term to a specific, observable fact.
What you cannot claim as fact is that we have a soul. Such a thing is a hypothetical construct only.To believe otherwise is to have faith - belief in the absence of evidence, and faith itself could be described as being somewhat irrational.
Now,I have absolutely no objection to anyone believing that they have an immortal soul, or that their is a supernatural creator entity. Believe whatever you want :)
I do get quite exercised when people with of faith attempt to influence society to shape it to better fit their beliefs though, or who claim a scientific or factual basis for their belief :)
Lazygun, That we all ended up on earth living and breathing and reproducing is highly unlikely to have been completely random IMHO. That some people don't agree that they have a soul is quite sad. I have no intention of arguing or trying to change your mind and would not try to influence your spiritual side since you don't actually have anything but a human body and a lump of matter called a brain. Silly me. It really never occured to me that we don't have a soul in our being. Must send a note to ABed to drop word Spirituality.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.