Hello, HP, and welcome to the Religion board.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hezekiah's Pray There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles. I mean, you can’t exactly prove that in all places and all times, there is no God can you? |
Proving that something does
not exist is backwards logic. The burden of proof is upon those that say it is, not those who say it is not.
Quote:
|
Likewise, naturalism assumes (incorrectly) that God does not exist as all events can be explained in terms of natural causes/laws but this negates that God is outside natural laws since He is the creator. Furthermore, naturalism is NOT fact as it cannot explain all events today nor can we assume it will in the future as we don’t know what can and will occur. Therefore, God is not negated via naturalism. So with no proofs for atheism’s truth or that there is no God that boils down to that nasty word we call faith. EGAD!
|
Right. So you have two groups. One that believes that the unknown is knowable through a divine agent, whichever is preferable (God/Allah/Krishna/etc), and the other that while science is not infallible, it at least is a tried and true method of understanding. There are myriad things in nature that were unknown even fifty to a hundred years ago which are now understood. Hence, an atheist would have faith that science will continue to improve its capability to understand the universe. So, while it is indeed faith, it is a faith with a strong base for such belief.
Quote:
|
At least Christians have evidences for God's existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, the Bibles Historical accuracy etc.
|
I know of many books of fiction which are historically accurate. Am I to assume that due to that fact I can consider them true as well? I also have to site the many inaccurate points in the Bible as well. We have two different creation stories in Genesis which directly contradict one another. The Bible is truth, yet these two stories are inconsistent. They can't
both be true. There are others as well, but I'll leave this point for the sake of brevity.
Quote:
|
Simple possibility is not sufficient grounds to claim viability in their atheism.
|
I find it interesting that you are using the basis of the same argument that atheists use against religion. I could, in fact, take your statement there and substitute the word 'atheism' for 'religion.'
Quote:
|
At best, atheists can only say there are no convincing evidences for God so far. Naturally, No person (except God) can know all evidences that exist, otherwise he would be God. There could be future evidences presented that will suffice. Since there may be an undiscovered proof then there is a possibility of Gods existence. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God’s existence.
|
An interesting argument, but again I will bring up burden of proof. A lack of evidence does not make the position that God exists any more likely than an atheist's position that God does not exist.
Quote:
This is why atheists must attack Christianity as it makes very high claims concerning God’s existence which challenges their atheism and exposing the holes that it is riddled with.
One would think that atheists would be content with simply not believing in God and leave the theists to themselves for what do the people of a nonexistent God matter? Yet we find many involved in politics, social groups, and various lawsuits bent on changing society to a more atheistic nature. Sadly they have made their mark in our schools and our government as we well know. They consider Christians a threat to freedom, common sense, and a good life.
|
Actually, one of the reasons I know of that atheists attack Christianity, and other religions, as Christianity is not the only one singled out here, is because they feel that mankind has progressed enough in its ability to reason that religion just throws a wrench in the works. They cite all the times where religion repeatedly attempts to overrule government (i.e. the Catholic Church protecting priests suspected of child molestation from due process of law, the Ten Commandments monument outside a state courthouse, etc.) as reasons that religion should be actively fought against. At least, this is my understanding from listening to those of the atheist persuasion. However, there are those atheists who have a 'live and let live' policy.
Quote:
|
After asking in a chat room once, and when the cussing ended, many told me that they hate that the Christians try and tell them that they need to believe in Jesus or they will go to hell. I can see how that would offend. Well, that is too bad. Truth is truth whether it's offensive or not. The truth is that all people need Jesus and the Christians are simply telling them the truth.
|
There is a conflict of "truths" there. They obviously do not believe they are going to Hell. That is there truth. It is fairly sensible that people will become uncomfortable if you try to convince them of things that they do not believe, especially if such things are unpleasant. You could expect an even worse reaction from a Muslim or a Hindu in regards to your "truth." A Buddhist would simply smile, as he would already know where he is going. He might even thank you for your concern.
Just a bit out of the Bible here, since you take it seriously, for your consideration:
Quote:
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
|
Thomas didn't believe the first time, because he was not there to see it for himself. Now, does this mean that because Thomas didn't believe the Word, that he'll be going to hell, even though he accepted Jesus on sight?
If not, then why is it that Thomas receives preferential treatment over the 6 billion people on the planet currently? I'm sure if Jesus makes an appearance at their deathbed, there are plenty of people willing to cry out their affirmation of belief just as Thomas did.
I also find it a bit of a misnomer to call a God "loving and compassionate" if people are going to eternal damnation over a belief. There are people in my country who believe that some people are inferior due to the color of skin they were born with, or their gender. Rather than be punished for these obviously nonsensical notions, they are simply allowed to believe as they wish so long as they harm no one because of these beliefs. Should I think that my system of government is more forgiving and compassionate than God?
My personal bias is the notion that the good people I've met who are not Christian should be condemned simply for being non-Christian. I know Buddhists who are kinder, gentler, and more saintlike than many professed Christians I've encountered. The idea that they would be hellbound galls me to the core. With years of experience I've come to recognize such reactions as warning signs. Hence, that would be one "truth" I will wholeheartedly reject. It can go by the wayside with the beliefs of racial or gender based inferiority. I'm perfectly content to allow others to believe it, so long as it does no harm.