For Christians:If god exists why must you prove it?

[Angry Floof]

Well you go right on ahead and keep talking about Him if you want.

It's not like you could stop us. Anyway, once again, it's his followers we're talking about. It doesn't matter how much the conversation turns to hypothetical questions about the authority concepts installed where a conscience should be in the heads of religious believers.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why would I try to stop you?
Let's all talk about Jesus

 

[James Brown]

Sure thing.

Jesus the Cult Fanatic



Jesus the Magician Does it Again and the disciples still don’t catch on



Jesus and his Team of Traveling Exorcists



Can't We Put the Brakes on 'Good Jesus' Propoganda?

 

[Lion IRC]

WOW that last one (Can We Put The Brakes on Good Jesus Propaganda) is a doozy!

I never knew THAT about Jesus.

 

[Lion IRC]

I notice all the links are to David Madison - the former Methodist church pastor.

For the person who flip flops from atheist to Christian to atheist, shouldn't we wait to see if they re-de-re-convert? Give him some time to work it out once and for all?

 

[Angry Floof]

I think the question of the existence of God isn't nearly as important or interesting as the question of Christian "morality."

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWCxBiCt7Y[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Underseer]

The reason that the atheist definition is so vague is because when we ask ten different Christians what they mean by God, we get twelve different answers, so it's impossible to nail down WTF anyone is talking about.

The one thing that can be agreed on, however, is that whatever the fuck it is people are referencing when using that word, it's really kind of stupid.

I don't think the atheist definition of what they don't believe in is vague.
God is the alpha and the omega. Surely that covers everything pan-atheism disbelieves in.

So if we have a definition of god that is specific enough to be proved or disproved, that would be bad because only atheists define things that way?

Huh.

It's almost as if you are purposefully avoiding anything that will allow you to find out if the things you believe are true or false. It's as if you are purposefully avoiding learning if you what you believe is true or false. I wonder why you would choose to do something like that? Can you think of a reason you would choose to do something like that?

- - - Updated - - -

I think the question of the existence of God isn't nearly as important or interesting as the question of Christian "morality."

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWCxBiCt7Y[/YOUTUBE]

Sam Harris is wrong about a lot of things, but not this.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think the question of the existence of God isn't nearly as important or interesting as the question of Christian "morality."

The existence of God is the wrong thing to be wrong about.

 

[Lion IRC]

So if we have a definition of god that is specific enough to be proved or disproved, that would be bad because only atheists define things that way?

Huh.

It's almost as if you are purposefully avoiding anything that will allow you to find out if the things you believe are true or false. It's as if you are purposefully avoiding learning if you what you believe is true or false. I wonder why you would choose to do something like that? Can you think of a reason you would choose to do something like that?

I'm not sitting here wondering whether or not God exists.
And neither do I need to see God in a microscope to 'prove' He exists.

Actually, I'm not sure I would worship that kind of a test tube god.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think the question of the existence of God isn't nearly as important or interesting as the question of Christian "morality."

The existence of God is the wrong thing to be wrong about.

Definitely. It's the so called "morals" that so often come with it. The only useful overlap (in my opinion) is that belief in God thrives in ignorance and fear, and god belief goes hand-in-hand with zealotry and inhumane ideology. It's worth it to challenge the belief itself sometimes.

By the way, did you watch the video?

 

[Lion IRC]

I think the question of the existence of God isn't nearly as important or interesting as the question of Christian "morality."

The existence of God is the wrong thing to be wrong about.

Definitely. It's the so called "morals" that so often come with it. The only useful overlap (in my opinion) is that belief in God thrives in ignorance and fear, and god belief goes hand-in-hand with zealotry and inhumane ideology. It's worth it to challenge the belief itself sometimes.

By the way, did you watch the video?

No, but if you start a new thread on the topic, I will watch it and discuss/defend Christian morals/morality as seen by Sam Harris.

Speaking of True Christian Morals, where is our forum expert on the topic - phands

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is not an either or thing. Harris or say, fundamentalist version of God and morality.

If God is supremely good, perfectly moral and is omnipotent, then this world should reflect that. This Universe does not reflect that. Christian morality seems rather suspect then.

Christ repeatedly tells his followers to sell all they have and give to the poor. Few Christians like this demands for a specific Christian morality as demanded by Jesus. If Christians don't take the commands of Jesus seriously, why should we atheists?

 

[Lion IRC]

It certainly is an either/or thing. Harris wouldn't agree with me on what IS moral.
He would point to bible morals and label them immoral.

If his complaint is simply that some/many Christians dont follow good Christian morals there's no argument from me - I sin plenty of times.

But that humans sin, is nowhere near being an argument against the existence of the God who arbitrates moral law.

 

[Rhea]

If his complaint is simply that some/many Christians dont follow good Christian morals there's no argument from me - I sin plenty of times.

So, are you saying that being a christian does nothing at all to improve your behavior? That Christianity is not likely to decrease sin at all?

What’s the point, then?

 

[Underseer]

So if we have a definition of god that is specific enough to be proved or disproved, that would be bad because only atheists define things that way?

Huh.

It's almost as if you are purposefully avoiding anything that will allow you to find out if the things you believe are true or false. It's as if you are purposefully avoiding learning if you what you believe is true or false. I wonder why you would choose to do something like that? Can you think of a reason you would choose to do something like that?

I'm not sitting here wondering whether or not God exists.
And neither do I need to see God in a microscope to 'prove' He exists.

No one said anything about a microscope. I don't know why you felt the need to bring up that particular detail.

You have utterly failed to prove your god, and you are going far out of your way to avoid providing a definition specific enough to make proof or disproof possible in the first place.

This is not an accident.

The question is: why are you doing it?

You are deliberately arranging things so that both proof and disproof are not possible, that is why you have utterly failed to provide any proof for your claims.

Actually, I'm not sure I would worship that kind of a test tube god.

Then don't worship the test tube god. Whether or not you can prove the existence of the test tube god or the milk carton god or the god of used chewing gum or Vishnu or Zeus or Odin is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you have claimed your god exists, and you are carefully avoiding the one thing that would make it possible for you to prove that what you believe to be true actually is true.

I think deep down, you already know why you spend so much effort avoiding this.

 

[Angry Floof]

If his complaint is simply that some/many Christians dont follow good Christian morals there's no argument from me - I sin plenty of times.

So, are you saying that being a christian does nothing at all to improve your behavior? That Christianity is not likely to decrease sin at all?

What’s the point, then?

Social dominance, of course. Everything else is dancing around the fact that social dominance is the point.

 

[James Brown]

Ironically, when scientific evidence of God is discovered, theists typically trumpet it from the rooftops. The evidence always turns out to be something natural and mundane, but that doesn't keep them from trying.

So in a nutshell:

"If God can be demonstrated with evidence, then I'm not interested in worshiping him.

If God is supernatural and mysterious and "outside the universe", then it should be obvious that we should all worship him."

 

[Lion IRC]

...I think deep down, you already know why you spend so much effort avoiding this.

The most intellectually dishonest and laziest form of argument on earth.

"Secretly, you know I'm right."
"Deep down you agree with me but can't admit it"

 

[Rhea]

...I think deep down, you already know why you spend so much effort avoiding this.

The most intellectually dishonest and laziest form of argument on earth.

"Secretly, you know I'm right."
"Deep down you agree with me but can't admit it"

Technically, he was saying, "deep down you know you don't have a valid argument," Because we know you don't agree with him. He knows it. He knows that you know it. You just won't admit WHY you don't agree with him.

And you're right this argument "Deep down you agree with me but can't admit it" is the inherently dishonest one most Christians use on atheists.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It certainly is an either/or thing. Harris wouldn't agree with me on what IS moral.
He would point to bible morals and label them immoral.

If his complaint is simply that some/many Christians dont follow good Christian morals there's no argument from me - I sin plenty of times.

But that humans sin, is nowhere near being an argument against the existence of the God who arbitrates moral law.

The Bible God is rather immoral. And that is the problem. The old Euthyphro problem. If God loves what is good because of some outside standard beyond God, the amoral Bible God does not follow that standard or that meta-standard is very low and not very good.
But if what is good is good because God commands it, the murders, massacres and genocides of the Bible demonstrate God is not good.

We have the deeper problems of God, why God did not immediately by fiat eliminate original sin (so important to centuries of theologians) so as the eliminate the many evils that would result from that. Why does God arbitrarily make some elect and some not? God the Great Potter of Romans 9. The Bible claims God is just, fair, merciful and compassionate but the theology of the bible demonstrates God is not any such things.

Morality and God are deeply incoherent ideas when one examines all of this carefully and dispassionately, letting the logical pathway lead us to a final conclusion. Trying to hang morality on this is not a really convincing idea.