You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What is the point of the church and atheist debate? Isn't the bottom line faith?
- Thread starter John D
- Start date
Its interesting the first answer brought up the word evidence as we need fisrt to define what evidence is.
In a court of law evidence in a civil case is brought forward on what is a reasonable assumption of events. A pile of ancient rocks resembling a house could have evolved through a series of freak occurances but it is more plausible that we deduce someone put them there. Likewise it is philosophically sound to deduce that there might be a great reason behind the existance of universe itself without having the complete evidence that this is right.
There are genuine athieists but if you broaden the definition of an original reason and defining force in the universe that might be called "God" most self declared athiests turn out to be agnostic as despite dimissing many exitring religious views of gods they acknowledge there is are a range of possibilities, none of which can be proven or dismissed unless a dogmatic view akin toi the one they crtiscise in religion is adopted.
Interestingly, Budhism effectively declares that such questions cannot be answered and are therefore futile.
A frequent and understandable argument for dismissing the eixtence of god is that things are so imperfect and the world is cruel, but if such a God exercised the inlfuence to make it perfect then this would be proof of his or her existence and the notion of freewill goes out of the window, but then others would argue that such a god cannot be a loving god as preached by so many religions.
Ulitmately it does boil down to faith as you describe, but opposition to religion would not be so pronounced if those with a faith also recognised that while they should be entitled to their beliefs and to tell other it should not be used to prevent others living a non religious life if they are not harming others. Many religions carry valuable intuitions about ourselves and humanist messages even if one doen't accept the supernatural elements. Therefore equally, those behind cetain secular campaigns should learn to chill out as well.
In a court of law evidence in a civil case is brought forward on what is a reasonable assumption of events. A pile of ancient rocks resembling a house could have evolved through a series of freak occurances but it is more plausible that we deduce someone put them there. Likewise it is philosophically sound to deduce that there might be a great reason behind the existance of universe itself without having the complete evidence that this is right.
There are genuine athieists but if you broaden the definition of an original reason and defining force in the universe that might be called "God" most self declared athiests turn out to be agnostic as despite dimissing many exitring religious views of gods they acknowledge there is are a range of possibilities, none of which can be proven or dismissed unless a dogmatic view akin toi the one they crtiscise in religion is adopted.
Interestingly, Budhism effectively declares that such questions cannot be answered and are therefore futile.
A frequent and understandable argument for dismissing the eixtence of god is that things are so imperfect and the world is cruel, but if such a God exercised the inlfuence to make it perfect then this would be proof of his or her existence and the notion of freewill goes out of the window, but then others would argue that such a god cannot be a loving god as preached by so many religions.
Ulitmately it does boil down to faith as you describe, but opposition to religion would not be so pronounced if those with a faith also recognised that while they should be entitled to their beliefs and to tell other it should not be used to prevent others living a non religious life if they are not harming others. Many religions carry valuable intuitions about ourselves and humanist messages even if one doen't accept the supernatural elements. Therefore equally, those behind cetain secular campaigns should learn to chill out as well.
Banana Chicken Head
New member
Faith is fine. We all have to have faith in one thing or another. It's just when the faith turns into outright ignorance is when it becomes unacceptable.
No Gods No Masters
New member
Difference: Most atheists accept things based on evidence
Theists accept things without evidence
Theists accept things without evidence