Is Christianity the only way to prove GOD?

Originally posted by ahosyney
Look,

I will make it more clear,

Many athiests here give up GOD. When you ask why, they talk about Christianity?

That is my point. If Christianity is wrong does this mean GOD doesn't exist?

That is my point in general.

But for my opinion about Christianity I pointed it out several times here in this forum. If you like we can discuss it again.

No, atheists give up on God because of the over whelming evidence that life developed through natural selection. No religion gives any hint at natural selection, except perhaps Tao/Buddhist ideas which see life as a manifestation of the 'dance of Shiva' which hints at something similar in the sense of 'everything' being a manifestation of Shiva, who is in a constant state of change, as life itself is. One could potentially argue that Shiva is basically a way of saying nature, but i would view this with scepticism, i'd rather refer to it as nature as that infers no creator, divine character.

Most atheists here focus on Christian religions (in their many forms) as they themselves were brought up within these religions. They perhaps don't mention Islam or Hinduism, etc, but that by no means says they don't disagree with them just as strongly.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
No, atheists give up on God because of the over whelming evidence that life developed through natural selection. No religion gives any hint at natural selection, except perhaps Tao/Buddhist ideas which see life as a manifestation of the 'dance of Shiva' which hints at something similar in the sense of 'everything' being a manifestation of Shiva, who is i ...[text shortened]... Hinduism, etc, but that by no means says they don't disagree with them just as strongly.

Yeah, and the Christians here disagree with Islam and so on just as much as we do. At least we agree on some things.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
No, atheists give up on God because of the over whelming evidence that life developed through natural selection. No religion gives any hint at natural selection, except perhaps Tao/Buddhist ideas which see life as a manifestation of the 'dance of Shiva' which hints at something similar in the sense of 'everything' being a manifestation of Shiva, who is i ...[text shortened]... Hinduism, etc, but that by no means says they don't disagree with them just as strongly.

There are many christians who accept natural selection, but who claim that it was the hand of 'god' that put the process in action. Only the stupidest of 'young earth' christians still cling doggedly to the literal creation stories.

Originally posted by rwingett
There are many christians who accept natural selection, but who claim that it was the hand of 'god' that put the process in action. Only the stupidest of 'young earth' christians still cling doggedly to the literal creation stories.

I realise that, i was saying why atheists don't believe in God, not how Christians justify the existence of God despite evolution (if that makes sense..)

EDIT: The ironic thing is, once you accept Natural Selection as fact, you have to wonder how people continue to believe in the Church who have got so many things wrong. They doggedly insisted the Earth was flat for a long time, then once the Earth is round, hey presto, God created a planet instead! God created man in his own image along with the World in 7 days, then they believe in evolution, only God started it. Religion jumps ship the second there is any evidence. Heaven forbid the day science recreates the dawning of life, what then? If you can create an environment where life springs out of 'nothing', would God be making the experiment work? I suppose that would be too logical an answer, perhaps he possesses the scientists mother so the scientist is from a virgin birth, educates him through divine providence, gives him secret wings so he can fly to the lab every day while observing the scriptures? Anything goes when you have faith it seems to me!

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
How does saying 'God did it' involve thought? Thats a complete cop out. Atheists can say, 'I don't know' and keep looking. Current evidence points to a big band forming the universe. Before that we don't know. So people try to find out. Even if you say that god did it, that tells you nothing about the nature of God. You can't even tell if 'he' is aware. ...[text shortened]... d faith, and is certainly not a negative belief. Its like more like a ground state.

As far as I know it is agnostics who claim not to know, athiests tend to be more dogmatic in their affirmation that there is no God. Leaving that to one side, you say that "current evidence points to a big bang", so presumably you can say what that evidence is? Furthermore, evidence is not proof, as anyone who has studied law, as I do, could tell you. Moreover, I, and Christians generally, do not claim the ability to prove the existence and attributes of God. Although I believe these can be deduced logically, it is basically a matter of faith because there is simply no way of proving the particulars of an event which took place such a long time ago. This applies to those who say there is no God as well as those who claim there is one. Therefore, athiesm requires at least as much faith as theism.

Finally, your assertion that atheism is a "ground state" is also false. Positive religion was universal until the humanist revolution (more commonly known by its misnomer, the "enlightenment). Despite the evident fact that much of pre-enlightenment religion was probably based on ignorance, it does not change the fact that it was positive religion - theism - and that negitive religion - atheism - only came about after this period.

There is a lot more that could be said, but I am anxious to go to bed.

Originally posted by princeoforange
As far as I know it is agnostics who claim not to know, athiests tend to be more dogmatic in their affirmation that there is no God. Leaving that to one side, you say that "current evidence points to a big bang", so presumably you can say what that evidence is? Furthermore, evidence is not proof, as anyone who has studied law, as I do, could tell yo ...[text shortened]... fter this period.

There is a lot more that could be said, but I am anxious to go to bed.

Every single sentence of your post is a falsehood. It's mind boggling how a presumably intelligent person could utter them all and keep a straight face.

First of all, the vast majority of atheists do not claim to 'know' that there is no god. It is precisely because you, and christians generally, cannot prove the existence of god then his existence must be assumed to be false. The burden of proof is completely on you, prince. If you can do nothing to validate your god hypothesis, then there is absolutely no reason to believe it. It doesn't mean that your god hypothesis is false, but that it should be assumed to be false. Atheism is a complete lack of faith in your claims about god, and not faith in the opposite.

The assertion that atheism is a "ground state" is absolutely correct. The first men were necessarily atheists. Their many varied religions are likely an evolutionary adaptation that are culturally reinforced. Today, religion is a learned behavior. Every child is born an atheist and most are subsequently taught to become theists.

I hope this post has laid to rest your many misconceptions about atheism. It should, if you're half as intelligent as I tenuously give you credit for.

Originally posted by princeoforange
As far as I know it is agnostics who claim not to know, athiests tend to be more dogmatic in their affirmation that there is no God. Leaving that to one side, you say that "current evidence points to a big bang", so presumably you can say what that evidence is? Furthermore, evidence is not proof, as anyone who has studied law, as I do, could tell yo fter this period.

There is a lot more that could be said, but I am anxious to go to bed.

"Moreover, I, and Christians generally, do not claim the ability to prove the existence and attributes of God. Although I believe these can be deduced logically"

I'd be interested to hear how you deduce this logically.

"it is basically a matter of faith because there is simply no way of proving the particulars of an event which took place such a long time ago. This applies to those who say there is no God as well as those who claim there is one. Therefore, atheism requires at least as much faith as theism."

The atheist view is one of probability and it is the odds on favourite. The Universe is something that, in it's sheer complexity, is Highly HIGHLY improbable! However, to suggest that there is some omnipotent, omnipresent, intelligent being responsible for it's creation, is not just Highly HIGHLY improbable, it is just astronomically improbable!! I mean, you're taking something that looks, on the face of it to be impossible (but evidently is as we all exist) and then putting some mystical ghost creator who is all powerful in charge of the whole thing. Don't you see how unnecessary that is? The Universe is a complicated thing that will take an indefinite amount of time to comprehend (if we are capable enough to understand it at all, which i doubt, to assume we are somehow the final resting place for evolution would be arrogant in the extreme, especially considering our obvious fallacies, religion to name but one) but giving up and believing in some divine creator is a complete admission of defeat. As long as we keep asking questions, we'll get answers. If we spend our time having faith that everything is just fine and dandy we accomplish nothing as a species. With the World the way it is with Global warming etc, i would rather put my faith in science, who actively promote human endeavor rather than a church that tries to explain away everything with one single answer.

Originally posted by princeoforange
What is your criteria for a religion? Requirement of faith? In that case atheism comes out top.

In my opinion, even though atheists constantly claim that atheism is simply a "lack of faith," they do have a great deal of faith to believe that there is no God.

But I guess that is a matter of perspective.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
How does saying 'God did it' involve thought? Thats a complete cop out. Atheists can say, 'I don't know' and keep looking. Current evidence points to a big band forming the universe. Before that we don't know. So people try to find out. Even if you say that god did it, that tells you nothing about the nature of God. You can't even tell if 'he' is aware. ...[text shortened]... d faith, and is certainly not a negative belief. Its like more like a ground state.

Not all Christians (or even theists) always stop asking questions and stop thinking for themselves.

Originally posted by wittywonka
In my opinion, even though atheists constantly claim that atheism is simply a "lack of faith," they do have a great deal of faith to believe that there is no God.

But I guess that is a matter of perspective.

It is impossible to prove something is false, for if it ever is true, that 'proof' would be wrong.

Having said that, would it not be the same to say you have a great deal of faith to believe there is no Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny?

When there is absolutely no evidence for something, surely it does not take any faith to believe it doesn't exist? It's just common sense.

Originally posted by princeoforange
Finally, your assertion that atheism is a "ground state" is also false. Positive religion was universal until the humanist revolution (more commonly known by its misnomer, the "enlightenment). Despite the evident fact that much of pre-enlightenment religion was probably based on ignorance, it does not change the fact that it was positive religion - ...[text shortened]... after this period.

There is a lot more that could be said, but I am anxious to go to bed.

Sorry i appeared to miss the second half of your post 😕

How on EARTH can you expect negative religion to come about before 'positive' religion??????????? How can you have negative 'x' before 'x'? Because religion came first doesn't make it right! Just because an idea is spoken before some one says 'you idiot!', doesn't make the person who accuses the first of being an idiot automatically wrong!

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
No, atheists give up on God because of the over whelming evidence that life developed through natural selection. No religion gives any hint at natural selection, except perhaps Tao/Buddhist ideas which see life as a manifestation of the 'dance of Shiva' which hints at something similar in the sense of 'everything' being a manifestation of Shiva, who is i ...[text shortened]... Hinduism, etc, but that by no means says they don't disagree with them just as strongly.

First of all, I had to say that I started this thread because I read your thread, "Thank God, i'm an atheist!". It is good to see you here:

I have some comments on your post may be it help, I have I can write clear so all my thoughts become clear to you and every one:

1- Natural Selection is a theory. And theory means that it might be wrong. There are some evidences that support it and others don't. So it could happen that some day it happen that another stronger evidence appear that prove it is wrong. I'm not an expert in biology so my knowlage about is not much, but as far as I know it has many flaws. The most important links between different specieses are still missing.

2- Natural Selection doesn't answer the creation question. It descripe evolution and how different specieses interact with their environment. It doesn't answer the important question, how life started. I mean how the initial living cell came to live. I know that there are other theories trying to answer this question. But whatever they are, they have nothing to do with natural select (any body can correct me if I'm wrong).

3- The way I understand Natural selection, I don't see that it contradicts GOD existance (at least from Islamic point of view). So even it is proven 100% that it is true, that doesn't change any fact. Quran tell us that Allah (GOD) created everything. But he didn't tell us how he did that. So Natural selection could be his method for creating differnt species. Natural selection is based on physical , chemistry and biological laws that governs the behaviour of differnt aspects of the environment, which as all Muslims believe is controlled from Allah as well.

4- Why do you think that the Book that holds the word of GOD should give scientific explaination of everything? I don't think that the main purpose of these books is to be scientific books. Although Quran tell us something about that. For example:

When Quran says:

(Nobel-Translation)(Al-Anbiyaa)(o 30 o)(30. Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?)


and in another place

(Nobel-Translation)(An-Nur)(o 45 o)(45. Allâh has created every moving -living- creature from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allâh creates what He wills. Verily! Allâh is Able to do all things.)

Doesn't that tell you anything?

Some way it doesn't mean anything. Some will say it is a guess from a man lived 1400 years ago. Old muslim schoolars explains them as far as they know from science. But today I see them as perfect much to some simple scientific knowlage we know today.

Any way these some ideas I have, I wanted to share with you , and I hope that I made them clear....

Salam

Originally posted by rwingett
There are many christians who accept natural selection, but who claim that it was the hand of 'god' that put the process in action. Only the stupidest of 'young earth' christians still cling doggedly to the literal creation stories.

So how does clinging doggedly to the literal creation stories prevent one from embracing the theories of evolution?

Genesis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth....."

Why speak to the "waters" to bring life to dry land? Why not just zap them out of thin air?

Originally posted by ahosyney
First of all, I had to say that I started this thread because I read your thread, "Thank God, i'm an atheist!". It is good to see you here:

I have some comments on your post may be it help, I have I can write clear so all my thoughts become clear to you and every one:

1- Natural Selection is a theory. And theory means that it might be wrong. There are have, I wanted to share with you , and I hope that I made them clear....

Salam

Cool, it's nice to have the opportunity to talk religion with a Muslim, i am not afforded this opportunity very often. You'll forgive me if i am unfamiliar with your religion, i was brought up Catholic (as you know).

1- Natural Selection is a theory. And theory means that it might be wrong. There are some evidences that support it and others don't. So it could happen that some day it happen that another stronger evidence appear that prove it is wrong. I'm not an expert in biology so my knowledge about is not much, but as far as I know it has many flaws. The most important links between different species are still missing.


No i disagree here i'm afraid, the evidence for natural selection is quite overwhelming! Sure, it is highly likely that there are some current scientific opinions about it that are incorrect, i fully accept that. That is all part and parcel of the scientific process, but there is no doubt in my mind that the over all process has been proven as fact. Go to a Natural science museum (like the Natural History museum in London) look at all the dinosaurs, look at the progression of evolution for yourself, it is a real thing, not something that requires faith.

2- Natural Selection doesn't answer the creation question. It descripe evolution and how different species interact with their environment. It doesn't answer the important question, how life started. I mean how the initial living cell came to live. I know that there are other theories trying to answer this question. But whatever they are, they have nothing to do with natural select (any body can correct me if I'm wrong).

Ok, science hasn't managed to uncover the method with which life began yet. A scientist doesn't go, 'damn, i don't understand how this works, this must be the work of some God!' Why would they do that? Does the evidence suggest there is a God behind the whole thing? Honestly does it?? If the scientist decides he is going to attribute this to God, he is accepting that something exists that requires more explanation than the problem in question. It is difficult to describe how life got here, but it a simple question compared to how God got here! Jumping to conclusions (as believing in God is in my opinion) is worse than not knowing, it is downright misleading!

3- The way I understand Natural selection, I don't see that it contradicts GOD existence (at least from Islamic point of view). So even it is proven 100% that it is true, that doesn't change any fact. Quran tell us that Allah (GOD) created everything. But he didn't tell us how he did that. So Natural selection could be his method for creating different species. Natural selection is based on physical , chemistry and biological laws that governs the behavior of different aspects of the environment, which as all Muslims believe is controlled from Allah as well.

This appears to be the same thing that happens in all religions. Once science explains something, God is made responsible for the discovery. No matter how many discoveries you make, God just gets put in charge. I disagree with this completely now. If science has to provide a reason why something is, then so does religion! If you want to talk about evolution and discuss whether it is correct or not then that's fine. If you want to talk about whether science is correct to think what it does, that i fine. If you want to attribute it to God, then you owe science an explanation to why you do that! Until a religion actually starts offering some answers rather than vague, self fulfilling prophecies, i will remain atheist.

4- Why do you think that the Book that holds the word of GOD should give scientific explanation of everything? I don't think that the main purpose of these books is to be scientific books. Although Quran tell us something about that. For example:


What is the main purpose of the book then? 'Hey guys, there's a God up there ok, you don't need any evidence of this, you are just going to take my word for it. No matter what anyone ever says, you are to believe these words absolutely! In the face of all criticism, you will stand firm because God wants it' Sorry, i don't buy into it. I don't believe religion offers anything approaching an explanation for anything. Saying some all powerful being created everything is just too easy!