Should Religion Be Abolished?

This is in response to Don Severs’ point that religion should not be abolished, but rather should be freed from its own corruption.  He contends that religion in and of itself should not be abolished and that it is night impossible. I agree with him to an extent, but this is a response I have to his position, perhaps a bit more pointed than what he initially said here.
The only issue, if you could even call it that, with Don’s position is that of saving religion from itself. I think what Don is proposing is a very noble and even good endeavor-to rescue religion from the corruption that it suffers from. However, I have a very hard time separating that corruption from religion. To me at least, it seems that any attempt to transform “religion” is a futile endeavor because it necesserily involves changing the people that adhere to it. Now, this can be done and has been done many times over, but the seed of corruption is always there. That seed is Faith  [in the supernatural sense]. Unless you abolish faith and remove it completely from any personal philosophy or religion you will never be completely free. You will always be forced to concede that things are the way they are because [insert Faith based reason here], which I think we would all agree is not a good philosophy to adhere to when making tough decisions concerning morality and ethics.

This is why I advocate a trimming, if not abolition, of religion. I am a realist, I know religion would never be abolished, nor do I think it really should be completely. And of course, we mean religion in its broadest terms, there are certain specifics of theist religions that I think we agree SHOULD be abolished. However, we are at a point, I believe, where any concession to religious ideology or zealotry has long reaching and far flunt negative effects. Our civilization at this point literally has the power to change the world as we know it, to cure diseases, to feed everyone, and to leave our atmosphere. We can do so many amazing things and there are still people attempting to hobble our attempts at a more peaceful and just world. Not because they are explicitly evil or wish ill upon others (though some are and do).  But because of certain religious beliefs we see more harm coming to our fellow humans, for example, that two same gendered people don’t deserve legal protection. That women don’t have a right to their own body.  That scientific progress is inherently bad and should be discouraged. That their plot of land is better than any other plot of land simply by virtue of it being their plot of land.  The only answer to these kinds of harmful beliefs is first reasoned disapproval and then abolition of the foundation of such beliefs.  So perhaps it is not the abolition of religion proper but rather the abolition of dogma and faith that is my focus, but it is abolition none the less. Giving any quarter to these beliefs legitimizes them and gives rise to even further ridiculousness.

Now, when it comes to respecting religion as an means to good ends as Don references in disaster releif and charity, those are all great! Great things can come from religious groups and ideologies and we should not stand in the way of these efforts. What we should do is show how these efforts are not dependent on faith or religious ideology and can be had without any sort of dogma. They are separate and at times [i]despite[/i] their religious convictions that such good is done in our world.  The more we separate goodness and morality from religion by both example and activism the more we chip away at the idea that religion is inherently good or moral. Furthermore, it lays bare the fact that we can and do have goodness and morality without religion and we can show that much of the progression made in our civilization has been in spite of religion, not due to it.

 

Jason K>

Advertisements

41 comments on “Should Religion Be Abolished?

  1. John Littler says:

    I agree with Jason: if “Religion” means belief in the supernatural, it is clearly harmful. To paraphrase three of my favorite philosphers:
    -if I can make you believe an absurdity, I can make you commit atrocities.
    -common people know religion is true, wise people know it is false, and rulers know it is useful.
    -fear turns into anger, which turns into hate — EVIL!

    • Mike says:

      Interesting John –

      Sad that your philosphers are of the absurd and unwise. I mean, it’s just their opinion about something which they knowing of, and they give no proof that what they have said is true, yet the ignorant readily accept their words.

      • Dan says:

        Mike…

        At it again.

        The only thing absurd and lacking of wisdom or intelligence here are your defenses.

        “it’s just their opinion about something which they knowing of”

        In your words, what you have brought to the table all along here.

        “they give no proof that what they have said is true”

        Likewise, all that you have done.

        “yet the ignorant readily accept their words.”

        As you accept the words of scripture. For that is all they are….words. False words which lend comfort to those that are looking for meaning within the human condition, brought about by FEAR. Fear of death, fear of the idea that there is no purpose, there is only our life and what we choose to do with it. If you let go of that fear, maybe you can start to see how truly ignorant you are.

    • dale kadavy says:

      That just about says it all!

  2. Dan says:

    “the fact that we can and do have goodness and morality without religion and we can show that much of the progression made in our civilization has been in spite of religion, not due to it.”

    Precisely. There is text after text after text that exists to “prove” that progression made in our civilization has been brought about by religion, that we have the Christian God and divine inspiration to thank for all of the good things that happen, and here is the kicker….even the bad things “happen for a reason”…for it is “gods plan”. Anything good that happens we are supposed to give praise, and anything bad – realize that we cannot deem to know “Gods” purpose. I call bullshit.

    Jason, I don’t think we have to fight to abolish religion, but I do think we need to fight for the minds of those that can be freed. I was raised in a home where church was a part of life, my father’s father was a baptist preacher, and my grandparents are Devout baptists. I have two brothers, both of whom I have spoken at length about their beliefs, and we have all come to the same conclusions about life and faith even walking different paths. None of us believe what we were told to believe, and I think we have intelligence…evolving and emerging human intelligence and critical thinking skills to thank for that in part.

    Maybe it is a generational thing, and maybe there will come a time when man will “outgrow” his need for religion altogether. For now, there are some voices out there that stand on the ground of reason – yours among them – and I thank you.

  3. Mike says:

    “the fact that we can and do have goodness and morality without religion and we can show that much of the progression made in our civilization has been in spite of religion, not due to it.”

    Jason, I would like for you to prove this statement? Please show us how goodness and morality as well as human progression occurred with benefit of religion.

    • JasonK says:

      Do you mean without the benefit of religion?

      • Mike says:

        Sorry, sometimes my fingers refuse to type what my mind wants them to.

        Yes, you are correct “without” benefit of religion. Thanks for pointing that out.

    • Dan says:

      You cannot prove that goodness and morality as well as human progression occurred without the benefit of religion, nor can it be proven that it occurred WITH the benefit of religion.

      I have been thinking about this “debate” Mike. I do not believe that is it possible to prove whether God exists or not, and I do believe there may be a possibility for a god to exist, be it the Christian god or not – but I cannot prove that either. Hell – I don’t even know if it can be proven or not, yet I know it hasn’t been proven yet, at least not to me, and not likely to happen in an online debate. My entire world view is based on logical thought process and critical thinking. You think I ask you for proof just for the hell of it? I ask you because if you think you have it, I want to see it. The truth is I don’t think you have it, and I think I’ll be able to tear it apart. I can’t prove God exists, and I can’t prove God does NOT exist, but I sure as hell can prove that no one can prove God Does or Does NOT exist. The only way to do so is by debating those proofs, which have been decidedly lacking….wonder why……

      I have nothing to prove.

      • Mike says:

        Ok, so your a skeptic and not an Atheist. let’s rephrase the resolutions of the debate. If you look at what you posted you really are saying the same thing – I don’t believe you can prove whether or not God exists, but you CAN prove that no one else can. That’s the whole point behind the resolutions. But anyway, let’s look at it a different way.

        RESOLVED: I do not believe that it can be proved that God (That is the God of the Bible) Does or Does not exist.
        AGREE: Dan
        DENY: Mike

        RESOVLED: I believe that it can be proved that God (that is the God of the Bible) Does exist.
        AGREE: Mike
        DENY: Dan

        How about that for a debate?

        • Dan says:

          The following excerpts are from one case for Agnosticism located at http://www.mactonnies.com/agnostic.html.

          And don’t worry Mike, you don’t have to go there and actually do any reading, I brought the important parts here.

          “How could a Cosmos inhabited by beings capable of reflecting on this most fundamental of enigmas possibly arise from nothingness? But what do we mean by “nothingness?” How can nothingness exist? Rather than addressing this dilemma, an alarming ninety-five percent of the world’s population chooses to invoke the supernatural.”

          While I don’t know if it still stands at 95% of the worlds population that invokes the supernatural when getting down to the questions that confuse them, I would think that number has declined.

          The author continues…

          “The notion of “God” can be a comforting and reassuring one, and our society invests little time questioning its validity. But just because something seems just or consoling doesn’t grant it reality. The humility religions teach devotees to experience when faced with God is reproduced (albeit in a fundamentally different way) when faced with the absence of a perceivable God. I experience it when I consider the magnitude of time, or the depthless black between stars. Or, faced with the knowledge of my own self-awareness, wondering how such a magnificent and intangible faculty came to be.”

          I myself don’t deem to know how we came to be, and will not until we as a species figure it out.

          “I do not believe in “God” (whatever that word may ultimately mean), nor do I feel the need for a God, either to make sense out of the Cosmos or to justify my existence on a sometimes intolerably severe planet. Until the existence of a proto-universal intelligence can be empirically demonstrated, it remains an unknown. For the time being, jumping to conclusions of either polarity is an act of intellectual cowardice.”

          Interesting accusation. The author of the preceding text mentions polarity, and I think that is a key idea.

          He also states….

          “It is as silly and unreasonable to condemn the potential existence of a Cosmos-creating being (or beings) as it is to embrace the idea by fleshing it out with ungrounded metalogic and superstition. “Faith” in the supernatural is disturbingly close to mental illness; the fact that it’s widespread shouldn’t scare us away from addressing it as such. Likewise, atheism requires a “faith” all its own: a rigorous refutation of deism. In any case, the notion of “divinity” is, I suspect, the most primitive of fictions.”

          I was debating with one of my believer friends just for the fun of it.

          An excerpt from our argument that was his Aha moment…

          “Dan – All of the proofs for Christianity go over from logic to emotion
          Friend – That’s what God is!!!
          Friend – To us right now
          Dan – In a way, then he does exist doesn’t he?
          Dan – for millions of people”

          Christians honestly believe they have proof that god exists, and he very well may – to them. It is unfortunate however that they are being dishonest with themselves.

          • Mike says:

            Your Point Dan? I’m just looking for an answer to my question about the resolutions for the debate.

            • Dan says:

              Mike – we will see how this goes, but just so you aware I already know how this is going to happen. I will refute your arguments and you will continue to use one logical fallacy after another or completely ignore any points that I may make. I still believe that you are irrational…can we use that resolution too?

              RESOLVED: I believe Mike is irrational when it comes to his religious theology and has a closed mind to anything except his deep-seated beliefs. He is also incapable of direct counter-arguments.
              AGREE: Dan
              DENY: Mike

              RESOLVED: I believe that it can not be proven that God (That is the God of the Bible) Does or Does not exist.
              AGREE: Dan
              DENY: Mike

              RESOVLED: I believe that it can be proved that God (that is the God of the Bible) Does exist.
              AGREE: Mike
              DENY: Dan

              • Mike says:

                Again, Dan, we both agree – it’s amazing how much we already agree on things – that you will continue to use one illogical fallacy after another while I refute every point you make. Isn’t that great?

                Let’s just stick with the last two resolutions. Ok?

                • Dan says:

                  First off, “illogical fallacy” is a double negative.

                  Second, I’d prefer if you would finish beating around the bush. =)

                  If you have proof, post it please.

                  • Dan says:

                    Sick of waiting for your first argument – so I wrote mine.

                    RESOLVED: I believe that it can not be proven that God (That is the God of the Bible) Does or Does not exist.
                    AGREE: Dan
                    DENY: Mike

                    The God of the Bible may or may not exist. I don’t know and it has not been proven to me whether a god exists or does not exist. The idea that God
                    exists is one supported by organized Religion, Christian beliefs and practices, and reinforced by a book that is 1,000’s of years old and is said to
                    have divine inspiration, which is a contested idea and far from fact.

                    The God of the bible is sold to the population in two distinct ways. The first is through fear. Fear of retribution, or “The Fear of God”. Jesus came
                    to earth as God’s son, died on the cross for my sins and IF I accept that I will go to heaven. IF I do not accept it, I am told I
                    will burn in hell for all eternity.
                    There is no proof of this, yet when pondering the idea of Jesus dying for me it made me think, “so what?”. God in the form of his son in the flesh,
                    Jesus died on the cross for my sins, so what? Millions of men died in stupid
                    conflicts during the World Wars, many, many men have died for the sake of their brothers in arms and extrapolating that idea have died for their country,
                    and for me – right?
                    What makes Jesus special is that he was raised from the dead. Also, no proof. Convenient that he just happened to go back UP to heaven never to be
                    seen again in going on 2,000 years now just a handful of days after this supposed miracle. In fact, none of the religious claims that the entire Christian
                    faith is built on can be proven. There are parts of the bible that match with historical fact, and that is no suprise, considering the Bible was a book
                    written by man, and probably included some factual accounts or retellings of things that really did happen. However, still no proof of fact.

                    The second way that Christianity is sold is through Love. God is love. If you only accept God into your heart you will never be lonely, and you can
                    give up all things to him. He is the way, the truth, and the light…Right? It is very comforting. A comfort that many in this world no longer need.
                    Think of it this way….maybe, just maybe
                    we are at a crossroads in the evolution of man. There are those that continue to need the comfort offered up by religion, and there are those that want
                    to seek the truth, even if that truth means that God really does exist.

                    I see no other way than to live my life as an agnostic, keeping an open dialogue about what that means to me.

                    I came to an important realization in my personal life about 11 years ago. That is, that Love is a choice. I did this
                    When I was deciding if I wanted to go through with
                    marrying the woman I loved. The chemical love wasn’t there every day anymore, and still to this day only comes back infrequently.
                    I chose to love my wife
                    and chose her to be my partner in life, not because I knew I loved her, but because I choose to love her. I liken this to belief in a Christian God,
                    the God of the bible. There is no proof, no factual, tangible, physical evidence proving his existence or non-existence. There isn’t even the
                    benefit of chemical love – or maybe there is a possibility(I am no scientist) of chemicals being released when being sold the emotional cruch of religion.
                    It is something that is scientifically testable. Not belief in God though. A choice has to be made for that belief, which I have called “blind faith”
                    in numerous previous posts. It is a choice to believe, and once that choice is made everything else in the human psyche, physically, emotionally, and
                    logically fights to construct the pattern to make everything fit the belief.

                    If the existence of God can be proven, prove it.

  4. I will be praying that this convention, does not have even one successful conversion. if you all want to be athiest that is your free will, that god gave you. Please dont drag more people down with you. you all can support eachother without destroying others chances at redemption. Your advertisements,will fail ultimately at the hand of God himself. I dont blame anyone here personally as it is satan that controls the feeble minded.

    • jastiger says:

      No one is trying to convert anyone, Kelli. That is one fundamental difference between atheism and religion. Our goal is not conversion or to change anyone’s mind. Our goal is to raise awareness that atheists exist, they are good people, and that religion does indeed cause harm. I would encourage you to learn more about religion and about atheism rather than dismiss anyone that doesn’t agree with you as controlled by satan. I mean, that is kind of mean, don’t you think?

  5. Mike says:

    RESOLVED: I believe that it cannot be proved that God (That is the God of the Bible) Does or Does not Exist.

    AFFIRM: Dan
    DENY: Mike

    Before I begin my negative argument, the reason that I have never started anything is because Dan is in the affirmative and has the benefit of starting off the discussion. Also, I was not aware that everything had been agreed to, but here we are, Dan has started his first affirmative. I guess I need to know how many affirmatives are you (Dan) going to take, and how many negatives do I get? And will there be a rebuttal at the end? Since we never discussed these things, I was just wondering. I don’t know how much space or time Jason will allow us to have in this discussion – it’s up to him really. Also, sorry for the double negative – my bad.

    Since I am in the negative it is not my duty to prove anything at this time, my proof will come when I am in the affirmative. All my duty is at this time is to show how Dan has not defended his position.

    Immediately in the resolution that Dan has agreed that he would defend, “I believe that it cannot be proved that God (that is the God of the Bible) Does or Does not exist,” shows that Dan is unable to commit himself one way or the other as to God’s existence. Instead he has decided to take the fence straddling defense, “Just in case.”

    So far, Dan has failed in his attempt to prove that God does not exist, or that He “might” exist. Most of his defense has been focused on God’s non-existence, so I guess we should ask ourselves, is Dan more convinced that God does not exist, than he is that God “might” exist? And if so, then why doesn’t he just defend the resolution that “I believe that God (That is the God of the Bible) Does not exist?”

    First of all, there is plenty of proof for God’s existence, for the truth of the Bible, and the facts brought out in it, but that is not my duty to prove at this time – it is Dan’s duty to prove his proposition.

    Second, there are certain things that Dan must know before he can know that his proposition is true. Whether Dan wants to admit that God does not exist, or he would rather remain in the safety of non-commitment, Dan still finds himself in a maze that he can’t get out of. It is an empirical fact that both Dan and I are human beings. There are only two possible explanations for our existence. The first explanation is that we are the products of eternal dead matter – which cannot be proved. There is no scientific test that has ever shown dead matter to produce anything living. In other words, all of us, including Dan’s wife whom he “chose” to love, are nothing more than rocks, dirt, or gas and water. This of course is the stance of evolutionists, which none of it can be proved.
    The more rational alternative is that we are the product of a Master Designer who created everything we now see, feel, taste, smell and hear. If Dan is correct, and his view is the truth, then we must all conclude that our lives here on earth are the result of a non-intelligent, non-purposive creator “dead matter” (rocks and dirt). Therefore, IF Dan is correct, then evolution is true and there is no such thing as objective right or wrong. Because given the implications of evolutionary thought, not one person has any obligation to do anything or not do anything.
    The question that we should ask ourselves, is should the Law of Rationality (drawing only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence) be accepted by all men, or is it only expected from some?
    Going back to the maze that Dan has built around himself, and from which he cannot escape, he must prove his proposition. (1) Is Matter Eternal? (2) Does all life come from rocks and dirt? (3) Did consciousness come from that which had no conscious? (4) Did intelligence come from that which had no intelligence? (5) Did humans come from that which was not human? Dan must fight his way out of the maze by giving proof that our humanity came about in this manner.

    • Dan says:

      Mike – “There is no scientific test that has ever shown dead matter to produce anything living. In other words, all of us, including Dan’s wife whom he “chose” to love, are nothing more than rocks, dirt, or gas and water. This of course is the stance of evolutionists, which none of it can be proved.”

      I’m glad you agree to something I already mentioned.

      As the author of the text I posted above states, “It is as silly and unreasonable to condemn the potential existence of a Cosmos-creating being (or beings) AS IT IS to embrace the idea by fleshing it out with ungrounded metalogic and superstition.” In other words, it just as silly to say “There is no God” as it is to say “God Does Exist”.

      Mike – “The more rational alternative is that we are the product of a Master Designer who created everything we now see, feel, taste, smell and hear.”

      I disagree that it is a rational alternative, nor is it the only alternative. It also doesn’t specify if it is the Christian God, the God of Islam, Zeus, or multiple Gods.

      Mike – “If Dan is correct, and his view is the truth, then we must all conclude that our lives here on earth are the result of a non-intelligent, non-purposive creator “dead matter” (rocks and dirt). Therefore, IF Dan is correct, then evolution is true and there is no such thing as objective right or wrong.”

      “IF evolution is true” has no logical bearing on whether there is an objective right or wrong, there is a flaw in the logic of this last statement of yours.

      Thank you making my point for me. We already agree that “God does not exist” is an unprovable assumption. Or am I mistaken?

      If “God does not exist” is an unprovable assumption, then the only other assumption we disagree on is that “The God of the Bible does exist” which you believe to be a provable assumption. Since it is “Not your duty to prove anything at this time” I ask you, when will it be?

      Do we agree that “God does not exist” is unprovable?

      If so, the only thing left to be proven here is “The God of the Bible does exist.” In order for me to prove my assumption that “it cannot be proved that God (That is the God of the Bible) Does or Does not Exist” then I would have to disprove the assumption “God (That is the God of the Bible) Does exist”. I cannot prove that if there is no case for it.

      Mike – “(1) Is Matter Eternal? (2) Does all life come from rocks and dirt? (3) Did consciousness come from that which had no conscious? (4) Did intelligence come from that which had no intelligence? (5) Did humans come from that which was not human? Dan must fight his way out of the maze by giving proof that our humanity came about in this manner.”

      I must prove nothing of the sort. My assumption here is not that God does not exist, nor is it that God exists. It’s no box to admit you don’t know the answers. Admitting you know all the answers is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. You are making the claim that God exists and that you have proof. So again, prove it.

      • Dan says:

        Jason, if you’d like this debate to stop, feel free to drop me an e-mail, drreedd@gmail.com or just post here. It is not my intention to hijack the blog, which I fear we’ve done.

        • Mike says:

          Same goes for me Jason – that’s why I wanted to go further in our discussion with you before we proceeded right to the debate. If you would like, you could just dedicate a post for this debate, but if not, Dan and I could proceed in another venue.

          • jastiger says:

            I don’t care so much as I am bugged by Mike setting up that debate. You are asking Dan to prove that you cannot prove that god can or cannot exist. You are asking him to prove a negative. The onus is on you, not Dan.

            • Mike says:

              Jason – Dan is the one who wanted this debate – He is the one who challenged me – Let’s keep things straight here. Dan is also the one who established the propositions for the debate – again, not me. I also wanted to make sure BEFORE anything was started that we had a set of ground rules and your approval before we started – but again, Dan jumped the gun.

  6. Mike says:

    Dan

    I appreciate the opportunity for the two of us to discuss this important subject. And I want to take the time to thank Jason for allowing us to use this site or this particular post for our discussion.
    Dan, before I begin, it appears that you do not understand how a debate works. There are two propositions and two speakers (sometimes more). The first proposition is yours – you agreed that you would defend – that is prove that proposition RESOLVED: I (Dan) believe that it cannot be proved that God (That is the God of the Bible) Does or Does not Exist.
    Now it is your responsibility to prove your point, and it is my responsibility to show that you have not proved anything. Now this is where we should have taken more time to agree how many positive attempts you would take to prove your point. Most debates allow 3-6 for the affirmative, and 3-6 for the negative, and the affirmative gets a final rebuttal. Then we switch sides and it would be my turn to prove my proposition RESOLVED” I (Mike) believe that it can be proved that God (That is the God of the Bible) does exist – and it will be your responsibility to try and show that I have not proved it.
    So since you started it, it is all your show – how many attempts do you want? You have had two thus far – do you want one to two more? And then do you want to do a rebuttal?
    Secondly, The fact that your proposition says that it can’t be proved that the God (That is the God of the Bible) does or does not exist – it is implied that it is the Christian & Jewish God – which implies that all other so called gods are left out, because they are not found in the Bible.

    Now that we have all that cleared up – or at least I hope we do – please let me know if you’re still unclear about something. I will move on to my second negative.

    Let it be known, that Dan has agreed to prove that no one can prove that God (that is the God of the Bible) exists or does not exist. So far he has not been able to do so. To claim that he is a critical, rational and logical thinker, and then resort to speculation, assertions and statements like “its just silly,” are by no means objective or logical proof of his proposition.

    Dan states – “IF evolution is true” has no logical bearing on whether there is an objective right or wrong, there is a flaw in the logic of this last statement of yours. Thank you making my point for me. We already agree that “God does not exist” is an unprovable assumption. Or am I mistaken?

    Dan my statement about an objective right or wrong has total bearing upon our discussion. There can only be two plausible explanations for our existence (1) Evolution or (2) Creation. IF evolution is true, THEN Creation is false as is God (logical argument known as Modus Tollens – an IF-THEN proposition). Dan you continue to be confused concerning the stance you have taken. First you can’t decide whether it can be proved if God exists or not, and now you see no bearing on objective right or wrong as to whether God does or does not exist. You have yet to prove that God does not exist – or in the very least, you have not yet proved that it is impossible to prove it either way (existence or non-existence). The dilemma that you find yourself in, and it is stated in your own proposition – that neither you, nor anyone else can prove that God does not exist, so you have already answered for us the first part of your proposition. The only thing left for you to do now, is to show us how impossible it is to prove the existence of God. That is all that is left for you to do, since you have already defeated yourself on half your proposition.

    And you agreed that this is the case when you stated – If “God does not exist” is an unprovable assumption, (and it is by implication – Mike) then the only other assumption we disagree on is that “The God of the Bible does exist” which you believe to be a provable assumption (Agreed – Mike).

    Now Dan, it appears that our debate is over, and that I have won. For you have admitted that you have no way of proving that God does not exist. So why couldn’t you have admitted this a long time ago? You stated in your last post – “In order for me to prove my assumption that “it cannot be proved that God (That is the God of the Bible) Does or Does not Exist” then I would have to disprove the assumption “God (That is the God of the Bible) Does exist”. I cannot prove that if there is no case for it.” – You have no case for either stance – that God does exist, or that God does not exist – yet you argue against God as if you know that He does not, or could not possibly exist – talk about being irrational.

    Dan I asked you 5 questions which have a direct bearing to our discussion, and which you failed or refused to answer. Either you can’t answer them, or you just refuse to answer them because they will destroy your world view. Again, I ask you – (1) Is Matter Eternal? (2) Does all life come from rocks and dirt? (3) Did consciousness come from that which had no conscious? (4) Did intelligence come from that which had no intelligence? (5) Did humans come from that which was not human?

    It is dishonesty to refuse to have a rational discussion. It is dishonesty to act like you have all the answers, and then when pressed fall back on the position that you don’t. If you want to live your life on the false premise that there is no such thing as truth, that truth is unable to be known, that is your purgative Dan. I’m here trying to shed some light on the subject, that truth can be known, and that it is not intellectual dishonesty to know the truth. That’s a lie that humanists console themselves with. Dan, I’m getting the idea that this was an exercise in futility, that you were just using this discussion as a way to get me to do all the work, while you just pretended to be involved. I hope that that is not the case.

  7. Dan says:

    “Now Dan, it appears that our debate is over, and that I have won.
    For you have admitted that you have no way of proving that God does
    not exist.”

    No….really? =) Just because I do not have proof that God does not exist does NOT prove he exists contrary to your opinion. The burden of proof is on those that believe in an unproven God.

    You truly are a simpleton with forked tongue. You know how to use
    words(50% of the time) yet forget how to read them for understanding. Let me make this
    simple for you.

    My Case:

    God(of the Bible) does not exist cannot be proven. (We agree)

    God(of the Bible) does exist can be proven. (In this I disagree)

    Half of my case is made, the other half depends on whether your proof, as God’s champion in the flesh –
    will stand up to scrutiny. Or am I to make a case for God and refute myself? You say I refuse to have a rational discussion, and I call
    bullshit. It is you sir, who refuse to state your case, and deliver
    the proof you have boasted of – traditional rules of debate be damned.

    “If you want to live your life on the false premise that there is
    no such thing as truth, that truth is unable to be known, that is
    your purgative Dan.”

    I have often claimed to know the truth, the only truth that can be
    known. The truth is that you cannot prove that God exists, just as
    we both agree that it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

    Said three times, this being the last – prove it.

  8. Mike says:

    Dan, you said that you wanted to debate – I said that we could and would based upon the propositions that you wanted stated in your way. The reason for debate rules is so that there are two equal sides presented, and not alot of hogwash where nothing is ever settled. As I stated before, and as YOU don’t seem to understand is that it is YOU who must prove YOUR case because YOU are in the affirmative. All I need do at this time is show that YOU failed – which you have, by the very proposition that YOU wanted to defend.

    Now are we going to proceed? Or are we just going to contend that you don’t know one whit about what you think you know? It is you my friend who is the simplton. From what I see thus far, I believe that you can’t even defend against my proposition. That it will be nothing but what we have already seen in your defense for your case – “It’s silly,” “only simpletons would believe in God,” etc. etc. that is real critical thinking. Ha.

    • Dan says:

      The fact is, Mike, that you cannot prove a God exists, let alone that the God of the bible exists as you contend. I do believe that was Your position, am I wrong? If you could prove your position, you would be the first who succeeded among hundreds of thousands who have tried.

      I have proven that we cannot currently prove that God(the God of the bible) does not exist – or at least we agree on this point. It is you sir who must prove if you ever to be taken seriously in any debate that God(the God of the Bible) exists. I am not looking to win any argument, I’m looking for the truth. You apparently are looking for a win(I believe it was “Now Dan, it appears that our debate is over, and that I have won.” right?), a win that will forever elude your grasp when defending your faulty position. It is intellectually dishonest in the worst sense. You also only respond to my words of “only simpletons would believe in God” which I don’t believe were my exact words that you quoted, and calling your position silly and actually believe that those were points of critical thinking. Those are only opinions, ones that I have come to based on your pompous, shallow, hollow arguments, and based on my own logical points that I have laid out that you fail to address.

      This debate is over, it should have been over long ago, as you continue to fail to admit to yourself that you CANNOT prove that God, the God of the bible does in fact exist. That it takes a leap over logic, a leap of faith, a CHOICE to get to your position – and not to be mistaken with fact.

  9. Mike says:

    Dan, Jason and anyone else who is reading this “debate” of sorts. For any of you who understand the principles behind “debate” you know (which apparently Dan does not), that there is an affirmative and a negative. The Affirmative is the first to present his/her defense of their proposition, while the negative is held to showing that the proposition was not proven. Then after 3-6 opportunties to defend, the roles switch and the other party finds himself in the Affirmative.
    Dan has failed or refused to agree how many opportunities he and I should have when in the affirmative. Since it appears that after the second defense he is finished, I am supposing that that is all he wants, which in turn would give me two opportunites. We have thus far concluded that his proposition, (which is a universal negative) to which he wanted, and agreed that he would defend, RESOLVED: I (Dan) believe that it cannot be proved that God (That is the God of the Bible) Does or Does not Exist. cannot be defended in and of itself. It is impossible for him to prove that no one can prove that God does or does not exist. He has therefore failed in the very first instance when agreeing to defend this proposition. He has also failed to give one logical point to prove that no one can prove that God does or does not exist. What Dan has failed to realize, that in order to affirm such a position as he has taken, whether he wants to defend that God does not exist, or that no one can prove that God does or does not exist – Logically, there are a number of things that Dan MUST know in order to make such a claim. He must absolutely know that matter is all that has always existed. He must absolutely know that eternal dead matter became living matter by sheer chance, and that by sheer chance became human beings. He must absolutely know these things because this is his theory of our origins, a theory that MUST be proved to cast doubt upon the only other plausible means of our origins – Intelligent Design.
    This is what we are “debating” – two different theories that brought our existence into being. Which one is the more rational, logical and true choice? Dan has failed in his two attempts to show how one cannot prove or disprove God’s existence. Dan has to know this absolutely that it can neither be proved or not proved. telling us that believing in Intelligent Design is “silly” is not a rational argument, and fails on its very face. Dan can continue to dodge the burden he has in showing us – by saying I have yet to prove my proposition. But the fact of the matter is, that it has not yet been my burden to do so – my burden at this time is simply show that Dan has not done his job – therefore he has proved nothing – other than the fact that he just wants to believe what he wants to believe – he doesn’t really care about the truth – or as one man put it – “Truth? You can’t handle the truth!”
    I’m glad that Dan has seen the dilemma he has put himself into – and admits that he can prove nothing – that is a very honest assessment of his position – more than I say for most Evolutionists, humanists, Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics. We are getting somewhere when a person can admit they are defeated on the outset. Thank you Dan for your honesty. Now if you want me to, I will procede with my affirmative, which means you will be in the negative – you do understand that, don’t you? Dan?

    • Dan says:

      “This is what we are “debating” – two different theories that brought our existence into being.”

      Wrong. I am not here to prove my theory of what brought our existence into being.

      Stated simply, you believe you can prove God exists, and I believe you cannot. You simply skirt the true issue here. I didn’t sign up for a stuffed shirt debate. I was under the impression you would attempt to prove your case. This isn’t debate class, nor a real debate despite your notions of “proper” debate. You do hide behind it well though, I applaud you.

  10. jastiger says:

    I think the premises that were set up by Mike are false. Dan can’t prove that a god does or does not exist and I don’t think he was trying to defend that point. He was saying YOU, Mike, can’t prove god does or does not exist either. The premises are bad to begin with.

    You are making a positive claim in regard to god existing. This is why it is on YOU to prove that there is a god that exists, not on Dan to prove it doesn’t.

  11. Mike says:

    Dan and Jason, it is amazing to me that either of you went to school. I guess it’s not your fault that you have never learned what the process of debate is about, as is apparent by both your reactions. So, according to Dan, this was not a debate – so I guess I have nothing further to say, as I told you from the beginning Dan – that I would give my evidence ONLY through the rules of debate. You ‘appeared’ to agree to a debate between the two of us – but I guess you are not an honest person – which I am at fault for thinking that you would be. But then again I am talking with people who do not believe in values – because there are no absolutes or right or wrong. So I guess I have nothing further to say, since Dan has ended the debate and therefore ended my need to defend my proposition. I know that you will all say that you knew I couldn’t defend my position, that I have no evidence, and you can say that all you want, but the fact of the matter is that not one of you have any evidence to support you claims, and the proof has been provided in this discussion between Dan and I. I stated that I would present evidence in a “Debate” – Dan said bring it on – so I assumed that meant he would present his side and I would present mine in accordance to the rules of debate. But now Dan says he never agreed to such – that there NO DEBATE – so if there is no debate, then there is no requirement from me to present anything. Dan has given up the ghost, quit, conceded. Why does he no longer want to debate? Because he knows he has been boxed in, he can’t answer his position, because he has no position, because he doesn’t know anything. That is pretty brave Dan to admit that you are not as smart as you claim to be. I applaude you for that one.

    • Dan says:

      Mike, you are laughable. Where is your proof? I want to debate the merits of your proof for the positive existence of God(The God of the Bible). You are in fact a Hypocritical Liar sir. You say you have proof and instead of laying it out for us, you stumble around attempting to beat me in my defense of “I don’t know”?

      You are the worst kind of liar and hypocrite. Read your last post again – to yourself. Not a word of it rings true, it is all to feed your ego. Debating online sir is different than in a public forum and thank Zeus I never learned to “debate” the “right” way. I concede nothing, it is you who have failed in all respects to bring forth ANY case for the existence of God(the god of the bible), and it is YOU have claimed a win before you even presented any of the Proof you had talked about in previous posts in such a boastful way.

      You are Calling me dishonest??? You are being dishonest with yourself…delusional I dare say. Take a deep look inside and realize you still have the blinders on – and you likely always will.

      • Mike says:

        Psalm 14:1

        • Dan says:

          Regarding the behavioral consequences for not believing in God. Instead of providing proof you attack – just as I thought you would do. It’s too bad this passage of the bible is easily refuted.

          The number of ethical and morally behaved atheists and skeptics numbers in the millions and all it takes is one ethical atheist to refute this passage of the Bible, as the passage says “there is none that does good.”

          You do nothing Mike but hurl an ancient insult meant for those that don’t buy into the bullshit.

          • If there is a GOD then he’s made a pigs ear of the creation. Why should I revere a god that as part of the creation he thought was good, also brings as part of his creation the ability for him to kill his own creations with Ebola?

  12. Mike says:

    Dan, I truly feel sorry for you. You have such a confused little mind, that you can’t decide which is which and don’t understand the first thing about debating. I wish I had known that before we started this. I told you before we began that the only way I would present my defense, is in a DEBATE. That means that both sides have opportunity to present their evidence for their view. When one side refuses or gives up, that usually means the debate is over – the side that quit has no evidence for their view. You gave up, you refused to take part in a debate and to give evidence for your part, so essentially there is no point in my doing anything since you conceded. I realize that that will take some real thinking on your part, but don’t spend too much time overworking that grey matter, you might just hurt yourself.

    • Dan says:

      It is you who should be pitied. You are nothing but a frightened child Mike, you know your position cannot be proven, so you took your out as soon as it was presented to you. You know that the entire house of cards that is your belief system cannot be proven, and that it is a choice to believe in what you do believe. I’m sorry I didn’t give you the fallacious “DEBATE” you were looking for. You didn’t give me any “proof” to refute either, so I think we’re even.

      • bryan says:

        Open a science book guys Religion should be abolished. For 2000 years it,s been nothing but complete ballocks. If it makes u
        You happy to believe then do so but shut up about it. ‘

        One life dedicated to praising something which cannot in this life give you a result is not real. This life. This existence relies on one proven theory. Causality

        Putting one foot in front of the other causes you to move forward. A religion should be respectful belief not a way of life

  13. Wistful Wonders says:

    If people just stopped being so silly and passionately defensive for a bit and sat down to think about it, they might actually be struck by the dawning realization that every religion – no matter how long it’s been in existence – was created by a single bloke with – usually – a desire for some sort of ‘mystical’ power over others, control, legal tax evasion (or ‘political favours’ back in the day), satiating financial greed, and self-aggrandizement.

    Marry religion with politics and you have the reality of our modern world – corrupt and oppressive governments ably assisted by their beloved bed-buddies, religious leaders.

    I wouldn’t dare classify myself as an ‘athiest’ (because I know that I don’t know) but an agnostic, so to the religious I say, “prove it” and to the athiest I say, “prove it”.

    I think we’ve all gotten it quite wrong and that if we cold only know what ‘the truth’ of the matter is, we’d all feel horribly ashamed, utterly ridiculous and enormously relieved.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s