We've not had a religious debate on here for a while...

[reeves4england]

So in your view God created AIDS, cancer, natural disasters, Justin Bieber etc... to what end? I refer you to my earlier Darwin quote...

You are saying God created a parasitic wasp that needs to completely devour another creature alive from the inside (missing vital organs so it stays alive for longer in immense pain and suffering) just to make it past gestation stage???

Why the fuck would an 'intelligent designer' create such a creature? If he exists, he's a fucking sicko.

I think you're missing a central point of biblical teaching, which argues that the world we currently live in is only a shadow of the world God created, and has been disrupted by things that take it from being a good creation to being one which groans and awaits renewal.

Although your point about Justin Beiber almost had me converted.

[Baggins]

But surely if the world has been disrupted by "things that take it from being a good creation" and God "created all things" he also created those disrupting factors.  At the very least he is guilty of a lack of foresight and some poor judgement.

[Bob's Orange]

God is a DJ.

[jayohaitchenn]

[Dozno9]

This is such a flimsy argument.

It strikes me that the common Christian (or other) concept that is since they can't prove the absence of God then God must exist. The burden of proof falls on the one claiming the positive. If there is no proof you didn't commit murder does that make you guilty? Of course not, as the burden of proof is not on you. You are not expected to prove you are innocent because proving a negative is nearly impossible if not completely so.

Prove to me there's not a God and I'll follow you and as for saying; "The burden of proof falls on the one claiming the positive", who is claiming the "positive" then, the religious or the atheist?

[Barry Scott]

So in your view God created AIDS, cancer, natural disasters, Justin Bieber etc... to what end? I refer you to my earlier Darwin quote...

You are saying God created a parasitic wasp that needs to completely devour another creature alive from the inside (missing vital organs so it stays alive for longer in immense pain and suffering) just to make it past gestation stage???

Why the fuck would an 'intelligent designer' create such a creature? If he exists, he's a fucking sicko.

Sicko and a drunk. Have you ever seen the nerve in a giraffes neck? The one that is badly "designed", due to it's evolution? Needless to say we don't need to go on to the eye, or the many other badly "designed" parts of living creatures.



While searching for the above, I saw the below. This truly is superb.

[reeves4england]

But surely if the world has been disrupted by "things that take it from being a good creation" and God "created all things" he also created those disrupting factors.  At the very least he is guilty of a lack of foresight and some poor judgement.

1. How you can accuse an eternal deity (who, by definition must exist outside the constraints of time) of a lack of forsight is a little beyond me.

2. Karl Benz invented the very first car. It was a good thing in that it improved the lifestyle of mankind. But people went on to misuse this good thing, resulting in accidents and death. Yet we wouldn't argue that Kalr Benz 'created' death by dangerous driving... he just invented soemthing with the potential for disaster if misused. Ok, so the analogy isn't perfect, but essentially all suffering comes from the entry of 'evil' into the world through our personal choice, not because of a design fault. It's one of those questions where it's much easier to sit down and discuss it for an hour rather than answer in one post. None of the world's problems/debates was ever resolved, or even furthered, on an internet forum!

On another note, I could argue against the concept of natural disasters, seeing as an earthquake is merely an event, and only becomes a disaster when coupled with social, economic, political factors... but that's another story for another day.

[Barry Scott]

who is claiming the "positive" then, the religious or the atheist?

The religious of course. The atheist is claiming nothing, because by it's very definition it's stating to be without theism. Or to not believe anything.

Religion on the other hand is stating something IS there. As a non-believer I don't have to prove why I believe nothing to justify it, but those who believe that something does exist have to prove why. Nothing is the starting point. You come out of the womb an atheist, religion then gets added on over time according to the parents indoctrination.  

[reeves4england]

As for Barry's videos...

Christians believe there are reasons for imperfection in our world. Saying, "look this giraffe isn't quite right" doesn't go against anything in the Bible. he's a great scientist, clearly, but I often find his attempts at philosophy and theology flimsy at best. Instead of looking at the giraffe, he could just have easily looked at himself - I mean, what sort of self-respecting reproductive machine gets married three times and only has one child? Yes, I'm being deliberately provocative, but if he truly believed what he preaches then that's the logical conclusion he should come to.

I agree that the second video is nonsense. But a few Christians being a bit dim doesn't disprove the existence of the God they believe in. I made points about this a few pages ago.

[reeves4england]

The religious of course. The atheist is claiming nothing, because by it's very definition it's stating to be without theism. Or to not believe anything.

Religion on the other hand is stating something IS there. As a non-believer I don't have to prove why I believe nothing to justify it, but those who believe that something does exist have to prove why. Nothing is the starting point. You come out of the womb an atheist, religion then gets added on over time according to the parents indoctrination. 

Surely believing nothing is different to having a positive belief that there is nothing?

(I've already mentioned that I think burden-of-proof debates are pointless - I don't see why anybody has to prove what they believe to the other, I'm more interested in serious dialogue than points-scoring)

[Barry Scott]

As for Barry's posts...

Christians believe there are reasons for imperfection in our world. Saying, "look this giraffe isn't quite right" doesn't go against anything in the Bible. he's a great scientist, clearly, but I often find his attempts at philosophy and theology flimsy at best. Instead of looking at the giraffe, he could just have easily looked at himself - I mean, what sort of self-respecting reproductive machine gets married three times and only has one child? Yes, I'm being deliberately provocative, but if he truly believed what he preaches then that's the logical conclusion he should come to.

I agree that the second video is nonsense. But a few Christians being a bit dim doesn't disprove the existence of the God they believe in. I made points about this a few pages ago.

Sorry R4E, I wasn't directly attacking you here. As best as is possible I'm trying to stay off attacking you or being too opinionated. (I think I'm failing in the opinionated part!)

I was merely going back towards the whole designer creationism thing and just jumping on the end of what Jay O'Haitchenn happened to post. It was more directed at him in a, "look at this, it's interesting" way.

[Dozno9]

but those who believe that something does exist have to prove why.   

I don't have to prove anything, it's my belief and personal to me. If you want to go and chase some sort of evidence then be my guest but saying that religion has to prove God exists when you don't believe anyway is a bit odd.

There is evidence that points to a further being existing but I suggest unless a big bearded chap is thrust in front of your eyes you would be inclined to disregard any evidence put forward.

[reeves4england]

Didn't take any offence Barry, and didn't see it as an attack!! Everybody's welcome to their views - I just can't stand the arrogance of the many who put forward really flimsy arguments against religious beliefes and consider it conclusive because other atheists start nodding and applauding!

(Which you weren't doing)

[Barry Scott]

Surely believing nothing is different to having a positive belief that there is nothing?

(I've already mentioned that I think burden-of-proof debates are pointless - I don't see why anybody has to prove what they believe to the other, I'm more interested in serious dialogue than points-scoring)

I don't have a positive belief in there being nothing, because it's not a belief in nothing. I have no belief at all - it's having no belief in anything. There's nothing. Nada. Zilch.

And yes I agree on the burden of proof thing, like most religious discussions, the end result is a 0-0.

I don't have to prove anything, it's my belief and personal to me. If you want to go and chase some sort of evidence then be my guest but saying that religion has to prove God exists when you don't believe anyway is a bit odd.

There is evidence that points to a further being existing but I suggest unless a big bearded chap is thrust in front of your eyes you would be inclined to disregard any evidence put forward.

Of course you don't have to prove anything personally, I think you've slightly missed my point. You, like anyone else, can believe whatever you want, but if the religious community wants me to buy into it, they need to prove why. They can't just say, "here it is, believe it." There needs to be a reason and this is the point I was making.

The burden of proof is on someone telling me something exists, because I have no belief in anything. If the religious establishment was to convince me why I have to believe, they have to show me why.

Didn't take any offence Barry, and didn't see it as an attack!!

Good. Let's get a room.

[Dozno9]

Of course you don't have to prove anything personally, I think you've slightly missed my point. You, like anyone else, can believe whatever you want, but if the religious community wants me to buy into it, they need to prove why. They can't just say, "here it is, believe it." There needs to be a reason and this is the point I was making.

The burden of proof is on someone telling me something exists, because I have no belief in anything. If the religious establishment was to convince me why I have to believe, they have to show me why.

I get that point and for me religion is a personal thing but like you if others (Witness' in the main) knock on my door and want me to join then I will ask questions and probe a bit more and want some sort of tangible point to come back at me.

I don't go knocking on the local Mosque and demand to know why this, that and the other happen.

I just look at other religions and know that my one is right