For Everyone: The Charity Challenge

Torin

Active member
I have a challenge for everyone: State three reasons someone might have for disagreeing with you about God's existence.

In other words:

1. If you believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for not believing in God.
2. If you don't believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for believing in God.

Here's the trick: You have to do this charitably, in a way that a typical member of the other side would agree with, to win the challenge.

I understand that many members here will have ethical concerns about presenting arguments for a position they think is false. So, after you've stated the reasons charitably, feel free to explain why you think they don't work.

Thanks.
 

docphin5

Active member
I have a challenge for everyone: State three reasons someone might have for disagreeing with you about God's existence.

In other words:

1. If you believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for not believing in God.
2. If you don't believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for believing in God.

Here's the trick: You have to do this charitably, in a way that a typical member of the other side would agree with, to win the challenge.

Here is one really good reason for not believing in God, one that I have the most trouble with. (Note: I am assuming God, Himself, is pre-existent, and transcends reality or existence as we know it.)

1) He could do more to help those on earth who believe in him, especially, when they are under distress.

My answer, (although I concede it a weak one for those in distress) is that if God directly intervened in and manipulated the laws of our reality to, say, actually heal a terminal cancer, or win the lottery, or bigger: prevent a war, stop a tsunami, redirect a cosmic asteroid away from our planet, then it would NEVER be enough, because there would always be another sickness, tragedy, war, natural disaster, because the cosmos is sick, decaying, falling into disrepair. Therefore, the only CURE for our predicament with lasting HEALTH, an eternal health, would be to refashion the entire cosmos into something that can sustain souls indefinitely. Personally, I think that is the ONLY solution to our problems which will be acceptable for God to perform (or at least that is what I tell myself, ha ha!).
I understand that many members here will have ethical concerns about presenting arguments for a position they think is false. So, after you've stated the reasons charitably, feel free to explain why you think they don't work.

Thanks.
It is not an ethical problem to admit the weaknesses in one's conclusions. In science, the research "Results" are always followed by the "Discussion" section where the weaknesses of the results are presented. It is expected if an idea, result, or conclusion is to be decided or accepted in a collaborative way.
 
Last edited:

Furion

Active member
I have a challenge for everyone: State three reasons someone might have for disagreeing with you about God's existence.

In other words:

1. If you believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for not believing in God.
2. If you don't believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for believing in God.

Here's the trick: You have to do this charitably, in a way that a typical member of the other side would agree with, to win the challenge.

I understand that many members here will have ethical concerns about presenting arguments for a position they think is false. So, after you've stated the reasons charitably, feel free to explain why you think they don't work.

Thanks.

1) Something happened to them, some religious person turned them off.

2) They want God to materialize before them, for God to thunder from heaven I exist.

3) They don't like christians, and so it fits their natural inclination to oppose God.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I understand that many members here will have ethical concerns about presenting arguments for a position they think is false. So, after you've stated the reasons charitably, feel free to explain why you think they don't work.

Thanks.
The concept of "ethical concerns" is outside the scope of atheist thinkers. Sinners.
 

Ficciones

Active member
  • a person can have an experience they believe is a personal contact with God
  • one can be so taken with the wonders of the natural world that they attribute it to a designer
  • one might have the experience of a loving community of genuinely kind and charitable believers - family, church group, etc.
 

docphin5

Active member
I have a challenge for everyone: State three reasons someone might have for disagreeing with you about God's existence.

In other words:

1. If you believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for not believing in God.
2. If you don't believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for believing in God.

Here's the trick: You have to do this charitably, in a way that a typical member of the other side would agree with, to win the challenge.

I understand that many members here will have ethical concerns about presenting arguments for a position they think is false. So, after you've stated the reasons charitably, feel free to explain why you think they don't work.

Thanks.
My reasons #2 and #3 for why an a-theist may not believe in God.

* an a-theist never had an experience they believe is a personal contact with God. Therefore, all the evidence or reason in the world will not persuade an a-theist until he/she has his/her own personal experience with God.

* an a-theist may have never experienced a truly loving community of genuinely kind and charitable people. Maybe they cannot imagine agape love to even believe in a God of love.
 
I have a challenge for everyone: State three reasons someone might have for disagreeing with you about God's existence.

In other words:

1. If you believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for not believing in God.
2. If you don't believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for believing in God.

Here's the trick: You have to do this charitably, in a way that a typical member of the other side would agree with, to win the challenge.

I understand that many members here will have ethical concerns about presenting arguments for a position they think is false. So, after you've stated the reasons charitably, feel free to explain why you think they don't work.

Thanks.

Here is one...

People often do NOT believe in God because they believe layers in canyons that do not seem to show corrosion are proof that it took a very long time to form.

Whereas people often DO believe in God because they believe layers in canyons that do not seem to show corrosion are proof that it took a very short time to form.

cliffface-lge.jpg
 

5wize

Well-known member
I have a challenge for everyone: State three reasons someone might have for disagreeing with you about God's existence.

In other words:

1. If you believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for not believing in God.
2. If you don't believe in God, state three reasons someone might have for believing in God.

Here's the trick: You have to do this charitably, in a way that a typical member of the other side would agree with, to win the challenge.

I understand that many members here will have ethical concerns about presenting arguments for a position they think is false. So, after you've stated the reasons charitably, feel free to explain why you think they don't work.

Thanks.
1. The world seems to be maintained, beyond our capacity, for our life. We have no examples of something being maintained, especially as complex as our world, without sentient will involved.
2. The dual nature of man (material/mental) implies a contiguous sentient non material being-ness that survives the material world, at least in its individual instances.
3. There is an inner acknowledgement of something bigger than ourselves that is appealed to in times of stress.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Here is one...

People often do NOT believe in God because they believe layers in canyons that do not seem to show corrosion are proof that it took a very long time to form.

Whereas people often DO believe in God because they believe layers in canyons that do not seem to show corrosion are proof that it took a very short time to form.

View attachment 173
Who are these people? And how do they tie their own shoes with such feeble thinking.
You understand that corrosion is a chemical reaction that has ziltch to do with canyons forming... right?
 
You understand that corrosion is a chemical reaction that has ziltch to do with canyons forming... right?

Yes. And I see now that I must have been in a hurry and botched my statement.

This is what I meant to say...


People often do NOT believe in God because they believe the layers in canyon walls that do not seem to show signs of erosion are proof that those layers took a very LONG time to form.

Whereas people often DO believe in God because they believe the layers in canyon walls that do not seem to show signs of erosion are proof that those layers took a very SHORT time to form.


cliffface-lge.jpg
 
Yes. And I see now that I must have been in a hurry and botched my statement.

This is what I meant to say...


People often do NOT believe in God because they believe the layers in canyon walls that do not seem to show signs of erosion are proof that those layers took a very LONG time to form.

Whereas people often DO believe in God because they believe the layers in canyon walls that do not seem to show signs of erosion are proof that those layers took a very SHORT time to form.


View attachment 178


FYI, the canyon in the photo I posted was formed in three hours.
 
Top