Atheism

[TimothyVI]

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 22 2011,07:22)

Quote (TimothyVI @ Dec. 22 2011,14:06) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 22 2011,06:29) an atheist is a blind man that walks in the dark and everyone around him help him to get around were he want to go ,but most of the time he is scare of his own surrounding, so it need explanation but it as to be suited for a blind man,this is where the difficulty lays for us that can see Pierre Those kinds of silly platitudes are beneath you Pierre. They are the kind of things that are said by ignorant, uninformed, bigots, which has certainly not been my perception of you. Tim tim you should have read;; the allegory of the cave ;;of Socrates Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I read The Republic while still in college, and vaguely remember the allegory of the cave.
That is why I hope there is still a chance of “turning round of a soul passing from a day which is little better than night to the true day of being.”
I see blind belief in a dogma as a day which is little better than night.

Tim

[TimothyVI]

Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 22 2011,07:26)

then I am exceptional,because I was miss treated ,abused and as always believed in God in the most inner part of me ,my father was a atheist ,as far that i know sins my tender age of two,i was a believer in God , Pierre Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I am saddened that you were mistreated and abused as a child. I loathe anyone who would abuse an innocent child.

If your dad was the abuser it is much easier for me to understand your disdain for atheists and extreme need for a father figure in God. However neither is justified because your dad happened to be an atheist.

Tim

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 21 2011,12:51)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,10:14) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 20 2011,16:59) But it is fascinating to learn about how humans come to believe in nonsense, and to defend those nonsense beliefs so earnestly. And where is your scientific proof that what we believe in is nonsense? There is no such thing as scientific proof.  But anyway, you believe a man walked again after he was judicially executed by the Romans.  The way science works most often is that you make an hypothesis then test it.  If none of the evidence contradicts the hypothesis and all the evidence supports it then you make a provisional conclusion, which of course is subject to the discovery of further unambiguous evidence. In this case the scientific theory is that humans do not walk again after successful judicial execution, and there is no evidence against that, not even an eyewitness account.  So, that is about as close to scientifically “proved” as you are going to get.  However, you would expect the alleged exodus to have left extensive evidence behind; archeologists know what they are looking for in regards to temporary occupation of an area, but there is no evidence for that.  There is no evidence for a global flood, and Antarctic ice cores demonstrate no such flood at any time in the history of our species.  There never was a time of just two humans, such a thing is a biological impossibility and is contradicted by overwhelming evidence.  The earth did not exist before light.   Um, what else?  Snakes and donkeys don't talk; there is no evidence for the existence of unicorns if you want to take the KJV literally; there almost certainly never was a slaughter of the innocents as described in the gospels; Roman censuses never required ancient Palestinians to return to the city of birth; Herod's dates in the gospels are almost certainly wrong; the Tower of Babel model of language evolution does not match what can be observed about language; you could not have seen the ancient Kingdom of Tonga which existed in the alleged time of Jesus, from any high mountain in the Middle East; the bible lists at least five different ways of making humans but the evidence says that only one works; humans cannot be born of a mother only because of the genes present in the sperm that control aspects of the production of the placenta. Please accept my apologies if you disagree with your scripture on any of those points.  That is rather a lot of nonsense you apparently believe. Quote Prove to me that God did not create everything in existence.  Can you do that, Stu? What is a god? Stuart

Hi Stuart,

You do not consider the bible to be an eyewitness account?   …why is that

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2011,08:16)

You seem to have this view that you've got special powers that others don't have, as if atheists are blind and you have vision, and when you use the word “green” you are only mocked because those blind atheists can't even know what green could mean. But the problem is that when it boils down to basics, you don't have experiences that are any different to anyone else.   Stuart

Hi Stuart,

“Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Prob.29:18)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 20 2011,19:51)

In this case the scientific theory is that humans do not walk again after successful judicial execution, and there is no evidence against that, not even an eyewitness account.

Surely you jest. Just because YOU don't believe the eyewitness accounts is not to say there are none. The New Testament is loaded with them.

As for the rest of your post, all of it boils down to: “Mike, since the human beings I believe in have not YET found evidence of this event or that event, the scriptures are inaccurate in their historical accounts.”

But Stu, new archeological evidence surfaces all the time in support of the historical account contained within the scriptures.

For a while, “experts” dismissed Moses as a writer of early scripture, because it was thought that there was no written language during that time period. Later, they found out that was not the case.

Not too long ago, archeologists unearthed a clay dish with the family name “Goliath” inscribed on it. They found it close to Gath. Who’d have thought that “Goliath” was a real name of a real person? The believers of scripture, that's who.

It is clear to me that your “evidence” against the historical account of the scriptures relies only on what mankind knows to be fact at any given time in history. You stick with that lame mentality, and I'll continue to smile and think of you each time an archeologist uncovers yet another piece of evidence that supports the Bible.

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 20 2011,19:51)

What is a god?

Way to hide from the question, Stu. Here, I'll rephrase it for you:

Prove to me that God AN OMNISCIENT SUPREME BEING did not create everything in existence. Can you do that, Stu?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 20 2011,19:53)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,10:17) Tell me how, in an overpopulated, overpolluted world where species go extinct all the time, it would be more suited to evolution to NOT kill some of these others who are breathing your air. Can you afford the tuition?

I don't pay for snake oil.

Do you have an answer or not?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (TimothyVI @ Dec. 21 2011,16:06)

However neither is justified because your dad happened to be an atheist.

But doesn't Pierre growing up with a belief in God, despite an atheistic father, fly in the face of your earlier claim that we all believe what we are taught to believe?

What about me? I grew up going to church 3 times a week, yet never thought the belief in God made any sense. I was an atheist up until age 44 – about three years ago.

What caused me to “be taught” about God at age 44?

Your theory has failed, Tim.

[mikeboll64]

And Tim,

Could you answer what proved to be too hard for Stu? Could you give me an honest and direct answer to: WHAT IS YOUR END GAME? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO CONVINCE US THAT THERE IS NO GOD?

[Stu]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 22 2011,09:31)

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 20 2011,19:53) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,10:17) Tell me how, in an overpopulated, overpolluted world where species go extinct all the time, it would be more suited to evolution to NOT kill some of these others who are breathing your air. Can you afford the tuition? I don't pay for snake oil. Do you have an answer or not?

The answer is so trivially obvious I thought I might give you the opportunity to work it out for yourself or look it up if you have to, without drawing undue attention to the fact of the baseness of your request.

But you appear to be keen to broadcast some lack of subtlety to the world.

If you remain unable to work it out, get back to us after you have learned something about how natural selection causes modification and subsequently speciation. Of course by then you probably will know enough not to have to ask again.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2011,22:41)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 22 2011,09:31) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 20 2011,19:53) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,10:17) Tell me how, in an overpopulated, overpolluted world where species go extinct all the time, it would be more suited to evolution to NOT kill some of these others who are breathing your air. Can you afford the tuition? I don't pay for snake oil. Do you have an answer or not? The answer is so trivially obvious I thought I might give you the opportunity to work it out for yourself or look it up if you have to, without drawing undue attention to the fact of the baseness of your request. But you appear to be keen to broadcast some lack of subtlety to the world. If you remain unable to work it out, get back to us after you have learned something about how natural selection causes modification and subsequently speciation.  Of course by then you probably will know enough not to have to ask again. Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Is this a fancy way of saying species created themselves?
If so, then how did the first species come into being?
You're still at square ZERO without an answer!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Stu]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 22 2011,09:29)

Surely you jest. Just because YOU don't believe the eyewitness accounts is not to say there are none. The New Testament is loaded with them.

Where did you get the idea that anyone saw Jesus and wrote about it? You might be under the misapprehension that because the gospels describe Jesus in some detail that therefore they were written by someone who was there at the time. None of the writers were there, I’m afraid to tell you. We don’t even know who wrote the gospels, they are anonymous. Do you seriously not know this basic stuff?

Quote

As for the rest of your post, all of it boils down to: “Mike, since the human beings I believe in have not YET found evidence of this event or that event, the scriptures are inaccurate in their historical accounts.”

And how long should we sit and wait until someone successfully executed is brought back from the dead? We are not talking about an alleged second event, many people are resurrected in scripture. But no example of resurrection has been observed by any eyewitness, ever.

Quote

But Stu, new archeological evidence surfaces all the time in support of the historical account contained within the scriptures. For a while, “experts” dismissed Moses as a writer of early scripture, because it was thought that there was no written language during that time period. Later, they found out that was not the case.

You really don’t know much about this, do you. It is textual analysis that shows there are four or five writers of the material attributed to Moses. The figure of Moses has no particular historicity you could bank on.

Quote

Not too long ago, archeologists unearthed a clay dish with the family name “Goliath” inscribed on it. They found it close to Gath. Who’d have thought that “Goliath” was a real name of a real person? The believers of scripture, that's who.

Do you expect me to be impressed by that??

Quote

It is clear to me that your “evidence” against the historical account of the scriptures relies only on what mankind knows to be fact at any given time in history.

Yes, facts. As in things you can reliably know to be true. I stand by my list of the absurdities you have not denied believing.

Quote

You stick with that lame mentality, and I'll continue to smile and think of you each time an archeologist uncovers yet another piece of evidence that supports the Bible.

But you haven’t given me any examples of evidence that supports anything the bible says. And I am not objecting to archeology discovering facts of geography. The Judeo-christian scriptures are historical fiction. The historical events and places were real, the supernatural stories of woo are invented but placed in that real setting.

Stu: What is a god?

Quote

Way to hide from the question, Stu. Here, I'll rephrase it for you: Prove to me that God AN OMNISCIENT SUPREME BEING did not create everything in existence. Can you do that, Stu?

My question is valid, and your response is nonsense. Firstly, if you knew anything about philosophy you would know that it is an amateur mistake to ask anyone to prove a negative. You cannot prove all cows eat grass, for example. Secondly, you haven’t said exactly what “OMNISCIENT SUPREME BEINGS” are, or what they do, or how they do it. If you knew something about the philosophy of science (as it would appear to be a scientific answer you are looking for) then you would know that it is not possible to falsify such a claim. You have not actually said anything meaningful. It doesn't matter how many different names you come up with for your god, that is all you have claimed, the existence of a name. You have supplied no more than that word, plus a meaningless assertion.

The burden of proof is not with me. It is not me asserting that beings which no one can see can make stuff.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 22 2011,22:47)

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2011,22:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 22 2011,09:31) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 20 2011,19:53) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 21 2011,10:17) Tell me how, in an overpopulated, overpolluted world where species go extinct all the time, it would be more suited to evolution to NOT kill some of these others who are breathing your air. Can you afford the tuition? I don't pay for snake oil. Do you have an answer or not? The answer is so trivially obvious I thought I might give you the opportunity to work it out for yourself or look it up if you have to, without drawing undue attention to the fact of the baseness of your request. But you appear to be keen to broadcast some lack of subtlety to the world. If you remain unable to work it out, get back to us after you have learned something about how natural selection causes modification and subsequently speciation.  Of course by then you probably will know enough not to have to ask again. Stuart Hi Stuart, Is this a fancy way of saying species created themselves? If so, then how did the first species come into being? You're still at square ZERO without an answer! God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Stuart?

Do have a theory of how first species come into being?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Proclaimer]

Quote

The answer is so trivially obvious I thought I might give you the opportunity to work it out for yourself or look it up if you have to, without drawing undue attention to the fact of the baseness of your request. But you appear to be keen to broadcast some lack of subtlety to the world. If you remain unable to work it out, get back to us after you have learned something about how natural selection causes modification and subsequently speciation.  Of course by then you probably will know enough not to have to ask again. Stuart

Natural selection preserves the species.

When we look back at the fossil record we see sequoias that dwarf that which we see today. Species adapt to different environments and atmospheric conditions. Variety in the gene pool is a design that allows a species to be more robust when change comes along.

But you believe things like a water breathing animal coming out of the water and breathing air and finding a mate where the same mutation happened in the same place at the same time, so that they were able to propagate a new species from there.

Imagine all the other scenarios you must believe?

The only time we have observed the creation of something new was when intelligent beings (humans) played God and played around with the gene pool.

You call yourself intelligent, and yet cannot see that it takes intelligence to create anything of complex design.

You are also ignorant of how God creates using laws that he laid down.

No, for you, rabbits come out of hats. Things happen with processes that have the IQ of zero (that we cannot even fathom) and these processes in turn come from things with the IQ of zero. In short it takes things with the IQ of a pair of gumboots to produce a universe.

Stu you are a citizen of Topsy Turvy Land. Ever thought about immigrating?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2011,05:41)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 22 2011,09:31) Stu,Dec. wrote: [quote=mikeboll64,Dec. 21 2011,10:17]Tell me how, in an overpopulated, overpolluted world where species go extinct all the time, it would be more suited to evolution to NOT kill some of these others who are breathing your air. If you remain unable to work it out, get back to us after you have learned something about how natural selection causes modification and subsequently speciation.  Of course by then you probably will know enough not to have to ask again. Stuart

Do you think this kind of “I'm smarter than you” crap really impresses anyone except for yourself?  If you do, you're sadly mistaken.

Either answer the question DIRECTLY, or admit that you cannot.  Here is the scenario I want you to work out for me:

The owner of two dogs gives the smaller, weaker of the two a bone.  She tells the bigger, stronger dog, “This bone is for Shorty, so leave him alone with it”.

The big dog knows the bone was given to the small dog.  He understands the owner's word “NO!” as he was going for the bone.  But what does the big dog do as soon as the owner retreats back to her house?  Does he think to himself, “This bone belongs to someone weaker than me, so I'll do the right thing and just let Shorty have his bone”?  Or will the bigger dog take what he knows he's powerful enough to take?

With that in mind, please address my point.  Tell me why, knowing full well that you could kill other human beings and take what is theirs, you don't.  To me it makes perfect sense to kill as many others as I can, take their stuff and leave more air, food, and comforts for myself.

But I know that's WRONG.  My question is HOW DO I KNOW THAT'S WRONG?  WHY IS IT EVEN WRONG, since we are just animals applying survival of the fittest?

So once again, please tell me how, in an overpopulated, overpolluted world where species go extinct all the time, it would be more suited to evolution for human beings to NOT kill some of these others who are breathing our air and eating our food?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2011,06:08)

We don’t even know who wrote the gospels, they are anonymous.

Wrong.  Matthew was written by Levi.  John was written by John.  Peter's books were written by Peter.  Paul's books were written by Paul.

Like I said, just because YOU don't believe the eyewitness accounts is not to say there are none.

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2011,06:08)

……..many people are resurrected in scripture.  But no example of resurrection has been observed by any eyewitness, ever.

The scriptures contain the very eyewitness accounts that you say don't exist.  

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2011,06:08)

It is textual analysis that shows there are four or five writers of the material attributed to Moses.

Oh……….  So a man TODAY says there were different writing styles, and now Moses' books are debunked?  

Stu, I'm now 47 years old.  If you compared my writing style from today with my writing style of age 12, or 18, or 24, you would most likely think the writings were written by different people.

Besides, no one is saying that Moses is the one who put pen to paper anyway.  It is likely that he made use of many different scribes.

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2011,06:08)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Not too long ago, archeologists unearthed a clay dish with the family name “Goliath” inscribed on it.  They found it close to Gath. Do you expect me to be impressed by that??

Not at all.  In fact, you responded to it EXACTLY as I thought you would…………feigned indifference.    You keep denying, and like I said, I'll just keep smiling and thinking of you every time a new discovery supports the scriptures.

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2011,06:08)

Yes, facts.  As in things you can reliably know to be true.

Oh, like “the world is flat”?  And “the sun revolves around the earth”?  Aren't these some of the things we use to consider “reliably true”?

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2011,06:08)

And I am not objecting to archeology discovering facts of geography.  The historical events and places were real, the supernatural stories of woo are invented but placed in that real setting.

If the events and places were real (because some man you trust says so), then it is just your belief that the rest was not real.  Stu, your beliefs and a buck fifty might get you a cup of coffee.  The fact is that you cannot possibly DISPROVE anything written in scripture.

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2011,06:08)

Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Prove to me that God AN OMNISCIENT SUPREME BEING did not create everything in existence.  Can you do that, Stu? My question is valid, and your response is nonsense.

   

Bye Stu.  Come see me when you have something more to offer than “I don't want to believe in any God, and so I will try to convince others that there is none, despite the fact that I can't disprove the existence of a Creator.”

The positive is the scriptures themselves.  The burden is on you to either accept them as they are written, or prove them false.

For example, can you prove that God didn't part the Sea of Reeds?  If you can't prove that story to be false, then who really cares that you THINK it is?  

[TimothyVI]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 22 2011,09:38)

Quote (TimothyVI @ Dec. 21 2011,16:06) However neither is justified because your dad happened to be an atheist. But doesn't Pierre growing up with a belief in God, despite an atheistic father, fly in the face of your earlier claim that we all believe what we are taught to believe? What about me?  I grew up going to church 3 times a week, yet never thought the belief in God made any sense.  I was an atheist up until age 44 – about three years ago. What caused me to “be taught” about God at age 44? Your theory has failed, Tim.

Hi Mike,
you missed the whole point.

My theory hasn't failed.
Pierre believes in the Hebrew God because someone told him about that God.

When he decided to believe in a god, if he had been in the middle east it would have been Allah.

You also said, “What about me? I grew up going to church 3 times a week, yet never thought the belief in God made any sense. I was an atheist up until age 44 – about three years ago.
What caused me to be taught about God at age 44?”

Only you know why you decided to believe in god, but
good grief Mike, if you grew up going to church three times a week for 44 years, and now you believe in the Hebrew God, of all the gods!
It must be a miracle. You just made my point.

Tim

[mikeboll64]

Stu or Tim,

Why do you suppose apes don't have the cognitive ability to look to where someone is pointing?

I watched a nature program last week, and it seems that 1 year old humans and canines know to look where someone points. But chimps and apes do not do this.

How did this knowledge get lost on the apes during the evolutionary climb to mankind? Dogs do it. Humans do it. Why not the apes who are supposedly our closest animal relatives?

[TimothyVI]

The apes have learned that if they look away they may get attacked. So they know better than to look at where someone is pointing. Instead they keep their eyes on the one doing the pointing.

That would be my guess.

Tim

[TimothyVI]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 22 2011,09:43)

And Tim, Could you answer what proved to be too hard for Stu?  Could you give me an honest and direct answer to:  WHAT IS YOUR END GAME?  WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO CONVINCE US THAT THERE IS NO GOD?

Hi Mike,

Show me any place where I have tried to convince anyone that there is no God. It is of no importance to me whatsoever to convince anyone that there is no God.

Tim

[Proclaimer]

Only a fool thinks a universe can happen pop out of nowhere with no intervention or intelligent cause.
And saying that there are thousands claiming to be the God is no proof that God doesn't exist. That statement too is foolish. It only proves that men by nature are aware of the existence of God, but do not know who that God is.
Further it is foolish to think that you will not be accountable for your life after you die.

The fact that we exist at all has huge implications that Atheists turn a blind eye toward.

[Author]

Posts