Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

[Pixel42]

"I don't understand it - therefore NOT God"? .

I do understand the course evolution has taken if I refrain from postulating any kind of divine intervention. It's only when I try to shoe horn God into the process that the necessary mental gymnastics defeat me.

 

[Trakar]

My answer to that is why does god lie? If you believe the god of the bible, then he does not lie. I do not wish to worship a god that lies. By the bible, god created us in his image, our ability to observe and interpret those observations comes from him. He created in us the ability to reason, but created a universe that our observations tell us is radically different than his infallible spoken word. That is dishonest. That is not the god of the bible.

So, either the god of the bible is dishonest, or he does not exist. By my god given reason, I choose to believe he does not exist, because I do not wish to worship a dishonest being.

Your arguments only apply if you believe the Bible to be literally and inerrantly accurate. The denominations representing the majority of Christians do not hold that all scripture is literal and inerrant.

 

[Trakar]

GWIMW

Before you start attributing things to god you might want to prove it exists.

Compelling evidentiary support for God would restrict free-will and eliminate the need for faith.

 

[Dinwar]

I do understand the course evolution has taken if I refrain from postulating any kind of divine intervention. It's only when I try to shoe horn God into the process that the necessary mental gymnastics defeat me.

There's your problem. You're trying to add God to a fundamentally atheistic worldview. Theists, in contrast, start from a theistic paradigm--they are not adding God into an established world-view, but rather building their world-view around God. These are very different processes.

 

[abaddon]

Your arguments only apply if you believe the Bible to be literally and inerrantly accurate. The denominations representing the majority of Christians do not hold that all scripture is literal and inerrant.

Of course it is inerrant.












Except for the bits I don't agree with. /crackpottery

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Strict Biblical inerrancy, specifically YEC, is actually a relatively new trend.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/bible-inerrant.php

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's your problem. You're trying to add God to a fundamentally atheistic worldview. Theists, in contrast, start from a theistic paradigm--they are not adding God into an established world-view, but rather building their world-view around God. These are very different processes.

You still acting as if both sides are on intellectually equal footing.

I don't have an atheistic world view that I give one toss about adding God to.

I have a rational worldview that I care very deeply about people adding irrational nonsense to.

 

[Dinwar]

You still acting as if both sides are on intellectually equal footing.

No. I act as if the other side gets to say what they say, and determine their own views. To understand them, you have to UNDERSTAND THEM. Part of that is understanding that the process they go through in understanding the world is fundamentally different from the process of "Let's add God to evolution and see if I can get it to make sense". What Pixel42 WILL NOT answer the question "How can Christians/Catholics believe in both God and evolution?" It's impossible--because they are two different processes.

It is a fallacy to equate accepting that other people have a viewpoint with granting equal intellectual footing to both sides. A rational and intelligent person need not accept an argument or world-view in order to understand it, and looses nothing in making an honest effort to understand their opposition's arguments and world-view. In contrast, failure to do so ensures that nothing we say will have any effect. The theists can--with full justification--simply dismiss our arguments as not relevant to their beliefs. Why does a theist care if Pixel42 is incapable of shoe-horning God into evolution? That's not what they do, so the process has no bearing on the issue as far as they are concerned.

If you refuse to understand the difference, you are engaging in extremely poor scholarship, fallacious reasoning, and are every bit as irrational as the folks you accuse of irrationality. The failure to acknowledge the other side's perspective in a debate is a critical failure, one that demonstrates a complete lack of intellectual rigor and a very, VERY shallow understanding of how to actually engage in a debate. Essentially, if you do not acknowledge the other side's views as existing, all you're doing is screaming randomly, which has no more value than white noise when it comes to learning anything or convincing anyone.

 

[tsig]

No. I act as if the other side gets to say what they say, and determine their own views. To understand them, you have to UNDERSTAND THEM. Part of that is understanding that the process they go through in understanding the world is fundamentally different from the process of "Let's add God to evolution and see if I can get it to make sense". What Pixel42 WILL NOT answer the question "How can Christians/Catholics believe in both God and evolution?" It's impossible--because they are two different processes.

It is a fallacy to equate accepting that other people have a viewpoint with granting equal intellectual footing to both sides. A rational and intelligent person need not accept an argument or world-view in order to understand it, and looses nothing in making an honest effort to understand their opposition's arguments and world-view. In contrast, failure to do so ensures that nothing we say will have any effect. The theists can--with full justification--simply dismiss our arguments as not relevant to their beliefs. Why does a theist care if Pixel42 is incapable of shoe-horning God into evolution? That's not what they do, so the process has no bearing on the issue as far as they are concerned.

If you refuse to understand the difference, you are engaging in extremely poor scholarship, fallacious reasoning, and are every bit as irrational as the folks you accuse of irrationality. The failure to acknowledge the other side's perspective in a debate is a critical failure, one that demonstrates a complete lack of intellectual rigor and a very, VERY shallow understanding of how to actually engage in a debate. Essentially, if you do not acknowledge the other side's views as existing, all you're doing is screaming randomly, which has no more value than white noise when it comes to learning anything or convincing anyone.

So it's totally the responsibility of the atheist to understand the theist's viewpoint but the theist has no responsibility to understand the atheist's?

 

[jimbob]

They don't believe Christ died for their sins and was resurrected?

They wouldn't be Christian (to my understanding of the term) if they did not believe these primary tenets. Precisely how those tenets are interpreted and understood by each individual, is really an issue between them and their understanding of God. I, personally, don't feel entitled or qualified to pass judgment upon such personal spiritual interactions, but they all seem to be intelligent, kind, generous and compassionate individuals.

Indeed, that is one reason why I disagree with their beliefs - but it is a common view amongst Christians in Europe at least.

The highlighted bit - one of my Christian colleagues described it as being keener on the New Testament than the Old.

 

[Leumas]

My answer to that is why does god lie? If you believe the god of the bible, then he does not lie. I do not wish to worship a god that lies. By the bible, god created us in his image, our ability to observe and interpret those observations comes from him. He created in us the ability to reason, but created a universe that our observations tell us is radically different than his infallible spoken word. That is dishonest. That is not the god of the bible.

So, either the god of the bible is dishonest, or he does not exist. By my god given reason, I choose to believe he does not exist, because I do not wish to worship a dishonest being.

In fact the Bible states very clearly and assuredly that its god is a lying deceiving racist homicidal infanticidal psychopath.

So it is not a correct statement to say that the god of the bible is not a liar because the bible itself says that he most definitely is a liar and deceiver on top of all the other nasty and heinously despicable characteristics such as threatening people with making them eat their own children if they do not obey him and ordering and participating in the genocide and ethnic cleansing and holocausts of entire cities and countries and populations
.

Your arguments only apply if you believe the Bible to be literally and inerrantly accurate. The denominations representing the majority of Christians do not hold that all scripture is literal and inerrant.

So the majority of Christians believe that the Bible is partly erroneous and incomprehensible? In other words the Bible is full of crap and gobbledygook?

First…. It is absolute codswallop to say that the majority of Christians do not hold that all scripture is literal and inerrant if by scripture you mean the Bible.

Second…. the FEW Christians who do not hold that the Bible is literally inerrant are self-deluding irrational hypocrites who cherry pick the bits they like as literal and inerrant while quite illogically with absolutely no foundations of rationality or coherent thinking decide that the bits they do not like are just metaphors or allegories. When asked what are they allegories for, they have no idea. When asked how they KNOW that these bits are allegories while the others are not, they start giving you the usual and characteristic double-speak and mental gymnastics and illogical contortions.


Third….. The Bible says outright that its god is a liar and deceiver and bringer of evil. The Bible says outright that its god is the most despicably heinous DESPOT who would torture people and make them suffer horrendous agonies (such as having to eat the flesh of their own children) if they do not worship him. The Bible is quite clear about the RACIST BIGOTED PSYCHOPATHIC deity that is supposed to be its god who is jealous of all the other gods and wants to prove to their worshippers how they ought to worship him exclusively if they want to survive.

Compelling evidentiary support for God would restrict free-will and eliminate the need for faith.

He purportedly had no problem with restricting the free will of over 2 million Jews when he supposedly appeared to them and Moses in the desert, nor the Egyptians he tortured and whose children he massacred nor Pharaoh whom he controlled like a puppet just so that he can show off his magic powers , did he?

He allegedly had no compunction in stripping the free will of almost every single mythical character in the fairy tales of the Bible when he supposedly revealed himself to them while ordering them to genocide and ethnically cleanse entire peoples and holding the passage of the sun so that he can afford them more time to accomplish the holocausts with his direct participation in the massacres, did he?

Leviticus 26:29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.

Amos 3:6 “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?”

Ezek 14:9 “And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.”

1 Sam. 16:16 “Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.”

Judges 9:23 “Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech”

2 Chr. 18:22 “Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.”

2 Chr. 34:24, “Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah”

 

[Trakar]

Indeed, that is one reason why I disagree with their beliefs - but it is a common view amongst Christians in Europe at least.

The highlighted bit - one of my Christian colleagues described it as being keener on the New Testament than the Old.

Well, from my understanding, being Christian is all about embracing the new testament teachings and perspectives of the Christ. But there are a lot of fundamentalist evangelicals who seem enthralled with the vengeful precepts of the old testament and become quite uncomfortable with the compassion that fills the new testament.

 

[Trakar]

So the majority of Christians believe that the Bible is partly erroneous and incomprehensible? In other words the Bible is full of crap and gobbledygook?

First…. It is absolute codswallop to say that the majority of Christians do not hold that all scripture is literal and inerrant if by scripture you mean the Bible.

Please quote and reference where I stated that the majority of Christians understand and adhere to the teachings, tenets and precepts of their denomination.

He purportedly had no problem with restricting the free will of over 2 million Jews when he supposedly appeared to them and Moses in the desert, nor the Egyptians he tortured and whose children he massacred nor Pharaoh whom he controlled like a puppet just so that he can show off his magic powers , did he?

He allegedly had no compunction in stripping the free will of almost every single mythical character in the fairy tales of the Bible when he supposedly revealed himself to them while ordering them to genocide and ethnically cleanse entire peoples and holding the passage of the sun so that he can afford them more time to accomplish the holocausts with his direct participation in the massacres, did he?

Only if you believe in a literal an inerrant interpretation of the quoted scriptural passages. The denominations of Christianity which represent the largest memberships of Christianity do not hold such scriptures to be literal and inerrant.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They wouldn't be Christian (to my understanding of the term) if they did not believe these primary tenets. Precisely how those tenets are interpreted and understood by each individual, is really an issue between them and their understanding of God. I, personally, don't feel entitled or qualified to pass judgment upon such personal spiritual interactions, but they all seem to be intelligent, kind, generous and compassionate individuals.

You think all Christians are intelligent, kind, generous and compassionate?

 

[Brian-M]

Well, from my understanding, being Christian is all about embracing the new testament teachings and perspectives of the Christ. But there are a lot of fundamentalist evangelicals who seem enthralled with the vengeful precepts of the old testament and become quite uncomfortable with the compassion that fills the new testament.

Maybe they're just following the teaching of Jesus.

For example...

[quote="Matthew 5:17-20]
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.[/quote]

Given that the earth is still here, then according to Jesus all the old-laws still apply.

Plus, there are Jesus quotes that seem perfectly in-line with the vengeful nature of the OT.
[quote="Matthew 10:34-38]
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.[/quote]

 

[devnull]

Uh....huh. That says it all, doesn't it?

Argument from "sticks n stones"?

 

[Trakar]

Maybe they're just following the teaching of Jesus.

For example...

Given that the earth is still here, then according to Jesus all the old-laws still apply.

Plus, there are Jesus quotes that seem perfectly in-line with the vengeful nature of the OT.

Again, if you believe in a literalist and inerrant interpretation of scripture.

 

[Trakar]

You think all Christians are intelligent, kind, generous and compassionate?

not at all. The "They" being referred to in that quote refers back to the earlier post in that thread

Not all Christians take the "guided" perspective.

To some, the mere act of creating a universe where life such as that we see around us was a possible occurrence is sufficient to rejoice in the wonders of the universe which has resulted from that initial act of creation.

 

[tsig]

Compelling evidentiary support for God would restrict free-will and eliminate the need for faith.

Let's see, god respects my free will so he will not give evidence of his existence but I'm also told he inspired a bible that proves his existence.

Of course if I don't believe in his existence , which he will not give me evidence for, he will send me to hell.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And another rousing game of "There is no conflict between rationality and woo as long as the woo side gets to define what things rationality is allowed to have opinions on, what argumentative and intellectual tactics it is allowed to use, rewrite the definition of both sides as it seems fit, and basically control every aspect of the discussion." apologetics.