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

[Leumas]

Here's the problem, or at least the problem I see. A Christian says he (or she) believes in the Bible. Okay. But it turns out that he only believes in certain parts, and ignores or explains away other parts as not relevant, and considers yet other parts allegorical. Okay, that's fine too.

But then he makes the argument that atheists don't have any moral code to guide them and therefore there's nothing to prevent them from stealing, raping, murdering, etc.

The Christian doesn't realize that if he changes the Bible's literal words to suit what he believes is right, he doesn't have a moral code to guide him either, at least not an external one. He's relying on the same internal decision-making and conscience that atheists do, and using that to decide which parts of the Bible to accept or reject.

Another problem:

Bible believers from the moment they managed to usurp power burned and tortured anyone who contradicted anything in the bible for as long as they could get away with it.

Now they no longer have the power to burn people for showing the errors of the bible in almost all fields of knowledge.

Now they cannot SILENCE any exposers of the Bible for the claptrap it is.

So what to do?

Aha.... it is not really saying what you are saying it is saying.

If you insist that it is saying that then you are just as fundamentalist as the fundamentalists.

Any bit that now we know is rubbish must have been allegory or metaphor or erroneously interpolated or copied or badly translated or you are just not considering it in the light of the cultural context it was meant for.

How do you know which bits are to be discarded or reinterpreted?

Aha....simple.... any bit that you can prove or show is scientifically or morally embarrassing and we cannot stop you exposing it!

What about the other bits.... how do you know they are not just as OBSOLETE?

Aha... simple again.... any bit with which we STILL can bamboozle enough morons into worshiping THE LORD and keep them coming to our churches fleecing barns!

Also do not forget.... not all Christians are real Christians and there are many different kinds of Christianity but it is all about loving thy neighbor....but of course not those homos or abortionists or Latin Americans who are all Mexicans or those darned Darwinists and Mohammedans and Fundamentalist Atheists or Dawkinists.

 

[Olowkow]

Here's the problem, or at least the problem I see. A Christian says he (or she) believes in the Bible. Okay. But it turns out that he only believes in certain parts, and ignores or explains away other parts as not relevant, and considers yet other parts allegorical. Okay, that's fine too.

But then he makes the argument that atheists don't have any moral code to guide them and therefore there's nothing to prevent them from stealing, raping, murdering, etc.

The Christian doesn't realize that if he changes the Bible's literal words to suit what he believes is right, he doesn't have a moral code to guide him either, at least not an external one. He's relying on the same internal decision-making and conscience that atheists do, and using that to decide which parts of the Bible to accept or reject.

Precisely. As Matt Dillahunty is fond of saying, "I'm more moral than your god." Why is this so difficult for the religious to understand? I'm convinced that certain theists I know are sincerely unable to process this concept. I asked someone once whether he doesn't find it a bit demeaning to have to ask god whether he should do something or not.

 

[jimbob]

Yes, but these are different arguments to the one about whether a significant number people who accept the Nicene Creed also accept evolution and conventional cosmology.

 

[Dinwar]

Here's the problem, or at least the problem I see. A Christian says he (or she) believes in the Bible. Okay. But it turns out that he only believes in certain parts, and ignores or explains away other parts as not relevant, and considers yet other parts allegorical. Okay, that's fine too.

But then he makes the argument that atheists don't have any moral code to guide them and therefore there's nothing to prevent them from stealing, raping, murdering, etc.

The Christian doesn't realize that if he changes the Bible's literal words to suit what he believes is right, he doesn't have a moral code to guide him either, at least not an external one. He's relying on the same internal decision-making and conscience that atheists do, and using that to decide which parts of the Bible to accept or reject.

This is a fairly huge non-sequitor. You are ignoring the role of the clergy in Christianity--which is the equivalent of trying to diagnose a car problem while ignoring the engine. While most denominations now accept that individuals can interpret the Bible for themselves (a bit of a controversy in its day), most folks in my experience still accept that those who have devoted their lives to studying the Bible know more about it than they do. They go to an electritian for electrical questions, a plumber for pipe questions, a mechanic for car questions, and a priest for theology questions. They go to mass every week (sometimes multiple times a week) in part to learn the priest's guidance on issues. They don't mindlessly accept the priest's interpretation (again, as far as I've seen), but they generally accept that they're more knowledgeable on these issues. Because, you know, that's the clergy's job.

Again, this is an attempt to fit one or two theistic concepts into a fundamentally atheistic worldview. To truly understand the theists--and therefore to have any hope of actually convincing them of anything--you have to accept that they start with a fundamentally theistic worldview, and the consequent differences.

 

[tsig]

This is a fairly huge non-sequitor. You are ignoring the role of the clergy in Christianity--which is the equivalent of trying to diagnose a car problem while ignoring the engine. While most denominations now accept that individuals can interpret the Bible for themselves (a bit of a controversy in its day), most folks in my experience still accept that those who have devoted their lives to studying the Bible know more about it than they do. They go to an electritian for electrical questions, a plumber for pipe questions, a mechanic for car questions, and a priest for theology questions. They go to mass every week (sometimes multiple times a week) in part to learn the priest's guidance on issues. They don't mindlessly accept the priest's interpretation (again, as far as I've seen), but they generally accept that they're more knowledgeable on these issues. Because, you know, that's the clergy's job.

Again, this is an attempt to fit one or two theistic concepts into a fundamentally atheistic worldview. To truly understand the theists--and therefore to have any hope of actually convincing them of anything--you have to accept that they start with a fundamentally theistic worldview, and the consequent differences.

Electricity, plumbing and cars are real, god is not that's why you can tell if a tradesman knows his trade, how can you tell if a theologian knows his trade?

If a mechanic told me the engine was blown and another said no, the tires are shot and a third said it's obvious that your drive shaft is missing I would question their competency but theologians can disagree over the basics and never get called on it.

BTW, have you ever found a good theological argument? I asked you many threads ago but never got an answer.

 

[Trebuchet]

It's interesting how long this thread has gone on pages after the OP has cut and run. EG3K reminds me quitet a bit of this guy: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ken_deMyer. Is anyone able to see his IP? Does it resolve to Buffalo, NY?

 

[Son of Inigo]

You don't see any contradiction with a god who wants to stay hidden to protect our free will yet also sends a book to tell us all about him?

Whether the pain god inflicts in hell is mental or physical is irrelevant.

Yes. That contradiction is what started me on my journey toward rationality. I could not deal with it anymore. Oh, I tried ID for a while, but the contradiction was still there although it was papered over and not so glaring.

Any bit that now we know is rubbish must have been allegory or metaphor or erroneously interpolated or copied or badly translated or you are just not considering it in the light of the cultural context it was meant for

And another 'contradiction' I could not reconcile. If the bible is god's true word, then why is it not relevant for all cultures and for all times? Why would god be that ambiguous? Why would it not be clear what he meant, no matter how it was translated?

The crap about 'testing your faith' is absurd! And I want to worship him/her/it why? Either the bible stands as god's spoken true word or it does not, for all time, and all cultures.

 

[marplots]

And another 'contradiction' I could not reconcile. If the bible is god's true word, then why is it not relevant for all cultures and for all times? Why would god be that ambiguous? Why would it not be clear what he meant, no matter how it was translated?

The crap about 'testing your faith' is absurd! And I want to worship him/her/it why? Either the bible stands as god's spoken true word or it does not, for all time, and all cultures.

God doesn't meet your expectations? I bet He's disappointed.

 

[Resume]

deleted

 

[Resume]

God doesn't meet your expectations? I bet He's disappointed.

I hope he's not disappointed because last time he was, he got up to some real vile ****. Come to think of it, every time he gets disappointed he gets up to vile ****.

No wonder folks are disappointed in him.

It's almost as is he were made in our image and not the vicey-versa.

 

[marplots]

I hope he's not disappointed because last time he was, he got up to some real vile ****. Come to think of it, every time he gets disappointed he gets up to vile ****.

No wonder some folks are disappointed in him.

In the grand scheme of things, I think God has the better cards.

I recently noticed how disappointed my dog is with my "walkees" policy. Apparently, I'm letting the dog down by not going as often, nor to the places the dog wishes to go. And I must be a cruel and uncaring pet owner, since none of this keeps me up at night.

It's a pretty big bucket of hubris to sit in judgement of God. Can we do gravity next? Cause I've had some real disappointments with gravity when coupled with hard, slippery surfaces.

 

[Resume]

In the grand scheme of things, I think God has the better cards.

****, he has all the cards. No wonder he gets bored and dicks with people like they're . . . dogs or something.

 

[Resume]

It's a pretty big bucket of hubris to sit in judgement of God. Can we do gravity next? Cause I've had some real disappointments with gravity when coupled with hard, slippery surfaces.

It's like being an internet tough guy; not much of a probability of retaliation. In life, as in reality, once you sign off, you sign off.

 

[Dinwar]

God doesn't meet your expectations? I bet He's disappointed.

A valid point. God seems to be the only thing where "This disgusts me, therefore it can't exist" counts as a logically sound argument. The concept of parasites that manipulate the brains/minds of their hosts disgusts me beyond words, but that in no way disproves their existence. Those things exist, and my reaction to them is 100% irrelevant to their existence. Yet for some reason, God is treated differently.

The fact is that God either exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, it has certain properties. THAT is the important thing. Our feelings about those properties are as irrelevant to theology as they are to biology. And ironically, pretty much everyone accepts this besides Skeptics.

 

[marplots]

****, he has all the cards. No wonder he gets bored and dicks with people like they're . . . dogs or something.

Sit. Stay. Quit pooping in my house or I'll have you put down. Love me, be loyal, and, just for my convenience, I'm going to cut your balls off.

Oh yeah, we love our pets.

 

[Resume]

Sit. Stay. Quit pooping in my house or I'll have you put down. Love me, be loyal, and, just for my convenience, I'm going to cut your balls off.

Oh yeah, we love our pets.

I don't keep pets.

 

[marplots]

A valid point. God seems to be the only thing where "This disgusts me, therefore it can't exist" counts as a logically sound argument. The concept of parasites that manipulate the brains/minds of their hosts disgusts me beyond words, but that in no way disproves their existence. Those things exist, and my reaction to them is 100% irrelevant to their existence. Yet for some reason, God is treated differently.

The fact is that God either exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, it has certain properties. THAT is the important thing. Our feelings about those properties are as irrelevant to theology as they are to biology. And ironically, pretty much everyone accepts this besides Skeptics.

It's a puzzler for sure. In all other areas, we honor the scientific method where primacy is given to discovering how a thing may be. Not God. I bring my own God box into the discussion and, if He don't fit, it's God's bad.

 

[marplots]

I don't keep pets.

You ought to get one or two. For the theology.

A child would do as well, save for all the laws in place to prevent us from acting quite as God-like as we otherwise would.

 

[Pup]

This is a fairly huge non-sequitor. You are ignoring the role of the clergy in Christianity--which is the equivalent of trying to diagnose a car problem while ignoring the engine.

Most of the Christians I interact with seem to be able to state with some confidence what's allegorical, obsolete, etc., as if it was something they thought of on their own but if they're being taught such by their clergy, then doesn't that just move the problem back one step? How does the clergy know? Most religions (maybe all?) have made policy changes over the years that fit with current society, so it seems that even up to the highest levels, social pressure is as important as what God wants, or God is affected by human social pressure, or God wants humans to follow social pressure, or the more obvious explanation, churches go along with social pressure about women, blacks, clothing, etc. just like any club.

 

[wareyin]

A valid point. God seems to be the only thing where "This disgusts me, therefore it can't exist" counts as a logically sound argument. The concept of parasites that manipulate the brains/minds of their hosts disgusts me beyond words, but that in no way disproves their existence. Those things exist, and my reaction to them is 100% irrelevant to their existence. Yet for some reason, God is treated differently.

The fact is that God either exists, or it doesn't. If it exists, it has certain properties. THAT is the important thing. Our feelings about those properties are as irrelevant to theology as they are to biology. And ironically, pretty much everyone accepts this besides Skeptics.

What properties does it have? We can see evidence for parasites manipulating the minds of their hosts, but that's just evidence of the clergy.