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

[tsig]

That's assuming they grant that theology exists at all. There's a large segment that is downright proud of its ignorance of theology. The argument is "God doesn't exist, therefore theology is all fantasy, therefore it can be ignored".

If god doesn't exist then theology (god knowledge) must be fantasy.

 

[Leumas]

To theists, the given is that God DOES exist.

That's my primary issue with this thread--and the way this board handles religion. People here seem to want to view theism through the eyes of atheism. What you said makes perfect sense TO AN ATHEIST. To a theist is makes as much sense as "The ground doesn't exist, it's just an illusion".

I don't give rat's fuzzy butt what you think or believe; my point is that you need to UNDERSTAND what the other side believes--and simply shoe-horning a few theistic concepts into a fundamentally atheistic worldview doesn't cut it. Jabs like that don't cut it. All they do--all they will ever do--all they CAN POSSIBLY DO--is demonstrate to theists that you are completely unwilling to take them seriously and therefore any discussion with you is a waste of their time. You look as ignorant of theology as a pig does to the theists when you make comments like that and expect to be taken seriously, and who wants to get into a debate with a pig?

 

[wareyin]

Two things.

1) My argument isn't circular. THEIR argument may be, but "They get to say what they believe, not you" is hardly circular. Please do not attribute to me arguments I am relating.

2) Presumption is a specific sin, one which, if you know anything about it, I am clearly not guilty of. Your statements about being able to debate theology without any knowledge thereof because Christ did is very, very close to the line; one would have to be exceedingly careful to avoid crossing it, if in fact it's possible.

You misunderstand. You complained that "... with theology, where any new entrant into the field gets just as much sway as someone who has devoted their life to the matter." and I pointed out that that has been the case with theology for millennia, with but one example.

)Okay. So you based this on the equivalent of "The eye is complex, therefore Godidit." Seriously, this level of "evidence" would not fly in ANY other debate. All I'm doing is calling for maintanence of intellectual standards here. I see no reason to abandon our standards simply because God is involved.

You are calling for different standards when god is involved, while saying there is no reason to do so. The obvious fact is that there are many different religions, with many different religious definitions, and for you to say that no one can evaluate them until all agree is simply ridiculous.

 

[tsig]

There is absolutely no obligation to do so. Hell, there's no obligation to take anything in the Bible seriously at all.

However, if you wish to have any understanding of Christians/Catholics, who DO take the Bible seriously, you are obliged to accept that THEY view Christ as God, which makes him very, VERY different from the average human. In fact, the term "presumption" comes into play regarding your arguments.

And you know this from extensive study of comparative religion, I take it. I'm sure you can point to the coursework you enrolled in, the textbooks involved, and some primary sources for each of the religions you studied?

Or perhaps is this an unvidenced statement?

I'm sure you can point to the coursework you enrolled in, the textbooks involved, and some primary sources for each of the religions you studied?

 

[Dinwar]

You are calling for different standards when god is involved, while saying there is no reason to do so.

No, I'm not. But it's quite obvious that you're unwilling to understand the basic maxim "The other side gets to make their arguments, not you". I'm not sure why I'm surprised anymore, to be honest.

After that political cartoon nonsense, and the complaints that calls for intellectual rigor are unwarranted burdens, and all the rest of this crap, I can only conclude that there's absolutely no interest on the part of this forum (with a few exceptions) of actually having any impact on theists. There's no desire to understand what they believe, and without that you're shooting blind.

 

[pgwenthold]

The Bible was NEVER intended to universally be taken literally. .

Says who?

 

[Hellbound]

Just out of curiosity, can someone raised as a Christian, whose father was a minister, and who completeled college-level courses of bible study in a Christian university say that religion is nonsense?

Have I studied enough to earn the right to say that the religious believe contradictory nonsense generally based on heresay and misinformation, with a buffet-style approach to the bits of scripture they do know to avoid the obvious disconnect between biblical events and reality?

Am I allowed yet, or do I have to get a theology degree?

 

[Leumas]

Not the place to start. The place to start is learning everything we can about the subject matter. What has preceded us? What worked, what didn't?

If we don't do that, we can't claim our experiment is grounded in the topic. We need to construct a hypothesis to test, and a hypothesis we think will usefully inform us either way.

I seem to remember an old post of mine that addresses the above on the nose

Whatever things in the Bible that do not tally with what you can see are the facts of reality and consequently are causing you Cognitive Dissonance (CD), then those must be metaphors and allegories.

Additionally, if you do not even know what the metaphors and allegories are for or what they mean that is because they are not targeted at modern audiences and should be understood by regressing your mindset to the framework of paleo-societies from the benighted miserable ages of human preadolescence.

Furthermore, if all the above Cognitive Dissonance Assuaging Casuistries (CDAC) do not in fact alleviate your CD then remember that to really understand what the Bible says you cannot just rely on translations but you must also learn long dead paleo-languages.

If you really do not want to spend your life learning Paleo-Sociology and Paleo-Languages and Paleo-Claptrap then just take it upon faith that the foppish coxcombical sycophantic poltroons working in the services of despotic raping and pillaging brigands, Kings and Emperors knew what the Bible really says and accept their word for it.
After all look at them in the first picture below…. don’t you think they look like they know exactly what the omnipotent omnipresent omniscient omnibenevolent creator of all things was doing and saying after he slithered out from between the legs of a 13 years old girl descendant of a cowardly Babylonian Illegal Immigrant with whom HE made an indissoluble real estate contract sealed by having the wife-pimping poltroon snip off the tip of his penis along with the penises of his slaves and children and descendants for ever?
Who else is better suited than the fops below to tell us what the Bible really says except perhaps the guys in the second picture …. But I am sure it is not the guys in the third picture?

 

[Leumas]

You misunderstand. You complained that "... with theology, where any new entrant into the field gets just as much sway as someone who has devoted their life to the matter." and I pointed out that that has been the case with theology for millennia, with but one example.

All you need is to convince enough people that their god is speaking to you and presto... you have all the authority you need... after all it is coming straight from the horse's jackass' mouth.....which by the way is where all the other so called authority came from in the first place.

History is replete with ignoramuses/hucksters claiming divine free-will cancellation (revelation) and millions of benighted desperate wretches believing them and hailing them as divine saviors.

It is a shame that in this day and age of electronics and space flight and genome deciphering and nuclear reactors and internet and iGadgets that people are still wretched and benighted enough to still believe in the ramblings and gobbledygook of the previous ones (or even worse the new ones) who at least had an excuse for their benightedness other than WILLFULL IGNORANCE.

 

[tsig]

Makes as much sense as rejecting God with no examination. The question is more about just what an examination might be like. Is it enough to think about it for a few minutes, say, "It makes no sense to me" and call oneself a good and noble skeptic?

How about 50 years? Would that be enough?

 

[Leumas]

No, I'm not. But it's quite obvious that you're unwilling to understand the basic maxim "The other side gets to make their arguments, not you". I'm not sure why I'm surprised anymore, to be honest.

After that political cartoon nonsense, and the complaints that calls for intellectual rigor are unwarranted burdens, and all the rest of this crap, I can only conclude that there's absolutely no interest on the part of this forum (with a few exceptions) of actually having any impact on theists. There's no desire to understand what they believe, and without that you're shooting blind.

Are Christians willing to bend over backwards as much as you seem to advocate to accommodate the Mayan religions or Islam or Hinduism? Are you?

Does anyone today take seriously anyone who says that he believes in Zeus and Athena and that we ought to consider the possible validity of necromancers and child sacrifice to bring about favorable winds?

So why should we take Christianity any more seriously than the Iliad or Jason and the Argonauts as valid paths to any gods?

Did any Christians study ancient Greek/Mayan/Eastern/Asian cultures and languages before they decided that Jesus is the one and only path to salvation or did they just accept their inculcations and indoctrinations from the prevalent culture they were born in?

Did Bible thumpers take courses in Comparative religions to 600/700 levels before they concluded that the Bible is the only book worthy of thumping?

 

[tsig]

To theists, the given is that God DOES exist.

That's my primary issue with this thread--and the way this board handles religion. People here seem to want to view theism through the eyes of atheism. What you said makes perfect sense TO AN ATHEIST. To a theist is makes as much sense as "The ground doesn't exist, it's just an illusion".

I don't give rat's fuzzy butt what you think or believe; my point is that you need to UNDERSTAND what the other side believes--and simply shoe-horning a few theistic concepts into a fundamentally atheistic worldview doesn't cut it. Jabs like that don't cut it. All they do--all they will ever do--all they CAN POSSIBLY DO--is demonstrate to theists that you are completely unwilling to take them seriously and therefore any discussion with you is a waste of their time. You look as ignorant of theology as a pig does to the theists when you make comments like that and expect to be taken seriously, and who wants to get into a debate with a pig?

Seems like you need to practice what you preach and try to understand the atheists side.

Hint, it is not your straw atheist version.

ETA: Is calling others pigs part of that understanding?

 

[marplots]

How about 50 years? Would that be enough?

More than enough. Too much, maybe.

 

[tsig]

Just out of curiosity, can someone raised as a Christian, whose father was a minister, and who completeled college-level courses of bible study in a Christian university say that religion is nonsense?

Have I studied enough to earn the right to say that the religious believe contradictory nonsense generally based on heresay and misinformation, with a buffet-style approach to the bits of scripture they do know to avoid the obvious disconnect between biblical events and reality?

Am I allowed yet, or do I have to get a theology degree?

A chair of theology at a major university would seem to be the minimum required here.

Right after I get one I will also get one in fiberology so I can understand the weaving of the Emperor's new clothes.

 

[Leumas]

A chair of theology at a major university would seem to be the minimum required here.

Right after I get one I will also get one in fiberology so I can understand the weaving of the Emperor's new clothes.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The prologue does not explain how mass murder is the act of a loving god, either. If you can't state it in your own words, I'm not wasting any more time reading more.

I think Dinwar's "explanation" is that, to an entity such as God, mass murder isn't the horrific action that it is to us mere mortals. To such an entity, mass murdering his creations is no worse than an adult spanking a child.

I have a couple problems with that, though:

1) it treats the entire human race as a single entity, punishing the innocent (how many infants died in the biblical flood?) along with the guilty, which kind of goes against the notion that God cares about each of us on an individual level.

2) it admits that either a) God is fallible and these punishments are to correct the undesirable outcomes of a flawed creation, b) God is powerless to save even the worst of us, or c) that these punishments are part of his divine plan, making the whole thing seem rather sadistic.

Why is any of that deserving of our worship?

 

[marplots]

I think Dinwar's "explanation" is that, to an entity such as God, mass murder isn't the horrific action that it is to us mere mortals. To such an entity, mass murdering his creations is no worse than an adult spanking a child.

I have a couple problems with that, though:

1) it treats the entire human race as a single entity, punishing the innocent (how many infants died in the biblical flood?) along with the guilty, which kind of goes against the notion that God cares about each of us on an individual level.

2) it admits that either a) God is fallible and these punishments are to correct the undesirable outcomes of a flawed creation, b) God is powerless to save even the worst of us, or c) that these punishments are part of his divine plan, making the whole thing seem rather sadistic.

Why is any of that deserving of our worship?

If the soul is eternal, death has a bit of a different meaning.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If the soul is eternal, death has a bit of a different meaning.

Yeah, you get to remember the horror of your death for eternity. Very compassionate.

 

[marplots]

Yeah, you get to remember the horror of your death for eternity. Very compassionate.

That's an interesting doctrine. I haven't heard that one before.

 

[Leumas]

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.

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.

Well said....exactly right.

If god had anything to do with the bible - whether authoring it directly or inspiring it to the writers who just jotted down what he was inspiring them with or even general inspirational outlines after which he left the writers to fill in the blanks - s/he/it should have at the very least ensured its correctness and comprehensibility if not also its continued validity along the ages.

Never mind the consideration that the Bible being in any way "divinely related" is automatic interference with free-will.

But if there is any divine spark in the Bible then either this divinity is the most incompetent fool or the most heinous devil.

And all this talk about metaphor and mistranslation and interpolation or missing bits or scribal slips should not pass muster with anyone who is not trying to alleviate a most severe cognitive dissonance.

If an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent being is involved in giving humanity a book that is supposed to convey his wishes and commandments and moral edicts as the path to ETERNAL SALVATION then the book should be utterly and totally comprehensible to anyone who reads it even if the pages were in fact BLANK PAGES let alone in the right language or correctly transcribed.

Even if the pages were EMPTY this divine book should convey the correct message to its onlookers.

And the message conveyed should be RELEVANT to the reader's culture and epoch as well as current knowledge of reality.

Even if some scribe slipped or mistranslated or deliberately forged it, the MIRACULOUS words should be self-correcting.... in fact there should not be a need for words in the first place.... the DIVINE book should miraculously show the words in the correct language and so forth to its reader.

Of course that is assuming that the Divinity is in fact omnipotent and omniscient but above all omnibenevolent.

If a divinity wanted to cause strife and mayhem and schisms and atrocities between humans throughout the ages I doubt he could have done any better than the Bible/Quran.

So if this divinity is in fact A DEVIL then yes the Bible is his book.

Consider this funny story of what may have occurred on a sleepy afternoon eons ago:

The scene: God and Satan are discussing the design of humans on a dull afternoon.

G: I am going to create humans and give them wisdom and goodness and they will love me.

S: So you are going to make them worship you?

G: No...that defeats the purpose... They will do it out of reverence to me.

S: Ah....but that is no good either. They can't help but revere you if they know you and see you.

G: Yeah....isn't that the point?

S: Not really.... that doesn't prove anything if they love you just because you do things for them and they can see you as a guardian and protector. They would be morons if they don't and YOU cannot create morons can you?

G: No... I cannot create morons...you are right. But Hmmmmm....you are right. How can I test that they would love me for me and not for the things I do for them?

S: If I may suggest something?

G: Well....go ahead!

S: I think that you should NEVER EVER show yourself to them. If before they go extinct they have come to conclude that you are THE GOD then that shows they were sufficiently clever and a testament to your creative wisdom.

G: OK…. I will just help them ANONYMOUSLY.

S: Oh no....that won't do. If you help them that would be a dead give away...no?

G: Ok...then I will just make sure no calamities would ever befall them.

S: Oh...no that won't do either…. What kind of test is that? If nothing bad happens despite which they loved you then what kind of character test is that?

G: Hmmm....ok... I will just let them be on their own and if they grow to love me then we know they loved me for me and not just because I helped them out.

S: But that is not enough.

G: What now....what else do you want me to do.

S: Well....One has a choice only if one has things to choose from. If there are no other temptations how can we know that they chose at all? We need to tempt them away from you and if they resist then we know how clever they are.

G: I don't like this. After all I love them and you now have me rain hell on them and not help them and then you want me to also DECEIVE them too?

S: Well....it is up to you....but if you really want to be sure!

G: What do you propose then?

S: Here are my rules for the bet:

• You leave them all alone. You never show yourself or manifest any sign or indication of your existence.
• They are to be left to fend for themselves against all natural disasters and diseases and so forth.
• Every now and then, I will make sure to pretend to be some God and try to convince man to worship me as if I am the real god. I will also make sure that I do that many times in various places at the same time.
• Let’s say I do that for 10 million years.
• At the end of that time, if there are any humans who are not fooled by the myriad of godly disguises and are in fact not worshiping any of these disguises then YOU win.
• I get to keep the souls of the ones that fall for my shams. YOU get the ATHEISTS.

G: Even the atheists that are killers and rapists? What about the theists that are good and their only fault is that they fell for the ruses?

S: Well….what do you want?

G: Any people who harm other people and have made any others miserable you get whether they fell for your ruses or not. Any ones that have been kind and never intentionally or directly harmed anyone I get whether they fell for your ruses or not.

S: That is not fair. I should get all the ones that worshiped me in any guise regardless. After all I can make a case that by worshiping my hoaxes they wasted valuable time that they could have better devoted to other tasks that could have benefited humanity more.

G: Look…. I don’t like you taking ANY souls. What are you going to do with them anyway… No…. my decision is final. I agree to all your proposals EXCEPT let’s just have it so that all people who die just stay that way….except for the ones that do bad stuff….them… you get to torture for a million year and then extinguish.

S: So even the good ones just die?

G: Yes…all just die but for the bad ones whom you get for a million years and then you extinguish them and we are done.

S: So….let’s be clear about the terms:

• You never ever interfere or show your face.
• I get to do what I want.
• If by the end of 10 million years there are good atheists….you win….otherwise you lose.

G: OK….you are on……

S: How many matches do you want to play?​