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

[Brian-M]

The Bible was NEVER intended to universally be taken literally. Biblical literalism is a modern concept. However, it is seriously wrong to conclude that just because it's not literal, it therefore can mean anything--non-literal DOES NOT mean "without meaning". Poetry is non-literal, but has a specific meaning. "Animal Farm" is non-literal, but it would be extremely moronic to say that it therefore is an alegory of food packing plants. Portions of the Bible were clearly not meant to be literal, but they are acknowledged to have specific meanings.

On the other hand, many parts of the Bible are clearly intended to be taken literally, such as the Laws and Commands.

Such as the parts that say it's okay to own (and non-lethally beat) slaves, to kill people who curse their parents, to kill people who make sacrifices to other gods, ect.

 

[tsig]

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

Yes, it's the portal of entry to eternal suffering.

 

[John Jones]

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?

I think you are becoming overwrought with ambiguity about this subject. Take a break, FFS.

 

[epepke]

Meh. Before proving that God exists, describe what God is.

 

[Trakar]

Says who?

Are you familiar with the techniques of hermeneutics?

 

[Pup]

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?

I think it depends on one's goal. If the goal is to convince the theist that their god doesn't exist, yes, one needs to use all the manipulation and salesmanship techniques available, including learn as much about the other person and their mindset as possible, and even then it probably won't work, any more than the theist could convince the atheist to start believing in a god after a single conversation.

But I have to admit I'm selfish and in a conversation with a theist, I'm more interested in seeing if they have a god I could believe was real, or if not, where the logical fallacies are. In that case, it seems reasonable to ask questions about evidence, point out contradictory passages in their holy book and ask how one reconciles them, that kind of thing.

 

[Leumas]

Are you familiar with the techniques of hermeneutics?

Biblical Hermeneutics:

The wretched and pathetic attempts at picking up a soiled and filthy sandwich right out of a sewer then sifting through it to discard as much as possible of the nasty bits and pieces in order to be able to withstand eating it out of desperation and then when a missed crunchy bit happens to come between the teeth, to explain it away as a metaphor for a raisin and even when the stench of its fetid true nature reeks right up one’s nostrils to delude oneself that it is only the smell of a topnotch well aged quality blue cheese.​

Blue Cheese

The smell of this food is due both to the mould and to types of bacteria encouraged to grow on the cheese: for example, the bacterium Brevibacterium linens is responsible for the smell of many blue cheeses,[1] as well as foot odour and other human body odours.​

 

[wareyin]

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.

Can you point out where I have attempted to make any arguments for the other side? Since I have not, I don't know why you need to remind me of such.

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.

Can you point to any complaints that calls for intellectual rigor are unwarranted burdens? I don't see any, and it sure would not look good for you to make something like that up right after saying "The other side gets to make their arguments, not you".

 

[wareyin]

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?

Dinwar added an explanatory eta after I had posted my question, which your points are valid towards as well. Further, his analogy ignored the fact that the US was at war with the country it bombed, while god was not at war during the flood, or Sodom and Gahmora. Acts of war are not "punishment". On top of that, the USA is not the nation of love, or a loving nation, contrasted with the biblical and Christian claims that god is a loving god. Finally, killing those innocent of any wrongdoing is not punishment, akin to a loving parent punishing a child with a spanking. A child learns right from wrong from a spanking (in theory), but not from being killed.

 

[wareyin]

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?

It seems quite silly for Dinwar to say that one is not allowed to evaluate religious claims unless one has devoted one's life to studying them. It seems even sillier to assume that no one who criticizes religious claims has studied them. If the criticism has merit, it does not matter what religious qualifications the critic has. Kind of an opposite but equal fallacy to argument from authority, I think.

 

[tsig]

Are you familiar with the techniques of hermeneutics?

Are you going to do some?

 

[Hellbound]

Well, I think there is some merit to Dinwars stance. We should understand the claims of those we're arguing against. How often do we reply to the creationist that he needs to understand evolution to argue against it, ot to the anti-vaxxer that they need to understand the science, or to the "Einstein is wrong" crowd that they need to understand relativity?

That being said, the insistance that we should be addressing the arguments put forth by clergy and theologians is, quite frankly, nonsense. Those stances are very rarely the stances held by the rank-and-file religious, especially in the Protestent-heavy U.S. While the Catholic Church might be the single largest church, even in the U.S., it's a drop in the bucket next to the hundreds of denominations of Baptist, Adventist, Mormon, Pentecostal, and so forth. And, quite frankly, these simple arguments are what is brought out by a large majority of their followers, and even many of their clergy and ministers.

I find it akin to saying that we should be ashamed for arguing against someone's misinterpretation of a particular bit of science, because the scientisits actually believe something different.

There are times and places to address the actual theologians view, but it's not every time.

 

[wareyin]

Well, I think there is some merit to Dinwars stance. We should understand the claims of those we're arguing against. How often do we reply to the creationist that he needs to understand evolution to argue against it, ot to the anti-vaxxer that they need to understand the science, or to the "Einstein is wrong" crowd that they need to understand relativity?

Dinwar is not asking for people to understand religion before they argue against it, Dinwar asked for proof that one has extensively studied religion before any criticism of religion will deserve a response.

That being said, the insistance that we should be addressing the arguments put forth by clergy and theologians is, quite frankly, nonsense. Those stances are very rarely the stances held by the rank-and-file religious, especially in the Protestent-heavy U.S. While the Catholic Church might be the single largest church, even in the U.S., it's a drop in the bucket next to the hundreds of denominations of Baptist, Adventist, Mormon, Pentecostal, and so forth. And, quite frankly, these simple arguments are what is brought out by a large majority of their followers, and even many of their clergy and ministers.

I find it akin to saying that we should be ashamed for arguing against someone's misinterpretation of a particular bit of science, because the scientisits actually believe something different.

There are times and places to address the actual theologians view, but it's not every time.

I find it odd that Dinwar seems to assume that Baptist, Adventist, Mormon, Pentecostal, Catholic, and so forth Christian theologians will all have the same views or religious definitions.

 

[Rincewind]

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?

you've probably suffered enough...

 

[Hellbound]

you've probably suffered enough...

LOL!

Tell me about it.

In the category of delicious irony, though, it was the year-long college-level study of the bible that cemented my atheism.

Seeing what all was actually in there pretty much sealed the deal.

 

[Trakar]

Are you going to do some?

I understand and am familiar with the process, the point being, this is the accepted theological process for understanding and interpreting scripture. Again, I'm not arguing that it is the standard applied by most Christian rank and file, or even all Christian clergy, but it is a method of exegesis that is consistent and true to the basic tenets of the primary modern Christian denominations.

Does it reveal a Christianity that will convert the resolute unbeliever or silence all arguments against it? Of course not, but then you are making arguments that counter, or at the least effectively address, the fundamental issues that are the kernel of actual Christian faith and belief, instead of merely swatting the cartoon caricatures presented by literalist perversions.

 

[marplots]

I understand and am familiar with the process, the point being, this is the accepted theological process for understanding and interpreting scripture. Again, I'm not arguing that it is the standard applied by most Christian rank and file, or even all Christian clergy, but it is a method of exegesis that is consistent and true to the basic tenets of the primary modern Christian denominations.

Does it reveal a Christianity that will convert the resolute unbeliever or silence all arguments against it? Of course not, but then you are making arguments that counter, or at the least effectively address, the fundamental issues that are the kernel of actual Christian faith and belief, instead of merely swatting the cartoon caricatures presented by literalist perversions.

This is my complaint as well. Skeptics who use the equivalent of the "crocoduck" as if it had merit are making the same category of mistake creationists often do. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

If I hear that bit about iron chariots one more time my head will explode.

 

[Hellbound]

This is my complaint as well. Skeptics who use the equivalent of the "crocoduck" as if it had merit are making the same category of mistake creationists often do. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

If I hear that bit about iron chariots one more time my head will explode.

No.

Because no sceptics point to the mythical crocoduck as being proof of evolution.

Yet the religious point to many of these rediculous arguments as if they were proof.

If we were posting pictures of crocoducks to prove evolution, the creationsists would be absolutely correct to point out that it's fake, the picture is photoshopped, thre are no examples of crocoducks in nature, etc. Just because scientists don't make those arguments is immaterial.

 

[marplots]

No.

Because no sceptics point to the mythical crocoduck as being proof of evolution.

Yet the religious point to many of these rediculous arguments as if they were proof.

If we were posting pictures of crocoducks to prove evolution, the creationsists would be absolutely correct to point out that it's fake, the picture is photoshopped, thre are no examples of crocoducks in nature, etc. Just because scientists don't make those arguments is immaterial.

Hunh. Was my post that unclear?
I'm too lazy to fix the misunderstanding, but maybe someone else will bother.

Here's a hint: My use of the word "category."

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I attended a Lutheran Church school growing up, where Bible studies and weekly church attendance were part of the curriculum. I've studied the Bible independently for years, and I've taken college-level courses on comparative religion and Bible studies. Is that enough to say that I understand the theistic worldview enough to comment on and criticize it? And when can I expect theists to try to understand me?

BTW most theists I know don't go around spouting "proofs" that God exists as a fundamental basis for their faith.