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

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, link found. It starts out saying that the traditional translation is wrong, and it was the people of Judah, not God who were thwarted by the chariots of iron. Possibly debatable, but I'll go along with it.

So the reason given for the outcome is that while God was "with" the people of Judah, he wasn't "with" them to the extent of ensuring victory? (And they follow this with speculation about the reasons God might have for being unwilling to ensure victory.)

It seems to me that they're effectively claiming that God was "with" them in the sense of sitting on the sidelines cheering them on, rather than actually participating, which is a somewhat silly claim.

God gets the wins, Judah gets the losses. Nothing new there.

 

[marplots]

It seems to me that they're effectively claiming that God was "with" them in the sense of sitting on the sidelines cheering them on, rather than actually participating, which is a somewhat silly claim.

Does it meet the original "gotcha" though? That the bible shows God isn't omnipowerful and can be resisted by iron chariots?

To me, it seems there are questions worth talking about, but the main point made on the skeptic site isn't really much of a challenge, and I think theists are right in dismissing it as missing the mark.

But, having read the response, do you think the passage in question demonstrates God is not all-powerful, or does the challenge stand?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If a god or gods were all-powerful they would have designed better humans because they could see that the design they genned up was just going to be trouble.

 

[Mister Agenda]

As shown in the quote, I am talking about religious people who believe in supernatural gods as the creators of humans and creators of the universe. And if I digress for a moment - I don't actually know of any "religious" people who do not believe in a supernatural creator.

The Jains spring to mind. The existence of God is moot in some forms of Buddhism, and there are Buddhist atheists. Samkhya Hinduism is atheistic. There are non-credal religions like Unitarian Universalism and the United Church of Christ that don't require belief in God. I know around 20% of the UUs where I attend are atheists. So is the minister. Some polytheistic creation myths don't involve a supernatural creator, but a supernatural event.

If people do claim to be "religious", and yet say they do not believe in a supernatural creator god/God, then they mean something very different by the word "religious" and the word "god/God".

They may mean something different by 'religious', probably something like the anthropoligical defintion of religion to be found in Wikipedia than the brief definition found in most dictionaries. But I don't think it follows that they mean something different by the word 'god/God'.

 

[Trakar]

That's an interesting example, because I had what I suppose could be described as an anti-religious experience when I was about 12. I was praying one night, and I was suddenly filled with the absolute conviction that there was nothing and nobody out there listening; that my words were disappearing into the void. I've never been more certain of anything in my life. It was quite terrifying whilst it lasted.

It was that experience that turned me into an atheist, but it's not the reason I'm an atheist now. The only thing that can be safely concluded from such experiences, whether positive or negative, is that the human mind is a remarkable thing. And I knew that already.

The interesting aspect of this though, is that such subjective experiences can then form the mental filters that subtly (at the least) then shape and categorize future perceptions in a reinforcing manner. I touch upon this in a separate thread discussing how political orientation can not only be formed by genetic and hormonal influences impacting early brain architecture but also through learning changes and early perceptions of impactful events (akin to religious or anti-religious experiences - perhaps), but once established they can shape and filter future experiences in a way which biases future perceptions into reinforcements of the political orientation. It's part of how our brains work. I would be very surprised if issues such as religiosity were not similarly processed.

 

[Dinwar]

I can brag about how many books of theology and comparative religions and philosophy and history of religion and scriptures I have read and I am right now looking at collecting dust on the shelves in my study.

I can brag about how many times I read the bible cover to cover with each reading directed towards a particular theme and as I sift through the NUMEROUS VERSIONS of the bible in FOUR LANGUAGES I can see all the highlights and copious margin-notes and annotations I have done in them.


But all of it is irrelevant..... it is just as meaningful as being an expert on Harry Potterism and having shelves full of books about Harry Potter and different versions of Harry Potter books and in different languages.

In the end it is a meaningless pointless worthless FICTION.... yes I can even take a degree in Literature and specialize in Harry Potter and write my Doctral Thesis about Harry Potter's meaning and significance..... but it is all about a MYTH and FICTION.

It is like Tsig said..... The Emperor's New Clothing.

ETA: In fact Harry Potter is a much more worthy fiction than the Bible.

That's a very long-winded way of saying "I refuse to read your posts, and will continue to argue against things you never said." Why not just go "LALALAI'MNOTLISTENING!!!' instead? It's easier, and takes less typing.

ETA: This is exactly what I mean why I say that this forum tries to view theism from a fundamentally atheistic viewpoint. Leumas' stance makes perfect sense to an atheist; however, TO THEISTS it's nonsense. To start a discussion with a theist with such a premise is to try to view theism from a fundamentally atheistic paradigm--which means the complete abandonment of any attempt to understand one's opponent. Worse, it's a self-ritious rejection of the notion of understanding one's opponent. Such a tactic has precisely zero chance of succeeding. All it can possibly do is allienate pretty much everyone. People who try this nonsense come off as uneducated, arrogant dicks who merely wish to brow-beat people into accepting their personal lord and savi--I mean, their worldview and philosophical stance. The fact that allegedly intelligent and thoughtful people can't understand why that is wrong is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Olowkow]

The only so called arguments for god I've ever heard are childishly vacuous BS, like the infamous Kalam cosmological argument by people like William Lane Craig. Their premise is false, and their conclusions are faulty, and I doubt very much that anyone has ever become a believer solely by hearing these arguments.

• Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
• The universe began to exist;
• Therefore: The universe has a cause.
• Therefore GOD, somehow......

The fact is that there is no proof for god nor any proof that there is no god. Religion is the ultimate security blanket for the insecure, because there is no possible way of falsifying the broad claims, only the specific ones such as miracles and scientific errors in the Bible. However, any such logical arguments are met with claims that one needs faith to overcome these doubts, or "you need to learn theology to understand".

Nasty business, religion. Anyone who has got shed of it is very fortunate indeed, and those still involved, hopefully they live by their own sense of morality rather than that of those annoying iron age pundits.

 

[Hellbound]

That's a very long-winded way of saying "I refuse to read your posts, and will continue to argue against things you never said." Why not just go "LALALAI'MNOTLISTENING!!!' instead? It's easier, and takes less typing.

You see, this is how I view your and marplots insistance that I should be arguing against "real" theological argumnets.

Those are NOT the arguments believers belief. They are not the arguments believers present. Outside the small pecentage that are theologians.

The common misconceptions, the "crocoducks", ARE the reasons most believers give. When in a discussion, I willa rgue the points that are brought up.

What it sounds like is you are insisting that we should, instead, inform the beleiver that he's using the wrong arguments, these over here are the arguments theologians use, then go on to argue those theologian's arguments.

So, should we read/listen to an opponents argument and respond to what they actually argue, or should we instead ingnore what they argue and assign them the same positions as theologians, and argue against that?

 

[Hellbound]

Now, I'm discussing actual conversations/debates with actual believers. I will argue the positions they actually state to me, not some mythical "correct" reasons that they have no clue about and probably don't agree with anyway.

But I realized that you all may be discussing the more general case, where someone begins a discussion on (for example) the problem of evil. In that case, I see nothing wrong with arguing against the common believer-level arguments, but I do agree then that, for it to be meaningful and useful , the discussion shoudl address the higher-level arguments as well. If that's the point that's been trying to get out, it seems to have gone the long way around (like from Nashville to New York by way of Tokyo).

 

[tsig]

That's a very long-winded way of saying "I refuse to read your posts, and will continue to argue against things you never said." Why not just go "LALALAI'MNOTLISTENING!!!' instead? It's easier, and takes less typing.

ETA: This is exactly what I mean why I say that this forum tries to view theism from a fundamentally atheistic viewpoint. Leumas' stance makes perfect sense to an atheist; however, TO THEISTS it's nonsense. To start a discussion with a theist with such a premise is to try to view theism from a fundamentally atheistic paradigm--which means the complete abandonment of any attempt to understand one's opponent. Worse, it's a self-ritious rejection of the notion of understanding one's opponent. Such a tactic has precisely zero chance of succeeding. All it can possibly do is allienate pretty much everyone. People who try this nonsense come off as uneducated, arrogant dicks who merely wish to brow-beat people into accepting their personal lord and savi--I mean, their worldview and philosophical stance. The fact that allegedly intelligent and thoughtful people can't understand why that is wrong is beyond my comprehension.

IOW you have to become a theist to talk to a theist.

If this is beyond your comprehension then perhaps you are not the best person to be giving advice.

 

[Dinwar]

Those are NOT the arguments believers belief. They are not the arguments believers present. Outside the small pecentage that are theologians.

When Creationists wish to disprove evolution, would you be satisfied with them disproving the understanding of an auto mechanic that accecepts evolution as true? If not, apply that same logic to theology and you'll understand my objection to the "let's debate the man in the pew" schtic as a way to disprove God. Obviously you must take the individual you choose to debate into account, and if you choose to debate folks that treat theology as another aspect of the division of intellectual labor that's your choice, but even if you prove all the views of the folks in the pews wrong, you still may not have proven theism wrong--just as you can prove the understanding of evolution held by every auto mechanic wrong, and still not have proven evolution wrong. You want to prove God doesn't exist, you've got to go to the experts--because they're the ones who have actually put the time in to understand what such disproof would actually look like.

Either way, it is still obligatory that you debate THEIR views--which means understanding their views, and acknowledging that their arguments come from a fundamentally different world-view than your own. Leumas can rant and rave as much as he wants about how theology is based on nothing, but because theists believe it IS based on something nothing he says will even make sense to them, much less be convincing. Folks like that are attempting to play solitare with the conversation, and that just doesn't work.

What it sounds like is you are insisting that we should, instead, inform the beleiver that he's using the wrong arguments....

No. Not at all. You have missed the point entirely.

My argument is that you should understand the believer's viewpoint--not just bits and pieces as they are brought up, but that you should have a fundamental understanding of how theists view the world. Part of that is understanding theology--and part of that is, yes, understanding the errors they make in theology. But most importantly, you CANNOT simply take bits in isolation and attempt to disprove them from an atheistic worldview. You need to understand the theistic worldview in order to attack it, because any attempt that doesn't start with such an understanding will inevitably attack something that's not what the person actually believes and therefore will only make you look like an uneducated zealot, the atheistic equivalent of the folks on street corners raving that "The End is nigh!!!!"

 

[tsig]

When Creationists wish to disprove evolution, would you be satisfied with them disproving the understanding of an auto mechanic that accecepts evolution as true? If not, apply that same logic to theology and you'll understand my objection to the "let's debate the man in the pew" schtic as a way to disprove God. Obviously you must take the individual you choose to debate into account, and if you choose to debate folks that treat theology as another aspect of the division of intellectual labor that's your choice, but even if you prove all the views of the folks in the pews wrong, you still may not have proven theism wrong--just as you can prove the understanding of evolution held by every auto mechanic wrong, and still not have proven evolution wrong. You want to prove God doesn't exist, you've got to go to the experts--because they're the ones who have actually put the time in to understand what such disproof would actually look like.

Either way, it is still obligatory that you debate THEIR views--which means understanding their views, and acknowledging that their arguments come from a fundamentally different world-view than your own. Leumas can rant and rave as much as he wants about how theology is based on nothing, but because theists believe it IS based on something nothing he says will even make sense to them, much less be convincing. Folks like that are attempting to play solitare with the conversation, and that just doesn't work.

No. Not at all. You have missed the point entirely.

My argument is that you should understand the believer's viewpoint--not just bits and pieces as they are brought up, but that you should have a fundamental understanding of how theists view the world. Part of that is understanding theology--and part of that is, yes, understanding the errors they make in theology. But most importantly, you CANNOT simply take bits in isolation and attempt to disprove them from an atheistic worldview. You need to understand the theistic worldview in order to attack it, because any attempt that doesn't start with such an understanding will inevitably attack something that's not what the person actually believes and therefore will only make you look like an uneducated zealot, the atheistic equivalent of the folks on street corners raving that "The End is nigh!!!!"

Could you enunciate that theistic worldview that we ought to be addressing?

Do I have to become a theist to debate a theist?

 

[Hellbound]

When Creationists wish to disprove evolution, would you be satisfied with them disproving the understanding of an auto mechanic that accecepts evolution as true?

No, but when I'm arguing with a believer I'm not trying to disprove religion. I'm trying to convince that believer to look into the issues himself and open his mind, for which I don't need to disprove religion, I just need to disprove his beliefs. I don't have to disprove the Vatican's dogma in order to convince Joe Baptist that the roots of his personal faith are incorrect.

If not, apply that same logic to theology and you'll understand my objection to the "let's debate the man in the pew" schtic as a way to disprove God. Obviously you must take the individual you choose to debate into account, and if you choose to debate folks that treat theology as another aspect of the division of intellectual labor that's your choice, but even if you prove all the views of the folks in the pews wrong, you still may not have proven theism wrong--just as you can prove the understanding of evolution held by every auto mechanic wrong, and still not have proven evolution wrong. You want to prove God doesn't exist, you've got to go to the experts--because they're the ones who have actually put the time in to understand what such disproof would actually look like.

I see the disconnect, then. I don't care to prove God doesn't exist, because there's no proof he ever has. I understand that theists take a different view; as I said, I have extensive experience with what theists believe, including experts in the field. I want to convince them to examine their beliefs, not that God doesn't exist. I'm not trying to provide a proof, I'm trying to provide an argument.

Either way, it is still obligatory that you debate THEIR views--which means understanding their views, and acknowledging that their arguments come from a fundamentally different world-view than your own.

And this is exactly what you are instisting I should NOT do...you're telling me I need to debate the expert views, rather than those of the person I'm having a discussion with. Frankly, those expert views are often NOT what the theist believes, and in many cases are contrary to the theists beliefs. Such arguments will NOT convince a believer of anything, because then I'm arguing about ivory tower intellectuals, not the belief of the person I'm talkig with.

Leumas can rant and rave as much as he wants about how theology is based on nothing, but because theists believe it IS based on something nothing he says will even make sense to them, much less be convincing. Folks like that are attempting to play solitare with the conversation, and that just doesn't work.

No. Not at all. You have missed the point entirely.

My argument is that you should understand the believer's viewpoint--not just bits and pieces as they are brought up, but that you should have a fundamental understanding of how theists view the world.

Okay, now you're asking the impossible. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS AMONG THEISTS. There is no universal theistic world view. The way theists view the world, and the reasons for that view, vary from believer to believer. I DO understand this, because I've dealt with believers and belief both in myself and others. I've spoken with believers, done religious counselling, given sermons in front of hundreds of people at a time, and studied Protestant Christianity in depth. What you're asking is, basically, like expecting someone to study every failed theory in the history of physics in order to argue why they were wrong. I don't have to do that. I do need to listen to the arguments of the person I'm discussing with, but those are so numerous and so varied that expecting me to learn ALL the justifications for every possible religion is, quite frankly, asking me to give up my current life and become a theologian myself.

Part of that is understanding theology--and part of that is, yes, understanding the errors they make in theology. But most importantly, you CANNOT simply take bits in isolation and attempt to disprove them from an atheistic worldview. You need to understand the theistic worldview in order to attack it, because any attempt that doesn't start with such an understanding will inevitably attack something that's not what the person actually believes and therefore will only make you look like an uneducated zealot, the atheistic equivalent of the folks on street corners raving that "The End is nigh!!!!"

But you ARE asking us to attack things the person doesn't believe! That's the whole blessed point! You seem to be under the impression that there is some thology council somewhere, that sets forth the "arguments for God" and then disseminates them among all theists and theist organizations. Every theist has their own reasons for believeing, and the only way to know what reason any particular believer has is to ask them! You keep saying we're arguing against things they don't believe, but that's not true. MANY do believe these simple and fallacious arguments. This almost seems to be a reverse of the True Scotsman fallacy, where if we aren't arguing agins tthe speciifc set og theological justifications you regard as valid, we're somehow not arguing against anything in particular.

If we have missed your point, it's because your point as stated seems nonsensical. You're positing a position that contradicts itself repeatedly: Argue what they believe! The things theologians say! In the vast majority of Protestant believers, they don't believe in what the theologians say. They believe in what they were brought up in, what their Sunday School teacher said, what they heard from their local minister, and a mish mash of other things thrown together. The only way to argue agaisnt what they actually believe is to listen to them, so they can tell me what they actually believe.

 

[Kopji]

If religions just limited themselves to kindly teachings that the creator of the universe was an unknowable deity, to be taken on faith with a sense of thankfulness - and did not continue to act and inspire events, relying on authoritarian proxies promoting abuse, violence, and hatred...

I would not bother arguing with them except perhaps over a cup of tea.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If religions just limited themselves to kindly teachings that the creator of the universe was an unknowable deity, to be taken on faith with a sense of thankfulness - and did not continue to act and inspire events, relying on authoritarian proxies promoting abuse, violence, and hatred...

I would not bother arguing with them except perhaps over a cup of tea.

But... The only response to proof is counter-proof. So when we "present proof that God doesn't exist", i.e., do science, then they have to counter that.

 

[Brian-M]

But, having read the response, do you think the passage in question demonstrates God is not all-powerful, or does the challenge stand?

I think that, assuming the new translation is accurate, a straightforward interpretation still implies that God is not all-powerful, but allows for different interpretations.

 

[wareyin]

Okay, now you're asking the impossible. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS AMONG THEISTS. There is no universal theistic world view. The way theists view the world, and the reasons for that view, vary from believer to believer. I DO understand this, because I've dealt with believers and belief both in myself and others. I've spoken with believers, done religious counselling, given sermons in front of hundreds of people at a time, and studied Protestant Christianity in depth. What you're asking is, basically, like expecting someone to study every failed theory in the history of physics in order to argue why they were wrong. I don't have to do that. I do need to listen to the arguments of the person I'm discussing with, but those are so numerous and so varied that expecting me to learn ALL the justifications for every possible religion is, quite frankly, asking me to give up my current life and become a theologian myself.

QFT! There is no consensus among theists. I wonder why that simple and obvious point keeps being missed?

Also, many of us who no longer believe, once did believe. Claims that we are unable to understand a theistic view ignore that.

 

[jimbob]

Mind you, this athiest's able to use apostrophes

 

[marplots]

Mind you, this athiest's able to use apostrophes

But seems to be bereft of periods.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But seems to be bereft of periods.

Oh, I could get into soooo much trouble right now.