Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, actually, 'on some level' we do not have to accept the possibility of everything. Take the meteorite example I used previously. If there is the possibility that a meteorite is going to kill you in the next 5 minutes, wouldn't it behoove you to change your location? Except ... there is the possibility that a meteorite will kill you at this new location.
Again, probability is the factor here that would keep us from going nuts with this maddening logic. Since it is vastly more unlikely that I won't get killed by a meteorite then I have no reason to change my position.
A more realistic example is that even though I could easily get killed in a car accident at any time since the system is reliant on mutual trust of other drivers, I still drive every day because the probability is comfortably low enough given the evidence that I've never had an accident and most people make it home safely every day. I still have to accept the possibility that I could have a wreck at any time though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
You're flirting with a lot of sophistry here. The real world doesn't operate that way. If you were to ask any 100 sane adults, not a single one would say that we should leave cookies and milk out for Santa tonight because, hey, there's no proof that he doesn't exist, so we should operate as though he does. Most rational adults are very comfortable in dismissing things for which there is no evidence - and the average person does NOT go around thinking that, yeah, just maybe every thing ever conceived of by mortal man actually exists - from sea monsters to Spiderman.
The only thing you are proving here is that it is crazy to live your life completely by logic and reason. This is why atheism just doesn't work. If I have no proof that there is an afterlife then you equally have no proof that we turn into meaningless matter or energy when we die. Therefore to state that you know 100% positive that there is no God simply because your idea of a benevolent God doesn't fit neatly in your conceived rules of logic or morality in no way moves the needle to support your side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Sure, I agree. We atheists think the probability of YHWH/Jesus being real is essentially zero - with the caveat that, should YHWH/Jesus ever actually show up, we would change our minds, but not until then. Most atheists rely on "truth" with a small 't' ... that something is true until it's not. Ergo there is no God until there is one. So far, there is no more reason to believe God exists than there is to believe in Santa (which is why Santa gets used so often in debates).
Then you are applying a measure of faith, not logic. Your faith is essentially that since there is no convincing evidence then there can not possibly be a God. But you can't state this as fact because when Jesus does show then your "factual" beliefs are now wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
I'd also like to address a vaguely important point ...
IF what you say is true and that, on some level, one has to believe that everything could possibly exist, that means that Christians must accept the possibility that God does not exist and that their entire belief system is completely wrong.
But they don't. Not in any meaningful way. They are ABSOLUTELY certain beyond ANY doubt that God exists and every other religion and form of non-belief is absolutely wrong and false. Thus there is the possibility for everything EXCEPT that God doesn't exist and that atheists have been right all along.
And I do accept on some level that my beliefs could be wrong. Maybe Christianity is a complete deception created by an advanced race of alien beings. Maybe we are really living in a Matrix type world. But I accept it on the same level as I would accept my loving parents suddenly deciding to murder me one night. The probability being practically zero. But I'm sure the parents of the boy who murdered them because they took away his Xbox never would have dreamed in a million years that their lives would end at the hands of their beautiful son. Given all the evidences, my personal experiences and the experiences of loved ones, the probability of Jesus Christ not being the true savior and Lord is extremely low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Archaeology does not show, nor will it ever show, that Jesus is the son of god and that he was resurrected and taken bodily into heaven. It does not show, nor will it ever show, that Jesus is the messiah, our lord and savior, and only those who worship him will go to heaven. It does not show, nor will it ever show, that Jesus walked on water, cured the sick, healed the blind, turned water into wine or made a crap-ton of fishes out of a single specimen.
But archaeology defeats the claim that the Bible is a complete book of fiction and moves that needle of probability more in favor of Christianity. The problem is that given the technology of the era, there is just simply no mechanism to prove any of the miracles. Even if there was dozens of eye witness records, you would remain unconvinced because you would say they could have been hallucinating or forced to write such things. That doesn't mean that they never happened. The only way to prove them would be to invent a time machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Because what YOU are saying is that it only takes a thimble full of evidence to prove the entirety of Christianity. No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Discovering that a city mentioned in the Bible really did exist or that there really was a King David does not prove that God exists and that we should all convert immediately.
No I am saying it would only take a thimble full of evidence to move Christianity from the null position which your side claims is the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
The wide dispersal of flood stories most likely comes from the fact that every town and city in the ancient world was built next to a river or on a coastline, meaning that every culture has dealt with floods (and true to form, they probably thought the floods were sent as a punishment because, like always, their gods were angry). It doesn't mean there was one big flood that covered the entire world.
Which doesn't explain why so many cultures have specific remarkable details in common with Gilgamesh or the Bible. For example, in Africa, there is one flood myth hat has just a few humans spared in a boat along with seed and animals. A dove is sent out to test the flood conditions. You're going to tell me that this is just simply concidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Who cares about the evil nature of Man when your God was just as bad - nay, worse than any historical figure that ever truly lived. Therein lies the quintessential difference. Your God is supposed to be infinitely and perfectly good, just, fair, compassionate, etc. yet he spends the majority of his time in the OT killing people or telling his followers to kill instead. At least Man has the excuse of being fallible and imperfect. What's God's excuse for his despicable behavior from the very beginning of that book of yours?
Would you elect a hardcore criminal offender to serve on the Supreme Court? Of course not. Then how can sinful man truly be a good and perfectly just judge of morality? Plus our understanding is only limited to our human experience in this realm in which we see time as being on linear. It is simply unfair to lay such judgments against God without having his supreme knowledge and knowing all the facts first. Can a rotten apple suddenly produce something good on its own? No, you get only get more rotten apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Yes ... they were. Which is more evidence of the fictitious nature of the Bible. Since the people were savage in those days, so too was the God they worshiped. Human authors could not conceive of any kind of world other than the one they lived in. Thus God never condemned slavery, never condemned adults marrying children, never condemned (and in fact encouraged) wanton slaughter and wars of aggression. The OT God did NOTHING to change the world, did nothing whatsoever to bring about enlightenment.
This is simply not an accurate portrayal of the OT. If you examine it as a whole, you will see a God who took a wandering tribe of nobodys and turned them into a great nation that still exists today. God gives and gives to these people, but that is never enough. They constantly rebell and get in trouble. If the Bible were fiction, I would certainly at least except to see the heroes painted in a more positive light. Even the great King David is reported to have murdered a loyal soldier so David could have sex with his wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
WHAT descendants? God ordered every last one of them murdered. Even the bloodlines of their goats and camels were destroyed in many cases. If God did his job correctly, there shouldn't have been anyone left alive to make descendants - which was the entire point of the despicable slaughterfests in the first place.
We see in examples like King Saul, people were spared and the cycle continued as sons grew up to avenge their fathers or adopt the pagan ways. Modern day Iraq and Syria can easily be traced back to these ancient cultures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
It's amazing how this keeps getting brought up despite it being debunked again and again. There has never been an "atheist" nation - only communist nations ruled by dictators with mental problems. The moment Stalin kicked the bucket and USSR began to hold elections (even if all the candidates were members of the communist party), the anti-religion rhetoric ceased almost immediately. You are falsely putting the blame on atheism when it SHOULD be placed on the mental state of tyrannical leaders.
There is no "Stalin for example" because Stalin is the ONLY example - and even then, the attacks on Christianity (which were extremely mild compared with the slaughter that came later under Christianity) happened because a paranoid ruler didn't want the Soviet people answering to two masters. God had to go. It had nothing to do with atheism, and it's hard to say whether the atheists in Russia embraced atheism because they really didn't believe in God ... or if they simply pretended to be atheists because they were scared to death of Stalin and his NKVD (secret police).
In fact, people were so afraid of Stalin that applause for him would go on and on and on because no one wanted to be the first person to stop clapping. A bell had to be installed to let everyone know it's okay to stop clapping. THAT is how much fear Stalin created. As a result, it taints the assertion that atheism was a root cause - or even if it was a cause at all.
Are you really saying that religion was NEVER supressed in the Soviet Union? Atheism became the banner ideology of Communism. Science was the new god. Did it lead to a great period of enlightment and peace among men? Quite the opposite. Most wars throughout history do not have religious roots.
A long exchange, but just to show I'm watching and to help a liitle bit
shirina"You're flirting with a lot of sophistry here. The real world doesn't operate that way. If you were to ask any 100 sane adults, not a single one would say that we should leave cookies and milk out for Santa tonight because, hey, there's no proof that he doesn't exist, so we should operate as though he does. "
Jeff " The only thing you are proving here is that it is crazy to live your life completely by logic and reason. This is why atheism just doesn't work. "
You got it back to front. Shirina is saying that logic and reason works in the world so we don't put out milk and cookies for Santa, since we know of course that presents are given by parents. Unless to pander to kiddie's beliefs until they get to age 7
similarly, logic and reason works in the world so we don't put out prayers and hopes for gods as we know that prayers are answered by pure chance, if statistical comparison is a basis for conclusions.
Except of course to pander to the kiddies' beliefs up to the age of reason..which some unfortunately never seem to reach. And they give those who have done so a hard time because they grew out of believing in Santa.
... it is crazy to live your life completely by logic and reason. This is why atheism just doesn't work. If I have no proof that there is an afterlife then you equally have no proof that we turn into meaningless matter or energy when we die. Therefore to state that you know 100% positive that there is no God simply because your idea of a benevolent God doesn't fit neatly in your conceived rules of logic or morality in no way moves the needle to support your side.
That's a false characterization. Neither of us have proof and neither of us is making a knowledge claim.
We are making claims of belief or unbelief.
My unbelief is not based on 100% certainty about god's non-existence, but necessarily on something short of that. I just don't choose to shoehorn deities into the fraction of a percent of uncertainty that exists, anymore than you likely choose to shoehorn the Loch Ness Monster into the tiny bit of uncertainty that those legends might have some truth to them.
That's a false characterization. Neither of us have proof and neither of us is making a knowledge claim.
We are making claims of belief or unbelief.
My unbelief is not based on 100% certainty about god's non-existence, but necessarily on something short of that. I just don't choose to shoehorn deities into the fraction of a percent of uncertainty that exists, anymore than you likely choose to shoehorn the Loch Ness Monster into the tiny bit of uncertainty that those legends might have some truth to them.
But that's not the rhetoric I see on here. I see statements presented as non-disputable fact like God is a fairy tale or the Bible is fiction written by a bunch of ignorant goat herders. At least preface it by saying this is what YOU believe.
But that's not the rhetoric I see on here. I see statements presented as non-disputable fact like God is a fairy tale or the Bible is fiction written by a bunch of ignorant goat herders. At least preface it by saying this is what YOU believe.
The OT bible God IS a fairytale and much of the bible IS fiction.
Even many Christians think that is so.
Most Atheists will allow for the possibility - however remote - that "some sort" of God may exist. But the Abrahamic version is no more credible than Zeus, Shiva or the Cosmic Muffin.
And there are many "Others" who believe in a deity but again, not one remotely resembling the Abrahamic version.
But that's not the rhetoric I see on here. I see statements presented as non-disputable fact like God is a fairy tale or the Bible is fiction written by a bunch of ignorant goat herders. At least preface it by saying this is what YOU believe.
Yes, as Troutdude says. The implied caveat 'We think..' is always there, but when we have a degree of confidence like that santa and fairies don't exist, we don't bother to dot all the "i's'. It's like saying 'There is a bus at 10.30. We don't bother to say 'assuming it isn't hit by a meteor.' Remote possibilities are not enumerated.
But that's not the rhetoric I see on here. I see statements presented as non-disputable fact like God is a fairy tale or the Bible is fiction written by a bunch of ignorant goat herders. At least preface it by saying this is what YOU believe.
I think we've made that abundantly clear. If you want every unbeliever's post to contain a disclaimer of this form:
"All statements herein are the personal beliefs of the author"
... it seems to me rather bleeding obvious. And the same requirement should be made of theists, but somehow, I doubt you're willing to put that disclaimer on YOUR posts. Probably something more like:
"All statements herein are the correctly understood word of the Lord God Almighty, Ruler of Heaven and Earth."
I think we've made that abundantly clear. If you want every unbeliever's post to contain a disclaimer of this form:
"All statements herein are the personal beliefs of the author"
... it seems to me rather bleeding obvious. And the same requirement should be made of theists, but somehow, I doubt you're willing to put that disclaimer on YOUR posts. Probably something more like:
"All statements herein are the correctly understood word of the Lord God Almighty, Ruler of Heaven and Earth."
Ha,Ha,Ha . . . ROTFLMBO! Amen to the bold, mordant!. They seem to universally think they can speak for God!!
High fiving the atheists? Really makes me wonder which side you are on.
Come on, we ALL hi -five someone who says some truth that we receive with pleasure - even if they happen to be on the Other side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shirina is saying that logic and reason works in the world so we don't put out milk and cookies for Santa, since we know of course that presents are given by parents. Unless to pander to kiddie's beliefs until they get to age 7
. They seem to universally think they can speak for God!!
