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.
Responses to the first, since, **** no I'm not wading through 6+ pages. Blue.
Good night everyone. And remember, there's a watering can over there. Fertilizer and tools in the shed. I hope to have a good harvest come Spring. You'll take care of the Garden, won't you?
So far as I can see, the response it to quote Arthur Conan Doyle who wrote excellent stories about a perfectly logical detective (a sort of Victorian Spock) and so his pronouncements are held up like Einsten, even though Doyle was fooled into believing in fairies, and to find a picture of a landfil site with the unspoken accusation that Science is to blame and the supposition that Quverful breeding and leaving everything to God will enure this doesn't happen.
Got news for you Bulma, old pal. Humanist -based social responsibility and a much -needed humanistic and non -religion -based approach to global population, though not based on governmental coercion as happened in one or two overpopulated countries. But based on trusting people to understand their responsibilities not just to government, but to themselves, their fellow humans and the future generations.
Now, a word about this Holmes dictum "When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains must be the truth". Is a good one. I like it myself. But it must be taksn in context, just as Sagan's absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."
Just as in looking for a book or a banana, opening a draw and finding it empty IS compelling evidence that those things are not there. Sagan meant that, where there is a huge universe of billions of galaxies with millions of stars, that we have no evidence of extraterrestrial life is not persuasive evidence that none exist.
Thus to say that one can eliminate the impossible in such areas in nonsense. One could even talk nonsense about an invisible spiritual book and banana or in a different dimension or a spirit being is causing them to vanish every time you look.
When one invents far -fetched explanation - excuses, rather - of course it is impossible to utterly prove the book and banana are not there, but there are such serious logical objections to such arguments - never mind "I know on faith that they are there and nobody with their science that always gets things wrong or fallible and subjective human perception will convince me otherwise". Which is simple denial.
No rational person would accept such arguments. They would accept that on all reason and evidence, the book and banana are not in the drawer, and the apologists can fiddle logic and semantics till they are blue in the face, but the facts stand up.
Similarly, if there is not a shred of valid evidence that a large body of Jewish (1) slaves were in Egypt say from the middle of the middle kingdom to the early new kingdom, that the scriptural and epigraphic evidence causes problems for the Exodus -story, and archaeology indicates that Israel appeared on site around the 12-11th C BC. Then the case that Exodus never happened is pretty solid (2).
The same applies to repeated lack in a gospel of very important stories in another. One might be explained. A dozen major and a hundred minor but compelling ones (Luke refuting the John Thomas story, for example) is sound and compelling evidence for real gospel contradictions and evidence for separate serious invention and elaboration.
Sure, we cannot eliminate a god as impossible. Neither can we eliminate some natural cause of the cosmos as impossible. But that is exactly what First cause tries to do. It is illogical and intellectually dishonest to do so. And that is the only real case that Theism has.
(1) The Canaanite Hyksos dynasty is most certainly not the Exodus - Jews of the Bible, though I suspect the folk memory of the Hyksos expulsion by Ahmose I back to Canaan as far as Gaza, might have been the basis for the story of Jews led by Moses out of Egypt to Canaan.
(2) Despite the claims about the Jebl Laws Moses -camp claim, and the the chariot wheels in the Red sea and Wyatt's dubious inscribed columns
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-16-2015 at 09:57 AM..
Atheists cannot prove there isn't a god. Christians cannot prove there is a god. Checkmate.
Actually no. In the absence of proof one does not believe random things. One disbelieves until there is a reason TO believe.
In the face of an unfalsifiable hypothesis, the question is do you make up stuff or admit that you don't know one way or the other? And if you don't know what do you do? Well you seek out or wait for actual evidence and in the meantime you withhold belief. You also make a rational assessment of the probabilities that one thing or the other is true and act accordingly.
Since there is little probability that there is an invisible personal deity orchestrating human events, you have your answer.
We can't prove or disprove TONS of things. We know relatively little compared to what we DO know. But that doesn't mean we can't do a reasonable job estimating probabilities. I don't KNOW that a forest elf won't pay my taxes this April if I don't. But I know how PROBABLE that is. I certainly have no justification to BELIEVE such a thing will happen, so I don't. And someone coming along berating me for REFUSING to believe because I can't DISPROVE that a forest elf won't pay my 2016 income tax, would be rightly derided as an idiot.
Wait a minute. Such statements usually require a syllogistic proof of your assertion. Please present your logical argument that God is truly illogical.
Minor correction - Balkins did not say God is illogical but the subject (debating of) is illogical. He sould at least defend what he said, not what he did not.
I ought also to caution him first (should you get him into debate) to get you to define what you mean by God, because otherwise you will probably be arguing about two different ideas.
I don't make a big boast, there are many bible scholars who love the word and know it. It should seem obvious that somebody who doesn't love it, doesn't know it, and will never know it.
Well, what you are saying does not appear in the actual text of the story. This leaves me to conclude you have deduced your position from further study. Where I am not certain. (I have asked, but you have declined to answer).
Now you seem to be saying both that scholarly study is not required, and that there are many Bible scholars. So, which is it?
I honestly have no thumbnail feature. And my computer always resizes it after post.
Well then, humans made science that made technology which pollutes the environment. All because of shortsightedness and "the bottom line." Well, the bottom line is that in a few years, we'll all be gasping for air in a barren wasteland. Or we can be decent types, regardless of whether big daddy Heavenly Father is looking over our shoulder. My mission was to convince you to be environmentally conscious, before something messed up happens. Leave morality to people who care about morality. Environmental consciousness is enough for atheists.
You have a serious disconnect in blaming science for what greedy and irresponsible humans have done, and even if you have a case that science made the Bomb for instance -what has that to do with whether it is true or not?
On the other hand you are overbalancing the other way in advising atheists to become environmentally conscious and forget about the morality argument. Well, old son, like the factual rightness of science being nothing to do with whether it is to blame for global pollution or not, the validity of the moral argument being that humanist "Relative" morality is not only more the 'Real' morality than a God -given "Absolute" morality, but is better than Bible -based morality is still there even if atheists switched all their efforts to trying to save the rain -forest. (1)
And the basic disconnect is that concern for our species and planet is a moral question, not an alternative to it. And of course none of this is anything to do with reasons to believe in a god or not to. trying to buy the argument by pointing to good works of religion and swiping at atheism and science may have worked in the days when nobody argued, eveyone lapped it up and it confirmed their bias to the hilt.
Not happening now. While we goddless bastards will admit the mistakes we are making and the part that science and technology has in that, we will ruthlesly expose the false logic, crummy arguments and the frankly malicious demonising of atheism, science and humanism by those with a a demonstrable bias.
In fact the attempt to discredit us merely discredits those who try to do it.
You can still save your credibility. With the argument now reduced to a couple of political backstabs, you can still draw back with Faith (in whatever you faith in - I don't much care) intact and will remain intact, no matter what we can prove about Genesis or Jesus or the case for a deist god or the Kalam argument. And you can do it logically and fairly with regard to the evidence and gain credibility for your self and the god -argument rather than lose.
Now you should be grateful for the time I spent on this, because we have debated a lot and I like a lot of your posts and ideas and I don't want to see you go down the credibility tube.
(1) yep, I will foopnote this as i have something to say. "But of course, I am aware this is just another 'get them to shut up' ploy." I am groping towards an understanding of the mindset that requires that what is true or evidentially supported doesn't matter so long as everyone pretends that it is, and it doesn't matter whether the theist arguments are valid or not so long as everyone pretends that they are. And what is bad about atheists is that they say that they don't believe it. And they are hellbound satanspawn even if they keep quiet and hide, hoping to escape notice. But to speak out and with an increasingly confident, well informed and multiplex voice, is intolerable.(2)
"New" atheism (which is as different from old atheism as Macro evolution is different from Micro= not at all, apart from confidence in the former and time in the latter) is thus an especial target of theists of various stripe. Again I am reminded of "Silverweed" and the warren of the snares "To ask where anyone was - that was bad enough. But to speak openly of the wires...!"
I can understand the religious and their horror at speaking openly of doubt and disbelief, because (the Tracie Harris vid on family values is a must watch) it doesn't matter whether you believe or not so long as you pretend to.
But I am really curious and disturbed by those who are irreligious theists, "Agnostics." and the like who ought to have no problem with atheism, new or old, but attack us with the same bad arguments, and in the end bitterness and hate as we see in the religious. By no means all - but in a few -it is the same.
And I have a theory... ... it is because of the reason why some "agnostics" and irreligious theists seem to find it so important to convince us that the God they believe in is real. or at least that their arguments are true or logical.
And I wonder why because it doesn't matter. We atheists do not in fact buy the case for a cosmic creator, micromanaging or Deist. Pantheist or in the outer reaches of the galaxy. That disbelief is technical and doesn't change anything about our society. It is organized religion with its influence on politics, law and education that is our practical concern. I think that it is fear. It is fear that hearing too many arguments that make sense will cause them to doubt. The "One Shot Win" belief in Religious debate that makes them deny everything, because to admit they are Wrong would be the one shot that would shatter the whole Eglasse. It probably wouldn't, but that is the fear - of losing faith. And I think it applies to Agnostics, too. Fear of losing faith is like fear of losing everything that they live for.
That is why they fight and cheat like religious apologists (I repeat, not all) and why they have this idea that atheists must be hopeless and suicidal with no meaning to life, because that is what they fear will happen to them should they lose their faith.
Frame it and hang it on the wall.
(2) so we are arrogant, intolerant and .......wait for it....Fundamentalist..The ultimate crime.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-16-2015 at 12:47 PM..
Well, what you are saying does not appear in the actual text of the story. This leaves me to conclude you have deduced your position from further study. Where I am not certain. (I have asked, but you have declined to answer).
Now you seem to be saying both that scholarly study is not required, and that there are many Bible scholars. So, which is it?
It is that there is a hidden language a lot of people just don't know, and they wont know it unless they love the bible and keep studying it. The bible is written in a poetry form where men are beasts, they are trees, they are grass, they are mountains and valleys. They are Passover lambs, Rams of Shavuot and Sukkot bulls, goats of Yom Kippur. They are beams that make up a roof, and cypress slats for a flooring. Men are woman, and women are men, and there is 5 in a house for one who believes in a Messiah, 5 in A BODY, one body.
A man is a house with 5 members.
The kingdom of heaven is like ten virgins because a man has two hands.
These things are not things an Atheist is going to pick up on, they are not going to get this inner language that unlocks sayings and parables and meanings to stories.
The biggest reason I say what I say is because of all the scriptures showing how the understanding is sealed and hidden to most believers, and certainly from non believers.
Most Atheists are going to look at the bible as do literalists like when reading the story of Adam and Eve, and they are not going to consider that the beast is a part of us and the bible is teaching that that we ARE BEASTS. An Atheist will give Evolution as if it were proof against God but God was already showing this, and it shows it throughout the bible, our struggle to overcome the beast we were born to.
We see Satan shown as the father of flesh and he was a beast, our father, but an Atheist will say,'' The Bible teaches against evolution.''
Cause they read like literalists.
I would be all day showing all the scriptures about the bible being sealed from MOST people, but then I believe in the bible and all those scriptures wouldn't help, but it is that I believe and this subject covers a whole bunch of scriptures and why Jesus came talking in parables.
Well then, humans made science that made technology which pollutes the environment. All because of shortsightedness and "the bottom line." Well, the bottom line is that in a few years, we'll all be gasping for air in a barren wasteland. Or we can be decent types, regardless of whether big daddy Heavenly Father is looking over our shoulder. My mission was to convince you to be environmentally conscious, before something messed up happens. Leave morality to people who care about morality. Environmental consciousness is enough for atheists.
You are sending this unilateral condemnation against technology via computer, across invisible airways to potentially millions of people, due to...science.
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.
... it is because of the reason why some "agnostics" and irreligious theists seem to find it so important to convince us that the God they believe in is real. or at least that their arguments are true or logical. 
