Atheists what is your proof?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by science man, Oct 20, 2010.

  1. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Some atheists act like they "know" similar to how theist act like they "know". Some Atheists try to defend atheism with "occam's razor" but the principle of Occam's Razor recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions which means the principle of Occam's razor is against both theism and atheism and therefore is for agnosticism.

    Atheism can never be rooted in science. The scientific attitude favors agnosticism. In science you don't know what you don't know.

    If atheism meant "not believing in god" then atheism would be scientific and the same as agnosticism but if atheism means "believing that their is no god" then atheism becomes unscientific.

    The type of atheist that is not asserting the belief that god does not exist is barely distinguishable from the agnostic who does not incorporate god into their theories. This difference become a question of semantics. But the more assertive atheists who believe that there is no god are more like theists than they are like agnostics because these atheists choose to believe something for which they have no evidence.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. SolusCado Registered Senior Member

    No, not particularly.

    I'm just telling you what the Bible says. I don't preface every single statement with "The Bible says... " because that's a lot of extra typing.

    Finding verses that contradict what I am saying (if indeed you do) doesn't mean that I am contradicting myself.

    That is telling people to not corrupt themselves, because our bodies are not our own to corrupt. In no way is it suggesting that God is there to make our lives more comfortable.

    To be taken as wives or concubines, not slaves.

    He approvED (indeed, commanded). Once more, an instruction given at a particular point in time, and of little relevance to Christianity.

    You know, I'm not sure the verb "apologize" is actually apropos for the "apologetics". The term is rooted in the Greek "apologia" which referred to a defense, rather than an apology. It would be more correct for you to use the phrase "defend away", as I am not apologizing for anything.

    That you so often put words in my mouth belies the fact that you must not be reading my posts completely. It would seem that you are assuming I say things that I don't, most probably because you have heard similar arguments from others. It is insulting. Anyway, I never claimed God didn't command genocide, and you still haven't shown that he commanded slavery.

    What I mean is that you only focus on the actions of the Israelites, and ignore what the Bible says about God. The books of Psalms, the Song of Solomon, and much of the New Testament does more to define God than the actions of the Israelites, and yet you seem to ignore them. That's what I mean.

    So rather than actually address my point regarding your view of God and His Creation, you just attack me and every author of the Bible? Can't we be more civil than that? Kindly address my points or stay silent.

    Yes. That is correct. Make up your mind. Do you believe history is full of "a bunch of ignorants" or don't you? I am expected to recognize other's as wrong, but only if it results in the same course of action as you desire?

    Dude. I'm sure you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is, so why you felt the need to use the term incorrectly here I have no idea. But, in case you DON'T know, a self-fulfilling prophecy is to predict something that, by virtue of its prediction, causes it to come to pass. So, what exactly have I predicted? And in what way does that prediction cause itself to be proven? Frankly, I am surprised you are objecting to the basic premise as much as you are. You clearly think the authors of the New Testament were "ignorant" - which is a core premise to my assertions. Why SHOULDN'T I re-evaluate what they have written with their ignorance in mind? Why would you expect them to be ignorant, and yet their writings to not reflect that? You're as bad as the 6-day, Young-Earth creationists.

    Does it really make sense that a God, infinitely more wise and knowledgeable than us, would teach us what we need to know as we need to know it? Um, duh! Of course! We do it EVERY SINGLE DAY with children and parents. Hell, the Bible even refers to God as OUR FATHER!! And us as HIS CHILDREN!! The metaphor is RIGHT THERE. So, yeah - it makes a helluva lot more sense than the Genie God you want to pretend the Bible describes so that you can dismiss it as unrealistic. (For the record, I too would see a Genie God as unrealistic.)

    Why do I have to keep answering that? Did you forget the million other times I've said it.

    Then, once more, show me where.

    This is the first intelligent response you've had in this post. They were grown men physically, of course. But not spiritually.

    Not mentally, spiritually. Do you truly not understand the difference, or are you just being argumentative?

    So now you are simply disapproving of the punishment? Your statement could be said about ANYTHING. "Oh, so a man can rape a woman in the US, as long as he goes to jail for 10 years?" They didn't even HAVE prisons back then. I am so tired of your pointless commentaries. You have yet to address anything the Bible says about God, and you think it is going to change my mind about who God is??

    How on earth is that relevant? As I said before, inane ramblings and insults will be ignored. Kindly stick to the points of the conversation or YOU will be ignored.

    Addressed in previous posts.

    Addressed in previous posts.

    Once again, what the hell are you talking about? You asked if it was a possibility for me to challenge and change my beliefs. I gave you an example of how that is precisely what I have done in the past, and you insult me? If your next post isn't more adult, I'm just going to block you so I don't have to be subjected to your anger and hatred.

    Addressed in a previous post.

    Duh - that's what Christians believe Christ did. Are you sure you are arguing against Christianity? I think you need to find some Jews on this forum and challenge them.

    And yet you have yet to provide a single line of scripture describing who my God is. Like I said above - go argue with a Jew.

    As I noted before, these men (and clearly, yourself included) were not grown spiritually. Mentally, physically, sure. But not spiritually.

    Last warning. If your next post doesn't actually raise points in a rational manner, you will join phlogistician in my list of people who clearly harbor some anger and hatred that is getting in the way of any kind of adult, logical discourse.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Did you like or respect the book?

    I expected the one star reviews to be from religious people. That is not what I found. I found scientific people and atheists deeply dissatisfied with the books standards of logic and scientificness.

    It is sort of obvious that nobody will ever be able to prove that god does not exist but a first rate effort to prove the nonexistence of god would be interesting.
  8. birch Valued Senior Member

    but certain things are not considered that can be..
    there are some conclusions one can make based on a hypothetical conscious creator based on what we experience and observe. god is a jerk or not too smart.

    or god is a predator that lives off of killing and that is why nature is the same way.

    or god is not what we think is god at all, maybe it's abducted or stolen some part of us or absorbed some part of us like a predator or parasite and many think it's god.

    or god is much farther away and our capacity for 'love' is representative of god minus everything else and we are stuck in some remnant of a universe that was not intentional.

    or god is not an entity but various energy or elements (heaven, hell, good, evil, dark, light, unknown? etc). whatever element you are more comprised of will determine where your loyalties lie or sense of source. this is where you see some people embrace what would be labeled evil and those who like the opposite etc. still, the universe may just be a collision of the disparate giving us the illusion it was some intentional or absolute design when it may be like a stew of a certain recipe. those elements may be indicative of a much larger and separate reality.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2010
  9. jpappl Valued Senior Member


    I provided all of the evidence you asked for. Then you slither and squirm and change the requests over and over.

    You have now shown yourself to be what I was hoping you would not be.

    A person who is not mature enough or strong enough to face the truth and deal with it.

    This is not my problem it is your's. So I am not inclined to beat my head against the wall any longer.

    I have not asked you to not believe in god, I have only questioned what god you believe in and thus why. You have hid, apologized for and now lied to protect what is left of your god.

    Shame is on you SolusCado. I really hope that you can get past this because it's making you look foolish and you are clearly smarter than that.

    The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.[1]

    If you prefer, we could call it delusion, but I don't think you are there yet and that would be insulting.

    Situation 1

    1) SolusCado believe's in the god of the bible (thus the bible must define the god)

    2) Information is presented that questions what kind of god SolusCado believes in.

    3) The information although evidenced in the bible itself, is contrary to what kind of god SolusCado wants to believe in.

    4) SolusCado changes meaning of texts to line up perfectly with the god that SolusCado believes in and/or denies the existence of such texts that present a different god even when the evidence is right in front of him.

    5) Problem presented by JPAPPL and others has now been removed from the equation.

    6) SolusCado is now convinced more than ever that he is right about the god he believes in.

    Situation number 2

    1) SolusCado believes in the god of the bible

    2) Scientific evidence is contrary to the texts as interpreted by other god fearing christians for thousands of years including other modern educated christians who understand them differently then SolusCado.

    3) SolusCado changes or re-interprets texts to have a different meaning to get around the conflict with the discoveries of science.

    4) SolusCado has removed the conflict with scientific discovery.

    5) SolusCado is now convinced he is more right than ever.

    I am sorry our conversation came to this. I was really hoping for more honesty from you. Good luck with your book.
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    i think solscado would be better served by dealing with other theists. it's rather pointless or a foregone conclusion when you are dealing with a athiest vs theist issue. they each just have different ways about going about things. i also think theism has it's place in society too as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    It's awesome. He can't disprove any amorphous conception of God of course, but he can reject the premises of the Christian/ Islamic/ Judaic God beyond a reasonable doubt.
  12. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    I think SolusCado is smart and intelligent enough to know that trying to deny the scientific evidence is a waste of time. Which is why he has created his theory or idea.

    And since nobody can know if there is a god or not, he has only claimed faith in one and that is fine and if that was all I would say it's your choice.

    But when he claims his belief in the god of the OT, and when challenged about said god he waffles and attempts to hide the god when convenient then he shows a lack of wisdom.

    There is a difference and only he can resolve that.

    I have two children. I would never teach them there is no god.

    I would and will teach them how to question, scrutinize and move with the better information. Such information should be backed by logic and reason, which is why I would never indoctrinate them into any religion.

    If they choose to believe in god, so be it. I will then challenge them on what god there are believing in. I owe them that.
  13. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Quite some time ago, Solus stated that his beliefs were a matter of choice, and not subject to any rational or logical basis.

    Why does everyone try to argue with him as though there were a common ground? He has decided what he wishes to believe because he likes those beliefs. Not because they can be logically or rationally defended. They're just the ones he likes.

    And when you're speaking of 'belief', there's no other criteria.
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    because that is what he seems to be doing?
  15. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Or God is not all powerful or all knowing.
    Or God is taking a nap.

    Or The Abrahamic interpretation of good and evil is wrong. Hindu intellectual theology gets around the why does got let evil happen question. I supposed the Abrahamic idea the we are being tested also handles this issue but without making suffering less important than it feels to us God comes out looking selfish and cruel.

    If you do create a theology that says suffering is not real that would seem to undermine religion's role in enforcing moral order so religions going down that path have to make suffering simultaneously real and meaningful and unreal so that god can be blameless.
  16. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Can he disprove a jealous, sadistic, human shaped, human acting, god who while siting in a empty vacuum created the earth and universe and natural laws for this universe 4,000 years ago, out of god stuff, while designing the earth and universe to appear as if nature was evolving and as if there had been a big bang and created these illusions just to fuck with us.
  17. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    The ways of Dog are mysterious, and not to be questioned by maN. :shrug:
  18. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    LOL - seriously.. think this one through. An army comes through and kills the men. The "victors" then take the women home...

    Do you really think the women considered themselves "wives" of one of the people who killed their husband and/or father?

    Give me a break.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Kapyong Writer Registered Senior Member


    he still has no idea why slavery is wrong,
    admits to having little concern for the suffering of others.

  20. ULTRA Realistically Surreal Registered Senior Member

    I'm sorry i'm fairly new and missed a lot of this..but reading it has been most entertaining, if not, sheer comedy! Y'know scientifically speaking, one could apply the null test hypothesis to this problem..but that would be decisive and boring..Evidence..None... Ah. Evidence of life on Earth..3bn years of..Hmm
  21. SolusCado Registered Senior Member

    As noted previously, I actually had "Nietszcheans" in mind, from a fictional storyline, but thought more people would be familiar with the meaning of the term "Darwinist".
  22. SolusCado Registered Senior Member

    Women in general (wives or otherwise) were pretty much considered property throughout the world at that point in time. The basic error here is that everyone tries to read the Bible in the context of "Today." The reason so many things don't make sense, to theists and atheists alike, is that they fail to understand the context of the world at the time. The second error people seem to be making is the idea that God was some sort of earthly king handing out edicts.

    The basic premise of God communicating to others (and I have described this already, but I think everyone ) is that regular people, leading regular lives, in their regular timeframes, are struck with inspiration that is recognized as being so transcendent that it is divine. It isn't some sort of trance in which people hear some disembodied voice that is giving them information that is beyond their time. As such, one would not expect an understanding of anything that is significantly beyond that of the common understanding of the day. One would also not expect an instantaneous revelation of all things right and wrong. It comes out in bits and pieces, spread over thousands of years.

    If anyone tries to read anything more into the nature of God, it is going to seem out of whack, because it IS out of whack. That is what has been happening on this thread (and in the rest of the world for centuries now for that matter), and I think many of us have been getting so argumentative that this basic premise has been lost. As an example, people getting hung up over the historical references of Israel, are confusing history with divine inspiration. The belief that the Old Testament is "the inspired word of God" doesn't mean that everything in it is ordained by God. There is plenty of history in the Old Testament that provides context for the way the people understood and knew God. And the history is just that - a history of what happened. I'll admit, I've gotten so wrapped up in arguing that I too failed to stick to this basic premise, but it is a core element to the theological faiths of Judaism and Christianity.
  23. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    In short, your God would fail the courses I teach on communication for failure to be clear, concise and comprehensive. You need a new god.

Share This Page