I am an atheist thread 2

[ontologysue]

@A

I don’t need to ask you questions about what it’s like being an Atheist, I was an avowed atheist for about 10 years. I know it inside and out.

I’m not trying to “convince” you, A. No one convinced me, I wouldn’t be so foolish. However, there is no harm in intellectual debate because both of us can learn from the process. It can only be profitable to exercise the intellect. “Truth” is not intimidated by our seeking.

My favorite Milton says it most beautifully:

"Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to blow upon the earth,
So Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting,
To misdoubt her strength.
Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; for who ever knew Truth put to the worse,
In a free and open encounter."

In the end, to “know” God is an existential experience, (from the inside out.) Though of great merit, argument, is no converter.

“Life” is the converter, it’s sort of like what G K Chesterton says in his poem regarding conversion,

The sages have a hundred maps to give,
That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
They rattle reason out through many a sieve,
That stores the sand and lets the gold go free.
And, all these things are less than dust to me,
Because my name is Lazarus and I live."

 

[phooney]

@Socrates4Jesus

Hi Again,

Sorry again about the delay in responding, been busy with work and have been doing a bit more reading in my spare time.

“In response, i’d say: 1a), 2a), 3a), 4a), 5a)”

1a) Ok, our basic definitions of biblical prophecy seem to be similar. You seem to agree that the prophecy must be made before the event, or the prophet must not be able to possibly know about the event or fact they are prophesicing about.

2a) “Your requirement for a date sounds reasonable, but actually is not. The reason for this is that the calendar used by the ancient Jewish people is no longer in existence. How would we know that the date is correct if the calendar does not exist?”

As far as I know, we are aware of the calendar they used. To clarify, I would prefer that they use their own, already codified, calendar. Any indication of the date for fulfillment of the prophecy would be better than none.

“This aside, there are many facts about a prediction besides the exact date when events will take place that a skeptic might attempt to demonstrate as false.”

Agreed, but I included a time requirement as it is very important, for reasons already mentioned.

3a) “Must is a strong word. I do not believe this is a requirement”

Indeed it is a strong word, perhaps too strong. However, it is still a valid reason for skepticism, wouldn’t you agree? If people who can fulfill the prophecy KNOW about the prophecy, it can affect their actions. I find self-fulfilling prophecies to be very unconvincing, extremely weak evidence at best.

4a) “Yes, i agree that literary techniques have a different purpose, but not necessarily a contradictory one.”

I agree, it isn’t necessarily contradictory. However, regardless of how much ‘nicer’ or “outright beautiful” it might make a piece of writing or speech, in practice it makes a prophecy, vague, non-specific, too open to interpretation.

“It shows the author of the prophecy to have a great love for the beauty of poetry. I’d expect nothing less from God if he, she or it existed, wouldn’t you?”

No, quite far from it. I would not think that important information should be practially indistinguishable from poetry in any work that is supposed to be imparting important information. Regardless of the feelings of God, if he, she or it existed, towards poetry.

This shows inefficiency, bet-hedging, and indecision at best. At worst, this shows an intent to create conflict by leaving important information, in some cases strict guidelines for life and how to treat other people, in vague terms. If God did love poetry and wanted to share some of that with us, I would think it would be important to preface it with something like this:

“Hey guys, here’s a little haiku I wrote, it doesn’t make any sense per se, but I think it sounds nice…insert divine haiku here… Now, back to the important stuff…”

"Phooney:

I think you have done an excellent job of attempting to define the word prophecy. My definition of the word is not as far from yours as i thought."

Thanks! I’ll add other conditions if I think of reasonable ones.

 

[phooney]

continued@Socrates4Jesus

1b) “What i think you are saying, here, is that you no longer believe Alexander the Great read Ezekiel before going to war against the Tyrians. You now seem to be saying that the bit about the Tyrian’s city being shoveled into the sea was added after Alexander the Great did this.”

I didn’t believe that in the first place, as I described in point 3, I merely presented that as a more parsimonious option.

“It’s unclear whether you are claiming that Ezekiel was not the author or whether the Jewish scribes intentionally added the prediction about the Greek general’s military strategy to intentionally deceive. Please let me know what your line of argument is so that i might correctly respond.”

Any of the above, and perhaps more, could potentially be true, how have you eliminated these options? How can we be reasonably sure that the original matches the oldest copy, and consequently how it fares against the current versions? I notice that the link you gave me for this particular passage boasts that
it is able to show us 50 different versions of the text, I don’t even want to begin to count how many versions there have been over the years.

2b) “Ezekiel gives us the relative time when he wrote the book that bears his name in the first chapter:”

This wasn’t the date I was wanting, but was very interesting nontheless, thanks. As mentioned already, I was referring to the date of the fulfillment.

3b) “Yes, we both agree there is no evidence that Alexander the Great read Ezekiel before he conquered Tyre. We should, like good C.S.I.s, base our conclusions only on the evidence at hand. To do otherwise is merely speculation on your part and mine.”

Er… then do we now both agree that there is no evidence for God speaking to Ezekiel?

4b) "Your point seems to be that the passage might be interpreted to say a tsunami, rather than several armies, will bring down the walls of the coastal city of Tyre. Lets see what Ezekiel says:

… this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. (Ezekiel 26:3)

Notice that Ezekiel does not quote God as saying he would bring “the sea casting up its waves,” rather, he quotes God as saying, “I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. You may have missed the word like?”

But I have already quoted the conflicting passage, also quoting God “when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you” it is not the sentence that says “like”. These theatrical components seem to me to be the kind of bet-hedging that I mentioned earlier. To threaten a coastal city with the ocean “one day” doesn’t impress me.

“The text should not be taken in a wooden, literal sense. If you were to tell me the sun will rise at 7:00 AM, i could say you are wrong because the sun does not rise, nor does it set. Your use of a common metaphor, however, would not invalidate your claim.”

Well, who knows? Maybe “God” was a common metaphor for “my imagination” back then!

Though again, if the work isn’t intended to be taken literally, it should be clear (coming from God, you might put the condition of “perfectly” clear on). I don’t think anybody here is going to argue that people haven’t interpreted this passage, or the entire bible, in different ways. It is, therefore, not clear at all.

“5b) I have to admit that this is a perfectly good objection for which i do not yet have a response. Please give me some time to think and pray about it and i’ll let you know what think after i do.”

No problem

"Yes, Phooney, and i also would see it as strong evidence!

1 great care was taken to copy the text accurately and
2 no attempt to deliberately alter the text was made and
3 baring any evidence to the contrary, the same care can reasonably be assumed to have be for the time prior to this 1,000 year period."

I think this is taking the evidence further than it actually goes though. It wasn’t until, what, the third century or so that all these books were in the same place and under the care of the same people, right? We can’t extrapolate too much with any degree of confidence.

 

[_A]

Oh, you mean my posts proving that it couldn’t be proven?

Come on now, you took the time to “not” answer the challenge!

Now, take the time to answer the challenge!

Can you prove air?

(I believe this is the 3rd time you’ve responded to me without answering the challenge, am I correct?)

Every time you post something here, that is evidence enough for me as to the existence of air - not direct proof, but since you wont state which test equipment will give you the accuracy of results that you require, I think the fact that you breath is evidence enough.
I also asked you to describe how a world with air would be different from one without it. If you can give an honest answer to that, we can begin to collect evidence about the existence of air.

 

[2ndGen]

Every time you post something here, that is evidence enough for me as to the existence of air - not direct proof, but since you wont state which test equipment will give you the accuracy of results that you require, I think the fact that you breath is evidence enough.

I also asked you to describe how a world with air would be different from one without it. If you can give an honest answer to that, we can begin to collect evidence about the existence of air.

Is that your final answer?

Is that your proof?

Listen, it’s a simple question…“Can you prove that air exists?”

I never limited you to “how” you could prove it.

You’ve responded to me with a zillion other responses except an attempt to prove that air exists.

Then you want me to answer your request before you answer mine.

It’s sooooo easy to just prove it (“if” you can).

Now, can you prove that air exists?

 

[_A]

I’ve been lurking on these boards for a couple weeks now and following this thread which I find very interesting. I accept that you are an atheist and am curious to know how you came to not believe in a god or gods. I was brought up Catholic and started having doubts and questions about my religion since I was a kid. I can trace it back to a religion exam I took that contained a question something like, “Why do we go to church”? and the responses to choose from were something like: because I believe in god, because church is a routine, etc. Well, I can honestly say when I read the responses I realized that the “routine” response was my reason for attending church. Going to church on Sundays was what my family did and I simply followed suit.

I’m just curious to know if you were brought up without religion or with religion and started questioning things as you matured as I did.

I was a cradle catholic, but I don’t remember actually believing. I remember praying, and wondering why it didn’t seem to do anything. My Mother says that I LOVED to go to church when I was small.

I think one turning point for me was when I was around 11. I was channel-surfing (with a ‘converter’ lol) when I saw a ‘feed the starving Ethiopians’ pledge drive. I changed the channel.
The next thing I watched was a tour of Vatican City. I had the answer to the starving children that quickly.
I went in to see my priest that week, and told him my idea about selling off all the art and gold and paintings to feed the children. He said something about ‘priceless holy treasures’. I didn’t understand the word ‘priceless’, but thought to myself that I could certainly get a price for some of it.
It was a naive complaint at the time, but it still has not been answered. Why the church needs so much money, I mean. The RC church is paying out settlements in the hundreds of millions of dollars for their sexual misconduct, and subsequent mishandling of the matters.
I wonder how many people struggled to make those 'tithies…I know it wasn’t easy for my Mom when we were small.
That really opened my eyes to the possibility that the church could be wrong, and the minute you start looking around, it is easy to see that with so many different people shouting so many different (and conflicting) truths, they all couldn’t be right.
Another thing that bothered me is that when something good happens (like one person surviving a plane crash) it is called a miracle. I say god also gets credit for the 150 dead from the same crash. This extends into anything that people do to be kind and caring to each other. The church or some god gets the credit.

I met a woman recently who had to cancel her vacation and come back to work because she lost a bunch of staff. She got an ad in the paper, interviewed a few people, found enough to hire and averted the crisis. She then told me that the power of prayer solved all her problems.
I wonder what effect her prayer would have had if she had stayed on vacation instead of rushing back to do a bunch of work.
I wonder what effect her hard work would have had if she had not bothered with the praying.

Another thing is that I read a lot, paying particular attention to anything that is ‘banned’, or generally disapproved of by church (or secular ) authority.

I hope this helps, and if you want to know anything else, just ask!

 

[_A]

Actually, it is *your *hypothesis we are testing:

The test I have in mind is the one referred to in post #560 (p.38), the novena to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

As you have been away from the practice for some while, have not kept yourself well-informed, and apparently have relinquished your “licence to practice”, I am taking the liberty to set the standards and procedures to test the hypothesis.

Please note that I am working under a very astute and wise Master who has dedicated His entire life to His work, and I take no credit for any positive results - it is all the Master.

As for positive results, ANY healing in your soul will be deemed a measurable, positive result.

Then it follows that if some negative thing happens, that proves that the god you had me pray to is evil, right?
It also follows that if I don’t pray, but something good happens, that good things happen without prayer…?
I think you have some holes in your test criteria…care to be more explicit in the rules? I mean so that we can see if there is something really to this. I would like a conclusive result - not something where you can ‘move the goalposts’ later (such as saying if I don’t get a result that I did it wrong, or need to do it longer).

 

[_A]

@A

I don’t need to ask you questions about what it’s like being an Atheist, I was an avowed atheist for about 10 years. I know it inside and out.

I’m not trying to “convince” you, A. No one convinced me, I wouldn’t be so foolish. However, there is no harm in intellectual debate because both of us can learn from the process. It can only be profitable to exercise the intellect. “Truth” is not intimidated by our seeking.

My favorite Milton says it most beautifully:

"Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to blow upon the earth,
So Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting,
To misdoubt her strength.
Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; for who ever knew Truth put to the worse,
In a free and open encounter."

In the end, to “know” God is an existential experience, (from the inside out.) Though of great merit, argument, is no converter.

“Life” is the converter, it’s sort of like what G K Chesterton says in his poem regarding conversion,

The sages have a hundred maps to give,
That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
They rattle reason out through many a sieve,
That stores the sand and lets the gold go free.
And, all these things are less than dust to me,
Because my name is Lazarus and I live."

The thing is, even with beautiful poetry, there is not a bit of evidence to support the utility of prayer, or the existence of a god or gods.
Thanks for the poetry, though. Beauty is always welcome, and that Milton guy (gal?) seems to know how to turn a phrase.

 

[_A]

Is that your final answer?

Is that your proof?

Listen, it’s a simple question…“Can you prove that air exists?”

I never limited you to “how” you could prove it.

You’ve responded to me with a zillion other responses except an attempt to prove that air exists.

Then you want me to answer your request before you answer mine.

It’s sooooo easy to just prove it (“if” you can).

Now, can you prove that air exists?

I have proved it. If there were no air, I could not be posting this because I survive on (in part) air.

 

[2ndGen]

I have proved it. If there were no air, I could not be posting this because I survive on (in part) air.

That’s not a “proof”.

That’s a belief.

A belief that you learned that you take at face value.

You chose to trust the person/institution/source that you learned this from.

That belief is based on your faith that you weren’t lied to.

Saying it is not proof.

Did you “discover” that you survive on air?
How do you know this when you’ve never seen it?
Or heard it?
Or tasted it?
Or felt it?
Or smelled it?

How do you know it exists?

 

[Armor_of_God]

I went in to see my priest that week, and told him my idea about selling off all the art and gold and paintings to feed the children. He said something about ‘priceless holy treasures’. I didn’t understand the word ‘priceless’, but thought to myself that I could certainly get a price for some of it.

I think that was a very charitable and compassionate thing you did, A. I wish I could have been more like that as a kid. I think the closest I got was when I would smuggle peanut butter sandwiches to school from home, for a friend who was poor (extra-thick, as my friend loved peanut butter). I don’t think my parents ever found out, and we didn’t have a lot of money, either.

 

[_A]

That’s not a “proof”.

That’s a belief.

A belief that you learned that you take at face value.

You chose to trust the person/institution/source that you learned this from.

That belief is based on your faith that you weren’t lied to.

Saying it is not proof.

Did you “discover” that you survive on air?
How do you know this when you’ve never seen it?
Or heard it?
Or tasted it?
Or felt it?
Or smelled it?

How do you know it exists?

Mostly because of evidence. I have a close friend who works in an environmental lab. We have sampled our air and tested it. I know that the test equipment doesn’t provide ‘proof’, but I now have enough evidence to make my decisions.
Have you got a point to make here, or are you just trying to understand air?

 

[Armor_of_God]

It is catholic history and reading the bible (and reading *about *the bible) are what removed any belief in Yahweh (or Jehovah, or whatever name he uses at this time)

A, how frequently do you study the Acts of the Apostles, the various Pauline letters and other letters that come after the Acts, and the Book of Revelation?

 

[_A]

A, how frequently do you study the Acts of the Apostles, the various Pauline letters and other letters that come after the Acts, and the Book of Revelation?

Just what would be the point of that? The bible is not a fax from heaven.

 

[2ndGen]

Mostly because of evidence. I have a close friend who works in an environmental lab. We have sampled our air and tested it. I know that the test equipment doesn’t provide ‘proof’, but I now have enough evidence to make my decisions.
Have you got a point to make here, or are you just trying to understand air?

How can one sample a tasteless, odorless, formless, soundless, invisible thing?

 

[Armor_of_God]

Just what would be the point of that? The bible is not a fax from heaven.

What is your opinion on the core messages conveyed in them?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Jeremiah 3:12I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.
Jeremiah 17:4Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.

There is one to start…there are many.

A:

You asked me to compare the following passages (i’ve included the surrounding verses for context):

11 The LORD said to me, "Faithless Israel is more righteous than unfaithful Judah. 12 Go, proclaim this message toward the north:
" ‘Return, faithless Israel,’ declares the LORD,
‘I will frown on you no longer,
for I am merciful,’ declares the LORD,
‘I will not be angry forever. 13 Only acknowledge your guilt—
you have rebelled against the LORD your God,
you have scattered your favors to foreign gods
under every spreading tree,
and have not obeyed me,’ "
declares the LORD.
(Jeremiah 3)

1 “Judah’s sin is engraved with an iron tool,
inscribed with a flint point,
on the tablets of their hearts
and on the horns of their altars.
2 Even their children remember
their altars and Asherah poles
beside the spreading trees
and on the high hills.
3 My mountain in the land
and your wealth and all your treasures
I will give away as plunder,
together with your high places,
because of sin throughout your country.
4 Through your own fault you will lose
the inheritance I gave you.
I will enslave you to your enemies
in a land you do not know,
for you have kindled my anger,
and it will burn forever.” 5 This is what the LORD says:
"Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
who depends on flesh for his strength
and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
(Jeremiah 17)

I’m assuming that you are saying that it is a contradiction for God to be angry forever with one group of people (the people of the southern kingdom of Judah) but to not be angry forever with another group of people (the people of the northern kingdom of Israel). Is this correct?

 

[_A]

How can one sample a tasteless, odorless, formless, soundless, invisible thing?

There is a bit of relavent information on air sampling in this article from Occupational Health and Safety.
An article from OH&S:

That’s where air samplers come in. Accurate air sampling is the crucial first step in the timely and successful detection and identification of a biological or chemical agent. Today, first responders such as police, fire, military, and medical crews have more choices in air samplers. They already deploy air samplers at large public events such as the presidential inauguration, the Super Bowl, the World Series; for indoor monitoring of government and corporate mailrooms and offices; and in searches for drugs or explosives.

 

[_A]

What is your opinion on the core messages conveyed in them?

Lacking in morals, offhand. If you want to state those core values more specifically, I can answer more specifically.

 

[_A]

I’m assuming that you are saying that it is a contradiction for God to be angry forever with one group of people (the people of the southern kingdom of Judah) but to not be angry forever with another group of people (the people of the northern kingdom of Israel). Is this correct?

In one sample, your god says “I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.” That is a pretty clear statement which is contradicted by the other (I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.). The extra text you are quoting does little to hide the fact that your god is, at the very least, unclear in his messages.

Another interesting point is how this god of yours holds a grudge for many generations for some small transgression of an ancestor (say Adam eating the wrong fruit, when he didn’t even know about sin)