I am an atheist thread 2

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think you have a hard time with evidence. Phooney showed that Ezekiels prophecy was not a ‘good’ prophecy, and you are still unconvinced. I have already told you how codes can be selected by physical facts where you see design.
I think that nothing can convince you that you have the wrong book in hand.

That remains to be seen, as well. Do you not recall that which you and i agreed about binary code? We agreed that, while it might be possible that the binary number system is not the work of intelligent beings, applications of the binary number system are, indeed, such proof.

An example of this is a Windows operating system, which is, once the source code is translated into binary code, nothing but a series of ones and zeros. You concurred that to say the binary code at the source of an operating system is not the work of intelligent programmers would be absurd.

Do you remember?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Gotta go. Looking forward to reading your response later!

 

[_A]

Mr. A:

Yes, i understand, but i did not ask you to give me an example of a contradiction; i asked you to explain what a contradiction is. You and i must agree on what a contradiction is before we can agree that the Bible has such a thing, don’t you agree?

con·tra·dic·tion /ˌkɒntrəˈdɪkʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-truh-dik-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

1. the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2. assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3. **a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4. direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5. a contradictory act, fact, etc.**

Those bolded ones all fit quite nicely with the two statements which I drew from your bible

 

[_A]

That remains to be seen, as well. Do you not recall that which you and i agreed about binary code? We agreed that, while it might be possible that the binary number system is not the work of intelligent beings, applications of the binary number system are, indeed, such proof.

I didn’t agree that applications of it are such proof.

An example of this is a Windows operating system, which is, once the source code is translated into binary code, nothing but a series of ones and zeros. You concurred that to say the binary code at the source of an operating system is not the work of intelligent programmers would be absurd.

Do you remember?

The programmers could not be computers?
Why don’t you get to your point (I think it is the one ontologysue made earlier about genetic codes or something like it). Once you have made your point, we can see if it makes sense.

I agree that intelligent humans can use codes to record messages, and that there are quite complex codes which have no intelligence behind them.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I don’t put much stock into christian apologists. The bible should be sufficient (unless, of course, it was written by a primitive bunch of men instead of the ‘inspired word of god’).

What makes you think that the Bible was ever intended to be sufficient?

 

[_A]

What makes you think that the Bible was ever intended to be sufficient?

I was told that the bible was the inspired word of god. Other writings were by men.
I put a lot more stock into evidence than a book of fiction like the bible.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I was told that the bible was the inspired word of god. Other writings were by men.

That doesn’t answer my question. Let me rephrase. Why do you think the “inspired word of god” is necessarily sufficient?

Here’s a hint - the Catholic church has never taught that it is. Useful, certainly. Sufficient, no.

 

[BlaineTog]

Claiming that goddidit is somehow a more reasonable position?

Actually, it is. Objectively. We know the farmers didn’t create it. We don’t know that with God.

Right, what I should have said is that, since your god claims to heal, why does he demonstrate an inability to cure amputees?

It demonstrates unwillingness, not necessarily inability. And because allowing the amputees to go without a limb leads to a greater good. Losing your limb is a physical, temporal evil (which can hardly even be called evil at all) that can potentially lead to spiritual, atemporal goods. It’s a vastly superior trade.

He didn’t. He is still alive, and still a god (if you believe the bible)

You’re presupposing that death is the end, which (if you believe the bible) isn’t true for anyone.

So why the big production, then? The most reasonable answer seems to be that he likes torture and suffering.
Now that’s a kind of love I can do without. (the Marquis de Sade must have been close to your god)

You’re equivocating. Jesus came down and died for us. He would have been happy either way, but because he loves us, he allowed himself to be tortured and killed for our sins.

According to your god myth, he is all-powerful and all-knowing. Nothing could be done to him except what he planned.

You can plan for a hurricane without wanting the hurricane.

I am not surprised. I see you have applied the same rigorous thinking to your belief in a god, too.

That is a borderline ad hominem fallacy.

The evidence I have has some basis, I direct your attention to the internet, and to medical science.

Which is based on a belief in a) your senses, which can easily be doubted, and b) the law of noncontradiction which, by its own tenets, cannot be justified, since justification would be circular logic.

 

[_A]

That doesn’t answer my question. Let me rephrase. Why do you think the “inspired word of god” is necessarily sufficient?

Here’s a hint - the Catholic church has never taught that it is. Useful, certainly. Sufficient, no.

I don’t think any amount of creative writing would make the lead characters in the bible worthy of worship.

 

[_A]

Actually, it is. Objectively. We know the farmers didn’t create it. We don’t know that with God.

You have not one shred of empirical evidence that your god even exists.

It demonstrates unwillingness, not necessarily inability. And because allowing the amputees to go without a limb leads to a greater good. Losing your limb is a physical, temporal evil (which can hardly even be called evil at all) that can potentially lead to spiritual, atemporal goods. It’s a vastly superior trade.

I thought your god was a healer? Why does he refuse to work with amptees? My guess is that he does not exist, so cannot replace a limb.

You’re presupposing that death is the end, which (if you believe the bible) isn’t true for anyone.

The fact is, he didn’t have anything to risk. He knew exactly what was going to happen. In fact, it could be argued that those who killed that fictional character, Jesus, were also victims of ‘gods will’.

You’re equivocating. Jesus came down and died for us. He would have been happy either way, but because he loves us, he allowed himself to be tortured and killed for our sins.

Not quite - he planned and choreographed the little play. When you say he died for our sins, what does it mean? Does it mean that you don’t have to worry about sin, as long as you pay tithe (which, to me sounds like simony) and confess once a week.

You can plan for a hurricane without wanting the hurricane.

If you are an all-powerful god, you can cancel the hurricane (unless you like the death and destruction, of course)

That is a borderline ad hominem fallacy.

I didn’t mean it as an attack on your person. I meant to point out to you that you would ‘roll your eyes’ at facts, in favour of what your personal senses (which can be quite wrong) tell you.

Which is based on a belief in a) your senses, which can easily be doubted, and b) the law of noncontradiction which, by its own tenets, cannot be justified, since justification would be circular logic.

Not just my senses, and this is critical, but the senses of independent, non-biased observers.

 

[ontologysue]

That’s very nice of you to say. It means a lot to me coming from a stereochemist like yourself.
Are you trying to suggest that I have no knowledge of catholocism?
Also very nice of you to say, thank you.
Suggesting that I have no intellectual curiosity because I wont read what you tell me to says more about you than about me.
If I won’t read those, does that also mean that I lack intellectual curiosity?
What is it that I have to gain? A set of dogmas which are restrictive and immoral? If there is a god, it is him that will have to answer me, not you.
Why do I need to read a bunch of philosophy to have a handle on reality? I am not looking for a personal god to worship.
I don’t need to have faith in Atheism lol. If I ever did doubt, I wouldn’t use ‘faith’ anyway, I would check the facts and use those.
I’ll admit that it was feeling that way. Your goal is truth, but you accept christian dogma (it seems from here) and that I find difficult to wrap my head around.

No, you’re not insulting, A. You’ve been saying either implicitly or explicitly through this entire thread that anyone who takes the Christian faith seriously is an intellectual midgit at the very least!.

I haven’t taken offense at any of that. What bothers me is that you want to argue your side but feel no compulsion to nail down the theology that would allow you to argue from a position of substantive knowledge. I “find it difficult to wrap my head around that.”

That being said, I will try to be more adept at using icons so you realize when I’m trying to be humorous; I proudly accept the title of "stereochemist.!(lol)
Yes, my goal is truth and **after studying all the major religions of Asia, having grown up a Protestant and been an Atheist for 10 or **12 years, I am now an Orthodox Catholic.

To the debate…pretend that you are God, A. How would you go about giving creatures free will, while at the same time protecting them from any harm or suffering, without having to jump in constantly to prevent the consequences of bad choices on their part, which, would effectively nullify, the whole point of free will, which, by necessity includes the possibility to say “no.”

And, how would you arrange the laws of the universe? You have to give your creatures a “milieu” in which to operate. It would need to be somewhat stable. Fixed laws would be a requirement, ie.,consequences unfolding by causal necessity, etc, just to make it non-chaotic and understandable. Now, how do you accomplish this without the possibility of suffering, without having to revoke the very free will your perfect love intends for these creatures? Remember, you are perfect love, ie., therefore, it is a logical impossibility (you’re also perfect rationality) to create “robots,” who can do nothing other than love you.

How do you do all that while making suffering an impossibility?

 

[_A]

No, you’re not insulting, A. You’ve been saying either implicitly or explicitly through this entire thread that anyone who takes the Christian faith seriously is an intellectual midgit at the very least!.If you can’t provide a quote supporting this, it must just be something you made up.
I don’t like you putting words into my mouth.

ontologysue:

I haven’t taken offense at any of that. What bothers me is that you want to argue your side but feel no compulsion to nail down the theology that would allow you to argue from a position of substantive knowledge. I “find it difficult to wrap my head around that.”

I don’t have to study theology to understand that the god described in the bible is a horrible character who would not be welcome in my life.

That being said, I will try to be more adept at using icons so you realize when I’m trying to be humorous; I proudly accept the title of "stereochemist.!(lol)
Yes, my goal is truth and **after studying all the major religions of Asia, having grown up a Protestant and been an Atheist for 10 or **12 years, I am now an Orthodox Catholic.

Good for you, but I still have seen not one bit of evidence of the existence of your god (or anyone elses). Should I just trust you on this?

To the debate…pretend that you are God, A. How would you go about giving creatures free will, while at the same time protecting them from any harm or suffering, without having to jump in constantly to prevent the consequences of bad choices on their part, which, would effectively nullify, the whole point of free will, which, by necessity includes the possibility to say “no.”

I would not want worship. Why would anyone want to be worshipped? It sounds like the desire of a megalomaniac, not a gentle, loving creator.

And, how would you arrange the laws of the universe? You have to give your creatures a “milieu” in which to operate. It would need to be somewhat stable. Fixed laws would be a requirement, ie.,consequences unfolding by causal necessity, etc, just to make it non-chaotic and understandable. Now, how do you accomplish this without the possibility of suffering, without having to revoke the very free will your perfect love intends for these creatures? Remember, you are perfect love, ie., therefore, it is a logical impossibility (you’re also perfect rationality) to create “robots,” who can do nothing other than love you.

How do you do all that while making suffering an impossibility?

I don’t. I don’t think any being has. If the god of the bible is true, then I will take it up with him when I meet him.
I will not worship.
I will be me, right or wrong. I will use real evidence, instead of ‘faith’ and ‘wishful thinking’.
If you can’t stop putting words in my mouth, I would suggest that you will enjoy practicing that with someone else.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I don’t think any amount of creative writing would make the lead characters in the bible worthy of worship.

Person A: Chemistry is absurd. I’ve read a little bit of one textbook, and it just doesn’t make sense!
Person B: Well, maybe you ever read ___'s layman’s intro to chemistry.
Person A: My textbook should be sufficient.
Person B: Your textbook is great, and you should definitely study it. But ____ has studied chemistry a lot more than either of us, and he put together a work that is actually meant to be easily accessible to laymen, unlike your textbook.

So far, I can think of two objections that you’ve raised to God, as you understand Him. First is hell. You’ve already agreed that the Catholic church’s teaching on hell is reasonable. The second was your Deuteronomy verse (21:18, I think) about killing children, right?

I’ll admit that I don’t have a convenient response to that one. But let me ask this - are you objecting because you are opposed to the death penalty, or because you think the death penalty is not justified in this particular case?

 

[ontologysue]

If you can’t provide a quote supporting this, it must just be something you made up.
I don’t like you putting words into my mouth.
I don’t have to study theology to understand that the god described in the bible is a horrible character who would not be welcome in my life.
Good for you, but I still have seen not one bit of evidence of the existence of your god (or anyone elses). Should I just trust you on this?
I would not want worship. Why would anyone want to be worshipped? It sounds like the desire of a megalomaniac, not a gentle, loving creator.
I don’t. I don’t think any being has. If the god of the bible is true, then I will take it up with him when I meet him.
I will not worship.
I will be me, right or wrong. I will use real evidence, instead of ‘faith’ and ‘wishful thinking’.
If you can’t stop putting words in my mouth, I would suggest that you will enjoy practicing that with someone else.

Can’t figure out an answer to that 2 part question, huh?

 

[steve_b]

Well, I don’t know much about physics or cosmology, really. What I do know is that something having a beginning is not proof of god.

Huh? Go back to the very beginning. How does ANYTHING get here? That was the purpose of giving you links to the latest scientific thinking on the beginning of everything

You said

:
Originally Posted by A forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

This is why is is fairly pointless to continue. If someone discovered solid proof that your god didn’t exist, you would still hold to your signature.

This (i,e, my signature, to doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity) in your opinion is pointless to continue because it eliminates me from the thinking crowd. That I’m opposed to proof.

Well, where is your proof for no God?
_A_:

If it were evidence of god, Mr. Hawkings would have said so -

Another IF.

Nice try.

He didn’t say there wasn’t a God. In fact he points out where science is stuck. So how in the world could he say with certainty knowing science is stuck for answers, that there is absolutely no God.

Yet you seem to believe such proof is there. Who or what are you placing this faith in?
_A_:

that would be big news. I suspect that the reason he makes no such claim in the links you provided is that he has no evidence pointing to a god.

He makes no such claim because he CAN’T provide evidence that there is no God. That’s the point.

Here is Hawkings lectures again for convenience
hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html

To give you an exerpt from one of his lectures, The beginning of time] emphesis mine

:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.
Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past. One suggestion was to modify the law of gravity, so that it became repulsive. This could lead to the graph of the separation between two galaxies, being a curve that approached zero, but didn’t actually pass through it, at any finite time in the past. Instead, the idea was that, as the galaxies moved apart, new galaxies were formed in between, from matter that was supposed to be continually created. This was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle.
The Steady State theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified

Bottomline, the big bang theory is the current favorite theory among science for how everything happeed. And not to lose an important point of his lecture, I paraphrase,** science can’t tell how singularity got there, or what was before the big bang. And there is no way science can give an answer.** That’s the bottomline.

science is limited. Let that sink in. science can’t prove there is no God. So what proof are YOU going to use?

as you can also see from the quote above, scientists aren’t above falsifying data to get around uncomfortable conclusions they don’t want to see.

Since you’re soooooo sure there is no God, and there is NO DOUBT in your mind that there is no God, then surely you can produce the proof.

 

[BlaineTog]

You have not one shred of empirical evidence that your god even exists.

Nor do you have one single shred of evidence that you can trust empirical data, at least not any from a source other than your senses.

I thought your god was a healer? Why does he refuse to work with amptees? My guess is that he does not exist, so cannot replace a limb.

He refuses to use fancy miracles indiscriminately because the system works better like this. And perhaps the amputees will learn something important, or perhaps they’ll teach someone something important as a result of their injury.

The fact is, he didn’t have anything to risk. He knew exactly what was going to happen.

“What was going to happen” was the worst offense ever, namely torture and death to the person who least deserved, which he allowed for our benefit.

And once again, the fact is, using your logic, no physical impediment is ever bad at all. Remember, you can’t pretend that the Christian system doesn’t affirm the immortality of all souls because then you’re committing a strawman fallacy.

In fact, it could be argued that those who killed that fictional character, Jesus, were also victims of ‘gods will’.

Not unless you want to assume free will doesn’t exist.

Not quite - he planned and choreographed the little play. When you say he died for our sins, what does it mean? Does it mean that you don’t have to worry about sin, as long as you pay tithe (which, to me sounds like simony) and confess once a week.

If you are an all-powerful god, you can cancel the hurricane (unless you like the death and destruction, of course)

False dichotomy. First, you’re taking my metaphor in directions it was never intended to go, as hurricanes aren’t evil (they can cause destruction, but out of the destruction can come a greater sense of community and a greater respect for peace. The destruction itself, though, doesn’t harm the soul, which is the only harm that’s truly evil). So, let’s move this to a more appropriate sphere: one man strikes another man with a sword in malice. Why doesn’t God stop this? Because to do so would be an affront against the shooter’s free will. Would you have him turn the sword to jelly as the attack swung? What if he picked up a rock, should the rock turn to dust? Perhaps if the one man says something cruel to the other, God should cause the air to cease allowing the transmission of sound.

I didn’t mean it as an attack on your person. I meant to point out to you that you would ‘roll your eyes’ at facts, in favour of what your personal senses (which can be quite wrong) tell you.

No one eyes than the the eyes of God are infallible, and it’s also quite possible to assume everyone is putting me on.

Of course, this argument of yours backfires drastically, too. 90% of the world believes in God, and approximately half of the world (IIRC) believes in the God of Abraham.

Not just my senses, and this is critical, but the senses of independent, non-biased observers.

You’re begging the question. It is only through your senses that you have any conception of their existence. So, you could have figments of your imagination telling you that they are not figments of your imagination. Sure, they might not be, but you can’t take their word for it.

 

[_A]

Person A: Chemistry is absurd. I’ve read a little bit of one textbook, and it just doesn’t make sense!
Person B: Well, maybe you ever read ___'s layman’s intro to chemistry.
Person A: My textbook should be sufficient.
Person B: Your textbook is great, and you should definitely study it. But ____ has studied chemistry a lot more than either of us, and he put together a work that is actually meant to be easily accessible to laymen, unlike your textbook.

So far, I can think of two objections that you’ve raised to God, as you understand Him. First is hell. You’ve already agreed that the Catholic church’s teaching on hell is reasonable.

Nope, I think it is unreasonable. Also, when I was having my catholic indoctrination as a child, hell existed. Now, the church has changed their minds (possibly because threatening punishment fell out of fashion). Should I believe a church that keeps making new stuff up about their god?

The second was your Deuteronomy verse (21:18, I think) about killing children, right?

I’ll admit that I don’t have a convenient response to that one. But let me ask this - are you objecting because you are opposed to the death penalty, or because you think the death penalty is not justified in this particular case?

I don’t agree with the death penalty where there are other options.
Does your all-powerful god lack such options? Or does he just dislike children who curse?

 

[_A]

Can’t figure out an answer to that 2 part question, huh?

You can pretend to be a god if you want to - you can even pretend that you talk to one, and that he talks to you.
I don’t want to.

 

[steve_b]

If you are claiming that the fact that the universe has an (apparent) beginning is proof of god, it is up to you to offer your reasoning.

:dts: Not so fast. Scientists say there IS an absolute beginning to the universe. They don’t claim it was always here.

• NASA says the universe had it’s beginning 13.7 billion years ago + / - 1% accuracy. I gave you that link. They don’t wiggle on that. They are absolutely sure of this number
  So where did everything come from? Neither you nor science can answer what happened prior to the theory of the big bang. I gave you that link also.

Still want to deny God?

 

[steve_b]

Is doubt ever intended?

If it’s convenient, yeah!.

Mirdath:

It’s the very nature of the thing that it’s a suspicious reaction to what we’ve been told, not something we go out and do.

Suspicion can be overcome by knowledge.

Mirdath:

That’s nice and all, but what God wants it seems sometimes he does not do.

Allow me to rephrase. What God wants sometimes WE don’t do.

Mirdath:

I’m not especially set upon by demons. We’ve all got the capacity for doubt or skepticism. I simply choose to exercise it judiciously.

Tell me, how many other saints do you know of who doubted God, or went through a ‘dark night of the soul’? The list is long, and begins with Thomas.

Would you agree with Padre Pio that the majority of Mother Theresa’s life was an insult to God?

Christopher Hitchins ( I would call an aggressive atheist) did a hit piece on Mother Teresa. He of course got it all wrong about her.

Look at how people live, even going through a dark night of the soul, to see their faith, and see if they really and truly doubt God.