I am an atheist thread 3

[phooney]

continued@armour of god

“I think you’re getting closer to understanding, A. The kind of evidence you’re looking for is really restricting your openness to the possibilities of what can be considered evidence in matters of faith.”

Why would matters of religious faith have different standards of evidence than everything else we can learn about reality? If the standards of evidence for religious faith are better, then why not use them in other areas? I think I’ll pose to you the questions that I put to Little Mary, our local prayer warrior, which she either was unable to answer, didn’t read or thought it would take too long.

If God told you to go and kill somebody, would you do it?

She said she would pray and consult her priest as her methods for determining if this was really god speaking to her, but that this command would be against God’s teaching anyway.

I responded:

"What if you already knew the person was a sinner? If you hold the bible to be historically accurate, it is hardly unprecedented the event of God commanding his followers to kill entire villages (except for the virgin girls of course).

You’re not SUPPOSED to like “going out and killing somebody” as an example, and I am glad to hear you say you would at least ask some questions. Not liking this example is a demonstration consistent with the model of morality that I outlined in my previous few posts.

What makes me a little uneasy is that you seem to indicate that once you were sure enough, by some measure, that it was God, you would go out and kill. What would make you sure enough though? You say you would pray. If God answered you with the same clarity after asking you to kill as he does (presumably) now, would that make you sure enough? If God is speaking directly to you, why would you listen to a priest advising against killing above God’s instructions? God didn’t tell the priest to kill, only you, so all the priest has are the collections of writings relating to his particular deity, and his own opinion. What methods do you invisage the priest utilising to determine the truth of God speaking to you?

On a side note,I think I noticed when I signed up to this forum that the rules state people aren’t allowed to post unauthorised revelations, which I thought was pretty amusing!"

There are a few questions in there that I think are interesting, if you would care to have a crack at them. Much like A, I will not suspend rational thought just to see what kind of things I can bring myself to believe if I forget such things as all the evidence gathered by science to date. No, I am not suggesting that science has, or can, disprove all gods, but such things as virgin births and survival of rigor mortis do not happen according to all evidence.

“Correction: You have not found the evidence you are asking for. That proves nothing.”

I agree with this, with one provision. It proves nothing except that he, and I, are rationally justified in reserving judgement on this topic at this point in time. I will also add, that I think I have searched for evidence certainly more than the average theist and have found none thus far, which again proves nothing. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence afterall. Though, absence of evidence is not evidence either.

“I’m still puzzled as to why you even care about right and wrong, and how you define these terms.”

“I was genuinely wondering where you draw your concepts of right and wrong from. It wasn’t simply rhetorical musing on my part. I am interested, and I am looking for something more than just “The Golden Rule””

What did you think of the concept of evolutionary morality I presented earlier?

“I follow Church doctrine because I think it is full of wisdom and beauty and truth, and that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I do think through everything myself, and I do have self-discipline. Love for God and neighbor drives it.”

I’m glad you think things through, or at least claim to! I’ve really enjoyed your posts, and appreciate how calm you have remained. I was wondering, as you do think things through, and also think the bible (I assume this is what you mean by church doctrine?) is inspired by the holy spirit, I was wondering if there is anything in there that you actually disagree with?

 

[_A]

You neglected to respond to any of my questions…

I think I did, though a little late. If I have missed some, please ask again.

Here are the answers to yours:

He does know automatically where a soul will end up. He makes souls because he loves them and therefore he needs them to exist, if he did not love they would not exist and those are ones he did not create.

So your loving god makes some souls just so they can go to hell. Sounds like a swell guy.

He can in fact commit an evil act if he chose, and therefore remains all powerful

it is rather the case that he never has and never shall because he loves us, and therefore is all good

If he didn’t create all this evil, who did? Was it your gods’ god who did it? Is that why he can’t seem to get rid of it, though he tried (and apologized for his failure) in the great flood, and tried again when he arranged to have himself tortured on the cross?
He has control over all the evil being done, or he is not omnipotent. Which is it?

 

[phooney]

@Whatevergirl

“I will say–I would rather live as a believer and be found wrong when I die, than to live as an atheist refusing to believe in God–and find out I was wrong when I die. (Not the reason I believe certainly)”

I’m glad that this mere scare mongering isn’t the reason you believe, that’s all Pascal’s Wager is, and it is completely without argumentative influence without the evidence that the god of the bible is the only god. If for example, the one true god happens to be one that rewards atheism, then it is theists that will be eternally punished. We all take the same risks in regards to the afterlife with our beliefs, but Pascal’s point of view gives the value of time spent or wasted during this life as 0, which I disagree with. In comparison with infinity, yes, this life must be effectively rounded down to zero, but if Atheists are ‘right’ you will have lost something very valuable indeed, though you will never know it: a portion of the only life you have spent worshipping a figment of your imagination.

“It is actually harder to believe that the vast beauty of the universe, where there is no timetable–only infinity–was a happenstance, random occurence. From a logical viewpoint, it seems highly unlikely that an infinite universe has no Creator.”

I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. Time is a dimension of our universe, it is inextricable from space, hence ‘spacetime’ the unviverse is the only place were we know there COULD be a ‘timetable’. The universe hasn’t been around for infinity either, though again, with time being a dimension of our universe, there also wasn’t a time ‘before’ the universe either.

Whether or not the unviverse had a cause (and there is no reason to suppose that it did, as our laws of physics break down at the planck time) there is no evidence YET to possibly tell us what that cause was. I have given a couple of examples of natural hypotheses in these threads for the cause of the big bang, which in addition to being potentially falsifiable when the large hadron collider is completed, are also mathematically sound, which is a good start. This is no guarantee that they are correct, and they are of course different hypotheses, so they can’t all be correct! I won’t believe in them until there is sufficient evidence for one of them. Here’s the question and answer part of a short lecture given by Stephen Hawking last year, the part I think you would find interesting starts at around the six minute mark. youtube.com/watch?v=O8Kp0rQ23PY

“When it comes to faith, feelings are really meaningless. Even if we do not have faith in ‘a god’ let’s say–we shouldn’t live our live on feelings.”

Agreed!

It had a starting point, and it hasn’t been expanding for infinity, so I don’t see how the universe is infinite. Maybe our (best) minds can grasp the universe and maybe they can’t, but regardless of how difficult this particular task may be that is NO reason to stop pushing the boundaries of our scientific understanding and just say “Too difficult, too complex, let’s just say god did it.” “Sure, I’ll write an article detailing our findings to the Nature journal, it should only take one line! Then we can move on to easier topics!”

 

[_A]

Actually if you consider the width of the brim in the calculation it is close to pi. The skeptics forget about the brim.

I would expect a guy like me to get close, and a mathematician to get closer.
A being that is all-knowing and all-seeing? I would expect perfection.

There are three kinds of mathematician - those who can count, and those who can’t.

 

[phooney]

continued @ whatevergirl

“A human cannot create anything, either. We can only discover, at best. We cannot create air, atmosphere, etc…so, ‘some being’ had to create it. Man did not, for man cannot create, but only discover.”

Well, technically, nothing can be created IN our universe, as detailed by the first law of thermodynamics. Whether this law holds ‘outside’ or ‘before’ (written in quotation marks because of time being a dimension of our universe, therefore ‘before our universe’ is equal in meaning to ‘south of the south pole’) our universe remains to be seen and perhaps tested. Some ‘thing’ may have created it, some ‘process’ may have created it, some ‘being’ may have created it, or maybe not, we just don’t have the evidence to make the assertion yet and thus rationally justify the belief. Atheism certainly doesn’t hold the position that man created the universe! It is only the lack of belief in a God, I mean an Atheist could still be an atheist and believe in the loch ness monster and ghosts (note, I do not), the singular defining characteristic of an atheist is the lack of belief in a god.

“I have seen many men and women go down wrong paths, because they didn’t ‘feel’ like being married anymore, or ‘felt’ like they were called to something, that was really detrimental and sinful to their lives.”

Mind you, doesn’t your faith say you can’t be the judge of this?

“Whenever I have placed things in God’s hands, things always worked out.”

I’m curious about what you actually “did” here when you placed things in God’s hands?

“Truly though, A–the only thing different about you and me, is that you choose to believe there is no God, and I choose to believe there is One. Faith is about believing in things unseen, if we need evidence for everything we believe in–then it would be called ‘fact’ not faith.”

A! Here’s a demonstration of the word ‘faith’ that fits in with my definition, but not yours! Regardless, whatevergirl, Atheism is still not the belief that there is no god.

“Do you ever ‘hope’ that someone you love doesn’t die, or who is suffering, gets relief? Faith is not much different than hope. To me, without faith in God, I would look at life as rather bleak and hopeless. Just my thoughts.”

Of course I do. I hope for things that would feel good overall, such as the relief of suffering, or the continued life of somebody I love, I don’t hope for things that feel bad overall, and I’d be surprised if you did either. Nor do I use my hopes as my basis for belief, and your comment here seems to directly contradict your statements indicating that our feelings are an unreliable guide to rational decisions. Or do you have some other criteria for hoping for things besides whether you feel they would produce the greatest overall ‘good’ or ‘bad’ outcomes?

I can assure you that I don’t feel hopeless, I’m loving life because it is a wonderful thing in and of itself, without any requirement for a god to assign a purpose to it and give it value. I will admit that I don’t have any realistic hope of a life after death, but there are many things that one can hope for.

 

[phooney]

@Socrates4Jesus

“Whether or not they meet Phooney’s nod of approval is up to him to say, if he is willing to participate in the dialog.”

Well, let’s see! Taking an abbreviated form of my conditions for biblical prophecy, which I think you agreed was reasonable:

1. The prophecy must be made BEFORE the events it prophecises
2. It must have a date or time limit attached to it.
3. It must not be fulfilled by people who could have heard of the prophecy.
4. Ambiguity, vagueness, repetition, theatrics and poetry demonstrate a different purpose for a “prophecy”
5. It must be correct!

How do you think it stacks up?

"Then i gather you would agree that there is no scientific evidence that the genetic code can be created apart from the aid of some intelligent being. For many decades, now, chemists and geneticists have been trying to create DNA in laboratories using the chemicals of which DNA is comprised and have failed. "

And here is the post that you seemed to ignore:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3205559&postcount=150

The synthesis of ‘life’ is something that can be systematically tested. All the possible combinations and permutations of early earth conditions and chemicals are far FAR from being exausted as far as testing is concerned. And again, until something else testable comes along, it is still a perfectly good hypothesis that builds on what we already know.

 

[whatevergirl]

There is a difference here that you missed - my boss never offered me free will and unconditional love.
Your god offers free will and unconditional love. Only you had better believe or you will burn forever.
Sounds like a condition to me.

You didn’t answer my question, Mr. A.

Actually, I have often wondered myself if hell is really a fire-ish pit…into the great abyss…and/or if it is a place really where God ceases to exist. When I think of hell, I think of a place where God ceases to be. And if I lived my life ignoring God–why would I expect to be with Him in the afterlife? Isn’t He really granting a person who disbelieves their eternal wish? Should God bring an atheist to Heaven, against his/her will?

 

[_A]

But you can demonstrate more validity for the God of Israel.

In the prophecies there is a restoration of Israel within 2000 years of Jesus leaving. So it could have been 100 years before or after and off, but it is on target.

Also that it would be best friends with the greatest Gentile power on earth, so it is with the USA.

Also that it would have a religion that rejects Jesus, Judaism does.

Maybe coincidence, maybe no, but there it is, for just a few big ones.

Jesus also said that he would be back before the apostles died. That prophecy isn’t bragged about because it did not come true.

That is just it, if you have enough people making prophecies, surely some of them are going to look true…

 

[whatevergirl]

Jesus also said that he would be back before the apostles died.

Can you post that passage? Thank you.

 

[phooney]

@c659smith

“There is evidence there is a God.
If there is a painting is therre a painter?
If there is a building is there a builder?
We exist so there must be a creator.”

Is the universe a painting? No. Is the universe a building? No. Bringing out examples of things we know to be painted and built have no relevance to ourselves or the universe.

“Besides that we have a concience unlike any other creature.”

What do you mean by conscience?

“Now I have proven there is a God and ask you prove there is not.”

You have presented nothing whatsoever here, and “there is no god” is not my position to prove.

"Now let’s continue

Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?"

Yes, in some version of it.

“Now in science we must have an action to cause a reaction. What do you suppose the action was?”

Forgive me for copying and pasting my response to another poster in this thread:

“Whether or not the unviverse had a cause (and there is no reason to suppose that it did, as our laws of physics break down at the planck time) there is no evidence YET to possibly tell us what that cause was. I have given a couple of examples of natural hypotheses in these threads for the cause of the big bang, which in addition to being potentially falsifiable when the large hadron collider is completed, are also mathematically sound, which is a good start. This is no guarantee that they are correct, and they are of course different hypotheses, so they can’t all be correct! I won’t believe in them until there is sufficient evidence for one of them. Here’s the question and answer part of a short lecture given by Stephen Hawking last year, the part I think you would find interesting starts at around the six minute mark.

”

“Along the same terms it is phyically impossible as far as physics is concerned that this alleged big bang sending our universe outward in a 360 direction.”

Source please? Are you simply referring to dark energy? The evidence for the rapid expansion of spacetime is well observed.

“This can be shown through planets and stars having different rotation spins in the same quadrants left to right and right to left as they should all be going in the same direction.”

How does this possibly relate to your previous sentence? Stars and planets are subject to massive collisions all the time, which can easily knock a star ‘sideways’ or ‘upside down’ without even coming close to raising any eyebrows about the breaking of any physical laws.

 

[phooney]

continued @ c659smith

“Below is this not the definition or am I confused”

You are confused.

"To answer your question on God is that He is the Great I Am.

Alwys was and always will be."

These are merely bald assertions.

“Now with that being said evidence through Human testimony states they have heard Him, seen His Love, and witnessed His judgenments.”

This is just anectdotal, of course there have been people that saw Elvis after he died as well, both in the flesh and in spirit, and other people that have seen flying pink elephants, but those experiences go against all the scientific evidence we have and leave behind nothing for anybody else to verify when they are done being experienced.

“Now evidence through Jesus God made Man shows through testimony and un-natural phenomena (miracles) unexplained through modern science have occurred in his name.”

You mention some specific ‘miracles’ later on, so I won’t deal with them here, but I will point out that just because a miracle or any act is carried out in the name of your god doesn’t show that it was your god that caused it. There are examples, which have been brought up by Natural Enquirer I think, like the statues drinking milk and glowing buddahs. If they are miracles as well, and there is only one god, then why do you think he/she/it is promoting themselves via the artifacts of people with mutually exclusive beliefs? Does he/she/it really like conflict that much? If they are not miracles… what differences do your examples have? Simply being able to give me more examples of christian miracles is obviously nothing special, as a christian you are naturally going to be able to do that, and with the larger numbers of christians over buddists for example there are naturally going to be more observations of such phenomena. So what differences do you think there are?

"For one I stated that I can give more facts and substancial at that on God’s existence than you can that God does not.

Your belief there is no God is based upon if not science as I have asked then what—“feelings”—"

Of course the position that “there are no gods” is not mine, if that is the position you are trying to argue against, you have come to the wrong thread.

"But there is a belief and that is the belief that there is no God. It is also a blind belief as Atheists would have Theists believe.

The point here is that it takes more of a blind faith to believe in Atheism than to believe in God."

The point you keep on trying to make here is logically invalid because it is based on a false premise. I find it really funny that one of the most common argument that theists can level at atheists is “See! You’re just like us!” as if it was an accusation!

"To answer you question here is the webster definition of doctrine:

…

Now has does doctrine not fit even with Atheists or yourself.

Unless you made your decision to be an Atheist not on a system of knowledge, past decisions, or a system of belief that there is no God."

Once again… it’s not a belief that there is no god, not a system of knowledge, and a lack of belief is not a system of belief. This is getting very old.

 

[_A]

_A_;3230826:

Jesus also said that he would be back before the apostles died.

Can you post that passage? Thank you.

Matthew (10:23)
“Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.”

They died waiting for him. So that one is not a prophecy. I imaging someone will just pick another passage and say THAT was the real prophecy.

 

[phooney]

continued @c659smith

“You have no understanding or no beliefs in the scientific world of theories as it relates to how the universe, earth, or life began.”

Incorrect.

“You have no belief in creationism as least as far as a supreme being is concerned.”

Correct.

“You disagree with most philophers on this subject also.”

Difficult to quantify, and irrelevant anyway, let’s consider more the evidence rather than the popularity.

“Your idea of atheism is poof we are here one minute and gone the next.”

Aside from the timespan you have indicated, this is all the evidence we have to work with, belief in surviving your own death is unjustified.

“As far as history is concerned you agree Jesus was born and began a movement based on love that upset the Jewish Priests and Romans that flogged Him and had Him Crucified.”

The jury is out on the existence of Jesus as far as I am concerned. Though don’t you find it odd that he could create a riot at passover and nobody bothered to record the event at the time?

“You agree according to history He had many followers.”

According to the bible, sure, but the bible is not history.

“You state there is no proof of the resurrection even though hundreds state they had seen Him to include Roman Soldiers loyal to Cearsar.”

Again, according to the bible, which is not history. And this is anecdotal anyway.

“You believe that the Original Apostles went to their death professing He had risen and had seen Him without gaining anything in stature or monetary value.”

It is possible that the Apostles are merely literary creations, like Jesus himself, as I said, the jury is out on this as far as I am concerned. However, there have been people that died for lots of different beliefs, and being that many of them are mutually exclusive, it isn’t really possible for them all to have been true.

“You know hundreds of thousands of Christians were crucified, tortured, and families destroyed by the Romans without offering any struggle and without any proof that Christ was Risen.”

So… people died for a belief for which they had no proof.

"Your common sense thought process that the prophets described the crucification a thousand years before the Romans ever came up with the idea as it related to Jesus was a fluke.

That He would be born in Bethlehem, and there are at least without getting into the paticulars hundreds of prophecies were fullfilled on His coming, Life, and ressurection."

Unfortunately there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus. The gospels were written well after the supposed lifetime of Jesus, by people who would have known of the prophecies, and of crucifixion. Nobody would be impressed if I wrote here a paragraph predicting that airplanes would be flown into the world trade centre, which confirms the Nostradamus prophecy. Especially if there wasn’t compelling evidence that planes actually WERE flown into the world trade centre!

“That what Jesus said had occurred before it came to be were completed to the letter.”

Like him returning before his apostles were dead… oh wait.

 

[phooney]

continued @ c659smith

“There is recorded history of this and to deny the facts is one thing but to deny history is another.”

To what recorded history are you referring? There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus, kind of strange considering what he was supposed to have been and done, don’t you think?

“How do you explain the shroud of tourin as modern science cannot replicate it today.”

Who has tried? Not saying they haven’t tried, just wondering.

“How to you deny Fatima tens of thousands witnessed this?”

Once again, this is the kind of evidence that seems to evaporate in the presence of somebody that hasn’t presupposed god. It is also purely anecdotal as well, what evidence is left behind here? What can we see if we visit? The sun will be acting perfectly normally, still. Mind you, how can you stare at the sun and not expect visual hallucinations? In regards to the ground drying up, I’m not sure how we can verify the anecdotal evidence that anything like this happened. Would you just believe it if the same number of people proclaimed the same thing at a hindu gathering? Neither would I, show me something other than that believers believe.

“How do you deny the Eucharist of Luchiano”

This is the first I’ve heard of it, and you (or somebody else) go into greater detail later, so I won’t deal with it here.

“Stigmatas”

Self-inflicted by con men(or women), or inflicted on the mentally unstable by greedy people hoping to cash in on religious fanatacism.

“Of course I would stand by the Church Doctrine on this case as the life in the womb is human and has not committed any crime. Would you execute the mother of a murderer because of what her son has done?”

Is there any of the church doctrine that you disagree with?

“Where is the thought process on the sanctity of human life should be the question?”

What do you mean by ‘sanctity of human life’ ?

“Is it ok to put to sleep (death) an adult becaud=se they at one point in their life rely fully on the help of others and is not now any use to society?”

Far too complex a topic to be expressed by this sentence.

“Historians conclude that Jesus was born around 6-4 BC As a Jewish peasant living in the tiny village of Nazareth, working with his father as a carpenter (Greek “tekton,” meaning stone or wood worker), and by the very nature of his teachings it is highly likely that his family was very poor.”

Historians do? Or people that think the bible is history do? Also, this date doesn’t mesh very well with the supposed solar eclipse at the crucifixion? The total solar eclipses for between 27CE and 29CE (the date range that would make Jesus 33 at his death, by your dating of his birth) are July 22nd 27CE, July 10th 28CE and November 24th 29CE, none of which match up with the supposed easter date range of the crucifixion. There was a total solar eclipse on March the 19th 33CE, which would fit better though! Regardless, there is still that nagging lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus. A God-man walked the earth and nobody cared to write about it for decades??

“So Jesus did exist.”

Non-sequitor

 

[phooney]

continued @c659smith

"as far as the shroud:

Starting in 2003, new evidence began to appear in secular, peer-reviewed, scientific journals that supported the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity."

What peer-reviewded articles in which journals might these be?

“We learn, also, of a faint second image of the face on the backside of the cloth. The second face supports the idea of a chemical reaction and adds more proof that the image is not a work of art or a photograph.”

So Jesus had a face on the back of his head as well??

“And in 2005, we learned that the carbon 14 dating was flawed. In fact we learned that the cloth could very well be 2000 years old”

Again, where do we learn this? And in what way were they ‘flawed’ by three independent measurements? I can refer you to the publication in nature, with the original findings:

nature.com/nature/journal/v337/n6208/abs/337611a0.html

“Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.”

But I’d like to see your sources, if you don’t mind.

"The Turin Shroud was examined with visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, thermography, pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, laser*microprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments (paint, dye or stains) or artist’s media was found anywhere on the Shroud of Turin.

The bloodstains

The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are composed of hemoglobin and give a positive test for serum albumin. Numerous tests confirm this."

Actually: “There are several reddish stains on the shroud suggesting blood. McCrone (see above) identified these as containing iron oxide, theorizing that its presence was likely due to simple pigment materials used in medieval times.” (taken from the wikipedia page on the shroud, before anybody gets started on wikipedia, yes I know there are much better sources.)

Others have examined the shroud and disagree, claiming to have identified it as type AB blood. Though, there is nothing to indicate WHEN the blood was applied to the shroud.

Also, “Victor V. Tryon, PhD, assistant professor in microbiology and director of the university’s Center for Advanced DNA Technologies, examined the DNA of one so-called “blood glob” from two separate microscopic shroud samples. He reported isolating signals from three different human genes by employing polymerase chain reaction, which can detect pieces of double-stranded DNA.”
uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm

I’m sure you’ll have fun pointing out that there are three different forms of DNA on there, but I must point out that they are all human.

And in regards to the hypothesis that bacteria has contaminated the shroud, throwing off the radio-carbon dating, skewing the dating towards the present:

"Turin’s Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini has publicly questioned the authenticity of the sample. On Italian television in January, he was quoted as saying: “There is no certainty that the material belongs to the shroud so that the Holy See and the custodian declare that they cannot recognize the results of the claimed experiments.”
uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm

Also, I notice that you claim the discrepancies about the dating of the shroud begin in 2003, the year after the ‘restoration’ of the shroud. William Meacham, who has studied the shroud for 27 years now describes this as a “disaster for the scientific study” of the relic. He is a theist, and he AGREES with you that the original tests were flawed, but he also thinks that the restoration has destroyed the validity and verifiability of many tests from 2002 onwards. This flies in the face of your claims regarding recent testing, from sources you have not revealed.

 

[phooney]

continued @ c659smith

“This is the Eucharistic Miracle…”

The vast majority of your description of this is taken word for word from the wikipedia page. I happen to like wikipedia a lot as a starting point for research, many here and on other forums I’ve been on hate it with a passion. Regardless of how you feel about wikipedia, it must be noted that at the top of this article it says:

"This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed.
Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, unverified, biased or otherwise objectionable. Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes.

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

So, while I do intend to do more research on this particular topic, I’d appreciate if you could direct me to any better sources. I can’t promise when I will read more on it, only that I will at some stage. I’m sure you can appreciate that I already have more than a lifetime’s worth of stuff to read, and I have to put some kind of quality control on it! I also hope you don’t mind this relatively swift dismissal on the veracity of this particular claim, but the foundations of this argument seem very weak at this first glance.

 

[phooney]

continued @ c659smith

“Fatima etc”

Most of this already briefly dealt with previously.

"Two of the revelations were:

1. A glimpse of hell given to Lucia, and a promise that she and the children would go to heaven."

Obviously completely unverifiable, as I’m sure you must agree.

“2. The predicition of end of world war one, and a warning of a greater war to come, and a warning that Russia would rice up to spread atheism and religious persecution across the world.”

For the benefit of everybody, here is the second revelation:

““You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illuminated by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”” (Fatima In Lucia’s Own words, Lucia de Jesus (1995), The Ravengate Press, pp104)

Nowhere does it mention the atheism of Russia, nor did Russia spread atheism and religious persecution across the world! Stalin did some terrible things, and he was an Atheist as far as I can gather, but his motives were purely political and aimed at stamping out opposition to his political power. All that said… you must be forgetting just what side Russia was on during the war. Why didn’t your lady of fatima mention germany here, that would have been more appropriate, don’t you think? The way you present it seems to imply that had Russia not had an atheistic leader, there wouldn’t have been a war, which is unfounded, speculative musing based on nothing much.

“So 70,000 people are nuts?”

Who said they had to be nuts to be mistaken, or convinced by the people around them that a miracle was occuring?

There were photographers present, representing the newspapers. Journalistic photographers are supposed to photograph the most newsworthy things they can, so let’s have a look at some of those photographs:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Newspaper_fatima.jpg

People, nothing more.

“Hey, Jose, the virgin mary is dictating a prophecy over here, you might like to make a fortune and save billions of souls while you’re at it by taking the picture…” “Maybe later! This guy over here is looking UP! Can you believe that?”

 

[phooney]

continued @ c659smith

“Now I have explained the ressurection in a common sense manner.”

You’ve spanned many topics, but haven’t actually spoken about the resurrection very much. Please tell me, how does one survive rigor mortis, despite all evidence to the contrary?

“I have explained the the Apostles scared out of their wits… That these distinct and very different walks of life would all proclaim the same and would face horrible deaths on a possibility or hallucination?”

Sure according to the bible, which modern scholarship says are non-contemporaneous accounts.

"I have shown just a few miracles that you today can see and have all the scientific evidence before you. The shroud of Tourin and the Miracle of the Eucharist.

Why it still be flesh and blood today and not dust is unexplained by science."

The shroud of turin I have dealt with, the ‘miracle’ at fatima we can’t see today, the ‘miracle’ of the eucharist I would like to read about some more, please provide some sources, are you aware of, and have you read, separate books/articles that argue both sides?

“Now I am not asking you to believe but to tell me how you have come to the intelligent decision of atheism.”

Simply because the evidence you have provided isn’t compelling, and even if some things remain unexplained by science, you still have all your work ahead of you establishing the causual link between a god and the event(s) you describe.

“You have avoided the issue totally and now all ask on what facts or proofs do you have that there is no God. Because you just do not believe is a cop out and you know it.”

Once again, you are asking me to argue a position that I don’t hold. Why do you find it so difficult to comprehend that just because a person doesn’t believe in something, they don’t have to believe in it’s opposite. This is a false dichotomy you are insisting on, and you are completely ignoring the suspension of judgement/belief while we consider the evidence.

I also think you are being a bit harsh on A here. He has come to an environment where he is absolutely overwhelmingly outnumbered, and you have presented several claims which can and have evoked many many booklength debates, and you are coming down on him like a ton of bricks now that he hasn’t published peer-reviewed articles that easily sweep aside debates that have been going on for centuries or millenia. Just consider the position you would be in engaging in discussions on islamic boards, or atheist boards. We all need to remember that most of us probably aren’t presenting anything new here on these forums, the best we can do is try to provide each other with a different viewpoint, and perhaps guide people towards different evidence for them to consider. Many of the issues we are talking about here are hotly debated still by the relevant experts.

“I would suggest we stop answering A’s questions till he tells us what proof now he has through science, history, philophy, intellegent thinking there is no God and how he has come to that conclussion,(atheism)”

You’ve brought this argument to the wrong debate again.

"Let me ask you a Question? Who is buried in Grants Tomb?

Who assainated Lincoln?

Did the revolutionary war really occur?"

Who cares? These are completely unrelated topics.

“There are no other Religions that have such evidence as that of Christ.”

Which is pretty thin on the ground…

“There were the 11 Apostles that that fled from Christ as he was being fligged, tried , and crucufied.
This is historical data in Roman,and Jewish recordings of this event and eyewitness accounts as is written by those who knew Him”

Please cite these sources, I am unaware of contemporary accounts of these events, this is not historical data.

“Why the women had gone to the grave that Sunday with herbs and spices for the body of Jesus.Not to meet a risen Christ”

Can you clarify who went to the grave, and who was present there?

“Jesus continued to appear to many hundreds of His followers and this continued for 40 days until HIs Ascension into heaven where He appeared before 500 people…”

And nobody thought this would be worth writing down for several decades?

“Now many of these Apostles by preeching the word of Jesus were put to death by slow deaths at different time in the next 40 to 50 years and none renounced.”

I am likewise unaware of any contemporary accounts or archaeological findings of the apostles, besides Paul claiming to have met… uh… Peter I think. Your sources, please

 

[whatevergirl]

Matthew (10:23)
“Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.”

They died waiting for him. So that one is not a prophecy. I imaging someone will just pick another passage and say THAT was the real prophecy.

Can you (name removed by moderator)ut all that lead up to that…a few passages before…the Bible isn’t just a bunch of random sentences…but, there are passages, leading up to more significant points. I’d like to see that, although, I guess I could read my own Bible…but, for the sake of discussion, could you post it here?

 

[phooney]

@Natural Enquirer

“A, I’ve noticed an odd trend in your posts. You claim that there is no evidence for something. Then someone presents some. Then you either ignore it…”."

Again, much of this is probably due to fielding so many questions all at once. Patience!

“You have not provided any refutation for:
1.Christ was a real person”

This is an attempted shifting of the burden of proof. I am not required to try to provide evidence of the non-existence of anything. I will, however, try to explain why I find some evidence compelling or not. As mentioned before, and I hope I described my reasoning coherently enough, for me the existence of Jesus as a real person is undecided. I am confident enough to say that if he existed as a human he wasn’t born of a virgin, and he wasn’t resurrected because I have the entire field of biology to back me up.

“2. Christ was a moral teacher”

See #1. Also, see my description of evolutionary morality, which takes into account that our morality changes with time, some of the things that Jesus taught are certainly still moral, certainly some of the things in the bible are good messages, but the very fact that we cherry pick the good parts to follow demonstrates that these aren’t the sources of our morality.

“3. The Shroud. Despite your unsubstantiated claim that this is “a well known forgery”, this has not been established. The best that skeptics could possibly do is to demonstrate that medieval methods could create such a thing.”

Please note that c659smith’s claims that the original findings placing the shroud in the medieval period had been refuted were also unsubstantiated. Even those proponents of the bacterial contamination hypothesis said that their dating might add a thousand years to the dating of the shroud, which still doesn’t match up with the correct time period.

“4. The miracle of Lanciano. Even if the priest decided to prestidigitate a precise cross-section of a human heart for the host, how was it preserved? Spontaneous mummification? That priest sure got lucky!”

I do find this claim quite interesting, and want to read more, but the evidence presented for this so far is extremely shakey, as mentioned in a previous post.

“5. Fatima. Just because you think God should have done it differently doesn’t do a thing to disprove it.”

Agreed, but I will prefer to believe in that which causes me to make the least assumptions. Are people mistaken far more often than the laws of physics are broken, oh yes.

“6. The Tilma of Guadalupe”

Perhaps you’d like to explain this one in your own words?

"I’d like to see a court throw out 70,000 eyewitness reports, on the grounds that they disagree with the court’s preconceptions. "

Well, there would have been several million eye witness reports from the same day indicating that the sun did not go for a little joy ride anywhere. I know which makes more sense.

“We have provided you with our evidence for Christ. Let’s see your evidence for Zeus, and see how they stack up.”

A wasn’t saying he would provide evidence of Zeus for you to refute, he was inviting you to embark on a journey of mutual reverse alphabetic disproof, i.e. together!

“I was mostly studying science at that time. I was pursuing a degree in science education, so I took a wide variety of courses - physics, chemistry, biology, meteorology.”

Cool! I wish I had known in university how interested I would become in these topics. What degree did you end up with?

"Where can the Bible be shown to be false? A literal reading of Genesis? Piffle. Or, “The bible says pi is 3.00 lol”? "

These aren’t valid criticisms? The bible doesn’t come colour-coded telling us which bits can be ignored, which bits are poetry, which bits are allegory, etc. It is a snapshot of ancient beliefs, you think any christian doubted the literal truth of genesis in the fifth century?

“Why are rewards and punishment incompatible with free will?”

When God supposedly flooded the earth killing pretty much everything, obviously including humans, do you think that interfered with their free will at all?

“God generally doesn’t answer “why” questions. Let me respond with a “why” for you: Why do you imagine that your intellect should be able to comprehend the behavior of an infinite being?”

Why do you imagine your intellect does?

"Ugh. As long as we’re bringing out meaningless cliches that have been buried for centuries: “Can God make a rock that’s so heavy he can’t lift it?”

No. Is that a limit on omnipotence? Only if you misunderstand omnipotence."

While we’re at it, let’s get a few other things out of the way “prove love” “prove wind” “prove air” “prove gravity” “prove logic” phew! That does feel good