I am an atheist thread 3

[phooney]

continued@socrates4jesus

"We do not need to consider exactly what is a living organism. We do not need to explore the idea of whether genetic mutation of existing DNA created new species from existing ones. We only need to ask ourselves if DNA itself can be created without the aid of any intelligent “programmer”. "

Well, fair enough, but it’s not the creation of DNA that is the goal of most of these experiments, it is the creation of the much more simple pre-DNA DNA-like molecules that is the goal, and as mentioned by Natural Enquirer, the rest of the process took billions of years, though as far as I am aware the first cyanobacteria emerged quite soon after the earth was in a suitable state for it. Also, whenever our cells split, they create more DNA, and there’s no intelligence involved in that, the cell doesn’t “know” what it is doing, it simply obeys the laws of thermodynamics, because it cannot do otherwise. This is no more evidence of intelligence than when you drop a rock and it falls is a demonstration of an intelligent rock knowing it has to obey the theory of gravity.

“Regarding the fact that DNA is made up of four chemicals, a chemist or geneticist might respond that it is actually made up of 64 codons, which are three sequential nucleotides in DNA. One codon specifies (or codes for) a single amino acid – the building block of proteins.”

All of which obeys rules we have been able to experimentally verify. Much of which could even derived from simply looking at the periodic table of the elements, but it took more than that for me to begin to understand this kind of thing I must admit.

“Regarding the objection that chemicals are not numbers, and so the genetic code cannot be compared to binary code or other codes, i’d respond that Morse Code is not made up of numbers, but comparatively brief and long tones or flashes of light, yet it is still a code created by intelligent beings to transmit data. Code is code. Whether it uses sound, light, chemicals or marbles to transmit data does not matter. If it is arranged in a way that shows intelligent design, then this is strong evidence that it is the creation of an intelligent programmer. See what i mean?”

Er… did I make this objection? I am aware that there are codes that don’t involve numbers. I do think I see what you mean though, and I hope I might be able to clear something up for you.
In a code, the subunits of the code each have a distinct meaning/purpose in and of themselves that is seperate from simply “what they are”. If you’ll permit me to use your morse code example,

-.- doesn’t mean “dash dot dash”, if it did it wouldn’t be a code. In this case the series of characters represents the letter K, a distinct meaning that is seperate from simply what the series of characters (or tones or flashes of light) are. This is a code.

You are suffering from a poor popularisation of science that relies on the ‘dumbing down’ of the concepts with superfluous use of metaphor in order to try to increase the understanding of science for more people. I think this is a worthy goal, but is often poorly executed. This is the kind of process that turns the second law of thermodynamics into “stuff always becomes more disordered”. It is the same process that uses ‘language’ and ‘blueprint’ etc as metaphors in place of the proper terminology. DNA is not arbitrarily a code from an intelligent designer. The reactions that take place because of DNA molecules, and hence because of codons and nucleotides, and other molecules within biological cells take place purely by virtue of what they are, with no distinct separate meaning. DNA is a better replicator than RNA and other replicators as far as I can gather, which is why cells evolved this way, easily within the theory of natural selection.

“Of course, all this is not inconsequential if you answer yes to the first three questions in my previous post”

Which I didn’t.

 

[phooney]

@Natural Enquirer

“Well, I did provide a specific non-Christian historical source for A to consider: Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum. I made the claim that it would be sufficient to demonstrate any other contemporaries’ historicity. So I was asking for a specific rebuttal to that evidence, which A had repeatedly demanded.”

Did A even respond to that? I can’t remember. However, if I recall correctly, you presented this at that weird time when there were two of these threads with the same title at the same time. Since then the threads were merged, and I can understand if something was missed.

Let me dig back and find your post… and with the magic of forum posting here it is, instantly:

“Assertion 1: Jesus was real.
Evidence: Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianium. Granted that there is no scholarly consensus about the TF. The text shows evidence of having been doctored, either maliciously or accidentally. But, given the Agapius quote from Josephus (quoting from an Arabic translation, which does not contain the pro-Christian extrapolations), it seems to me that Josephus’ original writings probably validated my assertion. Namely, that there was a man named Jesus, who was a religious teacher, and was crucified.”

As far as I can recall, Josephus did this writing somewhere around 90-95CE, correct? One problem with this is that Josephus was born in the year 37CE, he obviously didn’t witness Jesus himself, and writing in 90-95 he also wasn’t speaking to eyewitnesses, when you take into account the short average lifespan of that time. The mention of Jesus in this work is hotly contested as a potential later insertion. For one nobody is known to have referred to Josephus as evidence for Jesus for about a millenia (I can’t remember exact dates off the top of my head, sorry), even those with access to the text. This indicates that Jesus wasn’t mentioned in there until such a time when the text was edited. Secondly, this work goes to almost extraordinary lengths describing characters of Jewish history, all of which one might be forgiven for thinking would be relatively minor characters in comparison with Jesus. But even minor characters by any rational measure get vast amounts of text devoted to them. Jesus gets a few lines.

As you are aware there is evidence of the text having been doctored in one way or another, which makes this highly circumstantial evidence at best. I’m sure Socrates4Jesus would also not take this author seriously in regards to his claims about Alexander the Great! (not sure if you have followed the last two threads as closely as this one)

 

[phooney]

continued @ Natural Enquirer

“As for the biology quip - that’s really irrelevent. We’re talking about a situation where God is directly intervening, so the fact that virgin births or resurrections are atypical is neither here nor there.”

Right, you have to believe in God first, before this can be considered evidence. Try it without presupposing God though. According to all the evidence of biology, do virgins get pregnant? Let me answer: No they do not. So what is the most reasonable conclusion to draw? For me the more reasonable conclusion to draw is that this event didn’t happen, it is more likely to be a literary creation, or a lie. I am unaware of hour by hour documentation of Mary’s movements approximately 9 months prior to the supposed birth of Jesus. How was Mary’s virginity verified?

You said:

""Originally Posted by c659smith
National Enquirer

It is by evidence that we attain facts/truth"

Of course I agree with that.""

But you seem to have arrived at this “fact/truth” through faith (by my definition) rather than evidence.

“I was unclear. For my point #2 (these embedded quotes are becoming tricky), I wasn’t claiming necessarily that we would find his teachings moral, just that one of his goals was moral/religious teaching.”

Sorry, I misunderstood this before.

“I’m a few pages behind in the thread - if no one has provided a link to a non-wikipedia source, I’ll try to dig one up. Shouldn’t be hard to google something “reasonably” credible (by Internet standards, at least).”

Thanks in advance

“This was in response to my “God didn’t do it the way you think he should have”, if I recall. Yes, I certainly agree with you. But 70,000 eyewitnesses. It’s stretching credibility to suggest that they were “mistaken”.”

But as I went on to point out, claiming the other several million people were mistaken about the sun acting normally would be stretching credibility far more.

“I think you’d be on stronger footing to suggest some weird localized atmospheric disturbance causing an illusion – but that raises plenty of other questions.”

I would consider this to fall under the umbrella condition of ‘mistaken’. By the way, do they have 70,000 people saying that this is what happened, or were there simply 70,000 people there? The number of people who actually claim to have seen something might actually be substantially lower.

“Absolutely. But, this only invalidates Fatima if we assume that the miracle has to be seen all over the Earth. It was only promised at that one particular location. Certainly God could do that, right? Even if we don’t understand how.”

Yes, well if you say God can do anything, than of course anything, including this, is possible. But then it completely invalidates itself as a form of evidence anyway because it removes itself from the condition of falsifiability and instead asserts an arbitrary causual link between god and everything.

“You got me. I don’t remember the specifics well enough to provide a reasonable description…If you’re interested, I’m sure Wikipedia has a good article.”

Perhaps some other time, there is more than enough to keep me occupied at the moment!

“I was fairly aimless in those days. I think I mentioned that I pursued Science Education (high school) for a few years. I got to student teaching and remembered how much I hate high school. Eventually I wound up with a computer science degree.”

lol! Yeah, I wouldn’t like to be back in the high school environment either, having left it.

“Fortunately, the Bible comes with a Church to help us understand these things. As for Genesis - in what way could its historicity possibly affect our salvation? That’s the bottom line.”

Not that requirement for salvation has been established And I would find it very disappointing if a God-inspired book was so incoherently written that it required an entire church to decipher it for the masses.

“The point of free will is that people make godly or ungodly decisions up to the time of their death. God decides what that time is.”

Up until the point of their death, or up until the point where they can’t escape death?

“I don’t! There’s a lot that I don’t understand about God. But I don’t claim that my lack of understanding is a reason not to believe in Him.”

As long as your lack of understanding isn’t one of the reasons FOR believing in him. Let’s continue to look at what we do think we know and can show each other.

 

[psyche23]

So then, you take this prophecy of 2000 years. Plus restoration of Israel just within 2000 years. Plus the Gospel preached to all the world within 2000 years.

Plus Jesus saying he would raise the Temple of his body in 3 days, which in 3000 years will be Jesus himself as the Temple of New Jerusalem.

And you get some strong evidence for a fulfilling of prophecy here.

Needless to say, not all Christians agree to this viewpoint of a specific time that Christ has told us he will return.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Needless to say, not all Christians agree to this viewpoint of a specific time that Christ has told us he will return.

I know. But all the prophecies taken together pretty much only leave room for this view. All mostly centered around the restoration of Israel to the Jews.

 

[psyche23]

I know. But all the prophecies taken together pretty much only leave room for this view. All mostly centered around the restoration of Israel to the Jews.

I’m no theologan, but I have issues with trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint the day and time Christ will return. Besides, that’s really not the issue here. If A doesn’t believe in God or the Bible in the first place, this issue is not going to help.

 

[psyche23]

Sorry I just butted in on your conversations. Didn’t mean to, but it was too interesting to not say anything. I’ll just lurk in the background and listen and let you all debate stuff.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

I’m no theologan, but I have issues with trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint the day and time Christ will return. Besides, that’s really not the issue here. If A doesn’t believe in God or the Bible in the first place, this issue is not going to help.

Jesus said we can’t know the day nor hour. But we can know the season, when summer is nigh.

Anything might cause someone to believe in God, there’s no way to know. Especially if there are multiple things tied in together that are coming true.

 

[holdencaulfield]

atheists think that they are cool or something by not believing in any religion. But in a fact they do have a religion. A religion of skepticism, deceit and they usually lack morals.

 

[phooney]

Such a persuasive argument.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

atheists think that they are cool or something by not believing in any religion. But in a fact they do have a religion. A religion of skepticism, deceit and they usually lack morals.

I wouldn’t say that they all lack morals. But it is true that atheism can be a form of polytheism in that men are gods being the highest believed intelligence.

As well as devil worship from a Biblical viewpoint, in that Satan’s first message to Eve was that humans don’t need God anymore, since they can make themselves their own gods. So atheism follows the preaching of Satan.

 

[c659smith]

So then, you take this prophecy of 2000 years. Plus restoration of Israel just within 2000 years. Plus the Gospel preached to all the world within 2000 years.

Plus Jesus saying he would raise the Temple of his body in 3 days, which in 3000 years will be Jesus himself as the Temple of New Jerusalem.

And you get some strong evidence for a fulfilling of prophecy here.

Jesus stated He would destroy the temple and in 3 days rebuild it.

Jesus told the Jewish priests He would destoy the Temple and re build it in 3 days.

This was done well before Jesus’s cricification and bewildered the Jewish Priests.

After the crucification 3 days later Christ was resurrected and out of the Jewish faith and the temple itself Christianity was formed .

In restrospect destroying the Jewish Community of Jerusulem…

 

[c659smith]

Such a persuasive argument.

From what I have been posting Athesism is the lack of evaluaing evidence.

Refusing all evidence / facts as it relates to God.

As I said before an Atheist must deny anything that contains historical and scientific facts.

Did the Revolutionary War occurr?

Prove it.

Much of Western Civilization and Science was built by the Catholic Chrch so you better deny all that to.

Christopher Columbus was a Catholic sent out by Spain, Paid for by the Catholic Church.

Do you know where the word University comes from?

 

[phooney]

c659smith, you have an admirably high logical fallacy per word ratio, congratulations.

If you find yourself unable to respond to my arguments from earlier in any other way besides reasserting your false dichotomy, strawmanning my position, asking me to prove various unrelated topics, or otherwise ignoring all but one sentence in my detailed response to you I don’t really see how I or any unbiassed observer of this conversation can really take you seriously.

Good day to you, sir!

 

[c659smith]

How is what I asked unrelated? you asked for proof of God I have given that in my previous posts . I now ask you to prove something 232 years ago without testimonal and artifact evidence why I am not even asking you to show miracles that you can witness to today as I have done

I think an unbiased observer will see how I am making my case and you cannot state that what I give you is evidence and facts and it is bothering you.

 

[phooney]

Perhaps you should reread the 26 thousand characters I directed at you across about 6 or 7 posts, where you responded with one sentence, which was a reassertion of your false dichotomy.

 

[_A]

It is not God’s intent that any person should go to hell.

I thought god was all-powerful and all-knowing? If he is those things, then he did create hell, and creates some souls just to go there. Unless of course you want to suggest that he could not live without evil.

One of the Psalms (I cannot recall the number…and this is not necessarily word for word): ‘Lord what does it profit you if I should die, and go into the pit? Shall the dust praise your name, shall it tell of thy faithfulness?’

God has no profit in sin, and He also has not profit in any person going to hell. It is not His intention that any should end there.

What do men know of the intentions of your god? I say, if he is creating a hell, and creating sin, and planting sin into souls, then he is planning to place souls in hell.
What your god wants, he gets. He must have wanted hell and sin.

I haven’t ignored the ‘awful parts of the bible’ but rather I put them in different terms.

You try to say that hell is an absence of your god. It is a far cry from what is stated in the bible about a furnace of fire and gnashing of teeth. I submit that you do not understand hell the way that your lord describes it.

…and furthermore those are the words of the Lord and not St. Matthew.

Should I put more stock into your words, or your lord?

 

[_A]

The Bible never says God loves unconditionally, in fact it says He hates some people with a perfect hatred.

Psalms 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

So then he is certainly not omni-benevolent. His love is only available to those who worship him.

Or, just maybe, it is all make-believe and that is why he seems to hate some groups (amputees come to mind)

 

[_A]

Yawn… Still throwing this one around?

Yes, with a quote from your very own bible about furnace fire torture. Nice guy, this god of yours.

 

[_A]

And apparently no matter what evidence arrives, you will not believe in God. That says quite a bit as well.

I don’t believe in a god because there has been no evidence compelling enough to convince me. Even if I believed the reports of some of the miracles, that doesn’t tell me which god story is right.

I think they are all equally unlikely, or equally likely.