I am an atheist thread 4

[phooney]

Hi A long time no speak

 

[Pax]

1 Samuel 85. It doesn’t count them, but says that the earth rests upon them. NASA does not agree.
Lie **is **too strong a word - let’s use ‘fiction’ instead.

The bible does not contain 1 Samuel 85. Nevertheless, I looked around a bit in 1 Samuel to find the quote to which you refer. I assume that you are referencing 1 Samuel 2:8 which says:

“…For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.”

Is this the verse?

 

[_A]

The bible does not contain 1 Samuel 85. Nevertheless, I looked around a bit in 1 Samuel to find the quote to which you refer. I assume that you are referencing 1 Samuel 2:8 which says:

“…For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.”

Is this the verse?

It will do, because the world has not been ‘set’ on anything (it loops around a gravity well or sorts). That is not really the point though. The point that I make is that the bible is so often in conflict with observed reality, it loses all credibility.
The universe, and observed reality offer much more reasonable explanations than that old book of nonsense.
How could anyone think that it was the work of a deity? It is roundly refuted by fifth-grade science. Why not use the universe (which, according to your beliefs, is also written by your god) as a bible? Believing a book (written by men) over the natural facts around you seems to be an insult to the creator which you profess to worship.
Look at my signature, **that **is my point. Even if you are a theist.
Maybe especially then.

 

[Pax]

The thing is that it is often wrong, Pax, and the only way to make it sound right is to say ‘he didn’t really mean women should not speak in church’ or ‘the whole world referred to in the flood was not the whole world, but just a small piece’. If you make enough explanations (apologetics?) the Lord of the Rings could be as true.

The universe is a better bible. Doesn’t have the lies.

Ah yes…ancient writers in the middle east are supposed to conform to your thinking and ways of expression rather than you attempting to appreciate their methods, modes, intent, and purposes.

Explanations are certainly necessary. Even in the modern western world where educations are similar and reading and writing are within the grasp of most we still have problems in communication. Women and men have great difficulty understanding one another let alone people of different cultures and languages. Even those that can speak a foreign language are frequently lost when speaking with someone in that language. Methods of expression are often culturally influenced and require explanation.

None of your remarks justifies your final statement concerning biblical apologetics and the Lord of the Rings. This is simply more sarcasm.

I hate to admit it, but there is a certain charm in your incorrigible ways that has thus far kept me from putting you on my “ignore list.” The Lord gave you characteristics in personality that can help carry you along in life. Now…if we can just get you to recognize and to love the Giver, you will be a greater asset to yourself and your fellow man.

 

[Pax]

It will do, because the world has not been ‘set’ on anything (it loops around a gravity well or sorts). That is not really the point though. The point that I make is that the bible is so often in conflict with observed reality, it loses all credibility.
The universe, and observed reality offer much more reasonable explanations than that old book of nonsense.
How could anyone think that it was the work of a deity? It is roundly refuted by fifth-grade science. Why not use the universe (which, according to your beliefs, is also written by your god) as a bible? Believing a book (written by men) over the natural facts around you seems to be an insult to the creator which you profess to worship.
Look at my signature, **that **is my point. Even if you are a theist.
Maybe especially then.

Please read the verse with an open mind and then explain to me how the writer meant it. Was the author giving a scientific treatise? Was it even meant in a scientific sense at all? Or was it meant spiritually and philosophically to show that God is the creator and that God keeps everything in existence? If it is the latter idea as opposed to the scientific one, then it seems clear that your criticism is completely unwarranted.

 

[Pax]

…
…
Look at my signature, **that **is my point. Even if you are a theist.
Maybe especially then.

Believe me…your signature was not missed. The unfortunate thing is that the universe is not a bible, and you fail to see the difference.

 

[phooney]

@Pax

Ah yes…ancient writers in the middle east are supposed to conform to your thinking and ways of expression rather than you attempting to appreciate their methods, modes, intent, and purposes.

It’s not entirely that, but if they are inspired by the creator of the universe, a creator who is also not intent on deceiving us, they shouldn’t have blatant errors. A creator who actually had knowledge beyond ancient speculation should also be able to provide numbers more accurate, and purposes less ambiguous than what we find in the bible.

I realise of course that filling a book with numbers to the millionth decimal place wouldn’t be overly useful to ancient civilisations, or even useful to us, as we can calculate for ourselves. I personally have no problem with the pi inaccuracy, taking into account the rim diameter. However, as already discussed in this thread, there’s more than one place that the ‘pillars’ of the earth are discussed. They don’t exist. The earth is also not suspended over nothing as ‘suspended’ would imply an ‘up’ or ‘down’ in space and spacetime is most certainly not nothing.

The variable in theistic interpretation seems to be purely subjective, and aimed at the most vague interpretations, for self propogation. As I’ve mentioned before, it will take so much more than a book written by anonymous authors and changed by anonymous editors to provide even the most tentative evidence against the most well observed repeated experiments of modern science and the common sense that we all live by. The bible is not history, at best it is an ancient allegorical indication about how to conduct oneself, and ancient beliefs. Many, MANY, concepts are still valid, to this day. Many concepts are not, but most of us already know that, even though some might try to say that the bible never advocated anything that was irrelevant to us. Just reading it should dispel that myth though.

Stop saying there are new wonderful valid interpretations of the bible that only the faithful understand. Admit, at last, that all this so called common sense interpretation comes from yourself, and it is largely common to almost everybody you will ever come across. It is only the fine details in which your religion will alter your natural evolutionary morality, but your religion is one among many things that provides enough division between you that you can justify killing another person.

If a god wants us all to believe in him, but is unable to create us so that we want to find the truth and we have enough evidence to find the truth, then he/she/it is unworthy of the belief of his creations.

If he/she/it would punish us for his/her/its own shortcomings as described, then he/she/it is unworthy of our worship.

If he/she/it knew exactly what it would take to convince each of us about his/her/it’s own existence, and failed to provide that then he/she/it is exclusively to blame. This does not in any way contradict free will.

The lack of actual evidence is a silence that screams.

 

[Pax]

@Pax

Stop saying there are new wonderful valid interpretations of the bible that only the faithful understand. Admit, at last, that all this so called common sense interpretation comes from yourself, and it is largely common to almost everybody you will ever come across. It is only the fine details in which your religion will alter your natural evolutionary morality, but your religion is one among many things that provides enough division between you that you can justify killing another person.

Why make a caricature of what I actually said? And why should I admit to your errant opinions?

If a god wants us all to believe in him, but is unable to create us so that we want to find the truth and we have enough evidence to find the truth, then he/she/it is unworthy of the belief of his creations.

If he/she/it would punish us for his/her/its own shortcomings as described, then he/she/it is unworthy of our worship.

If he/she/it knew exactly what it would take to convince each of us about his/her/it’s own existence, and failed to provide that then he/she/it is exclusively to blame. This does not in any way contradict free will.

The lack of actual evidence is a silence that screams.

What you demand for evidence is an artificial standard created within yourself. It is a convenience for you to reject the truth. You are not punished for anyone’s shortcomings and you are wrong to suggest that God has shortcomings. Your reasoning for the latter is of yourself and has no proof.

God gives each of us sufficient light to come to the truth. God also gives each of us sufficient grace to desire the truth. It is our free will that He also gives us that allows us to reject the truth.

The only silence that is sceaming is that of tacit rejection. The surrounding noise is the din of excuses to support the pre-existing rejection.

 

[phooney]

So in short you have no actual evidence? You’d like to just argue subjective metaphor and furthermore claim that subjective metaphor as internal non-contradiction and therefore evidence?

To paraphrase you… why do you twist scripture to suit your own needs? It says what it needed to say without the need for your interpretation.

Thanks to information being so widespread these days, you have no real excuse.

 

[Pax]

You know better than that. If you go back over all of my posts starting with the first thread, you will see how I approached all of this. I have said from the get go that science cannot explore religious truths. It is the wrong tool. Likewise, scripture is not a science book.

I spent a lot of time going over scripture and how it should be read. You seem to have a pretty good handle on current scientific theories and I give you credit for that. You have more knowledge on scientific theories than I do. I must say, however, that your knowledge and approach to scripture is not up to the same level.

I have stood on the side lines most of the time on this and the prior thread because I feel like there is no progress being made. I have chimed in, however, when I think that comments on scripture have gone from uninformed to simply absurd. I realize that you are willing to stay put in your approach and understanding of scripture. That’s your choice, but it is unfortunate. When it comes to scripture, the atheists on this thread need an education.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Hi A,

Don’t mind me, just totally jumping in out of the blue here with a different topic. I migrated this post over from the last thread, as you had expressed some interest in carrying on the dialogue…

Originally Posted by A
Would you say it right in front of the murdering parent?

No.

Would you wait until you were away from them before expressing your opinion about the killers belief to your children?

Yes. I wouldn’t express my opinions to my relatives in front of my children. I would keep it separate, but I would let each party know my views. I have a great distaste for putting an adult down in front of children, and vice versa. There is no need for it, as long as both parties know where I stand. Either way, I wouldn’t attack the person or their beliefs; I would explain why I disagree, with love and charity.

If you say that the wrong beliefs this family has mean that they have to let their kid die, right in front of the offending parent, then I think it is not ‘respecting their beliefs’, if you only say those things behind their back, I also don’t feel that shows respect.

See above. There are ways to disagree and still maintain some respect.

Perhaps we have a different idea of respect in this context.

I am sorry. What I meant was the way you might bite your tongue when faced with a JW who is letting their child die. I meant that kind of pretending, because I can’t imagine anyone being pleased with that result.Do you bow your head and appear to agree when they decide to let the child die, or do you tell them that their belief is wrong (which would not be ‘respecting their beliefs’ in my view), or do you tell them that you respect their belief and say goodbye to their child?
A horrible question, I know, but I want to see how far this ‘respect for belief’ really goes.

I think there are different levels of respect, depending on the urgency of the situation.

Clumsy writing is all, sorry about that. I was assuming you were of the opinion that abortion is wrong because of the value of life (approximately the catholic position).

You assume correct.

If you share this opinion, would you, as a doctor, save their child against their wishes? If they were not there in the hospital, for example. Would you (again pretending you are a doctor with the power to save the child) stop another doctor from giving a transfusion because you knew that the parents had this belief?

Where I draw the line when it comes to another’s beliefs is when it directly puts me in immediate danger of compromising my moral convictions and beliefs. The scenario you propose is definitely on the extreme end of that. If I were a doctor with some power to intervene - Yes, I would give the transfusion to save a life, the same as I would try to save the life of an aborted baby that was still showing signs of life in a garbage can of the hospital. Mind you, I wouldn’t be working there in the first place if abortions were being offered there.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Hi again, A

I brought this post over from the last thread as I am curious to hear your thoughts.

Originally Posted by A
I misspoke, you said suffering adds to your glory.

I thought you got more ‘glory’ after death.

Please note that I absolutely have no glory now that I can speak of, and that I believe that if I had any, it would only be evident to me after the time of my passing from this world. Also, it is not the kind of glory commonly understood in the human, earthly sense; it is glory that comes about from sacrificial love for God.

Your god only has his glory revealed by the suffering of his creatures.

Not my words - I definitely didn’t say only. I believe His glory is revealed everywhere, and one way is through willful suffering.

I wouldn’t say that I am afraid of it. I do avoid it.

Do you think there is any merit to pain? Can anything positive come of it?

He could not have forgiven us without his drama? How unusual for an all-powerful being.

Not unusual for a Being Who has choice. He came to us where we’re at in our humanity. He knows what we’re about.

Sounds like this character likes pain.

Are you strongly opposed to someone suffering out of love for you?

Regarding Him liking the pain he endured during His Passion, refer to these verses:

Matthew 26: 37- 44.
Matthew 27: 46.
Luke 22: 41-44

The point is that he didn’t ‘die for your sins’ if he isn’t really dead.

That might be a point, except for the fact that Christian belief holds that Jesus died a real death, was buried, descended to the dead, and rose again on the third day.

 

[phooney]

You know better than that. If you go back over all of my posts starting with the first thread, you will see how I approached all of this. I have said from the get go that science cannot explore religious truths. It is the wrong tool. Likewise, scripture is not a science book.

I spent a lot of time going over scripture and how it should be read. You seem to have a pretty good handle on current scientific theories and I give you credit for that. You have more knowledge on scientific theories than I do. I must say, however, that your knowledge and approach to scripture is not up to the same level.

I have stood on the side lines most of the time on this and the prior thread because I feel like there is no progress being made. I have chimed in, however, when I think that comments on scripture have gone from uninformed to simply absurd. I realize that you are willing to stay put in your approach and understanding of scripture. That’s your choice, but it is unfortunate. When it comes to scripture, the atheists on this thread need an education.

Yes, perhaps I do know better than that. However, generally nobody responds when I take the time to research and cite my position, so this latest batch of posts has been off the cuff, and much more trivial in nature.

I can’t say for sure whether my knowledge of current scientific hypotheses and theories is more up to date than yours, but I think my approach to such venues of knowledge is less biased because I truly don’t care what the conclusion is, as long as we reach it by rational means.

I would not be at all surprised if you have spent more time in the study of scripture either, to tell you the truth. Also, I absolutely don’t think this has been a waste of your time either. However, following on my basis of deriving truth from rational means, I disagree with “faith” (as in “belief without evidence” regardless of how you might justify it to yourself) as a rational means of obtaining truth.

You have said that science cannot explore religious truths, but I do not recognise your authority to define the limits of scientific exploration. I put such comments in the same small-minded realm as the pope instructing Stephen Hawking not to think about things prior to the big-bang due to that being god’s territory. I would define the limits of scientific exploration as equal to the limits of evidential perception. Science ends at the same point that evidence does.

Of course, who am I to limit science either, but who claims somethsing beyond evidence? Not me. I consider such things as irrational, dangerous and divisive.

 

[Pax]

As you wish.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Good for him.

Your son is probably too young to coherently articulate this with you at the moment, but I’m not.

Let us discuss the logic or otherwise of our respective positions, and cut out all the appeals to emotion shall we? Perhaps you will realise you have been misled, perhaps I will, or perhaps our discussion can be food for thought for others.

Hi Phooney,

I hope you will acknowledge that “appeals to emotion” take place on both sides of atheism discussions.

 

[Armor_of_God]

The fact is that condemning a person to an eternity of torture (“furnace of fire” and “wailing and gnashing of teeth”) is beastly and hateful beyond anything any human could possibly do.

This is what I am expected to worship? Why? Why would anyone?

We condemn ourselves.

We condemn ourselves.

We condemn ourselves.

 

[phooney]

Hi Phooney,

I hope you will acknowledge that “appeals to emotion” take place on both sides of atheism discussions.

Absolutely, let us eliminate it wherever we can.

 

[_A]

The lack of actual evidence is a silence that screams.

Excellent post, phooney.

 

[_A]

Where I draw the line when it comes to another’s beliefs is when it directly puts me in immediate danger of compromising my moral convictions and beliefs. The scenario you propose is definitely on the extreme end of that. If I were a doctor with some power to intervene - Yes, I would give the transfusion to save a life

This here is the crux of the matter (like the pun?). You can’t ‘respect their belief’ while acting in direct opposition to those beliefs.
I couldn’t either.
There is a point where this major kind of conflict, and many other analogous minor conflicts happens between belief systems. I think one of them is that you think I have wasted my life by not taking notice of your god and all the things that matter most.
I think you have wasted your life by not taking notice that there are no gods, no excuses and this precious life that you have matters most.
They are both pretty harsh to be on the receiving end of.
These kinds of conflicts make it tough to communicate, due in part to elevated tempers.
Let’s work to make communication easier despite the disrespectful nature of our disagreements.

Do you think there is any merit to pain? Can anything positive come of it?

Sure, but this Yahweh character likes it a little too much.

Not unusual for a Being Who has choice. He came to us where we’re at in our humanity. He knows what we’re about.

Yes. Apparantly knows exactly what we are like…you might say he expected us to be this way. Given that, do you think it is wierd at all that he created a hell to torture some of his creations?
Is it weird that he told everyone about it?

Are you strongly opposed to someone suffering out of love for you?

Usually I would be, yes. I don’t like suffering. Are you strongly in favour of someone suffering for you?

Regarding Him liking the pain he endured during His Passion, refer to these verses:

Matthew 26: 37- 44.
Matthew 27: 46.
Luke 22: 41-44

I don’t really need to. If the story in the bible is true, he had a plan. This was part of this plan. He is all-knowing. He knew just how it would be.

Oh, and if he could think that his god had forsaken him, he must have a god. Why would you worship a lesser god?

That might be a point, except for the fact that Christian belief holds that Jesus died a real death, was buried, descended to the dead, and rose again on the third day.

Yes, but Christian belief is impossible to resolve with reality. I choose reality.

We condemn ourselves.

We condemn ourselves.

We condemn ourselves.

Every time you repeat something, it makes another copy in your brain.
Every time you repeat something, it makes another copy in your brain.Every time you repeat something, it makes another copy in your brain.

 

[_A]

I hate to admit it, but there is a certain charm in your incorrigible ways that has thus far kept me from putting you on my “ignore list.”

Do you know how many I have placed on my ‘ignore’ list? I’ll give you a hint - I don’t know how.
I have considered it a couple of times, but I am not here to listen to opinions that agree with me, as you might have gathered.
Do everyone a favour, don’t put anyone on your ignore list. I think it will improve the quality of discourse. (I can try to justify this, but it is a little vague for me)

The Lord gave you characteristics in personality that can help carry you along in life. Now…if we can just get you to recognize and to love the Giver, you will be a greater asset to yourself and your fellow man.

If there was reason to believe in a ‘Giver’, I would.

Please read the verse with an open mind and then explain to me how the writer meant it. Was the author giving a scientific treatise? Was it even meant in a scientific sense at all? Or was it meant spiritually and philosophically to show that God is the creator and that God keeps everything in existence? If it is the latter idea as opposed to the scientific one, then it seems clear that your criticism is completely unwarranted.

The whole book can be interpreted as fiction (or allegory, if you prefer). I think that is the way it should be read - as a story.

Believe me…your signature was not missed. The unfortunate thing is that the universe is not a bible, and you fail to see the difference.

If your god created the universe, what could be a better path to knowing him? The furious reading of one book, or a firm, reasonable study of the universe around us?

You know better than that. If you go back over all of my posts starting with the first thread, you will see how I approached all of this. I have said from the get go that science cannot explore religious truths. It is the wrong tool. Likewise, scripture is not a science book.

It is wrong because science deals with reality, and religious ‘truths’ do not have an effect on reality.