I am an atheist

[_A]

How can I reject something that doesn’t exist?

In order to reject something. That something must exist.

In order for it to be rejected.

I have not seen any reason to accept the Yahweh story, I have not rejected it any more than you have ‘rejected’ the tooth fairy, or Zeus, or Apollo.
The same reasoning could be applied to all of these gods, so we are both in the same boat. I just decline to accept one more god than you do.

 

[_A]

This is fine…again, as I posted earlier, this has netted absolutely nothing.

I was open minded enough to read the article you and another person provided, but you aren’t open minded enough to read a chapter offered here…

I already told you I read that chapter. (the copy I read is here. Is this the right version?) You would know, if you had even read my response, that I had read and commented on specifics in the chapter. Next you accuse me of not reading it and call me ignorant. I am glad you are finished putting on your show, and I am sorry you couldn’t take the time to read my response.

That’s just plain ignorance…I feel you are in here seeking attention and nothing else. Life is give and take…I made the offer, even offered to send it to you for free. You’re ‘not interested’…so, why are you here?

Again asking questions which I have already answered. Does this mean that you didn’t read my responses, or that you didn’t get the answers you wanted last time, so you are asking again? Maybe there are other reasons for asking this again and again…

This conversation has been beyond predictable…every aspect of this conversation has been a carbon copy of every previous conversation I’ve had with many other ahteists in the past.

I seriously doubt that is the case, but since you are not reading my responses but instead inserting your own answers, I can understand why you see things that way.

…but entertaining any further discussion on this topic is a waste of my time that could be better spent educating myself or disussing with someone else who is atleast willing to participate equally.

Good luck finding what you are looking for. I hope you learn to understand more of the answers you are offered.

 

[_A]

That is illogical.

Which part specifically? Was it a logical fallacy? If so, which one?

 

[_A]

You assumed that you, a mere creature could make God do something such as engaging you in a thumb war or any other activity that you might demand. That is a ridiculous assumption and your conclusion that you won by default is even more absurd.

I don’t mind admitting that it was ridiculous to expect an answer. You still have not offered a test with a lower level of ridiculousness though. Perhaps this is as good as the evidence is going to get. I still have to wonder how would I define your god from an invented, imaginary character?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I can’t. I am not an historian. …

Fair enough. As you wish, i’ll not ask you any more questions about the evidence that Ezekiel predicted history in a way that is specific and verifiable. I do appreciate your patience and taking the time to show me whether there is any objective evidence to give me reason to believe as you do. It appears you are at this time unaware of any such proof, or do not care enough to share it with me.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I can say though, that a book which has been in the control of the faithful for thousands of years showing ‘evidence’ that faith has a rational basis does not surprise me at all.

I would not trust any evidence out of the bible because the stewards of the bible had nothing about them which would make me trust their words. They were believers. …

A:

I’d like to ask you to please step back for a moment and consider what you just said, here. Lets say that you were to provide strong evidence that the Bible is untrustworthy. Lets say i then refused to be confused by the facts, saying i do not accept your evidence. Lets say you ask my why not and in reply i say, “Because that scholar you quoted is an atheist, and everyone knows you can’t believe a thing an atheist says!”

Tell me, please, do you think this would be a reasonable answer and one acceptable and true to you?

 

[_A]

Fair enough. As you wish, i’ll not ask you any more questions about the evidence that Ezekiel predicted history in a way that is specific and verifiable. I do appreciate your patience and taking the time to show me whether there is any objective evidence to give me reason to believe as you do. It appears you are at this time unaware of any such proof, or do not care enough to share it with me.

I’m sorry, S4J, I didn’t answer. No I don’t have evidence. What I based my statement on was my unsupported guess that a successful military leader would research his targets as well as possible, and use all the information he could (especially ‘secret’ information).
I have sometimes felt a little buried by questions, and I don’t want to evade any. I reviewed my posts and it looked very much that way (in retrospect). I see what you mean about narrowing the focus. I will give that some more thought, too.
Also, as you may have noticed, I ramble a bit. I hope my rambling hasn’t caused me to miss another question, if I have, I will again thank you to restate it.

 

[_A]

A:

I’d like to ask you to please step back for a moment and consider what you just said, here. Lets say that you were to provide strong evidence that the Bible is untrustworthy. Lets say i then refused to be confused by the facts, saying i do not accept your evidence. Lets say you ask my why not and in reply i say, “Because that scholar you quoted is an atheist, and everyone knows you can’t believe a thing an atheist says!”

Tell me, please, do you think this would be a reasonable answer and one acceptable and true to you?

No, it isn’t the same. If people who were not under threat of holy torture had been in charge of keeping, translating and editing, it would have a little more veracity. If you were under threat of death for heresy, don’t you think you would be a little less likely to work critically on the scriptures? Would not an impartial steward be better then?
The argument that you used regarding atheists is a non-starter, because being an atheist doesn’t indicate a beleif in anything. Historically, though, atheists were under just as much threat of being burned or tortured (as a witch, for example) or imprisoned (like Gallileo). This would affect them in much the same way.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

@Socrates4Jesus… Well, in regards to Tyre, if the site of the city has been found, and the wreckage bridge remains have been found, the history of the history has been found or never lost, I would say the city has been found to the maximum extent it could possibly been found. If, by your reasoning, this is not good enough to be considered ‘found’ then I don’t know what other conditions you would place on it FOR it to be found.

Phooney:

I find it fascinating when something i think is obvious is, to someone else, clear as mud!

I believe you are referring to these words of Ezekiel:

19 “This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you, 20 then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living. 21 I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD.”(Ezekiel 26)I’m really interested in knowing why you think that Tyre was found, and have thought it out, and have come to three possibilities:

1. 
   *]You and i disagree on the historical or archaeological facts.
   *]You and i have a different idea of what the word city means.
   *]You and i have a different idea of what the word found means.
   Regarding (1) i believe you agree that the place where the ancient mainland city of Tyre once stood is today a bare rock where fishermen still dry their nets. There is nothing left standing of the ancient city on the coast for it was brought to a horrible end. All of the ruins of the city, even the dirt of the streets, were dumped into the sea by Alexander the Great’s army. So i do not see any disagreement here.
   
   Regarding (2) i think you might not have considered carefully just what a city is. (I know, it sounds ridiculous, but please here me out!) Lets say, for example, you and i were to take a stroll in a desert. Lets say i then turned to you and asked, “Isn’t this a magnificent city?” I can imagine you might reply, “What city?” If i were to then insist that we were standing in the middle of one, you might object, “If this is a city, where are the houses and buildings? Show me the main street; for that matter show me any street at all!” If i were to then respond that a city does not have to have streets or houses or buildings to be a city, you might think i was pulling your leg, or possibly deranged!
   
   Now if you and i were to travel to Lebanon today and stand in the place where the ancient mainland city of Tyre once stood more than 2,200 years ago, we would not see the remains of any of the ancient city’s streets nor the ruins of any of its buildings or walls. Every bit of its rubble is at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. Would you still say we were standing in the middle of ancient Tyre?
   
   Regarding (3) i’d say that the ancient city of Rome was never lost and found because i’ve stood in the middle of the ancient Coliseum where Christians died by the thousands nearly 2,000 years ago. Rome was never found because it has never been lost. The same can be said of Athens, for we can walk through the beautiful Parthenon, which was once a temple dedicated to the goddess Athena. Athens was never found because it was never lost. The ancient cities of Nineveh and Babylon were at one time lost but have now been found, for we can walk among their remains.
   
   However, you or i could never stand amongst the ruins of Tyre and say we have found the lost city, for you can only find that which exists, and there is nothing left of the ruins of Tyre to find.
   
   See what i mean?

 

[_A]

…for you can only find that which exists, and there is nothing left of the ruins of Tyre to find.

See what i mean?

I just noticed something here, S4J, if the ruins of Tyre have not been found, how do you know that they were dumped into the sea? I could have sworn that you guys had agreed that it was a fact that the ruins were discovered in the sea…I guess I assumed that meant that the ruins had been verified by archaeologists and suchlike.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I just noticed something here, S4J, if the ruins of Tyre have not been found, how do you know that they were dumped into the sea? I could have sworn that you guys had agreed that it was a fact that the ruins were discovered in the sea…I guess I assumed that meant that the ruins had been verified by archaeologists and suchlike.

A:

I’d say that National Geographic is a credible source to answer your question:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070515-alexander-great.html

Or do you think that all archaeologists are cheats and liars, too!



S4J

 

[rboo124]

I already told you I read that chapter. (the copy I read is here. Is this the right version?) You would know, if you had even read my response, that I had read and commented on specifics in the chapter. **Next you accuse me of not reading it and call me ignorant. I am glad you are finished putting on your show, and I am sorry you couldn’t take the time to read my response.**Again asking questions which I have already answered. Does this mean that you didn’t read my responses, or that you didn’t get the answers you wanted last time, so you are asking again? Maybe there are other reasons for asking this again and again… I seriously doubt that is the case, but since you are not reading my responses but instead inserting your own answers, I can understand why you see things that way.
Good luck finding what you are looking for. I hope you learn to understand more of the answers you are offered.

I completely missed that, I wrongly assumed you were repeating yourself and overlooking my prior statements, my apologies. I will go back and look for that post, for my own curiosity, but will bow out of this discussion…if you got nothing out of that chapter, I really have nothing left to offer. It was extremely helpful to me.

I hope you enjoyed the read. Good luck.

 

[rboo124]

It is funny how it is so clearly what I am opposed to, I think because it’s aim was to be generically useful for any belief, and I don’t believe.
Another thing I noticed was the claim that faith improved success in quitting alcohol. I don’t know how their studies were done, but many people give up with no religion needed, and many work at religion (or their faith) and fail. Even if it works better, it isn’t evidence of a god or gods, and it certainly doesn’t suggest which one is right.

I would urge you to re-read the chapter…lol…I think you completely missed the point. It ISN’T about quitting drinking…I fear you read one small portion and accounted that for the whole chapter…the subject of drinking is hardly even DISCUSSED, and this is what you took out of the chapter?

You either didn’t read it, didn’t comprehend it, or read it half-heartedly…your posts display as you an intelligent individual…how you came away with the assessment you did is byond me, it’s like you found a needle in the haystack, but didn’t notice all the hay.

 

[_A]

A:

I’d say that National Geographic is a credible source to answer your question:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070515-alexander-great.html

Or do you think that all archaeologists are cheats and liars, too!



S4J

Interesting article. It doesn’t say wether Tyre was found, though. It only talks about the causeway. If Tyre has been found, I think that disproves another part of the fantasy/prophecy (as phooney was saying) I just pointed out that it **has **been found.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Hi A,

You have stated a few times that one of the main reasons you came to this forum was to try to understand belief. I think the reason we are now at almost 60 pages and 900 posts and two weeks later and still apparently no further ahead in understanding, is that one cannot really understand belief unless they have belief. In the same way, I think it is difficult for those who believe to understand unbelief.

I am convinced that initial belief is a gift, and we can’t think or philosophize our way into it. We still have the conscious choice whether to accept the belief, and our exterior and interior conditions influence how open we are to receiving the gift. For some people, belief comes in a brilliant fire of conversion, while for others, it starts off as a tiny flicker.

Once we have accepted the gift of belief, we start to recognize events and interior promptings in our life as our God speaking to us, and our belief grows. I read your comments about prayer and hallucination with interest. I think the difference is that those who pray and hear God speak to them internally are for the most part sane, well-balanced people. Prayer is a conscious effort, and involves both speaking and listening with the heart. When a person truly prays, they listen more than they talk. Then they may find that certain events in their life provide answers to their prayers. Prayer is an ongoing, very active process, and it involves a Relationship - a loving Relationship.

I will try to explain a bit what believing means to me. It means that I have faith that a Supreme Being created me, forming me in my mother’s womb. Further to that, it is knowing that this Supreme Being created me like no other, and created me out of love. He cares for me and wants me to spend eternity with Him, and this leads me to have faith that He has a plan for the direction my life should take, and that it should be centered on Him. My belief also affirms that this holds true for all of humanity.

My belief has been a steady journey, with ups and downs all along the way. But belief to me means waking up every morning with the sure knowledge that God loves me, enough to die for me, and whatever I may suffer in a day for love of Him will be worth it in the end. It means that even if I have not a single friend in the world, I am never alone and always loved.

Take care, A

 

[phooney]

@Socrates4Jesus

“I find it fascinating when something i think is obvious is, to someone else, clear as mud!”

What a coincidence!

In regards to your 3 possible places where our understandings might part, I think we can probably safely dismiss possibilities 1 and 2.

It is number 3 were I think our main issues are. What else would we need to know about Tyre in order for it to be ‘found’ by your understanding? If, by moving the human structures into the ocean, and killing the people that lived there at the time, it became impossible for it to be found, then the statement that god supposedly makes becomes completely redundant, irrelevant information. If Tyre cannot be found, simply because it has never been lost, it is irrelevant information. Not what one would reasonably expect of an all-knowing God.

If I was to (hypothetically of course!) take your car, put it through one of those compacting machines and make it into a cube of twisted metal, then dump it in your swimming pool and tell you that you will never find your car, I hope you can see the parallel.

You would point into your swimming pool and say “There it is, I think you owe me some cash”

But wait! What is your definition of a car? As far as I know, it is a mechanical vehicle for transport across land, usually with an internal combustion engine to propell it, what you have found is a cube of metal. Also, cars go across land and this is at the bottom of your swimming pool.

As far as I can see, you know what your car was, you know what I did to it, you know what it was made of, you know where the remains are. By all accounts it is found.

Reading over this^^^ I’m not sure if I have gone the greatest job of explaining it, but I hope you will still be able to clarify to me what YOU mean by ‘found’ in your next post.

Going over my other bones of contention!:

I also still feel quite justified in my stance regarding prophecies where people can act them out. In regards to this kind of extraordinary claim, I’m with Carl Sagan, I want extraordinary evidence. Please show how it was not possible that Alexander the Great, in all his years and in all his travels could have heard of this prophecy.

The level of detail of this prophecy (and every other example of prophecy I have come across) is spectacularly underwhelming considering what an all-knowing entity would know!

Prophecies such as this almost never give a specific time for them to take place. This is for the best as far as being a false prophet is concerned because then when people tell you that something hasn’t happened, the prophet can just reply “it hasn’t happened YET!” Ezekiel fails on this count in this prophecy.

Was I wrong in my reading of Daniel, by the way?

 

[_A]

Hi A,

You have stated a few times that one of the main reasons you came to this forum was to try to understand belief. I think the reason we are now at almost 60 pages and 900 posts and two weeks later and still apparently no further ahead in understanding, is that one cannot really understand belief unless they have belief. In the same way, I think it is difficult for those who believe to understand unbelief.

Your choice of words indicates even more of this misunderstanding. It is not unbelief, it is a lack of belief. I don’t actively choose to not believe, I just find all the facts available lead to a simpler conclusion. I disagree that I am no farther ahead. I have learned a little about an ancient city, a new (to me) kind of fish called ‘crappie’, and I have learned that there are still no reasons to convince me that pretending I believe would be worth it. By the way - pretending it would be, if I didn’t really believe it, wouldn’t you say?
I have also made a couple of new friends. I think that is worth much.

I am convinced that initial belief is a gift, and we can’t think or philosophize our way into it.

You ain’t kidding ! I spent a long time wondering what was wrong with me. Now I have come to realize that it is not a lack on my part, but a lack of facts and evidence, plain and simple.

I read your comments about prayer and hallucination with interest. I think the difference is that those who pray and hear God speak to them internally are for the most part sane, well-balanced people.

I never suggested that hallucination was ‘insane’, in fact, I think I said that nearly everyone hallucinates regularly (there are several demonstrations available for this).

I will try to explain a bit what believing means to me. It means that I have faith that

Let’s pause right there. I think I see something. You believe because you have faith. You have faith because you believe. Are you seeing the pattern here? I am looking for the origins of this ‘belief without evidence’. Saying that your belief exists because you believe suggests that you have no ‘reason’, just a personal feeling (which you can’t demonstrate, and I can’t feel). Knowing that most everyone hallucinates regularly, I ask again - how do you tell the difference between these feelings and an hallucination?

a Supreme Being created me, forming me in my mother’s womb. Further to that, it is knowing that this Supreme Being created me like no other, and created me out of love. He cares for me and wants me to spend eternity with Him, and this leads me to have faith that He has a plan for the direction my life should take, and that it should be centered on Him. My belief also affirms that this holds true for all of humanity.

All of this has at it’s root a belief. I still can’t see the difference between this belief and an hallucination. (what differences are there available for my evaluation, I mean)

My belief has been a steady journey, with ups and downs all along the way. But belief to me means waking up every morning with the sure knowledge that God loves me, enough to die for me, and whatever I may suffer in a day for love of Him will be worth it in the end. It means that even if I have not a single friend in the world, I am never alone and always loved.

Take care, A

I thank you for your thoughtful reply, and I look forward to learning the difference between belief and an hallucination of belief.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Your choice of words indicates even more of this misunderstanding. It is not unbelief, it is a lack of belief. I don’t actively choose to not believe, I just find all the facts available lead to a simpler conclusion. I disagree that I am no farther ahead. I have learned a little about an ancient city, a new (to me) kind of fish called ‘crappie’, and I have learned that there are still no reasons to convince me that pretending I believe would be worth it. By the way - pretending it would be, if I didn’t really believe it, wouldn’t you say?
I have also made a couple of new friends. I think that is worth much.You ain’t kidding ! I spent a long time wondering what was wrong with me. Now I have come to realize that it is not a lack on my part, but a lack of facts and evidence, plain and simple.I never suggested that hallucination was ‘insane’, in fact, I think I said that nearly everyone hallucinates regularly (there are several demonstrations available for this). Let’s pause right there. I think I see something. You believe because you have faith. You have faith because you believe. Are you seeing the pattern here? I am looking for the origins of this ‘belief without evidence’. Saying that your belief exists because you believe suggests that you have no ‘reason’, just a personal feeling (which you can’t demonstrate, and I can’t feel). Knowing that most everyone hallucinates regularly, I ask again - how do you tell the difference between these feelings and an hallucination?All of this has at it’s root a belief. I still can’t see the difference between this belief and an hallucination. (what differences are there available for my evaluation, I mean)I thank you for your thoughtful reply, and I look forward to learning the difference between belief and an hallucination of belief.

Hi A,

My dictionary defines **unbelief **as :“a lack of belief, especially in God or in a particular religion or doctrine”. This is how I meant it in my last post. I know you do not believe - you have stated it many, many times.

I said that we were apparently no further ahead in understanding - belief, that is. I in no way implied that nothing has been gained or learned from this thread. I think it has been very informative.

I’m not trying to convince you to believe - I know you are quite content to not believe. I was not trying to say that I merely have faith because I believe. What I was trying to do was illustrate what believing means for me - what it encompasses. In other words, I was trying to show you a bit of what goes on in the world of a believer, as you seem to be interested in what makes them tick.

Your query on prayer and hallucination is worthy of a thread unto itself. So, please forgive me if I don’t do it justice here.

My dictionary defines pray as: “speak to God in worship; enter into spiritual communion with God; offer worship”.

My dictionary defines hallucination as: “the perception of an object that is not in fact present. Hallucination is characteristic of some mental illnesses and can be induced by hypnosis, fever, or drugs.”

Prayer is very active and purposeful: speak - enter - offer. It assumes a relationship with a Higher Being. Hallucination appears passive (unless, of course, one first actively consumes the mushrooms, for example).

My belief is more than a feeling. It may have started off as a feeling, but it has been tested over time, and there have been periods in my life where that initial “feeling” was not there. And yet, the belief was there. The “feeling” (that Someone loves me and cares about what I do in my life) took root and started to grow into a knowledge over time, which developed into a Relationship. In all my joys and sorrows in life, sooner or later I turn around and there is God! (Not in the flesh, of course - except, I believe, in the Eucharist. But, I recognize God in the events in my life because I am starting to know Him.)
This has sustained me in times when the “feeling” is waning or absent, and it has led me to keep seeking Truth.

 

[_A]

My dictionary defines hallucination as: “the perception of an object that is not in fact present. Hallucination is characteristic of some mental illnesses and can be induced by hypnosis, fever, or drugs.”

I would go on to say that it is common, in various forms, all through the population. There is a huge amount of evidence that most people dream every night. I don’t remember every night, but I do remember dreaming, and not once can I remember having an unconvincing dream.
I will show you a simple example of your own hallucination. Even when you know for a fact that the image does not move, it will still appear to move. No amount of reason will stop it.
http://blog.makezine.com/rotsnakemini3ts.jpg

 

[phooney]

Ugh!

It’s giving me a headache!