I am an atheist

[_A]

“They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

…Can you see that these words describe in detail what many modern historians call the greatest military and engineering feat in the ancient world accomplished by Alexander the Great?

Didn’t Alexander the Great read the prophecies before he fulfilled them?

 

[Jacafamala]

It is horrible that you believe everyone who doesn’t answer the ‘god question’ correctly will be choosing suffering.

It’s not about a correct answer, per se. It’s about a person’s will, A It’s a choice. Some people don’t want God. That’s free will A person won’t go to hell for what they don’t know. Do you see what I mean?

 

[_A]

It’s not about a correct answer, per se. It’s about a person’s will, A It’s a choice. Some people don’t want God. That’s free will A person won’t go to hell for what they don’t know. Do you see what I mean?

Saying that I ‘don’t want God’ suggests that I believe in him, and have rejected him. Not so. I have no reason to believe in him. I have read the bible, and received the catholic indoctrination through school, and still see nothing worth believing. The god hypothesis was put before me, and it is lacking.
Please don’t look down on me because I have a different world-view than you do. As an example, you might think me a ‘sinner’. I am not. I may be criminal, but since I am not an adherent of christianity, calling me a sinner is simply name calling and unkind.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Didn’t Alexander the Great read the prophecies before he fulfilled them?

Good question. From everything i’ve read Alexander the Great was a Greek pagan who had no contact with any Jewish people or the Torah prior to his siege of Tyre. This is no credible historian of ancient history that teaches Alexander the Great knew prior to sacking the island city of Tyre the writings of Ezekiel.

There is an interesting fable in the Jewish Midrash, which is also echoed in the writings of the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, that Alexander the Great met with the Jewish religious leaders of Jerusalem. However, both the Midrash and Josephus indicate that this occurred after Alexander conquered Tyre and the rest of ancient Palestine.

The online Jewish encyclopedia accurately points out that modern historians consider these stories fables that were likely written two hundred years after Alexander’s death in Alexandria in Egypt. To read more, see this link:

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1120&letter=A

It’s interesting to me that Alexander’s tutor as a boy was Aristotle, who was a student of Plato the student of Socrates. Some say that Socrates, more than any other ancient Greek thinker, was open to the idea that there is one God above all pagan gods who is the source of all wisdom. This suggests why Alexander might be tolerant to the Jewish people who believed their God to be the God of all Gods and the source of all wisdom and would spare Jerusalem. However, there is no historical basis for this.

 

[_A]

Good question. From everything i’ve read Alexander the Great was a Greek pagan who had no contact with any Jewish people or the Torah prior to his siege of Tyre. This is no credible historian of ancient history that teaches Alexander the Great knew prior to sacking the island city of Tyre the writings of Ezekiel.

There is an interesting fable in the Jewish Midrash, which is also echoed in the writings of the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, that Alexander the Great met with the Jewish religious leaders of Jerusalem. However, both the Midrash and Josephus indicate that this occurred after Alexander conquered Tyre and the rest of ancient Palestine.

The online Jewish encyclopedia accurately points out that modern historians consider these stories fables that were likely written two hundred years after Alexander’s death in Alexandria in Egypt. To read more, see this link:

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1120&letter=A

It’s interesting to me that Alexander’s tutor as a boy was Aristotle, who was a student of Plato the student of Socrates. Some say that Socrates, more than any other ancient Greek thinker, was open to the idea that there is one God above all pagan gods who is the source of all wisdom. This suggests why Alexander might be tolerant to the Jewish people who believed their God to be the God of all Gods and the source of all wisdom and would spare Jerusalem. However, there is no historical basis for this.

If Alexander was a great conqueror, he must have known as much as he could about every city which he attacked. I would expect that this would include local beliefs. If he came across a prophecy that would be profitable for him to fulfill, I am fairly sure he would have done it.

 

[Pax]

Your god stated these morals (in some cases, like thou shalt not kill) and can’t live by them himself. I say that makes him sit well beneath anyone who can live by those morals.
We have much better morals now than were offered by this ‘god’. To me that also proves our moral superiority.
When was the last time you stoned someone for working on the sabbath?
Do you think that such an act would be ‘moral’?

I would gladly answer any questions you pose once you have answered the question that I have asked over and over again. I don’t think you have an answer so I guess we will let the readers of the thread judge for themselves the merits of the case as presented by both sides concerning God’s sovereignty thus far. From here it is probably best to simply move on.

 

[_A]

I would gladly answer any questions you pose once you have answered the question that I have asked over and over again. I don’t think you have an answer so I guess we will let the readers of the thread judge for themselves the merits of the case as presented by both sides concerning God’s sovereignty thus far. From here it is probably best to simply move on.

Agreed - your ‘evidence’ so far that your god is superior to us is that he says so. That would be called a lack of evidence by most. My evidence that Yahweh is inferior - his behaviour (as noted in the bible) when held up against everyones ethics (an expression of which can be found in the laws of many countries) is quite beneath us.
If someone threatened their child with death - then at the last minute, took off the blindfold, put away the knife and let the child climb off the altar, that parent could be (and should be ) tried for child abuse. Your Yahweh asked just this - and sometimes even let the child be sacrificed. Indefensible is one word I could describe it with.

 

[Pax]

That is not my evidence and this response by you still does not address my questions.

 

[phooney]

@Jacafamala

“People get what they want. They suffer because they choose to suffer. God simply respects that out of love, because God respects their free will. And yes: it is horrible.”

In order for it to be a true choice, people have to be aware of the options. We cannot be aware of the options without evidence, therefore it is not a choice.

If God was in his soul factory, doing the business of making souls, he would know in advance which ones were going straight to hell, and which ones were coming back up to heaven. You can argue free will all you like, but to say that he wouldn’t know what we would freely choose would impinge upon his omniscience. To say he 'hopes’we will choose to worship him also implies that he doesn’t know, as it would be impossible to actually turn around and surprise god, as that would also impinge on his omniscience. However, to imply that he goes ahead and creates souls anyway, knowing they have no hope of coming to heaven and all certainty of going to hell impinges on his all-loving nature.

A god such as this, defined as all loving and all knowing cannot realistically exist according to logic.

 

[phooney]

@Socrates4Jesus

Well, now you’ve removed the paragraph from the context you said was so important before…

The passage reads just like some kind of inspirational speech aimed to get the most out of Nebuchadnezzar’s army, to convince them that God was on their side.

I think we can both agree that predicting that a city/town would fall to warfare is nothing special, and it is the precise nature of it’s destruction that you are trying to argue is prophetic.

However, it is still too vague. It basically says that it could be the armies of Nebuchadnezzar, or any other army until the end of time, no specific date is mentioned. It, to me, implies a tidal wave in one section, and a fit of anger from the conquerer in another section. It says it would never be found again. Due to the fact that it is clearly a well known archaeological site, it was either never lost, which makes this part of the prediction null and void at best or it was indeed found, which would make it completely wrong.

Have you read any books about cold reading?

 

[_A]

That is not my evidence and this response by you still does not address my questions.

You keep saying that I have not answered your questions, I thought I had, please ask again.
You suggest that you have other evidence? Let’s see it ! I want to know what evidence you have that Yahweh has morals superior to, say mine.

 

[Pax]

To answer me, you must be able to reconcile the issue I outlined earlier. It goes like this:

“My point still remains unanswered. You don’t seem to have a problem dispatching living creatures that are far closer to you in kind than the infinite difference that exists between God and man. Nevertheless, you object to God doing as He sees fit to His creation which is infinitely inferior to Him.”

Compare what you do with what God does. Compare your position with animals in your environment with God’s position vis-a-vis “His” creation. Then reconcile your view of your actions with your view of God’s actions. This is something you have not done, and this is why I am not satisfied with your responses. They simply haven’t been on task.

That could be my fault because I am not always clear in my presentations. Moreover, communication in forums can leave something to be desired. Anyway, that’s it in a nutshell…that is if I made myself clear.

 

[Jacafamala]

QUOTE A:Saying that I ‘don’t want God’ suggests that I believe in him, and have rejected him. Not so. I have no reason to believe in him. I have read the bible, and received the catholic indoctrination through school, and still see nothing worth believing.

I understand this; you haven’t rejected Him. There will come a time–for all of us where He will call us to Himself, and we’ll either turn to Him, or turn away. That could happen today, or it could happen on our death beds, as we close our eyes for the last time. When this happens, it’s important to understand that He is all goodness, and that we shouldn’t turn away from Him.

Have you ever considered asking God to reveal Himself to you, if He’s really there; If He’s really a personal God? Worked for me. He did! Just a suggestion.

The god hypothesis was put before me, and it is lacking.
Please don’t look down on me because I have a different world-view than you do.

Show me where I’ve looked down upon you for being an atheist. Do you think I believe that I am better than you? That is an assumption and it’s incorrect. I think I’ve been completely respectful of your opinions, even if I disagree with them.

As an example, you might think me a ‘sinner’. I am not. I may be criminal, but since I am not an adherent of christianity, calling me a sinner is simply name calling and unkind.

Well I never did call you a sinner, but I do call myself one. I’ve done many things that are wrong, that I regret. I am trying to do my best. That’s all any of us can do.

 

[_A]

I understand this; you haven’t rejected Him. There will come a time–for all of us where He will call us to Himself, and we’ll either turn to Him, or turn away. That could happen today, or it could happen on our death beds, as we close our eyes for the last time. When this happens, it’s important to understand that He is all goodness, and that we shouldn’t turn away from Him.

You mean Yahweh, right? I don’t consider him to be that good. Claiming that he arranged the largest act of genocide ever (the flood) shows just how good he is.

Have you ever considered asking God to reveal Himself to you, if He’s really there; If He’s really a personal God? Worked for me. He did! Just a suggestion.

Tried it - nothing. Just tried it again - again, nothing. That for me is enough proof for today that your god does not exist.
By the way, please tell me how I would tell the difference between the actual true god, and an hallucination.

Show me where I’ve looked down upon you for being an atheist. Do you think I believe that I am better than you? That is an assumption and it’s incorrect. I think I’ve been completely respectful of your opinions, even if I disagree with them.

The whole belief system you have causes this downward look. You have not been disrespectful, but you do express that you think I lack something by not believing.

Well I never did call you a sinner, but I do call myself one. I’ve done many things that are wrong, that I regret. I am trying to do my best. That’s all any of us can do.

You haven’t called me a sinner - and I appreciate it. What I was trying to describe is that your mythos suggests that everyone needs to be cleansed of original sin, or they aren’t clean.

 

[_A]

To answer me, you must be able to reconcile the issue I outlined earlier. It goes like this:

“My point still remains unanswered. You don’t seem to have a problem dispatching living creatures that are far closer to you in kind than the infinite difference that exists between God and man. Nevertheless, you object to God doing as He sees fit to His creation which is infinitely inferior to Him.”

I didn’t make law the phrase “thou shalt not kill”, but if I made a law, you could expect me to respect it - or, if I went ahead and killed anyhow, you could say that I had demonstrated a disrespect for it.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

I have tried prayer and failed regularly to gain anything from it. What do you make of that?

Hi “A”,

I’m also from the North…tho not as far North as you. I don’t much like the cold though, so why don’t I go south? Too hard to move, I guess! lol.

I have lots of atheist friends, and had a period of agnosticism myself, so I suspect we’ll be able to converse on the same wavelength.

Now, I think you are wrong to say you don’t “believe” in evolution. There is no proof for macro-evolution. There is data that fits the theory, yes. But for it to be proven, repeatable experiments would be necessary…either that, or a time machine.

So, based on lots of individual clues that fit together towards a given conclusion, you are convinced that the theory of evolution is true. But…you BELIEVE it, you do not have proof. (If you do have proof, please inform us all.) That is very similar to the reasons why most of us believe in God. We have no proof…yet we are convinced, by big and small evidences that we have found, such as, but by no means limited to:

1. Miracles we have personally experienced.
2. The wonder and intelligibility of the universe.
3. Miracles and testimonies we have heard from others.
4. The story of Jesus and the miracles he performed.
5. The fact that the universe’s “parameters” are fine tuned to support life.
6. The fact that life exists!

Now, you speak of prayer as something you’ve done and not gotten anything out of. May I ask, what did you pray for? If you prayed in all sincerity to know God if He exists, then I can guarantee you that He will answer that prayer, somehow, sometime.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

@Jacafamala

“People get what they want. They suffer because they choose to suffer. God simply respects that out of love, because God respects their free will. And yes: it is horrible.”

In order for it to be a true choice, people have to be aware of the options. We cannot be aware of the options without evidence, therefore it is not a choice.

If God was in his soul factory, doing the business of making souls, he would know in advance which ones were going straight to hell, and which ones were coming back up to heaven. You can argue free will all you like, but to say that he wouldn’t know what we would freely choose would impinge upon his omniscience. To say he 'hopes’we will choose to worship him also implies that he doesn’t know, as it would be impossible to actually turn around and surprise god, as that would also impinge on his omniscience. However, to imply that he goes ahead and creates souls anyway, knowing they have no hope of coming to heaven and all certainty of going to hell impinges on his all-loving nature.

A god such as this, defined as all loving and all knowing cannot realistically exist according to logic.

See, this doesn’t really work, because there is no such thing as “BEFORE” as applied to God. If He knows that a certain person “will go” to Hell, it is because from His perspective, they are already there. He sees all of time at once.

As it is, God only judges us on what we know. If a certain person truly, honestly, believes God does not exist, and is searching for the truth the best he possibly can, then God will judge that person with that in mind.

Also, God tries extremely hard to get our attention, and to get us to turn back towards the right path. No one will go to Hell without having exhausted all of God’s attempts. A person only goes to Hell, if they are utterly determined to do so. At that point, God allows us to have our wish.

Compare it to a merely human family. The children are always welcome in the family. A good mother or father are always attempting to help their child conduct himself according to the good, and to reconcile with the family if necessary. However, if the child utterly rejects his parents and siblings, then the parents must reluctantly let the child have his way.

 

[phooney]

@PillarofTruth

As I think my posts are seeming to be largely ignored except by Socrates4Jesus, (or nobody here can think of how to refute them) I think I’ll just jump in on this post too!

“There is no proof for macro-evolution.”

What do you think macro-evolution is? What do you think would stop macro-evolution from happening?

1. Please describe them
2. Argument from incredulity
3. Anecdotal fallacy
4. Anecdotal fallacy
5. See post 490
6. God of the gaps/argument from ignorance (again, don’t take offence at the word ignorance, i simply mean it in the sense of ‘unaware’)

I prayed when I went to a Roman Catholic school too… nothing.

So god lacks the perspective of time? I thought God would be able to view things in temporal terms as well. I guess your definition of god isn’t omnipotent? Your description of God’s lack of time-awareness doesn’t excuse his creating souls instantaneously in hell either.

Even if God only gives me evidence for his existence after I die, in the meantime it is still more rational for me to lack that belief. Same goes for you if you don’t have any evidence really.

In your ‘merely human’ family example, what are the children to do if they never meet their parents, the parents give them no moral guidance, etc. Are they still to feel as part of that family?

 

[_A]

Hi “A”,

I’m also from the North…tho not as far North as you. I don’t much like the cold though, so why don’t I go south? Too hard to move, I guess! lol.

It sounds like you are cold enough already - it was -34 this morning (with no wind chill) and that is part of the reason I like it here. Even my old truck starting seems a small victory!

I have lots of atheist friends, and had a period of agnosticism myself, so I suspect we’ll be able to converse on the same wavelength.

Now, I think you are wrong to say you don’t “believe” in evolution.

Stop. I do not believe. End of story. There may be those who believe in evolution - don’t count me among them, for I do not believe.

There is no proof for macro-evolution. There is data that fits the theory, yes. But for it to be proven, repeatable experiments would be necessary…either that, or a time machine.

I think the closest you will get to a time machine is the works and collections of fossil-hunters everywhere. I don’t suggest that you believe them, but if you scrutinize carefully, I think you will find that it presents a better theory than any other offered - that is the theory of evolution by natural selection. By better, I mean that it makes better predictions for biologists than any other.

So, based on lots of individual clues that fit together towards a given conclusion, you are convinced that the theory of evolution is true. But…you BELIEVE it, you do not have proof.

I do not believe it - I seldom even use it. If I had occasion to use a theory to describe how all the animals and plants got to the state they are in, I would go with the theory that best fits observed phenomenon.

(If you do have proof, please inform us all.) That is very similar to the reasons why most of us believe in God. We have no proof…yet we are convinced, by big and small evidences that we have found, such as, but by no means limited to:

1. Miracles we have personally experienced.

How do you differantiate between a personally experienced miracle, and an hallucination?

1. The wonder and intelligibility of the universe.

That is equally evidence for non-existence of god or gods.

1. Miracles and testimonies we have heard from others.

See item 1)

1. The story of Jesus and the miracles he performed.

I once read a story of Jesus being a hoax. So far, it is equally well supported with your theory.

1. The fact that the universe’s “parameters” are fine tuned to support life.

Which parameters, and, more importantly, what evidence do you have that they were tuned by your god, and not self-adjusting?

1. The fact that life exists!

This is only proof that life exists. No more.

Now, you speak of prayer as something you’ve done and not gotten anything out of. May I ask, what did you pray for? If you prayed in all sincerity to know God if He exists, then I can guarantee you that He will answer that prayer, somehow, sometime.

Right. While I wait for your god to present reasonable evidence, I will go on living the good life I have been.
Have you any actual evidence?

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

@PillarofTruth

“There is no proof for macro-evolution.”

What do you think macro-evolution is? What do you think would stop macro-evolution from happening?

Macro-evolution is the change of species into other species over time. Micro-evolution would be the tendency of traits to change within a species due to external circumstances. The latter has been proven - the former has not been.

Why do I have to say what I think would stop it? That’s like me asking you what you think would stop God from existing! Anyway, the existence of micro-evolution does not, in any way, prove macro-evolution. Please note, I am not even arguing against evolution - I’m not a creationist. I’m just saying there is no PROOF for it.

1. Please describe them
2. Argument from incredulity
3. Anecdotal fallacy
4. Anecdotal fallacy
5. See post 490
6. God of the gaps/argument from ignorance (again, don’t take offence at the word ignorance, i simply mean it in the sense of ‘unaware’)

My list was not meant as an argument. Each one of these could (and has been) be argued about in a book length format, if we chose. I could argue with your pat dismissals, but that was not my main point.

So god lacks the perspective of time? I thought God would be able to view things in temporal terms as well. I guess your definition of god isn’t omnipotent? Your description of God’s lack of time-awareness doesn’t excuse his creating souls instantaneously in hell either.

No, He doesn’t lack the perspective of time. He obviously knows what it is, even though He exists outside of it. God never, ever would create souls instantaneously in Hell. What are you talking about?

Same goes for you if you don’t have any evidence really.

Fortunately, I do. However, even if the evidence against God’s existence were as strong as the evidence for (in fact, I would go so far as to say even if the evidence against were 10 times stronger than the evidence for)…it would still be better to wager that God did exist, just using a cost/benefit analysis.

In your ‘merely human’ family example, what are the children to do if they never meet their parents, the parents give them no moral guidance, etc. Are they still to feel as part of that family?

Well, the point of the analogy was to show you how it works from God’s perspective, not our perspective. I did say that we are only judged according to what we know (or perhaps it would be better to say, on what we should have known). It could be that you, and/or other atheists are “invincibly ignorant” (please do not take offense at the term, - I didn’t - lol) so that there was no way you could have known God existed. If so, you won’t be held accountable for that.