Problems w/ Atheism

[josie_L]

Maybe it was hyperbole to say what I said, but it wasn’t technically inaccurate (nor do I buy into your paranoid world view – the evil media … the deluded, oops I mean Christian, right has plenty of its own media resources to peddle it’s ancient absurdities).

all you’ve proven is the depth of delusion the religious live under … nothing else.

Why do you belittle us by insisting we’re deluded, technically you won’t know we’re deluded until you die, so reserve your judgment till then? God bless Yankee.

 

[gearhead]

Why do you belittle us by insisting we’re deluded, technically you won’t know we’re deluded until you die, so reserve your judgment till then? God bless Yankee.

Delusion is a belief that doesn’t have a rational basis. We can evaluate the basis for a belief in the here-and-now. Coincidental correctness after the fact doesn’t change whether it’s a delusion or not.

For instance, if someone were to say that the corn we just planted will grow next year because it will be coaxed out of the earth by the pixies that live in the ground, we don’t have to wait and see whether the corn comes up next spring before dismissing this belief as a delusion.

Now… this isn’t to say that your belief is necessarily a delusion; just that we really don’t have to wait until we die to figure it out.

 

[josie_L]

Delusion is a belief that doesn’t have a rational basis. We can evaluate the basis for a belief in the here-and-now. Coincidental correctness after the fact doesn’t change whether it’s a delusion or not.

For instance, if someone were to say that the corn we just planted will grow next year because it will be coaxed out of the earth by the pixies that live in the ground, we don’t have to wait and see whether the corn comes up next spring before dismissing this belief as a delusion.

Now… this isn’t to say that your belief is necessarily a delusion; just that we really don’t have to wait until we die to figure it out.

Do you have proof that God doesn’t exist? And if He does exist, aren’t you the deluded one?

 

[gearhead]

Do you have proof that God doesn’t exist?

Do you have proof that pixies don’t make corn grow?

And if He does exist, aren’t you the deluded one?

Not necessarily. It’s possible to believe something on a rational basis but be incorrect. Same goes for you: like I said, I’m not making the claim that your beliefs are a delusion.

 

[Dokimas]

There is one bit of evidence for the Bible which can be a reason to think God is involve in human history. That evidence is the Nation of Israel.

 

[gearhead]

There is one bit of evidence for the Bible which can be a reason to think God is involve in human history. That evidence is the Nation of Israel.

How is the Nation of Israel evidence for the Bible?

I can see how it’s evidence for a people’s belief in the Bible, but that’s not the same thing.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Why do you belittle us by insisting we’re deluded, technically you won’t know we’re deluded until you die, so reserve your judgment till then? God bless Yankee.

nope, I know now

 

[yankee_doodle]

There is one bit of evidence for the Bible which can be a reason to think God is involve in human history. That evidence is the Nation of Israel.

the existence of a nation proves that god exists … that’s a silly idea?

 

[Dokimas]

the existence of a nation proves that god exists … that’s a silly idea?

They once thought that traveling 30MPH would kill you and would be silly to try to go that fast.​

Yep, the existence of the Nation of Israel when there was no nation more than 2000 years and in light of the fact the OT says God would bring the children of Israel back to the land He promised them happened in 1948. I’d say one could reason that God exists. Most likely you believe in the Big Bang and you do so on much less real evidence.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Do you have proof that God doesn’t exist?

if you said there’s a monster in the closet, and I said no there’s not and as proof I opened the closet to show there was no visible monster … would that be acceptable proof?

first religion tells us that man and woman was created by a god in a single day (and that god was apparently both visually and audibly detectible by Adam & Eve). We say nope, can’t be right, look here’s these skeletons of our ancient evolutionary ancestors. You say … that’s OK, Genesis must be figurative.

They said the earth is at the center of the universe, we say nope – wrong again. Then we prove you wrong, but you say that’s OK … the bible isn’t a science document, and all it’s creative and other references to the physical universe are figurative.

Then we say come on Exodus can’t be within the range of historical possibility. The line of Hebrews (assuming 600,000 men of fighting age, their wives, children, elderly population, and a mixed scattering of non-Jews, equalling at least 2 million people) would have been 150 miles long, and would have equalled half of Egypts population at the time. You say OK that’s figurative too. Then we say, the Tower of Babel story is impossible (given what we know about the history of linguistics and migration patterns). But that’s OK that’s figurative too.

So, it wasn’t a real monster in the closet … it was just a figurative monster.

Well, really it’s just an imaginary monster.

Proof = a common sense assesment of these sort of fact!!

 

[gearhead]

Yep, the existence of the Nation of Israel when there was no nation more than 2000 years and in light of the fact the OT says God would bring the children of Israel back to the land He promised them happened in 1948. I’d say one could reason that God exists. Most likely you believe in the Big Bang and you do so on much less real evidence.

Hmm. I take it you aren’t familiar with the term “self-fulfilling prophecy”, are you?

 

[josie_L]

Do you have proof that pixies don’t make corn grow?

No, but I think you failed to see the fact that only one of us can be right about the existence or non-existence of God, and as neither one of us as material proof (as God is outside of the purview of Science), we must perforce use other criteria for believing what we do, either way one of us is wrong, and only upon death shall we know the full truth.

Not necessarily. It’s possible to believe something on a rational basis but be incorrect. Same goes for you: like I said, I’m not making the claim that your beliefs are a delusion.

Good, because I don’t believe I’m delusional nor for that matter should Yankee be calling me delusional (especially in light of the fact that he’s a materialist with no proof that only the material exists).

 

[Dokimas]

Hmm. I take it you aren’t familiar with the term “self-fulfilling prophecy”, are you?

Sure, did Israel will themselves back or the the Allies make the way?​

Ever look into the overwhelming victory in 1967 (I think it was that yrs) when Israel defeat several enemies in 6 days against overwelming odds?

 

[gearhead]

No, but I think you failed to see the fact that only one of us can be right about the existence or non-existence of God, and as neither one of us as material proof (as God is outside of the purview of Science), we must perforce use other criteria for believing what we do, either way one of us is wrong, and only upon death shall we know the full truth.

Which is a separate question from whether either of us is delusional.

We can come to conclusions on a rational basis but still be wrong: we don’t work with all the facts; sometimes we’re deceived.

Here’s an example: say a man wearing a fancy suit and driving an expensive car comes up to the two of us and tells us that he’s a millionaire. You assess the information you have and decide to believe him. I consult my tarot cards and decide based on them that he’s lying.

Later on, we find out that he wasn’t a millionaire at all - he stole all those things. Yet even though your belief turned out to be wrong and mine turned out to be right, yours would have been rational and mine would have been a delusion.

BTW: why do you say that God is outside the purview of science? Conceptually, anything that has physical effects is within the scope of science. If God actually does measurable things (e.g. creating universes, doing miracles), then how would he be beyond science?

I think the only people who can argue that God is “outside the purview of science” are deists.

 

[srferdave]

if you said there’s a monster in the closet, and I said no there’s not and as proof I opened the closet to show there was no visible monster … would that be acceptable proof?

first religion tells us that man and woman was created by a god in a single day (and that god was apparently both visually and audibly detectible by Adam & Eve). We say nope, can’t be right, look here’s these skeletons of our ancient evolutionary ancestors. You say … that’s OK, Genesis must be figurative.

They said the earth is at the center of the universe, we say nope – wrong again. Then we prove you wrong, but you say that’s OK … the bible isn’t a science document, and all it’s creative and other references to the physical universe are figurative.

Then we say come on Exodus can’t be within the range of historical possibility. The line of Hebrews (assuming 600,000 men of fighting age, their wives, children, elderly population, and a mixed scattering of non-Jews, equalling at least 2 million people) would have been 150 miles long, and would have equalled half of Egypts population at the time. You say OK that’s figurative too. Then we say, the Tower of Babel story is impossible (given what we know about the history of linguistics and migration patterns). But that’s OK that’s figurative too.

So, it wasn’t a real monster in the closet … it was just a figurative monster.

Well, really it’s just an imaginary monster.

Proof = a common sense assesment of these sort of fact!!

And then we say that these body’s (saints) are incorruptible, and you say there are scientific reasons for that. And we say that all the prophecy’s in the Bible have come true so far, and you say uhhh… so what? And we say that my cousin wasn’t suppose to walk and now she does, and you say the doctors didn’t know any better. And we say that the bread and wine actually turned into flesh and blood, and you say that didn’t really happen.

 

[josie_L]

if you said there’s a monster in the closet, and I said no there’s not and as proof I opened the closet to show there was no visible monster … would that be acceptable proof?

first religion tells us that man and woman was created by a god in a single day (and that god btw was apparently both visually and audibly detectible by Adam & Eve). We say nope, can’t be right, look here’s these skeletons of our ancient evolutionary ancestors. You say … that’s OK, Genesis must be figurative.

They said the earth is at the center of the universe, we say nope – wrong again. Then we prove you wrong, but you say that’s OK … the bible isn’t a science document, and all it’s creative and other references to the physical universe are figurative.

Then we say come on Exodus can’t be within the range of historical possibility. The line of Hebrews (assuming 600,000 men of fighting age, their wives, children, elderly population, and a mixed scattering of non-Jews, equalling at least 2 million people) would have been 150 miles long, and would have equalled half of Egypts population at the time. You say OK that’s figurative too. Then we say, the Tower of Babel story is impossible (given what we know about the history of linguistics and migration patterns). But that’s OK that’s figurative too.

So, it wasn’t a real monster in the closet … it was just a figurative monster.

Well, really it’s just an imaginary monster.

Proof = a common sense assesment of these sort of fact!!

Let’s cut through the B.S. Yankee, when we die all of us will know the truth, so all your so-called reasoning won’t make up for your lack of faith if and when you find out God does indeed exist. By the way, what would you do if you find out God did exist, what would you tell him?

p.s. Can you not understand that the geocentric view of our Universe was held by all people at the time (science was just beginning to take off during the middle ages so the Church had to wait till science established the facts in order to change the prevailing view).

 

[gearhead]

Sure, did Israel will themselves back or the the Allies make the way?

Pretty much. Waves of Jewish refugees made their way to British Palestine with the intent of settling it. They went because they believed they had been promised the land by God.

Actually, it’d probably be fairer to say that they’d been promised the land by the British. Even from its first creation in 1917, the British Mandate of Palestine included provision for a Jewish homeland and eventual transition to a Jewish state. Effectively, you could say that the Jews were following the promise of the British crown as much as they were the promise of God.

Ever look into the overwhelming victory in 1967 (I think it was that yrs) when Israel defeat several enemies in 6 days against overwelming odds?

In retrospect, the odds weren’t that overwhelming. Israel was a smaller but determined, well-trained and well-equipped force, motivated by the threat of annihilation and holding “home field” advantage. The invading armies, while greater in number, weren’t as well-equipped or cohesive and had to deal with a highly prepared and well-disciplined defensive force.

Personally, I think other historical victories were a lot more unlikely and astonishing. The Plains of Abraham, for instance. Or the British defeat of the Spanish Armada - that just came down to weather and dumb luck. But you’d never suggest that this meant God preferred Protestant England to Catholic France or Spain, would you?

 

[josie_L]

Which is a separate question from whether either of us is delusional.

We can come to conclusions on a rational basis but still be wrong: we don’t work with all the facts; sometimes we’re deceived.

Here’s an example: say a man wearing a fancy suit and driving an expensive car comes up to the two of us and tells us that he’s a millionaire. You assess the information you have and decide to believe him. I consult my tarot cards and decide based on them that he’s lying.

Later on, we find out that he wasn’t a millionaire at all - he stole all those things. Yet even though your belief turned out to be wrong and mine turned out to be right, yours would have been rational and mine would have been a delusion.

BTW: why do you say that God is outside the purview of science? Conceptually, anything that has physical effects is within the scope of science. If God actually does measurable things (e.g. creating universes, doing miracles), then how would he be beyond science?

I think the only people who can argue that God is “outside the purview of science” are deists.

By “outside the purview of science” I mean that Science cannot prove God as it does other observable phenomena (God is not observable technically speaking), however, science can lead one in the direction where a creator is more than plausible and religious truth can be verifed (to a degree).

p.s. So you agree with me that only upon death shall we know that God exists?

 

[gearhead]

By “outside the purview of science” I mean that Science cannot prove God as it does other observable phenomena (God is not observable technically speaking), however, science can lead one in the direction where a creator is more than plausible and religious truth can be verifed (to a degree).

Why do you say God isn’t observable? I suppose you could say that God’s not directly observable, but even that claim needs support.

If the Church is right about God, then he’s definitely indirectly observable.

p.s. So you agree with me that only upon death shall we know that God exists?

No. My bet is that upon death, we won’t know anything.

 

[josie_L]

nope, I know now

Oh Great Oracle can you tell me what my future holds?