Atheism

David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheism

 Let's restart off easy like . . . with kindness.

What is atheism to you? To me, it is, by it's most basic definition, ridiculous. That is to say "the opinion that there is no god(s)" is nonsensical. There are billions of gods. The title atheist and the concept of atheism make sense to me, though. Theist. Atheist. Antithisis. Simple. The intellectual difficulties in accepting the supernatural is perfectly rational to me. It has been my experience that there are two distinct types of atheists, though there are too many labels these days to describe the degree of atheism which I think are unnecessary. The two types I perceive are the majority of atheists, who just want to be left alone. They have no interest in debating or discussing the subject. They aren't politically or socially motivated to engage in any conflict regarding the subject.

The second type are the militant atheists. They are more politically and socially outspoken and active. They are the types of people you would most likely encounter on forums such as these.

I was in the first group for 27 years.

That's pretty much it. What is atheism to  you?

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Not believing in god. 

Not believing in god. 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Not

zarathustra wrote:

Not believing in god. 

Not to be pedantic here, but if a person doesn't believe in their wife that means they aren't confident in their wife's abilities. In general, or in a specific case. Like not believing in the wife's abilities as a cook. I assume that by not believing in god it isn't a case of a general lack of confidence but that you don't believe specifically in the existence of a specific god.

Since I believe in God, the same god you don't believe in, what, if anything, do you think two people like us have to discuss? I have atheist friends and family. No big deal. No conflict there. What about you in the friends and family? Any theists? Any conflict?  

What issues do you have with theists and theism?


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Not believing in god. 

Not to be pedantic here, but if a person doesn't believe in their wife that means they aren't confident in their wife's abilities. In general, or in a specific case. Like not believing in the wife's abilities as a cook. I assume that by not believing in god it isn't a case of a general lack of confidence but that you don't believe specifically in the existence of a specific god.

Since I believe in God, the same god you don't believe in, what, if anything, do you think two people like us have to discuss? I have atheist friends and family. No big deal. No conflict there. What about you in the friends and family? Any theists? Any conflict?  

What issues do you have with theists and theism?

I believe you are mixing terminologies.

"doesn't believe in their wife/aren't confident in their wife's abilitites"

There is a difference in confidence and believing in one person or abilitites. They are similar, but hold different meanings.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
He's not mixing

He's not mixing terminologies, he's exploiting weaknesses in English. It's the only weapon a theist really has to work with.

There are two types of faith. One is the faith someone has in someone else to behave certain ways under certain conditions. The second assumes something is real even without evidence, or evidence to the contrary.

Every atheist who isn't a sociopath has tonnes of faith, provided you use the first meaning. The problem arises with the second. Without evidence of a god, I can't believe one exists. Because I can't believe one exists, I can't have faith that it has the better good of everyone in mind. How can I have faith in something I can't even say exists?

To me, atheism is quite simply the rational lack of belief in a god or gods. Disbelief would also qualify as atheism, but that's as messy a position to take as belief.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I believe you are mixing terminologies.

"doesn't believe in their wife/aren't confident in their wife's abilitites"

There is a difference in confidence and believing in one person or abilitites. They are similar, but hold different meanings.

The reason I bring it up  is that when you take some atheists literally they seem to have a seething hatred for a God they don't think exists. They refer to him as if he is a moster rather than non existant. Especially atheists who were formerly Christian. They may not believe God exists, but they refer to him as if he does. This language is sometimes confusing to me not because it seems they are saying he does exist, but rather that he is a figurehead or scapegoat for some other issue of contention in their lives. In it's intensity it reminds me of deep seeded racial prejudice.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:He's not mixing

Vastet wrote:
He's not mixing terminologies, he's exploiting weaknesses in English. It's the only weapon a theist really has to work with. There are two types of faith. One is the faith someone has in someone else to behave certain ways under certain conditions. The second assumes something is real even without evidence, or evidence to the contrary. Every atheist who isn't a sociopath has tonnes of faith, provided you use the first meaning. The problem arises with the second. Without evidence of a god, I can't believe one exists. Because I can't believe one exists, I can't have faith that it has the better good of everyone in mind. How can I have faith in something I can't even say exists? To me, atheism is quite simply the rational lack of belief in a god or gods. Disbelief would also qualify as atheism, but that's as messy a position to take as belief.

Evidence is subjective. Paul said that "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) Adam knew God, and communicated with him through his representative, but he didn't have faith in God's being able to solve the problem of Eve being deceived. He feared the loss of Eve and this resulted in him losing faith in God. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament says "Faith is the title deed of things hoped for." It's based upon truth, reality.

You can't have faith in a God you don't think exists, but you can have a lack of faith in a God you think does exist.

The difficulty I have with someone who claims to have a lack in belief in god or gods is the possible distinction therein. Do you believe god or gods exist but have no faith in them, or are you saying there are no gods. Most skeptics would choose the latter. The question then becomes, what is a god.  


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Not to be

David Henson wrote:
Not to be pedantic here, but if a person doesn't believe in their wife that means they aren't confident in their wife's abilities.
When I say I don't believe in god, I mean that I don't believe a god exists; not that I believe a god exists, but am not confident in its abilities.

Quote:
Since I believe in God, the same god you don't believe in, what, if anything, do you think two people like us have to discuss?
Among other things, we can discuss 1) The existence of god. 2) Religious freedom. 3) Religious morality vs. secular morality.

Quote:
I have atheist friends and family. No big deal. No conflict there. What about you in the friends and family? Any theists? Any conflict?
I was raised religious.  My parents did have a problem with my becoming an atheist, but it did not significantly strain our relationship.  With friends, the issue hardly ever comes up, such that I don't know the religious stance of the majority 

Quote:
What issues do you have with theists and theism?
My primary issue is that I think theists are deluded, given that they cannot provide adequate proof for their beliefs.  Secondary to that, my issue is that many religious (though not all) are not to content to simply have their beliefs, but feel compelled to prosletyze in an attempt to impose their beliefs on others.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i don't understand why such

i don't understand why an insignificant thing as a person's religion can be such a relationship dealbreaker. i go to work. i come home and immediately start taking care of my three small kids--feeding and bathing them, taking them to the toilet, putting them to bed, playing with them. i maintain my home and yard, as well as chickens and a greenhouse and vegetable garden. i work on my phd. on the weekends, i deal with the kids all day, sometimes take them on trips and things. religion doesn't feed anyone, doesn't keep the lights on, doesn't go pick up medicine for the kids, so you can damn sure believe my wife and i aren't wasting our breath fighting over it. i ain't got TIME for bullshit like whether or not god exists, especially since i have to deal with religion academically all the time anyway. any free time i do have, after the kids are in bed, is spent reading, trying to stay awake long enough to watch a show with the wife, typing on sites like this, or, occasionally, going to the village pub for an hour or so to chat with the landlady over a pint about real things like the news, the weather, gardening, or the joys and trials of raising children. oh, and i do much of this in a language other than my own.


i don't hate god, but if he exists, he can jolly well fuck off, because i don't have time for his bullshit. that's the extent of my atheism. i haven't constructed any firm epistemology behind it and i never will.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It's not necessary

to "believe", or to, "believe in" anything or any one.

There's a Jack pine (tree) right outside my door. Is it really there-yes. Do I have to believe it's there or really exists- no. Believing the tree is or isn't, or believing "in" the tree changes nothing- everything remains the same. Does belief establish a fact-no, the tree will remain regardless of what's going on with me. So, I need not to believe in anything and merely see something as it is. Belief proves nothing, as the tree is present and needs no proof it's there--I can see it's there.

But, to see a tree that isn't there just because someone says so is believing another person if I accept the thought. Where--- did that other person get the knowledge of the tree if it's never been physically. So, why should the originator of the thought be believed. If I believe nothing then I accept nothing as truth unless and until the originator of the thought can present evidence of what is stated.

If someone tells me that there is a tree thereand I can see it, then I can see the tree and say it's there. But, I still don't have to believe it's there or believe it's a tree, or take anyone's word for it. I can leave it in a "non" catagory because I don't have to accept becasue I have no use for or connection to the tree. To believe a tree is there or it is a tree connects me to it on a metnal basis. I can elect to remain disconnected (mentally) from the tree.

IOW, One can show me a tree, whether there or not, but, I'll decide whether the one originating the thought is correct or incorrect. Nonbelief guards me from being controlled by another. If I don't control what I see or or am to know then I'm just a patsy for the one who originates the thought. If I have no interest in a tree then there's no reason for me to believe or disbelieve, or led to "believe in" unless "I" determine facts for myself. The tree can be there, but I needn't believe it's there or not there, becasue in any case belief changes nothing. The tree does not depend upon  belief to exist. If the tree doesn't believe and still exists, then it doesn't need any belief on my part to exist either.

So, to believe one has to accept the thought of an originator.  Who was/is the originator. The originator would seem to have to have been a person. That person may have existed many years ago, and if so, who was He/She. The person that told me is recent, so that person had to have been told by another and so on. Can the person originating the thought be found in antiquity. If so, where and how did "that" person get the information. If I am to believe anything or anyone this is the info I've got to have.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:When I say

[eta: I remember now how much I dislike this format for posting. I'm trying to make this presentable, please have patience. 

zarathustra wrote:
When I say I don't believe in god, I mean that I don't believe a god exists; not that I believe a god exists, but am not confident in its abilities.


Got it. You do not believe a god exists. Now we need to define a god.

Dictionary: 5. A god is the upper balcony in a theater or the people seated there. 



That isn't the god you are talking about. We can cross that off. Though technically you didn't distinguish which gods don't exist. You only said god. This also applies to the basic definition of atheism, which is the lack in belief of (the existence) of god(s). 



4. An adored, admired or influential person or a thing accorded a supreme importance.

This is tricky. Since the Hebrew and Greek words for gods/goddesses comes from a root word meaning mighty, and in those languages as well as Aramaic, Arabic, Latin and English the word god simply means anyone or anything that is venerated anything or anyone can be a god. There are billions of gods. Jehovah, Satan, the angels, Moses, Jesus, the judges of Israel, idols, false gods such as Dagon, Molech, Ashtoreth etc. are called gods. A man, like Tammuz, the Sumerian king likely identified as Nimrod was a god. Something that doesn't actually exist can be a god, like a mythological or fictional character. Frodo has been called a god. A better example is Zeus. I don't believe in Zeus. I don't believe he exists. I don't worship Zeus, don't admire him, but others do. Zeus is a god.Again, the most basic definition of atheism is a misnomer. However. To simplify things, I think that we can skip this fact and assume that, with the possible existence of Jesus, Moses, Tammuz, and the judges of Israel, the god in question you doubt the existence of isn't of that ilk. You don't doubt Eric Clapton's existence.   

3. An image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.

Notice as we get further up the ladder, which admittedly is upside down, your disbelief and the definition of atheist gets harder to defend. At least up to this point. The Bible agrees with this definition of gods. As do all of the aforementioned ancient and present languages. For the sake of your argument we have to cross out those as well. They aren't the god in question. Though, specifics might be helpful for future reference. 

2. A supernatural being venerated or considered having power over nature or human fortunes. Deity. 

 There we go. Now we're talkin'.

 1. The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority. The supreme being.

 So these last two are the gods in question, correct? 

 
zarathustra wrote:
Among other things, we can discuss 1) The existence of god. 2) Religious freedom. 3) Religious morality vs. secular morality.


Usually my focus is on the Bible. As seen above in this response, the existence of a god or gods is pedantic in nature unless a specific god is considered. This is because the term god was only applied to the primary god in question, Jehovah, when the people he introduced himself to in the Bible were aware of him to consider him mighty or worship him. For example, Jehovah wasn't a god, in a sense, before he created anything because there wasn't anyone to consider him a god. We can discuss and debate this, but it would basically be pointless without consideration of the Bible. 

 Religious freedom isn't an issue for me because I loath organized religion. If it were up to me I would eradicate it altogether. I think religious freedom is important on an individual level, but not in the corporate / political / social fabric. I think the separation of church and state is terribly significant for both church and state. We need more of that. But, at the same time, I'm apolitical, as Jesus was no part of the world, so am I. I don't vote or try and influence the social, political and legislative process. I have no faith in any of it. But I do still have opinions on those subjects, so we can do that as well.Morality is subjective. I don't believe there is any great degree of difference between religious vs. secular morality. I think morality is, in essence, the rules and principles of a group of people, and there are differences in the stream of time and place, and there is a difference between what is moral to, for example,  the Christian congregation and the secular, but they should be left alone to decide for themselves morality. Neither should try and enforce their morality upon the other. 

 
zarathustra wrote:
I was raised religious.  My parents did have a problem with my becoming an atheist, but it did not significantly strain our relationship.  With friends, the issue hardly ever comes up, such that I don't know the religious stance of the majority 


Pretty much the same here. Most of my family and friends are atheists. In fact, only my mother is a theist. 

 
zarathustra wrote:
My primary issue is that I think theists are deluded, given that they cannot provide adequate proof for their beliefs.
 

I used to think that way. Very strongly, in fact. I still think that most theists and atheists as well are deluded in the way you describe, not only religiously but culturally, socially and politically obtuse. Then I began to realize this was xenophobia more than anything. What business is it of mine? It isn't my problem. I believe in personal responsibility when it comes to beliefs. If a person bases their beliefs upon nothing, that is, ignorance, that's their responsibility rather than mine. Now in a debate, I like a strong opponent. 

 
zarathustra wrote:
Secondary to that, my issue is that many religious (though not all) are not to content to simply have their beliefs, but feel compelled to proselytize in an attempt to impose their beliefs on others.
 

To impose: To force something unwelcome or unfamiliar to be accepted or put in place, or to take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment. I think if by impose you mean these things, that would be wrong, but part of Christianity is to spread the gospel. This means to proselytize. To give them the opportunity to choose whether or not to accept it out of accurate knowledge.

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i don't

iwbiek wrote:
i don't understand why an insignificant thing as a person's religion can be such a relationship dealbreaker. i go to work. i come home and immediately start taking care of my three small kids--feeding and bathing them, taking them to the toilet, putting them to bed, playing with them. i maintain my home and yard, as well as chickens and a greenhouse and vegetable garden. i work on my phd. on the weekends, i deal with the kids all day, sometimes take them on trips and things. religion doesn't feed anyone, doesn't keep the lights on, doesn't go pick up medicine for the kids, so you can damn sure believe my wife and i aren't wasting our breath fighting over it. i ain't got TIME for bullshit like whether or not god exists, especially since i have to deal with religion academically all the time anyway. any free time i do have, after the kids are in bed, is spent reading, trying to stay awake long enough to watch a show with the wife, typing on sites like this, or, occasionally, going to the village pub for an hour or so to chat with the landlady over a pint about real things like the news, the weather, gardening, or the joys and trials of raising children. oh, and i do much of this in a language other than my own.
i don't hate god, but if he exists, he can jolly well fuck off, because i don't have time for his bullshit. that's the extent of my atheism. i haven't constructed any firm epistemology behind it and i never will.

 

You don't need a debate, buddy, you need a paid vacation. Some R&R. I'm not going to trouble you any more than I have to. Jump in when you want me to address something and I will make it as brief as possible. Take your time in responding, only if responding is necessary. These forums, empty or full, aren't likely going anywhere.

Breathe in . . . breathe out . . .  


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
 Old Seer,Thanks for the

 Old Seer,

Thanks for the explanation of an interesting perspective, I appreciate it.

I'm not sure if it is really, in truth, like pretty much everyone's belief in general ought to be or not. I may have to reflect upon it for a bit. My initial impression, though, is that ultimately, in your indipendence regarding belief, you negate the likelyhood of any other truth outside of your consious but not unconcsious mind. In other words, it doesn't matter what the anceint source of historical note might have said. Even in the unlikely event that, historically speaking, and history being far from perfect, usually bias, legend, myth and propaganda, his credentials you would approve.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i'm not stressed at all,

i'm not stressed at all, actually. no more than normal. you asked what atheism was to us, and i told you: to me it's a practical matter. i don't need a fucking grammmarian to demonstrate to me, through logical precepts, that the sky's not purple and that the prophets were off their rockers. if other people like that shit, fair enough. i just think religion is low on the totem pole of priorities for sane, working family people, and thus i can't understand why people will do stupid shit like disown family and friends over it, as some of our other posters have observed.


and as others have said, where theists and i butt heads is where they try to legislate their screwed up fucking morality onto the rest of us. if they want a society that legislates according to religion, they can go to russia or saudi arabia.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Evidence

David Henson wrote:
Evidence is subjective.

No evidence I'm aware of is subjective.

David Henson wrote:
Paul said that "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1)

The bible is not the leading authority on the English language. We use dictionaries for that. Whatever paul said, it certainly wasn't in English.

David Henson wrote:
Adam knew God, and communicated with him through his representative, but he didn't have faith in God's being able to solve the problem of Eve being deceived.

Well I'm not adam, and I don't know any god. So whether or not a god can handle an issue doesn't even enter my train of thought. I'm quite sure an omnipotent being that created everything would be fully capable of handling any problem, I just don't think there is such a being.

David Henson wrote:
He feared the loss of Eve and this resulted in him losing faith in God.

Then adam didn't know what omnipotence is.

David Henson wrote:
The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament says "Faith is the title deed of things hoped for." It's based upon truth, reality.

As previously mentioned, your religion doesn't get to define terms. And faith is absolutely not based on truth or reality. That's why it's faith. If it were based on truth or reality it would be science.

David Henson wrote:
The difficulty I have with someone who claims to have a lack in belief in god or gods is the possible distinction therein. Do you believe god or gods exist but have no faith in them, or are you saying there are no gods. Most skeptics would choose the latter. The question then becomes, what is a god.  

There is a third option you aren't considering: I don't believe or disbelieve in the existence of a god or gods. I disbelieve in certain specific gods, because I have sufficient evidence to say they cannot exist. But the concept itself is beyond me or anyone else to prove or disprove. I won't say there is absolutely no chance that a god exists, I just don't believe in one.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i'm not

iwbiek wrote:
i'm not stressed at all, actually. no more than normal. you asked what atheism was to us, and i told you: to me it's a practical matter. i don't need a fucking grammmarian to demonstrate to me, through logical precepts, that the sky's not purple and that the prophets were off their rockers. if other people like that shit, fair enough. i just think religion is low on the totem pole of priorities for sane, working family people, and thus i can't understand why people will do stupid shit like disown family and friends over it, as some of our other posters have observed.
and as others have said, where theists and i butt heads is where they try to legislate their screwed up fucking morality onto the rest of us. if they want a society that legislates according to religion, they can go to russia or saudi arabia.

 

I noticed your profile listed Revolution as an interest. That's cool. Though being  apolitical I wouldn't be likely to participate, I sure would like to see a global revolution. It just happens that I believe the only real revolution that would bring any lasting and good effect was foretold in Revelation.

The thing about the country that I live in, The U.S.A. is that it's allegedly a so called democrasy. Heh. That means the majority of people, 51% lets say, can take the rights of 49% of the people away. Pity it isn't a republic, though it's supposed to be. Then 99% couldn't take away the rights of even 1%. [Sigh] I miss ol' Ron Paul . . . anyway. Though I'm no part of the world, unfortunately most of my contemporaries don't  think that way. And apparently they are the majority. Christendom seems to have proclaimed itself the moral police of the globe. Which is totally fucked up. 

I have no doubt that it wouldn't be any consellation to you that Christendom is the Whore of Babylon The Great in the book of Revelation, and is destroyed by the political system. It brings me comfort though.   


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
From what I understand

David Henson wrote:

 Old Seer,

Thanks for the explanation of an interesting perspective, I appreciate it.

I'm not sure if it is really, in truth, like pretty much everyone's belief in general ought to be or not. I may have to reflect upon it for a bit. My initial impression, though, is that ultimately, in your indipendence regarding belief, you negate the likelyhood of any other truth outside of your consious but not unconcsious mind. In other words, it doesn't matter what the anceint source of historical note might have said. Even in the unlikely event that, historically speaking, and history being far from perfect, usually bias, legend, myth and propaganda, his credentials you would approve.

Beliefs can form automatically as one may not realize that one did so. This would be what governments and religion depend on (unconcious belief)to establish misbeliefs. So, one has to ask the self, do I believe in this or not, and if so anaylize what the belief is founded on and what's the source of the information to be believed. If the source is a clergyman or polititian the source is highly suspect. A question that normally leads to an answer is, who gains by the information. What is their reward for giving "you" that information, and, it can be material reward or mental reward. What does the information do for him/her/them that it does not do for you. It can be very easy to detemine truth by ---who pays, you or he/she/they/it. If you pay and they gain it's a call for skeptisicim. Belief merely creates an attachment to what is believed. Skepticism is a remaining detached until the source shows truth rather then just an expectation of a following. A properly adjusted scale shows the proper weight.

Every polititian and clergyman has credentials. They acquired their cedentials from entities before them and etc who also claimed to have credentials from others before them. How long has religion and politics been in the world. That would mean the originator of the information to descern be as far back as 10,000 years. "Who" was here at that time that had credentials, and who gave the first one the credentials. ??

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: No evidence

Vastet wrote:
No evidence I'm aware of is subjective.

In law evidence may be strong or weak, objective or subjective, admissible or non-admissible. In science it consists of observations and experimental results to support, refute or modify a hypothesis or theory. Sounds subjective to me.

Vastet wrote:
The bible is not the leading authority on the English language. We use dictionaries for that. Whatever paul said, it certainly wasn't in English.


The Bible is the authority on my concept of faith, it was an English translation of Paul's words. What does the dictionary say about faith? Complete trust or confidence in someone or something; strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. The first applies to me, the second is problematic. It refers to a specific faith as defined by a group. For example, someone of the Muslim or Jewish or Christian faith. Modern day Jewish and Christian teachings became influenced by Greek philosophy, beginning when Alexander The Great visited the temple in Jerusalem in 332 B.C.E. and with Constantine in the middle of the 4th century C.E. So the Christian Faith says the soul is immortal, from Socrates and Plato rather than the Bible. I don't subscribe to the modern day Christian faith as such. (Ezekiel 18:4 - The soul dies)  

Vastet wrote:
Well I'm not adam, and I don't know any god. So whether or not a god can handle an issue doesn't even enter my train of thought. I'm quite sure an omnipotent being that created everything would be fully capable of handling any problem, I just don't think there is such a being.

[snip] Then adam didn't know what omnipotence is.



The concept of omnipresent is contrary to scripture, and the concepts of omnipotent and omniscient are exagerated nonsense. Religiousity.

Vastet wrote:
As previously mentioned, your religion doesn't get to define terms. And faith is absolutely not based on truth or reality. That's why it's faith. If it were based on truth or reality it would be science.


Wait a second. My religion doesn't get to define faith but you do? Anyway, I disagree. Fath is based upon truth, fact and reality. You don't trust someone who lies to you, or isn't firmly based in reality. You don't have faith without reason, what would be the point. Science is based upon observation. Truth doesn't change, perception of truth changes. Science wouldn't be of any use if it weren't self correcting because it isn't truth or fact or reality, it is the observation of those things. Theology is the same thing, only rather than observing nature it observes and should, though often doesn't, correct itself. Both sciene and theology are imperfect. Subject to the same bias, corruption, manipulation, abuse and neglect of imperfect humans. To think that scientific methodolgy or science in general isn't subject to these is folly. Naive.

 

Vastet wrote:
There is a third option you aren't considering: I don't believe or disbelieve in the existence of a god or gods. I disbelieve in certain specific gods, because I have sufficient evidence to say they cannot exist.


Your belief, or lack thereof, isn't my concern except for possibly the purpose of this debate. You subscribe to atheism similarly to my above dictionary definition of faith, the second one given. Which, by it's very own definition is a misnomer. So I can only assume that the gods you disbelieve are specifically supernatural. Science can't test the supernatural so what truth, reality, facts are you basing your conclusion upon? What is the evidence? Can you not prove a negative?

Vastet wrote:
But the concept itself is beyond me or anyone else to prove or disprove. I won't say there is absolutely no chance that a god exists, I just don't believe in one.


That's better.

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:David Henson

Old Seer wrote:

Beliefs can form automatically as one may not realize that one did so. This would be what governments and religion depend on (unconcious belief)to establish misbeliefs. So, one has to ask the self, do I believe in this or not, and if so anaylize what the belief is founded on and what's the source of the information to be believed. If the source is a clergyman or polititian the source is highly suspect. A question that normally leads to an answer is, who gains by the information. What is their reward for giving "you" that information, and, it can be material reward or mental reward. What does the information do for him/her/them that it does not do for you. It can be very easy to detemine truth by ---who pays, you or he/she/they/it. If you pay and they gain it's a call for skeptisicim. Belief merely creates an attachment to what is believed. Skepticism is a remaining detached until the source shows truth rather then just an expectation of a following. A properly adjusted scale shows the proper weight.

Every polititian and clergyman has credentials. They acquired their cedentials from entities before them and etc who also claimed to have credentials from others before them. How long has religion and politics been in the world. That would mean the originator of the information to descern be as far back as 10,000 years. "Who" was here at that time that had credentials, and who gave the first one the credentials. ??

I agree with all of that with the exception of 10,000 years, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Yes we would like to be

 Yes we would like to be left alone, the problem is that the vast majority of humans have some sort of tribal club, left and right, some with standard deities, and others like to falsely call philosopies, but all are religions. And all those countless factions seek to influence the governments they live under as well as global poliics. And because humans seek power the atheist has no choice but to pay attention to the claims religions make. To ignore the claims of those who seak power is to blindly give them power.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:The

David Henson wrote:

The reason I bring it up  is that when you take some atheists literally they seem to have a seething hatred for a God they don't think exists. They refer to him as if he is a moster rather than non existant. Especially atheists who were formerly Christian. They may not believe God exists, but they refer to him as if he does. This language is sometimes confusing to me not because it seems they are saying he does exist, but rather that he is a figurehead or scapegoat for some other issue of contention in their lives. In it's intensity it reminds me of deep seeded racial prejudice.

Militant atheists are like that, they hate religion

I can say honestly that atheists of all types don't think an god as a monster literally. Gods don't exist for them so the subject is empty.

Some atheists are very fustrated with religion. They can't understand why others can't see their logic.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:In law

David Henson wrote:
In law evidence may be strong or weak, objective or subjective, admissible or non-admissible. In science it consists of observations and experimental results to support, refute or modify a hypothesis or theory. Sounds subjective to me.

We aren't talking about law or science. We're talking about gods. For which there is no evidence whatsoever, subjective or objective.

David Henson wrote:
The Bible is the authority on my concept of faith,

Then you will find meaningful communication with the average rational atheist to be impossible, because you are using definitions that are false.

David Henson wrote:
it was an English translation of Paul's words.

In theory. Probably not though.

David Henson wrote:
The first applies to me, the second is problematic. It refers to a specific faith as defined by a group.

Not implicitly. There is an 'or' in that sentence. Nothing in the definition limits it to specific gods or beliefs or requires it to be defined and accepted by a group. That you believe in any god at all is sufficient to qualify.

David Henson wrote:
For example, someone of the Muslim or Jewish or Christian faith. Modern day Jewish and Christian teachings became influenced by Greek philosophy, beginning when Alexander The Great visited the temple in Jerusalem in 332 B.C.E. and with Constantine in the middle of the 4th century C.E. So the Christian Faith says the soul is immortal, from Socrates and Plato rather than the Bible. I don't subscribe to the modern day Christian faith as such. (Ezekiel 18:4 - The soul dies)  

Cherry picking time periods doesn't work very well, especially those when the bible (indeed the entire religion) didn't exist. Plato & Socrates were both pre-christianity. Any impact they had was on the original religion (or its predecessor), and thus it cannot be suggested they influenced it after the fact.

David Henson wrote:
The concept of omnipresent is contrary to scripture, and the concepts of omnipotent and omniscient are exagerated nonsense. Religiousity.

Then what is god? Because the vast majority of gods claim at least one of the three omni's as part of their character. The christian religion is no exception.

David Henson wrote:
Wait a second. My religion doesn't get to define faith but you do?

No the dictionary does.

David Henson wrote:
Fath is based upon truth, fact and reality.

No.

David Henson wrote:
You don't have faith without reason, what would be the point.

You can't have faith a god exists with reason. It is impossible. Else the rational side of the argument would belong to theists, and most atheists wouldn't be atheists. Myself included.

David Henson wrote:
To think that scientific methodolgy or science in general isn't subject to these is folly. Naive.

To say that scientific methodology is subject to these is naive and folly. People are certainly, but the scientific method is the least biased method ever invented by our species. Saying it is biased requires bias.

David Henson wrote:
Your belief, or lack thereof, isn't my concern except for possibly the purpose of this debate. You subscribe to atheism similarly to my above dictionary definition of faith, the second one given. Which, by it's very own definition is a misnomer. So I can only assume that the gods you disbelieve are specifically supernatural. Science can't test the supernatural so what truth, reality, facts are you basing your conclusion upon? What is the evidence? Can you not prove a negative?

The gods I disbelieve in are impossible. Supernatural is a broken term that refers to nothing and has no value as a word. It has no relevance to my thought process as a result. I won't disbelieve in a god just because it can do things I can't explain. I'd have to disbelieve in most everything if my understanding was required for belief.
But when a god is claimed to have conflicting natures or behaviours, or is simply straight up wrong about various facts, then I can discard that god as a lie.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Yes we would

Brian37 wrote:
 Yes we would like to be left alone, the problem is that the vast majority of humans have some sort of tribal club, left and right, some with standard deities, and others like to falsely call philosopies, but all are religions. And all those countless factions seek to influence the governments they live under as well as global poliics. And because humans seek power the atheist has no choice but to pay attention to the claims religions make. To ignore the claims of those who seak power is to blindly give them power.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Militant atheists are like that, they hate religion

I can say honestly that atheists of all types don't think an god as a monster literally. Gods don't exist for them so the subject is empty.

Some atheists are very fustrated with religion. They can't understand why others can't see their logic.

 

I understand that. I may not be a part of the world but I still live in it. Even as a believer who loathes organized religion for exactly those reasons, and having been a non-militant atheist for 27 years I most certainly have experienced it first hand. My perspective is slightly different in that I have no faith in the political world of which we speak. So, to me it doesn't make that much difference if the strings of the political puppets are being pulled by the robber barons, the fractional reserve bankers, big pharm, corporations, oil industry, military industrial complex or the diminishing influence of the fundemental Christian. It all amounts to one thing, and that isn't even the loathsome organized religion, but rather, the corruptable power of money.

The political and social frustration of the atheist with the theist is most certainly a valid complaint, but it doesn't get to the root of the problem. Earlier in this thread I mentioned the tangible hatred of the atheist for a god they don't think exists as that god being a figurehead or scapegoat. This is what I meant. The root of the evil is the love of money.

From the mundane to the quixotic. In the 1980's there was a writer's strike which resulted in television networks developing reality shows that were crap. In doing so they realized they could make a great deal more money by not having to pay large sums to writers, producers and actors for quality television programs. Al they had to do was get some idiots to do stupid things and the audience ate it up like candy. That's why television sucks today. That's why Mtv, that used to be about music videos, and the History Channel that used to be about history, now have trash programs instead.

The same exact effect with politics, religion, everything.

The reason I dispise organized religion is that they do the same thing with the original teachings as television and etc. They say religion and television are the opiates of the masses, but that isn't the case. Religion and television are the excrement of the masses. The original teachings or programmng are the nutrients and the end result is the waste.  


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Evidence

David Henson wrote:

Evidence is subjective. 

Please give an example of this?


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: So, to

Old Seer wrote:

So, to believe one has to accept the thought of an originator.  Who was/is the originator. The originator would seem to have to have been a person. That person may have existed many years ago, and if so, who was He/She. The person that told me is recent, so that person had to have been told by another and so on. Can the person originating the thought be found in antiquity. If so, where and how did "that" person get the information. If I am to believe anything or anyone this is the info I've got to have.

I am always fascinated by people who believe in god who say their religion is true and the rest are false.

I think the burden of faith is on those who claim their god is real and others are false.

Prove that the others are false then prove their god is real.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:David

digitalbeachbum wrote:

David Henson wrote:

Evidence is subjective. 

Please give an example of this?

 

I'll give two. One in law and one in science. A man is stabbed in a dark alley. Seconds later you walk by and hear him moaning. You go into the alley and see the man gasping for breath. You stumble on something in the dark and pick it up. It's a bloody knife. You kneel down beside him to hear what he is trying to say. Police officers approach the alley to find you holding the bloody knife over a man who had been stabbed to death in a dark alley. Evidence that you murdered him.  A bloody knife with your fingerprints.

Science. A photographer takes a picture of a line of skulls. Some of them are ape skulls and some of them are man skulls. Evidence that man evolved from ape.

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I am

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I am always fascinated by people who believe in god who say their religion is true and the rest are false.

I would be more surprised to hear a person claim their religion is the false one and the rest are true. The same applies to atheists. They certainly don't choose the position they think is the wrong one.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I think the burden of faith is on those who claim their god is real and others are false.

Prove that the others are false then prove their god is real.

Their god doesn't have to be real. Besides, they don't have to prove anything. And, how many sacred texts make claims of divine inspiration? Those of Taoism, Buddhism, Shintoism? No. Confucianism, Christian Science have a concept of god which isn't exactly in line with what you would describe as a god. A powerful supernatural being creator etc. Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Mormon all claim the same God, and Hinduism? I don't think so.

So the only real god for the purpose of this discussion, or the atheist vs. theist debate in general, would be one and the same. No need to prove the others false.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The problem is

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

So, to believe one has to accept the thought of an originator.  Who was/is the originator. The originator would seem to have to have been a person. That person may have existed many years ago, and if so, who was He/She. The person that told me is recent, so that person had to have been told by another and so on. Can the person originating the thought be found in antiquity. If so, where and how did "that" person get the information. If I am to believe anything or anyone this is the info I've got to have.

I am always fascinated by people who believe in god who say their religion is true and the rest are false.

I think the burden of faith is on those who claim their god is real and others are false.

Prove that the others are false then prove their god is real.

religions don't question the origen of beliefs. There's only 3 options that I can think of to get to a conclusion.  At one time "God" would have had to tell someone---

Optionj 1- Say there guy, I'm God. -So then, that guy tells me. OK, now what? I have to ask-how do you know. Becausee he talked to him. OK, swell, why didn't he talk to me. Because I'm special--hey alright, but what makes you special--etc. (you get the picture.) On what basis am I to belief "Guy".  I'm told God is invisable and in this case I have to assume a voice came out of thin air because an invisible someone cannot be seen. Guy cannot prove anything and I'm supposed to take his word that he was appointed High Priest, or what ever. If I lived then and still today (at least I hope I'm living today-I don't need a high priest to tell me that) I still can't buy it. So at some time I'm going to hell for not believing that "God" spoke to guy. The only problem (whether Guy is correct or not) I see is Guy has a mental problem. Guy cannot verify that a voice came out of the clear blue sky.

Option 2- Guy just made it up becasue he has a mental problem and merely wants to be someone special.

Option 3- Someone discovered something and is trying to make known what he discovered. Apparently whoever that fella was didn't explain in plain language what the duece he discovered.

How can Guy prove anything. Anyway, I was doing just fine without any invisible voice. Since he showed up everything got worse becaue Guy is a jerk and wants to be in charge. Guy better back off before I win the argument. .

So, now we have billions of floks believing in something that cannot be explained by conventional thought, or by weights amd measues. So, they go on killing each other over a difference of opinion. And not a damn one of them can prove anything within reason.

Faith has to have something to go on. If any thought has 10 items to it and 5 are known and show something prospectivly provable even without the whole knowledge, one can have faith in the remining 5, with it being a matter of finding the remining 5. If they can';t be found then faith is useless. Faith merely keeps the project going. But at number 8 we see that the whole thing will be unprovable and don't amount to what's claimed then one has to chuck the idea. Faith has it's place but blind faith has no place.

If one is to follow because leaders claim authority, there's no way authority in itself makes right. This is what the masses have to learn. Authorities are in a position to fudge evidence.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Here is my take on why I

Here is my take on why I don't follow religion or believe in any creator.

1 - I won't follow any religion created from a story of a drunk slacker who found a burning bush after wandering the desert, 6,000 years ago.

2 - I won't follow any religion which can't disprove all other religions in the world.

3 - I won't follow any religion which doesn't reject violence and suffering of others, 100%, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

4 - I won't follow any religion which doesn't have an all knowing, all powerful god speaking to us every day and correcting us for making mistakes.

5 - I won't follow any religion which allows other followers to murder, abuse or manipulate others in their name.

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: We aren't

Vastet wrote:
We aren't talking about law or science. We're talking about gods. For which there is no evidence whatsoever, subjective or objective.

We were talking about evidence. If you make the claim that evidence is important to establish the existence of gods then we have to consider the margin of error rather than simply assume that evidence isn't falsifiable.

Vastet wrote:
Then you will find meaningful communication with the average rational atheist to be impossible, because you are using definitions that are false.

Oh, that's what it is. Hmmm. Are you sure about that?

Vastet wrote:
David Henson wrote:
it was an English translation of Paul's words.
In theory. Probably not though.

Explain, please?

Vastet wrote:
Nothing in the definition limits it to specific gods or beliefs or requires it to be defined and accepted by a group. That you believe in any god at all is sufficient to qualify.

There are two examples given of faith. The first is to have faith in someone deserving of it, the second is to adhere to a specific faith, ie, Christian, Musilim. The first is based upon established trust. Fact, reality, truth, reason, logic. The second isn't. You are trying to confuse the two. This is typical for atheists. They claim reason, logic, science, truth, fact, evidence, reality as the foundation of their world view while dismissing theism as faith, fantasy, mythology, fiction, the nonsensical, delusion. It's a superiority complex. That's why typically the atheist vs. theist debate amounts to intellectual vs. moral superiority (complex).

Vastet wrote:
Cherry picking time periods doesn't work very well, especially those when the bible (indeed the entire religion) didn't exist. Plato & Socrates were both pre-christianity. Any impact they had was on the original religion (or its predecessor), and thus it cannot be suggested they influenced it after the fact.

You should know better than that.

Plato, quoting Socrates: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods." - Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

The soul is mortal. It dies. (Genesis 19:19, 20; Numbers 23:10; Joshua 2:13, 14; Judges 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1 Kings 20:31, 32; Psalms 22:29; Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Matthew 2:20; 26:38; Mark 3:4; Hebrews 10:39; Jaames 5:20)

"The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454.


"The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts." - Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

"Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato." - Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35.

"Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes.”—Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246.

"The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life." - The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.
 

Vastet wrote:
Then what is god? Because the vast majority of gods claim at least one of the three omni's as part of their character. The christian religion is no exception.

God is anything or anyone attributed might beyond the attributor and/or anything or anyone venerated. Jehovah, the Almighty God of the Bible isn't omnipresent because his position in heaven is fixed. Omnipotence and omniscience are an exaggerated description of his ability to do whatever he needs to do to accomplish his will, and his ability to get to know whatever he wants, respectively.  

Vastet wrote:
David Henson wrote:
Wait a second. My religion doesn't get to define faith but you do?
No the dictionary does.

It did. I demonstated this. You rejected it.

Vastet wrote:
You can't have faith a god exists with reason. It is impossible. Else the rational side of the argument would belong to theists, and most atheists wouldn't be atheists. Myself included.

If only ite were that easy, we would have finished this discussion shortly after starting it.

Vastet wrote:
To say that scientific methodology is subject to these is naive and folly. People are certainly, but the scientific method is the least biased method ever invented by our species. Saying it is biased requires bias.

The necessity to drag science into this is only due to the typical atheistic superiority complex mentioned earlier in this response. Perceived conflicts between the Bible and Science on the part of an uninformed atheistic agenda. Science isn't a supreme entity of truth that leads to the utopian atheistic reality. The future of evolved mankind. Its people trying to figure stuff out.

Vastet wrote:
The gods I disbelieve in are impossible. Supernatural is a broken term that refers to nothing and has no value as a word. It has no relevance to my thought process as a result. I won't disbelieve in a god just because it can do things I can't explain. I'd have to disbelieve in most everything if my understanding was required for belief. But when a god is claimed to have conflicting natures or behaviours, or is simply straight up wrong about various facts, then I can discard that god as a lie.

That's better. We should take it from there. I need you to provide evidence for your conflicting natures and behaviours as well as being straight up wrong about various facts and how you determine those facts are wrong.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Here

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Here is my take on why I don't follow religion or believe in any creator.

1 - I won't follow any religion created from a story of a drunk slacker who found a burning bush after wandering the desert, 6,000 years ago.

2 - I won't follow any religion which can't disprove all other religions in the world.

3 - I won't follow any religion which doesn't reject violence and suffering of others, 100%, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

4 - I won't follow any religion which doesn't have an all knowing, all powerful god speaking to us every day and correcting us for making mistakes.

5 - I won't follow any religion which allows other followers to murder, abuse or manipulate others in their name.

 

Good for you. I wouldn't advise you follow any religion, period.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I am always fascinated by people who believe in god who say their religion is true and the rest are false.

I would be more surprised to hear a person claim their religion is the false one and the rest are true. The same applies to atheists. They certainly don't choose the position they think is the wrong one.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I think the burden of faith is on those who claim their god is real and others are false.

Prove that the others are false then prove their god is real.

Their god doesn't have to be real. Besides, they don't have to prove anything. And, how many sacred texts make claims of divine inspiration? Those of Taoism, Buddhism, Shintoism? No. Confucianism, Christian Science have a concept of god which isn't exactly in line with what you would describe as a god. A powerful supernatural being creator etc. Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Mormon all claim the same God, and Hinduism? I don't think so.

So the only real god for the purpose of this discussion, or the atheist vs. theist debate in general, would be one and the same. No need to prove the others false.

1 - That doesn't make sense

2 - Your playing with words again

3 - Just because they worship the god of abraham doesn't mean they believe they all follow the same god (Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Mormon).

4 - I think you need to revise your review of religions because Buddhism has nothing to do with divine inspiration as well the others. Confucianism has nothing do with a god.

5 - I am not sure what you wanted to say about Hinduism.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:1 -

digitalbeachbum wrote:
1 - That doesn't make sense

Most of it does.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
2 - Your playing with words again

Not at all.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
3 - Just because they worship the god of abraham doesn't mean they believe they all follow the same god (Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Mormon).

It kind of does mean that.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
4 - I think you need to revise your review of religions because Buddhism has nothing to do with divine inspiration as well the others. Confucianism has nothing do with a god.

That was my point, that's what I said.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
5 - I am not sure what you wanted to say about Hinduism.

Neither am I. I was hoping no one would notice. Hinduism is complicated. The devinty of the cellestial is difficult to establish or defend. They consider thenselves, with their billions of gods, as a monotheism. I would associate it with Shintoism, but, it is problematic.  


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:David

NM - I now see your reply


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:  I'll

David Henson wrote:
 

I'll give two. One in law and one in science. A man is stabbed in a dark alley. Seconds later you walk by and hear him moaning. You go into the alley and see the man gasping for breath. You stumble on something in the dark and pick it up. It's a bloody knife. You kneel down beside him to hear what he is trying to say. Police officers approach the alley to find you holding the bloody knife over a man who had been stabbed to death in a dark alley. Evidence that you murdered him.  A bloody knife with your fingerprints.

Science. A photographer takes a picture of a line of skulls. Some of them are ape skulls and some of them are man skulls. Evidence that man evolved from ape.

 

Both physical evidence. Law has nothing to do with the first one.

Science is both as the first example is circumstantial. And it depends on several factors of the civilization you are in at the moment.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Both

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Both physical evidence. Law has nothing to do with the first one.

Science is both as the first example is circumstantial. And it depends on several factors of the civilization you are in at the moment.

Did you have breakfast this morning?

What did you have for breakfast this morning?

Prove It.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm thinking

we need a definition of God in this works. As I see it, no definition = no God. There's all manner of them, so, what are they. Mostly I would say, a product of an/some individuals invention or imagination. But, is there actually "any" manner of "God".

In any case how can any claim be made without proof.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:That's

David Henson wrote:
That's why television sucks today.

That's patently ridiculous. Even reality shows are better quality than the mindless shit that came out before shows like Star Trek DS9, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Babylon 5 revolutionised television in the 90's by creating stories that took dozens of episodes or even entire series to tell. Shows like Game of Thrones, Orange is the new Black, and others are intelligent and remarkably realistic, things that no studio would have touched in the 80's.

Funny how there was a writers strike during all 3 of the shows I mentioned in the 90's, yet none of them ended up worse for wear, and none of them saw reduced budgets after the strike was over.

David Henson wrote:
We were talking about evidence. If you make the claim that evidence is important to establish the existence of gods then we have to consider the margin of error rather than simply assume that evidence isn't falsifiable.

No we're talking about gods, and how there is no evidence. It is not reasonable to assume something for which there is no evidence, and there is no evidence of any god whatsoever.

David Henson wrote:
Oh, that's what it is. Hmmm. Are you sure about that?

Absolutely.

David Henson wrote:
There are two examples given of faith. The first is to have faith in someone deserving of it, the second is to adhere to a specific faith, ie, Christian, Musilim.

False. You yourself posted the definition that now refutes you.

David Henson wrote:
You are trying to confuse the two. This is typical for atheists.

It makes sense to me that theists always claim this lie, because they don't get their definitions from accepted authorities on the English language. When you aren't using the same language as people you are speaking to, not everything can make sense to you.

YOU are the one confusing the definition of faith, not I.

David Henson wrote:
They claim reason, logic, science, truth, fact, evidence, reality as the foundation of their world view while dismissing theism as faith, fantasy, mythology, fiction, the nonsensical, delusion.

Because it is true.

David Henson wrote:
It's a superiority complex. That's why typically the atheist vs. theist debate amounts to intellectual vs. moral superiority (complex).

No you are the one with a superiority complex. You're here so full of yourself thinking you know better than us yet you have no evidence. You think you're special and that you know something special, and you think that makes you better than anyone who disagrees with you. You belong on the same bus as the psych ward patient claiming to be Napoleon. You aren't special. You're quite the opposite. You're just a normal person.

David Henson wrote:
You should know better than that.

Says the guy who doesn't know better.

David Henson wrote:
Plato, quoting Socrates: ~~~ Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.

Irrelevent. Plato & Socrates predate christianity. This is a simple fact.

David Henson wrote:
God is anything or anyone attributed might beyond the attributor and/or anything or anyone venerated.

What?

David Henson wrote:
Jehovah, the Almighty God of the Bible isn't omnipresent because his position in heaven is fixed.

Says you. Plenty would disagree.

David Henson wrote:
Omnipotence and omniscience are an exaggerated description of his ability to do whatever he needs to do to accomplish his will, and his ability to get to know whatever he wants, respectively.

Says you. Plenty would disagree.

David Henson wrote:
It did. I demonstated this. You rejected it.

No I accepted the dictionary definition, you simply don't understand it.

David Henson wrote:
The necessity to drag science into this is only due to the typical atheistic superiority complex mentioned earlier in this response.

As I just demonstrated that it is you with the superiority complex, not us, this is clearly false.

David Henson wrote:
Perceived conflicts between the Bible and Science on the part of an uninformed atheistic agenda

There are actual conflicts between the bible and science. Hundreds of them. The bible defies almost every single branch of science that exists. That the science works proves it is superior, and religion has never worked as a method of understanding the universe.

Unfortunately uneducated theists like yourself don't know enough about science to see why it takes all three abrahamic religions and throws them in the trash.

David Henson wrote:
That's better. We should take it from there. I need you to provide evidence for your conflicting natures and behaviours as well as being straight up wrong about various facts and how you determine those facts are wrong.

Look up the scientific method.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Both physical evidence. Law has nothing to do with the first one.

Science is both as the first example is circumstantial. And it depends on several factors of the civilization you are in at the moment.

Did you have breakfast this morning?

What did you have for breakfast this morning?

Prove It.

Well if we were in court I could produce my family as witnesses. I could produce a variety of other evidence which would give proof to what I say I ate. I also would have my character tested by bringing in character witnesses to show that I am an upstanding and truthful person; and of decent morals.

Law isn't evidence. Law is the rules and regulations set by society that people are expected to follow.

I'm not sure what you are trying to show, I'm sort of confused at your statements.

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:we need a

Old Seer wrote:

we need a definition of God in this works. As I see it, no definition = no God. There's all manner of them, so, what are they. Mostly I would say, a product of an/some individuals invention or imagination. But, is there actually "any" manner of "God".

In any case how can any claim be made without proof.

 

In this thread I've given the dictionary defintion of faith as well as god and they reject it. This is the very reason the atheist vs. theist debate is over. The atheist will only accept the definition of god to be a specific god, of faith to be blind, science to be fact, and the Bible to be false. You can't reason with that.

A god is anything that is attributed a might that is greater than the attributor or that is venerated. They think that the defintion of God is Jehovah, but that isn't correct. Jehovah was only a god when there was someone attributing might to him. This only demonstrated the common misconception of what a god is. But I'm willing to forget that and concentrate on the specific god in question.

Then there's the difficulty of the Bible. If you say the recorded history of the Bible, the eyewitness testimony of the existence of God is evident they say that's circular reasoning. Which it isn't. They say that the Bible is all wrong and you ask them to demonstrate this and they can't, except to say that it is. 

One might as well ask the cat.   


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Well

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Well if we were in court I could produce my family as witnesses.

The writers of the Bible were witnesses. Do you think the court is going to believe your family?

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I could produce a variety of other evidence which would give proof to what I say I ate.

Such as? A cereal bowl? A spoon? A half empty bottle of milk or box of cereal?

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I also would have my character tested by bringing in character witnesses to show that I am an upstanding and truthful person; and of decent morals.

Anyone could do that. Do you not see that these evidences are subjective?

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Law isn't evidence. Law is the rules and regulations set by society that people are expected to follow.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to show, I'm sort of confused at your statements.

We are discussing evidence in a court of law. I'm establishing that the evidence the atheist constantly call out for is meaningless because it is subjective. Their confidence isn't basud upon evidence as they would have us think, it's based upon their own biased opinion in the guise of evidence.

 


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: No we're

Vastet wrote:
No we're talking about gods, and how there is no evidence. It is not reasonable to assume something for which there is no evidence, and there is no evidence of any god whatsoever.

What does a dictionary say is a god?

Vastet wrote:
David Henson wrote:
There are two examples given of faith. The first is to have faith in someone deserving of it, the second is to adhere to a specific faith, ie, Christian, Musilim.
False. You yourself posted the definition that now refutes you.

I will give it again. In more detail. I gave 1 and 5 as a defintion of faith.  

1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement,etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath,allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as madethrough Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified orsaved.

 

Vastet wrote:
You're here so full of yourself thinking you know better than us yet you have no evidence. You think you're special and that you know something special, and you think that makes you better than anyone who disagrees with you. You belong on the same bus as the psych ward patient claiming to be Napoleon. You aren't special. You're quite the opposite. You're just a normal person.

There's nothing special about it or me. Plain simple truth. Truth shall set you free!

Vastet wrote:
Irrelevent. Plato & Socrates predate christianity. This is a simple fact.

If my contention is that Plato and Socrates influenced Jewish thinking after Alexander 332 B.C.E. and Christianity after the 4th century C.E. surely your rebutal isn't that Plato and Socrates predate them - how else are they going to influence them?

Vastet wrote:
There are actual conflicts between the bible and science. Hundreds of them.

There are maybe two. But that isn't the issue here. As I said, it's unecessary to drag scienct into it.

Vastet wrote:
The bible defies almost every single branch of science that exists. That the science works proves it is superior, and religion has never worked as a method of understanding the universe.

Religion as a method of understanding the universe? I should hope not.

Vastet wrote:
Unfortunately uneducated theists like yourself don't know enough about science to see why it takes all three abrahamic religions and throws them in the trash.

Well, a Bible debate should be easy for you then. Shall we adjurn to the Bible Errancy or the Atheist vs. Theist forum?

Vastet wrote:
Look up the scientific method.

I don't have to look it up, I've seen Monty Python's Holy Grail. If she floats, she's a witch. A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:What does

David Henson wrote:
What does a dictionary say is a god?

There are a number of possible definitions. The term is quite versatile.

David Henson wrote:
I will give it again. In more detail. I gave 1 and 5 as a defintion of faith. 

You just proved me right again. Look at 2 and 3. The very fact there is 7 separate definitions (the eighth you provided obviously came from a christian source not an official dictionary) and you only acknowledge 2 of them is why you aren't capable of discussing this rationally. Especially since it wasn't 5 you quoted but 3.

David Henson wrote:
There's nothing special about it or me. Plain simple truth. Truth shall set you free!

The truth can set you free, but you have to accept it first. You say you acknowledge there's nothing special about you, but your actions demonstrate otherwise.

David Henson wrote:
If my contention is that Plato and Socrates influenced Jewish thinking after Alexander 332 B.C.E. and Christianity after the 4th century C.E. surely your rebutal isn't that Plato and Socrates predate them - how else are they going to influence them?

Surely you don't expecte me to believe that you actually believe that two men who predated the founding of christianity by centuries somehow were able to influence the word of god through jesus and those who came afterwards. Or are you discarding the new testament as a creation of man that is against god? Denying jesus was the son of god? What exactly is your position anyway?

David Henson wrote:
There are maybe two. But that isn't the issue here. As I said, it's unecessary to drag scienct into it.

There are more than two. Not that it matters, there need only be one to make them incompatible. It creates a perfect test of authenticity. Whichever one gets it right is the one that should be embraced. Science gets it right, and the bible gets it wrong. Because the bible claims perfection, that it is wrong on anything makes it useless for everything. Except perhaps studying the psychology and stories of the people who lived when it was manufactured.

David Henson wrote:
Well, a Bible debate should be easy for you then. Shall we adjurn to the Bible Errancy or the Atheist vs. Theist forum?

I see no reason to go anywhere. If there were hundreds of topics per day then it would be beneficial to be more categorical, but the activity level on the forum isn't sufficient. And I have little interest in having multiple conversations in multiple topics when we've already come this far.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I've been trying to

David Henson wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

we need a definition of God in this works. As I see it, no definition = no God. There's all manner of them, so, what are they. Mostly I would say, a product of an/some individuals invention or imagination. But, is there actually "any" manner of "God".

In any case how can any claim be made without proof.

 

In this thread I've given the dictionary defintion of faith as well as god and they reject it. This is the very reason the atheist vs. theist debate is over. The atheist will only accept the definition of god to be a specific god, of faith to be blind, science to be fact, and the Bible to be false. You can't reason with that.

A god is anything that is attributed a might that is greater than the attributor or that is venerated. They think that the defintion of God is Jehovah, but that isn't correct. Jehovah was only a god when there was someone attributing might to him. This only demonstrated the common misconception of what a god is. But I'm willing to forget that and concentrate on the specific god in question.

Then there's the difficulty of the Bible. If you say the recorded history of the Bible, the eyewitness testimony of the existence of God is evident they say that's circular reasoning. Which it isn't. They say that the Bible is all wrong and you ask them to demonstrate this and they can't, except to say that it is. 

One might as well ask the cat.   

decide which track of mind you're on and where it's going to. I see it--I think. OK, go to the Old Seers site you find in my signature section below. You seem to be relatively neutral in your religious view points. What's there may interest you. It takes a good sum of neutrality to understand. Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:decide which

Old Seer wrote:
decide which track of mind you're on and where it's going to. I see it--I think. OK, go to the Old Seers site you find in my signature section below. You seem to be relatively neutral in your religious view points. What's there may interest you. It takes a good sum of neutrality to understand. Smiling

That's an interesting story of the Smurfs, the way you all got together over the creation account. Maybe you would be interested in taking a look at this interpretation


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:The

David Henson wrote:
The writers of the Bible were witnesses.



you don't know that.


David Henson wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
I could produce a variety of other evidence which would give proof to what I say I ate.

Such as?




feces.


David Henson wrote:
Their confidence isn't basud upon evidence



you're absolutely right. it isn't based on evidence: it's based on a lack of evidence. the atheist has no evidence god doesn't exist--he can't, by definition. he is "without belief" because no one has verified belief to his satisfaction. whether or not you think his criteria for evidence are reasonable is immaterial: until you have satisfied those criteria, atheist he will remain.


the existence of god cannot be falsified in theory, and that is why it isn't a scientific matter and totally outside the realm of evidence. god cannot be proved or disproved. even if the sky were to roll back as a scroll and some awesome being were to be revealed, speaking in a strictly logical sense, that would only be evidence that the sky has rolled back as a scroll and some awesome being has been revealed. speaking in a subjective sense, however--and of course the compulsion of evidence is subjective; that is a truism, as basically everything is subjective--for most people that would probably be enough evidence for god. but, working solely in the realm of logic, it would not suffice.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: feces. Good

iwbiek wrote:
you don't know that..

Correct. I can't know that for sure just as you can't know they didn't for sure.

iwbiek wrote:
feces.

Good answer.

iwbiek wrote:
you're absolutely right. it isn't based on evidence: it's based on a lack of evidence. the atheist has no evidence god doesn't exist--he can't, by definition. he is "without belief" because no one has verified belief to his satisfaction. whether or not you think his criteria for evidence are reasonable is immaterial: until you have satisfied those criteria, atheist he will remain.
the existence of god cannot be falsified in theory, and that is why it isn't a scientific matter and totally outside the realm of evidence. god cannot be proved or disproved. even if the sky were to roll back as a scroll and some awesome being were to be revealed, speaking in a strictly logical sense, that would only be evidence that the sky has rolled back as a scroll and some awesome being has been revealed. speaking in a subjective sense, however--and of course the compulsion of evidence is subjective; that is a truism, as basically everything is subjective--for most people that would probably be enough evidence for god. but, working solely in the realm of logic, it would not suffice.

Another good answer.

So, to recapitulate; for the purpose of this discussion, we all need to agree to the following:

1. Atheism is the rejection of gods due to disbelief in the existence of gods.

2. Gods in this case are the supernatural. Example: Jehovah of the Bible. 

3. Evidence is subjective. Case in point: iwbiek's quote directly above.

4. We can't prove or disprove god, that isn't the point. We have to verify belief to the satisfaction of whomever it may concern.

Now we have to determine what significance the Bible and Science have on this discussion, if any. [Edited to add] And possibly work out a more agreeable definition of faith, but I don't think that is absolutely necessary.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: There are a

Vastet wrote:
There are a number of possible definitions. The term is quite versatile.

Exactly. The same applies to faith.

Vastet wrote:
The truth can set you free, but you have to accept it first.

Exactly. Now we're gettin' somewhere.

Vastet wrote:
Surely you don't expect me to believe that you actually believe that two men who predated the founding of christianity by centuries somehow were able to influence the word of god through jesus and those who came afterwards. Or are you discarding the new testament as a creation of man that is against god? Denying jesus was the son of god? What exactly is your position anyway?

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Something is tripping you up. In order to have influenced Jewish thinking and later Christianity Plato and Socrates would have had to predate those teachings. The immortal soul, Easter, Christmas, hell, the trinity (triune gods) all were around before Moses started writing the Bible. But the Bible doesn't teach any of those things. Apostate Jews and then Christianity adopted them much later. That's  the way religion works. Christianity adopted a great deal of pagan nonsense in order to attract pagans to the church. Jesus wasn't born near the 25th of December, he was probably born in the first week of October. Why cellebrate Christmas? It was a pagan celebration that was around long before Christ.  

Vastet wrote:
There are more than two. Not that it matters, there need only be one to make them incompatible. It creates a perfect test of authenticity. Whichever one gets it right is the one that should be embraced. Science gets it right, and the bible gets it wrong. Because the bible claims perfection, that it is wrong on anything makes it useless for everything.

You have to drop this attitude that science is fact and the Bible is fiction. Your overconfidence in science isn't realistic and your knowledge of the Bible isn't sufficent enough to make that argument. The Bible doesn't claim perfection, in fact it warns the reader to test every inspired expression because of the possibility of error. Anyone who says the Bible is inerrant doesn't know the Bible very well. And science is constantly getting it wrong, which is good. You can't succeed until you fail. If science had it all right then there would be no more need for science.  


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4758
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote: The

David Henson wrote:

The writers of the Bible were witnesses. Do you think the court is going to believe your family?

Anyone could do that. Do you not see that these evidences are subjective?

We are discussing evidence in a court of law. I'm establishing that the evidence the atheist constantly call out for is meaningless because it is subjective. Their confidence isn't basud upon evidence as they would have us think, it's based upon their own biased opinion in the guise of evidence.

You are irrational.

No the bible is not an eye-witness accounting. It is a collection of vague and conflicting stories which akin to Lord of the Rings with magic and mythical beings.

No. Not any one can do that and no evidence is not subjective.

Evidence which you claim to be subjective can not be evaluated, therefore it is not evidence. Objective evidence can be reviewed, tested and analyzed.

Thus it is evident that you are truly irrational.

No. We were not discussing evidence in a court of law. This entire discussion with me started with me saying that you were confusing belief (or faith) and confidence. Vas chimed in and said you were taking advantage of the English language. THEN and only then did you start with the "evidence is subjective" comment. THEN later it became evidence, court of law and a whole bunch of other crap which has absolutely nothing to do with the original subject.

On another note.

You claimed that there are millions of gods. I think that says a lot about you.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:No the

digitalbeachbum wrote:
No the bible is not an eye-witness accounting. It is a collection of vague and conflicting stories which akin to Lord of the Rings with magic and mythical beings.

The Bible is a collection of 66 books, written by over 40 different people, from about 1513 B.C.E. to 98 C.E., or over a period of about 1,500 years. Writers included shepherds, doctors, kings, fishermen, musicians, poets, priests, scholars and lawyers. It has poetry, song and prophecy, but consists mostly of material of an historic nature. Allegedly witnessed by the people who wrote it, as well as, more importantly, witnessed by Jehovah God.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
No. Not any one can do that and no evidence is not subjective.

Evidence which you claim to be subjective can not be evaluated, therefore it is not evidence. Objective evidence can be reviewed, tested and analyzed.

Maybe you haven't had a chance to read it yet, but iwbiek's post says it best. In response to my claim that atheist's confidence wasn't based upon evidence, he wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
you're absolutely right. it isn't based on evidence: it's based on a lack of evidence. the atheist has no evidence god doesn't exist--he can't, by definition. he is "without belief" because no one has verified belief to his satisfaction. whether or not you think his criteria for evidence are reasonable is immaterial: until you have satisfied those criteria, atheist he will remain.
the existence of god cannot be falsified in theory, and that is why it isn't a scientific matter and totally outside the realm of evidence. god cannot be proved or disproved. even if the sky were to roll back as a scroll and some awesome being were to be revealed, speaking in a strictly logical sense, that would only be evidence that the sky has rolled back as a scroll and some awesome being has been revealed. speaking in a subjective sense, however--and of course the compulsion of evidence is subjective; that is a truism, as basically everything is subjective--for most people that would probably be enough evidence for god. but, working solely in the realm of logic, it would not suffice.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
You claimed that there are millions of gods. I think that says a lot about you.

You seem to be suggesting that I'm not being honest, that I'm distorting the meaning of gods to suit my purpose. You are confused by the common misconceptions about God. The term god isn't the name of the being who allegedly created the heavens and earth. The term is like the term Lord, or King, or President, Queen, Prince, Prime Minister etc. Jehovah introduced himself to Abraham and then became the god of Israel, the nation he founded. God doesn't mean supernatural being who created the universe, Jehovah is only an example of one of millions of gods. The term is stylized with an uppercase G, as in God in application to Jehovah because he is generally considered to be the god above all other gods. The term god means, simply, mighty; venerated. The term Lord means having authority, usually granted. Like, for example, Landlord.

I've already given the dictionary defintions of various uses of the word god, which included as examples, powerful or influential people, idols, animals used in worship. Here is the Bible's take on it.

Moses As God
Exodus 4:16: And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.
Exodus 7:1: Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

Judges Of Israel And Jesus As Gods
Psalms 82:2, 6: God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One; In the middle of the gods he judges: “I myself have said, ‘You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High”
John 10:34, 35: Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified.”
Isaiah 9:6: For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Paul Refers To Many Gods And Lords, The Belly A God
1 Corinthians 8:5, 6: For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.
Philippians 3:18, 19: For there are many, I used to mention them often but now I mention them also with weeping, who are walking as the enemies of the torture stake of the Christ, and their finish is destruction, and their god is their belly, and their glory consists in their shame, and they have their minds upon things on the earth.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Your example

David Henson wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
decide which track of mind you're on and where it's going to. I see it--I think. OK, go to the Old Seers site you find in my signature section below. You seem to be relatively neutral in your religious view points. What's there may interest you. It takes a good sum of neutrality to understand. Smiling

That's an interesting story of the Smurfs, the way you all got together over the creation account. Maybe you would be interested in taking a look at this interpretation

of interpretation is one of material creation. Our interpretation of creation has nothing to do with the creation of the material universe. Our interpretaion is in the mental catagory. (psychiatry)

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth