Anti-Theism in America

[Dawkinsrocks]

Even if the world did pre-suppse a designer (which it doesn't) it still does not support the idea of god.

That is all made up by christians who are a bit stupid

 

[top gun]

This whole argument that Father Christmas is fake so God must be fake too seems flawed to me.

No one believes that Father Christmas is real, he is based on a tradition. You are attacking traditions to try to disprove the whole basis of the religion, when many times these traditions are not the basis of the religion.

Well actually they kinda are.

Aesop's Fables is not unlike religion. They are made up stories that carry a theme.

I mean come on... A TALKING SNAKE?

Using examples like Santa Claus or Aesop's Fables does not in itself "prove" that religion is a completely man made up ideology. But it does show that similar things we know to be "stories" have the same effect as religion on people until they are told (convinced) they are not true.

If you look at how different religions sprang up all over the world you see the same pattern over & over again.

People in a group wanting to explain what they did not understand and wanting to create some structure (rules) for the larger group. It's actually much like an early government's laws.

Then as people started wider travel they ran into other groups that had done the exact same thing... but with somewhat different rules... and a different interpretation of their highest leader (their God).

And everyone has been fighting ever since on who has the real "God"... when in reality it is all equally made up.

But like I've said numerous times before many people get a lot of strength & peace of mind from having a religious doctrine and their specific vision of God to place their faith in.

There's nothing wrong with that.

But just as one cannot truly prove a negative "God does not exist"... no one can prove that God does exist. Only faith that he just does.

That to me is a very acceptable reason to be Agnostic. Not saying God couldn't be... but also have seen no proof whatsoever that he does.

 

[Andy]

Even if the world did pre-suppse a designer (which it doesn't) it still does not support the idea of god.

That is all made up by christians who are a bit stupid

You can't possibly be serious. You are trying to theorize that the DNA chain, even the smallest of which, contains more information than a New York phone book, would somehow form to make a code, a code that is used to create every aspect of a living cell... accidentally?

Consider: That average DNA strand of a living human cell is 3 meters long. Our highest tech laboratories, using chemicals that are more than 99% pure, something impossible in the natural environment, can only create a polymer strand that can only be measured in micrometers, and would be destroyed instantly if it left a controlled environment... let alone a double helix polymer, let alone a 3 meter long double helix polymer.

Yet somehow, the claim is that this 3 meter long, double helix strand of amazingly encoded information, enough to create, replicated, and run a living organism, occurred in the chaotic void of earths theorized past with no high tech equipment, no controlled environment, no pure chemicals, an no intelligence to even create the code to begin with, nor with the cell having any way of knowing how to decode the information even if it randomly got the coded DNA in some miracle.

Consider: yjod od s vpfr. That is a code. If I did not use intelligence in creating it, it would be random keys on the key board. I used one key to the right of what I wanted. I just told you how to decode my code.

y=t
j=h
o=i
And so on...

Without an intelligence to created the encoded DNA, and without it to create the living cell with the ability to decode the DNA... Then DNA is a nothing and useless, a waste of random chemical changes for no purpose.

Not to mention that all life doesn't just exist with the right chemicals and the correct amount of DNA. They exist with structure. If you see a Mosquito and smash it. Hey look... all the elements of life, all the chemicals, the DNA, everything is there... yet it dies. Why? Because everything has structure that must be intact for life to exist, even down the single cell microbe, if torn apart will die.

Further... all of this ignores the fact that DNA can only be created using RNA. There not one single inorganic method for creating RNA. So you tell me... which came first, RNA? Or DNA? Without DNA, RNA will never be created. But without RNA, there is no way DNA can be formed. So explain this to me. Without God, how does the first life form ever exist?

It would require me to unlearn all that I have been taught and learned in science, and then have a few lobotomies before I would be stupid enough to believe all this was an accident. The theory that God does not exist, is a faith based religion, more than it is science.

Clearly there is a God, and praise goes to him for all that exists.

 

[Dr.Who]

All religions that have a god as their base perpetuate ignorance.

If you made your child believe in father xmas into adulthood people would rightly think you guilty of perpetuating ignorance to a point of child abuse.

Doing the same thing to children with religion is no different

There is far more evidence for the truth of the bible and the claims it makes than for the truth of "Twas the night before Christmas" and it's claims. The fact of the matter is that the bible actually claims to be true and the other actually claims to be fiction. The analology does not fit.

 

[Dr.Who]

Mostly agree but what christians do is state emphatically that beyond what science can demonstrate there is god.

That is right. We say that knowledge of God is beyond what science can presently measure.

They expect this to be accepted as axionatic truth and yet when presented with the wealth of scientific infoamtion for the fact of evolution many of them deny it.

It is expected to be a statement of faith and there is no contradiction between the best of what Christianity has to say and what the best of what evolutionary theory has to say.

If you don't think that inventing a supernatural being to answer your difficult questions is nor perpetuating ignorance then we will have to agree to differ.

And yet the best evidence you have presented for Christianity being invented is that stories about Father Christmas are invented.

 

[Dr.Who]

supernatural by its, nature if you will, does defy logic.. that I don't like... But then while I agree with them, you cannot disprove, they must as like agree, they cannot prove.. it becomes a statically unprovable idea, it really deserves no thought on the subject beyond 'how would something that created us, want us to behave' in my mind, it's simple, I was designed with only a few needs... one of these needs that is intrinsic to behavior is "I need to be happy" so that's it, I need to be happy and me being happy must not interfere with others need to be happy. All is solved, everyone is fine, well fed, and happy. That's my view on "religion" if there is some god or whatever, hey I did well, thanks give me a cold beer. If not, then I'll not care anyways, but at least I lived well and will remain as such in the minds of those who met me... I think if everyone thought logically about the question of is there or isn't there, simply realizing, you cannot possibly answer that, then perhaps they'd just live well also.

The supernatural is very logical it is just not empirical. Let's not confuse thinking straight that is not dependent on observations with thinking that is dependent on observations.

The absence of God cannot be proven - you are right. But the existence of God can be proven. It just has not been proven empirically yet. It has been proven subjectively to many people who have experienced God and it could be proven empirically if and when He shows Himself to all.

 

[Dr.Who]

Isn't it odd though how christians love war and killing people

Another poor distortion of the truth.

Palin even thinks the war on Iraq is god's will.

Another poor distortion of the truth.

 

[Dr.Who]

There is as much evidence for the existence of father xmas as their is for the existence of god.

It is an analogy and it works perfectly well.

Many millions of credible people (including many scientists and philosophers) believe in the existence of God. A few million children whose parents would be very happy to admit have mislead their children believe in Father Christmas. Many of these credible people claim to have experience God while most of the children will readily admit that they have never seen Santa come down the chimney.

The Bible is historically accurate and has never been proven wrong. Many claims have been made about it's errors but they all fail under scrutiny. It has even been proven right when it has contradicted historical or scientific fact and then later discoveries affirm the bible rather than the "fact."

It is internally consistent and logical.

It makes claims to fulfilled prophesy which while they are not iron clad are eerily on target.

It contains much wisdom/insight/truth which is beyond that of any other book.

It is the most influential book in history for a reason - people who read it with an open mind just see the truth of it.

 

[Dr.Who]

I mean come on... A TALKING SNAKE?

For simplicity let's say the story is either figurative or literal.

If it is literal then the story clearly says that the snake is not a snake but a fallen angel so there is no discrepancy between what we see snakes do today and what fallen angels would have done long long ago.

If it is figurative then again there would be no problem with talking snakes.

 

[top gun]

For simplicity let's say the story is either figurative or literal.

If it is literal then the story clearly says that the snake is not a snake but a fallen angel so there is no discrepancy between what we see snakes do today and what fallen angels would have done long long ago.

If it is figurative then again there would be no problem with talking snakes.

Dude... look at what you wrote. The snake is not a snake but a fallen angel. Should just stay with the talking snake... made just as much sense (none) and was every bit as provable (not).

Then we get a second chance at maybe another "option" of the "truth". Maybe the whole book is just written "figuratively". Or maybe just the more ridiculous parts are written "figuratively".

You do realize using your "any port in a storm" logic I can make the Aliens in Scientology every bit as believable.

Come on buddy. Believe what you want to believe but don't condemn those who can figure things out a little. Do a little "probability" thinking.

Saying it's anti-theism because people refuse to believe in your "Talking Snake" is like saying you're anti-football because you don't believe I talk to the football Gods and once kicked a field goal that circled the planet.

 

[Dr.Who]

Dude... look at what you wrote. The snake is not a snake but a fallen angel. Should just stay with the talking snake... made just as much sense (none) and was every bit as provable (not).

Then I will rephrase it for you.

The serpent was a fallen angel that took the form of a serpent or was working through a serpent. And just like God speaks directly to the minds of those who listen the angel could have spoken directly the mind of Adam and Eve.

Is it provable? No. Does it need to be provable? No, in order to offer an alternative to your theory that the passage is ridiculous because snakes don't talk it only needs to be possible. Angels and inspiration (remember the only argument against the supernatural is that you have not seen it and the absence of evidence is not evidence) are both possible so it is an alternative which makes it impossible to state with any certainty that the passage is ridiculous based on a talking snake.

Then we get a second chance at maybe another "option" of the "truth". Maybe the whole book is just written "figuratively". Or maybe just the more ridiculous parts are written "figuratively".

There is no doubt that some parts are figurative and some parts are literal. Figuring out which is which is the hard part.

Come on buddy. Believe what you want to believe but don't condemn those who can figure things out a little. Do a little "probability" thinking.

So you are saying that your whole argument is based on probability? Are the things you have witnessed more probable than the things you have not witnessed?

Saying it's anti-theism because people refuse to believe in your "Talking Snake" is like saying you're anti-football because you don't believe I talk to the football Gods and once kicked a field goal that circled the planet.

Oh, I have never been against people who do not think the same as I do and have not called such people anti-theists. It is the haters that I have called anti-theists. If after this whole thread you can't tell the difference then there is a different problem you need to work on.

 

[top gun]

Dr.Who;60291]Then I will rephrase it for you.

The serpent was a fallen angel that took the form of a serpent or was working through a serpent. And just like God speaks directly to the minds of those who listen the angel could have spoken directly the mind of Adam and Eve.

Dude... come on? The more you try to explain the sillier it gets. I could have "faith" that an oak tree talked to my deceased grandfather and told him to by stock in Apple Computers and that's how he made all his money.

Anybody can make up anything.

Is it provable? No.

Here we are in total agreement!

Does it need to be provable? No, in order to offer an alternative to your theory that the passage is ridiculous because snakes don't talk it only needs to be possible. Angels and inspiration (remember the only argument against the supernatural is that you have not seen it and the absence of evidence is not evidence) are both possible so it is an alternative which makes it impossible to state with any certainty that the passage is ridiculous based on a talking snake.

There is no doubt that some parts are figurative and some parts are literal. Figuring out which is which is the hard part.

The burden is not on those who don't believe a story. The burden is to PROVE your story. And I appreciate you being honest enough (above) to at least admit you cannot prove any of it.

Some parts are figurative and some parts are literal in an... it's all made up by man way. I can agree to that.

So you are saying that your whole argument is based on probability? Are the things you have witnessed more probable than the things you have not witnessed?
Oh, I have never been against people who do not think the same as I do and have not called such people anti-theists. It is the haters that I have called anti-theists. If after this whole thread you can't tell the difference then there is a different problem you need to work on.

There really is nothing to argue. For me to argue against something there first has to "BE" something. I cannot argue against something that is nothing more than an unprovable "belief" someone has.

Let's turn it around OK. Let's say I believe that Aliens came to our planet long ago and implanted life forms on earth that have evolved into todays human beings.

PROVE that my belief... my faith in this... is not true.

See... it's all double talk. Anyone can do it.

No one is saying (I'm not saying) that you don't have EVERY RIGHT to believe and worship anything you like. But without PROOF of it's authenticity there is absolutely positively no grounds for anybody else to have to be subjected to it.

It's all a personal thing for you... now go with God and be joyous.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is no obligation to prove that god does not exist.

You don't hear christians saying 'prove that father xmas doesn't exist' which, is odd really as it is argument they must have a lot of sympathy with.

Playing this 'prove that god doesn't exist' card is a show of desperation by a group of fantasists who have seen their belief system eroded year after year by scientific advance.

 

[Dr.Who]

There is no obligation to prove that god does not exist.

You don't hear christians saying 'prove that father xmas doesn't exist' which, is odd really as it is argument they must have a lot of sympathy with.

Playing this 'prove that god doesn't exist' card is a show of desperation by a group of fantasists who have seen their belief system eroded year after year by scientific advance.

Thee is no such thing as a burden of proof either way. No one has any obligation to prove that what they say is either believed on faith or provable - unless they want people to believe that what they say has been proved.

Now I readily admit that my faith is unproven in an empirical sense. Do you want people to think that what you believe is a faith or proven? It is up to you. If you want people to believe that your statements are fact then you can prove them if you want to.

 

[Dr.Who]

Dude... come on? The more you try to explain the sillier it gets. I could have "faith" that an oak tree talked to my deceased grandfather and told him to by stock in Apple Computers and that's how he made all his money.

Anybody can make up anything.

I have no doubt that the reason you do not believe what I said is because you do not believe in angels or inspiration. If you were to say that there is no empirical evidence for angels or inspiration then that would be accurate. If you say that they don't exist then that would be your own statement of faith. Are you then going to say that the bible account of the serpent is false based on your own faith?

Long and short of it the existence of angels is not silly just because you say it is based on your own faith in naturalism. I would just say that your faith in naturalism is silly.

The burden is not on those who don't believe a story. The burden is to PROVE your story. And I appreciate you being honest enough (above) to at least admit you cannot prove any of it.

And you could not prove that there were no angels involved so we are at a stalemate of faiths again.

There really is nothing to argue. For me to argue against something there first has to "BE" something. I cannot argue against something that is nothing more than an unprovable "belief" someone has.

Sure you can. someone says that Saint Nick was a jolly old elf and then you show him the passage in "Twas a night before Christmas" where the author printed that and then you show him where the author intended his work to be a fiction.

Meanwhile the bible is intended to be a truth and it does indeed contain many truths. Many of them were even unknown to us when we were reading them in the bible and then archeology proved them to be true later - such as the existence of Jericho.

Let's turn it around OK. Let's say I believe that Aliens came to our planet long ago and implanted life forms on earth that have evolved into todays human beings.

PROVE that my belief... my faith in this... is not true.

See... it's all double talk. Anyone can do it.

Show me your evidence. Then it will either stand on the evidence or you can claim that you believe it based on subjective evidence that I unfortunately cannot test, or you will say it is believed by you as a matter of faith.

If it stands on the evidence then it is true.
If it is based on subjective evidence then it might be true but unproven.
If is a matter of faith then it might be true but also unproven.

If I want to show that it is a fiction then after you present your evidence I can show where there is internal inconsistency in your evidence or I can show where you evidence defies the laws of logic.

The bible contains many things that have been proven to be true, is contains many things that are as yet unproven, it is internally consistent, and it is logical. So far I have not proven it to be true. But then again that is not a claim I except as supported by some incomplete evidence and my faith.

It is totally logical for me to say that I believe there is a supernatural and I believe the bible.

It is not totally logical for one to say that there is no supernatural and that therefore the bible must be false because that is a circular argument. What you can do is try to find internal inconsistencies or illogic.

No one is saying (I'm not saying) that you don't have EVERY RIGHT to believe and worship anything you like. But without PROOF of it's authenticity there is absolutely positively no grounds for anybody else to have to be subjected to it.

Then it is a good thing that I am not subjecting people to it. Will you subject people to what is based on your faith in naturalism? Yes you do. You do that when you demand that only naturalistic things be taught in public schools.

It's all a personal thing for you... now go with God and be joyous.

I try to walk with God every day.