Anti-Theism in America

[Andy]

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.

Actually as I've had detailed over and over, and you have failed consistently to address, scientific advance shows support for the Biblical view.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You can say it as often as you like but you must understand that that will not make it true.

Science has debunked so much of the bible that poor old christians now have to resort to saying it is allegorical. To the point that most people have to accept there is no literal truth left in it.

Until science came lots of people believed that god made the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago.

Scientists have trashed this ludicrous view so christians now change their tune and say god made the universe millions of years ago.

And it just keeps coming.

 

[Dr.Who]

You can say it as often as you like but you must understand that that will not make it true.

Science has debunked so much of the bible that poor old christians now have to resort to saying it is allegorical. To the point that most people have to accept there is no literal truth left in it.

Until science came lots of people believed that god made the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago.

Scientists have trashed this ludicrous view so christians now change their tune and say god made the universe millions of years ago.

And it just keeps coming.

Long long ago, way before science said anything other than the earth was very young the Talmud said that the Genesis story was figurative (which is not the same as allegory but includes allegory).

Christians of the middle ages, believing the science of their day read into the passage a literalness that might not belong there.

As science advanced so did Christian thinking as we are not opposed to science. Unlike evolutionists who do tend to be opposed to Christianity (which is not very scientific).

Today most Christians believe in an old earth. They also believe that the bible accurately describes the events that occurred on that old earth using poetic and figurative language at least in part.

I believe that genesis tells a true story using figurative and literal language. God gave us the power of reason to be used. Did God create all life? Yes. Did he do it through evolution? Probably. Did he do it in 6 days? Probably figurative, each day most likely describes a period of time. Was it 6000 years ago? The bible never gives a date. Some Bishop picked that date and I see no reason to rely on some Bishop instead of the bible. And clearly there is no justification in slamming the bible for what someone else said.

What is clear through all of this is that the bible does not say that there are a literal 6 days or that there are only 6000 years between now and creation. So obviously there are no literal facts there to be contradicted by science. Science can contradict the interpretation of young earth creationists but it has not contradicted the bible yet.

The best interpretation of science and the best interpretation of the bible are found to be in complete harmony and agreement.

Meanwhile some guy who calls himself Dawkinsrocks will continue to tear up the arguments of theologians from the middle ages and modern fringe groups and pretend that it has some bearing on what mainstream Christianity offers.

 

[Andy]

You can say it as often as you like but you must understand that that will not make it true.

I don't have to make it true. It is true, whether you believe it or not.

Science has debunked so much of the bible that poor old christians now have to resort to saying it is allegorical. To the point that most people have to accept there is no literal truth left in it.

But the problem is, science hasn't debunked any of it. You can say that as often as you like, but you must understand that it will not make it true.

Until science came lots of people believed that god made the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago.

And there is evidence that supports this theory.

Scientists have trashed this ludicrous view so christians now change their tune and say god made the universe millions of years ago.

And it just keeps coming.

Some claimed 'christians' might. But there are millions that have not, and I am one of those. There is clear scientific evidence that the universe is not as old as some claim.

 

[top gun]

Dr.Who;60459]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.

Not believing in something that has never been and cannot still be proven is not naturalism or anything else. It's judging a situation on the reality of evidence or lack thereof.

If I don't know where flowers first came from... and you say Gnomes planted them at the dawn of time... and I say OK show me any evidence of Gnomes... and there isn't any...

Does that mean I'm anti-horticulture? No... just waiting on something besides your word that Gnomes really ever existed.

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

I'm pretty sure that's my argument. Faith v. proof and every scientific reality as we know it.

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.

I can do the exact same thing. The Bible was written by man. Here are their names... No one has ever met God. It was man's hopes & dreams put into written form.

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.

People find lost or abandoned villages all the time. They have the same things in folklore on the Discovery Channel about the lost city of Atlantis. I can just as easily go through the Bible and point out inconsistency after inconsistency, contradiction after contradiction. The only difference is you'll always fall back and try to use the... it's on God's time... or that's figurative this time... loopholes. It's made up dude. You can believe it. Just like a kid believes in Santa but that doesn't make it real.

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.

Well I have this suposidly nonfiction book written by this Hubbard guy. A really whole bunch of people believe with all their heart and soul that it's 100% completely true and it's the only real way to understand yourself & the meaning of life. They have huge meetings and all kinds of proceedures and tests and solutions. I don't need more evidence than that.

I'm just like you. I BELIEVE IT... I HAVE SPIRITUAL FAITH IN IT... therefor it is real to me.

But not provable in any way.

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.

I don't know about you personally but that is EXACTLY what evangelists do! They take it as their job to push their agenda on people who do not believe it.

As far as school goes. School is the place for math, science & biology. These things all have tests that can be examined and explained.

Church is the place for theology. This is where you go to have faith in things that are unknown.

It's a great system. Everyone can have as much or as little religion as they want. They just have to seek it out. And that's certainly not hard. Church is free and there's many in every zip code.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

''It is perfectly reasonable to appreciate the garden without having to think there are fairies at the bottom of it''

 

[Dr.Who]

''It is perfectly reasonable to appreciate the garden without having to think there are fairies at the bottom of it''

Yes it is.

What is not perfectly reasonable is to claim that there are definitely not fairies at the bottom. That would be a statement that goes beyond your observations - and therefore a faith.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

If you are happy to say that God's existential status is on a par with that of fairies I completely agree with you.

We got there.

At last.

 

[Dr.Who]

Not believing in something that has never been and cannot still be proven is not naturalism or anything else. It's judging a situation on the reality of evidence or lack thereof.

Not believeing in something that has never been is not naturalism - right. But you do not know that God has never been.

Not believing in something that cannot be proven is not naturalism either. But God can be proven He just has not been proven empirically to all.

Naturalism is the statement that the only thing that can exist are things that are part of the natural world. It is a denial of the supernatural. And it is illogical to deny what one has not seen any evidence against.

The reality of the evidence that we have is that there are many natural things that have been testified to very well, there are some things that are as yet unexplained, but there is no evidence against the supernatural

And lastly, a lack of evidence is not evidence. It is illogical to build a case based on a lack of evidence.

If I don't know where flowers first came from... and you say Gnomes planted them at the dawn of time... and I say OK show me any evidence of Gnomes... and there isn't any...

Does that mean I'm anti-horticulture? No... just waiting on something besides your word that Gnomes really ever existed.

That is fine to be waiting and that is logical. It is not logical however to state affirmatively that there are no gnomes based on a lack of evidence. Especially since there is evidence for God it is just subjective.

I'm pretty sure that's my argument. Faith v. proof and every scientific reality as we know it.

I do not believe that faith is opposed to proof and science. So far there is no proof against God so that is not opposed to faith. And scientific observation is not against the existence of God so that is not opposed to it either.

I can do the exact same thing. The Bible was written by man. Here are their names... No one has ever met God. It was man's hopes & dreams put into written form.

Yes it was written by men.
Yes we know the names of many of them.
But they claim to have met God and you have not disproven that claim.
You have also not given any evidence that it was just the hopes and dreams written down.

You may say that you choose to disbelieve it for you personal reasons but if you want to make the claim of being completely scientific then the most you can you is that the existence of God is not proven while acknowledging that his existence is not disproven either.

We have all said it many times; That the existence of God is neither proven nor disproven. So why would someone then come along after saying that and claim that science is opposed to God?

People find lost or abandoned villages all the time. They have the same things in folklore on the Discovery Channel about the lost city of Atlantis. I can just as easily go through the Bible and point out inconsistency after inconsistency, contradiction after contradiction. The only difference is you'll always fall back and try to use the... it's on God's time... or that's figurative this time... loopholes. It's made up dude. You can believe it. Just like a kid believes in Santa but that doesn't make it real.

You are correct. Every time critics try to find inconsistency or contradiction people show that their case is not solid. But that does not mean that a contradiction or inconsistency cannot be found.

Well I have this suposidly nonfiction book written by this Hubbard guy. A really whole bunch of people believe with all their heart and soul that it's 100% completely true and it's the only real way to understand yourself & the meaning of life. They have huge meetings and all kinds of proceedures and tests and solutions. I don't need more evidence than that.

I'm just like you. I BELIEVE IT... I HAVE SPIRITUAL FAITH IN IT... therefor it is real to me.

But not provable in any way.

It is my pesonal believe that that book is not true because it contradicts the one I do believe based on my faith and my personal observation. I will not stop you from believing it. If you want me to try to find inconsistencies or flaws in it I am willing to try.

But a thing is not real just because you believe it. My faith is not real because I believe it. It is real to me because I have seen evidence for it.

And the fact that your book is unprovable is irrelevant to whether or not it is real.

I don't know about you personally but that is EXACTLY what evangelists do! They take it as their job to push their agenda on people who do not believe it.

If they are being pushy then by all means state your case. If they are sharing what they believe with good intentions then say thanks but no thanks.

As far as school goes. School is the place for math, science & biology. These things all have tests that can be examined and explained.

Not really, much more in science than should be is conjecture and assumption. If we limited scientific teaching to only what has been proven then it would be pretty small and boring.

Church is the place for theology. This is where you go to have faith in things that are unknown.

Yep. And lots of stuff that is taught in school is not limited to only what is proven.

It's a great system. Everyone can have as much or as little religion as they want. They just have to seek it out. And that's certainly not hard. Church is free and there's many in every zip code.

That is more or less true. Still there are ambiguities in science as it is taught in school and there are ambiguities in religions and unfortunatly we do not have a perfect separation between the two because the ambiguities overlap.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Dr Who, that is a pretty strong post for someone who equates god's existential status with that of fairies.

Chill out

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr Who, that is a pretty strong post for someone who equates god's existential status with that of fairies.

Chill out

Actually I was equating denying fairies and denying God. It is illogical to deny either based on a lack of empirical evidence.

Regarding the existence of them:

I have heard zero evidence for the existence of fairies. While there is an abundance of subjective and circumstantial evidence for the existence of God. As well as just a tiny bit of inductive logic that since all of our observations lead us to believe that everything has a cause that the big bang was caused by something.

So while the existence of God is not proven the case for Him is far far stronger than the case for fairies.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

''It is illogical to deny either based on a lack of empirical evidence.''

But that is exactly what we routinely do.

Your argument can only support the statement that you cannot prove non-existence.

But if that is your chosen line you have to give equal status in this respect to everything including fairies.

As such it is not a very helpful argument.

Deploying it is generally a display of depseration.

Science works on the basis of proving existence which is both do-able and verifiable.

Scientists use deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning = making it up

 

[Dr.Who]

'It is illogical to deny either based on a lack of empirical evidence.''

But that is exactly what we routinely do.

That may be what you do routinely but I am logical. When I believe thigs that are not proven I admit that it is my faith.

Your argument can only support the statement that you cannot prove non-existence.

But there is also evidence for existence.

But if that is your chosen line you have to give equal status in this respect to everything including fairies.

When it comes to denying their existence based on a lack of empirical evidence then yes the statements are equal. If we are talking about weighing the evidence we do have then they are not equal. There is much more evidence for the existence of God than for fairies.

As such it is not a very helpful argument.

No that wouldn't be. Good thing I fixed that for you.

Science works on the basis of proving existence which is both do-able and verifiable.

Scientists use deductive reasoning.

Yes it does and yes they do. Everything they say is based on the foundation of what has come before. Newton said "I stand on the shoulders of giants" But the conclusions are only as good as the foundation.

Inductive reasoning = making it up

And the foundation is based on inductive reasoning.

All the laws of science are assumed to be true simply because we have not yet observed them to be false. That is inductive reasoning.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The idea of god has never been shown to be true.

 

[Dr.Who]

The idea of god has never been shown to be true.

I never said it was. I have said that there is evidence for it and based on that evidence I have faith.