Anti-Theism in America

[Dawkinsrocks]

There isn't evidence and god is illogical.

Can god create a problem he can't solve?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And how did God make Mary pregnant?

Has god got a dick?

Did he ejaculate inside her?

Did they enjoy it?

Or did he sprinkle oofle dust on her and hey presto?

 

[Dr.Who]

There isn't evidence and god is illogical.

Can god create a problem he can't solve?

That is based on the false assumption that one particular definition of omniscient is the right one.

There are several definitions of omniscient. The one that is used by most theologians is that God can know anything that is knowable. With this definition there is no paradox.

People who choose to use the more restrictive definition of omniscient do so without support from the bible.

 

[Dr.Who]

And how did God make Mary pregnant?

Has god got a dick?

Did he ejaculate inside her?

Did they enjoy it?

Or did he sprinkle oofle dust on her and hey presto?

D) none of the above.

Through the intercession of the Holy Spirit. A supernatural and spiritual means. But you claim to have read the bible twice so you know that.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

''Through the intercession of the holy spirit?''

Explain

 

[Dr.Who]

''Through the intercession of the holy spirit?''

Explain

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit…for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit…Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means, ‘God with us.’ And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus (bold mine) –Matthew 1:18-25

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

No, how did a spirit impregnate a woman?

 

[top gun]

Dr.Who;60827]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.

Yet again the BURDEN is on YOU to prove it. The fact that you even bring up the word "supernatural" should tell you you have no case.

You have the exact same argument as if a woman went into court and tried to sue for child support because she was raped by a ghost.

You have no grounds. You have only a story. That's the lack of evidence that gets your case thrown out. The court doesn't tell the state... Prove that there wasn't a ghost. The burden of PROOF is on you & you alone.

You'd do well to just say what you do know... you have total faith in something that has absolutely no scientific basis and you cannot prove any of it at all.

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...

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 saying I don't believe it because I need evidence. I could spend my whole life running around believing in unproven theory's of pure "faith". I could believe that it's not gravity but the hand of God that holds us to the ground.

I said you should believe whatever makes you happy. But you have no argument in the realm of proof to convince others.

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.

EXACTLY! It all boils down to your book is the real book and the other isn't. That's EXACTLY what's been going on since caveman days. Groups come up with ideas for what they do not understand and they create stories to try and create order amongst their group.

That's why Muslims believe differently... Jews believe differently... Buddhist believe differently... Hindus believe differently... Scientologists believe differently... Satanists believe differently... on & on & on.

Hint: They're ALL made up!

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.

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

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.

I don't know where you went to school but the science & biology classes I took had proven grounds. Even the theory of evolution is demonstrated in fossilized records.

And even with all that I could play the roll of a Deist and say there was a God that created everything in the beginning ... and then left to let everything evolve on it's own never to return. No heaven. No hell. No Christianity or any other religion. Just what we make it right here on earth.

That's why people pick a Church that they identify with and study a faith. But there are so many faiths so wildly different you could never fairly teach all their completely different guesses in a science classroom.

All you do when you try and push creationism in a science class is dumb down our students with completely unprovable theroy... not partially unprovable... totally unprovable.

That's why it isn't taught in school and left for the Churches of faith.

 

[top gun]

No, how did a spirit impregnate a woman?

VOODOO!

It's basically the good guy version of the movie Rosemary's Baby in ancient form... and just as fictional. When you base your entire theory on hocus pocus you can say anything... make anything impossible, possible.

It's a real tragedy that people have been killing each other for thousands of years over some differing beliefs all of which in the beginning were all man made up in the first place.

I look forward to the day that will eventually come when we focus on just the Biblical advice of doing good things but leave the magicians and sorcerers out of it.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, how did a spirit impregnate a woman?

I don't know.

But I also don't know how a spirit created the whole universe.Surely if God could create the universe He could impregnate just one women.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yet again the BURDEN is on YOU to prove it.[/B] The fact that you even bring up the word "supernatural" should tell you you have no case.

There is no such thing as a burden of proof. If you want to convince me of something strongly enough then you will want to provide whatever evidence you can. If I want to convince you of something then I will provide whatever evidence I can. That's all there is to it.

However there are certain things that are unprovable through natural means. These are the things naturalists should all refrain from stating. So people who go around saying that there is no God should stop saying it. It is nonsense to assert what can never be proven.

You have the exact same argument as if a woman went into court and tried to sue for child support because she was raped by a ghost.

That she would have to provide a burden of proof? She would also have to provide someone to sue. If she did that I suppose the judge would accept the rest of her story.

You have no grounds. You have only a story. That's the lack of evidence that gets your case thrown out. The court doesn't tell the state... Prove that there wasn't a ghost. The burden of PROOF is on you & you alone.

Actually it is the people who say that there is no supernatural that have the lack of evidence. I have lots of evidence. You will not accept it until you see it for yourself. Who knows perhaps some day you will.

You'd do well to just say what you do know... you have total faith in something that has absolutely no scientific basis and you cannot prove any of it at all.

Yes I have faith in it. Yes it has little scientific basis. Yes I cannot prove it to you. And I have said all that many times. But I and others like me have seen the proof ourselves. It is logical and there is a lot of evidence for it. There is more to the world than just what is scientific. That is a man made system for observing the natural world through empirical means. It is useless in evaluating any claims to the supernatural. Trying to measure the truth of a supernatural claim through science is like trying to measure the volume of water with a light meter. You could apply logic to study the question of the supernatural. Are the claims self-consistent, are they logical, etc. Evaluate it any way you want but you have to set aside the assumption that the world is totally natural. It is illogical to ask if there exist a supernatural if you have already arrived at the conclusion before asking the question.

I'm saying I don't believe it because I need evidence. I could spend my whole life running around believing in unproven theory's of pure "faith". I could believe that it's not gravity but the hand of God that holds us to the ground.

It is completely logical to passively not believe it or to suspend judgment or to hold out or to wait for more evidence due to lack of evidence. It is not logical to make a positive assertion that there is no God based on a lack of evidence. The only logical position is one of agnosticism not that of atheism.

I said you should believe whatever makes you happy. But you have no argument in the realm of proof to convince others.

You are correct that I have no proof. I do have evidence.

By the way you have no proof that the only thing that exist is natural. You have no proof that the laws of nature will always be what you observe them to be today or that they always were what you observe them to be today. All your science is based on the idea that the laws of nature are uniform throughout all of time and space and yet that is a total assumption based on an extremely short amount of time that man has been observing the laws of nature. Furthermore, that assumption about the laws of nature being consistent and uniform based on observation eliminates all the observations to the contrary. So just how solid is a house that is built on sand?

EXACTLY! It all boils down to your book is the real book and the other isn't. That's EXACTLY what's been going on since caveman days. Groups come up with ideas for what they do not understand and they create stories to try and create order amongst their group.

You are right. It does boil down to my book versus others. Perhaps we should evaluate the evidence for the various books? Certainly some people make up stuff to explain what they don't understand and to create order. So just why do you think the bible is made up. And don't tell me because it describes the supernatural because that would be relying on circular logic.

That's why Muslims believe differently... Jews believe differently... Buddhist believe differently... Hindus believe differently... Scientologists believe differently... Satanists believe differently... on & on & on.

Which is why someone started a thread called "some religions must be wrong". But to find out which ones we need to do some work.

Hint: They're ALL made up!

Now that is a statement that you cannot support. It is therefore a faith based statement. A part of your religion.

I don't know where you went to school but the science & biology classes I took had proven grounds. Even the theory of evolution is demonstrated in fossilized records.

if all the biology and theory of evolution and all of it are based on the laws of nature and all they are is descriptions of what some people have observed so far, observations that could be demonstrated to be wrong at any time, or that may have been wrong in the distant past, or that may be wrong in other parts of the universe, or that may contain exceptions we do not know about, then just how proven are theories that are built on a foundation that is unproven?

And even with all that I could play the roll of a Deist and say there was a God that created everything in the beginning ... and then left to let everything evolve on it's own never to return. No heaven. No hell. No Christianity or any other religion. Just what we make it right here on earth.

You certainly could. Now present your evidence (I suggest a new thread) and we can evaluate it.

That's why people pick a Church that they identify with and study a faith. But there are so many faiths so wildly different you could never fairly teach all their completely different guesses in a science classroom.

That may be why some people pick a church. But until you have interviewed all the people who pick churches you really just don't know that do you? And yes science class should be limited to science. With the caveat that at least it admits the assumptions it makes; naturalism, empiricism, inductive logic, and the laws of nature.

All you do when you try and push creationism in a science class is dumb down our students with completely unprovable theroy... not partially unprovable... totally unprovable.

Then it is a good thing that I don't push creationism in science class.

That's why it isn't taught in school and left for the Churches of faith.

Yet some sort of education that takes into account that naturalism is an assumption of convenience should be taught. Math is an example of that. Logic is an example of that. Some theory of religion could be. Something that does not teach any particular creed but just discusses concepts of natural, supernatural, and whatever else is mostly universal to religions. And it should be left up to the individual school districts to decide. I have heard that these classes do exist - though they did not where I went to school.

 

[Andy]

No, how did a spirit impregnate a woman?

I was going to say... um... God created the entire universe, every galaxy, every star, every planet, every comet, every nebulas dust cloud, created every life form on the planet, from the single cell, to the male and female of every animal, and both man and woman.

The impregnating of one single girl isn't exactly going to be a challenge for God.

 

[Dr.Who]

VOODOO!

There is no need to be insulting. Well unless your case falls apart without insults.

It's basically the good guy version of the movie Rosemary's Baby in ancient form... and just as fictional. When you base your entire theory on hocus pocus you can say anything... make anything impossible, possible.

Then it is a good thing that the claims of Christianity are not based on people saying just anything. We have to limit ourselves to the bible and it is limited to what is logical and internally self-consistent. It cannot make two contradictory statements; it cannot say that Jesus lay in the tomb for only three days and also say that he lay in the tomb for seven days. That would not be something it could say. It cannot say anything. And it says an awful lot. It should be no problem for you to find just one clear indisputable example of a self-contradiction.

It's a real tragedy that people have been killing each other for thousands of years over some differing beliefs all of which in the beginning were all man made up in the first place.

It is a real tragedy. It is also a tragedy when they kill each other over things that are not examples of differing beliefs. And you have not provided any evidence that ALL of the beliefs were made up.

I look forward to the day that will eventually come when we focus on just the Biblical advice of doing good things but leave the magicians and sorcerers out of it.

It would be illogical to suppose that the book is fictional and then to accept some of it's advise. If doing good is of value and God is of no value then tell us why doing good is of value.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

How did a spirit impregnate a woman

''I don't know.

But I also don't know how a spirit created the whole universe.Surely if God could create the universe He could impregnate just one women''

So your response to the question how did a spirit impregnate a woman is to assert something more preposterous.

0/10 Dr Who.

 

[GenSeneca]

It would be illogical to suppose that the book is fictional and then to accept some of it's advise. If doing good is of value and God is of no value then tell us why doing good is of value.

I was curious about that too, why not just call yourself an Atheist or Agnostic since you think the Bible is nonsense?