Atheistforums.com

I would like to know:
What was the ONE THING that made you decide that there is no God who created everything?
If it was a collection of issues that build up to your decision, don't give it all to me, tell me what was the last straw that broke the camels' back.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 03:09:20 AM
I would like to know:
What was the ONE THING that made you decide that there is no God who created everything?
If it was a collection of issues that build up to your decision, don't give it all to me, tell me what was the last straw that broke the camels' back.

If it was a last straw... I would guess: finally reading the bible,
though before I'd already kind of stopped believing, I think. I was trying to rekindle the magic with one desperate last attempt.

I failed hard.

Critical thinking, first and last.

I never had a religion.

Quote from: pr126 on July 04, 2018, 04:07:33 AM
Critical thinking, first and last.

I never had a religion.

Critical thinking is good, no matter what conclusion you come to.  Too many adults are gullible.

When I started to really grasp the immensity of the universe, it became a rather simple idea that there is no "room" for a god.

The lack of evidence.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 03:09:20 AM
I would like to know:
What was the ONE THING that made you decide that there is no God who created everything?
If it was a collection of issues that build up to your decision, don't give it all to me, tell me what was the last straw that broke the camels' back.

What makes you think I decided there is no god who created everything?  I just don't believe in one.  There are many gods that are alleged to have created everything, and each one sounds as nuts to me as the ones you don't believe in.  This is a place to start in your quest for knowledge.  I don't think there was a straw that broke the camels back for me.  I just came to realize after 50 years of searching that I was no longer willing to pose absurd questions without answers in an attempt to convince myself that the mythology of the Bible might be real.

I never decided anything about god.  There was no decision I reached.  However, the biggest epiphany about the whole coming to atheism thing was realizing I didn't believe in a god, and that I never had a good reason to when I was a confirmed Lutheran.  This was a realization, not a decision, and that's where I stepped over the imaginary line.

Kind of a blend of Sal and SGOS.  Looking back I cannot remember a time when I was a believer.  I WANTED to believe because that would make life so much easier to explain.  But the full realization came when I realized there was not one shred of evidence that any god existed. 

Quote from: SGOS on July 04, 2018, 09:01:00 AM
What makes you think I decided there is no god who created everything?  I just don't believe in one.  There are many gods that are alleged to have created everything, and each one sounds as nuts to me as the ones you don't believe in.  ... an attempt to convince myself that the mythology of the Bible might be real.

I never decided anything about god.  There was no decision I reached.  ...realizing I didn't believe in a god, and that I never had a good reason to when I was a confirmed Lutheran.  This was a realization, not a decision, and that's where I stepped over the imaginary line.

It might me a lack of clear communication from my part when I asked what made you decide that there is no God.
I do however see you are clear about the fact that you don't believe in God, and this was the intend of my question to know why.
You do answer that it was a realization that there is no God. And this is what I wanted to know.
When and Why.
So forgive me if the question was not suitable, your answer is great.
Thanks

Quote from: SGOS on July 04, 2018, 09:01:00 AM
I just came to realize after 50 years of searching that I was no longer willing to pose absurd questions without answers in an attempt to convince myself that the mythology of the Bible might be real.

This is the type of answers that I am glad you are giving as reasons too.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 04, 2018, 09:14:42 AM
...but the full realization came when I realized there was not one shred of evidence that any god existed.

I love this comment as a finality on the possibility of a Creator

Their answers have all been consistent with their deeply held personal views (I know because I have been here three years now).  Realization is one way, or never having been in that frame of mind is another.  Few probably got there thru Descartian argumentation.  Philosophy is as unpopular here as theology is.  Generally ... "my personal experience is" ... "therefore that is what is real".  I agree, that is why I am a theist ... I have the same existentialism, though not the same epistemology.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:11:52 AM
I love this comment as a finality on the possibility of a Creator

If one is a materialist, then a-priori there can be no gods.  But the claim that materialism is not a philosophy, or that materialism is the only reasonable choice ... isn't true.  It is simply a claim of omniscience by a deeply convinced individual.

A rigorous materialist position would say that there is no life and no consciousness ... which are obvious absurdities.  For them, reality is a pseudorandom mix of atoms ... not completely random, because there are atoms, and they follow weird statistical laws (chaos and quantum theory) ... they have a limited order to them.

Biology.

No one is ever born with a religion.
It has to be inculcated, family, peer pressure, culture.

Some religions are worse than others.  Example Islam vs Buddhism.

Also, it does depend on the environment.
Religions created in harsh regions; e.g. the Middle East are more brutal than those from areas of plenty where the competition for survival is not so intense.

The "Abrahamic" gods originated from the worst climates on the planet.

Remember, all religions, gods are human creations.

Quote from: pr126 on July 04, 2018, 10:26:13 AM
No one is ever born with a religion.
It has to be inculcated, family, peer pressure, culture.

Some religions are worse than others.  Example Islam vs Buddhism.

Also, it does depend on the environment.
Religions created in harsh regions; e.g. the Middle East are more brutal than those from areas of plenty where the competition for survival is not so intense.

The "Abrahamic" gods originated from the worst climates on the planet.

Remember, all religions, gods are human creations.

Everyone is born into a culture.  Mogli is a fiction (boy raised by wolves).

Thank you all for your answers.
I will at a later stage obviously like to summarize the answers, and work in depth with it.
In RSA the sun now sets, and I am going home, so see you later.

NS, for those who claim that they deny the existence of a God, because of a complete lack of evidence, just a thought on whether you believe that the light spectrum we humans can not see exists?
I know you will say that it does and science can prove this ranges of light, but the ultimate Question to answer is, did it exist before we discovered infra red and ultra violet?

I am worried about absence of evidence as evidence.
Good night sweet all, good night!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:51:37 AM
Thank you all for your answers.
I will at a later stage obviously like to summarize the answers, and work in depth with it.
In RSA the sun now sets, and I am going home, so see you later.

NS, for those who claim that they deny the existence of a God, because of a complete lack of evidence, just a thought on whether you believe that the light spectrum we humans can not see exists?
I know you will say that it does and science can prove this ranges of light, but the ultimate Question to answer is, did it exist before we discovered infra red and ultra violet?

I am worried about absence of evidence as evidence.
Good night sweet all, good night!

Absence of evidence as evidence is a rhetorical gambit, not a logical one.  But not bad for rhetoric.

There is no agreement on what existence means (or any other purely metaphysical term ... say ... reality).  As usually meant in materialist terms (matter/energy) and as usually meant in theological terms (supernatural) ... no gods can exist.  But if you don't accept materialism, or don't accept the usual theology, then there are other choices to be made.

The entire scientific canon of the human race.

No. I will not simplify my reasons for leaving the faith to a significant traumatic memory to justify your biases. There are many reasons I no longer believe, and none of them are that my father never loved me, or that I was abused by a religious authority. Several factors came together to lead to my loss of faith, and since that time, my reasons for continuing not to believe have grown in number thanks to my mind becoming clear.

Also, I have strong suspicions you are a troll, so going into more details may not be worth the effort.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:07:05 AM
I do however see you are clear about the fact that you don't believe in God, and this was the intend of my question to know why.
You do answer that it was a realization that there is no God. And this is what I wanted to know.
When and Why.
So forgive me if the question was not suitable, your answer is great.
Thanks

No, you still don't quite understand.  Could be my fault or yours.  I don't really care, but my realization was NOT there was NO god.  I've never come to such a realization.  My realization was that I didn't believe in one.  I can understand that this sounds strange, probably because it even sounds strange to me, but for half of my life I played mind games with myself to cover up the intolerable realization that I was without belief.  It was jammed into my head before I could talk that harboring mere doubt was a ticket on the express train to Hell.  And admitting that you weren't buying the package meant that there was no train out of Hell.

But long before I came to that realization, I did recognize that I had serious doubts about the Bible tales, and doubts about there being anyone at the other end of my prayers.  Evidence (which I don't really see as proof) always seemed to point in the direction of no god.  And the sacred evidences in favor of a god, usually revolved around some version of the totally stupid "Yeah, but how do you explain..." argument.  This assumes that if you don't have a counter argument you lose the argument, which of course is a totally foolish assumption.

In fact, my focus was always centered around finding proof of a god, not finding proof of no god.  That's all I wanted.  Give me proof.  Give me a sign.  I even thought I had a sign once, but later realized the sign was more easily explained by the rational, rather than the miraculous.  So that was of no help.  When you think about it, the presence of doubt, the needing of proof, the needing of signs, probably should have alerted me much sooner that I wasn't a believer much past the age of six.  I will forgive myself for my earlier stupidity, because there is no end to the things you can get a 5 year old to believe.  They are the most gullible of souls, and can be taught to believe any absurd nonsense.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:51:37 AM

I know you will say that it does and science can prove this ranges of light, but the ultimate Question to answer is, did it exist before we discovered infra red and ultra violet?

Ohh nooes……it's a twap….a mouse twap.

Quote from: aitm on July 04, 2018, 12:47:36 PM
Ohh nooes……it's a twap….a mouse twap.

That made my day!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:51:37 AM
I know you will say that it does and science can prove this ranges of light, but the ultimate Question to answer is, did it exist before we discovered infra red and ultra violet?

I used to think the question, "If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear, does it make a sound?" was a philosophically legitimate question, because the obvious answer is that it did, but wait.  The question is asking about something deeper, much deeper.  But what is it?  I dunno, it must be something really intellectual so I'll pretend like I don't know the answer, because the guy asking it sounds like some sure footed dude from the big city, and even if he's full of horse shit, there are bunch of other people around that are going to buy the elixir and nod their heads knowingly, and I'll be the odd man out.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
This is the type of answers that I am glad you are giving as reasons too.

Why?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:51:37 AM

I am worried about absence of evidence as evidence.
Good night sweet all, good night!

As well you should be.  Your only argument is that god works in mysterious ways.  Other than that there is not a shred of evidence that any god (or unnatural thing) exists, including yours.
And good night to you, as well.  Sleep well.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 04, 2018, 11:10:57 AM
The entire scientific canon of the human race.

If you have a scientific canon, make sure you aren't firing blanks ;-)

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:51:37 AM
NS, for those who claim that they deny the existence of a God, because of a complete lack of evidence, just a thought on whether you believe that the light spectrum we humans can not see exists?

He's gone to bed, just when things start getting spooky.  He's got something up his sleeve.  I starting to think he's going to make me cranky.  I think it involves some analogy between God and the spectrum of light.  Let's see could it be that we know light exists even though we cannot see the light spectrum?  Therefore, God exists because we cannot see him.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:51:37 AM
I know you will say that it does and science can prove this ranges of light, but the ultimate Question to answer is, did it exist before we discovered infra red and ultra violet?

OMG, the dreaded curve ball.  I did not see that coming.  He fooled us with the question, and just when we think we're going to knock the ball out of the park, he tells us it's not the ultimate question.  He's parried with the old moving of the goalpost fallacy after delivering the pitch.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:51:37 AM
I am worried about absence of evidence as evidence.

Don't worry.  Absence of evidence will just remain absence of evidence, until the absence goes away, and then we will finally have evidence and something to talk about.  Until then, there just isn't that much more to do here, unless PR123 will share his recipe for pineapple upside down cake.

Quote from: SGOS on July 04, 2018, 03:23:07 PM
He's gone to bed, just when things start getting spooky.  He's got something up his sleeve.  I starting to think he's going to make me cranky.  I think it involves some analogy between God and the spectrum of light.  Let's see could it be that we know light exists even though we cannot see the light spectrum?  Therefore, God exists because we cannot see him.
OMG, the dreaded curve ball.  I did not see that coming.  He fooled us with the question, and just when we think we're going to knock the ball out of the park, he tells us it's not the ultimate question.  He's parried with the old moving of the goalpost fallacy after delivering the pitch.Don't worry.  Absence of evidence will just remain absence of evidence, until the absence goes away, and then we will finally have evidence and something to talk about.  Until then, there just isn't that much more to do here, unless PR123 will share his recipe for pineapple upside down cake.

I dealt accurately with your last point (absence of evidence) in the debate section.  Depends on if there is more than one cause for the result, and if we are saying the result can never happen (please empirically justify that) or if it is just abduction (we have to do more reasoning to tease out the cause if there is more than one).

Don't know if he is a troll, or just trying to get some "atheist material" to provide input to some theistic thesis project ... by asking actual atheists ... as opposed to just quoting the stereotypes.

There was never one definitive reason why, it was a slow process, it wasn't some 'sudden realization'. I dunno if I even really believed in god, he was just something everyone else believed in and I just went along with it.
When the realization was broken to me as a kid there was no father christmas, or tooth fairy, or easter bunny, thats when the whole idea of make believe characters I was told as a child were all fake, including when the school use to read us bible stories (it was the 80's and most non-private schools had it mandatory then). When stuff you use to believe was real suddenly stops being so, then everything else you were told equally as made up falls into that ether of make believe.

But unlike father christmas and similar, things like jesus and god were preached by full grown adults and seeing them, I questioned if maybe god is just separate from those childish make believe characters. Thats when the contradictions come into it, like god being all loving but killing people because they don't follow him or all knowing despite not knowing half the shit going on in his own book and then killing or cursing people who disobey him.

When your a child and believing in make believe characters, it gives you comfort against the harsh real world, but you grow up from it. God is just a coping mechanism for people who need that comfort blanket their whole lives unable to face the harsh realities of life and death. God is the make believe character adults keep believing in to shroud themselves from the harsh facts of reality.

So really, I guess the first time I questioned god being real, was when I stopped believing in make believe characters.

Quote from: Munch on July 04, 2018, 08:40:54 PM
So really, I guess the first time I questioned god being real, was when I stopped believing in make believe characters.

I could have written that.  I had the same experience, almost exactly the way you described.  After I was told by the older kids there was no Santa Claus, I went to my mother for confirmation.  She admitted the thing was a fantasy, so I asked about the Easter Bunny, and the Good Fairy, and they were fake too.  Then I asked if God was a fake.  My mother paused to think, and said, "No God is real."

But the cat was now out of the bag.  My parents were liars, and their teachings about the implausible sounding things of life could no longer be trusted.  If they could lie about one thing, or in their favor, just be wrong, then they could lie or be wrong about anything.  Nothing had to be true on the word of any of the ultimately reliable sources in my life any more.  It was up to me to figure things out as best I could.  And so began my quest in life to find the proof of the one remaining implausible that the authorities still maintained was true.  I had to know if God was real on my own.  In the end, many many years later, I had to concede that the knowledge was not possible.  There was no more evidence for God than there is for Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.  My beliefs in all things sounding like fake nonsense all went up in smoke at the same time.

Theists will laugh, "Are you kidding?  Comparing God to Santa and the Easter Bunny?  Why they're not even in the same ball park!"

Unfortunately, they are in exactly the same ball park; Implausibles without evidence, with the only difference being that the authorities admit there is no Easter Bunny, while they adamantly adhere to the existence of God, but for no particular reason other than they just do.  That's all; They just do, without anything substantial to back it up other than a book that reads very much like the Iliad and the Odyssey.  The evidence, as elaborate and well funded as it is with billions of dollars worth of props, never exceeds being simply weak.  We are talking about God, the greatest being ever conjured up in the imagination of mankind.  For evidence if he's all that great, does so many things, and is such a big part of our lives, then they've got to come up with something better than, "Because it is so."

Dear all,
I thank you for your honesty and openness in your points of view.
I do however see there are some Atheists that are very suspicious of my inquiry and might perceive me as someone that wants to argue the existence of God.
Please believe me if I say I do not have any hidden agenda.
As I explained else ware, I also grew up in a Calvinistic childhood, I also rebelled, I then questioned, I went through years of investigating religions, I called myself an agnostic, and finally after studying the Bible without any bias, I came to the conclusion that there is a God, just not the one I was forced to believe in as an ignorant young man.
I also promise that I will not even attempt to get anyone of you to become a believer in anything.
This is not why I am here at all.

I love your answers, even though I might not agree with them at all.

But let me explain that I underwent two things in my life.
One was when I simply "came to the realization that there can not be a Creator", and the second when I found that what was written in the Bible was not just a Myth, but reality.

Now, I dont want you guys to be suspicious of what I just wrote. Please step back and look at what I will do in future.

I will post some facts (or what I call facts) on this thread that I find to be contrary to what Bible criticizers show as contradictions, and will ask you to criticize it if you wont mind.

This is the reason.
I want to see if you can deny what I learned to prove that the Creator does not exist.
Not to make you a Christian or a believer in Father Christmas, or the Easter bunny, (stuff I also do not believe in.  By the way and I used to be offended when people used this analogy as an insult to what I could disprove and prove. A god that is equal to these fables is definitely not the one I believe in either)

as a summary I found as a reason why Atheists are Atheists is that they:
1. dislike the Church or the people in the Church.
2. dont like a god who use war and killed Canaanites.
3. dislike a god that allows suffering, pain, disease and death,
4. can not believe in any god that is not physically provable,
5. can not believe in a god that hides himself.
6. science and biology dont allow a Creator.
7. evolution and the age of the Universe.
8. there is too many contradictions in the Bible.

Now, my open agenda is to test my observation and knowledge.
Well, I want to use my information against Atheists in future when I speak to them.

Therefore, I do not want to troll, but will place a post which I believe is evidence of the existence of the Creator, so you can critique the topic.
If it is not watertight, you will be able to sink it.

I do believe that you guys are adult in conversation, and perhaps one or 2 people might be unmannerly, but for the greater experience, I did not find such attitude among the members so far.
Thanks for the posts up to now.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 03:10:58 AM

as a summary I found as a reason why Atheists are Atheists is that they:
1. dislike the Church or the people in the Church.
2. dont like a god who use war and killed Canaanites.
3. dislike a god that allows suffering, pain, disease and death,

I don't know about others, but my liking or disliking of something doesn't factor into me thinking it exists or not.
I don't see how this could be why an atheist is an atheist. That almost seems to imply that one wilfully deludes oneself out of a rebellion to a god one knows to exist. Meaning that the 'atheist' wouldn't be an actual atheist, if you think about it.  At best, I think, one could say these feelings are coincidental.

Quote

4. can not believe in any god that is not physically provable,

Truth be told, I don't know if I could believe in a god that is physically provable. By that I mean; how could one ever 'measure' god? Apparently he is interwoven fully into his creation, no? He is onmipresent, meaning he is everywhere. WE can measure things because they are not everywhere. (He is also omnipotent, meaning that even if we could distinguish his energy from everything else, how could we measure something limitless?) Besides, a god that is limited to science is a god that is limited to the physical, natural world. That kind of god would not be supernatural; it depends on how you use the words, of course, but it could imply that your god is not the supernatural being some claim it is.

Quote
5. can not believe in a god that hides himself.

It is strange. I could just about understand that there is a reasoning going on in his mind that is above my own that makes this a good call, but i doubt that would be the case.
In any case; okay. If there were a god; perhaps he would have a reason to not make this clear.
Doesn't change the much more important fact; there is no evidence to believe that he is there to begin with.

Quote
6. science and biology dont allow a Creator.

Don't have need of a creator.

Quote
7. evolution and the age of the Universe.

Understanding evolution hcan help you look at the universe and everything in a new light. It did for me. But I wouldn't say it disproves god.
Nor the wastefulness of the age of the universe, if we were the meant end-product. It puts things in perspective, but it's not a reason why one  becomes an atheist.

Quote
8. there is too many contradictions in the Bible.

Even without contradictions, the bible wouldn't be proof of a deity's existance.
So this is irrelevant, apart from discussions in which someone claims the bible shows christianity to be true.

If I were you, Mousetrap, I'd concider adding 9. , and concider dropping the rest.
9. See no evidence for the existence of a or multiple deities.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 03:09:20 AM
I would like to know:
What was the ONE THING that made you decide that there is no God who created everything?
If it was a collection of issues that build up to your decision, don't give it all to me, tell me what was the last straw that broke the camels' back.

I wasn't raised in a religious household, so I never considered any of the multitude of religions to be more than humans making shit up.

Quote from: Mr. ObviousIf I were you, Mousetrap, I'd concider adding 9. , and concider dropping the rest.
9. See no evidence for the existence of a or multiple deities.

Lets do it.
1. dislike the Church or the people in the Church.
2. dont like a god who use war and killed Canaanites.
3. dislike a god that allows suffering, pain, disease and death,
4. can not believe in any god that is not physically provable,
5. can not believe in a god that hides himself.
6. science and biology dont allow a Creator.
7. evolution and the age of the Universe.
8. there is too many contradictions in the Bible.
9. See no evidence for the existence of a or multiple deities.

Thanks Obvious

So Mousetrap is a Bible thumper ... and of the KJV etc versions?  OK.

As the variant I need to add my data to his research ...

1. The Bible is literature ... like all human writings and thinkings, isn't literally true or inerrant, but is metaphorically true and fallible
2. Metaphorically true means ... the writers, and the interested readers, find existential validation in their writings/readings
3. So in that same sense, Moby Dick is true.  It was based on a true story, the sinking whale ship Essex.  Herman Melville interviewed one of the survivors.
4. Yes, you can base a complete theology on Moby Dick .. google it.

So as to existence ... the books exist, the people who write and read them exist ... but Captain Ahab is drama, same as Oedipus.  People have been enjoying drama ... because it is elliptically meaningful in their lives, since before Greek drama was invented in ancient Athens.

So the question of "existence" like any metaphysical term ... is a loaded question.  The real issue is ... is the metaphysical question pointed at you or at someone else.  That is why people here are disturbed by trolling.  Every group wants confirmation bias.

Is the Bible true?  Well we have a whole thread, taken from academic sources, that shows that people can't even define what "truth" is (in formal logic).  We have many synonyms for "truth", in logic this is "tautology" but that only means something that is true via definition.  And that is why we don't know what is real and what isn't  Human beings aren't set up to determine any of that, not even right from wrong.

We are free to have any ideas we want, we have many of them, and we are inconsistent with ourselves and each other.  We are not Vulcans.  As a consequence we have potentially unlimited redefinitions of every word ... one for each person, and at each point in time.  In Zen, they know that "truth" can't be found in words ... that scripture can be torn up or burned or Buddha statues burned for heat.

The Bible has powerful stories, that many people find personally meaningful.  That is Jordan Peterson's point, for Western cultural folks.  The nihilists among us of course, don't like that.  They find no common meaning with fellow humans (they are psychopathic).  Some find no stable personal meaning (they are psychotic).  You can't base analysis on the delusions of aberrant people, or can you?

What do I mean ... I am a heretic?  Because I have recognized that the Bible and other scriptures are as I have described above.  Also I have recognized the monotheism is untenable.  In ancient society superior individuals were designated to be demi-gods.  Augustus Caesar for example.  As a more democratic person, I have to agree that while Augustus Caesar was a demi-god, then so is every other human.  All living things are demi-gods, but not on the same metaphysical plane ... I have to concede that much to the ancient Egyptians.  Monotheism was started by the mad Pharaoh Akhenaton ...

I will leave this thread tomorrow and will continue on another where I will show the reasons why I became a Bible believing Christian.
But in the meantime I was pondering upon the answers some of you would receive from Christians.

They will say the following.

Quote from: List #1dislike the Church or the people in the Church.

This means that because you found a dislike in people of religion, you ascribe the same attributes to their God. (because my brother is in jail, I am also a convict. :surprise:

Quote from: List #2don't like a god who use war and killed Canaanites.

This is an assumption that God had no right to decimate 7 nations who practiced child sacrifice and sex worship and He never warned them beforehand. Taken superficially, these Biblical descriptions are indeed a flaw in the character of God, but did you ever looked at what the narratives explain what the reasons was to destroy these nations? Do you know that this same God also prohibited war on neighboring nations and only acted when Israel was threatened by tyrants?

Quote from: List #3dislike a god that allows suffering, pain, disease and death,

God never created mankind to die. He created Adam and Eve as immortals who was without sin, and Man changed his physical existence when they sinned against the instruction given by God. The reason why we grow sick, age and die, is because of our material existence we changed into after our fall.

Quote from: List #4can not believe in any god that is not physically provable,

I dont want to believe in a God that is physical too. I will however accept that God will interact with His creation, and will even visit humans on Earth. There are many such references in the Bible too.

Quote from: List #5can not believe in a god that hides himself.

Well, the one in the Bible appeared to Adam, Henoch, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, David etc. From further narratives this God even sent His "Word" to Earth to be born as a man so He could live among us.

Quote from: List #6science and biology dont allow a Creator.

When we look at Science and Biology, one can see the work of God as he created everything.

Quote from: List #7evolution and the age of the Universe.

Evolution is an erroneous theory, and the age of the Universe is not evidence that there is no Creator. It actually shows the immense creation done by a Creator.

Quote from: List #8there is too many contradictions in the Bible.

And too many assumptions, once you reconcile these contradictions, the answers are also proof of bias towards the Bible. Anyone can use tactical thought to twist the intended message, but when investigating shows that the so called contradiction is only due to the accuser to produce a contradiction, and not factual, be prepared to be identified as a deceiver.

Quote from: List #9See no evidence for the existence of a or multiple deities.

This is an assumption of someone in the room looking for a droppings as evidence of a mouse, whilst he don't see the elephant.

Now, I will only use 2 of the above in future, take note, these answers are not solid support to prove the existence of a divine presence in our universe, and I can understand why an Atheist will reject the above reasoning.
Just thought I would show you what arguments I will not use when I place my observations on the floor.

Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2018, 08:47:21 AM
So the question of "existence" like any metaphysical term ... is a loaded question.  The real issue is ... is the metaphysical question pointed at you or at someone else.

No, the real issue is whether God exists.  It's the defining condition of atheism.  It's also the defining condition in god based religions.  Does this God you worship exist?  If Christianity and Islam are correct, it's the most defining condition of everyone's lives that ever lived, and will determine the eternity of all our souls.  If God doesn't exist, no further investigation accomplishes anything.  You cannot trivialize existence with an idiosyncratic definition that better suits the objective of avoiding the question.  It's the first condition that must be addressed for the rest of the doctrine to be meaningful.

Mousetrap, I never believed in any god/gods.  I do remember wanting to believe in your god as a child so I could fit it.  I wanted to believe with all the fiber of my being; I even went so far as to show all the outward trappings of believing hoping that I could talk myself into it and fit in that way.  It never worked--as a child or adult. 

I don't hate religion nor the masses that practice it. I hate the hierarchy that grows up in every organized religion.  In each and every case, it turns evil and dupes and preys upon those who support it.  Yes, even your church's hierarchy is evil and without morals or ethics.

As has been stated--the heart of the matter (and what really is the only thing that matters) is if your god is an actual fact.  If so, please produce some facts to demonstrated that your god does exist. 

Quote from: Baruch on July 05, 2018, 08:54:31 AM
Is the Bible true?  Well we have a whole thread, taken from academic sources, that shows that people can't even define what "truth" is (in formal logic). ...

If WE look at this claim there is also the factors to conclude that Moby Dick was not compiled 4 000 years ago and copied over and over until 165 BC, left in a cave, whilst other copies continued to be copied until 1948 AD when the one from 165 BC was discovered and compared with what we had to find it is virtually exactly the same.
Moby Dick does not have in its covers more than 3000 topographical descriptions, more than 500 towns and cities mentioned that was no to be found in 1798 when Napoleon did his route, in the areas where the Biblical history was recorded 4 000 to 2 000 years ago; only to be discovered and confirmed as correct after another 200 years of criticism by Bible critics, who were only to be proven in error.
If one investigates science and assume the Bible should be correct in it's description of the origins of the Universe, else the Author of the Bible did not know how HE-DID-IT, it is not an error as most accusers against the God of the Bible would like it to be.
On the contrary, this will be one of my evidences I will enter into judgement to see if my theory holds water.

Anyhow, I agree that any book can be made to become a "holy book", only when superficially glancing one's eyes over the cover, but to do an in depth study is a different horse to saddle.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 05, 2018, 09:40:58 AM

As has been stated--the heart of the matter (and what really is the only thing that matters) is if your god is an actual fact.  If so, please produce some facts to demonstrated that your god does exist.

This is what I intend to do.
But keep in mind, that whatever I say should not be taken as any reason to accept a divinity.
It will only be a reason to investigate what I claim, and anyone who simply accepts anything someone else produces, be it the ultimate scientific fact, it is our duty to scrutinize everything that is said.
Anyhow, I thought the Origins of our Universe might be a nice place to start, due to the claim that the Bible is incorrect in its description on how the Earth was made.
And thank you all for your intellectual courtesy when you post something on this thread.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AM
I will leave this thread tomorrow and will continue on another where I will show the reasons why I became a Bible believing Christian.
But in the meantime I was pondering upon the answers some of you would receive from Christians.

They will say the following.This means that because you found a dislike in people of religion, you ascribe the same attributes to their God. (because my brother is in jail, I am also a convict. :surprise:This is an assumption that God had no right to decimate 7 nations who practiced child sacrifice and sex worship and He never warned them beforehand. Taken superficially, these Biblical descriptions are indeed a flaw in the character of God, but did you ever looked at what the narratives explain what the reasons was to destroy these nations? Do you know that this same God also prohibited war on neighboring nations and only acted when Israel was threatened by tyrants?God never created mankind to die. He created Adam and Eve as immortals who was without sin, and Man changed his physical existence when they sinned against the instruction given by God. The reason why we grow sick, age and die, is because of our material existence we changed into after our fall. I dont want to believe in a God that is physical too. I will however accept that God will interact with His creation, and will even visit humans on Earth. There are many such references in the Bible too.Well, the one in the Bible appeared to Adam, Henoch, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, David etc. From further narratives this God even sent His "Word" to Earth to be born as a man so He could live among us.When we look at Science and Biology, one can see the work of God as he created everything.Evolution is an erroneous theory, and the age of the Universe is not evidence that there is no Creator. It actually shows the immense creation done by a Creator. And too many assumptions, once you reconcile these contradictions, the answers are also proof of bias towards the Bible. Anyone can use tactical thought to twist the intended message, but when investigating shows that the so called contradiction is only due to the accuser to produce a contradiction, and not factual, be prepared to be identified as a deceiver.This is an assumption of someone in the room looking for a droppings as evidence of a mouse, whilst he don't see the elephant.

Now, I will only use 2 of the above in future, take note, these answers are not solid support to prove the existence of a divine presence in our universe, and I can understand why an Atheist will reject the above reasoning.
Just thought I would show you what arguments I will not use when I place my observations on the floor.

MT, if you have a point, feel free to get around to it. Feel free to do it in your own time. But honestly, and without judgement, the above posts seem to be irrelevant to what it is you wish to achieve here.
I will say that to me, all it seems you have done so far is give some atheist-strawmen and then proceeded to answer them with theist-strawmen.
Oh, and my addition, of which I am happy you included, but from which the supplied answer indeed does not satisfy me.

Anyway, what I guess I'm saying is:
If you truly wish to have a conversation, we'd be happy to do half of the work. You don't need to do everything.

I have nothing against church goers or people practicing their religion in their own private places of worship or homes. Infact I've meet some nice people who go to church, even dated a guy once who was a benedictine monk.

Its when peoples faiths come out and interfere with the rest of the world that it becomes an issue.

Quote from: SGOS on July 05, 2018, 09:31:11 AM
No, the real issue is whether God exists.  It's the defining condition of atheism.  It's also the defining condition in god based religions.  Does this God you worship exist?  If Christianity and Islam are correct, it's the most defining condition of everyone's lives that ever lived, and will determine the eternity of all our souls.  If God doesn't exist, no further investigation accomplishes anything.  You cannot trivialize existence with an idiosyncratic definition that better suits the objective of avoiding the question.  It's the first condition that must be addressed for the rest of the doctrine to be meaningful.

No, the real issue is ... does existence make any sense at all?  Or are all metaphysical words just gibberish?

Yes, the Greek philosophical god of Aristotle/Plato, added to Christian theology ... made a complete mess ... not just of Christianity, but Judaism and Islam also.  We want an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient transcendency now!  That seems a reductio absurdum (just as you say).  Human beings are irrational.  Reality isn't real (it is just crap in your head).

Quote from: Munch on July 05, 2018, 10:46:25 AM
I have nothing against church goers or people practicing their religion in their own private places of worship or homes. Infact I've meet some nice people who go to church, even dated a guy once who was a benedictine monk.

Its when peoples faiths come out and interfere with the rest of the world that it becomes an issue.

As does their ideology interfering with other people's lives.  We want liberty ... or better yet ... freedom (aka anarchism).

Would an ideological tyranny by atheists (see Stalin) be OK with you?  I don't think so.  The problem isn't theism/atheism, that is a false dichotomy, what is at issue is tyranny.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:51:04 AM
If WE look at this claim there is also the factors to conclude that Moby Dick was not compiled 4 000 years ago and copied over and over until 165 BC, left in a cave, whilst other copies continued to be copied until 1948 AD when the one from 165 BC was discovered and compared with what we had to find it is virtually exactly the same.
Moby Dick does not have in its covers more than 3000 topographical descriptions, more than 500 towns and cities mentioned that was no to be found in 1798 when Napoleon did his route, in the areas where the Biblical history was recorded 4 000 to 2 000 years ago; only to be discovered and confirmed as correct after another 200 years of criticism by Bible critics, who were only to be proven in error.
If one investigates science and assume the Bible should be correct in it's description of the origins of the Universe, else the Author of the Bible did not know how HE-DID-IT, it is not an error as most accusers against the God of the Bible would like it to be.
On the contrary, this will be one of my evidences I will enter into judgement to see if my theory holds water.

Anyhow, I agree that any book can be made to become a "holy book", only when superficially glancing one's eyes over the cover, but to do an in depth study is a different horse to saddle.

I have a copy of the Egyptian Book Of the Dead ... clearly a predecessor to the Bible, especially Christianity (which is more Egyptian/Syrian than Jewish).  As the Pyramid Texts are prior to the Book Of The Dead.  Based on old writings ... the cave painting in France are ... true scripture!

For MouseTrap:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE

A more realistic version of Moby Dick ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_n2CAhgPiA

Still full of Biblical correlations ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvA7IrNxM8o

Another Bible vs Sea story ... tohu wa-bohu from first chapter of Genesis.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AM
I will leave this thread tomorrow and will continue on another where I will show the reasons why I became a Bible believing Christian.
But in the meantime I was pondering upon the answers some of you would receive from Christians.

I'm sure we haven't heard any of these answers a million times...

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AMThey will say the following.

This means that because you found a dislike in people of religion, you ascribe the same attributes to their God. (because my brother is in jail, I am also a convict. :surprise:

The problem is that Christians claim to be transformed, born again, new creatures, better than they were before. So they should be better than the general population. Yet we find that the opposite is true. Churches are filled with the most judgmental, hypocritical assholes around. So yes, that is an issue with your faith. But no, I do not consider the God of the Bible to be an asshole because his believers are assholes. I consider him to be an asshole on his own merits.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AMThis is an assumption that God had no right to decimate 7 nations who practiced child sacrifice and sex worship and He never warned them beforehand. Taken superficially, these Biblical descriptions are indeed a flaw in the character of God, but did you ever looked at what the narratives explain what the reasons was to destroy these nations? Do you know that this same God also prohibited war on neighboring nations and only acted when Israel was threatened by tyrants?

Of course you're going to cherrypick the least horrible examples you can find. God commanded the Hebrews to attack and kill nations that had made no threats towards them. God ordered men, women, children, and even livestock to be killed, except when he allowed the women to be taken as "wives" and the others as slaves. Hell, when God sent Moses to demand the Hebrews be released by the Pharaoh, God hardened the Pharaoh's heart just so he could display his power by poisoning their water, killing their livestock, and killing children, among other things. The God of the Bible is an inhumane monster, little different from the Greek gods.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AMGod never created mankind to die. He created Adam and Eve as immortals who was without sin, and Man changed his physical existence when they sinned against the instruction given by God. The reason why we grow sick, age and die, is because of our material existence we changed into after our fall.

Who was it who planted a tree with cursed fruit right in the middle of the garden meant as the only source of food for people with no concept of right and wrong? Who was it who decided that the only solution to those people falling for the trap of his own creation was to curse the ENTIRE EARTH, along with all of their descendants? Who was it who decided that allowing those two to continue with the plan of populating the earth was a good idea rather than making them infertile and starting over again fresh? No, God does not get to avoid responsibility for creating a world filled with misery, and especially not be passing that blame onto us. A teenager masturbating the shower has no relevance to a blue footed booby mother allowing one of its young to starve to death so it can focus all of its resources on its other chick. God's design, God's responsibility.

As a side note, read the story of the Fall and find me the place where God says anything about sin. It's not there. The reason God gives for kicking Adam and Eve out of Eden is that he didn't want them to have both immortality and knowledge. They could only be allowed to have one or the other. He didn't want Adam and Eve to become like gods, as the serpent said they would.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AMI dont want to believe in a God that is physical too. I will however accept that God will interact with His creation, and will even visit humans on Earth. There are many such references in the Bible too.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/84c4d201c17b4f7ac36c7c5d24af7a3e/tenor.gif)

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AMWell, the one in the Bible appeared to Adam, Henoch, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, David etc. From further narratives this God even sent His "Word" to Earth to be born as a man so He could live among us.

Yes. God was very active in Biblical days. Always liked showing off, performing miracles in front of doubters before killing them (defeating the purpose of proving himself in the first place), appearing as burning bushes, a pillar of fire, even human form. Yet in the age where virtually everyone has a phone with a camera on it, there's no sign of God anywhere. I wonder why that is. It's probably for the same reason that aliens only appear in rural areas where few people can see them. (Because it's all bullshit.)

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AMWhen we look at Science and Biology, one can see the work of God as he created everything.

Evolution is an erroneous theory, and the age of the Universe is not evidence that there is no Creator. It actually shows the immense creation done by a Creator.

I'm lumping these two together because they're essentially the same point. First of all, biology is a science, so I don't know why you're listing them together like they're separate fields. Second, several sciences hinge on evolution, including medicine and psychology. For instance, do you know why people get vaccinations every year? It's because micro-organisms evolve, and what works as a defense against one strain doesn't work against another. When vaccinations make the defenses of one strain ineffective, another strain takes its place and takes dominance. That's how evolution works; organisms responding to environmental pressures.

Also, the age of the universe does put a huge cog in a Biblical literalist's theology. The two creation stories in Genesis do not match reality. They're much, much too short and all in the wrong order. Not to mention the lack of death meaning that all the dinosaurs would have to have lived in recent history, which is absolutely laughable.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AMAnd too many assumptions, once you reconcile these contradictions, the answers are also proof of bias towards the Bible. Anyone can use tactical thought to twist the intended message, but when investigating shows that the so called contradiction is only due to the accuser to produce a contradiction, and not factual, be prepared to be identified as a deceiver.

If I'm identified as a "deceiver," it's to dismiss anything I have to say in an effort to protect one's unjustifiable beliefs. There are many, many examples of contradictions in the Bible that cannot be reconciled. Oh, I've seen many apologists twist verses to mean things they clearly don't to try fix them, but we can see right through their bullshit.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AMThis is an assumption of someone in the room looking for a droppings as evidence of a mouse, whilst he don't see the elephant.

You're missing the point again. The same arguments used as "evidence"* for the Christian God can and have been used as evidence for every other god. Look up a video on YouTube of just any random Muslim apologist, and I guarantee you at least 90% of the arguments they make will sound very familiar to you. I have no more reason to believe in the Christian God than to believe in any other god. And yes, that is a big problem for you if you want to convince people your religion is true. Not only do you have to prove that a god exists, you have to prove that YOUR god exists.

*Note, evidence and arguments are NOT the same things.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 10:00:49 AM
Anyhow, I thought the Origins of our Universe might be a nice place to start, due to the claim that the Bible is incorrect in its description on how the Earth was made.

Triangle block meets square hole.  Sure, it might be made to fit, but that's unrelated to whether it belongs there in the first place.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AMEvolution is an erroneous theory

I really hope you're joking about that.  Attacking a theory so firmly supported to boost what I can most charitably call conjecture about the nature of the universe is a fool's errand.  It also pretty much guarantees you'll be forever regarded as both a science-denying fool and a credulous religious bumpkin by both atheists and a sizable chunk of Christians as well.

Even Augustine recognized the folly of this:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

A quick interjection here, Mousetrap.  You do not have a 'theory' but a hypothesis.  A theory has already been proven to be true.  Yes, one can, with proper data and testing, disprove a theory--but the new theory is still a proven theory.  A hypothesis is a statement that has not been test yet.  There has not been a single theory that god exists yet. 

Believing in God is not that big of a deal anyway, since "the devils believe, and tremble." It isn't just belief in God that is required for "salvation," but total submission to the will of God. But how can anyone even know what the will of God is unless God reveals it? If he wanted to communicate with his human creations, would he just write stuff in a book that can be changed, mistranslated, or misunderstood? It seems to me there would be a better way, especially for an omnipotent, omnipresent God. Anyone who reads the Bible without the rose-colored glasses of faith can see in it way too many flaws for it to be the word of any God.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 05, 2018, 02:14:54 PM
Believing in God is not that big of a deal anyway, since "the devils believe, and tremble." It isn't just belief in God that is required for "salvation," but total submission to the will of God. But how can anyone even know what the will of God is unless God reveals it? If he wanted to communicate with his human creations, would he just write stuff in a book that can be changed, mistranslated, or misunderstood? It seems to me there would be a better way, especially for an omnipotent, omnipresent God. Anyone who reads the Bible without the rose-colored glasses of faith can see in it way too many flaws for it to be the word of any God.

But don't mess with Athena or Poseidon in the Odyssey ;-)

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 08:41:49 AM
Lets do it.
1. dislike the Church or the people in the Church.
2. dont like a god who use war and killed Canaanites.
3. dislike a god that allows suffering, pain, disease and death,
4. can not believe in any god that is not physically provable,
5. can not believe in a god that hides himself.
6. science and biology dont allow a Creator.
7. evolution and the age of the Universe.
8. there is too many contradictions in the Bible.
9. See no evidence for the existence of a or multiple deities.

Thanks Obvious

I would say that the only one of these that's of any relevance is the last: the total and complete lack of definitive, incontrovertible, accessible and objective evidence.

I would argue points 1, 2 and 8 because I came into atheism out of being Wiccan, not Christian, and atheism is not the lack of belief in the Judeo-Christo-Islamic god, but in any god.  And I assure you that I have no more belief in Krishna or Ahura Mazdaâ€"or for that matter Innana or Cernunnosâ€"than I do in YHWH/Jehovah/Allah.  Christianity is not special, it's just one more mythology out of thousands, and the Bible has no more meaning than any other so-called "holy" book.

Point 3 is not a matter of evidence, and certainly there are many Christians (and other believers) who would justify the existence of suffering et al. as being only "part of some greater plan".  The closest this gets to any usefulness is that one cannot posit both an all-merciful or all-just deity which does not take action against atrocities done in its name.

Point 4 is more or less subsumed in point 9, although point 9 is better phrased.  Point 5 is similar, but self-contradictory in that some level of belief that there is a god is assumed in there being one that 'hides' itself.

Points 6 and 7 are non sequitursâ€"science (of which biology is one, so it doesn't need to be listed separately) only talks about what is either demonstrable, or at least in accord with available observations, and both evolution and the age of the universe are simple observations that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they were "divinely" instigated or guided.

Atheism really is as simple as "The evidence is not sufficient or non-existent."

yep.....this one is one slippery....er......nah.....just another typical nu.....xian.

When one call the evolution an "erroneous theory" it's time to simply walk out the room and close the door behind you...there is no conversation with these. It's like talking to a mousetrap....it's just wood a little paint and a cheap spring.

Quote from: aitm on July 05, 2018, 09:47:30 PM
When one call the evolution an "erroneous theory" it's time to simply walk out the room and close the door behind you...there is no conversation with these. It's like talking to a mousetrap....it's just wood a little paint and a cheap spring.

...and the second mouse gets the cheese.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 05, 2018, 01:07:05 PM

The problem is that Christians claim to be transformed, born again, new creatures, better than they were before. So they should be better than the general population. Yet we find that the opposite is true. Churches are filled with the most judgmental, hypocritical assholes around. So yes, that is an issue with your faith. But no, I do not consider the God of the Bible to be an asshole because his believers are assholes. I consider him to be an asshole on his own merits.

Does this means God does not exist?

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 05, 2018, 01:07:05 PM

Of course you're going to cherrypick the least horrible examples you can find. God commanded the Hebrews to attack and kill nations that had made no threats towards them. God ordered men, women, children, and even livestock to be killed, except when he allowed the women to be taken as "wives" and the others as slaves. Hell, when God sent Moses to demand the Hebrews be released by the Pharaoh, God hardened the Pharaoh's heart just so he could display his power by poisoning their water, killing their livestock, and killing children, among other things. The God of the Bible is an inhumane monster, little different from the Greek gods.

Not at all, I agree with the descriptions from the Bible. Why would I cherrypick.
Why your bias even before I said anything?
Do you hear yourself?

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 05, 2018, 01:07:05 PM

Who was it who planted a tree with cursed fruit right in the middle of the garden meant as the only source of food for people with no concept of right and wrong? Who was it who decided that the only solution to those people falling for the trap of his own creation was to curse the ENTIRE EARTH, along with all of their descendants? Who was it who decided that allowing those two to continue with the plan of populating the earth was a good idea rather than making them infertile and starting over again fresh? No, God does not get to avoid responsibility for creating a world filled with misery, and especially not be passing that blame onto us. A teenager masturbating the shower has no relevance to a blue footed booby mother allowing one of its young to starve to death so it can focus all of its resources on its other chick. God's design, God's responsibility.

I find it interesting that you have a much better way to create a world than what your distortion of Genesis says?
You are actually a very holy divinity.
Idol worship perhaps?
It really seems you also never read the Bible.
But we will get there

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 05, 2018, 01:07:05 PM



I'm lumping these two together because they're essentially the same point. First of all, biology is a science, so I don't know why you're listing them together like they're separate fields. Second, several sciences hinge on evolution, including medicine and psychology. For instance, do you know why people get vaccinations every year? It's because micro-organisms evolve, and what works as a defense against one strain doesn't work against another. When vaccinations make the defenses of one strain ineffective, another strain takes its place and takes dominance. That's how evolution works; organisms responding to environmental pressures.

Also, the age of the universe does put a huge cog in a Biblical literalist's theology. The two creation stories in Genesis do not match reality. They're much, much too short and all in the wrong order. Not to mention the lack of death meaning that all the dinosaurs would have to have lived in recent history, which is absolutely laughable.

I disagree, no scientific fact hinges on Evolution.
This is only an opinion.
Viruses that turns resistant to certain environmental factors, has sweet nothing to do with evolution.
All that happened is that the Virus that had resistance survived, and those that did not died.
You still have the same virus.
to clain this as evidence of evolution is realy so far fetched, one can call that a religion worse than the accusation of the existence of father Christmas.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 05, 2018, 01:07:05 PM

You're missing the point again. The same arguments used as "evidence"* for the Christian God can and have been used as evidence for every other god. Look up a video on YouTube of just any random Muslim apologist, and I guarantee you at least 90% of the arguments they make will sound very familiar to you. I have no more reason to believe in the Christian God than to believe in any other god. And yes, that is a big problem for you if you want to convince people your religion is true. Not only do you have to prove that a god exists, you have to prove that YOUR god exists.

*Note, evidence and arguments are NOT the same things.

Talk about missing the point, What the heck does a Muslim have to do with anything I said.
Again you are attempting to generalize to somehow paint YHWH and the Islamic Allah as the same God, and the Bible the same as the Quran.
Why do you even go this direction?
Secondly, all I heard from you is argument after argument, and not a single bit of evidence.
Who are you preaching to?

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 05, 2018, 01:30:54 PM
I really hope you're joking about that.  Attacking a theory so firmly supported to boost what I can most charitably call conjecture about the nature of the universe is a fool's errand.  It also pretty much guarantees you'll be forever regarded as both a science-denying fool and a credulous religious bumpkin by both atheists and a sizable chunk of Christians as well.

I really hope you are joking about that too.
There is no evidence that evolution ever worked.
Only the wishful thinking of atheists calling them self biologists that think the more they claim evolution was proven, the more people will believe it is a science.
I do not know if you ever went and looked at the facts set out by BEBE in Darwins' black box.
Then you should go and read what the Atheist evolutionists use as explanations to contra BEBE's studies.
It is silly and incredible to think that educated men can even believe themself on the rubbish they try to sell.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 05, 2018, 01:37:21 PM
A quick interjection here, Mousetrap.  You do not have a 'theory' but a hypothesis.  A theory has already been proven to be true.  Yes, one can, with proper data and testing, disprove a theory--but the new theory is still a proven theory.  A hypothesis is a statement that has not been test yet.  There has not been a single theory that god exists yet.

Oh, but you are wrong.
My theory was proven.
Science actually proven it correct for more than 200 years.
Every detail I found about the origins of the Universe described over 4000 years ago was proven correct by scientists who calls themself atheists!.
But we will get there.

Quote from: aitm on July 05, 2018, 09:47:30 PM
When one call the evolution an "erroneous theory" it's time to simply walk out the room and close the door behind you...there is no conversation with these. It's like talking to a mousetrap....it's just wood a little paint and a cheap spring.

...And then to claim, I was openminded and listened to all the facts and came to a conclusion....
If I were to say what you say, I will be the laughing stock of the Atheist world for believing in God!
Yet, when I am openminded and know I listened to Atheists and came to a conclusion, then I can critisize you.
Dont you think it is nice if I am willing to investigate, and you put your head in a hole and let life pass you by?
Why did everyone promise me Atheists are openminded and intelligent?
Am I Wrong in such an assumption?
Are you an example of what the atheist mind reallt consists of...ignorance!!!

I think Mousetrap has shown at this point who he is.  I thought he was going to keep up the deception a little while longer before revealing outright that he is an low information fanatic, but this evolution thing made him lose control of himself.

Quote from: SGOS on July 06, 2018, 07:40:35 AM
I think Mousetrap has shown at this point who he is.  I thought he was going to keep up the deception a little while longer before revealing outright that he is an low information fanatic, but this evolution thing made him lose control of himself.

Are you also just going to walk away because you dont like what others know and observed?
Or are you an open minded Atheist that investigate all claims?
I sincerely hope you are one of the intellectual ones.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 05:10:37 AM
I disagree, no scientific fact hinges on Evolution.
This is only an opinion.
Viruses that turns resistant to certain environmental factors, has sweet nothing to do with evolution.
All that happened is that the Virus that had resistance survived, and those that did not died.
You still have the same virus.
to clain this as evidence of evolution is realy so far fetched, one can call that a religion worse than the accusation of the existence of father Christmas.

Verily, I say unto you, have faith---blind faith.  And so you do.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 05:22:23 AM
Oh, but you are wrong.
My theory was proven.
Science actually proven it correct for more than 200 years.
Every detail I found about the origins of the Universe described over 4000 years ago was proven correct by scientists who calls themself atheists!.
But we will get there.

No, it is you who is wrong.  You have no theory about any god.  You do have speculation, which I even hesitate to call a legit hypothesis. 

Quote from: aitm on July 05, 2018, 09:45:10 PM
yep.....this one is one slippery....er......nah.....just another typical nu.....xian.

I don't even think this guy is necessarily a Christian, I think he just came here to say the most blatantly wrong things in the hope of pissing people off.

Which apparently he is being slightly successful at. The only thing more pathetic than that is the people here who are agreeing with him...








Like, it's not possible to be unintentionally wrong about literally everything you open you mouth about... right?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 07:51:12 AM
Are you also just going to walk away because you dont like what others know and observed?
Or are you an open minded Atheist that investigate all claims?
I sincerely hope you are one of the intellectual ones.

You seem to assume that you are the first theist that has come here to berate the ignorant atheists.  You seem to think you are the first to come here with your observations.  Read back on dozens of old threads to see that that is not even close.  Your wonderful, eyeopening new ideas of yours are simply tired platitudes from a totally deluded theist.  You are simply turning into a chew toy--and a tired one at that.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 06, 2018, 08:57:14 AM
No, it is you who is wrong.  You have no theory about any god.  You do have speculation, which I even hesitate to call a legit hypothesis.

But you did not even see what I will write about my theory.
Please be patient, your call will be answered.
and keep your mind open to other things except what you want to hear.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 06, 2018, 09:00:56 AM
You seem to assume that you are the first theist that has come here to berate the ignorant atheists.  You seem to think you are the first to come here with your observations.  Read back on dozens of old threads to see that that is not even close.  Your wonderful, eyeopening new ideas of yours are simply tired platitudes from a totally deluded theist.  You are simply turning into a chew toy--and a tired one at that.

And again, if I read the arguments made by Atheists on why the Bible can not reconcile with science, I am also not very impressed with both the Atheists and Apologists.
But again, why the preconceived bias?
are you an open minded Atheist, or does it hurt to think that there might be some truth in the Bible you dont know about?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:13:57 AM
And again, if I read the arguments made by Atheists on why the Bible can not reconcile with science, I am also not very impressed with both the Atheists and Apologists.
But again, why the preconceived bias?
are you an open minded Atheist, or does it hurt to think that there might be some truth in the Bible you dont know about?

Prattle on, please do.  Have you read what this group of atheists have to say?  I don't think so.  Looking into our past threads would be too much work, it seems.  And you seem so very impressed with your new and radical ideas that are so obvious that they will 'wow!' us into acceptance of them.  Yet, if you look back at the history of the postings on this site, you are not new, your ideas are not new and your approach is not new.  You are using a very much used approach--so used as to be overused, actually, and tired. 

So, okay, the suspense is killing me--please reveal your life-changing prattle..............er, information.

But who said my theory is a new one.
Actually it dates from 1755, and 1666.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 07:51:12 AM
Are you also just going to walk away because you dont like what others know and observed?
Or are you an open minded Atheist that investigate all claims?
I sincerely hope you are one of the intellectual ones.

I'll walk away because there is nothing new here.  I was raised Lutheran, but with a well meaning Baptist grandmother who started feeding me this nonsense when I could barely walk.  I live in America and am surrounded by fundamentalists on every street corner preaching to anyone who will listen, and I've heard your bullshit for longer than you have been spouting it yourself.  Close minded, bored, or simply whatever.  I don't have to listen to religious dogma for the rest of my life so I can have approval from the likes of you.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 06, 2018, 08:59:31 AM
Like, it's not possible to be unintentionally wrong about literally everything you open you mouth about... right?

I'm not so sure.  If you are describing perfection in ignorance, then maybe it's only an ideal to strive for.  But I have met a few people who work pretty hard at it.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:13:57 AM
And again, if I read the arguments made by Atheists on why the Bible can not reconcile with science, I am also not very impressed with both the Atheists and Apologists.
But again, why the preconceived bias?
are you an open minded Atheist, or does it hurt to think that there might be some truth in the Bible you dont know about?

I love it when a believer throws out the phrase 'open minded'... inevitably it means "why won't you take my unsupported assertions seriously?"

Whether or not the Bible is scientifically accurate is a matter of simple reading.  Since it asserts many things known to be factually inaccurate, it is therefore not reconcilable overall with science, although individual statements therein may be valid.

There are unquestionably some true statements in the Bible, but the same can be said for every other "holy" book ever written, and a great number of works of pure fiction, so the presence of some truth in the Bible is of no relevance, unless you're going to admit that the Iliad qualifies as evidence for the existence of Zeus, Hera et alâ€"or that the actual historical figure of Gilgamesh means that the eponymous Epic is factually accurate.

Speaking of factually accurate, your signature is not.  Evolution is a well-demonstrated scientific theory, not a "religion".  Religions don't have reams of independently verifiable, incontrovertible evidence to support them.  Biological evolution does.

Quote from: trdsf on July 06, 2018, 10:39:52 AM
I love it when a believer throws out the phrase 'open minded'... inevitably it means "why won't you take my unsupported assertions seriously?"

I think accusing others of being close minded implies that the accuser is open minded, but I doubt that the accusers have given much thought to the likelihood of that.  Since they believe what they believe, it appears to them they must be open minded, and what they believe must be so, because they could not have arrived at their belief in any other way than by being open minded. 

Their reasoning is a perfect circle, and every time they go around the circle, it always comes out the same way.  Sensing that the outcome will always be the same, they conclude that they have discovered an ultimate truth, and they feel like they are open minded, because in the face of doubt, they are always open minded enough to take another trip around their beloved circle and prove the "truth" to themselves one more time.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 05:19:19 AM
I really hope you are joking about that too.
There is no evidence that evolution ever worked.
Only the wishful thinking of atheists calling them self biologists that think the more they claim evolution was proven, the more people will believe it is a science.
I do not know if you ever went and looked at the facts set out by BEBE in Darwins' black box.
Then you should go and read what the Atheist evolutionists use as explanations to contra BEBE's studies.
It is silly and incredible to think that educated men can even believe themself on the rubbish they try to sell.

Don't you mean Behe?  I was almost convinced you were genuine until that little slip.  1/10 troll.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 04:58:35 AM
Does this means God does not exist?

Sorry, I don't think you know what "truth", "exists" or "realty" mean.  This is a common ape-man problem.  Doesn't know if he should eat the fruit of the banana or the peal.

You seems legitimate at first, but are just a troll.  You are avoiding responding to me ... and that is a tell also.  So what handle did you use when you were here before ... can you reveal your secret identity? ... See What's My Line circa 1965.

I wonder why people laugh at creationists?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 03:09:20 AM
I would like to know:
What was the ONE THING that made you decide that there is no God who created everything?
If it was a collection of issues that build up to your decision, don't give it all to me, tell me what was the last straw that broke the camels' back.

You are asking the wrong question. The reason I de-converted and the reason why I remain an atheist are different. The (non-existent) historicity of Jesus was the final nail in the coffin for me. No amount of history at this point would convert me back into being a theist. Can someone find and post Star Trek's Q meme on why many of us can't accept the existence of a god, much less the God of Abraham?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 09:28:50 AM
I will leave this thread tomorrow and will continue on another where I will show the reasons why I became a Bible believing Christian.
But in the meantime I was pondering upon the answers some of you would receive from Christians.

They will say the following.This means that because you found a dislike in people of religion, you ascribe the same attributes to their God. (because my brother is in jail, I am also a convict. :surprise:This is an assumption that God had no right to decimate 7 nations who practiced child sacrifice and sex worship and He never warned them beforehand. Taken superficially, these Biblical descriptions are indeed a flaw in the character of God, but did you ever looked at what the narratives explain what the reasons was to destroy these nations? Do you know that this same God also prohibited war on neighboring nations and only acted when Israel was threatened by tyrants?God never created mankind to die. He created Adam and Eve as immortals who was without sin, and Man changed his physical existence when they sinned against the instruction given by God. The reason why we grow sick, age and die, is because of our material existence we changed into after our fall. I dont want to believe in a God that is physical too. I will however accept that God will interact with His creation, and will even visit humans on Earth. There are many such references in the Bible too.Well, the one in the Bible appeared to Adam, Henoch, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, David etc. From further narratives this God even sent His "Word" to Earth to be born as a man so He could live among us.When we look at Science and Biology, one can see the work of God as he created everything.Evolution is an erroneous theory, and the age of the Universe is not evidence that there is no Creator. It actually shows the immense creation done by a Creator. And too many assumptions, once you reconcile these contradictions, the answers are also proof of bias towards the Bible. Anyone can use tactical thought to twist the intended message, but when investigating shows that the so called contradiction is only due to the accuser to produce a contradiction, and not factual, be prepared to be identified as a deceiver.This is an assumption of someone in the room looking for a droppings as evidence of a mouse, whilst he don't see the elephant.

Now, I will only use 2 of the above in future, take note, these answers are not solid support to prove the existence of a divine presence in our universe, and I can understand why an Atheist will reject the above reasoning.
Just thought I would show you what arguments I will not use when I place my observations on the floor.

So, is a mousetrap irreducibly complex?  I suspect you may believe you have special knowledge about this question.

*Sees five separate replies to my one post, none of which address anything I said or add anything anything to the conversation*

(https://i.imgur.com/9qArFCp.gif?noredirect)

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:39:25 AM
But who said my theory is a new one.
Actually it dates from 1755, and 1666.

Then chances are high that we've already seen it. You need something newer.

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 06, 2018, 06:32:17 PM
I suspect you may believe you have special knowledge about this question.

LOL...yeah he has lots and lots of "special knowledge"......also can be found at many mental institutions.

Quote from: aitm on July 07, 2018, 05:00:24 AM
LOL...yeah he has lots and lots of "special knowledge"......also can be found at many mental institutions.

You mean 'mental institutions'/clergy...................

Quote from: SGOS on July 06, 2018, 11:06:29 AM
I think accusing others of being close minded implies that the accuser is open minded, but I doubt that the accusers have given much thought to the likelihood of that.  Since they believe what they believe, it appears to them they must be open minded, and what they believe must be so, because they could not have arrived at their belief in any other way than by being open minded. 

Their reasoning is a perfect circle, and every time they go around the circle, it always comes out the same way.  Sensing that the outcome will always be the same, they conclude that they have discovered an ultimate truth, and they feel like they are open minded, because in the face of doubt, they are always open minded enough to take another trip around their beloved circle and prove the "truth" to themselves one more time.

I have never told anyone to listen to my views and denied theirs.
What I learned on this forum is that it is Atheists that DONT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING ELSE BUT THEIR VIEWS.
Well, I would expect an atheist to listen to my view, and to accept or reject.
Now that is 'Open minded".
But the way I experience atheists is "I dont want to hear anything but what I believe".
not very intelligent indeed!
However, I was like that 10 years ago.
Perhaps it has to do with the will to know as much as possible, or to live in a cave because I am sure there are monsters out there.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 06, 2018, 11:14:54 PM
Then chances are high that we've already seen it. You need something newer.

Now, If you have seen it, why say the Bible is not correct in relation to science?
Bias?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 10:31:26 AM
I have never told anyone to listen to my views and denied theirs.
What I learned on this forum is that it is Atheists that DONT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING ELSE BUT THEIR VIEWS.
Well, I would expect an atheist to listen to my view, and to accept or reject.
Now that is 'Open minded".
But the way I experience atheists is "I dont want to hear anything but what I believe".
not very intelligent indeed!
However, I was like that 10 years ago.
Perhaps it has to do with the will to know as much as possible, or to live in a cave because I am sure there are monsters out there.

As mentioned before, I don't 'believe' anything.  I deal with data and evidence.  Read my reposting about Richard Carrier's book about the historicity of jesus.

Seems to me that theists are the ones who like to live in a cave (womb) because they believe in monsters---believe in god or the boggie men will get you!!!  There are no monsters except for those of your own making.  Seems to me you have some growing up to do.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 10:32:54 AM
Now, If you have seen it, why say the Bible is not correct in relation to science?
Bias?

Not bias, but facts.  Which seems to be something theists don't believe in.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 08, 2018, 10:44:16 AM
As mentioned before, I don't 'believe' anything.  I deal with data and evidence.  Read my reposting about Richard Carrier's book about the historicity of jesus.

Seems to me that theists are the ones who like to live in a cave (womb) because they believe in monsters---believe in god or the boggie men will get you!!!  There are no monsters except for those of your own making.  Seems to me you have some growing up to do.

That cave, is the cave Plato though he had escaped (Homer's cave, doh!).

Philosophy in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPtYZxgMkzg

Greatest Homer quote ... "what is mind? .. doesn't matter .. what is matter? .. never mind"

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 08, 2018, 10:44:16 AM
As mentioned before, I don't 'believe' anything.  I deal with data and evidence.  Read my reposting about Richard Carrier's book about the historicity of jesus.

It's doubtful that he was listening to what you were saying.  He was probably thinking about how open minded he is, and how much more he knows than others.

Quote from: SGOS on July 08, 2018, 11:40:47 AM
It's doubtful that he was listening to what you were saying.  He was probably thinking about how open minded he is, and how much more he knows than others.

Echo chambers are like that.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 05:10:37 AM
I disagree, no scientific fact hinges on Evolution.
This is only an opinion.
Viruses that turns resistant to certain environmental factors, has sweet nothing to do with evolution.
All that happened is that the Virus that had resistance survived, and those that did not died.
You still have the same virus.
to clain this as evidence of evolution is realy so far fetched, one can call that a religion worse than the accusation of the existence of father Christmas.

I...what?

Quote from: SGOS on July 08, 2018, 11:40:47 AM
It's doubtful that he was listening to what you were saying.  He was probably thinking about how open minded he is, and how much more he knows than others.

Probably right.  That seems to be the norm for most 'open minded' theists that come here.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 05:10:37 AM
I disagree, no scientific fact hinges on Evolution.
...

This is correct.  The Biological Theory of Evolution "hinges" on a collection of facts.  That collection contains all relevant known empirical evidence.  The converse is not true.  The facts supporting a scientific theory are not dependent on the theory.

Perhaps you should study the scientific method, starting with a grade school level textbook.   

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 05:10:37 AM
...
This is only an opinion.
...

What is "this"?.  Using nouns instead of pronouns makes for more effective communication.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 05:10:37 AM
...
Viruses that turns resistant to certain environmental factors, has sweet nothing to do with evolution.
...

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the Biological Theory of Evolution.  Before proceeding, I can only suggest you research what it is and what it is not.  Otherwise, you run a strong risk of demonstrating willful ignorance, a common intellectual disorder infecting many theists.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 05:10:37 AM
...
All that happened is that the Virus that had resistance survived, and those that did not died.
You still have the same virus.
...

The depth of your curiosity is not surprising.  The actual empirical evidence demonstrates that the surviving viruses contain different DNA than the non-replicating viruses.  They are not the same virus.

See?  You have just been given information that may increase your understanding and knowledge.  Whether you absorb this information and consider it with intellectual honesty and the concomitant curiosity is solely up to you.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 05:10:37 AM
...
to clain this as evidence of evolution is realy so far fetched, one can call that a religion worse than the accusation of the existence of father Christmas.

I also suspect you are deficient in understanding evidence compilation and subsequent application of rational thinking.  Why am I not surprised?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:13:57 AM
And again, if I read the arguments made by Atheists on why the Bible can not reconcile with science, I am also not very impressed with both the Atheists and Apologists.
But again, why the preconceived bias?
are you an open minded Atheist, or does it hurt to think that there might be some truth in the Bible you dont know about?

Projection with a side salad of a false dichotomy fallacy.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 03:09:20 AM
I would like to know:
What was the ONE THING that made you decide that there is no God who created everything?
If it was a collection of issues that build up to your decision, don't give it all to me, tell me what was the last straw that broke the camels' back.

I never made the decision that there is no god or gods.

My position is, that theists' claims have not met their burden of proof for me to justify belief that there are gods.

My atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one. I will continue to disbelieve the claim that a god or gods exists, until such time theists are able to support their claims.

What will convince me? Demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid and sound logic. But instead, all we ever seem to get are quotes from ancient texts, personal experiences, fallacious arguments, etc.

I ask you theists, what made you believe that the god who created everything is your god?
Deism would be more logical if you want to believe in a god.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 10:31:26 AM
Well, I would expect an atheist to listen to my view, and to accept or reject.
Now that is 'Open minded".

This is simply due to your ignorance. You think you have something original to offer. You don't. Your blathering about is the same shit we have been hearing for years, in fact, it is the same blathering the scientific community has been hearing for two hundred years. You have NO new ideas, you have NO new insight, you have NO originality, YOU have NOTHING to offer but the same tiresome nonsense.

SO trying to play the ole, " you don't want to "listen to me"...is oh "boo the fuck hoo". We have heard this bullshit a thousand times and its like talking to retards.

Learn some real science, come up with something original or get the fuck out. Seriously, you're a babbling moron. As soon as you labeled evolution as   some type of "unprovable concept" you lost. Go back to Sunday School and spread your shit on the cookies you feed to two year olds. Really, just go, you can't win hear, you were never in the race..you were never even suited up for the run...hell you can't even get in the stadium.

Quote from: aitm on July 08, 2018, 04:09:38 PM
This is simply due to your ignorance. You think you have something original to offer. You don't. Your blathering about is the same shit we have been hearing for years, in fact, it is the same blathering the scientific community has been hearing for two hundred years. You have NO new ideas, you have NO new insight, you have NO originality, YOU have NOTHING to offer but the same tiresome nonsense.

SO trying to play the ole, " you don't want to "listen to me"...is oh "boo the fuck hoo". We have heard this bullshit a thousand times and its like talking to retards.

Every theist that comes to an atheist forum believes they have the one magical argument, that we have never heard, and that will convince us.

As if we haven't critically evaluated every argument theists have come up with.

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 08, 2018, 12:41:18 PM
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the Biological Theory of Evolution.  Before proceeding, I can only suggest you research what it is and what it is not.  Otherwise, you run a strong risk of demonstrating willful ignorance, a common intellectual disorder infecting many theists.

I'm sure mousetrap will rush right over to Answers in Genesis to do some research...

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 08, 2018, 12:41:18 PM
See?  You have just been given information that may increase your understanding and knowledge.  Whether you absorb this information and consider it with intellectual honesty and the concomitant curiosity is solely up to you.

You can lead a theist to knowledge but you can't make him think.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 10:32:54 AM
Now, If you have seen it, why say the Bible is not correct in relation to science?
Bias?

You don't get to call it "bias" just because I've seen a lot of theist arguments before and rejected them. You don't seem to be open to the possibility that, no matter how attractive or correct these arguments or beliefs of yours seem on the surface, that there might be some flaw in them that destroys their validity. That's not being open minded, dearheart.

Being open minded requires you to be open to the possibility that you are wrong. That realization in itself drives one to be reflective on one's own beliefs and drives them to examine why they hold those beliefs in the first place, and when that happens, investigation and curiosity take over and you find evidence and reasoning to place those beliefs on firmer ground, or find reason to drop them because they are ill-supported. I've been at this a while, so I've pretty much constructed a Fortress of Knowledge that has passed every test I could come up with to destroy it.

I have yet to find a non-skeptic who has ever seriously challenged that fortress because such people are in the habit of stopping at a very shallow level of reasoning. As such, none of their attacks have ever found purchase because my fortress is stronger than it appears, and I have already come up with answers to similar challenges. Also, their own world views are comparatively hastily erected and rickety; my own challenges to their ideas receive no satisfactory answer, because they don't know what a proper answer would look like. There have been serious challenges to my fortress, but not by non-skeptics. They're always from people who have spent at least as much time thinking deeply about their subject matter as I have.

I suggest you try to get into the habit of trying to prove yourself wrong, because that is the key to true open mindedness.

Religion is as attractive to me like head lice to a bald guy...

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 08, 2018, 06:52:44 PM
You don't get to call it "bias" just because I've seen a lot of theist arguments before and rejected them. You don't seem to be open to the possibility that, no matter how attractive or correct these arguments or beliefs of yours seem on the surface, that there might be some flaw in them that destroys their validity. That's not being open minded, dearheart.

Being open minded requires you to be open to the possibility that you are wrong. That realization in itself drives one to be reflective on one's own beliefs and drives them to examine why they hold those beliefs in the first place, and when that happens, investigation and curiosity take over and you find evidence and reasoning to place those beliefs on firmer ground, or find reason to drop them because they are ill-supported. I've been at this a while, so I've pretty much constructed a Fortress of Knowledge that has passed every test I could come up with to destroy it.

I have yet to find a non-skeptic who has ever seriously challenged that fortress because such people are in the habit of stopping at a very shallow level of reasoning. As such, none of their attacks have ever found purchase because my fortress is stronger than it appears, and I have already come up with answers to similar challenges. Also, their own world views are comparatively hastily erected and rickety; my own challenges to their ideas receive no satisfactory answer, because they don't know what a proper answer would look like. There have been serious challenges to my fortress, but not by non-skeptics. They're always from people who have spent at least as much time thinking deeply about their subject matter as I have.

I suggest you try to get into the habit of trying to prove yourself wrong, because that is the key to true open mindedness.

Well, I hope I will not disappoint.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 08, 2018, 06:52:44 PM

I suggest you try to get into the habit of trying to prove yourself wrong, because that is the key to true open mindedness.

For what it is worth,I tried to prove the Bible wrong, and for that reason found out that I was wrong.
The question is now...what If you find out you were wrong about the Biblical description of the origins of the universe?

And just to end this argument off, I, as an atheist, discovered the Bible was correct. And I was wrong.
So, does this count for your recipe of testing failure?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 07:02:42 AM
For what it is worth,I tried to prove the Bible wrong, and for that reason found out that I was wrong.
The question is now...what If you find out you were wrong about the Biblical description of the origins of the universe?

And just to end this argument off, I, as an atheist, discovered the Bible was correct. And I was wrong.
So, does this count for your recipe of testing failure?

Well, first, if you consider the Christian bible is correct, you aren't an atheist.  You have the right to change your mind of course.  Just that you should have good reasons.

Second, so exactly what part of the bible changed your mind?  Hypothetically, it must have been impressive.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 07:24:06 AM
Second, so exactly what part of the bible changed your mind?  Hypothetically, it must have been impressive.

I don't think he's going to get to that until he's done talking about how he's going to tell us about his experience at some unspecified time in the future.  It could be a month at the rate he's going, and I actually think he has no intention of telling us anything.

Quote from: SGOS on July 09, 2018, 08:10:17 AM
I don't think he's going to get to that until he's done talking about how he's going to tell us about his experience at some unspecified time in the future.  It could be a month at the rate he's going, and I actually think he has no intention of telling us anything.

The question was to point out that he can't.  Like a theist even COULD.  LOL!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 07:02:42 AM
For what it is worth,I tried to prove the Bible wrong, and for that reason found out that I was wrong.
The question is now...what If you find out you were wrong about the Biblical description of the origins of the universe?

It would be interesting, and actually pretty exciting. But I doubt it. A lot of people a lot smarter and more informed than the both of us have been through the Bible with a fine-toothed comb, and there is no scientific insight in the Bible that is both true and non-obvious.

Quote
And just to end this argument off, I, as an atheist, discovered the Bible was correct. And I was wrong.
So, does this count for your recipe of testing failure?

Sorta-kinda, but I think you are not really doing what you should be doing. The phrase, "discovered the Bible was correct," is indicative of very non-skeptical thinking. Note my language, "placing those beliefs on firmer ground." This is not saying that I discovered that they were correct, because that is epistomologically impossible. Such "discovery" also seems rather all-in-one-incident, rather than a continuous refinement. My fortress is so secure because it is the work of four decades of thought and challenge. Thinking that some idea is "correct" is a trap for the unwery and unskeptical.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 07:02:42 AM
For what it is worth,I tried to prove the Bible wrong, and for that reason found out that I was wrong.

Of course you did, we are very familiar with your kind. When you pass the third grade, come back and try again.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 10:32:54 AM
Now, If you have seen it, why say the Bible is not correct in relation to science?
Bias?

Well...if he's seen it and he's an atheist now, then we can deduce that...

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 10:31:26 AMWhat I learned on this forum is that it is Atheists that DONT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING ELSE BUT THEIR VIEWS.

Or...and bear with me here, they're just sick of getting godspammed by every two-bit evangelical on the planet.

What convinced me? Well, I never had a god belief. But when I was a kid, I saw my grandparents praying to someone who wasn't there, who they called "god". I thought it was absurd.

Quote from: Atheon on July 09, 2018, 10:30:22 PM
What convinced me? Well, I never had a god belief. But when I was a kid, I saw my grandparents praying to someone who wasn't there, who they called "god". I thought it was absurd.

But surely it requires more faith to believe that they're talking to someone who wasn't there than that they're talking to the triune godhead that breathed the universe?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 07:02:42 AM
For what it is worth,I tried to prove the Bible wrong, and for that reason found out that I was wrong.
The question is now...what If you find out you were wrong about the Biblical description of the origins of the universe?

And just to end this argument off, I, as an atheist, discovered the Bible was correct. And I was wrong.
So, does this count for your recipe of testing failure?

You have until your next reply to tell us exactly what proof you found in favor of the Bible before I put you on ignore. I'm sure it'll just knock our collective socks off and convert us all immediately.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 07:24:06 AM
Well, first, if you consider the Christian bible is correct, you aren't an atheist.  You have the right to change your mind of course.  Just that you should have good reasons.

Second, so exactly what part of the bible changed your mind?  Hypothetically, it must have been impressive.

The creation epoch.

Quote from: SGOS on July 09, 2018, 08:10:17 AM
I don't think he's going to get to that until he's done talking about how he's going to tell us about his experience at some unspecified time in the future.  It could be a month at the rate he's going, and I actually think he has no intention of telling us anything.

No, by the weekend I will be done, perhaps at the latest next week Friday we will finish on what Science says about the origins of the universe.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 09:08:26 AM
The question was to point out that he can't.  Like a theist even COULD.  LOL!

I can show you a picture of any living human, and thus show you a demi-god, but then y'all already know that.  Hate of humanity is what most humans stand for.  They can't stand their own kind.

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 09, 2018, 09:03:03 PM
Well...if he's seen it and he's an atheist now, then we can deduce that...

Deduce what?  That he has looked at superstition and accepted it?  That he has looked at rational thought and rejected it?  Both, it seems.

I wonder if he goes to a mosque and preaches this shit?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 13, 2018, 11:03:07 AM
I wonder if he goes to a mosque and preaches this shit?

Its possible.  All *I* know is what I say in reply.  One never knows what others do after or before being here do one?   I would bet potato chips that he does...

Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 11:19:14 AM
Its possible.  All *I* know is what I say in reply.  One never knows what others do after or before being here do one?   I would bet potato chips that he does...

He's still breathing, so maybe not.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 13, 2018, 11:20:02 AM
He's still breathing, so maybe not.

Try stuffing more potato chips down his throat.  I bet he can't hold his breath forever.  'Another one bites the dust'  LOL!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 10, 2018, 03:20:51 AM
No, by the weekend I will be done, perhaps at the latest next week Friday we will finish on what Science says about the origins of the universe.

Oh, no.  You're already done.  You haven't the faintest idea what science is and how it works.  And since you've been provided with the current scientific understanding and you reject it, you've descended into willful ignorance.

Quote from: trdsf on July 13, 2018, 04:07:05 PM
Oh, no.  You're already done.  You haven't the faintest idea what science is and how it works.  And since you've been provided with the current scientific understanding and you reject it, you've descended into willful ignorance.

Typical voter.  They must have them in South Africa too ;-(

Quote from: trdsf on July 13, 2018, 04:07:05 PM
Oh, no.  You're already done.  You haven't the faintest idea what science is and how it works.  And since you've been provided with the current scientific understanding and you reject it, you've descended into willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance is one of the saddest of human failures.  To have facts at hand and ignore them is proof of denial of information available to us all.  And when we have facts at hand, and some people deny them, that is a good reason to ignore those people.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 17, 2018, 01:53:51 AM
Willful ignorance is one of the saddest of human failures.  To have facts at hand and ignore them is proof of denial of information available to us all.  And when we have facts at hand, and some people deny them, that is a good reason to ignore those people.

I agree!
Do you?

Mousetrap, you and any other Biblical theist needs to see this, if you haven't already ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE

Baruch, Loved it man!
Look at this one, it is Hillarious Clinton!!!
God Bless you! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1CPqR5fUT8)

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 19, 2018, 08:02:14 AM
Baruch, Loved it man!
Look at this one, it is Hillarious Clinton!!!
God Bless you! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1CPqR5fUT8)

Yes, derived from the holy scripture of Lenny Bruce ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on July 19, 2018, 12:37:34 PM
Yes, derived from the holy scripture of Lenny Bruce ;-)

Nice to see you discussing things
With one of your own. 
Please continue and leave
The rest of us alone.

As you are theist and happy in your thoughts
And we atheists are pleased to logically be not.
Would you consider, to remember
Than most of us are happy to think nought
Of God.

LOL!

Never a problem for me to ignore poor theists (once they show themselves) or poor atheists.  MikeCL however isn't one of them.  He brings more the just his opinion.

Quote from: Baruch on July 21, 2018, 09:28:34 AM
Never a problem for me to ignore poor theists (once they show themselves) or poor atheists.  MikeCL however isn't one of them.  He brings more the just his opinion.

A nice compliment to him...

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 08:33:06 AM
A nice compliment to him...

He brought me here.  So thank him already ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on July 25, 2018, 12:58:52 PM
He brought me here.  So thank him already ;-)

Really?  I'm not sure whether to thank him or kick his butt.  But you've been impressive lately.  So I'll thank him.  I suppose I wouldn't be a "saber tooth cat" (and good of the designers to get that right instead of "saber tooth tiger") now without you.  MOL!

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 01:06:58 PM
Really?  I'm not sure whether to thank him or kick his butt.  But you've been impressive lately.  So I'll thank him.  I suppose I wouldn't be a "saber tooth cat" (and good of the designers to get that right instead of "saber tooth tiger") now without you.  MOL!

You would have been more evolved if you had accepted my kudos (and that of others).  You are just hiding how shy you are.  Bashful even.

Quote from: Baruch on July 25, 2018, 01:14:30 PM
You would have been more evolved if you had accepted my kudos (and that of others).  You are just hiding how shy you are.  Bashful even.

Well, evolution goes at its own pace.  Far be it for me to direct it.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 05:18:56 PM
Well, evolution goes at its own pace.  Far be it for me to direct it.

Watch out for giant meteors and ice ages ... Mr Mammoth.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 03:09:20 AM
I would like to know:
What was the ONE THING that made you decide that there is no God who created everything?
If it was a collection of issues that build up to your decision, don't give it all to me, tell me what was the last straw that broke the camels' back.

The one thing (if you can call it that)  is that nothing I've come across in my whole life so far has made me decide that there gods.   Let alone gods with the power to create everything.

If it can be said that "ONE THING" stopped me from believing in a God, I would have to say it was logic.

The theistic type of Christian God is logically inconsistent, and so it cannot exist. If it cannot logically exist then it does not, in fact, exist.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 27, 2018, 03:56:18 PM
If it can be said that "ONE THING" stopped me from believing in a God, I would have to say it was logic.

The theistic type of Christian God is logically inconsistent, and so it cannot exist. If it cannot logically exist then it does not, in fact, exist.

There is no shame in being Vulcan.

Quote from: Baruch on July 27, 2018, 11:52:29 PM
There is no shame in being Vulcan.

Vulcan's don't feel shame.  That load is on you.

Quote from: SGOS on July 28, 2018, 09:02:48 AM
Vulcan's don't feel shame.  That load is on you.

They should avoid giant amoebas however.

Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2018, 10:23:05 AM
They should avoid giant amoebas however.

Baruch, scribe of Jeremiah,
Please explain to me what is a "Free thinking Theist"?

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 04:37:36 AM
Baruch, scribe of Jeremiah,
Please explain to me what is a "Free thinking Theist"?

I eagerly await Baruch's reply, but I have a thought about the term.  "One who struggles to believe in a deity, but that belief conflicts with one's internal logical thoughts".

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 04:37:36 AM
Baruch, scribe of Jeremiah,
Please explain to me what is a "Free thinking Theist"?

Took you a long time to ask that obvious question ;-) One has to have a personal and social relationship with divinity (however you define that).  Scripture, religion don't matter as authorities for me.  You are bound to scripture for example.  So you can't "completely" think outside the box you put yourself into.  You are circumscribed by dead authority, not living free.  Which is OK, you can do what you want.  I need more freedom than that.  The atheists here take science or nature as their authority.  I consider my own experience to be my authority, for me.  Not for anyone else.

In my case I am humanist, I value humans in general, highest of all.  Not that they are easy to be, live with, or work with.  As a human, I view divinity in personalist terms.  I consider the personal to be more central than the impersonal.  So for these matters, I don't find science useful at all.  You seem to think, as the atheists here, that science/nature  supports your position.  I value science or nature on their own terms, but not as a Swiss Army knife.

So what is divinity?  Doesn't matter in terms of objective reality.  As a personalist, humanist, I see divinity in more individual terms.  It is subjective on several levels.  I can't see things as a non-human!  I can't see things from G-d's eye (objectivity).  Usually in reading scripture, the POV of the reader is the omniscient narrator.  That is not the POV of the writer.  Exegesis is hard, because we are always tempted to read in what we want to find.  You or the atheists here differ on how you "read in".  Atheists see things from their inhuman, materialist, objective POV.

So what can I conclude, situationally, today?  That seeing the Bible from the POV of ancient contemporaries, both Jewish and non-Jewish, gives you better literary criticism.  Most of the atheists here apply incompetent and irrelevant literary criticism (because of how the Bible is used politically).  They would burn the Bible, but not Harry Potter, not because they are pagans, but because of their politics.  They are topical fascists that way.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 04:48:10 AM
I eagerly await Baruch's reply, but I have a thought about the term.  "One who struggles to believe in a deity, but that belief conflicts with one's internal logical thoughts".

Go back to Vulcan, Spock is calling.  You are a computer (in your POV), a machine.  Beware the cleaning lady, she might unplug you ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 06:52:10 AM
Took you a long time to ask that obvious question ;-) One has to have a personal and social relationship with divinity (however you define that).  Scripture, religion don't matter as authorities for me.  You are bound to scripture for example.  So you can't "completely" think outside the box you put yourself into.  You are circumscribed by dead authority, not living free.  Which is OK, you can do what you want.  I need more freedom than that.  The atheists here take science or nature as their authority.  I consider my own experience to be my authority, for me.  Not for anyone else.

In my case I am humanist, I value humans in general, highest of all.  Not that they are easy to be, live with, or work with.  As a human, I view divinity in personalist terms.  I consider the personal to be more central than the impersonal.  So for these matters, I don't find science useful at all.  You seem to think, as the atheists here, that science/nature  supports your position.  I value science or nature on their own terms, but not as a Swiss Army knife.

So what is divinity?  Doesn't matter in terms of objective reality.  As a personalist, humanist, I see divinity in more individual terms.  It is subjective on several levels.  I can't see things as a non-human!  I can't see things from G-d's eye (objectivity).  Usually in reading scripture, the POV of the reader is the omniscient narrator.  That is not the POV of the writer.  Exegesis is hard, because we are always tempted to read in what we want to find.  You or the atheists here differ on how you "read in".  Atheists see things from their inhuman, materialist, objective POV.

So what can I conclude, situationally, today?  That seeing the Bible from the POV of ancient contemporaries, both Jewish and non-Jewish, gives you better literary criticism.  Most of the atheists here apply incompetent and irrelevant literary criticism (because of how the Bible is used politically).  They would burn the Bible, but not Harry Potter, not because they are pagans, but because of their politics.  They are topical fascists that way.

Now THAT was a great answer!  I disagree about "Atheists see things from their inhuman, materialist, objective POV" as I sort of feel "human" but the rest was very impressive. 

You should do that more often. I can deal with that better than bad jokes.

"Most of the atheists here apply incompetent and irrelevant literary criticism (because of how the Bible is used politically).  They would burn the Bible, but not Harry Potter, not because they are pagans, but because of their politics.  They are topical fascists that way"

OK, first, I look at the bible factually.  Or unfactually, mostly.  Genesis is nonsense, there was no all-earth flood, methuselah didn't live 1,000 years, Jesus is a metaphor for collective preachers of a downtrodden desperate group etc. 

I might burn the bible, and other religious texts, but only after everyone gave the ideas up as irrational nonsense.  And keep some copies in libraries as examples of "primitive human superstitions". 

You don't actually know what you think of a deity anyway, so the details don't matter to you.  And I applaud you for that.  You are slowly on your way to giving up on theism in general.  Keep going.

As a materialist ... everything is just atoms to you.  And life and consciousness are mysteries (but they aren't to a 6 year old boy who hasn't learned materialism yet).  The boy just lives.  The man is burdened with many more years of bullshit.  Epicurus was wrong.

As a rationalist ... everything is just formulas to you (see Pythagorean theorem).  The empirical behavior of things in general, and people in particular, are mysteries to you, because they don't make sense in your "play chess by the rules" world.  Pythagoras was wrong.

No matter how old I get, I continue to strive forward, one claw mark at a time (cats).  But my destination isn't in your imagination, or even in mine.  My modesty about "knowledge" works against both Mousetrap and his detractors.  Y'all are legends in your own egos, and call me out for arrogance ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 07:13:35 AM
As a materialist ... everything is just atoms to you.  And life and consciousness are mysteries (but they aren't to a 6 year old boy who hasn't learned materialism yet).  The boy just lives.  The man is burdened with many more years of bullshit.  Epicurus was wrong.

As a rationalist ... everything is just formulas to you (see Pythagorean theorem).  The empirical behavior of things in general, and people in particular, are mysteries to you, because they don't make sense in your "play chess by the rules" world.  Pythagoras was wrong.

No matter how old I get, I continue to strive forward, one claw mark at a time (cats).  But my destination isn't in your imagination, or even in mine.  My modesty about "knowledge" works against both Mousetrap and his detractors.  Y'all are legends in your own egos, and call me out for arrogance ;-)

Sounds like the character out of the movie The Master played by Philip Seymour Hoffman; you're a mystic.

Quote from: Sal1981 on August 01, 2018, 07:37:55 AM
Sounds like the character out of the movie The Master played by Philip Seymour Hoffman; you're a mystic.

I am a mystic, because I pulled my head out of my you know what ;-)  Otherwise, all is darkness, in here.

Yes, history may rhyme, but as individuals were are just random recombinations of other lives.

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 07:13:35 AM
As a materialist ... everything is just atoms to you.  And life and consciousness are mysteries (but they aren't to a 6 year old boy who hasn't learned materialism yet).  The boy just lives.  The man is burdened with many more years of bullshit.  Epicurus was wrong.

As a rationalist ... everything is just formulas to you (see Pythagorean theorem).  The empirical behavior of things in general, and people in particular, are mysteries to you, because they don't make sense in your "play chess by the rules" world.  Pythagoras was wrong.

No matter how old I get, I continue to strive forward, one claw mark at a time (cats).  But my destination isn't in your imagination, or even in mine.  My modesty about "knowledge" works against both Mousetrap and his detractors.  Y'all are legends in your own egos, and call me out for arrogance ;-)

Well, nope, nope, and nope.  As a theist at heart, you misunderstand logic.  All is not atoms, formulas, or non-emotion to me.  I do understand that you fail to understand this.  And your destination is your own, I relly don't care that much about where you think you are going. 

For all I know, you will find a deity suited to you some day.  All I ever say is that I haven't seen any evidence of one and don't expect to.

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 06:52:10 AM
Took you a long time to ask that obvious question ;-) One has to have a personal and social relationship with divinity (however you define that).  Scripture, religion don't matter as authorities for me.  You are bound to scripture for example.  So you can't "completely" think outside the box you put yourself into.  You are circumscribed by dead authority, not living free.  Which is OK, you can do what you want.  I need more freedom than that.  The atheists here take science or nature as their authority.  I consider my own experience to be my authority, for me.  Not for anyone else.

In my case I am humanist, I value humans in general, highest of all.  Not that they are easy to be, live with, or work with.  As a human, I view divinity in personalist terms.  I consider the personal to be more central than the impersonal.  So for these matters, I don't find science useful at all.  You seem to think, as the atheists here, that science/nature  supports your position.  I value science or nature on their own terms, but not as a Swiss Army knife.

So what is divinity?  Doesn't matter in terms of objective reality.  As a personalist, humanist, I see divinity in more individual terms.  It is subjective on several levels.  I can't see things as a non-human!  I can't see things from G-d's eye (objectivity).  Usually in reading scripture, the POV of the reader is the omniscient narrator.  That is not the POV of the writer.  Exegesis is hard, because we are always tempted to read in what we want to find.  You or the atheists here differ on how you "read in".  Atheists see things from their inhuman, materialist, objective POV.

So what can I conclude, situationally, today?  That seeing the Bible from the POV of ancient contemporaries, both Jewish and non-Jewish, gives you better literary criticism.  Most of the atheists here apply incompetent and irrelevant literary criticism (because of how the Bible is used politically).  They would burn the Bible, but not Harry Potter, not because they are pagans, but because of their politics.  They are topical fascists that way.

Wow!
Thank you.

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 07:13:35 AM
As a materialist ... everything is just atoms to you. 

Baruch,
My point of view is that I also do not like religions, it is a money making scam.
I do not like atheism, as you call it materialism.
I found incredible peace in the belief I now have.
To me, this was enough.
However, I love to discuss the existence of a Creator, or the absence thereof.

If it were not for my pessimistic character, I would never have questioned anything and would have been quite contempt to live...as you say...in the dark.

But I decided to investigate and when I crossed lines with Muslims and Atheists, I saw that their arguments was one of materialism.

To me, the Bible could be correct or corrupt, no problem.
But when someone claims errors from the Bible, or any other book for that matter, I want to challenge it to see If I am still on the true state of what I believe in.
On the other hand, if anyone, such as Muslims makes claims on how great the Quran is, for instance, I would also investigate to that possibility.

This forced me into a situation where I had to mix the Physical with the Metaphysical.
If someone claim the Bible is silly because of the 12 plagues, and I see how there are evidence in archaeology and scientific explanations on how frogs, lice, flies could turn into plaques due to red tide in the Nile, or how hail mixed with sulpher and darkness could develop due to Thera / Santorini that had a massive volcanic explosion, I am forced to draw a line between staying with the Metaphysical, and explaining the Physical.
To me God is the Existence, the physical is the result. to try to prove God with the Physical is just as lame as to disprove God with it all together.

However, I have a Book which your ancestors collected thousands of years ago, which to me explains one thing.

In it, The Existence claims to have Authored its contents.
If that is true, then the Physical must be in line with that description.

For that reason, my stay here on this forum.
So far, Atheists cant crack it at all!
They ere all having some silly opinion of the Bible, but as you can see, they did not have the facts straight,!

So much for my claim to fame, or failure.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 08:15:31 AM

My point of view is that I also do not like religions, it is a money making scam.
I do not like atheism, as you call it materialism.
I found incredible peace in the belief I now have.
To me, this was enough.
However, I love to discuss the existence of a Creator, or the absence thereof.

Mouse, I relate to the above 100%.  Except my exploration led me to atheism and materialism (as you call it, but I suspect we define it quite differently) as the provider of light.  I too, have found incredible peace in my thinking and that is enough.  But I do like to discuss religion and philosophy. 

I popped out of my mom into total darkness (so to speak) and could understand little to nothing.  My life have been searching for the light of knowledge and awareness.  Self awareness has come slowly partly because as an introvert I have found solace within  the cave of myself.  But after a bit, I become restless and venture out to continue expanding my search for light, knowledge and awareness.  I have searched all the 'isms' and found that the rational makes the most sense to me.  All religions (and all gods) have failed the test of the rational, at least for myself.  So, what is left?  What most call atheism.  I'm not fond of that label as it is simply a negative--for me there isn't a single piece of proof indicates to me that any god(s) ever existed and that that concept is totally man-made.  I view theism as basically fiction, so to identify myself with simply being against a fiction seems a little silly; sort of identifying myself abugs bunny, or aelemer Fudd--how can one be against a fiction.  I don't really 'believe' in anything.  I think some things are true or accurate--like the Earth is covered in moving tectonic plates--and have built my world view (and self view) based on that type of data and information.  I fully realize that I don't really have any 'answers' beyond what seems to work for myself.  I also fully realize that I may be wrong or hold ideas that are false because of the lack of information; I am not afraid to say 'I don't know'.  Yet I have come to a place in my life where I am content and at peace. 

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 07:47:51 AM
Well, nope, nope, and nope.  As a theist at heart, you misunderstand logic.  All is not atoms, formulas, or non-emotion to me.  I do understand that you fail to understand this.  And your destination is your own, I relly don't care that much about where you think you are going. 

For all I know, you will find a deity suited to you some day.  All I ever say is that I haven't seen any evidence of one and don't expect to.

So much wrong ... but OK to be your own self.  I understand logic better than a wannabe Vulcan.  Get your ears cropped?  And I talk to a broader audience than just you, though to you as well.  We have to "segment" a conversation to specifically you and me, to do that.  Not a materialist?  Maybe you don't understand materialism?  Your skepticism isn't a bad thing, or empiricism ... but don't forget to be skeptical of skepticism too.

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 07:13:35 AMAs a materialist ... everything is just atoms to you.

So what? Everything can be broken down into simpler parts. That doesn't take away from the whole. My favorite video games are "just" 0's and 1's in a program. My favorite foods are "just" a few ingredients put together. Materialism deepens our understanding of how things work; it doesn't make those things any less special. Nor does adding the extra ingredient of an invisible, intangible soul somehow make people more special.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 01, 2018, 01:25:15 PM
So what? Everything can be broken down into simpler parts. That doesn't take away from the whole. My favorite video games are "just" 0's and 1's in a program. My favorite foods are "just" a few ingredients put together. Materialism deepens our understanding of how things work; it doesn't make those things any less special. Nor does adding the extra ingredient of an invisible, intangible soul somehow make people more special.

Wrong.  When reductionism is a good technique, you can break things down into simpler parts.  Particularly if humans assembled them from simpler parts.  But reductionism or X-anything ... isn't a one trick pony.

Is materialism helpful?  Sometimes.  Use the tool that works, according to circumstance and pragmatic experience.  But there is no panacea, in medicine or epistemology.  Ask Pythagoras or Democritus ... your parents ...

Materialism or spiritism ... if all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.  Except everything isn't a nail.  Even physics has a hard time showing that mass-energy is the same as space-time.  Einstein tried and failed ... because quantum got in the way of his classical idealization (which he actually borrowed from William Kingdon Clifford.  This was explored in literature in Flatland and Mr Tompkins ... and even H G Wells (who didn't use a rocket or a cannon to get to the moon).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kingdon_Clifford

Now we have M-theory and Superstrings as the new luminiferous ether ... relativity has been shown wanting, as all over-simplifications do.  There is one field, to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them (with bosons).  The G-d Particle (Higgs).  Sauron was a materialist.  And a gold-bug.

Fiery Finger Of G-d strikes Californication ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaVnUM9JWCk

Guess the people etc there, were up to no good.

Per Exodus, time for a prophet to arrive and lead the Hebrews (and mixed multitude) to the Promised Land ... apparently Germany, since they are now giving paid vacations to refugees.

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 07:03:52 PM
Materialism or spiritism ... if all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.  Except everything isn't a nail....
 
Now we have M-theory and Superstrings as the new luminiferous ether ... relativity has been shown wanting, as all over-simplifications do.  There is one field, to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them (with bosons).  The G-d Particle (Higgs).  Sauron was a materialist.  And a gold-bug.

Not everyone thinks a hammer is the only tool.

I have been suggesting for over 25 years that Einstein and "spacetime" will eventually be shown wrong in favor of some "more-understandable" idea.  It's coming, slowly...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 01:39:29 AM
Not everyone thinks a hammer is the only tool.

I have been suggesting for over 25 years that Einstein and "spacetime" will eventually be shown wrong in favor of some "more-understandable" idea.  It's coming, slowly...

True regarding physics.  But rhetorically, maniacs only know the content of their mania.  Mousetrap is a typical theistic maniac.  And he isn't the only one here with a narrow mind or a one track mind.

Newer physics isn't a Micronesian cargo cult.  Knowing a little bit more than we knew (of fundamental physics in 1983 (vector bosons found, minus Higgs) won't make much impact on civilization.  There is no warp drive, no Tardis.  Except in the human imagination.  The rules of thermodynamics (including conservation of energy) hasn't been overturned ever (except very temporarily in very small places).