The Emptiness of Atheism

[azlan88]

You misquoted my post. I said that the moon and the earth did not form together and that the moon is younger. Tell, me when did the sun, moon and stars form according to modern science?

 

[Hugo]

You have not given me any evidence that the Genesis creation account is contradicts modern science, nor have you given me specific examples of God's supposed unjust character.

You haven't given any evidence that I should consider Genesis inspired in the first place. What about other creation myths?

You can do any dance you want to do to make Genesis jive with science. There's a dozen of them out there.

Jehovah ordered the Jews to kill people (to put it nicely!). I used to be into apologetics. I've read the apologists excuses for this. Even William Lane Craig's lame attempt.

 

[azlan88]

If you're not going to contribute to the discussion, then stay out of it, Hugo. You don't back up what you say.

 

[Hugo]

If you're not going to contribute to the discussion, then stay out of it, Hugo. You don't back up what you say.

Too bad you don't think I contribute to the discussion, azlan88. What would you like? Jehovah ordered the Israelites to commit genocide. Is that clear enough?

 

[Orion]

Just do a google search on planetary physics and galaxy formation.

 

[azlan88]

Hugo, answer the questions that I posed to you if you want to contribute to the discussion. Gives specific examples of God's "bad character." Give examples of Genocide. Don't just talk. Give examples.

Okay, Orion, I'll do some searches.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

A couple of thoughts...

- I would like to see the evidence that you reference that prooves a God does not exist.

First of all, lack of evidence is evidence against a theistic god. Theism makes claims of which there is no evidence.

The plurality of gods. The fact that there are competing gods is evidence, which is why it is cited so often by skeptics. Do you believe in a Hindu god?

The fact that religions have no supporting evidence for their plethora of supernatural claims. This leaves you with deism at most.

There's a myriad of psychological, cultural, empirical, scientific evidences against the existence of deities.

[quote="Aero_Hudson":1p3r5wyu]
- Very similar to atheists demanding proof of a God, many Christians would demand proof of evolution. Personally, I think evolution is true however, this in no way contradicts the existence of a creator.

Yeah I agree, but that view does not follow Occam's razor. Why bend over backwards to make scripture fit reality, when the much more likely explanation is that it's just like any other ancient text?

You imply that your version of truth through "learning" to embrace it is the only truth. I would like to remind you that you are embracing a concept of only one truth of realizing and experiencing the world very similar to how Christians experience the world with our one truth. I wanted to point out the similarity and also to inquire if you find your adamant rejection of one truth in an effort to embrace your version of the truth to be somewhat ironic?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The truth is that we do not know. It is rational (and humble) to concede that we do not know an answer.[/quote:1p3r5wyu]

A couple of thoughts...

- I am not talking about a specific God n my arguement. I am talking about the concept of a God or a Creator or a Designer, whatever tag you would like to place on it. You reference Occam's Razor. Is it more plausible to think that the universe and life came from chaos or an orderly creaton by a designer. Which seems to be the simplest explanation to you?

- Do you feel that every plausible explanation for all things should come from natural, scientific explanations? Does science have no limitations in its ability to explain all things? Personally, I think science can help explain how we perceive the world physically but has its limitations. There are some things science will never explain.

- There's a myriad of psychological, cultural, and philisophical evidences for the existence of a God.

- I am not referring to scripture. I am talking about the concept of a God.

- You implied that one must learn to accept their world without the existence of a God as the only real truth. I find this amusing and puzzling considering that you are very quick to condemn those that believe their truth and/or lives exist with a one God.

- If can admit that we do not know then you must also be able to admit that a God could exist, correct?

Just my additional 2 cents.

 

[Hugo]

Hugo, answer the questions that I posed to you if you want to contribute to the discussion. Gives specific examples of God's "bad character." Give examples of Genocide. Don't just talk. Give examples.

You're just trying to obfuscate. We both know that God ordered genocide. The issue is whether you justify it or not.

I have heard many Christians try to explain it away and justify it already. If you have a new explanation, then contribute it.

 

[Physicist]

Hugo, for you to say that the Bible is just like any other ancient text shows that you don't know what's in the Bible nor understand it. The Bible is the only text that commands people to "test everything."(1 Thessalonians 5:21). Jesus is the only god who made claims and said, "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does(John 10:37). the Bible is the only ancient text that gives a logical account of creation based on the scientific method. It is the only ancient text that has a personal God who strives to bring his creations into his family, and God is the only god who doesn't have human weaknesses. Zeus cheated on his wife and raped a woman, Artemis was hateful and sexist, Aphrodite destroyed a woman's life because her parents said that she was more beautiful than the goddess, and Odin had a split personality. But God has been faithful and just throughout the Biblical text. The Bible is far different from any other ancient text or pagan god, and our God is great.

Genesis is poetry, not science. Its description does not match current scientific thinking about the origin of earth and life upon it. I find it interesting that Muslims make the same claim that you do for the accuracy of the Quranic 'earth origin' tales. As an outsider, I find both claims farfetched, requiring a good deal of re-interpretation by the reader.

As far as the nature of YHWH is concerned, It seems to me that he behaves better in the NT than the OT. In the OT, he colludes with Jephthah in human sacrifice, kills children because they ridicule a bald man, lets Satan torture Job to prove a wager, and generally does not exhibit the high moral principles expressed by Jesus in the NT. Perhaps I am misreading the text but I much prefer the modern Christian version of God to that in the OT stories.

 

[LaCrum]

As far as the nature of YHWH is concerned, It seems to me that he behaves better in the NT than the OT. In the OT, he colludes with Jephthah in human sacrifice, kills children because they ridicule a bald man, lets Satan torture Job to prove a wager, and generally does not exhibit the high moral principles expressed by Jesus in the NT. Perhaps I am misreading the text but I much prefer the modern Christian version of God to that in the OT stories.

You’re reading of the text is a little off.

Jephthah’s sacrifice would not have been something that was pleasing to God nor did it align with the laws God had laid out for them in the Torah (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). So saying he “colludes†with Jephthah in human sacrifice is a bit disingenuous.

As to the story about Elisha, the children and the bears, the Hebrew word for “children†that is used is also of the same root that was applied to King David in another section of the Bible. When this word was used, David was in his 30s with children, so to say that “children†means a gang of 6 year olds running around is a false reading of the story. In reality, it would be referring to a gang of young adults, and it’s doubtful that their intentions were only to poke fun at the old man’s bald head.

For the book of Job, it is not an account of true events, but rather an allegorical story about the human condition, evil in the world, and that morality is not dependent on special revelation (Job in the story is a non-Israelite with no knowledge of Abraham, Moses, etc). Even so, it does stand true that God permits Satan to do certain things in our lives (Luke 22:31) which will cause us trials, but he only does it because we will grow stronger and closer to God as a result from it.

 

[jasoncran]

Look for the references of job in the book of exekiel, and than restate that one lacrum. The Lord considered job righteous enough that if he lived in Judah the judgment would be stayed.

 

[Orion]

LaCrum, . . . the story of Jephthah has to do with him making a vow to god to "kill the first thing that comes out of his house IF god helps him in battle." If god was against what he KNEW would happen [that being his daughter coming out first, and her eventual sacrifice], then the obvious choice for god would have been to cause Jephthah to LOSE the battle. Because god helped in the victory, AND didn't send an angel to stop the sacrifice, . . . then what you have is what you read.

If we can't take the words of the bible as what they are, "ie. youths", then how can anyone take it literally and seriously? Regardless, there was no indication of harm, just name calling. Mauling by a bear is highly wrong.

Job is an ficticious story, true. The "moral of the story" is less than moral, in reality.

 

[LaCrum]

Look for the references of job in the book of exekiel, and than restate that one lacrum. The Lord considered job righteous enough that if he lived in Judah the judgment would be stayed.

I encourage you to delve deeper into how Job was composed.

LaCrum, . . . the story of Jephthah has to do with him making a vow to god to "kill the first thing that comes out of his house IF god helps him in battle." If god was against what he KNEW would happen [that being his daughter coming out first, and her eventual sacrifice], then the obvious choice for god would have been to cause Jephthah to LOSE the battle. Because god helped in the victory, AND didn't send an angel to stop the sacrifice, . . . then what you have is what you read.

No sense. That would be like me making a vow to God that if I don’t get stuck in traffic on the way home, I will honor him by killing my neighbour. If I don’t get stuck in traffic is the logical conclusion that God wanted me to murder my neighbour and thus supports murdering people? God allows free will. Plain and simple. Especially since there are numerous texts of God being against human sacrifice, your explanation does not fit with scripture. Mine does.

If we can't take the words of the bible as what they are, "ie. youths", then how can anyone take it literally and seriously? Regardless, there was no indication of harm, just name calling. Mauling by a bear is highly wrong.

To truly understand the Bible you need to go back to the Hebrew it was written in. It’s a different language, our translations and words are not perfect representations of their meanings. But, if you’re too lazy to look into understanding the text as it was written, don’t be so shocked when it turns out to mean something completely different from what you thought it was. Yes, I’m sure a gang of 40 20 somethings roaming around the countryside and shouting insults at a lonely man passing by were only up to good. And not mauling by one bear, it was mauling by two bears. Two really fast bears to round up 40 people and kill them all.

Job is an ficticious story, true. The "moral of the story" is less than moral, in reality.

You would be the one to declare that since it seems you determine what constitutes as moral and the rest of us aren’t. You throw “moral†around with quite the reckless abandon.

 

[azlan88]

There is no reason why a gang of 50 some youths would pester an old man unless they attempted to do him harm. Consider the text. The youths said, "Go on up, bald head!" Go on up was a reference to the resurrection, and "bald head" referred to leaprosy. Now why would they say, "Go on up," if they didn't intend to kill him to watch if he would go up? They were taunting him about the resurrection because they were about to kill him. The resurrection only occurs after death.

Now, hugo, if you are here to just pick on us Christians, then get please leave. You won't even give me scripture so that I can explain the context of the text. God has never ordered anybody to be killed unless the person deserved it.

 

[Orion]

No sense. That would be like me making a vow to God that if I don’t get stuck in traffic on the way home, I will honor him by killing my neighbour. If I don’t get stuck in traffic is the logical conclusion that God wanted me to murder my neighbour and thus supports murdering people? God allows free will. Plain and simple. Especially since there are numerous texts of God being against human sacrifice, your explanation does not fit with scripture. Mine does.

This isn't "my explaination", . . . it is what is in the book of Judges. The bible says that god helped deliver the Ammonites into his [Jephthah's] hands, knowing that he [Jephthah] had made a vow, and knowing that Jephthah's daughter would exit the house to greet her father. "Free Will" is a joke, by the way.

To truly understand the Bible you need to go back to the Hebrew it was written in. It’s a different language, our translations and words are not perfect representations of their meanings. But, if you’re too lazy to look into understanding the text as it was written, don’t be so shocked when it turns out to mean something completely different from what you thought it was. Yes, I’m sure a gang of 40 20 somethings roaming around the countryside and shouting insults at a lonely man passing by were only up to good. And not mauling by one bear, it was mauling by two bears. Two really fast bears to round up 40 people and kill them all.

So, all those who created translation after translation somehow failed to use the correct term for them, and incorrectly labeled them as "youths"? Whatever helps you reconcile yourself with the death of 40 souls.

You would be the one to declare that since it seems you determine what constitutes as moral and the rest of us aren’t. You throw “moral†around with quite the reckless abandon.

If you are fine with someone being given over to a malevelant entity "to win a bet", then yes, my morals are better than that.

 

[Hugo]

A couple of thoughts...

- I am not talking about a specific God n my arguement. I am talking about the concept of a God or a Creator or a Designer, whatever tag you would like to place on it. You reference Occam's Razor. Is it more plausible to think that the universe and life came from chaos or an orderly creaton by a designer. Which seems to be the simplest explanation to you?

I do think a natural explanation ("chaos" is not quite right) is simpler than a designer with the knowledge that we have gained. A designer may seem to you to be the simplest explanation on the surface. A lot of scientific findings are indeed counter-intuitive. Problem is, science explains things and pushes a designer/creator further and further back into a crevice.

- Do you feel that every plausible explanation for all things should come from natural, scientific explanations? Does science have no limitations in its ability to explain all things? Personally, I think science can help explain how we perceive the world physically but has its limitations. There are some things science will never explain.

True, it doesn't always give the meaning and answer "why". So you postulate God. I see no reason to do that instead of saying "I don't know". We don't know how much science will explain. It has already explained a surprising amount.

- There's a myriad of psychological, cultural, and philisophical evidences for the existence of a God.

I think you are aware that there is no evidence for the existence of a theistic deity, especially since it requires extraordinary evidence.

- You implied that one must learn to accept their world without the existence of a God as the only real truth. I find this amusing and puzzling considering that you are very quick to condemn those that believe their truth and/or lives exist with a one God.

I am not a postmodernist. One of us is wrong. And I don't think I condemn you or them. I do think that adopting an entire set of unsubstantiated beliefs of a religion is absurd. Believing in a deity alone is much less absurd.

- If can admit that we do not know then you must also be able to admit that a God could exist, correct?

Of course. I admit that anything could exist. The question is whether there is a rational basis for it.

I understand why someone might come to belief in a deity to an extent, but why believe an entire set of supernatural claims?

 

[Physicist]

It is the only ancient text that gives a logical account of creation based on the scientific method?

I am sorry, but I don't see the scientific method applied in Genesis. Perhaps
you could explain your statement more fully?

Thanks,

Physicist

 

[Orion]

It is the only ancient text that gives a logical account of creation based on the scientific method?

I am sorry, but I don't see the scientific method applied in Genesis. Perhaps
you could explain your statement more fully?

Thanks,

Physicist

Ummmm. . . .No, I can't do that.

Not sure where I was going with that. :verysad

You're correct. The scientific method is missing in Genesis.

 

[Hugo]

I am sorry, but I don't see the scientific method applied in Genesis. Perhaps
you could explain your statement more fully?

Orion was questioning a statement made by azlan88.

 

[AAA]

Is it more plausible to think that the universe and life came from chaos or an orderly creaton by a designer. Which seems to be the simplest explanation to you?

That one's easy: chaos. Two reasons:

1. We know that from chaos, order can arise.

2. Secondly, your reasoning is self-defeating: If you believe that the universe is too complex to have arisen by chance, then the creator you are proposing must be more complex than the universe whose complexity you are trying to explain. Accordingly, if you are to follow your own reasoning to its logical conclusion, the creator you are proposing must also be designed, and all you have is an infinite regress, which is no explanation at all.

Note that the designer cannot possibly be simple, and therefore cannot possibly provide a simple explanation. The argument from design replaces the problem of the complexity and order of the universe with something considerably more complex: god.

If you are looking for a simple solution, a designer god surely cannot be it.

On the other hand, if you are looking for a solution that is simple-minded, then you have indeed found mankind's favorite simple-minded explanation for anything that is complicated and hard to understand. The explanation for lightening just must be an entity like us in many ways but with the magical power to make lightening (let's call him Zeus). The explanation for fertility must be an entity that is very much like us but with the magical power to permit pregnancy (let's sacrifice animals to this entity to keep it happy). The explanation for a good crop, or rain, must be an entity that is very much like us but with the magical power to provide a good crop, or control the weather (let's sacrifice our first born, granted to us by the fertility entity, to the good crop entity to ensure food for the clan). The explanation for the unfairness of life must be that there is a supernatural judge who provides justice after our death (and he will sacrifice his own son so that we can receive mercy)...The explanation for the order and complexity of the universe must be...godidit.

- There's a myriad of psychological, cultural, and philisophical evidences for the existence of a God.

Really? Last time we left off our enjoyable conversation Aero, you had explained that the most convincing evidence you had found was the historical accounts indicating that the disciples died for their beliefs about Christ. You weren't able to come up with any historical evidence that these stories were anything other than legend or myth, while I was able to support exactly that position with an interesting link that lead to Christian sources of information supporting my position.

So I am curious to know what you consider to be all this "evidence"?

If can admit that we do not know then you must also be able to admit that a God could exist, correct?

Just as I am able to admit that leprechauns could exist.

The question isn't whether god or leprechauns exist. The question is whether you have good evidence for what you believe or not.