Challenge the Atheist!

[numan]

'
Biblical "prophecy" proves nothing except that the religious mania of ignorant, Bronze Age nomadic herdsmen is still alive and well.

Biblical Criticism

Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled

If bibliolaters would just once in their lives put aside all of their pet theories and take an objective look at the Bible, they would begin to see that the men who wrote the Old Testament were just ordinary religious zealots who thought that they and their people had been specifically chosen of God. The fanaticism with which they believed this led them to proclaim absurdly ethnocentric prophecies that history has proven wrong, much to the embarrassment of Bible fundamentalists who desperately want to believe that the Bible is the verbally inspired, inerrant word of God. They have no substantive proof on their side. All the proof declares very definitively to anyone who really wants to know the truth that the Bible is a veritable maze of nonsense and contradictions.

The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies
The prophecies of the book of Daniel have fascinated readers and created controversy for the past two thousand years. Evangelical Christians believe that the prophet Daniel, an official in the courts of Near-Eastern emperors in the sixth century BC, foretold the future of the world from his own time to the end of the age. Actually, the book was written in Palestine in the mid-second century BC by an author who expected God to set up his everlasting kingdom in his own near future. The failure of his prediction refutes evangelical claims that the Bible is inerrant and prophecy proves its divine inspiration.

[emphasis added]
.

 

[newpolitics]

No one has any questions or challenges? Perhaps agnosticism is the only real rational position.

Yes, it is the only rational position. In the absence of information, the only rational response is "I don't know."

I agree, however agnosticism doesn't address what you believe about god/gods existence, only what you believe is knowable. As such the two terms are not mutually exclusive. So, are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist? The title of the thread talked about atheism, and then the OP mentioned agnosticism.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I'd love to Jimmy. I like your demeanor.

Keeping in mind that the Biblical calendar uses lunar years which consist of 360 days in a year.
And that there a 12 month span between 1BC and 1AD. 1BC counted down to zero days left, before we began 1AD. There were 12 months between the feast of Passover on the 14 of Nisan, the Spring of 1BC, and the next Feast of the Passover in AD1

The Jews captivity ended in the Spring of 536.4 BC Ezekiel calculated that the end of Israel's worldwide captivity and the rebirth of Israel would occur precisely 2,483.8 years(of our modern calendar years. 2,520 biblical years of 360 days per year, = 907,200 days. Divide that by our calendar year of 365.25 = 2,483.8 years) after the end of the Babylonian Captivity.
Take the Jews release from Babylon, minus Ezek. prediction of Israel's lack of a nation, 2,483.8, and you get the year 1947.4 or Nisan 15, 1947. To adjust for the fact that there were 12 months not accounted for between 1BC and 1AD add those 12 months to Nisan 14, 1947 and you get the exact date that the Jews blew on the shofar (the ram's horn, not a jeep horn) to celebrate the end of their dispersion, and on midnight at the start of May 15, 1948 the British Mandate officially ended and the Nation of Israel was reborn.

Jews went to bed on the 14th on British soil, and woke up on the 15th in the Nation of Israel, born in one day!


Just like God said:

Isaiah 66:8 Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment?

Isaiah 11 ​​It shall come to pass in that day
​​That the Lord shall set His hand again the second time
​​To recover the remnant of His people who are left,
​​From Assyria and Egypt,
​​From Pathros and Cush,
​​From Elam and Shinar,
​​From Hamath and the islands of the sea.

Amos 9:11
"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent.

Using the same equation Ezek also predicted the exact day Jesus would enter Jerusalem on a donkey and what gate He would be using.

God uses prophecy as a challenge to other religions to show their ability.
And He is the opposite of vague. Ten other odd prophesies pertaining to the rebirth of Israel, leaves little doubt about God's validity.
Take rain. God said once they returned He would give them more rain. Just for them.
Read Samuel Clemens account of that land in the 1800's when he went there. Fly over it now and it is amazing. sand sand sand green sand sand sand.

Increased rain is the cause. Who was behind extra rain is the one who said before the extra rain that He would increase their rain.

Just a few on Christ:
born in Bethlehem
Tribe of Judah
preceded by a messenger
riding a donkey foal into Jerusalem
Betrayed by a friend
Hands and feet pierced
beaten before crucified
betrayed for 30 pieces of silver
^ thrown back in the temple and used for potters field.
He would be silent before His accusers
Crucified among thieves
People would gamble for His robe
His side would be pierced
Darkness covering the earth in broad daylight. (3 hrs.)
Buried in rich man's tomb

Using the Laws of Probability, the chances that all of those could happen to one person is:
1 chance in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or, 1 in 480 billion x 1 billion x 1 trillion.

There are soooooo many more, over 10 thousand.

 

[The Irish Ram]

That in that day, the Jews would come together to form the Nation of Israel, must have been an odd prophesy for the Jews, considering they weren't together when they left. The tribes were separate, and there were 2 nations. Now they have come together, in one Nation.

Some of these prophesies are 25 centuries old. The Derby goes off in about an hour and I still can't tell you who the winner is.

 

[PratchettFan]

No one has any questions or challenges? Perhaps agnosticism is the only real rational position.

Yes, it is the only rational position. In the absence of information, the only rational response is "I don't know."

I agree, however agnosticism doesn't address what you believe about god/gods existence, only what you believe is knowable. As such the two terms are not mutually exclusive. So, are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist? The title of the thread talked about atheism, and then the OP mentioned agnosticism.

I tend to see agnosticism as an understanding of the difference between belief and knowledge. In that regard, I am an agnostic. I never understood the concept of "knowable". If you know something, it is knowable, if you don't then how can you have an opinion one way or the other? But I suppose that would be where belief comes in. As to whether I am an atheist or theist really depends upon what you mean by "theist". I believe there is no such thing as a being which looks over us. As the same time, I do believe there is an intelligence behind how things operate. It, however, would be as aware of us as you might be of an individual skin cell. So take your pick.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Ram,

My head is swimming, but keep in mind math is not my strong suit.

Essentially it looks as if some theologians have stuck together a number of different prophecies, from multiple places in the OT, and potentially used some creative math to come up with a date that coincided with the start of the state of Israel. I was unfamiliar with this premise before you. I see what appears to be a more detailed breakdown of what you are talking about at this link:

Israel's Rebirth in 1948 fortold by Ezekiel

As I said before, math is not my strong suit, but on the surface it appears to be a good deal of creative math to come up with that. Further, a little digging turned up a rebuttal to this premise that suggests this theory of a mathematically precise prophecy is significantly distorted and selectively picks scriptures to come up with that math, such as is discussed in the following link on the subject:

The Skeptical Review Online - Ezekiel's "Exact" Prophecy of the Restoration of Israel - Author Farrell Till

Now, neither link provides me with anything that I can readily comprehend beyond the simple realization that there is a lot of math going on, and somebody is taking numbers from selected portions of the Bible. This is a very dubious, if not dangerous, way to deal with potential Biblical prophecy. I see this and looks no different to me than the claims of Harold Camping who said the Rapture was going to begin on May 21, 2011, who was thoroughly convinced through a lot of calculations based on scripture that this was going to happen.

I do not believe for a moment that if God communicates to us through scripture that he does so in such precise mathematical ways. It defies the notion that God manifests himself to all people, not just a fringe Christian group that put together a hypothesis based on what appears to be nothing more than an esoteric collection of verses with numbers and added up. The rebuttal link I provided suggests that this theory skips over verses that, if they were included, would lead to a different mathematical result.

Further, please see my earlier thread regarding the same prophet, Ezekiel, and other prophecies that never came to pass. I've discussed with you before this tendency I see in some Christians to be very selective in their use of scripture as a means to justify their claims. This premise you have presented borders on numerology, and more than a little questionable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Agnostic, really, but that isn't as good a title. I don't believe in a God or gods. I also don't believe there necessarily isn't a God or gods. I've been an agnostic all my life, despite being raised in Idaho.

But, anyway, bring the questions or attacks and I'll do my best to address them.

Ready? Go!

I'm with you in that I don't claim there is or isn't a good; I mean, I just have no way of confirming.

But what's your take on things like Astral Projection, and cases where people claim to have the ability to leave their body and transverse with others on the astral plain? And similarly, what's your take on cases where people who are near death report leaving their body and can describe things that took place in an ER - for instance - when they were presumably unconscious?

I don't necessarily believe in a Christian/Muslim/specific God, but I like to think that our spiritual being/awareness rejoins the whole (lives on) once we parish.


.

One is not required to ‘confirm’ that something doesn’t exist; it is a fact that there is no god or gods, it’s incumbent upon theists therefore to prove otherwise.

 

[HUGGY]

Sounds like Pot Logic to me.

Almost nothing in your post is true.

Only a handfull of us are judged. We U S citizens are judged constantly because of American Exceptionalism. Most of what humans do in this world isn't even noticed let alone judged.

The concept that all religion..philosphy individual humans.....are/is equal in truth is the worst kind of nonsense. It is not true.

So you ARE judging my statement as NOT TRUE!
You prove this in itself.

We are CONSTANTLY making judgment decisions.
Isn't this board FULL OF THAT???

Do you see equal # of atheists criticizing Christians
and Christians criticizing atheists?

Look on Craigslist under religion.
Look at Backpage.

That's all that is going on over there,
people learn by criticizing others as you just did here!

That's what I'm talking about.

Look at our political system and media: instead of focusing all our energy on
solving problems, most of the statements made in private or in public
are JUDGMENTS and criticisms of OTHER PEOPLE or PARTIES.
That is the majority of these statements going back and forth.
Look at the comments under articles online, where people
constantly state judgments about what they see going on.


[as for all philosophies/religions being equal,
no they are not the same. And I certainly
use the concepts and terms in Buddhism Christianity
and Constitutional laws MORE than I would use
Islam or Confucianism or Hinduism.
But it depends on the audience.

If I am talking with a fellow Constitutionalist
it works more effectively for us to agree on those terms.

If I am talking with a Christian about the Bible,
we need to agree on the terms and meanings using that
as a common frame of reference, or switch to
Constitutional law if that works better.

Any system can be used as "language" for
expressing truth and reaching agreement.
They are not equal or the same because
all of these are different!

Sorry Huggy, it seems we must have been
talking past each other or miscommunicating
what was meant.

I was talking about judging in a different way than what you must have meant.
And I agree that systems are all different so there is no way they can be equal or the same.

Key Words...

this board

This board is not a representative sample of Americans let alone the human race. Turn on your TV. There you will discover what most people believe. I have NEVER heard the word "Atheist" used on my local or national media. All information is presented as if we are all Christians. The bias is generic not specific. There was no mention in the media what a bizzar cult the Mormans are when Romney ran. They treated him as if he and his cult were just run of the mill christians.

No sir we are not all the same. We are not all telling the truth. Most of the people on this earth are invested in promoting thier own geopolitical and religious agendas.

This board and it's members are the wildest and most honest discussion populations of any MBs in the U S and probably the planet. There may be others but they all pretty much have an agenda.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one has any questions or challenges? Perhaps agnosticism is the only real rational position.

Yes, it is the only rational position. In the absence of information, the only rational response is "I don't know."

I agree, however agnosticism doesn't address what you believe about god/gods existence, only what you believe is knowable. As such the two terms are not mutually exclusive. So, are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist? The title of the thread talked about atheism, and then the OP mentioned agnosticism.

Actually neither term is appropriate, as both were contrived by theists and subsequently foisted upon persons free from faith.

We do know there is no god or gods, as humans created both religion and god. Before the advent of deism, humans practiced religions free of deities, and before that no religion at all.

Indeed, religion and gods are the aberration, not those free from faith who acknowledge the truth. One cannot not believe in god, as it never existed to begin with.

 

[oldfart]

The only ‘challenge’ for the ‘atheist’ is to get off the pot and acknowledge the fact that religion and god are creations of man.

This is pretty close to the position "modern school" Taoism takes. There is a lot of sociological evidence that whatever its origin, religions use belief to manipulate and control people. Once you treat religion as a social institution, this is a pretty inevitable conclusion. Admittedly it says nothing about the truth value of a statement like God exists", but it does explain why everyone can be talking about God when, in fact, "God" does not exist (one of the medieval "proofs of the existence of God").

The Taoists take it a bit further. Starting from fundamental Taoist thought (a resource not used by atheists) they argue that if an afterlife exists (which some of us including myself would not accept), then the rules that govern it cannot conflict with the principles that guide us in this life. It's a leap of faith or an argument from logical consistency, take your pick. It rules out a Cosmic Lottery where your fate in an afterlife is dependent on your choice of magical incantations to the "correct" God during your lifetime. This further focuses attention on the essential point that the existence and nature of "God" and/or an afterlife are one question (possibly not susceptible to answer) and that the implications of persons holding certain beliefs about them is another. Religion exists and impacts life whether it is "true" or not.

Now from a logical viewpoint, everyone without exception is an atheist. The terms "theist" and "atheist" are literally meaningless (have no meaning) except in reference to a given concept of God. I assume that fundamentalist Christians are atheists with regard to belief in Thor, Jupiter, and Amon-Ra. The Taoists apply the fundamental Taoist concepts to this problem and reject all "personified" deities. So if you want to believe in a "clock-maker God" as the Deists among our founding fathers did, that's fine. For all practical purposes it is also meaningless. A God who does not love, hate, get angry, demand tribute and worship, cannot be cajoled, and has no "Chosen people" is just fine.

Finally, Taoists generally believe that all of the God-talk is a waste of time and potential source of evil as it asks the wrong question; it asks "Who is God and how do we appease It?" rather than "How should a person live and treat other people?"

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Yes, it is the only rational position. In the absence of information, the only rational response is "I don't know."

I agree, however agnosticism doesn't address what you believe about god/gods existence, only what you believe is knowable. As such the two terms are not mutually exclusive. So, are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist? The title of the thread talked about atheism, and then the OP mentioned agnosticism.

Actually neither term is appropriate, as both were contrived by theists and subsequently foisted upon persons free from faith.

We do know there is no god or gods, as humans created both religion and god. Before the advent of deism, humans practiced religions free of deities, and before that no religion at all.

Indeed, religion and gods are the aberration, not those free from faith who acknowledge the truth. One cannot not believe in god, as it never existed to begin with.

(Emphasis mine)

Umm, you're saying there was no religion that involved deities before deism? That came way out of left field. Are you familiar with the belief of deism?

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, it is the only rational position. In the absence of information, the only rational response is "I don't know."

I agree, however agnosticism doesn't address what you believe about god/gods existence, only what you believe is knowable. As such the two terms are not mutually exclusive. So, are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist? The title of the thread talked about atheism, and then the OP mentioned agnosticism.

Actually neither term is appropriate, as both were contrived by theists and subsequently foisted upon persons free from faith.

We do know there is no god or gods, as humans created both religion and god. Before the advent of deism, humans practiced religions free of deities, and before that no religion at all.

Indeed, religion and gods are the aberration, not those free from faith who acknowledge the truth. One cannot not believe in god, as it never existed to begin with.

Unless you can support your claim here of your knowledge there is no god or gods, it would seem you are not numbered amongst those free from faith.

 

[hortysir]

Agnostic, really, but that isn't as good a title. I don't believe in a God or gods. I also don't believe there necessarily isn't a God or gods. I've been an agnostic all my life, despite being raised in Idaho.

But, anyway, bring the questions or attacks and I'll do my best to address them.

Ready? Go!

No attacks, just so long as you don;t start conversations that label believers as idiots and/or gullible.

Live and let live.

One day we will all find out and there will be a lot of surprised people. Or not

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Agnostic, really, but that isn't as good a title. I don't believe in a God or gods. I also don't believe there necessarily isn't a God or gods. I've been an agnostic all my life, despite being raised in Idaho.

But, anyway, bring the questions or attacks and I'll do my best to address them.

Ready? Go!

I'm with you in that I don't claim there is or isn't a good; I mean, I just have no way of confirming.

But what's your take on things like Astral Projection, and cases where people claim to have the ability to leave their body and transverse with others on the astral plain? And similarly, what's your take on cases where people who are near death report leaving their body and can describe things that took place in an ER - for instance - when they were presumably unconscious?

I don't necessarily believe in a Christian/Muslim/specific God, but I like to think that our spiritual being/awareness rejoins the whole (lives on) once we parish.


.

One is not required to ‘confirm’ that something doesn’t exist; it is a fact that there is no god or gods, it’s incumbent upon theists therefore to prove otherwise.

Wrong. To claim that there is a God requires no more proof than to claim that there isn't a God. Both are claims that are absent of proof. If you say to me "there is no God," I have as much reason to say "prove it" as I do somebody who says "there is a God."

We do not know whether or not the Universe is infinite. We can only postulate about it. There is no way, nor will there every likely be a way, to prove infinity. So if somebody says "the Universe is infinite" or "the Universe if finite," they cannot prove it. The same goes with "proofs" for or against the existence of a deity or higher power, however one defines that power. The concept of infinity is a human construct, but may actually exist or not exist. The same is true of God. God is a human construct, which likewise may or may not exist. Absolute proofs of this will remain beyond our reach until such time that this higher power is revealed to us or not.

 

[HUGGY]

I don't understand why the OP uses the word "Atheist". He might as well just go ahead on and call himself a Christian. Agnostics are just fence sitters. Agnostics are just Christians with shakey faith.

 

[hobelim]

'
Biblical "prophecy" proves nothing except that the religious mania of ignorant, Bronze Age nomadic herdsmen is still alive and well.

It seems to me that bronze age nomads who wrote fairy tales with talking serpents and donkeys etc, to educate their children about life, right and wrong and the human beasts of the field that surrounded them were not as ignorant as you think. Well, at least not as ignorant as the people who stole those stories and proceeded to teach their children the stories were the literal historical truth and then went completely insane for the next few thousand years.



....And it seems to have been deliberate:



I have not come to bring peace but a sword. Matthew 10:34


Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them. Jeremiah 25:15


from his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations. revelation 19:15


Then he took a cup of wine, gave it to his disciples and said, "take this cup and drink from it; this is a cup of my blood, the blood of the covenant."


I will force your oppressors to eat their own flesh and make them drunk with their own blood as if with new wine. Isaiah 49:26


" Just art thou in these thy judgments thou Holy One who art and wast; for they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink." revelation 16:6




and some people don't believe in fairy tales. Imagine that!

 

[Boss]

When it comes to faith, spiritual belief, higher order, etc., there is only one thing that I am certain of: human beings have an inescapable spiritual drive. This is true now, was true in antiquity, and was true in prehistory. I find the discovery of Gobekli Tepi an extremely fascinating demonstration of sophisticated religious observance that predates written history by a significant amount, and there is at least another 50 years before the entire thing is unearthed.

God is real, be it a well-defined deity and set of laws by a developed religion, a vague perception of a higher order or power, or simply a human construct. The unmistakable reliance of humanity on spiritual matters from before recorded history make God very real. Scientific inquiry can help to debunk the superstitious, and indeed should, but in all of it's advances, the one thing it cannot do is disprove the existence of God. Disproving the existence of God is an impossibility, whereas recognizing the reality of God in the lives of human beings is much easier to do. In that spirit I have always believed that God exists, even if at the very least in the way that ideas exist, especially ones that have been around as long as religion.

One of my favorite thinkers is Carl Jung, who recognized this very well. He held that to dislocate the religious drive one must replace it with something else. He held that to most this came in the form of the state, with state processions and "hoopla" carrying many times a fervor rivaling the religious processions of old. Modern positive atheism replaces this drive with a similar fervor for science. Indeed I have seen this fervor demonstrated here an elsewhere, a sentiment that science can give us virtually everything. And so, the feeling of providence by a deity is dislocated and replaced with a feeling of provident by science, or the state. I'm sure some atheists may feel offended by that, but I have seen too many instances of atheists demonstrating a reverence for science that is every bit as intense as the reverence I have seen amongst the religious. I think most honest atheists, however, will probably acknowledge this.

Science and religion have always had their little disagreements, but in the last 200 years or so, there is a schism between the two that was not always the case. Battle lines have been drawn between science and faith, with political lines being drawn right over them. This is unfortunate, because we're not moving forward as a country or society. We're stagnating, maybe even falling backwards. Today we don't see people observing their religious freedoms (including the freedom not to be) and being happy to have them. Instead, we see theists and atheists competing with one another over what gets taught in schools, how much legal protection unborn life has, how marriage is defined, etc. The result of this is that more and more Americans are finding it impossible to live their lives without either being swept up into the conflict, or giving up and losing all interest in any sense of civic duty or awareness.

Blah blah blah blah. I guess I went on a rant.

Well written and well explained. I agree with this 100%.

I'm not sure how you define me, I have been called an atheist and agnostic, but I believe in god and spirituality. I think the fact that I do believe god exists, prevents me from being an agnostic, because I have no question in my mind regarding this. The term "atheist" kind of makes my skin crawl, because it makes me think of someone who rejects belief in god, and I fully believe god exists. I describe my personal belief as "spiritualist." My beliefs are "atheistic" because I don't subscribe to any organized religious dogma. In fact, I think religion often misses the point of human spiritual connection. It's a personal connection, not confined to what any particular group or preacher has defined it to mean.

I personally believe that organized religions are mankind's way of dealing with something they can't comprehend or understand. In order for the human mind to 'relate' to spiritual connection, men have developed human-like attributes and applied them to spiritual god. We can understand and relate to human-like attributes, so this makes perfect sense. However, it has always puzzled me, how an "omnipotent deity" retains attributes like jealousy, anger, desire, compassion, etc. Why would such a god NEED us to do anything, or even care? If god is omnipotent and perfect, couldn't he just make us all understand and believe in him, do the right things, make the right decisions? I mean, if that is what he wants us to do? I just find it odd that he supposedly gives us "free will" but gets angry at us if we don't obey his will, and sends us to hell as punishment.

Why does god need to punish us, couldn't he just instantaneously 'zap' us into another existence, if we started being evil and doing bad things? Can you imagine, we're witnessing someone commit "sin" and suddenly, they vanish before our eyes? What happened to them? Well, they did wrong and god zapped them to hell! Seems like a much more efficient and effective way for 'omnipotent' god to get us to do good and not sin. Religious people may say, well, he wants us to stick around so that maybe we will "repent" before we die, but why would "omnipotent god" give a crap if we are "saved" or repent?

So what is it that I believe in as "god" who isn't necessarily a deity or omnipotent? The best way to describe it, is a form of energy we can't measure with physical science, or at least, haven't figured out how to do so at this time. This spiritual energy force, doesn't have feeling and needs, doesn't possess human attributes, and doesn't care whether or not we acknowledge it's existence. However, through meditation and concentration, humans have the ability to connect to this spiritual force, as a conduit, and it provides a variety of beneficial results. Mental strength to overcome challenge, physical strength to achieve the otherwise impossible, inspiration and enlightenment regarding the universe around us.

I also believe this same spiritual force is responsible for a number of physical phenomenon, which physical science can explain, but can't really justify. For instance... we can prove what electricity is, and how it works, but can science tell us why the electrons behave as they do? We know what gravity is, and we understand how gravity works, but we can not prove why it exists. We've theorized it exists because of mass and density, then we've discovered this is not always true, it also exists because of atmospheric pressure. But these are "causes" of gravity, they don't explain why it exists. The solar wind, we know what it is, and we know how it happens, but we don't know why it happens the way it does. Why does two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen, form a material that is the building block of all physical life we know of? We can explain HOW, we can't explain WHY. We observe phenomenon, we can sometimes explain it, but we can't ever really explain why it exists in our universe.

Science is literally built around asking the question of Why? Science is never conclusive. As soon as a scientific discovery is made, the next question of why is born. Science is a never-ending quest for knowledge, but lots of people wish to assume science infallible and conclusive. Those who do this, have perverted science and scientific theory, usually to advance a personal agenda or idea. Science is supposed to present theory of probability, and nothing more. Every law of physics and every discovery of science, is based on probability.

To exemplify this, Dr. Michio Kaku says he presents his physics students with the following problem: Calculate the possibility that your physical body will dismantle cells and reform on the other side of a brick wall? His point is, it is indeed a possibility. To calculate this possibility would take longer than the universe has existed, but it's still a possibility. In other words, science simply never concludes something is impossible. Yet people will often say... "That contradicts science!"

This brings me to one last point, the arrogance of human nature. We tend to arrogantly believe man has answered all the questions, and science has proven all we ever need to understand. If something challenges what science predicts, it's viewed as "impossible" because it "contradicts science," and in our minds, science is infallible and conclusive. But we can see that this is not the case, science has had to reevaluate many theories, or completely abandon them, because we learn something we didn't know. We observe phenomenon in our universe that science can't explain. I believe spirituality is one of those things.

 

[Underhill]

When it comes to faith, spiritual belief, higher order, etc., there is only one thing that I am certain of: human beings have an inescapable spiritual drive. This is true now, was true in antiquity, and was true in prehistory. I find the discovery of Gobekli Tepi an extremely fascinating demonstration of sophisticated religious observance that predates written history by a significant amount, and there is at least another 50 years before the entire thing is unearthed.

God is real, be it a well-defined deity and set of laws by a developed religion, a vague perception of a higher order or power, or simply a human construct. The unmistakable reliance of humanity on spiritual matters from before recorded history make God very real. Scientific inquiry can help to debunk the superstitious, and indeed should, but in all of it's advances, the one thing it cannot do is disprove the existence of God. Disproving the existence of God is an impossibility, whereas recognizing the reality of God in the lives of human beings is much easier to do. In that spirit I have always believed that God exists, even if at the very least in the way that ideas exist, especially ones that have been around as long as religion.

One of my favorite thinkers is Carl Jung, who recognized this very well. He held that to dislocate the religious drive one must replace it with something else. He held that to most this came in the form of the state, with state processions and "hoopla" carrying many times a fervor rivaling the religious processions of old. Modern positive atheism replaces this drive with a similar fervor for science. Indeed I have seen this fervor demonstrated here an elsewhere, a sentiment that science can give us virtually everything. And so, the feeling of providence by a deity is dislocated and replaced with a feeling of provident by science, or the state. I'm sure some atheists may feel offended by that, but I have seen too many instances of atheists demonstrating a reverence for science that is every bit as intense as the reverence I have seen amongst the religious. I think most honest atheists, however, will probably acknowledge this.

Science and religion have always had their little disagreements, but in the last 200 years or so, there is a schism between the two that was not always the case. Battle lines have been drawn between science and faith, with political lines being drawn right over them. This is unfortunate, because we're not moving forward as a country or society. We're stagnating, maybe even falling backwards. Today we don't see people observing their religious freedoms (including the freedom not to be) and being happy to have them. Instead, we see theists and atheists competing with one another over what gets taught in schools, how much legal protection unborn life has, how marriage is defined, etc. The result of this is that more and more Americans are finding it impossible to live their lives without either being swept up into the conflict, or giving up and losing all interest in any sense of civic duty or awareness.

Blah blah blah blah. I guess I went on a rant.

Well written and well explained. I agree with this 100%.

I'm not sure how you define me, I have been called an atheist and agnostic, but I believe in god and spirituality. I think the fact that I do believe god exists, prevents me from being an agnostic, because I have no question in my mind regarding this. The term "atheist" kind of makes my skin crawl, because it makes me think of someone who rejects belief in god, and I fully believe god exists. I describe my personal belief as "spiritualist." My beliefs are "atheistic" because I don't subscribe to any organized religious dogma. In fact, I think religion often misses the point of human spiritual connection. It's a personal connection, not confined to what any particular group or preacher has defined it to mean.

I personally believe that organized religions are mankind's way of dealing with something they can't comprehend or understand. In order for the human mind to 'relate' to spiritual connection, men have developed human-like attributes and applied them to spiritual god. We can understand and relate to human-like attributes, so this makes perfect sense. However, it has always puzzled me, how an "omnipotent deity" retains attributes like jealousy, anger, desire, compassion, etc. Why would such a god NEED us to do anything, or even care? If god is omnipotent and perfect, couldn't he just make us all understand and believe in him, do the right things, make the right decisions? I mean, if that is what he wants us to do? I just find it odd that he supposedly gives us "free will" but gets angry at us if we don't obey his will, and sends us to hell as punishment.

Why does god need to punish us, couldn't he just instantaneously 'zap' us into another existence, if we started being evil and doing bad things? Can you imagine, we're witnessing someone commit "sin" and suddenly, they vanish before our eyes? What happened to them? Well, they did wrong and god zapped them to hell! Seems like a much more efficient and effective way for 'omnipotent' god to get us to do good and not sin. Religious people may say, well, he wants us to stick around so that maybe we will "repent" before we die, but why would "omnipotent god" give a crap if we are "saved" or repent?

So what is it that I believe in as "god" who isn't necessarily a deity or omnipotent? The best way to describe it, is a form of energy we can't measure with physical science, or at least, haven't figured out how to do so at this time. This spiritual energy force, doesn't have feeling and needs, doesn't possess human attributes, and doesn't care whether or not we acknowledge it's existence. However, through meditation and concentration, humans have the ability to connect to this spiritual force, as a conduit, and it provides a variety of beneficial results. Mental strength to overcome challenge, physical strength to achieve the otherwise impossible, inspiration and enlightenment regarding the universe around us.

I also believe this same spiritual force is responsible for a number of physical phenomenon, which physical science can explain, but can't really justify. For instance... we can prove what electricity is, and how it works, but can science tell us why the electrons behave as they do? We know what gravity is, and we understand how gravity works, but we can not prove why it exists. We've theorized it exists because of mass and density, then we've discovered this is not always true, it also exists because of atmospheric pressure. But these are "causes" of gravity, they don't explain why it exists. The solar wind, we know what it is, and we know how it happens, but we don't know why it happens the way it does. Why does two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen, form a material that is the building block of all physical life we know of? We can explain HOW, we can't explain WHY. We observe phenomenon, we can sometimes explain it, but we can't ever really explain why it exists in our universe.

Science is literally built around asking the question of Why? Science is never conclusive. As soon as a scientific discovery is made, the next question of why is born. Science is a never-ending quest for knowledge, but lots of people wish to assume science infallible and conclusive. Those who do this, have perverted science and scientific theory, usually to advance a personal agenda or idea. Science is supposed to present theory of probability, and nothing more. Every law of physics and every discovery of science, is based on probability.

To exemplify this, Dr. Michio Kaku says he presents his physics students with the following problem: Calculate the possibility that your physical body will dismantle cells and reform on the other side of a brick wall? His point is, it is indeed a possibility. To calculate this possibility would take longer than the universe has existed, but it's still a possibility. In other words, science simply never concludes something is impossible. Yet people will often say... "That contradicts science!"

This brings me to one last point, the arrogance of human nature. We tend to arrogantly believe man has answered all the questions, and science has proven all we ever need to understand. If something challenges what science predicts, it's viewed as "impossible" because it "contradicts science," and in our minds, science is infallible and conclusive. But we can see that this is not the case, science has had to reevaluate many theories, or completely abandon them, because we learn something we didn't know. We observe phenomenon in our universe that science can't explain. I believe spirituality is one of those things.

A lot of bullshit to cover there. But I will just touch on two examples.

First, science most certainly does tell us some things are not possible. For example, the notion of creating something from nothing. These boundaries are called laws.

Second, I as an atheist do not even suggest that we might know everything. I don't even claim to know god doesn't exist. But I see no evidence of him. And like aliens or elvis, I need a bit more than rumor, feelings and superstition to make me a believer.

 

[hobelim]

A lot of bullshit to cover there. But I will just touch on two examples.

First, science most certainly does tell us some things are not possible. For example, the notion of creating something from nothing. These boundaries are called laws.

Second, I as an atheist do not even suggest that we might know everything. I don't even claim to know god doesn't exist. But I see no evidence of him. And like aliens or elvis, I need a bit more than rumor, feelings and superstition to make me a believer.

If it is known to be impossible to create something out of nothing then either the God described in genesis does not exist or the stories are metaphorical in nature describing the giving of the Law (a light to the nations) which teaches to separate clean from unclean, right from wrong, true from false, light from darkness.

before the law was given as a light, 'the earth was void and without form, and darkness covered the face of the deep".

The story is not about any God poofing everything into existence.


can you believe that?

 

[HUGGY]

Ram,

I would very much like you to provide specifics about the to-the-date prophecies that you are referring to. Not to debunk, necessarily, but to investigate. I may attempt to debunk something, I can't promise that won't happen. I've seen you post saying that the Bible gives very specific times for prophecies, yet I rarely see you give specific verses or interpretations.

While I find the reliance on religious prophecy to be problematic, I am nonetheless fascinated by the topic. Most Christians I've seen post here tend to take ANY challenge of Biblical belief and make the knee-jerk assumption that it is just another atheist trying to ridicule them. Since that is often the case, I understand the reaction even if I do not condone it. However, you do seem a little more mature than most, though we clearly disagree regarding the Bible's inerrancy.

Dear JimmyJam: the prophecies that describe what humanity will experience in general
are already demonstrated, either individually or collectively or both.

People will divide over issues of justice and the law, for sake of Justice or Jesus,
and divide congregations brother against brother; family against family;
accusing one while excusing the other, haggling over the letter of the law.

We see this happening every day. It happens here, and in politics.

People will be crying out for the Lord or Jesus, for the spirit of Justice and spirit of the LAW to come forth.

The sheep and the goats will be delineated.
The secular from the sacred, the people under church law and the people under state law
as we seek to establish the laws or spirit of JUSTICE to fulfill BOTH, as the meaning of Jesus.

Both the secular gentiles under natural laws will seek and respond to truth and justice
by CONSCIENCE, as you and I are even doing here,
as the believers under sacred laws are called to be witnesses to defend truths under those
laws as well, as we are seeing here.

So this is already happening, and has BEEN happening since people gained self-awareness
and started receiving, writing down and sharing knowledge of the LAWS.

the same process the church goes through, with losing the spirit of the laws to corruption
by the letter of the law exploited for greed for power,
the state is also going through, with trying to restore the original spirit of the laws
as EQUAL JUSTICE that have been lost to political partisan greed for power the SAME WAY.

so we see this same pattern happening again historically.
All things humans have experienced are part of this pattern.

the point is to learn how NOT to repeat the same mistakes that lead to corruption and war,
but to understand how to break the cycle of injustice by the spirit of Restorative Justice
which is the secular equivalent of Christ Jesus, bringing peace and justice for all.

This is happening, you can see the process going on now.
How it is fulfilled, you would have to look at successful cases of
Restorative Justice bringing mediation and peace to situations of conflict,
to see miniature examples of how this process has been working for people who try it.

And then infer that if this same process is repeated collectively
then all humanity can reach peace and justice the same way, by forgiving
and correcting wrongs so that there is equity and even restitution to heal relationships
and restore good faith.

This has not happened yet, for all humanity, so it is not yet fulfilled.
It takes a leap of faith to see that if forgiveness can breing about
recovery and redemption for diverse cases here and there,
then it shows this can and/or is happening for all of humanity collectively.

This will not be proven physically until we see it more fully achieved in real life
events and relationships. We can start with this board, and show the peace process of establishing common agreements on truth and justice is happening
here, but taking it further into the physical reality and making peace among
religious and political parties nationwide and worldwide is a subsequent level after that.

Thanks Emily.

When it comes to faith, spiritual belief, higher order, etc., there is only one thing that I am certain of: human beings have an inescapable spiritual drive. This is true now, was true in antiquity, and was true in prehistory. I find the discovery of Gobekli Tepi an extremely fascinating demonstration of sophisticated religious observance that predates written history by a significant amount, and there is at least another 50 years before the entire thing is unearthed.

God is real, be it a well-defined deity and set of laws by a developed religion, a vague perception of a higher order or power, or simply a human construct. The unmistakable reliance of humanity on spiritual matters from before recorded history make God very real. Scientific inquiry can help to debunk the superstitious, and indeed should, but in all of it's advances, the one thing it cannot do is disprove the existence of God. Disproving the existence of God is an impossibility, whereas recognizing the reality of God in the lives of human beings is much easier to do. In that spirit I have always believed that God exists, even if at the very least in the way that ideas exist, especially ones that have been around as long as religion.

One of my favorite thinkers is Carl Jung, who recognized this very well. He held that to dislocate the religious drive one must replace it with something else. He held that to most this came in the form of the state, with state processions and "hoopla" carrying many times a fervor rivaling the religious processions of old. Modern positive atheism replaces this drive with a similar fervor for science. Indeed I have seen this fervor demonstrated here an elsewhere, a sentiment that science can give us virtually everything. And so, the feeling of providence by a deity is dislocated and replaced with a feeling of provident by science, or the state. I'm sure some atheists may feel offended by that, but I have seen too many instances of atheists demonstrating a reverence for science that is every bit as intense as the reverence I have seen amongst the religious. I think most honest atheists, however, will probably acknowledge this.

Science and religion have always had their little disagreements, but in the last 200 years or so, there is a schism between the two that was not always the case. Battle lines have been drawn between science and faith, with political lines being drawn right over them. This is unfortunate, because we're not moving forward as a country or society. We're stagnating, maybe even falling backwards. Today we don't see people observing their religious freedoms (including the freedom not to be) and being happy to have them. Instead, we see theists and atheists competing with one another over what gets taught in schools, how much legal protection unborn life has, how marriage is defined, etc. The result of this is that more and more Americans are finding it impossible to live their lives without either being swept up into the conflict, or giving up and losing all interest in any sense of civic duty or awareness.

Blah blah blah blah. I guess I went on a rant.

I guess you did.

Nestled in your RANT are a couple of lines I found wanting.

"God is real" , "He held that to dislocate the religious drive one must replace it with something else"

I can see why "Boss" likes your delivery. False premis imbeded in rote logic. The only thing "real" about the concept of god is that this fantasy has infected the mental stability and honesty of billions of people. God is real in the same fashion as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real and for nearly the same dishonest reasons. I find it a bit troubling that to sustain Santa, the rodent and god in our culture we must trick children.

We are dragging an anchor of fantasy that undermines much of human reason and your favorite justification for this deciet is that it is claimed because without these lies we would have to "replace them with something else"? Really?... Seriously? Is THAT how the Pope's friend Galileo was rebuffed? Oh that's right..he did offer a suitable replacement... THE TRUTH.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RiU2T4Psyc]"Galileo" Indigo Girls - YouTube[/ame]