Challenge the Atheist!

[hobelim]

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 narly 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.

"Galileo" Indigo Girls - YouTube

I wonder how many people with even a minimal education as grown adults who know the difference between what is possible and impossible would get down on their knees and worship and eat a lifeless triune matzo god for spiritual life, for a nominal service charge, unless they were tricked first and had their brains scrambled when they were children..

 

[The Irish Ram]

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

Then you do it.................

 

[The Irish Ram]

'
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]
.

There isn't a bit of authenticity in what you posted. For instance:

Evidence indicates Daniel was actually well-known by the second century. First Maccabees (2:59f) and Baruch (1:15-3:3) both allude to Daniel and his book. Furthermore, many fragments of Daniel were found at Qumran, implying the book was of some importance by the third century.
The dead sea scrolls are proof that the Old Testament has not been altered, and The New Testament was translated into many languages by 60-70 AD. Any nomadic alterations would have been exposed by checking the other copies that were and are in existence. So the old nomad theory could only apply to the authors of the Old Testament.

Let's put your nomads to the test:
How did one, apparently given to fantasy, roaming nomad in the north of some foreign country, have the same crazy nomad fantasy that some other crazy roaming nomad came up with in the south of some other foreign country, at the same time, with no contradictions between them?

So, in your understanding of herdsmen, the Bible and it's sources,
Did a nomadic herdsman conjure up the story of Babel?

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Agnosticism addresses knowledge. Atheism addresses belief. They are two different categories. So, to use agnosticism as a middle ground on the spectrum of belief is a category error. As such, the two terms are not mutually exclusive. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist, gnostic atheist. So, to simply say one is agnostic, says nothing about what they do or do Not believe.

Agnosticism refers to whether a claim is even knowable. You can believe in a proposition, but that doesn't mean you known it. This is epistemology. With reference to god, agnosticism means that it never really be known whether god exists or not. One may believe or disbelieve, but can not count this belief as knowledge. In other words, one could accept the proposition that god exists, and live their life according to it, yet not consider this knowledge. We don't act on knowledge. We act on belief.

 

[numan]

Evidence indicates Daniel was actually well-known by the second century. First Maccabees (2:59f) and Baruch (1:15-3:3) both allude to Daniel and his book. Furthermore, many fragments of Daniel were found at Qumran, implying the book was of some importance by the third century.

You had better do some more reading. You've got your dates wrong.

Moreover, why do you assume that even if a person existed in history or legend, that some other person could not make up stories about them?

That certainly happened about the non-existent and mythical Moses, and about the quasi-historical David and Solomon. Those stories about the early life of David are so obviously make-believe, on a par with Paul Bunyan and Robin Hood!

The Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century B.C. Serious biblical scholarship established that long ago. Anything that had some relationship to historical fact was written long after the events, and it was simply a lie that it was prediction.
.

 

[MaryL]

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 was born in Denver in 1957. I was a born AGNOSTIC. I am not sure what you are asking here .I was sent to church, catechism and all that. But it didn't take because I have innate sense of doubt and question everything, I mean EVERYTHING. If I have a question, I don’t need you for an answer, kiddo.

 

[BreezeWood]

is there a God without a Garden ? -

* no, they are the same.


the Atheists would have us believe they are from Mars ...

 

[HUGGY]

is there a God without a Garden ? -

* no, they are the same.


the Atheists would have us believe they are from Mars ...

Why would you suggest something so rediculous? There are plenty of possibilities where human genome originated. One of them is fairly obvious. Most science indicates WE decended from the spark of life that spawned here on earth many billions of years ago. A small minority suggests that life existed elsewhere in the universe and somehow..maybe comets or asteroids was seeded here by collision. The movie Prometheus has an interesting take on what might have occured. Whatever started life here on earth happened a very long time ago. It was NOT a god that created life here. That is nonsense. It was almost certainly a chemical bond that somehow "learned" to replicate.. OR it was a pre-existing life form from some other place that probably got destroyed in a celestial collision sending frozen water with life embeded out into the universe...OR it was intentional seeding by some intelligent life on our planet. The last possibility is almost certainly nonsense because it begs the question "Why".

 

[Underhill]

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?

Um, no.

Because it is simply a notion you pulled from your ass. So sorry, but I don't ascribe to beliefs based upon such tenuous footing.

 

[HUGGY]

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?

Bingo!

 

[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?

Um, no.

Because it is simply a notion you pulled from your ass. So sorry, but I don't ascribe to beliefs based upon such tenuous footing.

The story of creation is not a story about God poofing the solar system or the universe into existence, neither is it a story of the creation the first homo sapiens. A talking serpent should have been a dead giveaway to even a child with the least understanding about fairy tales.


You feel secure in your belief that the story is false because of well known scientific facts about reality prove them to be literally impossible.

The truth is science has proven false that which scripture is not about.


To dismiss the entirety of scripture as false because it cannot be literally true is about as dumb as believing the stories are the literal truth even though they contradict reality.


You don't seem to be open to the possibility that even fairy tales convey truth any better than 'believers' are open to the fact that Scripture was never intended to be interpreted literally by the intelligent.


believer or unbelievers, blinded by religion or blinded by science..... whats the difference?

You all have failed to comprehend what amount to children's stories and don't even have the least amount of integrity required to even consider you might have made an error or missed something, as if that was too hard to believe....

Whether you believe in God or not, you have become a prisoner of your own obstinate stupidity as securely restrained by ignorance as the most deranged religious fundamentalist out there.

 

[KevinWestern]

I wonder how many people with even a minimal education as grown adults who know the difference between what is possible and impossible would get down on their knees and worship and eat a lifeless triune matzo god for spiritual life, for a nominal service charge, unless they were tricked first and had their brains scrambled when they were children..

Correct me if I was missing your point, but who exactly are you to say what the clear cut difference between possible and impossible is?

Given the incredible vastness, hugeness, and mysteriousness of our Universe, and the fact that not a single one of us has traveled much beyond the distance of our moon, I'm rather positive that you don't know much at all about the true nature of our existence (or anyone else for that matter).

Sure, we can do a few science experiments here or there “proving this” or “proving that” (demonstrating how "smart" we are as humans), but how many times in human history has the well-accepted science of the day been shown to be incorrect? Why is the science of our day any different?

My point is, how do you claim to know so much when you’ve seen and experienced so very, very little (relatively speaking, of course)? You're less than 100 years old, and our universe is over five billion...

.

 

[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?

Bingo!

hey, I am in agreement with you that the God defined by a literal interpretation of scripture does not exist, but can you even consider another way to interpret scripture that reveals an entirely different story and consequently defines an entirely different being?

Can you even consider the possibility that there is a God who has been intimately involved in every secret detail of your life all of your life and the problem is not with any God but with your ability or rather inability to perceive him?

Is that too hard to consider even though you already know the relative insignificance and limitations of the human mind preoccupied with family, career, and paying the rent while floating on a rock orbiting a billions of years old exploding star??

If you missed something as simple as the hidden nature of what is conveyed in stories full of metaphors, allegories, homonyms, hyperbole, etc, why would you find it hard to believe you might aslo have missed the signs that would reveal the living God to your mind?

 

[hobelim]

I wonder how many people with even a minimal education as grown adults who know the difference between what is possible and impossible would get down on their knees and worship and eat a lifeless triune matzo god for spiritual life, for a nominal service charge, unless they were tricked first and had their brains scrambled when they were children..

Correct me if I was missing your point, but who exactly are you to say what the clear cut difference between possible and impossible is?

Given the incredible vastness, hugeness, and mysteriousness of our Universe, and the fact that not a single one of us has traveled much beyond the distance of our moon, I'm rather positive that you don't know much at all about the true nature of our existence (or anyone else for that matter).

Sure, we can do a few science experiments here or there “proving this” or “proving that” (demonstrating how "smart" we are as humans), but how many times in human history has the well-accepted science of the day been shown to be incorrect? Why is the science of our day any different?

My point is, how do you claim to know so much when you’ve seen and experienced so very, very little (relatively speaking, of course)? You're less than 100 years old, and our universe is over five billion...

.

excellent question.


I don't think I was much more than 8 years old by the time I was sure that snakes don't talk, people don't float up into the sky, two human are required to have a baby, you can't feed 5000 people fish sandwiches out of thin air, and physically dead people don't come out of their graves.... ever..


Why aren't you sure?

 

[KevinWestern]

excellent question.


I don't think I was much more than 8 years old by the time I was sure that snakes don't talk, people don't float up into the sky, two human are required to have a baby, you can't feed 5000 people fish sandwiches out of thin air, and physically dead people don't come out of their graves.... ever..


Why aren't you sure?

Listen, I’ll preface this with I’m not a religious person, but who are you to say that snakes can’t talk or that people can’t float up in the sky – for instance?

Have you traveled to all of the planets in our Universe, and have confirmed that nowhere (in this infinitely vast space) that these two things can’t occur? Have you confirmed that there has never existed an intelligent snake-like lifeform in our infinitely wide and complex Universe (in it's five billion years of history) that could speak some form of intelligent language?

A pretty bold claim for someone so extremely, extremely young (relatively speaking) with zero experience outside of our planet - correct?

I believe you take for granted how vast and mysterious our Universe is; I don't blame you though, as you wouldn't be the first...




.

 

[hobelim]

excellent question.


I don't think I was much more than 8 years old by the time I was sure that snakes don't talk, people don't float up into the sky, two human are required to have a baby, you can't feed 5000 people fish sandwiches out of thin air, and physically dead people don't come out of their graves.... ever..


Why aren't you sure?

Listen, I’ll preface this with I’m not a religious person, but who are you to say that snakes can’t talk or that people can’t float up in the sky – for instance?

Have you traveled to all of the planets in our Universe, and have confirmed that nowhere (in this infinitely vast space) that these two things can’t occur? Have you confirmed that there has never existed an intelligent snake-like lifeform in our infinitely wide and complex Universe (in it's five billion years of history) that could speak some form of intelligent language?

A pretty bold claim for someone so extremely, extremely young (relatively speaking) with zero experience outside of our planet - correct?

I believe you take for granted how vast and mysterious our Universe is; I don't blame you though, as you wouldn't be the first...

These stories were written to instruct a people who allegedly just came out of Egypt where coincidentally there were snake cults and a pharoah who claimed to be a god who wore a serpent on his head.


The only taking serpents ever are of the human species.


snap out of it.

 

[Underhill]

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?

Um, no.

Because it is simply a notion you pulled from your ass. So sorry, but I don't ascribe to beliefs based upon such tenuous footing.

The story of creation is not a story about God poofing the solar system or the universe into existence, neither is it a story of the creation the first homo sapiens. A talking serpent should have been a dead giveaway to even a child with the least understanding about fairy tales.


You feel secure in your belief that the story is false because of well known scientific facts about reality prove them to be literally impossible.

The truth is science has proven false that which scripture is not about.


To dismiss the entirety of scripture as false because it cannot be literally true is about as dumb as believing the stories are the literal truth even though they contradict reality.


You don't seem to be open to the possibility that even fairy tales convey truth any better than 'believers' are open to the fact that Scripture was never intended to be interpreted literally by the intelligent.


believer or unbelievers, blinded by religion or blinded by science..... whats the difference?

You all have failed to comprehend what amount to children's stories and don't even have the least amount of integrity required to even consider you might have made an error or missed something, as if that was too hard to believe....

Whether you believe in God or not, you have become a prisoner of your own obstinate stupidity as securely restrained by ignorance as the most deranged religious fundamentalist out there.

So the parts about the serpent and creation are myth, but the bit about Jesus dying for your sins, being resurrected and floating up into heaven is true?

How do you know any of it is true if you accept that much of it isn't? Where do you draw the line?

I agree with your premise that the book isn't written literally. I just take it a bit father. I think the whole thing is the equivalent of a fairy tale.

 

[KevinWestern]

excellent question.


I don't think I was much more than 8 years old by the time I was sure that snakes don't talk, people don't float up into the sky, two human are required to have a baby, you can't feed 5000 people fish sandwiches out of thin air, and physically dead people don't come out of their graves.... ever..


Why aren't you sure?

Listen, I’ll preface this with I’m not a religious person, but who are you to say that snakes can’t talk or that people can’t float up in the sky – for instance?

Have you traveled to all of the planets in our Universe, and have confirmed that nowhere (in this infinitely vast space) that these two things can’t occur? Have you confirmed that there has never existed an intelligent snake-like lifeform in our infinitely wide and complex Universe (in it's five billion years of history) that could speak some form of intelligent language?

A pretty bold claim for someone so extremely, extremely young (relatively speaking) with zero experience outside of our planet - correct?

I believe you take for granted how vast and mysterious our Universe is; I don't blame you though, as you wouldn't be the first...

These stories were written to instruct a people who allegedly just came out of Egypt where coincidentally there were snake cults and a pharoah who claimed to be a god who wore a serpent on his head.


The only taking serpents ever are of the human species.


snap out of it.

Snap out of what exactly?

I'm just trying to explain to you that when it comes down to it, you know zilch about the Universe and what has occurred a billion years ago, a trillion light years away (for example); the only clues you have gathered so far is what you’ve been able to see or read as a human - on earth - in your infinitely short existence so far.

And don’t get me wrong – I’m in the same boat – however the difference between you and me is that I’m willing to admit (in the grand scheme of things) that I simply can’t confirm or deny that a talking snake has or has not existed somewhere in the far out reaches of the universe. Why? Because I don’t have five billion years of wisdom, and I’ve never even been out to space once.

Do you get my point?

You're claiming to know - for certain - that something has or has not occurred somewhere in our infinitely large universe in the past 5 billion years. You know how ridiculous and arrogant that is?


.


.

 

[hobelim]

QUOTE=Underhill]
So the parts about the serpent and creation are myth, but the bit about Jesus dying for your sins, being resurrected and floating up into heaven is true?[/QUOTE]


No, the creation story is not a myth, it is just not about the creation of the solar system or the creation of man from the dust of the earth unless you understand the dust of the earth to mean scum of the earth.


QUOTE=Underhill] How do you know any of it is true if you accept that much of it isn't? Where do you draw the line?[/QUOTE]


Reality is a major constraint on any possible interpretation. Also there is a finite number of possible meanings to each word used and a finite possible interpretations to their combined meaning in each sentence.

That always leaves just one way to interpret any given story that conforms to and is confirmed by reality.



QUOTE=Underhill]I agree with your premise that the book isn't written literally. I just take it a bit father. I think the whole thing is the equivalent of a fairy tale.[/QUOTE]



Yes, but like in any fairy tale, what is the lesson taught? What truth is conveyed?

 

[hobelim]

Listen, I’ll preface this with I’m not a religious person, but who are you to say that snakes can’t talk or that people can’t float up in the sky – for instance?

Have you traveled to all of the planets in our Universe, and have confirmed that nowhere (in this infinitely vast space) that these two things can’t occur? Have you confirmed that there has never existed an intelligent snake-like lifeform in our infinitely wide and complex Universe (in it's five billion years of history) that could speak some form of intelligent language?

A pretty bold claim for someone so extremely, extremely young (relatively speaking) with zero experience outside of our planet - correct?

I believe you take for granted how vast and mysterious our Universe is; I don't blame you though, as you wouldn't be the first...

These stories were written to instruct a people who allegedly just came out of Egypt where coincidentally there were snake cults and a pharoah who claimed to be a god who wore a serpent on his head.


The only taking serpents ever are of the human species.


snap out of it.

Snap out of what exactly?

I'm just trying to explain to you that when it comes down to it, you know zilch about the Universe and what has occurred a billion years ago, a trillion light years away (for example); the only clues you have gathered so far is what you’ve been able to see or read as a human - on earth - in your infinitely short existence so far.

And don’t get me wrong – I’m in the same boat – however the difference between you and me is that I’m willing to admit (in the grand scheme of things) that I simply can’t confirm or deny that a talking snake has or has not existed somewhere in the far out reaches of the universe. Why? Because I don’t have five billion years of wisdom, and I’ve never even been out to space once.

Do you get my point?

You're claiming to know - for certain - that something has or has not occurred somewhere in our infinitely large universe in the past 5 billion years. You know how ridiculous and arrogant that is?


.


.

Don't get you wrong? You are wrong.


I am not claiming to know everything about the infinitely large universe for the past five billion years.


I am claiming to know about well known literary techniques used in a story written by people for people expressly for the purpose of instruction.


You never had anyone explain to you about the three little pigs when you were in kindergarten?


as an adult, do you think its possible the story is about a time when pigs could talk???


Snap out of that.......