Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

shizz

philologos wrote: »

It describes the very beginnings of Creation and God's relationship with mankind. Yeah it does. I don't see how that is inconsistent. Perhaps you might want to explain a little more. I also believe chapters 1 and 2 describe Creation from the perspective of God, and from the perspective of His authority and Lordship over it.

You said in one of the posts that you linked me too that Genesis is not meant to be a science book. From this I take it that you intend it not to be taken literally. Therefore it does not describe the very beginning of creation, yet as you said it rather describes Gods power over it's creation.

How you can hold both views and yet say it's not meant to be taken literally is contradictory.

philologos

I agree, it isn't meant to be a science book. It describes the beginnings of Creation from the perspective of God's relationship with mankind. Which is why you see Creation discussed in respect to God's power and authority over it in Genesis 1 and 2, and God's early encounters with man throughout the rest of Genesis.

I'm failing to see how I must regard Genesis as a science book, when it wasn't ever intended to be such.

Where's the contradiction?

shizz

123 LC wrote: »

but why must it have evidence, it's an opinion, it's what you think and believe!
With phrases like ''it is the only way to con people into believing it'', you aren't really doing much good for the fact that you force atheism on us.

i can similarly say i hate the argument that religous people just conveniently believe in a god, and thats that. for me there there is so much more to religion than the simplistic demeaning way that ye seem to discuss it, as if religious people are completely thick, as if we can't understand your argument...i understand it, but i still really don't believe it.

But for any opinion to have any weight it requires evidence to back it up. Otherwise it is not worth anything ergo, it's ridiculous.

I'm not trying to force atheism on you. I'm explaining why an opinion without evidence isn't worth a damn thing.

Opticom

shizz wrote: »

I'm explaining why an opinion without evidence isn't worth a damn thing.

And no evidence for atheism means . . . .

smash

philologos wrote: »

I agree, it isn't meant to be a science book. It describes the beginnings of Creation from the perspective of God's relationship with mankind. Which is why you see Creation discussed in respect to God's power and authority over it in Genesis 1 and 2, and God's early encounters with man throughout the rest of Genesis.

I'm failing to see how I must regard Genesis as a science book, when it wasn't ever intended to be such.

I'm failing to see how you can regard genesis as anything other than a story considering it's authors have never even been identified, therefor how can you accept it's credibility?

Opticom wrote: »

And no evidence for atheism means . . . .

What?

shizz

philologos wrote: »

I agree, it isn't meant to be a science book. It describes the beginnings of Creation from the perspective of God's relationship with mankind. Which is why you see Creation discussed in respect to God's power and authority over it in Genesis 1 and 2, and God's early encounters with man throughout the rest of Genesis.

I'm failing to see how I must regard Genesis as a science book, when it wasn't ever intended to be such.

Where's the contradiction?

Ok then it seems to be a misunderstanding.You said it describes the beginning of creation AND gods relationship with us. To have this view, along with that it only describes God's power over creation, would be a contradiction.

Sarky

Opticom wrote: »

Refusing all known evidence does not mean a God cannot exist, but as you're going to do that, we'll skip to the bit where you can try and prove for us how absence of evidence is proof of absence.

Still waiting on a good argument for atheism . . .

First, could you explain how a lack of belief in something is the same as fervently believing it doesn't exist? Because that would be kinda central to your riposte not being horribly misinformed crap.

There simply is no evidence of a god to refuse. I've been a scientist for a long time, ignoring evidence is not something I do.

You actually had a better grasp of mass extinction than atheism and that just makes me want to cry. :'c

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

And no evidence for atheism means . . . .

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity due to the lack of evidence provided by religions. This is why someone is an atheist. To ask for evidence for atheism is to ask for the lack of evidence from religion. Do you see how silly what you are asking is?

Corkfeen

123 LC wrote: »

that is exactly what i am saying, energy has to exist, but there is no explanation to how it was first formed so by your theory it should be 'ridiculous'. by the same idea you think god can't exist as there is no evidence of how he/she/it formed...see the similarity?

You do realise that your argument actually complicates matters far more. :pac: If the universe needed a supernatural being to create it, then a new question is created. What created God? He would clearly need a creator by your reasoning, but the creator would also need a creator. Endlessly asking the same question over and over.

philologos

shizz wrote: »

Ok then it seems to be a misunderstanding.You said it describes the beginning of creation AND gods relationship with us. To have this view, along with that it only describes God's power over creation, would be a contradiction.

I really don't see how it is. Genesis 1 describes that creation came into being through God's power. I don't doubt that. What I am saying is that Genesis 1 and 2 don't describe the minutiae of that other than saying God declared "Let there be light, and there was light". That doesn't tell me much about the process which occurred to bring light into being, what it does tell me is that God has power over all things. Likewise of anything else.

If you read my posts, you'll see that the structure of the passage gives us clues as to how Genesis 1 and 2 should be read.

Genesis also very clearly tells us about God's relationship with mankind.

Where's the contradiction?

grindle

shizz wrote: »

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity due to the lack of evidence provided by religions. This is why someone is an atheist. To ask for evidence for atheism is to ask for the lack of evidence from religion. Do you see how silly what you are asking is?

You beat me to it. Phenomenally thoughtless.

123 LC

shizz wrote: »

But for any opinion to have any weight it requires evidence to back it up. Otherwise it is not worth anything ergo, it's ridiculous.

I'm not trying to force atheism on you. I'm explaining why an opinion without evidence isn't worth a damn thing.

but an opinion doesn't need evidence. it's what you think. and millions of
people believe in god, maybe that will add weight to the argument. i don't really know what evidence you're looking for anyway?!

shizz

philologos wrote: »

I really don't see how it is. Genesis 1 describes that creation came into being through God's power. I don't doubt that. What I am saying is that Genesis 1 and 2 don't describe the minutiae of that other than saying God declared "Let there be light, and there was light". That doesn't tell me much about the process which occurred to bring light into being, what it does tell me is that God has power over all things. Likewise of anything else.

If you read my posts, you'll see that the structure of the passage gives us clues as to how Genesis 1 and 2 should be read.

Genesis also very clearly tells us about God's relationship with mankind.

Where's the contradiction?

You said it describes the beginning of creation AND gods relationship with us. If it were to describe the beginning of creation, that would be taking it in the literal sense which you said it shouldn't be because it isn't a science book.
This is a contradiction.

philologos

Sarky wrote: »

Shh, he's pretending to ignore that guy!

Not at all. nozzferrahhtoo is one person on my ignore list of 2 in total of hundreds of people that I've chatted to on boards.ie. The reason I have nozzferrahhtoo on my ignore list is essentially because rather than actually engaging in a respectful discussion with me, he has been more interested in falsely claiming that I was a liar, and mere ad-hominem. If nozzferrahhtoo is willing to reject these tactics, he's off the ignore list.

I'm more than willing to discuss with anyone who is willing to do so with respect. In the event that I am unable to, I'll discuss with those who will.

See the attachment to this post to see my ignore list.

Opticom

Sarky wrote: »

First, could you explain how a lack of belief in something is the same as fervently believing it doesn't exist?

That's agnosticism not atheism.

Sarky wrote: »

There simply is no evidence of a god to refuse. I've been a scientist for a long time, ignoring evidence is not something I do.

I love Science, but it's a limited picture of the small amount of the known universe, and it only deals with the physical. You won't find the non physical under a microscope.

smash

123 LC wrote: »

but an opinion doesn't need evidence. it's what you think. and millions of
people believe in god, maybe that will add weight to the argument. i don't really know what evidence you're looking for anyway?!

Millions of people believe in Santa. But then they grow up and get wiser. The difference is that while you believe in Santa, there's evidence to say he exists.

liveya

Pushtrak wrote: »

Well, seeing how faith in something unchangeable has been lasting despite its mismatch with reality for a long time. It isn't really an underdog. Comforting illusions and all that.

You can't say anything is an illusion, until you absolutely know the truth yourself, which as a subjectivist, would never happen because there is not truth? Maybe you're not a subjectivist, but even if you weren't you need to prove God does not exist, until then it's a matter of faith.

Secondly, it's funny you bring up illusions, because that can work against you. I'm sure you find it comforting that in your faith, there is no judgement? Indeed..

The only reason why atheism is suitable for some is because the subjective value that is a necessary requirement for faith is absent, so the idea of somebody having faith in God, seems absurd. What actually serves to increase my faith is atheism itself, which carries its own terrible, bad theology and a strawman version of Christianity. (Btw, figured out why atheists don't attack buddhism yet?

98% of the human race that ever lived were wrong, we are the intellectual few! The chosen ones!

Hurrah for snobbism.

123 LC

Corkfeen wrote: »

You do realise that your argument actually complicates matters far more. :pac: If the universe needed a supernatural being to create it, then a new question is created. What created God? He would clearly need a creator by your reasoning, but the creator would also need a creator. Endlessly asking the same question over and over.

this is the point i'm trying to make! i'm trying to show that atheists have no proof as to how the world began ie before the big bang, while religous people have no proof as to how god was formed(but for me i don't need it)..so really i don't think that people who don't believe in god can completely proove he can't exist

shizz

123 LC wrote: »

but an opinion doesn't need evidence. it's what you think. and millions of
people believe in god, maybe that will add weight to the argument. i don't really know what evidence you're looking for anyway?!

Opinion does need evidence if you want it to be worth anything. I'll put it another way. Why should anyone listen to your opinion if you don't base your opinion off some sort of evidence?

What you are talking about is faith. Faith doesn't need evidence. To use faith as your evidence is to say that "your belief is that there is a god". If you were to say "my opinion is there is a god" I would require you to provide evidence for your opinion to be worth anything.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

That's agnosticism not atheism.




I love Science, but it's a limited picture of the small amount of the known universe, and it only deals with the physical. You won't find the non physical under a microscope.

Got any evidence for the non physical there?

Opticom

shizz wrote: »

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity due to the lack of evidence provided by religions. This is why someone is an atheist. To ask for evidence for atheism is to ask for the lack of evidence from religion. Do you see how silly what you are asking is?

If religion or evidence never existed, that would still be no argument that a God cannot exist.
So still waiting on a good argument for atheism as opposed to the agnostic answers.

smash

123 LC wrote: »

this is the point i'm trying to make! i'm trying to show that atheists have no proof as to how the world began ie before the big bang, while religous people have no proof as to how god was formed(but for me i don't need it)..so really i don't think that people who don't believe in god can completely proove he can't exist

Well there's scientific evidence to state that it wasn't created on 7 days anyway!

philologos

shizz wrote: »

You said it describes the beginning of creation AND gods relationship with us. If it were to describe the beginning of creation, that would be taking it in the literal sense which you said it shouldn't be because it isn't a science book.
This is a contradiction.

I believe Genesis describes truth, but I don't believe it is a science book. I don't see any problem in saying that it describes the beginning of creation, and God's relationship with mankind.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not intended to describe the minutiae of Creation, but rather are to show that God indeed did create all things. Unless you're saying that the idea of God creating the world and all that is in it is incompatible with modern science. It is this idea that I reject strongly. There's no good reason to suggest that God could not be what caused the creative process (described in detail in the laws that we see in the natural world) to occur.

Genesis 1 and 2 are describing reality from a Christian perspective, albeit in a poetic manner. I don't reject the idea that God created the world. It's not either / or, it can very clearly be that God's creation has been manifest in what we can observe.

Sarky

Opticom wrote: »

That's agnosticism not atheism.

No, it is not. You're conflating terms again. You did it with mass extinction, too, and look where that got you. Please don't do it again, it's embarrassing especially when you claim to love science. I'm presuming you meant to add "no homo". Not that there's anything wrong with that sort of thing, none of my business etc.

I love Science, but it's a limited picture of the small amount of the known universe, and it only deals with the physical. You won't find the non physical under a microscope.

Well as soon as you find some, let us know, k? Cos that would turn the world upside down and win you every Nobel prize ever for the rest of your life.

Pushtrak

123 LC wrote: »

but an opinion doesn't need evidence. it's what you think. and millions of
people believe in god, maybe that will add weight to the argument. i don't really know what evidence you're looking for anyway?!

Sources outside the bible for claims of the time don't stand up to what is claimed in the bible. In the bible, there are all manner of miracle claims. Hasn't exactly been doing any such thing lately, even using lately very loosely. People claim a sole survivor in an accident as proof of god, or answers to prayers. God could easily prove itself if it wished.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnI4eoSvwo

philologos wrote: »

See the attachment to this post to see my ignore list.

Ha, I haven't even seen Sam post in ages. I'm not sure if he still does or not, but I'm more on the side he probably doesn't.

Opticom wrote: »

That's agnosticism not atheism.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[7][8] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[8][9]

See also: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QdYoufb0UsQ/TAimA3truGI/AAAAAAAAAA4/pcR-muRgp8c/s1600/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png

I love Science, but it's a limited picture of the small amount of the known universe, and it only deals with the physical. You won't find the non physical under a microscope.

Where do you find it? By assuming it?

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

If religion or evidence never existed, that would still be no argument that a God cannot exist.
So still waiting on a good argument for atheism as opposed to the agnostic answers.

Man I dunno if it's just the tiredness but reading that first sentence is like having your mindfcuked

123 LC

smash wrote: »

Millions of people believe in Santa. But then they grow up and get wiser. The difference is that while you believe in Santa, there's evidence to say he exists.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXyEwNve7Wzq2BQ1mwojJUwCtKsZxz3F1P1IKAmrigTjk4eqHOdMDSTMkC

seriously though, this is an argument for someone who has run low on arguments :P there is evidence god exists, whether you are able to visualise or believe this evidence is up to the person

liveya

smash wrote: »

Well there's scientific evidence to state that it wasn't created on 7 days anyway!

Genesis is a religious text for religious purposes, so your argument is void. There is such thing as progress, as in learning more truths as we move along in time.

But what's the point. You atheists babble on with the same old rubbish, ignoring replies, so you won't have to challenge your position. This is why I just cannot respect most atheists here, with their bad theology and strawman Christianity.

smash

I'm guessing I'm the 3rd person on philologos' ignore list considering he's continuously talking about genesis but not replying to this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79192480&postcount=366

shizz

philologos wrote: »

I believe Genesis describes truth, but I don't believe it is a science book. I don't see any problem in saying that it describes the beginning of creation, and God's relationship with mankind.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not intended to describe the minutiae of Creation, but rather are to show that God indeed did create all things. Unless you're saying that the idea of God creating the world and all that is in it is incompatible with modern science. It is this idea that I reject strongly. There's no good reason to suggest that God could not be what caused the creative process (described in detail in the laws that we see in the natural world) to occur.

Genesis 1 and 2 are describing reality from a Christian perspective, albeit in a poetic manner. I don't reject the idea that God created the world. It's not either / or, it can very clearly be that God's creation has been manifest in what we can observe.

OK so you disagree with god creating the world being incompatible with modern science. Do you believe that, putting it simply, God *poofed* the earth into existence? Or rather that the earth was created from the gas and rock that clumped together after the birth of our sun?