Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[denuseri]

What did I tell ya...the sophistry two step in effect.

Where is all your evidence Thorne? You just said you had some... yet again...I would love to see it..Ive asked for it every time you mentioned it and the best you have is you cant prove anything...or that you refuse to.

Well?

[Thorne]

Where is all your evidence Thorne? You just said you had some... yet again...I would love to see it..Ive asked for it every time you mentioned it and the best you have is you cant prove anything...or that you refuse to.
Well?

I've given plenty of evidence, but just for you:
- Virtually every supernatural explanation for events in the world has been explained as being NATURAL events.
- There are hundreds of different religious sects around the world, perhaps thousands through history. ALL of them differ among themselves as to the nature of God.
- Despite thousands of years of trying, theists have not been able to provide a single compelling bit of evidence FOR the existence of gods. Lots of stories, many claims of visions, but no hard evidence. And even many of the stories (Noah, Moses, even Jesus, for example) are eerily similar to stories from earlier religions.
- Descriptions of God have become weaker. The Biblical God used to destroy blasphemers, villages, cities, whole nations, with a single word. Hell, he supposedly destroyed the whole world in a fit of pique. Now? "Where the Bible tells us God once shaped worlds out of the void and parted great seas with the power of his word, today his most impressive acts seem to be shaping sticky buns into the likenesses of saints and conferring vaguely-defined warm feelings on his believers' hearts when they attend church." - Ebon Muse

All of these, and many more, provide pretty compelling (to me, anyway) evidence that God, as defined by his believers, not only does not but CAN NOT exist. Whether or not some form of supernatural deity DOES exist is, of course, impossible to determine. As many have said, such a thing is beyond our ability to determine. What CAN be determined is that such a being does NOT interact with our world in any measurable, meaningful way.

[denuseri]

I've given plenty of evidence, but just for you:
- Virtually every supernatural explanation for events in the world has been explained as being NATURAL events.

According to who? And what says that it wasn't "god" who cuased the event using natural means?

- There are hundreds of different religious sects around the world, perhaps thousands through history. ALL of them differ among themselves as to the nature of God.

If anything it looks to me as if more and more they move to one day coming to a consensus as too the "nature" of god. And what "god" wants us to do as a species. So thats not evidence of anything other than many different people having different opinions and perspectives and has zero to do with weather or not a god or gods exists...so much as what that god/s is and says we are to do. If anything its much more compelling evidence for the existance of such rather than against it.

- Despite thousands of years of trying, theists have not been able to provide a single compelling bit of evidence FOR the existence of gods. Lots of stories, many claims of visions, but no hard evidence. And even many of the stories (Noah, Moses, even Jesus, for example) are eerily similar to stories from earlier religions.

If your refering to Genisis and the Tale of Giglimesh that makes sence sence Abraham was from the city of Ur, so its quite natural those people and the jews have similar stories for the creation and flood...not too mention, the flood tale in one form or another is pretty much an allmost world wide ppenomena which only makes it more compelling. And your leaving out all the eyewitness testemonies made by countless people that were recorded sometimes directly by the people themselves (like Paul in the Bible) etc. We historians and anthropologists often have even less evidence to go on than things such as that which were written by people and left behind or preserved. Additonally there are Biblical scholars and scientiests who would flat out say your wrong and that many such things have been found (like the temple of solomon) confirming eneough in their learned opinions to be just as valid as any other assumptions conserning mans past made by non-biblical scientiests...like where Troy was or how Julias Ceaser died.

- Descriptions of God have become weaker. The Biblical God used to destroy blasphemers, villages, cities, whole nations, with a single word. Hell, he supposedly destroyed the whole world in a fit of pique. Now? "Where the Bible tells us God once shaped worlds out of the void and parted great seas with the power of his word, today his most impressive acts seem to be shaping sticky buns into the likenesses of saints and conferring vaguely-defined warm feelings on his believers' hearts when they attend church." - Ebon Muse

Back to trying to insult people again I see. Your also leaving out the very strong descriptions of God that go on every day according to many other peoples viewpoints...so strong infact that billions of people world wide feel compelled to believe them. Again your evidence is nothing more than a matter of personal opinion. A rather blasie paper tiger of sophistry with no "real" teeth.

All of these, and many more, provide pretty compelling (to me, anyway) evidence that God, as defined by his believers, not only does not but CAN NOT exist. Whether or not some form of supernatural deity DOES exist is, of course, impossible to determine. As many have said, such a thing is beyond our ability to determine. What CAN be determined is that such a being does NOT interact with our world in any measurable, meaningful way.

So as perviously stated...you have no real evidence only theory and conjecture based on nothing more than your own opinion and the opinion of those few who share your beliefs, whose assumptions one can say are equally empty in the evidence department. So what makes you any defferent from a thesist...what makes your opinion the only right one?

[Thorne]

According to who? And what says that it wasn't "god" who cuased the event using natural means?

According to science! And you can claim that gods caused anything and everything! That doesn't make it true, only wishful thinking. Unless you can provide EVIDENCE that god caused it, using whatever means, we have to assume these were completely natural events.

So thats not evidence of anything other than many different people having different opinions and perspectives and has zero to do with weather or not a god or gods exists

No, but it's pretty compelling evidence that the gods as defined by their believers do not exist.

If your refering to Genisis and the Tale of Giglimesh

No, not just the tale of Gilgamesh. There are many different stories, from Babylon, from Egypt, from Greece, which predate the Biblical stories. Including many of the supposed attributes of Jesus, such as the virgin birth, the visit of the Magi, the resurrection. Part of the pattern we see throughout the history of religion is people taking older stories, dressing them up to accommodate their own beliefs, and claiming them as evidence for gods.

the flood tale in one form or another is pretty much an allmost world wide ppenomena

Not surprising, since floods happen all over the world, and when you have virtually no contact with anyone more than 10 miles from home it's natural to assume that a very large, destructive flood (similar to what's happening in the US right now, in fact) is worldwide! Do we see any geologic evidence of such a global flood? No, not at all. Just more stories.

And your leaving out all the eyewitness testemonies

No, I'm not leaving them out. They are anecdotal, not evidence. They're a good place to START looking for evidence, but they don't comprise evidence in and of themselves. And the problem is generally that, once you start looking for the evidence to corroborate a story, you come up with empty hands.

like Paul in the Bible

Not a good choice as an eyewitness, I don't think. There is reason to believe, based on his own writings, that Paul was sick when he was struck blind for three days. In fact, he was probably ill for most of his life. It is possible that his entire basis for his conversion and subsequent teachings were based on nothing more than a fever dream, or a seizure of some kind. You want to base your religion on that? And Paul also believed that the Second Coming of Jesus was going to happen IN HIS LIFETIME! Got that one wrong, didn't he?

Additonally there are Biblical scholars and scientiests who would flat out say your wrong and that many such things have been found

Yes, there have been findings which show that the Bible has SOME historical significance, I've never denied that. There have been NO findings to support any of the RELIGIOUS claims put forth in the Bible, however. And some of the major characters in the Jewish and Christian theologies have NOT been shown to have existed anywhere outside of the Bible, including King David, Moses and Jesus Christ.

billions of people world wide feel compelled to believe them.

So if billions of people believe them they must be true? How about only one billion? Would that make something true? Well, according to this site there are about 1.1 billion "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" people. I guess we have enough numbers to satisfy your requirements?

The numbers of people who may or may not believe something is irrelevant to the truth of that belief. How many people actually believed the Second Coming was going to happen last month? Didn't happen. How many people still claim to believe the world will end in 2012 because of the Mayan Calendar? Doesn't mean it's true.

So what makes you any defferent from a thesist...what makes your opinion the only right one?

I've NEVER claimed that my opinion is the ONLY right one. I leave such absolutes to the theists. And what makes me different from a theist is that I don't base my life on tales from ancient books and the maundering and blathering of well-dressed con-men.

[denuseri]

According to science! And you can claim that gods caused anything and everything! That doesn't make it true, only wishful thinking. Unless you can provide EVIDENCE that god caused it, using whatever means, we have to assume these were completely natural events.

Science? What science has proved god doesnt exist? Hummm? I didnt think so. Sounds like your using just as much wishful thinking as any thesist. My point is...your making an assumption too and one that has no more basis in fact than anyone elses in so far as the topic is conserned.


No, but it's pretty compelling evidence that the gods as defined by their believers do not exist.

Its not compelling to the thiests now is it. Again...its a matter of opinion...not fact.


No, not just the tale of Gilgamesh. There are many different stories, from Babylon, from Egypt, from Greece, which predate the Biblical stories. Including many of the supposed attributes of Jesus, such as the virgin birth, the visit of the Magi, the resurrection. Part of the pattern we see throughout the history of religion is people taking older stories, dressing them up to accommodate their own beliefs, and claiming them as evidence for gods.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you have no evidence to prove otherwise.


Not surprising, since floods happen all over the world, and when you have virtually no contact with anyone more than 10 miles from home it's natural to assume that a very large, destructive flood (similar to what's happening in the US right now, in fact) is worldwide! Do we see any geologic evidence of such a global flood? No, not at all. Just more stories.

That doesnt mean it didnt happen in so far as the thiests are conserned...and you have no evidence to say it didnt happen anyways.


No, I'm not leaving them out. They are anecdotal, not evidence. (to you) To the thiests they are all the evidence they need apparently. They're a good place to START looking for evidence, but they don't comprise evidence in and of themselves. And the problem is generally that, once you start looking for the evidence to corroborate a story, you come up with empty hands. Many scholars on this subject disagree with your interpetation of their findings however.


Not a good choice as an eyewitness, I don't think. There is reason to believe, based on his own writings, that Paul was sick when he was struck blind for three days. In fact, he was probably ill for most of his life. It is possible that his entire basis for his conversion and subsequent teachings were based on nothing more than a fever dream, or a seizure of some kind. You want to base your religion on that? And Paul also believed that the Second Coming of Jesus was going to happen IN HIS LIFETIME! Got that one wrong, didn't he?

Again...thats a matter of opinion...and not part of written history...its your belief...but not the belief of the theists. And its no more valid than theirs eaither.


Yes, there have been findings which show that the Bible has SOME historical significance, I've never denied that. There have been NO findings to support any of the RELIGIOUS claims put forth in the Bible, however. And some of the major characters in the Jewish and Christian theologies have NOT been shown to have existed anywhere outside of the Bible, including King David, Moses and Jesus Christ. Again...when you pick and choose your evidence as you see fit without bothering to really see if there is any validity too it and exclude all evidence that supports the theists...you take much on faith...your faith apparently mainly lays with those who hate religion, any religion, becuase it isnt atheism.


So if billions of people believe them they must be true?


I've NEVER claimed that my opinion is the ONLY right one. I leave such absolutes to the theists. And what makes me different from a theist is that I don't base my life on tales from ancient books and the maundering and blathering of well-dressed con-men.

And yet again more insults.

I didnt say anything about true or that one had to have a certian number of people who share their beliefs...just that people should be allowed to believe what they wish on the matter since no proof exists to the contrary. If I bring up numbers its to simply point out that the "atheists" are not in the majority...you lumped a whole bunch of people who are not "atheists" into the same pice of the pie chart in an attempt to bolster your sides appeareance.

When you make use of sophistry and avoid all logic and continue to take at position full of belicose rehtoric thats no different from the religious zealotry you claim to be against you look exactly like the opposite side of the same fundamentalist coin from my perspective.

And when you call everyone who doesnt share your beliefs hoodwinked, or a dummy...you sure are not preaching tolerance or secularism...you are indeed saying if its not your way...its wrong.