The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[Flipper]

If I thought that the bible was authoritative, I would be a Christian. Duh.

Unfortunately, the bible would need much better supporting evidence for me to rethink this position. Such evidence is not there. In fact, there is little evidence other than the circumstantial to support a supernaturalist position.

Z-man's argument just seems to be a variant of the causeless cause argument. I don't find this to be satisfactory argument because we don't know all the variables or conditions present at the beginning of the universe. Even if the universe had a designer, how would you know it was the God of the bible?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
If I thought that the bible was authoritative, I would be a Christian. Duh.

Well I am a Christian, and as such, that's the only authoritative text I have. I can't offer you anything else, as nothing else qualifies. In refusing to look at it, you only prove my point -- that you don't want to see it.

Unfortunately, the bible would need much better supporting evidence for me to rethink this position. Such evidence is not there. In fact, there is little evidence other than the circumstantial to support a supernaturalist position.

What sort of evidence would you find acceptable?

Z-man's argument just seems to be a variant of the causeless cause argument. I don't find this to be satisfactory argument because we don't know all the variables or conditions present at the beginning of the universe. Even if the universe had a designer, how would you know it was the God of the bible?

For starters, you can check and see how the Bible's claims bear out in reality. In every test it's been put to so far, it's been proven right. They don't call it the anvil that's worn out many hammers for nothing. But if you've never studied it, how would you know?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Well I am a Christian, and as such, that's the only authoritative text I have. I can't offer you anything else, as nothing else qualifies.

So you're asserting that the all-knowing god of the universe is limited to proving his existence by the copies of a group of documents, written about fantastic events that no longer occur, in a language you cannot read, canonized by men long dead?

Pretty weak argument, from where I sit.

For starters, you can check and see how the Bible's claims bear out in reality. In every test it's been put to so far, it's been proven right.

I've got several it will fail, including internal consistency, if your "faith" can handle a bit of truth...

They don't call it the anvil that's worn out many hammers for nothing.

Merely poetic license.

But if you've never studied it, how would you know?

Trust me, I have studied it, and the thousands of different Christian sects, each making conflicting claims that they alone have the true interpretation of the book, for decades. It's all a game...

 

[Flipper]

One Eyed Jack wrote:

For starters, you can check and see how the Bible's claims bear out in reality.

Awww, gee, can I? This "studying" sure sounds swell!

I think what you're trying to say, if I can get it through my fool atheistic head, is that I can independently examine the truth of something by studying it carefully from a variety of different perspectives and resources? But it all seems so simple, when you say it like that. Wouldn't I need books and stuff? Maybe one of these new-fangled computers?

In every test it's been put to so far, it's been proven right.

*cough* Riiiiight. Global Deluge Studies are on the curriculums of geology departments around the world. If I called the book of Genesis allegorical, I would be being generous. Mythological is more appropriate, don't you think?

What "tests" are we talking about here? There is supporting archaelogical evidence, I will grant you that. And, heavens to betsy, a couple of ancient authors independently verified the existence of a sect called the Christians. Sorry, I need more than that to help me in my unbelief. I guess my standards for evidence are higher than yours.

But if you've never studied it, how would you know?

Is conclusion-jumping an olympic sport? You should try out for the team if it is, you're very good at it. I generally try to avoid spouting off on things I know nothing about. I admit that I don't know Koine greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. I will further admit that I am a rank amateur in theology and archaeology, not to mention most of the sciences. However, I would venture to suggest that I am probably better aware of apologetic arguments, theological issues, and maybe even the bible generally than a lot of the Christians I meet.

I have, for example, read the bible (yes, I did skip all the "begats"). I had "religious studies" twice a week for five years at my Christian school. I took courses in metaphysics and theology at university many moons ago. I have continued to read a variety of literature ranging from the academic to the populist that represents a wide variety of Christian and non-Christian perspectives.

Frankly, my final conclusion is this. Your best argument for the existence of God is the fine tuning of certain universal constants, and the alarming re-occurence of Pi in a number of formulae where circles aren't present. Interesting, but inconclusive. All other arguments are aridly logical, rich in resupposition, and presented without supporting evidence (Anselm, Transcendence, etc) or are based on very circumstantial evidence.

Actually, the fruit of all this is that I think I'm about done with studying Christianity and conventional theology for now, and it's time to turn my mind to other things. I can now safely say (Pascal be blowed) that there are other things I can spend my time on more profitably, like learning Photoshop or how to do Fast Fourier Transforms until such time as a spectacular new argument is presented, or some compelling new evidence is found in favor of Christianity. I think it unlikely that such a thing will happen. If it does, I will still strive to keep abreast of new developments in science, archaeology, and philosophy (not so many new developments there these days, come to think of it), and I'll re-review my position.

Otherwise, I'm about done here. Mind you, I say that now but I'm sure I'll be back before too long. TOL is fairly addictive. Therefore, this isn't a "goodbye" post. More a notice of hiatus.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yes, but there are so many others who have investigated atheism, only to conclude that the conclusiveness of atheism is lacking. It seems a greater leap of faith than theism, from my perspective.

For example, a certain spider, called the Argyronteta Aquatica, builds its home underwater. It spins an oval-shaped web beneath the surface of the water, leaving an opening at the bottom for entrance and exit. Its hind legs are specially designed to carry an air bubble down into the water underneath the web, which resembles a diving bell. When the bubble is released it rises and displaces an equal amount of water. The spider continues this process until the web is filled with air. Eggs are then laid in the upper part of this airtight and watertight bell and food is gathered and stored for the mother and her soon-to-be-hatched children.

This, to me, is an amazing process. So amazing, so intricate, so well-planned that it doesn't point to random variation, but instead speaks of intelligent design. The spider is merely reacting to instinct which was encoded in its DNA at the very instant the spider's life began. Random variation? Unlikely. More likely the result of an Intelligent "Encoder" rather than lucky mutation.

I've read atheist Albert Camus' writings where he concludes life is absurd. I've also read G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy." I agree with Chesterton.

"Show me a watch without a watchmaker, then I'll take a universe without a Universe-maker" -- G.K. Chesterton

God bless,

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Flipper
You can assign as many purposes as you like to things. You might as well argue that the purpose of Io is to orbit Jupiter, or that the purpose of Cygnus X is to emit high-energy jets.

Those purposes are insignificant. Atheists seem to do things backwards. You can take something so irrelevant, such as Io orbiting Jupiter, and make it out to be the "discovery of the century". Who cares? What you guys should really be researching is who created us and what for? That's the most important question of all time that Atheists seem to ignore. And I know why; because they are prideful and control freaks. The thought of another greater being than yourself who is in control of your destiny scares you. And, to realize that you can do nothing good enough to save yourself from your sins/wrongdoings/mistakes in life makes you feel weak and nausated. You can't stand the thought of being weak, not in control, and under a supreme beings authority. You reject the idea of being a sheep in God's pasture. But what you fail to realize, and what the world has blinded you from is that, if you're not a sheep in God's pasture, then you're a sheep in the worlds...

Originally posted by Zakath
Trust me, I have studied it, and the thousands of different Christian sects, each making conflicting claims that they alone have the true interpretation of the book, for decades. It's all a game...

Maybe you should have stopped believing in different denominations, churches, and religion, and believe in God. Man will always let you down; we're not perfect.

Zakath and Flipper,
How would you test to see if a chair was sturdy or not? You would sit in it, over and over. What does it take to sit in it, believing it will hold you up? Faith.

If you want to see if God is real or not, to test Him persay, then you will have to use faith.

 

[shima]

>>Or it could just be the fact that such a thing isn't possible...<<

Well, in this case there is only ONE fact: so far, scientists have been unable to produce life from non-life organic chemicals.

That life cannot arise from non-life has NEVER been established as a fact, nor could it EVER be established as a fact because you cannot prove a negative, only a positive.

>>Those purposes are insignificant. Atheists seem to do things backwards. You can take something so irrelevant, such as Io orbiting Jupiter, and make it out to be the "discovery of the century". Who cares? What you guys should really be researching is who created us and what for? That's the most important question of all time that Atheists seem to ignore. <<

We DO ask ourselves that very same question: what is the purpose of life, and where did we come from? Now, science has a pretty convincing awnser to the second question, but has no awnser to the first. The "purpose" or "meaning" of life has been the most important question around and a lot of people have asked that question throughout the ages. The awnser is: we simply do not know. We do have awnsers to that question, but whether they are CORRECT (if there is indeed a correct awnser to the question, which I believe there isn't) is something else entirely.

Thus far, most philosophers have attempted to "prove" that their awnser was correct, and so far ALL of them have failed to "prove" it. This goes for atheists as well, as we haven't proven our awnsers as "correct" either.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Zakath
So you're asserting that the all-knowing god of the universe is limited to proving his existence by the copies of a group of documents, written about fantastic events that no longer occur, in a language you cannot read, canonized by men long dead?

No, that's not what I'm asserting. I said that's a place to start.

Pretty weak argument, from where I sit.

That's okay -- that wasn't my argument.

I've got several it will fail, including internal consistency, if your "faith" can handle a bit of truth...

Let's see what you got.

Merely poetic license.

More like an apt metaphor.

Trust me, I have studied it, and the thousands of different Christian sects, each making conflicting claims that they alone have the true interpretation of the book, for decades. It's all a game...

The problem is you're focusing on what the sects are saying, but you need to pay attention to what the text is saying.

 

[shima]

>>The problem is you're focusing on what the sects are saying, but you need to pay attention to what the text is saying.<<

The problem is that the text does NOT allow for a uniform, consistent and completely unambiguous interpretation. If it did, we would not have all these sects and different denominations.

The authors/Author therefore either doesn't understand the concept of "interpretation" or the Author means to have the book be viewed according to the needs of the time when it is read by people. Therefore, you will notice that the "standard" interpretation of the Bible (and quite a few other religious books) chanches through time as the "needs" of that time "shape" the interpretation.

Now, it is possible that the bible is written by God, but it could just as easily be written by people who didn't anticipate the changing interpretation of their work.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
One Eyed Jack wrote:



Awww, gee, can I? This "studying" sure sounds swell!

I think what you're trying to say, if I can get it through my fool atheistic head, is that I can independently examine the truth of something by studying it carefully from a variety of different perspectives and resources? But it all seems so simple, when you say it like that.

It's not that hard, but it will take some investment of time.

Wouldn't I need books and stuff? Maybe one of these new-fangled computers?

Use whatever tools you feel are necessary.

*cough* Riiiiight. Global Deluge Studies are on the curriculums of geology departments around the world.

Did I say this was something that had been tested? No I didn't, but since you brought it up, there is evidence all over the world that a worldwide flood occured. You might know it as the fossil record. How'd all those critters and stuff get in the rocks?

If I called the book of Genesis allegorical, I would be being generous. Mythological is more appropriate, don't you think?

No. I think Historical would be proper.

What "tests" are we talking about here? There is supporting archaelogical evidence, I will grant you that. And, heavens to betsy, a couple of ancient authors independently verified the existence of a sect called the Christians. Sorry, I need more than that to help me in my unbelief. I guess my standards for evidence are higher than yours.

Well, what would suffice then? You've already admitted the substantial evidence thus far isn't enough, so what will do for you?

Is conclusion-jumping an olympic sport? You should try out for the team if it is, you're very good at it.

Who says I've drawn any conclusions?

I generally try to avoid spouting off on things I know nothing about.

A good idea.

I admit that I don't know Koine greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. I will further admit that I am a rank amateur in theology and archaeology, not to mention most of the sciences. However, I would venture to suggest that I am probably better aware of apologetic arguments, theological issues, and maybe even the bible generally than a lot of the Christians I meet.

How well do you know any Christians? I just find it hard to believe you can find out everything a person knows about the Bible (and thus determine that you know more) simply by meeting them. Perhaps you could tell me how this is possible?

I have, for example, read the bible (yes, I did skip all the "begats"). I had "religious studies" twice a week for five years at my Christian school. I took courses in metaphysics and theology at university many moons ago. I have continued to read a variety of literature ranging from the academic to the populist that represents a wide variety of Christian and non-Christian perspectives.

Frankly, my final conclusion is this. Your best argument for the existence of God is the fine tuning of certain universal constants, and the alarming re-occurence of Pi in a number of formulae where circles aren't present. Interesting, but inconclusive. All other arguments are aridly logical, rich in resupposition, and presented without supporting evidence (Anselm, Transcendence, etc) or are based on very circumstantial evidence.

Actually, the fruit of all this is that I think I'm about done with studying Christianity and conventional theology for now, and it's time to turn my mind to other things. I can now safely say (Pascal be blowed) that there are other things I can spend my time on more profitably, like learning Photoshop or how to do Fast Fourier Transforms until such time as a spectacular new argument is presented, or some compelling new evidence is found in favor of Christianity. I think it unlikely that such a thing will happen. If it does, I will still strive to keep abreast of new developments in science, archaeology, and philosophy (not so many new developments there these days, come to think of it), and I'll re-review my position.

Otherwise, I'm about done here. Mind you, I say that now but I'm sure I'll be back before too long. TOL is fairly addictive. Therefore, this isn't a "goodbye" post. More a notice of hiatus.

Well, I hope you come around someday. In the meantime, take it easy.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
>>Or it could just be the fact that such a thing isn't possible...<<

Well, in this case there is only ONE fact: so far, scientists have been unable to produce life from non-life organic chemicals.

My prediction is they never will.

That life cannot arise from non-life has NEVER been established as a fact, nor could it EVER be established as a fact because you cannot prove a negative, only a positive.

Life only arises from life -- proven over and over again in scientific experiments. You got anything else you wanna argue?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
>>The problem is you're focusing on what the sects are saying, but you need to pay attention to what the text is saying.<<

The problem is that the text does NOT allow for a uniform, consistent and completely unambiguous interpretation.

Sure it does, if you just read what it says.

If it did, we would not have all these sects and different denominations.

That's a problem with people's understanding, not a problem with the Bible itself. It doesn't just happen in Christianity either.

The authors/Author therefore either doesn't understand the concept of "interpretation" or the Author means to have the book be viewed according to the needs of the time when it is read by people. Therefore, you will notice that the "standard" interpretation of the Bible (and quite a few other religious books) chanches through time as the "needs" of that time "shape" the interpretation.

I've noticed no such thing.

Now, it is possible that the bible is written by God, but it could just as easily be written by people who didn't anticipate the changing interpretation of their work.

Why wouldn't they aniticpate such a thing? The pharisees were pretty famous for doing this, and the Bible mentions how Jesus called them on it time and time again.

 

[shima]

>>Sure it does, if you just read what it says.<<

So, is Genesis a literal account of the earth's history (in face of the evidence for a 4.5 billion years old earth) or is it not meant to be taken literally? If not, then what is the CORRECT interpretation (because that is what happens if you DON'T take what it says literally)?

>>That's a problem with people's understanding, not a problem with the Bible itself. It doesn't just happen in Christianity either.<<

There is no difference. If God wrote the bible, then he would have known about people and how they work and view reality. Since the bible was written to be read by people, there is no difference between the misunderstanding because of people and misunderstanding because of the bible. In that case, either it is NOT possible to write a bible that is completely unambiguous, or he wrote the bible this way ON PURPOSE.

>>It doesn't just happen in Christianity either.<<

I never claimed otherwise.

>>I've noticed no such thing.<<

Really? Perhaps you should read up on early/late Dark Ages European history and notice how the church was suppressing WITH FORCE all other interpretations of the bible as "wrong" in minor cases or "heretical" in major cases. Protestantism is still around because the church was unsuccessfull in its attempt to wipe it out. The prevailing countries where it flourished were visited by war, but they (Holland, Germany, England) prevailed and protestantism survived to this day.

The other interpretations have always been about and continue wo always be there because of the nature of humanity.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Let's see what you got.

Come on over to Reliability of Scripture thread and join in...

The problem is you're focusing on what the sects are saying, but you need to pay attention to what the text is saying.

But the sects, and individuals like you, all claim to be reading the same deity-inspired book but are frequently deriving radically conflicting ideas from the same basic textual content. That's why I try to look at both...

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by shima
If God wrote the bible, then he would have known about people and how they work and view reality. Since the bible was written to be read by people, there is no difference between the misunderstanding because of people and misunderstanding because of the bible. In that case, either it is NOT possible to write a bible that is completely unambiguous, or he wrote the bible this way ON PURPOSE.

Possibly...

1Pe 2:8
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
>>Sure it does, if you just read what it says.<<

So, is Genesis a literal account of the earth's history (in face of the evidence for a 4.5 billion years old earth)

What evidence? I've asked this several times on this board, and have yet to get an answer.

or is it not meant to be taken literally? If not, then what is the CORRECT interpretation (because that is what happens if you DON'T take what it says literally)?

Genesis is written as a history (the genealogies being a dead giveaway), so that's how it's meant to be taken.

>>That's a problem with people's understanding, not a problem with the Bible itself. It doesn't just happen in Christianity either.<<

There is no difference. If God wrote the bible, then he would have known about people and how they work and view reality.

Oh, He does. The Bible makes this pretty clear. But God didn't so much write the Bible, as He inspired men to write it. I just thought I'd clear that up for you.

Since the bible was written to be read by people, there is no difference between the misunderstanding because of people and misunderstanding because of the bible.

But there is. Sometimes people will read something and refuse to get it. That's not the fault of the Bible -- it's the fault of the reader.

In that case, either it is NOT possible to write a bible that is completely unambiguous, or he wrote the bible this way ON PURPOSE.

I'm sure He knew some people would purposely misinterpret it, but that's their problem isn't it?

>>It doesn't just happen in Christianity either.<<

I never claimed otherwise.

>>I've noticed no such thing.<<

Really?

Yeah, really.

Perhaps you should read up on early/late Dark Ages European history and notice how the church was suppressing WITH FORCE all other interpretations of the bible as "wrong" in minor cases or "heretical" in major cases.

All other interpretations? Did they go house to house just to make sure everyone had the same interpretation?

Protestantism is still around because the church was unsuccessfull in its attempt to wipe it out. The prevailing countries where it flourished were visited by war, but they (Holland, Germany, England) prevailed and protestantism survived to this day.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the only Christian Church, nor has it ever been (contrary to popular belief).

The other interpretations have always been about and continue wo always be there because of the nature of humanity.

What exactly do you mean by 'other interpretations?' Do you mean translations, or do you mean what individual people get from the Bible, as far as meaning goes? It's difficult to address your comment when I'm not sure which you're talking about.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But the sects, and individuals like you, all claim to be reading the same deity-inspired book but are frequently deriving radically conflicting ideas from the same basic textual content.

Which is why sola scriptura is a mistake that ought to be rejected.

However, just because theists differ with regard to their theology, doesn't make theism invalid. That would be similar to saying that since Democrats do not agree with Republicans, the U.S. Constitution ought to be rejected.

God bless,

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Zakath

Come on over to Reliability of Scripture thread and join in...

You'll have to give me some time to catch up, but I'll check it out.

But the sects, and individuals like you, all claim to be reading the same deity-inspired book but are frequently deriving radically conflicting ideas from the same basic textual content. That's why I try to look at both...

I don't think radically conflicting ideas come from reading the same textual content. I think it's more likely because people tend to read some of it, while they ignore other parts.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
You'll have to give me some time to catch up, but I'll check it out.

No problem, wander over when you have a chance...

I don't think radically conflicting ideas come from reading the same textual content. I think it's more likely because people tend to read some of it, while they ignore other parts.

... and how long have you been engaging in theological discussions on the Internet???

Religion appears to frequently involve individuals holding internally contradictory ideas on a single topic simultaneously. I can't get any ten Christians on a site like this to completely agree on any major tenet of their allegedly common faith.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Zakath
No problem, wander over when you have a chance...

... and how long have you been engaging in theological discussions on the Internet???

About a year or two -- on the internet.

Religion appears to frequently involve individuals holding internally contradictory ideas on a single topic simultaneously. I can't get any ten Christians on a site like this to completely agree on any major tenet of their allegedly common faith.

Well, not everyone who calls himself a Christian really is.