Ask the non-member of all churches AKA Interrogate the atheist — Page 3

Possessed said:

dclarkg said:

 

 I expected something more than mild-suggestions that might come from interpretations due to language transcripts or editing that the text has suffered across the many many centuries, 

The original transcripts are still available and they read the same.  The bible has not changed so much from translation as people like to lead you to believe.

 Oh it has changed quite a bit, there are idiomatic issues when translating the text to all languages and there are also a lots of edits and fixes made throughout the history, as expected on a very ancient text. The bible has changed more than people are lead to belive ;). Also lets assume for a second that the bible is exactly the same as written a long time ago, would that make it a prove of it's validity as an accurate text or about the existence of the judo-christian god? There is still a long way to prove that there is a god, and if there is one, that it is the judo-christian one.

Possessed said:

Plus "suspended over empty space" is pretty specific.  Sounds like orbit to me.  Or at least an ignorant person's interpretation of what we now know is merely orbit.

Check this one out.

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/

Some of the points are definitely far fetched and I don't buy all of it, but interesting points and food for thought none the less.  I will admit some of it is a stretch.

Another interesting point is that the "3 by 5 by 5" rule when building large waterships came from the story of Noah and the *very specific* instructions he was given to build the ark by, and alot of that is still followed to this day.

Again, not concrete evidence, but worth noting.

 I would expect something more accurate of a knonw-all supreme being, also there is a post made earlier that actually contradicts those claims of the earth being round in the bible and so on. We can still debate what the bible says about this matter but that is only because the claims come from interpretations and not actually stated facts like I would expect of a holly book.

So since the subject of evidence was brought up. I'll simply ask what evidence of God's existence would you atheists accept as proof of God? Something short of God actually appearing to you as proof. Something that you wouldn't deny. Like what would you accept that proves God's existence?

dclarkg said:

 I would expect something more accurate of a knonw-all supreme being, also there is a post made earlier that actually contradicts those claims of the earth being round in the bible and so on. We can still debate what the bible says about this matter but that is only because the claims come from interpretations and not actually stated facts like I would expect of a holly book.

twister111 said:

So since the subject of evidence was brought up. I'll simply ask what evidence of God's existence would you atheists accept as proof of God? Something short of God actually appearing to you as proof. Something that you wouldn't deny. Like what would you accept that proves God's existence?

Scientific proofs generally work by deciding what it is you're trying to prove, constructing a model that explains it, and then devising an experiment that is repeatable so that independent people can verify that the model is an accurate predictor.  So, being a believer in science, that would work.  I haven't thought up such an experiment myself, but perhaps someone could.

I suppose I might also believe in God if I had some strong personal experience - although I wouldn't then expect others to believe it if I had nothing tangible to show them.  After all, I believe that I saw some things in 1977 that apparently others on this forum don't believe I saw. :)  I should add, however, that I wouldn't push for passing laws based on this level of "evidence".  I'd have to understand that it could be a delusion, like an alien abduction (or missing with the grappling hook).  But if the experience was strong enough, I would allow myself to personally believe it.

So there's two for you.

Post Praetorian said:

Would you consider yourselves:

Strong Atheists: Belief that there are no gods.

Weak Atheists: Belief that there is little or no evidence of god(s).

Defacto Atheists: Unconcerned about there being gods or not.

Agnostic: Lacking knowledge in whether there may be gods.

or some other form?

Other.  I strongly believe that there is way, WAY more out there than we can see with our weak human senses, limited human brain power, and primitive technology.  That is, there are planes that would fall under the category of "spiritual" using today's language (for lack of a better term); that there are higher beings than us; that there are dimensions we haven't discovered; etc. etc.  There could even be a God or Gods out there, but if so I doubt they have anything to do with the Bible or any current religion.  In short, I think that the universe is a lot richer and more incredible than any of us image, and probably even moreso than we can possibly imagine.

I also think that the next "race" of humans (wherever evolution leads us), presuming it is another step up, will look back on us - not just our religion but also our math and science and literature - and giggle at our quaint simplicity.

Possessed said:

Plus in genesis it mentions light and dark on the earth being separate, which also implies a sphere.  And that's how it looks when earth is viewed from outer space.

My personal opinion is that all gods are real but not what we commonly think they are.  I hate to use the term "aliens" because that makes me sound like a nut, but basically I believe aliens have influenced our creation and development, and have manifested themselves as "gods" to give us something tangible to understand.

To me this explains the circle vs sphere thing.  The bible talks about people being taken straight to the heavens (more than just Jesus, it happens at least two other times.  One to Elijah, and another to somebody else that I can't remember their name).  So perhaps the writers viewed the earth from space in some manner, and had no knowledge of what spheres and the like and simply described it as a circle because that's what it appeared to be to them.

 Some might say a liberal reading of Ezekiel might support this view...consider:

⁴ I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north—an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, ⁵ and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was human, ⁶ but each of them had four faces and four wings. ⁷ Their legs were straight; their feet were like those of a calf and gleamed like burnished bronze. ⁸ Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. All four of them had faces and wings, ⁹ and the wings of one touched the wings of another. Each one went straight ahead; they did not turn as they moved.

¹² Each one went straight ahead. Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, without turning as they went. ¹³ The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches. Fire moved back and forth among the creatures; it was bright, and lightning flashed out of it. ¹⁴ The creatures sped back and forth like flashes of lightning.

¹⁵ As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. ¹⁶ This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like topaz, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel. ¹⁷ As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not change direction as the creatures went. ¹⁸ Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around.

¹⁹ When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose.

Etc...

Possessed said:

Plus in genesis it mentions light and dark on the earth being separate, which also implies a sphere.  And that's how it looks when earth is viewed from outer space.

Given that the light is called Day and the darkness Night, I don't think that's a great interpretation.

Genesis 1, incidentally, does a great job of describing the Earth as a piece of land surrounded by an ocean, with a big dome called Sky covering it above from the waters all around.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NRSV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panbabylonism#Cosmography

twister111 said:

So since the subject of evidence was brought up. I'll simply ask what evidence of God's existence would you atheists accept as proof of God? Something short of God actually appearing to you as proof. Something that you wouldn't deny. Like what would you accept that proves God's existence?

Seemingly the question rests upon several key points:

1) If proof of a (g)od is what is desired, the proves must necessarily be in character with that particular deity.

2) If proof of God is being sought, seemingly support for claims made by that same being should be in order:

An example might be, if said being wished a personal relationship with humanity what might prevent Him from entering into such a relationship? Any strong evidence pointing to that relationship might then suffice for proof of its existence, provided it is not negated by simultaneous strong evidence pointing away from it.

Alternately, if said being claimed to be all-knowing, any text quoting His discussions with humanity might be expected to be devoid of emotions such as surprise, anger, frustration, disappointment, rage, threats, and/or a change of mind/heart.

Further, if God might make a claim to be all-powerful, evidence to the contrary likely should be refuted with sufficient clarity.

Finally, if such a being might make a claim to be all just and all loving, either such terms might be expected to be clearly explained to hold a different meaning to God than those understood by humanity in general or any evidence to the contrary in His recorded history might be expected to be countermanded by later clarifications from this same entity. For might not anything less be misunderstood as being less than just?

This question has been asked before in a slightly different guise and so I pass it on here:

One is walking in an unfamiliar city at night and one encounters a very powerful looking stranger. Is one more relaxed to discover he is a Christian or an Atheist? Why?

Clearly this bears a relationship to our "survey" and is meant to provoke discussion and thought without striking at emotions. It is not meant to be leading...in spite of being somewhat absurdly so.

Did you have any apprehension in revealing your strong atheism to others? Did you lose any relationships as a result?

Post Praetorian said:

One is walking in an unfamiliar city at night and one encounters a very powerful looking stranger. Is one more relaxed to discover he is a Christian or an Atheist? Why?

 Am I gay or straight?   :)

Post Praetorian said:

Did you have any apprehension in revealing your strong atheism to others? Did you lose any relationships as a result?

 Yes, and No.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Post Praetorian said:

One is walking in an unfamiliar city at night and one encounters a very powerful looking stranger. Is one more relaxed to discover he is a Christian or an Atheist? Why?

 Am I gay or straight?   :)

 This is a question to be considered, but unless one might choose to be flamboyantly so, let us assume there is no means of its discovery.

Possessed said:

At the end of the day you really can't prove he exists.  You can't prove he doesn't exist either though.  Arguing about it will always be fruitless because there is no definitive argument for either side.

And yet a lot of laws are created based on the faith that he exists.

There's always this alternative: http://www.venganza.org/

twister111 said:

So since the subject of evidence was brought up. I'll simply ask what evidence of God's existence would you atheists accept as proof of God? Something short of God actually appearing to you as proof. Something that you wouldn't deny. Like what would you accept that proves God's existence?

Well ANY evidence should do. God himself appearing? Yeah why not? he is almighty right?

twister111 said:

dclarkg said:

 I would expect something more accurate of a knonw-all supreme being, also there is a post made earlier that actually contradicts those claims of the earth being round in the bible and so on. We can still debate what the bible says about this matter but that is only because the claims come from interpretations and not actually stated facts like I would expect of a holly book.

Thing is language isn't exact unless it needs to be. For instance if we were in a room together, I pointed at something and said "Give that to me please." If it's not cluttered together with other stuff you're going to know exactly what I meant. Unless you're trying to be stubborn or a bit of a jerk and say something like "Nuh-uh you didn't say the object's name so I'm not giving the remote to you." As our society has gotten more complicated so has our communication and need for exact word choice. Plus the questions we ask today aren't the type of questions they would ask back then. Your expectations for the Bible to conform to your term specifications today are a bit like asking 'why didn't God just give everyone iPhones with Twitter and Facebook?' Such things weren't needed and the terms and specifications you're asking for today weren't needed back then as well.

 I didn't understand your point with the room example but what I meant is that you can't make''revelations'' or ''predictions'' off the bible based on words or vocabulary because of the translations and edits across the centuries.

Also what is the relevance of the questions we ask today or back then to prove that the bible is true or that god is real?

Post Praetorian said:

Did you have any apprehension in revealing your strong atheism to others? Did you lose any relationships as a result?

 Is not that I go screaming around that I'm a atheist, if someone asks about the subject I'll answer. I don't feel uncomfortable at all saying that I'm a atheist. I haven't lost any relationships due to that.

Possessed said:

You're claims that the bible have changed may be true, but that has no effect on my argument.  The references to spheres and the earth being suspended over empty space are still there in the original manuscripts.  Ships are still being built modeled after the ratios of noah's ark.

Noah's Ark = Flood myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark

Which ratios? where in the bible god gave the ship's ''ratios''?
Also, where are the original manuscripts with the original reference to the ''spheres''? Even if the original manuscripts have the same words how does that  prove that god exists?

Possessed said:

You say you'd expect something more accurate from an all knowing being.  I see that point, but I view it not as him/her not knowing exactly what's going on, but the humans he's told not understanding or comprehending.  

Is not abut how you view it, is about evidence to prove the existence of god. He could show himself with all the supreme evidence of a supreme being but here we are debating ancient books full of mythology and  contradictions to prove his existence.

Possessed said:

At the end of the day you really can't prove he exists.  You can't prove he doesn't exist either though.  Arguing about it will always be fruitless because there is no definitive argument for either side.

How I'm going to prove the NOT existence of something? The person who makes a claim has to provide the evidence to support the claim. You can't disprove the unicorns, magic pixies or elfs neither so therefore they exist?

Possessed said:

I personally believe God exists, but in a form not recognized by man.  But I can't prove this any more than you can prove God doesn't exist.

See above, the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, I say that god doesn't exist because there is no evidence that supports the claim.

Possessed said:

You can point out errors in scripture all day, and while these claims may be 100% true, all they prove is that the beings who wrote them are flawed, not their subject matter.  Even the bible itself says it was "inspired" by God.  Not directly written.

Therefore is not to be trusted, right?

Possessed said:

All I'm saying is just as we can't prove God is real, you can't prove he isn't.  If you think you can, you're wrong.  You might even be right and there might be no god, but there's no way to definitively prove that.  All you can prove is that the people who have written about him make mistakes.

Same argument about proving the NOT existence of something. I'm not providing ANY evidence of my claim since I don't have to, I'm just pointing out at the flaws of the evidence you are providing.

Possessed said:

For the record I don't worship or praise God at all.  I believe he's real, and I believe he's a dick.  A big dick that sticks its head into holes without caring what's best for those holes.

 Ok...

RicOlie_2 said:

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Atheists are making the claim, since they're in the minority. Most people believe a god exists. Therefore, the burden of the proof is on the non-believers to show that he does not. If someone thinks a certain god is the right one, the burden of proof is on that person, since their is no majority agreement on any specific god.

It's like if I decided to become an a-atomist, because I believed atoms weren't real. In that case, the burden of proof would be on me, because it's generally accepted that they are. I can't just say "hey, I don't find the reasons for their existence convincing, there just isn't any evidence for them," and expect people to think it a valid position to hold (I'm not saying that atheism isn't, however).

 The main difference is that atoms are real and we can see them, we can test them, we can name their properties, we can change them, study them, etc. There is no debate on the existing of the atoms because there is enough evidence to support the claims even if someone does not belive in atoms despite the evidence, science doesn't care if you believe or not in it... god on the other hand even that it is a supreme being can't provide enough evidence to settle the debate once and for all, and again, here we are still debating interpretations over ancient books. He talked Abraham into killing his son but he can't whisper me in the ear that he is real? Odd

I don't see why the atheists have to provide evidence of the NOT existence of a god just because we are a minority, the fact that the majority of people believe in a god (not even the same one) does not make god real; to support a claim you must provide evidence and not the number of how many people believe in a claim.

I'm not making a claim here since I don't have to, I'm just saying that the evidence provided to support the claims of the existence of a god are flaw and not conclusive. I'm not claiming that there is not a god, I'm claiming that the evidence provided to support your claim of the existence of your god is not valid because it contradicts the reality and knowledge of the world we all live in.

If I come to you and say that there is a magic teapot orbiting Venus:
A) Should I, as the person making the claim, provide evidence of what I'm saying is real or
B) Should you provide the evidence that my claim is false?

The burden of proof is on the person making a claim and not on the person that is part of the minority.

RicOlie_2 said:

dclarkg said:

Possessed said:

At the end of the day you really can't prove he exists.  You can't prove he doesn't exist either though.  Arguing about it will always be fruitless because there is no definitive argument for either side.

How I'm going to prove the NOT existence of something? The person who makes a claim has to provide the evidence to support the claim. You can't disprove the unicorns, magic pixies or elfs neither so therefore they exist?

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Atheists are making the claim, since they're in the minority. Most people believe a god exists. Therefore, the burden of the proof is on the non-believers to show that he does not. If someone thinks a certain god is the right one, the burden of proof is on that person, since their is no majority agreement on any specific god.

It's like if I decided to become an a-atomist, because I believed atoms weren't real. In that case, the burden of proof would be on me, because it's generally accepted that they are. I can't just say "hey, I don't find the reasons for their existence convincing, there just isn't any evidence for them," and expect people to think it a valid position to hold (I'm not saying that atheism isn't, however).

If this may be the case, might a potential future in which God might be disbelieved by the majority then shift the burden of His proving back to the theist?

At what % of belief/disbelief might this burden change?

dclarkg said:

Post Praetorian said:

Did you have any apprehension in revealing your strong atheism to others? Did you lose any relationships as a result?

 Is not that I go screaming around that I'm a atheist, if someone asks about the subject I'll answer. I don't feel uncomfortable at all saying that I'm a atheist. I haven't lost any relationships due to that.

In your opinion, might the world be improved or impoverished by a general reduction of religious views?

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

If this may be the case, might a potential future in which God might be disbelieved by the majority then shift the burden of His proving back to the theist?

At what % of belief/disbelief might this burden change?

 Certainly, it would shift back onto the theists if the generally accepted view changed. However, I'm not entirely clear on how the burden of proof is generally accepted to work when the majority is asserting a positive. I think the existence or non-existence of God is unprovable, nearly as much as it is impossible to prove or disprove whether or not we are living in an advanced race's computer simulation, excepting personal experiences demonstrating his existence to the person who has that experience.

As for a percentage, since I would say the burden of proof is not an precise rule, but rather more of a good guideline (much like Occam's Razor), a clear majority would not have the burden of proof, but the narrower the gap between the majority and minority becomes, the less clear the burden of proof becomes (probably defaulting to the positive claim, however).

Wikipedia says the following, but I'm having trouble figuring out if this supports what I asserted above, refutes it, or does neither:

Wikipedia said:

When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made  by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".

 If it does not offend, might such a concept be probed yet further? Let us envision one who might have been raised within a large family who might ardently believe that Allah is God.

Let us further suppose that this family chooses to recreate within a community of Christians. Allow this same family to live within a community that is largely in agreement with their faith, but propose only that the father of the household must work a half-hour's drive away in a region whose population is of a majority atheistic.

Is Allah then to be assumed to be God whilst at the dinner table, but to be argued to be God whilst at the recreation center, only to be assumed to be God whilst at the local supermarket, but then argued even to exist at all during the working week?

Finally, if the father of this household might invite a colleague to dine with him at home and the two might enter into a discussion of God's existence whilst car-pooling home, must the burden of proof for God's existence be on the father to provide only half of the way home or the entire way so long as the conversation began at the office and not on the outskirts of town?