This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Naturalism, atheism, and requests for extraordinary evidence. Illogical?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Naturalism, atheism, and requests for extraordinary evidence. Illogical?

User Info: fudrick

fudrick
4 years ago#71
Proudclad posted...
My experience with atheists, especially on CE and Youtube, is that they're the claim makers. "God doesn't exist. Jesus is fictional. The Bible is false." Claims such as these.


But you do understand that an atheist need not make those claims, and indeed, many atheists don't make those claims, right? That's all that matters.
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious

User Info: Proudclad

Proudclad
4 years ago#72
But you do understand that an atheist need not make those claims, and indeed, many atheists don't make those claims, right? That's all that matters.

Absolutely. I've always acknowledged this. And as someone who has a background in lacking belief, I can say that I haven't made those claims. The crucial point is that we acknowledge that a lot of atheists do make those claims, and as such there's a need to address them.
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net

User Info: JonWood007

JonWood007
4 years ago#73

Test what Jesus taught. And your claim is true, the texts agree with one another. The OT God is the same as the NT God. Jesus often times said the same things that God would say in the OT. Read the entire OT and pay special attention to the things God would explicitly say.


Study the Bible in a historical context. The Bible is an evolving ancient theology. The NT and OT were written by different people in different ideas in different times.

Also: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Bible is FULL of contradictions. Because it's not one big book with a single message like Christians make it out to be. Once again, study it in context. Yale has free online courses on both the new testament and the old. I suggest you listen to the lectures. They're free, dont need to sign up for the class, or anything.

http://oyc.yale.edu/

The God of the Bible makes no claims on the earth being the center of the universe, ITT. Their notion on the planet's age is irrelevant because God made no claim on the planet's age. The people who wrote the Bible were very intelligent. Paul, for example, even had an audience with the Greeks and the Romans.


1) Humans being made in God's image seems to be a big freaking deal. Doesnt that imply that we're the pinnacle of creation? Thats what I was always taught.

2) You can estimate the age based on the Bible. Just compared the genesis accounts to what we know through science, they look nothing alike.

If Christianity is real, the Jesus is the son of God. I don't particularly thus care about Genesis 1, first and foremost because Jesus as the real son of God has modern benefits, and secondly because Genesis 1 is a very general account written by (supposedly) Moses. I care about the present and the future, not an evolutionists attempts to inject philosophy into man-made phylogenies as an effort to argue against one chapter of the entire biblical context.


THe entire worldviews are different. Why wait until 2000 years ago for God to show himself? What about the other 100000+ years of human existence? What about their sins? If evolution is true, do animals have souls? Plants? Viruses? Aliens? Taking Christianity out of its biblical context really spins it on its head.


The problem of evil has plenty of refutations. Mankind propagates its own evil. Humans have a choice. Let them do away with their evil and then there won't really be a problem of evil anymore. God has no bloodlust - the Jews made an agreement with God. They agreed to be his chosen people and to live by the Mosaic Law. As such, they failed to keep that agreement and because of what they themselves chose ended up being guilty and having to provide the sacrifice they agreed to provide.


Natural disasters, sickness, death, etc. often have nothing to do with human action.

Given that they couldn't do that without being destroyed, God decided to let his Son come here and live a perfect life so that his perfect life could be the fulfillment of the Law. No one was made perfect by the Law because we're humans. Thus no one could satisfy its requirements. But Jesus was perfect, and thus he was an appropriate fulfillment to abolish it.


Why should we take the law seriously in the first place? it allows slavery and rape in some situations, has an obsession with cutting off the tip of your yahoo, institutes the death penalty for everything, is obsessed with awkward cleanliness rules that make no sense in mdoern society and doesn't seem to do the loving your neighbor thing very much, despite what it claims. It's old. It's outdated. Definitely not the work of anyone claiming to be perfect.
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768

User Info: Proudclad

Proudclad
4 years ago#74
@ JonWood007

1) Why are you arguing so many straw men? No where did I say that people who don't know God didn't care enough to follow him. I merely pointed out that if you want something big, you need to put in a big effort. The Bible presents cases where God made himself known. But the rule is to take a step towards God so that God will take a step towards you. Exceptions don't invalidate rules.

2) I'm biased because I'm coming from a believer's perspective? It isn't conviction that justifies a claim. It's the logic. Demonstrate issues with my logic and avoid ad hominem, please. And if ad hominem is important to you, note that I've been in the non-believer's camp for far too long.

3) I understand why you don't believe me. You're too invested in disbelief to entertain anything. If someone says God spoke to them, you say they're crazy. If someone says that God spoke through other people, you say people are crazy or it's mere anecdotes. Ultimately, you need to decide your philosophy on what we can know and what we can trust.

4) There was no fall? The fall would've taken place in the Garden of Eden, which was where God's created happiness was. Note that humans were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Into the world. People always died, I agree. That doesn't invalidate anything about the Christian theology, given that the NT talks about how spiritual death came through one man (Adam) and yet life came through yet another man (Jesus)

5) Philosophy and observation are not mutually exclusive. Yet another strawman. Nowhere did I reject observation. I merely pointed out that observation is NOT synonymous with some kind of lab experiment or pseudoscientific study. Observation can very well be valid even if there's no tool or lab to measure it and analyze it that way.

6) No evidence that God does anything? Anecdotal evidence is a form of evidence and people offer plenty of anecdotes. At this point, it's up to me to pursue my own experience with God doing something. There is no causality? Then how do you know that anything has a natural cause? Demonstrate the causality. Your standard is extremely stringent, to the point where you are unable to demonstrate causality for anything.

All illusion? Everything you see now can be an illusion. Even your atheistic naturalistic worldview. You have blind faith that your senses are trustworthy.

No one said that not knowing the cause means God did it. Yet another strawman. You've argued a lot of strawmen here. I never argued God-of-the-gaps. I've routinely said I want to pursue God so that I can see God to impossible things. Not things that are merely unexplained. You're assuming a science-of-the-gaps, it seems, where you think everything must necessarily have a natural explanation. This is a jump in logic.
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net

User Info: Proudclad

Proudclad
4 years ago#75
Study the Bible in a historical context. The Bible is an evolving ancient theology. The NT and OT were written by different people in different ideas in different times.

Also: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Bible is FULL of contradictions. Because it's not one big book with a single message like Christians make it out to be. Once again, study it in context. Yale has free online courses on both the new testament and the old. I suggest you listen to the lectures. They're free, dont need to sign up for the class, or anything.

http://oyc.yale.edu/


http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm

We can both argue with links all day long. Christians don't say it's one big book because it very clearly isn't. I've studied it in context and perhaps you should stop being condescending. Secular studies on the Bible necessarily date or assume things as having been written after the fact, given that prophecies are auto-deemed impossible or necessary fabrications.

1) Humans being made in God's image seems to be a big freaking deal. Doesnt that imply that we're the pinnacle of creation? Thats what I was always taught.

2) You can estimate the age based on the Bible. Just compared the genesis accounts to what we know through science, they look nothing alike.


1) Humans being made in God's image refers to what is inside us. Namely our minds. Our capacities to reason and create. Not our bodies. God made men and women. They're both in God's image, yet the different anatomies would make it contradictory for both to be the physical image of God.

2) So in other words the Bible doesn't make a claim on the earth's age? And you're merely guessing an argument that reaffirms your own bias? And yet you insist that I'm the biased one. This is pretty unfortunate. You cannot estimate the age of the earth with Genesis. There isn't enough information in it to be sure of any such claims.
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net

User Info: fudrick

fudrick
4 years ago#76
Proudclad posted...
Absolutely. I've always acknowledged this. And as someone who has a background in lacking belief, I can say that I haven't made those claims. The crucial point is that we acknowledge that a lot of atheists do make those claims, and as such there's a need to address them.


So do I, as an atheist who doesn't make those claims, have any obligation to do something about those atheists who do make those claims?
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious

User Info: Proudclad

Proudclad
4 years ago#77
THe entire worldviews are different. Why wait until 2000 years ago for God to show himself? What about the other 100000+ years of human existence? What about their sins? If evolution is true, do animals have souls? Plants? Viruses? Aliens? Taking Christianity out of its biblical context really spins it on its head.

You're contradicting yourself. You said that God revealed himself to people in the OT, and now you're arguing that God showed himself only 2,000 years ago. Make up your mind and decide which argument you are making.

Animals, plants, and viruses don't have souls. What sets us apart from other life is our extended mental faculties. In other words, Logos. If you take ANYTHING, including science, outside of its context naturally it's going to spin on its head.

>_>

Natural disasters, sickness, death, etc. often have nothing to do with human action.

First solve the problem of humanity's evil and then you can ask God why he lets people die. Furthermore, finite suffering is not an argument against the God who would've also established an eternal heaven.

Why should we take the law seriously in the first place? it allows slavery and rape in some situations, has an obsession with cutting off the tip of your yahoo, institutes the death penalty for everything, is obsessed with awkward cleanliness rules that make no sense in mdoern society and doesn't seem to do the loving your neighbor thing very much, despite what it claims. It's old. It's outdated. Definitely not the work of anyone claiming to be perfect.

Here's my very preliminary video on biblical slavery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9oaqXCBbIQ

It doesn't allow rape. Circumcision wasn't even a crucial part of Judaism, and God wanted circumcised hearts, not body parts. If someone wanted to make a mark on their flesh, it's their choice. I firmly oppose circumcision. The death penalty was to show the severity of breaking the covenant, yet people had sacrifices to do away with the death penalty. If they didn't have a way out, all the Jews would've died since everyone was guilty of something.

Cleanliness is irrelevant to the Christian theology. It's the heart that makes you clean or unclean. Not what you eat. The Jews had their own way of being "set apart" from the world. This involved avoiding certani foods.

Address Christianity, not Judaism. Thanks.
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net

User Info: Proudclad

Proudclad
4 years ago#78
fudrick posted...
Proudclad posted...
Absolutely. I've always acknowledged this. And as someone who has a background in lacking belief, I can say that I haven't made those claims. The crucial point is that we acknowledge that a lot of atheists do make those claims, and as such there's a need to address them.


So do I, as an atheist who doesn't make those claims, have any obligation to do something about those atheists who do make those claims?


An obligation? If you insist on participating in this kind of discourse, it's intellectually honest to address them. But an obligation? Obligated to who? God? Society? At this point we'd talk about morality and obligation and that topic always sucks, lol.
proudclad LAYING DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355
chaoscoalition.net

User Info: fudrick

fudrick
4 years ago#79
Proudclad posted...
An obligation? If you insist on participating in this kind of discourse, it's intellectually honest to address them. But an obligation? Obligated to who? God? Society? At this point we'd talk about morality and obligation and that topic always sucks, lol.


I think it's enough for me to say that I disagree with them, don't you think? In what way would I have to address those atheists in order to remain intellectually honest?
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious

User Info: JonWood007

JonWood007
4 years ago#80
As for your 12 points, I'm not gonna quote them, so just match my points with your points since ill label them as such.

1) If you trace the time line back literally, yeah, it kinda does. At the very least it's not 4 billion years old. Heck, 40000 years old is a stretch.

2) Possible, although how can we say it covered the earth? And how can we say it was from God? Floods happen all the time. If Katrina hit in Biblical times and wiped out new Orleans, you'd have people writing holy books about that. Floods are generally caused by WEATHER. Not divine retribution.

3) And that's an argument from ignorance. Because it hasnt been proven wrong, it's right. prove it's right.

4) Interested in whatever evidence you present, and whether it can be linked back to them.

5) Sennacherib said nothing about 200000 people being randomly struck dead. The Bible's account is as biased as heck.

6) Fair enough. Although a historical case could be made that it was the Romans and not the Jews to begin with.

7) Eh....not so much. Sure, some secular scholars like Ehrman agree that it happened, but there's hardly a consensus.

8) Argument from ignorance.

9) No, scholars estimated the dates they were written, between 65 and 100 AD or so.

10) Did he or did he not say this generation (ie, the one he was speaking to) would not pass away until those things came to pass? Did he or did he not speak with urgency? You're just rationalizing at this point.

11) End is near =/= end will not happen for over 2000 years, which is about double the time frame between the law being written and his arrival, for reference.

12) Beast of 666 = nero, 7 horns = city on 7 hills. You're rationalizing, taking out of context,.

My experience with atheists, especially on CE and Youtube, is that they're the claim makers. "God doesn't exist. Jesus is fictional. The Bible is false." Claims such as these.


Now you're making strawmen. I will admit some aspects of popular atheism makes faulty claims at times, but on r/atheism, which played a massive part in my deconversion, no one claims God definitely doesnt exist. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. Jesus may or may not have been fictional. I'm of the opinion that I don't know. The Bible is false, well, there's mountains of evidence for this, if you only look outside of your self affirming Christian sources. Regardless, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it as true.
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Naturalism, atheism, and requests for extraordinary evidence. Illogical?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived