Why atheists must believe in God

[The Great and Holy Fox]

And how exactly are the Bible and God "logical and sensible?"

The Bible states the world is round. It states that something created everything. It states that there is a law that keeps everything in place. Simple, understanding, easy to comprehend. I'd rather be a stupid Christian with the hope of living forever, that a genius that going to die in 80 years. Scientists may be smart but they can't make you live forever. Not now at least.

And how do you know the Bible is true? It's basically a souped-up version of the Jewish Torah that has been inaccurately translated for hundreds of years. All you're using is blind faith, we're using observable scientific facts.

[NERVUN]

Not always. Disbelief in deities is not a requirement of Buddhism, so some Buddhists combine other religions or personal spirituality with Buddhism.

Absolutely not true:

Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity, refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering.

many traditional theist beliefs are considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana, the highest goal of Buddhist practice.

Wow... someone better tell the Japanese then.

I hate to tell you this, but Buddhism isn't any more monolistic in beliefs than Christianity. There are Buddhists who do believe in gods, there are even whole Buddhist sects that believe in gods. I've been in a number of Buddhist temples with various gods depicted.

[Breadknife]

What do you think about this line of reasoning? I think it makes a lot of sense.

I know I'm way too late to get the popcorn in, but I'm going to enjoy reading the next 27 pages or so...

(But only because I'm a masochist. As must be the OP, above, but by a different route.)

[Menassa]

The Bible states the world is round. It states that something created everything. It states that there is a law that keeps everything in place. Simple, understanding, easy to comprehend. I'd rather be a stupid Christian with the hope of living forever, that a genius that going to die in 80 years. Scientists may be smart but they can't make you live forever. Not now at least.

And how do you know the Bible is true? It's basically a souped-up version of the Jewish Torah that has been inaccurately translated for hundreds of years. All you're using is blind faith, we're using observable scientific facts.

The NT is not really a souped-up version of the Torah... the OT, perhaps...

[Frenequesta]

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute

Karl Popper would like a word with you.

In other words, are you even vaguely familiar with modern philosophies of science?

[The Great and Holy Fox]

And how do you know the Bible is true? It's basically a souped-up version of the Jewish Torah that has been inaccurately translated for hundreds of years. All you're using is blind faith, we're using observable scientific facts.

The NT is not really a souped-up version of the Torah... the OT, perhaps...

I meant that the Bible is simply the Torah + fan-fiction.

[Sun Wukong]

God? Which God... which God must an Atheist believe in?

Madoka Magica.

[Vashta Nerada]

Okay militant atheist. Let's begin.

Where does it state this?

Isaiah 40:22: "There is One God who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Isaiah wasn't a scientist, and the Jews knew nothing of the world outside of their homeland.

What the fuck are you on about?

Isaiah 40:26: "Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, not one of them is missing." Clearly everything stays where it is suppose to and works as they are suppose too.

Being a Christian will not save your life. Whether you like it or not you are going to die.

Acts 24:15: "And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." Great. You can die by yourself then.

Neither can Christianity. This has been proven billions of times over and over again.

Up for debate. Of course, as you are an atheist, I honestly don't care whether or not you believe in the Bible's message. You've shown you have no interest, so neither do I.

[Rightful Revolution]

And on day one, Man created God.

[Othelos]

And on day one, Man created God.

Pretty much.

[Menassa]

The NT is not really a souped-up version of the Torah... the OT, perhaps...

I meant that the Bible is simply the Torah + fan-fiction.

One man's Apcorypha is another man's cannon.

Seems to be more cross-over than fan-fiction as the series descends.

[Pyke and the Iron Isles]

And on day one, Man created God.

Indeed. He was created in man's search of understanding, that is about it. Just like the thousands of gods before the Abrahamic one.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

Some atheists do believe in a God.

They're called North Koreans.

[Granadeseret]

Okay militant atheist. Let's begin.

Where does it state this?

Isaiah 40:22: "There is One God who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Isaiah wasn't a scientist, and the Jews knew nothing of the world outside of their homeland.

What the fuck are you on about?

Isaiah 40:26: "Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, not one of them is missing." Clearly everything stays where it is suppose to and works as they are suppose too.

Being a Christian will not save your life. Whether you like it or not you are going to die.

Acts 24:15: "And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." Great. You can die by yourself then.

Neither can Christianity. This has been proven billions of times over and over again.

Up for debate. Of course, as you are an atheist, I honestly don't care whether or not you believe in the Bible's message. You've shown you have no interest, so neither do I.

It also clearly states several things that are complete logical bunk, like how to cure leprosy with bird's blood, the idea that the earth was a flat disk with a dome separating an infinite expanse of water from them, and that pi is equal to 3. This is identical to Muslims saying the Quran is the true word of god because its creation story speaks of the heaven and earth being mixed together, and then torn asunder, or Amerindian Shamanists claiming they are right because their faith preached the balance of man and nature before the green movement, or Hellenistics claiming they were right because the oracle at Delphi claimed that one day women would wear pants

[Menassa]

Okay militant atheist. Let's begin.


Isaiah 40:22: "There is One God who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Isaiah wasn't a scientist, and the Jews knew nothing of the world outside of their homeland.

Isaiah 40:26: "Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, not one of them is missing." Clearly everything stays where it is suppose to and works as they are suppose too.

Acts 24:15: "And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." Great. You can die by yourself then.

Up for debate. Of course, as you are an atheist, I honestly don't care whether or not you believe in the Bible's message. You've shown you have no interest, so neither do I.

It also clearly states several things that are complete logical bunk, like how to cure leprosy with bird's blood, [...]

I mean sure that could be a result of reading a purely English bible with no regard for the original language it was written in and the context of the verse.

[NERVUN]

Okay militant atheist. Let's begin.


Isaiah 40:22: "There is One God who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Isaiah wasn't a scientist, and the Jews knew nothing of the world outside of their homeland.

Isaiah 40:26: "Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, not one of them is missing." Clearly everything stays where it is suppose to and works as they are suppose too.

Acts 24:15: "And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." Great. You can die by yourself then.

Up for debate. Of course, as you are an atheist, I honestly don't care whether or not you believe in the Bible's message. You've shown you have no interest, so neither do I.

It also clearly states several things that are complete logical bunk, like how to cure leprosy with bird's blood, the idea that the earth was a flat disk with a dome separating an infinite expanse of water from them, and that pi is equal to 3. This is identical to Muslims saying the Quran is the true word of god because its creation story speaks of the heaven and earth being mixed together, and then torn asunder, or Amerindian Shamanists claiming they are right because their faith preached the balance of man and nature before the green movement, or Hellenistics claiming they were right because the oracle at Delphi claimed that one day women would wear pants

Just as an aside because I hate that pi thing as much as I hate flatearth. http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

[Granadeseret]

It also clearly states several things that are complete logical bunk, like how to cure leprosy with bird's blood, [...]

I mean sure that could be a result of reading a purely English bible with no regard for the original language it was written in and the context of the verse.

Well, the Koran states that the world was formed by the heavens and earth being torn asunder by Allah (Big Bang), Amerindian Shamanists preached of respect for animals and the balance of nature before science told us that was important, and the Oracle at Delphi was recorded as saying that women would wear pants one day. Obviously, they can't all be right. Occasionally stumbling upon a blind of fair observation (like how the horizon around you is a disk) is not that same as having untold knowledge of the universe.

Edit: Also, I withdraw my earlier statement of numbers, upon new information being brought to light. Thank you very much for pointing out my mistake; math is hardly my strong suit.

[Vicious Debaters]

You're right, sorta....

I'm an atheist and I agree that 'Absolute Truth' is a meaningless concept. The truth that I believe in is always truth manifested with some form of empirical evidence. If I don't see any evidence for something, I'm skeptical and/or don't believe it.

Your idea of Absolute Truth sounds like truth you believe without any evidence or reason to back you up, and truth that you will believe even when all evidence points to the contrary. In short, religion.

I'm sorry if this argument is sophistic and glib, but so is the OP.

[Menassa]

I mean sure that could be a result of reading a purely English bible with no regard for the original language it was written in and the context of the verse.

Well, the Koran states that the world was formed by the heavens and earth being torn asunder by Allah (Big Bang), Amerindian Shamanists preached of respect for animals and the balance of nature before science told us that was important, and the Oracle at Delphi was recorded as saying that women would wear pants one day. Obviously, they can't all be right. Occasionally stumbling upon a blind of fair observation (like how the horizon around you is a disk) is not that same as having untold knowledge of the universe.

This has incredibly little to do with my post.

[Xirtam]

Absolutely not true:

Wow... someone better tell the Japanese then.

I hate to tell you this, but Buddhism isn't any more monolistic in beliefs than Christianity. There are Buddhists who do believe in gods, there are even whole Buddhist sects that believe in gods. I've been in a number of Buddhist temples with various gods depicted.

So called "Japanese Buddhism" isn't really completely Buddhist, it's a syncretism of Buddhism and Shintoism which is a more native belief system, so there are a lot of strange aspects of it that have nothing to do with the kind of Buddhism that originated in Tibet.
Whatever Buddhists worship gods, Buddha would not have approved.
I even remember reading some literature by some east asian Buddhist that there were many Hepthalites/White Huns who were supposedly buddhist but heathens because they ate meat and worshipped gods.

[Granadeseret]

Well, the Koran states that the world was formed by the heavens and earth being torn asunder by Allah (Big Bang), Amerindian Shamanists preached of respect for animals and the balance of nature before science told us that was important, and the Oracle at Delphi was recorded as saying that women would wear pants one day. Obviously, they can't all be right. Occasionally stumbling upon a blind of fair observation (like how the horizon around you is a disk) is not that same as having untold knowledge of the universe.

This has incredibly little to do with my post.

My point was related to the original statement (perhaps I should have added more...) but allow me to go on.

Firstly, since I can not read ancient Hebrew, I am forced to do the best I can with what I have. The issue of the bird was delivered in Leviticus, among many other laws being handed down the Hebrews, so if it is a metaphor for something, it is a highly misplaced one, or translation was extremely poor. It could not have been used to refer to anything related to skin conditions, since I am not away of any condition bird's blood will actually cure (though, I am not a medical specialist), and it takes some very large logic twisting to turn the earth being a flat disk covered by war and turning it into what we logically know as sky.

Also, on that note, I would like to go back to the original quotes and state that, if that is the case, these quotes are also from and English translation and taken out of context, and therefore any knowledge gleaned form them about hyper-advanced knowledge is equally questionable. I am willing to accept my statements were perhaps meant in a metaphorical or visionary way in Hebrew and the original writings, but then we must accept that other statements from the same source are subject to the same critique, fair?

[Charellia]

You're right, sorta....

I'm an atheist and I agree that 'Absolute Truth' is a meaningless concept. The truth that I believe in is always truth manifested with some form of empirical evidence. If I don't see any evidence for something, I'm skeptical and/or don't believe it.

Your idea of Absolute Truth sounds like truth you believe without any evidence or reason to back you up, and truth that you will believe even when all evidence points to the contrary. In short, religion.

I'm sorry if this argument is sophistic and glib, but so is the OP.

Actually classical philosophers considered absolute truth to be knowable and provable fact, including, but not limited to, science.

[Menassa]

This has incredibly little to do with my post.

My point was related to the original statement (perhaps I should have added more...) but allow me to go on.

Firstly, since I can not read ancient Hebrew, I am forced to do the best I can with what I have.

An Original translation from Hebrew to English?

The issue of the bird was delivered in Leviticus, among many other laws being handed down the Hebrews, so if it is a metaphor for something, it is a highly misplaced one, or translation was extremely poor.

The issue isn't with the translation of the bird, it is with the translation of the disease

It could not have been used to refer to anything related to skin conditions, since I am not away of any condition bird's blood will actually cure (though, I am not a medical specialist),

The bird's blood isn't curing the ailment and it isn't an ailment that exists in modern medicine contextually it's an ailment that exists as a punishment and the bird's blood is more of an atonement then a cure.

and it takes some very large logic twisting to turn the earth being a flat disk covered by war and turning it into what we logically know as sky.
[...]

Mah?

[NERVUN]

Wow... someone better tell the Japanese then.

I hate to tell you this, but Buddhism isn't any more monolistic in beliefs than Christianity. There are Buddhists who do believe in gods, there are even whole Buddhist sects that believe in gods. I've been in a number of Buddhist temples with various gods depicted.

So called "Japanese Buddhism" isn't really completely Buddhist, it's a syncretism of Buddhism and Shintoism which is a more native belief system, so there are a lot of strange aspects of it that have nothing to do with the kind of Buddhism that originated in Tibet.

Buddhism didn't originate in Tibet either.

Whatever Buddhists worship gods, Buddha would not have approved.
I even remember reading some literature by some east asian Buddhist that there were many Hepthalites/White Huns who were supposedly buddhist but heathens because they ate meat and worshipped gods.

I know this is gonna blow your mind, but, really, that Western Buddhism you've seen on movies and pushed by new agers? That's a sect of Buddhism. It's no more the One True Buddhism than the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Christianity. Buddhism has multiple schools of thought, of views, of beliefs.

[Granadeseret]

My point was related to the original statement (perhaps I should have added more...) but allow me to go on.

Firstly, since I can not read ancient Hebrew, I am forced to do the best I can with what I have.

An Original translation from Hebrew to English?

The issue of the bird was delivered in Leviticus, among many other laws being handed down the Hebrews, so if it is a metaphor for something, it is a highly misplaced one, or translation was extremely poor.

The issue isn't with the translation of the bird, it is with the translation of the disease

It could not have been used to refer to anything related to skin conditions, since I am not away of any condition bird's blood will actually cure (though, I am not a medical specialist),

The bird's blood isn't curing the ailment and it isn't an ailment that exists in modern medicine contextually it's an ailment that exists as a punishment and the bird's blood is more of an atonement then a cure.

and it takes some very large logic twisting to turn the earth being a flat disk covered by war and turning it into what we logically know as sky.
[...]

Mah?

1. Information getting changed or lost in translation or that fact the Hebrew has evolved in the last several millenia makes this just as unreliable
2. Then that is a pretty lousy peace of translation work. Why not just say "to curse curses" or "to atone for sins" instead of calling it a cure for leprosy?
3. See above. Perhaps its just stupid translation work.
4. Since this whole idea can probably be turned away by more faulty translation and metaphors and imagery, I'll drop it. All I will assert, as it is all I must assert, is when Vashta Nerada quotes his bible verses here...

Okay militant atheist. Let's begin.

Where does it state this?

Isaiah 40:22: "There is One God who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Isaiah wasn't a scientist, and the Jews knew nothing of the world outside of their homeland.

What the fuck are you on about?

Isaiah 40:26: "Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, not one of them is missing." Clearly everything stays where it is suppose to and works as they are suppose too.

Being a Christian will not save your life. Whether you like it or not you are going to die.

Acts 24:15: "And I have hope toward God, which hope these men also look forward to, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." Great. You can die by yourself then.

Neither can Christianity. This has been proven billions of times over and over again.

Up for debate. Of course, as you are an atheist, I honestly don't care whether or not you believe in the Bible's message. You've shown you have no interest, so neither do I.

That these should be rejected as evidence that the Hebrews were somehow in possession of ancient knowledge, considering they are a. Based on an English translation, which faces the same issues my assertions do, especially if we're working with an ancient script with a language that has evolved over time to get all the neunaces right and b. that they can very easily be explained by the most basic observations of the universe. My statements about other faiths were examples to point out that merely because there is a grain of truth that can be found in some assertions of a faith, that does not prove that the society in question was privy to modern knowledge of the universe. Would you consider that a solid conclusion?