Why atheists must believe in God

[Xirtam]

Okay militant atheist. Let's begin.

This is clearly an attempt to insult me.
I am a new atheist, not a militant one, I oppose the use of violence to get rid of religious people, so you're just building a strawman.
I'm reporting you for this after my post.

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.

A circle is in no way an oval-shaped sphere.
The very fact that he says 'above' proves that he is talking about a flat circular earth.
I think the idea that the earth was flat and circular was probably quite common back then, I mean a triangle or a square sounds like a funny shape for our world.

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.

Clearly a load of fanciful bullshit.
Nice to see you skipped the earlier piece of my post by the way.

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."

Which is in no way any kind of evidence that being a christian will save your life. It's nothing but a load of wishful thinking /bullshit.

Great. You can die by yourself then.

Both me and you are going to die.
This is a scientifically known FACT.
I'm going to be reporting this too.

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.

You're ignoring proven fucking facts.
Science contradict's the bible's message, therefore the bible is WRONG, and so are you.

[Renewed Dissonance]

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute...

Actually, the scientific method is intentionally and specifically set up for the purpose of disproving that which is merely believed to be true. This is why a hypothesis, in order to be a valid hypothesis, must be falsifiable.

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

This hypothesis is definitely falsifiable.

[Belzia]

I find it hilarious that some people still cling to the outdated reactionary ways of many years ago.

[Edlichbury]

WHY DO BAD THINGS HAPPEN
Because a loving deity is hypocritical? No. Because human beings have free will to act and often act as if there is not truth, no morality and nothing after this world and thus no reason to behave decently? Seems rational.
He is not "allowing" bad things to happen. WE ARE. He doesn't rape, kill, harm etc. We do. He created us and we fuck up so we blame Him? Why not blame your mothers for creating you?

"He has the power to stop it." (1) Not if he is going to be fair and allow free will to govern mankind. (2) This is, again, an earthly desire. He may have the power to stop it, but those who suffer and retain faith are rewarded.

So God is not omnipotent. Which in turn destroys a central tenet - that is the omnipotence of God - that is so crucial to this idea that we should follow his morality.

Tell me, why should I care about the moral demands of someone who - again, according solely to your line of thought - has no more power over my life than a state would? If his punishment for misbehaviour is not eternal, which you conceded it must not be to fit in with the fact that we can only commit finite crimes, and he cannot prevent us from doing ill, he is less powerful than the average state - a purely secular authority. If he is not more powerful than the state, why bother at all?

That's the flaw with Theodicy and Free Will - if we have the choice to not follow him, but his punishment can only be proportional to our offense (remember, he is a loving, forgiving God) than he has no supreme authority and on such grounds cannot demand we follow his exact commands when doing otherwise is in our better interests.

[Stovokor]

I find it hilarious that some people still cling to the outdated reactionary ways of many years ago.

WHY DO BAD THINGS HAPPEN
Because a loving deity is hypocritical? No. Because human beings have free will to act and often act as if there is not truth, no morality and nothing after this world and thus no reason to behave decently? Seems rational.
He is not "allowing" bad things to happen. WE ARE. He doesn't rape, kill, harm etc. We do. He created us and we fuck up so we blame Him? Why not blame your mothers for creating you?

"He has the power to stop it." (1) Not if he is going to be fair and allow free will to govern mankind. (2) This is, again, an earthly desire. He may have the power to stop it, but those who suffer and retain faith are rewarded.

So God is not omnipotent. Which in turn destroys a central tenet - that is the omnipotence of God - that is so crucial to this idea that we should follow his morality.

Tell me, why should I care about the moral demands of someone who - again, according solely to your line of thought - has no more power over my life than a state would? If his punishment for misbehaviour is not eternal, which you conceded it must not be to fit in with the fact that we can only commit finite crimes, and he cannot prevent us from doing ill, he is less powerful than the average state - a purely secular authority. If he is not more powerful than the state, why bother at all?

That's the flaw with Theodicy and Free Will - if we have the choice to not follow him, but his punishment can only be proportional to our offense (remember, he is a loving, forgiving God) than he has no supreme authority and on such grounds cannot demand we follow his exact commands when doing otherwise is in our better interests.

Actually he's supposed to be an all knowing all powerful being that exists outside of time. So as such he's given man free will to test man but he already knows the outcome because he knows all so in the end the entire concept breaks down there, either we don't have free will because god already knows what's going to happen to us so our free will is just an illusion or we have free will and god can't see beyond into the future, this is more rational since it would explain all his horrible fuck ups, lets also not forget how much of a moody bastard he was during the old testament.

[Edlichbury]

scientists have varying views.
they use the scientific method to figure out which of these views are correct/incorrect/etc.
each step in the method is a step closer to understanding the universe.
this is somehow a problem.

So then the Big Bang isn't on solid foundations. A foundation cannot be solid if built on different types of soil. That is exactly the problem with the theory. Most scientists are arguing over a matter they cannot explain in a single voice. They don't even agree on the subject they've been studying for decades. If the Big Bang is such an indisputable fact, why is it that scientists haven't gotten any closer to a single conclusion? People won't accept a house half-built. Why would they accept a theory half-developed?

So we should accept a religion that is fractured into vastly more numerous camps that cannot disprove each other rather than accepting science, which simply goes with the best answer available and is open to revision based on falsifiable data?
That sounds like an awful trade.

[Belzia]

I find it hilarious that some people still cling to the outdated reactionary ways of many years ago.

ok then, we no longer live in a close minded world with an incredibly powerful all controlling group that you must be part of to have rights, and the greater blend of people, mostly due to improved transport technology, makes repressing a belief or ideal much harder than before. as a footnote, I'm Catholic, but I am not creationist, believe in evolution, and respect the beliefs of others.

[Stovokor]

ok then, we no longer live in a close minded world with an incredibly powerful all controlling group that you must be part of to have rights, and the greater blend of people, mostly due to improved transport technology, makes repressing a belief or ideal much harder than before. as a footnote, I'm Catholic, but I am not creationist, believe in evolution, and respect the beliefs of others.

Ok your original post was interesting but abstract so I was curious, also fully agreed though interesting to hear you're catholic.

[Belzia]

ok then, we no longer live in a close minded world with an incredibly powerful all controlling group that you must be part of to have rights, and the greater blend of people, mostly due to improved transport technology, makes repressing a belief or ideal much harder than before. as a footnote, I'm Catholic, but I am not creationist, believe in evolution, and respect the beliefs of others.

Ok your original post was interesting but abstract so I was curious, also fully agreed though interesting to hear you're catholic.

I was annoyed that my church gave out a pamphlet in its bulletin saying to oppose a newly passed gay marriage law in my state, I understand where they were getting it from, but church isn't where we spread propaganda against gay marriage. I'm getting off track though, back on topic.

[Vazdania]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

Science can tell us almost any trait we want to know about anything, it can tell us the size, shape, weight, color, temperature, density and even the molecular structure of an object, but none of these things even matter if we can not be sure that the object even exists. Science is irrelevant if absolute truth does not exist.

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute, but their is no atheistic justification for believing in it. It is ironic that those who say their alleged disbelief in God is based on reason have absolutely no reason to believe in the very things on which they base their reason!

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

I still don't even...... WHAT?

[Dyakovo]

Okay militant atheist. Let's begin.

This is clearly an attempt to insult me.
I am a new atheist, not a militant one.

Silly Xir... You publicly admit you're atheist, thus you're militant.
*nods*

[Vazdania]

I find it hilarious that some people still cling to the outdated reactionary ways of many years ago.

I find it hilarious that some people want to fling themselves blindly forward.

[Belzia]

I find it hilarious that some people still cling to the outdated reactionary ways of many years ago.

I find it hilarious that some people want to fling themselves blindly forward.

I find it a good idea that some people wish to progress at a medium, slightly cautious rate.

[Wisconsin9]

What is this I don't even....

[Belzia]

What is this I don't even....

silly outdated reactionary stuff that says science is false.

[Wisconsin9]

What is this I don't even....

silly outdated reactionary stuff that says science is false.

Oh, the same old shit then.

[Belzia]

silly outdated reactionary stuff that says science is false.

Oh, the same old shit then.

yup. Can you get me a shovel? I need to dig through this thread to find something of substance.

[Dyakovo]

silly outdated reactionary stuff that says science is false.

Oh, the same old shit then.

Add in sour grapes because the OP had just had it explained to him that atheism doesn't require faith. To his credit, its a lesson he did actually learn.

[Wisconsin9]

Oh, the same old shit then.

yup. Can you get me a shovel? I need to dig through this thread to find something of substance.

I... don't think that'll work. I know a guy with a mass spectrometer, though, that'd probably work better.

[Vazdania]

I find it hilarious that some people want to fling themselves blindly forward.

I find it a good idea that some people wish to progress at a medium, slightly cautious rate.

THOSE ARE DIRTY WORDS!!!! *puts soap in your mouth* BAD!

[Vazdania]

What is this I don't even....

I know! Seriously. I didn't even, too!!!

[Belzia]

I find it a good idea that some people wish to progress at a medium, slightly cautious rate.

THOSE ARE DIRTY WORDS!!!! *puts soap in your mouth* BAD!

Please don't be Life Buoy...

[Furious Grandmothers]

I find it hilarious that some people still cling to the outdated reactionary ways of many years ago.

I find it hilarious that some people want to fling themselves blindly forward.

You find what faith does to people hilarious?

[Menassa]

An Original translation from Hebrew to English?

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

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.


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

And? We can use the Hebrew of the Bible.

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?

I still don't think you're understanding... the issue is with the word 'leprosy' the ailement described in the Bible is not the modern Leprosy you see today.

“If, however, they are poor and cannot afford these, they must take one male lamb as a guilt offering to be waved to make atonement for them, together with a tenth of an ephah[e] of the finest flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering, a log of oil, 22 and two doves or two young pigeons, such as they can afford, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.

Nowhere is it stated that this cures the disease, rather the verses suggest these actions are taken after the disease is cured.

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,

That's not entirely true, lucky people like myself don't require an English translation possessing the skills to understand the language something should not be discredited because a person doesn't understand in it's original language.

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

Regardless of the language evolves over time or not we have to look at what the language was at the time the text was written.

and b. that they can very easily be explained by the most basic observations of the universe.

Therefore?

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.

No one said it was...

Would you consider that a solid conclusion?

The last part? Probably...

[Vazdania]

I find it hilarious that some people want to fling themselves blindly forward.

You find what faith does to people hilarious?

Not at all. I've no idea where you derived that from what I said.

I was actually referring to the majority of hyper progressive liberals, who for some odd reason, feel the need to "progress" in such a manner that is completely blind and unsustainable.