Dear Atheists, Questions From A "believer"

ANYONE? Do any of the numbers mean anything in this scripture? This is just a curiousity question. This was part of what was dropped from the original Bible. Is it hooey? I have no knowledge in this area and other than a guess at a reference to leap year, don’t have a clue. Not trying to prove anything, so no scoffing, just answers if you have any. Thanks. IWLN

Chapter 15
The elements of the sun, the Phoenixes and Chalkydri broke into song

3And the gates which it enters, these are the great gates of the calculation of the hours of the year; for this reason the sun is a great creation, whose circuit lasts twenty-eight years, and begins again from the beginning.

Chapter 16
They took Enoch and again placed him in the east at the course of the moon

1Those men showed me the other course, that of the moon, twelve great gates, crowned from west to east, by which the moon goes in and out of the customary times.

2It goes in at the first gate to the western places of the sun, by the first gates with thirty-one days exactly, by the second gates with thirty-one days exactly, by the third with thirty days exactly, by the fourth with thirty days exactly, by the fifth with thirty-one days exactly, by the sixth with thirty-one days exactly, by the seventh with thirty days exactly, by the eighth with thirty-one days perfectly, by the ninth with thirty-one days exactly, by the tenth with thirty days perfectly, by the eleventh with thirty-one days exactly, by the twelfth with twenty-eight days exactly.

3And it goes through the western gates in the order and number of the eastern, and accomplishes the three hundred and sixty-five and a quarter days of the solar year, while the lunar year has three hundred fifty-four, and there are wanting to it twelve days of the solar circle, which are the lunar epacts of the whole year.

4Thus, too, the great circle contains five hundred and thirty-two years.

5The quarter of a day is omitted for three years, the fourth fulfills it exactly
.
6Therefore they are taken outside of heaven for three years and are not added to the number of days, because they change the time of the years to two new months towards completion, to two others towards diminution.

7And when the western gates are finished, it returns and goes to the eastern to the lights, and goes thus day and night about the heavenly circles, lower than all circles, swifter than the heavenly winds, and spirits and elements and angels flying; each angel has six wings.

8It has a sevenfold course in nineteen years.

There’s more stuff about creation of the universe, but there’s too much to quote.

And that has what to do with anything?

I’ve never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth and predicting my behaviour. God can possibly exist. It’s just freaking unlikely.

Also, please explain where your “knowledge”, as opposed to belief, of God comes from.

You would describe what as a benign possession?

Enter “big bang” into Google. Click Google Search. Seriously, this is no mystery.

No, not because I can’t explain it. I can. The hallucination explanation is the simpler and more likely of the two. That’s why it’s preferrable, according to Occam’s Razor, which I happen to think is a sound principle.

Wait. Who died? What did I miss?

And because of that attitude faith healers, cold readers, spoon benders and other phonies are sucking the gullible dry as we speak.

PRICEGUY, Occam probably isn’t that important. It just seems ironic that you’re citing “Occam’s Razor”, a man who believed in God, to prove that your lack of belief is more rational.

I said you think, (I should have said “appears to me”)anything you have no knowledge of can’t exist, you said,


priceguy quotes
I’ve never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth and predicting my behavior. God can possibly exist. It’s just freaking unlikely.
The only reason you even discuss this is that you assume God exists in the first place. You’re making a huge assumption and basically asking us to disprove it.


So isn’t telling me ‘the only reason I’m discussing this is that I assume God exists and that I’m asking you to disprove my huge assumption’, putting words in my mouth? I’m not asking you to disprove anything and I don’t “assume” God exists.

I have told you I can’t prove God to you. I don’t feel that makes me somehow less than you, so I’m really okay with it. The OP had to do with whether being Atheist changed your views on day to day life and some scientific views.

But I’ll still try and explain the difference between knowledge and belief. It won’t be anything that you perceive as having any value, but as I’ve said before; that’s okay. Knowledge has come from receiving personal proof, from faith in parts of the Bible, feelings, he’s with me, he answers my prayers in amazingly specific ways, I feel him, I see evidence of him. I have learned more of him through my child. I have felt him touch my face when I was grieving and felt the magnitude of his love. I am filled with happiness, anticipation, peace and love. You have to have faith and knowledge to really believe. Some people say they believe, but don’t really feel it. I do. I feel huge amounts of gratitude for the advantages and life I have been given. There are other personal proofs and reasons for my certainty, but “no freakin”(your words) way would you believe anyway. I don’t need outside affirmation. Do you think sufficient proof provided to other people takes precedence over what I personally know?

That’s where the reference to possession rather than hallucination (which you previously brought up as an example) came from. Although it was more of a joke that just flew right by you. The above is not proof for anyone but me. You can apply all sorts of insults or pass things off to just coincidence or just respect my right to my beliefs, as I do yours.

I know in layman’s terms about the “Big Bang”. Haven’t seen any proof of where that material came from to cause it. Or can science/nature make something without a speck of raw material. Can the universe that doesn’t exist create itself? There are scriptures that talk about chaos and sudden beginnings, but I’m not going there. Writing it in a book alone doesn’t prove it.

Who died? Just in response to your no proof of God. I was wondering what kind of proof would suffice for science to write him in? I will admit to a sarcastic sense of humor, which I know is lost here. Even with the appropriate smiley.

Your words “And because of that attitude faith healers, cold readers, spoon benders and other phonies are sucking the gullible dry as we speak.” Ah, love the comparison. And you told me to stop putting words in your mouth and predicting your behavior? Because I am not uncomfortable with not having knowledge of every detail, my attitude is on par with people who are deliberately exploiting the gullible? You tell me who I’ve hurt by having the freedom to think and feel as I do. If your opinion is “reasonable”, I will consider it.

Oh for the love of… Occam’s Razor is not a man. Do you really not get that? The Skeptic’s Dictionary entry, that you have read, even states quite clearly that he didn’t originate the principle. OK, from now on I’ll call the principle Priceguy’s Razor instead. Will that make you happy? Will that make you stop pulling an irrelevant theistic philosopher into the discussion?

This authority stuff doesn’t work on rationalists. If Einstein buggered kiddies in his spare time, that doesn’t make Relativity any less true. If Edison was a flaming bigot, that doesn’t make the lightbulb any less bright. That Hitler was a vegetarian doesn’t make vegetarians evil. Get it?

No. I didn’t say you said something specific. I analyzed your half of the discussion and reached this conclusion. Got a problem with that conclusion? Then state it.

You asked why God had to be proven or rationalized. I explained that the only reason you even asked was because you presupposed the existence of God. I’ll stand by that until you show me evidence.

You should have opened the thread in IMHO if you didn’t want a debate. If you just wanted to know what it’s like to be an atheist, that’s what you should have done.

Please be more specific.

So it’s a bunch of feelings, emotions, wishful thinking and hope? Basically the same stuff that inspires any religious person, regardless of religion? Including the people who gasbombed the Tokyo subway and the guys in Jonestown. How do you know you’re right and they were wrong? They have the same basis as you do.

How convenient. “I know what I know but I don’t have to tell you because you wouldn’t believe anyway”. Great way to escape criticism.

Hey. Try me. Isn’t that what Jesus would do? Wouldn’t he try to lead me back into the flock? Tell me your proof. Yes, I will scrutinize it, obviously, and I expect reasonable answers to my questions about it. But tell me.

And please stop trying to predict my behaviour. It’s really annoying and rude.

Show me a more probable theory and I’ll go with that.

Just one of the guys who claim to be able to do miracles actually being able to do one would be a really good start. There are ways, believe me.

In a serious debate? Yep.

Nope. The exploiters, generally speaking, do not have that attitude, they just exploit it. Because of the attitude you fight so hard for, they are able to, because that attitude creates their victims. They are the people who are open to new discoveries, who haven’t let science close their minds. Some of them die because of it.

By the way, would you mind using quote tags?

IWLN:

I have to agree that your point here is quite disingenuous. You do realize that the idea of not positing uneccessary entities to explain a phenomenon did not originate with Occam, don’t you? His name just got attached to the idea because he happened to write about it. If you keep harping on this point, we will all be forced to conclude that you are just being willfully obtuse.

So does that mean you don’t believe that the Bible is the word of God? Would that be one of the “Christian precepts” with which you said you don’t agree? Would you also say that your belief in God is based solely on your subjective feelings/emotions? And if so, how do you know that your feelings/emotions correspond to an actual physical phenomemon? We know that it’s possible to have feelings/emotions that do not correspond to physical reality, e.g. psychodelic drugs, dreams, and mental illness (not saying religion is any of those, of course). In fact, it has even been shown that emotions can be elicited by simple electrical stimulation of the brain. So given that, what makes you sure that your “feeling” that God exists is indicative of reality? And finally, if you don’t base your belief solely on your feelings/emotions, what exactly is the objective evidence on which you rely, if not the Bible?

I realize that each question I asked is contingent on the previous one, so feel free to disregard any questions that rely on incorrect assumptions on my part.

Sorry, IWLN - I see one more thing I want to respond to:

I think I posted this a few pages back, but you should check out this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=203743

SentientMeat does a nice job of explaining cosmological theory in a nutshell. If you want to understand it in a little more detail, you need to read a primer such as Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. The questions you ask are typical misunderstandings of the theory. It seems like you haven’t really looked at any of the links people posted here. You aren’t really qualified to argue against cosmological theory if you don’t understand it. I have only a very cursory understanding of it, but I know enough to recognize that your questions are not applicable.

The real short version:

  • The universe didn’t have to “come from” anything.

  • The universe didn’t ever have to “not exist”.

  • There is no reason to assume that “nothingness” is the default state of existence. In fact, “something” appears to be the default state of existence.

  • The “big bang” was not the cause of the universe. It was not an “explosion” as we understand the word. It makes as little sense to ask what was “before” the big bang as it does to ask what is North of the North Pole.

You may have been a whiz, but not that much of a whiz! :smiley: I’m reasonably good in math myself, and know people a lot better than me, but this is beyond them.

The Razor is a heuristic, not a proof. But I do have a bone to pick with you. Any scientist, atheist or not, should not care who came up with a principle or discovery, but only about its validity and evidence. Occam being a devout man makes no difference in the utility of the razor. Newton was kind of a kook, but calculus still works. There is a common creationist myth, coming from someone named Lady Hope, that Darwin accepted Jesus on his deathbed. It isn’t true, but more importantly it doesn’t matter. Even if he did, evolution still works.

I hope your father is doing okay. Pray, but get a good doctor. Last year my father had a big heart attack, caused by a double blockage in an artery. We got a top surgeon, who did a double shunt, and he was out of the hospital in one day, and is 100% now. All done without cutting (it was placed through his leg) because he is old enough that they were worried that invasive surgery would affect him mentally. 40 years ago he had a blood clot, which kept him in the hospital for over a month. Isn’t it clear that while religion might give comfort, science and medicine gives life? (BTW I never even thought of praying while he was being operated on.)

PRICEGUY, I’m sorry I shortened my response about Occam’s Razor to where you didn’t understand that I realize it is a principle/philosophy. We previously discussed pluralities, so obviously I’ve read it. I’ll try and be more specific for you. If the person who was famous for his use of this principle wasn’t important, why didn’t you just state your belief. Why hold up the source as some sort of validation. Your belief is in a principle that I don’t hold as sound judgment for whether or not there is a God.

Then later.

You should have originally said you analyzed my half of the discussion and felt I was putting words in your mouth or predicting your behavior and then BEEN SPECIFIC as you have asked me to be. Your first reference to “That” indicates something specific in my world.

When I started this thread, I did state that I was not out to prove or disprove God. I did state that I believed in God but didn’t know what you believed. I did not say IMHO originally because the post was posing questions and I’m not sure I understand the use of it. Isn’t at least most of the posting your honest opinion? I do realize when I started answering questions re-directed to me that it opened this thread up to all kinds of debate. By the way, the reason I haven’t been using quotes, etc. is I have had to do most answering on my word processor. Anytime I tried to do something different during my post, I was getting booted to “page cannot display”. Half of the time when I try to submit reply, it’s the same. I’m trying again. Sorry.

I’m not going to be more specific. I used your “Razor” to determine if any more information would serve a purpose and with several choices available; I am picking the one that seems the most rational. Jesus did not normally perform miracles “on demand”, granted them typically to people who’s hearts and minds were open to them. He would not try and lead you back to the flock if you were unwilling. And I am not near as patient as he was, even though I try. I had some rude but accurate comparisons of my choices about giving you more info, but I took them out. Morals do get in the way at times.

I have not once compared you to subway bombers, Jonestown, or said your attitude paved the way for spoon benders, faith healers and other phonies. I may have left out a few. I have not ridiculed your ignorance or challenged your right to believe what you do. Your definition of rude is odd. Your behavior has been consistent from the beginning. I learn about the other person as I go. I have still tried to respect you. I think you are reading something that isn’t there. I stated long ago that I could not prove God to you and no amount of taunting or challenge can change that fact. I have tried to answer your questions honestly. If part of my knowledge comes from feelings and emotions, it’s because there’s love involved. That it is wishful thinking and hoping is not true, but you are entitled to believe so, since I’m not giving you what would be considered scientific evidence. If it were important to me to avoid criticism, I would not be here. Criticism flavored with taunting and rude comparisons to tragic events, implies an anger or some other emotion. Critical thinking is not emotional. Saying I have the same basis for my beliefs as a group or person is implying that you have complete insight into my motives and beliefs. That would be like me saying IHMO your dis-belief in God has contributed to 9-11 and makes you similar to a terrorist. Just as incorrect. Trying to assign an individual to a certain box isn’t rational thinking. I don’t know what your thinking or core beliefs really are. Only what I surmise from what you say. Not a very impartial evaluation.

I’ll answer the “Big Bang” question in my answer to Blowero a little later when I have more time.

Could you re-explain this answer to the above? Define “that attitude”.

Thank you, IWLN

VOYAGER, No I’m not much of a whiz. What will it mean if someone solves the question? Is it an exercise(challenge) just for it’s own sake? Challenge is always good. Or is it a “big” answer with other ramifications? I got lost after the first couple of paragraphs. Gave it to my husband who teaches math and he got grumpy and told me the answer is no. I completely agree that it will take divine intervention for me to provide the answer.

I do agree on that darn razor. I’m busted. If a child molester also was the one who came up with the kidney dialysis machine, it would not invalidate the invention. I get that. I am excellent at lousy comarisons, so here. There is a hole under my fence and my dog is missing, abducted or on the run. Easy to pick the obvious conclusion there. Doen’t mean he couldn’t have been abducted, just not likely. I even agree that you can apply it to God or the universe and come up with what seems likely, reasonable or unnecesary to you. The conclusion is still subjective to what you know or think you know.

I believe God gave us life. Science and medicine came from us being gifted with curiousity, thinking, imagining, inventing. I have no problem with Drs. My dad is 81 and the angiogram he just had showed no heart blockage; but his heart is so damaged, there is nothing to repair.(courtesy of POW camp). He’s dying and I selfishly want to keep him around for my mom, just a little longer. He says “he’s good to go” though.:wink: Thanks for asking. I’ll get back to God on that P = NP thing soon, hopefully before my dad is there telling him all of his old jokes. He’ll be too busy then.:smiley: (BTW, Who would you have prayed to…maybe your dr. was praying). Oops, sorry. Why isn’t there a smiley face for a little light hearted teasing. Would it be the wink or the tongue? IWLN

IWLN:

You’re really missing the point on Occam’s Razor. It’s basically a logical tool that one should always start with the simplest explanations and work one’s way up to more and more complicated ones only after the simpler ones have been eliminated.

As long as a natural explanation can be found for any phenomenon there is no need to posit the supernatural. “God” is not a “rational” explanation for anything, it’s simply a wild, unfounded hypothesis with no more logical necessity or weight than supposing the existence of fairies or goblins to explain the unknown. The fact that you fervently believe it does not lend it the slightest scintilla of empirical gravitas. Until you can actually provide some kind of tangible support for your hypothesis of a giant, invisible magician in the sky it does not and cannot merit any scientific consideration. Just because you can make something up does not mean that it automatically becomes a logical possibility.

Thus far, in the history of scientific exploration, not one single phenomenon, event or object has ever been found which requires a supernatural explanation. This does not prove that nothing supernatural can exist, only that so far we have not found any reason why it has to.

Blowero, No. I believe the Bible contains the word of God, some is divinely inspired. Quite a bit is just history though. Where I part ways is that I don’t think it’s perfect. A lot(many books) was weeded out to fit “religious” beliefs over the last 2000 years and more was lost in the translations, actually I know it was because my brainy sister who has investigated every religion I have ever heard of, translated a few verses for me from the Hebrew language and some of the meanings were very different. If you voice any of that in a typical Christian church though, it’s like you’re saying the “f” word. If you question anything too deeply or refuse to take everything literally, they’ll pray for your soul. I think God created me and he also gave me a brain and permission to use it.

I would say that a significant aspect(not all) of my belief does have to do with feelings/emotions. Our brain pretty much rules it all. When one makes a “rational” choice about not believing in God, there are feelings/emotions involved in that too. I know some people are already shaking their heads, but it is biologically impossible to completely separate the reasoning intellectual part of your brain from your feelings. Pure logic would have to come from a computer. Life experiences, remembered and unremembered affect our choices. IMHO that affects whether ones responses to a challenge to Atheism or religion is angry, sarcastic or just an honest response to an opinion or belief one holds.

Well I don’t think of God as a physical phenomenon, but some of the feelings involved feel physical. When I originally started to believe in God I was in my teens and although I didn’t have doubts, it was more in theory. I was well into my twenties before I began to feel his presence. I’ll stop right here and say I have never done drugs, only dreamt about God once that I can remember and my mental health has never been in question. Although I did go to counseling after my divorce(do you want a note from my dr.?) :stuck_out_tongue: If by objective evidence, you mean provable, I have been honest from the start that I can’t prove God to anyone. I have things that were affirming to me that would be discounted by people without belief. When my 1 1/2 year old explained death didn’t mean you were gone, just changed, someone else’s toddler saying nearly the same thing to my other daughter just recently, a really hard decision to start tithing at church when I was a single mom of three. I only made $1080. a month, I gave $108. the first month and 3 days into the next month, my boss(atheist by the way) gave me a $108. raise, four months before I was due one. I asked him why and he said I deserved it, I asked why $108. and he said he didn’t know, it seemed like a good number (see God uses Atheists to help believers;) ) Lots of other things that can all be explained away, too many to remember. A few that would qualify me for admittance. But it all made me smile at what felt like God’s sense of humor. So no, no proof. Sorry. Wish I did.

As far as the Big Bang theory. I did go read that other post on the universe and went back and read up on the Big Bang theory. Thanks. I never gave any of that a whole lot of thought(you know IMHO God created everything and I’ve been busy, so I thought he could fill me in when we hook up). Then so many people on this thread asked if I was familiar with the Big Bang. I thought it sounded reasonable for how our part of the universe came to be, but really think that would be more of an event, not a creation. Some scriptural versions describe the universe when it was timeless or before time started(can’t remember which) It also says that it was invisible with no beginning and no boundaries. Boundaries were created for our universe. Talks about when there will again be no measured time. I have more trouble with the time concept than any. I do remember getting flack for saying God always was and now there’s discussion of a universe that always was. Whether those unproven similarities are a coincidence too doesn’t matter to me.

I got my original Big Bang info on a site that said it is still the most accepted theory, then read some posts that speculated on the size of the matter needed for this and how it didn’t need to be very big, etc. Didn’t go any further because my nature is to let them work the kinks out of everything like that. Wait for the real answer, if one can be found. What’s North of the North Pole. Magnetic North and then North ceases to exist as a applicable measurement? Everyday I learn or unlearn something here and if it hasn’t changed by tomorrow, I feel lucky. IWLN

Diogenes the Cynic, Isn’t it great that we are all free to form our own opinions and decide what level of proof we require. I can see your reasons for not believing. You can’t understand why I don’t need scientific evidence. Shouldn’t that be okay, to disagree? I didn’t set out to try and debate God, since that is impossible. I have tried to answer questions honestly. Since we do not have all the questions of the universe answered and cannot scientifically say there is or isn’t a God, I’m going to stick with what I know. I really am not missing the point on Occam’s Razor. I just don’t always agree with what “one should do”. The tool is logical, but not conclusive enough to prove anything, only to pick the most likely answer. Likely is a best guess(rational) answer, but not always true. I’ll stick to what I know and you can just shake your head at my ignorance. Win, win. IWLN

Okay, IWLN I’ll answer the first one:

The harm lies not in believing, but forcing others to listen to nonsense.

If it comforts you, fine. Don’t try to convince an atheïst his non-believing is a sham.

I won’t get into the ‘gullibility, less intelligence, less growth’ bit.

For god’s sake. I just had breakfast.

Show me where I did that. Now. Or admit to being a bald-faced liar. I never held up the source at all. You were the guy dragging William of Occam into the discussion over and over again, while I repeatedly stated that he was irrelevant.

Occam’s Razor is the generally accepted name of the principle. If it had been known as Stalin’s Mustache, I would have called it that.

Why not? Why posit unnecessary pluralities?

You’re getting two different parts of the discussion mixed up here.

Which is not showing me any proof, just asserting you have it?

Are you sure that heavy cross isn’t hurting your shoulder?

Nor have I, as you’re probably well aware. I merely said that they based their actions on the same processes as you, and inquired how you can know that you’re right and they were wrong. I’m still waiting for the response.

Are you saying that isn’t the truth? Are you saying the phonies could do their work if everyone had my attitude instead of yours?

Show me where I’ve done this.

I am angry. I cannot explain why outside the Pit. I’ve never claimed to be emotionless; I’ve just not called my emotions “knowledge”. I experience as wide and deep a range of emotions as you do. I just don’t pretend they’re rational.

You told me the basis for your beliefs. That’s how I knew them.

If you can show me how my atheism contributed to that attack, I’ll gladly admit this. Since those terrorists were theists I think you’ll find that difficult, though.

The attitude of being what you call “open-minded”. Not having let science close your mind. Basically accepting of everything without proof or validity. “Knowing” based on emotions. Stuff like that.

Wow, that’s quite a rambling answer you gave, IWLN - did you have an extra nightcap tonight?:smiley:

O.K., but that seems to contradict what you said earlier. Didn’t you say the Bible is limited by the understanding of the men who wrote it? Well which is it - the word of God or the word of man?

And how do you determine which parts are right and which are wrong?

And that’s precisely the reason why subjective evidence cannot be relied upon. Sure emotions are involved in a lot of things; but by looking at only objective evidence, we can minimize the bias that these emotions cause. There’s a world of difference between having emotions, and basing one’s beliefs about the physical universe on emotions. It would be just as irrational to say “I hate the idea of God, so therefore I know God doesn’t exist” as it is to say “I love God, so therefore I know He exists” and any atheist who believes the former is not thinking rationally. But that’s not what I believe.

Are you attempting to use this as a justification for belief without evidence? Are you saying: “We all have emotions, so we shouldn’t even try to think rationally?” If we can’t do it completely flawlessly, we shouldn’t at all? Sorry, but I disagree.

You don’t? Certainly anything that can create and affect the universe would have to be defined as “physical”, would it not?

It does happen to be 10% of your salary. I don’t wish to belittle these events, because they are obviously important to you, and that’s fine. But I have to ask: If you were God, and could do literally anything, and you wanted to let people know you were there, why would you fool around with vague little things like a minor, rather unstartling numerical coincidence? Do you honestly believe that’s the best an omnipotent being can do to provide proof of His existence?

Do you know what selection bias is? It’s when you look at things that support what you already believe, but ignore things that tend to contradict your belief. So let’s say that you believe God is watching out for you. You notice whenever something good happens to you, and you think “Ah, God is there”. But when something bad happens, you never think “Ah, there must not be a God”. In an entire lifetime, what do you think the chances are that some coincidences will occur, such as getting the same amount in pay raise as that which you tithe? In an entire lifetime, it would be pretty incredible if no coincidences ever happened! If you deal a million cards, you’re most likely going to get a good poker hand once in awhile, by sheer chance. So if you notice unusually good things happening once in awhile, and attribute those to God, while ignoring the millions and billions of events that aren’t particularly noteworthy, you get a false picture of reality.

Look at it from my point of view. Going back to our friend Occam, which is the simpler explanation:

  1. People are engaging in selection bias.

  2. An invisible, all-powerful entity exists who can (or chooses to) only communicate with us via rather unimpressive coincidental happenings that can easily be explained naturally.

I wasn’t asking for proof.

That’s fine & dandy, but then you ought not to try to argue against a theory of the cosmos that you don’t understand.

Actually, that’s a pretty good way of describing it.

Running out of time…more later…

IWLN, I thought of you this morning, or rather should say, this thread, when I noticed a little blurb on CNN.com about the upcoming lunar eclipse.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/11/06/lunar.eclipse.ap/index.html

The snippet that caught my attention:

Surely you can see the parallels between what the ancients “knew” (despite being totally wrong) and the insistence of modern-day theists in clinging to equally vacant “proofs” in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.
The selection bias blowero mentioned above would have reinforced this false belief in these ancients every time a crop failed, a couple proved infertile, the tribe elder’s goat died, or whatever-- it could all be pinned on the “unseen monster” who “bloodied the moon.” And one of us, if we could travel back in time and try to rationally explain the true situation, would play hell trying to unseat this notion… or “disprove” the bloody moon monster that they knew damn well existed.

While I’m tolerant of your beliefs, which you freely acknowledge are emotionally rather than rationally generated, I am of the opinion that you are doing the same exact thing the “bloody moon monster” crowd was doing centuries ago.

I hesitate to even bring up Occam’s Razor again, lest I create the impression in your mind that this simple little concept is the only tool in the critical thinker’s toolbox, but again, it applies. The combination of the planet’s alignments as the orbits line up coupled with the amount of dust in the earth’s atmosphere at the time, provides a completely natural explanation of why a reddish lunar eclipse would occur. It introduces an unneccessarily complex solution to posit the supernatural moon monster, but that’s what they did.

And it’s what you’re doing when you attribute a (gasp!) ten percent raise to a deity rather than consider the simpler explanation that your boss, good bloke that he sounds like, slapped a 10 percent raise on you, not knowing that you yourself also chose (gasp!) a set, common, even number as a percentage to tithe. Do you honestly think he pulled the odd amount of $108 bucks out of his ass at random, or did he hear the whisper of God in his ear? (BTW-- if so, is he still an atheist? :wink: ) Why don’t you (quietly) throw in an additional dollar and 17 cents to your tithe, and see if your boss magically jacks your salary up to match it? If we accept the insinuation you’d have us believe, basically that God rewarded your generous tithe despite an obvious need for the money yourself, why would he NOT manipulate your salary again? Is it a one-time good deal?

Don’t delude yourself that you are sticking with what you “know.” You’re sticking with what you “believe.” The ancients looking up at the lunar eclipse did too… and it didn’t make them “bad people” by any means. And they were perfectly within their rights to hold their beliefs, or even posit that they constitued “knowledge”, just as you are today. That didn’t make them right.

Does it neccessarily make them “wrong?”

I can easily imagine one of them defending his moon monster explanation by telling me that I couldn’t totally 100% dis-prove the bloody monster, and, as much as I hate to say it, he’d technically be right. I could show how unneccessary his contribution is, in the face of a natural, simple, explanation, but that would hardly refute him among the truly faithful. Further, if I DID somehow demonstrate the alignment of the planets and illustrate how the filter of a dusty atmosphere affects color perception, only to be told that, yeah, well, the bloody moon monster is who makes the planets line up and he blows up the dust with his breath… I’d be in much the same position as the posters in this thread trying to get you to use ALL of that brain that “God gave you.”
:wink:

Disclaimer: I’m replying directly to the OP to answer the original poster instead of reading the Great Debate that arose in it’s path. By the way, I’m more agnostic than athiestic, I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic School and served at the alter through 6th grade (never once was groped by a priest either :wink:

None. We all hold on to unquantifiable truths that help us make sense of the world, religous as well as non-religious.

No. That strikes me as insensitive as when people with faith proselytize non-believers.

Not necessarily. I do think it’s true that some people believe merely because they’ve been indoctrinated since birth and that doubting was tantamount to sin, so they’ve never left the church as a result. On the other hand, there are plenty of religious scholars who have done far more hard research and are smarter than me who do believe.

I can’t. Some people have this Big Bang theory, but the mechanics of it lie beyond my understanding.

I’m no paleontologist, but it’s my understanding that homo erectus illustrates a mid-way point from animal to man

I don’t understand what you’re asking. Whether our not we believe in God doesn’t change the fact that our time on the mortal coil is limited. I don’t see what brightness, joy, potential is being lost. By whom or at what point? Kids can still be little wonderful bundles of joy -or- little pains in the keisters.

It matters a lot to the people who plan on loving the child. The child itself won’t mind. I say this because I myself have no recollection of being born. I honestly don’t remember that day. For that matter, I don’t remember much of anything for years after that. On the topic of lives being snuffed out, I place far more value on the lives of people who have already lived and experienced life who had it taken away from them. I’m talking about murders and wars. For that matter I also think its a fate worse than death to have to live in the horrible squalor, destitution, crime and brutality that greets countless people in the less-fortunate parts of the world today. On my more cynical or pragmatic days, I would consider that abortions are a merciful alternative to life in these parts of the world. I seem to recall even very well-off youngsters uttering the phrase “I wish I’d never been born!” I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Secondly, I don’t consider the proto-person that’s cooking in the womb a person at every stage in development. My own personal line-in-the-sand is at half-way point (4.5 months). That’s just me and not a guideline I force on anyone else.

I believe so. I think that’s kind of the issue.

Get down in the dumps. Put things in perspective. Grab a serving of inner strength. Get back up. Carry on.

I have not seen any correllation between belief-levels and happiness. I don’t know if I am equipped to evaluate “how much” someone else believes. Is there such an instrument? A faithometer?

I don’t know what you’re talking about on this one. So I guess the answer to your question would be “no?”

The nature of science is that it discerns between theory and fact. Just because I don’t understand quantum physics now, doesn’t mean that if I didn’t do my homework, do the neccessary reading, that I wouldn’t understand why it can be proven or disproven. The more I’ve discovered about the history of God, the less credible it has shown itself (to me). BUT, I don’t believe that God needs to be proven or disproven – one wouldn’t need “faith” if it could be. What irks the non-believer is when people try to convice you of something that can’t be backed up by hard data, yet proclaim (sometimes WAY TOO righteously) that they’re RIGHT.

I do marvel at the more extraordinary aspects of life. I appreciate it for what it is. That appreciation does not lead me to “There must be a greater power that is giving me this present” anymore than “in the process of evolutionary chain…”

[quote]
12. Do you think non-believers tend to be more pessimistic? Don’t get your panties into a bundle over that one. I just mean since I believe I have something really awesome to look forward to; I have some of that I get to go to Disneyland feeling. Ceasing to exist just doesn’t have the same ring to it?

[quote]

I do not believe that non-believers are more pessimistic. The fact of the matter is, non-believers DO have something to look forward to. In the here and now, depending on how richly (that doesn’t mean money) they choose to live their lives. Family, friendships, achievements.

  1. Does an atheist ever wish God were true, provable?

not this atheïst, Hey You! I merely deny a god.

I disagree with almost everything you said, but I had to address this in particular. There are in fact several known transitional species, and homo erectus is just one of the known earlier hominids. Furthermore, make no mistake, man is an animal. Therefore there can be no “mid-way point” between animal and man.