Dear Atheists, Questions From A "believer"

Great Debates
161

Oh, I see - thanks for clarifying that. I can see how it would be annoying to have someone tell you what you believe.

I think there’s a certain amount of animosity towards atheists in the U.S., and I think our interests are often trivialized or outright denounced, but “downtrodden” would be way too strong a word for it. In the grand scheme of things, there are folks with far worse problems.

[I say “grand scheme” with a little irony, since I don’t actually see any evidence that there *is* a grand scheme]:wink:

162

in the original Hebrew would be fine. :slight_smile: My Hebrew has diminished from the feeble state it was in after Hebrew school to zero, but I’ve got friends who know it and the math. To tell you the truth, that would be great evidence. Not only that, we’d both be famous, since this is one of the major unsolved problems in mathematics.

I’m probably not qualified to check out the proof, but I know people who are. I’m not holding my breath, though.

I wouldn’t worry about asking for proof though. Remember Moses got into trouble for making God’s proof of his power less obvious. Given the Exodus, I’ve never really understood why Christians say that God won’t give proof to encourage faith. Actually, I do - evidence is easy when you can make up stories, a bit harder to actually show.

163

BLOWERO, Thanks. Telling me what I believe is kind of like telling me “what my problem is.” Animosity toward atheists! From “believers”? Now isn’t animosity a sin. Somebody better tell them quick.:smiley:

164

Voyager, Well okay, you can’t goad me into coming up with a miracle, but I’ll try anyway. I don’t want to be famous though. I get in enough trouble anonymously. Oh and he said to tell you it only works if you hold your breath.:stuck_out_tongue: Kol Tuv.

165

PRICEGUY, You’re talking about the guy who hijacked someone else’s philosophy after he was booted out of the Catholic church? I love that guy. I understand the concept(maybe) and can apply it in some way to fit just about any situation I want to debate. Re-read paragraph 2 in the Skeptic’s Dictionary. If you’re referring to pluralities, it doesn’t seem to apply. Be more specific. I only recently was directed to this idea and get the plauseable and probable, but it’s all still subjective to what you know and I know.

On #5, we’ll just let it rest. Our concepts are further apart than our “religious beliefs”. IWLN

166

VOYAGER, Hey why didn’t you tell me about the million dollar prize? You aren’t just using me for the money now are you?

167

No, I’m talking about Occam’s Razor. It isn’t a guy. William of Occam was, but he doesn’t matter. Your reverse argument from authority fallacy carries no weight.

Paragraph 2 in the entry for Occam’s Razor in the Skeptic’s Dictionary reads:

I’ve read it and re-read it and still don’t know what you’re trying to say. Be explicit, please.

It applies. I’m saying that God is an unnecessary plurality. Since we know that (for example) hallucinations do exist, and we don’t know God exists, when someone sees God we should assume it is a hallucination. Since we can explain the movement of the planets, we don’t assume God is moving them around. This is basically exactly what the paragraph you referred to says.

Another point that I missed in my last reply: you said I would find a scientific explanation for people seeing God. This shows a great lack of understanding of science. If God exists, the scientific explanation for the phenomenon is that God exists. There is nothing non-scientific about that. However, an explanation has to be proved (strictly speaking proof is impossible, but run with me) before it is accepted. I only disbelieve God because the evidence in favor of his existence is exactly zip, not because there is something inherently nonscientific about a deity.

168

???
[ul]
[li]dinosaurs – I’m guessing you know about these, they are thin at one end, much fatter in the middle, and then thin again at the other end[/li][li]plate tectonics – the theory that the earth’s surface is made of many plates that “float” upon the earths mantle, explaining earthquakes and continental drift[/li][li]helio-centricity – the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, NOT rocket science[/li][li]evolution – the most stunning and beautiful theory of biology explaining biodiversity and a host of other phenomena in a nutshell[/li][li]special relativity – I can’t come close to explaining my feeble understanding of this and certainly not in a handful of words[/li][/ul]What my point was though, is that each of the above are just examples of facts about the material world that fail to get a mention in the bible – why is that so? How can the bible be so ignorant of these facts when apparently it was inspired by the Big Horse’s Mouth Himself? The bible sucks as a user-guide.

169

Let’s try just the big bang, stellar generations and the heliocentric model. I’m betting it sounds better in some dead language.

The problem, of course, is that it depends completely on the writers understanding of the universe. If the Divine is supposedly involved you would think it would substantial go beyond that, wouldn’t you?

170

PRICEGUY

Of course William doesn’t matter to you. The fact that he was angry and maybe a little wacko doesn’t hurt the reference at all. What I was really pointing out is that it sounds like he didn’t intend for this philosophy to be used as an Atheist mantra. God is an unnecessary plurality for you, because you have no knowledge of him, therefore think that anything you have no knowledge of can’t possibly exist. That’s at the same time reasonable and as naïve as you think I am. And for the record, I would describe it more as a benign possession than a hallucination. Yes, you can explain the movement of the planets, but can’t explain what originally caused and set them into motion with any definite scientific explanation. If you could truly explain/prove everything, there would be no debate. As for the people seeing God, you’re right; I should have said scientific proof. You could see him with your own eyes and because you can’t explain it, in comes the “we should assume it is a hallucination”. I’m sure a DNA test or autopsy would be out of the question. There is a lot I admit that I don’t know, but don’t discredit it because I don’t. I can’t give you proof for what I know. That would only be required if I insisted on you knowing too. I don’t. Superior intellect can get in the way of being open to new discovery. I will keep my “metaphysical baggage” and call him God. He has never been at odds with science, only illusive. I’m good with that. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. IWLN

171

How is it possible not to believe in god if you have no knowledge of him? To have no knowledge is neither believing nor disbelieving. I think what you mean is that Priceguy doesn’t think he has personal experience with god - which is obvious, since you can’t really have personal experience with god and not believe in it. So you’re not actually explaining anything here, IWLN.

I think it’s more like the idea of god is useless to him and he sees no point for it, or reason for it to exist. It has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge - unless your reasoning is “If you believe in god, you have knowledge of him; if you don’t believe, it’s because you have no knowledge, and thus your opinion doesn’t count.”

172

Million dollar prize? Not that I was aware of (or at least no one told me when I was studying this stuff.)
Perhaps you mean Randi’s prize. I’m afraid this would not qualify. I think of a miracle as a local violation of the laws of nature, and no such violation would happen if god whispered the answer into your ear, no more than it happened when I got to go to the seminar explaining the solution of the four color problem. I’m not asking for proof - a true skeptic could say that if you came up with the answer it was because you went off and solved the problem. No offense meant, but I would find it easier to believe in God.

BTW, we know what started the planets moving. The cloud of gas from which the planets condensed rotated, so the planets do also. (We’ve seen such clouds through the Hubble.) No issue there. You also don’t quite get the Razor. It has nothing to do with things not existing because we have no knowledge of them. It simply says that if we have a simple explanation for all the data, we can as a rule eliminate the more complex ones. It does not disprove them, since we might come up with additional data which the simple explanation does not explain. (Newton’s laws are simpler than Einstein’s, and there was no reason to reject them until there was data that they could not explain.) Even Tom Paine believed in a deistic god because he could find no better explanation for the structure of the solar system (Read The Age of Reason - Paine was not an atheist.) If he lived today, however, he might well reject even the deistic god, since we have fairly good non-god-based explanations for all the stuff he wondered about.

I don’t think the ancients were stupid to think that a god hurled thunderbolts, but we know better, and it is time to grow out of the myths and stories of our youth.

173

Okay, you have my interest, what’s the source? (chapter, verse, etc.)

174

GREY, I wondered too the source of the quote, but the big computer in the sky keeps eating my messages. So, alas I am back to putting my posts in one bushel. One big try rather than 2 or 3 hours of “this page cannot be displayed”.

THE GREAT UNWASHED

Thanks for your kind explanation of the “big words”. Weren’t some dinosaurs fat at both ends? I could take a stab at special relativity for you, but I would have to leave out the “effect of motion on time”. That one is obviously not in “my” reference frame. It would take me a long time to explain, but if I did it real fast, it would shorten the time? Or just take me less time.

Okay, my point. I do believe some of these things received attention in the Bible (vague admittedly), but more so in some of the books that were removed from the Bible in the last couple thousand years. There were actually quite a few that were discredited because they didn’t fit with the current “religious” standards. Some didn’t fit with the idea of a perfect God and perfect Heaven. After all how could God have a need or not be at peace and still be perfect? How could a perfect God create or allow the devil’s existence? Beyond our understanding, so we better leave it out.

Enoch who I believe was the grandfather of Noah wrote 366 books.(chapters?) Some of his writings are referred to in the Old Testament which at least verifies that his original writing existed. Otherwise I think it would have all been denied as a hoax. “Secrets of Enoch” aka 2 Enoch, which sounds like it was written by someone else about Enoch’s experiences in the first century, was thrown out of the original Bible, I believe by the Catholic Church in 364 AD. There are two interpretations of Enoch, an Ethiopic one(older) and a Slavonic one. I have only read the second one. There was an actual ban on it and it disappeared from sight. Got the origin information off of the “reluctant messenger” website, so it is not verified.(had never been there before, interesting/odd). “Secrets of Enoch” contains what was revealed to him about the creation of the universe, the beginning of time, how all life came from the sea (I’ll bet that’s why they didn’t like Enoch). The life from the sea info is Chapter 30:8. I did notice the interpreters or maybe Enoch put a comma in there after the fish and birds, possibly to try and not be part of the “from the sea” group, but the “every soul breathing the spirit of life kind of contradicts the vague attempt at denial. Since time had no meaning to God and then it “became” for us, what’s a few hundred billion years? There are all kinds of explanations of different physical aspects of the world. The book reads like a good science fiction novel and you have to kind of go around the parts that sound like an acid trip, to get to Enoch’s interpretation of the “creation of the universe” facts. If it were all somehow “proved” to be just the writer’s imagination, he came up with some pretty good stuff. Of course, I still grant that it could totally be my “frame of reference”. I would have to say that it appears the Big Horse’s Mouth aka Himself probably gave us more information. We just got the edited version. My sister gave me the book I got “Secrets of Enoch” out of years ago and she was going through her Wiccan, new age, born again, Budhist phase, so I didn’t really read it til it fell on my foot recently. It’s called THE LOST BOOKS of the BIBLE and THE FORGOTTEN BOOKS of EDEN. Used it to level a piece of furniture for 10 years or so. Would have to agree that the Bible sucks at physical universe details. But what did you want? A letter from God, a true knowledge implant or……Maybe the chance to do your own exploring? Good thing for user names or I’d probably get banned next Sunday. IWLN

VOYAGER, Maybe the million dollar offer expired. I would have given you a cut though. Still working on it. My dad’s been in ICU and he gets God’s ear first. Patience my child. Hey, what did you mean by that crack. I was a whiz in math 100 years ago. Okay, we know what started the planets moving, but we could just keep going back and somewhere along the line, you would have to say we don’t know yet. Why things work is fascinating, but where it all really came from is the only big question. When it comes to God, I just don’t think the Razor applies. You have two piles of information, one big one, one small. Your inclination is to go with the big pile, but it does not make it the correct pile. Reasonable doesn’t equal correct every time. IWLN

I have copied and pasted this so many times, I may have sent "mixed messages. :wink:

175

Marley, I think you’re playing with my words. Priceguy, doesn’t think he has no personal experience with God, he knows he doesn’t. He has based his knowledge on the absence of fact. I respect that whether I agree or not.

Your quote - “If you believe in god, you have knowledge of him; if you don’t believe, it’s because you have no knowledge, and thus your opinion doesn’t count.”

I agree with that, except for anyone’s opinion not counting. I wouldn’t be discussing it if that were true. Whether my knowledge is significant enough to satisfy me or delusional, I would still consider it knowledge for myself. If you have no knowledge of God, IPU or whatever, you won’t believe it exists. It’s not an insult, it’s a fact. If you’re trying to get me in trouble, pick apart the naive comment. I would probably deserve that. IWLN

176

Okay, you have my interest, what’s the source? (chapter, verse, etc.) **
[/QUOTE]
Book of Grey Chapter 1. I didn’t mean for it to be confusing, though the collection plate will be along shortly.

My point being that simple words and concepts could be used to describe the Big Bang idea, initial gas leading to 3 generations of stars, the sun as a 3rd generation star, the birth of the moon from the earth and the collection of water from comets. The Bible for instance fails to do half as well as I did, and it tries twice.

177

I’m also sorry about the bad coding.

178

Thanks Grey. The Bible tries once in Job and do you remember where else? I don’t know if Genesis counts? IWLN

179

I think my point is being lost here.

I agree with The Great Unwashed’s point

The very fact that this divinely inspired/written/gifted book does not even get close to what I just wrote in the course of 10 minutes says something about its inherent truthfulness.

If you assume the Bible is fact, empirical evidence proves it wrong.

If you assume the Bible is divinely inspired, then God forgot about how the universe came about or provided incorrect information.

If you assume the Bible provides metaphoric truth about the material world, it manages to get that wrong.

If you assume the Bible was not divinely inspired and was written by a bunch of desert nomads off of a Babylonian root, then yeah, it seems to give what little material information it can.

But debating the Bible wasn’t really in your OP, so I’ll drop it.

180

GREY, I got the point, although your education level and vocabulary probably have the early writers at a disadvantage. I agree simple words could do it, but the writers wouldn’t have understood the significance of it and may not have included it. The Bible was written, then the language changed, by men. God didn’t write it and I suspect only inspired parts of it. I could write something pretty too, that hints at the truth of creation, but I have some limited scientific knowledge. Since I asked about evolution and the beginning of the universe, it’s not particularly off topic. I’ve never felt like the Bible was meant to give all the answers as much as make us look for our own answers. Best to not assume much of anything. Did agree with TGU that it does suck as far as scientific info goes. IWLN