I agree completely with you Lazarus, but what I find interesting is that you pose atheism as a logical postulation. But you will find that logic must be based on fact.

But our facts are based on empiricity. Ironically, Darwin's... rather Anaximander's theory of evolution too relies on empiricity. However, when asked to explain the reason of "Transmutation of species", science comes to a halt and relies deus ex machina on "chance". What is chance?

You will surely concur that that which is empirical is so only because we can sense it, see it and then prove it. What is so duplicitous in this "atheist" logic, is that the very accusers of Galileo said the very same thing to "prove" that the Earth was flat.

They could not "see" any evidence that the world was round, it was illogical to say otherwise - and there were many so-called "sciences" that were quoted to discredit Galileo.

Today, when an atheist quotes yet again, something that is "more logical", one asks "more logical" to whom? And based on what?

What is our logic based on? For our logic and mathematics the universe was unlimited. Now science calculates that it is more like a soccer ball.
Dark matter was unknown till a few years ago.
We still can't reconcile quantum dynamics and relativity.

So what is more logical? To directly discard Theism without even knowing what lies outside our Galaxy, not seeing what exists in the remaining 7 dimensions of physics as calculated by Einstein?

If we look at all religions that have a tracable history - unfortunately, the Natives of the americas, and the South-Pacific islands do not have much of their heritage left (many thanks to the Europeans) - but Hinduism, Sumerianism, the Egyptian pantheon, Zoroastrianism etc we see that although the civilizations developed a strong polytheistic myth base, at their heart is alway the monotheistic One - El, Brahma, Anu, Ra, Ahuramazda etc. Why? Coincidence or is there something deeper? What is more logical here? You don't know, and nor do I.

But why does JHWH say in the old testament - I am El. Is it simple poetry or is it truly an indication of the immutable essence that exists in all religions.
Why is there a flood mentioned in all religions - Hinduism, Sumerianism (Gilgamesh), the athrasis epic, Incan, Mayan, even China has myths of floods. Maybe all people settled around rivers, and naturally all rivers overflow at some point. But why are all these flood myths also always associated with creation myths.
Maybe it simply a percolation and regurgitation of a common source of information. But what is that common source? Is that Noah?
Modern science has proven (the recent Gene distribution theory) that humans have all originated from Africa. In evolution there is always that one creature that takes the first step; is that our Adam?

Science and Religion always seem to meet at some obscure corner of logical evaluation. Are we absolutely sure of our facts - at least in this debate - to go one way or the other?

Point is, "more logical", "fact" and the rest of the blah blah is nothing more than fodder for argument. An argument designed by many just to stand out, and try to show that they are different.
In reality neither side can actually even call oneself more or less logical, since logic is demonstrated by a line of thought that itself is necessarily derived from fact.
Unfortunately, there is not much fact to go on. Archaeology comes upon relics that are left from the waning cycles of civilizations, leaving no trace of the original religion or culture of that civilization, just the innovated end result - much like what modern Christianity is to the original words of Christ. King Tut was considered murdered for 80 years, until only recently being proven otherwise.
Science is grappling with reconciling known physics, with new discoveries of planets that revolve in 12 hours, and new intensities of super novae.

What fact do we really truly cock-sure have? From where then, do we get our logic to be "more logical"?
See it to believe it? Then those who have not visited Tokyo should immediately call it myth. Maybe for you it does not exist since it does not matter in your day to day life.
Perhaps. But that does not mute its existence. And things are only irrelevant in spite of existing, so long  as you do not experience them. Once you do, irrelevance quickly turns to absolute necessity. Logical is to be prudent as opposed to arrogant. Logical is to be understanding as opposed to opinionated.

After all logic is the beginning of wisdom not the end.

I'd like to point out first that I've not really put forward atheism as a logical postulation. Unlike the religious guys, I have not reached any solid conclusions, mainly because our knowledge of reality is incomplete. The logical, critical method leads to many possibilities, such as a malevolent God, an non-omnipotent God, multiple Gods, non-personal God etc. (The last seems most likely, as per Spinoza's God). Let's not become guilty of the same dogmatism that both religion and militant atheism are responsible for.

I agree with Dom that speciation does not rely on chance. All trained biologists know that natural selection is a non-random process, and this non-randomness is imposed by the environment as a selection pressure. There are many books which describe probability that you might find interesting.

I wonder if you are somehow trying to disprove evolution. It's becoming increasingly difficult to do so. It's even been demonstrated using the most powerful computers that evolution occurs if you put the correct parameters into the system. Yes, this could represent a controlling force, and this raises an interesting possibility. However, only the most stubborn literalist Christians believe in Genesis-based creation. By trying to promote their weak arguments, you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you attempt anything else such as entropy arguments, I'll rebuke them. Alternatively, have a look at one of the other threads I've posted on in the past.

Each time you post Serpicus, you make the case for Christianity being not based on Jesus Christ, which is of course true, but this hardly vindicates Christianity. Some psychologists believe that Jesus fits the description of a narccicist perfectly. It's not difficult to see why. Once again, an honest read of the bible can only lead to the same conclusion. What is more, the few "wise" things he said were hardly ingenious, by anyone's standards, and they had been said before by other "wise men". He also encouraged division from the world, and most insidiously, from the family.

Be careful about trying to defend something that's not worth defending. If you think about it (and people rarely think here), the religious guys are giving credit to a "God" who doesn't deserve it, and doesn't seem to care. This is not to say there is no "God" however.

When you look at the universe, it is horribly inhospitable to life, and mainly consists of icy cold vacuum and burning hot entities, not to mention blackholes. What if, when God Junior was doing his high school project, life was a mere side affect on this tiny planet in an insignificant corner of this galaxy? Might that awsomely powerful being not even be aware of our existence? This would explain a lot, whilst showing that "God" is not omnipotent, although considerably more powerful than the weak biblical God. If one person opens their mind to these possibilties, I will have suceeded in my aims.

Lack of belief is not a belief. I don't believe in Pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters either, but there's no use aruing against those, because no-one seriously believes in them. That would be ludicrous. The fact that I do not have a complete picture of reality does not indicate that my method is "illogical" as you put it, in fact it's a sure sign that my method is sound.


That's a fine decription of what probability is, but that changes nothing. Scientists can easily recognise whether a pattern in nature could have occured merely by chance. If this did not occur (as in evolution), we should not immediately conclude that "God did it". A process does not need a guiding hand to be non-random, although it may require an initiator. We can't just slap the God label onto everything we do not understand, this is fallacious.


Science is not (believe it or not) principally about the facts and figures, but about how we obtain them. I'm tired of repeating this. My greatest support is for the scientific method. I do not possess the "Hubris" you think I do. I'm quite aware that science is in an infantile state, and that it wil no doubt throw up wonders we can barely imagine, but its method has never failed. When simulations are incorrect, it is not the scientific method that is in error, it is the assumptions of the programmers. Science is better described as incomplete than "factually blank and perforated". Are you an anti-intellectual? I thought not but I'm now starting to wonder.


There has been no shift from my original post. The purpose of this thread is to discredit the bible. I said nothing about the possibilty of a creator actually existing. I'm not worried about "pissing him off" in your delightful language, because I'm thoroughly convinced that the brutal God of the bible doesn't exist at all. Any God up there is doubtless very different. Don't try to pull the Pascal's wager thing on me Serpicus, I won't be threatened in to believing in your biblical God, and frankly if he did exist (which he doesn't), I'd rather he struck me down dead than worship him.

I "accuse" God, his prophets, his messiah etc of many things, such as absence, allowing suffering, etc, my criticism of the bible is merely one aspect. My point is,  no matter which may you look at it, it is found wanting, whether you look at Christ, or those who claimed to follow him. I'm in no catch 22. There's nothing to trip me up so that I'm forced to admit that either Christ is worthy, Paul is worthy, God is worthy, Christians are worthy or any combination of the above. You're clutching at straws now.
Posted on: November 13, 2007, 04:35:47 pm

---

It's interesting how you guys have tried to distract me from starting my bible quotes. It never ceases to amaze me how nobody, ever, tackes the issues I raise. There's a common pattern:

1) I create a thread, raise an issue
2) Someone moans about the fact that thy're tired of "belief bashing", playing the victim
3) A hot debate ensues with all sorts of twists and turns
4) The original issue never gets raised.

I have my doubts whether anyone even read the link I posted. They're so sure in their "conclusion" that they don't even bother. Now that's "Hubris".

Given a window of opportunity I will start to quote scriptures. And then I'll show how it's far from difficult to understand (although our theologian seems to find it difficult), and also that "context" is irrelevant. Notice also how when I raised these points, I was ignored. That's because I'm correct. So, enough of your attempts at distraction and cover up.

I am not an atheist. Comprehend? Good.

In fact, Pink unicorns are a distinct possibilty. Just highly improbable. Either way, i'm, not concerned until the idea of a higher being is testable, until then it's not science.


I do not slap random phenomenon on what I do not understand, and either way, evolution is not a random phenomenon. Chance is not even relevant in this case, it's never been about throwing dice and you know it. Just what are you trying to prove? Where do you stand?



My arguments do not fall apart, son, they are iron-like and strong. You could mention any baffling simulation in the world, and you would not disprove the scientific method. You are not capable of doing that. I do not use science to justify any "ideology", I merely promote its method. Must I keep repeating this? Is this so hard to understand?

Your weak arguments about mistranslation are making me laugh, and I've heard that a thousand times before. Under what translation does mass murder become acceptable, etc etc. If you're not a Christian, why do you defend their holy book so vehemently? If it cannot be literaly interpreted, then what is it's value? Are you a poet or something, defending an ancient poetry book? Why are you so afraid of me "bashing" it? Why are you guys so weak and politically correct that you keep bringing up the "bashing" argument?


I did nothing of the sort, don't put words in my mouth friend. You got me nowhere, you don't have that power over me, nobody does  . The thread has not "changed" exclusively to bible bashing, that's what it always was, comprehend? You either don't read posts, or you really are quite dim.

One more thing. Stop this "I hope you have fun" crap. What are you, a child? I'm sick of people saying that. This is not about fun, it's about truth. If you think I find this fun, you're sadly mistaken. I won't hold back just because you have a bizarre fixation with a holy book that you do not even believe in.

Don't knock it till you've tried it, hmmm, I did try it, for an exceedingly long time, it sucks and it's utterly fake. Some people's actions even demonstrate that it's harmful. We shouldn't just let everyone believe what they want to believe when that leads them to believe harmful things.

You're right, sometimes it goes round in circles, this time because the other guy thinks I'm a strict atheist, and when I do mention that, he pushes it back in my face as though it (somehow) invalidates my arguments about bible atrocity. It does nothing of the sort.

Interesting that you view your original post as "still standing". So you still think the bible is difficult to understand? I'll tell you what, I'll quote you a scripture where God orders merciless, bone-chilling murder, and you can tell me why it's difficult to understand, in full view of everyone.

I suspect you'll decline. I wonder whether you truly find it boring, after all, you studied "theology" for several years. This stuff's right up your street. I wonder whether in reality you're afraid of facing the truth of what's written in that book. I also wonder exactly what you studied for those years. No, seriously I do. I'm not being hostile here, I prefer things out in the open. This seems to be where we differ, as you're more intent on covering your ears.

There's no contradiction. The scientific method can tell us interesting things about what an God would be like. Look at nature. how do you reconcile parasites, predators and the like with the kind God of the bible?

You are sadly, sadly mistaken. I actually do want to believe in the montheistic God. This has nver been about what I want. The world is very different from what I want. The world is uncomfortable, dangerous and disappointing, and our knowledge of reality is incomplete. I do not like this, and I never will. Don't make presumptions, you do that a lot.

In fact, "bashing" the bible is most certainly a noble cause, as any exposure of badness is, don't twist things.

Stop saying "lol" like a child, and above all, tell me your position. You say you're not defending the bible, so what are you doing? Arguing for arguing sake? At least I have a purpose, to discredit the bible. What are you doing?

I don't know what God wants of me, if indeed he's there at all. I really wish I knew, but he's so thoroughly disinterested that determining his will is exceptionally difficult. All I know is that the answers are not in that book.

I suggest you spell out exactly why you despise me before you carry on, as I'm uncertain where you stand. Try to be concise about it. One or two sentences.

Stop saying "lol"

And explain why you despise me thus. I have never held my belief up to perfect, but it is far more sound than those who try to defend religion.