Cornered Atheist or Cornered Theist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2011, 09:02 PM
RE: Cornered Atheist or Cornered Theist?
(09-12-2011 08:26 PM)Spectre Wrote:  Opinion and science are two different things. Outside of the field of science scientists can certainly express their opinion on the supernatural. I challenge you to find one university that teaches that science has shown there are no gods.
What do you think "the field of science" is? It is Natural Philosophy, the study of material reality. The claim that there is some supernatural is not only within the purview of science, it is already studied by scientists - even at universities!

(09-12-2011 08:26 PM)Spectre Wrote:  
(09-12-2011 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  The universe looks just the way one would expect if there were no God. There is no evidence of the existence of any gods, and there is plenty of evidence for the purely material explanations of science.
The universe looks like a universe that has no god? Compared to what? What is all of this babble that I hear from renowned atheist about the appearance of design if this is true? Please indulge me.
The universe looks just like it would look if the materialist explanations of science are correct without the existence of the supernatural. The supernatural is superfluous to explaining it.

(09-12-2011 08:26 PM)Spectre Wrote:  I'm confused by your last statement, are you saying there is evidence that can help us conclude there are no gods? If you have found it you can easily become a millionaire. I'd start writing your book now if I were you. But seriously, are you saying there is evidence against god or are you trying to say that because we can explain things with material processes, therefore there are no gods?
It is the lack of evidence of the supernatural that is telling. The books have already been written; Victor Stenger and Richard Dawkins, for instance.
And yes, the fact that gods are unnecessary to explaining reality diminishes the likelihood of their existence. No one has proved that there aren't gods. But no one has ever produced any evidence that there are.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2011, 09:14 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2011 09:32 PM by Spectre.)
RE: Cornered Atheist or Cornered Theist?
(09-12-2011 08:43 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  [quote]The mention of locations and structures does not in any way confirm the validity of a book. There are a great many fictional books from all of history that mention such things. I can write a book mentioning every city structure in our modern society. This does not make the book more valid than anything else. It just shows I used common knowledge of architecture in my book.
Oh no, there have been findings that seem to coincide with the Biblical timeline. Allow me to provide one recent example:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...+-+Main%29

Also, there have been places in The Bible that mainstream archaeologists said didn't exist that were only to be found to exist later. Don't be so quick to paint mainstream archaeologists as if they know everything.

Other holy books are riddled with inaccuracies in regards to timeline, in fact, it is so bad that they don't have a field of archaeology just dedicated to those books. I challenge you to find just ONE other holy book that is rich enough in archaeology to have an entire field dedicated to it.

Secondly, I never said that Bible archaeology confirms The Bible to be completely valid. I did however state that it has more archaeology supporting it than any other holy book, which certainly shows The Bible to be more viable than other religious texts. Can you show me one religious text that has more archaeology supporting it than The Bible?

(09-12-2011 08:43 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  Have you ever read recorded history from the times the bible was written? It looks nothing like that story book.
I take the historical-critical approach to The Bible, which is basically weighing scripture against what we can know about the Hebrews who wrote it.


(09-12-2011 08:43 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  assumptions from unnamed "sources." (if this didn't catch your eye then bias is on your side) If we change a time period it fits the bible mess. Never do they mention changing something in the bible. It's a complete bias approach to archaeology and that is why it won't be accepted by main stream archaeology.
I see many atheist sites that don't always name their sources. What did you look at on that site? And how long did you spend looking at that site?

(09-12-2011 08:43 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  I like how you can look at a site about qur'ran and claim they have excuses but your religious sites don't seem to have excuses. You may need to use this test:

"The Outsider Test for Faith"
•You must test your own religious claims and texts by the same standards you apply to other religions.
•If your religion's claims and texts fare no better, then your religion is just as false as theirs is.
This undermines the hours that I spent trying to find anything comparable in the Qu' ran. I literally found a site that claimed that just because archaeology does not support the Qur 'an doesn't mean that we should stop believing.

(09-12-2011 08:43 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  The next time you watch Independence day (ID4) and they show the twin towers remember that movie must be real. I just wish they would find those space ships so we could travel in space too!
You can try to be witty if you like, but it's a shame that you completely missed the implications of my first post, either that or you intentionally erected a strawman. Which way it went down has yet to be seen.

If you want to refute the claim I made, PLEASE find just one book that has as much archaeology supporting it as The Bible does. My position is there is no other holy book that can compare to The Bible, which makes The Bible look to be a more viable holy book than any other holy books produced by other religions.


(09-12-2011 09:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  What do you think "the field of science" is? It is Natural Philosophy, the study of material reality. The claim that there is some supernatural is not only within the purview of science, it is already studied by scientists - even at universities!
What of the links I posted? Can you show me any peer reviewed journals that claim that the supernatural does not exist? Scientists know that within their fields, they are not in a position to make such claims. Science and opinion are two different things.


(09-12-2011 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  The universe looks just like it would look if the materialist explanations of science are correct without the existence of the supernatural. The supernatural is superfluous to explaining it.
You are repeating yourself. What are you making the comparison to? Your argument is unfortunately, 100% ad hoc. I can draw numerous parallels to point to design vs non design. Can you draw even one parallel to show that a functioning system does not have to be designed without appealing solely to an area of ignorance?

(09-12-2011 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is the supernatural that is telling.
How are you defining super natural?



(09-12-2011 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  The books have already been written; Victor Stenger and Richard Dawkins, for instance.
Richard Dawkins should of stuck to biology. He is a very bad philosopher that some atheists admit to be an embarrassment to them.

Victor Stenger is a bit better than Dawkins in my opinion. But Victor's book has not been peer reviewed nor are such ideas presented in scientific journals. Just because a scientist writes a book that says that science shows that the supernatural(however you are defining it) doesn't exist doesn't mean that it is scientists' consensus that the supernatural doesn't exist.



(09-12-2011 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  And yes, the fact that gods are unnecessary to explaining reality diminishes the likelihood of their existence.
Why is that? Because there are natural explanations for things that we see in nature that shows that there are no gods? What are the premises of your argument? I don't normally debate this way, but the fact that you are asserting that somehow science shows that no gods exist leads to me asking you a bunch of questions.

Also, how are you defining "reality?" To me it appears you are defining "reality" as your perception of reality.

(09-12-2011 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  No one has proved that there aren't gods. But no one has ever produced any evidence that there are.
Um yeah, because science doesn't concern itself with whether or not there are any gods. Such things are outside the realm of science. Read the links I posted for you.


So we are clear on what is being asserted, I'm asserting that science has nothing to do with gods or the supernatural. They take an agnostic approach.

You are asserting that science somehow buries the notion of gods.

So far I don't see any convincing argument from you that somehow science has buried the idea of gods or the supernatural. I showed you several links that shows you the limitation of science to the natural world. Did you read them at all? Can you show me ANY article in a peer reviewed journal that draws the conclusion of the absence of the supernatural? Unless you can produce one, you can't show that science has buried god. You can't even begin to try to make that argument until you see such things in peer reviewed journals. Novels and books written outside of work don't cut it.

Also, I have to ask you say there is no "evidence" for a god's existence or non existence. How are you defining evidence? And what sort of "evidence" would it take for you to question your atheist philosophy? I am certainly not one who normally argues that science can validate whether or not god exists, but since you are arguing an affirmative claim of that, you do now have a burden of proof. Please once again, present me with an article in a peer reviewed journal that says that a god or the supernatural doesn't exist.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" Peter 3:15

http://www.answersforhope.org
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2011, 09:30 PM
RE: Cornered Atheist or Cornered Theist?
Quote:Oh no, there have been findings that seem to coincide with the Biblical timeline. Allow me to provide one recent example:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...+-+Main%29

Also, there have been places in The Bible that mainstream archaeologists said didn't exist that were only to be found to exist later. Don't be so quick to paint mainstream archaeologists as if they know everything.

Other holy books are riddled with inaccuracies in regards to timeline, in fact, it is so bad that they don't have a field of archaeology just dedicated to those books. I challenge you to find just ONE other holy book that is rich enough in archaeology to have an entire field dedicated to it.

Secondly, I never said that Bible archaeology confirms The Bible to be completely valid. I did however state that it has more archaeology supporting it than any other holy book, which certainly shows The Bible to be more viable than other religious texts. Can you show me one religious text that has more archaeology supporting it than The Bible?
That NatGeo article is full of a lot of 'could be".
So far, archaeology has found no evidence for Solomon's Temple or a rich Kingdom of David, any fortified cities that the Israelites conquerd, no evidence of the Egyptian captivity, no evidence of an encampment in the Sinai. It has found no evidence where there should be evidence.

The argument that one book of stories is less unreal than another book of stories is pretty weak.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2011, 10:05 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2011 10:12 PM by Spectre.)
RE: Cornered Atheist or Cornered Theist?
(09-12-2011 09:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  [quote]Oh no, there have been findings that seem to coincide with the Biblical timeline. Allow me to provide one recent example:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...+-+Main%29

Also, there have been places in The Bible that mainstream archaeologists said didn't exist that were only to be found to exist later. Don't be so quick to paint mainstream archaeologists as if they know everything.

Other holy books are riddled with inaccuracies in regards to timeline, in fact, it is so bad that they don't have a field of archaeology just dedicated to those books. I challenge you to find just ONE other holy book that is rich enough in archaeology to have an entire field dedicated to it.

Secondly, I never said that Bible archaeology confirms The Bible to be completely valid. I did however state that it has more archaeology supporting it than any other holy book, which certainly shows The Bible to be more viable than other religious texts. Can you show me one religious text that has more archaeology supporting it than The Bible?
(09-12-2011 09:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  That NatGeo article is full of a lot of 'could be".
"Because it can't be proven, it isn't true." I'm sorry, I didn't know that atheists were allowed to take that approach while theists weren't. If God can't be proven to not exist, does that mean that my claim is somehow logically valid? Or what if a Creationist says "You can't show every stage of evolution so it isn't true" is that claim still valid?

The double standards of this new atheist movement really is astounding. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind atheists(I LOVE the atheists that are here, they are very thought provoking), but I do mind people who constantly argue with double standards.

On another note too, I don't know how many science articles you read, but even peer reviewed journals constantly use "possibly" "could be" and other similar words. I really am surprised that you tried to even take the debate in this direction.

(09-12-2011 09:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  So far, archaeology has found no evidence for Solomon's Temple

We have found possible artifacts, leaders don't allow us to excavate the temple. It's a real shame. You need to brush up on your archaeology, update your sources, or something.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...facts.html

^^^^And these were found by MUSLIM workers.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=32107

(09-12-2011 09:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  a rich Kingdom of David

This is so far, is the best point you have come up with. Consensus is that even though David's Kingdom existed, it was smaller and less grand than being portrayed in The Bible. The embellishment could be due to patriotism, which we do see approaches like this happen even in smaller countries.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-14/world...s=PM:WORLD

On the other hand, advances in archaelogy are having archaeologists take a second look:

http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/sep...nd-solomon


(09-12-2011 09:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  no evidence of the Egyptian captivity
How much research do you actually do on this stuff? This article is from 2003, perhaps somehow you missed the memo?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/art...exodus.htm

Here are some more sources:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

http://www.jewishjournal.com/passover/ar..._20100324/

If you do a simple google search, you will find numerous articles on archaelogical that talk about the increasing amount of evidence of Jews in egypt. Including possible validation of some Bible stories such as the passover.


(09-12-2011 09:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  no evidence of an encampment in the Sinai.

http://www.squidoo.com/theexodus

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answ...cation.php

http://www.biblediscoveries.com/content/view/48/56/

^^^The evidence here, I think is a bit more controversial than the other evidence I have submitted. This is still a work in progress. Many other archaeologists didn't think the mountain even existed. Of course, once again, they were wrong.

(09-12-2011 09:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  The argument that one book of stories is less unreal than another book of stories is pretty weak.
I would agree, but that isn't what I said. I said that archaelogy shows The Bible to be more viable than other holy books. This in turn, helps a theist who is searching for which god might exist, determine that the Christian God is the most viable God through the validity of scripture.

I'm going to go ahead and stop posting in this thread. I have already spent too much time on this today due to all of the responses. It was nice talking with all of you. I think I have made my point clearly enough. I'd love to keep chatting with ya'll but I simply don't have time.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" Peter 3:15

http://www.answersforhope.org
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2011, 10:10 PM
RE: Cornered Atheist or Cornered Theist?
Quote:You can try to be witty if you like, but it's a shame that you completely missed the implications of my first post, either that or you intentionally erected a strawman. Which way it went down has yet to be seen.

BTW this was more of a joke. You can pull out the straw man comments. Don't you just love how people take things so seriously.

Quote:I did however state that it has more archaeology supporting it than any other holy book, which certainly shows The Bible to be more viable than other religious texts.

This just shows that the authors took more time to include valid locations in their story than others.

Quote:I see many atheist sites that don't always name their sources. What did you look at on that site? And how long did you spend looking at that site?

You directed folks to a site to support your claims. This a very biased site.

Quote:"The Outsider Test for Faith"
•You must test your own religious claims and texts by the same standards you apply to other religions.
•If your religion's claims and texts fare no better, then your religion is just as false as theirs is.

This undermines the hours that I spent trying to find anything comparable in the Qu' ran. I literally found a site that claimed that just because archaeology does not support the Qur 'an doesn't mean that we should stop believing.

If you can't find anything comparable then you aren't thinking critically enough. This test applies to everything you believe not just the topic of this post. I literally find hundreds of sites from all religions that say all kinds of craziness.

I didn't post the entire conversation that you saw at the beginning of this post. I saw tons of assumptions. These assumptions were expected considering I didn't provide the full conversation. I did in fact give the guy what evidence I would need.

Sure we would all need various proofs. Ultimately deities in all religions provide unacceptable evidences. A deity that supposedly knows all (past and future) and is all powerful would know exactly what proof/evidence to provide. If you say he can't worry himself to provide such proof then I say he isn't much of a caring deity. If it knows enough to provide me with enough evidence to worship him and doesn't; then I say he wants me to be tortured for eternity. He/she/it knows I'm not going to accept crappy information so it would be obvious to provide good evidence. According to your scripture he cared enough to order killing. Now he can't care enough to provide proof or evidence?

Your deity must have known that the human race would become much more educated and looked at that book as out dated. If said deity didn't know this; then you might want to question this all powerful being.

If your deity cared so much, knew we had a massive curiosity, and we were made in it's image; then it wouldn't keep us from knowing who or what it is. It would know that the information provided wasn't good enough.

You (the believer) aren't provided with any more knowledge on the subject than I or any other atheist is. If so share this information that you were so special to receive.

I have many more but unfortunately my wife wants me to come watch some TV with her lol Tongue

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2011, 12:41 AM
RE: Cornered Atheist or Cornered Theist?
(09-12-2011 06:28 PM)Spectre Wrote:  Your post is very insightful. You might make a good atheist philosopher.

Thanks. I'm pretty sure I could make a convincing argument for something that is entirely and utterly false. I just have a knack for arguing.

I liked your answers, and don't feel they need a point-by-point rebuttal. However...

(09-12-2011 06:28 PM)Spectre Wrote:  I have to wonder if you can find any holy book with archaeological findings that support it like The Bible has.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/

I just have to point out that this is not the kind of evidence that would convince me. If we could find archaeological evidence for the existence of New York City, would that make Spider-Man real? My parents have shown me similar evidence in support of the Christian bible, in an attempt to win me over with how "scientific" its claims are. If I could prove that Moby Dick was scientifically accurate, would it make the story true? Would it make Captain Ahab a real person?

I just don't buy this "if there's a whole bunch of accurate stuff in these pages, you've got to believe the rest is accurate too" argument.

Anyway, thanks for the response. It was equally well-thought out, and it surprised me... I rarely get answered.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
10-12-2011, 10:34 AM
RE: Cornered Atheist or Cornered Theist?
Spectre, you missed my main point, I believe.
You claim there is a God, but provide no evidence.

I make the scientific hypothesis that there is a God like the one you claim, and proceed to test that hypothesis.

A God responsible for creating the structure of the world, including living things, fails to agree with the empirical data that this can all be understood in terms of natural processes, without design. The universe looks just as it would without a God.

A God who gave humans souls fails to agree with the empirical facts that human emotions and memories are determined by physical processes of the brain and that no non-physical causes are necessary or have been found. No evidence exists for personaliuty to survive brain death.

A God who has interactions with humans and the world should leave evidence of this. No evidence has been found.

A God who communicates to humans by revelation fails to agree with the fact that no revelation has ever been confirmed empirically.

A God who defines morality fails to agree with the evidence that humans define morals for themselves; people from all religions and non-believers largely exhibit the same sense of morality and that morality is inconsistent with the Bible or Koran.

The hypothesis that the God of Christianity/Judaism/Islam exists fails.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: