An Atheist Speaks

[beowulf 1]

Quote

How about Simon Greenleaf's definition?

Just because it was his opinion that the bible is believable and therefore qualified in his mind as evidence doesn't make it actual evidence. His only basis for his opinion is the Bible and nothing more. For a written account to be considered as fact it needs to be backed up with more then just itself and even then it can not be considered as eyewitness testimony. You need an actual person for an eyewitness testimony.

[billvon 2,405]

>You're right, I do believe the Bible is part of the right path.

Cool! I am glad it works for you.

>The problem is with people who treat it like it's not literature but
>who hold it to unreasonable standards . . .

I agree. It is NOT literally correct; it is the oft-translated and handed down story of a religion spanning thousands of years. It contains contradictions, errors and mistranslations. That does not diminish its value for many people.

Likewise, there are a great many religions that teach tenets similar to Christianity, but in other places contain statements that contradict Christianity. Again, those contradictions do not diminish the value of those religions.

[Shotgun 1]

An interesting quote from religioustolerance.org:

Quote

In one way, most people in North America are Atheists. Christians will generally deny the existence of the Mayan, Hindu, Ancient Roman, Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Sumerian, Sikh, and many hundreds of other Gods and Goddesses, even as they assert their belief in the Christian Trinity. Thus, the difference between a typical Christian and a typical Atheist is numerically small: The strong Atheist believes that none of the many thousands of Gods and Goddesses exist; the Christian believes that one God exists in a certain structure -- a Trinity -- whereas all of the other thousands of deities are nonexistent, artificial creations by humans. Although the numerical difference is much less that 0.1%, the philosophical difference is immense.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Well then, it's not a fitting metaphor. How do you know that your summit represents the same God for all religions? If they directly contradict one another, they can't all be "right paths."

Are you suggesting that different gods all created this world?

If the different religions seem to contradict one another, perhaps the problem lies with the interpretations.

"Truth is like a great mirror shattered by time into a hundred thousand pieces, allowing all who possess a small fragment to declare, 'My religion is the true one.'" -unknown

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[maadmax 0]

-- What do you mean by "purpose"?
--What do you mean by "expression"?

--What is the purpose of Hemorrhagic fever filoviruses, like Ebola & Marburg?

--By "purpose" do you mean shift down a proton gradient to a more favorable energy state? Or more favorable pH?
Or by "purpose" do you mean hydrophobicity, i.e., the spontaneous process that drives liposomes (like cell walls) to form in water?

O come on Marg you are just throwing up smoke screen impediments to discussion. It is obvious "purpose" is about the reason we are here, not some submicroscopic or microscopic minutia.

_______________________________________

--When I look at cells -- from genetic though protein through structural levels -- there's lots of evidence for evolution and zero repeatable, public evidence of intentional design.

When I look at the same information, it screams Intelligent Design to me. So much for personal opinions.

____________________________________

--Evidence of evolution includes similarities & differences in DNA sequences across species, examples of gene regulation (including at least one in humans) by DNA derived from an endogenous retrovirus (ERV), mutation rates, protein structures, and larger cellular structures (such as mitochondria).

Pretty cool design wouldn't you say? If we can see God, we see Him in everything around us. If we have blinded ourselves to the presence of God we are blind to everything He has done.

_______________________________________

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Quote

How about Simon Greenleaf's definition?

Why can't you guys just say, "I don't accept what you point to as evidence--- even the eyewitness testimony of the gospel writers-- because I have a philosphical bias against the existence of a supernatural being"?

Why??? Becuase what you point out as being eyewitness testimony does not in any way shape or form qualify as eyewitness testimony. You don't have any evidence. If you were to take a book into court and try to submit it as eyewitness testimony the judge would dismiss the book and ask you where your eyewitness is. An eyewitness is a person not a book. You can't question a book and get an answer.

So, we may as well throw out all the history and biography books ever written. And even your birth certificate. Would you insist on having the doctor who delivered you on hand to give his verbal eye-witness testimony that you were born in a certain hospital on a certain date?

Why not just admit that you don't want to believe the record of Christ's life and be done with it? 'Cos no matter what I give you as support for the written record, you will find fault with it or raise the bar higher and higher.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

If we have blinded ourselves to the presence of God we are blind to everything He has done.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

They have a bias which prevents them from acknowledging design.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

If the different religions seem to contradict one another, perhaps the problem lies with the interpretations.

Oh sure... or the translations, or the 'whatever else' you can think of to make you feel comfortable in not acknowledging the validity of the bible...

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

-- What do you mean by "purpose"?
--What do you mean by "expression"?

--What is the purpose of Hemorrhagic fever filoviruses, like Ebola & Marburg?

--By "purpose" do you mean shift down a proton gradient to a more favorable energy state? Or more favorable pH?
Or by "purpose" do you mean hydrophobicity, i.e., the spontaneous process that drives liposomes (like cell walls) to form in water?

O come on Marg you are just throwing up smoke screen impediments to discussion. It is obvious "purpose" is about the reason we are here, not some submicroscopic or microscopic minutia.

Alternatively rather than a dismissive response, you could interpret it as an attempt to establish common language?

What's wrong with asking questions if the argument is solid? (I recognize that some -- on all sides -- do resort to belittling and sarcasm.)

Quote

When I look at the same information, it screams Intelligent Design to me. So much for personal opinions.

How? What specifically says intelligent design?

You have technical training and should be able to speak in non-generalities. I wouldn't expect an artist or an accountant to, but neither would I exclude that possibility. Otoh, I function under the belief that people *are* smart and can understand the technical 'stuff' rather than 'dumbing' down (the latter one can argue is more insulting, eh?)

I can look at -- especially while driving at night -- the GW parkway in northern Virginia & the interchanges w/I-395, the Memorial Bridge, the 14th St Bridge, and the adjacent roadways west of the Lincoln memorial in DC and question the evidence of intelligent design in that structure, which we know was intentionally designed. (Alternatively, one may argue that it was intentionally designed to be confusing so as to impede the progression of a foreign invaders, but that's pure speculation.)

Quote

Pretty cool design wouldn't you say? If we can see God, we see Him in everything around us. If we have blinded ourselves to the presence of God we are blind to everything He has done.

Yes, I agree incredibly fascinating structures!

You seem to be trying to make a teleological argument (whether you know it or not), i.e., that in seeing a purpose in people, phenomena, biology implies supernatural intervention. Supernatural intervention *is* one possible explanation. Supernatural explanations aren't repeatable, predictive, or public; they're supernatural. Otoh, there are other valid, repeatable, public explanations that account for the observations that do not require supernatural intervention.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

>You're right, I do believe the Bible is part of the right path.

Cool! I am glad it works for you.

>The problem is with people who treat it like it's not literature but
>who hold it to unreasonable standards . . .

I agree. It is NOT literally correct; it is the oft-translated and handed down story of a religion spanning thousands of years. It contains contradictions, errors and mistranslations. That does not diminish its value for many people.

Likewise, there are a great many religions that teach tenets similar to Christianity, but in other places contain statements that contradict Christianity. Again, those contradictions do not diminish the value of those religions.

Now I understand what it is about Relativism which appeals to you. Not only do you not have to believe in Absolute Truth, but you can also twist everyone else's words to make you feel good, or clever, or whatever you feel like being at the time. Your manipulation of the facts is only hurting yourself, tho'.

Or, are you just a big ol' warm fuzzy peacemaker-at-heart that wants everyone to feel like they're right and feel good all at the same time? "All we need is love," right, Bill? This kind of love is worthless without truth.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How about Simon Greenleaf's definition?

Why can't you guys just say, "I don't accept what you point to as evidence--- even the eyewitness testimony of the gospel writers-- because I have a philosphical bias against the existence of a supernatural being"?

Why??? Becuase what you point out as being eyewitness testimony does not in any way shape or form qualify as eyewitness testimony. You don't have any evidence. If you were to take a book into court and try to submit it as eyewitness testimony the judge would dismiss the book and ask you where your eyewitness is. An eyewitness is a person not a book. You can't question a book and get an answer.

So, we may as well throw out all the history and biography books ever written. And even your birth certificate. Would you insist on having the doctor who delivered you on hand to give his verbal eye-witness testimony that you were born in a certain hospital on a certain date?

Why not just admit that you don't want to believe the record of Christ's life and be done with it? 'Cos no matter what I give you as support for the written record, you will find fault with it or raise the bar higher and higher.

History and biography books have research and evidence to back them up. The bible doesn't. If there was question as to the authenticity of my birth certificate then I would have to go through a lot of trouble to prove where I was born. I am not raising the bar higher and higher. You represent the Bible as eyewitness testimony and I submit that it is in no way an eyewitness testimony. It can be considered to be a record of sorts, but since it is the only written record of an event it has very limited credibility. Also considering the Bibles conradictory statements it's credibility as a historical record goes way down. If you had other written accounts of Jesus's resurection and ascention to heaven then it would lend some credibility to the Bible, but you don't even have that.

Yes I will admit that I don't believe the Bibles record of Jesus's life. The Bible just isn't very credible and there is no evidence to support it.

[billvon 2,405]

>There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I think the only people blinder than those who will not see are those who can see only one thing, ever. At least the people who will not see are not fooling themselves.

[billvon 2,405]

>Now I understand what it is about Relativism which appeals to you.

I suspect it's the same thing that appeals to you about it.

>but you can also twist everyone else's words . . .

I am sorry you have abandoned discussion and descended to the usual Speaker's Corner attacks. It was interesting while it lasted.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

If the different religions seem to contradict one another, perhaps the problem lies with the interpretations.

Oh sure... or the translations, or the 'whatever else' you can think of to make you feel comfortable in not acknowledging the validity of the bible...

If, by "validity of the [B]ible" you mean its usefulness as a moral guide for some people, I agree, it is "valid" (though I would be more inclined to stick with the term useful), just like many other books, such as Aesop's Fables, Chuang Tse, Koran, John Steinbeck's East Of Eden, or a host of other texts. However, if, by "validity of the [B]ible" you mean the authoritative history of man, Earth and the universe, I would claim that it holds no validity in that respect, at least not in the manner in which it is typically interpreted by Christians.

It's not that I won't acknowledge the Bible's validity, it's that I've never seen any evidence (in the scientific sense) of its validity as anything other than a guidebook.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

History and biography books have research and evidence to back them up. The bible doesn't.

What makes you think that?

I could point out that the writers DID do their research (so they claim, and I see no reason not to believe them), but something tells me you wouldn't go for that. Right? You'll come up with another objection.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

It can be considered to be a record of sorts, but since it is the only written record of an event it has very limited credibility.

So, let's tear up your birth certificate. It must have very limited credibility. Let's tear up all the old censuses from the time before computers and high tech. Let's smash up all the bones and clay that archeologists have dug up. By your standards, they all have very limited credibility. Let's not believe anything that historians recorded before... let's pull a date out of the air... A.D. 1500. Let's burn all records that don't have other records to substantiate them.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

At least the people who will not see are not fooling themselves.

That makes no sense. Of course they are.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

History and biography books have research and evidence to back them up. The bible doesn't.

What makes you think that?

I could point out that the writers DID do their research (so they claim, and I see no reason not to believe them), but something tells me you wouldn't go for that. Right? You'll come up with another objection.

Open up a credible history book, one used in schools, and go to the last pages. There they write down the sources of their information. I didn't see any sources listed in the Bible.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

I am sorry you have abandoned discussion and descended to the usual Speaker's Corner attacks. It was interesting while it lasted.

Would you call my observation that you twist words a personal attack?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I think the only people blinder than those who will not see are those who can see only one thing, ever. At least the people who will not see are not fooling themselves.

and I think the only people blinder than even those, are the ones with their eyes burned out with acid


You do realize you are both stating that the figuratively 'blind' person is the ones that "chooses" to be that way. (But I don't think one is worse than the other, seeing nothing is still restricting your view to one)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

It can be considered to be a record of sorts, but since it is the only written record of an event it has very limited credibility.

So, let's tear up your birth certificate. It must have very limited credibility. Let's tear up all the old censuses from the time before computers and high tech. Let's smash up all the bones and clay that archeologists have dug up. By your standards, they all have very limited credibility. Let's not believe anything that historians recorded before... let's pull a date out of the air... A.D. 1500. Let's burn all records that don't have other records to substantiate them.

I must admit, I'm unable to understand what sort of reasoning you applied to reach that interpretation of beowulf's post.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Open up a credible history book, one used in schools, and go to the last pages. There they write down the sources of their information. I didn't see any sources listed in the Bible.

I guess you haven't read it then.

BTW, how many sources, besides the form itself, does your birth certificate claim to have?

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

It can be considered to be a record of sorts, but since it is the only written record of an event it has very limited credibility.

So, let's tear up your birth certificate. It must have very limited credibility. Let's tear up all the old censuses from the time before computers and high tech. Let's smash up all the bones and clay that archeologists have dug up. By your standards, they all have very limited credibility. Let's not believe anything that historians recorded before... let's pull a date out of the air... A.D. 1500. Let's burn all records that don't have other records to substantiate them.

Why would I want to tear up my birth certificate? No one is questioning it or basing their philosophy on it.
Historical records are scrutinized and compared to other records to verify their claims. Bones and clay pottery are evidence, why would I want to throw them away? I wouldn't burn any records, even if they don't have anything to substantiate them. But I would not place a lot of trust in those that don't have any evidence to back them up, such as other records from other people of the same time frame. The Bible has nothing to back up it's claims that Jesus was resurected from the dead, so that tells me that it is of low credibility.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Open up a credible history book, one used in schools, and go to the last pages. There they write down the sources of their information. I didn't see any sources listed in the Bible.

I guess you haven't read it then.

BTW, how many sources, besides the form itself, does your birth certificate claim to have?

Yes I have read the bible. Are you trying to say that the bible has a bibliography?

It has at least two people listed. I can't remember if it has the doctors name also. Those people are still alive and can be called as eyewitnesses. They are not books, but actual peope so they do qualify as eyewitnesses.

btw your line of reasoning doesn't make any sense. Historians judge the value of a historical document by the evidence there is to back it up. Such as other documents of the same era that make the same or similar statments and physical evidence. The Bible has neither for the story of Jesus. So it is very reasonable to not place much historical accuracy in much of what the Bible states. Especially the far fetched stories, like Jesus's resurection and ascension to heaven.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

and I think the only people blinder than even those, are the ones with their eyes burned out with acid

Well, there are the people who have no heads. I would imagine that they are pretty blind too. (They have no brains either, so at least they are not aware that they are blind.)

And of course, the only people who are truly blind are those who don't share my beliefs.