Then you are no different than them. You see all theistic positions as silly mythologies. You're just more cordial...
666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
I am different from someone who asserts god does not exist, or that an intelligent designer does not exist.
There are very few instances that I will assert that god does not exist, thereby taking the strong atheist position.
This only occurs when someone is willing to give me a very precise definition of their god, which contains a logical contradiction.
In any case, yes, I do not believe the theists have a defendable position.
I do not believe the christian god exists, for the same reason you do not believe zeus exists.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Neither zeus or jesus have this.
It's called being consistent.
There is nothing wrong with seeing a theistic position as mythology if it deserves the label.
peace
axeman
There are very few instances that I will assert that god does not exist, thereby taking the strong atheist position.
This only occurs when someone is willing to give me a very precise definition of their god, which contains a logical contradiction.
In any case, yes, I do not believe the theists have a defendable position.
I do not believe the christian god exists, for the same reason you do not believe zeus exists.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Neither zeus or jesus have this.
It's called being consistent.
There is nothing wrong with seeing a theistic position as mythology if it deserves the label.
peace
axeman
On the one hand Axe, you claim there's no proof of creation.....I on the other hand submit Jesus as that proof ...He is the son of the creator and came down from the creator.
Then there is the science aspect that demands FACTS but cannot provide them....3rd graders know as much about the formation of the earth as anyone else....I once heard a scientist talking about the Earth being about 5 billion years old.....and you are going to say with definitive authority thet this is what happened 5 billion years ago?? strangely, scientists cannot agree on the actual age of the shroud of turin and that was from about 2000 years ago....almost all the arguments you laid out have as much fact as religion...to back them......again, scientist create "things that are in motion will stay in motion"....yet the earth is slowing.....so then how can a big spinning ball in the universe stop?....so either the earth IS slowing and the theory of relativity is false....or the earth is NOT slowing nor was it ever rotating once every 5 hours and the theory is correct....as far a sthe Earth core temp, why should i accept that if it hasn't been measured??? i don't even accept the fact that the earths core is still cooling.....I think you have volcanos in certain spots thats all.....and if the earth was all one big ball of gas form a star....how come when it cooled some land masses had dirt, some had volcanis ashes, some had clay , some had sand, adn some had water?
Hey AXe. thanks for the link...read what this same guy had to say...he admits his 30 proofs of a young earth.....are just hypothesis...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/one_proof.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/one_proof.html
Then there is the science aspect that demands FACTS but cannot provide them....3rd graders know as much about the formation of the earth as anyone else....I once heard a scientist talking about the Earth being about 5 billion years old.....and you are going to say with definitive authority thet this is what happened 5 billion years ago?? strangely, scientists cannot agree on the actual age of the shroud of turin and that was from about 2000 years ago....almost all the arguments you laid out have as much fact as religion...to back them......again, scientist create "things that are in motion will stay in motion"....yet the earth is slowing.....so then how can a big spinning ball in the universe stop?....so either the earth IS slowing and the theory of relativity is false....or the earth is NOT slowing nor was it ever rotating once every 5 hours and the theory is correct....as far a sthe Earth core temp, why should i accept that if it hasn't been measured??? i don't even accept the fact that the earths core is still cooling.....I think you have volcanos in certain spots thats all.....and if the earth was all one big ball of gas form a star....how come when it cooled some land masses had dirt, some had volcanis ashes, some had clay , some had sand, adn some had water?
Hey AXe. thanks for the link...read what this same guy had to say...he admits his 30 proofs of a young earth.....are just hypothesis...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/one_proof.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/one_proof.html
Here's my question then: what would you accept as decent evidence (from the physical universe, i.e. pre-biological) of the theistic position?
"On the one hand Axe, you claim there's no proof of creation.....I on the other hand submit Jesus as that proof ...He is the son of the creator and came down from the creator. "
So do you accept ALL other religious icons as true, because they were written about in a book?
This is not proof TM.
Greek mythology does not prove Zeus exists, and the bible stories do not prove that jesus is god.
"Then there is the science aspect that demands FACTS but cannot provide them....3rd graders know as much about the formation of the earth as anyone else"
False. You cannot prove this.
"....I once heard a scientist talking about the Earth being about 5 billion years old.....and you are going to say with definitive authority thet this is what happened 5 billion years ago?? "
The article you just posted said:
"Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof."
We have a LOT of information on the early earth, via many means.
We draw logical conclusions from this data and call it a theory.
Are you asking me to simply dismiss it?
We can infer with a certain degree of accuracy what happened 5 billion years ago. But science doesn't just make stuff up out of nothing.
That belongs to the realm of religion.
"strangely, scientists cannot agree on the actual age of the shroud of turin and that was from about 2000 years ago...."
It's already been determined to be a hoax:
By 1980 new samples had been analyzed by microanalyst Walter McCrone who discovered that both image and "blood" areas had been painted by an artist using a red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.
Finally, in 1988 samples of the shroud's linen were radiocarbon dated by three independent laboratories. Their results were in close agreement and indicated the cloth was woven between 1260 and 1390 -- consistent with the time of the forger's confession, about 1355.
"That has
almost all the arguments you laid out have as much fact as religion...".
Not true. Zero evidence does not compare with the evidence collected on the earths formation.
"to back them......again, scientist create "things that are in motion will stay in motion"....yet the earth is slowing.....so then how can a big spinning ball in the universe stop?"
Science makes no such claim.
When I roll a ball on a flat surface does it stay in motion forever? Of course not. You conveniently left out the fact that other forces can stop this motion.
"....so either the earth IS slowing and the theory of relativity is false...."
False. I just explained why.
"or the earth is NOT slowing nor was it ever rotating once every 5 hours and the theory is correct"
False. Already explained. There is no contradiciton here.
<Snip>
"Hey AXe. thanks for the link...read what this same guy had to say...he admits his 30 proofs of a young earth.....are just hypothesis..."
Better check again. The article said:
Not even one of Dr. Hovind's 30 isolated "proofs" holds any water
Dr Hovind is a CREATIONIST.
So I agree with you
Once again... we have switched to attacking science instead of discussing intelligent design.
It seems the thesists are only capable of diverting attention away from the intelligent design argument, which Shoeshine has already conceded to not being able to prove.
peace
axeman
So do you accept ALL other religious icons as true, because they were written about in a book?
This is not proof TM.
Greek mythology does not prove Zeus exists, and the bible stories do not prove that jesus is god.
"Then there is the science aspect that demands FACTS but cannot provide them....3rd graders know as much about the formation of the earth as anyone else"
False. You cannot prove this.
"....I once heard a scientist talking about the Earth being about 5 billion years old.....and you are going to say with definitive authority thet this is what happened 5 billion years ago?? "
The article you just posted said:
"Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof."
We have a LOT of information on the early earth, via many means.
We draw logical conclusions from this data and call it a theory.
Are you asking me to simply dismiss it?
We can infer with a certain degree of accuracy what happened 5 billion years ago. But science doesn't just make stuff up out of nothing.
That belongs to the realm of religion.
"strangely, scientists cannot agree on the actual age of the shroud of turin and that was from about 2000 years ago...."
It's already been determined to be a hoax:
By 1980 new samples had been analyzed by microanalyst Walter McCrone who discovered that both image and "blood" areas had been painted by an artist using a red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.
Finally, in 1988 samples of the shroud's linen were radiocarbon dated by three independent laboratories. Their results were in close agreement and indicated the cloth was woven between 1260 and 1390 -- consistent with the time of the forger's confession, about 1355.
"That has
almost all the arguments you laid out have as much fact as religion...".
Not true. Zero evidence does not compare with the evidence collected on the earths formation.
"to back them......again, scientist create "things that are in motion will stay in motion"....yet the earth is slowing.....so then how can a big spinning ball in the universe stop?"
Science makes no such claim.
When I roll a ball on a flat surface does it stay in motion forever? Of course not. You conveniently left out the fact that other forces can stop this motion.
"....so either the earth IS slowing and the theory of relativity is false...."
False. I just explained why.
"or the earth is NOT slowing nor was it ever rotating once every 5 hours and the theory is correct"
False. Already explained. There is no contradiciton here.
<Snip>
"Hey AXe. thanks for the link...read what this same guy had to say...he admits his 30 proofs of a young earth.....are just hypothesis..."
Better check again. The article said:
Not even one of Dr. Hovind's 30 isolated "proofs" holds any water
Dr Hovind is a CREATIONIST.
So I agree with you
Once again... we have switched to attacking science instead of discussing intelligent design.
It seems the thesists are only capable of diverting attention away from the intelligent design argument, which Shoeshine has already conceded to not being able to prove.
peace
axeman
Maybe you can try answering your own question first, with a twist.
What would you accept as decent evidence for the existence of Zues?
I am being completely serious here.
Let's see what kind of standard you come up with, and see if you can meet the SAME standard for YOUR god.
Remember, extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.
peace
axeman
What would you accept as decent evidence for the existence of Zues?
I am being completely serious here.
Let's see what kind of standard you come up with, and see if you can meet the SAME standard for YOUR god.
Remember, extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.
peace
axeman
I will be glad to answer that question. But I have to first make two important observations:
1. You revealed an incredible bias here. You said that anything theistic is "extraordinary". That is not true for the great majority of individuals on planet earth. Please recognize that it is only skeptics and atheists that consider this extraordinary. Most individuals see the supernatural or spiritual as non-extraordinary.
2. Since you did not answer, I will take the liberty of answering: "no, there is no evidence that you would accept." If that's the case, then you are in an enviable position, right? There is no evidence that can be presented to you to even make you think that the theistic position is anything but a silly fable. This implies, that unless God does something supernatural for you ("tricks" as GG says), you will never even consider an alternate position.
Now to answer your question w/ a slightly less insulting example: if you offered me strong evidence of a steady state universe, I would listen. And I would admit that a steady state universe would eliminate the need for a supernatural explanation of the universe. Again, it wouldn't necessarily disprove that there was God, but I would be willing to make that admission.
"1. You revealed an incredible bias here. You said that anything theistic is "extraordinary". That is not true for the great majority of individuals on planet earth. Please recognize that it is only skeptics and atheists that consider this extraordinary. Most individuals see the supernatural or spiritual as non-extraordinary."
This is not a bias, it's quite obvious that god is extraordinary in every way.
Can you come up with ANY claim that is MORE extraordinary than god?
Any?!?!?
God, by most christian definitions, is the MOST extraordinary entity in the entire universe. After all, he created it!
To claim anything were MORE extraordinary than the jealous christian god might get you struck by lightening
Go ahead... in your very next prayer to god, be sure to mention that he is not very extraordinary at all...haha
To say that god is not absolutely, and completely extraordinary to an extreme, is simply ignoring reality.
"2. Since you did not answer, I will take the liberty of answering: "no, there is no evidence that you would accept."
And you would be completely wrong.
I am perfectly willing to answer, but wanted to see if you hold a double standard first.
" If that's the case, then you are in an enviable position, right? "
False. You made a false assumption.
"There is no evidence that can be presented to you to even make you think that the theistic position is anything but a silly fable. "
False, based on same false assumption.
" This implies, that unless God does something supernatural for you ("tricks" as GG says), you will never even consider an alternate position."
God showing himself would certainly provide real evidence. Why does he hide so much? Is he scared of little old atheist me? ;-)
"Now to answer your question w/ a slightly less insulting example: if you offered me strong evidence of a steady state universe, I would listen. And I would admit that a steady state universe would eliminate the need for a supernatural explanation of the universe. Again, it wouldn't necessarily disprove that there was God, but I would be willing to make that admission."
(Here you admit your own bias. You seem to believe a supernatural explanation is required. )
You didn't answer my question at all.
What evidence of Zeus would you accept as proof of his existence??
Seriously.
This is not meant to insult. MANY greeks truly believed in zues. Possibly even some great philosophers.
So again.... WHAT would you consider as real evidence of zeus??
peace
axeman
This is not a bias, it's quite obvious that god is extraordinary in every way.
Can you come up with ANY claim that is MORE extraordinary than god?
Any?!?!?
God, by most christian definitions, is the MOST extraordinary entity in the entire universe. After all, he created it!
To claim anything were MORE extraordinary than the jealous christian god might get you struck by lightening
Go ahead... in your very next prayer to god, be sure to mention that he is not very extraordinary at all...haha
To say that god is not absolutely, and completely extraordinary to an extreme, is simply ignoring reality.
"2. Since you did not answer, I will take the liberty of answering: "no, there is no evidence that you would accept."
And you would be completely wrong.
I am perfectly willing to answer, but wanted to see if you hold a double standard first.
" If that's the case, then you are in an enviable position, right? "
False. You made a false assumption.
"There is no evidence that can be presented to you to even make you think that the theistic position is anything but a silly fable. "
False, based on same false assumption.
" This implies, that unless God does something supernatural for you ("tricks" as GG says), you will never even consider an alternate position."
God showing himself would certainly provide real evidence. Why does he hide so much? Is he scared of little old atheist me? ;-)
"Now to answer your question w/ a slightly less insulting example: if you offered me strong evidence of a steady state universe, I would listen. And I would admit that a steady state universe would eliminate the need for a supernatural explanation of the universe. Again, it wouldn't necessarily disprove that there was God, but I would be willing to make that admission."
(Here you admit your own bias. You seem to believe a supernatural explanation is required. )
You didn't answer my question at all.
What evidence of Zeus would you accept as proof of his existence??
Seriously.
This is not meant to insult. MANY greeks truly believed in zues. Possibly even some great philosophers.
So again.... WHAT would you consider as real evidence of zeus??
peace
axeman
No, I disagree. Most people on planet earth (on the non-Christian side) have had an out-of-body experience, foreseen the future in a vision, seen a UFO, etc., etc., etc. On the Christian side, most Christians around the globe have seen a vision, a tumor disappear, etc., etc. For these kind of individuals believing in God (or gods) is not an issue. They are simply trying to figure out what version of religious truth to accept because they already know there is a supernatural reality outside of this physical realm.
It is only the wealthy, Western-educated skeptic or atheist that would even conceive of thinking that there was nothing to the universe except the universe itself. So I don't feel I am making an extraordinary claim in the sense that you do at all. That's why so many atheists/skeptics want to see a million angels dance on the head of the pin, because they equate the spiritual w/ the mythological. And that's my underlying point here.
You still haven't answered the original question. What would you accept as real evidence for the existence of zeus?
As for the rest....
You are confusing someones mere opinion of wether or not something is extraordinary, and what extraordinary really is.
If I claim that I can instantly sprout 8 heads like a hydra and fly to the moon, would you consider this extraordinary?
What if I then claimed that WHERE I COME FROM, many many people believe this is possible, and is therefore NOT extraordinary to THEM.
Is it now NOT extraordinary?
Of course not.
It is extraordinary because it goes directly against our accumulated knowledge and there is no evidence for it.
"It is only the wealthy, Western-educated skeptic or atheist that would even conceive of thinking that there was nothing to the universe except the universe itself."
False. We simply have NO REASON to believe otherwise. ASSUMING there IS something else to the universe without a shred of evidence is illogical.
So how about it. What would you accept as evidence for the existence of Zeus???
Try #3?
peace
axeman
PS. I'm sure a large number of ancient greeks claimed to have seen zeus as well, or had visions of him.
As for the rest....
You are confusing someones mere opinion of wether or not something is extraordinary, and what extraordinary really is.
If I claim that I can instantly sprout 8 heads like a hydra and fly to the moon, would you consider this extraordinary?
What if I then claimed that WHERE I COME FROM, many many people believe this is possible, and is therefore NOT extraordinary to THEM.
Is it now NOT extraordinary?
Of course not.
It is extraordinary because it goes directly against our accumulated knowledge and there is no evidence for it.
"It is only the wealthy, Western-educated skeptic or atheist that would even conceive of thinking that there was nothing to the universe except the universe itself."
False. We simply have NO REASON to believe otherwise. ASSUMING there IS something else to the universe without a shred of evidence is illogical.
So how about it. What would you accept as evidence for the existence of Zeus???
Try #3?
peace
axeman
PS. I'm sure a large number of ancient greeks claimed to have seen zeus as well, or had visions of him.