Atheist vs Theist

[viole]

Say you have a son who doesnt know but you send him letters to let to let him know of your existance and you give him the basic needs of life but sometimes you dont help so that he can learn to appreciate the you and the good times... suddenly this boy begins to think you dont exist even though you help and just because he hasnt seen you decides that there is no evidence that you really exist..thats almost the situation with God

Will this neglected father prepare a barbecue so that when his son finally meets him, he will be cooked?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Omtita]

One could not make a court case for the existance of any god, and stand any sort of a chance.

One can however make a solid case that ancient hebrews created the abrahamic god using previous pagan religions in there past and compiling them into their own semetic religion. And win it.

Care to put that to the test?

 

[outhouse]

Care to put that to the test?

Sure.

There is zero evidence for a god.

There is a mountain of evidence only men have created and defined gods, and as cultures change the deity of choice always, I mean always, mirrors that of the people who are doing the writing.


I can prove beyond a shadow of doubt only man has wrote about the Abrahamic god and defined him at will from previous Canaanite mythology. I can show how early Israelites combined two gods into one when monotheism was born.

The damaging blow is an attack on the credibility of the bible as a historical document, by providing explicit details of how the mythology was generated and absorbed into the Israelite culture while in exile in Babylon.

Sir this is a matter of historical education, and those who refuse common knowledge and education. By educating an unbiased jury, I can prove that all of the thousands of gods no one believes in today, that adding one more god to the list of mythological characters is not only the correct thing to do, for the benefit of humanity we need to quit making ancient mens mistakes of living mythology in place of ignorance.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why? You will never get the other side to budge, you will never prove your side, you will never disprove their side. You can no more prove the universe was created by God than you can there is no God.
If God is to be controlling the universe, understanding how the universe functions certainly won't change how it appears to operate. And yes life being here on earth does depend on alot of "fine tuning" and had things happened even slightly differently we probably wouldn't be here, but since it did happen that doesn't automatically mean God created life.

For me, most of the time I'm not trying to convince the other side of anything. At best, I might be hoping they'll broaden their perspective, and I think I occasionally achieve this. After all, everyone now knows that atheists can be funny AND good-looking.

What I am mostly trying to do, though, is learn. And while that sounds all warm and fuzzy, it's kinda not. I'm not necessarily trying to learn the other person's point of view to the point that I agree with it. I am trying to test my own logic. If the person raises a good point, something I can't reconcile, then it's a learning opportunity. Due to my vast ignorance, this happens frequently. But it's only rarely that I'd find the entirety of someone's argument compelling.

Further, I have plenty of theist friends, and we tread carefully with religious debate. We have plenty of things we agree on, and a couple we don't, so we tend not to dwell too much on that. Here, I can be a little more expansive with my point of view, and perhaps get some inkling of where they might be coming from too.

(PS. Not really sure I would even WANT to convince a theist that atheism is correct. Much more interested in how people live, and how they respect my beliefs than making sure they're 'correct'...)

 

[Omtita]

Sure.

There is zero evidence for a god.

Let me make sure I understand what's going on. You, I assume, being a person of science. Of logic and reason, first say there is no evidence for a god. Then you go on to site all sorts of evidence for gods?

There is a mountain of evidence only men have created and defined gods, and as cultures change the deity of choice always, I mean always, mirrors that of the people who are doing the writing.

Interesting.

I can prove beyond a shadow of doubt only man has wrote about the Abrahamic god and defined him at will from previous Canaanite mythology. I can show how early Israelites combined two gods into one when monotheism was born.

Really, now? Weren't the writers of the Bible henotheistic?

The damaging blow is an attack on the credibility of the bible as a historical document, by providing explicit details of how the mythology was generated and absorbed into the Israelite culture while in exile in Babylon.

Fascinating! But, uh, how then would you explain the Moabite stone, for example? or any other extra biblical histories prior to the Babylonian exile which confirm their historicity?

Sir this is a matter of historical education, and those who refuse common knowledge and education. By educating an unbiased jury, I can prove that all of the thousands of gods no one believes in today, that adding one more god to the list of mythological characters is not only the correct thing to do, for the benefit of humanity we need to quit making ancient mens mistakes of living mythology in place of ignorance.

Well, then, I suggest you do that and learn to second guess really poor scholarship of higher criticism as the obvious desperate attempt to confirm your beliefs.

 

[outhouse]

. Then you go on to site all sorts of evidence for gods?

There is ZERO evidence here for any of the thousands of gods created by man as existing. Let alone the one god you choose.

Interesting.

Fact.

Really, now? Weren't the writers of the Bible henotheistic?

When? is the answer. Exactly what period of time frame?

Becuase the Torah evolved over hundreds of years.


It factualy was written by polytheist, henotheist, and monotheist.

Fascinating! But, uh, how then would you explain the Moabite stone, for example? or any other extra biblical histories prior to the Babylonian exile which confirm their historicity?

You misunderstand me bud.

It is not devoid completely of history. But you have to realize the early Israelites created a factual pseudohistory for the real history of their early heritage, they knew nothing about.

These people were wiped out completely many times, of which there were many different cultures that made of Israelites that existed over a wide range of geographic loactions.

Much of the later history, the book sare a great historical source, but not always in a literal way.

Well, then, I suggest you do that and learn to second guess really poor scholarship of higher criticism as the obvious desperate attempt to confirm your beliefs.

Sorry brother, what I posted is not really up for debate.

Ancient men fatually made errors in beliefs, by attributing gods to the gaps in their knwoledge.

War gods, lighting gods, storm gods, volcano gods, all mythology to explain the naturak world they knew nothing about, combined with massive amounts of rhetoric, as that is how all these ancient authors were trained.