Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[Smoke]

please explain. Maybe im missing something.

Well, I think the question is, Why do you think my atheism does fit into those categories? But I'll try to explain.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

I don't have any beliefs about the purpose of the universe. The universe has no purpose that I'm aware of. Such beliefs as I have about the cause and nature of the universe are not dogmatic beliefs and are not informed by my atheism. They're basically the same beliefs as I had when I was a Christian, and they are now, as they were then, subject to change in the light of new information.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

I don't have any specific atheist beliefs or practices, unless you call not going to church an atheist practice, in which case every Jew and Muslim on earth is an atheist. I'm a Buddhist. You will have noticed that Richard Dawkins is not a Buddhist. Bertrand Russell, an atheist whom I greatly admire, was very critical of Buddhism. What are the beliefs and practices we generally agree on? Well, secularism, but I was a secularist when I was a Christian, too. That's not an atheist thing.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

That's basically the same thing as #2, it's just talking about the adherents of the religion instead of the religion as such.

The fact that I'm an atheist doesn't tell you what I am; it tells you something I'm not. It doesn't tell you what I believe, it tells you one kind of belief I don't have. It doesn't tell you what I practice; not even that I don't go to church. Some atheists do, you know. I've gone to church a few times since I realized I was an atheist, and I expect to go again. I actually would like to take my husband to an Orthodox liturgy sometime, and the reason I keep putting it off is that I'm afraid he won't like it. I want him to see how beautiful it is and appreciate it as I do. Now, is that a specifically atheist attitude? I don't think so.

An atheist might believe anything at all except theism. An atheist might practice anything at all, even including participating in theistic religions. Although I honestly can't understand why not, it's not even true that all atheists are secularists. What we have in common is what we don't believe, and the fact that we are subjected to the aggressive religiosity of those who do believe -- and not all of us are even bothered by that, though I am.

 

[godnotgod]

Yeah, living all up and high and demand Evidence for claims, frauds we are.

Ya, demanding evidence for something they know cannot be proven. Good thinking! Get over it!

I am always amazed that people believe in gods without any basis for it (because their parents or culture have told them to) and yet Deny things like Dragons, which have plenty of evidence.

My mommy gave me a pet Invisible Pink Unicorn. You have a pet dragon, do you?

You never thought about that yourself, of course.

Trade 'ya my Invisible Pink Unicorn fer two'a yer dragons?

 

[cottage]

So that begs the question where did the laws come from?

They come from the same place as those that constrain God – from empirical reasoning and logical demonstration: the former in the case of the universe and the latter in the case of God. We experience the universe and its laws, whereas we don’t experience a supernatural agency.

I wouldn’t say reason before faith and I am a little reluctant to say faith is over reason. They should go hand in hand in my opinion. I could make a case for both though.

I have never myself heard of an unbeliever coming to faith from reason alone, although some have pretended to do so disingenuously, such as Dr Greenleaf in the nineteenth century, who hoped to make his arguments stronger by appearing to be converted by the Apostles’ testimonies. The fact is that we cannot reason to the supernatural, although we can believe something to be the case through faith and then give reason why the belief might be possible.

To be frank and not conceited, a lot of these have no clue about what the scriptures teach. There are many reasons why, but I wont go into that.

Arguments from ‘hidden truths’ are not arguments at all. If one has to delve, explore and construct convoluted explanations to justify what is supposed to be self-evident, then I’m afraid the argument fails.

Well, try telling that to those who still say we never landed on the moon or that the world is not flat and so on and so on. Even with concrete evidence out there on many things, many will still make up their own minds

The big difference is that landing on the moon is intelligible in terms of possible experience. I have never been to Ireland, but I know what is required for me to make that journey.

Belief in God is not about evidence, concrete or otherwise, it is about faith. Religious faith is an inclination, a prior psychological disposition that some people have, and the ‘assurance of things hoped for’ as it says in Hebrews 11:1.

 

[cottage]

Couldnt you argue then that imagination would also count as some form of experience? If so, then how "big" is this experience and where is the bounds? Imagination is not necessarily based on experience and it has driven mankind to go beyond what they have experienced.

Imagination is experience and we cannot go beyond it. No matter how fantastic our imaginations they all begin from and are contained within the world of experience. We compound ideas from experience, which then give rise to other ideas. We derive the idea of Pegasus from a horse and give it the wings of a bird, similarly the idea of God is is analogous to humans, but with power without limit and devoid of all imperfections.

 

[cottage]

The only way i could see getting around #2 is the word practices. Yet with that word in there it still fits atheism because you do practice your belief.

With respect it is plain nonsense to speak of atheism as being as religion.

You can have a belief that a thing does exist with the assumption that there is possible, yet undiscovered evidence for its existence. But it makes no sense to speak of having faith that a deity doesn’t exist, ie that there is possible evidence for that to be the case, because there can be no evidence for a thing’s non-existence.

So it is perfectly legitimate to say 'There is no God', as a conclusion, with the onus on the theist to show how the conclusion is false. And that doesn't make it a belief system, since the sceptic can always be wrong, a position the theist can never admit to, at least not in public.

 

[AK4]

No, it's not "supposed" to do anything. However, if you claim that it's a source of factual knowledge that is authoritatively reliable, then it being flat-out wrong on a factual matter speaks against your claim.

But in those verses I presented they are far from being flat out wrong. Only in your opinion is it.

Regardless of whether it's simply incorrect (my version) or misleadingly "fun" (your version), it doesn't work as a source of knowledge. Either it leads to incorrect conclusions because it's wrong, or it leads to incorrect conclusions because interpreting it "correctly" is impossibly difficult... either way, it still leads to incorrect conclusions, so we shouldn't rely on it.

Sorry but its beyond “just fun” for me and others like me. It works as a source of higher knowledge. It only leads to incorrect conclusions if one stays biased. In any other literature other than the scriptures do people make the connections, but when it comes to the scriptures connecting with science do you guys discredit. Unbelievable. The mayans mention something about ages coming to an end and yall accept it as true and very close to being scientific. The scriptures mention this and “no, its an incorrect conclusion”. Gimme a break

Saying that space-time is not curved is not the same thing as saying that it's flat in the way that a curtain is flat.
I know…. Its supposed to be taken as literally as when Jesus said to gouge out your eye or cut off your hand if they offend you. Killing me. Does the phrase “only speaks to the masses in parables” mean anything.

Hey - it wasn't my idea. And I think that by itself takes a lot less imagination that the idea that the son of God, who is also God, had to die because a talking snake convinced a woman who was made from a man's rib to eat an apple.

He didn’t have to do anything. He created the rules so He could have easily made it to where He didn’t have to die, yet to show His love He did and it must be the ultimate way to show His creation He loves them. Who do you think created the “snake” in the first place? Do you believe the false Christian doctrine of freewill and him fallen as a perfect angel and creating himself to be evil?

However, let's assume for a moment that the author didn't actually intend the passage this way. What's the "firmament" or "expanse" that they talk about in Genesis 1, then?

It depends. Heaven throughout the scriptures can mean one of three things. The earths “atmosphere”, outer space or our minds. Take your pick. Heres a clue, a lot of the time God speaks to us from the perspective of the earth so we can relate to it.

 

[AK4]

Well, I think the question is, Why do you think my atheism does fit into those categories? But I'll try to explain.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

I don't have any beliefs about the purpose of the universe. The universe has no purpose that I'm aware of. Such beliefs as I have about the cause and nature of the universe are not dogmatic beliefs and are not informed by my atheism. They're basically the same beliefs as I had when I was a Christian, and they are now, as they were then, subject to change in the light of new information.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

I don't have any specific atheist beliefs or practices, unless you call not going to church an atheist practice, in which case every Jew and Muslim on earth is an atheist. I'm a Buddhist. You will have noticed that Richard Dawkins is not a Buddhist. Bertrand Russell, an atheist whom I greatly admire, was very critical of Buddhism. What are the beliefs and practices we generally agree on? Well, secularism, but I was a secularist when I was a Christian, too. That's not an atheist thing.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

That's basically the same thing as #2, it's just talking about the adherents of the religion instead of the religion as such.

The fact that I'm an atheist doesn't tell you what I am; it tells you something I'm not. It doesn't tell you what I believe, it tells you one kind of belief I don't have. It doesn't tell you what I practice; not even that I don't go to church. Some atheists do, you know. I've gone to church a few times since I realized I was an atheist, and I expect to go again. I actually would like to take my husband to an Orthodox liturgy sometime, and the reason I keep putting it off is that I'm afraid he won't like it. I want him to see how beautiful it is and appreciate it as I do. Now, is that a specifically atheist attitude? I don't think so.

An atheist might believe anything at all except theism. An atheist might practice anything at all, even including participating in theistic religions. Although I honestly can't understand why not, it's not even true that all atheists are secularists. What we have in common is what we don't believe, and the fact that we are subjected to the aggressive religiosity of those who do believe -- and not all of us are even bothered by that, though I am.

I guess i understand. BTW "going to church", well the scriptures actually show that we should "come out of her" and not "partake of her blasphemies" and such. I will never attend one of these places again where the scriptures say "satan has his throne". But most christians dont even realise it says this about the church. My bad, their preachers and leaders and scholars dont tell them this so how as sheeple will they know?

 

[AK4]

[
They come from the same place as those that constrain God – from empirical reasoning and logical demonstration: the former in the case of the universe and the latter in the case of God. We experience the universe and its laws, whereas we don’t experience a supernatural agency.

Isnt it the same thing? God is law. Lawlessness is ungodliness according to the scriptures. So we do experience “a supernatural agency”.



I have never myself heard of an unbeliever coming to faith from reason alone, although some have pretended to do so disingenuously, such as Dr Greenleaf in the nineteenth century, who hoped to make his arguments stronger by appearing to be converted by the Apostles’ testimonies. The fact is that we cannot reason to the supernatural, although we can believe something to be the case through faith and then give reason why the belief might be possible.


I can sorta accept that only because maybe “a seed” was dropped on them in their lifetime that will make em think about God. Maybe or maybe not, who knows.


Arguments from ‘hidden truths’ are not arguments at all. If one has to delve, explore and construct convoluted explanations to justify what is supposed to be self-evident, then I’m afraid the argument fails.

Or maybe that’s just how deep some of the lies that are taught are. How strong to do you think the power of deception satan can have if it says he deceives the WHOLE world. If the truth is never taught then for one searching for the truth must delve and explore just like the scriptures say. And this doesn’t just apply to the scriptures you must admit.


The big difference is that landing on the moon is intelligible in terms of possible experience. I have never been to Ireland, but I know what is required for me to make that journey.

Belief in God is not about evidence, concrete or otherwise, it is about faith.

See, no, this is what they teach you but that is not the real truth of the scriptures. Its both. The faith will allow you to see the evidence and past the half truths and lies. God proves Himself to those who truly believe His words.

Religious faith is an inclination, a prior psychological disposition that some people have, and the ‘assurance of things hoped for’ as it says in Hebrews 11:1.

Isnt it funny or a “coincidence” that even those who don’t believe in God still have an “assurance of things hoped for”? Maybe not defined as believers but still the same thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But in those verses I presented they are far from being flat out wrong. Only in your opinion is it.

No, you don't get to limit things to only the verses you want to talk about. If you're arguing for the authority of the entire Bible, then any error anywhere in the Bible becomes relevant.

Sorry but its beyond “just fun” for me and others like me. It works as a source of higher knowledge. It only leads to incorrect conclusions if one stays biased.

Okay; just to run with this a moment: let's just assume that the Bible itself is 100% correct, but "bias" can lead to incorrect conclusions. Show us that your interpretation is not "biased".

In any other literature other than the scriptures do people make the connections, but when it comes to the scriptures connecting with science do you guys discredit. Unbelievable. The mayans mention something about ages coming to an end and yall accept it as true and very close to being scientific. The scriptures mention this and “no, its an incorrect conclusion”. Gimme a break

I don't do that. I think that interpretations of Mayan beliefs as prophecy is generally ridiculous, and I don't think they had access to any special knowledge that we don't have. I put no more weight on Mayan mythology than I do on Christian mythology.

I know…. Its supposed to be taken as literally as when Jesus said to gouge out your eye or cut off your hand if they offend you. Killing me. Does the phrase “only speaks to the masses in parables” mean anything.

Ah... so any time the Bible is incorrect, you can brush it off as being a parable or some other non-literal interpretation? How, then, do you know when you can interpret it literally?

It depends. Heaven throughout the scriptures can mean one of three things. The earths “atmosphere”, outer space or our minds. Take your pick.

We're not talking about scripture in general, we're talking about one specific use: the one in chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis, specifically verses 6 and 7:

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

When it says that God "divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament", what does this mean? What "firmament" does this refer to?

Heres a clue, a lot of the time God speaks to us from the perspective of the earth so we can relate to it.

Okay, fine: from the perspective of the Earth, what does "firmament" mean? From our perspective, what "firmament" divides the "waters below" from the "waters above"?

 

[AK4]

Imagination is experience and we cannot go beyond it.

Oh if only you knew it would blow your mind. Although this is an experience of mine and youd probably not understand.... the biggest lie out there IMO is freewill. I have nor anyone ever lived, including Jesus, have experienced this. As someone who has been shown the truth on this it is a constant battle to fight it off. But by "imagination" have gotten a taste of what we call freewill, which really is being absolutely one with God, I have gotten a taste by "my imagination" if thats what one wants to call it.

No matter how fantastic our imaginations they all begin from and are contained within the world of experience.

As with the example above, no one except for Jesus has experienced this fully. That is something waaaay beyond our world of experience and is nowhere contained in this world. This has been my experience so i couldnt prove it to you.

similarly the idea of God is is analogous to humans, but with power without limit and devoid of all imperfections.

Now what if God has promised you this and gives you a taste of it and shows you through parables upon parables of what you see on earth or in your world of experience that takes it from being analogous to something very very possible? I only possible for you guys.

 

[AK4]

No, you don't get to limit things to only the verses you want to talk about. If you're arguing for the authority of the entire Bible, then any error anywhere in the Bible becomes relevant.

See there are many bible errors and that further depends on which bible you choose to use in your argument. The concordant may be the most precise, the KJV may be the most poetic. To believe a bible is inerrant is foolish. Even the writers of the 1611 version of the KJ put this is their epilogue.

Okay; just to run with this a moment: let's just assume that the Bible itself is 100% correct, but "bias" can lead to incorrect conclusions. Show us that your interpretation is not "biased".

I have to prove it with at least two or three witnesses [other verses in scripture] and without contradicting any other precept presented by scripture. I could easily show how eternity and everlasting and forever and ever shouldn’t be in any bible. I could show how God will save all and not just “as many” as the theologians and scholars try to tell us. I could prove we don’t have freewill by the scriptures, prove Jesus is not part of a trinity, is not the Father, is the one who said “Let there be light”, I could show how satan was not “a perfect angel who fell”, show how the word “day” almost never means a 24hr period, Noahs flood wasn’t global, and on and on and on.
I don't do that. I think that interpretations of Mayan beliefs as prophecy is generally ridiculous, and I don't think they had access to any special knowledge that we don't have. I put no more weight on Mayan mythology than I do on Christian mythology.
Maybe I shot myself in the foot here, Christian mythology is bad, and boy did they get a lot of stuff from the egyptians. BUT if one can stay in the scriptures and debunk the Christian mythology littered in their doctrines then its another story.

Ah... so any time the Bible is incorrect, you can brush it off as being a parable or some other non-literal interpretation? How, then, do you know when you can interpret it literally?


Very rarely is something literal and if its literal it has a spiritual teaching behind it. How do you when? Take for example the Richman and Lazarus parable. If this was a literal story and the richman was alive in hades [the realm of the dead] then it would contradict so many other scriptures that say the dead no nothing, have no thoughts, actions, etc etc. So then it must be wrong if taken literally. Heres the problem with Christianity and Judaism. They don’t believe one of the most simple things written in the scriptures and they taught the world the same thing. Would you believe those who believe in God don’t believe this scripture about God….

Titus 1:2 God, Who does not lie, (CLV)

They believe He and His word lies. Sad aint it?

We're not talking about scripture in general, we're talking about one specific use: the one in chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis, specifically verses 6 and 7:

That’s hard to say because it could be ALSO talking about mans heaven [our minds]. Water even has a more definitions than the literal. In verse 8 He calls the expanse heaven. Could it be specifically talking about the atmosphere? Maybe. Outer space? Maybe. In verse 6 and 7 its not specific [as far as I know for now]. Verse 9 is more specific but still could be talking also about mans heaven. To be honest, this is my best area, so I don’t wanna give a wrong answer.


When it says that God "divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament", what does this mean? What "firmament" does this refer to?
Truthfully it sounds like the firmament about the earth [looking from the land to the sky], but what about looking from the earth to like where comets orbit or something. You know where comets get their water or ice from. Who knows.

Okay, fine: from the perspective of the Earth, what does "firmament" mean? From our perspective, what "firmament" divides the "waters below" from the "waters above"?


I would say earths atmosphere. Now when I say this I wonder whats coming next, hmmm.

 

[AK4]

Ah, a clever one! Only God himself can say such a thing. You cannot fool me, God! Only you and I know who you really are, don't we? You clever little devil, you!

BTW, I did not know that you can reach your face with your feet. All that yoga, I suppose.

I just love atheists and believers both, the ultimate denyers of their own divinity, and such excellent actors, too! Alas, they are both such total and complete frauds!

Really? So you, god, brought yourself into existence? Why do you have a mother and father? Why, since you are god, let others take your claim? If you are the one true god, then what does that make me/everyone else?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I would say earths atmosphere. Now when I say this I wonder whats coming next, hmmm.

Deja Vu...:run:

 

[cottage]

Oh if only you knew it would blow your mind. Although this is an experience of mine and youd probably not understand.... the biggest lie out there IMO is freewill. I have nor anyone ever lived, including Jesus, have experienced this. As someone who has been shown the truth on this it is a constant battle to fight it off. But by "imagination" have gotten a taste of what we call freewill, which really is being absolutely one with God, I have gotten a taste by "my imagination" if thats what one wants to call it.

Honestly, I would be delighted to hear of your experiences. Every time the issue of personal experience or revealed knowledge has come up on these forums the experiencer has refused to reveal them, or has given some convenient reason why they cannot be recounted, which makes me rather sceptical. I will say no more on this matter until I have your response.

As with the example above, no one except for Jesus has experienced this fully. That is something waaaay beyond our world of experience and is nowhere cNow what if God has promised you this and gives you a taste of it and shows you through parables upon parables of what you see on earth or in your world of experience that takes it from being analogous to something very very possible? I only possible for you guys.ontained in this world. This has been my experience so i couldnt prove it to you.

I’ll be pleased to hear what you have to say, for I discount nothing as impossible, unless it involves a direct contradiction or some other absurdity.

 

[godnotgod]

Really? So you, god, brought yourself into existence?

I have never left.

Why do you have a mother and father?

They're god too.

Why, since you are god, let others take your claim?

They are god too.

If you are the one true god, then what does that make me/everyone else?

The one true god. There is only one, but It has many faces.:yes::no::rainbow1:

 

[godnotgod]

"One light tho' the lamps be many"
:candle: :candle: :candle: :candle: :candle: :candle: :candle: :candle:

 

[justbehappy]

If you're trying to prove a point, there is none to prove.
You cannot prove there is a God.
We cannot prove there is one.
So there's no winner or loser here, and this argument just gets old

 

[AK4]

[


Honestly, I would be delighted to hear of your experiences. Every time the issue of personal experience or revealed knowledge has come up on these forums the experiencer has refused to reveal them, or has given some convenient reason why they cannot be recounted, which makes me rather sceptical. I will say no more on this matter until I have your response.




I’ll be pleased to hear what you have to say, for I discount nothing as impossible, unless it involves a direct contradiction or some other absurdity.

Wow i cant even get my fiance' to listen to me. You caught me off guard but i will answer this in a little bit and not write a book out of it. Although that may be hard not to do so.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If you're trying to prove a point, there is none to prove.
You cannot prove there is a God.
We cannot prove there is one.
So there's no winner or loser here, and this argument just gets old

Argumentum ad nauseam

That's what we have going on in this thread.....

 

[Gabethewiking]

If you're trying to prove a point, there is none to prove.
You cannot prove there is a God.
We cannot prove there is one.
So there's no winner or loser here, and this argument just gets old

You cannot prove there is a Unicorn.
We cannot prove there is one.
And it tells me to do things.. Evil things... But there is no winner or loser here..