Aussie scientists

[ByFaithAlone]

You misrepresent the position of the atheist just as you misrepresented it in another thread. The position of the atheist is a lack of belief in a God due to lack of arguments and evidence. The interrogative you are posing would be valid only for an antitheist (one who claims that no God or gods exist). Stop repeating this same argument.

And I have told you before - my dog lacks a belief in a God but she is not an atheist and you need a refresher course in debate 101. In an interrogative such as - “Does God exist?” each side must provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. Easy concept—what part are you missing?

My friend, an interrogative is only effective if the other sides wants to prove that God does not exist. Again, that is not the atheist position but the antitheist position.

[slowpoke55]

You are the one who boasted you could prove God doesn't exist—remember? You failed.. I am giving you a second change by asking you the question - “Does God exist? This is an easy question. If you are not capable of responding just say you can’t explain/defend your profession of faith---we will understand your dilemma. You're up--good luck and take your time.

I enjoy your impatience! One more chance, huh?

Faith plays no role in lacking a belief in a supernatural being. Just as it doesn't take faith to determine that a ball on a grass is not a ball in space or that the moon is not made of a cheese deity.

Your god is based on a series of stories that are touted as the inspired word of god and are unique and inerrant. If we want to be accurate, we can say that the current bible is a copy of the inspired word of your god, since the original texts don’t exit – those originals would be the inspired word of your god.

For analytical purposes, given that we all apply some critical thought to claims people make, it’s reasonable to not accept the claim that the Abrahamic god is not only a god, let alone THE ONE AND ONLY God. So what we have to go off of are the stories that exist and are claimed to have occurred within the timeline of the Bible and with the specific characters in these stories.

One thing we can agree on is that the Bible has a mythological nature to it and that many cultures at that time, both within the sphere of influence and beyond it (Mayan’s, Chinese, Australian Aborigines) also have traditions of storytelling in the form of creationist stories and supernatural beings. The idea of deities, or even a deity, were rampant in the early part of many civilizations development. So the idea of a supernatural being is not unique to the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

The term "mythology" can refer either to the study of myths (e.g., comparative mythology), or to a body or collection of myths (a mythos, e.g., Inca mythology).^[1] In folkloristics, a myth is a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form,^[2] although, in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.^[3] Bruce Lincoln defines myth as "ideology in narrative form".^[4] Myths typically involve supernatural characters and are endorsed by rulers or priests. They may arise as overelaborated accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual. They are transmitted to convey religious or idealized experience, to establish behavioral models, and to teach.

So are the stories in the bible unique unto themselves? No. Tales of creations, resurrections, virgin births, angry deities, blood sacrifices, and global destruction abound in many cultures in the immediate vicinity and in unrelated cultures around the world, many predate the Bible.

Throughout history, it’s common for cultures to cross pollinate ideas and exchange stories. They often adapt them to meet their specific regions or culture and invent new versions (e.g. example la Virgen de Guadalupe) to appeal to get a foothold in a foreign culture. It comes as no surprise then that Pagan influences exist in the bible, from the sun gods, to burnt offerings, to a concept of hell. One very notable influence is the Summerian Flood story which predates the Biblical flood by at least 1,ooo years and is strikingly similar except that the names and places have changed to fit narrative of the Bible.

So what we have are stories that aren't unique to the Bible that helped influence and shape its evolution – it is an evolution which doesn't completely break with its pagan past; leaving it in the realm of myth. So if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck or, in this case, a myth. And if the stories are a myth the god is a myth, i.e. doesn't exist.

So, simply based on the stories why should we believe these myths are true?

These are the types of arguments I usually get from people, all of which are fallacies.

Appeal to Ignorance – Waldoz likes to use this one

Appeal to Emotion – Waldoz likes to use this one

Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Belief

Appeal to Fear – Waldoz likes to use this one

Appeal to Popularity

Appeal to Consequences of Belief – Waldoz likes to use this one.

What usually comes next is circular reasoning: – Waldoz likes to use this one

The Bible is used as the source to determine its own validity. Its stories are true because it says it’s true.

Or, arguments from personal belief: – Waldoz likes to use this one

“I’ve have a personal experience with God, therefore the Bible is true.”

This is a funny one because the believer thinks that a positive personal experience should weigh more heavily than those who don’t have the experience. They usually throw in the Appeal to Popularity fallacy thinking it will make their argument stronger.

Other examples people give me as evidence:

Eyewitness Testimony – not accepted as evidence in science, even if Einstein or Newton say it.

Archeological evidence that some of the characters or places are historical. Myths are often created using real locations and people.

Personal anecdotes - someone surviving a terrible accident. Ignores the misfortunes that happen to others.

So, what we have are ancient myths and invalid arguments to support the existence of the Abrahamic god. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that because I view this as a myth that it has no value or that one can’t learn something from the stories.

If you noticed, I’m not bringing science into this because it’s not the goal of science to establish or disprove the existence of a god, let alone the Abrahamic one. But, what usually happens is an attempt to validate the existence of a creator by asserting certain events happened. This is where science can inform us and can examine creationist claims such as Noah’s Flood, creation of the earth, and how man came to be.

The question is, if these important aspects of the Bible are shown to be false, does this mean that the Abrahamic god doesn’t exist? For some religions the answer is no, for example the Catholic Church supports evolution as a fact. For some movements, like theistic evolution, the answer is no. For some people, the answer is yes and they then desperately try to negate the science that contradicts their literal interpretation of an ancient text. For me, (I was an atheist way before I knew much about science) science has clarified aspects of the material world and further established that the Bible is a series of myths.

Now do I think this will convince anyone that god doesn’t exist? No. People have different criteria for establishing their views and find ways to accommodate contradictions.

Do I care? I care enough to give an honest response of my view and leave it at that.

[slowpoke55]

Faith plays no role in lacking a belief in a supernatural being.

Your faith came into play when you made the freewill choice (allowed by God) to disbelieve in God. You have strong faith in your weak atheism--yes?

Now do I think this will convince anyone that god doesn’t exist? No.

LOL - then we agree that you were a little too overly zealous when you boasted you could prove God didn't exist. Very good.

The fool has said in his heart, There is no God

.

You've taken what I said out of context several times. What I say is that by your standards science cannot detect God, therefore for science God doesn't exist. You assume that this is a statement of absolutes because you can't imagine a world without your a supernatural deity.

The point I make about the bible is a valid viewpoint but I'm not arrogant enough to assume that it can be the only viewpoint. If you view this as weak atheism, so what, you have demonstrably shown you don't and can't understand atheism.

Edited to comply with TOS.

Edited October 15, 2012 by slowpoke55

[Fez]

Faith plays no role in lacking a belief in a supernatural being.

Your faith came into play when you made the freewill choice (allowed by God) to disbelieve in God. You have strong faith in your weak atheism--yes?

Now do I think this will convince anyone that god doesn’t exist? No.

LOL - then we agree that you were a little too overly zealous when you boasted you could prove God didn't exist. Very good.

The fool has said in his heart, There is no God

.

You've taken what I said out of context several times. What I say is that by your standards science cannot detect God, therefore for science God doesn't exist. You assume that this is a statement of absolutes because you can't imagine a world without your a supernatural deity.

The point I make about your myth is a valid viewpoint but I'm not arrogant enough to assume that it can be the only viewpoint. If you view this as weak atheism, so what, you have demonstrably shown you don't and can't understand atheism.

Oh, another quote from a myth, what else would you expect that myth to say.

Please read the Tos.

And no more calling God a supernatural deity, or the bible a myth.

You are on a Christian site where we call our God, God, and His word the bible.

[slowpoke55]

Point taken.