a question for atheists

[outin]

I will waste no more and go and listen to some Schumann.

The way this "conversation" is going downhill I might even go and listen to some Tchaikovsky!

[josh93248]

Hmmm... Some stuff has happened since I last weighed in.

Bible literalism is a good defence from the perspective of the believer, but you may wish to go beyond that Noah, as you did say you thought that logic was the best basis for this debate.

Returning to logic. How do you explain the existence of god Noah? how can something that doesn't exist create itself? By what mechanism is this achieved?

What is, insofar as you can deduce, God's plan for us, for the world? Please try and imagine if you could, given not just the bible, but the circumstances of our reality and full history and potential future. Is there more to it perhaps than the sorting into heaven and hell, then partying/suffering for an eternity? Any god worth his salt, in my opinion, has a much bigger ambition than that.

I'm not sure I approve of this Tchaikovsky bashing, nor Schumann either... Perhaps you need to accept those two into your personal composer pantheon. I'd be happy to preach, outin

[outin]

I'm not sure I approve of this Tchaikovsky bashing, nor Schumann either... Perhaps you need to accept those two into your personal composer pantheon. I'd be happy to preach, outin

You'd be wasting your time. The probability of me converting into Tchaikovskism is as tiny as of Thal converting to Schumanism 

[pencilart3]

Josh, before I directly answer that question I just want to ask you one thing. I'm not even sure if this entirely relates, but I think it might... If you ever played with legos, for what purpose did you make them?

[josh93248]

To be honest they're not my two favourite composers but I feel they have merit. I'll not proselytise but I am curious, what do you find lacking in Tchaikovsky? 

And I played with lego to make cool guns and jets. I suppose because I enjoyed the experience of designing and making something.

[pencilart3]

I played with lego to make cool guns and jets. I suppose because I enjoyed the experience of designing and making something.

So you created for your own satisfaction?

[josh93248]

You could say that, yes.

But I think that creating a universe with sentient beings that can suffer, and indeed have immensely, carries serious ethical responsibilities. I do not think that self-satisfaction of any being is a good enough reason to create this universe.

[outin]

To be honest they're not my two favourite composers but I feel they have merit. I'll not proselytise but I am curious, what do you find lacking in Tchaikovsky?  

If it was only about lacking something... I find his piano music disgusting. His ballet suites are fine for the purpose they were made...

Now it is time for me to practice before going to work!

[pencilart3]

You could say that, yes.

But I think that creating a universe with sentient beings that can suffer, and indeed have immensely, carries serious ethical responsibilities. I do not think that self-satisfaction of any being is a good enough reason to create this universe.

Lol I haven't gotten to my answer yet!  we are here to glorify God and enjoy him forever. God created us to glorify him, BUT, the catch is, we also ENJOY him.

See, the difference is, we are also most happy when we are serving him. I have found this to be entirely true. I am much more truly happy after I get done cleaning my widowed neighbor's house than when I get done playing video games...

There's a quote which says "God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him".

[josh93248]

I would dispute the value of enjoyment and glorification. They don't seem like meaningful ends to me. Glorification, to me, is mostly just the external fulfilment of vanity. Why does god need glorification? Surely he is satisfied by himself and already knows how great he is. As for enjoyment, happiness is merely an emotion and is not the most important part of life to many people, myself included. Although I like being happy I am more concerned with meaning and I pursue my suspicions as to what it is and how to get to it personally and as a society.

I'd rather see a world based around the independent, free and open ended development and fulfilment of all beings. I actually sort of believe that it can exist too but that is another matter.

[timothy42b]

Yes, I'm definitely young earth. Here's why:

pencilart,
I'm likely wasting my time, but since you're polite I guess I'll engage a tiny bit longer.

Would you accept the thoughts of atheists who've never been inside a church as your only source of information about Christianity?

Or would you maybe want to read the works of some of the respected Christian theologians yourself?  And maybe even dip into some of the writers on Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, etc.?

You have clearly never read any actual science.  You are basing all your arguments on biased writings from deeply religious sources that do not care in the slightest about scientific accuracy.  None of your young earth arguments make the slightest sense.  Sorry, but you don't even have to be a scientist to realize that instantly - just a reasonably intelligent person who is not gullible.  Did you google a single one of your arguments to see if there was evidence to the contrary?  If you did not do that, you are guilty of lying.  (I have high standards for intellectual honesty. To pass on a "fact" that you didn't know was wrong is still lying if you could easily have checked.) 

That is one of the problems with religion.  It encourages gullibility - one is trained from an early age to accept what you're told and not notice inconsistency.  I could give you an easy example from the Bible if you want. 

Now, why am I explaining this?  Because I know there is an 85% chance you will lose your faith soon. 

[birba]

I quite disagree with you.  Pencilart's faith, blind faith, is based on the bible.  Taken verbatim. No amount of scientific fact or logical deduction of anything can make a dent in his faith.  I think the only thing that would alter his  convictions in any way would be if god appeared before him and said "pencilart, i didn't mean half the things i said."
Seriously, though, i sort of admire this blind faith.  It's a sort of fanatacism without the violence of isis.  He's genuine but doesn't prosetylize like a wild fanatic.  Unless he's been cornered.  Like he has been in these threads.

[perfect_pitch]

Okay - I'm officially tapping out of this thread because it seems that Pencilart is simply here to post bullshit about God. I'm not interested in talking to someone who is going to hijack a thread and pretend to blaspheme people considering that there is no Proof of God.

The difference between us, is that no person on the planet can truthfully and knowingly know if there is or isn't a god. I'm happy believing that there isn't one and happy to declare my reasons...

You however are sure there is a God, and that implies that somehow either you are privy to something no other human on the planet is privy to, or you simply defend your belief because you are incapable of having a rational discussion about it. I don't know if that's tied into your ego, but that's only something a Psychologist can determine.

Your assumption that your beliefs are stronger and supersede my beliefs show how ignorant you are to others. I'm going to sum up my thoughts here with this picture.





Good day, sir.

[timothy42b]

I quite disagree with you.  Pencilart's faith, blind faith, is based on the bible.  Taken verbatim. No amount of scientific fact or logical deduction of anything can make a dent in his faith. 

It's not really based on the Bible, it's based on a body of shared beliefs within his denomination and peer group.  Remember that all 20,000 denominations use the same Bible (or close to it, there are a few books in dispute) but they don't share the same set of beliefs.  

I would have guessed Baptist or Independent Bible Church from his posts, and he's confirmed that.

The problem with this fundamentalist approach is that it is so extreme, and so much in contradiction with modern science.  The result is that according to the Baptists 85% of their kids leave the faith never to darken the door of their church again.  That is where I got that 85% chance I spoke about.

Southern Baptist Convention Data
 Pinkney, T.C., Remarks to the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, Nashville, Tennessee (2001)
 

Study Findings: Data from the Southern Baptist Convention indicates that they are currently losing 70-88% of their youth after their freshman year in college. 70% of teenagers involved in church youth groups stop attending church within two years of their high school graduation.

The more moderate Christian denominations don't have the same problem, because they are much less literal in their approach to the Bible.  

[pencilart3]

I'll tell you all the reason for my "blind faith" as you call it. I believe in the Bible because I have seen hundreds and hundreds of "contradictions" and none of them are true. Why trust the Bible any less than the writings of Plato and Aristotle, which are much less Bibliographically accurate?

BTW, my reasons for young earth are supported by numerous scientists. Perhaps you should do a google search yourself. 

Please point out one reason it is in contradiction to modern science. No body has done that yet, they just talk about it.

[timothy42b]

I'll tell you all the reason for my "blind faith" as you call it.

I didn't call it that, nor am I trying to argue you out of it.  However you've made some blatantly inaccurate statements, and that tends to make all Christians including me look superstitious and ignorant, and I try to avoid that.  Plus, if we can lessen the shock a bit maybe you can keep your faith after your freshman year, against all the odds. 

I believe in the Bible because I have seen hundreds and hundreds of "contradictions" and none of them are true.

Really?  Are you sure you used good judgement and critical thinking?  None of them are true?  Are any of them so confusing they take real mental gymnastics to move them into the "explained" column?  Or did someone just tell you they were all explained, and you just accepted it without question, because you trusted them? 

Why trust the Bible any less than the writings of Plato and Aristotle, which are much less Bibliographically accurate?

It's always hard to know how to approach historical writings, especially ones where we have no complete copies and must piece them together from thousands of fragments.  I guess one might wonder if Plato and Aristotle talk about raising the dead, changing water into wine, donkeys talking, tombs opening and Jerusalem being filled with zombies, people walking on water, etc.  What do you think?

BTW, my reasons for young earth are supported by numerous scientists. Perhaps you should do a google search yourself. 

What percentage of scientists do you think support young earth?  90%? 50%? If I told you the real number (< 0.15%) would it affect your statement?  Would you feel you had been rash telling me to do the google search you haven't done, rude even? 

Please point out one reason it is in contradiction to modern science. No body has done that yet, they just talk about it.

The Bible is not necessarily in contradiction to science, if you understand much of it to be allegorical.  Young Earth Creationism is in direction contradiction to all known science. 

[pencilart3]

Tim, please just tell me one scientific fact that has shown the earth to be old.

Also, please just tell me why my arguments are flawed and I will listen. Don't just say "THAT'S NOT TRUE THAT'S NOT TRUE" without saying why.

[chopinlover01]

You don't need to, because you simply stated data bits that aren't true.

[timothy42b]

Tim, please just tell me one scientific fact that has shown the earth to be old.

Where do I even start?  You have no background, there is no common understanding.  It is as if I tried to explain music theory to someone who had not ever heard a note.  Every science - geology, paleontology, cosmology, physics, biology, has solid evidence for the age of the earth, 4.55 billion years plus or minus .o5, and the age of the universe, roughly 15 billion years. 

You don't have sufficient information to have made your decision of a young earth.

Okay, how about this?  We can see approximately 1000 stars that are 15 billion light years away.  How did that light get here, if God made everything only 6,000 years ago.  I know you don't understand big numbers, but that is a huge difference.  In fact, the comparison of 6,000 years to the actual age of the earth is the same as comparing one inch to 9 miles.  That is not a small error. 

And by the way, you never answered me about .15% of scientists buying a young earth. 

Also, please just tell me why my arguments are flawed and I will listen. Don't just say "THAT'S NOT TRUE THAT'S NOT TRUE" without saying why.

Well, that's fair I guess.  The problem is that you are parroting arguments you read that made sense to you, but have been refuted decades ago, and some of us have been through this many times before.  I don't remember what they all were, but I'm pretty sure you referenced the amount of salt in the ocean, right?  There are lots of salts, depending on which metal is the positive ion.  It is common for creationists to talk about sodium, because if you look at the input of sodium from runoff, you can calculate pretty close to 6,000 years, IF and ONLY IF you assume there is no mechanism for sequestration.  But of course there are several mechanisms, and honest scientists know that sodium is pretty much at equilibrium and gives no information on the age.  Too bad, because the same applies to aluminum salts, but then it turns out the earth is only 100 years old.  That information is in the same table creationists quote from, but they don't want to acknowledge this. 

Oh, and did you say something about the magnetic field weakening?  Uh, are you aware that it doesn't just weaken, it completely reverses every 10000 years or so?  It's cyclic, not monotonically negative.  Sorry. 

I shouldn't have to tell you this.  If you were really interested in the truth, you would have read both sides of the argument.  I have, I've spent painful hours on AiG and ICR.  And I've read real science books, and there is no comparison.  I would have preferred to come to a different conclusion; I remain a believer, but I've had to move to a more liberal denomination with better music. 

Now I have a question for you.  I want you to explain why you never noticed something.  I am sure that you think Isaiah 7:14 predicts the birth of Jesus, right? 

For behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a child, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel.

But they didn't.  They called him Jesus.

Be careful.  I am not using this as an example of a contradiction.  It isn't, though it would take a while to explain.  I'm using this as an example of selective blindness.  You have read those verses 100 times, heard them in Christmas pageants nearly as many, and you NEVER NOTICED, never wondered. 

Why didn't you notice, do you think?  Why have almost no Christians noticed?  It's important.

[liszt1022]

I hope this discussion ends soon. Anyone who states that they are a young-Earth creationist is so far beyond rational thought that they cannot be debated with. It's unlikely he will lose his faith if he's this far gone, more likely he'll end up picketing funerals and protesting women's clinics. Maybe even get elected to office!

[pencilart3]

Great questions, Tim! Ok, so since you obviously don't take anything I say to mean anything whatsoever. I would love to answer your questions myself but you only want science so let's just go with the scientists and for your question about the name of Jesus, a theology expert.

Distant starlight - https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/does-distant-starlight-prove-the-universe-is-old/. It's a little bit long but read it, it is absolutely fascinating.

Name of Jesus - https://www.gotquestions.org/Immanuel-Jesus.html. It's very very very simple. Compare it to "Mike Trout was named MVP". His name ISN'T MVP! 

Anyone who states that they are a young-Earth creationist is so far beyond rational thought that they cannot be debated with.

And why? All I've seen is one distant starlight argument which is so obviously scientifically flawed that one has clearly done no scientific research on the point whatsoever if they consider it to be true.

[josh93248]

Okay guys, I know you're all still right in the middle of this debate and perhaps it's a little presumptuous of me to tell you all what to do but I think it needs to be said.

I feel that this debate has just about run its course and is in danger of creating some enmity on this forum. I know you all may well get a kick out of arguing, I do too, but we may all just have to live and let live, agree to disagree and move on to other topics.

Noah, on the one hand you have tried to engage with others as well as you can, but you also must see that nobody is being convinced and people are barely acknowledging each other's points any more. When a debate gets to the stage where no one will give ground it's usually time to end the stalemate.

It has, at times, been stimulating, but I for one have said all I intend to say.

All this goes for the "Benefits of atheism" thread as well, which I started more or less as a joke but has simply become a second battleground for what began here.

[pencilart3]

Josh, you are very reasonable and logical and for this I respect you very greatly. I was actually thinking the exact same thing and I think it's about time this thread came to a close. It was great having the debate with you all.

[chopinlover01]

Your article "debunking" distant starlight, apart from coming from a very biased source (Answers in Genesis), was relying on extreme concepts- time not always being the same (and therefore shrinking the universes age by billions of years) and the speed of light not always being the same.

[timothy42b]

pencilart,

Two things.

First, the starlight.  You did what I've been suggesting is not helpful, you went immediately to a known biased creationist source.  It didn't have any actual answers, did it?  It just said maybe light didn't always go the same speed, maybe time wasn't always time.  Do you find that satisfying?  Honest creationist sites admit starlight is a problem they hope to solve someday.  You will notice that there were no details given.  How much faster would light have to travel?  Maybe a billion times faster?  Are you comfortable with that?  A real science article would have done that calculation. 

Some time ago a creationist proposed to me that the stars aren't really that far away.  So I did a quick calculation.  I took the number of stars that we can see and tried to fit them in a space 6,000 light years across.  It turns out the stars would all be touching.  I'm assuming you can do that calculation yourself, it's just high school math, not even calculus.   

Second thing, the name.  You really missed my point.  That article you referenced is completely wrong.  It is apologetics at its worst, and would only be convincing to someone who'd already made up his mind.  There actually is an answer to this one, but the author wasn't smart enough to know it.  (midrash)

However, remember what I asked.  Not "why wasn't he named Immanuel," but "why didn't you (and 99.999% of other Christians) ever notice?"   

[birba]

I just have to say I've enjoyed this discussion.  Very much so.  And my eyes have been opened to many things i wasn't previously aware of.  The "creationists" for one thing.  There are actually lots of people that believe in that.  I thought pencilart was actually pulling our leg at first.  No, it's almost like a movement!  And this is good,  i think.  It shows the multitude of variety of beliefs and different "truths" that abound.

[pencilart3]

Haha, well I guess I don't need to respond to you, Tim and Chopinlover01. I know that neither of you are going to suddenly be convinced so the only reason I would continue the debate is for the purpose of being right, and I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing. 

Well anyway, good debate everyone. It gave me some new things to look in to and I definitely will look into them. I hope you also look into some of the things I mentioned too!

[timothy42b]

Well, pencilart,
let me tell you a story.

One of my children came home from middle school, and they'd been studying different world religions.  They'd just read about the flood. 

She said, "Daddy, the Bible says the waters rose 15 cubits.  It's too bad we don't know how big a cubit is."  I said, "of course we do.  It's the length of an alto trombone slide."  Daughter glares at me.  "or you can use 19 inches."  Daughter grabs calculator, a minute later says, "so, the flood was 23.75 feet deep."  "how deep is Mount Everest?"  Not wanting to be glared at again, I answer "roughly five miles."  Daughter says, "so, a 24 foot deep flood covered Mount Everest.  I think there's something wrong here." 

Her BS detector had gone off.  The problem with the more conservative or fundamentalist ends of any religion is that you are forced to disconnect the BS detector.  (It might also be that people born without a BS detector naturally gravitate to that type of religion, dunno.) 

Your apologists can come up with answers to explain everything.  What I want is for people to notice things that need explaining and ask the questions. 

What we find is that people don't ask - they get past one year of college, decide they've been lied to, and abandon faith altogether.

Just once I'd like to discuss evolution with a creationist who understands the basic principles but still disagrees.  That has never happened and I am forced to conclude that studying it long enough to understand it automatically convinces one that it is correct.

Which it is.

 

[thalbergmad]

Brilliant post.

In researching for his excellent book "fingerprints of the gods" the author Graham Hancock noted over 150 tales of the flood in other ancient texts, many predating the Bible. Not only is the Bible a rather boring read, it is also far from unique.

Mind you, he must be a bit of loony as he proposed a date of 15,000BC for the construction of Tiahuanaco, which as all right thinking people know is 9,000 older than the Universe.

Thal

[chopinlover01]

@Pencilart Take a look at this video.

[pencilart3]

In researching for his excellent book "fingerprints of the gods" the author Graham Hancock noted over 150 tales of the flood in other ancient texts,

So there are other accounts outside the Bible which confirm the flood? Good to know, thanks.

@Pencilart Take a look at this video.

So?

[thalbergmad]

So there are other accounts outside the Bible which confirm the flood? Good to know, thanks.

Does not confirm anything. Myths, legends and storytelling by ancient peoples and should be treated as such.

You would have to have a very weak mind to blindly accept such writings as actual events.

Thal

[chopinlover01]

So there are other accounts outside the Bible which confirm the flood? Good to know, thanks.

So?

The story is not real, and predates the Bible by almost a millennium.

[pencilart3]

The story is not real, and predates the Bible by almost a millennium.

And you're basing this on a youtube video of a guy talking who can't even say the word "plagiarizing"?

[timothy42b]

And you're basing this on a youtube video of a guy talking who can't even say the word "plagiarizing"?

Well, no.

We moderate Christians believe the flood is a story that teaches us something, but does not describe an actual historical event.

We base this largely on three things:  the fact that it is clearly written with the intent to be a "just-so" story; the fact that all of it is physically impossible; and the fact that it could not have occurred without leaving specific geological evidence, which is completely absent. 

[pencilart3]

Well, I would mention the fossil record, but I have a feeling you don't want to talk about it. 

[chopinlover01]

The fossils that can be radiometrically dated to be well over 6000 years old? I'd love to talk about them.

[pencilart3]

The fossils that can be radiometrically dated to be well over 6000 years old? I'd love to talk about them.

...and radiometric dating is such a reliable source!

[thalbergmad]

More reliable than your silly book of fables.

Thal

[chopinlover01]

...and radiometric dating is such a reliable source!

It actually is quite reliable. With carbon dating you can determine the age of something quite well.
Do you even know how carbon dating works, much less why it might not?

[timothy42b]

Well, I would mention the fossil record, but I have a feeling you don't want to talk about it. 

Why would you think that?

I would love to talk about them. 

More a bit later. 

[timothy42b]

Why would you think that?

I would love to talk about them. 

More a bit later. 

A little amplification.

The way in which fossils are approached gives you some clues as to how to evaluate the credibility.

I've had creationists tell me there are fossils on top of Mount Everest and that proves the flood happened. 

Science works like this:  what do we predict we would find if the standard geological explanation is true, what do we really find, does that support or refute our hypothesis? 

So I ask creationists:  are those the fossils we should expect from a one year flood?  No answer.  Well, tell me the species, I'll look it up.  No answer.  Well, at least are they plant, land animal, sea animal, vertebrate, nonvertebrate?  No answer.  Are they lying loose on top of the rock, or embedded a few feet down?  No answer.  They don't know, and (as I've been trying to point out) they've never been curious enough to wonder.  (I do know, but it's not relevant to my point.)   

In fact it's possible to make some fairly detailed predictions about what the fossil record should look like if produced by a global flood, as opposed to produced by eons of geological time. 

The number of "creation scientists" who've produced that prediction remains - you guessed it - zero. 

[birba]

oh, and by the by, what have you got against gay rights?!

[liszt1022]

I really shouldn't ask, but I can't help it.

This is my hand holding a fossil shark tooth which I pulled out of the Earth myself, from an extinct shark. I am interested in what you think of it and the thousands more fossils I've collected.
Did this shark drown in the flood??

[timothy42b]

I have a followon question:

If that shark died in the flood, what other fossils should be found nearby?  Are they?

If there was no flood, and that shark died millions of years ago, what other fossils should be found in the same stratum?  Are they?  Is there anything in that stratum that shouldn't be there?

You can tell a real creation scientist because they've considered those questions.  (No, there is no known case of this happening.)

[thalbergmad]

All these tambo bangers are more interested in the Rock of Ages than the ages of rocks which is why they will remain ignorant.

Thal

[pencilart3]

I'm not an expert in geology, but I don't see how a flood would kill a shark.

[liszt1022]

I'm not an expert in geology, but I don't see how a flood would kill a shark.

Quoted in case you edit that once you realize it's an argument against mass extinction via flood.

[timothy42b]

I'm not an expert in geology, but I don't see how a flood would kill a shark.

Some of your fellow creationists claim the flood deposited all the sedimentary layers at once. 

Being buried 15 miles deep in mud would make it hard for a shark to swim, and he'd eventually starve.  Not to mention a salt water fish has a bit of trouble spending a year in fresh water. 

According to the Bible before the flood man and all animals were vegetarian; meat eating only started afterwords.  I'm not sure if that applied to sharks or not. 

[Bob]

I only read the first post.

I don't consider myself anything really.  Not religious.

I don't consider, "I don't know," a bad response.

From what I can tell, you either die a violent, painful death, but it's fairly sudden or you slip away quietly.  Having a long-term chronic painful illness sound worse than either of those.  Having your mind deteroriate sounds pretty bad too.  Having to live with something negative like that for years or decades sound bad.

Once you're dead, who knows? 

You can't trust what anyone says about near death experirences because it could just be the brain creating that.  If someone really did prove something, like identifying something they couldn't have known and people could do that consistently, that would make the news.

Brainwise, it sounds like everything could be turned off.  You can lose your sight ability.  You can lose memories too.  So it sounds like thiing reside in the brain.  (Although the brain could be connecting to something else, tuning in, and no one's proving that otherwise.  So that's a plus for hope I guess.)  Otherwise, it sounds like once the brain stops working, you lose those abilities, including consciousness.  So if you go, violent or peaceful, once the brain shuts down, you'd just drift off and that's it.

After that, who knows?  If the brain is storing memories, but your brain doesn't work anymore... Maybe you're just a generic "soul" with no memories at all. 


Religion-wise, it sounds good and bad.  Good that there's a nice community, a fallback net.  Some people will come out on the losing end of things in life.  Bad in that people go to war over religion or try to push their beliefs on someone else.

And which one do you pick?  What's better or more correct about one then the other?  And what about previous cultures?  What about factoring in evolution?   Everyone gets an afterlife?  Half-evolved humans?  Some kind of mammal before that?  What about a blade of grass or an ant?

Add in it sounds like Christianity developed however many thousands of years ago, then became popular, and at some point a group got together and decided which stories they would include a book.  And some were left out.  Add in people verballing passing along stories and the telephone game angle.


It doesn't really sound like anyone's come back before.  People have been revived, but there aren't ghosts around.  Or not that we can consistently perceive.  If there are... We've got billions and billions of ghosts around us.  Add in evolution... There would be ancient creatures with no understanding of the modern world, people from a thousand years ago, etc.

Who knows?  It kind of sucks not be able to take the same body with, but who knows what the situation is.  We could have some residual self-image of ourselves.  We could be pure energy or something.


One interesting idea I heard, on a TED talk I think, was that conscioiusness, the brain, etc. could be something completely different than any concept of them we have now.

Another one was, "What happens if we do extend life, and no one ever dies again?"  You never find out what happens for sure.