Atheists what is your proof?

[phlogistician]

would you read it genius? 2 gallop polls were cited,

But not where the data was culled for the polls. Given the first was at a religious University, that is not representative. It therefore follows that the other polls were taken in an area that is not representative too.

and a poll conducted by an australian university that took a worldwide sample.

Show me the data.

you are a minority for a reason.

No, you are. Fewer people think that God talks to them than think not. Others do not share your specific delusion.

the reason is that it is illogical not to be open-minded at least in regards to the paranormal.

If these things exist, and happen, and appear in our world, science will detect them. The term 'supernatural' is a cop out term.

all the paranormal equates to is that which is outside the current scientific understanding.

Not true. The cop out is that it was _always_ remain outside. Woowoos like their pet theories so much they disavow the science thet created the computers they use to spread their BS on the Internet with. The irony of that amuses me.

now since we know that scientific discovery is not on the decline, quite the opposite, it's growing exponentially, not only in volume but in magnitude, it is illogical to be close-minded about what you don't know.

Yet despite all those advances we still haven't found a God shaped gap in any of it. Nor a door to the supernatural realm. Seriously Lori, you are making the fallacious 'God of gaps' argument here.

and to ignore the testimony of millions of people who have had paranormal experiences,

So Alien abduction is real? The Loch Ness Monster? Giant flying things that tip over teenagers cars? Sasquatch? I asked you about these paranormal experiences already, you include alien abduction into your delusion, but do not account for the rest despite your supposed 'open mindedness'. Do you believe every claim made by everybody?

or pretend that you're surrounded by mentally ill people and you're the only sane one is ridiculous.

Humans do not have perfect perception. I have had some odd experiences myself. I understood they were products of my mind. I have never said I am the only sane person either. Just that atheists are.

you know why i think you're so closed-minded?

I am not, I am perfectly willing to evaluate every claim and the evidence presented with it.

because you have a problem with authority. whether it be god or aliens, i think you're averse to the idea of something that much more intelligent and/or powerful than you, or all of us.

Not al all. If you'd read any of the threads I've participated in here wrt alien life, I actually expect there to be alien life elsewhere in the Universe. Some of these civilisations will be more advanced than ours. Just like the inhabitants of different continents advanced at different rates. However, space is harder to conquer than oceans. My doubt is that aliens travel the vast distances in space to shove probes up fat americans asses. Onto God, well, no, I don't think God exists out there, because there's no logic behind that proposition at all. It's not about authority, because I don't feel there is anything there to have authority over me. Why do theist so often assume atheists are in denial. Why can't you simply accept our lack of belief?

 

[gmilam]

well what do you think a tree of the knowledge of good and evil is? is it a rare species of tree whose fruit alters a human genetically, and seemingly abruptly when eaten? could be. but a lot of times trees and fruit, and vines and fruit, and lots of other planting analogies are used in the bible to represent other things, like people, or manifestations, or results.

You don't seemt too be grasping this here...

I don't believe there is or ever was a tree of knowledge. I "believe" the story is made up. It's a myth.

Do you believe there was a world wide flood and some dood built a boat so that god could bring two of every animal on Earth to take a ride? You do realize this is totally impossible don't you?

 

[phlogistician]

Do you believe there was a world wide flood and some dood built a boat so that god could bring two of every animal on Earth to take a ride? You do realize this is totally impossible don't you?

Of course they don't believe that. Well, they shouldn't 'cos supposedly it was seven of every clean animal, and two each of the rest, ...

But of course few theists think Noah had seven elephants etc. They apologise for those parts of the OT, while using the other parts as an excuse to throw stones at homosexuals.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do you believe what is written in the testaments or not? Are you going to interpret everything to your convenience using modem mores as your standard?

Where is the value in a supposed absolute, if you interpret it yourself?

In that statement you have undermined the divinity of your bibles. Well done!

I'm not interpreting it myself.
What makes you think "forbidden fruit" means food?
What do you think "booty call" means?

jan.

 

[Lori_7]

I'm not interpreting it myself.
What makes you think "forbidden fruit" means food?
What do you think "booty call" means?

jan.

:roflmao:

 

[Lori_7]

You don't seemt too be grasping this here...

I don't believe there is or ever was a tree of knowledge. I "believe" the story is made up. It's a myth.

Do you believe there was a world wide flood and some dood built a boat so that god could bring two of every animal on Earth to take a ride? You do realize this is totally impossible don't you?

well it wouldn't be every animal that's on earth right now, just some of their ancestors. building a boat is not impossible. do i need to post a pic of a cruise ship or an aircraft carrier here?

and in regards to genesis, i do believe it means something. something was ingested that changed human beings and that change was passed on to future generations. the event is referred to as the fall of man, and the change is called sin. even the word "ingest" could be used as an analogy or metaphorically. in the communion ceremony, people ingest the blood of christ, and his flesh. do you think that means one day we'll all eat jesus? probably not.

 

[Lori_7]

But not where the data was culled for the polls. Given the first was at a religious University, that is not representative. It therefore follows that the other polls were taken in an area that is not representative too.



Show me the data.



No, you are. Fewer people think that God talks to them than think not. Others do not share your specific delusion.

your, rather arrogant, delusion. that the majority of people on earth believe things for no damn good reason, or because they're crazy, or stupid.

If these things exist, and happen, and appear in our world, science will detect them. The term 'supernatural' is a cop out term.

supernatural is YOUR cop out term! i don't care if you like the word or not, it is a real word, and it means something very real...the unknown. and for you to place your limits on it, in arrogance and ignorance, is incorrect.

Not true. The cop out is that it was _always_ remain outside. Woowoos like their pet theories so much they disavow the science thet created the computers they use to spread their BS on the Internet with. The irony of that amuses me.

the truth is that you don't know what's out there, and that you are the woowoo.

Yet despite all those advances we still haven't found a God shaped gap in any of it. Nor a door to the supernatural realm. Seriously Lori, you are making the fallacious 'God of gaps' argument here.

the gap is in our perception, which is based on our knowledge, which is based on our experience.

So Alien abduction is real? The Loch Ness Monster? Giant flying things that tip over teenagers cars? Sasquatch? I asked you about these paranormal experiences already, you include alien abduction into your delusion, but do not account for the rest despite your supposed 'open mindedness'. Do you believe every claim made by everybody?

i believe what people say to me unless i have a damn good reason not to.

Humans do not have perfect perception. I have had some odd experiences myself. I understood they were products of my mind. I have never said I am the only sane person either. Just that atheists are.

how convenient for you that must be.

I am not, I am perfectly willing to evaluate every claim and the evidence presented with it.

yes, and then chalk it all up to lunacy and lies.

Not al all. If you'd read any of the threads I've participated in here wrt alien life, I actually expect there to be alien life elsewhere in the Universe. Some of these civilisations will be more advanced than ours. Just like the inhabitants of different continents advanced at different rates. However, space is harder to conquer than oceans. My doubt is that aliens travel the vast distances in space to shove probes up fat americans asses. Onto God, well, no, I don't think God exists out there, because there's no logic behind that proposition at all. It's not about authority, because I don't feel there is anything there to have authority over me. Why do theist so often assume atheists are in denial. Why can't you simply accept our lack of belief?

because nothing you say reflects a lack of belief.

 

[SolusCado]

To even think I know God's plan would require belief in god. I'm just a seeker of understanding.

But "logically" if there is a god and it wants us to believe and behave a certain way, it would most certainly do it's best to make certain the message gets to us in an unadulturated form. Wouldn't you think that? Otherwise it's just fucking with us.

I wouldn't think god would be a practical joker, so I am more inclined to accept that the bible is exactly what it appears to be. A conglomeration of myths, legends and a little history of a tribe in the middle east. No more or less interesting than the Illiad and the Odyssey.

It seems to me you are ignoring a huge possibility (and IMO, the reality of the situation), which is that the important thing isn't that we fully understand the messages, but that we strive to understand them. That we overcome doubt with faith. That we endure hardships because it makes us stronger people. These are things that are recognized to be true in the secular world when not injecting God into the conversation; why is it then so difficult to accept when you do?

Pick your bible then. I'll demonstrate my point as being correct.

It doesn't really matter which Bible I pick. They are all going to use different terms that suffer from the same flaws I noted previously. You are looking at everything through a lens of the 21st century, not the 5th century B.C. Answer my questions, and YOU pick the Bible you wish to use, because from my perspective the specific translation is irrelevant. It is still incumbent on us to try to see things from the perspective of the authors, if we wish to understand what the author was saying. Once again, this is common practice in the secular world... why are atheists so resistant to accepting it in the religious world?

Technically I pointed out well-known facts to support the conclusion; however, as you will choose to contest the facts I of proposed the first step to demonstrate them.

No, you pointed out well known interpretations - which I reject. You can spend all day pointing out things I reject and continue to waste time for both of us, or you can actually address the points that I make.

 

[phlogistician]

your, rather arrogant, delusion. that the majority of people on earth believe things for no damn good reason, or because they're crazy, or stupid.

You summed it up nicely, esp 'no good reason'.

supernatural is YOUR cop out term! i don't care if you like the word or not, it is a real word, and it means something very real...the unknown. and for you to place your limits on it, in arrogance and ignorance, is incorrect.

Not my cop out. I do not believe in the supernatural. It doesn't mean something 'real' either, it means something 'supernatural'. Get a dictionary.

the truth is that you don't know what's out there, and that you are the woowoo.

Odd, I used to work with a bunch of guys, Astronomers, who looked at 'what was out there'. We never saw God. As to being a woowoo, no, Lori, a woowoo is someone who holds a belief without their being a sound reason to hold those beliefs. That person is not me.

the gap is in our perception, which is based on our knowledge, which is based on our experience.

But the gap is getting smaller and smaller. Science is making your God shrink!

i believe what people say to me unless i have a damn good reason not to.

OK, so you believe every woowoo and their crackpot theory ? Talk about being so open minded your brains fell out,....

how convenient for you that must be.

Is that supposed to be a reply? Please try to make some effort.

yes, and then chalk it all up to lunacy and lies.

Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have made extraordinary claims, and these have been explained to you using current medical understanding of brain function. You won't accept that you maybe had a episode.

because nothing you say reflects a lack of belief.

I do not believe you talk to God. I do not believe in your God. Happy now?

 

[gmilam]

It seems to me you are ignoring a huge possibility (and IMO, the reality of the situation), which is that the important thing isn't that we fully understand the messages, but that we strive to understand them. That we overcome doubt with faith. That we endure hardships because it makes us stronger people. These are things that are recognized to be true in the secular world when not injecting God into the conversation; why is it then so difficult to accept when you do?

Because I live in a state where people are trying to get parts of this book of mythology taught as science in the classrooms of the public schools.

You may wonder what the harm is in letting people believe whatever they want, while I see a real danger in letting people attach more significance to this book than it really deserves.

 

[SolusCado]

Because I live in a state where people are trying to get parts of this book of mythology taught as science in the classrooms of the public schools.

You may wonder what the harm is in letting people believe whatever they want, while I see a real danger in letting people attach more significance to this book than it really deserves.

You don't have to eradicate religion (or even dismiss it as mythology) to fight against it being taught as science. If the atheist side were less confrontational they might get further with that particular agenda. I grew up in part of the bible belt, and we never learned anything but the theory of evolution and the scientific method in our science classes. The concepts of creationism were taught in social studies. Everything that people want taught was taught. Evolution, or rather natural selection, wasn't taught as something that replaces the Bible or christianity, because ... well, it doesn't. The stuff the Bible and Christianity teaches are irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution. There is no reason to even bring them up. Of course, such approaches would have gone a long way in avoiding the current situation, not so much in addressing it. By attacking such beliefs as mythology and false, you back the other group into a corner (where, unfortunately, the lash back with both bad science AND bad theology). As far as I can tell, the only thing in such creationist/intelligent design theories that even begin to approach science is the idea of irreducible complexity. Discussing that in schools (in science class), and discussing the latest findings and theories regarding such things as light-sensitive organs that eventually DO evolve into eyeballs, does in fact further the education of a child. They learn more. They learn to pit science against science, rather than religion against science. "Because God said so" should NEVER be an answer given to a student, but talking about the weaknesses in a theory (on either side of the debate), and discussing its weaknesses in an attempt to refine it is what the scientific method is all about, and should be lauded, not fought.

IMHO

 

[phlogistician]

You don't have to eradicate religion (or even dismiss it as mythology) to fight against it being taught as science. If the atheist side were less confrontational they might get further with that particular agenda.
IMHO

Not teaching the specifics of ONE religion in a science class is NOT an agenda.

The agenda is when Christians try and force their dogma as science.

The Christians started the conflict, not those fighting for sense and reason.

 

[phlogistician]

the only thing in such creationist/intelligent design theories that even begin to approach science is the idea of irreducible complexity.

No such thing. Complexity can be deconstructed.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Why would someone need to prove or disprove a belief? It's like asking someone to prove that elves don't exist or that the big bang happened.

 

[Lori_7]

Yes exactly. A mental aberration.



You are putting the cart before the horse. The conclusion before the mental condition that causes people to draw it. We are flawed human beings. We experience strange experiences from time to time. Given the number of different religions, these clearly do NOT point towards some singular divine cause, but rather, that many humans experience them, converse with others, and try and negotiate some communal understanding. God as is the lowest common denominator explanation of the human condition there is.



And what does it feel like to have an aneurysm, stroke, fit, or psychotic episode? I used to get dull pains in my forehead too. They were called migraines.



No, it wasn't. It was a mental aberration.



Channeling. No. Mental episode, yes.



Yes, and this has been explained to you as a classic symptom of a hypnagogic dream.



Bad dream, or bad drugs?



Which are no longer in your possession if I recall the story correctly. Moses didn't abandon his stone tablets, so why did you abandon your gift? Because it is impossible to bring items back from a dream, perhaps?



What you describe is far from normal. Well, for a normal person anyway.

it must suck to be normal phlog.

god is also the most common denominator, and the most comprehensive, and the most impactive.

now let's see...we started with epilepsy, now we have mental aberrations, aneurysm, stroke, fit, psychotic episode, migraine, mental episode, hypnagogic dream, bad dream, and drugs, and on top of all that, a liar.

i burnt those pages along with all other pages, and a notebook, and the stationery that shrunk on my coffee table, after a very disturbing telephone conversation with my wasted ex-husband, because this shit freaked me the fuck out. your pansy ass would have been at the hospital.

i dug the spiral from the notebook out of the fireplace with the chunks and ashes about a year later.

the first poem i channeled, i mailed to the person it's message was meant for and it was returned months later refused and unopened. i kept that for years, but two years ago my basement backed up with sewage after a storm about two feet, and i lost it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

well what do you think a tree of the knowledge of good and evil is? is it a rare species of tree whose fruit alters a human genetically, and seemingly abruptly when eaten? could be. but a lot of times trees and fruit, and vines and fruit, and lots of other planting analogies are used in the bible to represent other things, like people, or manifestations, or results.

In this case it could mean that Eve was instucted not to procreate
with a specific (satanic) race of people.
It becomes clearer when you read a direct translation of the original
hebrew text.

jan.

 

[gmilam]

You don't have to eradicate religion (or even dismiss it as mythology) to fight against it being taught as science. If the atheist side were less confrontational they might get further with that particular agenda. I grew up in part of the bible belt, and we never learned anything but the theory of evolution and the scientific method in our science classes. The concepts of creationism were taught in social studies. Everything that people want taught was taught. Evolution, or rather natural selection, wasn't taught as something that replaces the Bible or christianity, because ... well, it doesn't. The stuff the Bible and Christianity teaches are irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution. There is no reason to even bring them up. Of course, such approaches would have gone a long way in avoiding the current situation, not so much in addressing it. By attacking such beliefs as mythology and false, you back the other group into a corner (where, unfortunately, the lash back with both bad science AND bad theology). As far as I can tell, the only thing in such creationist/intelligent design theories that even begin to approach science is the idea of irreducible complexity. Discussing that in schools (in science class), and discussing the latest findings and theories regarding such things as light-sensitive organs that eventually DO evolve into eyeballs, does in fact further the education of a child. They learn more. They learn to pit science against science, rather than religion against science. "Because God said so" should NEVER be an answer given to a student, but talking about the weaknesses in a theory (on either side of the debate), and discussing its weaknesses in an attempt to refine it is what the scientific method is all about, and should be lauded, not fought.

IMHO

Maybe if liberal Christians such as yourself took a stand against these fundamentalists, then people wouldn't see it as an atheist agenda.

 

[SolusCado]

Maybe if liberal Christians such as yourself took a stand against these fundamentalists, then people wouldn't see it as an atheist agenda.

Believe me, I do. Except I still consider myself a fundamentalist Christian (as I said before, it isn't the Bible to which I object, but rather mainstream interpretations of it). I object to irrationality, judgement, intolerance, and arrogance on both sides of the fence.

 

[spidergoat]

well what do you think a tree of the knowledge of good and evil is? is it a rare species of tree whose fruit alters a human genetically, and seemingly abruptly when eaten? could be. but a lot of times trees and fruit, and vines and fruit, and lots of other planting analogies are used in the bible to represent other things, like people, or manifestations, or results.

Mushrooms. They don't alter us genetically, but they do help to reveal knowledge. McKenna has a theory about how the presence of magic mushrooms stimulated brain development in early Africans.

I think this was probably just a metaphor for our evolution from an animal to a thinking human being. Ancient Jews could see that we were different than animals in this way, and created this myth to explain it.

 

[gmilam]

Believe me, I do. Except I still consider myself a fundamentalist Christian (as I said before, it isn't the Bible to which I object, but rather mainstream interpretations of it). I object to irrationality, judgement, intolerance, and arrogance on both sides of the fence.

Most fundies I know would consider you an atheist.

FYI - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7118715.ece