Atheists what is your proof?

[jpappl]

If you're going to make such a statement, kindly note the flaws in the interpretations I have provided.

It isn't flaws in the interpretations you provided.

What you are missing or don't see from our argument is that you are simply changing the meaning of words to allow for such interpretations.

So you're interpretations are of interpretations themselves. How far can we stretch the meaning of a word to make it fit ?

Based on your idea, you would need to learn Hebrew, then attempt to interpret the words in their time and meaning and see if there is anything else to it.

I guess my question is.

After you have done this and IF you find that there isn't support for your theory. What then ?

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

Day as an example, even in today's language can mean an epoch, and yet you refuse to accept that as a meaning for Genesis 1's use of the word

I have never heard the word "day" to have the same meaning as "epoch"

Can you point me to any link that shows this. Other than a religious site that makes the claim the bible really mean't a day to mean an epoch.

Upon what grounds? You have yet to provide any, which is why your position is barely worth my time to respond.

Ironically, you are chastising CC for using the word "day" where it say's "day" and not "epoch" when it in fact say's "day"

:shrug:

 

[SolusCado]

It isn't flaws in the interpretations you provided.

What you are missing or don't see from our argument is that you are simply changing the meaning of words to allow for such interpretations.

So you're interpretations are of interpretations themselves. How far can we stretch the meaning of a word to make it fit ?

Based on your idea, you would need to learn Hebrew, then attempt to interpret the words in their time and meaning and see if there is anything else to it.

I guess my question is.

After you have done this and IF you find that there isn't support for your theory. What then ?

I have done this with some words and phrases already, but there is certainly much more to be researched. Day is an excellent example. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 is "yom" which has three meanings - a 12hr period of time, a 24hr period of time, and an indefinite period of time. A quick search on Google finds this page, which provides a lot more textual analysis in support of this theory.

As for what I will find at the end of that road, I don't know - we shall see. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. However, the vastness of the knowledge discrepancy between then and now leads me to doubt there could possibly be anything that COULD invalidate the theory. Essentially, that would require there being a known word that would be correct, but the authors using a different word (or phrase). But then, the entire basis of my argument is regarding the stuff they had no concept of, and as such wouldn't have any language to describe it. Atoms, matter, energy, stars (as balls of gas), the universe itself, the planet (as a spherical body), dark matter, the big bang, natural selection, evolution, etc. are all concepts that would have been foreign to these people, and their language would only be able to describe the concepts as best they could, given some divine enlightenment.

 

[spidergoat]

There was no first human, much less first couple.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,

I have never heard the word "day" to have the same meaning as "epoch"

Can you point me to any link that shows this. Other than a religious site that makes the claim the bible really mean't a day to mean an epoch.

Ironically, you are chastising CC for using the word "day" where it say's "day" and not "epoch" when it in fact say's "day"

:shrug:

They didn't have a word for epoch that was separate from day, so they COULDN'T have used it. I did just post a link, though it IS from a religious site. I'll keep looking, but it's going to be difficult to find a textual analysis of Hebrew that isn't in fact religious. I mean... the two are kind of permanently intertwined.

Unfortunately, it will have to wait until tomorrow, as I have a play to go to this evening... Until then my friends!

 

[gmilam]

So, to apply their vision of God to our modern-day knowledge, we must apply our modern-day knowledge to what they did write down. Noah's environment is a prime example. Regardless of the word they used, his knowledge of "the world" would have been restricted to the areas travelled by him and those he knew (and those that they knew). Thus, a depiction of a flood of the world he knew would have simply used words that apply to "the world". Just because we have since learned that the world is much bigger doesn't magically increase the scope of the flood, as you would attempt to make people believe.

So, logically, why would "god" have a man build a boat to carry two of every animal for a local flood?

Seriously, doesn't it strike you as more reasonable that it is just a made up fairy tale?

 

[SolusCado]

So, logically, why would "god" have a man build a boat to carry two of every animal for a local flood?

Seriously, doesn't it strike you as more reasonable that it is just a made up fairy tale?

First of all, recognizing that it was a regional flood, it would have been regional animals as week - probably those from Noah's farm and flocks - which he would have needed to rebuild after the flood. Frankly, that would be the logical action of any man who knows a flood is coming, whether "God" told him to or not. I don't see any reason for calling it a fairy tale, particularly since we have evidence that there was indeed a massive regional flood at that point in time.

 

[iceaura]

I don't see any reason for calling it a fairy tale, particularly since we have evidence that there was indeed a massive regional flood at that point in time.

You have a point. Drop the evil of everyone in the world, Noah's unusual virtue, the huge ocean going boat built in record time by one dry land farmer, forty days rain, the saving of all the animals in the world, the covering of the mountains, the first appearance of the rainbow, God's promise not to do it again, and so forth,

bring it down to a man rescuing his livestock from a bad flood while leaving the neighbors to drown,

and there's no reason to call it a fairy tale.

There's no reason to call it the story of Noah's Ark, either.

 

[gmilam]

First of all, recognizing that it was a regional flood, it would have been regional animals as week - probably those from Noah's farm and flocks - which he would have needed to rebuild after the flood. Frankly, that would be the logical action of any man who knows a flood is coming, whether "God" told him to or not. I don't see any reason for calling it a fairy tale, particularly since we have evidence that there was indeed a massive regional flood at that point in time.

Well, yeah - there have always been floods. And there have always been stories of floods. That's not the point. The point is, what does it have to do with life, the universe and everything?

I once had a concept of god much like yours.. and I tried to reconcile it with what I was taught as a child - both biblically and scientifically. I never could. In fact the more I studied the Bible, the more I came to see that if it's not literally true, then it's not really the word of "god". It may be a good book, it may have many lessons in life. But it's not any more valid than any other good book of stories.

And, for better or worse, the rocks in the Earth say it ain't literally true...

The bible still has some good stories. In fact, as allegory, they can be really good... But, as allegory, they can be opened up to many different interpretations. And any truth that was there gets lost in the variations of the interpretations.

 

[jpappl]

They didn't have a word for epoch that was separate from day, so they COULDN'T have used it. I did just post a link, though it IS from a religious site. I'll keep looking, but it's going to be difficult to find a textual analysis of Hebrew that isn't in fact religious. I mean... the two are kind of permanently intertwined.

Unfortunately, it will have to wait until tomorrow, as I have a play to go to this evening... Until then my friends!

Did they have a word for "many" or "a lot: or "more damn days then we can count"

If they really understood it as over eons or epochs of time, of course in their own language, they would, at least you would think there would be something added to "day" to elude to the idea of an unknown number of days.

But again, see for yourself what the text is in Hebrew and go from there.

 

[SolusCado]

And, for better or worse, the rocks in the Earth say it ain't literally true...

I'm sorry, but if you're going to hold fast to the notion that the Bible says that the entire universe was created in 6 24-hr periods, then everything you say connected to that assumption is just going to be ignored by me - because that isn't what I believe it says.

The rest of your post I don't necessarily disagree with, though I obviously believe there is more to it.

 

[SolusCado]

You have a point. Drop the evil of everyone in the world, Noah's unusual virtue, the huge ocean going boat built in record time by one dry land farmer, forty days rain, the saving of all the animals in the world, the covering of the mountains, the first appearance of the rainbow, God's promise not to do it again, and so forth,

bring it down to a man rescuing his livestock from a bad flood while leaving the neighbors to drown,

and there's no reason to call it a fairy tale.

There's no reason to call it the story of Noah's Ark, either.

The Bible doesn't call it the story of Noah's Ark; we do. And incidentally, the boat wasn't built in record time, and it wasn't built by one man. 40 days of rain isn't so impossibly rare to believe it couldn't have happened - though evidence suggest there was certainly more to it than just rain. As for the other stuff, that gets into the core of ANY spriritual person's beliefs, and I think the root of the difference between atheists and theists.

Atheists (in general) like to characterize theists as foolish, superstitious idiots that ignore science or try to shoehorn science into their faith - and while that may certainly apply to plenty, it doesn't apply to all - and more importantly it doesn't touch on the REASON theists believe. They may indeed be foolish, superstitious, or an idiot that tries to mangle science in an effort to make it fit with their beliefs, but that is just ancillary (for most). The reason they believe is because they feel a spiritual connection to ordinary things that happen in life. They see patterns, and associate these patterns with a cause and effect that, for Christians, is described in the Bible. The countless "good stories" as you put it certainly teaches different morals, and those serve as lessons for those who hold the Bible dear. In fact, the more those lessons are born out in modern-day life, the stronger the conviction of the believer becomes. So, for most Christians, whether those stories are allegory or not is for the most part irrelevant to the way they choose to live their lives, based on the guidance provided in the Bible. The morals are valid, and the SPIRITUAL teachings are applicable to their everday life. Most Christians really don't care about a lot of the details, because for them it wouldn't matter if they were allegory or not. But that truth that gets born out in their lives, is personified as God. Perhaps the term was never meant to mean anything more than a metaphorical personification in the first place. Perhaps Moses didn't actually think he was talking to a being called God; he just used the term to apply to the things he couldn't explain. I don't actually think this to be the case, but it could be and it wouldn't have any practical implications for the modern-day Christian.

Now some, such as myself, find it a fascinating endeavor to try to put together all the different pieces, much as an archaeologist will try to put together a picture of every day ancient life. We aren't content to just follow the spiritual teachings, but we want to understand how everything came to be. We DO believe there is an actual deity that created everything, and I at least want to understand how that deity communicates to others. In the example of Noah, I think he was probably just another farmer who came from a long line of tribes and nomads that believed in a single God. They felt his presence in a great number of daily experiences (things that today we could no doubt trace back to specific scientific explanations - such as what causes a rainbow), and probably acted on such spiritual beliefs quite often - much as the tribes in other parts of the world that would connect a solar eclipse to bad crops, or a human sacrifice to good ones. In the case of the flood, there were probably a millions signs that led him to the idea that a flood was coming - possibly animals being driven from their habitats when smaller sections near the sea started flooding - unusuals winds, increased (or decreased) moisture in the air. And when the idea popped into his head that all of this meant a flood was coming - without any real causal evidence to that reality - he believe it was God speaking to him. And the story of Noah is one of faith and conviction. He continued to believe, despite the criticisms of his neighbors, and continued to prepare (he didn't let them drown btw, he tried to convince them that the flood was coming). When the flood did indeed come, it no doubt convinced him even further of the presence and reality of God.

Understandably, an atheist can read all of this and continue to not believe. And a theist will have their belief strengthened. It really just boils down to the presence or lack of faith. I understand that there are natural causes for all these things, but I believe that God created the natural causes, as well as the biological mechanisms that ultimately lead to the ideas that might pop into one's head from nowhere. I also understand that that may be all there is to it, and that there isn't a God on the outside that created everything. But it isn't what I feel, and it isn't what millions of others feel. It isn't what we believe. And insisting that things are allegory, or have natural causes, or were just superstitions, or whatever, really just all fit into this worldview anyway - so everything you are all saying as reasons why you don't believe are in fact the very reasons why I do.

 

[SolusCado]

Did they have a word for "many" or "a lot: or "more damn days then we can count"

If they really understood it as over eons or epochs of time, of course in their own language, they would, at least you would think there would be something added to "day" to elude to the idea of an unknown number of days.

But again, see for yourself what the text is in Hebrew and go from there.

From what I have read, the same word was used in both scenarios - but I do admit I don't know Hebrew well enough to go into detail. I have however spoken with others who do know Hebrew fluently, and this is a legitimate position. I have found that those who insist it IS referring to 24 hour periods are getting their direction from the Catholic Church, which was unfortunately responsible for quite a bit of scriptural mangling in its history. Modern linguists and scholars recognize Genesis to refer to multiple epochs. (I remember the fundamental conservatives among whom I was raised dismissed "modern scholars" as corruptions from the devil - and would ignore anything that came from "modern science". And I am right there with you all in condemning that attitude. Though I do still recognize their right to believe what they want. Which is why I moved away and don't talk to those people anymore.)

 

[phlogistician]

You applied your interpretation to a translation you selected, and ignored my interpretation. As long as that is your approach, you aren't worth talking to..

Wow, check out your ego. You should at least admit your position is ambiguous.

So much for the divine word of God. If God had wanted us to know exactly what he meant, he should have sent each of us a native tongue speaking messiah.

Now, stories that different people all told the same thing at the same time, in different languages, and different locations would have made a compelling argument. I wonder why the creator of the entire Universe was unable to do this?

 

[dhcracker]

Atheists of sciforums I've been wanting to do this for a long time so please let me. I want to ask you guys what your proof of there being no god is? Yes, there's no physical proof of Him but that's the only type of proof that's lacked. At the same time you cannot prove the opposite. Really, what's the harm in believing in Him? By the way, were your parents or grandparents atheists? If not, what made you or your parents convert? Also why do you use the theory of evolution as your backbone to being an atheist when it doesn't explain how the universe came to be? (and actually if you think about it doesn't even explain how we came to be, only how we evolved, therefore by definition creation backtracks further than evolution) e.g. I believe creation happened first and then evolution got us to looking like we do now.

My two cents as this is my fav discussion. What you must understand is everyone has their own point of view, some people look at the universe and see its grand design as it is called and believe there must be a designer. Some people are not convinced and believe our concept of a God is simply the mathmatical expression that inevitably lead to a grand universe. Now neither speculation has any more proof than the other does, it simply depends if your life experience and knowledge leads you to place a little faith in either the math and our own collective knowledge of tangible things, or if you place your faith in the notion of a grand design which implies a purpose for our existence and also implies an intelligence greater than ours that is possibly in control.

I am agnostic but so far with the evidence I see the speculation of grand design and the possibility of god like intelligence as a little better than random chance. I would not say that there is in fact a God, I would say I do hope that there was some purpose to this universe.. but I wouldn't be surprised to discover or reject any proof of the opposite.

As far as cosmic origins we have two schools of thought, or two speculations.. maybe 3 but all come down to two principles.

Either there is in fact a grand design and one universe with a perfect set of laws and constants for life to evolve and gain intelligence. Or maybe there is an infinite number of universes in different space/times that all have different laws, which makes it probable one of them at least is perfect for life.

However if there are multiple or infinite universes wouldn't there also be a strong possibility of a more perfect universe... or a super intelligence existing. Would this super intelligence be so familiar with its universe and the nature of space and matter that they could actually either simulate or create their own universe with life... and if thats possible are we maybe in such a simulation or universe.

These are all speculations, and I don't think someone that wouldn't say that there is in fact no God qualifies as an athiest.. that would make them agnostic like myself. I would say neither I am open to further evidence, I wish everyone was like that and yet respected a persons chosen speculation. Some people just need to have a belief about our origins, I can respect that so long as they tolerate other views and don't hold their faith up as science or fact. Other people see only evidence that we are the masters of the universe so far as we know, we are the only intelligence that may have any real effect on the evolution of the universe.. I respect that as well and it would be cool to be the supreme intelligent species of the universe if there are others and if we might be the first. In either case our evolution as a society is paramount, we have a responsibility to preserve life and expand it out into the universe. We have a responsibility to our fellow man regardless of race, nation, creed, or belief. We should all be getting along...

 

[phlogistician]

I have however spoken with others who do know Hebrew fluently, and this is a legitimate position. I have found that those who insist it IS referring to 24 hour periods are getting their direction from the Catholic Church,

Here's the thing, the Hebrew word for day, is 'yom' and it has been argued that a day, is not necessarily a 24 hour period, because of phrases such as 'back in the day' meaning a period of time, or 'in the day of the dinosaurs' because we know they had more than a day.

But the problem with that usage, is that Genesis numbers the days. The days are discrete entities, not a continuum. The days also have mornings and evenings. Clearly, we are not talking about a vague 'back in the day' use of the word.

So trying to say 'yom' wasn't what we understand to be a 24 hour day, is yet more apologetics.

 

[dhcracker]

Either to know the mind of God or to become Gods in our own right is our destiny, its the basic principle of the human condition to master his surroundings. If left alone indefinitely barring extinction we will one day evolve super intelligence, then maybe we will pass on the gift of life.

I don't think any intelligence is supernatural, it would be scientific.. knowledge is power my friends.

 

[dhcracker]

Here's the thing, the Hebrew word for day, is 'yom' and it has been argued that a day, is not necessarily a 24 hour period, because of phrases such as 'back in the day' meaning a period of time, or 'in the day of the dinosaurs' because we know they had more than a day.

But the problem with that usage, is that Genesis numbers the days. The days are discrete entities, not a continuum. The days also have mornings and evenings. Clearly, we are not talking about a vague 'back in the day' use of the word.

So trying to say 'yom' wasn't what we understand to be a 24 hour day, is yet more apologetics.

What if that story is a simple analogy or story that you might use to describe nuclear physics to a child with??

Maybe somebody will write down a new creation story someday that lines up with science, if we wrote the bible today don't you think the creation story would be far different?

Of course the bible's version is inaccurate but so what, do you think people back then would not want to figure out where they came from?

People today wonder if ancients had any contact with extra terrestrial intelligence and if that intelligence tried to help ancient man explain his origins. Its speculative I know but when I read things in the bible I can see a story I might tell someone that can't understand the actual events yet has a strong desire and need to know.

 

[gmilam]

I'm sorry, but if you're going to hold fast to the notion that the Bible says that the entire universe was created in 6 24-hr periods, then everything you say connected to that assumption is just going to be ignored by me - because that isn't what I believe it says.

The rest of your post I don't necessarily disagree with, though I obviously believe there is more to it.

That is just one of many examples. There are many other inconsistencies with reality.

What's your reasoning behind the long life spans mentioned in the old testament? The biblical "logic" is that man was not supposed to die. But Adam (damn him) ate fruit from the tree (or maybe him and Eve just had sex - depends who you ask) and introduced corruption to the world. But since evil hadn't fully manifested itself in everything, people still lived longer than we do now.

(If you want to read a really good creation myth about how "evil" works it's way into "perfection", I reccommened Tolkein's Music of the Ainur.)

And then there's the whole Jesus/salvation/human sacrifice idea which really does fall apart without an original sin scenario.

Yeah, it's easy to reconcile your faith when you ignore half of the book it's based on.

 

[SolusCado]

My two cents as this is my fav discussion. What you must understand is everyone has their own point of view, some people look at the universe and see its grand design as it is called and believe there must be a designer. Some people are not convinced and believe our concept of a God is simply the mathmatical expression that inevitably lead to a grand universe. Now neither speculation has any more proof than the other does, it simply depends if your life experience and knowledge leads you to place a little faith in either the math and our own collective knowledge of tangible things, or if you place your faith in the notion of a grand design which implies a purpose for our existence and also implies an intelligence greater than ours that is possibly in control.

I am agnostic but so far with the evidence I see the speculation of grand design and the possibility of god like intelligence as a little better than random chance. I would not say that there is in fact a God, I would say I do hope that there was some purpose to this universe.. but I wouldn't be surprised to discover or reject any proof of the opposite.

As far as cosmic origins we have two schools of thought, or two speculations.. maybe 3 but all come down to two principles.

Either there is in fact a grand design and one universe with a perfect set of laws and constants for life to evolve and gain intelligence. Or maybe there is an infinite number of universes in different space/times that all have different laws, which makes it probable one of them at least is perfect for life.

However if there are multiple or infinite universes wouldn't there also be a strong possibility of a more perfect universe... or a super intelligence existing. Would this super intelligence be so familiar with its universe and the nature of space and matter that they could actually either simulate or create their own universe with life... and if thats possible are we maybe in such a simulation or universe.

These are all speculations, and I don't think someone that wouldn't say that there is in fact no God qualifies as an athiest.. that would make them agnostic like myself. I would say neither I am open to further evidence, I wish everyone was like that and yet respected a persons chosen speculation. Some people just need to have a belief about our origins, I can respect that so long as they tolerate other views and don't hold their faith up as science or fact. Other people see only evidence that we are the masters of the universe so far as we know, we are the only intelligence that may have any real effect on the evolution of the universe.. I respect that as well and it would be cool to be the supreme intelligent species of the universe if there are others and if we might be the first. In either case our evolution as a society is paramount, we have a responsibility to preserve life and expand it out into the universe. We have a responsibility to our fellow man regardless of race, nation, creed, or belief. We should all be getting along...

I agree 100%.