[W:1396] Questions that atheists are afraid to answer

[tecoyah]

If I had reason to believe, I'd believe. Again, because of the unlikelihood of the belief, the standards for what proof would be required is high. But, I gave you two very specific standards for what proof I'd accept.

It will not accept what you type, then claim you did not answer before asking again and repeat over and over again. Once you ask it a question it will dodge until placing you on ignore awaiting the next victim from under its bridge.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Morality is an arbitrary function of society and individual perception/value judgement that humankind developed as a form of law for behavior within the construct. As stated my morality is different than your own which is different from anyone elses, this renders it rather pointless to anyone but the individual. Ethics however involve actual action and thought in the whole and thus bare scrutiny.

A couple of observations:

One is that the view of morality you describe is pretty Nietzschean and relativistic. I guess one could also say sociological and anthropological (as in ethnological). You have gotten to, or achieved, a position sufficiently outside of your system and from this vantage look at all systems. But you do not see those systems in a very positive light. They are sets of laws set up by authority to control behavior. In other posts of yours I've gotten the impression that you do not view 'authority' in a favorable light.

So you cannot believe in your own moral system -- for example the one that you were raised in, Catholicism which is also to say Christian -- because (as you formerly said) you found it insufficient for different reasons. But not the least of those could be simply that you see these systems, and that system, as 'arbitrary' -- could be this, could be that: no solid and defined rule.

The implication here is, of course, that you cannot conceive of any absolute moral code, that much is obvious, but I would also have to speculate that you do not think that it is possible to arrive at any absolute value-definition either. I mean independent of 'divine revelation' which, of course, you would have difficulty 'believing in'. At least I'd be inclined to imagine you'd have this view since, as you say, men invent their systems for reasons of control. (But I would interject here that when you described your mother's mystical vision you did recognize, from what would seem supernatural sources, what you described as 'expansive and beautiful'. Though it is true that your mother said that the vision of God she had was ultimately her own self or Self. But that capital S implies something like 'atman' or divine soul so that is potentially problematic).

But then you allude to, without saying anything very specific, to the individual who, I gather, you give if not absolute power to but a large degree of power (to form moral and ethical codes). I assume though that you believe that an individual, any individual, chooses or makes up his or her moral code. And the only person that can be or should be concerned about morality would be and should only be that individual.

I do think I understand when you contrast ethics as-against morality. Moral codes are more often than not defined through religious organizations. One receives a moral code from divine sources (this seems to have been the case for the Hebrew prophets), but 'ethics' is perhaps more similar to our jurisprudential systems: they are determined through social and, in our own case, a democratic process. And any law is beyond doubt seen as 'man-made' and as such open to discussion as the need may be.

Similarly, one can discuss any ethical precept or code and, in a democratic society at least, ethical codes can and do change as people change, as culture changes, as social mores change.

 

[Drowning Man]

No, this is all over the place, now your speaking of "standards" of "proof" and say this must be "high".

An incredible story takes more evidence to believe than a mundane one, right?
If I say that I caught a fish in the local lake, that would be believable, right? Maybe not completely certain. Maybe you'd want some evidence. But, believable.
If I say that I caught a fish that was an inch larger than any other fish reported to have been caught in that lake, that would be harder to believe right? Still within the realm of possibility, but maybe you would like to demand evidence before you actually believe it.
If I say that I caught a talking fish, that's much less believable. Maybe not completely outside of the realm of possibility, but would need strong evidence before you would actually believe it.

I would say a "God" or set of gods is also something that can't be easily believed. It requires strong evidence otherwise we shouldn't believe it. It requires a different standard of proof from believing a regular fish story...

You clearly have no clue, you'd likely consider the evidence and then find a reason to reject it, that's all you'd do and your obvious inability to be specific, clear, precise is what tells me this, I have no confidence whatsoever that you'd not simply reject whatever is shown you.

What you mean to say by this is that I won't accept the flimsy evidence that YOU claim is good enough. That may be true, but don't claim I didn't answer your questions or that I was afraid to answer your questions. I simply gave you answers that you don't like. And that is your problem...not mine.

 

[tecoyah]

A couple of observations:

One is that the view of morality you describe is pretty Nietzschean and relativistic. I guess one could also say sociological and anthropological (as in ethnological). You have gotten to, or achieved, a position sufficiently outside of your system and from this vantage look at all systems. But you do not see those systems in a very positive light. They are sets of laws set up by authority to control behavior. In other posts of yours I've gotten the impression that you do not view 'authority' in a favorable light.

So you cannot believe in your own moral system -- for example the one that you were raised in, Catholicism which is also to say Christian -- because (as you formerly said) you found it insufficient for different reasons. But not the least of those could be simply that you see these systems, and that system, as 'arbitrary' -- could be this, could be that: no solid and defined rule.

The implication here is, of course, that you cannot conceive of any absolute moral code, that much is obvious, but I would also have to speculate that you do not think that it is possible to arrive at any absolute value-definition either. I mean independent of 'divine revelation' which, of course, you would have difficulty 'believing in'. At least I'd be inclined to imagine you'd have this view since, as you say, men invent their systems for reasons of control. (But I would interject here that when you described your mother's mystical vision you did recognize, from what would seem supernatural sources, what you described as 'expansive and beautiful'. Though it is true that your mother said that the vision of God she had was ultimately her own self or Self. But that capital S implies something like 'atman' or divine soul so that is potentially problematic).

But then you allude to, without saying anything very specific, to the individual who, I gather, you give if not absolute power to but a large degree of power (to form moral and ethical codes). I assume though that you believe that an individual, any individual, chooses or makes up his or her moral code. And the only person that can be or should be concerned about morality would be and should only be that individual.

I do think I understand when you contrast ethics as-against morality. Moral codes are more often than not defined through religious organizations. One receives a moral code from divine sources (this seems to have been the case for the Hebrew prophets), but 'ethics' is perhaps more similar to our jurisprudential systems: they are determined through social and, in our own case, a democratic process. And any law is beyond doubt seen as 'man-made' and as such open to discussion as the need may be.

Similarly, one can discuss any ethical precept or code and, in a democratic society at least, ethical codes can and do change as people change, as culture changes, as social mores change.

Well stated and we seem to understand each other.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

An incredible story takes more evidence to believe than a mundane one, right?

No, the label "incredible" is applied subjectively, it is chosen based on one's own prejudices, beliefs, desires etc as is "mundane".

If I say that I caught a fish in the local lake, that would be believable, right? Maybe not completely certain. Maybe you'd want some evidence. But, believable.
If I say that I caught a fish that was an inch larger than any other fish reported to have been caught in that lake, that would be harder to believe right? Still within the realm of possibility, but maybe you would like to demand evidence before you actually believe it.
If I say that I caught a talking fish, that's much less believable. Maybe not completely outside of the realm of possibility, but would need strong evidence before you would actually believe it.

No, I disagree, there's no "strong" about it, the claim either is or is not supported by observational evidence, superlatives like "strong" and "incredible" reflect only one's own perception of what to expect, and that depends upon one's experiences and current beliefs.

I would say a "God" or set of gods is also something that can't be easily believed. It requires strong evidence otherwise we shouldn't believe it. It requires a different standard of proof from believing a regular fish story...

No, there's no different standard at all, a claim either is or is not consistent with evidence, your incredulity is just that, about you, not about the thing itself.

What you mean to say by this is that I won't accept the flimsy evidence that YOU claim is good enough. That may be true, but don't claim I didn't answer your questions or that I was afraid to answer your questions. I simply gave you answers that you don't like. And that is your problem...not mine.

No I mean you could never accept evidence because you do not know how to interpret evidence, at least I see no indication of that from you and most of the other atheists here.

There could be evidence for God right in front of you right now and you'd never perceive it because you do not know how to, this is the core of this problem, that your current beliefs about reality actually serve to prevent you from seeing reality.

You actually already believe there is no God, for you that is the actual world until you're convinced otherwise; because you see "God" as an "incredible" prospect, you already view the proposition with suspicion, nothing could be evidence because God is too fantastical a concept to believe, thus you are not open minded and if one is not open minded it can be very hard indeed to learn new things, especially things that cause us to question one's most deeply cherished beliefs.

 

[Drowning Man]

No, the label "incredible" is applied subjectively, it is chosen based on one's own prejudices, beliefs, desires etc as is "mundane".



No, I disagree, there's no "strong" about it, the claim either is or is not supported by observational evidence, superlatives like "strong" and "incredible" reflect only one's own perception of what to expect, and that depends upon one's experiences and current beliefs.

Really.

So if I tell you that I'm sitting on a chair right now at my house....you have just as much reason to believe me when I say that than if I tell you that I'm riding in a UFO with little green men in our upper atmosphere?

Is that really what you're trying to tell me?

Then I've got a bridge to sell you...

No I mean you could never accept evidence because you do not know how to interpret evidence, at least I see no indication of that from you and most of the other atheists here.

There could be evidence for God right in front of you right now and you'd never perceive it because you do not know how to, this is the core of this problem, that your current beliefs about reality actually serve to prevent you from seeing reality.

Explain "how" then? What different way are you interpreting the evidence such that you have a greater insight into what the evidence means?

You actually already believe there is no God,

Never said there is no God or set of gods. I said that I have no reason to believe in a God or set of gods.
Absence of belief is not belief in the absence.

for you that is the actual world until you're convinced otherwise; because you see "God" as an "incredible" prospect, you already view the proposition with suspicion, nothing could be evidence because God is too fantastical a concept to believe,

Again, not what I said. I put forth two very specific ways in which I would be convinced of a God or set of gods' existence. And I'll say it again.

Forms of evidence I would accept for belief in a God or set of gods:
1. Personal revelation
2. A logical proof that is both sound and valid with the conclusion that God or a set of gods exist

Again, you may not like the answer that I give, but that's not my problem. I did give what I believe would be sufficient evidence.

thus you are not open minded and if one is not open minded it can be very hard indeed to learn new things, especially things that cause us to question one's most deeply cherished beliefs.

I'm open minded...I just don't let my brain fall out.

I'm starting to think that you're the one that is being closed minded. You really don't care what I have to say, do you? You think you have me and my beliefs pigeon-holed. You want to claim that I believe in no God. I haven't said any such thing. You want to claim that no evidence would suffice. I gave clear criteria for what evidence would be sufficient.

I'm not sure you're interested in honest discussion at all. You just want to dictate what others believe based on your worldview.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Really.

So if I tell you that I'm sitting on a chair right now at my house....you have just as much reason to believe me when I say that than if I tell you that I'm riding in a UFO with little green men in our upper atmosphere?

Is that really what you're trying to tell me?

Then I've got a bridge to sell you...

If you are saying that you regard the prospect of God existing in the same way you think I'd regard the prospect of you riding in a UFO then we're getting somewhere, because very obviously God is already regarded as too fantastical, you cannot help but compare it with something you feel is on an equal level of fantastic.

So this begs the question, why do you regard God as fantastical in the first place, you've taken a proposition about reality "God exists" and immediately regard it as science fiction, utterly incredible, beyond belief and then you ask for evidence?

Explain "how" then? What different way are you interpreting the evidence such that you have a greater insight into what the evidence means?

I stopped regarding the prospect of "God" and the universe being "created" and so on with the customary atheist aversion when I was in my early 20s. I recognized that I had over many years constructed a narrative in my head that predisposed me to regard "God" as ludicrous, as frankly idiotic. When I began to clear my mind and try to develop a neutral view, one not based on prior beliefs, peer pressures, pride I started to simply regard it as a claim that might be true or false and decided to consider the arguments for and against without any prejudices, without any preconceived judging.

Only then was I able to honestly look and explore, because until then I already viewed the world in such a way that I had blocked myself from ever understanding evidence, I'd unwittingly conditioned myself so that I could not recognize evidence, in other words declaring myself an atheist actually prevented me from being anything else despite there being evidence, I was conditioned to always find a way to deny God, to always find a way to discount evidence, it was a self fulfilling belief.

Never said there is no God or set of gods. I said that I have no reason to believe in a God or set of gods.
Absence of belief is not belief in the absence.

Why do you have no reason to believe in God? is it because that despite your best honest efforts to identify evidence you cannot or is it because there might be evidence all over the place but you are blind?

You might claim its the former but I suspect its actually the latter, it was with me and it is with almost every atheist I discuss this with.

Again, not what I said. I put forth two very specific ways in which I would be convinced of a God or set of gods' existence. And I'll say it again.

Forms of evidence I would accept for belief in a God or set of gods:
1. Personal revelation
2. A logical proof that is both sound and valid with the conclusion that God or a set of gods exist

Again, you may not like the answer that I give, but that's not my problem. I did give what I believe would be sufficient evidence.

It is just words, you have no idea how you'd construct a proof, what would make it sound and valid, you claim you'd do something but can't say what that is, all you can do is give it a cute name like "logical proof that's sound and valid", this is a veneer, a cover, there's no substance to your position..

I'm open minded...I just don't let my brain fall out.

I'm starting to think that you're the one that is being closed minded. You really don't care what I have to say, do you? You think you have me and my beliefs pigeon-holed. You want to claim that I believe in no God. I haven't said any such thing. You want to claim that no evidence would suffice. I gave clear criteria for what evidence would be sufficient.

I'm not sure you're interested in honest discussion at all. You just want to dictate what others believe based on your worldview.

Do as you want, think what you want.

 

[Drowning Man]

If you are saying that you regard the prospect of God existing in the same way you think I'd regard the prospect of you riding in a UFO then we're getting somewhere, because very obviously God is already regarded as too fantastical, you cannot help but compare it with something you feel is on an equal level of fantastic.

No, I'm trying to get you to admit that an incredible claim takes more evidence to believe than a mundane one. It's really not that difficult. I know you are smart enough to see where I'm going and don't like the conclusion that must be drawn from that fact, but the fact remains... An incredible claim takes more evidence to believe than a mundane one.

So this begs the question, why do you regard God as fantastical in the first place, you've taken a proposition about reality "God exists" and immediately regard it as science fiction, utterly incredible, beyond belief and then you ask for evidence?

Absolutely. A seemingly magical being that is all kinds of powerful, knowledgeable, morally perfect, created the universe, parts water for people to travel through, creates storms of locusts, etc... Yes, absolutely it's a fantastical being.

And I'm not singling out your God in that way. I believe that Zeus, Odin, Allah, various claims of UFOs, elves and fairies and the like all fall under that same umbrella.

I stopped regarding the prospect of "God" and the universe being "created" and so on with the customary atheist aversion when I was in my early 20s. I recognized that I had over many years constructed a narrative in my head that predisposed me to regard "God" as ludicrous, as frankly idiotic. When I began to clear my mind and try to develop a neutral view, one not based on prior beliefs, peer pressures, pride I started to simply regard it as a claim that might be true or false and decided to consider the arguments for and against without any prejudices, without any preconceived judging.

Only then was I able to honestly look and explore, because until then I already viewed the world in such a way that I had blocked myself from ever understanding evidence, I'd unwittingly conditioned myself so that I could not recognize evidence, in other words declaring myself an atheist actually prevented me from being anything else despite there being evidence, I was conditioned to always find a way to deny God, to always find a way to discount evidence, it was a self fulfilling belief.

Huh... I find it usually the opposite. Believers shad the world with their belief and cannot see anything without their rose-colored glasses on. But, tell me, what is the evidence that you found so compelling?

 

[Drowning Man]

Why do you have no reason to believe in God? is it because that despite your best honest efforts to identify evidence you cannot or is it because there might be evidence all over the place but you are blind?

You might claim its the former but I suspect its actually the latter, it was with me and it is with almost every atheist I discuss this with.

OK, I'll bite.

I'm not sure how much math or philosophy you have, so bear with me.
IMO, there can be relatively bigger and smaller sized infinite sets.
For example, the infinite set of irrational numbers (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, etc...) is infinitely larger than the number of whole numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) This is because between each whole number, there are an infinite number of irrational numbers (between 3 and 4, there are an infinite number of decimal places).
In the same way, there are an infinite number of facts about the universe....but for each fact of the universe, there are an infinite number of things that could be true, but aren't. For example: 2+2=4 is a fact. 2+2=3, 2+2=3, 2+2=chair, etc...are all things that could be true, but aren't.

So the infinite number of things that could be true about the universe, but aren't, is infinitely larger than the set of true things about the universe.

Given that, unless we have specific reason to believe in something, IMO, we shouldn't.

It is just words, you have no idea how you'd construct a proof, what would make it sound and valid, you claim you'd do something but can't say what that is, all you can do is give it a cute name like "logical proof that's sound and valid", this is a veneer, a cover, there's no substance to your position..

Er...no. Please do some research. Soundness - Wikipedia
A valid proof is one where the premises are true.
A sound proof is one where the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises.

Example of a sound and valid proof.

Premise -- John is holding an apple or an orange
Premise -- John is not holding an apple

Conclusion -- John is holding an orange.

 

[weaver2]

I find it astounding given SH's posts about science and proof that he thinks the sentence below is self describing.

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

 

[bomberfox]

Sorry if you want me to love an entity above those i care for deeply that i see right before my eyes, give me some damn evidence or dont bother.

 

[bomberfox]

I find it astounding given SH's posts about science and proof that he thinks the sentence below is self describing.

Heh he is committing a fallacy Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would commit in his novels. It assumes we have exhausted all other alternatives. Thats not how this works, the alternative still has its own burden of proof.

 

[bomberfox]

No, the label "incredible" is applied subjectively, it is chosen based on one's own prejudices, beliefs, desires etc as is "mundane".



No, I disagree, there's no "strong" about it, the claim either is or is not supported by observational evidence, superlatives like "strong" and "incredible" reflect only one's own perception of what to expect, and that depends upon one's experiences and current beliefs.



No, there's no different standard at all, a claim either is or is not consistent with evidence, your incredulity is just that, about you, not about the thing itself.



No I mean you could never accept evidence because you do not know how to interpret evidence, at least I see no indication of that from you and most of the other atheists here.

There could be evidence for God right in front of you right now and you'd never perceive it because you do not know how to, this is the core of this problem, that your current beliefs about reality actually serve to prevent you from seeing reality.

You actually already believe there is no God, for you that is the actual world until you're convinced otherwise; because you see "God" as an "incredible" prospect, you already view the proposition with suspicion, nothing could be evidence because God is too fantastical a concept to believe, thus you are not open minded and if one is not open minded it can be very hard indeed to learn new things, especially things that cause us to question one's most deeply cherished beliefs.

Buh buh faith lolz. Hes too fantastical for you! My pink unicorn is too fantastical for you to study. Checkmate.

 

[watsup]

No, the label "incredible" is applied subjectively, it is chosen based on one's own prejudices, beliefs, desires etc as is "mundane".



No, I disagree, there's no "strong" about it, the claim either is or is not supported by observational evidence, superlatives like "strong" and "incredible" reflect only one's own perception of what to expect, and that depends upon one's experiences and current beliefs.



No, there's no different standard at all, a claim either is or is not consistent with evidence, your incredulity is just that, about you, not about the thing itself.



No I mean you could never accept evidence because you do not know how to interpret evidence, at least I see no indication of that from you and most of the other atheists here.

There could be evidence for God right in front of you right now and you'd never perceive it because you do not know how to, this is the core of this problem, that your current beliefs about reality actually serve to prevent you from seeing reality.

You actually already believe there is no God, for you that is the actual world until you're convinced otherwise; because you see "God" as an "incredible" prospect, you already view the proposition with suspicion, nothing could be evidence because God is too fantastical a concept to believe, thus you are not open minded and if one is not open minded it can be very hard indeed to learn new things, especially things that cause us to question one's most deeply cherished beliefs.

“Ones own prejudices, beliefs, and desires.”
Does any of that apply to you?

 

[watsup]

If you are saying that you regard the prospect of God existing in the same way you think I'd regard the prospect of you riding in a UFO then we're getting somewhere, because very obviously God is already regarded as too fantastical, you cannot help but compare it with something you feel is on an equal level of fantastic.

So this begs the question, why do you regard God as fantastical in the first place, you've taken a proposition about reality "God exists" and immediately regard it as science fiction, utterly incredible, beyond belief and then you ask for evidence?



I stopped regarding the prospect of "God" and the universe being "created" and so on with the customary atheist aversion when I was in my early 20s. I recognized that I had over many years constructed a narrative in my head that predisposed me to regard "God" as ludicrous, as frankly idiotic. When I began to clear my mind and try to develop a neutral view, one not based on prior beliefs, peer pressures, pride I started to simply regard it as a claim that might be true or false and decided to consider the arguments for and against without any prejudices, without any preconceived judging.

Only then was I able to honestly look and explore, because until then I already viewed the world in such a way that I had blocked myself from ever understanding evidence, I'd unwittingly conditioned myself so that I could not recognize evidence, in other words declaring myself an atheist actually prevented me from being anything else despite there being evidence, I was conditioned to always find a way to deny God, to always find a way to discount evidence, it was a self fulfilling belief.



Why do you have no reason to believe in God? is it because that despite your best honest efforts to identify evidence you cannot or is it because there might be evidence all over the place but you are blind?

You might claim its the former but I suspect its actually the latter, it was with me and it is with almost every atheist I discuss this with.



It is just words, you have no idea how you'd construct a proof, what would make it sound and valid, you claim you'd do something but can't say what that is, all you can do is give it a cute name like "logical proof that's sound and valid", this is a veneer, a cover, there's no substance to your position..



Do as you want, think what you want.

“Why do you regard GodAs fantastical in the first place?”
Actually, the question answers itself.

 

[Arlette]

Yes you're right it was a casual generalization.

But if a person chooses to call themselves an atheist then on that basis they make a statement about themselves, all atheists must have something in common after all, all atheists are after all, atheists.

Yes, all atheists have something in common. They are allergic to bullshit

 

[Mircea]

So that sweeping generalization would apply to Prof. John Lennox then, absurd, your position is absurd.

It's true.

In some cultures, it was Turtle who created Heaven & Earth.

Why?

Well, you can't have mountain gods if there are no mountains where you live.

People who live near volcanoes have volcano gods, and people who don't, don't.

Well that's an opinion, we all have them, the question is what conclusions can we draw from evidence.

It's not an opinion. It is established historical fact.

No one on Earth knew of the existence of cellular structures until someone first saw one in the year 1607 with a microscope.

Note that microscopes had existed for some time before then, but none were powerful enough to actually see a biological cell.

The Greeks were also the ones who invented Hell.

Earlier civilizations knew Earth was a sphere in an heliocentric solar system.

The Greeks screwed everything up with the flat-Earth-centric universe.

When the Greeks came across a particular word in a Sumerian-Akkadian text they were trying to translate, they mistranslated it because it didn't make sense to them with their flat-Earth-centric view.

Thus, Hell was born.

All of your beliefs are based on the misunderstandings of people who had little understanding of anything.

 

[Mircea]

Well again, I can't say much at a general level, but how did you establish that the Sumerian text is not somehow a distorted rendering of even earlier word of mouth Hebrew stories?

The Hebrew language did not exist until circa 1,100 BCE. Classical Biblical Hebrew is the Ugarit dialect of Aramaic without the case endings (nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, locative, vocative, instrumental et al).

The Book of Job is a plagiarized version of earlier texts from earlier civilizations who copied it from earlier civilizations and it ultimately traces back to Sumer.

The Book of Job contains 32 Sumerian-Akkadian loanwords.

If the Hebrews originally wrote the story, then they have no need for foreign loanwords.

If you're writing a book in English, you don't use Magyar words, unless you're copying from a Magyar original. The reason you use loanwords is because there is no word in your language and/or it cannot be translated.

For the Magyar word hianyerzet there is no possible English translation, so you'd leave the word as is.

The Hebrew texts say that Terah was chief priest for the god El Shaddai in Ur (his principle city in Akkad).

Where does Terah take his son Abram/Abraham and his daughter Serai/Sarah?

Um, to Haran in the Hurrian Kingdom. What a shocker.

Haran is the principle city for god known as Adad in the Hurrian language.

Adad, El Shaddai and Ninurta are one in the same.

It's like Ion, Ian, Johann and Juan. They're spelled and pronounced differently, but in English they all mean "John."

All knowledge of God was word of mouth it seems until Moses...

It's X-Moses, actually. You dishonor the real Sherlock Holmes.

In the Exodus Trilogy (Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus), every member of the tribes of Reuben, Simeon and Levi have Egyptian names while every member of the rest of the tribes have Canaanite names.

How can you possibly not know that?

What Egyptian would be stupid enough to name their child "emanated from?"

None.

Emanated from is rendered in Hebrew exactly as Egyptian: m-s-s (yes, Egyptian is a consonantal language just like West Semitic Languages like Aramaic of which Hebrew is based).

The word m-s-s is a suffix and always prefixed with the name of a god:

Ptahmoses: emanated from Ptah
Anmoses: emanated from An
Dedumoses: emanated from Dedu
Ankhmoses: emanated from Ankh
Rameses: emanated from Ra
Tutmoses: emanated from Toth

Are you writing this down?

Based on the evidence, I'd venture to guess the real name of X-Moses was Amenmoses: emanated from Amen.

The fanatical Yahweh freaks Hilkiah and Jeremiah would have been totally offended by the name Amenmoses, and so they just struck it from the text when they did their wholesale re-writing and editing of the texts leaving only the nonsensical "moses."

It would be like Williamson, Smithson, Stevenson or Johnson and being offended by "John" so Johnson becomes just "son."

That's what fanatics do.

And then morons have the gall to say, "We can't find any evidence of 'emanated from' in the Egyptian texts."

Well, duh, why would they? No one named their kid "emanated from."

And it was not "word of mouth."

..., so potentially for thousands of year God was spoken of, recalled in stories and so on.[/quote[

Yahweh appears in numerous Ugarit texts and we know the Hebrews plagiarized nearly all Psalms, Proverbs and Lamentations from the Ugarits as well as numerous other stories, like Leviathan. Hebrew texts that use Mount Zion were ripped from Ugarit texts that use Mount Zebulon and so on.

How do you know that?

Jesus was a member of the Essene sect who were outcast by the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The Essene sect sought to usurp the power of the Pharisees and Sadducees by having one of their own fake his death and pretend to come back to life.

Jesus got suckered into it, the coup attempt failed and so Jesus fled to save his own life.

When does Jesus enter Jerusalem after he died?

That's a trick question because he never does, and he cannot show his face lest the Romans and Pharisees kill him for real.

If I wanted the [known] World to know I was the Truth; the Way; and the Light, then I die and come back to life and do what?

Hide from the World?

Because that's exactly what Jesus did.

 

[Mircea]

That's not true, pretty much all "contradictions" can be reconciled if one is prepared to consider alternative possibilities.

The Hebrews bought Sheckem for 100 shekels; or Simeon and Levi murdered the men of Shekem to gain control of the town.

Joseph's brothers wanted to murder him, but Reuben intervened and suggested they sell Joseph to a passing trade caravan and that's how Joseph got to Egypt; or it was Judah who intervened and suggested Joseph be thrown in a well and then a passing trade caravan heard Joseph's cries from help and "rescued" him only to take him to Egypt as slave.

Jesus was crucified on Thursday; or he was crucified on Friday.

I can do this all day long.

There is no reconciling those contradictions.

The game is up just as soon as they find the original E Text.

Your gonna crap your pants when you find out the real names of the gods that created Humans.

Christ did not mention Yahweh because he was Yahweh, ....[/quote[

No, that's the Nicaean Council talking. Yahweh and Jesus are two distinct deities and the only way to reconcile that polytheism is to invent the Trinity nonsense.

Do you not see a problem with, "....God gave his only begotten son...?

Yahweh is a god, and specifically the god who created this Universe so Yahweh can fart out another Universe if he wants or vomit up another son, right?

That's like a Billionaire whining he had to pay a penny in taxes. You want me to cry a river?

you think Yahweh is the same entity as the Father, but that's not true.

Not understanding something does not constitute a refutation of that thing.

The text is crystal clear.

On the Day of Atonement, you are cleansed of all sins by the High Priest as he performs the ritual sacrifice.

If an ordinary man....well, actually, every high priest that existed was also a Christ....can cleanse you of your sins by sacrificing an animal, then there is no need for a human-god-thing to die, right?

 

[Mircea]

Well we can get a "yes" or a "no" depending on what assumptions we make, your assumptions lead to a "no" and my assumptions lead to a "yes" nothing to do with evidence at all, there's no evidence that the texts are not supernaturally inspired.

Then the only logical conclusion one could possibly draw is that your god has dementia, because he cannot remember things and contradicts himself constantly.

Seriously, what kind of god is confused as to when his "only begotten son" died?

Gosh, I have only one son and I cannot remember if he died on a Thursday or a Friday.

What kind of supposedly enlightened beings condone dictatorships, slavery, are anti-democratic and treat women as 2nd class citizens?

Those supposedly enlightened beings would be Humans claiming to speak what a non-existent gods wants in order to maintain control over others.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

From a John Berryman poem

incomprehensible to man your ways.
May be the Devil after all exists.
”I don’t try to reconcile anything” said the poet at eighty,
”This is a damned strange world.”

If I had reason to believe, I'd believe. Again, because of the unlikelihood of the belief, the standards for what proof would be required is high. But, I gave you two very specific standards for what proof I'd accept.

This interests me.

Today by the way — the whole week of course — is within Christianity one of great meaning & consequence. It is through the acts of this week, or those remembered and echoed in this week, which substantially describe what Christianity is in its most essential aspect. The closer the study of it, the more amazing and in a way *unlikely* it all seems. Unlikely in the sense of miraculous.

I have to say I don’t focus too much on all these contra-arguments going on here — the chosen domain of those who feel so strongly the need to demolish the possibility of believing in divinity, but more specifically in the very specific meanings that Christianity celebrates. It is not however that I cannot or refuse to at least understand the arguments brought forth to oppose religious belief. No, I think I understand them quite well.

But I am really quite interested in this phrase: “If I had reason to believe, I'd believe.” He [Drowning Man] means I gather that if sufficient proofs were offered then he would believe in God and Divinity. But no proofs can be found. And there are dozens and hundreds of possible ways to undermine seeing & believing.

We argue ourselves into boxes and in boxes we remain . . .

In my case it is somewhat the opposite: I have very good reasons *to want* to believe in the Incarnation, and to intuitively grasp what is meant and portended in the Incarnation, the Mission of Sacrifice, and in the Resurrection. A whole new world is opened up. It wasn’t there before, and then it was there. A whole new world of meaning & value flowed out of it.

Not only do I have ‘reasons’ to believe, I believe that I recognize that the Christian revelation and what it means is in all senses that I can discern of another and indeed a special order.

 

[Variant]

That's her point - some - people do, can, conclude God exists from experiencing and observing such things.

People can and do jump to conclusions all the time. We're talking about what evidence is.

But that assumes that "God" is just an aspect of nature, that the creator is predictable, conforms to laws of science, why is that to be assumed?

You have misunderstood me here. I am talking about what evidence must look like from my perspective (in general). The topic of the thread. I gave a quick summary.

God as concept/idea is certainly free to correspond to a real thing that we couldn't provide evidence for, we just wouldn't be able to tell if it actually exists.

There is a huge misconception today in the understanding of science, it seems to me that many people regard "science" and the "scientific method" as some kind of algorithm that can discover truths, discover knowledge, so long as we all just follow the rules, the "method".

You cannot prove that everything we observe is the result of mechanistic laws operating amidst inert matter and energy, this is impossible to prove it can only be believed,

So demanding that God be open to scientific study is self defeating, for if God is not mechanistic, if God has innate will, innate self then you'll not discover God and all because the tools you have chosen to use are incapable of seeing God.

I haven't mentioned the scientific method. I am talking about how if we can not observe the difference between A and ~A we can't understand that thing, and can not evidence the thing and knowledge of that thing will be impossible.

This isn't just a requirement for science it is a requirement for thought itself.

One misconception you seem to have is that these rules apply to only the scientific method. They would apply to all methods. To employ a rational method I still need to know what it looks like when I am right or wrong about the concept in question and define the concept in such a way that I could tell whether it exists and then be able to identify it when it is present.

Otherwise I could be looking directly into the heart of the thing and not be able to say I am looking at it, or I could be making a rational inference about a thing and not be able to tell if that inference actually told me that the thing existed.

Now consider:

View attachment 67325803
... edited for brevity.

I think sloppy thinking should and would allow us to make whatever conclusions we like. That seems to be the goal here.

Indeed but then so what of the grand "theory of everything" could we say we have evidence for that theory (if we had it) if as you say, something that explains everything can't have evidence?

You raise a good point here I think, because if something did, if something actually was the explanation for everything then what are we going to do?

Even a "grand theory of everything" would only explain things if observations could be made that COULD contradict it. Meaning when we needed to use it to make predictions in real life that could go either way, it would predict what would happen.

What I am saying is that when you present a concept that explains every possible observation meaning it can't be contradicted in any outcome, it is essentially meaningless.

But I don't agree, look at the definitions of atheism, one established definition is "the assertion that there is no God", well I'm afraid I just do not see how a person making such a claim can insist that it is not they who carry a burden of proof but someone else.

Regardless of how you would like to define atheists to have an easier argument, the argument would never get THAT easy.

That's not the burden of proof, you would be burdened there with defining the thing you are talking about so that we can talk about evidence based approaches to it.

You seem happy to argue over the definition of an atheist, why would you not want to define the topic you say you wanted to talk about at the beginning of the thread?

This makes me doubt either your seriousness or intellectual integrity, and it's not a convincing way to argue.

If you assert "there is no evidence for X" them I'm sorry that's you making the proposition and so that's you carrying the burden not the theist, it is you who must have a way to sift evidence and decided if it is or is not evidence for God.

My position is that we can't have evidence for X if it is defined in such a way that evidence for or against it look the same.

Define God in a way where workable distinctions between God and not God are possible and then show me some evidence where such a distinction is reached and you've got me.

I define myself as an atheist because I don't believe in Gods due to lack of evidence, and you asked how I approach evidence.

You have been answered.

 

[Drowning Man]

In my case it is somewhat the opposite: I have very good reasons *to want* to believe in the Incarnation, and to intuitively grasp what is meant and portended in the Incarnation, the Mission of Sacrifice, and in the Resurrection. A whole new world is opened up. It wasn’t there before, and then it was there. A whole new world of meaning & value flowed out of it.

Not only do I have ‘reasons’ to believe, I believe that I recognize that the Christian revelation and what it means is in all senses that I can discern of another and indeed a special order.

When I'm talking about reason to believe, I'm really not talking about reasons *to want* to believe. I mean, I have reason *to want* to believe that my wallet is full of $100's.

I'm really talking about reasons to believe in the existence of something. I have reason to believe in the existence of the chair I'm sitting on, regardless of my desire not to fall on my butt as I'm typing.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I'm really talking about reasons to believe in the existence of something.

I may soon turn back into the Cheshire Cat but for now:

Oh joy ! that in our embers
Is something that doth live,
That nature yet remembers
What was so fugitive!

Keep bringing me your doubts,
I know what to do with them.

 

[Drowning Man]

I may soon turn back into the Cheshire Cat but for now:

Oh joy ! that in our embers
Is something that doth live,
That nature yet remembers
What was so fugitive!

Keep bringing me your doubts,
I know what to do with them.

Keep bringing me your unsubstantiated claims. I know what to do with those, too.