Why are Atheists so set on Proving Christianity Wrong?

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

It's practically fact that the Moon orbits the Earth, as it is fact that the Earth orbits the sun. I don't need to find evidence to prove this to you because you're still living in the middle ages if you believe otherwise. There's photographic and video evidence from many different satellites in space of either. You and I probably haven't been in space personally, so I assume your point is that since we haven't seen it personally, we don't know for sure. I also assume you've never cracked open a human skull, and so don't know for sure what's inside under your logic, and therefore it's "blind faith" under your definition. But we still know there's a brain there, just like we still know the Earth orbits the sun, and the moon orbits the Earth.


Also you seem to be using the "you can't DISPROVE his existence" argument, to which I reply that a claim made without proof can be dismissed without proof. Simple as. If you accuse me of a murder and there's no proof that a murder was even committed, let alone that I did it, as far as anyone else is concerned I killed no one. Innocent until proven guilty. And until I see proof that isn't the Bible, nothing more than several conveniently chosen yet still jumbled-up witness testimonies, which could easily be put down to lies and/or insanity, there is no valid proof to back up the claim that God exists. Therefore, the claim can be dismissed without proof.

As much as it would be practically impossible to deny that the earth orbits the sun, or that the earth is round (though I have met two or three people in my life that truly, legitimately believe that the earth is flat), until either of us go to space, we can't know with absolute certainty. And when you throw philosophy into the mix, we can't even know for certain then. Which is what I choose to believe. I do not believe in absolute truth in any form. Let me digress for a minute to explain what I mean, cause I'm sure someone will misunderstand me if I don't.

What I consider to be absolute means that it must be A. Encompassing all cultures, thought processes, and sentient species, both worldly and alien, if any such sentient species exist (which I wholeheartedly believe that they do, not like UFO aliens, but just ones that live on other planets) and B. that it must be eternal. That is what I believe is absolute. And I don't think anything in this universe is. Even Newtonian physics breaks down if you take small enough particles traveling at fast enough speeds. We had to create quantum mechanics to explain the behavior of quarks and tachyon particles, because Newtonian physics just couldn't do it, thus it was not absolute. And I bet that we'll later on encounter something else that doesn't follow either of those physical laws either. As much as I love science, and believe that it can bring great things to mankind, I believe that its end goal of the Unified Field Theory (Theory of Everything) will not be realized, because it is a physical impossibility.

Now that I've explained that, let me continue. I specifically stated that blind faith is where there is contradictory evidence. Tell me, what evidence contradicts the thought that there is a brain in my skull? Just because I haven't seen it does not mean that I think it is a contradictory thought. I also can't see the wind, but I see the effects of the wind, just as I see the effects of the brain, but I consider neither to be based on blind faith, because they are based on the fact that every other human skull mankind has ever cracked open has had a brain in it, unless the body had gone through complete decomposition, in which case there wasn't, but we also have an explanation for that exception, which is that the body slowly breaks down after it dies, thus no brain.

Blind faith would be believing that there are a bunch of monkeys on typewriters in my skull. Not only is there no evidence for such a claim, but there is also evidence that contradicts that, i.e. every other freshly dead, and sometimes still alive if performing surgery or whatnot, human being has a brain in their skull. I still don't understand how you can say that what I'm saying is that believing there is a brain in my skull is blind faith based on my previous logic. Now, onto the next point.

You are correct, I am presenting the "you can't disprove god" argument. However, I only do this in the context of faith. As stated by Kouten, and restated by me, proof denies faith. Thus, in the context of faith, the inability to disprove god is a valid argument. Of course it has no bearing in a scientific setting, and I have never said that it does. Quite the opposite actually. Faith has no place in science. But that doesn't mean that science can't have a place in faith. Many people start with faith and then use science to verify it. Such as believing that god uses tools such as the Big Bang and evolution. That is faith with purpose, not blind faith. I know that the difference is very subtle, and perhaps that's why you're having a problem understanding it, but being a former Christian, this is how I verified my faith when I still had faith. After I lost that, I became an atheist because you are right: science has no place for the "you can't disprove it, therefore it exists" argument.

Ooh, I just thought of a really good example of how to really explain what I'm saying. Think of science as water and faith as sodium. If you start with a pool of water (science) and throw a chunk of sodium (faith) in, the reaction will be very volatile. However, if you start with a chunk of sodium (faith) and pour water (science) over it, there is no volatile reaction, and in fact nothing happens. So, science can't, by definition, accept faith, but purposeful faith (not blind faith though) CAN accept science. That is the point I'm trying to make.

Originally Posted by Aralith

The Bible, in addition to being contradictory, is wrong, and endorses things that today's society considers wrong. Therefore it is wrong.

*chuckles* you're funny.

So whatever today's society says is right and wrong is the ultimate truth? What about tomorrow's society, or don't forget yesterday's society. Suddenly massive concurrent opinion defines truth. Don't estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers I suppose would be the lesson here.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the usefulness of ancient sacred texts is that their writings allow you to break free of the contemporary societal thoughts and norms that are potentially bad or wrong?

Also, If you are going to say that the bible is contradictory, you should specify whether it is being self-contradictory or contradictory to other faiths. But I assumed you meant, self-contradictory, and if this is the case it would be nice if you perhaps at least listed the biblical passages you had in mind. If I wanted unjustified opinions I could go to the pub during $2 pint nights and listen to conspiracy theorists all night.

(Sorry if you already discussed this, I didn't read the other 3 pages.)

Originally Posted by morval

*chuckles* you're funny.

So whatever today's society says is right and wrong is the ultimate truth? What about tomorrow's society, or don't forget yesterday's society. Suddenly massive concurrent opinion defines truth. Don't estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers I suppose would be the lesson here.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the usefulness of ancient sacred texts is that their writings allow you to break free of the contemporary societal thoughts and norms that are potentially bad or wrong?

Also, If you are going to say that the bible is contradictory, you should specify whether it is being self-contradictory or contradictory to other faiths. But I assumed you meant, self-contradictory, and if this is the case it would be nice if you perhaps at least listed the biblical passages you had in mind. If I wanted unjustified opinions I could go to the pub during $2 pint nights and listen to conspiracy theorists all night.

(Sorry if you already discussed this, I didn't read the other 3 pages.)

Well, I thought that was a good point that was made, about society and all. Society, and the people within do and constantly are changing. Don't forget, in the history of the bible, there's a lot of stuff in there that is pretty darn repugnant in modern times. Take for example the institution of human slavery, perhaps one of the most degrading forms of social subordination there is. There are few things I'd consider more 'immoral' than the buying and selling of fellow human beings into a hopeless life of involuntary forced servitude and subservience. Even if a lot of people considered it perfectly good to own, buy and beat slaves back in the day, and actually tried to use the bible to justify the slavery of blacks across America, but it didn't necessarily make it a 'good' thing, did it? You don't think enslaving people could be a good thing, right?

I wouldn't consider it 'ultimate truth' (what is considered an ultimate truth anyway?), but the fact is, just because a religion says it's okay to do something, doesn't actually mean it's always the right thing to do. I think that goes for just about anything. Those among us who remain dedicated to the Bible, especially African Americans, should realize that while it may be 'morally correct' in some cases, the Bible's unrelenting endorsement of slavery can most certainly be considered immoral. Now, I've noticed some apologists have been quick to point out those verses such as Colossians 4:1, directing the slave owner to be kind to his slaves. I would just remind them that regardless of whether the master is sweet and gentle, or mean and cruel, slavery is still slavery and therefore is bereft of freedom and stripped of human dignity. In the final analysis, it is not the Bible which we have to thank for ending slavery, but modern secular society.

Of course, that may be a completely different case in the future, where something we see as being fine today would be considered very bad then, just like slavery back in the days of old and most of us recoiling at the thought of it.

*feels like she's pointing out the obvious*

One could also say that the Bible supports polygomy, such as the case of Solomon and his many many many wives. But in a case like that its clear the Bible is reporting as opposed to it instructing. Also, I'm without a Bible at work right now but can someone back me up on this Biblical view on slavery. I'm pretty sure there is an old testiment verse were at a certain time the slave is set free, and they have the choice, symbolized by an ear piercing if they want to remain with their master or not?

NuHylian

Originally Posted by Aralith

As much as it would be practically impossible to deny that the earth orbits the sun, or that the earth is round (though I have met two or three people in my life that truly, legitimately believe that the earth is flat), until either of us go to space, we can't know with absolute certainty. And when you throw philosophy into the mix, we can't even know for certain then. Which is what I choose to believe. I do not believe in absolute truth in any form. Let me digress for a minute to explain what I mean, cause I'm sure someone will misunderstand me if I don't.

Check this out: Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I consider to be absolute means that it must be A. Encompassing all cultures, thought processes, and sentient species, both worldly and alien, if any such sentient species exist (which I wholeheartedly believe that they do, not like UFO aliens, but just ones that live on other planets) and B. that it must be eternal. That is what I believe is absolute. And I don't think anything in this universe is. Even Newtonian physics breaks down if you take small enough particles traveling at fast enough speeds. We had to create quantum mechanics to explain the behavior of quarks and tachyon particles, because Newtonian physics just couldn't do it, thus it was not absolute. And I bet that we'll later on encounter something else that doesn't follow either of those physical laws either. As much as I love science, and believe that it can bring great things to mankind, I believe that its end goal of the Unified Field Theory (Theory of Everything) will not be realized, because it is a physical impossibility.

Let's say I see a chair before me. What it's made of I may not be able to know for certain. What it's used for, depending on my culture, I cannot know for certain. But it's foolish to say that I cannot know for certain that this chair is in front of me, and what's more, that it is an actual physical object. I don't need to be able to define it to know it exists. If we go into philosophy we could argue that the entirety of everything you see is nothing more than a construct of your own mind, but then I think there's a philosophical viewpoint which accounts for that, by saying that there must be some objective information and our mind interprets it subjectively. But I really hate that because then as far as I know in your mind we're arguing over whether or not smoking is legal or illegal. Or it could be so drastic a difference as you're not even on you're computer, you're sitting outside taking in the pink moonlight with a glass of Classical Music in your hand. So we might as well just behave as if we do have the same reality. But I digress.

Now that I've explained that, let me continue. I specifically stated that blind faith is where there is contradictory evidence. Tell me, what evidence contradicts the thought that there is a brain in my skull? Just because I haven't seen it does not mean that I think it is a contradictory thought. I also can't see the wind, but I see the effects of the wind, just as I see the effects of the brain, but I consider neither to be based on blind faith, because they are based on the fact that every other human skull mankind has ever cracked open has had a brain in it, unless the body had gone through complete decomposition, in which case there wasn't, but we also have an explanation for that exception, which is that the body slowly breaks down after it dies, thus no brain.

Blind faith would be believing that there are a bunch of monkeys on typewriters in my skull. Not only is there no evidence for such a claim, but there is also evidence that contradicts that, i.e. every other freshly dead, and sometimes still alive if performing surgery or whatnot, human being has a brain in their skull. I still don't understand how you can say that what I'm saying is that believing there is a brain in my skull is blind faith based on my previous logic. Now, onto the next point.

Back in the day they thought the control centre of the body was the heart, and so if I told someone that the thing that controls your body is in your head, they'd be like "No, but you feel emotions in your chest, so it must be there." That COULD be considered contradictory evidence. It's wrong contradictory evidence of course, but I'm just putting it out there. Not all evidence is right, but evidence usually has evidence to prove its validity.

Also with God, the contradictory evidence is the claims of his existence. Firstly coming to the conclusion that a God created the universe has always seemed illogical to me. "I exist, earth exists, the universe exists, therefore someone must have put it there". Secondly God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and I've outline this argument many times on this board so let's suffice to say that his existence is contradictory in and of itself.

You are correct, I am presenting the "you can't disprove god" argument. However, I only do this in the context of faith. As stated by Kouten, and restated by me, proof denies faith. Thus, in the context of faith, the inability to disprove god is a valid argument. Of course it has no bearing in a scientific setting, and I have never said that it does. Quite the opposite actually. Faith has no place in science. But that doesn't mean that science can't have a place in faith. Many people start with faith and then use science to verify it. Such as believing that god uses tools such as the Big Bang and evolution. That is faith with purpose, not blind faith. I know that the difference is very subtle, and perhaps that's why you're having a problem understanding it, but being a former Christian, this is how I verified my faith when I still had faith. After I lost that, I became an atheist because you are right: science has no place for the "you can't disprove it, therefore it exists" argument.

Ooh, I just thought of a really good example of how to really explain what I'm saying. Think of science as water and faith as sodium. If you start with a pool of water (science) and throw a chunk of sodium (faith) in, the reaction will be very volatile. However, if you start with a chunk of sodium (faith) and pour water (science) over it, there is no volatile reaction, and in fact nothing happens. So, science can't, by definition, accept faith, but purposeful faith (not blind faith though) CAN accept science. That is the point I'm trying to make.

I do like that example but I disagree with taking something as a truth until it's disproved, rather, being the sceptic I am, I don't believe anything until I have proof of it, or if I accept that the person I'm talking to knows his stuff and is thus probably telling the truth. Or unless I have no reason to believe otherwise, like if you tell me they've found a new type of bird in some obscure part of the world. It's not a completely ridiculous claim, and although I could go look it up afterwards, I wouldn't really care enough against it to disprove it.

Originally Posted by Asmodeus

Well, I thought that was a good point that was made, about society and all. Society, and the people within do and constantly are changing. Don't forget, in the history of the bible, there's a lot of stuff in there that is pretty darn repugnant in modern times. Take for example the institution of human slavery, perhaps one of the most degrading forms of social subordination there is. There are few things I'd consider more 'immoral' than the buying and selling of fellow human beings into a hopeless life of involuntary forced servitude and subservience. Even if a lot of people considered it perfectly good to own, buy and beat slaves back in the day, and actually tried to use the bible to justify the slavery of blacks across America, but it didn't necessarily make it a 'good' thing, did it? You don't think enslaving people could be a good thing, right?

I wouldn't consider it 'ultimate truth' (what is considered an ultimate truth anyway?), but the fact is, just because a religion says it's okay to do something, doesn't actually mean it's always the right thing to do. I think that goes for just about anything. Those among us who remain dedicated to the Bible, especially African Americans, should realize that while it may be 'morally correct' in some cases, the Bible's unrelenting endorsement of slavery can most certainly be considered immoral. Now, I've noticed some apologists have been quick to point out those verses such as Colossians 4:1, directing the slave owner to be kind to his slaves. I would just remind them that regardless of whether the master is sweet and gentle, or mean and cruel, slavery is still slavery and therefore is bereft of freedom and stripped of human dignity. In the final analysis, it is not the Bible which we have to thank for ending slavery, but modern secular society.

Of course, that may be a completely different case in the future, where something we see as being fine today would be considered very bad then, just like slavery back in the days of old and most of us recoiling at the thought of it.

*feels like she's pointing out the obvious*

I must not have been clear because we are on virtually the same page while it seems what you stated is in opossition to the quote I was responding to. My point was exactly the "obvious" that you were geting at. He stated that the bible contradicts what many people think as far as moral goes. To use your example, slavery. The bible says many times over to love your neighbor as yourself, yet the slave owner's did not. They tried to justify themselfes using God as their flying banner, yet they were all wrong. So if 18th century america (or say, contemporary Malasia) is YOUR society, then societal norm obviously cannot be true and thus cannot be used to measure absolute truths as Mr. Arilaith has done. It is a logical fallacy. Further more it is to easy to misconstrue a subjective persons interpretation of the bibe for actually biblical truth. (or perhaps not). these are two very different things and should be realized as such, especially in the example of the slave owners.

Originally Posted by Some Guy

The Bible, in addition to being contradictory, is wrong, and endorses things that today's society considers wrong. Therefore it is wrong.

How are those Red Herrings this morning?

Either way this is a lovely example of a bandwagon Fallacy thus your argument holds no grounds. I would point out more fallacys, but I am far to lazy. Good day*Tips hat and flies off*

Originally Posted by Puck

How are those Red Herrings this morning?

Either way this is a lovely example of a bandwagon Fallacy thus your argument holds no grounds. I would point out more fallacys, but I am far to lazy. Good day*Tips hat and flies off*

Man we already covered this, pay attention boy

Are you on crack.

Even Fundelmentalist Christians beleive that Adam and Eve where created ten thousand years ago, not eight hundred. And there are Billions of people in the world not 200 Million. You have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Clearly he's not talking about the modern day then, is he? He's saying that, supposedly, 800 years after Adam and Eve were created, there were 200 Million people. I don't know what he's going off, I'm just clarifying what he's saying.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Man we already covered this, pay attention boy

Sorry ;_;

Clearly he's not talking about the modern day then, is he? He's saying that, supposedly, 800 years after Adam and Eve were created, there were 200 Million people. I don't know what he's going off, I'm just clarifying what he's saying.

Well he spoke in present tense.

How do we have over 200 million people across the world in about 800 years after Adam and Eve were created. That is impossible to have just out of 2 people.

So I naturally assumed he was speaking about...the present...ya know?

I really need to keep up to date on these threads...

Originally Posted by Puck

So I naturally assumed he was speaking about...the present...ya know?

Well we can say that an author "is saying" something years after he died, or that "here we have the Tower of Babel" even though we're talking about the past, but I digress.

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

Check this out: Flat Earth Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, yeah, I know all about these guys. They actually have a forum that I would frequent just to see what kind of hair-brained solutions they could come up with for all the problems that a Flat Earth Model presents.

Let's say I see a chair before me. What it's made of I may not be able to know for certain. What it's used for, depending on my culture, I cannot know for certain. But it's foolish to say that I cannot know for certain that this chair is in front of me, and what's more, that it is an actual physical object. I don't need to be able to define it to know it exists. If we go into philosophy we could argue that the entirety of everything you see is nothing more than a construct of your own mind, but then I think there's a philosophical viewpoint which accounts for that, by saying that there must be some objective information and our mind interprets it subjectively. But I really hate that because then as far as I know in your mind we're arguing over whether or not smoking is legal or illegal. Or it could be so drastic a difference as you're not even on you're computer, you're sitting outside taking in the pink moonlight with a glass of Classical Music in your hand. So we might as well just behave as if we do have the same reality. But I digress.

See, here's where things are going to get tricky, and I might lose you on this one. Hell, it took me almost all year of my cultural anthropology class to understand it. And since I'm not sure what your knowledge on that subject is, I'm just going to try to explain it in really watered down terms to avoid confusion. Essentially what this comes down to is something called cultural relativism. That is, that all cultures will not only have different customs and rituals and what not, but also that the way they inherently think and view the world can be different from ours. Now, if you were to take you, from Wales, and me, an American, we obviously have some cultural differences, but for the most part we have the same thought processes and world views, as does most of the rest of the Western world.

However, if you were to go to a vastly different culture, it is entirely possible that they would not view that chair as one particular object, but rather many, because perhaps they count all the parts, rather than the whole. Or perhaps another culture does not view that chair as a physical object, but rather just a manifestation of physical labor. See where I'm going? I can pretty much guarantee you that there is some culture on this planet, or some alien species on another planet that would not view that chair the same way that you and I do, thus, that chair is not an absolute.

Back in the day they thought the control centre of the body was the heart, and so if I told someone that the thing that controls your body is in your head, they'd be like "No, but you feel emotions in your chest, so it must be there." That COULD be considered contradictory evidence. It's wrong contradictory evidence of course, but I'm just putting it out there. Not all evidence is right, but evidence usually has evidence to prove its validity.

But as you yourself said, this is now verifiably wrong. Thus we can discard it. But, back then, believing that there wasn't a brain because you had a heart was not only perfectly acceptable, but scientifically correct. Although science as we know it was still only just forming, the fact that these people were making conclusions based on observations classifies it within the realm of science. Probably some of the stuff they teach us today in science classes will be wrong a century or two from now. This just adds to my point that there is no absolute truth, because what humans view as the truth, both morally and physically, is constantly changing.

Also with God, the contradictory evidence is the claims of his existence. Firstly coming to the conclusion that a God created the universe has always seemed illogical to me. "I exist, earth exists, the universe exists, therefore someone must have put it there". Secondly God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and I've outline this argument many times on this board so let's suffice to say that his existence is contradictory in and of itself.

I understand the contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence, but is the omnibenevolence contradiction just that the world has gone to hell? I think that's what you're trying to say, and if that is the case, let me clarify this one as well. There are some people who would say that although there are bad things in this world, it is mostly good. I cannot for the life of me remember the poet who said this, but he once said, "The world is a fine place. And worth fighting for." So, how bad the world is is really all based on point of view. Further, what would be the definition of omnibenevolent? All kind, all good. Somewhere in there.

Thus, we can conclude that someone who is omnibenevolent wants what's best for everyone. You know something though? You know what the only thing better than giving a child the best of everything? Giving them nothing. This teaches them that life isn't just about getting what you want and it helps build character and helps you grow as a human being. Thus, an omnibenevolent god is pained when he sees one of his "children" being treated poorly, but knows that in the end A. many situations humans get into we get into of our own free will, and god just wants us to see the natural consequences of our actions and B. we will learn something from the experience and grow.

As for the omniscient-omnipotent thing, think of it like this. I'm sure that you know of the contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, how things happen in a completely different order. If not just tell me and I'll clarify. Anyways, I was talking with a Christian pastor who had been converted from Judaism, and he told me that he didn't see a contradiction in there. And this is one of the many shortcomings of Western thought is that we see things in far too linear a fashion.

This pastor explained to me how the Jewish people would not see this as a contradiction, rather just a different way of looking at the story, so as to cover all view points, and get the most possible morals from the story as possible, because the real moral of the story that even with god in all his perfection sees that making man will be a mistake, but decides to make it anyways. I know some people are going to argue about this, so let me clarify. Perfection just means that he can't sin. In fact, that's why hell is there, because Yahweh cannot be in the presence of sin. However, he can make mistakes. Purposeful mistakes, but mistakes none the less. Why else would he have created man knowing we were going to digress to this state? Knowing that the end times would have all sorts of sinful natures in it?

I do like that example but I disagree with taking something as a truth until it's disproved, rather, being the sceptic I am, I don't believe anything until I have proof of it, or if I accept that the person I'm talking to knows his stuff and is thus probably telling the truth. Or unless I have no reason to believe otherwise, like if you tell me they've found a new type of bird in some obscure part of the world. It's not a