As you may have noticed, there’s a new conversation element in the sidebar. I added it so people can leave general comments for the whole site easily. You can be anonymous or sign in with all different kinds of accounts, not just google. It seemed like a friendly way to promote communication. Someone posted a video in there the other day with a request for help on how to refute “an arrogant christian”.
Here is the video. I’ll warn you, it’s almost 27 minutes long and incredibly irritating to watch.
Honestly, it’s so ridiculous, I almost decided to do nothing about it. I suggested to the unknown person to get a copy of Atheist Universe
But then I talked to my mother today. She knows I’m a rather vocal atheist. She is kind of in the middle. She doesn’t believe “all that religious crap” but doesn’t know what to replace it with. She asked me what I believe about the beginning of the universe, if I believed in the Big Bang Theory. So I explained a bit about that, how science works (evidence and observation), how it changes over time to reflect new evidence and observation, and how that’s awesome.
I told her about this video, about creationism and intelligent design, and how silly it was to base anything on a book written over 2000 years ago by desert goat herders who knew nothing of science or how things worked. She asked for a link if I decided to refute the video for the person who left it. She wanted to read it. So I decided I would tackle it after all.
I’m going to do it in stages. It’s simply too long to tackle all at once. Also, I welcome your input, suggestions and refutations! Links to research, science, quotes, specific logical fallacies, anything and everything, is all welcome! Specific is good here, I think. So feel free to contribute. We can do this together much more easily than me alone.
The first thing to point out is the Argument from Authority. The guy in the video is a chemist in a lab coat. That is supposed to make him look like a trusted expert. But how is a chemist an expert in geology, astrophysics, astronomy, anthropology, etc? He’s not, of course. Whatever background he has is irrelevant to what he’s arguing.
Ok, that will get us started. I’m looking forward to your feedback!
Hello, I am not a scientist, but I play one in this video.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 3:32 am
LoL!
Yes, exactly! My lab coat makes me trustworthy!
Reply to This Comment
How about starting with facts. He says according to the Big Bang Theory, the universe is about 20 Billion years old. That’s some serious rounding up seeing as how best estimates put it at about 13.7 billion.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 3:33 am
Facts are a great place to start, thanks Notatheist.
Reply to This Comment
Oh no, I got that wrong. “According to the big bang theory AND evolution” (my emphasis) it was about 20 billion years ago. WRONG, evolution says nothing about cosmology.
Then he says that the earth formed 6 billion years ago, “From what they don’t know”. This guy is an idiot and proved it in the very first sentence about science he made. He’s either a moron, or deliberately misrepresenting information. We have a very good idea of how solar systems form. The accretion disc theory is pretty well understood given it’s short history of testing and modeling.
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 3:40 am
I think you’re right. I think he’s both completely misinformed and also quite good at distorting the rest of reality to fit his world view, which he then preaches to the even more ignorant.
Reply to This Comment
Pendleton is another Christian nutjob.
Did anyone ever tell him that there are human fossils much older than 6000 years?
He’s a chemist, but he also states that Jesus will be coming back? That’s chemically impossible!
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 3:42 am
It’s downright insane if you ask me.
Reply to This Comment
I made it halfway through the C-14 BS, and had to stop. If radioactivity is so untrustable, why are we worried about the build-up of nuclear waste? I find that to be a logical contradiction.
Oh, wait. We don’t have to worry about Big, hard problems like that. Jesus is coming in FIVE minutes (10:00 pm eastern standard time)!
And for anyone with a stronger stomach, did he provide any sources or citations? Because when I play dress up, I go all the way.
Reply to This Comment
Mark Reply:
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:01 am
He used the Bible….or did you mean reliable sources?
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 3:49 am
LOL… seriously, what else does a good christian need?
“Beware the man of one book.” Saint Thomas Aquinas
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 3:48 am
Like Mark said, he used the bible. What else does a good christian need? His carbon 14 “information” is basically just some debunked nonsense he dug up, from what I can tell.
Yeah, looking at his watch to see when jesus is returning… I wonder how many times he’s done that over the years? And yet, look, no jesus, who said in the bible that he would return in his disciple’s lifetime. Oops! Jesus FAIL.
Reply to This Comment
My friend Gerald went through the video point by point and wrote a great refutation: http://www.morgantownatheists.com/2009/08/26/logical-fallacy-land/comment-page-1/#comment-96
Reply to This Comment
I’m guessing I’m one of the few Christians who will be commenting on this video, judging by all
the other comments on this page. And I must say to all of you who aren’t satisfied with this man in a
lab coat’s explanation of the age of the world, well, I don’t blame you.
Though I’ll never deny what i believe, I will concede that Christians have often failed to present their beliefs in a way
which is rational enough to accept or consider.
I am no scientist, and my only knowledge about evolution or carbon dating is that which I’ve acquired from high school
biology (which even I know isn’t enough to produce an argument against it). So with that being said, my goal in writing this
is obviously not to defend lab coat man, and not to condemn him either. It’s simply to show another side of reasoning in which
I base my beliefs on. I’m not going to quote the Bible, I’m only going to use reason.
But before I go on, lets establish some common ground or some beliefs we can all agree on:
Truth exists and we can all know truth.
The statements “there is no such thing as truth” or “there is no such thing as objective truth” are self-defeating, since
each is claiming the lack of truth is truth. In other words, each statement cannot be “true” because each denies that truth
can exist or can even be established, making the statements themselves dismissible.
Also, claiming that “truth is not universal” is a statement which can be proved false by considering that a belief and it’s opposing
belief cannot both be true. IE: if the death penalty is morally acceptable in a given state (or a given place anywhere in
the world), and is not acceptable in another, both beliefs by logic cannot be true. The death penalty is either a wrong way
of punishing criminals, or it is the most effective way to punish criminals. I’m not going to sit here and argue
which statement is correct. my point is, truth is truth no matter what society determines it to be.
So let’s apply this:
God can either exist, or not exist. The universe was either created or it evolved over time to what it is today. They both cannot be true.
But since science cannot prove God’s existence, and evolution cannot prove our existence, we humans who are always searching
for answers are definitely in a bind.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but evolution’s claims such as “the first cells existed with a nucleus appeared around 1.7 billion years ago”,
don’t offer a gap-less explanation for the existence of the universe, living things, or life itself. and on the other hand, the same
questions remain with the creation theory which claims that God created “the heavens and the earth”–how can we know for sure,
without witnesses or scientific formulas to qualify either belief, which one is true?
The truth is, whether you believe God exists, or believe he does not, faith is involved on both sides of the spectrum.
Both atheism and theism require some amount of faith to bridge the gap science cannot.
It takes faith to claim God does not exist when there is no scientific formula to explain our existence without a creator, just like it takes faith
to believe in a Creator who is not visible or qualifiable by science.
This is why I believe it is up to a person who is honestly searching for the truth to decide where they want to place their faith.
and this comment is not to encourage you to believe what i believe. It is simply to encourage a search for truth, and not substitutions.
This goes for any Christians coming across this… i encourage you to not believe as a Christian just because you’ve been taught to. Find reasons for your faith so you’ll be even more sure of who God is in your life.
And please remember, whoever you are, that truth is universal and truth can be known.
Whoever has taken the time to read this, know that your rebuttals, questions, and comments are welcome.
I know the topic I’ve written about isn’t as thorough as proving one side or the other, but that was never my goal in the first place. But if anyone wants to continue this conversation to that point or any other, written or not written here, then please email me.
mitchel_54@yahoo.com
Reply to This Comment
Neece Reply:
September 11th, 2009 at 2:08 am
I’ll reply in a post instead of here in the next day or so.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
September 14th, 2009 at 5:43 am
I’ll start out,
“Truth exists and we can all know truth.”
Incorrect.
Certain things may hold truth. For that matter, things may have a degree of truth to them. You fail to take both certainty, subjectivity, and relativity into account. Even opinion for that matter.
Your death penalty example fails in lieu of the above. Just in one example, death to all nonbelievers is something I don’t find morally or even acceptable, yet it is touted by some using the Bible as righteous. What’s funny, is that when you gave the death penalty example, you added “in certain situations”… which goes against what you just said. So, death penalty is not always morally acceptable, only when it matches the situation you think calls for it.
Is the death penalty morally acceptable? Depends on the situation. BAM, relative truth.
Some things, for that matter, just don’t have a truth to them. Is “hello” better than “hi” when greeting somebody? Strictly opinion.
“The universe was either created or it evolved over time to what it is today. They both cannot be true.”
BS. Of course both can be true, it was created to evolve to what it is today. TADAA! Welcome to a smarter version of creationism. Still dumb, but it’s improved.
“Correct me if I’m wrong here, but evolution’s claims such as “the first cells existed with a nucleus appeared around 1.7 billion years ago”,
don’t offer a gap-less explanation for the existence of the universe, living things, or life itself. and on the other hand, the same
questions remain with the creation theory which claims that God created “the heavens and the earth”–how can we know for sure,
without witnesses or scientific formulas to qualify either belief, which one is true?”
Alright, you’re wrong. Evolution claims one thing, and one thing only… listen closely, things change. That’s it, that’s all, welcome to reality. That’s it. Nothing else. Don’t even try to argue it.
Now, somethings do come up because of the understanding that things change. But really, by tracking fossil records, the oldest known simple lifeform fossils are about 3.5 billion years old (which, by the way, first life is estimated at 4 billion years ago).
Which questions? Evolution answers one question, that things change. You really think that’s all there is to it? This is the problem with religious, science doesn’t work that way. Theories like the Big Bang theory is separate from evolution, and theories as Abiogenesis are theories of how life first originated, not evolution.
And let’s bring it back to your truth argument, each one of this doesn’t completely hinder on each other. Yes, they all provide support to each other in some ways, but if one is wrong or not completely correct, it doesn’t mean the others are. In fact, most of the time, only small tweaking of the theories are needed to make them more truthful and correct. Such as Newton’s law of gravity… accurate to… some number of degree, and for most purposes correct enough for all uses… however, it is not completely correct, it fails complete accuracy.
“Both atheism and theism require some amount of faith to bridge the gap science cannot.”
No, it does not. Atheism does not require faith, it is the lack of faith. Is that really so hard to understand? First off, atheism isn’t a declaration of there is no god. It is strictly, that the person doesn’t believe in any of the gods posed to them at the time.
Second, I can deny the existence of your god based upon what you define him as. It doesn’t require faith. IE, when you say god is has no emotions and is constant in nature, and you say god got angry at the same time, you are lying, no such god can exist that is both emotionless and angry. Understand? That’s just an example mind you…
Try again.
Reply to This Comment
michelle Reply:
September 15th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
First of all, if you go back up and re-read what i wrote, you’ll notice that i never said “in certain situations”.
And i also never wrote which was “true”. Please keep in mind, I simply used it as an example. It was not a statement.
As far as your comments on opinion…well, if you re-read my comment again, you’ll notice that i never once said anything about all things containing truth.
i simply said “truth exists and truth can be known.” Never once did I say that all things hold truth.
And your statement “Evolution claims one thing, and one thing only…things change” wasn’t quite accurate. Since there is no evidence found in the theory of evolution to explain how life began, then it cannot correctly prove any following theories of how lifeforms themselves evolved. therefore, everything in the the theory of evolution is a claim; which is an assertion of something true or real. It is not necessarily proven.
And I will also comment that “tweaking” a theory (which is only a description or definition used to describe how something usually works) does not “tweak” what the theory is trying to distinguish, itself. Theories can be modified and have been in the past and are still being modified today, but they do not change the function of the named mechanism(for lack of a better word). Definitions of theories most definitely can be accurate, or they can be inaccurate(which is the same as failing to be completely accurate), but the fact is the observed mechanism does not function any differently under a new definition. The mechanism is simply observed a different way.
And as for your last comment, I’m going to clarify that I never once defined God in any way–least of all, that way–so it is completely irrelevant to what I said in all of my comments.
I “understand” that to be another reason as to why you choose not to believe in God “or any of the gods posed to them (or you) at the time”, but that’s all I “understand” it as.
It seems you have mostly misread my words and consequently misquoted them in some places.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
September 16th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Hmm, yes, I see, you said in a given state, as in State. I didn’t misread anything, get off your high horse. You failed to capitalize State, in the given context can easily be interpreted as I took it.
If “truth exists and truth can be known” then all things must have “truth”. What? What are you playing at? Do you get to apply that statement to whatever you want? Who are you to decide then what statements must have truth and that it can be known? Hm? Quite frankly, nothing can be “known” for 100%, knowledge is paradoxical in it’s nature. So let’s get this straight…
“Truth exists and truth can be known” only for the statements you want to argue here? Yeah, no, that doesn’t really fly. “Truth” can’t always be known, it’s why such arguments as the Flying Spaghetti Monster came around.
The theory of evolution doesn’t explain how life began.
Really, what is so hard about that? Does law of gravity explain how gravity began? No, evolution is NOT a theory on how life began. Learn what evolution really is instead of going off your false preconceived notions of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
Evolution explains how life changes after it has already existed. It is proven far beyond any doubt for anybody who actually knows what it is. Life changes, don’t see how you think you can refute that, but go for it. Now go learn about really theories on the origin of life with abiogenesis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
“tweaking” theory? No. Degrees of accuracy. You missed the argument. Yes, the process trying to be described does not change (if it exists)… but I don’t see how that applies, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It’s is a very sneaky and crafty irrelevance though. If our theory is wrong or needs tweaking as it where, then that process doesn’t exist. For example, a gravity where heavier objects faster than lighter fall doesn’t exist. We failed, we made a better theory of what exists. I’m too tired from this, maybe elaborate more later.
I gave an example of such a definition of god, I didn’t say you said it. You have to define god to say he exists. Get it? In some way or form, and when you do, I’ll knock it down for the paradoxes that it has.
It seems you only like to think I misread your words and misquoted. Not quite.
Reply to This Comment
michelle Reply:
September 16th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I wasn’t planning on coming back to say anything on here anymore, as I’ve said before, but I had the urgency to when i read your comments.
It seems you and I just cannot communicate clearly, because I need to “get off [my] high horse” since I’m simply trying to be understood when I recognize that I am not.
My clarifications were not made to offend you, but since they did anyway, all I can say is just, “sorry”.
And also, I never once attempted to, or made it seem as if i would attempt to, refute the fact that “things change” or “life changes”, because i don’t think either is an untrue statement. However, what I am not satisfied by is that evolution supports macro-evolution (changing of species from one to another) while it has only been able to successfully observe micro-evolution (changes within a species).
So now, let me make myself clear: I do not believe things don’t change. I simply believe that each species may undergo changes within itself, but species do not change into one another. Evolution cannot not observe the latter, though it attempts to by using micro-evolution as evidence.
I will not give God a definition he doesn’t already have. And what use is there to give a definition you will not believe in?
If I said God is the creator of the universe, he is infinite, he is love, he is truth and light, and he is righteousness, how can you be satisfied?
You’d say, if God is love, then how is it we are able to love without him?
You would not be satisfied if I said he created everything with love, and so love is evident, although not explained or measured by science more than chemical reactions in the brain.
And you would not be satisfied if i pointed out that evil and hate and deceit exist in the world simply because where there is goodness, love, and truth, beside them are their opposites; just like where there is light, beside it is darkness.
But these things you can never understand, unless you know who he is. “Believing” in God isn’t enough and it never will be enough. Pascal’s argument fails to mention that. God isn’t a safety net, and he is not a punisher. Yes, if God exists then Hell exists and so does Heaven. And God being perfect can’t show himself to us because we’re imperfect. And if Heaven is a place meant only for those who are perfect, then what would happen to those who are not?…Hell isn’t a consequence, it’s the only other place left for those who don’t fit the criteria because they can’t enter a place that is perfect unless they are perfect.
And all these things you can never understand, unless you know him.
And you may say, “Christians aren’t perfect just because they believe in God”, well, you are absolutely right.
No one is perfect. Not even if they believe in God. But that’s why God sent Himself, being perfect, as a sacrifice so he can one day show himself to us once he has made us perfect.
And again, all these things you can’t understand unless you know God.
And because you’ve already chosen not to, I can never present good enough reasons why you should believe.
And in regards to your comment below, I will answer it with another question:
If there is no God, why is there something instead of nothing?
As for the rest of your post, I will not comment on it. I chose not to comment back to Notatheist because I did not want to bother him with things I know will never make as much sense as he’d be satisfied with because I am well aware of the fact that God is the greatest irrationality, and things that are irrational cannot be understood with only reason. And for the same reason and others such as the obvious hostility you display which blocks our communication, I will not reply to you.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
September 17th, 2009 at 1:34 am
No, let’s cut through the BS. You are a completely passive writer. You write to try to confuse your position, to write abstractly, to not make any claims… you attempt to give as little as possible under the fear of being called out. When somebody counters what little you give, it must be misquoted, because you attempted to make sure that your argument was so vague to be uncounterable. Gain some gumption for Pete’s sake.
What, you think god is irrational? Then why the hell do you believe in it? There is no rational reason to believe in god if you consider god to be irrational. No. I see through your lies quite easily. You have already made comments on how there is plenty of evidence for your god, you very much still consider god a rational idea. Do you even think of the consequences of what you put down?
“I never attempted to refute things change” “I am not satisfied by is that evolution supports macro-evolution”
Excuse me? Do you realize these two sentences conflict with each other? Let’s get this straight… there is NO difference between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”. The two terms were created by creationist to attempt to confuse the issue… Tell me, what do you think large scale organisms are made from? Tell me further, what distinguishes between two separate species? Do you even understand how DNA works? The only thing separating you from ANYTHING else living, is the order of your DNA. After many DNA mutations, species are not what they once were.
Evolution is a slow process, which takes a long, long, long time. What, you’ve never looked at the fossils of our neanderthal ancestors and compare them to today? Tadaaa! No, neanderthals weren’t apes. DNA is life’s blueprint. If something changes in the blueprint, you’re going to be made differently! Enough successful differences and bam, new species. And no, I know creationist like to tout dogs turning into cats… no, that isn’t how it works. Species don’t transform into each other. New species emerge.
Now let’s back up here first. Let’s go back to your original argument, instead of having this sidetracked issue. I’m not tired anymore, so I’m ready. The death penalty. You say there is absolute truth, it is either moral or it’s not. And that last post after I thought you meant in a given situation, you argued that you didn’t say in a given situation, basically that it was all or nothing… So if death penalty is moral, for like murderers, then it must be moral for thieves too, and jaywalkers for that matter… this is the obvious consequence of what you have said which I was just too tired to pick up on. And this doesn’t just apply to the death penalty either.
“If I said God is the creator of the universe, he is infinite, he is love, he is truth and light, and he is righteousness, how can you be satisfied?”
I’d be satisfied if you actually gave a good backed up answer. Creating the universe is an action; infinite, truth, light, righteousness are all traits; claiming god is love is the only real definition you gave. Here’s the problem, you gave a bunch of just different things so that if one fails, you can just fall back on the other. You have more than that don’t you? You’d just continually list off traits that you think are positive things.
Like light. Wtf? I’m sure you meant it in this typical light is good dark is bad sense… but let’s take it seriously. Light is just a bunch of photons. And we know light is finite, energy in this universe is finite. Thus, your claim that god is light and that is infinite do not match. There is, no such thing as darkness by the way. Darkness is a characteristic of relatively low amounts of light in a given area. Darkness is not evil, nor is light good. Where is your proof that god is light? Where is your proof god is infinite?
“You’d say, if God is love, then how is it we are able to love without him?”
No, I’d say if god is one petty human emotion he is all of them. god is just love? How did just love create anything? It’s an emotion for crying out loud! You probably think you love with the heart, with this pretty little symbolism. No, it’s all created in the brain, it’s a measured response. Saying god is an animal response to certain stimuli… not quite the greatest argument. You seem to want to say he’s greater than love… then he’s not love. Your sitting there saying, god is love, but wait, he’s not really love… contradict yourself much? Where is your proof god is love in the first place?
Where is your proof that good is this mix of all these things?
If god exists heaven and hell has to exist? Where do you have proof of this? There is no reason why heaven and hell exists if god does as well.
“Hell isn’t a consequence, it’s the only other place left for those who don’t fit the criteria because they can’t enter a place that is perfect unless they are perfect.”
Err… no, hell is a consequence under those terms. Hell is the consequence of us being imperfect. Rearranging words and trying to obfuscate meaning doesn’t work. If you don’t go to heaven, you to hell, thus hell is the consequence of not meeting the criteria for heaven.
“And God being perfect can’t show himself to us because we’re imperfect.”
Then god isn’t perfect, he can’t show himself to imperfect creatures he supposedly created. BS. He could easily show himself given your definition. Didn’t make very good creatures then either for that matter.
For that matter, let’s go to this:
“Believing in God isn’t enough and it never will be enough”
“they can’t enter a place (heaven) that is perfect unless they are perfect”
“No one is perfect. Not even if they believe in god”
“he can one day show himself to us once he has made us perfect”
You ran yourself into paradoxical circles. I didn’t even have to step in there. He didn’t make us perfect, you just claimed we are imperfect and he can’t show himself to us because we are imperfect. If he intended to make us perfect, then why didn’t he do it from the start? Yet many people supposedly say Jesus for that matter. And your Bible argues that belief IS ENOUGH. Let’s not even go into who does he pick to make perfect? Believers? But you just said belief is not enough!
No, Pascal’s wager is not flawed for that reason. Pascal’s wager is flawed because first, it treats that there are no consequences believing in god; second, because their are thousands of gods to believe in, not just one. More than 20 monotheistic ones, not mentioning the hundreds of branches of each individual one.
Also, because your just misinterpreting it so you can try to claim you aren’t making the same argument. You are. Pascal’s wager includes all consequences that that belief would entail. You can only get to heaven if you eat 1 million carrots! If I’m wrong, no problem, but if I’m right your not going! You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, so why aren’t you eating carrots constantly? Ever wonder whether or not you might be wrong and I’m right in this, and if so, what it would mean?
Really, you used Pascal’s wager. Everybody other than yourself can clearly see that.
You really wonder why I would not be satisfied? Why would I? When you have the audacity to sit there and list off whatever positive things you can think of as traits of god? You sit there and say I can’t understand because I don’t know god… what a completely arrogant and egotistical claim! So you have the audacity to sit there and claim you know god? And that all nonbelievers or those who don’t share your beliefs just don’t know god like you do right?
“I will answer it with another question: If there is no God, why is there something instead of nothing?”
No, that doesn’t even begin to answer my question. What purpose does god give? YOU made the claim, not me, YOU back up your claim. But I will answer your question anyways… there is NO reason. Why wouldn’t there be something instead of nothing? Theists seem to love to claim that since we are here, something had to create us, thus god… but then they go and say that god must have always existed. If god had always existed though, nothing is stopping us from always existing. The premise that we had to be created, is flawed, we didn’t… we collectively defined here as being energy and matter in the universe.
I notice you visited none of my links and sources, by the way. Oh, by the way, most atheists were once theists… so we “knew” god as it where, unless you want to make the claim we weren’t “true” believers?
http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/testimonial/gmnightmare/
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
September 17th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Ah, yes, forgot to say this:
If evil exists just because good exists…
In the beginning was god. And supposedly, that is it. Yet, you just claimed evil must exist because good exists…
Thus we come to the paradox. Under the notion that evil exists because good exists… If god is only good, than evil must exist besides it. We’ll call this the evil god, seems just as godly to me. And god has always existed, so this evil god has to have always existed as well… yet the creationist claim is that only god existed and nothing else. Thus, there was good without evil.
Your views do not match.
Which brings up this source again:
http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/07/23/how-you-can-know-there-is-no-god/
Who are you to say god is only good things for that matter anyways?
Michelle, The most glaring mistake you make here is in thinking that atheism requires faith. Atheists do not believe in gods because there is simply no evidence for them. This is absolutely not a statement of faith. I don’t believe in a god for the same reason I don’t believe in Atlantis, but I’d happily become convinced of either if someone were to present good evidence. Faith, by definition, means that you believe in something for which there is no evidence.
Reply to This Comment
michelle Reply:
September 12th, 2009 at 2:19 am
If the existence of God hasn’t been completely thrown out the window even by science, then how can it not require faith?
I mean, on a more emotional level, don’t you, even as a person who so strongly believes God does not exist, ever wonder whether or not you might be wrong and if so, what it would mean?
i mean, certainly i have had this struggle within myself on what it would mean if my own beliefs were wrong.
and i think anywhere doubt occurs, faith must come soon afterward if one were to continue believing what they do.
Reply to This Comment
Notatheist Reply:
September 13th, 2009 at 2:25 am
google Pascal’s Wager, this has been asked and answered a million times.
Reply to This Comment
michelle Reply:
September 15th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
I did read both Pascal’s Wager and some of the refutations on it. And I must say, I don’t quite see which question I asked that is answered by the rebuttals of Pascal’s argument.
But I will mention that while reading, one mistake I saw that Pascal made was that he promoted God, as if he could be bought as a sure-fire safety net for eternity–just by believing in him. And in seeing this, those who refuted him also rightly pointed out that Pascal never mentioned which is the true religion, or how to know which religion is the true one when each declares it is, and did not see the point of “faking” religion.
I think these observations are totally relevant and important. And since religion is basically a consensus made by people on how to please their god and live lives of “holiness” in said god’s eyes, it doesn’t seem rational to believe that it can offer any sort of salvation. That’s why it isn’t important whether a religion is “true” or not, because religions are standards made by humans which then aren’t quite necessary to live up to. What is important to determine is which god is the true god out of so many.
First of all, I will talk about the only God I know, and what does and does not apply to him concerning all this…
By definition, God, Jehovah, Yahweh… whatever name you wanna call him by, is the one true God. God, being infinite, is by definition the one true God:
If he is infinite, he has no beginning or end, which means he was not created. If he is infinite, meaning he has everything, there can be no other gods except him, because if there were another, that would mean one lacks what the other does not, and that god would not be infinite.
And though there is substantial evidence that the New Testament is a credible document,
having 5,686 manuscript copies (more than any ancient document in the history of the world) and only had a 25 year gap between its original and surviving copies (which is also the shortest gap in relation to all other ancient documents in the history of the world), and contains a great deal of geological information written by the first disciples which has been confirmed by theologians and historians to be accurate, none of you will be satisfied with the facts I have to give relating to the Bible’s validity or its evidence of God’s existence, and more importantly after that- his character.
And with even with all the scientific evidence i can conjure up to explain God, I know it would be futile, since I do realize that reason will never be able to explain why Love would come to die and then leave with the promise of returning.
And since we could give reasons and explanations, on and on, why God does not exist or why he does exist, back and forth, back and forth, I guess I will end my remarks here.
Feel free to point out the fallacies in my beliefs, but I will no longer respond to them. I’m sorry I haven’t responded to your other replies, I’ve just been too busy, and I don’t feel the need to keep coming back every night to voice an opinion that isn’t wanted. What I mean is, I respect your beliefs and I don’t want to become a nuisance, I really don’t. And though it may seem cowardly, I won’t be coming back to these posts.
Goodnight, and I really have enjoyed talking to you and hearing all that you have to say.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
September 16th, 2009 at 5:31 am
“ever wonder whether or not you might be wrong and if so, what it would mean?”
That question is Pascal’s Wager. You directly said it. What would it mean? Go ahead, tell us. You sure like to argue by obfuscation, no, you directly implied that if he was wrong there would be consequences. We’re not idiots.
Let’s see here…
No. There is 0 scientific evidence of god. State them, if you think so. All it will be is opinions and personal feelings, which is not scientific evidence. You’ll ask questions, like why things are so complex that’s proof of god, yet not realizing that is not scientific evidence.
There is more substantial evidence that the New Testament is a completely bull document, including the complete number of paradoxes written throughout it.
Number of copies says nothing about the truthfulness of what is written inside. Did you really think that was a good argument?
Yeah, I have a map too, not hard. You mean talking about places that actually exists means everything else you write is true? Yeah, bull.
Your 25 year gap argument didn’t come out right. In any case, I’m fairly sure it’s wrong no matter how you meant it.
There is a key word you said, “conjure”, as in “all the scientific evidence i can conjure up to explain God”. Because that’s exactly what you’d be doing, conjuring out of thin air.
http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2008/12/04/your-god-is-not-omnipotent/
and
http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/07/23/how-you-can-know-there-is-no-god/
Reply to This Comment
michelle Reply:
September 12th, 2009 at 11:45 am
And i might add that “Atheists do not believe in gods because there is simply no evidence for them,” is in fact a statement of faith. Isn’t not believing in one thing just another way of saying you believe in something else? Atheists believe gods do not exist (and technically i share this belief because i believe in just God), is a statement of faith if it is the answer to the question, “what do you believe?” And if you take what i said above into consideration, it would be a faith-based statement.
Reply to This Comment
Notatheist Reply:
September 13th, 2009 at 2:24 am
*sigh* No, not believing in something because there is no evidence for it it is the opposite of faith. Do you believe in Zeus? How about Thor? Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster? No? Of course you don’t, because there is no evidence for any of those things.
Reply to This Comment
I’d also like to point out that “The universe was either created or it evolved over time to what it is today. They both cannot be true.” is a fallacious argument. They both can absolutely be true. God could have wound up the toy so to speak, and let it go, using evolution as his mechanism to bring about intelligent life. Many Christians actually believe in God as well as evolution and the big bang. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Reply to This Comment
michelle Reply:
September 12th, 2009 at 2:28 am
I agree, those aren’t mutually exclusive concepts. I should have been more clear in distinguishing intelligent design from evolution. In which case, the real question would be whether the universe was formed from natural selection and gene pool mutations, or by an intelligent designer who designed with a purpose and a plan.
Reply to This Comment
And finally, most atheists are quite comfortable in leaving the gaps where science has not yet given us a complete picture of nature as just that, gaps. We aren’t claiming anything about the unknown. We hope that someday science can give us these answers, and that’s the exciting part about discovery.
“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known” Carl Sagan
You assume too much about atheists and atheism.
Reply to This Comment
michelle Reply:
September 12th, 2009 at 3:45 am
We aren’t very different in the sense that we both believe there is plenty waiting to be known. I think that quote definitely applies to both your belief and mine.
But your statement that “most atheists are quite comfortable in leaving the gaps…” reminds me of most theists as well.
And if knowledge is our goal and an excitement all at the same time, then being “comfortable” isn’t really the way to go about knowing, is it? I mean, aren’t theists often called blind because they become so comfortable with religion feeding them the answers? Science seems to have become the same thing in this statement.
All I’m saying is that if you’re going to be skeptical about God for the sake of truth, shouldn’t you also be skeptical about science? And if not to the degree of skepticism, then at least to the point where you aren’t just satisfied with overlooking them?
And please forgive me for my assumptions about atheism. I’m really just asking these questions because i don’t quite understand it. And if i can ask one more, what are your reasons for not believing in God?
Reply to This Comment
Notatheist Reply:
September 13th, 2009 at 2:35 am
I’ll answer the last one first since I already answered it once, I don’t believe in God because there is no evidence of a god or gods anywhere in the universe.
As far as the whole first part of your replay, you really should reread what I wrote.
Reply to This Comment
I’m sorry, one more thing Michelle…
“This is why I believe it is up to a person who is honestly searching for the truth to decide where they want to place their faith.
and this comment is not to encourage you to believe what i believe. It is simply to encourage a search for truth, and not substitutions.
This goes for any Christians coming across this… i encourage you to not believe as a Christian just because you’ve been taught to. Find reasons for your faith so you’ll be even more sure of who God is in your life.”
God IS a substitution for the unknown. You can’t claim to be a seeker of truth, and then in the same paragraph turn around and say that Christians should continue to seek out evidence that supports there belief in God. This isn’t how one goes about finding truth. It would be like a detective that decides who did it ahead of time and goes about looking for evidence to support his suspicion to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
To find truth you have to go where the evidence leads you, not look for evidence that supports what you already suppose.
Reply to This Comment
michelle Reply:
September 12th, 2009 at 3:21 am
What i meant by that statement was not to tell Christians to seek out evidence to make their own hypothesis true, I was only speaking as a Christian to Christians (who might stumble across this page like i did) not to look at the video above and say “Boy, he got them atheists good,” because I’m sure many “arrogant Christians” would. It was more of a gentle way of saying, “stop believing in God just cause you were raised in church all your life and accepted him to be real in a generational hand-me down state of mind.”
And this is why i do amend you and most of the other people on this site for being so sharp in reasoning. If there is one thing most theists lack, it’s reason. And that’s why i wrote that statement.
And i want to add that i truly did stumble on this page purely by accident while Google-ing “logical fallacies” for an english assignment. I wasn’t looking for an argument, or someone to “convert”, I simply watched the video, read some comments and decided to leave my own spill, before i realized this was a site devoted to an atheist group. I felt after i had submitted it, i had walked into a land mine, because surely i’d be eaten alive being a minority here. but i think it’s extremely important that Christians begin to listen to what you have to say. And if i can’t convince other christians of this, then i can at least start with listening, myself.
And concerning your statement that “God IS a substitution,” what i find most convincing, even in the midst of science and its extensive knowledge of how things in general work, is that God offers what science cannot: purpose.
Science is no doubt a description for reactions between physical things, but it can only ever be a “how”, and never a “why”. And science also cannot account for the metaphysical, such as purpose, causality, and morality. And to say that the metaphysical aspects of life are irrelevant is to ignore the fact that all humans share some sort of moral code.
Atheists or theists, we all feel a strong need to carry out justice, and feel anger when it is not. And even if we are not taught right from wrong, we can sense it as soon as wrong is done towards us. People who may or may not believe in God will send money to charities to help those in need.
Where did these ideas of justice and doing what’s right come from? How does science explain this?
And although the world can be a cruel, hateful place, making the existence of God seem all the more unlikely, what happens when we remove God from the picture?
absolutely nothing: when we say “If God existed, then the world wouldn’t be a horrible place,” and then remove him from the equation, all we are left with is the fact that the world even without God is still a horrible place. And yet, without God as a greater image of justice, we would still be able to recognize the world’s condition. How does science explain this?
Reply to This Comment
Notatheist Reply:
September 13th, 2009 at 2:47 am
There are plenty of scientific explanations for morals, you really could do with some reading on the subject. I’m not going to elaborate here, but there are entire branches of science dedicated to understanding human behavior.
I’m not sure what you mean by causality. If you aren’t using it the scientific sense, you’ll need to explain how you do mean it. As far as purpose is concerned, purpose comes from within. Purpose does not need a supernatural origin. If the universe ended tomorrow, I do not think my life would have been meaningless, even if there is no afterlife. But it would require a great deal of talk about science and what it tells us about the universe for you to understand why I feel that way.
Purpose is one of those heady philisophical concepts that can not be summed up in a thread on a blog post, but suffice it to say that theism can claim no exclusivity here as millions of people find plenty of purpose in reality.
Reply to This Comment
GMNightmare Reply:
September 14th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
What purpose does god give?
Please, elaborate, because the opposite is quite true…
But I quite think you’ll find that out shall you attempt to give purpose given by god.
Reply to This Comment
michelle Reply:
September 12th, 2009 at 3:29 am
and by the way…where i said “amend”, i meant “commend”.
sorry for the mix-up. it’s late. ha.
Reply to This Comment