Your statement assumes the belief is false.

Gods are intelligently designed.

L4T: I tried that with weed for years.

Ahh. Now I get it. You’re one of those people who have the pre-disposition to being fearful and paranoid when you partake of god’s glorious weed, (Gen 1:11).
You chose to look outside yourself for help and fulfilment; for the solution to life.
That same sort of peace can be achieved by looking within, although it is a little harder and takes more work but, at least it’s based in reality rather than myths and legends.

From where I stand, I believe I’ll get the best, but not in this life.

You’ve heard of self-fulfilling prophesies?
They have you nicely programmed and packaged, don’t they?
Good for them and … good for you, if that’s what oils your wheels.

Elwed: Gods are intelligently designed.

Love it. 

Gods are intelligently designed.

I agree, up to a point, elwed.  They are certainly the creation of intelligent beings (us), but many of their design features can more fruitfully be seen as evolved.  Once a godhead makes the leap into the ideosphere, It is not only subject to more or less deliberate design and redesign in the minds of Its human hosts, but must also do battle with competing godheads for survival in the limited space allowed.  Thousands of godheads have perished through the ages, leaving only the fittest, or the luckiest (contingency being just as much part of survival in the ideosphere as in the biosphere), to grace our lives today.

L4t, do you want to talk about facts, or just continue spinning stories about the motivations of God, once it’s assumed that the Bible is true?  Facts are debatable, whereas the motivations of God can be discussed until the cows come home: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  Intellectual tennis without a net.

Here’s a question of fact for you: how old is the Earth?

but many of their design features can more fruitfully be seen as evolved.

Here’s an interesting line of thought: Which feature sets are irreducibly complex?

Which feature sets are irreducibly complex?

Damit bin ich hoffnungslos überfragt…

Your statement assumes the belief is false. Obviously, I don’t belief it is, or I wouldn’t hold to it. You’re absolutely right that if I’m wrong, the Faith IS dangerous.

Okay, here’s my problem with this conversation, in a nutshell. You treat this is an even game, your opinion or my opinion. That’s ridiculous. My opinion has scientific evidence to back it up. Your opinion is supported only by folklore passed down from generation to generation.

Do you see the disparity here?

L4T writes…

What a wasted life if I’m wrong! What indescribable pleasures await if I’m right.

A lot of people have wasted their lives chasing after Wishful Thinking. It’s part of what keeps the Casino’s in business and the Politicians in office.

You treat this is an even game

An indispensible premise of modern-day Christian apologetics directed at atheists. There are quite a few apologists that appear to rue the day when argument #17 had to be abandoned.

At the end of the day, a lot of hot air is generated around the definition of ‘faith’. Have you ever noticed how apologists portray atheism as requiring faith (clearly insinuating this is a Bad Thing), while extolling religious faith as a virtue and at the same time redefining that faith into knowable fact?

My opinion has scientific evidence to back it up. Your opinion is supported only by folklore passed down from generation to generation.

KPG, you’re forgetting that religious opinion also has the support of the voices in believer’s heads…

My opinion has scientific evidence to back it up. Your opinion is supported only by folklore passed down from generation to generation.

Are you telling me that there are no “credible” scientists that hold to Biblical truth? I’m not claiming that the Bible is true with this question, but pointing out that the issue has not been settled. Surely, if the Bible had been solidly refuted, I would have heard the news?
Sure, people can and do hold to faulty beliefs beyond conclusive evidence against, and I suspect you’ll just classify Christianity as an extreme case of this. However, to state that the Bible’s validity is resolved is as much an assumption as a believers.
Admittedly, both camps filter all incoming data through their underlying premises (God does/does not) exist. Members here encourage and challenge me to excamine the data, and that is fair. All I ask is that you continue to do the same.
Once again, this is not a proof statement, but if the Bible had been solidly refuted, how has it survived this many centuries?
Another question. If the Bible is merely a tool to control the masses, why have so many leaders tried to wipe it out rather than use it to their advantage?
Zilch: Not being a scientist, I hesitate to get in to the whole creation argument. I would quickly embarass myself with my scientific ignorance. However, I would guess that you’ve got your own bookmarks to sites offering the Christian scientist’s perspective?
My own field of study (counseling psych), fits well with Biblical explanations. When I became a Christian, I found that many of psychology’s conclusions were long preceded by Biblical explanations of human behavior. For example, Freud did a bang up job of describing ego defense mechanisms. The Christian belief system does not refute his descriptions, but rather, offers a better description of the underlying root cause (sin).
O.K, I’m throwing a lot of stuff out here in the interests of time (family calls). But one last thought:
I have difficulty understanding how matter came out of nothing. No matter how small we understand the components of matter to be, where did those smallest elements come from? As basic as this argument is, I can’t get over that question. How do athiests resolve this?

L4T: Are you telling me that there are no “credible�? scientists that hold to Biblical truth?

There may be, but this argument from authority is not the same as scientific proof that the god meme has a basis in fact.

KPG: My opinion has scientific evidence to back it up.

Sloppy phrasing. It’s more accurate to say that there is no scientific evidence in support of the position you do not hold. Which leads to:

L4T: I have difficulty understanding how matter came out of nothing. No matter how small we understand the components of matter to be, where did those smallest elements come from? As basic as this argument is, I can’t get over that question. How do athiests resolve this?

Short answer: Insufficient data to form an opinion - the only intellectually honest, non-speculative answer.

This is another example of the “you too” strategy. God is a superficially plausible explanation for all kinds of things and the challenge to atheists is based on the unstated premises that an explanation trumps an admission of ignorance and that it is imperative that questions must have an answer.

All I ask is that you continue to do the same.

What actually do you give us to examine?

found that many of psychology’s conclusions were long preceded by Biblical explanations of human behavior.

Religeon is a way of getting people to do what is good for them- I have said before the 3 Abrahamic religeons are desert survival guides.  Don’t eat pork is damn good advice in a desert.  Don’t do sex that won’t produce kids is good advice in societies with high death rates.  As a human being I can understand ‘Do not Kill’, but why ‘Do no be Gay’.  Why is it a sin?  It can not be unnatural or it would not be innate in people.  Note that same gender sex has been noted in other animals.

Why can protestants use condoms?

Sorry- the last post just stops. I just get so wound up by religeous people who expect everything they raise to be explained ‘Janet and John’, yet when you challenge them, they look knowing and say ‘God did it, and he can not be understood’.

You want an answer.  How the universe got here. I persanlly ripped out your God’s spleen, ate it, and the universe is the by product.  It the immortal (HA!) words of every fundie troll who pops up here…

Prove.

Me.

Wrong.

(now- where are the rant tags)

(sorry- spellig errors due to typing in a temper)

Prove.

Me.

Wrong

Ah, you know I can’t. Neither side is provable. I’m just continuing to provide the Christian interpretation of the existing data.
I never met Abe Lincoln, yet I trust that he did exist based on the reports of history. When it comes down to it, all our beliefs involve an element of trust in the reports we look to.
I can’t disprove the flying Spaghetti Monster either, yet I don’t recall the reports that such a being has claimed to hold the key to my eternal destiny. For me, the sheer boldness of Jesus’ claims makes me interested in examining those claims. I imagine that’s a big part of the reason so much of this blog is devoted to reflections on the validity/absurdity of the Faith - because the claims are so serious.

Last Hussar:

As a human being I can understand ‘Do not Kill’, but why ‘Do no be Gay’.  Why is it a sin?  It can not be unnatural or it would not be innate in people.  Note that same gender sex has been noted in other animals.

I’ve struggled with that question too, despite my hetero position. Is homosexualty innate? That topic is certainly debated. Is animal homosexual behavior for sexual puposes, or a display of dominance? Huge questions indeed.

Surely, if the Bible had been solidly refuted, I would have heard the news?

Okay, you’ve probably heard this before, but in all circumstances the burdon of proof falls upon those making the extraordinary claim. If I tell you that I’m an alien from the planet Krypton and your red son gives me the power of flight, the burdon of proof is on me. It is entirely unreasonable for me to say such a thing and then claim that you have to prove it false.

There is no historical evidence for most of the stories in the bible. In fact, science does refute many biblical tales. Age of the planet? Sure as hell isn’t a few thousand years.

As far as I can tell, there are only two non-biblical references to the existence of Jesus, both several hundred years after his death. That doesn’t prove he existed, merely that the myth had taken hold by then.

If the Bible is merely a tool to control the masses, why have so many leaders tried to wipe it out rather than use it to their advantage?

You think there’s only one group wanting to control people? It’s called opposing sides.

Freud did a bang up job of describing ego defense mechanisms. The Christian belief system does not refute his descriptions, but rather, offers a better description of the underlying root cause (sin).

No, it offers an easy to understand root cause, not a better one. Life and the human brain are not that easily labelled.

I have difficulty understanding how matter came out of nothing. No matter how small we understand the components of matter to be, where did those smallest elements come from? As basic as this argument is, I can’t get over that question. How do athiests resolve this?

elwed already covered this, so I’ll just add that just because we don’t currently understand something, doesn’t mean the answer is “God Did It.” That’s the kind of faulty thinking that had primative man believing that the fire gods brought fire from the heavens.

L4T: Surely, if the Bible had been solidly refuted, I would have heard the news?

Even if the entire Bible were to be refuted, True Believers wouldn’t hear a word of it. Indeed, parts of the Bible have been proven scientifically inaccurate (i.e. the age of the Earth), yet you don’t see Young Earth Creationists changing their beliefs to fit the facts.

Ah, you know I can’t. Neither side is provable.

That was my point, really. As KPG said we can make any claim we like. But it is up to those making the claim to back it up. We have lots of evidence for Lincoln. Yes, it could be lots of people making it up, a giant joke on someone perhaps.  But given the diversity of sources, unlikely.  It is not just looking the evidence, but casting a critical eye over it.  We know James Bond is fictional, but we have more evidence of his existence than we do of many people who actually existed.  There are more pictures of 007 than of my Great Great Grandfather, who incidentally has his picture in the local museum.  However using a critical evaluation of the evidence we sort fact from fiction.

If you look at original source material, there is more evidence for Harry Potter than Jesus.  Most of what has been written on Jesus’ life is commentary etc.  Of the source material much of that is contradictory.

KPG:

As far as I can tell, there are only two non-biblical references to the existence of Jesus, both several hundred years after his death.

I’m not even sure which two you are referring to, but a quick googling brought this up, if you’re interested.

Christian Think Tank!? Well jee why don’t we also start trusting everything the UBER Salafi ISLAM-QA says about Islam? And trust everything that the offical newspapers of the People’s Republic of China say about Tibet!? Sorry some of us aren’t that dumb.

Qwerty, to L4T: Christian Think Tank!? Well jee why don’t we also start trusting everything the UBER Salafi ISLAM-QA says about Islam? And trust everything that the offical newspapers of the People’s Republic of China say about Tibet!? Sorry some of us aren’t that dumb.

To be fair to L4T, many of us SEB members, when debating creationists and/or people unfamiliar with the basics of evolutionary biology, frequently point our readers to sites such as Talk Origins (which is of course decidedly pro-evolution).

That said, I personally would require evidence corroborating Christ’s existence other than that from a self-described “Christian think tank” before I arrived at an affirmative position on the issue.

I’m not even sure which two you are referring to, but a quick googling brought this up, if you’re interested.

Try reading a well-rounded look at the issue at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

It’ll give you a better idea of what ideas are out there.

Christian Think Tank!? Well jee why don’t we also start trusting everything the UBER Salafi ISLAM-QA says about Islam?

Drat! They’re on to me. I knew I should have cited sources from Athiest Think Tank!

Note to self: Must...be...more...careful, lest these folk catch on to my plan of brainwashing them, bringing about the diabolical scheme of humans loving each other selflessly, and getting rich from the tithes! Hmmm, maybe I should move on to more gullible suckers at some other blog.

Second note to self: Figure out way to get portion of local church’s tithe offerings.

Third note to self: Prepare response to inevitable claim that, even if I’m not personally profiting from the spread of the gospel, I’m just a pawn for those who do.

Fourth note to self: Use sarcasm sparingly, and in the spirit of fun, lest you find yourself engaged in a personal war of “who’s right,” which is counterproductive to legitimate discussion.