Topic: Atheism

[Corkboy]

You said the Bible was allegorical. What are you basing that on?

[Xabi Gerrard]

You said the Bible was allegorical. What are you basing that on?

I said probably. Great way to ignore the thrust of an argument btw. What about the rest of it?

Nope. As I mentioned before, I'm not religious (although I haven't ruled out the possibility of a creator). I just think if you're going to confirm categorically that there is no God then you're going about it all wrong. Giving yourself a pat on the back for proving that a book that probably wasn't meant to be taken literally isn't actually literally true might make you feel better on the internet but it doesn't prove one way or the other where the universe came from.

And even if whoever wrote the bible (and every other religious text) meant it to literally be the word of god speaking about everything literally (as you seem to believe to be the case), finding flaws in these man made texts still doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a god, it only proves that these man made books are flawed.

[Yorkykopite]

Nope. As I mentioned before, I'm not religious (although I haven't ruled out the possibility of a creator). I just think if you're going to confirm categorically that there is no God then you're going about it all wrong. Giving yourself a pat on the back for proving that a book that probably wasn't meant to be taken literally isn't actually literally true might make you feel better on the internet but it doesn't prove one way or the other where the universe came from.

And even if whoever wrote the bible (and every other religious text) meant it to literally be the word of god speaking about everything literally (as you seem to believe to be the case), finding flaws in these man made texts still doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a god, it only proves that these man made books are flawed.

I think your winging this and you don't know much about it.

[Xabi Gerrard]

I think your winging this and you don't know much about it.

Haha, what a weird reply. Nice of you to ride in like a white knight when your buddy can't come up with a reply though.

My position is this - proving that a man made religious text is wrong doesn't have any baring on whether or not there is a god. I think religious text are bollocks personally but that still doesn't answer the question categorically about where the universe came from.

I take it you're an atheist? If so can you prove to me that god doesn't exist without referencing flawed religious texts? I'd genuinely love to know as I don't have a clue and don't know how anyone does. When replying please stick to the topic though rather than making tarty irrelevant digs because you're desperate to be right on the internet. I'm just interested in debate. Cheers.

[Corkboy]

I said probably. Great way to ignore the thrust of an argument btw.

That was the thrust of your argument. I asked you to back it up. You couldn't. Here's a suggested reply.

Hey, you know what, you're right. I was talking shite with nothing to back it up. Sorry.

[Xabi Gerrard]

That was the thrust of your argument.

No it wasn't.

[Corkboy]

No it wasn't.

I agree with Purple Red, I dont think the bible (or any of the major religous texts) were supposed to be taken literally. I think they were symbolic & allegorical stories which aimed to instill a 'righteous' way of living amongst followers.

Those lines from the bible that you quoted don't disprove that in anyway, they're simply saying that god's word is correct, i.e. the meaning of the stories are correct.

Help me out here.

[Yorkykopite]

Haha, what a weird reply. Nice of you to ride in like a white knight when your buddy can't come up with a reply though.

My position is this - proving that a man made religious text is wrong doesn't have any baring on whether or not there is a god. I think religious text are bollocks personally but that still doesn't answer the question categorically about where the universe came from.

I take it you're an atheist? If so can you prove to me that god doesn't exist without referencing flawed religious texts? I'd genuinely love to know as I don't have a clue and don't know how anyone does. When replying please stick to the topic though rather than making tarty irrelevant digs because you're desperate to be right on the internet. I'm just interested in debate. Cheers.

Corky's more than capable of looking after himself.

I'm not interested in proving whether God doesn't exist. There's no evidence for him and the onus is on people like you to prove he's out there doing his groove thang.

What I'm interested in is what we were talking about. Are the Bible and the Koran meant to be the words of  God? You said they weren't whereas both books claim unambiguously that they are. That's where you're "winging it" with your revisionist ideas that they are meant to be works of symbolism or something rather than divinely ordained scripture.

You're right I am an atheist. And therefore I think the claims made on the Bible's behalf are bogus. I'm with you on the idea that the Bible and the Koran are "man-made" texts. That's why they are flawed and so contradictory and so bloody out of date! But according to orthodox Christianity and Islam that belief makes me a heretic or a blasphemer.

I admit that proving the non-divine status of these holy books doesn't prove that there is no god or goddess or gods or goddesses or gods and goddesses. But it ought to kick away a mighty prop of organised religion - and that's good enough for me. If people want to believe in some larger spiritual force guiding the universe for which there's no evidence that's up to them obviously.

[Corkboy]

Yorky, thank fuck you're here. Someone was being mean to me on the Interwebs. I'm scared.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Help me out here.

I gave my opinion that I thought they were meant to be taken allegorically (I haven't seen evidence either way btw, the quotes from thejbs weren't evidence).

We moved on to what was the crux of my argument, where I even gave you the benefit of the doubt that they were meant to be taken literally. Here it is again:

And even if whoever wrote the bible (and every other religious text) meant it to literally be the word of god speaking about everything literally (as you seem to believe to be the case), finding flaws in these man made texts still doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a god, it only proves that these man made books are flawed.

Proving religious texts wrong is irrelevant, in my opinion, to proving the existence of god wrong. All it does is prove that the religion is wrong.

I think we're both on the same page - that we both think religion is bollocks. Where I think we differ is that, as an atheist, you seem 100% sure that the universe was in no way created. I have no idea whether it was or wasn't. What I'd like to know is how are you so sure? Not saying you're wrong, I just don't know how anyone can know.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Corky's more than capable of looking after himself.

I'm not interested in proving whether God doesn't exist. There's no evidence for him and the onus is on people like you to prove he's out there doing his groove thang.

What I'm interested in is what we were talking about. Are the Bible and the Koran meant to be the words of  God? You said they weren't whereas both books claim unambiguously that they are. That's where you're "winging it" with your revisionist ideas that they are meant to be works of symbolism or something rather than divinely ordained scripture.

You're right I am an atheist. And therefore I think the claims made on the Bible's behalf are bogus. I'm with you on the idea that the Bible and the Koran are "man-made" texts. That's why they are flawed and so contradictory and so bloody out of date! But according to orthodox Christianity and Islam that belief makes me a heretic or a blasphemer.

I admit that proving the non-divine status of these holy books doesn't prove that there is no god or goddess or gods or goddesses or gods and goddesses. But it ought to kick away a mighty prop of organised religion - and that's good enough for me. If people want to believe in some larger spiritual force guiding the universe for which there's no evidence that's up to them obviously.

I think we're on the same page, we just want to talk about different things. We both think religions are nonsense. I was interested in atheism (as per the thread title), i.e. debating about whether god exists or not and where the universe came from, not debating about whether religious texts were right or wrong. They're two different things as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, I'm off to have lunch and enjoy the sun, I'll leave you to your debate about religion. Enjoy the rest of the bank holiday 

[Corkboy]

Proving religious texts wrong is irrelevant, in my opinion, to proving the existence of god wrong. All it does is prove that the religion is wrong.

The logical outcome of that line of thinking is that all the primary evidence, rules, customs, stories and history of a religion are fake but the god might still be true. That's bizarre reasoning. If you suspect someone of a crime, and you find that every single piece of evidence in support of that suspicion is fake, why would you still hold the suspicion?

Where I think we differ is that, as an atheist, you seem 100% sure that the universe was in no way created. I have no idea whether it was or wasn't. What I'd like to know is how are you so sure?

I've posted a lot on here about atheism. If you can find one post where I've said I was 100% sure that the universe was not created, I'd be obliged. I have no idea how the universe came into existence.

To everyone posting on this topic, atheists do not think they know where the universe came from, and if they do, they're bad atheists. Remember, atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. It doesn't assert anything, there are no "beliefs" associated with atheism. It is simply the absence of a belief in relation to this one claim, i.e. that a god or gods exist.

[electricghost]

I think we're both on the same page - that we both think religion is bollocks. Where I think we differ is that, as an atheist, you seem 100% sure that the universe was in no way created. I have no idea whether it was or wasn't. What I'd like to know is how are you so sure? Not saying you're wrong, I just don't know how anyone can know.

That is a strawman argument. Atheism is not the assertion that there is no god, and Yorky didn't say that was his position.

[Xabi Gerrard]

The logical outcome of that line of thinking is that all the primary evidence, rules, customs, stories and history of a religion are fake but the god might still be true. That's bizarre reasoning. If you suspect someone of a crime, and you find that every single piece of evidence in support of that suspicion is fake, why would you still hold the suspicion?

I think you're making a flawed assumption here - that the only route to believing in god (or the possibility of god) is via religion. I'm not considering god a possibility because I took a religion, stripped away all the 'fake' bits and was left with god. I was raised an atheist, went to uni to study physics and learned about how absolutely batshit crazy the universe is at the smallest and largest levels. Most importantly I learned that science can explain how some things work and interact with eachother, but not more fundamental questions like why they do what they do. It was by no means a Road to Damascus moment as I didn't find religion, but it opened my eyes up to the possibility that there could well be some sort of god/creator/omnipresent thing going on. So it wasn't, as you suggested "The logical outcome of that line of thinking is that all the primary evidence, rules, customs, stories and history of a religion are fake but the god might still be true."

I've posted a lot on here about atheism. If you can find one post where I've said I was 100% sure that the universe was not created, I'd be obliged. I have no idea how the universe came into existence.

Re: this bit, fair enough, my bad. Going by the definition of atheism as;

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

I wrongly took atheism to mean the bit in italics, but you're quite right, it's the definition in bold I should have been using.


So long story short, seems like we agree totally. Religions aren't right but a god like being/creator may well exist.

[Corkboy]

it opened my eyes up to the possibility that there could well be some sort of god/creator/omnipresent thing going on.

So long story short, seems like we agree totally. Religions aren't right but a god like being/creator may well exist.

No, that's not what I think and the language you use is instructive. While I have to allow for the very faint possibility that a god might exist (because I can't prove one doesn't), my view is that it is highly unlikely. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of "may well" or "could well".

You seem to have fallen prey, in the course of your education, to the God of the gaps argument, which is another logical fallacy.

[Xabi Gerrard]

No, that's not what I think and the language you use is instructive. While I have to allow for the very faint possibility that a god might exist (because I can't prove one doesn't), my view is that it is highly unlikely. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of "may well" or "could well".

So you believe there could be a god, however remote. That's all I'm interpreting your views to be. I'm not allocating a probability to your views.

You seem to have fallen prey, in the course of your education, to the God of the gaps argument, which is another logical fallacy.

Cheers for the link, it's an interesting read. It's not quite what I was getting at, I get that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge and I put that down to the fact we just haven't figured out the scientific explanation for those gaps yet. But I just can't shake the feeling that science (which explains the mechanisms of how things work) only takes us so far. I guess the obvious example would be the age old question of what was before the big bang? And once science fills that gap in our knowledge, the question will always remain "ok, cool, what was before that then?". And on and on and on. Again, I'm not saying it was god that created it, but I'm open to it. Einstein nailed it for me: "It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."

[Corkboy]

So you believe there could be a god, however remote. That's all I'm interpreting your views to be. I'm not allocating a probability to your views.

I am. It's close to zero.

[Xabi Gerrard]

I am. It's close to zero.

Exactly, so you think there's a remote chance that there could be a god.

[Corkboy]

Exactly, so you think there's a remote chance that there could be a god.

There's a remote chance it could be me.

[Xabi Gerrard]

There's a remote chance it could be me.

Then stop making us suffer and make Liverpool win the league you cruel prick

[Corkboy]

Then stop making us suffer and make Liverpool win the league you cruel prick

I am a capricious god, like all of them.

[RedRabbit]

I never got the "what was before the big bang, maybe its an omnipotent being" thing. That isn't even remotely like a satisfying answer. That's just kicking the can down the road. There was no before.

[Xabi Gerrard]

I never got the "what was before the big bang, maybe its an omnipotent being" thing. That isn't even remotely like a satisfying answer. That's just kicking the can down the road. There was no before.

Each to their own. I think "There was no before" isn't even remotely like a satisfying answer.

[TepidT2O]

Fucking hell.  God is a lawyer.

That explains so much!

[thejbs]

But even a position of belief in a creator doesn't do away with questions of before. As has been said, it kicks the can further down the road. Who created the creator? Who created his creator and so on.

As an atheist I really don't mind saying 'I don't know' how the universe came about, but to take this lack of knowing and shoehorn a theory of a creator God is as baseless as saying it was made by a giant sentient turnip.

[Xabi Gerrard]

But even a position of belief in a creator doesn't do away with questions of before. As has been said, it kicks the can further down the road. Who created the creator? Who created his creator and so on.

Yeah I agree with that.

but to take this lack of knowing and shoehorn a theory of a creator God is as baseless as saying it was made by a giant sentient turnip.

Not really, people getting too specific about the unknown (be it god had a kid called jesus who turned water to wine, every single word in the koran is from god's mouth, or the universe was created by a giant sentient turnip) isn't the same as acknowledging the vague concept of a creator being a possibility.

[Corkboy]

Each to their own. I think "There was no before" isn't even remotely like a satisfying answer.

I think it's hilarious that we expect a satisfying answer. That's one of the big differences between religious people and non. Religious people seem to need an answer.

[Xabi Gerrard]

I think it's hilarious that we expect a satisfying answer.

Agreed.

It's not so much a religious v non-religious thing for me though. What I find hilarious is anyone who claims with any degree of certainty that any of the scenarios are true. People who are certain Christianity is correct, Islam is correct, Hinduism is correct, or even people who are certain that there is no god, or that "there was no before" the big bang. It's ridiculous being so adamant about any of them.

[Corkboy]

It's not even being adamant, it's being so fucking entitled. If religious people could actually grasp our utter insignificance, both on our own planet and more generally, they might not cling to such arrogant, self centred notions about their place in the scheme of things. It's cowardly.

[RedRabbit]

Each to their own. I think "There was no before" isn't even remotely like a satisfying answer.

My satisfaction isn't really the point.

The answer isn't satisfying to me because the question doesn't make any sense to me.

Without time and space how can we have cause and effect? Without cause and effect how do we get the giant sentient turnip? If its something that can be created outside time and space, why do we need the turnip?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I agree with Purple Red, I dont think the bible (or any of the major religous texts) were supposed to be taken literally.

We a few thousand years of history & persecution prove that to be bullshit.

Just one of the more famous examples,we won't go into the multitudes of people put to death for not accepting it as the literal word of God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

[Xabi Gerrard]

We a few thousand years of history & persecution prove that to be bullshit.

Just one of the more famous examples,we won't go into the multitudes of people put to death for not accepting it as the literal word of God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

So people did end up taking it literally. I'm not arguing against that. My comment was on the intention of the texts, not the way c*nts have decided to interpret it over the next few thousand years.

[Xabi Gerrard]

My satisfaction isn't really the point.

The answer isn't satisfying to me because the question doesn't make any sense to me.

Without time and space how can we have cause and effect? Without cause and effect how do we get the giant sentient turnip? If its something that can be created outside time and space, why do we need the turnip?

Dunno mate. As Einstein said "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds". Can't 100% rule out some sort of creator though. Soz.

[Corkboy]

Dunno mate. As Einstein said "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds". Can't 100% rule out some sort of creator though. Soz.

You seem very pleased with yourself, that you've managed to elicit that from a couple of us. You don't seem to appreciate the levels of unlikelihood we're talking about. Well, if it makes you feel better....

[Xabi Gerrard]

You seem very pleased with yourself, that you've managed to elicit that from a couple of us. You don't seem to appreciate the levels of unlikelihood we're talking about. Well, if it makes you feel better....

Not at all mate. You seem to be projecting a lot of stuff onto me though. Chill out, nothing personal but I couldn't really care less what your views on religion/atheism are. I certainly won't feel better by eliciting something from you in an internet discussion about atheism. I was just enjoying an enlightening debate.

Speaking of projecting onto others, I actually thought we were getting on in this debate in our last couple of exchanges, guess you're not the only one who's not very good at reading the other person.

[RedRabbit]

Dunno mate. As Einstein said "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds". Can't 100% rule out some sort of creator though. Soz.

You can't 100% rule out anything.

And you're begging the question.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

So people did end up taking it literally. I'm not arguing against that. My comment was on the intention of the texts, not the way c*nts have decided to interpret it over the next few thousand years.

The religious texts that were always just a bunch of stories stolen from other stories were always said to be the word of GOD.

And GOD didn't even know the most basic facts about his so called creation.

[Corkboy]

Speaking of projecting onto others, I actually thought we were getting on in this debate in our last couple of exchanges, guess you're not the only one who's not very good at reading the other person.

It's a discussion thread. We're not here to bond.

[Yorkykopite]

It's a discussion thread. We're not here to bond.

Kumbaya my lord.....

[Xabi Gerrard]

It's a discussion thread. We're not here to bond.

Never said that us bonding was the point of the thread.