They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[remez]

The question, "Is it disingenuous for an atheist to ask questions about religion" is unfair?
By logic then, the claim that "it is disingenuous for atheists to ask about religion" would be equally "unfair," yes?

Depends on the reasoning.

And there is where we disagree.
You asked a question.
I answered.
You disagreed.
I defended my answer.
You still disagree.
We each had our say.
I’m good with that.

toh poepkeseoyo

 

[Harry Bosch]

Since when is "that's not evidence" a gotcha?

I think a major problem is that theists often try to use the bible as evidence for the bible, which is a sticky wicket, of course.
Then, after a few such exchanges, we may just get in the habit of disallowing that book of unattributed, uncorroborated magic tales of no clear provenance, or unsure adulterations, agenda-based editing, produced by political committees.

And they get pissed that we ask for their evidence for god, jesus, miracles, etc., then point and giggle at what they submit...

Our bad.

Yep! I just don't debate theists anymore. The only evidence that they can offer for their magical beliefs is their magical books. There's no difference between the bible, the Koran, and/or the Lord of the Rings.

 

[remez]

Skep,
For the record, I don't regard you as a disingenuous interlocutor. You, and many (perhaps most) most non-theists here don't troll (for want of a better word,) with bait and switch, insincere questions. Most of the contest-of-ideas dialogue here is as it should be - robust, fearless and tenacious. Yes, it's a predominantly atheist board and nobody like me should come here expecting deferential respect for their religion.

Well said

and

Ditto

 

[remez]

Yep! I just don't debate theists anymore.

Let's test that.................

The only evidence that they can offer for their magical beliefs is their magical books. There's no difference between the bible, the Koran, and/or the Lord of the Rings.

That is a conclusion based on blind faith. So please forgive me for not believing you.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Theists have three ways to prove God exists.

A. Revelation. Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon, et al.
B. A priori reasoning. Stating a few axiomatic propositions, and using those propositions to attempt to demonstrate why God exists.
Usually this approach is drawn on revelation.
C. Natural theology. Demonstrating God exists by starting with what we can observe about the world and looking for evidence of God.

As an atheist, I find none of these approaches works. Which approach do you choose in order to demonstrate with certainty that God indeed exists?

 

[Rhea]

Yep! I just don't debate theists anymore.

Let's test that.................

The only evidence that they can offer for their magical beliefs is their magical books. There's no difference between the bible, the Koran, and/or the Lord of the Rings.

That is a conclusion based on blind faith. So please forgive me for not believing you.

Is that "blind faith," though?
If he has been approached by a hundred christians (or theists) in his life and NOT ONE of them has offerend anything other than the bible as "evidence" of a god, then his conclusion is not based on "blind faith" at all, but on unanimous response to stimulus.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let's test that.................


That is a conclusion based on blind faith. So please forgive me for not believing you.

Is that "blind faith," though?

Eh. Remez wants Harry to argue with him, so he tries to be insulting, to push someone's buttons.
Of course, if Harry chooses to correct remez' misstating of his position, it's not 'debating' the issue, but remmie will still crow as a win.

 

[Lion IRC]

Theists have three ways to prove God exists.

A. Revelation. Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon, et al.
B. A priori reasoning. Stating a few axiomatic propositions, and using those propositions to attempt to demonstrate why God exists.
Usually this approach is drawn on revelation.
C. Natural theology. Demonstrating God exists by starting with what we can observe about the world and looking for evidence of God.

As an atheist, I find none of these approaches works. Which approach do you choose in order to demonstrate with certainty that God indeed exists?

All three.
Note that "A" doesn't consist solely of other people's claims/scripture.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, voices in your head are not evidence in mine. This fact is not improved by second-hand or third-party accounts.

 

[remez]

Eh. Remez wants Harry to argue with him, so he tries to be insulting, to push someone's buttons.
Of course, if Harry chooses to correct remez' misstating of his position, it's not 'debating' the issue, but remmie will still crow as a win.

Actually I was simply trying to be humorous with the "let's test that"
He walked right into that one. I've done it plenty of times myself. It's all part of the jousting.

But I was serious with the comments on his conclusion.........

The only evidence that they can offer for their magical beliefs is their magical books. There's no difference between the bible, the Koran, and/or the Lord of the Rings.

Why was my conclusion insulting? Seriously?

He presented no evidence for what he believed.

He blindly cited a common indefensible atheistic straw man....meme.

Why was my conclusion insulting? Seriously?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yep! I just don't debate theists anymore.

Let's test that.................

The only evidence that they can offer for their magical beliefs is their magical books. There's no difference between the bible, the Koran, and/or the Lord of the Rings.

That is a conclusion based on blind faith. So please forgive me for not believing you.

I apologize if I sounded rude. I don't mean it. However, the problem is you believe that your book (I don't know your religion) is sacred. Thus it is proof of your religion. I believe that is circular reasoning. I belief that evidence has to be something that can be falsified, tested, and replicated. Holy books don't fit that definition.

 

[remez]

I apologize if I sounded rude. I don't mean it.

I really did not take it as rude. No worries.

However, the problem is you believe that your book (I don't know your religion) is sacred.

Based on evidence other than the Bible.

Thus it is proof of your religion

Not solely.

I believe that is circular reasoning.

Me too. But that’s overtly not the case for me.

I belief that evidence has to be something that can be falsified, tested, and replicated.

Look up the self-refuting epistemology of scientism. If you are going to hold that reasoning, then it needs a defense. Further I completely embrace science. I just don’t reason the all knowledge can come from science.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yep.
I'll be here too - happy to engage in civil discussion about God, apologetics, counter-apologetics, theology, atheology, etc with atheists who, without conceding the actual existence of God, are capable of sincere arguendo.

... snip ...

Great. But first, I need to understand what you specifically are claiming your belief is. I wouldn't want to ask you questions about some belief that you specifically don't hold.

Do you accept chapter I of Genesis as literal truth? Many Christians do. If you do, do you accept it as truth because it says so in the Bible or are you relying on some other independent evidence?

Skep,
For the record, I don't regard you as a disingenuous interlocutor. You, and many (perhaps most) most non-theists here don't troll (for want of a better word,) with bait and switch, insincere questions. Most of the contest-of-ideas dialogue here is as it should be - robust, fearless and tenacious. Yes, it's a predominantly atheist board and nobody like me should come here expecting deferential respect for their religion. Of course many of the threads are sprinkled with expletives and abusive ad hominems. But these don't bother me and neither do any supposed "trick" questions or tactical debating 'gotchas'.
My sole complaint is about the PZ Myers Courtiers Reply type of atheist who pretends that they are interested in discussing what they regard as the Emperors New Clothes. (Theology, hermeneutics, biblical historicity, theistic cosmology, etc)

When Christians debate theological doctrine they don't use "that's not evidence" as a slam dunk argument. They don't say "Jesus never existed" when arguing about The Trinity. When they're debating the meaning of a bible verse, neither side claims the bible is an irrelevant pack of lies.

...anyway, the answer to your question, yes I think you can adopt a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter 1
I also think you can view it as largely allegorical at the same time as being also literally true.
These are not mutually exclusive positions and neither is heretical.

Jesus' parables can be taken both literally and allegorically. If He says there once was a man who had two sons, one of whom wanted his inheritance early, this story actually happened. Jesus wasn't lying. He didn't need to. The real life Prodigal son and his brother and their father couldn't have known that their real life story was always the one Jesus was going to use to expound upon God's love for both His chosen people Jews, the first born, (eternal Israel) and the gentiles.

Thanks…

Since you accept the creation story in the Bible as factually true and do not rely on arguments from ‘evidence’ for that acceptance, I see no problem so no reason to question your belief. Of course, you do understand that my worldview is quite different since I approach trying to gain an understanding of reality from the opposite direction.

I found it interesting that you included that the stories in the Bible are both real and allegorical, so not just a cold historical account but a historical account intended to provide a life lesson. While I personally see no reason to accept the creation stories as true, I agree they provided life lessons that the writers thought important… although I don’t know what the lesson with respect to their culture at the time was. I assume that it would, from your point of view, be similar to a story about the battle of the Alamo. Those stories are historical and would be told with the allegorical message of the value of human struggle even against overwhelming odds in an attempt to attain independence. The David and Goliath story has the same message with the added message that virtue always wins out.

While I have no problems with and wouldn’t contest the beliefs of others, I do feel that challenging the claims of those who are attempting to challenge my understandings with their claims is justified. An example up-thread is Remez’s presenting of the kalam cosmological argument offered to ‘prove’ that his belief is right and anyone who isn’t a believer are wrong. Although the premises may be accepted as true by believers, any nonbeliever should feel justified in pointing out that those premises are not knowns so the syllogism is fallacious.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the accepted ‘truths’’ in holy books of other religions such as The Tripitaka Mahayana, Sutras, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Vedas, Avesta, Doctrine of the Mean, the Great Learning, Mencius, the Analects, etc. that conflict with Biblical ‘truths'?

 

[Lion IRC]

Most of these truths and near-truths can be harmonized with biblical theism.
Eg. Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the same God.

If only there was some ideogram or pictograph which encapsulated the idea of various world religions all feeling different parts of the One Bigger picture.

Hmmm.

 

[skepticalbip]

Most of these truths and near-truths can be harmonized with biblical theism.
Eg. Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the same God.

If only there was some ideogram or pictograph which encapsulated the idea of various world religions all feeling different parts of the One Bigger picture.

Hmmm.

Yeah, I understand that the three Abrahamic religions have the same creation story. That is why none of the holy books I listed from other religions are the holy books of any of those Abrahamic religions. Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. are completely different from the Abrahamic religions. In fact, so different that there has been argument (from Christians) as to whether Buddhism is even a religion since Buddhists have no god... but it is a religion just nothing like a Christian religion. A Buddhist in the group feeling different parts of that elephant would find no elephant there anywhere.... hmmmm. that is almost a Zen Buddhist koan.

 

[steve_bank]

I used to have a book of Hindu stories.

A student is listening to a guru speak. He finishes saying 'God is in everything...'.
Filled with enligtemnet the student is walking down the road when he hears an angry elepnat running down the road to h=owards him.
He stands in the road thibking 'If god is in me and god is in the elephant then I have nothing to worry about'.

The e;ephant picks him up with his trunk and tosses him aside.

Bewlidered he asks the guru what went wrong. The guru replied 'God in the elephant was telling god in you to get out of the way, and you did not hear it'.

Hoboism and Buddhism are filled with potables where god is a metaphor or talking point. God becomes state of being or awareness. Christ-consciousness and Krishna-consciousness are the same thing from a certain viewpoint.

Modern Christians fail to grasp the wisdom mad philosophy in the scriptures and tend to only see a literal interpretation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Campbell did note that when monks convene, they all share the same exoerience of the Divine. No matter the traditions involved, there us no gulf between them.

Priests of two or more traditions get into fights about details of the theology.

 

[remez]

I do feel that challenging the claims of those who are attempting to challenge my understandings with their claims is justified.

Me too
So…………

An example up-thread is Remez’s presenting of the kalam cosmological argument offered to ‘prove’ that his belief is right and anyone who isn’t a believer are wrong.

You are imparting an inaccurate disparaging motive to me……….. Steve said all the arguments for God failed. I asked him to defend that with evidence as to why the Kalam fails. Which is a completely fair request.

It was then that you and Tom stepped in to defend Steve’s assertion while he went off talking about Santa. I had no problems with you doing that. What followed was a lively and informative back and forth discussion over your purposed counters.

For you to now depict it as you did there lacks dignity.

Although the premises may be accepted as true by believers, any nonbeliever should feel justified in pointing out that those premises are not knowns so the syllogism is fallacious.

You can feel justified, I have no problem with that. The problem comes in when you use your feelings as rational justification to determine the truth value of the premises. Neither your feelings regarding absolute certainty, nor my theism has anything to do with the truth value of the premises.

Thus once again you have not made the case that the Kalam is fallacious. In order to do that your reasoning must remain consistent and your absolute certainty there is not consistent. It also works against you.

 

[skepticalbip]

Me too
So…………

You are imparting an inaccurate disparaging motive to me……….. Steve said all the arguments for God failed. I asked him to defend that with evidence as to why the Kalam fails. Which is a completely fair request.

It was then that you and Tom stepped in to defend Steve’s assertion while he went off talking about Santa. I had no problems with you doing that. What followed was a lively and informative back and forth discussion over your purposed counters.

For you to now depict it as you did there lacks dignity.

Although the premises may be accepted as true by believers, any nonbeliever should feel justified in pointing out that those premises are not knowns so the syllogism is fallacious.

You can feel justified, I have no problem with that. The problem comes in when you use your feelings as rational justification to determine the truth value of the premises. Neither your feelings regarding absolute certainty, nor my theism has anything to do with the truth value of the premises.

Thus once again you have not made the case that the Kalam is fallacious. In order to do that your reasoning must remain consistent and your absolute certainty there is not consistent. It also works against you.

You misstate. The 'feelings' were about the reason for countering the claim not feelings about the counter argument and explanation of why the premises were not knowns. The religious may believe that those premises are true but belief is not knowledge or proof. My position is that those premises are unknowns (which is in agreement with every cosmologist I know of) so from an analytical position they remain unknown. Kalam syllogism was presented as a logical argument but the premises of a logical argument must be knowns (not beliefs) for the conclusion to be logically true. We are back to you needing to prove (contrary to cosmologists' position) the premises are true, not (really, really firm beliefs). Otherwise the conclusion will have to be "the universe may have had a cause" or "I believe the universe had a cause.

 

[Learner]

Similar to what Lion highlighted somewhere , I think (imo) the agreement among cosmologists would be more likley that there is no "precised" date of the age of the universe even though the aproximation is 13.8 billion years old.

n 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years. Both of these fall within the lower limit of 11 billion years independently derived from the globular clusters, and both have smaller uncertainties than that number.

https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (109) years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1][2] The uncertainty has been narrowed down to 21 million years,

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