Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

TheLurker · 23-03-2015 10:33PM

ABC101 wrote: »

I don't find anything peculiar about it, this is Luke's writing. Written over 2000 years ago etc.

Phrases, languages change with time. For example... Gay used to have a different meaning 50 years ago. Today Gay means something other than being happy / joyful.

You aren't arguing the meaning has changed. The word uses it the word that was used at the time to mean generatation.

You are arguing that when Jesus said that the end of days would come before the people he was speaking to had all died (a very common think a dooms day cult leader would say to his followers, after all bit more of an issue if judgement is coming soon and you need to get your house in order), what he actually was talking about was some abstract notion of the state of Israel.

Which is like me saying "My magic ball says you will win the lottery before the end of the month" and when that doesn't happen you choose to believe that you STILL will win the lottery, but when I said "end of the month" what I actually meant was "month" as in "the unification of south and north Ireland"

More likely I just didn't know if you were going to win the lottery or not.

ABC101 wrote: »

The destruction of Jerusalem / scattering of the people of Israel for almost 1900 years is not a fantasy of Christian Scholars or doomsday cult. It's a fact.

A fact not referenced anywhere in the New Testament until Christians needed to re-interpret basic words to fit with a prophecy that didn't come true.

ABC101 wrote: »

If you regard Christians as a cult of doomsayers who move the goal posts to suit their own agenda, then it is pointless for a Christian to explain anything to you because of your bias against them.

You haven't explained anything to me. I asked for support for this theory and you skipped ahead.

And regarding Christianity as a doomsday cult that never had its doomsday is hardly a bias. The New Testament is full to the brim of warnings to prepare for the upcoming end of days. Jesus tells people to abandon their friends and families and live righteous because the judgement is coming. Paul instructs Christians to live apart from sinners lest their sin taint you before you have time to straighten up.

But like all doomsday cults when those didn't come they simply moved the dates. I'm guessing after a few centuries it just got silly and the actual end days became very vague. But of course you still get a huge number of Christians who believe the end times are approaching.

silverharp · 23-03-2015 10:33PM

katydid wrote: »

No, they didn't. Because they were just as confused as we are now! At least we have the perspective of 2,000 years.

but they were the one generation that had some direct access to Jesus teachings. if jesus had a long game in mind , his followers didnt reflect it. Whereas a church that knows that its off the table will logically refocus its goals.

TheLurker · 23-03-2015 10:34PM

katydid wrote: »

No, they didn't. Because they were just as confused as we are now! At least we have the perspective of 2,000 years.

So at what point will Christianity say "Umm, this end of days thing ain't happening, is it?"

katydid · 23-03-2015 10:36PM

TheLurker wrote: »

So at what point will Christianity say "Umm, this end of days thing ain't happening, is it?"

No doubt it'll happen some day :-)

TheLurker · 23-03-2015 10:39PM

katydid wrote: »

It's an interpretation. Jesus spoke in parables and symbols all the time.

He also spoke in plan language all the time. And when he was speaking in parables he tended to be clear it was a parable. You can't just take any prophecy in the Bible that didn't come true and say "Ah, that must have been a parable". That is just self correcting prophecy after the fact.

You will win the lottery on Tuesday .. oh you didn't ... Ah what I meant by Tuesday was the 2nd cycle of 7, so 2nd of July ... oh still no luck .. well what I meant by 2nd was ....

The Bible just becomes a glorified horoscope (which I'm fine with by the way)

katydid wrote: »

Do you really think that when he said he would rebuild the temple in three days, he meant that literally? It's only natural and normal to look at what is attributed to him and look beyond the seemingly obvious.

what is natural is that a cult leader in the 1st century got a bunch of people to follow him under the idea that the apocalypse was approaching (bit of a motivator that), and then that didn't happen.

If you weren't a Christian would you have any issue with that idea, given that it happens all the time?

TheLurker · 23-03-2015 10:39PM

katydid wrote: »

No doubt it'll happen some day :-)

Yes, no doubt :P

katydid · 23-03-2015 10:44PM

silverharp wrote: »

but they were the one generation that had some direct access to Jesus teachings. if jesus had a long game in mind , his followers didnt reflect it. Whereas a church that knows that its off the table will logically refocus its goals.

As I said, he spoke in symbols all the time. To his immediate circle as well as to the wider community. He challenged people to think and look beyond his immediate words.

katydid · 23-03-2015 10:58PM

TheLurker wrote: »

He also spoke in plan language all the time. And when he was speaking in parables he tended to be clear it was a parable. You can't just take any prophecy in the Bible that didn't come true and say "Ah, that must have been a parable". That is just self correcting prophecy after the fact.

You will win the lottery on Tuesday .. oh you didn't ... Ah what I meant by Tuesday was the 2nd cycle of 7, so 2nd of July ... oh still no luck .. well what I meant by 2nd was ....

The Bible just becomes a glorified horoscope (which I'm fine with by the way)

what is natural is that a cult leader in the 1st century got a bunch of people to follow him under the idea that the apocalypse was approaching (bit of a motivator that), and then that didn't happen.

If you weren't a Christian would you have any issue with that idea, given that it happens all the time?

He spoke in plain language. He spoke in symbols. The challenge for us is to listen to everything that he is said to have said, and to think about it carefully.

Parables are not the only symbolism Jesus used; parables were simple and obvious. He also used more obscure symbolism, such as what I cited about raising the temple.

Being a Christian doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to my understanding of how one can interpret these texts. There was a lot more to his following than some kind of doomsday cult. In all the descriptions of what he did during the three years the Bible tells us about, there was no suggestion of anything of the kind. There was confusion, to be sure, about whether or not his mission was a spiritual or temporal one, and that confusion was what led to his downfall. But something in his message spurred his supporters on to carry it on afterwards, and the rest is history. The doomsday interpretion wasn't a crucial factor in any way.

ABC101 · 23-03-2015 11:26PM

TheLurker wrote: »

You aren't arguing the meaning has changed. The word uses it the word that was used at the time to mean generatation.

You are arguing that when Jesus said that the end of days would come before the people he was speaking to had all died (a very common think a dooms day cult leader would say to his followers, after all bit more of an issue if judgement is coming soon and you need to get your house in order), what he actually was talking about was some abstract notion of the state of Israel.

Which is like me saying "My magic ball says you will win the lottery before the end of the month" and when that doesn't happen you choose to believe that you STILL will win the lottery, but when I said "end of the month" what I actually meant was "month" as in "the unification of south and north Ireland"

More likely I just didn't know if you were going to win the lottery or not.

A fact not referenced anywhere in the New Testament until Christians needed to re-interpret basic words to fit with a prophecy that didn't come true.

You haven't explained anything to me. I asked for support for this theory and you skipped ahead.

And regarding Christianity as a doomsday cult that never had its doomsday is hardly a bias. The New Testament is full to the brim of warnings to prepare for the upcoming end of days. Jesus tells people to abandon their friends and families and live righteous because the judgement is coming. Paul instructs Christians to live apart from sinners lest their sin taint you before you have time to straighten up.

But like all doomsday cults when those didn't come they simply moved the dates. I'm guessing after a few centuries it just got silly and the actual end days became very vague. But of course you still get a huge number of Christians who believe the end times are approaching.

What difference does it make to you or I if the end times come in 100 years or 50 years or 125.56 years or in 12000 years?

The end times will come for us anyway, because we know our bodies will not live forever.

Jesus did foretell the destruction of Jerusalem, which did come to pass in 70 AD.

Rather than debating here about Luke's writing of Generation, why don't you ask a priest next time you see one / happen to meet one? Or pop down to your local Church and ask!

djerk · 24-03-2015 12:24AM

These are genuine questions on my part.

If Jesus/God himself did exist, why would he choose such a prehistoric time in terms of human evolution, history and society to come down from the heavens to give us word of his being? Where is he now and why is his existence so mysterious and shrouded in smoke, if we are indeed his flock, where is the proverbial shepherd? Why does he stand idly by and watch his creation being destroyed by those who dare speak his name? All(though) men are created equal.

(Women didn't seem to matter so much however.. and still don't in many parts of the world of God)

The funny thing about faith, is that you can believe whatever you want.

Our history should be a lesson about how to live and not make the same mistakes, just as our own lives and experiences are.. not something that we should be holding with iron fists, afraid to let go, in fear of opening our eyes too see the world from a new perspective.

What truth do we actually have in this world, but our own?

I'd rather believe that if there is a heaven, then this is it, it's life itself.

RikuoAmero · 24-03-2015 04:51AM

ABC101 wrote: »

What difference does it make to you or I if the end times come in 100 years or 50 years or 125.56 years or in 12000 years?

If Jesus had given a definite date for any of his prophecies, and those definite dates had proven to be true, it would have caused people like me to sit up and take notice. It's very suspicious from my point of view if someone claims (or is claimed by others) to have knowledge of the future, but this knowledge is passed on in such a vague manner

The end times will come for us anyway, because we know our bodies will not live forever.

Is that what you interpret the end time prophecies in the bible as? The natural death we as living organisms all go through? Why would Jesus need to prophecy that? It's like saying "Lo, and a week from now, you will be breathing air".

Jesus did foretell the destruction of Jerusalem, which did come to pass in 70 AD.

This isn't an indication of supernatural knowledge. Any intelligent person living at that time period, with a knowledge of history and politics would have been able to piece together clues. They would have known about earlier conquests of Jersualem by other foreign powers, they would have known that Romans tend to wreck cities when putting down rebellions and put two and two together.
I wouldn't be surprised if we find or have already found documents from that era that independent of Jesus "predict" the destruction of Jerusalem.
How is it you look at what Jesus said and say "That right there is indication of divine knowledge, he couldn't possibly have said that if he were a man?" What about Winston Churchill, who, after World War I, predicted that the Germans would be so angry at their treatment at Versailles that within twenty years they'd be coming back for Round 2? (At least I think it was Churchill who said it, it might have been someone else...) Did Churchill need access to divine knowledge in order to say that?
Don't you think it strange that Jesus is able to "prophecy" something so close to his generation (something that was traumatic to the Jewish people yes, I understand) but he makes no mention of anything else, such as the pogroms of the Middle Ages, or Nazi Germany?

Rather than debating here about Luke's writing of Generation, why don't you ask a priest next time you see one / happen to meet one? Or pop down to your local Church and ask!

Why is it you think we haven't already done this? Also, what about all the other end time prophecies that don't use the term generation, even in the most abstract sense? What about the other gospels where Jesus says that "ALL as written" shall come to pass and you shall know this when armies surround Jerusalem?
Instead what we here in 2015 know is that the destruction of Jerusalem was a local event that didn't have world wide consequences. It was a small rebellion in a remote province of a large empire that has long since collapsed.

pauldla · 24-03-2015 05:00AM

ABC101 wrote: »

...

Jesus did foretell the destruction of Jerusalem, which did come to pass in 70 AD.

....

Is it not more accurate to say that Jesus reputedly foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, in a book that was probably written c. 70 A.D.? Admittedly, this take doesn't have quite the same lustre...

silverharp · 24-03-2015 07:42AM

katydid wrote: »

As I said, he spoke in symbols all the time. To his immediate circle as well as to the wider community. He challenged people to think and look beyond his immediate words.

but it makes him sound a bit ridiculous , you are basically saying that he deliberately confused his first followers. Out of curiosity do you believe Jesus had any knowledge he hadnt learned on earth?

Cen taurus · 24-03-2015 08:49AM

pauldla wrote: »

Is it not more accurate to say that Jesus reputedly foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, in a book that was probably written c. 70 A.D.? Admittedly, this take doesn't have quite the same lustre...

If that were the case, why is the actual destruction, one of the most monumental and game changing events ever for Judah, Israel, and it's people, not recorded or mentioned anywhere in the new testament ?

tommy2bad · 24-03-2015 10:04AM

silverharp wrote: »

but it makes him sound a bit ridiculous , you are basically saying that he deliberately confused his first followers. Out of curiosity do you believe Jesus had any knowledge he hadnt learned on earth?

That's a really good question.
I can see two sides to this, one that Jesus was born fully aware of his mission and what it entailed, from the first we see of him in the gospels he seems to be 'about his fathers work'. At the same time theirs a tone when reading the gospel through beginning to end of a man coming to realize exactly what he got himself into.
It's perfectly possible that Jesus had no clue of the sacrifice he would make until near the end, this dosn't rule out his being God incarnate but it dose put Jesus in a much more human light.
You can also read it as if he started with the end in mind and resolutely stuck to the plan but I find the human struggle more compelling. If God is going to take on our form and failings a get out of jail like knowing how it will turn out is a bit of a cheat if you ask me.

RikuoAmero · 24-03-2015 10:19AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

That's a really good question.
I can see two sides to this, one that Jesus was born fully aware of his mission and what it entailed, from the first we see of him in the gospels he seems to be 'about his fathers work'. At the same time theirs a tone when reading the gospel through beginning to end of a man coming to realize exactly what he got himself into.
It's perfectly possible that Jesus had no clue of the sacrifice he would make until near the end, this dosn't rule out his being God incarnate but it dose put Jesus in a much more human light.
You can also read it as if he started with the end in mind and resolutely stuck to the plan but I find the human struggle more compelling. If God is going to take on our form and failings a get out of jail like knowing how it will turn out is a bit of a cheat if you ask me.

Both scenarios have major problems.
The first, Fully-Aware-From-The-Start (which we'll call Fully Aware for short) means that any attempt at an emotional reaction from humans means nothing more than a ploy, a manipulation. If Jesus is fully aware from the start of exactly what happens after the crucifixion, in precise detail, then the crucifixion loses all impact. We as humans are frightened of death and admire those who sacrifice themselves for a cause precisely because we don't know what happens after death (if anything can be said to be happened at all).
The second, Sends-Himself-Unaware, merely means he sent himself in human form and blocked his own memory/knowledge. This reminds me of the anime/manga Death Note, where (spoilers), the villain, Light Yagami, at one point intentionally erases his memories of being a serial killer and intentionally gives himself up to the police and goes through solitary confinement, all in order to generate sympathy from the investigative team. There, Light suffered without knowing why at the time, but it was all part of a manipulative scheme.

Of course, these two scenarios are both predicated on the crucifixion and resurrection being actual historical events, which is what is in dispute here.

katydid · 24-03-2015 11:28AM

djerk wrote: »

If Jesus/God himself did exist, why would he choose such a prehistoric time

...Women didn't seem to matter

I'd hardly call 1st century Palestine "prehistoric". It was actually a very interesting time, with the influence of Rome at its height, and a ready made "communications system" (common tongue, common currency, trade routes etc.) in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Actually, Christianity was very pro-woman. Jesus himself treated women with respect and equality, and the new church considered all humans equal under God. Women often played leading roles in the early church.

tommy2bad · 24-03-2015 12:30PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Both scenarios have major problems.
The first, Fully-Aware-From-The-Start (which we'll call Fully Aware for short) means that any attempt at an emotional reaction from humans means nothing more than a ploy, a manipulation. If Jesus is fully aware from the start of exactly what happens after the crucifixion, in precise detail, then the crucifixion loses all impact. We as humans are frightened of death and admire those who sacrifice themselves for a cause precisely because we don't know what happens after death (if anything can be said to be happened at all).
The second, Sends-Himself-Unaware, merely means he sent himself in human form and blocked his own memory/knowledge. This reminds me of the anime/manga Death Note, where (spoilers), the villain, Light Yagami, at one point intentionally erases his memories of being a serial killer and intentionally gives himself up to the police and goes through solitary confinement, all in order to generate sympathy from the investigative team. There, Light suffered without knowing why at the time, but it was all part of a manipulative scheme.

Of course, these two scenarios are both predicated on the crucifixion and resurrection being actual historical events, which is what is in dispute here.

Which is why I was analyzing the only 'evidence' we have, the gospels.
I don't see the second one being manipulative (though you don't say what was being manipulated) It was part of a scheme, it was fulling a promise.

RikuoAmero · 24-03-2015 12:41PM

Which is why I was analyzing the only 'evidence' we have, the gospels.

Since it is only the gospels that speak of these various magical events (and in certain areas contradict each other), no-one else apparently saw fit to record these events (outside the gospels, there is no account of a 3 hour darkness or of zombies rising out of people's graves running around Jerusalem for example)...then I have to conclude, due to lack of supporting evidence, I cannot justify believing said stories.

I don't see the second one being manipulative

When I mentioned Death Note, I pointed out how Light Yagami suffers through solitary confinement. If I remember right, it's a couple of months. Think about that, no contact with the outside world (apart from the lead detective investigating him). It's tantamount to torture and has, in the real world, been called torture in several places.
Just because Light blocked his memory, suffered through solitary, should people think he's a good guy? Worship him for it? (Should people be grateful and in awe of Jesus being crucified and suffering there, if at the time of the suffering, he wasn't fully aware as to why it's happening?)

What about God? Even if, during the span of time that he's Jesus and thus unaware, he'd still have known, prior to incarnating, that eventually it would end the way he plans.
I honestly have no idea of what's being manipulated in this scenario (such knowledge is predicated on me, a fallible human, somehow understanding an infallible mind), but either way, it doesn't make me want to worship this god. Especially since the stated goals (to remove/defeat/neutralize sin, or to forgive humanity or however it's worded) can all be accomplished so much more simply and effectively, and ought to be known to an omniscient being.

The second scenario, Sends-Himself-Unaware, requires of the believer that there is some plan that is, for all intents and purposes, beyond human mental comprehension, something above logic or rationality, that somehow makes sense even when we take into account what I just said in the previous paragraph, but that this remains forever beyond us.
If it's that, then the believer is being asked to forgo completely all logic and rationality, to not bother even attempting to understand, to just nod and accept what's being told here.
Nope, I won't do that.

TheLurker · 24-03-2015 12:45PM

ABC101 wrote: »

What difference does it make to you or I if the end times come in 100 years or 50 years or 125.56 years or in 12000 years?

Well it makes a difference if you are a cult leader in the 1st century and you are trying to get people to worship you as their salvation from the on coming destruction.

Very few doomsday cults are that successful by saying at some point in the distance future the world will end. Sure we know the sun is going to destroy the Earth but that won't happen for billions of years. Makes a poor doomsday prediction.

Urgency is the key.

ABC101 wrote: »

Jesus did foretell the destruction of Jerusalem, which did come to pass in 70 AD.

No, Jesus predicted that at some point the stones would all be torn down. He was very unspecific about why or how.

Am I a prophet if I predict that at some point the St Stephens Green Shopping Centre will be torn down? I mean that is a pretty safe prediction if I give no details when or how other than it will happen in the near-ish future?

ABC101 wrote: »

Rather than debating here about Luke's writing of Generation, why don't you ask a priest next time you see one / happen to meet one? Or pop down to your local Church and ask!

Ask what exactly? Again a Christian will simply tell me the Christian answer, that Jesus is the son of God and had supernatural powers.

This is like saying just as Tom Cruise for his opinion on the veracity of Scientology. I can guess the answer.

I require something more than a stock faith based answer from Christianity.

silverharp · 24-03-2015 01:42PM

katydid wrote: »

I'd hardly call 1st century Palestine "prehistoric". It was actually a very interesting time, with the influence of Rome at its height, and a ready made "communications system" (common tongue, common currency, trade routes etc.) in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Actually, Christianity was very pro-woman. Jesus himself treated women with respect and equality, and the new church considered all humans equal under God. Women often played leading roles in the early church.

I could rephrase the question as why did "he" pick a method that was identical to it being a man made creation. Indeed christianity got lucky as it managed to embed itself in an empire that had legs. but the overall "project" seems very weak for an all powerful being. There is no evidence that the universal deity had any concern for people in America , Europe, Asia or Australia for a period of up to a hundred to two hundred thousand years.

katydid · 24-03-2015 06:27PM

silverharp wrote: »

I could rephrase the question as why did "he" pick a method that was identical to it being a man made creation. Indeed christianity got lucky as it managed to embed itself in an empire that had legs. but the overall "project" seems very weak for an all powerful being. There is no evidence that the universal deity had any concern for people in America , Europe, Asia or Australia for a period of up to a hundred to two hundred thousand years.

That's a different question. :-)

And a good one. There were many factors which could have knocked the nascent religion on its head. It really only survived in the form it did because of it being adopted as the de facto state religion by Constantine. Most of our rites and rituals go back to these Roman times.

It's an impossible question to answer. One could talk about God's plan, about destiny, fate, or luck. Maybe it was something that had to take hold of its own accord, rather than being imposed on humanity.

As you point out, it had hardly any impact on many parts of the world for many years. It still has little impact on many parts even today.

TheLurker · 24-03-2015 06:42PM

katydid wrote:

It's an impossible question to answer. One could talk about God's plan, about destiny, fate, or luck. Maybe it was something that had to take hold of its own accord, rather than being imposed on humanity.

I think the point is that this is a very unlikely way for a deity to behave.

We can suppose some unknown reason for why it had to happen like this.

But the more simple explanation is that it wasn't real to begin with.

We keep coming back to that point, that the simplest answer, that doesn't require imposed interpretation or supposed mysteries, is that the claims are not real. Jesus was just a charismatc doomsday cult leader with a good PR team.

Can I ask if you put aside your personal faith for a moment, what is the issue with that explanation? What does it not explain that the more convoluted explanations do?

tommy2bad · 24-03-2015 07:48PM

TheLurker wrote: »

I think the point is that this is a very unlikely way for a deity to behave.

We can suppose some unknown reason for why it had to happen like this.

But the more simple explanation is that it wasn't real to begin with.

We keep coming back to that point, that the simplest answer, that doesn't require imposed interpretation or supposed mysteries, is that the claims are not real. Jesus was just a charismatc doomsday cult leader with a good PR team.

Can I ask if you put aside your personal faith for a moment, what is the issue with that explanation? What does it not explain that the more convoluted explanations do?

Of course you can dismiss the whole thing as a fabrication either for gain or just plain delusion. I have done exactly this with several other 'stories' both Christian and other. Sometimes I even dismiss the gospel as fabrication. Belief isn't blind faith.
However their is more to the gospels than a record of Jesus time here, if that was all it was it would be a poor effort, as you say full of contradictions and hearsay.
As insane as it sounds, I don't believe it because it happened, it happened because I believe.
Man is perishing. That may be, and if it is nothingness that awaits us let us so act that it will be an unjust fate.”
― Miguel de Unamuno, Tragic Sense of Life

katydid · 24-03-2015 08:19PM

TheLurker wrote: »

I think the point is that this is a very unlikely way for a deity to behave.

We can suppose some unknown reason for why it had to happen like this.

But the more simple explanation is that it wasn't real to begin with.

We keep coming back to that point, that the simplest answer, that doesn't require imposed interpretation or supposed mysteries, is that the claims are not real. Jesus was just a charismatc doomsday cult leader with a good PR team.

Can I ask if you put aside your personal faith for a moment, what is the issue with that explanation? What does it not explain that the more convoluted explanations do?

How can anyone know how a deity would behave....

The issue with the Occam's Razor proposition is that the simplest explanation may be the most likely but it doesn't mean it has to be.... We're not talking about logic here, but about something that is based on belief. We can't explain everything.

pauldla · 25-03-2015 12:15AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

If that were the case, why is the actual destruction, one of the most monumental and game changing events ever for Judah, Israel, and it's people, not recorded or mentioned anywhere in the new testament ?

I don't know. Biblical scholars date the books of the New Testament as being written during the second half of the first century and into the second century, if I'm not mistaken. Your guess is as good as mine, I suppose, as to why they omitted it; especially if it was an event prophesied directly by Jesus. Perhaps it was a later addition by an over-zealous scribe?

TheLurker · 25-03-2015 01:02AM

tommy2bad wrote:

Of course you can dismiss the whole thing as a fabrication either for gain or just plain delusion. I have done exactly this with several other 'stories' both Christian and other. Sometimes I even dismiss the gospel as fabrication. Belief isn't blind faith. However their is more to the gospels than a record of Jesus time here, if that was all it was it would be a poor effort, as you say full of contradictions and hearsay. As insane as it sounds, I don't believe it because it happened, it happened because I believe. Man is perishing. That may be, and if it is nothingness that awaits us let us so act that it will be an unjust fate.â€ â€• Miguel de Unamuno, Tragic Sense of Life

Ok...what "more" is there? People keep saying that and then being kinda fuzzy on the follow up...

And yes that sounds crazy. A more likely explanation is it didn't happen but you still believe. Probably because the story ticks a number of phsycological buttons that over ride rational thinking, like a Lotto advertisement

TheLurker · 25-03-2015 01:07AM

katydid wrote:

How can anyone know how a deity would behave....

Well one would assume a deity would act in some reasonable or rational manner, wouldn't you?

katydid wrote:

The issue with the Occam's Razor proposition is that the simplest explanation may be the most likely but it doesn't mean it has to be.... We're not talking about logic here, but about something that is based on belief. We can't explain everything.

It doesn't have to be but you still need a reason to suppose the more convoluted option over the simplest one.

You are introducing a supposition to explain a contradiction, rather than the far simpler explanation that it was simply an error.

What reason is there to do that other than to try and get to the desired conclusion?

RikuoAmero · 25-03-2015 08:12AM

TheLurker wrote: »

Well one would assume a deity would act in some reasonable or rational manner, wouldn't you?

It doesn't have to be but you still need a reason to suppose the more convoluted option over the simplest one.

You are introducing a supposition to explain a contradiction, rather than the far simpler explanation that it was simply an error.

What reason is there to do that other than to try and get to the desired conclusion?

Exactly. It's kinda like where a child tells the teacher "I didn't do my homework because..." and starts telling a fantastic story of monsters, magic and who knows what else.
The story may be 100% logically coherent internally, but does the teacher believe the child? Nope. Occam's Razor favours the simplest explanation - the child is making it up. If the teacher were to try and believe the child, s/he needs something to help that...like I dunno, evidence of what the child is saying?

tommy2bad · 25-03-2015 09:50AM

TheLurker wrote: »

Ok...what "more" is there? People keep saying that and then being kinda fuzzy on the follow up...

And yes that sounds crazy. A more likely explanation is it didn't happen but you still believe. Probably because the story ticks a number of phsycological buttons that over ride rational thinking, like a Lotto advertisement

OK let's dismiss faith completely, now what do we replace it with? Science? Logic?
The problem is you seem to think faith has no purpose, that it appeared like some parasitic virus and we need to rid ourselves of it! The problem with this Dawkins position is it seeks not to rid the world of faith but to usurp faith and put it's proponents in the place of priests.
We use science as a tool to describe the world within certain parameters, outside of those it has no relevance. But science is not the only tool in the box, art, music, philosophy and whether you like it or not religion also have a place.
Abandon religion and the vacuum left will be filled with something else, something indistinguishable from religion.
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit.
Called or uncalled, God will be present. Erasmus

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments