He's around now and again. One of these days we're still due for another knock-down-drag-out...

Whatever happened to Nox?

@Nzo

I was primarily addressing the OP, which I interpreted as asking for feedback on an argument for the non-existence of Yahweh.

More broadly, I was suggesting a different way of looking at relations with christians. Instead of "They believe silly things that are easily disproven, and we should just show them that they're wrong," I think an approach of, "They are reacting to emotional needs that we need to try to understand to communicate," would be more constructive. It's more of an attitude then a course of action.

Of course I'm not suggesting that anyone go up to a random christian and say, "So, you're a christian - you must have emotional issues. What are they?" However, when discussing religion with a christian, I would suggest focusing more on the emotions then the logic. For example, instead of asking, "Why do you believe X when there's this problem with it and this and this..." why don't you try asking "So why is it important to you that X is the case?"

And when making a more general argument (such as one you intend to post online) I'd suggest focusing less on logical or factual arguments then on ones that speak to those emotional needs. For example, I think it would be better to talk about how being morally right and being factually right are two different things, and that one doesn't necessarily go with the other so believing the factually right thing doesn't make you morally right.

This thread demonstrates patternicity and agenticity at its best...

"From sensory data flowing in through the senses, the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning. Our brains connect the dots of our world into meaningful patterns that explain why things happen, and these patterns become beliefs. Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, which accelerates the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive-feedback loop of belief confirmation. Science is the best tool ever devised to determine whether or not a belief matches reality." - Michael Shermer (The Believing Brain)

@kessy_athena

Who exactly are you addressing?

Obviously, the exact emotional issues involved depends on the individual, however it seems to me that most commonly people's idea of god is heavily tied up in the basis of their world view, their sense of identity and self worth, and a sense of safety and security. If you don't address those things, nothing you say will ever have an effect.

How do we go about addressing their emotional issues without being close to them, or a therapist for them? I'd wager it's a bit difficult to have a christian open up to one of us heathen atheists, much less an entire community.

"theist" is mostly used to describe a christian, since we don't get too many other types here. As for a common definition for the forum, it depends on the individual and context. Most of us try to be as accurate as possible with our statements, but sometimes we get caught up and use words that may not be, technically speaking, correct.

Edit: damn markup-mnky police

I think that you're missing the point.

If you really want to speak to "theists" and not at them, you have to understand the real basis for their religious opinions and address them. And the real basis for Christianity in the West has nothing at all to do with evidence, proof, logic, or even textual authority. I mean, if those were the basis, wouldn't the debate have been over centuries ago and now be nothing more then an historical footnote? The real basis is in most cases is mostly or entirely emotional. Obviously, the exact emotional issues involved depends on the individual, however it seems to me that most commonly people's idea of god is heavily tied up in the basis of their world view, their sense of identity and self worth, and a sense of safety and security. If you don't address those things, nothing you say will ever have an effect.

Incidentally, I was wondering how exactly the word "theist" is mostly used in this forum. Do you use the formal definition of belief in a creator god who continues to intervene in the form of miracles, or do you simply mean someone who believes in the gods? Or at least one.

My take on the ancient astronaut idea is that if you go much beyond saying, "Some parts of mythology sound as if they may have been inspired by a civilization with advanced technology," you're really just talking about the same old gods, just calling them aliens instead. I mean, does it really make a difference if you substitute Zeus' thunderbolt with a ray gun?

lol

Why is it that when you look up many ancient messiahs, many of them all have the same corresponding events...

Born 25th December
12 Disciples
Three Kings (Originally referring to an old Orion constellation resembling a cross.)
The Three Kings or Wise Men all followed the same star in the sky to lead their way.
Born of a Virgin
Risen on the third day
Others also show the messiahs being deceived by an disciple, with the named messiah knowing this beforehand.

Why don't we hear about all of these messiahs? Because originally they were said to be placed here by the devil, only hiding the truth from themselves in the process.

By all means, I myself believe Christ was here, and that he did what he did...

but, there are solid mythological and ancient cizilization evidence to back up all of these other claimed messiahs.

I can only speculate Christ is a much broader meaning, but nobody knows its significance. If only it were all figured out before hand.

It is amazing the truths people will hide from themselves only in order to maintain their own security and comfort.

There are 35,000+ different Christian sectors...how does the old saying go?
"A religion divided is no religion at all"

BTW Christ originally stated he would be with us until the end of the "Aeon" meaning Zodiac Ages, not until the end of "Time". This current "Aeon" of Pisces ends on 2050.

The most basic elements of information are key to figuring these things out. You can see many religions and cultures have very similar creation myths as to how everything began. Though it is the elaborating, altering, revising, damaging, or loss of this information over time that becomes the very complex religions we see today.

Hmm go figure.

Thank you for your time.

Just another thought for your book... in Genesis, before Adam and Eve or christian believed human creation the bible states broad as day "God created them, male and female he created them."

Male AND Female + Created "THEM" meaning plural.

Suppose the existence of God was treated as a reasonable hypothesis. The absence of any supporting (or any) evidence pretty much falsifies any hypothesis, so God does not exist. its not that you cannot disprove God, its convincing others that what they think constitutes evidence, is not evidence in any acceptable sense.

This line of inquiry only makes sense if you concede to believe that The Bible is the definitive source for describing the Nature of God. Or if you believe in God as defined or portrayed by the Abrahamic Religions.

We should however, remember that the Nature of God has been pondered by many other sources. I am, of course, disposed towards a Pan-Universalist definition of God. However, I do find the Ancient Astronaut Theory very compelling as possibly providing an essential Missing Link to a very important aspect to History.

Defining God is the essential task here and I will only say that any attempt to define God as the one personified and portrayed by the Abrahamic Religions is a brain-dead exercise of trying to make a Square Peg fit into a Circular hole. It isn't natural, and if thats God then I'm an atheist.

Luckily however, that God is not God. I will personally refute any individual who says such contradictory things like "The Universe was Created"

Ty, if you say: "the Universe was created by the two colliding p-branes" you create a paradox. The statement in quotations can not possibly true. To draw a parallel, the Pop-phrase "Multiple Universes" is by its very nature an oxymoron and can not possibly be true. By the very definition of Universe, the p-branes themselves must be included and again, our understanding of the Universe must expand.

This confusion of the Scientific & English languages goes back to atleast a 100 years when Edwin Hubble first discovered "Island Universes" which we today refer to as Galaxies. Following an extensive debate in the Astronomical Community, the term "Island Universe" was abandoned and Galaxy was adopted. Perhaps someone here would like to explain why...

Masa_Lee, I largely believe that you are on a path that you'll find will bring you closer to the truth than most here. I wanted to reply to your comment about Nibiru and would simply state that it might make more sense to put it into the context of a Comet that was misinterpreted as a planet by some of the earliest astronomers. Others, have mentioned Sitchen, I have not read his book, but he is in no shape, form, or fashion the source of the Ancient Astronaut Theory.

As for the OP:
You can only prove or disprove God if you can define God. You have freedom of conscious & if you're an American, freedom of religion. You may exercise this freedom to define God in whatever way you deem best able of supporting in debate. It is the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty and the downfall of all atheists to promote a definition of God that you are not ready to defend. Unwitting atheists in modern society provide astro-turfing and memetic proliferation of the Biblical God and are nothing more than pawns on a chessboard devoid of any intellectual merit.

Before the word Universe came into usage, before Civilization developed and complicated itself with personifying God. God was Nature, and this is how most of our greatest scientists and the earliest philosophers refer to God, in the natural sense. Much is the same with the Native Americans and their referral to God as The Great Spirit. God, aka the Universe, is Eternal, and Spiritual Disharmory (as its called) originates from the wide-spread belief in Creationism.

There are several types of Creationists:
YEC: Young Earth Creationist (typically Biblical Believers who understand that the Earth is 6000 years old.
OEC: Old Earth Creationists (Biblical Readers who believe the Earth is much older and interpret "days" to mean something like "epochs")
BBC: Big Bang Creationist (scientific illiterates who believe the Universe was created approx 14 billion years ago)

I will focus on the BBC here because they are the ones I feel most disappointed in. They have a lot of potential but their misapplication of terms only lends to the confusion when educating the next generation of those of Scientific discipline.
1. Multiple Universes is an Oxymoron
2. The Universe was not created 14 billion years ago.
3. If anything, 14 billion years ago, The Universe generated a Big Bang Event.

The Key Word here is: EVENT, and I would prefer anyone deciding to open their mouths to contest this take a long hard look at the data before you open your presumptuous mouths.

Scientific Evidence has not now, nor ever supported the Hypothesis that The Big Bang Event signified the Creation of the Universe. If prior to the Big Bang Event you have a Universe consisting of Membranes, then "you have a Universe consisting of Membranes." The Universe can not be created or destroyed, Conservation of Mass / Energy is the Ultimate Law.

The real question I think most people therefore are interested in is:

Does the Universe possess some sort Cosmic Neural Network, endowing it with Intelligence, that transcends time & space?

Proposed Mechanism: A super-advanced race, past, present, or future learns how to create a mind-machine interface utilizing the principles of Quantum Entanglement.

I look forward to your replies but take personal note that this forum is very slow and will keep it bookmarked.

Fair enough. Wasn't trying to conflate you with Sitchin. It seemed to me that you were arguing on behalf of the views expressed on that website you linked to and I have already encountered these views enough times to consider them already debunked. Also the website you linked on the sumerians mentioned Zecharia Sitchin over 20 times and seemed to be using him as their only source for any of their claims. And as far as I can tell, ZS is the only source for the "extraterrestrials in flying boats". My original point in questioning that was not the source but simply that sumerian vocabulary would not include the concept of extraterrestrial (or even terrestrial). They would have had a word for boat, and I would not have argued if you claimed "actual sumerian text:Some guys rode on boats". But I have no desire to play the strawman on anyone. So if these are not your views I will refrain from viewing them as your views. If you can explain your stance a bit more specifically it will help me know what you are saying so that I'm not off arguing against some 3rd party. As an avid conspiracy theorist I know how annoying it is when someone pretends to have debunked one of my claims by arguing against some imaginary thing that I never said, or something that the craziest 1% of people who share some specific belief also believe. So if you can give me a clearer picture of what it is that you are talking about then I would rather talk about that than zs.

"Interpretations can and will be altered, damaged, or lost over time; you would probably think the same."

As a matter of fact I would. Whatever else we may agree or disagree on I'm 100% with you on this part. Mankind has a tendency to lose the original meaning behind things. Or to take things out of their historical context.

"This thread does make me interested in the removed books from religious bibles though."

This is a pretty interesting subject in itself. Although the issue with "removed books" seems to be somewhat specific to the bible. As for removed or rewritten passages, you can find examples of this with just about any holy book. Just being translated from English to English the Book of Mormon has managed to undergo dozens of editorial changes between Joseph Smith's original version and the one his church uses today. At one point in it's early history the Qu'ran contained numerous verses which did not make the final cut. After announcing to his followers that these words had come from Allah, Muhammed reversed his decision and announced that the devil had tricked him into writing certain verses which he declared would not be in the book. The title of Salmon Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses is actually a reference to this incident. That's the only example I know of anything being removed from the Qu'ran, but if you know what the word "hadith" means then you know plenty has been added. About 200 years after Muhammed died, an islamic scholar named Muhammad Ibn Ismail al-Bukhari went around the middle east collecting folklore on Muhammed, and writing an anthology of sayings which random people attributed to Muhammed that were not in the Qu'ran. These sayings are known as hadiths, and in the Sunni sect of Islam (the largest branch of Islam) it is a mandatory belief that these randomass words are the words of Muhammed. As one might expect the bible is a bit more complicated. But there was long and bloody editorial process that led to the gospel of John being chosen over the gospel of Thomas.

Oh btw Nox, I could care less about Zecharia Sitchin. It is only the solid facts I find or come across that I would hold an interest in.

There are true archaeological facts on that page, not all, but that is what I look for. I am sure there are other solid examples or literal translations.

You're clearly right that it is up to interpretation. Interpretations can and will be altered, damaged, or lost over time; you would probably think the same.

This thread does make me interested in the removed books from religious bibles though. If my logic on information altering over time in one form or another is correct, makes me think about what we don't know. The basic main information seems to be solid and correct to cultures beliefs, but there is just so much they add on top of it.

"Once you get apes, humans are not such a huge leap. The tougher question is how the 1st single cell organisms came about. Most variations of AAT that I've seen suggest that every other species on the planet was already here, and then for some reason we had to arrive from space. It just seems to be adding an unnecessary complication which requires aliens to exist in order to explain itself. "

Yes, and then the AAT people need to explain why we share a consistent genetic history with all these other animals that goes back a couple billion years.

this guy http://www.youtube.com/user/theoreticalbullshit?blend=1&ob=4 and this guy http://www.youtube.com/user/dasamericanatheist?blend=1&ob=4 have come up with dozens and dozens of arguments that refute the existence of 'gods' that we know--namely the Judeo-Christian God... They're both very objective, concise and articulate, so I'd recommend checking both out.

I see your interesting points and they do make sense to me.

I have a most certain belief that many cultures, modern or not, will alter or differentiate their interpretive meanings. Things get lost or altered over time...

Compilation can or will mean reason for belief if placed in the right contexts.

So the key is creative interpretation. Look at a symbol that 100% of experts would identify as "tree" or "rock" and declare that it is the sumerian symbol for "extraterrestrial" (this is how Joseph Smith wrote the "book of Abraham"). Soon as I saw the name Zecharia Sitchin that whole sumerian extraterrestrial thing fell into place. ZS's trick is to take every well known ancient thing with a semi-uncertain origin (Stonehenge, Pyramids in Egypt and Mexico, Easter Island giant stone heads) and throw them haphazardly into a davinci code style all encompassing theory. I actually would put "ancient astronaut theory" in the realm of possibility, but without any evidence it is left at just a possibility. One that seems less possible every time it is espoused by a flagrant shill like Sitchin or Pegg.

And if we say hypothetically that humans are aliens (landed here long ago or planted by some more advanced alien species) then what accounts for other species being here as well. See the hard part of explaining how humans got here has nothing to do with humans themselves. Once you get apes, humans are not such a huge leap. The tougher question is how the 1st single cell organisms came about. Most variations of AAT that I've seen suggest that every other species on the planet was already here, and then for some reason we had to arrive from space. It just seems to be adding an unnecessary complication which requires aliens to exist in order to explain itself. Not saying aliens couldn't exist. Statistically they probably do somewhere, and problems with contact would have more to do with finding each other in such a huge universe than whether they exist, but since I've seen no specific evidence of aliens I'm inclined to regard any explanation requiring aliens similarly to any explanation which requires a god.

Well, here is interesting information on the Sumerians...

Although I am very skeptical of the referred outer solar system "Planet X" existing what so ever.

'http://www.netscientia.com/sumerians.html'

BTW I have been mentioning humans themselves could be aliens.

Ugh somehow I double posted. =\

Wait, the Sumerians had a word for "extraterrestrial"? That seems a little iffy. Which text is that from?

"Actual translated Sumerian text states "An advanced extraterrestrial race came down from the sky in flying boats.""

Repeating this lie will not make it more true. Either provide some evidence for this claim, or stop saying it.

"There must have been an reaction which began this and any universe.
(Any universe referring to String Theory/Multi-verse, which has been proven.)"

This is a gigantic bowl full of irony soup. You know that, right?

"A creator may have caused the reaction to expand a universe out of an seemingly endless energy source."

And, I may have created the universe. I even have one more point of evidence in my favor: I can be demonstrated to exist. A test your 'creator' continues to fail.

Speculation without evidence is fun! I actually get paid to do it. But, then, I'm a fiction writer.

Before Adam and Eve and before God created the world in its entirety...

It does say in Genesis "Male and female he created them."

A majority of various cultures "God's" whom many cultures believe in, all tell of a time when their God's flew, or descended down from the sky. They all hold a belief that they came down in described primitive human vehicles or crafting.

Actual translated Sumerian text states "An advanced extraterrestrial race came down from the sky in flying boats."

Hopi and Egyptians knew of the star clusters Sirus, and Orion. The Hopi already knew Sirus A hid Sirius B and could not be seen by the human eye. They knew of the so called "Birth or Beginning Stars", before modern human science was aware of any of this.

If there was no cause to spark the big bang and create the universe, what released all of that energy we now begin to understand?

There must have been an reaction which began this and any universe.
(Any universe referring to String Theory/Multi-verse, which has been proven.)

How did something so small compared to the universe become, a universe.

It isn't that hard to figure out if you are not closed minded.

A creator may have caused the reaction to expand a universe out of an seemingly endless energy source.

(In no way do I intend to press this on anyone.)

Ronald Pegg's conclusions are, to say the least, highly questionable. On literally everything he teaches.

We all need to agree that we are talking about the same GOD.
The Muslim, Christian, Mormon, and Hebrew GOD - the “God of Abraham”.

The account of that God commences in Genesis chapter 1.

So, showing evidence that the foundations upon which these religions have based their concept and understanding of “God” is not what it seemed - is proof of no God.

To put it another way.

People say ‘religious texts A,B,C, verses 2,5,8 state who, where, and what GOD is’.
They then used this reasoning to believe in God and start a religion.
They often use their own perceptions and the newer 1611 English Translation of the Bible.

What Ronald Pegg discovered was that those verses in those texts, when read in the original Hebrew context using the original Hebrew meanings (and not the given 1611 religious meanings), refer to something else that can be quantified and examined. That source is not divine, thus the religious people’s understanding is incorrect.
Based upon what they cite as proof for their God – it can now be shown to be about something else, thus there is no God (as described in their texts).

Having done exactly that, I'm wondering what difference you think it makes to this discussion.

Do you mean using parts of the convenience 'modern translation' of the Bible ?

I suggest you seek the original Hebrew meaning and context of the word "God" from Genesis 1:1 and start from there.

"But this argument will not work on those who like the new, liberal, 'ineffable' god."

Point taken.

I think we can all agree that attempting to make factual arguments using the Genesis creation account will fail, no matter what you're trying to dis/prove.

Arguing for the nonexistence of God/s from Genesis seems like it will be about as difficult to argue for a 6,000 year old Earth from Genesis.

I agree, once you strip away the stuff that we can easily disprove, I think there's nothing of substance left.

But this argument will not work on those who like the new, liberal, 'ineffable' god.

"You can only prove that claims made about god are false. It is impossible to prove a negative."

True. But what I was trying to get at is that the claims made about god are inescapably tied into that particular god's existence. Since the only reason people believe in gods in the first place is because of the claims about those gods (the bible, the qu'ran, etc). Obviously the typo in Genesis does not prove that there cannot be any god. No more than the absence of a visible god on Mount Olympus proves there is no yhwh. But when you start removing all the specific claims about any god which can be proven false, then how much of a god is left. As I said, you can not disprove the philosopher's god, a god who is only said to exist on some strictly ethereal plane and makes no additional claims about the nature or consequence of his existence. If god is defined as an entity who's only stated attribute is existence then you would have the "teapot orbiting Saturn" or "invisible pink unicorn" dilemma. But it seems to me that every god but the flying spaghetti monster comes with some package of beliefs which must also be true if that god is true. In most cases these beliefs are things which can themselves be proven false. I would agree with you that a negative can not be proven. But it seems to me that this only gets vaguely defined ambiguous gods off the hook. Most atheists (including myself) would say they believe in the possibility of some god existing. And when theists argue for their god, an undefined god is easier to defend. But how many churches teach the possibility that some god exists. Most of the ones I've been in teach very clearly that their specific god with some set of specifically stated traits exists.