What if we're all wrong!

272 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

Yes, I should have said scientists and not science.

My point was to show the irrationality of trying to use science to prove or disprove God.
The example I gave was to show that 100 years ago an atheists could have ridiculed the Bible because it said there was light before the sun and stars. Atheists could have also said that the current scientific knowledge is that the universe is static and had no beginning. Scientists now know that there was light in the universe before the sun and stars and the universe had a beginning.

Some atheists still use the light in the Bible before the sun and stars as evidence against the reliability of the Bible.
Day one was light and the earth, sun and stars came after that.

Sheldon's picture
This is facile nonsense Jo.

This is facile nonsense Jo.

Genesis is rife with scientific inaccuracies, this desperate straw clutching is embarrassing.

It is a scientific fact that all living things on earth evolved over billions of years, and that humans evolved just 200k years ago. The massive and relentless evidence has put this beyond any reasonable doubt.

Not only does this kill stone dead the biblical notion everything was created with humans in mind, it is entirely at odds with the fatuous myth humans were created in their current form, from clay, using unexplained magic.

Deal with that, without resorting to absurd denials of the scientific fact of evolution. As if you haven't noticed you're cherry picking which scientific facts you'll accept, based on a bias in favour of an entirely unevidenced bronze age superstiton.

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

I have never denied evolution. What "facts" am I cherry picking. I agree with current scientific knowledge, including evolution.

Is Genesis a scientific treatise?

Are you imposing your own bias on the text?

Sheldon's picture
Jo "@Sheldon I have never

Jo "@Sheldon I have never denied evolution. What "facts" am I cherry picking. I agree with current scientific knowledge, including evolution.

Is Genesis a scientific treatise?

Are you imposing your own bias on the text?"

I never claimed you denied evolution, I said deal with the fact it directly contradicts the bible. WITHOUT resorting to absurd denials of evolution. Nor did I claim, or even imply Genesis was a scientific treatise, though the absurd implication is that human science is more accurate than an omniscient deity, and I'm sure we can all see the stupidity of that. You really are beyond dishonest. That last sentence is fucking hilarious fair play, since you have completely misrepresented what I said.

I pointed out that Genesis is rife with scientific inaccuracies, It is a scientific fact that all living things on earth evolved over billions of years, and that humans evolved just 200k years ago..this kill stone dead the biblical notion everything was created with humans in mind, and it is entirely at odds with the fatuous myth humans were created in their current form, from clay, using unexplained magic.

If you don't deny the scientific fact of evolution then you ipso facto can't believe that Genesis is true. QED

xenoview's picture
@Jo

@Jo
Can you give a link to these scientists that say there was light before the stars. Can you prove the bible is correct that light existed before stars?

Calilasseia's picture
I've already mentioned some

I've already mentioned some relevant issues applicable to this here.

Jo's picture
@ xenoview

@ xenoview

"This was the moment of first light in the universe, between 240,000 and 300,000 years after the Big Bang, known as the Era of Recombination". https://phys.org/news/2016-11-universe.html

The point I am trying to make is that you could use science to confirm the validity of the Bible or to dispute its validity. NEITHER is a proper use of science. More specifically, you cannot prove or disprove God using science.
"Misunderstandings of the limits of science. MISCONCEPTION: Science contradicts the existence of God".
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b2

xenoview's picture
@Jo

@Jo
The theist's makes the claim a god is real, so they have the burden of proof. I have a lack of belief in any god, because there is no objective evidence that any god is real. What science are you talking about proving a god exist? Science doesn't contradict god.

Jo's picture
@ xenoview

@ xenoview

I agree that science doesn't contradict God.

I am saying that science cannot be used to determine God existence.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - The Bible says there was

Jo - The Bible says there was light in the universe before there was the sun or stars. Until about 60 years ago science did not know this.

Jo - My point was to show the irrationality of trying to use science to prove or disprove God.

OK, great. Why did you need to lie to do it (as the bold part is clearly false)?

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

Lying is something very different than bad grammar.

I should have said scientists and not science.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "Lying is something very

Jo "Lying is something very different than bad grammar."

Different from, not different than. Different is an adjective, but not a comparative adjective. It's time to nip this nonsense in the bud.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - Scientists now know that

Jo - Scientists now know that there was light in the universe before the sun and stars and the universe had a beginning.

So there was light in the universe before the universe had a beginning? Really? Which scientists "know" this?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Jo - Day one was light and the earth, sun and stars came after that.

So the Earth is older than the sun (and other stars)? Really?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Jo - The example I gave was to show that 100 years ago an atheists could have ridiculed the Bible because it said there was light before the sun and stars.

You must realize that the knowledge that light can come from things other than the sun and stars (like from fire, for example), presumably predates recorded history? Right?

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

My grammar was horrible on the post you quoted. Hopefully this is better.

Science now confirms there was light in the universe before the sun and stars. It has also confirmed that the universe had a beginning. Just like the Bible says.

According to Gen 1 on day one light was created. On subsequent days the earth sun and stars were created. The earth is mentioned in Gen 1:1 but it may be a reference to the state of the earth or the universe as a whole. "The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters". It could be describing the universe in its initial state (using the earth as a point of reference). It was empty, and dark, a deep abyss. It compares it to an ocean (vast, seemingly bottomless, dark, unfathomable, seemingly empty). It is also describing it in the understanding of the day.

It is not nearly as easy to know exactly what is meant, as some make it out to be. There are literary devises that are used, it is a poem, and it designed to be easily memorized and repeated. The original audience were mostly illiterate. What is literal, figurative, literary devices, common understandings of the time, and other questions, are all hard to say for sure.

The overarching theme is that God created everything for a reason. The reason was to provide a place for us to dwell in communion with him. That is how the story ends. These themes run throughout the Bible. That God brings order out of chaos. There is a purpose in what he does. He wants us to live in communion with him. He wants us to live in paradise, and bring us back to paradise when we wander. These are some of the obvious main points of the story. Saying for sure what is literal or figurative, is something that even the brightest theologians have difficulty with. Trying to match it up with science is to misunderstand its intent and to force something on the text that does not seem to be the authors intent. Both theists and atheist are misusing the Bible and science when they try to do that.

I do realize that the knowledge that light can come from things other than the sun and stars predates recorded history.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - Trying to match it up

Jo - Trying to match it up with science is to misunderstand its intent and to force something on the text that does not seem to be the authors intent. Both theists and atheist are misusing the Bible and science when they try to do that.

V.S.

Jo - Science now confirms there was light in the universe before the sun and stars. It has also confirmed that the universe had a beginning. Just like the Bible says.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and for bonus points: that isn't accurate either (your statement about how science confirms the universe had a beginning).

V.S.

Jo - No one should misuse science and twist the Bible to support their beliefs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
If I remember correctly---in your mythology---Jesus has some pretty nasty stuff to say about hypocrisy.

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

My original point was to show it is WRONG to try and prove/disprove the Bible using science. I was giving light before stars as an example of how some try and prove the Bible is accurate through science. I was not agreeing with that notion.

Is he universe not 14 billions years old? Everything I read about the big bang explains it as "in the beginning".
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago". http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - Everything I read about

Jo - Everything I read about the big bang explains it as "in the beginning".

Then you've probably been reading popularization of science material (which is exactly what you've been quoting). The big bang theory has initial conditions. They are: homogeneous, isotropic, expanding hydrogen plasma. Or in other words, at the start of the big bang theory, the universe already exists and is populated with hydrogen gas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"This was the moment of first light in the universe, between 240,000 and 300,000 years after the Big Bang, known as the Era of Recombination". https://phys.org/news/2016-11-universe.html

Yeah, that is TOTALLY wrong. This is what happens you when you mistake popularization of science material, with science itself.

What that article is discussing is the surface of last scattering. After the surface of last scattering, the universe was more or less transparent, allowing light to travel in straight lines (to no longer scatter). That is most defiantly not the earliest light. It is the earliest light that can still be seen (with microwave receivers).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW: you can't have atoms without light. Surely you learned in grade school that electrons and protons have opposite electrical charges?

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

Here is a reference from NASA that talks about light in the universe after just 300,000 years.
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/science/firstLight.html

Was there light in the universe before there were stars?
Is the universe 14 billion years old.?

Sheldon's picture
Jo..."you could use science

Jo..."you could use science to confirm the validity of the Bible."

Nonsense Jo, the best you can say is that some aspects of biblical myths are so vague they dint obviously contradict known scientific facts. There is no scientific evidence to support any supernatural claim in the bible.

You also keep ignoring the fact the Genesis myth is directly contradicted by known scientific facts. It is a scientific fact that all living things on earth evolved over billions of years, and that humans evolved just 200k years ago. The massive and relentless evidence has put this beyond any reasonable doubt.

Not only does this kill stone dead the biblical notion everything was created with humans in mind, it is entirely at odds with the fatuous myth humans were created in their current form, from clay, using unexplained magic.

So your disingenuous claims are not going to fool anybody here in possession of the facts.

Tin-Man's picture
@Jo Re: "It is not nearly as

***This post moved to the end of the thread just in case Jo missed it in the clutter here.***

Sheldon's picture
Tue, 07/16/2019 - 22:16

Tue, 07/16/2019 - 22:16
Jo Can you offer objective facts to support there is no God?

I have never claimed this, so please do offer objective facts there are no invisible unicorns?

"it is also irrational to claim there is no God without evidence."

I have never claimed this, nor does atheism claim this. So your relentless repetition of this lie speaks for itself.

""What would it take for you to disbelieve the existence of a deity"? I will answer the question if you will say what it would take for you to believe."

I have already answered this multiple times, so your dishonesty is again manifest. Disbelieving a claim does not require contrary evidence, this is a common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

This is not rocket science, so either you're too stupid to understand a very simple premise, or you're simply dishonestly trolling, or is it LIES FOR JESUS?"

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

When you attack my character and intelligence (dishonest, stupid, trolling, not rocket science) you undermine your own credibility.
If I am as stupid as you claim, you should feel sorry for me instead of calling me names.
If I am a big liar or big fool, why are you debating a lying fool?
Perhaps like others here, you feel a little better when you verbally assault a theist?

Your refrain of asking for objective facts to evidence God is a faith claim disguised as a question.
Is God existence something that objective evidence can be provided for? You are implying the answer is yes.
Your question/claim also infers that the whole question of God existence or non existence is one that can be determined by objective evidence. If God does exist and objective evidence could be provided, than his non existence could also be shown by objective evidence. You have to be consistent.

Can objective evidence be provided to evidence Gods existence or non existence? I say the answer is no. What do you say?

Sheldon's picture
Jo "@ Sheldon

Jo "@ Sheldon

When you attack my character and intelligence (dishonest, stupid, trolling, not rocket science) you undermine your own credibility.
If I am as stupid as you claim, you should feel sorry for me instead of calling me names"

I didn't insult your character or call you names, you keep asking me for proof no deity exists and I've never made that claim, I have repeatedly explained this and that it is an appeal to ignorance fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I've even explain what that means and offered links.

The fact you keep ignoring all this and dishonestly repeating the question can infer only one of two things. Either you're being dishonest by trolling or you're genuinely too stupid to grasp a fairly simple premise of informal logic.

My hypothetical was also a direct comment on what you had posted. It made no direct assertions about your character.

Instead of being butt hurt, and continually ignoring post content why not address the FACT you keep rehashing a question you now MUST KNOW is based a known common logical fallacy, whilst refusing to acknowledge this each time its pointed out to you?

You have also lied again in that post, as asking what objective evidence you can demonstrate for any deity makes no assumptions at all. You either can or you cannot, I certainly will infer something if you cannot, and that will be that I don't believe any claim for which no objective evidence an be shown, and this is a universal standard I apply to ALL claims, unlike you and all the other theists I've encountered.

Your relentless attempts to frame questions in a dishonest word game to avoid the epistemological burden of proof your theistic belief carries is utterly transparent and completely facile. You won't fool us into thinking you've created a sound compelling argument through repetition. What's more I have asked repeatedly for theists to give some examples of things they believe without any objective evidence that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs and not only did you fail to do this, you rehashed a string of questions for atheists that were duplicitous in implying atheism is anything more than the lack of a belief. You then ignored the response, and rolled on making the same duplicitous claims about there being parity for evidence between belief (theism), and the absence of that belief (atheism).

If an atheist makes a claim that doesn't change the definition of atheism or add a burden of proof to it, only that individual is culpable for that claim. Theism on the other hand, as well as having an inherent claim in its core belief, has masses of dogma, doctrine and scripture that make claims. So it is for each to theist to properly define their beliefs.

One last point, science is the best method we have for studying and explaining reality. Its innumerable successes are manifest evidence of this. If you are claiming it can't study something, then the obvious inference is to question how you could know this, yet beyond the bare claim you offer naught but the usual fatuous anecdotal claims all theists of all persuasions fall back on when they are directly challenged to evidence their claims.

Claims are not evidenced by other claims. Also if the best method we have can't evidence something then its epistemologically sound to point out that science can't evidence anything that does not exist, please demonstrate evidence of how your deity differs from non existent things like all the other deities you don't believe exist for example, or mermaids unicorns or aliens who seem to have a penchant for anally assaulting lonely farmers and cowboys in the wilds of Montana?

It's time to piss, or get off the pot.

xenoview's picture
@Jo

@Jo
If you can't prove a god is real with objective evidence, why do you worship it?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Sheldon - ...or is it LIES

Sheldon - ...or is it LIES FOR JESUS?

I've known lots of honest Christians, but I've never met an honest apologist. I suspect there is no such animal.

Dark One's picture
Miracles are meant to be the

Miracles are meant to be the objective evidence for God, various people were able to perform them all the time back in the day but no-one can apparently pull one off now. The lack of the objective evidence/s that we ought to have counts as objective evidence for a lack of God. Certainly a interactive theistic God who cares anything about us at all at any rate. There have been scientific studies on effects of prayer as well, something that ought to work if God is real, it has been demonstrated to have no effect on anything whatsoever at all.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-prayer-prescription/

"The study found no differences in survival or complication rates compared with those who did not receive prayers. The only statistically significant blip appeared in a subgroup of patients who were prayed for and knew it. They experienced a higher rate of postsurgical heart arrhythmias (59 versus 52 percent of unaware subjects)."

What you have here is scientific evidence for a lack of God it goes further than just not having evidence for the existence of one.

Calilasseia's picture
I've also had some fun in the

I've also had some fun in the past with one "miracle" claim in this previous post that you might enjoy.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - According to Gen 1 on

Jo - According to Gen 1 on day one light was created. On subsequent days the earth sun and stars were created.

V.S.

Jo - Jo - Day one was light and the earth, sun and stars came after that.

------------------------------------------------------------
/e It seems you can't stop contradicting yourself; even when discussing your own mythology. Why do you think that is?

Sheldon's picture
Nyarl..."It seems you can't

Nyarl..."It seems you can't stop contradicting yourself; even when discussing your own mythology. Why do you think that is?"

How can any apologist expect to be taken seriously (I sense I should be stopping there...), if they are so sloppy and inconsistent as to not accurately quote / know their own scripture?

Of course anyone remotely familiar with basic psychology can tell rule number 1 in lying is to keep things vague. Like the risible idea that in Genesis, an omniscient deity explains the origins of everything, but uses day as a meaningless open ended metaphor for whatever timeline science discovers to be accurately in the future.

How do they not see the sheer inane desperation in their rationalisation? Especially alongside, "early humans got it wrong".

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep
"/e It seems you can't stop contradicting yourself; even when discussing your own mythology. Why do you think that is?"

May I ask you to help me understand something? I am not complaining or upset.
Why do you, and so many other on AR, default to assuming the worst about me?
When I exhibit my poor grammar and lack of writing skills, you think I am lying?
When I explain what I meant, you ask why I can't stop contradicting myself?

Most recently someone compared me to Nazi death camp guards.
Liar, stupid, and all sorts of horrible attributes are routinely applied to me.

Is it just the nature of a blog where people say what they would never say in person?
Am I doing something that deserves the vitriolic?

I know that some theists on AR shamefully do the same thing to atheists.
So maybe I am just getting what others deserve?

Do some look at posting on AR as a competition?
Who can score the most points against the opposition?

I am on AR by choice. It is your house and your rules.
It just seems so juvenile, petty, and a waste of time.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.