to believe that beyond all reasonable doubt

[OurBetty]

there is no god?

CrystalStair - you can think that if you like, but I would suggest that view ignores the role to be played by evidence.

An analogy: no-one knows if there is a Loch Ness Monster. There is some evidence for, but it is pretty blurry and shaky. The evidence against (a comprehensive sonar sweep of the Loch which found nothing), is strong, and suggests that Nessie does not exist, that she is invisible to sonar or that she is very good at hiding. Which of those is the most likely?

At some point, you have to say that "vastly, vastly, VASTLY unlikely to exist" is so near as to "not existing" that it makes, in pragmatic terms, no difference.

UnQuietDad I have to hand it to you, you employ the battle tactics of the playground with aplomb! You claim you have supplied "evidence"? Well anyone can google and find "evidence" for just about anything!

What I was saying to Intergalactic was you can find "evidence" in the OT for just about anything if you are clever enough.

Your "evidence" proves my point so thank you for that.

There is no argument. It would be pointless. I have watched you all chasing your tails with much amusement. I have a great deal of admiration for those who have handled themselves with dignity and restraint and no time for those who have repeatedly posted simplistic "arguments" and then proceeded to preen themselves whilst accusing others of stupidity.

If you want to read about the fulfilled prophecies in the OT (which I strongly suspect you don't) you can google them.

I give you just three as I really haven't got the time to look up the references for others.

Isaiah prophesied (by name) that Cyrus would conquer Babylon and Egypt. (At the time, Babylon was thought to be ?unconquerable.?) Isaiah also prophesied that Cyrus would let the Jewish captives return to their homes. Isaiah prophesied this 180 years before Cyrus did these things, 150 years before Cyrus was even born, and 80 years before the Jews were even taken in captivity. (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1, 13)

Two Bible prophets (Isaiah and Jeremiah) prophesied that Babylon would be destroyed, never again inhabited, that people would even avoid its ruins, and that the stones would not even be moved for building material. When they prophesied these things, Babylon was a huge city (196 square miles), surrounded by a moat and by double walls 330 feet high. Each of the walls was 90 feet thick. Everyone thought it was indestructible. (Isaiah 13:17-23;
Jeremiah 51: 26, 43)

Prophecies made by Moses, Jeremiah, (and Jesus Himself) predicted that Judah would be conquered and the people carried off into slavery on two different
occasions. This happened in 605 BC (by Babylon) and in 70 AD (by Rome).

frantic - you really quite spectacularly miss the point.

You are asserting (I'm being kind, as you are doing it somewhat cackhandedly) to say that "evidence can prove anything", and yet this is patently not the agenda of your - well, one could hardly call it "argument", but let's be generous. You are using selective evidence to "show" that certain prophecies were fulfilled, not that "evidence can prove anything".

Why? Everyone knows how "predictions" can work. You can throw a number of cards into the air, some will come down face up and some face down. I mean, I could do it. Oooh, oooh, get me. I predict that within a few hundred years' time we won't have a monarchy, that American will have had a female and/or gay President, that Europe will become a single federal entity and it will be possible for men to incubate babies in artificial wombs. Ooh, I'm a prophet. (Waves arms distractingly.)

I therefore supplied "evidence" (that site is pretty comprehensive and academic if you take the time to look at it) that these "predictions" are not quite what they seem. It deals with many of those you smugly mention. Do you not realise that, as Nostradamus did, if you go about "predicting" stuff then you are pretty likely to get some of it right or nearly right by default anyway? Here's some more evidence which refutes these supposedly "fulfilled" Biblical prophecies. You won't read it because you have an agenda.

its that kind of nonsense that gives all the sensible christians a bad name. Biblical prophecies indeed, aye and Nostradamus knew it all as well.

UnQuietDad Missing what point? You haven't made one yet so far as I can see. I am not "asserting to say" (sic) that "evidence can prove anything". I said that one can find "evidence" to back up anything. The word evidence was in quotation marks deliberately.

I looked at the site you call "pretty comprehensive and academic" and realised that it was taking the OT literally and so decided not go any further. Far more intelligent and learned folk than me or you can't agree on passages in the OT, for example: www.dabar.org/semreview/fallbabyprob.html (though I tend to concur with the writer) so where would be the point in us getting into an argument over it? But then I've noticed how you're constantly spoiling for fight!

I'd love to know where you get the idea that I have an "agenda" and even more interested to hear what you feel that "agenda" might be.

Oh, and I am far from smug. If you felt I was being smug I can only apologise for the misunderstanding.

I think atheists should all chip in to give grants to people who claim that there are lots of accurate bible prophecies. We want that kind of thing to get the publicity it deserves :o

On the same basis I think we should fund a hospital for miraculous cures so each one can be carefully documented.

I'm still waiting for the first case of a missing limb to be replaced at Lourdes.

frantic - I have made my point over and over again, and all you can do is childishly pick up on one of my rare typos. This speaks volumes. Volumes.

Your agenda seems clear: you wish people to believe certain prophecies in the OT "came true". Correct? If yes, please agree this is the case. If no, point out where I have misunderstood this.

However, your agenda is totally destroyed by the other point you seem to be making, which is one on which we can agree, namely that the OT - indeed, the entire Bible - is composed of (in places beautifully-written) truths, half-truths, hagiography, speculations, ambiguities, metaphors, myths, legends, stories, fables and plain and simple old translation issues. And so therefore finding "prophecies" in it which have "come true" is a laughable exercise.

In short, you can't berate people for taking the Bible literally in one breath, and then in the next use literal cases from it to make what one might, rather generously, refer to as "your argument". [Shakes head in incredulity]

UnQuietDad I don't wish people to believe anything particularly. What is it to me what others believe? I really don't understand what you are banging on about.

You say in your post that the OT is composed of truths etc. Some of those truths, imo, are prophecies which are quite widely considered to have been fulfilled. Some of these are clearer than others because of the ambiguities and metaphors you refer to.

There has been, and will always be, arguments over them, naturally, because there will always be people around who would wish nothing in the bible to be proved as they have an "agenda". Therefore it will always be possible to google "evidence" for whatever pov you have. Therefore it is pointless us arguing over them because more learned minds have already clashed fruitlessly.

Please show me where I have "berated" anyone for taking the Bible literally?

But if you "don't wish anyone to believe anything particularly", why are you going on about alleged dubious "prophecies" in the Bible that have been "fulfilled"?

It's not a case of "googling evidence for whatever pov you have." It's very telling that you think this is the way round you do it. It's a case of looking at the evidence first, then arriving at your view. My view, looking at the evidence, is that the Bible is mostly unreliable and that there is no case for "god" being any more than a product of human imagination.

It's up to those who wish to demonstrate existence of this "god" to present clear evidence for it - the person making the active claim for the supernatural must be the one on whom the onus of evidence lies. The default position is that there is no supernatural, until proven otherwise.

UnQuietDad I just don't agree that the default position is that there is no "supernatural" (if you choose to speak in those terms) I would contest that there is sufficient "evidence" that there might be to not make your position quite so firm as you seem to think it is, that's all. Not trying to convert or anything you understand, that would be ridiculous.

I was also a bit at the first website you linked to, which you said was "comprehensive and academic". Yet it was terribly badly written with repetitions and vague references and was, as far as I could see, just written by some random bloke in the US who didn't seem to have any academic qualifications and has, apparently written a book about all the killings God is guilty of in the OT. I mean, it seems nonsense to me to write a book saying what a bastard God was in the OT and then make a website showing how false the OT is. You seem like an intelligent man and so it struck me that you hadn't actually looked at the site very carefully or you wouldn't have made those claims for it. I came to the, obviously erroneous, conclusion that you'd googled it in a bit of a hurry. I apologise.

We'll just have to agree to disagree that the non-existence of the supernatural is the default position. For me it just has to be, otherwise you open yourself up to believing in anything. You have to make a value judgement based on evidence, otherwise we'd all believe in fairies.

I could probably find better evidence for the OT being dubious - I know it is out there. I expect people more qualified than me have done so. In fact, I know they have.

Oh I'm all for agreeing to disagree!

I suppose I just feel that the tables have turned in the time since Darwin. Then the church was the "establishment" so Darwin had pretty bad press from some quarters. Now, science has taken the church's place so anything, like, for example, Intelligent Design, gets short shrift because so many take your stance re "default position".

I just think it's sad that we all have minds (whether you believe they're God-given or not ) but so many, from both "sides" of the "argument", seem to keep theirs closed.

My mind is open. I'm still waiting for one piece of evidence that there is any such thing as god, fairies or talking rabbits. So far there is nothing at all on the belief side of the scales.

I wish religious people could understand that it would be exciting if there were such things. We are not trying to stop god existing you know. We say "show us any reason at all to think there is" and all we get back is how badly the believer wants it to be true.

"it must be true because I feel it is"
"it must be true because those guys over there feel it is"
"must be true because there are hymns about it"
"must be true because the bible says it is...well.. actually tbe bible doesn't say it, but I believe the bible meant to say it. As you read the verses you must change the actual words to fit what you feel is right"

Intelligent Design gets short shrift because its a big pile of wank, not because it is anti-establishment. Some people open their minds so far all the sense falls out.

Its such an obvious retort, "oh you're so closed minded!" Nope, not to anything that makes sense, just the nonsense. Are you open to the fact that all the world leaders are actually alien lizards who ride unicorns and eat human brains for breakfast? No? You're so closed-minded!

I see your point Onagar, really I do. And the "reasons" you list are nonsense, it's true.

I wish some of the non-believers though would stop asserting that things are "facts" when they're not.

You would have to see concrete "evidence" that God does exist. I would have to see concrete "evidence" that everything has a scientific explanation before I will believe the men in white coats who tell me this is so.

People talking about their personal experiences is never going to convince you, and nor should it. Scientists telling me that there is a scientific explanation for everything, they just haven't found it yet, is never going to convince me.

And so we go around in a pointless "argument".

Florence please back up your "big pile of wank" assertion.

Do I really need to? Surely its just totally obvious?

Do you also need concrete evidence for gravity, or is the fact that you haven't yet floated away enough for you?

and you didn't answer me about the lizards.

"A perfect God setting out to make a whole universe could do a lot better, one would think," than to give humans have the useless (and occasionally dangerous) appendix, not to mention menstrual cramps and ill-timed erections in adolescent boys. "Then he said, 'Let there be bowel disorders!'"

The bizarro aspects of lower creatures, like the praying mantis's postcoital cannibalism and glow-in-the-dark lures dangling from butt-ugly deep-sea creatures, cast further doubt on intelligent design. "Why would he create so many unusual pieces, given the power to make it all perfect?"

Thanks to Charile Madigan.

s'more like "Not-Very-Intelligent-Design" isn't it?

Florence yes you do actually, because, to me, it isn't obvious.

On the lizard question, (how some of you do like to side-track) I am open minded to the extent that whilst it seems totally ludicrous to me on the evidence of my senses, I am not all knowing and therefore cannot categorically say, "It is not so".

Seeker If one accepts the possibility that there might be a God/higher being/superior intelligence then one has to also accept that one is unlikely to understand the reasons for it's actions.

You do not accept such a premise so it all seems a bit "unintelligent" to you.
I do accept such a premise and so I am comfortable with saying, I do not understand and perhaps it is not for me to understand.

OK, frantic. I'll bite.

Do you have any idea why your God went to all the trouble of creating the world 6000 years ago, then covered his tracks so succesfully by creating an appearance of evolution so convincing that nobody with any scientific scientific knowledge could possibly doubt it? Including actual examples of evolution in practice (as in antibiotic resistant bacteria).

Or are you going to say that you don't know, but your faith tells you that it will all be revealed to you one day, and that it is wrong to question God's ways. (I've always thought that was one of the most cunning ploys of the Church hierarchy, by the way - telling believers that it was wrong to question God's purpose.)

Your getting creationisim & ID a little muddled there

No I'm not. There is no appreciable difference between them. ID is just an attempt to legitimize Creationism.

Answer the question, please.

Its not a side track. Are you saying my belief in unicorn riding brain eating world leading lizards is not important and worthy of respect by all? How very dare you? Such discrimination against my religion is appalling, but since its Holy Lizard Lord Day today I will forgive you.