The major probelms in believing in religion

stevejazzx · 08-04-2009 1:46pm #1

1. Apparent inconsistency of biblical text.
The argument that bible should be clearer seems fairly sound to me. I cannot think of any good reason why God would allow such a confusing text to infiltrate and confuse the minds of men for countless centuries. the sheer mayhem caused by the fact that holy text cannot be pinned down as meaning something exact is a mystery. Why would God permit such confusion?

2. No more miracles anymore (only ones which happen in private it seems or happen in a such a way that makes them completely undetectable from the masses of digital means available to modern man.

3.No more interaction from God; again not the way he used to do in the bible. Modern interaction comes privately (going by the claims of posters here). And isn't it unfair (in a faith sense) that those in biblical times got to see and hear God and even meet Jesus. For them faith was surely much easier.

4. The scientific discoveries of the last 400/500 years. Starting with Galileo and Newton and continuing through with Darwin, Einstein and Hawking. First we realized we were not the center of the universe, and then we realized that our universe wasn't even special in and of itself. Then we realized that world was far older than we thought and that all lifeforms share a common ancestry and that we evolved over millions of years and now we have know that the beginning of the universe may not have even needed a singularity to start it.

5. Other religions making same claims. It is crazy to think of all the religions there are all over the world. and that they all must be wrong except our own? What happens to those who, in their lifetime, never even hear of Jesus or the God of Christianity? Isn't entirely likely that the various primitive peoples of different lands modified their traditional stories to create their explanations of the world? And isn't it entirely likely that these same people upon writing or hearing these explanations became infatuated with them as truths which lead to their many different cults etc.

6. A very old universe; partly mentioned in point 4 but I think it deserves it's own mention. The world as we know it is 4.5 billion years old and the universe 13.8 or thereabouts. One billion is one thousand million years. That's a million years by 1000 just to make of those billions!!!! A million years by a thousand by 13.8.
A million is ten hundred thousand. Ten hundred thousand years by a thousand just makes one thirteenth of overall history. Humans existence is like a fingernail shaving therefore on the overall scale of things. Seems absolutely crazy that a creator would wait soooooooo soooooooo long after the start of his creation to begin the main part or point of that same creation.

7. The lack of evidence. This can be debated until we're blue in the face. It seems probable that a person called Jesus probably did exist and was probably fairly prophetical (as were many of the time). But the records of him were recorded long afterward - some parts being added hundreds of years later.
Belief in things should be easy not endlessly complex. I believe in electricity because it powers my house. Easy.
Not only does God allow confusing text but also he allowed the absence of evidence? He doesn't make it easy does he?

8. The utter randomness* of the universe and life. If there was no God, then by this stage we would probably expect to observe the universe behaving the way it does, randomly. From infant mortality to the justice that is not so often not achieved to tsunami's (yes pamela111 tsunami's are included) events are constantly in a state of change. Sometimes we can predict such events sometimes not. there is no evidence whatsoever of a God factor. These devastating events do not discriminate against any particular types of people, they just happen. Anyone at anytime can be the victim - that is the plain and simple truth and it is borne out everyday and only a really stupid race of people would try to distort the explanations of these event to make them congruent with a beneficial creator.
*in the sense that there is no plan or no moral reason. Not in the sense that they do not have technical scientific cause.

So there you have it. Anyone who can answer/rebut all 8 in any kind of logical way (even if you have to invoke a creator) gets a prize:)

thebaldsoprano · 08-04-2009 1:57pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

I believe in electricity because it powers my house. Easy. Not only does God allow confusing text but also he allowed the absence of evidence? He doesn't make it easy does he?

Not really sure that the electricity question is that much easier than the God question. There's a brief article about some of the problems with the former here:

http://amasci.com/miscon/maxwell.html

PDN · 08-04-2009 2:10pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

6. A very old universe; partly mentioned in point 4 but I think it deserves it's own mention. The world as we know it is 4.5 billion years old and the universe 13.8 or thereabouts. One billion is one thousand million years. That's a million years by 1000 just to make of those billions!!!! A million years by a thousand by 13.8.
A million is ten hundred thousand. Ten hundred thousand years by a thousand just makes one thirteenth of overall history. Humans existence is like a fingernail shaving therefore on the overall scale of things. Seems absolutely crazy that a creator would wait soooooooo soooooooo long after the start of his creation to begin the main part or point of that same creation.

I haven't got time to respond to all the points right now (stuff at work etc), so I picked this out as one of the quickest and easiest to answer.

I don't think an Eternal God needs to be in much of a hurry to do anything. And He certainly doesn't need to do anything in a way that makes sense to an insignificant creature like you whose lifespan, according to yourself, doesn't amount to a tiny fraction of a fingernail shaving.

Your argument is like a woodlouse peering out at me right now and thinking that my continual tapping on my computer keyboard seems absolutely crazy.

Galvasean · 08-04-2009 2:22pm

PDN wrote: »

Your argument is like a woodlouse peering out at me right now and thinking that my continual tapping on my computer keyboard seems absolutely crazy.

It's not!?!? :pac:
*drum-roll*

PDN · 08-04-2009 2:43pm

Galvasean wrote: »

It's not!?!? :pac:
*drum-roll*

Yeah, I thought I might be letting myself in for something like that.

stevejazzx · 08-04-2009 3:09pm

PDN wrote: »

I don't think an Eternal God needs to be in much of a hurry to do anything. And He certainly doesn't need to do anything in a way that makes sense to an insignificant creature like you whose lifespan, according to yourself, doesn't amount to a tiny fraction of a fingernail shaving.

you could have said

'insignificant creatures like us'
but I suppose being PDN you couldn't resist.

And your argument is awful. Surely even you cannot deny that Christianity sees itself as one of the important parts of creation, If it does then my point stands, if it doesn't then where does that leave you. Honestly the long age of the earth is a much more difficult thing to reconcile with God than you are letting on. If you offer this trite response of 'well, yes we are insignificant' then can't you see that you offer a material explanation?

PDN wrote:

Your argument is like a woodlouse peering out at me right now and thinking that my continual tapping on my computer keyboard seems absolutely crazy.

How? Honestly talk about creating baffling metaphors and twisting them to suit your argument.
So, questioning an invisible omnipotent creator who made the endless galaxies across all space and time hundred of thousand of millions years ago is baffling to me (a highly complex:p composition of blood, water, tissue bones and cerebral mass that evolved over millions of years) is the same as a woodlouse hearing tapping noises from your keyboard. That's what you think is it?

stevejazzx · 08-04-2009 3:13pm

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Not really sure that the electricity question is that much easier than the God question. There's a brief article about some of the problems with the former here:

http://amasci.com/miscon/maxwell.html

?
I'll give you electricity is not easy fully understand, and perhaps at a quantum level it is still being understood...however I do believe in it and I suspect you and everone else on this forum does too.

PDN · 08-04-2009 3:18pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

you could have said

'insignificant creatures like us'
but I suppose being PDN you couldn't resist.

I could have, but it was you that asked the question not me. You're the one who wants to compare human existence to a fingernail scraping, so I just humoured your own scenario.

Gosh, you guys are so sensitive!

And your argument is awful. Surely even you cannot deny that Christianity sees itself as one of the important parts of creation, If it does then my point stands, if it doesn't then where does that leave you. Honestly the long age of the earth is a much more difficult thing to reconcile with God than you are letting on. If you offer this trite response of 'well, yes we are insignificant' then can't you see that you offer a material explanation?

Nonsense. My reference to insignificance was in respect to your hilarious demand that God should behave in way that you can understand.

God can take however long He wants to do anything. The age of the earth creates no difficulty in terms of reconciliation with God. It's a complete leap of logic on your part.

How? Honestly talk about creating baffling metaphors and twisting them to suit your argument.
So, questioning an invisible omnipotent creator who made the endless galaxies across all space and time hundred of thousand of millions years ago is baffling to me (a highly complex composition of blood, water, tissue bones and cerebral mass that evolved over millions of years) is the same as a woodlouse hearing tapping noises from your keyboard. That's what you think is it?

Yes, in terms of complexity, intelligence, or any other possible indicator, I consider the gap between you and God to be infinitely greater than the gap between you and a woodlouse. (You can include me in there with you if it avoids ruffling any feathers).

Liber8or · 08-04-2009 3:30pm

Great argument from the OP, however this will go nowhere. At least when Science is wrong it admits it is wrong. Religion won't, because that means they will have to question everything else, like Science, but Science provides answers, Religion offers ambiguity.

It all boils down to this five letter word called "Faith". As long as this word exists it is like a "Get out of jail free-card" for Religious people when they are beckoned to answer a question.

Why has there been no miracles in the last two hundred years, yet they happened regularly "back then"?

- Have faith. Be patient.

Well im sorry, that just won't cut it. Lets ask Science.

- Because miracles are based on emotional interpretation and the use of hyperbole to give oneself more importance to those around them.

Sounds more reasonable.

PDN, will always win. Why? Because he/she has "Faith". As will the rest of the Jesus followers. There is no point in fighting, but you should accept the fact that while people who wish to live their lives by the laws of some fabricated piece of fiction in the hope of reaching the "Heaven Festival", you can live your life now, in bliss, or how you choose and enjoy the time you have. Rather than deluding yourself into believing in a Disney Film-esque world awaiting you after years of control/limits/restrictions and denials to enjoy the finer pleasures of life and open your mind.

Fair play to you stevejazzx. A well constructed and coherant argument which, unfortunately, will fall flat on the face of ignorance by those unwilling to open their minds and accept what their senses tell them, rather than some book or man in a collar.

thebaldsoprano · 08-04-2009 3:35pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

..however I do believe in it and I suspect you and everone else on this forum does too.

I do indeed, and I think we'd agree that electricity is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe in, despite the complexities of electromagnetism.

So, given that we both believe in something that isn't:

stevejazzx wrote: »

Belief in things should be easy not endlessly complex

Can I get one eighth of the prize?

stevejazzx · 08-04-2009 3:48pm

PDN wrote: »

I could have, but it was you that asked the question not me. You're the one who wants to compare human existence to a fingernail scraping, so I just humoured your own scenario.

Gosh, you guys are so sensitive!

Thanks for clearing that up then.

PDN wrote:

Nonsense. My reference to insignificance was in respect to your hilarious demand that God should behave in way that you can understand.

Nonsense. Do you think Christianity is major part of God's creation?
Just answer the question asked. If religion is such a big part of everything and only humans are alive (presumably you don't believe in alien life?) then Christianity and all other major religions for that matter contend that they are the main point of this existence. I mean if you really want to push the idea then yes I agree with you completely; you are insignificant. I mean we..no wait it was your proposition so that's you again. Is that how it works?

PDN wrote:

God can take however long He wants to do anything. The age of the earth creates no difficulty in terms of reconciliation with God. It's a complete leap of logic on your part.

Leap of logic to suggest that a creator might not wait billions of years before creating the main part of his creation? It's only billions in my puny earth logic right, and God lets me think of billions this way because he wants to

a.baffle me
b.challenge me
c.he couldn't really give a -
d.atari jaguar

Similarly he doesn't interact with primitive man..he waits until everything is up to the standard of superstition that was 6000 years ago and then he let loose?

PDN wrote:

Yes, in terms of complexity, intelligence, or any other possible indicator, I consider the gap between you and God to be infinitely greater than the gap between you and a woodlouse. (You can include me in there with you if it avoids ruffling any feathers).

Hold on. Firstly you said that woodlouse listening to the taps on your keyboard was similar to me questioning why God waited billions of years before making mankind? Now your saying that the Gap in intelligence and sophistication between me and God is infinitely greater than that of me and a woodlouse?
May I inquire, are you drunk? This may be true but you have completely lost my initial point after your Woodlouse comparision which was: Surely the comparison doesn't hold becasue the two are even in the same scope of depth and meaning. You are now completely modifying it in way which addresses that cricticism, yet oddly you offer it up as if it was your intention all along.

Liber8or · 08-04-2009 3:53pm

I sense "Faith" inbound.... :P

God chooses when to reveal himself.. blah, blah, blah.
God will answer those questions when he wants.. blah, blah, blah.

Have "Faith" Steve... :P

Like a good politician Steve, he will give you more spaghetti junction answers than coherant rhetoric.

[analogy] Its like trying to teach a monkey how to play Chess Steve. It doesn't want to know, it just wants to do what every other monkey is doing, because that is what it was told to do and inherited from the actions of its parents. [/analogy]

Overblood · 08-04-2009 3:54pm

PDN wrote: »

Your argument is like a woodlouse peering out at me right now and thinking that my continual tapping on my computer keyboard seems absolutely crazy.

So the woodlouse doesn't understand what the tapping is, and instead of investigating, it lazily concludes to itself "Oh it must be the magical god of Tapland".... sound familiar?

Zombrex · 08-04-2009 4:08pm

Suggestion

Would this be better in the A&A forum? It is an argument against religion rather than an specific issue of Christianity.

stevejazzx · 08-04-2009 4:14pm

Overblood wrote: »

So the woodlouse doesn't understand what the tapping is, and instead of investigating, it lazily concludes to itself "Oh it must be the magical god of Tapland".... sound familiar?

No it's like the woodlouse asking why didn't all this tapping mularky happen 14 billion years ago and another woodlouse explaining to him that he's an eejit becasue the magic God of tapland is a mysterious creature who doesn't have to explain himself to such a primitive woodlouse such as one that might throw up the initial enquiry.

stevejazzx · 08-04-2009 4:16pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Suggestion

Would this be better in the A&A forum? It is an argument against religion rather than an specific issue of Christianity.

If that's the case then you shouldn't even be allowed this side of the border!:p

No seriously did I miss something about starting new threads in this forum? It may be an argument against religion but it is aimed at religious people with a view in getting their thoughts on the specific points rasied.

edit; more than happy to have this moved to a&a

jonnyfingers · 08-04-2009 4:18pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

2. No more miracles anymore (only ones which happen in private it seems or happen in a such a way that makes them completely undetectable from the masses of digital means available to modern man.

Just a quick point on miracles and why they don't seem to happen anymore. With our greater understanding of the world we can now explain seemingly unexplainable phenomena. I have an interest in magic and know that if someone is given the time most of the miracles mentioned in the bible could be recreated. In fact in one TV show by two Scottish magicians they did recreate miracles from the bible including walking on water, the loaves and the fish and even resurrecting the dead. Of course we know we're being tricked by put these magicians in the time of Jesus and people would have been amazed.

Add to that the fact that the bible is a written record of events that took place years before they were written about. Humans have the tendency to embellish so what happened and what was written may not be the same.

That is not to say that miracles didn't happen or that they still do and we're to cynical to see them. Personally I was raised a Catholic and when I was old enough I made the decision that the evidence and what is taught in the bible just doesn't add up. I agree with all your points listed above.

So until God's existence is proven to be true I don't believe. By that same argument until God's existence is disproved I wouldn't begrudge anyone their own opinions.

achtungbarry · 08-04-2009 5:30pm

Liber8or wrote: »

Great argument from the OP, however this will go nowhere. At least when Science is wrong it admits it is wrong. Religion won't, because that means they will have to question everything else, like Science, but Science provides answers, Religion offers ambiguity.

It all boils down to this five letter word called "Faith". As long as this word exists it is like a "Get out of jail free-card" for Religious people when they are beckoned to answer a question.

Why has there been no miracles in the last two hundred years, yet they happened regularly "back then"?

- Have faith. Be patient.

Well im sorry, that just won't cut it. Lets ask Science.

- Because miracles are based on emotional interpretation and the use of hyperbole to give oneself more importance to those around them.

Sounds more reasonable.

PDN, will always win. Why? Because he/she has "Faith". As will the rest of the Jesus followers. There is no point in fighting, but you should accept the fact that while people who wish to live their lives by the laws of some fabricated piece of fiction in the hope of reaching the "Heaven Festival", you can live your life now, in bliss, or how you choose and enjoy the time you have. Rather than deluding yourself into believing in a Disney Film-esque world awaiting you after years of control/limits/restrictions and denials to enjoy the finer pleasures of life and open your mind.

Fair play to you stevejazzx. A well constructed and coherant argument which, unfortunately, will fall flat on the face of ignorance by those unwilling to open their minds and accept what their senses tell them, rather than some book or man in a collar.

Well done. This is one of the best and most accurate posts I've seen in a while.

You are quite right. it is absolutely pointless in engaging in debate with those who use either "faith" or invoke the supernatural to back up their argument.

Rational argument is simply not possible in this case and is a waste of time. I used to engage in these debates until recently but I came to realise what you pointed out ie. it is impossible to argue against a point of view that sees "faith" as a genuine and relevent example of evidence.

As you say, even "constructed and coherant argument will fall flat on its face".

It's like trying to win a rugby match by playing golf.

The points raised by the OP are very good ones but have been (and I say this word with caution) "debated" to death here and in countless other circumstances around the world and always with the same result.....

One side relying empirical research, logic and evidence... *

...and the other side....

....also relying on empirical research, logic and evidence but ultimately falling back on "faith" and the invokation of the supernatural.

* and admittedly some nonsense from some (Zeitgeist for example)

PDN · 08-04-2009 5:47pm

achtungbarry wrote: »

Well done. This is one of the best and most accurate posts I've seen in a while.

Unfortunately a bunch of atheists patting each other on the back and telling each other how smart they are isn't very convincing round this parts.

Steve's argument is illogical and his reasoning is contradictory.

There is absolutely no logical reason or need for an eternal being to move quickly. He can take as long as He likes to do anything and no finite being is qualified to question that.

Also Steve tries to make a big deal of how insignificant we are in that human existence is "the scraping of a fingernail" (his words). Then he acts all shocked when I suggest that a finite being is unable to understand the ways of an infinite being. Suddenly this fraction of a scraping of a fingernail wants to assert how wonderfully complex he is and how he is the glorious culmination of millions of year of evolution.

achtungbarry · 08-04-2009 5:54pm

PDN wrote: »

There is absolutely no logical reason or need for an eternal being to move quickly.

Again a great example of Liber8ors point being proved. a logical argument is made and is then rebutted with an argument about "an eternal being".

It is a no win situation.

The ultimate problem is that you see faith and the supernatural as legitimate forms of evidence and I don't.

Hence debate is pointless.

You have every right to hold your position as I do have to hold mine but debating it is pointless and only leads to unessessary arguments.

Neither side will budge and the same arguments will happen over and over and over again.

This is not to say that people shouldn't debate, it can be fun afterall, but noone should expect to win such a debate and actually convince the other side that they are right. The two methods of debate are incompatible.

chop86 · 08-04-2009 6:00pm

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately a bunch of atheists patting each other on the back and telling each other how smart they are isn't very convincing round this parts.

Steve's argument is illogical and his reasoning is contradictory.

There is absolutely no logical reason or need for an eternal being to move quickly. He can take as long as He likes to do anything and no finite being is qualified to question that.

Also Steve tries to make a big deal of how insignificant we are in that human existence is "the scraping of a fingernail" (his words). Then he acts all shocked when I suggest that a finite being is unable to understand the ways of an infinite being. Suddenly this fraction of a scraping of a fingernail wants to assert how wonderfully complex he is and how he is the glorious culmination of millions of year of evolution.

But the fact the universe is billions is only new evidence, a couple of hundred years ago you yourself would have been adament that the universe was 8000 years old. Moving quickly?

JimiTime · 08-04-2009 6:01pm

achtungbarry wrote: »

It is a no win situation.

What is it that constitutes a 'win'? and why is there a desire for such a thing?

Biro · 08-04-2009 6:03pm

Point 4 is lost in there. I think all those discoveries are brilliant! Facinating. I love reading about all that. But it doesn't pose any problem at all for my religion. So therefore it's pointless in the context of your arguement.
And point 6, it's only a long time based on time as you and I know it.

stevejazzx · 08-04-2009 6:05pm

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately a bunch of atheists patting each other on the back and telling each other how smart they are isn't very convincing round this parts.

Steve's argument is illogical and his reasoning is contradictory.

There is absolutely no logical reason or need for an eternal being to move quickly. He can take as long as He likes to do anything and no finite being is qualified to question that. Also Steve tries to make a big deal of how insignificant we are in that human existence is "the scraping of a fingernail" (his words). Then he acts all shocked when I suggest that a finite being is unable to understand the ways of an infinite being. Suddenly this fraction of a scraping of a fingernail wants to assert how wonderfully complex he is and how he is the glorious culmination of millions of year of evolution.

While I am happy that my arguments have been generally well recieved I am never ceased to be amazed by you. You know I even put a smiley(:)) in there (on the how complex a being I was in my OP) but you still managed to pull it out a page later and make me appear silly. You sir are a pro. Most would have spurned that opportunity far too quickly but you were calculated and made sure to get it in a time when noone would be arsed to go back a page and check. Hats off...now maybe you'll answer this->

You still have not answered the question i've asked you 3 times....

Do you consider christianity a major part of God's creation, if so why did he wait so long before making it. If you argue billions of years isn't long becasue he is infinite or becasue we cannot understand it then again why does God act in ways which will invariably confuse the very poeple he wants to believe in him?

Biro · 08-04-2009 6:11pm

achtungbarry wrote: »

Again a great example of Liber8ors point being proved. a logical argument is made and is then rebutted with an argument about "an eternal being".

It is a no win situation.

The ultimate problem is that you see faith and the supernatural as legitimate forms of evidence and I don't.

Hence debate is pointless.

You have every right to hold your position as I do have to hold mine but debating it is pointless and only leads to unessessary arguments.

Neither side will budge and the same arguments will happen over and over and over again.

This is not to say that people shouldn't debate, it can be fun afterall, but noone should expect to win such a debate and actually convince the other side that they are right. The two methods of debate are incompatible.

Since when did faith become evidence?

stevejazzx · 08-04-2009 6:15pm

Biro wrote: »

Point 4 is lost in there. I think all those discoveries are brilliant! Facinating. I love reading about all that. But it doesn't pose any problem at all for my religion. So therefore it's pointless in the context of your arguement.

No, I imagine not. But it did for poor Gallieo who had to smuggle the manuscript for his second book off to Holland becasue the Catholic church had decided that noone could say the earth was not the center of the universe. Doesn't that at least show the massive fallability of your church and it's religious doctrines and rules which they are constantly revising?

biro wrote:

And point 6, it's only a long time based on time as you and I know it.

yes exactly....so why does our God act in ways which baffle us?

Am I to take it that no mention of the other 6 points raised means that you agree with them:)?

stevejazzx · 08-04-2009 6:17pm

Biro wrote: »

Since when did faith become evidence?

Since believers decided it did.

Biro · 08-04-2009 6:20pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

No, I imagine not. But it did for poor Gallieo who had to smuggle the manuscript for his second book off to Holland becasue the Catholic church had decided that noone could say the earth was not the center of the universe. Doesn't that at least show the massive fallability of your church and it's religious doctrines and rules which they are constantly revising?

I'm not sure who specifically tried to stop him, but they were wrong to do so.

stevejazzx wrote: »

yes exactly....so why does our God act in ways which baffle us?

Lots of people act in ways which baffle us too. Doesn't make them wrong.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Am I to take it that no mention of the other 6 points raised means that you agree with them:)?

No, don't assume anything about me!

achtungbarry · 08-04-2009 6:21pm

Biro wrote: »

Since when did faith become evidence?

It didn't but some people do see it as legitimate evidence.

They have every right to do this but you will never win an argument against such a person.

What is it that constitutes a 'win'? and why is there a desire for such a thing?

A win would simply be successfully convincing your debate opponent of your point of view. And no there isn't nessessarily a desire for such a thing.

Biro · 08-04-2009 6:21pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

Since believers decided it did.

Evidence of what?

stevejazzx · 08-04-2009 6:24pm

Biro wrote: »

Evidence of what?

Evidently that should be self evidential.

The major probelms in believing in religion

Comments