Failing to see how ridiculous religion is until you escape it

Mark Hamill

Glenster wrote: »

Who describes him as complex? You assume you know about this God even though he is described as unknowable? That's not logical.

If god is unknowable, then how do you know anything about him?

Glenster

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How can god love if he feels no emotion? Love is an emotion.

Good question.

It raises the question of whether God feels love in the same way that we do.

Augustine felt God's love like a firestorm in his chest. Is that how we feel love from other people?

Glenster

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If god is unknowable, then how do you know anything about him?

You can see an apple falling to the ground without understanding gravity.

The Roman Catholic Church believes he makes himself known through his deeds and that he speaks to us through prophets. But the essense of him, the godhead, is unknowable.

Glenster

Mark Hamill wrote: »

For someone to claim that a word in the bible originally meant somthing other than its current literal translation, I would have assumed you would have looked up the other occurances of the word in the bible and seen wether or not any/all of those other occurances correspond with a non-literal translation. Did you argue in your essay that "image" didn't mean "image" without actually looking at the original hebrew word or any of the other places it was used?

I cited a book by a reputable historian in my essay.

And then refered to that citation becasue I remember it from my essay.

What do you want from me?

Dades

Glenster wrote: »

What do you want from me?

A public conversion to the dark side would be nice!

robindch

Glenster wrote: »

'Is the bible is a book of historical facts? no. Is the bible a book of allegorical truth? the church would say yes.

So you believe that not a single event reported in the bible actually took place?

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

Much in the same way that our study of maths comes from Fibbonacci rather than this Bogollo guy.

Fibbonacci is this Bogollo guy. :rolleyes:

robindch

Glenster wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church believes he makes himself known through his deeds and that he speaks to us through prophets. But the essense of him, the godhead, is unknowable.

Hmm... god is both knowable and unknowable.

That's Zen, innit?

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

I'm saying the bible doesn't equal literal facts and that the Catholic Church has never said God has emotions therefore saying that god has ten emotions makes no sense. Unless you believe, like fundamentalists, that the bible is literal truth.

That is just nonsense double speak.

Are you saying then the Bible describes God as being angry or vengeful or loving it is being wrong? Otherwise your point about literal vs allegorical truth is just a red herring

Glenster wrote: »

You were saying that he has a physical brain

No I wasn't. I said he processes information. How he does this is again irrelevant. How he handles emotion is irrelevant.

We only have to know he does, some how, do this to know he must be complex.

Glenster wrote: »

I'm saying you and I dont know, and no mainstream church is making that claim, so stop saying things like "he experiences emotions therefore he is complicated"

Unless you are saying he doesn't experience emotions (which is contradicted by the Bible, allegory or not) then there is no point there, it is just a red herring.

Glenster wrote: »

you're quoting the bible as your source? OK.

"in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth"

Therefore God exists. Not nice is it.

Well obviously.

If you are happy to reject the Bible as being made up nonsense we have no issue.

Glenster wrote: »

Who describes him as complex? You assume you know about this God even though he is described as unknowable? That's not logical.

You say God is unknowable? Is that not knowing something about God?

What is illogical is you proclaim that you know he is unknowable but then saying I can't say he is therefore complex rather than simply. That makes no sense.

Glenster wrote: »

If God were knowable then you could make these statements about him.

He doesn't have to be knowable for me to make such as statement about him, any more than he has to be knowable for you to say he is unknowable, or say he is love, or any of the other stuff theists proclaim about their God every day.

Glenster wrote: »

1. I never claimed he was simple, just stated that you couldn't describe him as complex, he is other.

Why not? You describe him as unknowable? Theists describe him as love, the creator, etc etc

Again "you can't say that about God" is only a charge made against people who put forward difficult problems about the concept of God.

It is never a charge put forward to believers. Strange that.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Good question.

It raises the question of whether God feels love in the same way that we do.

No it doesn't. What is it with you and straw men.

If God feels love in the same way that we do is irrelevant to the question if God feels love (and thus emotions)

If God feels love in a way that only a god can feel love and is nothing like how we feel love he is still feeling emotion

If the emotion is nothing like how we experience emotion that is irrelevant to the initial point, that God exists in different emotional states and is thus more complex than something that doesn't.

It is mind boggling you are having such trouble with such simple logic

Blackhorse Slim

Glenster wrote: »

Augustine felt God's love like a firestorm in his chest.

Probably a mild heart attack. :rolleyes:

kelly1

Glenster wrote: »

Good question.

It raises the question of whether God feels love in the same way that we do.

Augustine felt God's love like a firestorm in his chest. Is that how we feel love from other people?

Love in the Christian sense isn't an emotion. It about selflessly doing something good for another. That's what God does all the time.

Mark Hamill

Glenster wrote: »

You can see an apple falling to the ground without understanding gravity.

So know god is physically seeable, like an appale falling to the ground?

Glenster wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church believes he makes himself known through his deeds and that he speaks to us through prophets. But the essense of him, the godhead, is unknowable.

But without understanding the "godhead" how do you know that the deeds are truley his and that the prophets are actually talking on his behalf?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Love in the Christian sense isn't an emotion. It about selflessly doing something good for another. That's what God does all the time.

But "good" is described as what God does isn't it?

God ripping your skin off and throwing you into a fire is therefore "good" because God did it and what God does defines what is good, and thus "love"

This is the nonsense of defining concepts like good based on God and then using the same concepts to judge God's actions. It is circular nonsense.

But that is some what beside the point. Kelly does God feel love for his creation?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Hmm... god is both knowable and unknowable.

That's Zen, innit?

God is knowable when you know he is promising you wonderful things.

God is unknowable when you think about that for a few seconds and conclude it is nonsense.

Ickle Magoo

kelly1 wrote: »

Love in the Christian sense isn't an emotion. It about selflessly doing something good for another. That's what God does all the time.

Except when he's telling people to kill each other, or watching rapists and murderers at work, or giving parents the gift of a child with such a severe neural tube defect that the child won't live more than a few minutes?

Mark Hamill

Glenster wrote: »

I cited a book by a reputable historian in my essay.

And then refered to that citation becasue I remember it from my essay.

What do you want from me?

Consistency would be nice.
First you say the word translated as image doesn't actually mean "image" literally, the original greek word meant something abstract (here is the post) and you claim you know this because you had to reference it for an essay.
However once I point out that the original hebrew that the greek was translated from) used the word literally in the (16) other occurances in the bible, you claim ignorance of hebrew as if its irrelevent.
What is meant by the greek term is irrelevent (even if it does indeed mean image abstractly), as the original word is literal.

Feownah

I am not religious, but I wouldnt classify myself as an atheist, I think that you should respect peoples beliefs. There seems to be atheists onhere who seem to be rather sneering and derogatory of people who have faith. I don't think you can blindly say there is NO GOD, there is NO AFTERLIFE, and expect everyone else to agree with you, that in its own form is a religion of atheism. Our existence on life no matter how rational you may try and think about it, it is still a complete and utter mind boggle, and the question always remains 'why are we here', so hence religion/spirituality has evolved and I don't think that that is unreasonable. People can gain a lot of comfort from religion and I don't think it's right to sneer people who are religious.

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

Love in the Christian sense isn't an emotion. It about selflessly doing something good for another. That's what God does all the time.

Examples please.

MrP

Ickle Magoo

Feownah wrote: »

I am not religious, but I wouldnt classify myself as an atheist, I think that you should respect peoples beliefs. There seems to be atheists onhere who seem to be rather sneering and derogatory of people who have faith. I don't think you can blindly say there is NO GOD, there is NO AFTERLIFE, and expect everyone else to agree with you, that in its own form is a religion of atheism. Our existence on life no matter how rational you may try and think about it, it is still a complete and utter mind boggle, and the question always remains 'why are we here', so hence religion/spirituality has evolved and I don't think that that is unreasonable. People can gain a lot of comfort from religion and I don't think it's right to sneer people who are religious.

Why should peoples beliefs be respected, especially if you think they are wrong? Do you respect people who are racist or sexist?

Glenster

robindch wrote: »

So you believe that not a single event reported in the bible actually took place?

Only sith deal in absolutes.

Glenster

I'm going to try to respond to one point per post, it's just akward.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why not? You describe him as unknowable?

Motives and essential being are two different things. I am saying that what he is is unknowable.

robindch

Feownah wrote: »

I think that you should respect peoples beliefs.

People have a right to hold beliefs but it is unreasonable to expect people to respect those beliefs, any more than you or anybody else here would respect the beliefs of a racist. Religious people trade, consciously or unconsciously, on this confusion.

Feownah wrote: »

People can gain a lot of comfort from religion and I don't think it's right to sneer people who are religious.

Some people are comforted by heavy drinking, but as a parent, I've no interest in having brewers and heavy drinkers tell my kid that heavy drinking is a good thing in their view.

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

No it doesn't. What is it with you and straw men.

How is responding to a question with a further question a straw man? I never said I was answering his question, just that it was an interesting question.

The only person here who is obsessed with straw men is you.

robindch

Glenster wrote: »

robindch wrote:

So you believe that not a single event reported in the bible actually took place?

Only sith deal in absolutes.

Is there such thing as a straw answer?

Glenster

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So know god is physically seeable, like an appale falling to the ground?

That's totally what I meant. Good call.

Tigger

Jakkass wrote: »

snip


Sure, ridicule all these things as much as you want, but it's not going to get you or I anywhere.

dades says i'm not allowed ridicule your beliefs in the zombie carpenter, but has it ever occured to you that primative peoples believe in god and that the influence of religion is weaker the more advanced and enlightened a culture becomes

People are going to follow Christianity or other faiths whether you like it or not.

do you believe that the people that belivee in the other faiths are also right or is there just one god

Glenster

robindch wrote: »

Is there such thing as a straw answer?

That's what I meant, I wasnt trying to answer his point, I think i mentioned before that the catholic church believes that God is unknowable. Therefore, by that definition of God, there was no answer to that question.

I just thought it was an interesting thing to think about.

Was that person seriously expecting an answer to that question?

kelly1

MrPudding wrote: »

Examples please.

MrP

How about God coming to earth in the flesh to die on a cross to gain our redemption? Jesus performing miracles and curing people, God promising us a joyous eternal life with Him if we only love Him and our neighbour. Need I go on?

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

God is knowable when you know he is promising you wonderful things.

God is unknowable when you think about that for a few seconds and conclude it is nonsense.

You should probably think about it for more than a few seconds if you want to come to a sensible conclusion.

Tigger

kelly1 wrote: »

How about God coming to earth in the flesh to die on a cross to gain our redemption? Jesus performing miracles and curing people, God promising us a joyous eternal life with Him if we only love Him and our neighbour. Need I go on?

do you love your neighbour?

Ickle Magoo

kelly1 wrote: »

How about God coming to earth in the flesh to die on a cross to gain our redemption? Jesus performing miracles and curing people, God promising us a joyous eternal life with Him if we only love Him and our neighbour. Need I go on?

We don't know that any of those things happen/ed, how can you claim they are examples? What examples can you give an atheist or non-Christian?

Glenster

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You claim ignorance of hebrew as if its irrelevent.

No I just said that I cant refute the point of the creationist that you cite because I dont read Hebrew.

But the fact that an entirely opposite conclusion was reached in a reputable book means that I cant automatically accept it either.

Tigger

Glenster wrote: »

You should probably think about it for more than a few seconds if you want to come to a sensible conclusion.

its true that the obvious can be staring you in the face for years and then once you see it you realise it shouold have only taken a few minutes to realise the Truth

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

How about God coming to earth in the flesh to die on a cross to gain our redemption? Jesus performing miracles and curing people, God promising us a joyous eternal life with Him if we only love Him and our neighbour. Need I go on?

Since god is the one who was going to punish us and since god is the one who made us inherently in need of redemption in the first place, saving us from the punishment he was going to inflict on us can't really be called selfless love. It's kind of like calling someone selfless for taking their knife away from your throat

Tigger

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Since god is the one who was going to punish us and since god is the one who made us inherently in need of redemption in the first place, saving us from the punishment he was going to inflict on us can't really be called selfless love. It's kind of like calling someone selfless for taking their knife away from your throat

more like telling bobo my imaginary gorilla that he's very loving because he didn't throw poo at you.

Zombrex

Feownah wrote: »

I am not religious, but I wouldnt classify myself as an atheist, I think that you should respect peoples beliefs. There seems to be atheists onhere who seem to be rather sneering and derogatory of people who have faith.

I'm sneering towards people who use hypocritical arguments to support their position and attack mine.

People who say that I can't draw a conclusion about their god because is he is unknowable and then proceed to list the things they know about their god

Or who claim I'm being arrogant to reject their god based on reason and then list the reasons they don't worship Zeus.

Mark Hamill

Feownah wrote: »

I am not religious, but I wouldnt classify myself as an atheist, I think that you should respect peoples beliefs.

Yeah, right. What you really mean is that we should repsect certain peoples beliefs. Or are you saying that we should respect the beliefs of the likes of Fred Phelps and the westboro church who believs that god hates Ireland and that it is full of gay leprechauns? All any has to repsect is that other people are going to have their owns beliefs, bu this should never stop you from going to town on them (the beliefs, that is) if you see them as being full of crap

Feownah wrote: »

There seems to be atheists onhere who seem to be rather sneering and derogatory of people who have faith.

Its not people who have faith, its why those people have faith and its the blatant lying (to themselves at least) that they do to cover up the internal logical inconsistencies.

Feownah wrote: »

I don't think you can blindly say there is NO GOD, there is NO AFTERLIFE, and expect everyone else to agree with you, that in its own form is a religion of atheism.

Has anyone, except a strawmanning theist, ever actually said this?

Feownah wrote: »

Our existence on life no matter how rational you may try and think about it, it is still a complete and utter mind boggle, and the question always remains 'why are we here', so hence religion/spirituality has evolved and I don't think that that is unreasonable.

Its not unreasonable to consider the question, but it is entirely unreasonable to discount possible answers purely because they dont fit with the rather self involved and proud view that humans are important to the universe.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Motives and essential being are two different things. I am saying that what he is is unknowable.

Who said anything about essential being?

The point is that he is not unknowable, you and other theists claim to know quite a bit about him.

So what reason is there to say I can't know, based on the information presented and some basic logic, that he is complex?

The very fact that he has motivations makes him complex (a fundamental particle such as a quark doesn't have "motivations", such an idea would be ridiculous because it would require something much more complex that a quark which can exist only in a very limited number of states), and you claim we can know he has motivations.

QED as it where.

Glenster wrote: »

How is responding to a question with a further question a straw man? I never said I was answering his question, just that it was an interesting question.

Because it is not responding to the question, it is responding to a straw man in order for you not to actually have to respond to the question.

Glenster wrote: »

You should probably think about it for more than a few seconds if you want to come to a sensible conclusion.

You should stop contradicting yourself i you want me to take your responses seriously.

Mark Hamill

Glenster wrote: »

That's totally what I meant. Good call.

Its what you implied.

Mark Hamill

Glenster wrote: »

That's what I meant, I wasnt trying to answer his point, I think i mentioned before that the catholic church believes that God is unknowable. Therefore, by that definition of God, there was no answer to that question.

I just thought it was an interesting thing to think about.

Was that person seriously expecting an answer to that question?

Of course I'm expecting an answer. Through poor "reasoning" you have ended up with a contradiction, that god is both knowable and unknowable. How can you honestly continue to believe in god knowing there is such a big contradiction in what the church says about him?

Mark Hamill

Glenster wrote: »

You should probably think about it for more than a few seconds if you want to come to a sensible conclusion.

Yeah, the only sensible conclusion is that everything you and the church says about god is full of crap.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

Love in the Christian sense isn't an emotion. It about selflessly doing something good for another. That's what God does all the time.

Indeed. He selflessly warns us about of unsafe building practices by shaking schools down on top of children.

Mark Hamill

Glenster wrote: »

No I just said that I cant refute the point of the creationist that you cite because I dont read Hebrew.

And yet you refuted an atheist when they pointed out that the word image means a physical likeness. Do you not see the intelectual dishonesty here?

Glenster wrote: »

But the fact that an entirely opposite conclusion was reached in a reputable book means that I cant automatically accept it either.

Did you find a source?

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

How about God coming to earth in the flesh to die on a cross to gain our redemption?

Even assuming this did actually happen, for the reason you believe it did, so what? I understand that it seems to be a big deal for christians but I really can’t see the sacrifice. History is full of ordinary people that have laid down their lives for friends, relatives and total strangers, knowing that they would not be raised again in 3 days. That is infinitely more “good” than the earthly projection of a god dieing wit the full knowledge he would rise again. And what was he supposed to be saving us from? His punishment, which he was going to inflict, on creatures that he created. Yeah. Stand up bloke.

kelly1 wrote: »

Jesus performing miracles and curing people,

2000 years ago… Even assuming he did perform miracle, which I very much doubt, where are the miracles now?

kelly1 wrote: »

God promising us a joyous eternal life with Him if we only love Him and our neighbour.

God promising us a joyous (I would say hellish) eternal life if we constantly feed his ego with nepotistic fawning worship. And don’t forget the flip side, if we don’t we get send to an eternal hell, that he created or allowed to be created, for a flaw in his creation.

kelly1 wrote: »

Need I go on?

I would say yes, but I don’t think there is any point.

MrP

iUseVi

kelly1 wrote: »

God promising us a joyous eternal life with Him if we only love Him and our neighbour. Need I go on?

I find that loathsome, certainly not a selfless act its more like extortion tbh.

seamus

kelly1 wrote: »

God promising us a joyous eternal life with Him if we only love Him and our neighbour. Need I go on?

Why the hoops? If he truly was selfless, he'd just give us the eternal life and not go through with some charade where he sets up a maze for us to run through and observe what we do.

Glenster

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Of course I'm expecting an answer. Through poor "reasoning" you have ended up with a contradiction, that god is both knowable and unknowable. How can you honestly continue to believe in god knowing there is such a big contradiction in what the church says about him?

Why is reasoning in quotation marks?

Could someone please quote one fact or claim I made about God.

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

Why is reasoning in quotation marks?

Could someone please quote one fact or claim I made about God.

Here are a few:

Glenster wrote: »

I would never say any of those things. The God described in *My Bible* is unknowable. The idea that you could communicate with or comprehend him so unfathomably impossible that he somehow used his infinite power to make himself present, understandable in the world (Jebus). I would never be arrogant enough to start describing what he is, or ever to say definitively what he wants.

You say he has infinite power. How do you know?
You say that he chooses to make himself present and understandable. How do you know?
You say that he chose to make himself present and understandable in some Jewish guy 2000 years ago. How do you know?
You say that you don't know what he wants which suggests you think that he wants something. How do you know?
And then after saying all these things about him you say he's incomprehensible. Again, how do you know and do you see no contradiction between saying all these things about god and then saying he's incomprehensible?

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

[...] And then after saying all these things about him you say he's incomprehensible. Again, how do you know?

I think that's where the faith bit comes in -- without it, one can never be sure that one is perfectly right.