How do people still belive in God?

philologos

Saganist wrote: »

Oh so you get to cherry pick the bible ?

There's an original concept !

You're living a lie. Sorry to be so harsh.

Genesis 1 itself actually is quite compatible with the concept of an old earth. That being my point.

It's always just a little bit more difficult when the Christians don't want to get into the pre-assumed box you set up to criticise them! :pac:

kjl

Jakkass wrote: »

I
Really I'm just an ordinary enough guy, who happens to believe in God.

OK OK OK,

What else do you believe in, witchcraft? Unicorns?

starbelgrade

kjl wrote: »

Can you get on your god phone or whatever and ask?

I've been on the white telephone to God quite a few times over the years.

gbee

kjl wrote: »

I have been wondering recently how does anyone think god exists.

I cannot post in this thread because I think it is physically impossible for a grown man to believe in any God ~ and as we have seen throughout history, it has been the basis used for genocide, ethnic cleansing, paedophilia and more.

Saganist

Jakkass wrote: »

Genesis 1 itself actually is quite compatible with the concept of an old earth. That being my point.

It's always just a little bit more difficult when the Christians don't want to get into the pre-assumed box you set up to criticise them! :pac:

That "box" being reality !

The fact of the matter is Genesis says the Earth / Stars /universe was created in 7 days.

Because now, we know more than we knew then, Religious apologists cherry pick parts of the Bible and literally CHANGE others to suit their beliefs.

Question:

If God came to you and asked you to kill your child. Would you ?

Millicent

Saganist wrote: »

Have you even read about evolution ? Its pretty clear from that FACT that we didnt just pop into being ( adam & eve )

Saganist, do you know what an allegory is? Adam and Eve is an allegory borrowed from other texts and changed to explain the existence of the world and the story of creation. It's a parable. It's quite easy to believe in evolution while understanding this as a parable. I don't think Jakkass is one of those nutty, fundamentalist, literalist Christians. No need to patronise him.

philologos

Saganist wrote: »

The fact of the matter is Genesis says the Earth / Stars /universe was created in 7 days.

OK, but if there was no sun or moon until the 4th day of Creation, how could one determine the hours as being 24 hours in length?

By the by, there are different views of Creation amongst Christians.

Saganist wrote: »

Because now, we know more than we knew then, Religious apologists cherry pick parts of the Bible and literally CHANGE others to suit their beliefs.

OK, but how come Augustine of Hippo and Origen of Jerusalem in the 4th century explored the possibility that the days of Creation may well have been longer than 24 hour days?

Saganist wrote: »

If God came to you and asked you to kill your child. Would you ?

Counter question: What reason do you think God would have for asking me to do that? (I have a feeling what line of thought you are on).

Millicent wrote: »

Saganist, do you know what an allegory is? Adam and Eve is an allegory borrowed from other texts and changed to explain the existence of the world and the story of creation. It's a parable. It's quite easy to believe in evolution while understanding this as a parable. I don't think Jakkass is one of those nutty, fundamentalist, literalist Christians. No need to patronise him.

Interesting you bring that up. One can still regard the science and hold to the existence of Adam and Eve. I heard a scientist who was a Christian talk about the creation vs evolution debate (arguing for a middle ground) saying that one can believe that Adam and Eve were beings amongst others and there might well be Scriptural reason for holding to this.

To be honest with you I'm not 100% sure about everything in this area, but it's nowhere near as simple as YEC's (Young Earth Creationists) or militant atheists make it out to be.

the_syco

alwaysadub wrote: »

Can you prove he doesn't exist?

Give me a gun, and I'll see will he protect those who have not sinned.

Saganist

Millicent wrote: »

Saganist, do you know what an allegory is? Adam and Eve is an allegory borrowed from other texts and changed to explain the existence of the world and the story of creation. It's a parable. It's quite easy to believe in evolution while understanding this as a parable. I don't think Jakkass is one of those nutty, fundamentalist, literalist Christians. No need to patronise him.

Ok so. You dont take the Bible as literally true ?

Is that what you're saying ?

Is it supposed to be like a puzzle you have to figure out yourself ?

Dave!

brummytom wrote: »

The title of Chapter 4 of his book is "Why there almost certainly is no God". 'Almost' - even Dawkins himself leaves a tiny bit of wiggle room. I remember watching Dawkins on Newsnight plugging that book. At the end of the interview, he said "We are not put here to be comfortable." I'll try and find it on youtube, I found that very interesting. 'Put here', by who?

Wow, this is the standard of your arguments? Picking individual expressions he uses? I say "for the love of Jayzus" all the time, does that make me a devout Christian?


Anyway, we all know that evolution disproves god, so there's no more argument necessary!

Paparazzo

kjl wrote: »

OK OK OK,

What else do you believe in, witchcraft? Unicorns?

Well, as it happens......

Millicent

Saganist wrote: »

Ok so. You dont take the Bible as literally true ?

Is that what you're saying ?

Is it supposed to be like a puzzle you have to figure out yourself ?

I'm not a Christian any more so I don't take the Bible as anything these days but the fact is, many of its passages are allegories and parables designed to explain matters and educate uneducated people in the simplest ways. The most far out ones tend to be evidence of this.

And I'd imagine that learning to figure religious texts out for yourself is a good thing, if only because it encourages contemplation and reflection. Just my 2 cent.

Saganist

Jakkass wrote: »

OK, but if there was no sun or moon until the 4th day of Creation, how could one determine the hours as being 24 hours in length?

By the by, there are different views of Creation amongst Christians.



OK, but how come Augustine of Hippo and Origen of Jerusalem in the 4th century explored the possibility that the days of Creation may well have been longer than 24 hour days?



Counter question: What reason do you think God would have for asking me to do that? (I have a feeling what line of thought you are on).

I) If there are different views of Creation then which one is right ? We're better off dropping the lot and trying to find out the REAL reason for the existence of the universe.

II) Your citing people who lived in 300AD as proof ? Please.. !

III) You know damn well Your God asked for it to be done in YOUR book. If you want the chapter, just ask !

If you ask me. I am 10x more moral than the God you Worship !

philologos

Paparazzo wrote: »

Well, as it happens......

Funny stuff!

Numbers 23:22 wrote:

God brought them out of Egypt;
they have the strength of a wild ox.

The Hebrew term is "re'em", a word which was uncertain in English, and the best attempt at the time when the King James was translated (1611) "unicorn" was the best rendering. More modern translations use "wild ox" to describe it, after more thorough research was done into the type of animals that would have lived in that region at that time

Paparazzo

Millicent wrote: »

Saganist, do you know what an allegory is? Adam and Eve is an allegory borrowed from other texts and changed to explain the existence of the world and the story of creation. It's a parable. It's quite easy to believe in evolution while understanding this as a parable. I don't think Jakkass is one of those nutty, fundamentalist, literalist Christians. No need to patronise him.

How do you decide what's a parable? How do you decide what's symbolism in the bible or what's real? Is it every few years when a story starts to look ridiclious in the modern age it becomes symbolism? Even though for the last 1500 years people thought it was real?
I like this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67042599&postcount=2103

Millicent

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting you bring that up. One can still regard the science and hold to the existence of Adam and Eve. I heard a scientist who was a Christian talk about the creation vs evolution debate (arguing for a middle ground) saying that one can believe that Adam and Eve were beings amongst others and there might well be Scriptural reason for holding to this.

To be honest with you I'm not 100% sure about everything in this area, but it's nowhere near as simple as YEC's (Young Earth Creationists) or militant atheists make it out to be.

That's quite an interesting theory Jakkass. I've a lot of interest in the wording and appropriation of Eve from a feminist point of view. Have you any further literature from the talk that you could link to or a link to the speaker? Sounds like interesting reading.

kjl

Jakkass wrote: »

Counter question: What reason do you think God would have for asking me to do that? (I have a feeling what line of thought you are on).

Did god not ask Abraham to sacrfise his son Isaac on Mount Moriah?

Saganist

Millicent wrote: »

I'm not a Christian any more so I don't take the Bible as anything these days but the fact is, many of its passages are allegories and parables designed to explain matters and educate uneducated people in the simplest ways. The most far out ones tend to be evidence of this.

And I'd imagine that learning to figure religious texts out for yourself is a good thing, if only because it encourages contemplation and reflection. Just my 2 cent.

I would teach the bible from a literature standpoint. No more, no less !

But it bugs me that people take passges in the bible as fact, even though we know its wrong !

kjl

Saganist wrote: »

I would teach the bible from a literature standpoint. No more, no less !

But it bugs me that people take passges in the bible as fact, even though we know its wrong !

You mean Noah wasn't 600 years old?

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Millicent wrote: »

I'm not a Christian any more so I don't take the Bible as anything these days but the fact is, many of its passages are allegories and parables designed to explain matters and educate uneducated people in the simplest ways. The most far out ones tend to be evidence of this.

And I'd imagine that learning to figure religious texts out for yourself is a good thing, if only because it encourages contemplation and reflection. Just my 2 cent.

I aggree with this. Like I said I'm an atheist but the religion does teach many good values (and I dont want to hear about obscure biblical texts as they were never mentioned to me in school)
And if I ever have kids it may be hypocrytical for me to send them to a religous school or to send them to first communion etc, but as Millicent said religious stories educate in the simplest ways on questions of morality.

Sure I'll be teaching them myself and whatnot, and you can crtiticise many christian teachings but I dont think any of us who were educated in catholic schools had a particularly immoral education.
Tbh it wasn't a bad education, a lot of sexual repression but you can get round that yourself, for the most part it was fine and I'd like to extend the same to my kids

What I mean to say is (apart from the fact that I ramble:rolleyes:) that religion is, and always has been imo, a kind of instruction manual for a healthy peacefull society. The main message of most religions is love thy neighbour which is never a bad thing

Saganist

kjl wrote: »

You mean Noah wasn't 600 years old?

Stop the Press..
;)

Killer Pigeon

Why are there so many thread about God and religion on After Hours lately? It's like the fifth one this month! I'm not a religious/ spiritual person but why aren't these sort of threads moved to the atheism/ agnosticism forum or the Christianity forum (@Mods)?

philologos

Saganist wrote: »

I) If there are different views of Creation then which one is right ? We're better off dropping the lot and trying to find out the REAL reason for the existence of the universe.

Why do you think there is a need to reject modern science in order to believe in God? Apparently it isn't as much an issue for me as it is for you!

Saganist wrote: »

II) Your citing people who lived in 300AD as proof ? Please.. !

Here's an interesting take on it.

Saganist wrote: »

III) You know damn well Your God asked for it to be done in YOUR book. If you want the chapter, just ask !

I knew this was the line you were going to bring up (Genesis 22).

God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to call it to a halt at the last minute, because God wanted to show Abraham, that His expectations were beyond those of other tribes that actually did sacrifice their children. In fact it was common place in the Middle East at that time. The point was that God was different, in that God wanted to show Abraham that human sacrificing was contrary to His nature.

Millicent wrote: »

That's quite an interesting theory Jakkass. I've a lot of interest in the wording and appropriation of Eve from a feminist point of view. Have you any further literature from the talk that you could link to or a link to the speaker? Sounds like interesting reading.

He was affiliated to Christians in Science, a group of scientists who are Christians. In the US, the BioLogos Foundation do a lot of work in looking into the questions of science and religion. The Faraday Institute are also big in the area.

All research scientists who are keen to find a balance between believing in God, and being good scientists. Articles and stuff should be on all 3 sites.

Millicent

Paparazzo wrote: »

How do you decide what's a parable? How do you decide what's symbolism in the bible or what's real? Is it every few years when a story starts to look ridiclious in the modern age it becomes symbolism? Even though for the last 1500 years people thought it was real?
I like this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67042599&postcount=2103

Ah Russell's Teapot, there's a lot of good comics on there.

I don't think it's possible to definitively decide most of them. There are some that are framed as parables so they're easy to identify as such and then others, which are more reflective of the time they were written in that I wouldn't believe them to be divinely inspired but it's definitely debatable which is which.

Maybe I come at it differently because I'm a a fan of reading (that's not meant to be patronising, it's hard to explain this properly- bear with me! ) My point is that the interpretation and the contemplation is often more important than the text and it doesn't all have to be taken literally. I realise I am making a hames of trying to explain this! Sorry.

Saganist

Gannon Rhythmic Watchman wrote: »

I aggree with this. Like I said I'm an atheist but the religion does teach many good values (and I dont want to hear about obscure biblical texts as they were never mentioned to me in school)
And if I ever have kids it may be hypocrytical for me to send them to a religous school or to send them to first communion etc, but as Millicent said religious stories educate in the simplest ways on questions of morality.

Sure I'll be teaching them myself and whatnot, and you can crtiticise many christian teachings but I dont think any of us who were educated in catholic schools had a particularly immoral education.
Tbh it wasn't a bad education, a lot of sexual repression but you can get round that yourself, for the most part it was fine and I'd like to extend the same to my kids

What I mean to say is (apart from the fact that I ramble:rolleyes:) that religion is, and always has been imo, a kind of instruction manual for a healthy peacefull society. The main message of most religions is love thy neighbour which is never a bad thing

Dont mean to patronize you. But have you ever actually read the bible ?

Nothing but murdering, killing of children, slavery, burning in hell etc etc..

God was really a prick, espically in the old testament

Millicent

Saganist wrote: »

I would teach the bible from a literature standpoint. No more, no less !

But it bugs me that people take passges in the bible as fact, even though we know its wrong !

That's fair and I wholeheartedly understand where you're coming from. I'm no more a fan of those people who use the Bible to discriminate or judge (mostly because the same book tells them they're not supposed to and they choose to ignore this bit!) But as Slasher said, there are interesting tales in the Bible that are good teaching tools.

I have no problem with the Bible being taught from a literature standpoint because at least that would encourage discussion and be an appropriate use of its text.

Apple Butt

I heard that god is actually a ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil.

PROVE ME WRONG.

Saganist

Jakkass wrote: »

Why do you think there is a need to reject modern science in order to believe in God? Apparently it isn't as much an issue for me as it is for you!



Here's an interesting take on it.



I knew this was the line you were going to bring up (Genesis 22).

God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to call it to a halt at the last minute, because God wanted to show Abraham, that His expectations were beyond those of other tribes that actually did sacrifice their children. In fact it was common place in the Middle East at that time. The point was that God was different, in that God wanted to show Abraham that human sacrificing was contrary to His nature.

I'll save my other answers for later.

One question:

Would you ask someone to do that ?

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Millicent wrote: »

Ah Russell's Teapot, there's a lot of good comics on there.

I don't think it's possible to definitively decide most of them. There are some that are framed as parables so they're easy to identify as such and then others, which are more reflective of the time they were written in that I wouldn't believe them to be divinely inspired but it's definitely debatable which is which.

Maybe I come at it differently because I'm a a fan of reading (that's not meant to be patronising, it's hard to explain this properly- bear with me! ) My point is that the interpretation and the contemplation is often more important than the text and it doesn't all have to be taken literally. I realise I am making a hames of trying to explain this! Sorry.

That makes pretty good sense to me, have you read The Life of Pi?

You want a flat story. An immobile story. You want a dry, yeastless factuality.

Sometimes the factualities can be bleak and depressing, it's nice to think of things from a more colourful medium of explanation. And its nice to have thoughts evoked in that way

If that is what you're saying

gbee

kjl wrote: »

You mean Noah wasn't 600 years old?

He was probably and alien. Despite us having been born on this planet, it's killing us with radiation. We SHOULD live for approx 320 years and not the 75/80 that we do.

Many cultures have references, including our own Irish stories, of people living hundreds of years.

The profoundness of this is we are not native to our own planet. I don't know where the study goes, but it's the body clock v energy v environment v species thing.

Hints is the lifespan of butterflies v gestation; horses v gestation; tortoise v gestation. When man gets put in this modelling our average lifespan should be from 200 to 320 years.