Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Festus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You see it is this kind of stuff that has stopped us believing, the fact that we have to employ doublethink constantly just to hold the belief in our heads doesn't sit well with us.

Atheists only exist because God does.

Double think that.

Festus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It's not so much your motives as his fear of being found out believing in something that he knows he has no valid reason for believing in.

When people of festus' type of belief get defensive over their beliefs being shown into the light and examined, it is generally because the penny has finally dropped, and (to use the expression) their particular emperor has no clothes. They realise that their beliefs are without foundation, and it scares them.

What is the foundation of your belief?

Or are you without belief and hence without foundation?

Harika

Festus wrote: »

Atheists only exist because God does.

Double think that.

Atheist exist because a believe in god(s) exist, if any god could be proven to exist Atheist wouldn't exist.

Festus

Harika wrote: »

Atheist exist because a believe in god(s) exist, if any god could be proven to exist Atheist wouldn't exist.

Some, if not all, atheists believe they are their own god in which case their very existence proves they do not exist.

But that is not the point.

Can you exist without God and if so how?

If at any point you do not know how or why something occurs or occurred please do not use a future knowledge fallacy.

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

You cherry picked and quoted one section out of context. Why did you not also include the part before that that is part of the same law?

The section you referred to applies to a woman who has done wrong not only against the family she was born to but also to the family she was married into.

[13] If a man marry a wife, and afterwards hate her, [14] And seek occasions to put her away, laying to her charge a very ill name, and say: I took this woman to wife, and going in to her, I found her not a virgin: [15] Her father and mother shall take her, and shall bring with them the tokens of her virginity to the ancients of the city that are in the gate: [16] And the father shall say: I gave my daughter unto this man to wife: and because he hateth her, [17] He layeth to her charge a very ill name, so as to say: I found not thy daughter a virgin: and behold these are the tokens of my daughter' s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the ancients of the city: [18] And the ancients of that city shall take that man, and beat him, [19] Condemning him besides in a hundred sides of silver, which he shall give to the damsel' s father, because he hath defamed by a very ill name a virgin of Israel: and he shall have her to wife, and may not put her away all the days of his life. [20] But if what he charged her with be true, and virginity be not found in the damsel:
[21] They shall cast her out of the doors of her father' s house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father' s house: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee.

You do filter. You post only what suits you when taken out of context. Here is the rest of that law

[22] If a man lie with another man' s wife, they shall both die, that is to say, the adulterer and the adulteress: and thou shalt take away the evil out of Israel. [23] If a man have espoused a damsel that is a virgin, and some one find her in the city, and lie with her, [24] Thou shalt bring them both out to the gate of that city, and they shall be stoned: the damsel, because she cried not out, being in the city: the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour' s wife. And thou shalt take away the evil from the midst of thee. [25] But if a man find a damsel that is betrothed, in the field, and taking hold of her, lie with her, he alone shall die: [26] The damsel shall suffer nothing, neither is she guilty of death: for as a robber riseth against his brother, and taketh away his life, so also did the damsel suffer: [27] She was alone in the field: she cried, and there was no man to help her. [28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: [29] He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life.

As for opinions - I think being honest and truthful is more important.

BTW, don't neglect to consider my response to another poster regarding only those who have kept all the laws and are without sin can cast stones.

And you think this improves the excerpt ? The mind boggles

Harika

Festus wrote: »

Some, if not all, atheists believe they are their own god in which case their very existence proves they do not exist.

But that is not the point.

Can you exist without God and if so how?

If at any point you do not know how or why something occurs or occurred please do not use a future knowledge fallacy.

Yes e.g. Satanists believe they are their own god, what now comes down to the definition what a god is, so what is a god for you? Also when you state yourself that you are a god, does that mean you are a god_ Same if I claim that I am Festus, does that mean I am Festus?

We exist very likely without a god, and as you know we cannot prove that there is no god and on the other side there is no proof that there is a or several god (s), that would have godlike powers to create an universe.

We have come a long way to understand that thunder and lightning are not caused by god(s) but from physics, if you think that there is something that is yet unexplained feel free to use your god as helper until we figure out how it can be explained by science.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

You cherry picked and quoted one section out of context. Why did you not also include the part before that that is part of the same law?

The section you referred to applies to a woman who has done wrong not only against the family she was born to but also to the family she was married into.

[13] If a man marry a wife, and afterwards hate her, [14] And seek occasions to put her away, laying to her charge a very ill name, and say: I took this woman to wife, and going in to her, I found her not a virgin: [15] Her father and mother shall take her, and shall bring with them the tokens of her virginity to the ancients of the city that are in the gate: [16] And the father shall say: I gave my daughter unto this man to wife: and because he hateth her, [17] He layeth to her charge a very ill name, so as to say: I found not thy daughter a virgin: and behold these are the tokens of my daughter' s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the ancients of the city: [18] And the ancients of that city shall take that man, and beat him, [19] Condemning him besides in a hundred sides of silver, which he shall give to the damsel' s father, because he hath defamed by a very ill name a virgin of Israel: and he shall have her to wife, and may not put her away all the days of his life. [20] But if what he charged her with be true, and virginity be not found in the damsel:
[21] They shall cast her out of the doors of her father' s house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father' s house: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee.

You do filter. You post only what suits you when taken out of context. Here is the rest of that law

[22] If a man lie with another man' s wife, they shall both die, that is to say, the adulterer and the adulteress: and thou shalt take away the evil out of Israel. [23] If a man have espoused a damsel that is a virgin, and some one find her in the city, and lie with her, [24] Thou shalt bring them both out to the gate of that city, and they shall be stoned: the damsel, because she cried not out, being in the city: the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour' s wife. And thou shalt take away the evil from the midst of thee. [25] But if a man find a damsel that is betrothed, in the field, and taking hold of her, lie with her, he alone shall die: [26] The damsel shall suffer nothing, neither is she guilty of death: for as a robber riseth against his brother, and taketh away his life, so also did the damsel suffer: [27] She was alone in the field: she cried, and there was no man to help her. [28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: [29] He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life.

There are several sections of the Bible where "God" encourages men to beat women's brains in (and sometimes men's too) with rocks.
Festus, I would encourage you to google this practice. Sit down and watch what "God" is encouraging men to do. Watch the terrified young girl being placed in a hole and then watch the men kill her by throwing large rocks at her exposed head. Then Festus, tell me that a loving God encouraged men to behave like this. Tell me that it was justified because she was not a virgin when she married or maybe it was for one of the other serious crimes which God has deemed worthy of "execution" in this fashion.
If ever you wanted evidence that God did not inspire the writing of the old Testament then this is it. As I said before, if God did not inspire these writings then the whole thing is just made up, as I believe it is.

Brian Shanahan

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I think you're in the wrong thread, dude. If I'm not mistaken, I said that in the Origin of Specious Nonsense thread. Of course what I said is just as valid here (since it relates to my points for there being a lack of a good justification for a belief in god), but let's not mix up what people said in other threads here.

The post must have been moved back here then.

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

If ever you wanted evidence that God did not inspire the writing of the old Testament then this is it. As I said before, if God did not inspire these writings then the whole thing is just made up, as I believe it is.

The Bible is either true or it is not.

If it is true then it was written by people who believe in God and who believed they were inspired by God.

If that is not true then the people who wrote it knowing it to be false could not have believed in God. I think there were called atheists at one point.

The only other way to explain the Bible without God involves a conspiracy theory on an epic, dare I say biblical scale.

So which is it according to you - the bible was written by atheists or you subscribe to a conspiracy theory you cannot explain adequately?

Or do you have another full and detailed explanation for the Bible?

Festus

Harika wrote: »

Yes e.g. Satanists believe they are their own god, what now comes down to the definition what a god is, so what is a god for you? Also when you state yourself that you are a god, does that mean you are a god_ Same if I claim that I am Festus, does that mean I am Festus?

We exist very likely without a god, and as you know we cannot prove that there is no god and on the other side there is no proof that there is a or several god (s), that would have godlike powers to create an universe.

We have come a long way to understand that thunder and lightning are not caused by god(s) but from physics, if you think that there is something that is yet unexplained feel free to use your god as helper until we figure out how it can be explained by science.

You didn't answer the question and you used the fallacy of relying on future knowledge while admitting to being agnostic.


I understand some atheists would call that a fail.

Harika

Festus wrote: »

You didn't answer the question and you used the fallacy of relying on future knowledge while admitting to being agnostic.


I understand some atheists would call that a fail.

I never stated that I would be atheist or agnostic or agnostic atheist or satanist or pastafarian? And why would it matter in a discussion if god exists?

As said you are welcome to pray to the god of the gaps, and the next time you hear a thunder, your god is angry at you so better pray fast! :cool:

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

The Bible is either true or it is not.

If it is true then it was written by people who believe in God and who believed they were inspired by God.

If that is not true then the people who wrote it knowing it to be false could not have believed in God. I think there were called atheists at one point.

The only other way to explain the Bible without God involves a conspiracy theory on an epic, dare I say biblical scale.

So which is it according to you - the bible was written by atheists or you subscribe to a conspiracy theory you cannot explain adequately?

Or do you have another full and detailed explanation for the Bible?

We have already established the Bible is hearsay.

Harika

Festus wrote: »

The Bible is either true or it is not.

<-snip->

Or do you have another full and detailed explanation for the Bible?

Made up by some hustlers to control people. So when was the bible exactly written down again? Isn't it the case the bible is a compilation of stories originating from different sources hundreds of years in difference? The process of compilation again was controlled by those hustlers by cherry picking what they thought was right. Over the decades it was heavily adapted again to fit the needs of the reigning people. That process was again made up and controlled by the same religious hustlers, Mohammed then used the same process to create islam, as he needed something to gather people behind them with the reward again only after death. So convenient.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

The Bible is either true or it is not.

If it is true then it was written by people who believe in God and who believed they were inspired by God.

If that is not true then the people who wrote it knowing it to be false could not have believed in God. I think there were called atheists at one point.

I think you are leaving out the most likely scenario; It was written by people who genuinely believed, wrongly, that they were inspired by God. I think they genuinely believed in God but were seriously misguided.

Your second point is like adding two and two and getting 7.

Festus, are you going to tell me that a loving God encouraged men to behave like this. Can you tell me that it was justifiable to kill people in this way, because God told them to do it? I am genuinely interested to hear what you have to say about this.

Festus

Harika wrote: »

Made up by some hustlers to control people. So when was the bible exactly written down again? Isn't it the case the bible is a compilation of stories originating from different sources hundreds of years in difference? The process of compilation again was controlled by those hustlers by cherry picking what they thought was right. Over the decades it was heavily adapted again to fit the needs of the reigning people. That process was again made up and controlled by the same religious hustlers, Mohammed then used the same process to create islam, as he needed something to gather people behind them with the reward again only after death. So convenient.

So you are saying it is a conspiracy.

Harika

Festus wrote: »

So you are saying it is a conspiracy.

This is debatable as wikipedia states a conspiracy as an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage.
So are religious people loosing legal rights, no I wouldn't say that. In fact religious people remove legal rights by their own wish from them, what is stupid but it is their free will.
And does religion gain an unfair advantage? Again debatable, as the main benefit is only given after death and there also only maybe as we discussed here earlier. The advantage is only there for the leaders that can dictate whatever they want with the pointing to god's will, what has become harder in recent times because people became literate and can actually read what is stated in the bible.
That is why, also seen here, discussions about bible passages let your brain spin so hard, because of the affords religious people have to go through to cover and justify the flaws of the bible.

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

I think you are leaving out the most likely scenario; It was written by people who genuinely believed, wrongly, that they were inspired by God. I think they genuinely believed in God but were seriously misguided.

Now you are being anti-semetic.

Safehands wrote: »

Festus, are you going to tell me that a loving God encouraged men to behave like this. Can you tell me that it was justifiable to kill people in this way, because God told them to do it? I am genuinely interested to hear what you have to say about this.

Read my postings. The law says that only without sin can enforce the laws in Deuteronomy and who is without sin, then or now.

Festus

Harika wrote: »

That is why, also seen here, discussions about bible passages let your brain spin so hard, because of the affords religious people have to go through to cover and justify the flaws of the bible.

What flaws in the Bible? Do you mean spelling mistakes?

Harika

Festus wrote: »

What flaws in the Bible? Do you mean spelling mistakes?

Contradictions in what is stated.

What I found interesting is this analogy for religion being a conspiracy theory:

It is rather interesting to read what people believe to be conspiracies that aren't (e.g. most corporations are not actively conspiring with each other against the public, it is simply a result of corporate priorities - to maximize profits - that requires no coordination at all), and what actual conspiracies that do exist that people deny (e.g. energy companies working together to create federal policies that favor themselves and push through lobbying / political connections).

Organized religions, IMHO, are pretty much the same as corporations. They exist to maximize profits, but each religion / corporation has their own marketplace and target audience. Each religion / corporation has their own PR initiatives designed to make their competitors look bad and to reinforce that their own customers made the best possible choice (e.g. think about the Microsoft / Apple PR or Xbox / PS PR or Christian / Muslim PR). None of this requires conspiracy, but just a devotion to keeping their business operating.

So short, religion is no conspiracy theory, but a business that maximizes it's profit. Or are most religions not looking to expand and gain more influence?

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

who is without sin, then or now.

My children have never committed a sin in their lives.

Festus

Harika wrote: »

Contradictions in what is stated.

What contradictions?

Harika wrote: »

So short, religion is no conspiracy theory, but a business that maximizes it's profit.

Even if that were true that still doesn't explain why the Bible is the way it is and says what it says.

How is a Bible as "nasty" as Safehands believes it to be going to expand influence and attract bigger profits?

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

My children have never committed a sin in their lives.

What about you?

Harika

Festus wrote: »

What contradictions?

You know which parts I mean, else it is find able easy by google.

Festus wrote: »

Even if that were true that still doesn't explain why the Bible is the way it is and says what it says.

Oh it explains everything, every part has its own meaning and it makes sense when looking at maximizing its "profit". Throw examples and I will link it why it is beneficial to have it that way.

Festus

Harika wrote: »

You know which parts I mean, else it is find able easy by google.

Tried it - didn't find anything other than stuff made up by atheists and God haters . All false accusations.

Harika wrote: »

Oh it explains everything, every part has its own meaning and it makes sense when looking at maximizing its "profit". Throw examples and I will link it why it is beneficial to have it that way.

Acts 7:51-53

Matthew 10:39

1 Peter 4:3-4

2 Timothy 3:12

John 15:18-19

Harika

Festus wrote: »

Acts 7:51-53

Listen to us, we are the only good ones. Public Relations

Festus wrote: »

Matthew 10:39

Eternal life, only with us. PR

Festus wrote: »

1 Peter 4:3-4

The other ones are bad for you. PR

Festus wrote: »

2 Timothy 3:12

The others might question you, but keep going. PR

Festus wrote: »

John 15:18-19

The others might question you, but keep going. PR

So all advertisement ala "I am the one and only" that binds customers to the brand of Catholicism.

Festus

Harika wrote: »

So all advertisement ala "I am the one and only" that binds customers to the brand of Catholicism.

Public Relations costs money - it doesn't make any profit of itself. If you believe it is about profit tell me how this makes money?

As for Catholicism - PR doesn't seem to be much use at the moment. The less people are told about sin and Hell the faster they leave. So less money. Why is that?
Some parishes are telling people about Hell and sin and their flocks are increasing but there aren't many and those that do are being shut down by the bishops so less money. Why is that?

What about other Christians or are you only against Catholics?

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

What about you?

What about me?

You said "who is without sin, then or now."

My children are without sin. How could two toddlers have any sins?

Harika

Festus wrote: »

Public Relations costs money - it doesn't make any profit of itself. If you believe it is about profit tell me how this makes money?

As for Catholicism - PR doesn't seem to be much use at the moment. The less people are told about sin and Hell the faster they leave. So less money. Why is that?
Some parishes are telling people about Hell and sin and their flocks are increasing but there aren't many and those that do are being shut down by the bishops so less money. Why is that?

What about other Christians or are you only against Catholics?

Henry Ford said, half of each dollar for advertisement is wasted money, but no one can tell you which half. If Christians would not run around and recruit people, they would die out as a church without people is dead. And what manager would let it's company go down?

As people are becoming more and more literate and have other options it is more and more harder to hold them together, so a the request is nowadays more for a "Feel good religion" as the hardliners in the Vatican already have realized, as can be seen in the difference in speeches between Pope Francis and Benedict.

About the other Christians: They are doing the same, just are tweaking things differently to justify their being. Who would take a "New improved Catholic church" seriously that reads the bible the same way? So some people unhappy with their religion forked it and created their own with enough brand change to be recognized as own entity but already a broad foundation to stand on.
Asking Questions is being against them?

Festus

lazygal wrote: »

What about me?

You said "who is without sin, then or now."

My children are without sin. How could two toddlers have any sins?

That is only part of what I said and you have taken it out of context.
Nor did you specify the age of your children and I am not omniscient.

Festus

Harika wrote: »

They are doing the same, just are tweaking things differently to justify their being. Who would take a "New improved Catholic church" seriously that reads the bible the same way? So some people unhappy with their religion forked it and created their own with enough brand change to be recognized as own entity but already a broad foundation to stand on.

Ah, so you do have a go at the Protestants as well.

Speaking of foundations. What foundations do your beliefs have?