Questions atheists are sick of answering. Aaaand Biscuits again, of course.

ShowMeTheCash

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't think "how god should be". I don't believe in a god. I was simply pointing out that IF you believe in the god of the bible then it's not humanity's fault that said god has the characteristics it does.



Strange way to word your question but ok I'll start simple and ask some questions,

1. There are plenty of quotes throughout the bible that attribute such characteristics to the god of the bible. Do you contest that?

2. The god of the old testament is the same god as the one of the new testament. Do you contest that?

Have you ever studied history?

It's not humanity's fault that said god has the characteristics it does?

I am pretty sure it is, being that it was humans the wrote the bible, do you contest that?

Let me break it down for you... The bible did not float out of the sky in a magic cloud it was written by.... humanity!! Probably baised in many ways and laced with the agendas of influential people and that of popular opinion of it's time!

In one hand Christians tend to make in my opionion stupid arguments to prove the existance of God, similary your arguments to discredit... Actually I am not even sure who or what you are trying to discredit I find equally narrow minded.

ShowMeTheCash

kylith wrote: »

So you would agree the god of the bible is a man-made construct? What, then, is the point of having faith it exists and worshipping it if it's madey-uppy?

People may choose to believe it was inspired by god, people can believe what they want.
If you want to beleive it is madey-uppy, cool your arguement however to why you believe this hold absolutly no more weight than someone that wants to believe it is the written word of god!

ShowMeTheCash

SebBerkovich wrote: »

In keeping with the current context of the thread i would like to add that i hate when i have to invoke the Bible when asked a question about religion...
Because it always ends the same way once you go down that road

me: Have you read that thing, It's racist and crazy.
them: You can't take it literally it's a metaphor
me: So... maybe the whole hating the gays thing is a metaphor
them: OH NO! God was being serious about that part
me: i'm out... <drops mic>

LOL - Them?
I am not a Christian nor do I take anything in the bible litterally, I mearly find it interesting...

But your way of thinking is a little scary! In one hand you seem to be supporting sexual equality but on the otherhand sterotyping an entire spawn of people.... There might be a name for that!

eyescreamcone

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't think "how god should be". I don't believe in a god. I was simply pointing out that IF you believe in the god of the bible then it's not humanity's fault that said god has the characteristics it does.



Strange way to word your question but ok I'll start simple and ask some questions,

1. There are plenty of quotes throughout the bible that attribute such characteristics to the god of the bible. Do you contest that?

2. The god of the old testament is the same god as the one of the new testament. Do you contest that?

Is he really though??
If he's the same then he could be a touch schizophrenic - huge mood swing at the very least between old and new testaments in my opinion
(I must admit though, to not being a fully qualified psychiatrist yet, so my opinion may not be expert)

And for the believers - god made the world and everything in it (man and dinosaurs on the same day of course )
Then he sent his son down - miracle, miracle, miracle, resurrection.
Then nothing - nearly 2000 years of nothing... nada, zilch
(I'm not counting the moving statue in Ballinspittle).

Is god a tease? or has he taken early retirement??

Surely if he's still in the game we should be allowed to add an up to date testament to the good, but not great, book.

Where and how are souls made?
How are they transported into every person? or are they like an online account you can access through a cloud?

If god (or a subcontractor) makes these souls, why not put deliver them clean - no need to put the original sin in at all really (unless it was needed for recruitment purposes later).

etc etc





If someone says that they believe in god/s, are they not really shouting at the top of their voices...
"I'm a muppet.
I believe in things that there is clearly no evidence of.
Thank you for showing me that there is no sense in my beliefs.
But I will continue to believe in them though.
Why?
Because I'm a muppet"

SebBerkovich

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

LOL - Them?
I am not a Christian nor do I take anything in the bible litterally, I mearly find it interesting...

But your way of thinking is a little scary! In one hand you seem to be supporting sexual equality but on the otherhand sterotyping an entire spawn of people.... There might be a name for that!

I wasn't directing that at you personally, your current conversation just inspired me.

Also, It's not a stereotype of Christians specifically, "Them" is meant to refer to any people who pick and choose from their scripture to suit themselves. (it's bloody annoying)

e.g. Shellfish being an abomination is nuts but jesus rising from the dead... that makes sense. why? because God works in mysterious way and i love oysters.

endacl

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Shellfish being an abomination is nuts but jesus rising from the dead... that makes sense. why? because God works in mysterious way and i love oysters cold salty snots.

FYP

:P

SebBerkovich

endacl wrote: »

FYP

:P

You could go as far as calling them communion wafers, by any name, i'd eat them.

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

People may choose to believe it was inspired by god, people can believe what they want.
If you want to beleive it is madey-uppy, cool your arguement however to why you believe this hold absolutly no more weight than someone that wants to believe it is the written word of god!

People certainly can choose to believe whatever they want but would you not say that it is damaging for people to be told that this is the infallible word of a deity when it is, in fact, five or six millennia worth of political propaganda?

Do you really think that the argument that it is man-made should hold no weight when you take into account the horrors that have been wreaked upon the word in the name of this book; the Crusades, Magdalen Laundries, the oppression of women, slavery, racism, and the fact that people are still trying to use it to impose their will on others, especially those who do not share their religious views?

ShowMeTheCash

I like history, I tend to question everything, not just the text why the reasons to why it was written...

There is a whole lot of Jewish law with regrards what you can do cannot do, what you can eat what you cannot eat the jewish faith a long with a few others still practise this today....

There is a load of scripture that crazed right wing Christians use for their own agenda, but then they tend to forget the ones like not clipping your hair or beard and various other rules they tend to leave out that according to the scripture can have significant consequences.

But I tend to believe this really has nothing to do with go, but to do with the agenda of ruling kings at the time...

ShooterSF

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Have you ever studied history?

It's not humanity's fault that said god has the characteristics it does?

I am pretty sure it is, being that it was humans the wrote the bible, do you contest that?

Let me break it down for you... The bible did not float out of the sky in a magic cloud it was written by.... humanity!! Probably baised in many ways and laced with the agendas of influential people and that of popular opinion of it's time!

In one hand Christians tend to make in my opionion stupid arguments to prove the existance of God, similary your arguments to discredit... Actually I am not even sure who or what you are trying to discredit I find equally narrow minded.

AGAIN, I'm still typing from the POV that the god of the bible exists. Outside of that, of course I believe humans wrote the bible and made it all up along the way, well not all of it, they also stole plenty of it from earlier religions.

Are you suggesting that a god could exist, that he communicated his message to his followers and that they manipulated and twisted his message to suit their own wishes, he then sent himself to earth in human form and never bothered to sit down and go over all the lies and incorrect passages in the old testament? On top of all that he still remains silent on these issues to us humans in modern times and yet threatens to judge us based on his laws without ever pointing out which are really his laws and which are human constructs.

If you want narrow minded look to people who believe in a god but know that their morality is the true morality of their god and anything else that contradicts that is interference of other human beings. That they are right on everything because their god agrees with them and even when he doesn't that is simply misunderstanding by other human beings.

lazygal

Why does it always, always descend into food related shenanigans?

endacl

lazygal wrote: »

Why does it always, always descend into food related shenanigans?

Do you like biscuits?

lazygal

endacl wrote: »

Do you like biscuits?

Meh, they're no Hawaiian pizza.

Sulla Felix

The atheist/theist gnostic/agnostic thing really bugs me. They're answers to two very different questions.

endacl

Sulla Felix wrote: »

The atheist/theist gnostic/agnostic thing really bugs me. They're answers to two very different questions.

You know, I don't even think about it. I know my position. If somebody else feels a need to plot me on a graph, that grand.

ShowMeTheCash

ShooterSF wrote: »

AGAIN, I'm still typing from the POV that the god of the bible exists. Outside of that, of course I believe humans wrote the bible and made it all up along the way, well not all of it, they also stole plenty of it from earlier religions.

Are you suggesting that a god could exist, that he communicated his message to his followers and that they manipulated and twisted his message to suit their own wishes, he then sent himself to earth in human form and never bothered to sit down and go over all the lies and incorrect passages in the old testament? On top of all that he still remains silent on these issues to us humans in modern times and yet threatens to judge us based on his laws without ever pointing out which are really his laws and which are human constructs.

If you want narrow minded look to people who believe in a god but know that their morality is the true morality of their god and anything else that contradicts that is interference of other human beings. That they are right on everything because their god agrees with them and even when he doesn't that is simply misunderstanding by other human beings.

I am not trying to suggest anything, other than on one hand we have hardline Christians that will take everthing litterally from the bible and not dare question its origin or validity.
On the other hand we have hard line discrediters who will look at the bible in exactly the same way but to the opposite effect....

It's like listening to two idiots!

Right wing Christian : God hates gay people!
Left wing Atheist : Your god hates gay people!

I just find it funny although polar opposites I see ignorance at both ends of the spectrum that are using the same passages to support their argument....

lazygal

Its like people who like Hawaiin pizza and those who don't. They'll never be able to agree.

CerebralCortex

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am not trying to suggest anything, other than on one hand we have hardline Christians that will take everthing litterally from the bible and not dare question its origin or validity.
On the other hand we have hard line discrediters who will look at the bible in exactly the same way but to the opposite effect....

It's like listening to two idiots!

Right wing Christian : God hates gay people!
Left wing Atheist : Your god hates gay people!

I just find it funny although polar opposites I see ignorance at both ends of the spectrum that are using the same passages to support their argument....

What's more annoying is someone misrepresenting a position so they can point the finger and take the moral high ground. There's one correct way to interpret the bible and it's the reason atheists exist.

endacl

lazygal wrote: »

Its like people who like Hawaiin pizza and those who don't. They'll never be able to agree.

This again?!?

Look. I really don't care what you have on your pizza, once it doesn't come out of a freezer. That's not pizza. That's stodge. Hawaiian or otherwise.

ShowMeTheCash

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What's more annoying is someone misrepresenting a position so they can point the finger and take the moral high ground. There's one correct way to interpret the bible and it's the reason atheists exist.

I maybe taking the moral high ground, but in some cases it is difficult to do anything but this!

There's one correct way to interpret the bible?
And it's the reason atheists exist?

OK thanks for clearing that up, I guess we can all go home now!

lazygal

A frozen Dr Oetker pizza can be a thing of great beauty.

endacl

lazygal wrote: »

A frozen Dr Oetker pizza can be a thing of great beauty.

Can be indeed. The picture on the the box always looks great. Then you open the box and...

Religion is like frozen pizza. Discuss!

SpaceTime

I always turn the 'so how do you know right from wrong' one around with:

So, you only behave 'morally' because you're terrified that some supernatural being will punish you if you misbehave and you're questioning *my* morals!?

ShowMeTheCash

lazygal wrote: »

Its like people who like Hawaiin pizza and those who don't. They'll never be able to agree.

Pineapple is the King of all fruits, it can go with sweet and savory!
Anyone that thinks otherwise is wrong!

ShowMeTheCash

SpaceTime wrote: »

I always turn the 'so how do you know right from wrong' one around with:

So, you only behave 'morally' because you're terrified that some supernatural being will punish you if you misbehave and you're questioning *my* morals!?

I think morals, or the idea of right and wrong come with our intellegence.
As a species we are fairly innovative, we build on the knowledge of others, they only way we could actually do this is by having some kind of social structure in place... Our social structure has evolved over time...

I think after the point we become selfware we then become socially aware... I think morality is a natural evolution of this.

Else we would just be running around with a stick taking things from people.... Just another point to note, we are not the only species on the plannet that demonstrates this behaviour... Apes, are selfaware and usually have a complex social structure.

SebBerkovich

Guys i think we're getting off track with with talking about what fruit to put on pizza.

It's important to start by choosing your base meat, personally i like to go for some ham or chorizo before i can make an informed choice about what fruit/veg to add.

lazygal

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Guys i think we're getting off track with with talking about what fruit to put on pizza.

It's important to start by choosing your base meat, personally i like to go for some ham or chorizo before i can make an informed choice about what fruit/veg to add.

Is this backseat modding??? :eek:
What about non meat pizza?

ShowMeTheCash

lazygal wrote: »

Is this backseat modding??? :eek:
What about non meat pizza?

Non meat?? You could get stoned for that type of blasphemy...

But you want real good pizza a stoned baked pizza.... Now your talking!

seamus

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If you want to beleive it is madey-uppy, cool your arguement however to why you believe this hold absolutly no more weight than someone that wants to believe it is the written word of god!

Wait, what? I can't believe this statement was allowed go lightly.

All points of view/beliefs are not equal. This is the problem with the modern world. Being "open minded" does not mean that you give everyone's point of view equal weight. The validity of a point of view is determined by the weight of evidence which supports it. You give equal weight to all evidence, not to the views that they support.

If I say that I believe my computer was put together by leprechauns using fairy dust and lucky charms and you say that you believe it was constructed in a factory by Dell employees, does that mean our two beliefs hold equal weight? Of course not, because that would be absurd.

The belief which has more supporting evidence is the one which is more likely to be valid because it is the one which makes the least assumptions.

Thus, the belief that the bible is the written word of God holds far less weight than the belief that the bible is a man-made construct of various origins, some probably with historical roots, others completely fabricated from the air. Because the latter has more evidence to support it.

ShowMeTheCash

seamus wrote: »

Wait, what? I can't believe this statement was allowed go lightly.

All points of view/beliefs are not equal. This is the problem with the modern world. Being "open minded" does not mean that you give everyone's point of view equal weight. The validity of a point of view is determined by the weight of evidence which supports it. You give equal weight to all evidence, not to the views that they support.

If I say that I believe my computer was put together by leprechauns using fairy dust and lucky charms and you say that you believe it was constructed in a factory by Dell employees, does that mean our two beliefs hold equal weight? Of course not, because that would be absurd.

The belief which has more supporting evidence is the one which is more likely to be valid because it is the one which makes the least assumptions.

Thus, the belief that the bible is the written word of God holds far less weight than the belief that the bible is a man-made construct of various origins, some probably with historical roots, others completely fabricated from the air. Because the latter has more evidence to support it.

Well your argument is flawed, you could probably prove that Dell employee's made your PC, however I do not know too many 2000 year old people or anyone that knows anyone that wrote the bible....

If you read back I have already made the point that it is very unlikely that the bible is a true reflection of any real events maybe in part but unlikely in full, that being said if people choose to believe in it, that's their parogative!

The idea of faith or anything Spiritual resides in the "I cannot prove any of this column" my point being no one can really disprove it either...

You also make the statement that "the latter has more evidence to support it."

No it doesn't, you seem to be mixing up the lack of any real evidence as evidence.

Sarky

While I'm glad you found a way to feel superior to both sides, you're, eh, kind of all over the place in doing it.

Pherekydes

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

On the other hand we have hard line discrediters who will look at the bible in exactly the same way but to the opposite effect....

What's a hardline discreditor? If the bible is full of BS then it discredits itself.

Zombrex

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Well your argument is flawed, you could probably prove that Dell employee's made your PC, however I do not know too many 2000 year old people or anyone that knows anyone that wrote the bible....

If you read back I have already made the point that it is very unlikely that the bible is a true reflection of any real events maybe in part but unlikely in full, that being said if people choose to believe in it, that's their parogative!

The idea of faith or anything Spiritual resides in the "I cannot prove any of this column" my point being no one can really disprove it either...

You also make the statement that "the latter has more evidence to support it."

No it doesn't, you seem to be mixing up the lack of any real evidence as evidence.

If something has no evidence, but people still assert it is true, they have probably made it up.

That is just simple logic. The idea that you cannot disprove it ignores the point that it is a claim being made by someone. That claim has to originate from some where, and the most likely explanation for a claim with no evidence is that it is made up. And simply by virtue of odds made up claims tend to not be true.

ShowMeTheCash

Sarky wrote: »

While I'm glad you found a way to feel superior to both sides, you're, eh, kind of all over the place in doing it.

Having 5 different arguments at once will do that....

And your passive aggressive quip to belittle my points of view are probably no different to my own, so well done and welcome to the club you too are now an @$$#01#!

ShowMeTheCash

Zombrex wrote: »

If something has no evidence, but people still assert it is true, they have probably made it up.

That is just simple logic. The idea that you cannot disprove it ignores the point that it is a claim being made by someone. That claim has to originate from some where, and the most likely explanation for a claim with no evidence is that it is made up. And simply by virtue of odds made up claims tend to not be true.

Well you abviosuly not a scentist!

Usually people have theories... No matter how radical.... Even in science very few are proven so they remain theories, usually at some point in time all one can do is dissprove them....

Also the Bible I doubt is "made up", the bible is a collection of books not just one, there is a lot of evidence to support at least some of the events talked about... It is no more or reliable in say the history of the Peloponnesian war but people still read it and use it as a source depicting the events of around 400BC...

People are saying BS or maddy uppy... What exactly do you think the bible is? Do you think any of the events in the bible happened at all? Or just the parts that show some kind of super natural events?

Sarky

I'm a scientist. Whatever you think you're saying, it's not very scientific.

seamus

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

People are saying BS or maddy uppy... What exactly do you think the bible is? Do you think any of the events in the bible happened at all? Or just the parts that show some kind of super natural events?

Given that the bible proclaims itself in its entirety to be the divine word of God, then simply proving one part of it to be made up completely destroys that proclamation.

"I believe the parts of the bible which haven't been disproven, to be the word of God", or "It's up to you to decide what parts to believe", is just another God of the Gaps argument. You cannot decide that one part of the book is the divine word of God and ignore the parts which clearly cannot be. It's logically inconsistent and basically an admission that you yourself* are just making it up as you go along and picking and choosing things just because you like them.

*By this I mean "one", rather than you personally

kylith

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Also the Bible I doubt is "made up", the bible is a collection of books not just one, there is a lot of evidence to support at least some of the events talked about...

Such as?

People are saying BS or maddy uppy... What exactly do you think the bible is? Do you think any of the events in the bible happened at all? Or just the parts that show some kind of super natural events?

I think that any parts of the bible which are not outright fabrications are massively exaggerated. For example, there is some evidence for a flood at about the time Noah might have been around, if he existed, but it certainly wasn't global.

endacl

kylith wrote: »

I think that any parts of the bible which are not outright fabrications are massively exaggerated. For example, there is some evidence for a flood at about the time Noah might have been around, if he existed, but it certainly wasn't global.

Of course, to a bronze age farmer who had never been more than a few miles from where he was born and had no conception of the size of the globe, or even that he lived on a globe, it might have seemed pretty global...

lazygal

kylith wrote: »

I think that any parts of the bible which are not outright fabrications are massively exaggerated. For example, there is some evidence for a flood at about the time Noah might have been around, if he existed, but it certainly wasn't global.

That talking serpant sounds a bit fishy too.

endacl

lazygal wrote: »

That talking serpant sounds a bit fishy reptiley too.

FYP

:P

ShowMeTheCash

kylith wrote: »

Such as?



I think that any parts of the bible which are not outright fabrications are massively exaggerated. For example, there is some evidence for a flood at about the time Noah might have been around, if he existed, but it certainly wasn't global.

LOL - Just bare with me here, you say "Fabrication or exaggerated"...
OK I can agree, I too doubt very much that the entire plannet was flooded...

But let's say you lived a few thousands years ago and you witnessed a huge flood and all the land you could see had flooded, you might therefore come to the crazy conclusion that "God flooded the plannet"...

Now I am pretty sure they could not call on their weather satelite to confirm this, so this is what was written... Now I would think any intellgent person understanding well the entire world did not flood, would at least understand why it was written or the point of view of the source.... Do you not think?

ShowMeTheCash

Sarky wrote: »

I'm a scientist. Whatever you think you're saying, it's not very scientific.

Cool what kind of scientist are you? I have never actually met anyone that calls themselves a scentist! Very broad statement, bit like saying your a human!

seamus

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

LOL - Just bare with me here, you say "Fabrication or exaggerated"...
OK I can agree, I too doubt very much that the entire plannet was flooded...

But let's say you lived a few thousands years ago and you witnessed a huge flood and all the land you could see had flooded, you might therefore come to the crazy conclusion that "God flooded the plannet"...

Now I am pretty sure they could not call on their weather satelite to confirm this, so this is what was written... Now I would think any intellgent person understanding well the entire world did not flood, would at least understand why it was written or the point of view of the source.... Do you not think?

I don't think anyone's really disputing that many (if not practically all) stories may have some genuine origin.

But as you yourself have said, this gets rewritten and retold and interpreted and reinterpreted over the years until a simple story about a really bad flood becomes a story of how a man had God talk to him, built an impossibly large boat and before the flood hit, gathered all of the animals into it and set sail.

What probably happened through retelling was that a big flood became a large flood, became a flood wiping out everything except for one man and his family and his farm animals, which itself through retelling became the story of Dr. Doolittle with a very big boat.

At that point, the story is far removed from whatever origins it had, it is a made up story for all intents and purposes. It's fiction because it didn't occur.

If one accepts that the bible is itself a product of exaggeration and retelling, then you can't really turn around and say that believing in it is OK because the stories likely started from primitive origins and therefore had some semblence of truth at some point. Otherwise you need to give the same level of authority to Greek and Roman mythology as you do to Christian mythology.

Bannasidhe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Cool what kind of scientist are you? I have never actually met anyone that calls themselves a scentist! Very broad statement, bit like saying your a human!

Not really. I am a human but I am not a Scientist. I am an academic however.

Sarky is definitely a scientist, possibly an academic but human...well yes, there is a hint of the sapiens about him.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sarky is definitely a scientist, possibly an academic but human...well yes, there is a hint of the sapiens about him.

Define 'hint of'!

Provide a link!

Yeah?!? Well, that's just your opinion, like.

lazygal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Cool what kind of scientist are you? I have never actually met anyone that calls themselves a scentist! Very broad statement, bit like saying your a human!

I've meet plenty of people who calls themselves scientists, because its more easily understood than going into a detailed explanation of what they actually do all day.

ShowMeTheCash

lazygal wrote: »

I've meet plenty of people who calls themselves scientists, because its more easily understood than going into a detailed explanation of what they actually do all day.

They sit on boards all day and call themselves academics

lazygal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

They sit on boards all day and call themselves academics

Or they do research into complex areas like cancer research and useful stuff like that, you know stuff that might help people?

ShowMeTheCash

seamus wrote: »

I don't think anyone's really disputing that many (if not practically all) stories may have some genuine origin.

But as you yourself have said, this gets rewritten and retold and interpreted and reinterpreted over the years until a simple story about a really bad flood becomes a story of how a man had God talk to him, built an impossibly large boat and before the flood hit, gathered all of the animals into it and set sail.

What probably happened through retelling was that a big flood became a large flood, became a flood wiping out everything except for one man and his family and his farm animals, which itself through retelling became the story of Dr. Doolittle with a very big boat.

At that point, the story is far removed from whatever origins it had, it is a made up story for all intents and purposes. It's fiction because it didn't occur.

If one accepts that the bible is itself a product of exaggeration and retelling, then you can't really turn around and say that believing in it is OK because the stories likely started from primitive origins and therefore had some semblence of truth at some point. Otherwise you need to give the same level of authority to Greek and Roman mythology as you do to Christian mythology.

Agreed, many Vikings died thinking they would go to Valhala, who am I to say otherwise!

You are taking the point of view that the bible cannot be factually correct therefore none of it is valid.
Some might look at it and say, these are allegories and not intended to be litteral but simply used to make a point, then some might say it is a culmination of the two, who knows?
I know I don't, and I am clever enough to know that neither does anyone else.