Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

RikuoAmero

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

approximately 4.54 billion years ago according to the scientists, which I have no reason to reject or object to.

I'll chime back in here, since so far, nothing of what's been said in this argument is strictly islamic alone. This very topic and many of the answers I've been given by christians have also been given to me by muslims.
So...great. The earth is approximately 4.54 billion years. You won't find a disagreement from me on that. My question here is - why isn't this mentioned in your holy book? Why does it mention six days? You said before you don't take the six days literally, so that must mean in your mind it's metaphorical or symbolic.
How is it you know that the six days actually is metaphorical/symbolic? If they are symbolic, what about other parts of the quran? How is you've managed to determine which parts are literally true as written, and which are symbolic? (Whenever I ask this of christians, it's always in the form of "You say the Garden of Eden and Noah's flood are just symbolic metaphors, mainly because they physically impossible in the real world - if so, why is it you don't say Jesus's ressurection to be symbolic or a metaphor? In your case, I'll ask why is it that when it comes Muhammed, you believe him to have literally gotten the quran from an angel, or to have flown to heaven on a winged horse (I assume you hold those two to be literally true?))

BMMachine

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

approximately 4.54 billion years ago according to the scientists, which I have no reason to reject or object to.

okay, then why does the bible and all other holy documents preach otherwise? are they wrong?

Defender OF Faith

BMMachine wrote: »

okay, then why does the bible and all other holy documents preach otherwise? are they wrong?

My Christian brothers here, will be better suited to explain what they think or how they interpret this then me.

BMMachine

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

My Christian brothers here, will be better suited to explain what they think or how they interpret this then me.

oh right, so the things in the Bible are to be interpreted and aren't facts?

tommy2bad

BMMachine wrote: »

oh right, so the things in the Bible are to be interpreted and aren't facts?

Some are, some are not, the bible is a collection of books,like a selection from a library. One dosnt even mention God at all! As a collection they each offer some lesson or truth. But we have ploughed this furrow before and yet posters insist that the bible is ment to be taken literally, a position atheism depends on to argue against. A position few believers hold.

BMMachine

tommy2bad wrote: »

Some are, some are not

why? who says?

Defender OF Faith

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'll chime back in here, since so far, nothing of what's been said in this argument is strictly islamic alone. This very topic and many of the answers I've been given by christians have also been given to me by muslims....
Why does it mention six days? You said before you don't take the six days literally, so that must mean in your mind it's metaphorical or symbolic.

I never said symbolic, anything which is intended to be symbolic is indicated in the Qur'an as such as not to be take literally but for us to reflect and think about/"Such are the parables which We put forward to mankind that they may reflect"/. According to the teachings of Islam. Indeed it is true that the Quran mentions that God created the universe in "six days":

{Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority). He draws the night as a veil over the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession. He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!} (Al-A`raf 7:54)

The word "day" which you read in the verse is a translation of the Arabic word "Yawm" this word is used in Arabic to denote any period, whether extremely long "aeon" or extremely short "moment": its application to an earthly "day" of twenty-four hours is only one of its many connotations.

The foregoing means that in the context of the above verse (7:54), "aeon" is a better translation that suits the context.

In the context of the creation of the universe, the word "day" in the sense of twenty four hours in our reckoning, is irrelevant. This is because we calculate a day on the basis of the earth rotating on its axis taking the duration of a day. So "six days" taken for the creation of the heavens and the earth can only mean six long periods of time or six aeons.

The Qur'an also mentions how a day to God, equates 1000 years when compared to our days, the Day of judgement is described as being a single day which equates 50000 years when compared to our days & time.

As to why God did this in 6 days when God had the power to do it in an instant, we believe that one of the names of God is "The most Wise" God may or may not show this wisdom to us, and those who have deep knowledge may understand it, to the exclusion of others & this is why some scholars have tried to explain the wisdom behind the creation being in 6 days.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So...great. The earth is approximately 4.54 billion years. You won't find a disagreement from me on that. My question here is - why isn't this mentioned in your holy book?

The age of earth will change over time, since according to you Muhammed wrote the book, it will bring no benefit to include an estimation of the earth age since it's a variable that 'll change overtime.

BMMachine

tommy2bad wrote: »

But we have ploughed this furrow before and yet posters insist that the bible is ment to be taken literally

so, its meant to be taken as suggestion? does it say that anywhere or is it that some of the things are so ridiculous and anti-social that in a modern society that sh*t wouldnt fly but they were perfectly acceptable in say, medieval society.
Sounds like mental gymnastics.

The burden of proof is on you guys to prove God exists, we have all the evidence you could ever want to prove that these are all just stories of a bygone society, whereas you have absolutely no evidence at all that he does other than 'faith', which isn't actually evidence at all, its just something you really really want.

Its like the tide, you can't stop the truth from washing over your old doctrines and showing people that this is a load of nonsense. Think it hasn't happened before? What about the old Gods of Egyptian, Greek and Roman civilisations? All shown up to be nothing more than stories.
The only thing you guys have is numbers and organisation all believing the same myths, theres no actual proof, no facts, no nothing - just people convincing each other and doing mental gymnastics together.

You can't stop the tide and you can't stop the truth It might not be in my lifetime but your 'faith' will be written in the annals of humanity as another folly which led to violence and bloodshed, abuse and corruption with little good to rank alongside it. No amount of your brains activity will change that.


Oh and when God was busy making Super Massive Black Holes, Quasars and cancer, at which points did he decide the following:
*Women are second class citizens
*Homosexuals can't marry
*Condoms aren't allowed for sex
*Eating Fish on a Friday was Holy (he only decided this in the late 19th century when Italian and Spanish fishing fleets were suffering after the Industrial/Agricultural revolution, I think the pope has a big red phone like commissioner Gordon in Batman)
*That a large percentage of Priests will rape children
*That abortions are unholy
*That there will be thousands of other religions with other deities
*That the one book he leaves will be riddled with interpretations and suggestions but he won't say which ones


Your faith will not stop this being true and it won't stop Christianity being an organisation setup to control what some people think is the best way to live.
Thankfully, as I said before, humanity will move on. You can't stop evolution.

Defender OF Faith

BMMachine wrote: »

The burden of proof is on you guys to prove God exists

Forget about the God of Christianity,Islam & Judaism for a moment, but rather from a deist prospective can you give me one good reason as to why a God does not exist?

BMMachine

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Forget about the God of Christianity,Islam & Judaism for a moment, but rather from a deist prospective can you give me one good reason as to why a God does not exist?

because the stories he supposedly left us are not a representation of facts and are impossible

example 1 - burning bush talking to moses
example 2 - Jesus turning water into wine
example 3 - Jesus walking on water
example 4 - Jesus coming back to life
example 5 - the world being older than 10,000 years
example 6 - Evolution


so yeah, burden of proof is on you. What kind of mental gymnastics are you going to perform to stop all the facts from destroying your faith?

edit-
oh sorry, a God. Well thats pretty impossible to prove isn't it? Can you tell me why this supposed God isn't in fact John Travolta and not the Judeo/Christian God? You see, we don't exactly understand how life and this universe was created, but to some people they prey on those doubts and maybe fears. They prey on them to the extent where they make up stories about how to live and act and claim its from a divine creator. People fall for it, people maybe like it and there, bang, you have a religion.
But we are getting there We are learning more and more and that must be pretty worrying, especially seeing allll that stacked up evidence which very directly says "you're wrong". Its okay though, you will be forgiven

Defender OF Faith

BMMachine wrote: »

oh sorry, a God. Well thats pretty impossible to prove isn't it? Can you tell me why this supposed God isn't in fact John Travolta and not the Judeo/Christian God? You see, we don't exactly understand how life and this universe was created, but to some people they prey on those doubts and maybe fears. They prey on them to the extent where they make up stories about how to live and act and claim its from a divine creator. People fall for it, people maybe like it and there, bang, you have a religion.
But we are getting there We are learning more and more and that must be pretty worrying, especially seeing allll that stacked up evidence which very directly says "you're wrong". Its okay though, you will be forgiven

Since am discussing this from a deist perspective, I will remind you again that deism is "a religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation" which mean it has nothing to do with preying on the doubts of people & fear or attempt to tell people how to live their life as they reject the "God of religion"



By that no matter how much we learn and understand about the universe it will all come back to some sort of cell, someone who completely rejects God even from a deist perspective believes that after the big bang, a bunch of primordial cells and amoeba who happen to have the complex DNA information required for life, came together decided to communicate and said "We will become a species X" another bunch said "We will become species Y" another bunch said "We will become species Z" another bunch said "We will become C" and that the whole world, the sun,moons and stars were intelligent enough to evolve and aligned in a way that fits the survival of life in earth by themselves.

They basically repeated this extremely intelligent process of thinking to form the millions of species we have today, to me that person is the most superficial guy on earth.

BMMachine wrote: »

Oh and when God was busy making Super Massive Black Holes, Quasars and cancer, at which points did he decide the following:
*Women are second class citizens
*Homosexuals can't marry
*Condoms aren't allowed for sex
*Eating Fish on a Friday was Holy (he only decided this in the late 19th century when Italian and Spanish fishing fleets were suffering after the Industrial/Agricultural revolution, I think the pope has a big red phone like commissioner Gordon in Batman)
*That a large percentage of Priests will rape children
*That abortions are unholy
*That there will be thousands of other religions with other deities
*That the one book he leaves will be riddled with interpretations and suggestions but he won't say which ones

To add that just because a Religion contains rules and laws which you do not like, these rules and laws alone do not prove in anyway it to be a false religion.

BMMachine

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Since am discussing this from a deist perspective, I will remind you again that deism is "a religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation" which mean it has nothing to do with preying on the doubts of people & fear or attempt to tell people how to live their life as they reject the "God of religion"



By that no matter how much we learn and understand about the universe it will all come back to some sort of cell, someone who completely rejects God even from a deist perspective believes that after the big bang, a bunch of primordial cells and amoeba came together decided to communicate and said "We will become a species X" another bunch said "We will become species Y" another bunch said "We will become species Z" another bunch said "We will become C" and that the whole world, the sun,moons and stars were intelligent enough to evolve and aligned in a way that fits the survival of humans in earth by themselves?

They basically repeated this extremely intelligent process of thinking to form the millions of species we have today.to me that person is the most superficial guy on earth.

No, absolutely no. You don't (can't, mental reasons) seem to get it. We DON'T know why life started because we don't have the evidence and ability to gain that evidence. We aren't advanced enough (yet) to do so, that won't change overnight as the complexities of the universe are so vast that it will requires several lifetimes to gain hard facts and evidence.

And yes, major religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judiasm all prey on fear and doubt. Some make large amounts of money from that fear and that doubt.

Are you Christian?
If not and you are just here saying "well we don't know man but I choose to believe in a divine being and you can't prove otherwise" then clappity clap, thats probably the easiest thing in the world to do, to create something out of nothing entirely in your mind. It has no weight on the discussion, and that is (on the Christianity forum no less) "existence of God" and I'd imagine that being on a Christian forum that that means the God depicted in the bible, in which case there is a metric ****ton of evidence that it is all a made up story and zero evidence to his actual existence. There is also quite a quantifiable amount of proof that the creation of this God and religion is nothing more than a method of control over certain areas of society and a scam designed to make money as well as a way of people imposing their will over others, like bullies

BMMachine

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

To add that just because a Religion contains rules and laws which you do not like, these rules and laws alone do not prove in anyway it to be a false religion.

*That a large percentage of Priests will rape children
*That there will be thousands of other religions with other deities
*That the one book he leaves will be riddled with interpretations and suggestions but he won't say which ones

^^^^^
aren't rules or laws. they are just there, they are facts, facts that prove that the idea of a Christian god is ridiculous

Defender OF Faith

BMMachine wrote: »

No, absolutely no. You don't (can't, mental reasons) seem to get it. We DON'T know why life started because we don't have the evidence and ability to gain that evidence. We aren't advanced enough (yet) to do so, that won't change overnight as the complexities of the universe are so vast that it will requires several lifetimes to gain hard facts and evidence.

Stuff like how the universe is the way it's now & how did life evolve are questions outside the scoop of science but can be though about rationally and logically. What I described below is what you as an atheist currently believe whether you realize it or no.

Defender Of Faith wrote: »

By that no matter how much we learn and understand about the universe it will all come back to some sort of cell, someone who completely rejects God even from a deist perspective believes that after the big bang, a bunch of primordial cells and amoeba came together decided to communicate and said "We will become a species X" another bunch said "We will become species Y" another bunch said "We will become species Z" another bunch said "We will become C" and that the whole world, the sun,moons and stars were intelligent enough to evolve and aligned in a way that fits the survival of humans in earth by themselves?

They basically repeated this extremely intelligent process of thinking to form the millions of species we have today.to me that person is the most superficial guy on earth.

BMMachine wrote: »

And yes, major religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judiasm all prey on fear and doubt. Some make large amounts of money from that fear and that doubt

#1)That's why I dont want to argue about religion, since the God of religion appears to be the reason you dont believe in a God to begin with and hence why I came forward assuming the position of a deist someone who rejects the "God of religion" and therefore neither agree or disagree with what you said.

#2) All of the Prophets mentioned in the Bible & Qur'an were known and celebrated as honest,sincere people who had the best character of their time.
They neither asked people for money as a price for entering their religion or wished to have a control over people, the majority of them were in fact poor people who lead a simple life, prosecuted heavily because of what they believed. It was the people who came later and adopted their religion who used it as a cover to prey on people fear and doubts.

BMMachine wrote: »

*That a large percentage of Priests will rape children
*That there will be thousands of other religions with other deities
*That the one book he leaves will be riddled with interpretations and suggestions but he won't say which ones

You are confusing the laws with the action people commit, am sure the Bible does in no way justify the rape of Children by a priest who is suppose to be a preacher to God, nor is the fact that thousands of other religions exist with different deities is enough to prove that every single religion is false.

To also remind you that I am not a Christian I have stated a number of posts back that I am a Muslim ~

BMMachine

potato, potatoe... same thing, you hold a fabrication that came out of peoples brains to be true.

Defender of Faith wrote:

Stuff like how the universe is the way it's now & how did life evolve are questions outside the scoop of science but can be though about rationally and logically. What I described below is what you as an atheist currently believe whether you realize it or no.

I will rephrase this to what it should say
Stuff like how the universe is the way it's now & how did life evolve are questions currently outside the scoop of science but can be though about rationally and logically. What I described below is what you as an atheist currently believe whether you realize it or no.


also I'm agnostic, I just know that the gods you guys (followers of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc.) do not exist because they are all based on impossibilities and are all quite clearly used as methods of control and extortion.

They are stories. Humanity is learning. You cannot stop this. There has been probably thousands of other beliefs that have faded away, the one you believe isn't the 'special' one where people got it right.


*That the one book he leaves will be riddled with interpretations and suggestions but he won't say which ones

^^^^
that isn't an action people commit. Thats the source material contradicting itself and people performing mental gymnastics to justify it. Again, you can't stop this from being true. The tide my friend

RikuoAmero

someone who completely rejects God even from a deist perspective believes that after the big bang, a bunch of primordial cells and amoeba who happen to have the complex DNA information required for life, came together decided to communicate and said "We will become a species X" another bunch said "We will become species Y" another bunch said "We will become species Z" another bunch said "We will become C" and that the whole world, the sun,moons and stars were intelligent enough to evolve and aligned in a way that fits the survival of life in earth by themselves.

Good thing then that this isn't what I believe, this notion that that stellar objects and primordial cells had the capacity for thought. This is in fact a strawman, since no-one who has actually studied and accepted either stellar evolution or biological evolution teaches that these things had the capacity for thought.

They basically repeated this extremely intelligent process of thinking

What are your justifications for saying that it is a form of thinking and that it requires extreme intelligence?

Stuff like how the universe is the way it's now & how did life evolve are questions outside the scoop of science

Factually wrong. I think the question you wanted to ask there is supposed to be why the universe is the way it is now, since I often hear that the question of why is outside the scope of science, not the question of how.

What I described below is what you as an atheist currently believe

Don't do that. Ever! For a person to be an atheist, they just have to have a position on one question - do they believe in a god or gods? They will say no, and that is all that is required of them to be an atheist. Apart from that, there is nothing tying one atheist to another. You could have buddhist atheists, who lack a belief in a god or gods but still (for some reason) believe that people reincarnate, or you could have atheists who believe the earth was deliberately seeded by an ancient alien race (like in the recent Prometheus movie) for example.
It is factually wrong to say to a person "As an atheist, you automatically/currently believe the following..."
However, on the other hand, I can use the same tactic on a muslim or a christian, since there are many things that necessarily a person must have in order to call themselves such. A muslim must believe that Allah exists, that Muhammed was his final prophet etc, while a christian must believe that God exists, that the bible is (at least somewhat accurate) his holy book and that Jesus did die on the cross and was resurrected. These are necessary things for a person to believe in order to claim those identifiers, since to not have them but claim the identifier anyway is nonsensical (e.g. "I am a christian but I don't believe that Jesus was god or that he resurrected": that doesn't make any sense)

tommy2bad

BMMachine wrote: »

why? who says?

The people who wrote it!

Defender OF Faith

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Good thing then that this isn't what I believe, this notion that that stellar objects and primordial cells had the capacity for thought. This is in fact a strawman, since no-one who has actually studied and accepted either stellar evolution or biological evolution teaches that these things had the capacity for thought.

So what do you believe then? what does common sense and logic tells you? as an atheist you will escape anything by simply saying "I don't believe it" but you really cannot be more shallow then that, the deeper we move into your thought the more you will realize that with the current knowledge of science & from your perspective as an atheist what you believe is no different from what I described.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

However, on the other hand, I can use the same tactic on a muslim or a christian, since there are many things that necessarily a person must have in order to call themselves such. A muslim must believe that Allah exists, that Muhammed was his final prophet etc, while a christian must believe that God exists, that the bible is (at least somewhat accurate) his holy book and that Jesus did die on the cross and was resurrected. These are necessary things for a person to believe in order to claim those identifiers, since to not have them but claim the identifier anyway is nonsensical (e.g. "I am a christian but I don't believe that Jesus was god or that he resurrected": that doesn't make any sense)

Allaah is the Arabic name for God, Arabic Christian refer to god as Allaah or Ra'b, we consider it to be a unique name that neither has a masculine,plural or a feminine form unlike the name "God".
The only difference with regard to theology between the Christians and Muslims is that they believe in a trinity and that Jesus was the son of God, Muslims take a more moderate approach then Judaism that reject Jesus(pbuh) as a prophet of God but an illegitimate son of Mary(pbuh), instead we believe him to be one of the greatest prophets of God mentioned 25 times by name in the Qur'an when compared to Muhammed(pbuh) who was mentioned 4 times, we believe in the virgin birth however reject the concept of trinity.

But I don't understand how this relates to the point, as Muslims we automatically believe in this similarly Christians, however as atheists you never really take the time to look at what you believe as most of your time is spend arguing against religion for you to realize that what you believe is similar to what I described, as this is currently your logic, science is yet to find answers, so you either believe that these cells were smart enough to communicate and form & differentiate into millions of species, that the son,moon & earth aligned themselves in this way due to their intelligence, we would say that an intelligent designer was behind all of this but you on the other hand that reject this concept will hide behind saying "Science did not find an answer yet" ignoring the fact that until science find your answer this is basically what you believe.

For me to believe that an intelligent designer was behind all these things is a powerful enough reason to believe, and you as an atheist have so far not given any good reason as to how you came to the conclusion that a God does not exist.

ScumLord

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I am not sure were did you get the assumption that God declared all the things he built into us were wrong, am assuming you are pointing to the desires that God created within the human such as lust,greed,gluttony and envy.

All those desires can be biologically explained through evolution, they're not even undesirable as such. They make sense they just cause friction sometimes when taken to extremes within a larger community.

But isn't this what differentiates Humans from Animals? that we have an intellect and mind to control these desires and find options around them? isn't that what makes this life really a test? to see who among us will do the best deeds, while recognising his infallibility to fall a victim to his desires, but repent once he remembers.

Very little differentiates us between the rest of the animal kingdom. You can pick any mammal and for every difference you point out I can point out two commonalities. Most of our higher brain functions are just better or more elaborate functions that have existed in nature for a long long time.

Our intellect has some major flaws too thanks to our biological background. It's prone to making intellectual mistakes because of the way it's designed, these mistakes don't matter as much in nature and the benefit from the way our brain works is that we can make instant decisions that would save our lives in a crisis.

Our brain is an excellent piece of biological engineering but it can fail at a basic logic level, science has allowed us to counter our own biases and shortcomings by making us aware of them and allowing us to work around them.

Defender OF Faith

ScumLord wrote: »

All those desires can be biologically explained through evolution, they're not even undesirable as such. They make sense they just cause friction sometimes when taken to extremes within a larger community.

You said that God declared all the things build into us were wrong, I then assumed you were talking about the human desires, if not; then what exactly are these "wrongs" that God has build into us?

ScumLord wrote: »

Very little differentiates us between the rest of the animal kingdom. You can pick any mammal and for every difference you point out I can point out two commonalities. Most of our higher brain functions are just better or more elaborate functions that have existed in nature for a long long time.

Our intellect has some major flaws too thanks to our biological background. It's prone to making intellectual mistakes because of the way it's designed, these mistakes don't matter as much in nature and the benefit from the way our brain works is that we can make instant decisions that would save our lives in a crisis.

Our brain is an excellent piece of biological engineering but it can fail at a basic logic level, science has allowed us to counter our own biases and shortcomings by making us aware of them and allowing us to work around them.

I think that the only aspect that truly differentiates us from animals is as you put it "Our higher brain functions" but then you talk about flaws in our brain and intellect without pointing out any examples, so I ask if you can elucidate further on this point, but you admit that it's an "Excellent piece of biological engineering" but that does not hide the fact that as an atheist to you those billions of neurons in the brain each connected to the appropriate neurotransmitter were smart enough to connect & make this neurotransmitter and form there receptors in a way that will interact with such chemicals on their own due to their acquired intelligence.

Turtwig

Mod:

Folks! This is the Christianity forum, not the confront Christianity forum. Constructive questioning and discussion is welcome. Please re-read the charter before continuing to post.

The discussion on this thread seems to be taking place between all non Christians. Suffice to say, if you wish to discuss the Islamic faith there are other more suitable locations for doing so. :pac:

ScumLord

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You said that God declared all the things build into us were wrong, I then assumed you were talking about the human desires, if not; then what exactly are these "wrongs" that God has build into us?

Well like the ones you pointed out, greed is seen as bad but put into the context of a basic survival function it makes sense. Emotionally we find it hard to see past the act, but logically you have to accept greed is just a part of the natural world accept it, and learn to protect yourself from it. Homosexuality would be another obvious part of nature that many major religious texts have problems with. Did god make a mistake? Change his mind?

Even the position of women, many of the most harmonious civilizations appreciated the role of women (native Americans would be one example) and didn't religate them to second class citizens.

I think that the only aspect that truly differentiates us from animals is as you put it "Our higher brain functions" but then you talk about flaws in our brain and intellect without pointing out any examples, so I ask if you can elucidate further on this point,

http://www.dangreller.com/two-types-of-thinking/

Our memory is easily corrupted too, people can recall things completely differently depending on mood and information we hear after the fact.

The whole reason magic and confidence tricks work is because it's so easy to take advantage of the brains way of thinking.

but you admit that it's an "Excellent piece of biological engineering" but that does not hide the fact that as an atheist to you those billions of neurons in the brain each connected to the appropriate neurotransmitter were smart enough to connect & make this neurotransmitter and form there receptors in a way that will interact with such chemicals on their own due to their acquired intelligence.

I'm not exactly sure what your getting at there.

I also wouldn't say I'm an atheist as such. I reckon I'm closer to a humanist. I believe in and love the human race. I think the human is the greatest thing to happen in the history of the universe.

BMMachine

tommy2bad wrote: »

The people who wrote it!

and where exactly did they say "don't take this literally" or "interpret this part this way and this part another way"? Very much seems that followers are constantly playing a game of catchup over the history of time, papering over cracks and coming up with new excuses. Why is that?

Turtwig

BMMachine wrote: »

and where exactly did they say "don't take this literally" or "interpret this part this way and this part another way"?

It's written in various forms of prose and rhythm. Many of which are not meant to be taken literally. Unless you're the sort that expects a poem to carry a disclaimer by the poet. "Don't take this literally".

The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost - Not to be taken literally.

Kind of redundant but I guess it would remove any ambiguity.

RikuoAmero

as an atheist you will escape anything by simply saying "I don't believe it"

Wrong. Whatever I happen to believe about the formation of the universe is not of necessity tied to my being an atheist. There is no logical contradiction for a person lacking a belief in a god and believing that the universe is a computer simulation (this is actually the plot of the video game Star Ocean 3: Till the End of Time). I would not "escape anything" by saying I'm an atheist, I could potentially "escape it" by saying "that's not what I believe".
Think of it this way. In the US, people vote either Democrat or Republican, and more often than not, they stay with that political party. For a person to legitimately claim the identifier Democrat, they must of necessity vote Democrat a high percentage of the time. That's all. It would make no sense at all on your part to say "As a Democrat, you of necessity believe that the Iraq War was justified" or anything like that. The person could be Democrat and be against the Iraq War, or have been Republican and been in favour of the war.
What you're supposed to do is ask what it is I believe before you start attempting to counter what it is you think I believe.

So what do you believe then?

For the purposes of this thread, I don't accept anything proposed by the theist unless there is sufficient evidence, data, logic or reasoning to convince me. There is no need to go into detail in what it is I believe, at least not at this time. Think of me as the guy who plays black in chess - the black player moves in response to the white player in his opening move.

is no different from what I described.

Wrong. As I said in the previous post, I think it absurd to say that cells or stellar objects have the capacity for thought.

as Muslims we automatically believe in this similarly Christians,

You have similar beliefs to christians, but not identical ones. Hence the points I listed as to what constitutes a muslim, what constitutes a christian.

you never really take the time to look at what you believe

What is your justification for this claim? How is it you know what it is I do and do not do with my studies? Or are you generalising without justification?

most of your time is spend arguing against religion for you to realize that what you believe is similar to what I described

As I said and explained earlier, no. I agree with you on the age of the earth, but so far, that's just one fact, one point of data we agree on.

so you either believe that these cells were smart enough to communicate and form & differentiate into millions of species,

Again no, I already explained, the notion that cells have an intelligence is absurd (since they lack anything at all that could be identified as an intelligence).

son,moon & earth aligned themselves in this way due to their intelligence

Again, wrong.

we would say that an intelligent designer was behind all of this

I disagree, explanation coming in a second.

but you on the other hand that reject this concept will hide behind saying "Science did not find an answer yet"

Nope, why are you presupposing and strawmanning my answers, before I have an attempt to make them? My reason is that such a notion (intelligent designer) is logically absurd, not that we haven't found the evidence (yet).

ignoring the fact that until science find your answer this is basically what you believe.

Wait...so until science finds an answer, I automatically believe whatever BS it is you and/or your religion posit? How does this make sense? I am in fact at the null hypothesis - if there is a mystery or a phenomenon that we currently cannot explain, my answer is "I do not know" instead of whatever random explanation with no evidence that random Muslim Man or Christian Man puts forward.

you as an atheist have so far not given any good reason as to how you came to the conclusion that a God does not exist.

This sounds just like a classic reversal of burden of proof, which is a tactic I fully reject. I have no burden whatsoever to try and prove there is no god - I simply lack a belief in any god concepts that I have encountered so far in my life.

Folks! This is the Christianity forum, not the confront Christianity forum. Constructive questioning and discussion is welcome. Please re-read the charter before continuing to post.

The discussion on this thread seems to be taking place between all non Christians. Suffice to say, if you wish to discuss the Islamic faith there are other more suitable locations for doing so.

So far, nothing mentioned here is islamic alone - earlier, I said I was stepping out because Defender mentioned he was muslim, and then I came back in when he started to bring up literally the exact same arguments as christians often do. When the discussion becomes something muslim, such that a christian cannot enter, fine, I can understand moving the posts then, but not before.

Here is my answer as to why I don't accept the proposition of intelligent designer.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93164794&postcount=8508

Below is my logical response to the intelligent design argument (in case you get hung up on when I mention Richard Dawkins, I'm not all that familiar with his work. I've watched only about 2 or 3 of his debates, and none of his books)
Here's why I say I don't believe in ID (Intelligent Design). It's because, even in the event of the world being ID'd, you can't actually show it.
When one tries to differentiate one object from another, we typically point out a property that Object A has and that Object B doesn't have. For example, I can point at a circle and a square, and say the circle is not like the square in that the circle does not have corners, like what the square has.
However, the same cannot be done when one is trying to find evidence for an intelligently designed world.
Typically, if one wants to say why a particular object he's pointing to is ID'd, and not something natural, he has to contrast it with something that he recognizes as natural and non-designed. Take Richard Dawkin's famous analogy, the watch in the woods. If I pick up a watch while walking in the woods, I can reason out that the watch has been designed, because of two reasons
1) Not once in the recorded history of humankind has there ever been recorded a watch being made via natural means. Every watch ever seen is known to have been made by humans.
2) I contrast it with the surroundings, I say that the watch has a property of being designed that it doesn't share with the natural world.

However, let's take your stance. Let's pretend for the moment, that the world has been ID'd, but not yet proven. You and I take a walk in the woods and you pick up a watch that you find and you say "This is obviously the product of an intelligent mind".
My response to that is "As compared to what?"
For you to to be able to make a determination of one object having been the product of an intelligent mind, there must of necessity be at least one object you believe to be not of intelligent design, so that you can compare and contrast them (just like where I compared a square and a circle). However, you cannot do that in a world that is ID'd. According to you, everything is the product of intelligent design. Everything shares this property, therefore the property looks the same in all objects. Therefore, you lack the ability to even imagine what a non-intelligently designed object is.
Even if the world actually were ID'd, without being able to show it, to give me evidence of such a thing, I have no reason to justify a belief in it. 

BMMachine

Turtwig wrote: »

It's written in various forms of prose and rhythm. Many of which are not meant to be taken literally. Unless you're the sort that expects a poem to carry a disclaimer by the poet. "Don't take this literally".

The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost - Not to be taken literally.

Kind of redundant but I guess it would remove any ambiguity.

Yeah thats great and all, but the works of Frost, Chaucer, Bishop et al aren't precluding to be a holy document on which people should live their lives through, the Bible is.

*************

One thing I have noticed, all the 'defenders' of the invisible, undetectable, entirely constructed by peoples minds in every form 'God' just tend to look at one part of peoples posts and ignore the rest. Is that the same mentality shining through when it comes to 'faith'? "Ignore this, this and this because its ridiculous and wholly untrue, instead focus on this because thats easy".
It is the same type of thinking Defender of Faith was using, "oh you dont know for sure that the thing that I've made up in my head exists or doesn't or in fact the thing anyone has made up in their heads can exist therefore God can be real." Yeah, faith through loopholes, God through loopholes, convincing yourself and well, mental gymnastics. Its all here and it won't stop being here, just like humanity won't stop advancing and won't stop learning. The tide.

Harika

To add to the intelligent design, if our world is IDd why are there so many flaws in it?
e.g. The male body, one of the most important body parts needs to be cooled lower than the body temperature to fulfill its function to reproduce. Also a massive weakpoint in the case of an attack.
Our body has several options to stop bleeding, but there are also massive malfunctions included. e.g. internal bleed in the belly. In the case of such an injury, and the blood loss gets to heavy, at some point blood gets pulled from arms and legs into the now bleeding belly, what increases the speed of bloodloss and time of death.
Also externally: Life on earth has been nearly extinct at least three times already, more than 90% of all species have been extinguished at each of the three events.
The sun's life is very limited and in one billion years earth will be inhabitable, with no rescue place in the solar system. In 5 billion years the sun will die and the whole solar system is at now any case inhabitable.
So what kind of designer is this?

MrPudding

Harika wrote: »

To add to the intelligent design, if our world is IDd why are there so many flaws in it?
e.g. The male body, one of the most important body parts needs to be cooled lower than the body temperature to fulfill its function to reproduce. Also a massive weakpoint in the case of an attack.
Our body has several options to stop bleeding, but there are also massive malfunctions included. e.g. internal bleed in the belly. In the case of such an injury, and the blood loss gets to heavy, at some point blood gets pulled from arms and legs into the now bleeding belly, what increases the speed of bloodloss and time of death.
Also externally: Life on earth has been nearly extinct at least three times already, more than 90% of all species have been extinguished at each of the three events.
The sun's life is very limited and in one billion years earth will be inhabitable, with no rescue place in the solar system. In 5 billion years the sun will die and the whole solar system is at now any case inhabitable.
So what kind of designer is this?

It was perfect. The sinfulness of man caused all the flaws. I am pretty sure that when the sun explodes and consumes the entire solar system that will have been caused by the gays.

MrP

Safehands

MrPudding wrote: »

It was perfect. The sinfulness of man caused all the flaws. I am pretty sure that when the sun explodes and consumes the entire solar system that will have been caused by the gays.

I think all of the people who have been defending the illogical stories in the Bible have been beaten into submission by the avalanche of logical arguments by those who ask questions. Not all are atheists, I think most are just former Catholics or Protestants blessed with the ability to think for themselves.

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

I think all of the people who have been defending the illogical stories in the Bible have been beaten into submission by the avalanche of logical arguments by those who ask questions. Not all are atheists, I think most are just former Catholics or Protestants blessed with the ability to think for themselves.

Beaten into submission? more like, got tired of bashing our head against a brick wall!
Honestly, arguing against atheists is a lot like arguing against creationists, ye wont accept that the fault lies with your version of faith, not faith itself.
I could spend all day telling people on here the bible is not to be taken literally, all I get back is the same old tired answer, it's meant to be taken literally because we say so!
You say logical arguments but I don't think you know what logical means, the religious argument is just as logical, it may not have the support of empirical evidence but that has no bearing on logic. Yeah I know, weird or what!
I think you are confusing logic with rationality. Two different approach to knowledge.
If we are to stick with logic, the existence of God can be proven, it might not convince you but it's logic will be sound. If we go with rationality the existence of god is equally supportable, however the difference is using rationality we can only argue for the existence of the concept of God, not the actuality. I prefer rationality myself and avoid logic since it's only value is to test an argument not a premise or fact.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

I could spend all day telling people on here the bible is not to be taken literally, all I get back is the same old tired answer, it's meant to be taken literally because we say so!

So it is to be interpreted then. By who?

tommy2bad wrote: »

we are to stick with logic, the existence of God can be proven, it might not convince you but it's logic will be sound. If we go with rationality the existence of god is equally supportable, however the difference is using rationality we can only argue for the existence of the concept of God, not the actuality.

God exists because the Bible says so. No other reason. Without the Bible where are we?

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

So it is to be interpreted then. By who?



God exists because the Bible says so. No other reason. Without the Bible where are we?

By the reader/listener, who else?
Yes, because before someone wrote the bible, no doubt as a means of controlling people for some nefarious purpose, no one believed in God! Any gods at all!
Do try to think this through! Belife in God is the cause of the bible not the bible causing belife in god.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

By the reader/listener, who else?
Yes, because before someone wrote the bible, no one believed in God! Any gods at all!
Belief in God is the cause of the bible not the bible causing belief in god.

Your second statement contradicts your fist one Tommy.

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

Your second statement contradicts your fist one Tommy.

Yeah sarcasm dosn't work well in a text medium so it sounded arse backwards instead of snarky!

RikuoAmero

I could spend all day telling people on here the bible is not to be taken literally, all I get back is the same old tired answer, it's meant to be taken literally because we say so!

So the part about Jesus magicking bread and fish out of thin air, of him walking on water, bringing Lazarus back to life, of him dying in the cross and resurrecting himself...is that not to be read and taken literally?
Thought so.

the religious argument is just as logical,

No it isn't. In my time here on this debate thread, I've had theists point to old books with anonymous authors and no surviving original manuscripts, that have been edited and mis-translated dozens of times over; they've pointed to visions and dreams people had, all the while completely ignoring all the other visions and dreams that do not coincide with what they believe; they've said to believe anyway on pain of punishment.
That is not logical. All of that is fallacious. So far, not one theist here has posited an argument in favour of religion that I have not been able to tear to shreds using pure logic.

the existence of God can be proven

Then walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. Do it. Prove the existence of your god.

however the difference is using rationality we can only argue for the existence of the concept of God, not the actuality.

I can rationalize all sorts of conceptual entities, but all that effort is completely pointless if I want to convince others that those entities actually exist.

I prefer rationality myself and avoid logic since it's only value is to test an argument not a premise or fact.

You just said you can prove your god through logic, yet here you are saying you don't want to use logic? That logic cannot prove your god to be a fact?
Make up your mind!

Do try to think this through! Belife in God is the cause of the bible not the bible causing belife in god.

Belief in god [by the authors of the bible] is the cause of the bible, is how that sentence should be. Imagine if you lived your entire life without ever hearing of the bible, you had no concept of it all or of the religion that spawned from it. You would have no concept or belief in the god talked about in its pages then.
You may still have some sort of belief in the supernatural, but it would be impossible for you to have a belief that there was a fellow named Jesus who was really god in flesh, who died 2,000 years ago but rose from the dead three days later. It would be impossible for you to have that belief because where else would you get the knowledge for that claim from, if the bible didn't exist?

tommy2bad

Riku, you need to look up the definitions of logic and rationality in a dictionary. You spectacularly missed my point.
In fairness you did prove my point about insisting on a literal interpretation.

indioblack

tommy2bad wrote: »

Some are, some are not, the bible is a collection of books,like a selection from a library. One dosnt even mention God at all! As a collection they each offer some lesson or truth. But we have ploughed this furrow before and yet posters insist that the bible is ment to be taken literally, a position atheism depends on to argue against. A position few believers hold.

Some believers do take instances in the bible literally, and I'd say that some parts of the bible are expected to be read as accounts of actual events.

RikuoAmero

tommy2bad wrote: »

Riku, you need to look up the definitions of logic and rationality in a dictionary. You spectacularly missed my point.
In fairness you did prove my point about insisting on a literal interpretation.

I'm not the one insisting on a literal interpretation. What I was pointing out was that there are people like yourself who say Parts A, B, and C of the bible are not to be taken literally as they are written, (mainly because they don't make sense or there's no evidence supporting them, such as Noah's flood or the genesis account)...but when it comes to Part D, the story of Jesus, that's literally true as written. He did conjure loaves and fish out of thin air, he did walk on water, he did rise from the dead three days after dying, none of that is symbolic or metaphorical; that's what I'm hearing from the christian camp. For them, they somehow have no problem reading text that says "Jesus rose from the dead" and saying "Yes, that's true, that's what's written there", but when they read "Noah guided two of every animal on to the ark", they say "Pshaaw, that's not true, that's impossible! It's just a story, mythology, exaggerated!"
They're not being consistent. They're telling me of two stories involving what is essentially magic, saying one is to be taken literally, the other isn't, and not telling me their methodology to figure out how they know which is which.
When I said that bit about Jesus having to be taken literally, I expected a christian to chime in and say "Yes, the Jesus story as told in the gospels is true as written" or words to that effect, and thus expose the double-thinking.

As to you proving your god...well? Are you going to do that? At best, you can prove the existence of some un-named entity - given that to date there has never been presented hard evidence in favour of one religion's deity over another, I highly doubt you can prove that that un-named entity is the god talked about in the bible.

indioblack wrote:

Some believers do take instances in the bible literally, and I'd say that some parts of the bible are expected to be read as accounts of actual events.

If so, which ones? The problem is that magic is involved all throughout the bible. Is the story of Jesus meant to be taken as an actual event? What's your methodology to distinguish between actual events and those that are just stories?

indioblack

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm not the one insisting on a literal interpretation. What I was pointing out was that there are people like yourself who say Parts A, B, and C of the bible are not to be taken literally as they are written, (mainly because they don't make sense or there's no evidence supporting them, such as Noah's flood or the genesis account)...but when it comes to Part D, the story of Jesus, that's literally true as written. He did conjure loaves and fish out of thin air, he did walk on water, he did rise from the dead three days after dying, none of that is symbolic or metaphorical; that's what I'm hearing from the christian camp. For them, they somehow have no problem reading text that says "Jesus rose from the dead" and saying "Yes, that's true, that's what's written there", but when they read "Noah guided two of every animal on to the ark", they say "Pshaaw, that's not true, that's impossible! It's just a story, mythology, exaggerated!"
They're not being consistent. They're telling me of two stories involving what is essentially magic, saying one is to be taken literally, the other isn't, and not telling me their methodology to figure out how they know which is which.
When I said that bit about Jesus having to be taken literally, I expected a christian to chime in and say "Yes, the Jesus story as told in the gospels is true as written" or words to that effect, and thus expose the double-thinking.

As to you proving your god...well? Are you going to do that? At best, you can prove the existence of some un-named entity - given that to date there has never been presented hard evidence in favour of one religion's deity over another, I highly doubt you can prove that that un-named entity is the god talked about in the bible.


If so, which ones? The problem is that magic is involved all throughout the bible. Is the story of Jesus meant to be taken as an actual event? What's your methodology to distinguish between actual events and those that are just stories?

You supplied the answer - it was the story of Jesus I had in mind. Your post basically covered my point.
Who decides which parts of scripture are to be read as symbolic and which are expected to be accepted as actual events?
And if the bible is to be diminished in importance due to this confusion, then what is left for Christians?
An old aunt of mine in Ireland dismissed the bible. "We don't take much notice of that." My reply was, "so where does the church get it's authority from?"
If the bible was spiritually inspired by God and it's confusing - which this thread demonstrates - then at least some of the responsibility for that confusion belongs to the originator of the scriptures - God.

RikuoAmero

And if the bible is to be diminished in importance due to this confusion, then what is left for Christians?

Nothing, that's what is supposed to happen. It's rational to discard a belief system when there is literally nothing that you have that supports it.

tommy2bad

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm not the one insisting on a literal interpretation. What I was pointing out was that there are people like yourself who say Parts A, B, and C of the bible are not to be taken literally as they are written, (mainly because they don't make sense or there's no evidence supporting them, such as Noah's flood or the genesis account)...but when it comes to Part D, the story of Jesus, that's literally true as written. He did conjure loaves and fish out of thin air, he did walk on water, he did rise from the dead three days after dying, none of that is symbolic or metaphorical; that's what I'm hearing from the christian camp. For them, they somehow have no problem reading text that says "Jesus rose from the dead" and saying "Yes, that's true, that's what's written there", but when they read "Noah guided two of every animal on to the ark", they say "Pshaaw, that's not true, that's impossible! It's just a story, mythology, exaggerated!"
They're not being consistent. They're telling me of two stories involving what is essentially magic, saying one is to be taken literally, the other isn't, and not telling me their methodology to figure out how they know which is which.
When I said that bit about Jesus having to be taken literally, I expected a christian to chime in and say "Yes, the Jesus story as told in the gospels is true as written" or words to that effect, and thus expose the double-thinking.


As to you proving your god...well? Are you going to do that? At best, you can prove the existence of some un-named entity - given that to date there has never been presented hard evidence in favour of one religion's deity over another, I highly doubt you can prove that that un-named entity is the god talked about in the bible.


If so, which ones? The problem is that magic is involved all throughout the bible. Is the story of Jesus meant to be taken as an actual event? What's your methodology to distinguish between actual events and those that are just stories?

Good response, however you are insisting it be taken literally, that or dismissed as myth. The fact is some is myth, some is history, some poetry and some just ranting. How do you tell which is which? The same way you tell with any book, it's obvious that life of pi is fiction even though it's written as first person testimony. Same with the books ( plural) of the bible.
As to the gospels, well they are the testimonies of four people who believe the stories of others and wrote it down. Their are other gospels which are not canonical. Is it factual? Did Jesus walk on water? Did He turn water into wine? Dose it matter? Is the gospel a tale of a magician? Christians don't read the gospels to reassure themselves their God can beat up your God! Or at least they shouldn't. I will admit some do, unfortunately the loudest and most obnoxious ones, you know them, mostly T.V. evangelists!

Of course their are as many shades of believe and interpretation of the bible as their are Christians, same for Islam and for all I know every other faith.It's not an instruction manual to follow. If that's what your looking for, look elsewhere. If your looking for a perspective on life, it's purpose, your place in it and your relationship with God then the bible is as good as it comes. Probably better than Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. Though I'd be in favor of including that in the cannon!
The point is arguing about the bible didn't contribute anything to the debate on the existence or non existence of God. If God exists, the bible didn't prove it, all it dose is give testimony to the belfe of generations.
That initial belief comes first, you don't believe in the God of the bible, you believe in God and that the bible is the best description of Him. Accepting that it's an incomplete description, one seen through a glass darkly.

RikuoAmero

you believe in God

That G word is a loaded word. There's whole heaps of meanings in that word. I don't see how it's possible for a human to have a belief in God (capital G), as in the named entity talked about in the bible...before reading the bible. I can understand and accept someone having a belief in the supernatural prior to reading it, believing there is/are entities that watch over them, but not know anything specific.

When you say that last line of yours, do you mean "People tend to have a belief in the supernatural, and then get into specifics upon reading this holy book"? Or do you equate the supernatural with the christian deity, and say that people who haven't read/heard of the bible who have a belief in the supernatural automatically have a belief in the christian god, even though they don't know anything about him?

It's not an instruction manual to follow

Then why the decalogue? Why all the teachings? Why the sermon on the mount? All those can be classified as instructions.

Did Jesus walk on water? Did He turn water into wine? Dose it matter?

I would say yes, since these are what are trotted out by christians as "evidence" that he was god in the flesh, that he was capable of all these things.

indioblack

That initial belief comes first, you don't believe in the God of the bible, you believe in God and that the bible is the best description of Him. Accepting that it's an incomplete description, one seen through a glass darkly.


My argument is that if God is not clearly seen, an incomplete description, then it is because he wishes it to be so. If the lack of perception is ours, the same logic applies - since God, by virtue of his unlimited abilities, has the capability to allow us a clearer view.
The existence of this thread demonstrates that this hasn't happened.
There is, I think, a standard image of God - usually with all the positive attributes and unlimited powers.
It follows from this that our shortcomings in this business cannot be wholly attributable to us.

MrPudding

indioblack wrote: »

My argument is that if God is not clearly seen, an incomplete description, then it is because he wishes it to be so.

Of course that is your argument, what else could it be? It needs to be this argument, basically a variation of the classic 'the lord moves in mysterious ways' or 'our minds are too puny to comprehend' chestnuts, otherwise you see the whole thing for what it is, completely made up by man.

If you have to believe, or simply want to believe, then of course you will try to rationalise away all the bits that don't make sense. This is just another attempt at that.

MrP

tommy2bad

RikuoAmero wrote: »

That G word is a loaded word. There's whole heaps of meanings in that word. I don't see how it's possible for a human to have a belief in God (capital G), as in the named entity talked about in the bible...before reading the bible. I can understand and accept someone having a belief in the supernatural prior to reading it, believing there is/are entities that watch over them, but not know anything specific.

When you say that last line of yours, do you mean "People tend to have a belief in the supernatural, and then get into specifics upon reading this holy book"? Or do you equate the supernatural with the christian deity, and say that people who haven't read/heard of the bible who have a belief in the supernatural automatically have a belief in the christian god, even though they don't know anything about him?


Then why the decalogue? Why all the teachings? Why the sermon on the mount? All those can be classified as instructions.


I would say yes, since these are what are trotted out by christians as "evidence" that he was god in the flesh, that he was capable of all these things.

Yeah, God is a loaded term, someone, can't recall who said when asked if he believed in God, replied ' first let's define those terms'.
I would claim that any belief in the supernatural is an expression of belief in God, how refined or sophisticated that be life is depends on the culture the person lives in and how much thought they apply to it. I as a Christian believe that my tradition holds the most complete revelation of God so obviously I would believe that any God is the same e deity as the God of the bible. I would differ as to how accurate their description is.
Again you assume the bible is one volume, Instructions and laws in the individual books apply to when the books were written, they are instruction for specific situations, situations we can learn from.
I hope Christians would have a better understanding than to depend on the superman school of evidence, but I know they do tend to fall into the trap of proclaiming God as a champion who can empower them, the how can we fail with God on our side thinking!
Evidence would not support this, evidence shows a different God. Like you, I dont believe in God as superman, Apollo in Jewish cloth.

RikuoAmero

I as a Christian believe that my tradition holds the most complete revelation of God so obviously I would believe that any God is the same e deity as the God of the bible.

And if I talked to a muslim or a hindu, they would say the exact same thing, just replacing the words God with Allah/Brahma and bible with koran/bhagavad gita.
How am I, the skeptic, supposed to differentiate between what is true and what is false, given this?

Again you assume the bible is one volume

...which it is. I've got two copies, Good News and King James. I hold them in my hand, they proclaim themselves to be the complete bible, it's one volume divided into many books and chapters. If I were to hold a 3-in-1 copy of Lord of the Rings, I would describe it as "one volume", because that is what it is.

they are instruction for specific situations, situations we can learn from.

So the supposed universal/objective/whatever-term-you-want-to-use morality is actually subjective? Okay, cool. So according to the bible, if I hear a voice in my head and I'm convinced that that voice is the creator deity of the universe, then it makes it automatically all right for me to go out and slaughter heathens? To preach to a group of people and recruit them into an army, to attack towns and kill everyone in it because there's one unbeliever?
Because that's what's in the old testament. Whenever I read that text, this is what I'm being told god endorses, considers all right.

but I know they do tend to fall into the trap of proclaiming God as a champion who can empower them, the how can we fail with God on our side thinking!

Except that that very concept is found all throughout the bible. The stories in the OT talk about the Hebrews being this great, successful nation when they had god on their side, when he empowered them. I remember one story of Moses holding a stick up, and as long as he held it up, his armies won against their enemies.
What did Jesus supposedly promise? That if you pray to him, no matter what you pray for will most definitely be granted?

It's almost like in order to try and sell the christian god to me, you're deliberately excising from the conversation practically everything that's in the bible.

MrPudding

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Except that that very concept is found all throughout the bible. The stories in the OT talk about the Hebrews being this great, successful nation when they had god on their side, when he empowered them. I remember one story of Moses holding a stick up, and as long as he held it up, his armies won against their enemies.
What did Jesus supposedly promise? That if you pray to him, no matter what you pray for will most definitely be granted?

It's almost like in order to try and sell the christian god to me, you're deliberately excising from the conversation practically everything that's in the bible.

Isn't this idea this idea that god is a champion that can empower you the very basis of the Alcoholics Anonymous programme? Is this not what what we hear from committed christians that claim they would not be here, were it not for god empowering them to change...?

The more this debate continues the more I find myself asking what exactly god, religion and the bible is actually for.

MrP

RikuoAmero

MrPudding wrote: »

Isn't this idea this idea that god is a champion that can empower you the very basis of the Alcoholics Anonymous programme? Is this not what what we hear from committed christians that claim they would not be here, were it not for god empowering them to change...?

The more this debate continues the more I find myself asking what exactly god, religion and the bible is actually for.

MrP

Or the idea that humans cannot accomplish anything unless it is done through/for/via/whatever-term-you-want-to-use Jesus. Notions like that are found in the bible, the source of the christian belief.

indioblack

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course that is your argument, what else could it be? It needs to be this argument, basically a variation of the classic 'the lord moves in mysterious ways' or 'our minds are too puny to comprehend' chestnuts, otherwise you see the whole thing for what it is, completely made up by man.

If you have to believe, or simply want to believe, then of course you will try to rationalise away all the bits that don't make sense. This is just another attempt at that.

MrP

You've got it the wrong way round.
In this and my previous posts I've been stating the illogicality of our standard, classic view of God.
The agency that brought us into being, if such exists, surely cannot be the classic Christian God - and, perhaps, nowhere near a conscious being at all.
To view the mire that has often been the abode of life on this planet - and the often savage behaviour of it's inhabitants - to see all this and then talk of a loving God - is beyond my ability to comprehend.

tommy2bad

MrPudding wrote: »

Isn't this idea this idea that god is a champion that can empower you the very basis of the Alcoholics Anonymous programme? Is this not what what we hear from committed christians that claim they would not be here, were it not for god empowering them to change...?

The more this debate continues the more I find myself asking what exactly god, religion and the bible is actually for.

MrP

That's the real question Mr P. What is God for? I suspect it's this notion that God has some purpose of benefit to us humans and the attempts to fit Him into this moulding that creates all the problems. I'm inclined to take God at his word on this and don't bother with a purpose for God. "I am who I am."