Lost faith

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

Religion deals with peoples feelings and belief, science deals with reality and evidence.

Er... that's a belief of yours going on there.

What you are doing is placing Science as a God. All must worship at it's alter, for Science is the great oracle and final arbitrator of reality.

Which is a religion by your definition: since it is your feelings and beliefs about the place of Science which are being expressed.

railer201

Leroy42 wrote: »

I never said they were. Religion deals with peoples feelings and belief, science deals with reality and evidence. It is the religious that constantly claim that both are equal, in which case when a disagreement happens then one must pick one over the other.

What well known scientists say is not relevant, they can say that Liverpool are the greatest team in the world but they need to back that up with evidence to have any relevance. Or, are you of the opinion that since they are the ones doing the work in science and are thus experts then their word carries greater significance? Because the majority of scientists, I seem to recall, would not adhere to the biblical version of creation and thus by extension the entire legitimacy of the bible.

But again, even if it is ever proved that god did indeed create the universe, there is simply no evidence that he plays any role in it. indeed, to do so would take away Free Will, the very cornerstone of the reason of why god allows evil to happen.

An earlier poster claimed that Jesus did intervene, without giving any explanation of why he didn't to it before or since. And God only seems to intervene in some of those that believe in him, and ignores all those that have never had a chance to believe in him. A hindu, muslim or whatever. Can they be held responsible for not believing when they have never been told (take a yound child for example)? Do you think a muslim child dying and going to hell is just or merciful?

God could come out tomorrow and prove he exists. He would change the world in an instant. If people not only believed, but actually knew, that God existed the amount of evil the world would reduce dramatically. But god chooses to let innocent people suffer rather than intervene, except in those individual cases where he does intervene!

I have never heard a good reason as to why God needs to remain hidden. Free will seems to be the answer most trotted out, but then that simply shows that god is, although it is by his own decision, powerless.

Ah, but Jesus and the bible are a pretty big intervention, so why is that allowed but nothing else? Why were the people back then allowed to see direct evidence but I am not? Surely that is not even remotely fair?

You know more than Einstein then ???? You can't have it both ways - science dealing with reality and evidence you say , then when probably the world's best known scientist acknowledges God's role in creating the universe, you dismiss it out of hand. How convenient and probably no coincidence that all the science quotes above mention God !!!

I could offer some simple personal explanations to the second part of your query regarding intervention, but I figure if the scientists quoted above don't make any impression on your thinking, neither will I.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I also wonder about smacls execution for crimes such as.. The US and China..along with a host of others use execution as a means to deal with crimes such as.

The UN is very clear on seeking to abolish execution at a global level. It has openly stated the USA is in violation of international treaties with respect to execution. Similarly, it has been very critical of China's human rights record for decades.

I don't know the ins and outs of any UN declaration on human rights but presumably execution is either not considered a transgression of those rights. Or China and the US abstained and a somewhat less than united set of nations ploughed ahead with their very subjective view - a view not shared by the US and China.

Clearly.

Suffice to say: the UN isn't in any way objective. It just that their subjective happens to coincide with smacls subjective. Making it 'objective'

Rubbish. To suggest the largest international body arriving at consensus based position as to what are minimal acceptable standards in terms of treating one another is subjective is utter nonsense. That it happens to coincide with my stance isn't coincidence as it also just happens to coincide with the stance held by most people in civilised society today. While you might prefer an archaic notion of morality based around your religious views, just as a devout Muslim might be all for Sharia law, does not make these reasonable standards for society in general.

Hotblack Desiato

railer201 wrote: »

You know more than Einstein then ???? You can't have it both ways - science dealing with reality and evidence you say , then when probably the world's best known scientist acknowledges God's role in creating the universe, you dismiss it out of hand. How convenient and probably no coincidence that all the science quotes above mention God !!!

Appeal to authority is a fallacy. It's another fallacy to claim that being a brilliant scientist in one's field makes one an expert on anything outside of that field.

Einstein's views on religion are constantly misrepresented by theists. Have a read of this:

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

In particular:

In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously." In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Einstein did not describe himself as an atheist, but he certainly met the definition of one - he did not believe in any theistic god or gods.

Leroy42

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er... that's a belief of yours going on there.

What you are doing is placing Science as a God. All must worship at it's alter, for Science is the great oracle and final arbitrator of reality.

Which is a religion by your definition: since it is your feelings and beliefs about the place of Science which are being expressed.

Religion is not about belief and feelings? So its about evidence? Really?

There is a reason why it is called having faith.

As for science being a god, not at all. Science can be right or wrong, it must be backed by evidence, open to retest and be able to be provable. There is no alter, no worship. Science does nothing, it is simply the best way we currently have of finding out which is the likely reality. The great thing about science is that it doesn't need to be worshipped and the best way to get ahead in science is to prove a previous position as incorrect.


Which of course is the complete opposite of religion where even asking questions is seen as lack of faith.

I don't believe in science, I believe in the facts that people present.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Objective? Don't you mean the conglomeration of lots of subjective views?

Now, I agree that the UN does (or has the potential to do) lots of good. But why does the distillation and consensus of lots of subjective views get to trump any one of them individually? Where does that authority come from?

If we want well defined standards on the minimal rights we accord to our fellow humans, we need to agree what those standards are. Everyone potentially will make some compromises here but this is the only way to arrive at a position that is acceptable to all. Individual standards invariably contradict one another, so the choice is to remain in conflict for ever or to reach a compromise.

And that's leaving aside the fact that the UN (or any human institution), even at its best, is riddled with compromise, apathy and cowardice. If that's the highest authority we can appeal to for justice then I fear that many of us are going to be left disappointed.

I would rather the UN with all its flaws than any brand of theocracy that would seek to inflict an archaic notion of morality based on religious dogma on those who do not even subscribe to that belief system. Again, thinking of Pakistan here initially and also the attitudes put forward by the gun toting American religious right, as already raised by Antiskeptic. Interesting that by your standard "thou shalt not kill" refers only to murder but humans rights at this stage similarly looks to abolish execution. Which would you say aspires to the higher moral standard there?

Leroy42

railer201 wrote: »

You know more than Einstein then ???? You can't have it both ways - science dealing with reality and evidence you say , then when probably the world's best known scientist acknowledges God's role in creating the universe, you dismiss it out of hand. How convenient and probably no coincidence that all the science quotes above mention God !!!

I could offer some simple personal explanations to the second part of your query regarding intervention, but I figure if the scientists quoted above don't make any impression on your thinking, neither will I.

you selectively used only part of my line, the bit which you thinks you can use to make an arguement. Surely as a religious person you are well aware of taking specific lines out of context.

As I clearly said, I don;t take everything s sciencetist says as correct simply because they are a scientist. Einstein did get things wrong, he didn't know everything but the reason we know he was right is that other people have tested his theories and found that they fit even with the new knowledge that we have gained.

What exactly did Einstein say about God and his role in the universe? And how would he know, since God does not allow himself to be seen or heard?

Some scientists believe in god, some don't. That fact alone proves that one does not need a belief in a god to understand how the universe works.

So we don't need god for understanding, he cannot intervene, and he shows no evidence of caring for us.

I don't need explanations on intervention, if you believe that god intervenes great, but how do you then accept when he fails to intervene. Why no intervene to stop the slaughter of millions in WWII? why not stop all those innocent people dying in tsunamis, or floods? Why did he not interfere when the child got leukemia? or the child was being raped?


How do you square that circle?

one world order

It's not God's responsibility to control what happens in the world. The bible reassures us that justice will be administered. Everyone will have their day of judgement when their time on earth ends.

Leroy42

one world order wrote: »

It's not God's responsibility to control what happens in the world. The bible reassures us that justice will be administered. Everyone will have their day of judgement when their time on earth ends.

Unless he makes it his responsibility, like in the flood or Moses. Or sending Jesus down.

So it would appear god is more than happy to control when he wants.

And on what basis are you claiming it isn't his responsibility? He created us but then absolved himself of any responsibility but holds each and every one of us personally responsible not only for our own actions but also for the sins of Adam and Eve.

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

Religion is not about belief and feelings? So its about evidence? Really?

Your definition has it about feelings and beliefs. Applied to science in your case

There is a reason why it is called having faith.

Per the dictionary (where you presumably got it from). It's merely been applied to your position

As for science being a god, not at all. Science can be right or wrong, it must be backed by evidence, open to retest and be able to be provable

So its been proven that science is the route to eatablish the nature of reality?

Really?

There is no alter, no worship. Science does nothing, it is simply the best way we currently have of finding out which is the likely reality.

Best? Says who, if not merely those who believe this.

The great thing about science is that it doesn't need to be worshipped and the best way to get ahead in science is to prove a previous position as incorrect.

The same method is employed in forming a theology. Your mistaking the method for progress within the boundaries of a discipline with progress outside those boundaries.

You don't arrive at 'best way' in science. You arrive that way via a philosophy about the place of science. And philosophies are belief systems.

Which of course is the complete opposite of religion where even asking questions is seen as lack of faith

Not in my experience. My guess is that you are ignorant of what actually happens and turn to a cardboard cut out. Maybe you read Dawkins and believe what he says?

I don't believe in science, I believe in the facts that people present.

None of those facts can tell you about how closely science described reality. At best they can tell you about the extent of reality science is good at examining. The error is to extrapolate what you can see and suppose that thats all there is to see.

Science = all seeing. Faith (since there is no proof for it) in science' ability to see all (in principle and over time) = religion.

Wanderer78

one world order wrote:

It's not God's responsibility to control what happens in the world. The bible reassures us that justice will be administered. Everyone will have their day of judgement when their time on earth ends.

What happens if you have no religious beliefs?

railer201

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Appeal to authority is a fallacy. It's another fallacy to claim that being a brilliant scientist in one's field makes one an expert on anything outside of that field.

Einstein's views on religion are constantly misrepresented by theists. Have a read of this:

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

In particular:

Einstein did not describe himself as an atheist, but he certainly met the definition of one - he did not believe in any theistic god or gods.

Your fallacy thingy doesn't apply here as the creation or formation of the Universe was very much Einstein's field ( and God's of course), for example his Static Model of the Universe.

The rest I'm 'broadly speaking' aware of - but there's a difference in saying he didn't believe in a personal God - but did acknowledge more general form of God or intelligent force. De facto atheist is pushing it a bit and doesn't at all square with his 'God' quotes. Then of course one has to take in the confirmation bias of the atheist mind.

Christian75

One thing is for sure - there are lots of people who feel the same way as you do.

The big question is what do you want to do about it. Just in the few replies here, there are many suggestions and offered help. At the end of the day though, it will come down to finding the path that you feel you can walk which will make things better for you. Faith, religion has one overwhelmingly common message, regardless of denomination: hope. As long as you can see your personal way and journey in it, you'll be grand.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

If we want well defined standards on the minimal rights we accord to our fellow humans, we need to agree what those standards are. Everyone potentially will make some compromises here but this is the only way to arrive at a position that is acceptable to all. Individual standards invariably contradict one another, so the choice is to remain in conflict for ever or to reach a compromise.

At best what you're going to get is a pragmatic and watered down minimum standard. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, in fact it's a good thing and better than nothing, but it's a long way from objective good or justice. Our ideals for justice are that it should be perfect, so if the UN is the best we can do then either those ideals are an illusion, or we should be looking somewhere else for perfect justice.

The issue also remains of what you do when someone politely tells the UN to get stuffed. What is the basis on which they ought to listen? What is the critical mass of consensus that makes the UN standard "objective" and that of any individual society "subjective"?

smacl wrote: »

I would rather the UN with all its flaws than any brand of theocracy that would seek to inflict an archaic notion of morality based on religious dogma on those who do not even subscribe to that belief system. Again, thinking of Pakistan here initially and also the attitudes put forward by the gun toting American religious right, as already raised by Antiskeptic. Interesting that by your standard "thou shalt not kill" refers only to murder but humans rights at this stage similarly looks to abolish execution. Which would you say aspires to the higher moral standard there?

Who said anything about a theocracy? Seems like you're happy to inflict the UN's notions of morality on everyone whether they want them or not; what's the difference apart from that you prefer one to the other?

The UN is, or can be, a force for good. Probably one of the best that human beings can devise. But I'll keep trusting in God and his perfect law, justice and goodness. Unsurprisingly, I think he has the higher moral standard :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

railer201 wrote: »

Your fallacy thingy doesn't apply here as the creation or formation of the Universe was very much Einstein's field ( and God's of course), for example his Static Model of the Universe.

No, when he ventured into speculation about "god" he was very much going outside of his field.

It's not just Einstein, though. You linked to a document with quotes from a number of scientists on the topic of religion, this is nothing other than a fallacious appeal to authority ("these guys are smart, they believe in god, therefore god must exist.")

The rest I'm 'broadly speaking' aware of - but there's a difference in saying he didn't believe in a personal God - but did acknowledge more general form of God or intelligent force. De facto atheist is pushing it a bit and doesn't at all square with his 'God' quotes. Then of course one has to take in the confirmation bias of the atheist mind.

At best he was some sort of deist - the quotes provided are very clear that he did not believe in an interventionist, personal god.

Funny that you say atheists have an "atheist mind" whatever that is, and say they have confirmation bias - after you've blantantly tried to shoehorn a theistic belief onto Einstein who clearly believed no such thing. But as he himself said, his position on religion was constantly misrepresented by believers in order to claim him as one of their own. Why they felt and still feel the need to do this, is odd.

Leroy42

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your definition has it about feelings and beliefs. Applied to science in your case

My definition of science has nothing to do with feelings and belief. I was taking about religion. What, since there is no evidence, is the bases for your position on God and Jesus? Is it a belief or based on actual evidence?

Per the dictionary (where you presumably got it from). It's merely been applied to your position

antiskeptic wrote: »

So its been proven that science is the route to eatablish the nature of reality?

Really?

When did I say that? It is currently the best path we have used. It is certainly far better than relying on a book written by numerous people, over hundreds of years, based on 2nd or 3rd person memories, and for which there is little to no actual evidence and which contradicts itself numerous times.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Best? Says who, if not merely those who believe this.

If you have a better one go ahead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The same method is employed in forming a theology. Your mistaking the method for progress within the boundaries of a discipline with progress outside those boundaries.

You don't arrive at 'best way' in science. You arrive that way via a philosophy about the place of science. And philosophies are belief systems.

What do you think the philosophy of science is?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not in my experience. My guess is that you are ignorant of what actually happens and turn to a cardboard cut out. Maybe you read Dawkins and believe what he says?

Your experience is that religion is open to question? There is nothing seen as sacred that should not be questioned? OK. Your guess is of no interest to me. No need to attack me personally. Your position should stand up on its own, you have god on your side afterall, so no need so the veiled attack on my ability to be critical.

antiskeptic wrote: »

None of those facts can tell you about how closely science described reality. At best they can tell you about the extent of reality science is good at examining. The error is to extrapolate what you can see and suppose that thats all there is to see.

Science = all seeing. Faith (since there is no proof for it) in science' ability to see all (in principle and over time) = religion.

Why have you added extrapolation into anything. I never mentioned it. I stated that

I don't believe in science, I believe in the facts that people present.

.

I look at what people claim, see on what it is based, and whether they can back it up. Any scientist can claim anything they like, but I would want to see more than, "well I read it in a book".

Science is he complete opposite of all seeing. Science itself acknowledges that it has huge areas that it doesn't understand, and would accept that here are huge areas that it doesn't even know of, yet alone understand.

You seem to be very determined to paint science as a religion, and I don't understand why. There is no faith in science. People may believe they are on the right path, but it is nothing more than a belief until such time as they provide evidence, in which case it long longer requires faith.

But instead of attacking science and what it is based on, use the very same questions you put to me against religion.

Leroy42

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

You keep suggesting He has absolved Himself of responsibility for creating individuals and angels with free will, some of whom disobey Him. Yet He Himself, being incarnated, did take responsibility for the sins of all humanity - if they would turn and believe.

I am not suggesting anything. it is the other posters that keep telling me that God cannot do this, or accept that. I am merely questioning that position.

So let me understand this. He will take on responsibility, but only if they do something for him? Not really taking on responsibility is it, it is more a bribe. And he placed the original sin on us in the first place, and now to get rid of the thing he forced on us we us do what he says. Thats blackmail.

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

It may not be an easy concept to grasp but that act was the intervention to end all interventions. Nothing before nor since could reconcile fallen humanity with God, no big reveal, no smiting Hitler's armies before they crossed into Poland, nothing. Because any other intervention which did not achieve that reconciliation might well save lives but could not save one single soul.

Right, so god has made no intervention since Jesus. OK, lets examine that for a second. What sins were so egregious prior to that time that he felt he needed to intervene then, but has seemingly felt that nothing worse has happened since. So all the prayers, masses, claims of miracles, are rubbish?

But since Jesus make the ultimate sacrifice, although dying knowing you are the eternal being of the universe doesn't seem like such an issue, all prior sins are forgiven. And you can easily argue that if anything the world is a far worse place since, certainly no better, so gods plan failed to achieve any noticeable improvements.

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

As for interventions to create belief, Satan took 1/3 of the angels with him in his rebellion.

Rebellion against what? God says that to lets us know he exists would mean we no longer had free will, but obviously Satan and the angels knew of heaven etc and still rebelled? Do you expect rebellions are still happening in heaven now? How come God didn't forsee Satan having this plan? And why did god let Satan into the garden, he created it, oversaw it, yet somehow he failed to spot Satan talking to Eve?

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

They had seen God and still rebelled.

Why did they rebel?

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

I have mentioned before that the Israelites saw the Red Sea parted, manna from heaven, a whole bunch of other physical miracles and yet fell away the moment they had an opportunity. David had what could be described as a close working relationship with God and yet fell into sin with Bathsheba. The Jews had Jerusalem and their temple yet consistently rejected the prophets who warned them of their communal conduct up until Jesus began His ministry with yet another bunch of miracles, and still had Him put to death.

Even more examples of people getting direct knowledge of God and still having the free will to rebel. So why not simply let everyone have clear, direct evidence of god.

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

Physical miracles have their place and can validate the Gospel but they cannot themselves deliver faith.

You said earlier that Jesus was the intervention to end all interventions. So miracles cannot be happening.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

At best what you're going to get is a pragmatic and watered down minimum standard. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, in fact it's a good thing and better than nothing, but it's a long way from objective good or justice. Our ideals for justice are that it should be perfect, so if the UN is the best we can do then either those ideals are an illusion, or we should be looking somewhere else for perfect justice.

The issue also remains of what you do when someone politely tells the UN to get stuffed. What is the basis on which they ought to listen? What is the critical mass of consensus that makes the UN standard "objective" and that of any individual society "subjective"?

A minimal standard for sure, but one that has been agreed upon and broadly implemented where serious breaches are the exception. While we should all aspire to higher standards, these amount to no more than a personal morality and are of little use other than to ourselves.

Who said anything about a theocracy? Seems like you're happy to inflict the UN's notions of morality on everyone whether they want them or not; what's the difference apart from that you prefer one to the other?

The UN is, or can be, a force for good. Probably one of the best that human beings can devise. But I'll keep trusting in God and his perfect law, justice and goodness. Unsurprisingly, I think he has the higher moral standard :rolleyes:

I'm not trying to inflict the UN's notions of morality on everyone, the UN's notion of morality is the consensus position arrived at by everyone. Trust in god by all means, but realise that your trust in your god ultimately serves no one but yourself. So if we look at the likes of the Asia Bibi case, it was pressure from human rights groups that saved here life, not "thoughts and prayers" nor your higher moral standard. As for inflicting your morality and religious beliefs on others, surely that is what evangelicalism is all about

smacl

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

How can you be certain she was not released in answer to those thoughts and prayers ? In which case the trust in God of all those praying for her would have served more than just themselves.

So anything good happens, prayers answered. Anything bad happens, mysterious ways. :rolleyes:

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

A minimal standard for sure, but one that has been agreed upon and broadly implemented where serious breaches are the exception. While we should all aspire to higher standards, these amount to no more than a personal morality and are of little use other than to ourselves.

Like I said, I think the UN has the potential to be a true force for good. But that’s only because I think “good,” “right” and “justice” have objective meanings that the UN can, however imperfectly, reflect and approximate.

smacl wrote: »

I'm not trying to inflict the UN's notions of morality on everyone, the UN's notion of morality is the consensus position arrived at by everyone. Trust in god by all means, but realise that your trust in your god ultimately serves no one but yourself. So if we look at the likes of the Asia Bibi case, it was pressure from human rights groups that saved here life, not "thoughts and prayers" nor your higher moral standard.

That still doesn’t explain how lots of subjective beliefs at some point morph into objective ones. The UN can pontificate, note their disapproval, or even try to impose their beliefs by force, and there is a place for all of those. But mere consensus doesn’t provide a moral imperative, as societies that disagree can simply say “well that’s right for you, but this is right for us.” Saying that the UN position on, say, capital punishment is more enlightened or indicative of greater progress is just begging the question.

On why Asia Bibi was released, I think it comes back to your point of view. Pressure groups certainly seem to have played a part. On prayer, if you assume that when praying we are effectively talking to ourselves then clearly it is a waste of time. If, on the other hand, we are talking to the God of the universe, who loves us, has promised to listen to us, and to somehow weave our prayers into his perfect plans, then maybe it has more significance.

smacl wrote: »

As for inflicting your morality and religious beliefs on others, surely that is what evangelicalism is all about

Totally, we are terrible busybodies. I do my best to interfere only when it’s smoking, dancing or playing cards

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Like I said, I think the UN has the potential to be a true force for good. But that’s only because I think “good,” “right” and “justice” have objective meanings that the UN can, however imperfectly, reflect and approximate.

But what you think is, by definition, subjective. Until such time as you or anyone else can demonstrate that "good" exists in any objective sense, what we tend to mean by "good" in this context is "good" according to the broadest possible consensus.

That still doesn’t explain how lots of subjective beliefs at some point morph into objective ones. The UN can pontificate, note their disapproval, or even try to impose their beliefs by force, and there is a place for all of those. But mere consensus doesn’t provide a moral imperative, as societies that disagree can simply say “well that’s right for you, but this is right for us.” Saying that the UN position on, say, capital punishment is more enlightened or indicative of greater progress is just begging the question.

If consensus doesn't provide moral imperative across large disparate groups of people representing a very broad spectrum of personal and tradition moral positions, perhaps you could suggest what does? Certainly not scripture which will be an anathema to those with different religious beliefs nor Sharia law for very much the same reason. Even within Christianity the range of moral positions is vast where the likes of a liberal Christian is going to be diametrically opposed to a gun totin' hard right bible belt Christian.

On why Asia Bibi was released, I think it comes back to your point of view. Pressure groups certainly seem to have played a part. On prayer, if you assume that when praying we are effectively talking to ourselves then clearly it is a waste of time. If, on the other hand, we are talking to the God of the universe, who loves us, has promised to listen to us, and to somehow weave our prayers into his perfect plans, then maybe it has more significance.

You might believe your prayers have some significance but I'd imagine most people incarcerated for dubious reasons in line for corporal or capital punishment would rather something a little more concrete. The phrase "Thoughts and prayers" has long since become a meme for doing nothing while highlighting to others that you really care.

Totally, we are terrible busybodies. I do my best to interfere only when it’s smoking, dancing or playing cards

Ah here, don't be interfering with my smoking, dancing and playing cards. That there is quality time.

Leroy42

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

Frustrating, isn't it? And yet, ask yourself what the alternative is - if God answered every prayer exactly as requested then there is no more faith. Some wag would be the first to ask Him to move a mountain and it would all go downhill from there. Prayers in accordance with God's will are answered, those which appear not to be answered are still not a waste of time. We just can't know the full outworking yet.

Why do you keep putting rules onto god? You are placing restrictions on an all powerful eternal being.

If God answered every prayer that removes faith you claim, but we know of plenty of examples (Satan, Judas, the Israelities with Moses) that have had direct knowledge of god yet they could continue with free will.

And bear in mind that we are all going to find out either way when we die, so effectively out of eternity God is hiding himself for 100 or so years from each person, so it seems ultimately pointless.

Prayers in accordance with God's will are answered

. Doesn't that suggest that God was going to do it either way, that the prayer makes no difference.

One needs to be able to square the circle of how one can attest that god can and has intervened in our lives, yet at the same time has allowed the worst occurrences in history (tsunami, WWI & WWII etc). Either he cares or he doesn't.

We just can't know the full outworking yet.

Exactly. We have no idea about any of it. No idea about god, no idea how involved he is, no idea if there is an afterlife.

Hotblack Desiato

Kinda hard to blame tsunamis, earthquakes or volcanoes on free will, although some do try!

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

But what you think is, by definition, subjective. Until such time as you or anyone else can demonstrate that "good" exists in any objective sense, what we tend to mean by "good" in this context is "good" according to the broadest possible consensus.

Sounds like pure relativism to me - which doesn't help when it comes to those who agree with neither our definition of good nor the consensus that we think adds weight to it. And why should they?

smacl wrote: »

If consensus doesn't provide moral imperative across large disparate groups of people representing a very broad spectrum of personal and tradition moral positions, perhaps you could suggest what does? Certainly not scripture which will be an anathema to those with different religious beliefs nor Sharia law for very much the same reason. Even within Christianity the range of moral positions is vast where the likes of a liberal Christian is going to be diametrically opposed to a gun totin' hard right bible belt Christian.

I think that once you ditch the idea of God then you can't consistently claim a universal moral imperative that applies to all people in all places whether they agree with it or not. If we are all entitled to our own subjective beliefs, and they are all equally valid, then it's very difficult to understand how such a thing could exist.

Individual societies can provide it in a very limited way for the people who live there, and the UN can provide it in a limited way for lots of countries, but only insofar as they all consent to be governed by it. And as we've already said, when UN members (especially the powerful ones) choose to ignore what the UN says, there's not a whole lot that can be done about it. If the UN is god, then unfortunately it appears to have feet of clay.

smacl wrote: »

You might believe your prayers have some significance but I'd imagine most people incarcerated for dubious reasons in line for corporal or capital punishment would rather something a little more concrete. The phrase "Thoughts and prayers" has long since become a meme for doing nothing while highlighting to others that you really care.

I think this is another point where we will need to agree to disagree. For what it's worth, I understand that prayer is a pointless exercise from your perspective. It would be odd if you thought otherwise.

smacl wrote: »

Ah here, don't be interfering with my smoking, dancing and playing cards. That there is quality time.

Dunno, might need to refer it to the UN for arbitration!

Leroy42

All of that post is your interpretation. You completely lost me when you said

There is the Bible itself which represents a quite astonishingly coherent narrative from Genesis through to Revelation despite being compiled by multiple authors over a considerable time.

The bible is one of the incoherent collection of books ever. God demands blood sacrifice, do not kill. Old testement is not real, live by the 10 commandments. Christ was born in Bethlehem because of a census, no census took place. None of the disciples thought it a good idea to actually write the stories themselves. There are numerous books that have been left out of the bible, so what we get to read isn't even the real collection. And God didn't bother to sort out the issue of language, choosing to let it be written in a language that would die out.

I'm not going to list them all here, there are simply too many to go through and he point is not each individual one, but a book that he supposed to be God new way is poorly written, lacks vital details and god didn't even bother to ensure that evidence was preserved.

Is god the war monger of Soddam and Gormorah or is he the turn the other cheek type of Jesus. And it just so happened that Jesus was born and raised in a place that just happened to already believe. Not China, or South America.

I get that your believe all this stuff, just as I am sure that you believe lying with another man is a sin, and wearing two different fabrics is a sin, or working on the sabbath is a sin. And Jesus never once claimed to be starting a new religion, he never once claimed that Judaism was wrong, so while I understand the reason for Christianity, I fail to see how we moved away from the rules that Jesus himself adhered to.

But whether you believe it or not is not the issue. Does losing ones faith mean the OP is a different person? No, because clearly it is not faith that made them good. Just as there are very evil people with faith, very good people without faith and vice versa.

The only thing we can say, as we see examples across multiple religions and non religions, across time, is that religion an faith is not the deciding factor. So if you need the comfort blanket of faith to make you feel that after this life is over then you will be to heaven then that fine. But know that God has killed many multiples of people for sin without a chance to repent and thus I would not be to sure that no matter how hard you try God won't simply get in a huff and send you out of heaven.

one world order

Yes the OP is a different person because he lost his faith. The reality is the Devil tempts us all the time and it is a constant battle to move away from sin. It is why those with strong faith can find clarity in their lives and inner peace.

In the Old Testament we see God punishing those that lived sinful lives that already had access to the early scriptures, like in Sodom and Gomorrah. When society turns it's back on God, people are not held accountable by a higher purpose and this is why we see so many problems developing in society today.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Sounds like pure relativism to me - which doesn't help when it comes to those who agree with neither our definition of good nor the consensus that we think adds weight to it. And why should they?

While various religions believe they hold to the absolute truth, each have contrary versions to one another stemming from their own traditions. This actually amounts to ethical relativism. Agreement by consensus across countries and cultures is the exact opposite of this. The reason that it is important is as a race humanity works to an increasingly large degree at a global rather than local level. If we interact and wish to avoid continuous conflict we need basic levels of understanding on how we reasonably treat one another.

I think that once you ditch the idea of God then you can't consistently claim a universal moral imperative that applies to all people in all places whether they agree with it or not. If we are all entitled to our own subjective beliefs, and they are all equally valid, then it's very difficult to understand how such a thing could exist.

Individual societies can provide it in a very limited way for the people who live there, and the UN can provide it in a limited way for lots of countries, but only insofar as they all consent to be governed by it. And as we've already said, when UN members (especially the powerful ones) choose to ignore what the UN says, there's not a whole lot that can be done about it. If the UN is god, then unfortunately it appears to have feet of clay.

The UN doesn't impose any moral imperatives, it defines minimum standards of human rights arrived at by consensus which member countries agree to uphold. While the UN doesn't have the teeth to make all countries uphold all of these standards, it is certainly a vast improvement on personal moralities which are aspirational and of no value whatsoever to those who are being maltreated. I find it strange for anyone to argue against basic human rights as set out by the UN.

I think this is another point where we will need to agree to disagree. For what it's worth, I understand that prayer is a pointless exercise from your perspective. It would be odd if you thought otherwise.

Fair enough. Out of interest would you consider a Muslim's prayers pointless and ineffective?

Leroy42

one world order wrote: »

Yes the OP is a different person because he lost his faith.

In your opinion they are different. How do you think this difference will manifest itself?

one world order wrote: »

The reality is the Devil tempts us all the time and it is a constant battle to move away from sin. It is why those with strong faith can find clarity in their lives and inner peace.

Reality? Really? What evidence do you have for that? Judas had direct contact with Jesus himself yet turned away. Satan as well. It seems very unfair that even if you have direct knowledge it is not always enough to really believe yet God punishes those that never were able to really believe without any direct knowledge.

But religion provides neither clarity nor inner peace although I agree it can give that impression. What clarity doe having to believe in something that you cannot and nobody ever has any evidence for. Religion likes to think it provides answers, but its not an answer when it simply substitutes "I don't know" with "God".

one world order wrote: »

In the Old Testament we see God punishing those that lived sinful lives that already had access to the early scriptures, like in Sodom and Gomorrah. When society turns it's back on God, people are not held accountable by a higher purpose and this is why we see so many problems developing in society today.

We have access to these scriptures, and access to the additional story of Jesus. Yet society continues to experience problems? So the best we can summise from Jesus visit to earth was that it was nothing to do with ridding the world of evil, God just wanted more recruits.

The old testament is a pretty horrific collection of stories. God loses his temper with Adam, and has not forgiven him or the rest of mankind to this day. Day wipes out the entire population of the earth, including animals, because people don't worship him enough.

God leads his chosen people out of Egypt but then murders loads of them because they lose faith. Well most people would if they were promised freedom but ended up wandering in a desert for 40 years!

God undertakes mass ethic cleanings, he not only allows but gives instructions on slavery (just not for his chosen people, cos that bad I guess!). He allows the rape of women, the murder of children.

And then Jesus comes along and its all, 'well forget all that stuff, this is God mark II, the loving kind. Simply obey his commands and you will get to heaven. But dare to not obey them, even once, and you will be damned to hell for all eternity.'
'Whats heaven you ask, well I'm not going to actually tell you, except for some vague stuff about happiness and meeting old friends, even though those old friends might have secretly been serial killers in which case you won't meet them again. Or babies that haven't been baptised. Cos nobody wants them in heaven'

Again, there are plenty of really great people that have had religion in their lives, and plenty of bad people. And the same is true for different types of religion and those without any religion.

The one constant is that people can be good regardless of religion, it may form a part of it but it certainly is not necessary.

Leroy42

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

The ask was animal sacrifice and for people not to kill each other outside judicial procedure. Was execution mandated in the Old Testament ? Yes it was - but you have also suggested God should intervene to punish evil. The giving of those laws was intervention.

I really don't know how to deal with this. You have contradited yourself in the same paragraph.

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

Who says the Old Testament isn't real? Jesus validated it at the time and the Dead Sea scrolls indicate good faithfulness in recording of the actual words.

I take that from many conversations with christians, as when you bring up the OT and the terrible, vengeful, hateful and unjust God that it depicts the usual response is that they don't believe it literally. So I apologies if my assumption on that with regard to you was wrong.

But it brings up a serious issue. If you believe in OT, how can you possibly characterise God as merciful and just, and loving? It kills without warning, without trial. He allows the murder of children, the rape of women, not to mention slavery.

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

If you're suggesting there's evidence to suggest there wasn't a census at that time, then what leads you to suppose that evidence is any more trustworthy than that recorded by witnesses near the time? Have you researched this?

You have really gone down the rabbit hole now. Are you really asking me to provide evidence that something didn't happen in order to disprove your belief that it did? That is not how evidence works. You are claiming something happened, where is the proof? Because even if it did happen,there would be no reason for Joseph to travel to Bethlehem, what census have you ever heard of that required people to return to the place they were born. What possible use would that be to the Romans?

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

Is there reason to doubt that the Gospels were authored by anyone other than the disciples concerned? Why automatically accept contemporary conclusions 2000 years later over what was accepted 100 years afterwards?

Who do you think wrote the gospils? Do you think the disciples did? Because all evidence says they didn't. Even 100 years later it wasn't thought that the disciples wrote them. Even the stories within the gospils clearly has parts in them when the disciples could not have been there at the time. (Jesus birth, John the Baptist). At best these were stories relayed by Jesus to the disciples.

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

Why conclude that ? Other contemporary books excluded from the Canon are available to read if anyone chooses. Some still appear as Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible and a few are even quoted by the apostles. There's no secrecy involved. The upshot is that the Bible represents everything that is required, additional reading is up to yourself but be aware it may not be as reliable.

Why were they excluded? That is the key question? It was a manmade decision which to include and which to not. On whose authority did man decide to exclude the true written word of God. The only was to accept that some were excluded is to accept that not all were truely gods word. So on what basis can we determine that?

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

The language didn't die out, there are line by line comparison reference books if you care to check them out. What universal language would you prefer God used?

Is the language still in daily use today? What was the language that the majority of the books were written in?

A translation, why would God need to create his word which required a translation, which is always going to open to interpretation by man? Why didn't he make a single language across the world? Free will I suppose. I would have preferred he gave a clear message, that anyone could understand, that didn't need vast study and learning of ancient languages to understand. There is a reason why there are so many versions of the bible.

He can make a talking snake but he can't create a universal language?

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

Both. Truth and love. Although I wouldn't agree with the 'war monger' label, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged - for why, I suggest you read the account if you haven't already. Jesus promised mercy and forgiveness for faith and repentance but also judgement for rejection. He caused uproar amongst the merchants in the Temple, castigated liberal and legalist Jews and warned that everyone, believer and non-believer would be judged.

Depends on what you define as a war monger. I would certainly call someone that destroys two entire villages without warning of giving anyone a chance to escape would be counted as one. What would you call someone that did it?

Clearly some people, according to the story, had fallen away from Gods commandments, but that happens today and we don't see people being summarily executed because of it. Why the chance in heart from God? Why was that acceptable then but no longer?

And are you really suggestion that the children born into those villages were are equally culpable as the adults? That new borns were guilty of the same crimes?

Uproar in the temple? Jesus lost him temper and attacked those that didn't agree with him. We lock those people up nowadays.

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

Why would you be surprised that Jesus would be born as a Jew ? And the fact is that most Jews rejected Him anyway throughout His ministry.

I'm not surprised at all, it is totally consistent with a story written by Jews that wanted to turn people to turn version of religion. He was a man born of his time, just like all men were. But this is supposed to be God we are talking about, yet he sticks to the same rules and confines that everyone else has to?

Most Jews rejected him because despite seeing and hearing him directly he didn't line with with the prophecies. They were hundreds of false prophets at the time, the Jews simply say, through experience I would suggest, that here is yet another false prophet.

And we see the exact same today. US evangelical preachers, all claiming to have a direct line to god. To you believe any of them are God?

Ah, well He fulfilled the Law as it applied to the Jews - all the food restrictions, all the feasts and dates. Being sinless included observing every one of the details which He did, freeing us up from pretty much everything but the basic 10 commandments.



Respectfully disagree. God doesn't lie - if He says we will live with Him forever, then that's what will happen. Creating people who have no chance to repent is the act of an insanely cruel deity and if that were the case, we'd be living out some Dante-esque nightmare every day which, hyperbole aside, we aren't.[/QUOTE]

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

While various religions believe they hold to the absolute truth, each have contrary versions to one another stemming from their own traditions. This actually amounts to ethical relativism. Agreement by consensus across countries and cultures is the exact opposite of this. The reason that it is important is as a race humanity works to an increasingly large degree at a global rather than local level. If we interact and wish to avoid continuous conflict we need basic levels of understanding on how we reasonably treat one another.

Pointing out that religions have different views on what is moral is one thing; whether any of them is objectively right or not is another. If they are all merely subjective beliefs then I guess you would say that they are all equally valid (or invalid)?

smacl wrote: »

The UN doesn't impose any moral imperatives, it defines minimum standards of human rights arrived at by consensus which member countries agree to uphold. While the UN doesn't have the teeth to make all countries uphold all of these standards, it is certainly a vast improvement on personal moralities which are aspirational and of no value whatsoever to those who are being maltreated. I find it strange for anyone to argue against basic human rights as set out by the UN.

Again, I think the work of the UN is a force for good, and that basic human rights are also a good thing. Not arguing against them at all. In fact, I would say that both are part of God common grace to the world, and are effective in restraining human evil.

But the problem isn't you or me, who think that basic human rights are good. The problem is the many individuals and countries who disagree with what we (or the UN) says. Who are quite happy to execute political dissenters, oppress women, and act out all the other injustices we see in the news. On that basis, you would have to say that Asia Bibi is one of the lucky ones, and that countless others aren't so lucky. What justice do they get?

In your last post you asked if consensus (such as demonstrated by the UN) provides any moral imperative. I want to say that it does, insofar as the UN reflects a higher moral standard. They certainly act as if such a standard exists, as when the UN calls on countries to (for example) halt capital punishment they don't frame it as a mere subjective belief. In fact, we all act as if a universal moral standard exists, and appeal to it regularly. My question is where that comes from, and why it has such an enduring appeal for us.

For what it's worth, my belief is that our desire for justice, real objective justice, is reflective of the character of the God who made us. And more than that, the God who has promised that justice will finally be done, all wrongs put right, and all evil punished.

How you explain it, as an atheist, is up to you.

smacl wrote: »

Fair enough. Out of interest would you consider a Muslim's prayers pointless and ineffective?

That's a fair question. I think it would be rude and unproductive to put it quite so bluntly; Christians are called to share the truth with gentleness and respect (however far short we fall of that at times).

But I do believe that Muslims are fundamentally wrong in how they approach God, and that they need faith in Jesus as much as anyone else. Incidentally, I have no problem at all with a similar Muslim contention that Christians are wrong and should convert to Islam.

Scripture leads me to believe that God has regard for prayers made to him in faith. This means recognising God as he is, and as he has revealed himself to us, which Muslims do not do from my perspective. I'm not an expert on Islam, but I think the Muslim attitude to prayer is also quite different to the Christian one. The Christian ideas of a close relationship with God, and thinking of him as Father, would be quite strange to a Muslim.

In short, I would want to call a Muslim to a better way, and to believe in God as he really is (Father, Son and Spirit) through faith in Jesus, and to pray to him on that basis, rather than smugly saying "you're wrong!"

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

My definition of science has nothing to do with feelings and belief. I was taking about religion. What, since there is no evidence, is the bases for your position on God and Jesus? Is it a belief or based on actual evidence?

Per the dictionary (where you presumably got it from). It's merely been applied to your position





When did I say that? It is currently the best path we have used. It is certainly far better than relying on a book written by numerous people, over hundreds of years, based on 2nd or 3rd person memories, and for which there is little to no actual evidence and which contradicts itself numerous times.




If you have a better one go ahead.





What do you think the philosophy of science is?








Your experience is that religion is open to question? There is nothing seen as sacred that should not be questioned? OK. Your guess is of no interest to me. No need to attack me personally. Your position should stand up on its own, you have god on your side afterall, so no need so the veiled attack on my ability to be critical.




Why have you added extrapolation into anything. I never mentioned it. I stated that .

I look at what people claim, see on what it is based, and whether they can back it up. Any scientist can claim anything they like, but I would want to see more than, "well I read it in a book".

Science is he complete opposite of all seeing. Science itself acknowledges that it has huge areas that it doesn't understand, and would accept that here are huge areas that it doesn't even know of, yet alone understand.

You seem to be very determined to paint science as a religion, and I don't understand why. There is no faith in science. People may believe they are on the right path, but it is nothing more than a belief until such time as they provide evidence, in which case it long longer requires faith.

But instead of attacking science and what it is based on, use the very same questions you put to me against religion.

Do you believe that science is the only way in which the totality of reality is to be explored? Even if science hasn't yet explored the totality of reality.

If you say yes you have a religion: a faith based belief


Is science the best way to explore the totality of reality? Even if it hasn't yet explored the totality of reality.

If you say 'yes', you have a religion: a belief about the primacy of science. And a belief about the totality of reality ( which you think is accessible to science).

-

This isn't about how science is done. This isn't how good science patently is as exploring the reality amenable to that pursuit.

This is about your beliefs about what science can do. Which stem from your beliefs about what constitutes reality.

Since those beliefs aren't scientifically demonstrable we are dealing with a philosophy. A belief system based on faith (about what you hold the totality of reality to encompass).

Which fits your definition of a religion.

Leroy42

No, I said it was the best we have at the moment.

But what it has over religion is that it asks questions, rather than comfort itself by filling in the blanks with stories and beliefs.

So it's not a religion, no matter how many ways to try to make it so.

But the telling thing is that you are attempting to align it to a religion. And you need to do that as you know that religion has no basis and therefore you need to drag other things to the same level.

It has nothing to do with my belief. I can believe in anything I want, as can any scientist, but it's not taken seriously until such time as it is proven.

Science is a method, not a philosophy. Test, retest, open to peers, attempt to disprove. Religion starts with a philosophy and tries to warp everything to fit it.

The bible claims that god invented the world in 6 days. Despite plenty of the bible being debunked, religion continues to claim that the overall must be true because...well they want it to be.

Fourier

I'm a bit confused about the morality in the bible being said to be "objective" as several times the Law is disputed with God who in fact more than once changes his mind as a result of human beings arguing with him. His instructions are also clearly indicated not to be universal truths of behaviour. The Torah scholars in the Second Temple period did not perceive the Bible's laws and ethical code as objective, universal and rational, that's a later Hellenic conception taken on by some Jewish Neo-Platonists like Philo.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

But the problem isn't you or me, who think that basic human rights are good. The problem is the many individuals and countries who disagree with what we (or the UN) says. Who are quite happy to execute political dissenters, oppress women, and act out all the other injustices we see in the news. On that basis, you would have to say that Asia Bibi is one of the lucky ones, and that countless others aren't so lucky. What justice do they get?

While their are countries and individuals who are regularly in breach of UN human rights treaties, they are typically noted and regularly sanctioned for doing so. Asia Bibi may be one of the lucky ones, but there would many more serious human rights violations without the likes of the UN in place. For all their supposed high morals, Christian churches, including evangelical ones, appear more often among those guilty of abuse than those trying to prevent it. What tangible help has your church provided of late to abuse victims for example?

In your last post you asked if consensus (such as demonstrated by the UN) provides any moral imperative. I want to say that it does, insofar as the UN reflects a higher moral standard. They certainly act as if such a standard exists, as when the UN calls on countries to (for example) halt capital punishment they don't frame it as a mere subjective belief. In fact, we all act as if a universal moral standard exists, and appeal to it regularly. My question is where that comes from, and why it has such an enduring appeal for us.

For what it's worth, my belief is that our desire for justice, real objective justice, is reflective of the character of the God who made us. And more than that, the God who has promised that justice will finally be done, all wrongs put right, and all evil punished.

How you explain it, as an atheist, is up to you.

Justice and morality in my opinion have absolutely nothing to do with atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. As a secularist however, I'm of the opinion that what is best for us is best decided by us by consensus, in the full recognition that different people in society live by different personal moral criteria. Our understanding of this evolves over time, so if you look at Ireland in the 1950s for example you'd see a country rife with misogyny and homophobia, where today these are deemed by our society collectively as unacceptable Justice is also clearly contextual. If someone goes to court accused of a crime they are tried by a jury, all the facts and extenuating evidence is heard, and where the jury finds guilt, a judge gives a sentence that accounts for the severity and circumstances of the crime. We do not look to divine inspiration to mete out justice at any level nor is religious belief an excuse for misdeeds.

one world order

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, I said it was the best we have at the moment.

But what it has over religion is that it asks questions, rather than comfort itself by filling in the blanks with stories and beliefs.

So it's not a religion, no matter how many ways to try to make it so.

But the telling thing is that you are attempting to align it to a religion. And you need to do that as you know that religion has no basis and therefore you need to drag other things to the same level.

It has nothing to do with my belief. I can believe in anything I want, as can any scientist, but it's not taken seriously until such time as it is proven.

Science is a method, not a philosophy. Test, retest, open to peers, attempt to disprove. Religion starts with a philosophy and tries to warp everything to fit it.

The bible claims that god invented the world in 6 days. Despite plenty of the bible being debunked, religion continues to claim that the overall must be true because...well they want it to be.

Your good at making statements but unable to back them up. Give examples if you can how the bible has being debunked?

one world order

Leroy42 wrote: »

In your opinion they are different. How do you think this difference will manifest itself?



Reality? Really? What evidence do you have for that? Judas had direct contact with Jesus himself yet turned away. Satan as well. It seems very unfair that even if you have direct knowledge it is not always enough to really believe yet God punishes those that never were able to really believe without any direct knowledge.


We have access to these scriptures, and access to the additional story of Jesus. Yet society continues to experience problems? So the best we can summise from Jesus visit to earth was that it was nothing to do with ridding the world of evil, God just wanted more recruits.

The old testament is a pretty horrific collection of stories. God loses his temper with Adam, and has not forgiven him or the rest of mankind to this day. Day wipes out the entire population of the earth, including animals, because people don't worship him enough.

God leads his chosen people out of Egypt but then murders loads of them because they lose faith. Well most people would if they were promised freedom but ended up wandering in a desert for 40 years.

Judas had direct knowledge of Jesus, but he was still tempted by the devil. Knowing Jesus exists is not enough, you must repent and seek out God for help when tempted.

Jesus dying on the cross for our sins was for us to acknowledge our sinful nature and battle against it. We cannot defeat sin fully in this world but after this world we are meant to complete the process.

When God created the Jewish people, they were meant to be his chosen people, obeying God's commands. When they were in Egypt they lost part of their beliefs as they lived alongside the Egyptians. This is why it took 40 years to reach their new home in Israel as the next generation returned back to God's teachings.

Leroy42

one world order wrote: »

Your good at making statements but unable to back them up. Give examples if you can how the bible has being debunked?

Ah, the old 'disprove it ever happened ' line. Religion makes the extraordinary claims of global floods, talking snakes, women turning into pillars of salt, Moses and the plagues, virgin births, Lazarus rising from the dead, Jesus resurrection. Yet provides no evidence of any of it.

But for starters read this
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biblical-literalism_b_4966852. Not comprehensive by any means and clearly written in a flippant style but one thing has clear. There is no evidence, anywhere, of Noah's flood. The timelines don't work, no evidence of flood across the globe, plenty of flood stories across many other religions and races, evolution shows the animals couldn't have come from one place, population growth doesn't work, no evidence that anybody ever lived 900 odd years, no boat could have been built and floated that was big enough, how did the animals eat, defecate, avoid eating each other.

That is just one story. I'm not even going to bother with the complete lack of evidence for Jesus being God.

Is there any part of the bible that you don't believe? Which version of the resurrection story do you believe?

Leroy42

one world order wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

In your opinion they are different. How do you think this difference will manifest itself?



Reality? Really? What evidence do you have for that? Judas had direct contact with Jesus himself yet turned away. Satan as well. It seems very unfair that even if you have direct knowledge it is not always enough to really believe yet God punishes those that never were able to really believe without any direct knowledge.


We have access to these scriptures, and access to the additional story of Jesus. Yet society continues to experience problems? So the best we can summise from Jesus visit to earth was that it was nothing to do with ridding the world of evil, God just wanted more recruits.

The old testament is a pretty horrific collection of stories. God loses his temper with Adam, and has not forgiven him or the rest of mankind to this day. Day wipes out the entire population of the earth, including animals, because people don't worship him enough.

God leads his chosen people out of Egypt but then murders loads of them because they lose faith. Well most people would if they were promised freedom but ended up wandering in a desert for 40 years.

Judas had direct knowledge of Jesus, but he was still tempted by the devil. Knowing Jesus exists is not enough, you must repent and seek out God for help when tempted.

Jesus dying on the cross for our sins was for us to acknowledge our sinful nature and battle against it. We cannot defeat sin fully in this world but after this world we are meant to complete the process.

When God created the Jewish people, they were meant to be his chosen people, obeying God's commands. When they were in Egypt they lost part of their beliefs as they lived alongside the Egyptians. This is why it took 40 years to reach their new home in Israel as the next generation returned back to God's teachings.

So how does this difference manifest itself between a person having faith and not?

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, I said it was the best we have at the moment.

Best/ best at the moment
When you don't know what the totality of reality is and how it might be understood , you can't say whats best /best at the moment.

If the totality of reality contains significant things which science is unequipped to investigate, then 'best at the moment' is meaningless. You can say you believe science is the best way understand reality if you want. 'Believe' is required to avoid the claim about science being 'best at the moment' being a nonsense

But what it has over religion is that it asks questions, rather than comfort itself by filling in the blanks with stories and beliefs.

Given you are sailing in the boat of belief about science's power. And given you have absolutely nothing, except that belief about science, to proffer regarding it being a 'best at the moment' fit...

Well, lets just say that he who lives by the sword of belief ought not throw stones.

So it's not a religion, no matter how many ways to try to make it so.

Why did you leave out 'you' in the sentence above. Was that because it wasn't me who demonstrated your position a religion, but you?

You can't demonstrate 'best at the moment'. What else bit belief have you got?

But the telling thing is that you are attempting to align it to a religion. And you need to do that as you know that religion has no basis and therefore you need to drag other things to the same level.

The reason I drag your view into the gutter called 'religion' is because it is you who considers religion a gutter. I make no comment about religion at all here - I'm only using your view, your definition whilst placing you in the same boat you so glibly erect.

It has nothing to do with my belief. I can believe in anything I want, as can any scientist, but it's not taken seriously until such time as it is proven.





Science is a method, not a philosophy. Test, retest, open to peers, attempt to disprove. Religion starts with a philosophy and tries to warp everything to fit it.

The bible claims that god invented the world in 6 days. Despite plenty of the bible being debunked, religion continues to claim that the overall must be true because...well they want it to be.

You segue a lot. I understand scientific method. I understand the value and application of science.

I'm dealing with your belief about science. That it is best. That it is best right now. That it is the primary way ... whatever way you want to word your belief ABOUT science.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

While their are countries and individuals who are regularly in breach of UN human rights treaties, they are typically noted and regularly sanctioned for doing so. Asia Bibi may be one of the lucky ones, but there would many more serious human rights violations without the likes of the UN in place. For all their supposed high morals, Christian churches, including evangelical ones, appear more often among those guilty of abuse than those trying to prevent it. What tangible help has your church provided of late to abuse victims for example?



Justice and morality in my opinion have absolutely nothing to do with atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. As a secularist however, I'm of the opinion that what is best for us is best decided by us by consensus, in the full recognition that different people in society live by different personal moral criteria. Our understanding of this evolves over time, so if you look at Ireland in the 1950s for example you'd see a country rife with misogyny and homophobia, where today these are deemed by our society collectively as unacceptable Justice is also clearly contextual. If someone goes to court accused of a crime they are tried by a jury, all the facts and extenuating evidence is heard, and where the jury finds guilt, a judge gives a sentence that accounts for the severity and circumstances of the crime. We do not look to divine inspiration to mete out justice at any level nor is religious belief an excuse for misdeeds.

So smacl. Where were we on the matter of if/then.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

So smacl. Where were we on the matter of if/then.

IF your god exists THEN
IF he is as you imagine him to be THEN
IF he is talking to you personally THEN
you are right
ELSE
you are wrong
ELSE
you are wrong
ELSE
you are wrong

Nor reason or evidence to suppose any of your conditions hold true let alone all of them. All seems rather BASIC from where I'm sitting.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

IF your god exists THEN
IF he is as you imagine him to be THEN
IF he is talking to you personally THEN
you are right
ELSE
you are wrong
ELSE
you are wrong
ELSE
you are wrong

Nor reason or evidence to suppose any of your conditions hold true let alone all of them. All seems rather BASIC from where I'm sitting.

We're looking whether it is possible for a person to have an objective view, even though it isn't verifiable by others.

That quest is not interested in whether you have reason or evidence as to whether the conditions are true or not - since the condition state isn't affected one way or the other by there being no reason or evidence available to a third party.



-


Your logic is a little bit off. In the first instance, AND IF is the proper connection not THEN IF. THEN is a conclusion following the state (true / not true) of the previous logic elements.

That first THEN IF (i.e. AND IF) isn't necessarily required. There need be no reliance on me (my imagination in this case). IF God exists AND IF he communicates with me THEN my imagination doesn't need to come into it.

The focus is on act of God. Not reliance on me.

-

Can we now agree that IF God acts a person can have objective knowledge all on their owney-own.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your logic is a little bit off. In the first instance, AND IF is the proper connection not THEN IF. THEN is a conclusion following the state (true / not true) of the previous logic elements.

My logic is off? IF a THEN IF b THEN c is logically identical to IF a AND IF b THEN c, where c only gets evaluated if a and b are true. Note also that AND IF is rubbish as AND as a logical operator implies the IF.

The focus is on act of God. Not reliance on me

Wrong. If god exists he still might not communicate with you yet you still might imagine that he has. The existence of a god or gods does not preclude the possibility of humans to misinterpret or imagine their intent. You seem to be placing yourself in the role of Moses here.

Hotblack Desiato

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

One thread was becoming aware of how evil almost seemed to be personified, even cunning. The rise of Hitler, Stalin and Mao for example, who seemed to be propped up by something spiritual, a shared mania much more than just a shared political or national vision.

They tapped into the same "APIs" in the human brain that religion does, it's not all that surprising that people reacted to them in a similar way that they would to religion (which includes vehement rejection as well as full-blooded acceptance, community conformity, parental instruction in the "faith", etc.)

Another thread was understanding more of the science behind our existence and biology and realising for the first time how hopelessly remote the chances of all this being accidental really were.

No offence but you need to increase your understanding of biology some more as this is an extremely simplistic view.
"This looks designed/improbable, therefore god did it" isn't an answer.

Given what we know about the age and immense scale of the universe, it would be a surprise if there were NOT intelligent life arising somewhere.

Evolution is NOT random or improbable change, it is directed change, directed by natural selection. The vast majority of changes are incompatible with life or disadvantageous and are selected against, the beneficial changes are selected for and eventually further beneficial changes build upon them.

There were still other threads besides, I am still discovering them in hindsight.

Retconning your experiences to fit in with your beliefs?

I got my miracle.

Your miracle? Not the other people's?

Sounds like some sort of psychosomatic condition tbh. Although unexpected cures do happen, these are not evidence of miracles.

You'd think if there was a beneficial effect it'd have been statistically observed by now. Actual studies show that prayer has no effect over placebo - except when the patient knows they are being prayed for, and then on average they do marginally worse.

smacl

Jeremias Better Ash wrote: »

It's funny but telling that we can both look at the same ridiculously improbable mechanisms and say on the one hand: God and on the other hand: rolled sixes. Millions and millions of years of rolled sixes before natural selection even got a look-in. But one or the other is true.

Divide your millions and millions of rolled dices by the size of the universe and then by the age of the universe and you get an altogether smaller number. For those of the opinion that life might exist on other planets, that number is likely to be considerably less than one. Conversely,
the probability of creation firstly by a god or gods and then specifically by your God, as opposed to any creation myth that mankind has ever imagined, might ever imagine or might never imagine, seems rather remote by comparison.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They tapped into the same "APIs" in the human brain that religion does, it's not all that surprising that people reacted to them in a similar way that they would to religion (which includes vehement rejection as well as full-blooded acceptance, community conformity, parental instruction in the "faith", etc.)




No offence but you need to increase your understanding of biology some more as this is an extremely simplistic view.
"This looks designed/improbable, therefore god did it" isn't an answer.

Given what we know about the age and immense scale of the universe, it would be a surprise if there were NOT intelligent life arising somewhere.

Evolution is NOT random or improbable change, it is directed change, directed by natural selection. The vast majority of changes are incompatible with life or disadvantageous and are selected against, the beneficial changes are selected for and eventually further beneficial changes build upon them.



Retconning your experiences to fit in with your beliefs?



Your miracle? Not the other people's?

Sounds like some sort of psychosomatic condition tbh. Although unexpected cures do happen, these are not evidence of miracles.

You'd think if there was a beneficial effect it'd have been statistically observed by now. Actual studies show that prayer has no effect over placebo - except when the patient knows they are being prayed for, and then on average they do marginally worse.

Actual studies? Whilst I've due admiration for science the idea that you could study such a thing belongs to the realm of pseudoscience

Are the pray-ers Christians per God's definition of same? Because if they are not..

Would God, who it appears is reluctant to evidence himself, empirically evidence himself in a study? Assuming not, could we expect prayer effect (if any) altered by his non cooperation?

Fatal (and easily discernible) flaws in any 'study'. Yet someone has figured this scientific.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Wrong. If god exists he still might not communicate with you yet you still might imagine that he has. The existence of a god or gods does not preclude the possibility of humans to misinterpret or imagine their intent. You seem to be placing yourself in the role of Moses here.

Which, in effect precludes God from communicating with someone - since the person must always consider it to be their imagination?

God, we would be supposing, created us to be able to discern empirical reality. It would have been him who designed us to place value on all the elements we place value on in concluding we know things. If he hadn't then we would know nothing using these elements: the observation of others, repeatability, etc.

But he is unable to enable another way whereby we can discern the reality of him.

He is limited to empirical means of self demonstration (something created and enabled by him). Because smacl says so.

That about right?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which, in effect precludes God from communicating with someone - since the person must always consider it to be their imagination?

God, we would be supposing, created us to be able to discern empirical reality. It would have been him who designed us to place value on all the elements we place value on in concluding we know things. If he hadn't then we would know nothing using these elements: the observation of others, repeatability, etc.

But he is unable to enable another way whereby we can discern the reality of him.

He is limited to empirical means of self demonstration (something created and enabled by him). Because smacl says so.

That about right?

Nope, not even close. That a god, were one to exist, doesn't deign to communicate with any one person does not preclude him from communicating with others. As I understand it, the number of people claiming direct communication with your God is rather small. Given your god is purportedly omnipotent it implies he chooses not to communicate with most people rather than being unable to do so. Do believe it is possible for a person to suffer from self delusion?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Nope, not even close. That a god, were one to exist, doesn't deign to communicate with any one person does not preclude him from communicating with others. As I understand it, the number of people claiming direct communication with your God is rather small. Given your god is purportedly omnipotent it implies he chooses not to communicate with most people rather than being unable to do so. Do believe it is possible for a person to suffer from self delusion?

Suffer from self delusion a possibility for a person? Of course.

Now back to God and imagination. I may be wrong but you appeared to be inserting the obstacle of imagination as a means to avoid the conclusion arrived by the logic.

To clarify. Is it:

God (if he choses) can communicate with a person and the person has objective knowledge (because all objective knowledge we avail of would be relying on God's design anyway)

or..

Even if God communicates with a person, they can't be sure its not their imagination.

Or something else?


-

By the way: communicating with God needn't be:

- substantial. As you could imagine, a single communication, which merely confirms his existence (which was previously unknown of) would be life altering.

- identified as God of the Bible. Suppose an AA participant bows to an unbelieved in higher power and that higher power acknowledges such that the participant knows the higher power exists.

- conflicting with other Gods. If there is a root issue with mankind, which transcends time and place. And if there is a longing placed in man to which he responds then it need not matter much that God is identified as some other god. It would depend on what issues are important to God and his dealing with men. Like, you could get the gist of a Suzuki 200cc engine stripdown by reading the Haynes manual for a Kawasaki 350.


All of which to query where you get your sense of the level claims regarding God communicating. I'd have no idea so wonder how you have an idea.

railer201

smacl wrote: »

Nope, not even close. That a god, were one to exist, doesn't deign to communicate with any one person does not preclude him from communicating with others. As I understand it, the number of people claiming direct communication with your God is rather small. Given your god is purportedly omnipotent it implies he chooses not to communicate with most people rather than being unable to do so. Do believe it is possible for a person to suffer from self delusion?

You seem to be unduly concerned with our God, possibly influenced by your beliefs that gods of any type just don't exist, so by extension you believe we're deluded. This leaves Science and hard verifiable facts as your only source of information regarding all matters, and it appears science knows very little as Einstein refers to the universe as being incomprehensible. Some more quotes from Einstein which align more with Christian thinking than atheist thinking.

We still do not know one thousanth of one per cent of what nature has revealed to us.

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe forms my idea of God.

I am not an atheist. I d not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem is too vast for our own limited minds.