Do you believe in God? (1 Viewer)

[funkshen]

I'm a academic

heh

 

[Absolutezero]

Those are extremely weak points to refute Christianity. You're making the assumption that everything has to spelled out in detail, otherwise it's false. I think the Bible is all about interpretation.

The problem is in the interpretation though. Even if you can interpret your way out of the contradictions in the text and with the historical record; what your left with is essentially meaningless. Because there is no way to determine which interpretation is valid, then its capacity for revealing anything definable as truth is minimal.

There are Christians who don't believe in the biblical account of Jesus as an actual person. If Christians can't agree on a basic detail like that, how can the rest be taken into account?

 

[ThandraCityRail]

The problem is in the interpretation though. Even if you can interpret your way out of the contradictions in the text and with the historical record; what your left with is essentially meaningless. Because there is no way to determine which interpretation is valid, then its capacity for revealing anything definable as truth is minimal.

There are Christians who don't believe in the biblical account of Jesus as an actual person. If Christians can't agree on a basic detail like that, how can the rest be taken into account?

on a somewhat related point, 46% of people in the US believe in the biblical origins of life*, rather than evolution (even though it's fact). Some in the US believe that God created evolution, some believe that there was never any evolution and that the universe was created in 6 days.

there are so many different interpretations for everything whether it be religions in general or certain clauses of religion (see the many denominations of Christianity) and what angers me the most is that people believe them whole-heartedly, without a doubt in their mind, without any evidence, without any real reason to believe in them besides childhood indoctrination.

 

[Graney]

on a somewhat related point, 46% of people in the US believe in the biblical origins of the universe, rather than evolution (even though it's fact).

Do you believe evolution explains the origin of the universe?

 

[ThandraCityRail]

Do you believe evolution explains the origin of the universe?

opps lol, meant life

 

[Graney]

trick question

 

[Dedication_]

Those are extremely weak points to refute Christianity. You're making the assumption that everything has to spelled out in detail, otherwise it's false. I think the Bible is all about interpretation.

So basically what you're telling me is that the person who wrote the bible is pretentious and foolhardy enough to deliver a message which can be interpreted in multiple forms? I do not believe that the Snake in Adam and Eve's tale to be a metaphor nor do I believe that god created the earth in darkness. I'd be happy to entertain you with various other examples which prominently highlight my all time favourite book contradictory notions in black and white.

I apologise if I come across as rude, or arrogant, but I've had countless arguments with close minded Christians who are bias simply because they "grew up with religion". I'll refrain from writing more as I'd hate to offend the religious on this forum.

 

[Lolsmith]

"the person who wrote the Bible"

lol yeah dude you sound like you know heaps brah keep poastin

 

[Fawun]

Jesus Christ, someone make me a summary of this thread.

Also, you guys need to make a tl;dr for all your posts.

 

[AAEldar]

So basically what you're telling me is that the person who wrote the bible is pretentious and foolhardy enough to deliver a message which can be interpreted in multiple forms? I do not believe that the Snake in Adam and Eve's tale to be a metaphor nor do I believe that god created the earth in darkness. I'd be happy to entertain you with various other examples which prominently highlight my all time favourite book contradictory notions in black and white.

I apologise if I come across as rude, or arrogant, but I've had countless arguments with close minded Christians who are bias simply because they "grew up with religion". I'll refrain from writing more as I'd hate to offend the religious on this forum.

Lolsmith already picked you up on it, but it wasn't just one person and if you truly think that then I think you need to go research it a little more.

But yes, why is it not possible for a text to be possible to be interpreted in a number of ways? Obviously the different Christian entities will say different things, but I'm by no means saying that's consistent.

Entertain away though with your obvious contradictions - lets see if there's a new one.

Jesus Christ, someone make me a summary of this thread.

Also, you guys need to make a tl;dr for all your posts.

Doesn't work that way! Why would we make a tl;dr - that would completely disregard the point of our posts.

 

[Dedication_]

I probably should've proof read my replies before posting. I'll put some up when I have time, and I'll talk to one of my friends who knows a heap regarding the bibles flaws and such, this should be done by Wednesday. It'd be interesting to see the feedback too!

Also in terms of "who wrote the bible". I highly doubt Moses, King James and various others even existed let alone wrote chapters in the bible. Of ourse I can't prove this to be true, it still seems like a very fair possibility that a band of intellectuals said to eachother "Hey let's write a book stating that theres an invisible man in the sky who is all powerful and can create organisms and planets etc".

 

[Exemplify]

What the Bible really says about Rape. - "The Rape Challenge"


In Western Civilization,(even among those who're not particularly religious), it is quite common to view the Bible as a "good source for moral guidance". Many believers state that the Bible is the word of God, inspired by him, and inerrant in every detail.

There are many passages in the Bible that (to the best of my knowledge) no one currently follows. Many Christians, for example, claim that many of the laws of the Old Testament have been superseded by the New Testament, and are no longer in effect. Among these are such things a prohibitions against eating pork.

But, if god did inspire these old commandments, even if they have been subsequently repealed by god himself, it should nevertheless be true that any commandment god has ever issued must be morally sound. For surely a morally good god, supposedly the author of righteousness and authority source for true morality, would never have inspired an immoral or evil commandment. Therefore, all commandments issued by a morally good god, whether currently in effect or merely limited to a bygone era, must be morally sound, righteous, and good.

People argue, as they have for millennia, over whether some things are morally good or morally bad. But, some matters have nearly universal agreement among nearly all people. Among these is that 'Rape' (when defined as non-consensual sexual activity involving violence, use of force, or threat of harm) is morally wrong.

However, there is no Biblical commandment strictly forbidding rape, provided the victim is not married. The closest the Bible ever comes to speaking against the act of raping a single woman is this:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." (NIV)

The following Bible verses speak favorably of raping virgins, usually as spoils of war. In each passage, the rape is done with God’s explicit permission and most of them were directly planned or commanded by God:

Numbers 31:15-18
Judges 5:30
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Isaiah 13:16-18
Zechariah 14:1-2
Deuteronomy 20:10-24
Judges 21:10-24
Exodus 21:7-11
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Other translations of the Bible, while not using the word "rape", describe the act of rape. The NASB translation, for example, phrases it as "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her". There is no doubt that this passage is talking about rape and not about consensual sex.

This is the closest the Bible ever comes to condemning the rape of an unmarried woman. I most certainly condemn the rape of anyone, male or female, married or unmarried. What I find objectionable about this passage is its prescribed way of dealing with the rape. The Bible says, that the rapist and his victim must get married - no options, they are commanded to be married and the father of the victim to be paid an amount in silver.

And so, the Bible commands rape victims to marry their rapists. So, we have the rapist, for the cost of 50 pieces of silver, getting a victim to have his way with for life. I find this one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard of. You punish the victim? You make her marry her rapist? I find this absolutely horrific!



If your daughter wes raped, would you make her marry the man who raped her, for payment of silver?



I issue the following challenge to anyone who cares to accept it, but especially to anyone who holds that the Bible is a book of good morals

I Challenge you make the following three declarations:

I denounce rape (when defined as non-consensual sexual activity involving violence, use of force, or threat of harm) as morally wrong.
I denounce as evil the practice of forcing rape victims to marry their rapists or to otherwise punish rape victims.
I denounce as evil the inclusion of an injunction or commandment in any law, code of ethics, or any other statement of moral principles, which requires, compels, or encourages a rape victim to marry to her rapist.
Since the Bible does contain such an injunction, accepting this challenge necessarily means that you are denouncing the Bible, declaring it NOT to be a good source of moral guidance. Or, at the very least, you would be declaring that the Bible contains and endorses commandments that you consider to be evil.

To me, this is a no-brainer. There isn't anything to debate here. This practice, which the Bible endorses but no group that I know of currently follows, is sickening.

 

[Exemplify]

Gods are Impossible...


I am atheist. I am a strong atheist, specifically for those of you not understanding the variations of atheism, which means that I not only lack belief in God, but specifically believe God not to exist and furthermore believe that I know there are no gods.

Many theists and some atheists challenge this belief. They state that I’m being intellectually dishonest.
I cannot know there are no gods because it's impossible to prove a negative, or sometimes it’s stated that I would have to know everything in the universe in order to know there is no God. I would have to know what everything in the universe is doing, have full knowledge simultaneously of what's happening in every location in the universe in order to rule out the existence of God.
I claim this is not necessary knowledge.

What is necessary to determine whether there is a God is simply a clear definition of God.
The Sun, the sky, has been (to a lesser degree still is) worshiped as a God.
I don't question the existence of the Sun, I do question the divinity of the Sun and adamantly denied as most people would.
So we have to decide what we mean by ‘God’.
What I mean by ‘God’, is a being that is worshiped and deserves to be worshiped.
By this definition I claim no being in the universe, outside the universe, that is real, either does nor could possibly earn that right.
By this I can say:
‘I know there are no gods.’
No being deserves to be worshiped.

Why did I make that statement?

The existence of suffering.
Now of course that issue has been discussed for thousands of years. Even though it's often been adopted certain arguments against the Christian God; there were arguments against Greek gods (Particularly Zeus I believe.) To the effect that the existence of evil, suffering, proves there cannot be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being.
And then there are many counters to that of course, ‘free will’ is a common counter. (It doesn't work but that's another discussion)

I can claim that there are types of suffering not caused by any human act or agency, having nothing to do with should the God prevent the suffering that there would be harm done to free will or something.
For example:
Children dying from horrific diseases, not just simply dying, but dying horrible agonizing deaths; and in fact until recent centuries it was quite common for a family to expect to lose many of their children.

It was a given that your kids will die; that you had to have many children to be guaranteed a child living until adulthood.
I claim that the suffering of children (just as one example of many) through no human fault, whether it be from a disease not caused by neglect from the parent but simply misfortune is proof that there is no being that deserves to be worshiped.

If such a powerful being existed, it either doesn't know about this problem, or else it chooses not to do anything about it, or it cannot do anything about it.
In any either of this situations,
The being has failed deserved to be worshiped.
It lacks basic decency.

Any being that could, but chooses not to keep innocent children from suffering horrifically is not worthy of worship.
Since children do suffer horrifically, both by human cause and beyond the capacity of humans to do anything, this proves no God exist; because nothing has earned the right to be worshiped.



But to me it goes beyond that, it has to deal with the morality of such a being.
It's usually considered that a God that deserves to be worshiped is therefore good, because an evil being does not deserve to be worshiped.
But I claim simply that this is a contradiction. A truly good being would not want to be worshiped, because this demeans the person doing the worship.

It gets to a moral issue. Is it good to want to be worshiped?
I say it is not; it is the height of arrogance.

What's wrong with this God? Did he come from a bad family? Have self-esteem issues?
Is this God suffering from some mental deficiency, emotional problems? Why would it want to be worshiped?
I say that just by wanting to be worshiped it is showing deficiency.
By showing deficiency, it is showing that it is not worthy of being worshiped.



If a being did exist that was superlative, the ultimate being, it would want to do good and not care, in fact not want to be worshiped. By not wanting to be worshiped it precludes it being of God.
Therefore it is impossible for there to be a God.

There might be some being greater than us, but in terms of that any such being actually being a God; a real God, that is to me a logical impossibility.
It is not warranted by the evidence at hand; this unjust suffering not caused by any human agency and by the contradiction that anything wanting to be worshiped doesn't deserve to be worshiped.
And if it doesn't want to be worshiped it is logically necessarily not a God, because if it's not worshiped then it's not a God.



Therefore;

Gods are impossible.

 

[Absolutezero]

In any case, the contradictions are irrelevant to the main argument against god. Those making the claim that a god exists need to posit a sufficient amount of evidence to prove it, and that simply hasn't been done. Therefore, not believing the claims is the default position.

 

[seanieg89]

I am an agnostic atheist.

I do not believe in any form of deity, although I can never claim to know with certainty that one does not exist. Nor will I ever condemn others for their personal beliefs. I do not think it makes a difference to the way I should live my life in either case.

I think the most beneficial aspects of religion such as developing a sense of morality/values are pretty universal and need not be bound to theistic beliefs.

I guess my only real issues with religion are not with religions themselves but with the way some people interpret religion to suit themselves and use religion as an excuse to hold an incredibly narrow-minded view of the world.

Edit: And I agree with the above poster, as a person whose career is based on rigorous logical arguments, my default stance is that something is not true until proven so.

 

[RANK 1]

well for me arguments involving the start of the universe, beginning of life and other mysteries of the universe are pretty meaningless as no one can know for sure what happened etc. we should instead create arguments using traits of the said deity and seeing just how plausible it is for such a being to exist.

i.e what are the chances that a perfect, omnipotent and omnibenevelent god exists (not very likely)

 

[seanieg89]

well for me arguments involving the start of the universe, beginning of life and other mysteries of the universe are pretty meaningless as no one can know for sure what happened etc. we should instead create arguments using traits of the said deity and seeing just how plausible it is for such a being to exist.

i.e what are the chances that a perfect, omnipotent and omnibenevelent god exists (not very likely)

Always sceptical of plausibility arguments...plenty of implausible things happen in this universe. And our very notion of "plausible" is shaped by what we experience.

 

[FreeLearner]

well for me arguments involving the start of the universe, beginning of life and other mysteries of the universe are pretty meaningless as no one can know for sure what happened etc. we should instead create arguments using traits of the said deity and seeing just how plausible it is for such a being to exist.

i.e what are the chances that a perfect, omnipotent and omnibenevelent god exists (not very likely)

The chances are extremely likely I'd say?
What are the chances that a few gases over billions of years have been able to make the 'perfect' world that we live in today?
You may not think its perfect, but if you really think about it everything in this world is so precise, so accurate, everything has a reason to exist.
We can't just say 'mother nature' is the one that tells trees to grow upwards, the one that tells birds to migrate south.
And on top of all this look how massive our universe is..... THERE HAS TO BE SOMEONE BEHIND ALL THIS
We can't just be sitting here for the sake of nothing... and on top of this if you look at the main 3 abrahamic religions you'd see so many things answered that almost link our reality and answer so many questions. I dare say the idea of no god is frightening, and highly unlikely, let me remind you that our morals and our values have been derived over time from religion, so I'd say believing in no god and having no belief is also really detrimental to society, everyone would be so careless, and do things stupid thinking that its all okay.....
And what happens when you die? is that it? I doubt it, theres always a point to everything, and I am sure there is something after our death, something that all those prophets must've warned us off.

All I suggest is for you to read about the main religions and try to see if they have an effect on you, look at other people and examples of people who may have had the same idea as you and then converted to a religion and see what they say. Good Luck.

 

[Absolutezero]

The chances are extremely likely I'd say?
What are the chances that a few gases over billions of years have been able to make the 'perfect' world that we live in today?
You may not think its perfect, but if you really think about it everything in this world is so precise, so accurate, everything has a reason to exist.

It's not perfect. On an infinite timeline the chances of it generating naturally are extremely close to 1.

We can't just say 'mother nature' is the one that tells trees to grow upwards, the one that tells birds to migrate south.

Evolution, biology etc.

And on top of all this look how massive our universe is..... THERE HAS TO BE SOMEONE BEHIND ALL THIS

Size of the universe proves nothing about god.

We can't just be sitting here for the sake of nothing...

Yes we can. We're the product of an environment. Nothing objectionally more.

and on top of this if you look at the main 3 abrahamic religions you'd see so many things answered that almost link our reality and answer so many questions.

Not really. More is answered by science and philosophy and they don't feel the need to place a god behind it.

I dare say the idea of no god is frightening

No the concept of death is inevitable. Torture for all eternity for unclear reasons, that's frightening.

and highly unlikely, let me remind you that our morals and our values have been derived over time from religion, so I'd say believing in no god and having no belief is also really detrimental to society, everyone would be so careless, and do things stupid thinking that its all okay.....

Morals have existed before religion. They are derived from biological reasoning and cognitive function. Would you really go around killing people if you thought there wasn't a god?

And what happens when you die? is that it? I doubt it, theres always a point to everything, and I am sure there is something after our death, something that all those prophets must've warned us off.

Desire for something after death is a part of the human condition, that doesn't mean there is. Not does it make it something that would truly be desirable.

All I suggest is for you to read about the main religions and try to see if they have an effect on you, look at other people and examples of people who may have had the same idea as you and then converted to a religion and see what they say. Good Luck.

Most of us have, most us know the effect, and many of us object to it because of what was discovered in that research.

 

[seanieg89]

It's not perfect. On an infinite timeline the chances of it generating naturally are extremely close to 1.



Evolution, biology etc.



Size of the universe proves nothing about god.



Yes we can. We're the product of an environment. Nothing objectionally more.



Not really. More is answered by science and philosophy and they don't feel the need to place a god behind it.



No the concept of death is inevitable. Torture for all eternity for unclear reasons, that's frightening.



Morals have existed before religion. They are derived from biological reasoning and cognitive function. Would you really go around killing people if you thought there wasn't a god?



Desire for something after death is a part of the human condition, that doesn't mean there is. Not does it make it something that would truly be desirable.



Most of us have, most us know the effect, and many of us object to it because of what was discovered in that research.

+1