Support NeoGAF

[onipex]

Wait.

So, you think people say to themselves "you know what? I think I might like to go to Hell"?

I've actually heard people say that or something along those lines.

That's not how scientific theory works. Gallileo didn't just go "I think the Earth revolves around the Sun".

Did I say that's how it worked. I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

No, because you can't prove a negative. However, the Christian God as literally described by the Bible has much evidence against it because many (significant) claims of said text have been disproven.

Like what?

"Society" has advanced at a faster rate than ever before since the advent of the scientific method. While it requires the proposition of hypotheses, it is not a faith based methodology.

The acquisition of knowledge helps us progress. Having faith that you already know the answer does not.

When did I say it was faith based?

 

[CornBurrito]

Since when has evidence stopped people from believing something? Also, there is no evidence that proves he didn't exist either.

Does this sound like a good argument to you?

The same why guns don't kill people but people kill people is that way Jesus doesn't send people to hell. People have a choice and some would rather choose hell. It could be lack of evidence or just not giving a damn, but it is your choice.

I've yet to meet one person who wants to go to hell.

Choosing to not believe in Christianity is not the same thing as choosing to go to hell. You seem to be really arrogant. Worse, it almost comes off as you implying that people of other religions know Christianity is correct, and just choose to disregard it because they want to chill with Satan.

 

[Chaplain]

Worse, it almost comes off as you implying that people of other religions know Christianity is correct, and just choose to disregard it because they want to chill with Satan.

Jesus gives the reason why people do not want to believe in Him:

"And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants."

Each day we choose whether we do good or evil multiple times a day. If people really want to know the truth, God will reveal himself to them at some point. God is always searching for those who want to know the truth.

 

[Kinitari]

Jesus gives the reason why people do not want to believe in Him:

"And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants."

Each day we choose whether we do good or evil multiple times a day. If people really want to know the truth, God will reveal himself to them at some point. God is always searching for those who want to know the truth.

Woah woah woah woah. So people, like everyone in this thread - and all Muslims, Hindu's, Jews etc. They ALL know that Jesus speaks the truth, but every single one rejects him because they enjoy sinning, and don't want to stop, or have their sinful nature exposed?

Ignoring how ridiculous most of that statement is, have you met an orthodox Jew or Muslim? What sins are they fond of?

 

[Orayn]

Woah woah woah woah. So people, like everyone in this thread - and all Muslims, Hindu's, Jews etc. They ALL know that Jesus speaks the truth, but every single one rejects him because they enjoy sinning, and don't want to stop, or have their sinful nature exposed?

Ignoring how ridiculous most of that statement is, have you met an orthodox Jew or Muslim? What sins are they fond of?

This is a disconnect we'll probably never be able to overcome when it comes to people like Game Analyst - He believes humans are inherently evil, and that the only source of goodness is following his particular brand of Christianity. No room for secular ethics, no "virtuous pagans," just a misanthropic world of black and white.

 

[CornBurrito]

Jesus gives the reason why people do not want to believe in Him:

Each day we choose whether we do good or evil multiple times a day. If people really want to know the truth, God will reveal himself to them at some point. God is always searching for those who want to know the truth.

I'm hoping you misunderstood me.

Are you arguing that every single person that isn't Christian inherently knows about Jesus and his sacrifice?

If you believe that, then why send missionaries to other countries to spread the Bible?

 

[KillGore]

I find it funny how someone with X or Y religion claim theirs is the true religion when we've seen dozens upon dozens of different religions throughout human history.

 

[JGS]

I was trying to avoid a God is omniscient so he must ALWAYS know everything debate - although that falls in line with pretty much all the doctrine, and introducing the idea that God can not know something implies he has the capability to falter on his perfect path - regardless, he had a vested interest in this tree.

I disagree. Frst the doctrine does not mention at all your version of omnicience which, if the only version, means he's not omnicient.

Secondly, choosing to not know a future event of a creation designed for autonomy from the creator is not a flaw.

I don't know what his unlivingness would have anything to do about it, he was aware of the tree - aware of the properties, and aware of the consequences of Adam and Eves digestion of it's fruit. Knowing all that, you think he'd have a vested interest in knowing if anyone would be eating from it - he could just turn on his omniscience (if that's how it works) and see. Instead he chooses to remain in the dark. Why?

Of course he had a vested interest in knowing who ate from the tree. he didn't have a vested interest in knowing ahead of time. It had no impact on him. For all we know, the tree may have been put there solely to test Adam & Eve before he entrusted everything else to them - aka the world. None of that means who knew ahead of time or wanted to know. If they didn't qualify, he could wait until someone did while at the same time allowing them to prove they could do stuff without him.

This implies that God had no hand in crafting her - when in actuality, God had the ONLY hand in crafting her, he made this girl exactly the way he wanted - physically and mentally. Unless you are implying that God just imbued her with some random soul he pulled out of the cosmos - then that brings up the question "where do souls come from?" - which is probably not where we want to be going. In reality, the story implies that God is fully aware of every personality trait he imbued Adam and Eve with. So when you say she was only curious after she was tempted, that ignores the influence of personality, something inherent in everyone - which you definitely can't say does not exist.

Knowing that there are different personality types, would you say it would be possible for Eve to have had a personality type that was more cautious? Like, do you think every possible conceptual iteration of Eve would have still gone for that fruit - cause it was pre-determined? Or maybe, if God gave her a personality that was sliiiightly less curious, and more cautious (like Adam's) - maybe she would have 'saved us all from damnation'?

This implies there's something wrong with curiosity or even being unique. Eve could have been as cautious as her hubby (She could recite the law forbidding the fruit for example & Adam simply ate the fruit too) although she may not have been as experienced. Curiosity drives growth but not when we are blatantly warned. That's at best a distrust in the warner, and more accurately describes a stupid person. Adam & Eve were stupid.

Personality wise, there was nothing wrong with Eve. Again, the scenario being described requires a robotic creation which would not be making man in God's or angels image- all of whom were expected to worship the one deserving of it but do what they want freely too.

I'm digressing, but humans simply mirror the conflict occurring "up there".

I find it funny how someone with X or Y religion claim theirs is the true religion when we've seen dozens upon dozens of different religions throughout human history.

It's easy. We're not a collective and we know what's right to us. that's everybody, not just religious folk.

 

[Lothar]

Since when has evidence stopped people from believing something? Also, there is no evidence that proves he didn't exist either.


People believed that HCR had death panels even though there was evidence that showed it did not. People don't believe in evolution even though there is evidence that shows it. There is actually a pretty good list of things people believe or don't believe that goes against evidence.

Belief in Jesus is based on faith. A powerful being could appear in front of you and perform wonders that you can't even think of and that still wouldn't prove that Jesus existed. Even the people in the Christian Bible that witnessed any supernatural events still denied or lost faith.

Besides if people only believed in what was proven our society wouldn't have advanced as far as it did.

Some people are capable of believing despite lack of evidence. Atheists and skeptics aren't. Choice plays no part.

Could you choose to believe in Zeus and Thor right now?

Also, there is no evidence that proves he didn't exist either.

That's not how it works.

 

[Kinitari]

I disagree. Frst the doctrine does not mention at all your version of omnicience which, if the only version, means he's not omnicient.

Secondly, choosing to not know a future event of a creation designed for autonomy from the creator is not a flaw.

They say he knows everything. Not that he has the ability to know everything - important distinction. The second falls in line with your interpretation, that the guy can turn it on and off - the former falls in line with the sort of... presence most of the Bible tries to impart God with - a timeless omnipresence, where he sees and knows everything that ever will, ever has and is happening - thus his 'perfect plan' is something we can trust him on.

By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Of course he had a vested interest in knowing who ate from the tree. he didn't have a vested interest in knowing ahead of time. It had no impact on him. For all we know, the tree may have been put there solely to test Adam & Eve before he entrusted everything else to them - aka the world. None of that means who knew ahead of time or wanted to know. If they didn't qualify, he could wait until someone did while at the same time allowing them to prove they could do stuff without him.

There is no 'ahead of time' for the God I see in the Abrahamic religions. THis is a human construct that we apply to God, no? Time is meaningless to him - he created time, there was no time before him, he is not a slave to it, but it's master, etc etc. Maybe it was a test, but what a weird one, because he would already know the results - he would know about their temptation and their fall if he was a God of any sort of omniscience who gave a damn.

This implies there's something wrong with curiosity or even being unique. Eve could have been as cautious as her hubby (She could recite the law forbidding the fruit for example & Adam simply ate the fruit too) although she may not have been as experienced. Curiosity drives growth but not when we are blatantly warned. That's at best a distrust in the warner, and more accurately describes a stupid person. Adam & Eve were stupid.

Not implying there is something wrong with curiosity - only that the sort of curiosity Eve has is directly the result of God's crafting. Curiosity is a blanket term for bunch of characteristic traits - you can be curious to a limit - and it seems like Eve was crafted to go past the 'limit' that God would then set up for her, and a God of omnipotence and omniscience and omnipresence would know this.

Heck, even the level of trust she would have for God is something he put in her directly.

Personality wise, there was nothing wrong with Eve. Again, the scenario being described requires a robotic creation which would not be making man in God's or angels image- all of whom were expected to worship the one deserving of it but do what they want freely too.

A 'robotic creation' is exactly what is described. Or rather, a completely controlled creation. Or was the creation of Adam and Eve not entirely of God's will? Did he reach into some metaphysical box and pull out the first thing he grabbed? Did he decide their personalities on some 'random' dice rolls? I don't understand this. I don't understand how people can make this work in their heads.

God knows everything, is all powerful and made these two people. He then put a tree in front of them, knowing full well they'd at LEAST be interested in it, he put the 'interest' gene in them himself. Then he fucks them over when they get too interested and don't trust his word enough (again, he put the level of trust in them himself). He made Adam in his own image though, so we know he was fully aware of what he was doing, unless he is a mystery to himself? Which is confusing as fuck. But lets say he made Adam in his own image, and curiosity and all those personality traits are just things that God would have, had he been in Adam's position - or Eve's even. So he condemns them for doing what he would do in their situation?

I seeeeeeriously don't get this, and I still really haven't gotten an answer that even mildly satisfies me - yes I know I am an atheist, I will be never be satisfied - but the inconsistency is too great, it doesn't satisfy me because I can't even understand how learned people like yourself JGS could be satisfied with it, it would make me happier if I at least understood your mentality more, but I just can't. How did God have no idea what he was making?

 

[Gorgon]

Jesus gives the reason why people do not want to believe in Him:

"And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants."

Each day we choose whether we do good or evil multiple times a day. If people really want to know the truth, God will reveal himself to them at some point. God is always searching for those who want to know the truth.

Searching for the truth is why people become scientists. God hasn't been revealing much of himself to us, though.

 

[KillGore]

It's easy. We're not a collective and we know what's right to us. that's everybody, not just religious folk.

What do you mean "what's right to us" ? what?

 

[Head of Vengarl]

I know this will probably get buried, but I just wanted to share this YouTube playlist titled "Why I am no longer a Christian" by Evid3enc3.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A&feature=plcp

It differs from a lot of atheist discourse in that it is very sensitive toward theists (he was a very devout Christian through his childhood, teenage and early adult life), and I really like how he organized his arguments. A bit of a time investment, but great for people like me who listen to YouTube videos/podcasts at work.

 

[Lothar]

Like what?

Evidence against the Christian God is for starters that there is no evidence for him existing. This is all you would expect to find if he didn't exist. No evidence of him.

Then there's the logic proof. He can be logically proven impossible. A good loving God wouldn't create a world full of suffering. He wouldn't force his creations to eat each other to get energy. Only a really nasty sick mind would invent that idea. A good loving God wouldn't murder all of the world in a flood, murder all the first born egyptian children, torture and murder David's infant son, torture Job and murder his children to win a bet with Satan, send plagues on people in the bible that criticize him, send a plague to kill 70,000 people for taking a census (1 Chronicles Chapter 21), kill 50,000 people for looking at the ark, send people to hell who don't worship him, I could on and on. The God as described in the bible can't exist.

Then there's all the contradictions and inaccuracies which shouldn't be in the bible but are. The global flood didn't happen. There would be physical evidence of it if it did. If God was real, it wouldn't say the universe was created in 6 days when it took 15 billion years to form. Believing that the days are not literal days makes it worse since in the myth, plants were created a day before the sun, and Earth was created on the first day. There would be something about evolution. There would be something about dinosaurs rather than fire breathing sea monsters. Etc.. Etc..

 

[Mario]

Like what?

Genesis is a good, rich place to start for disproven claims. For example the Bible's accounts of creation and nature of the Universe and Earth, creation of animals and humans, the global flood, and the ages people were reaching at the time are all significant and all handily disproven through our modern understanding and multiple fields of science.

God, as literally described in the Bible, does not exist.

When did I say it was faith based?

You didn't, but you were implying faith in and of itself has helped push society forward.

I was suggesting the more rigorous approach to understanding and expanding our knowledge via the scientific method has provided a more consistent and rapid development of society than the accidental "discoveries" of faith.

 

[JGS]

What do you mean "what's right to us" ? what?

We tend to believe what we like to believe unless we're ignorant of the other options.

 

[Chaplain]

Woah woah woah woah. So people, like everyone in this thread - and all Muslims, Hindu's, Jews etc. They ALL know that Jesus speaks the truth, but every single one rejects him because they enjoy sinning, and don't want to stop, or have their sinful nature exposed? Ignoring how ridiculous most of that statement is, have you met an orthodox Jew or Muslim? What sins are they fond of?

Orthodox Jews, the ones I have met, are so ingrained in the teachings of previous Rabbi writings, that they choose to ignore most of the Old Testament scriptures about the Messiah. Jesus constantly rebuked the Jewish leaders for following their own traditions instead of what God says in His Word.

Muslims on the other hand, in some Middle Eastern countries at least, are killed if they leave Islam and become Christian. It is a capital offense to follow Jesus.

But God is the only one that is 100% certain why they choose to reject His Son.

This is a disconnect we'll probably never be able to overcome when it comes to people like Game Analyst - He believes humans are inherently evil, and that the only source of goodness is following his particular brand of Christianity. No room for secular ethics, no "virtuous pagans," just a misanthropic world of black and white.

I believe what God said. He says man is more bent towards evil than good. That man is selfish and self-centered. Just look at Jesus. That is God's example of what a selfless human being is like. Always putting others first by telling them the truth and their to help them if they want to stop being evil.

Are you arguing that every single person that isn't Christian inherently knows about Jesus and his sacrifice?

I believe that each person, who hears about Jesus, chooses to deny him by saying they do not believe in him. God then honors that decision and allows them to remain in their sins and blind to the truth.

Searching for the truth is why people become scientists. God hasn't been revealing much of himself to us, though.

Many scientists have been Christians in the past. The problem now is that from an early childhood people are indoctrinated by secular humanism and this hardens their conscious to the things of God. Scientists see design in everything they study about life, but because they have traded the truth for a lie, that nothing can create something, when God enters the picture their hearts and minds are closed to seeing the truth.

 

[JGS]

They say he knows everything. Not that he has the ability to know everything - important distinction. The second falls in line with your interpretation, that the guy can turn it on and off - the former falls in line with the sort of... presence most of the Bible tries to impart God with - a timeless omnipresence, where he sees and knows everything that ever will, ever has and is happening - thus his 'perfect plan' is something we can trust him on.

The Bible does not impart him with omnicience and I'm not forming a new definition for him. It's more along the lines of people forcing omnicience on God.

I'm not sure who they is, but knowing everything does not mean he must know everything across all times which he doesn't or chooses not to know.

There is no 'ahead of time' for the God I see in the Abrahamic religions. THis is a human construct that we apply to God, no? Time is meaningless to him - he created time, there was no time before him, he is not a slave to it, but it's master, etc etc. Maybe it was a test, but what a weird one, because he would already know the results - he would know about their temptation and their fall if he was a God of any sort of omniscience who gave a damn.

I would disgree with this. Time is clearly something God acknowledges and, if not beholden to, is certainly mindful of in connection with us. He gives us the time to make decisions for ourselfves for example. He allows time for spirit creatures like angels and demons to determine their path. He stages his affairs in time periods.

I'm still not clear on why he would need to know the outcome of the test. There's no reason to know it in regards to his purpose and expectations. If he knew that then there would be no need to start creation at all. IMO, skeptics create their own conundrums. The fall of man account, fake or not, is pretty self-explanatory in regards to what God does and does not do. The expectations of hm are no different than any other speculation not based on the writing.

Not implying there is something wrong with curiosity - only that the sort of curiosity Eve has is directly the result of God's crafting. Curiosity is a blanket term for bunch of characteristic traits - you can be curious to a limit - and it seems like Eve was crafted to go past the 'limit' that God would then set up for her, and a God of omnipotence and omniscience and omnipresence would know this.

Of course she was because there wasn't a physical or mental barrier to prohibit her. There was no reason for one. She & Adam could have been obedient to the command.

I agree that a god that was omnipotent, omnicient, & omnipresent would know this. But who is describing a god with all three of those traits? Not me & not the Bible.

Heck, even the level of trust she would have for God is something he put in her directly.

This is just known as free will.

A 'robotic creation' is exactly what is described. Or rather, a completely controlled creation. Or was the creation of Adam and Eve not entirely of God's will? Did he reach into some metaphysical box and pull out the first thing he grabbed? Did he decide their personalities on some 'random' dice rolls? I don't understand this. I don't understand how people can make this work in their heads.

They weren't completely controlled. They had one limit- Maybe a couple more if sex and eating can be considered harsh commandments. They could come and go as they please, eat what they want and control the rest of the planet in time. Their primary limit was gravity.

God knows everything, is all powerful and made these two people. He then put a tree in front of them, knowing full well they'd at LEAST be interested in it, he put the 'interest' gene in them himself. Then he fucks them over when they get too interested and don't trust his word enough (again, he put the level of trust in them himself). He made Adam in his own image though, so we know he was fully aware of what he was doing, unless he is a mystery to himself? Which is confusing as fuck. But lets say he made Adam in his own image, and curiosity and all those personality traits are just things that God would have, had he been in Adam's position - or Eve's even. So he condemns them for doing what he would do in their situation?

To me this is the main falacy. The presumption is that their in a 10x10 room with a tree in it and they simply can't avoid the thing or the fruit it keeps tossing in their mouth. Given the measurements for Eden, it was entirely possible to have an abundance of everything that was not the tree. It simply wasn't a temptaion until it was made one.

I seeeeeeriously don't get this, and I still really haven't gotten an answer that even mildly satisfies me - yes I know I am an atheist, I will be never be satisfied - but the inconsistency is too great, it doesn't satisfy me because I can't even understand how learned people like yourself JGS could be satisfied with it, it would make me happier if I at least understood your mentality more, but I just can't. How did God have no idea what he was making?

You may not get it because you're twisting your own definition of god around it. I'm not discussing this in terms of belief btw. This is just standard literary discourse. Fiction or not is up to you.

Being made in someone's image does not make them a clone (By definition of being their image, they are weaker). They have the positive qualities of their creator and when imperfect or sinful, they can be corrupted. Like their creator they are free to do what they wish. Unlike their creator, they do not have the right to dictate what standards are deemed acceptable for his favor. It's literally no different than kids who share their parent's DNA but still are not identical to either of them plus they follow their rules.

 

[Gorgon]

Many scientists have been Christians in the past.

And Muslims, etc. In fact, quite a few still are.

The problem now is that from an early childhood people are indoctrinated by secular humanism and this hardens their conscious to the things of God.

They are taught to think for themselves and keep "science" distinct from "faith". They are taught to think for themselves instead of believing whatever is fed up to them uncritically since childhood. It's the difference between enlightment and a regression to the dark ages of reason. Contrary to what you may think, no scientist was ever criticised for believing in God. Many so called "creationism scientists" or "ID scientists" (same shit, different smell) are criticised because there's no science whatsoever behind those religious movements. Different things. There is no world conspiracy against faith beying brewd by the scientific community.

Scientists see design in everything they study about life, but because they have traded the truth for a lie, that nothing can create something, when God enters the picture their hearts and minds are closed to seeing the truth.

I haven't seen anything implying design. What you imply as "design" and "truth" is based purely on faith, nothing else. And that's perfectly fine, as long as you recognize it's purely based on faith.

 

[Lothar]

I believe what God said. He says man is more bent towards evil than good.

Do you expect this answer to fly with any atheist? Atheists are capable of thinking for themselves. Meaning they won't just accept an answer because someone said it. Are you not capable of thinking for yourself?

People who aren't capable of thinking for themselves and just blindly believed whatever their leaders said have committed some horrible atrocities throughout history. You should probably think long and hard about if you really want to be like these people and be a blind unquestioning follower.

If God exists and he said this, I say he is wrong. I believe he is bent more towards evil than good.

I believe that each person, who hears about Jesus, chooses to deny him by saying they do not believe in him. God then honors that decision and allows them to remain in their sins and blind to the truth.

First off, it's not a decision. It's what a person thinks based on the lack of evidence. Are you denying Thor? Are you making a decision not to believe in Thor? How can you possibly think this argument makes any sense?

Secondly, denying someone and not believing in him are two different things. It's possible that if people got incontrovertible evidence of Jesus, they would accept him and follow him. It's also possible they would reject him. There's no telling what someone would do if they received the evidence they need. If God was really concerned about saving people who were willing to accept him and sending people to hell who reject him (Which makes God look pretty horrible in itself), he would show proof to everyone. This is what he would have to do if he cared at all about people.

 

[CornBurrito]

I believe that each person, who hears about Jesus, chooses to deny him by saying they do not believe in him. God then honors that decision and allows them to remain in their sins and blind to the truth.

So you think that people born and raised to believe something totally different will be able to easily throw that all away just because the mere mention of Jesus?

Conversion usually never occurs easily. Have you ever listened to videos of people who converted from one religion to another? It usually involves a great deal of emotional turmoil.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I believe that each person, who hears about Jesus, chooses to deny him by saying they do not believe in him.

That's rich, and a completely narrow viewpoint of the world.

"People are just lying when they say they don't believe in God or Jesus!"

I don't believe in God. Does that mean I actually do? Are you going to respond to me, right here, right now, telling me that I am just lying to you when I say I don't believe in God?

What you are spouting is absolutely the worst kind of religious thinking, and the sooner you figure out that the world is a whole mess of a lot bigger than that kind of simplicity, the better. It will make you a far better Christian.

 

[Kinitari]

The Bible does not impart him with omnicience and I'm not forming a new definition for him. It's more along the lines of people forcing omnicience on God.

I'm not sure who they is, but knowing everything does not mean he must know everything across all times which he doesn't or chooses not to know.
I would disgree with this. Time is clearly something God acknowledges and, if not beholden to, is certainly mindful of in connection with us. He gives us the time to make decisions for ourselfves for example. He allows time for spirit creatures like angels and demons to determine their path. He stages his affairs in time periods.

I'm still not clear on why he would need to know the outcome of the test. There's no reason to know it in regards to his purpose and expectations. If he knew that then there would be no need to start creation at all. IMO, skeptics create their own conundrums. The fall of man account, fake or not, is pretty self-explanatory in regards to what God does and does not do. The expectations of hm are no different than any other speculation not based on the writing.Of course she was because there wasn't a physical or mental barrier to prohibit her. There was no reason for one. She & Adam could have been obedient to the command.

I agree that a god that was omnipotent, omnicient, & omnipresent would know this. But who is describing a god with all three of those traits? Not me & not the Bible.
This is just known as free will. They weren't completely controlled. They had one limit- Maybe a couple more if sex and eating can be considered harsh commandments. They could come and go as they please, eat what they want and control the rest of the planet in time. Their primary limit was gravity.
To me this is the main falacy. The presumption is that their in a 10x10 room with a tree in it and they simply can't avoid the thing or the fruit it keeps tossing in their mouth. Given the measurements for Eden, it was entirely possible to have an abundance of everything that was not the tree. It simply wasn't a temptaion until it was made one.
You may not get it because you're twisting your own definition of god around it. I'm not discussing this in terms of belief btw. This is just standard literary discourse. Fiction or not is up to you.

Being made in someone's image does not make them a clone (By definition of being their image, they are weaker). They have the positive qualities of their creator and when imperfect or sinful, they can be corrupted. Like their creator they are free to do what they wish. Unlike their creator, they do not have the right to dictate what standards are deemed acceptable for his favor. It's literally no different than kids who share their parent's DNA but still are not identical to either of them plus they follow their rules.

I'll move past the three O's of God, because this is a contested subject within Christianity, so there is no real point addressing that when there isn't a consensus, but I think you're misunderstanding some other points of mine, and it might be a failing on my fault.

Lets break down this creation of Adam and Eve a bit more.

God, without coercion from anyone else, decided to make Adam. Now what is Adam physically made out of? Earth and whatnot, God decides really - the point is, nothing goes into Adam that God did not put into himself - and we can assume that the physicality of Adam was designed specifically to God's... blueprints, no errors or anything - right?

Now when it comes to personality, emotion, etc - those, were ALSO put in specifically by God. There are no other repositories of values God reaches from and randomly assigns to his creations, he crafted them without the help of anyone.

When I say this was a 'controlled' creation, I don't mean that there were rules that Adam and Eve had to follow - I mean that when Adam and Eve were made, it was entirely under the control of God, no random elements.

You throw in free-will as a sort of... deus ex machina here, but you don't bother to describe where free will comes from and what it is. So God put free will in Adam and Eve, and I assume free will is the ability to make choices for themselves, essentially, God put in a randomly generated variable into Adam and Eve, and set them loose. Two issues I have with this.

1. Obviously, there was a reason for God to make a tree like that in Eden, he made it - now we know of God that he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to - so making it means it was of his own volition. Knowing this, we know that the only reason that tree was there was for the sake of Adam and Eve - and in this case, for them to be tempted or (the more cynical explanation) coerced into eating it by God. Free will is a moot point when the odds were stacked against them, God at the least put the tree there because he wanted them to find it at one point - you can't deny me that.

2. Free will used as you are using it is basically a cop out. It's some undefined insubstantial thing that basically gives God no blame in his creations. To avoid a determinism argument, lets give you free will - lets say there is some mystical thing out there, separate from God, something that God cannot see or influence or do anything with - and it's called free will.

a) Is free will not influenced by things like personality? Meaning - if you are genetically pre-disposed to being more violent, for example, when presented with a situation where you can exercise your free will, you have a higher chance of approaching the situation violently? I'd appreciate a yes or no, with an explanation if you'd like .

b) If a is 'Yes' - then would God not have some blame, or even all the blame for the fruit situation, by imbuing Eve with the personality characteristics that she has, that made her - when presented with the binary option of eating or not eating, deciding on eating? Because even with free will, decisions are not made in a vaccuum - they are made with previous experience, with genetic predisposition, and environmental pressures - correct?

Knowing this, how is not God culpable for this in SOME way? Even moving past the Omnipresence/Omniscience/Omnipotence argument - lets say he was entirely in the dark about the whole thing, like he has NO omniscience, doesn't he hold some of the blame for making them the way they are?

 

[V_Arnold]

So the human 'soul' is a drug some kind of uberbeing takes to sample different lifeforms' experience?

Yes! Physical existence is an artificial construct, you really hit it on the spot by calling it a drug. You could call it a dream as well. Or an illusion.

 

[Lothar]

Anyone feel more than a little silly debating about Adam and Eve? Of course nothing in the story makes sense. Adam and Eve was clearly set up to fail, Adam and Eve clearly could not have known it was good to obey God and bad to obey the snake because they were forbidden from knowing the difference between good and evil, God clearly put the tree and the magic apple in the garden knowing what they would do, it is clearly wrong to punish all of humanity for the sins of two people.

But still, don't both sides have to know that this isn't a real story? Who here literally believes there was an Adam and Eve? Does anyone? If so, why?

 

[Kinitari]

Anyone feel more than a little silly debating about Adam and Eve? Of course nothing in the story makes sense. Adam and Eve was clearly set up to fail, Adam and Eve clearly could not have known it was good to obey God and bad to obey the snake because they were forbidden from knowing the difference between good and evil, God clearly put the tree and the magic apple in the garden knowing what they would do, it is clearly wrong to punish all of humanity for the sins of two people.

But still, don't both sides have to know that this isn't a real story? Who here literally believes there was an Adam and Eve? Does anyone? If so, why?

Without original sin having literal connotations, Jesus didn't really -do- anything.

 

[SuperBonk]

Many scientists have been Christians in the past. The problem now is that from an early childhood people are indoctrinated by secular humanism and this hardens their conscious to the things of God. Scientists see design in everything they study about life, but because they have traded the truth for a lie, that nothing can create something, when God enters the picture their hearts and minds are closed to seeing the truth.

And Christians haven't been indoctrinated? Yes, yes, you believe that you've been indoctrinated with the "truth", I know. But the other side thinks the same thing.

And that's what it really all comes down too. Indoctrination is a powerful thing and hard to fight against, so I'm wondering what this thread has accomplished. I don't want to imply that this thread is useless, as the size of it makes it evident that it has definitely served a purpose and many interesting discussions have been had.

But in all of these pages of debate, has anyone's beliefs been challenged? Has anyone had doubts? Has anyone converted to the other "side", or come close to it? Again, I'm not commenting on the utility of the thread, I'm genuinely curious. I often find reading these threads strengthens my own beliefs about the universe.

 

[V_Arnold]

Anyone feel more than a little silly debating about Adam and Eve? Of course nothing in the story makes sense. Adam and Eve was clearly set up to fail, Adam and Eve clearly could not have known it was good to obey God and bad to obey the snake because they were forbidden from knowing the difference between good and evil, God clearly put the tree and the magic apple in the garden knowing what they would do, it is clearly wrong to punish all of humanity for the sins of two people.

But still, don't both sides have to know that this isn't a real story? Who here literally believes there was an Adam and Eve? Does anyone? If so, why?

Yes, I will share my view on this matter, or metaphore, if you wish.
The basic concept is that without free will, it is pretty easy to attain peace, happiness and love. It is unconditional, it is without dangers, it is great. It is also stagnant.

Some believe - actually, quite many different sources believe - that this planet started off as a peaceful place like that, hence the Adam/Eve in the garden of Eden picture. In order to know happiness, they needed to experience everything that comes with free will. It is not a feat to be at peace when you are lying in a garden, fucking all day and eating those fruits, to be blunt. It is a feat when you need to work hard for your happiness in various (millions and millions) different ways. And that is the "original Sin", with a horrible, horrible distortion on it: the idea is that we are sinful and that we should be ashamed for this.

No, we should not. The point of being here is to experience things and go forward the path that contains the most love and peace, and happiness. But not because a bearded angry God is putting us in Hell if we do not, but for our own reasons.

 

[CornBurrito]

Some believe - actually, quite many different sources believe - that this planet started off as a peaceful place like that, hence the Adam/Eve in the garden of Eden picture. In order to know happiness, they needed to experience everything that comes with free will. It is not a feat to be at peace when you are lying in a garden, fucking all day and eating those fruits, to be blunt. It is a feat when you need to work hard for your happiness in various (millions and millions) different ways. And that is the "original Sin", with a horrible, horrible distortion on it: the idea is that we are sinful and that we should be ashamed for this.

I take it you (or the people you describe) don't believe in evolution by means of natural selection?

 

[V_Arnold]

I take it you (or the people you describe) don't believe in evolution by means of natural selection?

Oh, they definitely do. This physical reality has been designed with the idea of evolution being the driving force for nature and, to a certain extent, humans as well. Even if I described this in a way that might seem to contradict evolution as a whole, it really does not. (So anything that indicates otherwise is just due to me being tired and the time being 01am when I typed it, not something else.)

 

[Timedog]

Dead babies don't worship. Babies in general are clueless so they tend to go the way of their parents.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that if a baby dies and it's parents aren't Christian the baby will go to hell?

 

[Gorgon]

And Christians haven't been indoctrinated? Yes, yes, you believe that you've been indoctrinated with the "truth", I know. But the other side thinks the same thing.

And that's what it really all comes down too. Indoctrination is a powerful thing and hard to fight against, so I'm wondering what this thread has accomplished. I don't want to imply that this thread is useless, as the size of it makes it evident that it has definitely served a purpose and many interesting discussions have been had.

But in all of these pages of debate, has anyone's beliefs been challenged? Has anyone had doubts? Has anyone converted to the other "side", or come close to it? Again, I'm not commenting on the utility of the thread, I'm genuinely curious. I often find reading these threads strengthens my own beliefs about the universe.

I seem to remember that someone recently, on one of these threads, went from christian to atheist (or at least agnostic).

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that if a baby dies and it's parents aren't Christian the baby will go to hell?

I've known people who believe that babies who died young were never human to begin with. They never had a soul...they were just a test for the parents.

 

[Angry Fork]

My problem with this debate is it always gets reduced to a simplistic duality - father figure in the sky vs purely, biological, meaningless universe.

I'm an atheist and would be okay if someone described the universe as the latter. It's true. We make our own meaning out of life but the universe is just there, it doesn't 'mean' anything in the sense that it's designed with us in mind, and there's no superficial supernatural in between hokey pokey to satisfy the 'spiritual' type who's afraid to take a side. It's a beautiful, amazing, unbelievably profound universe on every level and the reality of it is much more satisfying to me than anything in the bible but if a religious person wants to claim it doesn't mean anything without god I wouldn't be mad because I know that isn't true.

I wouldn't get uptight about it, even if someone said science was devoid of humanity or feeling which is absolutely wrong I still wouldn't get mad about it because who cares, science is still right. Despite the hammering of feet and fingers in the ears and lalalala i'm not listening, supernaturalists know their days are numbered as time goes on (otherwise they wouldn't be so "offended" when a 'dogmatic' atheist shares his opinion). It's religious folk that get defensive and whiney when asked to provide evidence to their extraordinary claims. Current popular monotheism's are just invisible dictators in the sky, and no amount of semantic trickery will convince the rational otherwise.

 

[Air]

Not according to some of the more fundie posters we've had. Dunk and his ilk have argued the only thing that matters is belief in Jesus. Usually the handwave that "true Christians wouldnt do something like murder" is given. But under the "good works don't matter, all ya need is Jesus" idea, Hitler is basking in Heaven right now.

And I know you and JGS do not believe in a burning Hell. Your belief doesn't seem to be particularly common though.

As Obsessed mentions above, the problem lies with the (large number of) believers. Whether it is scripturally based or not, there are people to arrive to such an interpretation. The fact that there people who believe in eternal suffering for non-believers would bother people of no faith, because to believe in the existence of such a hell would be to implicitly believe it is justified.

The problem is that you guys are arguing with theists on this forum, not with the large amount of theists you would normally seen (although there are plenty of others that are aware of the history behind hell). If you're going to argue you have to be privy to what the beliefs are of the person you're arguing with or else you'll end up rambling, and there are plenty of people on this board who don't believe in a fire and blood hell.

I don't know, I feel like its more conductive to tailor the conversation to the specific individual.

 

[JGS]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that if a baby dies and it's parents aren't Christian the baby will go to hell?

Torment Hell? No, I'm not saying that.

Biblically, since the parents were responsible for their child, if they died in opposition to God the baby usually died with them. There was no great divine orphanage in place for kids of God's enemies and they either died or were adopted or the younger girls were kept for marriage & concubines (aka to the atheist as rape).

In terms of salvation and death, this appears to stay the case based on warnings from both Jesus & Paul. If the parents croaked, the kids do too. In contrast, parents who gain salvation have kids that gain it as well. Salvation was almost always linked to households until the kids were grown enough to decide for themselves.

 

[Timedog]

Torment Hell? No, I'm not saying that.

Biblically, since the parents were responsible for their child, if they died in opposition to God the baby usually died with them. There was no great divine orphanage in place for kids of God's enemies and they either died or were adopted or the younger girls were kept for marriage & concubines (aka to the atheist as rape).

In terms of salvation and death, this appears to stay the case based on warnings from both Jesus & Paul. If the parents croaked, the kids do too. In contrast, parents who gain salvation have kids that gain it as well. Salvation was almost always linked to households until the kids were grown enough to decide for themselves.

Wow, a baby who has not even had the chance to decide whether or not it wants to follow god, is not given salvation because it's parents made the decision to not follow god. Chalk up another check mark on the side of the Christian god being a complete and utter piece of shit.

"Those who choose my way and receive salvation*!"

*Unless I let something happen to you before you are even given the chance to choose. Then you're fucked. Ya win some ya lose some!

 

[Log4Girlz]

Wow, a baby who has not even had the chance to decide whether or not it wants to follow god, is not given salvation because it's parents made the decision to not follow god. Chalk up another check mark on the side of the Christian god being a complete and utter piece of shit.

"Those who choose my way and receive salvation*!"

*Unless I let something happen to you before you are even given the chance to choose. Then you're fucked. Ya win some ya lose some!

My favorite quote by Christopher Hitchens:

"Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects in a cruel experiment whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. And over us to supervise this is installed a celestial dictatorship. A kind of divine North Korea."

 

[Angry Fork]

It's nice to see timedog taking an active role in this and participating on the side of reason. Welcome comrade =P

 

[Nyoro SF]

I'm surprised no one has dissected the great Timedog's argument about babies. Surely his actions are correct...?

 

[captainnapalm]

I'm an atheist and would be okay if someone described the universe as the latter. It's true. We make our own meaning out of life but the universe is just there, it doesn't 'mean' anything in the sense that it's designed with us in mind, and there's no superficial supernatural in between hokey pokey to satisfy the 'spiritual' type who's afraid to take a side. It's a beautiful, amazing, unbelievably profound universe on every level and the reality of it is much more satisfying to me than anything in the bible but if a religious person wants to claim it doesn't mean anything without god I wouldn't be mad because I know that isn't true.

I wouldn't get uptight about it, even if someone said science was devoid of humanity or feeling which is absolutely wrong I still wouldn't get mad about it because who cares, science is still right. Despite the hammering of feet and fingers in the ears and lalalala i'm not listening, supernaturalists know their days are numbered as time goes on (otherwise they wouldn't be so "offended" when a 'dogmatic' atheist shares his opinion). It's religious folk that get defensive and whiney when asked to provide evidence to their extraordinary claims. Current popular monotheism's are just invisible dictators in the sky, and no amount of semantic trickery will convince the rational otherwise.

Like I said before, there's a whole world of philosophical thought and theory between the simplistic duality you couldn't help but again create in the post above.

Many spiritual beliefs have no invisible dictators but do offer a differing views on the nature of reality itself. Views that in now way conflict with things like evolution. And, interestingly, views that science itself, through new avenues like quantum theory, may be meeting up with in some interesting ways.

There's no need for any "supernaturalism" to find there's more to the universe than meets the eye. And many atheists offer a nihilistic, dull, dreary adn meaningless view of the universe that doesn't really answer any of the big questions - a series of observations of an event (the Big Bang) that are meant to serve as a complete explanation of reality, but really only creates as many new questions as it provides answers.

I think religious people and atheists are like two sides of the same coin. Both appeal to their own authority, God or science, as an answer to any question you may have, but neither authority can perform that job.

 

[Log4Girlz]

And many atheists offer a nihilistic, dull, dreary adn meaningless view of the universe that doesn't really answer any of the big questions - a series of observations of an event (the Big Bang) that are meant to serve as a complete explanation of reality, but really only creates as many new questions as it provides answers.

Its a mistake to search for a greater meaning to the universe in my opinion.

 

[JGS]

God, without coercion from anyone else, decided to make Adam. Now what is Adam physically made out of? Earth and whatnot, God decides really - the point is, nothing goes into Adam that God did not put into himself - and we can assume that the physicality of Adam was designed specifically to God's... blueprints, no errors or anything - right?

Now when it comes to personality, emotion, etc - those, were ALSO put in specifically by God. There are no other repositories of values God reaches from and randomly assigns to his creations, he crafted them without the help of anyone.

Free will & values are not something you "put in" to someone like it's part of a recipe. Decisions are based on countless considerations. To remove the possibility of wrongdoing is to remove decision making. There may be some extremely basic roadblocks in our conscious (Adam knew he wanted a mate for example) but nearly everything is learned based off of what is purely in our DNA. Adam & Eve had to learn to be obedient, not be born that way. As a nice gesture, God started off pretty small. So everything in Adam & Eve's make-up allowed them to be obedient, it just allowed them to be disobedient as well- just like with all intelligent creation.

You throw in free-will as a sort of... deus ex machina here, but you don't bother to describe where free will comes from and what it is. So God put free will in Adam and Eve, and I assume free will is the ability to make choices for themselves, essentially, God put in a randomly generated variable into Adam and Eve, and set them loose. Two issues I have with this.

deus ex machina can never be applied to free will. It's simply not possible. It can easily be applied to the notion that God must have known something since it's such an easy non-sensical solution to a self imposed problem.

1. Obviously, there was a reason for God to make a tree like that in Eden, he made it - now we know of God that he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to - so making it means it was of his own volition. Knowing this, we know that the only reason that tree was there was for the sake of Adam and Eve - and in this case, for them to be tempted or (the more cynical explanation) coerced into eating it by God. Free will is a moot point when the odds were stacked against them, God at the least put the tree there because he wanted them to find it at one point - you can't deny me that.

You say I'm not understanding you, bt I've already indicated the fallacy of this. There was no stacked deck.

If you go into a forest and are told one tree is poisonous but the rest are fine to eat from. What do you think the odds are that you are going to pick the random tree? Minimal. Now throw another clue - The tree is polka dotted purple and yellow and about 100 feet in, what are the chances you will eat it? Zilch. There was nothing stacked against them.

There's no reason to even feel sympathy because in the end they were given directions that specific and just decided to trust a snake more than God. Idiots. they wanted more than what God gave them. It's really that simply.

2. Free will used as you are using it is basically a cop out. It's some undefined insubstantial thing that basically gives God no blame in his creations. To avoid a determinism argument, lets give you free will - lets say there is some mystical thing out there, separate from God, something that God cannot see or influence or do anything with - and it's called free will.

Disagree. free will is always defined as doing what you want and suffering/enjoying the consequences. How is it a cop out when you're doing it right now? It's a wionderful thing and it is the very basis of everything else about life and religion & secularity.

Your version would only make sense if you're looking for ways to invalidate the teaching. If you take out my cop out that is clearly explained from the 2nd chapter of genesis on throughout the rest of Scripture (lol), then you make everything a cop out for absoutlely no reason. You're bring up conjecture whereas I'm simply stating what written. I have no idea why you think your version is more sound.

a) Is free will not influenced by things like personality? Meaning - if you are genetically pre-disposed to being more violent, for example, when presented with a situation where you can exercise your free will, you have a higher chance of approaching the situation violently? I'd appreciate a yes or no, with an explanation if you'd like .

Yes, free will is influenced by personality. Personality, however, is not a fixed thing. It's not a case of once violent, always violent. Further, violence isn't a genetic trait. Violence occurs as a result of emotional imbalances which can occur within or outside perfection.

b) If a is 'Yes' - then would God not have some blame, or even all the blame for the fruit situation, by imbuing Eve with the personality characteristics that she has, that made her - when presented with the binary option of eating or not eating, deciding on eating? Because even with free will, decisions are not made in a vaccuum - they are made with previous experience, with genetic predisposition, and environmental pressures - correct?

Again, her personality is not what caused her to sin. I'm surprised you didn't mention propaganda from an outside party since that is clearly the case with Eve.

Knowing this, how is not God culpable for this in SOME way? Even moving past the Omnipresence/Omniscience/Omnipotence argument - lets say he was entirely in the dark about the whole thing, like he has NO omniscience, doesn't he hold some of the blame for making them the way they are?

Culpable is the wrong word, but God does feel & takes responsibility to take care of the situation since he knows we can't do it ourselves. Otherwise, he would have simply killed everyone and start from scratch.

However, no he is not to blame for another person's actions unless you think he somehow imbues disobedience in people. Disobedient is not how he created them. Giving the option to be disobedient is something he gives all of his intelligent creations. Him being in the dark has nothing to do with it.

 

[CornBurrito]

I'm surprised no one has dissected the great Timedog's argument about babies. Surely his actions are correct...?

Well Game_Analyst posted that Timedog would go to Super Hell for killing babies.

But the babies do get a free pass into Heaven.

 

[Raist]

Orthodox Jews, the ones I have met, are so ingrained in the teachings of previous Rabbi writings, that they choose to ignore most of the Old Testament scriptures about the Messiah.

The problem now is that from an early childhood people are indoctrinated by secular humanism and this hardens their conscious to the things of God.

Scientists see design in everything they study about life

If by scientists you mean people at the ICR, then yes. Otherwise, no scientist with a good understanding of evolution and who is willing to scratch the surface a bit sees design.

 

[Log4Girlz]

If by scientists you mean people at the ICR, then yes. Otherwise, no scientist with a good understanding of evolution and who is willing to scratch the surface a bit sees design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ

I see design everywhere. Stupid design.

 

[JGS]

Wow, a baby who has not even had the chance to decide whether or not it wants to follow god, is not given salvation because it's parents made the decision to not follow god. Chalk up another check mark on the side of the Christian god being a complete and utter piece of shit.

This sounds like fake righteous indignation.

Kids die all the time based on the positions of their parents. Heck, a lot of them die at the hand of their parents. Kids are always doomed to be in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time depending on their parents inclinations. It's not even unusual.

That's the nature of salvation. If you love your family, you don't punk out and choose not to teach them anything - which is why indoctrination is such a wonderful thing. If it sticks you have saved your whole family.

If you don't believe in it or are morally outraged by it as you seem to be, then it doesn't matter and just think of it as God being a giant asteroid crashing into the Earth and it's out of your hands to save your family anyway.

 

[Angry Fork]

I like how you think it's okay to scare the living shit out of children with images and threats of hell over a claim that has no evidence to back it up. Borderline child abuse. People get 'morally outraged' because if you want to delude yourself fine but don't drag unwilling, easily impressionable participants into your cult just because you're afraid of reality.

 

[captainnapalm]

Any creation reveals a lot about its creator, and the Bible God certainly reveals a lot about the people who created him 2000 years ago.

 

[JGS]

I like how you think it's okay to scare the living shit out of children with images and threats of hell over a claim that has no evidence to back it up. Borderline child abuse. People get 'morally outraged' because if you want to delude yourself fine but don't drag unwilling, easily impressionable participants into your cult just because you're afraid of reality.

Ok does anyone actually read what I say? I'll give you 5 dollars if you can point to a phrase that I scare anyone, grown or kid, with images and threats of Hell. lol.

If Christian Indoctrination starts in the Bible, then I would be hard pressed to teach hellfire. You suck as a parent if you can't explain to your kids repercussions of actions without scaring them.

honestly my kids are more afraid of a rogue asteroid hitting the earth &/or nuclear war.