Support NeoGAF

[Dude Abides]

A religious text being first or last is irrelevant. Any person looking for religion should look for the one that's right. For Christians, the book that talks about the person they follow and how he came on the scene would be the correct one.

Now if a person had a buffett table of religious texts in front of them to choose, some willl choose any number of texts but for the one that wants to be Christian, they would logically pick the Bible.

This is completely circular. How does one know he wants to be a Christian before he's familiar with the Bible?

 

[Mumei]

This is completely circular. How does one know he wants to be a Christian before he's familiar with the Bible?

Maybe they're getting married to a Christian, or their best friend is Christian and going to a church event has convinced them, or maybe they're just most familiar with Christianity so it seems like a natural fit.

Christians who have only heard the sections of the Bible read to them on Sunday aren't too uncommon in my experience, anyway.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Well those things that can easily be proven false are not believable. I can look in the mirror, I see the sun on most days, etc.

True, but the same principle also works for things you know you don't know. For example, if a card is dealt face down would you be able to believe with all your heart that it's the King of Spades?

 

[GhaleonQ]

Could you summarize it?

Because even if God did exist, I'd agree with the analysis in the piece that was linked to.

You have to be careful, because Kierkegaard led to non-Christian existentialists like Satre. They aren't that similar, but intellectuals tend to flock to them because they aren't religious. So, a lot of academics will skew Kierkegaard's actual views.

http://www.sorenkierkegaard.org/fear-and-trembling.html
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/feartrembling/section1.rhtml

Those are quite good.

Yeah, I'm a hippie, so I get just as riled up about the waste of an animal as I would a human. And I'm pretty sure grain isn't a good enough sacrifice for God. Wasn't that the deal with Cain and Abel? Cain grew stuff and Abel had animals, so when they both sacrificed what they had, Cain gave fruits and Abel killed one of his animals. God liked Abel's sacrifice better, which led to jealousy, which led to fratricide, which is all, I realize, very beside the point.

I haven't read Kierkegaard yet, I'm afraid.

I say it's pretty barbaric to require the death of anything to make a deity happy, no matter the circumstances. Would you say it's not barbaric to slaughter a calf to make sure Apollo gives you a lot of sunny days?

1. From skimming the following pages, it should be specified that the smoky scent, not the taste, of the sacrifice was the primary "vehicle" of sacrificial success. In any case, sacrifice in Hebrew times was directly related to the tribe of the person presenting it (Levites only, post-tribes!), the will of the person sacrificing, and the worth of the good presented in relation to the person's overall wealth.

2. The plain description of Cain's gift and God's response probably means that the 1st generation post-Eden had already sought an independent move away from God. Presumably, Cain failed 2 of the 3 above requirements. Jehovah urged him to recommit through spirit and deed. Cain failed to resolve the rebuke existentially and sought to reconcile himself in earthly terms. This was folly.

3. I think the sacrifice dispute is 1 of veganism and not theology. As for humans, Kierkegaard lays when someone is "justified" and when someone is "psychotic."

4. I'm not trying to be the person that name-drops so he doesn't have to make an argument, but you need to try him, Barth, or 1 of the other great 1850s-1930s theologians since they changed so much. Kierkegaard's the only orthodox one, really, but they deal more directly with your concerns than others. Fear And Trembling's short, as is The Concept Of Anxiety.

 

[jdogmoney]

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.' Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." --1 Corinthians 1:18-25

I read a funny response to this line of thought somewhere, went something like:

"So you're validated in your beliefs because the Bible said you'd be called wrong?

You know who else is called wrong?

WRONG PEOPLE."


And about the sacrifices, if Jesus hadn't sacrificed himself, doing away with the "need" for animal sacrifices, would you be slaughtering a fatted calf today?

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Question to any of the other atheists in the topic - am I the only atheist here who couldn't stand the schmaltzier Christian inspirational music when s/he was a teenager, but now really enjoys it?

I have no idea why, but I've really started liking them. :lol

I really like religious Christmas music, even though I'm an atheist.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I read a funny response to this line of thought somewhere, went something like:

"So you're validated in your beliefs because the Bible said you'd be called wrong?

You know who else is called wrong?

WRONG PEOPLE."

And about the sacrifices, if Jesus hadn't sacrificed himself, doing away with the "need" for animal sacrifices, would you be slaughtering a fatted calf today?

Your issue is with the Word of God, not with me. Either the Bible is wrong or it is true.

As for the sacrifices, no, I wouldn't be participating in animal sacrifice today for the exact same reason modern Jews do not participate in animal sacrifice: there is no longer a temple.

However, your statement assumes that animal sacrifices actually accomplished the remission of sin. That is not true. They were imperfect sacrifices that served as types (see "typology") for the future, perfect sacrifice of Christ.

 

[Dever]

I read a funny response to this line of thought somewhere, went something like:

"So you're validated in your beliefs because the Bible said you'd be called wrong?

You know who else is called wrong?

WRONG PEOPLE."


And about the sacrifices, if Jesus hadn't sacrificed himself, doing away with the "need" for animal sacrifices, would you be slaughtering a fatted calf today?

I've actually had a christian tell me their beliefs must have some truth to them as atheists disagree with him, just as the Bible had predicted.

 

[jdogmoney]

Your issue is with the Word of God, not with me. Either the Bible is wrong or it is true.

As for the sacrifices, no, I wouldn't be participating in animal sacrifice today for the exact same reason modern Jews do not participate in animal sacrifice: there is no longer a temple.

However, your statement assumes that animal sacrifices actually accomplished the remission of sin. That is not true. They were imperfect sacrifices that served as types (see "typology") for the future, perfect sacrifice of Christ.

I don't take issue with the book itself. It's a book.

I take issue with folks who say it's infallible because it says it's infallible.

Not that you've said anything like that, of course. I do, however, take issue (when I take issue with anything) with the people who believe in the Bible, rather than the book itself. I'm quite content (now) with not believing in the book. Also, I don't buy into the false dichotomy of the Bible being either false or true. One pastor I've talked in depth to kept going back to that and I still don't know why. Some parts can easily be false while other parts are true. It could be argued that this is the only way that the Bible is coherent, but I'm not going down that road.

And I didn't speculate as to why people killed animals, and then stopped after Jesus did the Resurrection thing, just that they don't do it anymore.


Also, religious music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL9ToBIME7M

I sang this in choir. It's one of the prettiest songs I've ever heard.

 

[Mumei]

However, your statement assumes that animal sacrifices actually accomplished the remission of sin. That is not true. They were imperfect sacrifices that served as types (see "typology") for the future, perfect sacrifice of Christ.

Does it say that they were imperfect sacrifices that serve as types for the future, perfect sacrifice of Jesus in the Bible? And why did God originally command the sacrifice of animals (I'm looking for Chapter and Verse here, if that wasn't clear)?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Does it say that they were imperfect sacrifices that serve as types for the future, perfect sacrifice of Jesus in the Bible? And why did God originally command the sacrifice of animals (I'm looking for Chapter and Verse here, if that wasn't clear)?

Sure, here you go:

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”

then he adds,

“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

That was Hebrews 10:1-18.

 

[JGS]

This is completely circular. How does one know he wants to be a Christian before he's familiar with the Bible?

You missed the second paragraph you quoted.

- If you see all the religious texts and decided you want to be a Christian, you pick the Bible over the others. EDIT- I guess I should say if you read the texts, not just see them.

- If you are already a Christian, then you have no need for the other texts at all since the more complete answer to your faith is already the Bible.

I wasn't really responding to which religion is better anyway. I think the question was why Christians don't read/follow other texts. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

[Poimandres]

You missed the second paragraph you quoted.

- If you see all the religious texts and decided you want to be a Christian, you pick the Bible over the others. EDIT- I guess I should say if you read the texts, not just see them.

- If you are already a Christian, then you have no need for the other texts at all since the more complete answer to your faith is already the Bible.

I wasn't really responding to which religion is better anyway. I think the question was why Christians don't read/follow other texts. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Some of the other religious/spiritual texts of the world are far more detailed than the Bible in certain aspects. The Bible DOES provide a full spiritual system, but it's not "more complete" than other spiritual systems.

 

[JGS]

Some of the other religious/spiritual texts of the world are far more detailed than the Bible in certain aspects. The Bible DOES provide a full spiritual system, but it's not "more complete" than other spiritual systems.

I didn't say it was. I said it's the most complete for a Christian since it provides the most details about Jesus the one the put their faith in as their savior.

Of course Christians are more than welcome to try out other religions (Free will and all), but they won't draw them closer to Christ or his Father.

 

[Poimandres]

I didn't say it was. I said it's the most complete for a Christian since it provides the most details about Jesus the one the put their faith in as their savior.

Of course Christian are more than welcome to try out other religions (Free will and all), but they won't draw them closer to Christ or his Father.

Oh, well in that case I agree with you!

But there are other Gospels/writings that aren't contained within The Bible that give more information relating to Jesus. Surely those are good reading for a Christian. I understand that many of them were left on the cutting room floor when compiling the Bible with good reason (distorted representation of events, repetition etc) but it's worth keeping in mind the Bible was compiled by a group of men who had to reach their own conclusions about what was relevant.

Some of these Gospels paint a rather different picture of Jesus message.

 

[GhaleonQ]

And about the sacrifices, if Jesus hadn't sacrificed himself, doing away with the "need" for animal sacrifices, would you be slaughtering a fatted calf today?

I don't think the theology can be disconnected from the history contained within the Bible, but in a universe where Israel is preserved-but-still-returned-from-exile-and-small until 2010, yeah. And, if you think about it, the history of sacrifice would be entirely different.

 

[jdogmoney]

That makes me sad.

 

[Dude Abides]

You missed the second paragraph you quoted.

- If you see all the religious texts and decided you want to be a Christian, you pick the Bible over the others. EDIT- I guess I should say if you read the texts, not just see them.

No I didn't. I was just pointing that for someone who want to be a Christian would already have chosen the Bible so your statement did not make a whole lot of sense.

Of course Christians are more than welcome to try out other religions (Free will and all), but they won't draw them closer to Christ or his Father.

You are missing the point. The question is why Christians don't also consider the Koran as holy scripture, while the Muslims do consider the Bible to be such. The answer, of course, is that because Muhammad succeeded Jesus Muslims can consider Jesus a prophet consistent with their view that Muhammad was God's last messenger. Christians, however, generally consider Jesus as the divine pinnacle of the prophetic line and Muhammad to be a false prophet.

 

[JGS]

Oh, well in that case I agree with you!

But there are other Gospels/writings that aren't contained within The Bible that give more information relating to Jesus. Surely those are good reading for a Christian. I understand that many of them were left on the cutting room floor when compiling the Bible with good reason (distorted representation of events, repetition etc) but it's worth keeping in mind the Bible was compiled by a group of men who had to reach their own conclusions about what was relevant.

Some of these Gospels paint a rather different picture of Jesus message.

Well, Apocryphal books aren't part of the Bible canon and they were never powerful enough on their own to develop a following except from scholars and non-believers.

At best their side stories & at worst, they are fan fiction.

The books in the Bible have been tested for fitness and are there because they carry out the entire theme starting in Genesis. This is true even if you factor in the skeptic view that men, not God, decided to pick and choose what made it- it still shaped the theme.

 

[Dude Abides]

Your issue is with the Word of God, not with me. Either the Bible is wrong or it is true.

You're not getting it. The point is that if someone charges that the Bible is wrong, it is not an adequate answer to respond that the the Bible warns that people will falsely claim it to be wrong to anyone who does not already accept the claim that the Bible is true in the first place. That question-begging "argument" is typical of conspiracy theorists.

 

[JGS]

No I didn't. I was just pointing that for someone who want to be a Christian would already have chosen the Bible so your statement did not make a whole lot of sense.

I would agree with that, but I was thinking about someone who was a blank slate but was seeking religion.

You are missing the point. The question is why Christians don't also consider the Koran as holy scripture, while the Muslims do consider the Bible to be such. The answer, of course, is that because Muhammad succeeded Jesus Muslims can consider Jesus a prophet consistent with their view that Muhammad was God's last messenger. Christians, however, generally consider Jesus as the divine pinnacle of the prophetic line and Muhammad to be a false prophet.

Sorry I misunderstood, but it seems as if you have the right answer anyway except to add that the only reason Muhammed would be considered a false prophet is because he's not Christian. There were prophets after Jesus just not as good.

Christians can look at the Koran with interest, but it's never going to be considered a Holy Book because from a Christian viewpoint, it adds nothing to Scripture. Even if Muslims view The Bible as a holy text, it's not their primary one and it may be in the same sense that Christians view the Torah- with respect but not with equality once Jesus came on the scene. There are too many differences bewtween the 3. Even God's name is different amongst them.

To be blunt, most religions and the 3 you mention in particular text are snobbish and I think that's with good reason considering their primary texts are good enough for their needs and no one wants added confusion within a religion.

 

[jdogmoney]

JGS, could you define the theme you get from the Bible?

 

[JGS]

JGS, could you define the theme you get from the Bible?

The primary one is Vindication of God's Sovreignty- his right to rule, but to provide a brief outline in 10 bullets or less:

- God's sovreignty is challenged by Satan
- Man's devotion to God is challenged by Satan
- God wants sovreignty vindicated
- God also wants to save his creation man who is doomed by Adam's sin.
- Allows his son to die as a ransom price for all mankind's sin. 1 perfect life to replace 1 perfect life lost.
- Throughout this time, mankind has had the opportunity to both uphold God's Sovreignty & reject Satan and their own inclinations.
- Those who side with God live, those who side with Satan or reject God die.

The first mention of this is Genesis 3, but it repeats constantly throughout Scripture, from Cain & Abel, to Noah, to the Jewish nation's history, to Job, to Jesus, to Revelation's last chapter.

 

[Poimandres]

Well, Apocryphal books aren't part of the Bible canon and they were never powerful enough on their own to develop a following except from scholars and non-believers.

At best their side stories & at worst, they are fan fiction.

The books in the Bible have been tested for fitness and are there because they carry out the entire theme starting in Genesis. This is true even if you factor in the skeptic view that men, not God, decided to pick and choose what made it- it still shaped the theme.

Most of the Apocryphal texts can be lumped into side stories/fan fic as you say. But certainly not all of them! What about the Gospel of The Hebrews, or the Gospel of Thomas, both of which may pre date the Canonical Gospels?

It's true that the books in the Bible are based around thematic consistency and that no doubt played a large role in deciding which Gospels made the cut. But you also can't ignore other motivations for determining what was/was not canonized. These were a group of people setting out to create a lasting organisation, and the books were chosen because they supported that goal AND conveyed what they believed to be the core of Jesus teachings.

But, these days, for someone who is legitimately interested in their faith surely an allegiance to only the Canonical Gospels is somewhat misplaced? I see no reason why something like the Gospel of The Hebrews- highly regarded in its time- should be valued any less than the Canonical Gospels.

 

[JGS]

Most of the Apocryphal texts can be lumped into side stories/fan fic as you say. But certainly not all of them! What about the Gospel of The Hebrews, or the Gospel of Thomas, both of which may pre date the Canonical Gospels?

It's true that the books in the Bible are based around thematic consistency and that no doubt played a large role in deciding which Gospels made the cut. But you also can't ignore other motivations for determining what was/was not canonized. These were a group of people setting out to create a lasting organisation, and the books were chosen because they supported that goal AND conveyed what they believed to be the core of Jesus teachings.

But, these days, for someone who is legitimately interested in their faith surely an allegiance to only the Canonical Gospels is somewhat misplaced? I see no reason why something like the Gospel of The Hebrews- highly regarded in its time- should be valued any less than the Canonical Gospels.

The difference is the whole "Inspired" part. For whatever reasons if you don't believe that, they were found lacking.

I didn't say it wouldn't be interesting to read and if it's in harmony with the Bible, I'm sure ones would be fine reading it if they were told about them on a regular basis. However, it's hard enough to read through the Bible even once. Most people need to read it several times. Add to that the fact that many are taught to avoid the non-canonical to begin with and they face an uphill climb.

 

[Ashes]

This thread seems to consist mainly of two podiums where the speakers are arguing about whether god/a god/god(s) exists or not. Its like a broken record regurgitating the same old Qs and As. It'd be at least a bit more interesting to see an athiest putting forth the merits of the argument for god existing, and the theist vice versa.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

It'd be at least a bit more interesting to see an athiest putting forth the merits of the argument for god existing, and the theist vice versa.

OK, here we go: God exists because... um...... uh..... WHY WE STILL GOT MONKEYS?

Spoiler

I actually think it's a good idea, but I got nothin'.

 

[Mumei]

Sure, here you go:



That was Hebrews 10:1-18.

Well, I was actually looking for something in the Old Testament that had God explaining why he commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals when I was asking for the chapter / verse thing. I know that God commands the sacrifice of animals in the Old Testament, and so I was looking for the section so I could get some context on that.

I appreciate you answering the other half of my question, but I'm still interested in this part.

I also should add that my initial reaction to what you did post was skepticism - it seems to me that Christ's sacrifice resembles the sacrifices or intended sacrifices that other fathers had made of their children in the Bible (Abraham or Jephthah) more than it did the practice of animal sacrifice. It seems to fit in line with those better, at least thematically - God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, God saves Isaac at the last instant. Jephthah says he'll sacrifice the first thing to come out of his house to greet him as a burnt offering if God leads him to victory; God leads him to victory and his daughter is the first to greet him, so he fulfills his promise to God. God sacrificing his son seems to fit that better.

I mean, I get the argument being made that those sacrifices weren't efficacious for the washing away of sin, but I hadn't gotten the impression from what little I've read (the beginning of Leviticus) on animal sacrifice in the Old Testament that it was supposed to serve the same purpose as Jesus' sacrifice.

 

[GhaleonQ]

That makes me sad.

So, halal slaughter of a small farm's animal for a festival is worse, to you, than slaughtering an animal that had lived in less-than-generous farming conditions because it's religiously motivated?

 

[soul creator]

This thread seems to consist mainly of two podiums where the speakers are arguing about whether god/a god/god(s) exists or not. Its like a broken record regurgitating the same old Qs and As. It'd be at least a bit more interesting to see an athiest putting forth the merits of the argument for god existing, and the theist vice versa.

Honestly, I don't think I could ever make any sort of coherent argument for the gods people usually think of (personal gods that love us, gods of specific religions, etc.).

I could kind of maybe see the appeal of "first cause that set everything in motion" type of god. Of course, that type of god is mostly useless to deal with as well, because if a giant space fart was the first cause, calling it god seems a bit underwhelming. At that point, the word "god" just seems to confuse more than help.

That said, one could probably make a somewhat convincing case that if there is actually a personal god somewhere out there, it probably doesn't give a shit about us at all and/or is a complete dick, lol.

Just looking at the most popular religion, we have bunch of other people (humans) who are inherently bad, so in order to forgive us and/or give out perfect justice, God sends his completely innocent son who had nothing to do with this, to be killed instead. In any other context, that would be the most insane, twisted, and sickest thing ever. In a popular religion, it's an example of love and sacrifice.

 

[Mumei]

Just looking at the most popular religion, we have bunch of other people (humans) who are inherently bad, so in order to forgive us and/or give out perfect justice, God sends his completely innocent son who had nothing to do with this, to be killed instead. In any other context, that would be the most insane, twisted, and sickest thing ever. In a popular religion, it's an example of love and sacrifice.

One of the things that always bothered me was that it was really no sacrifice at all - when the Israelites sacrificed an animal, they were out one of those animals. When God sacrificed Jesus, it wasn't like he had lost his son.

My mother has tried to guilt-trip me in the past by exclaiming, "Jesus died for your sins and you can't take an hour out of your life to spend time on him?!" I have never seen his death or sacrifice as anything meaningful. If I knew that if I were to die a horrible death, I would be giving the opportunity for every good person to go to heaven for eternity (or a place like heaven) and avoid eternal torture and I would be a part of an omniscient, omnipotent Trinity... I'm not really seeing what the downside was. PZ Myers addressed this better than I just did in that link, but it just confounds me that more people seem unable to see that.

 

[Dever]

One of the things that always bothered me was that it was really no sacrifice at all - when the Israelites sacrificed an animal, they were out one of those animals. When God sacrificed Jesus, it wasn't like he had lost his son.

My mother has tried to guilt-trip me in the past by exclaiming, "Jesus died for your sins and you can't take an hour out of your life to spend time on him?!" I have never seen his death or sacrifice as anything meaningful. If I knew that if I were to die a horrible death, I would be giving the opportunity for every good person to go to heaven for eternity (or a place like heaven) and avoid eternal torture and I would be a part of an omniscient, omnipotent Trinity... I'm not really seeing what the downside was. PZ Myers addressed this better than I just did in that link, but it just confounds me that more people seem unable to see that.

Yeah, and even if we accept that Jesus dying on the cross for our sins makes sense, it doesn't explain why this sacrifice only has any effect if we actively believe that it happened. Christians often bring up the example of someone, a complete stranger, paying your fine for you. But if someone pays my fine for me, the fine is paid whether I believe it or not. If I don't believe Jesus paid the fine, it's the same as if he had never paid it.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I've never cared to critique the sacrifice thing, mostly because its internal logic is consistent, and believers can always appeal to a god who they themselves only partially understand. Even PZ's criticisms didn't necessarily move me. I do agree with him, however, that it exploits cognitive biases, which makes it a good parable or even fiction, but I find that such an archaic ritual is hardly fitting of a being so supposedly grand as to create this universe. I find it much easier to criticize the idea of original and inherited sin, which almost collapses beneath the weight of its own contradictions. Thus, without a coherent explanation for sin, the necessity of sacrifice is obviated. But I'd have to think about it more in order to find a more direct way to criticize it.

Some clarification:

God in the Bible is all knowing
God in the Bible is all powerful
God in the Bible is all good

I don't believe I said anything different than that.

That doesn't change the fact that you keep saying the same incorrect statement. You are adding a stipulation that REQUIRES God to know all things at all times (Talk about a weakness/flaw, he can't even stop seeing the future if he chooses), something that the Bible distinctly says he does not do from the second chapter of the first book to the last chapter of the last book, the Bible is about people making making choices to obey him or disobey him UNLESS he interferes.

It is not a weakness for him to want to see how people decide whether to worship him voluntarily.
It's not a weakness to make humans...human.
It's not a weakness of his that you don't understand he gives humans the capacity to obey or disobey him.

It's a strange position to take that God created man, caused man to sin, created Satan, formed a nation with laws to follow, had his son come to earth, die for our sins, and (eventually) destroy a large chunk of people who refuse to worship him. How does that make sense even to someone who thinks the Bible makes no sense? I know some think the lord works in mysterious ways, but that's just ridiculous.

The Bible itself disproves your "evidence" which is simply your opinion. You can have it if you want to, but don't think for a second anyone other than a skeptic backs you up on it. You may say that you're smarter than a bunch of writers who were somehow smart enough to delude billions of people simply because you changed what it means to be God, that doesn't make it so.

The weakest part of the argument is to use a wrong fallacy and then dismiss God as if trying to be smarter than a Book somehow magically (oops scientifically) changes the odds that the universe and all life in it were whipped up out of thin air.The odds are exactly the same - zilch.

What would be nice is if people tried to devote a portion of brain power looking for the one cell that defied cell theory to form all life as we know it rather than over-over-analyze verses they don't understand from the get go apparently.

Then god is just as culpable, for lack of knowledge breeds mistakes, and mistakes contravene god's perfect will. There cannot be a holy god if he is causing imperfect justice by his own bumbling mistakes.

I have heard the argument that Jesus can choose not to know things, just to cover up an apparent contradiction, but I know that many great theologians would disagree with you, at least in this instance.

The argument isn't that god caused man to sin. It's this: under every possible circumstance, Adam would not always choose to sin. Therefore, by having foreknowledge, god knows the circumstances by which Adam would sin, and he knows the circumstances by which Adam would not sin, so by choosing or setting specific circumstances he is effectively choosing the outcome. This is the only possible argument that one can arrive at from a being of infinite knowledge and power, which makes the idea of such a god self-defeating.

The authors weren't smart enough to delude billions of people. Those people deluded themselves. The writers at the time maybe deluded a small group of people. I would say that culture and authority are far more to blame just going by the one's retention of a culture's primary religion from birth and into adulthood. If you're born in Iran, you're almost certainly going to be a Muslim. It doesn't even matter much what the religion says. You're just going to go along with it due to biases. There is good science to back that up too. Your assumption is that people are making rational, lucid decisions here. But Europe for most of 2000 years wasn't deluded because the writers were somehow clever people. They were deluded because of a combination of culture and cognitive bias. After all, there are enough errors in the Bible that the writers couldn't have been that clever. No, there are many philosophers who are far smarter, and the Bible isn't even on a long list of material that I would turn to for deep, complex thought. But I'm digressing.

This argument really has nothing to do with whether the universe began through natural causes, but we also know that things can magically appear out of thin air. Entropy has a very small tendency to decrease. The chance is almost zero, but not quite, so you'd be wrong on that count. Given enough time, maybe the entire universe would revert to a low entropy state. There are plenty of good hypotheses of how this might influence the creation of a universe. Maybe a blip of entropy in one universe forged a new baby universe. Maybe low entropy is a chance event in the larger multiverse. The problem is that these are very hard to test. Still, this universe seems very odd for a supposed design. Why create anything that is continuously expanding? Why create something with a limited amount of usable energy? These things are features of the universe because they can be explained as the logical outcome of natural processes, not a deity like the one described in the Bible.

 

[JGS]

This thread seems to consist mainly of two podiums where the speakers are arguing about whether god/a god/god(s) exists or not. Its like a broken record regurgitating the same old Qs and As. It'd be at least a bit more interesting to see an athiest putting forth the merits of the argument for god existing, and the theist vice versa.

This happens in real life.

However, an atheist's head would explode if they saw the value of religion. It even hinders a lot of them from seeing that we agree on most things they do.

This is an interesting exercise though so when I have time, I'll bring up all kinds of things to compliment and atheist on.

 

[legend166]

Yeah, and even if we accept that Jesus dying on the cross for our sins makes sense, it doesn't explain why this sacrifice only has any effect if we actively believe that it happened. Christians often bring up the example of someone, a complete stranger, paying your fine for you. But if someone pays my fine for me, the fine is paid whether I believe it or not. If I don't believe Jesus paid the fine, it's the same as if he had never paid it.

And there you have Calvinism. It's a tough case to make to show that the Bible teaches Jesus died for everyone. You have to ignore vast sections of Paul's writings, and a lot of Christ's teaching.

So what you're saying doesn't really go against scripture.

 

[JGS]

Then god is just as culpable, for lack of knowledge breeds mistakes, and mistakes contravene god's perfect will. There cannot be a holy god if he is causing imperfect justice by his own bumbling mistakes.

I have heard the argument that Jesus can choose not to know things, just to cover up an apparent contradiction, but I know that many great theologians would disagree with you, at least in this instance.

& Wikipedia says just as much. However, from my POV, if there are two schools of thought and one is verified more than the other, then the logical course would be choose the one with the most points going for it.

The argument isn't that god caused man to sin. It's this: under every possible circumstance, Adam would not always choose to sin. Therefore, by having foreknowledge, god knows the circumstances by which Adam would sin, and he knows the circumstances by which Adam would not sin, so by choosing or setting specific circumstances he is effectively choosing the outcome. This is the only possible argument that one can arrive at from a being of infinite knowledge and power, which makes the idea of such a god self-defeating.

Again, this is a fancy way of saying that man should not have had free will to begin with or that no rules of right or wrong whatsoever could enter into the equation. Basically humans remain perfect on the basis of the standard being so low as to be non-existent. Considering there was only a handful of rules to follow and only one leading to death (Rule the Earth, have kids, and don't eat from the one tree).

There were already tons of animals that could fill the role of lacking rules beyond basic instinct. Man was made in God's image meaning they could make decisions for themselves. The angels had free will but were spirits. Man was a nice bridge between the two.

I do not hold to the idea that free will is lost simply because there are predetermined choices, especially if there are numerous ones out there, although I see where some would say that since the rules are in place, it hinders us. To me, it doesn't take a mental giant to see all of the possible circumstances and develop free will from all the various offshoots and branches that come with each choice made. For example, if Adam held off eating from nthe tree until he had kids, that would have caused a different outcome. If the serpent hadn't seduced Eve at the tree- different outcome. The options go on and on just for the Garden of Eden scenario. In fact, God, being greater than us, is also pretty predictable.

This argument really has nothing to do with whether the universe began through natural causes, but we also know that things can magically appear out of thin air. Entropy has a very small tendency to decrease. The chance is almost zero, but not quite, so you'd be wrong on that count. Given enough time, maybe the entire universe would revert to a low entropy state. There are plenty of good hypotheses of how this might influence the creation of a universe. Maybe a blip of entropy in one universe forged a new baby universe. Maybe low entropy is a chance event in the larger multiverse. The problem is that these are very hard to test. Still, this universe seems very odd for a supposed design. Why create anything that is continuously expanding? Why create something with a limited amount of usable energy? These things are features of the universe because they can be explained as the logical outcome of natural processes, not a deity like the one described in the Bible.

Things as complex as the entire universe do not appear out of thin air whether we are talking magically or scientifically. The only example we have of this is people saying that it happened- conjecture.

Dang it! I have to go to work.

 

[Zaptruder]

I've never cared to critique the sacrifice thing, mostly because its internal logic is consistent, and believers can always appeal to a god who they themselves only partially understand. Even PZ's criticisms didn't necessarily move me. I do agree with him, however, that it exploits cognitive biases, which makes it a good parable or even fiction, but I find that such an archaic ritual is hardly fitting of a being so supposedly grand as to create this universe. I find it much easier to criticize the idea of original and inherited sin, which almost collapses beneath the weight of its own contradictions. Thus, without a coherent explanation for sin, the necessity of sacrifice is obviated. But I'd have to think about it more in order to find a more direct way to criticize it.


Then god is just as culpable, for lack of knowledge breeds mistakes, and mistakes contravene god's perfect will. There cannot be a holy god if he is causing imperfect justice by his own bumbling mistakes.

I have heard the argument that Jesus can choose not to know things, just to cover up an apparent contradiction, but I know that many great theologians would disagree with you, at least in this instance.

The argument isn't that god caused man to sin. It's this: under every possible circumstance, Adam would not always choose to sin. Therefore, by having foreknowledge, god knows the circumstances by which Adam would sin, and he knows the circumstances by which Adam would not sin, so by choosing or setting specific circumstances he is effectively choosing the outcome. This is the only possible argument that one can arrive at from a being of infinite knowledge and power, which makes the idea of such a god self-defeating.

The authors weren't smart enough to delude billions of people. Those people deluded themselves. The writers at the time maybe deluded a small group of people. I would say that culture and authority are far more to blame just going by the one's retention of a culture's primary religion from birth and into adulthood. If you're born in Iran, you're almost certainly going to be a Muslim. It doesn't even matter much what the religion says. You're just going to go along with it due to biases. There is good science to back that up too. Your assumption is that people are making rational, lucid decisions here. But Europe for most of 2000 years wasn't deluded because the writers were somehow clever people. They were deluded because of a combination of culture and cognitive bias. After all, there are enough errors in the Bible that the writers couldn't have been that clever. No, there are many philosophers who are far smarter, and the Bible isn't even on a long list of material that I would turn to for deep, complex thought. But I'm digressing.

This argument really has nothing to do with whether the universe began through natural causes, but we also know that things can magically appear out of thin air. Entropy has a very small tendency to decrease. The chance is almost zero, but not quite, so you'd be wrong on that count. Given enough time, maybe the entire universe would revert to a low entropy state. There are plenty of good hypotheses of how this might influence the creation of a universe. Maybe a blip of entropy in one universe forged a new baby universe. Maybe low entropy is a chance event in the larger multiverse. The problem is that these are very hard to test. Still, this universe seems very odd for a supposed design. Why create anything that is continuously expanding? Why create something with a limited amount of usable energy? These things are features of the universe because they can be explained as the logical outcome of natural processes, not a deity like the one described in the Bible.

Very nice rebuttal there.

 

[Sh1ner]

Doesn't the multiuniverse theory account for the universe to coming into existance and gives some light of a universe outside of a universe containing many other universes?

Where as a God that made our universe bring the question of who created God? And please dont go down the line he made himself of he continually existed and is outside of time. If there is no time God himself cannot think to do anything. Without time he would never begin to do anything. If time already exists then all he is doing is sitting about doing nothing.

 

[Peronthious]

However, an atheist's head would explode if they saw the value of religion. It even hinders a lot of them from seeing that we agree on most things they do.

I take great offense to this. Several times in this thread I've stated that while I am an atheist, I see quite a bit of value in religion, and as far as I know my head hasn't exploded yet. I define religion as feeling some connection with a power beyond yourself, and for some people feeling that connection helps them get through difficult times in their lives. There's a reason that trusting in a higher power is part of the 12 step program; it lets the addict trust that there's some being who is watching over them and has everything worked out, and that they will get through their addiction. Speaking for myself, I see no value and get no solace from trusting in something beyond myself. Some people do, and I don't see them as any worse or better than I am. They are just approaching life in a different way. To restate something I posted earlier in the thread, for me, accepting the power of religion on life is enough. Seeing how religion can have such a profound effect on an individual, enough so they can alter ingrained behavior, cast aside doubts, turn away from depression, and put trust in something beyond themselves has shown me that religion is often a necessary ingredient in the human character. My own personal beliefs are irrelevant to how another person approaches religion, and provided they do not approach me on the topic I see no need to disturb their heartfelt connection with an external force.

 

[JGS]

I take great offense to this. Several times in this thread I've stated that while I am an atheist, I see quite a bit of value in religion, and as far as I know my head hasn't exploded yet. I define religion as feeling some connection with a power beyond yourself, and for some people feeling that connection helps them get through difficult times in their lives. There's a reason that trusting in a higher power is part of the 12 step program; it lets the addict trust that there's some being who is watching over them and has everything worked out, and that they will get through their addiction. Speaking for myself, I see no value and get no solace from trusting in something beyond myself. Some people do, and I don't see them as any worse or better than I am. They are just approaching life in a different way. To restate something I posted earlier in the thread, for me, accepting the power of religion on life is enough. Seeing how religion can have such a profound effect on an individual, enough so they can alter ingrained behavior, cast aside doubts, turn away from depression, and put trust in something beyond themselves has shown me that religion is often a necessary ingredient in the human character. My own personal beliefs are irrelevant to how another person approaches religion, and provided they do not approach me on the topic I see no need to disturb their heartfelt connection with an external force.

Sorry I meant to put a lot of them like in the second sentence. Didn't mean to make an absolute statement since I know that is not the case from personal experience.

 

[JGS]

Doesn't the multiuniverse theory account for the universe to coming into existance and gives some light of a universe outside of a universe containing many other universes?

Where as a God that made our universe bring the question of who created God? And please dont go down the line he made himself of he continually existed and is outside of time. If there is no time God himself cannot think to do anything. Without time he would never begin to do anything. If time already exists then all he is doing is sitting about doing nothing.

This was brought up a few pages ago so I won't go into detail on the God side. However, from the multiverse side, it doesn't really matter if we sprung from another universe except to prove the theory since this universe is all we know and it gives us everything we need.

We can take the same approach with God. If God is timeless, no beginning or end, then we shouldn't really sweat about who created God. It's not like we can appeal to them for salvation from the one who created us.

 

[Pandaman]

Or you could let me know if there is anything that absolutely solidifies a fact that humans "evolved" from an ancestral primate other than looking at information from theories, fossils and DNA and assuming so.

As far as I know...there is nothing but that. Bones, rocks, DNA tests and the idea "hey, they're so similar they must come from a similar ancestor".

give a hypothetical example of such a fact.

what 'fact' would you require to remove reasonable doubt in the theory?

In the meantime, i'll say that you have a horribly impoverished point of view on the evidence for human evolution.

Your issue is with the Word of God, not with me. Either the Bible is wrong or it is true.

oh. okay.
according to the bible, jesus was borne during the reign of Herod [who purportedly ordered the slaying of male infants] and the rule of governor Quirinius who reportedly ordered the census that brought Mary and Joseph make to Bethlehem.

however we know for a fact that Herod died 10 years before Quirinius took office as gov. of syria and that the scenario described in two books of the bible is impossible. Thus the bible must be wrong.

 

[Dabookerman]

What do people look for when they ask for evidence about Humans being evolved from Primates?

I mean I don't know anyone personally who doesn't believe Evolution to be fact. The last time I had was back in Secondary School.. when i was about 13, and this kid's basic knowledge of evolution was what he knew from Pokemon.

I also think that when you reach a certain age, whatever you believe, it is probably unlikely that you will change your mind no matter how solid the evidence. People have already said that if there was utter proof that God didn't exist, and that proof was shown to them, they would still believe in God. That's just an example, but you get my meaning.

 

[JGS]

What do people look for when they ask for evidence about Humans being evolved from Primates?

I mean I don't know anyone personally who doesn't believe Evolution to be fact. The last time I had was back in Secondary School.. when i was about 13, and this kid's basic knowledge of evolution was what he knew from Pokemon.

I also think that when you reach a certain age, whatever you believe, it is probably unlikely that you will change your mind no matter how solid the evidence. People have already said that if there was utter proof that God didn't exist, and that proof was shown to them, they would still believe in God. That's just an example, but you get my meaning.

The infamous missing link.

The last time they had a missing link revealed, they showed what essentially looked like a lemur and said that what we descended from it. Tough pill to swallow especially when scientists behind the revealing did a poor job explaining why to the common man and news was just interested in the headline and moved on.

Not only that, but when evolution is explained it is explained in conjunction with abiogenesis, therefore both of them are often rejected.

 

[JGS]

according to the bible, jesus was borne during the reign of Herod [who purportedly ordered the slaying of male infants] and the rule of governor Quirinius who reportedly ordered the census that brought Mary and Joseph make to Bethlehem.

however we know for a fact that Herod died 10 years before Quirinius took office as gov. of syria and that the scenario described in two books of the bible is impossible. Thus the bible must be wrong.

OMG, a nostalgia flash.

I rember being challenged to explain this one and had to search throughout the interenet (I wasn't allowed to use the Bible) to explain this one. Not going into detail because it was a complete waster of time showing the challenger, but there are at least 4 Non-Biblical explanations, some contradictory of the other, but all entirely possible. If I can find the debate in the nether reaches of the internet, I'll copy/paste.

 

[Shanadeus]

This happens in real life.

However, an atheist's head would explode if they saw the value of religion. It even hinders a lot of them from seeing that we agree on most things they do.

This is an interesting exercise though so when I have time, I'll bring up all kinds of things to compliment and atheist on.

There is value in religion for some people just like with everything else.

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.[1]

If I were to cross out the part about moral code, the beliefs of cause, nature and purpose of the universe then there isn't anything in religion for me except the communal and social aspect.

 

[Pandaman]

The infamous missing link.

The last time they had a missing link revealed, they showed what essentially looked like a lemur and said that what we descended from it. Tough pill to swallow especially when scientists behind the revealing did a poor job explaining why to the common man and news was just interested in the headline and moved on.

Not only that, but when evolution is explained it is explained in conjunction with abiogenesis, therefore both of them are often rejected.

'missing link' is a buzzword for 'the fossil one step further down the chain', we've been finding and pushing that chain back for decades now. name a distinctly human feature and i can point you to dozens of fossils demonstrating its evolution, from the fine diaphram, to a descending larynx, to the development of gross. brainstructures and the onset of neotony. i can give you a window for the lose of human body hair dated by determining the last common ancestor of hair and body lice. i can trace for you the onset of simply tools in homo homidea to the development of art itself. i could go to some detail explaining the divergence between 'our' line and the robust hominidea and i can do this across a progressive and consistent timeline.

i can do this simply because i got bored of genetics one summer and took up human evolution at the suggestion of a friend studying paleoarcheology in london. the information isn't particularily hard to find.

so, whats this missing link you're interested in?

OMG, a nostalgia flash.

I rember being challenged to explain this one and had to search throughout the interenet (I wasn't allowed to use the Bible) to explain this one. Not going into detail because it was a complete waster of time showing the challenger, but there are at least 4 Non-Biblical explanations, some contradictory of the other, but all entirely possible. If I can find the debate in the nether reaches of the internet, I'll copy/paste.

I'd be interested to hear of an explanation of how a dead king coexisted with a human appointed by the romans who were quite good with records. i imagine it involves moving at 88 miles per hour.

 

[Dabookerman]

The infamous missing link.

The last time they had a missing link revealed, they showed what essentially looked like a lemur and said that what we descended from it. Tough pill to swallow especially when scientists behind the revealing did a poor job explaining why to the common man and news was just interested in the headline and moved on.

Not only that, but when evolution is explained it is explained in conjunction with abiogenesis, therefore both of them are often rejected.

There really is no missing link now. What you could call it is adding more links to the chain, or further re-enforcing it.

I mean I'm certainly not gonna try to debate about it, because there really is no point. You and Deus believe in what you believe that no matter what is presented, you will never change your mind.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

You're not getting it. The point is that if someone charges that the Bible is wrong, it is not an adequate answer to respond that the the Bible warns that people will falsely claim it to be wrong to anyone who does not already accept the claim that the Bible is true in the first place. That question-begging "argument" is typical of conspiracy theorists.

No, you're not getting it. I'm not question-begging at all. The point is that I believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Thus, there's no way I could ever give a satisfactory answer to someone who charges that the Bible is wrong because my answer will always be the same: "No, it isn't."

 

[Pandaman]

it's sad that i still remember the catolog number on that ergaster skull. :lol