Is God Omniscient?

Zombrex · 02-01-2008 10:33am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Suicide (Latin sui caedere, to kill oneself) is the act of intentionally terminating one's own life. In the case of Jason Dunham, it was probably a quick instinctive action he took, rather than something that was premeditated.

Well firstly that is quite an assumption, and one that would tend to go against the Medal of Honor description of the event.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It would be entirely up to God to decide on his faith and more importantly, what was his relationship with God prior to taking this action ie. was he saved or not.

Yet you feel confident in claiming he isn't a Christian?

Zombrex · 02-01-2008 10:54am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Great! We agree on something.

I'm sure we agree on a lot of things

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think, though, that your use of these pilots as a justification for your condemnation of Christianity is a weak position to argue from.

That probably because I'm not arguing from that position.

The OPs question to this forum was why did God not make the Bible a heck of a lot clearer as to what good Christians should and should not do when it comes to the slaughter of people during war since God, being omniscient would know at the time all the actions that would be carried out that would be justified by the Bible.

I came into the discussion to argue against the nonsense position (in my humble opinion) put forward by posters such as PDN that the Bible is in fact "very clear" over topics like this and therefore one cannot say that there is any problem with the Bible itself.

When asked to explain why if the Bible is very clear on these matters history is still littered with people who carry out actions like the Japanese pilots the response was that they do so for pretty much every reason other than religious faith, and those who do claim to for religious faith are being dishonest.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I haven't seen any statics regarding the percentage of professed Christians in the Japanese Air Force at the time. For all I know there could have been 1,000 Christians serving, ten of whom decided to become Kamikaze pilots. If this was the case - by this I mean that Japanese Christian pilots not choosing to become Kamikaze pilots far outweighed those who did - you are then basing your opinion on the actions of a statistically unimportant few.

That isn't really relevant. The vast majority of people don't become suicide bombers, Christian or otherwise.

You, like PDN, seem to be missing the point.

The proposal is that the Bible should have been made more clear and that in being more clear it could have prevented true believers like these pilots, from carrying out these actions, assuming these actions are actually immoral by God, which again is the point that isn't clear.

The counter-proposal is that the Bible is perfectly clear already that things like this should be carried out by Christians.

I've already run into the quagmire that is the Bibles commandment to love everyone, the idea that a "just war" is some how compatible with that, and the notion that a Christian would never take his own life yet the actions of Jason Dunham are not wrong.

So we didn't have to go very far before we start running into examples of where the instructions in the Bible are anything but clear.

If you want to demonstrate the point being made by the OP, and followed up by myself with this example, is wrong a start would be to explain what part of the Bible should have made it very clear to these pilots that what they were doing was wrong if they had read it and then fit that in with the notions of a just war (which these pilots believed they were fighting)

BrianCalgary · 03-01-2008 12:36am

Wicknight wrote: »

The dishonesty PDN is the lengths you are going to avoid the simply admitting the conclusion that people fight and kill because they believe that Christianity, through the Bible, tells them that it is just and right to do so.

You may disagree with that interpretation of the Bible, but to say that the Bible is "very clear" that people are not supposed to do that, that the Bible tells people not to slaughter other people, and that those who do do that are fighting for any reason but religious belief, is put simply nonsense.

And its when I hear this kind of religious propaganda I wade into these conversations.

The Christian teaching that God teaches love and kindness to everyone while also justifying war after war after war as being just and within the teachings of this "doctrine of love" has lead to far too many deaths for my liking.

The greatest crimes in humanity take place not when people believe they are doing wrong but when they convince themselves that they are doing right. If a person believes in the infallible righteousness of his cause he can do anything.

You keep thinking I go on about this because I'm an atheist. You fail to realize that I'm an atheist because of this

I'm sorry wicknight but your dishoinesty is quite blatant. How you manage to twist words is unbelievable.

Are you claiming that every soldier in every war ever fought is a Christian doing so in order to obtain salvation? Please clarify your stance here. In two words or less.

Because it sure looks like it.

Zombrex · 03-01-2008 11:18am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I'm sorry wicknight but your dishoinesty is quite blatant. How you manage to twist words is unbelievable.

Yes, I get that a lot ... :rolleyes:

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Are you claiming that every soldier in every war ever fought is a Christian doing so in order to obtain salvation?

No, I'm not.

I appreciate that it would be far easier for you and PDN to file under "ranting anti-Christian atheist" and auto-disregard what I was saying if I was actually saying that, but if you read my posts properly without jumping to conclusions you will see that isn't what I'm saying.

I'm claiming that the Bible is not clear at all in what it teaches about war and killing in the cause of a war.

And relating that back to the OP's original post, it is rather peculiar that an omniscient god didn't make it a lot more clear given that he knew the miss-interpretation that would take place over history.

And before you take the default "It is perfectly clear to everyone who wants it to be!!" line shared by PDN, have a proper think about it. The honest answer to the OP's original question is "I don't know", not a big long rant about why the Bible is in fact very clear about these issues and everyone through history who appeared to demonstrate otherwise is just being dishonest.

How does the concept of love everyone, including your enemy relates to concepts such as "just wars"

Do you believe that there is such a think as a just war within Christian teaching, and how does one army "love" another army when in a just war? And is this position very clear in the Bible.

Soul Winner · 03-01-2008 2:04pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Thats ridiculous, "professed" Christians take their lives all the time.

I was reading only yesterday about Jason Dunham, one of the only 2 service men so far award the Medal of Honor in the current Iraq war.

He threw himself down onto a live grenade to shield his fellow soldiers from the blast. The blast killed him, but left the others uninjured.

Are you saying that because he did that, a suicidal act, he was not a proper Christian (pretty sure he was a Christian from reading the news reports, at least according to the people commenting that "Jesus must have been walking beside him")

I agree. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13. Anyone who wants to condemn this soldier because he committed suicide will have to contend with these profound words of Jesus first.

Zombrex · 03-01-2008 3:12pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13. Anyone who wants to condemn this soldier because he committed suicide will have to contend with these profound words of Jesus first.

Does that include the Japanese pilots?

BrianCalgary · 03-01-2008 4:10pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, I get that a lot ... :rolleyes:.

Then stop doing it and you will bring a lot more to these discussions than you are.

Soul Winner · 03-01-2008 4:35pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Does that include the Japanese pilots?

For this verse to apply to the Japanese pilots in WWII then it would have to depend on the motives of those pilots. If by flying their war planes into US Warships (during the battle of Midway for instance) they were doing it out of a genuine love for their friends (because by doing so they were dying to save friends from the enemy at home) then yes they would qualify, no greater love hath any man than that. But if they were doing it out of fear of reprisals from their country men and women i.e. they returned to their homeland alive and thus shamed, then no it would not apply to them because the qualifying motive is not there 'Love'

I think there is a big difference between what some of those pilots did for fear of shame and what this US soldier did in reaction to a sudden situation with no thought for himself. Does that mean that what these pilots did was wrong? That would depend what side you're on wouldn't it? From a moral point of view I can only quote that famous phrase: "All is fair in love and war"

The quick answer to your question is that if God exists then He is the ultimate judge and He has revealed Himself to judge men and women's hearts, then it is He and He alone who has the right to judge the motives of these pilots and everyone else’s motives for that matter. Even those who profess a non belief in Him will (if He exists) have to account for that profession in the end. Are their beliefs based on truth as they believe truth to be? Or have they got ulterior motives and profess atheism as a belief system in order to get out of bowing the knee to the living God?

Zombrex · 03-01-2008 5:05pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Then stop doing it and you will bring a lot more to these discussions than you are.

No offense BC, but if either you or PDN thought I was "bringing something" to the discussion I would be very disappointed.

The very point of my posts are to challenge your beliefs in ways you don't want them to be challenged.

“Sacred cows make the best hamburger”
Mark Twain

Zombrex · 03-01-2008 5:23pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

For this verse to apply to the Japanese pilots in WWII then it would have to depend on the motives of those pilots. If by flying their war planes into US Warships (during the battle of Midway for instance) they were doing it out of a genuine love for their friends (because by doing so they were dying to save friends from the enemy at home) then yes they would qualify, no greater love hath any man than that.

Judging by some of their diaries that appears to be the case.

"How fortunate I am that I believe in God, whom my mother believes in. My mind is at ease when I think that God takes care of everything. God would not make my mother or myself sad. I am sure God will bestow happiness upon us. Even [though] I will die I dream of our lives together ... I can’t bear the thought of our nation being stampeded by the dirty enemy. I must avenge [it] with my own life."

While no doubt some of the kamikaze pilots took part because they were ordered to, a lot volunteered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

It is not hard to see how belief in an after life would lessen the fear of death as the only outcome of the mission, or how they would see the US landing in Japan as being a horrific outcome to be avoided at all costs.

Soul Winner wrote: »

From a moral point of view I can only quote that famous phrase: "All is fair in love and war"

That isn't a Bible quote is it

Soul Winner wrote: »

The quick answer to your question is that if God exists then He is the ultimate judge and He has revealed Himself to judge men and women's hearts, then it is He and He alone who has the right to judge the motives of these pilots and everyone else’s motives for that matter.

That doesn't actually answer my question, at least in the context of this thread.

The issue isn't whether God knows you did wrong. He (assuming he exists) will and always has known.

The question is how possible is it for humans to determine this themselves based on reading of the Bible.

Can you tell me if what those pilots did was wrong, and can you based this on a clear (ie not open to a lot of different interpretation) message from the Bible?

Or to put it another way, if what the pilots did is wrong, what bit of the Bible should have made that clear to them

Soul Winner · 03-01-2008 6:13pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Judging by some of their diaries that appears to be the case.

"How fortunate I am that I believe in God, whom my mother believes in. My mind is at ease when I think that God takes care of everything. God would not make my mother or myself sad. I am sure God will bestow happiness upon us. Even [though] I will die I dream of our lives together ... I can’t bear the thought of our nation being stampeded by the dirty enemy. I must avenge [it] with my own life."

While no doubt some of the kamikaze pilots took part because they were ordered to, a lot volunteered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

It is not hard to see how belief in an after life would lessen the fear of death as the only outcome of the mission, or how they would see the US landing in Japan as being a horrific outcome to be avoided at all costs.

Can't argue with that. When I die for my country then I'll have more of a right to judge.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't a Bible quote is it

No that is not in the Bible as far as I know. Just something that gets bounced around from time to time.

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't actually answer my question, at least in the context of this thread.

The issue isn't whether God knows you did wrong. He (assuming he exists) will and always has known.

The question is how possible is it for humans to determine this themselves based on reading of the Bible.

Can you tell me if what those pilots did was wrong, and can you based this on a clear (ie not open to a lot of different interpretation) message from the Bible?

Or to put it another way, if what the pilots did is wrong, what bit of the Bible should have made that clear to them

That's easy. "Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:13. I fail to see where you can have another interpretation of this unless you change what it says. Can "Thou shalt NOT kill" ever mean "Thou shalt kill"?

Even a staunch atheist would have to concede that if all mankind where to live by every word that proceeded forth from the mouth of God as revealed in the Bible then it would make our world a much more wonderful place to live?

Zombrex · 03-01-2008 6:22pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's easy. "Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:13. I fail to see where you can have another interpretation of this unless you change what it says. Can "Thou shalt NOT kill" ever mean "Thou shalt kill"?

Exodus doesn't actually say Thou shalt not kill, it says Thou shalt not murder

If it did say thou shalt not kill the next bits in the Old Testament would be a bit of a problem because the Hebrews spend an awful lot of time genociding other countries, children women and men, under the commandment of Moses. This may not have been murder, as it was ordered by God, but it certainly was killing.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. The issue then becomes who defines what is unlawful and what isn't. A Christian would argue that ultimately God does.

So can we determine if it is clear from the Bible whether or not what these pilots did would be considered unlawful killing in the eyes of God and if this should have been clear to them as they were reading it?

robindch · 03-01-2008 6:39pm

SW wrote:

"Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20:13. I fail to see where you can have another interpretation of this unless you change what it says.

Ask wolfsbane who contributes to the creationism thread. He believes that killing is fine, and that god's ok with that, as long as the killer is covered by a law that says that killing is ok. It's his specific interpretation of the kill/murder distinction, and I'm sure there are plenty more.

Fanny Cradock · 03-01-2008 8:49pm

Just a quick reply as I'm capping off a couple of hard days/ late nights at work.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure we agree on a lot of things

Most likely we do. But sadly not here

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really relevant. The vast majority of people don't become suicide bombers, Christian or otherwise.

Of course it's relevant. If you insist on offering the stories of manic Japanese Christians (that's a bit of ad lib there) as some sort of proof, I insist on retaining the right to question the significance of your claims. Irrespective of the notion of a just war, you have so far yet to established the prevalence of Christian (and for the sake of keeping the peace I'll forgo the use of inverted commas there) suicide pilots (I believe a total figure of 7 is mentioned in the link Robin provided) or how many actually fulfilled the mission of a Kamikaze. For all you know the one pilot mentioned in detail, Hayashi, may have had an epiphany moments before he fulfilled his mission and flew his plane into the water instead because he was a Christian.

Wicknight wrote: »

While no doubt some of the kamikaze pilots took part because they were ordered to, a lot volunteered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

The Wiki link you have provided fails to mention Christianity once. So I'm not sure of it's relevance to the discussion. It does, however, appear to differ with your assertion that many simply volunteered.

"while commonly perceived that volunteers signed up in droves for Kamikaze missions, it has also been contended that there was extensive coercion and peer pressure involved in recruiting soldiers for the sacrifice. Their motivations in "volunteering" were complex and not simply about patriotism or bringing honour to their families."

Robins link corroborates this assertion: "it makes clear that high levels of coercion were used to compel the students to “volunteer” for their assignments."

I think you raise valid points in regards to the notion of a "just" killing and how easily that rests with Christianity. It would be one of the 'Big 3' [questions] in my personal faith. This loop regarding the Kamikaze pilots you are stuck on is just nonsense, though.

Zombrex · 03-01-2008 11:50pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course it's relevant. If you insist on offering the stories of manic Japanese Christians (that's a bit of ad lib there) as some sort of proof, I insist on retaining the right to question the significance of your claims.

Certainly, but only if the proof was in support of the idea that Christianity turns people into suicide bombers, which wasn't my claim.

The claim was that Christianity, or more specifically the Bible, doesn't stop people (through very clear instruction) from turning to suicide bombing when they feel such desperate action is necessary to protect their family and friends from a perceived on coming threat.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Irrespective of the notion of a just war, you have so far yet to established the prevalence of Christian (and for the sake of keeping the peace I'll forgo the use of inverted commas there) suicide pilots

Again, I'm not trying to.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

(I believe a total figure of 7 is mentioned in the link Robin provided) or how many actually fulfilled the mission of a Kamikaze. For all you know the one pilot mentioned in detail, Hayashi, may have had an epiphany moments before he fulfilled his mission and flew his plane into the water instead because he was a Christian.

That won't matter to the point unless the epiphany was from reading of a passage of the Bible that he had previous misunderstood, which is doubtful as pilots tend not to read while flying. And even if that was true, the question still remains why it wasn't clear to him the when he read through the Bible numerous times before.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

"while commonly perceived that volunteers signed up in droves for Kamikaze missions, it has also been contended that there was extensive coercion and peer pressure involved in recruiting soldiers for the sacrifice. Their motivations in "volunteering" were complex and not simply about patriotism or bringing honour to their families."

I would agree 100% with that passage. I certainly didn't mean to imply they all volunteered. I would imagine it was easier for the more religious who anticipated a blissful after life to happily accept their missions that it was for the ones who feared death.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think you raise valid points in regards to the notion of a "just" killing and how easily that rests with Christianity. It would be one of the 'Big 3' [questions] in my personal faith. This loop regarding the Kamikaze pilots you are stuck on is just nonsense, though.

Well I didn't bring it up. The assertion was made along the lines that there is no such thing as a true Christian suicide bomber, the point being I imagine is that Christianity is clear that such action is wrong. I gave the Japanese Kamikaze pilots to counter this.

I am not hung up on these pilots, I am simply responding to the rush taken to paint that these pilots as either not Christian, didn't understand Christianity, or their Christianity was over ruled by nationalism.

I see no reason to believe that these pilots, the ones given in the example, were not true Christians in ever sense of the word, had not studied the Bible properly, and did not believe their Christianity was compatible with their actions.

Therefore they are examples of proper Christian suicide bombers.

Getting back the context of this thread, the question then becomes how did these Christians come to the understanding, through interpretation of the Bible, that God supported there actions is the Bible is supposed to be clear that their actions are wrong (assuming of course that people here actually believe God and the Bible didn't support their actions)

Soul Winner · 04-01-2008 12:32am

Wicknight wrote: »

Exodus doesn't actually say Thou shalt not kill, it says Thou shalt not murder

If it did say thou shalt not kill the next bits in the Old Testament would be a bit of a problem because the Hebrews spend an awful lot of time genociding other countries, children women and men, under the commandment of Moses. This may not have been murder, as it was ordered by God, but it certainly was killing.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. The issue then becomes who defines what is unlawful and what isn't. A Christian would argue that ultimately God does.

So can we determine if it is clear from the Bible whether or not what these pilots did would be considered unlawful killing in the eyes of God and if this should have been clear to them as they were reading it?

Maybe not but it is still taking life. ‘Manslaughter' (accidental slaying) is not murder but it is still killing and God provided cities of refuge for those in the OT who committed manslaughter that once they got to one of those cities then they would be safe from their pursuers who wanted vengeance and they could only leave that city when the high priest of that city died.

But in terms of being clear on something that you say the Bible is not. Jesus in the NT says in Matthew 5 that if you hate in your heart for no cause then you are as guilty as a murderer, guilty in that you will receive a similar judgment as a murderer.

As for there being a clear message to Japanese pilots in the Bible that they could expunge from the scripture something to make them rest easy about kamikaze plane flight then they could use the following or at least their leaders could. I doubt very much that God will hold them to account personally for following orders and defending their country but their leader might want to watch out if they didn’t take this into consideration:

“Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.” Luke 14:31-32

Could’ve avoided Pearl Harbour with that one not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fanny Cradock · 04-01-2008 12:46am

Just a quick reply because I'm knackered and off to bed.

Wicknight wrote: »

That won't matter to the point unless the epiphany was from reading of a passage of the Bible that he had previous misunderstood, which is doubtful as pilots tend not to read while flying. And even if that was true, the question still remains why it wasn't clear to him the when he read through the Bible numerous times before.

Sorry, but why exactly can a sudden realisation only arise from reading the Bible, which we both agree is an unlikely thing to do as you hurtle towards your target (or not)? My understanding of an epiphany is that it isn't confined to any one action or point in time. Surely an epiphany could be defined as a breakthrough in understanding beyond how you once interpreted something irrespective of time. Are Christian epiphanies now limited?

Wicknight wrote: »

I would imagine it was easier for the more religious who anticipated a blissful after life to happily accept their missions that it was for the ones who feared death.

Possibly, but you don't have to be religious to be a fanatic. The fact that there were probably Buddhists and outright atheists amongst the pilots could lead one to assume that it was atheism that drove them to do such a thing. Anyway, I would contest the seemingly prevailing notion amongst some that belief produces horrid violence and oppression as opposed to graceful altruism and startlingly positive pacifism.

Wicknight wrote: »

Therefore they are examples of proper Christian suicide bombers.

I could equally assert the claim that Madalyn Murray O'Hair is the archetypical example of a proper atheist. Never mind that she was a bitter, enraged, untrustworthy, homophobe. I choose not to believe that, though. Why? Because it's preposterous to assert that a small group of people acting against the norm damn the majority.

Ugh... there goes my early night

Zombrex · 04-01-2008 12:55am

Soul Winner wrote: »

Maybe not but it is still taking life.

True, but taking a life in of itself doesn't appear to be something God doesn't want people to do considering the amount of times he, or his messengers, ordered his people to kill women, children and men in the Old Testament.

Soul Winner wrote: »

As for there being a clear message to Japanese pilots in the Bible that they could expunge from the scripture something to make them rest easy about kamikaze plane flight then they could use the following or at least their leaders could. I doubt very much that God will hold them to account personally for following orders and defending their country but their leader might want to watch out if they didn’t take this into consideration:

Well there you go, you believe that what they did was correct given your interpretation of the Bible. The issue now becomes do other Christians agree with you, and if they don't then why.

Soul Winner · 04-01-2008 1:13am

Wicknight wrote: »

Well there you go, you believe that what they did was correct given your interpretation of the Bible. The issue now becomes do other Christians agree with you, and if they don't then why.

But I didn't actual say that I believed that what they did was correct though did I? You asked me a question as to what was in the Bible for them and I answered it the best I could. You never asked me for my personal opinion about them. What exactly is it you're looking for from this discusison?

Zombrex · 04-01-2008 1:23am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry, but why exactly can a sudden realisation only arise from reading the Bible, which we both agree is an unlikely thing to do as you hurtle towards your target (or not)?

A sudden realisation on the part of the pilot can come from anything, but it only matters to the context of this discussion if it comes from reading the Bible, because this discussion is over whether or not the Bible makes it clear either way the morality of the actions the pilots are carrying out.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My understanding of an epiphany is that it isn't confined to any one action or point in time. Surely an epiphany could be defined as a breakthrough in understanding beyond how you once interpreted something irrespective of time. Are Christian epiphanies now limited?

Well certainly if the pilot managed to some how have an "epiphany" over a passage in the Bible that he original (and probably repeatably) interpreted as supporting his action and decided at that moment that it doesn't in fact support his action, that would count.

But I would argue that if pilots are having epiphanies in the middle of the Pacific ocean about Bible passages they are recalling from memory when they are well on their way, then the original text falls short of being defined as "clear"

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Possibly, but you don't have to be religious to be a fanatic.

I don't remember claiming one did.

As you may recall I have been very vocal a number of times of my denunciation of the fanatics in movements such as Communism, and as we all know that movement is atheist in nature and very anti-religious (though I would stress the two are not the same thing).

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The fact that there were probably Buddhists and outright atheists amongst the pilots could lead one to assume that it was atheism that drove them to do such a thing.

Well I'm not sure how atheism drives someone to do something (atheism isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief), but certain non-religious motivations can drive people to very drastic things.

My point wasn't the religion is the only cause of suicidal action on the part of soldiers. My point was simply that belief in an after life would almost certainly make the prospect of death less feared. This Christian kamikaze pilot certainly did not seem to fear death, if his diaries are to be believed, and viewed it as a place where God would love him and he would be with his mother.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I could equally assert the claim that Madalyn Murray O'Hair is the archetypical example of a proper atheist.

O'Hair was the archetypical example of a proper atheist, considering a proper atheist is someone who honestly does not believe in a deities, god or gods. This is a group that I'm pretty sure includes O'Hair, and myself I might add.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Never mind that she was a bitter, enraged, untrustworthy, homophobe.

Certainly, considering that none of that has any bearing on whether or not she was an atheist. She genuinely didn't believe in god, therefore she was a genuine atheist. She was a pretty horrible person, but then that is a determining factor in whether or not a person is an atheist. Pretty horrible people don't believe in God.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I choose not to believe that, though. Why? Because it's preposterous to assert that a small group of people acting against the norm damn the majority.

How would O'Hair "damn" the majority?

Zombrex · 04-01-2008 1:30am

Soul Winner wrote: »

But I didn't actual say that I believed that what they did was correct though did I?

Well you implied that God did, when you said that you doubt very much that God will hold them to account for following orders and defending their country.

Given that you believe God won't hold them to account, do you still believe what they did was wrong in the eyes of God?

Or, slightly more left field, would you disagree with God on this matter, and hold a personal opinion that differs from his?

Soul Winner wrote: »

You never asked me for my personal opinion about them.

You are right, I didn't, because it doesn't really matter. You aren't God, and as such your opinion of them doesn't hold any sway.

What matters is whether or not God would determine that what they did was wrong, and if that is made clear in the Bible.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What exactly is it you're looking for from this discussion?

Reading the OP's post at the start of the thread may clear up the topic of this thread. The issue is about how clear the Bible is, and can it be clearer.

Soul Winner · 04-01-2008 1:44am

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I'm not sure how atheism drives someone to do something (atheism isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief)

It can also be argued that atheism is the belief that there is no God and thereby becomes a belief system itself. Agnostics are not sure whether God is, whereas atheists are absolutely sure He isn't. This is not a non position. To say atheism is 'lack of belief' is just plain wrong. There's probably as many atheists in the world who believe God isn’t as there are believers who believe He is. Either way if God is then this fact is not predicated on whether we believe it or not, likewise if He isn't.

Soul Winner · 04-01-2008 2:07am

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you implied that God did, when you said that you doubt very much that God will hold them to account for following orders and defending their country.

If you like I can give you some scripture on the things God will hold against people.

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that you believe God won't hold them to account, do you still believe what they did was wrong in the eyes of God?

Look stealing a loaf of bread to feed your staving kids is wrong in the eyes of God when judged by His perfect standard which is His Law. If you want to talk about things that are wrong in the eyes of God then we will be here all night. Paul said that God gave the Law in order to show us our hopelessness in keeping it in order to drive us to Christ's redeeming act on Calvary which saves us from the curse of the law.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or, slightly more left field, would you disagree with God on this matter, and hold a personal opinion that differs from his?

I could hold an opinion that differs from His in the natural but once the light of God's Word shines on the issue I'll take a second look and see things differently. Someone once said: "Pressure never killed anyone, its the placement of it. If it is between you and God then it will kill you, if it drives you to God then it will make you." I think it was FB Meyer but not sure.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are right, I didn't, because it doesn't really matter. You aren't God, and as such your opinion of them doesn't hold any sway.

Absolutely.

Wicknight wrote: »

What matters is whether or not God would determine that what they did was wrong, and if that is made clear in the Bible.

When Moses came down form the mount after receiving God's Law he killed 3000 people for worshipping a golden calf and then asked God to blot him out because he had sinned and God said I'll say who has sinned and who hasn't sinned. So at the end of the day it is God who determines who has sinned or not.

Wicknight wrote: »

Reading the OP's post at the start of the thread may clear up the topic of this thread. The issue is about how clear the Bible is, and can it be clearer.

I think the example above sort of puts into perspective how God feels about sin and motives. He has revealed Himself in His Word to be a Just Judge and you can like that or not like it but at the end of the day it will be God who prevails so best thing to do is get on His side.

Soul Winner · 04-01-2008 3:10am

mcgarnicle wrote: »

More spefically does God know the past, present and future all at once as is usually contended by Christians. If he is then surely this obviates any notion of context as a method of reading the various biblical writings as, if God were able to know how we would read them today, he would have put forth the writings in a far less parochial and less sadistic way given that he would be at once aware of how the writings would be received where they were presented and also exactly how they would spread and how they would be read thousands of years later.

Surely this then means that God

a) Meant what he wrote literally or b) did not write the bible at all.

Or it might not have happened that way at all. Here's a very simplistic look into what might really be going on in this universe of ours.

We know from the Bible that God claims to be Alpha and Omega the Beginning and the End. If this is true then what happens in between is the now.

So Satan rebels in Heaven then Satan gets cast out of Heaven along with one third of the angels who sided with him and all this before Adam was created.

Adam is then created in order to re-populate the void left in Heaven by Satan and his angels. Adam also succumbed to a fall under the influence of Satan but God made provision for Adam's salvation from his fallen state, but not so for Satan and his minions. Their rebellion was so vile that it turned God off on them forever.

So God chooses a people through Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And from one of Jacob's sons (Judah) was the King to arise. He narrowed the choice down even further by choosing the line of David and so it went until Christ was born.

Since the fall of Adam God has been looking for people who will trust Him when He says something. To hang their very lives on His every Word. But God had to fulfil His Word when He said to them that for sin comes death. They had sinned and He said that if they did sin they would die. So who was to pay this debt? Adam should have but that would have meant eternal death for Adam so God stood in for Adam Himself by sending His Son to pay the price for Adam's sin. For through one man came sin into the world and also through one man came life eternal.

This is the Bible in one big broad stroke. Now God can get back to what He started in Adam and that is to re-populate the void in heaven with people who will trust Him as the price for Adam's sin is now paid in full by Christ.

If this is true then God really is in control of everything and is also Omniscient.

JoeB- · 04-01-2008 3:15am

My opinion is that the bible isn't clear at all and God is responsible for the suffering caused by genuine believers who cause harm to others through incorrect understanding of Gods word.

Plain as day... if God had said
'To kill another human is always wrong, ALWAYS WRONG'
there could be no confusion... and people who have killed because they have a genuine belief that it is acceptable in Gods eyes would not have done so (obviously because they couldn't have convinced themselves it was acceptable if it was crystal clear it wasn't).

There is also the issue of the Tower of Babel... apparently God is responsible for the earth's many different languages... and mis-translation and competing translations (of Gods scripture) cause many problems in the modern world. How is an omniscient God not to be held responsible for people who genuinely believe the wrong thing through a mis-translation?

Finally Jesus commited suicide... most definitely. He knew what was due to happen, he had the power to prevent it and yet he went along with it... so Jesus took actions (or took no preventative actions) which he knew full well would result in his own death.... that would seem to fit the definition of suicide perfectly. So possibly Jesus was the first Christian suicide.
(An alternative way of putting this is that Jesus voluntarily placed himself into a situation where he knew the outcome would be his own death, and yet he took no preventative action of which many were available to him.. ergo, Suicide.)
(Heading off possible criticism... consider 'suicide by cop'... it is still suicide even though the individual doesn't actually kill himself, so placing oneself in situations where the (desired) outcome is one's own death is suicide)

Cheers
Joe

JoeB- · 04-01-2008 3:29am

Soul Winner wrote: »

So Satan rebels in Heaven then Satan gets cast out of Heaven along with one third of the angels who sided with him and all this before Adam was created.

Did God not see this coming? I am also confused as to your use of the word 'before', surely Satan and God don't reside in our universe of which time is a property, they operate in a timeless static place?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Adam is then created in order to re-populate the void left in Heaven by Satan and his angels. Adam also succumbed to a fall under the influence of Satan but God made provision for Adam's salvation from his fallen state, but not so for Satan and his minions. Their rebellion was so vile that it turned God off on them forever.

So is this a limit to Gods forgiveness? Strangely enough I thought he had infinite powers of forgiveness... I would have thought that if the Devil asked for forgiveness it would be forthcoming in a flash.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So God chooses a people through Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And from one of Jacob's sons (Judah) was the King to arise. He narrowed the choice down even further by choosing the line of David and so it went until Christ was born.

But Jesus was born to a virgin woman... so how can he be considered to descend from David? (Unless you believe it was Mary who was descended from David, not Joseph)

Soul Winner wrote: »

But God had to fulfil His Word when He said to them that for sin comes death. They had sinned and He said that if they did sin they would die.

This is quite incredible... surely God said that to sin results in eternal damnation, how is that death?
Also is this an example of God changing his eternal mind? 'Before' he changed the rules was he aware he was going to change them? Did he lie when he first said what he said? (Or was he merely mistaken?)

Cheers

Conar · 04-01-2008 7:51am

PDN wrote: »

I have said that the prohibition of wars is not the central theme of the Bible.

PDN I applaud you for continuously debating with us darn atheists but surely you can see where we are coming from.

As the OP's original question asks (loosely) why would such a God have themes that contradict?
Why not be definitive?
There is no reason, its not like he was being rushed by publishers

You have suggested that his attitude to slavery was to wean the Jews off it so to speak, but is this not the same God who saw fit to destroy Sodom for their bad ways?
Why wouldn't he just teach people that kept slaves a lesson, then everyone would have known from that day forward that slavery was bad, umkay.
This is the same God that killed off everyone except for Noah and his crew because they had gone wayward, why did he allow them to start off on the wrong foot again by allowing slavery even begin?

PDN wrote: »

I have also said that many Christians believe in the concept of a just war. I have not said that 'my religion' condones just wars. Please stop twisting my words. I, personally, am a pacifist. That is 'my religion'.

The fact that you admit that it is your religion shows that you agree that the bible is totally open to interpretation. So how do you know that you have the right interpretation?
How do you know that people in the past didn't believe that God agreed with slavery and rape?
Do you believe that God is fine with homosexuality and sodomy? I assume not, but why did he treat homosexuals with more contempt than he did people who kept slaves?
One can only assume that God is implying that homosexuality is a worse moral crime than slavery can we not?

I really can't see how you can pick all the best bits of the bible and say thats what God was talking about and ignore all the rest.
You criticise Wicknight for selectively twisting parts of the bible but he is only taking what is said literally.
Would you not dismantle anyones argument in the same manner?
Surely if Gods words cannot stand up to a puny Wicknight then he's not much of a God?

This twists and turns back to the OP's point.
If there really was a God and if the bible really was his collective wisdom then why fill it with so much hate, ambiguity, lies, while all the time trying to convey an underlying message of love and acceptence?

There is a certain irony in how I as an atheist cannot give such an all powerful head rub such as 'God bless you and your ignorance', but then hey, I'm a god in my daughters eyes so Conar blesses you and your crazy ways!

(Please don't take that last bit as an insult I'm just kidding)

Zombrex · 04-01-2008 11:26am

Soul Winner wrote: »

It can also be argued that atheism is the belief that there is no God and thereby becomes a belief system itself.

Well I suppose anything can be argued, but I've yet to see a convincing argument along the lines that atheism is a belief system in of itself.

Have you heard the phrase -

Atheism is a religion (belief system) in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby

An atheist doesn't believe in God. That information doesn't actually tell you what the atheist does believe in.

Therefore knowing that he/she is an atheist tells you nothing about their actually belief system other than that it doesn't include a supernatural deity, in the same way that knowing someone doesn't collect stamps tells you nothing about their actual hobbies other than the fact that their hobbies don't include collecting stamps.

One wouldn't say that not collecting stamps is a hobby, and by the same token it would be peculiar to say that atheism is a belief system in of itself.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Agnostics are not sure whether God is, whereas atheists are absolutely sure He isn't. This is not a non position. To say atheism is 'lack of belief' is just plain wrong.

What is a "non-position" other than a lack of belief.

Do I believe in gods? No. Then I'm an atheist (an "a"-theist, the reverse of a theist, a theist being someone who does believe in the existence of gods).

Soul Winner wrote: »

There's probably as many atheists in the world who believe God isn’t as there are believers who believe He is.

Well it depends on what you mean by "God".

Something like 93% of the worlds population (this is obviously a rough estimate, they didn't ask everyone) claims to believe in a supernatural deity or groups of deities.

Now naturally this belief is not uniform. The Hindus don't believe in the Christian "God", and vice versa.

As Dawkins likes to say everyone is atheist when it comes to 99.99% of the gods and goddesses that humanity have ever worshiped. "Atheists" just go one god more.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you like I can give you some scripture on the things God will hold against people.

Well in the context of this thread, scripture that supports the idea that God will not hold these action against these Japanese pilots as something they need to repent for, would probably be more helpful.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Look stealing a loaf of bread to feed your staving kids is wrong in the eyes of God when judged by His perfect standard which is His Law. If you want to talk about things that are wrong in the eyes of God then we will be here all night. Paul said that God gave the Law in order to show us our hopelessness in keeping it in order to drive us to Christ's redeeming act on Calvary which saves us from the curse of the law.

Where does that leave people who try to figure out a good way of living from the teachings of the Bible?

I think we would both agree that just because nothing is perfect doesn't mean that everything is equally bad. Otherwise what would be the point of the law in the first place?

Soul Winner wrote: »

So at the end of the day it is God who determines who has sinned or not.

That isn't in dispute. But you appear to be saying that we cannot know if what we are doing is a sinned or not until God decides it is. That would render the teachings of the Bible some what pointless. I imagine that isn't what you mean to say, but it is certainly coming across like that.

Soul Winner wrote: »

He has revealed Himself in His Word to be a Just Judge

Well that is the point of this discussion, the question of the logic of simply accepting that as a given.

You appear locked in cyclical reasoning, God has revealed himself to be just, therefore he is just, and because he is just the way he reveals himself is just.

stevejazzx · 04-01-2008 11:28am

mcgarnicle wrote: »

More spefically does God know the past, present and future all at once as is usually contended by Christians. If he is then surely this obviates any notion of context as a method of reading the various biblical writings as, if God were able to know how we would read them today, he would have put forth the writings in a far less parochial and less sadistic way given that he would be at once aware of how the writings would be received where they were presented and also exactly how they would spread and how they would be read thousands of years later.

Surely this then means that God

a) Meant what he wrote literally or b) did not write the bible at all.

I completely agree and you've phrsed the problem very well, unfortunately Christians will just say 'faith'. The bible can be represented in any fashion really and defended using one of the catch-all defenses i.e fatih, God works in mysterious ways, free will etc etc.
So the only answer really to this is that Gods plan was to either inflict or allow the most terrible of confusion, pain and suffering upon the whole of his creation for ever and then see who survived and made it out as a good christian.
So in the meantime people of the earth would have to suffer continuously - with the existence of god becoming more and more unlikley as generations progressed and evolved. He would even plant fossils all over the earth to confuse them and there would be available to them countless other ways in which they might explain the universe and some of these methods would be scientific and do not even invoke any supernatural elements .
They would discover space aviation and see the vastness of universe, they would become utterly entrenched in the developmnt of their species and their technology.
They would look at history and discover that certain elements were recorded incorrectly either through bias or ignorance. Generations would be so far removed from the initial histories of the bible that they would simply never even consider it as a real accont of history.
Billions of them, billions!, wouldn't even enter into the real fatih becasue of geography and litreally nil exposure to said religon but exposure to other strong belief systems and indeed other religons.
Humankind is supposed to endure all this confusion and still be in some kind of position where it's possible to chose a chrsitian God.
It's a patently ridiculous idea but its defended by people who can only be described as fundamentalists for how can anyone claim moderatism by declaring they speak for the one true fatih.

Steve

Soul Winner · 04-01-2008 11:35am

JoeBallantine wrote: »

My opinion is that the bible isn't clear at all and God is responsible for the suffering caused by genuine believers who cause harm to others through incorrect understanding of Gods word.

Plain as day... if God had said
'To kill another human is always wrong, ALWAYS WRONG'
there could be no confusion... and people who have killed because they have a genuine belief that it is acceptable in Gods eyes would not have done so (obviously because they couldn't have convinced themselves it was acceptable if it was crystal clear it wasn't).

There is also the issue of the Tower of Babel... apparently God is responsible for the earth's many different languages... and mis-translation and competing translations (of Gods scripture) cause many problems in the modern world. How is an omniscient God not to be held responsible for people who genuinely believe the wrong thing through a mis-translation?

Finally Jesus commited suicide... most definitely. He knew what was due to happen, he had the power to prevent it and yet he went along with it... so Jesus took actions (or took no preventative actions) which he knew full well would result in his own death.... that would seem to fit the definition of suicide perfectly. So possibly Jesus was the first Christian suicide.
(An alternative way of putting this is that Jesus voluntarily placed himself into a situation where he knew the outcome would be his own death, and yet he took no preventative action of which many were available to him.. ergo, Suicide.)
(Heading off possible criticism... consider 'suicide by cop'... it is still suicide even though the individual doesn't actually kill himself, so placing oneself in situations where the (desired) outcome is one's own death is suicide)

Cheers
Joe

In a nut shell I think you're confusing the God in your head with the real God as revealed in the scriptures. The God in the scriptures (if He truly does exist) is not out there asking you to accept Him, He’s telling you to. Nor does He care what you think. From His point of view you either get on His side or you're a goner. If you don't accept that kind of God then fine, it doesn’t really matter, because if that God truly is then He is and He’s top Dog so he’s going to win out in the end. Plus He's not looking for friends either, nor does He need them. What you have in your mind is a traditional view of God which you have absorbed from whatever exposure to learning about Him you've had in your life. That is not God's fault. If you really want to know about God then you will seek Him diligently but if you don't then you'll just take whatever second hand garbage there is out there and try to beat the real God over the head with it. The questions you ask are probably valid from a humanistic point of view but the revealed God of the scripture is not a humanist, neither was Jesus “I’ve come to do the will of the Father who sent me” that is not humanist nor was it suicide. Jesus asks God in John 17 “If it be possible let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will but thy will be done” that is not someone who is suicidal. You see you’re judging the Judge with very limited understanding. It’s like a pig sitting at a dinner table judging the eating habits of others at the table.

To me those who don't like the God as He has revealed Himself to be and who want Him to be different are like flees on a train track not accepting the train coming at them. Sooner or later... SPLAT!!!! And you don't have to accept that either. What you fail to see is it doesn't matter at all what you think, its what God thinks that matters. He's not taking votes, you're either on His side or your dead. You choose.

I bet you’ll just come back with something that basically reads ‘Well I don’t accept that” Who cares???

Zombrex · 04-01-2008 11:51am

Soul Winner wrote: »

If this is true then God really is in control of everything and is also Omniscient.

Well actually if any of it is true then you run into some major logical problems with the idea of an omniscient god as the God you have described in your summary does not appear to be omniscient

The Bible claims that God is omniscient yet describes a god who acts in the manner of a non-omniscient god.

which is probably where the OP, and others including myself, first starting have trouble with the idea that the Biblical God is supposed to be omniscient.

Soul Winner · 05-01-2008 12:23am

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I suppose anything can be argued, but I've yet to see a convincing argument along the lines that atheism is a belief system in of itself.

Have you heard the phrase -

Atheism is a religion (belief system) in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby

Maybe not but you’d be hard pressed to find as many non stamp collectors as against stamp collecting as there are atheists against belief in God.

Wicknight wrote: »

An atheist doesn't believe in God. That information doesn't actually tell you what the atheist does believe in.

Therefore knowing that he/she is an atheist tells you nothing about their actually belief system other than that it doesn't include a supernatural deity, in the same way that knowing someone doesn't collect stamps tells you nothing about their actual hobbies other than the fact that their hobbies don't include collecting stamps.

One wouldn't say that not collecting stamps is a hobby, and by the same token it would be peculiar to say that atheism is a belief system in of itself.

So what do you believe in? Seems like a pretty easy gig to just put down others for what they believe in all the time wouldn’t you agree? You said it to PDN and Brain Calgary yourself, that the reason for your posts is to challenge their beliefs in ways they do not like them being challenged. If I had as negative an interest like that in non stamp collecting then the stamp collectors would get a little hot under the collar don’t you think? Expecting me to storm in on their philatelic get-togethers any minute.

Wicknight wrote: »

What is a "non-position" other than a lack of belief.

Spose!

Wicknight wrote: »

Do I believe in gods? No. Then I'm an atheist (an "a"-theist, the reverse of a theist, a theist being someone who does believe in the existence of gods).

Ok I get it, you do not believe in a God, you are an ‘A’ Theist. Let me tell you I have nothing against people who do not believe in God or a deity. I just don’t like when they put others down for having a different opinion or belief system. I would stand up for an atheist the same way if he where being put down for not believing in God in the same manner.

Wicknight wrote: »

Something like 93% of the worlds population (this is obviously a rough estimate, they didn't ask everyone) claims to believe in a supernatural deity or groups of deities.

Now naturally this belief is not uniform. The Hindus don't believe in the Christian "God", and vice versa.

As Dawkins likes to say everyone is atheist when it comes to 99.99% of the gods and goddesses that humanity have ever worshiped. "Atheists" just go one god more.

Sorry hold there. How can 93% of the world’s population believe in a supernatural deity and yet (as you say Dawkins puts it) everyone is an atheist when it comes to 99.99% of the gods and goddesses that humanity has ever worshipped? Something wrong with these figures I think.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well in the context of this thread, scripture that supports the idea that God will not hold these action against these Japanese pilots as something they need to repent for, would probably be more helpful.

Does it have to mention each pilot by name or would a general idea in a text suit better? St Paul the Apostle says that for you to do something that is wrong to you then it is sin for you to do it even though it probably wouldn’t bother God as much. We could use the following as an earthly example: Let say your kid thinks that you really hate him jumping on your bed and he does it with that in mind, you come in a find his jumping really cute. Has the kid do something wrong?

Wicknight wrote: »

Where does that leave people who try to figure out a good way of living from the teachings of the Bible?

Are you serious? Like I said before if everyone in the world where to do the things revealed in the law of God then the world would be a much better place to live. Even though it (the Law) was fulfilled in Christ. And what if everyone did the things Jesus said to do? Like to love your neighbour as yourself and if a man strikes you turn the other cheek or if a man steals your cloak give him another garment. You cannot argue that if everyone followed rules like these that the world would be a worse place to live. Can you? Seriously? You are asking me to give you scripture then you reject the scripture I give you.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think we would both agree that just because nothing is perfect doesn't mean that everything is equally bad. Otherwise what would be the point of the law in the first place?

Yes some things are worse than other things alright even though they be not perfect themselves. Like not killing someone is better than killing them, but better than even that is to buy them a car as well.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't in dispute. But you appear to be saying that we cannot know if what we are doing is a sin or not until God decides it is. That would render the teachings of the Bible some what pointless. I imagine that isn't what you mean to say, but it is certainly coming across like that.

It certainly does sound like I’m saying that but when God told Moses that he did not sin even though he had killed 3000 people then that is God’s divine providence. Moses was so angry that after God delivered them out of Egypt and seen all His miraculous doings then is given the law of God on the mount to come down and see them worshipping a graven image just took the biscuit. God lamented that the children of Israel only knew His acts, only Moses came to know is ways. Moses had God’s ways in His heart and got angry in the right direction. Look put yourself in God’s position for a minute. You create the world and your creation fails to recognise your handiwork and ascribes it something else and doesn’t give you praise or glory for it, would that not pee you off just a little?

Wicknight wrote: »

You appear locked in cyclical reasoning, God has revealed himself to be just, therefore he is just, and because he is just the way he reveals himself is just.

I can say the same for your signature quote for example: "Every religion is right about one thing. And that is that all the others are completely wrong" - Prof. Ronald de Sousa. Isn’t that also a form of cyclical reasoning? Do really believe that no religion ever said anything right?

Let’s say you reveal yourself to be an ignoramus wouldn’t that make you an ignoramus? Likewise with God revealing Himself to be Just. Judas revealed himself to be a betrayer, Peter revealed himself to be a coward, Richard Dawkins revealed himself to be an atheist and so on…

Zombrex · 05-01-2008 1:33am

Soul Winner wrote: »

Maybe not but you’d be hard pressed to find as many non stamp collectors as against stamp collecting as there are atheists against belief in God.

that doesn't really matter. A non-stamp collector may very well hate stamp collecting, and hate the very idea of anyone else collecting stamps. Or they may not.

How they feel about others collecting stamps is a seperate issue to whether or not they do.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So what do you believe in?

Lots of things. You will have to be more specific if you want me to go into detail.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Seems like a pretty easy gig to just put down others for what they believe in all the time wouldn’t you agree?

Well I also cook

Soul Winner wrote: »

You said it to PDN and Brain Calgary yourself, that the reason for your posts is to challenge their beliefs in ways they do not like them being challenged.

Certain. One of the things I do believe in is that ideas, all ideas, must be challenged to their very core on a regular basis, particularly when they concern ideas that shape how humans handle matters such as war and killing. And also that no idea is infallible, and that belief in infallible ideas is dangerous.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Let me tell you I have nothing against people who do not believe in God or a deity. I just don’t like when they put others down for having a different opinion or belief system.

Define "put others down"

If you are referring to PDN I didn't put him down because he had a different belief system to me. I "put him down" because he was making assertions in reply to the OP's original questions that simply did not stand up.

I don't accept this idea that one must pussy foot around beliefs lest we offend those who hold them. I respect PDN has a right to hold and express any idea he likes, but I don't accept that I must respect the idea itself.

BTW I'm pretty sure that PDN doesn't give two sugars about what I say to him or about him.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Sorry hold there. How can 93% of the world’s population believe in a supernatural deity and yet (as you say Dawkins puts it) everyone is an atheist when it comes to 99.99% of the gods and goddesses that humanity has ever worshipped? Something wrong with these figures I think.

Because every religion (or at least the vast majority of religions) rejects every other religion's gods and godesses as either not being real, being the work of deceptive forces (such as the devil in Christianity) or being actually a confused version of their own god.

For example the majority of Christians don't believe in Thor, Zeus, Odion, Chiuta etc etc

There are litterally hundreds and hundreds of known gods that at one point have been worshipped by some humans some where, and probably far more that history has forgotten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does it have to mention each pilot by name or would a general idea in a text suit better?

It doesn't have to mention the pilots at all.

It has to make it clear, by reasonable standards, that suicide in the persuit of indiscriminately killing the enemy is immoral. And it has to not be blatantly contradicted by another passage some where else.

It is the contradiction that gets the Bible into its most trouble. In my opinion it is far too long and far too convoluted to be used as a serious moral guide (there is a thread about this in the Atheists forum)

Soul Winner wrote: »

St Paul the Apostle says that for you to do something that is wrong to you then it is sin for you to do it even though it probably wouldn’t bother God as much. We could use the following as an earthly example: Let say your kid thinks that you really hate him jumping on your bed and he does it with that in mind, you come in a find his jumping really cute. Has the kid do something wrong?

Well without knowing more of the context of this example, I would say yes. He is setting out to upset you on purpose. Like I said I don't know why he is doing this, but he is doing that, and it is not something I would teach my kids.

If I understand your point it is that God would not concern himself with such a tivial matter or morality, but it can still be considered right or wrong.

But at the same time I'm not sure jumping on a bed quite equates to flying a plane into a battleship.

If that would concern God, what would get God's attention?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Are you serious?

Always .. except when I do this :eek:

Soul Winner wrote: »

You cannot argue that if everyone followed rules like these that the world would be a worse place to live. Can you? Seriously?

Well it depends on how far you take it.

If everyone loved everyone else then no one would ever strike another person as an enemy, so Jesus' commandment to turn the other cheek would be redundent.

On the other hand if enemies still existed in the world, and people turned the other cheek we would probably all be enslaved by now under what ever facist regime that appeared first.

Some people take that instruction very seriously, such as some Quakers who believe that violence is never an option not matter what is actually happening, even going so far as to refuse to pay tax on military and defense spending.

A world where everyone is a Quaker might be wonderful, but a world where 50% of the population is a Quaker and the other half are Nazis would be so great.

Of course the Quakers may argue that it isn't this world that matters in the long run.

The issue with a lot of the nice things in the New Testament (the Old Testament is just horrible, so we will skip that) that Jesus taught is that they are simply far too abstract and wishy washy, as summed up brillantly by the TV series "Sunday Heros"

Love your enemy as your neighbour sound nice, but does it actually mean anything in a tangable way as a guide to life that we wouldn't have figured out anyway?

I am very weary of sound bite morality that proports to be profound but actually ends up saying very little.

People are left to their own devices to figure out how to apply these sound bites to actual real world situations, which makes them rather pointless since people just end up doing what they probably would have done anyway.

Except now they believe God agrees with them, which does cause trouble.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Look put yourself in God’s position for a minute. You create the world and your creation fails to recognise your handiwork and ascribes it something else and doesn’t give you praise or glory for it, would that not pee you off just a little?

No.

Firstly, God is omniscient. At no point in his existance, as infiniate as it is, did he not know that that was what was going to happen. God is ultimately responsible for the creation of everything. He therefore ultimately has control over how everything is and will be. The idea that a creation of his could annoy him is illogical.

Secondly the idea that a deity gets "peed off" is rather ridiculous. Being annoyed is a human trait, and not one that I would imagine a perfect being has

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do really believe that no religion ever said anything right?

No, at least not when it comes to what they claim to have authority over, that being speaking about the nature of the universe and existence.

If I had a euro for every claim a religion has made about reality that has turned out to be completely wrong I would give Bill Gates a run for his money.

The ultimately problem with religion, any religion, is that it pretends to know what it doesn't actually know.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Let’s say you reveal yourself to be an ignoramus wouldn’t that make you an ignoramus? Likewise with God revealing Himself to be Just.

But that is cyclical reasoning because your religion also teaches that God decides what is Just in the first place.

God doesn't reveal himself to be just by our standards of morality. Our standards of morality say that a army should not enter a town and kill all men and children in the town and then take the virgin women as wives for the soldiers. There is not a single situtation where that would be considered just under any circumstance in any of the modern societies on Earth.

God commands the Hebrews to do this in the Old Testament a number of times.

(Some) Christians and Jews explain this way by saying that while yes it would be unjust if anyone else did it, this action cannot be un-just because God himself has decided to do it, and everything God does is, by definition, Just.

Which is fine, but how can you then say that God reveals himself to be Just.

One cannot reveal themselves as something while at the same time deciding what the standard is in the first place. That isn't revealing oneself as being anything.

You get stuck in a feed back loop of two sell supporting ideas.

Which leads to problems, particularly when people start to act on this cyclical reasoning.

Fanny Cradock · 05-01-2008 4:05am

Mercy! I'm not reading that :eek:

Soul Winner · 10-01-2008 5:30pm

Sorry for the delay in replying. Was away for a while there. Ok where were we? Oh yeah.

Wicknight wrote: »

that doesn't really matter. A non-stamp collector may very well hate stamp collecting, and hate the very idea of anyone else collecting stamps. Or they may not.

How they feel about others collecting stamps is a seperate issue to whether or not they do.

What do atheists base their un-belief in God on? Have they proven Him to not exist? If so then where is the proof? I would really like to see it. I can understand why an atheist would cringe at the thought of somebody blindly accepting the fact that there is a God without proof enough to convince but it works both ways don’t you think? Where’s the proof that God does not exist? And if He truly does exist then He is not on trial, rather we are? If He truly does exist then He is the criteria for what is right and what is wrong? It doesn’t matter what we think and we cannot put Him on trial about it because we are not the criteria for truth in the first place.

Wicknight wrote: »

Lots of things. You will have to be more specific if you want me to go into detail.

Ok then let me be more specific. What do you value in life and why? And from whence comes this value system?

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I also cook

Do you say Grace before meals? Just kidding

Wicknight wrote: »

Certain. One of the things I do believe in is that ideas, all ideas, must be challenged to their very core on a regular basis, particularly when they concern ideas that shape how humans handle matters such as war and killing. And also that no idea is infallible, and that belief in infallible ideas is dangerous.

How so? If the what is believed in is infallible then it can only be dangerous to those who are threatened by it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Define "put others down"

If you are referring to PDN I didn't put him down because he had a different belief system to me. I "put him down" because he was making assertions in reply to the OP's original questions that simply did not stand up.

I don't accept this idea that one must pussy foot around beliefs lest we offend those who hold them. I respect PDN has a right to hold and express any idea he likes, but I don't accept that I must respect the idea itself.

BTW I'm pretty sure that PDN doesn't give two sugars about what I say to him or about him.

I think you and I are not very different at all in terms of how we believe we must approach subjects. If God exists then He is not afraid of truth.

Wicknight wrote: »

Because every religion (or at least the vast majority of religions) rejects every other religion's gods and godesses as either not being real, being the work of deceptive forces (such as the devil in Christianity) or being actually a confused version of their own god.

For example the majority of Christians don't believe in Thor, Zeus, Odion, Chiuta etc etc

There are litterally hundreds and hundreds of known gods that at one point have been worshipped by some humans some where, and probably far more that history has forgotten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

Granted but the three Abrahamic religions have a lot more in common than most people think but due to human nature we tend to focus on our differences more often than not. For instance Christians accept the Old Testament as God’s Word but it was fulfilled in Christ. The Jews accept that a Messiah is to come but that it is not Jesus, and Muslims respect Jesus as a great prophet but not God incarnate. Why I am a Christian is because I believe Christ was who He said He was. He either is who He said He is or He is nothing at all. That’s why the resurrection is crucial to Christianity. Paul says if Christ be not risen then our faith is vain. Once you can believe that He was raised from the dead as reported in the texts then that would give validity to the other claims He made about Himself, one of which is “I and the Father are one” and that “all authority in Heaven and earth is giving unto me”. But if He did not rise as reported then He is a fraud. How can one be sure? Just study the facts in evidence. Read the record. We cannot prove He did but we can prove that the disciples who preached it believed He did and that they were not hallucinating when they preached it. At some point there comes the leap of faith which says I believe it. Just like Jurors do in Jury duty. They are exposed to the facts in evidence and make their judgments based on those facts and the one on trial is adjudged guilty or not guilty based on their conclusions. In Christianity this is a lengthy endeavour and one that would take quite a lot of time but throughout history many great minds have taken the time to look and have come back convinced. The problem with most people today is they start out with the assumption that resurrections can’t happen and therefore didn’t happen so there is no point in investigating it because they can’t happen. Now that’s real cyclical reasoning if you ask me. If you can prove Christ didn’t rise from the grave then Christians are wrong to worship Him and Muslims are wrong to accept Him as a great prophet. We would be still waiting for the Messiah that the Jews are waiting for now. But if He did rise then Christians are right to worship Him and Muslims are wrong to only accept him as great prophet and the Jews are also wrong in rejecting Him outright as their own Messiah. As for the other religions of the world, well which one of their God’s claimed to rise from the grave and made the kinds of claims that Jesus made about Himself? Mohammad, Confucius, Buddha or any of the Old Testament prophets never made the claims Jesus made about Himself which is what sets Him apart. Like I said this is very lengthy and needs proper study but if is true then He is the centre of all reality and all things must be judged through Him and if it is false then He is nothing at all not even a good man never mind a great prophet.

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't have to mention the pilots at all.

It has to make it clear, by reasonable standards, that suicide in the persuit of indiscriminately killing the enemy is immoral. And it has to not be blatantly contradicted by another passage some where else.

It is the contradiction that gets the Bible into its most trouble. In my opinion it is far too long and far too convoluted to be used as a serious moral guide (there is a thread about this in the Atheists forum)

What I would say to people is when it comes to perceived contradictions in the Bible then to side with what it makes absolutely clear until the perceived contradiction is resolved. You could argue that the biggest contradictions in the Bible are the Old and New Testaments themselves. Which is why the Old Testament had to be fulfilled before the New Testament could take off. Does that mean we cannot learn from the Old Testament? Of course not. That would be like saying just because somebody died we cannot learn from their life’s contributions.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well without knowing more of the context of this example, I would say yes. He is setting out to upset you on purpose. Like I said I don't know why he is doing this, but he is doing that, and it is not something I would teach my kids.

If I understand your point it is that God would not concern himself with such a tivial matter or morality, but it can still be considered right or wrong.

But at the same time I'm not sure jumping on a bed quite equates to flying a plane into a battleship.

If that would concern God, what would get God's attention?

What would get God’s attention? What a great question. It is abundantly clear throughout scripture that the God as revealed therein responds to Faith. Faith being defined as acting on God’s Word of Promise. All other activity is sin whether it be morally and ethically acceptable from our point of view or not. Without Faith it is impossible to please God. God wants trust in His Word and nothing else matters to Him in terms of how we relate to Him only Faith in what He says. If you are unclear about something then just hang on in Faith and God will clear it up for you in time. Just stick to what is absolutely clear.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it depends on how far you take it.

If everyone loved everyone else then no one would ever strike another person as an enemy, so Jesus' commandment to turn the other cheek would be redundent.

Exactly, what a wonderful world that would be.

Wicknight wrote: »

On the other hand if enemies still existed in the world, and people turned the other cheek we would probably all be enslaved by now under what ever facist regime that appeared first.

Some people take that instruction very seriously, such as some Quakers who believe that violence is never an option not matter what is actually happening, even going so far as to refuse to pay tax on military and defense spending.

A world where everyone is a Quaker might be wonderful, but a world where 50% of the population is a Quaker and the other half are Nazis would be so great.

Totally agree.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course the Quakers may argue that it isn't this world that matters in the long run.

The issue with a lot of the nice things in the New Testament (the Old Testament is just horrible, so we will skip that) that Jesus taught is that they are simply far too abstract and wishy washy, as summed up brillantly by the TV series "Sunday Heros"

Most of the sayings of Jesus are not as wishy washy as you may think, only those that are gleaned out by traditions of men and put on the pedestal of not causing controversy. But Jesus said some pretty harsh things to. Things this generation finds very hard to take. For example: “If you forsake not all that you have and take up your cross and follow me then you cannot be my disciple”. Nothing wishy washy about that. Just a declaration. No basis given to it except that He says it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Love your enemy as your neighbour sound nice, but does it actually mean anything in a tangable way as a guide to life that we wouldn't have figured out anyway?

You could argue that way for all the morals in all religions if that is the case. The fact is that we didn’t figure it out by ourselves. It was handed down from a person who claimed He and God were one.

Wicknight wrote: »

I am very weary of sound bite morality that proports to be profound but actually ends up saying very little.

People are left to their own devices to figure out how to apply these sound bites to actual real world situations, which makes them rather pointless since people just end up doing what they probably would have done anyway.

Except now they believe God agrees with them, which does cause trouble.

A few examples would be nice.

Wicknight wrote: »

Firstly, God is omniscient. At no point in his existance, as infiniate as it is, did he not know that that was what was going to happen. God is ultimately responsible for the creation of everything. He therefore ultimately has control over how everything is and will be. The idea that a creation of his could annoy him is illogical. Except now they believe God agrees with them, which does cause trouble.

If we accept scripture as the source for claiming that the God revealed therein is omniscient then we must also accept from the same source God getting peed off with people. “Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.” Psalm 95:10-11 Just because we cannot understand something does not make it non-understandable. Where do we get the idea that we have the adequate equipment to understand all things? Paul says we see through a glass darkly but then face to face. If this is true then it puts to rest the idea that on this side of eternity we can understand everything there is to understand both in the physical and spiritual (if there is one) universes. Which is maybe why God calls for Faith instead of perfect understanding. If the roof was about to fall on your head and I only had time to shout “get out of the house quick” then to avoid certain death it would be a good idea to just do what I said instead understanding the reason why. I’ll tell you when you’re safely out of the house. If there is an eternity our there then we have all the time necessary to get the answers to the all the questions we have. But for now it is all about faith in the Word even if the Word does not give us all the answers to our questions on this side of the door.

Wicknight wrote: »

Secondly the idea that a deity gets "peed off" is rather ridiculous. Being annoyed is a human trait, and not one that I would imagine a perfect being has

Well it does say that God created us in His image doesn’t it? Maybe you’re thinking is backwards. Maybe we have this trait because He had it first and then made us in His image so now we have it. You are arguing from a purely humanistic point of view which is well and good if there really is no God but we must establish that there is no God first in order to proceed to the next step and centre all reality in how we view it.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, at least not when it comes to what they claim to have authority over, that being speaking about the nature of the universe and existence.

If I had a euro for every claim a religion has made about reality that has turned out to be completely wrong I would give Bill Gates a run for his money.

The ultimately problem with religion, any religion, is that it pretends to know what it doesn't actually know.

The same can be said about atheists. They do not know that there is no God. They assume it to be so based on observations they have made in the visible world and universe. Nobody has ever seen an atom and yet we know that all matter is made up of them. We can’t see radiation yet if exposed to it long enough it can change our very cell structure. Just because something is not visible to our very limited sight capacity doesn’t mean it does not exist.

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is cyclical reasoning because your religion also teaches that God decides what is Just in the first place.

Like I said earlier, if He is then what He says is just is just. He’s not taking votes on it.

Wicknight wrote: »

God doesn't reveal himself to be just by our standards of morality. Our standards of morality say that a army should not enter a town and kill all men and children in the town and then take the virgin women as wives for the soldiers. There is not a single situtation where that would be considered just under any circumstance in any of the modern societies on Earth.

God commands the Hebrews to do this in the Old Testament a number of times.

So then, there’s what we view as right and what He views as right. But who’s gonna win in the end? I agree going into villages and killing and raping and plundering is not what I would call being just unless you were acting on the Word of One who is the criteria for what is just and unjust.

Wicknight wrote: »

(Some) Christians and Jews explain this way by saying that while yes it would be unjust if anyone else did it, this action cannot be un-just because God himself has decided to do it, and everything God does is, by definition, Just.

Now you’re getting it!

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is fine, but how can you then say that God reveals himself to be Just.

Just by who’s standards though? Ours or His? I can’t stress it enough. If God is then He is the criteria for what is just and un-just. You don’t have to accept it but it is still true if He exists.

Wicknight wrote: »

One cannot reveal themselves as something while at the same time deciding what the standard is in the first place. That isn't revealing oneself as being anything.

You get stuck in a feed back loop of two sell supporting ideas.

Which leads to problems, particularly when people start to act on this cyclical reasoning.

I take it you are referring to God here. Why can’t He reveal himself to be something and at the same time decide what the standard is? For one He didn’t do this but I fail to see why He can’t. He revealed himself to Abraham long before he gave the law (standard) to Moses. Paul describes the law in the New Testament as a schoolmaster to drive us to Christ. Let's say you want to show an ugly person (forgive the analogy) who's never seen themsleves but thinks they're beautiful that they are in fact ugly? The best thing to do is show them a mirror. Same with the law. Anyone looking in the mirror of the law will soon see that they do not live up to it and may cry out, who shall deliver me? Christianity claims that this deliverance was provided in Christ who died to take that standard away. He became the standard and died freeing us form its consequences. This is purely and act of Grace on God’s part but its how we respond to this act that is in question now, not how we perform under the old standard the law.

So getting back to the pilots. If faith is what God is after then flying planes into warships or not flying planes into warships is not what's at issue. God has established a new covenant with man now. The Faith (trust) covenant. What's in question now is did they have faith in God's Word of Promise? Maybe those who brought Bibles on board their planes did not do so in order to rationalise their actions but rather to grab a promise of God which will help them to do what they feel they must do, whether voluntary or ordered by higher command. Who knows for sure whether their last words before crashing their plains wasn't "Lord be merciful to me a sinner" or "Though I walk to trough the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear not evil for thou art with me"? God has Established that you will be judged by your faith or by your works. If you accept the sacrifice provided in Christ then it is by your faith if you do not accept this Grace then it will by your works. And if you fall short even one jot of the perfect standard of the law then you will be condemned. Is there anyone here that believes that these pilots ever fell short of God’s law before they embarked on their kamikaze missions? If they are condemned under the law it will not be because they flew planes into warships it will be because they rejected the Grace provided in Christ for their already fallen short conditions. But only God and they know so who are we to judge them. We should worry more about our own salvation.

Conar · 10-01-2008 7:05pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

What do atheists base their un-belief in God on? Have they proven Him to not exist? If so then where is the proof? I would really like to see it. I can understand why an atheist would cringe at the thought of somebody blindly accepting the fact that there is a God without proof enough to convince but it works both ways don’t you think?

Do you believe in fairies?
If no, then where is your proof?
I can understand why a fairy skeptic would cringe at the thought of somebody blindly accepting the fact that there are fairies without proof enough to convince, but it works both ways don't you think?

Soul Winner · 10-01-2008 7:32pm

Conar wrote: »

Do you believe in fairies?
If no, then where is your proof?:p

No I don't believe in fairies. What are fairies? Why do I need proof that I don’t believe in fairies? Assuming there are fairies what has that got to do with anything? What are the consequences (if any) for disbelieving in them? Can you define one and give me a basis for a belief in them and I will probably have second thoughts on the subject.

Conar wrote: »

I can understand why a fairy skeptic would cringe at the thought of somebody blindly accepting the fact that there are fairies without proof enough to convince, but it works both ways don't you think?

I guess so but what is your point?

Conar · 10-01-2008 8:28pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

No I don't believe in fairies. What are fairies? Why do I need proof that I don’t believe in fairies? Assuming there are fairies what has that got to do with anything? What are the consequences (if any) for disbelieving in them? Can you define one and give me a basis for a belief in them and I will probably have second thoughts on the subject.

I guess so but what is your point?

Sorry I'm in work and have hardly any time for posting.
I simply turned your God question into a fairy question.
Why would anyone need to have proof that something exists.
Surely the norm would be to prove that something actually does exist.

If the fairy question seems obsurd to you then surely your question in relation to Gods existence must be equally silly?

BrianCalgary · 10-01-2008 11:25pm

Not necessarily. The Atheist stating that the onus of proof is on Christians to prove God, is the greatest cop-out, in my opinion of our time.

There are so many people that experience the living God in their daily lives. We have seen the living God in the life of Jesus.

I had an Atheist once in a crowd state emphatically 'there is no God'. I asked him to show us his proof that drew him to that conclusion. He said to me, 'prove there is'. I explained that I never said there was, so I have nothing to prove.

He was dumbfounded an stumbled and stuttered as the crowd then looked to him to prove his statement. He couldn't.

So over to you Conar. Is there a god?

robindch · 10-01-2008 11:30pm

Lousy reasoning there, I'm afraid, Brian. You've just "proved" the existence of the Muslim god too. And the existence of Thor, Zeus, Jupiter and the Flying Spaghetti Monster too.

BrianCalgary · 11-01-2008 12:06am

robindch wrote: »

Lousy reasoning there, I'm afraid, Brian. You've just "proved" the existence of the Muslim god too. And the existence of Thor, Zeus, Jupiter and the Flying Spaghetti Monster too.

How do you mean lousy reasoning?

Conar · 11-01-2008 12:46am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Not necessarily. The Atheist stating that the onus of proof is on Christians to prove God, is the greatest cop-out, in my opinion of our time.

Well allowing faith to override the need for proof is in my opinion the greatest cop out of all time.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There are so many people that experience the living God in their daily lives. We have seen the living God in the life of Jesus.

Have you seen the living God in the life of Jesus, or to whom are you referring when you say we?
There are so many people that "experience" paranormal activities on a daily basis but until I see proof of it then I will continue to believe they are either delusional or simply reading to much into events.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I had an Atheist once in a crowd state emphatically 'there is no God'. I asked him to show us his proof that drew him to that conclusion. He said to me, 'prove there is'. I explained that I never said there was, so I have nothing to prove.

He was dumbfounded an stumbled and stuttered as the crowd then looked to him to prove his statement. He couldn't.

As nice as it must have been to have caught someone off guard in an argument, I don't see how your little anecdote has any bearing on anything.
What does his lack of response prove?
It is up to the police to prove a crime was committed, not up to a suspect to prove it wasn't. If I told you that I could pause time would it be up to you to prove I can't etc etc..

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So over to you Conar. Is there a god?

I'm afraid not!

Soul Winner · 11-01-2008 1:54am

Conar wrote: »

Sorry I'm in work and have hardly any time for posting.
I simply turned your God question into a fairy question.
Why would anyone need to have proof that something exists.
Surely the norm would be to prove that something actually does exist.

If the fairy question seems obsurd to you then surely your question in relation to Gods existence must be equally silly?

I don't believe so. The body of ancient texts and manuscripts written by very different people in different times and in different places is huge, but they have one thing in common, they are dictated by the same God with the same attributes. If you read most of the OT Prophets they usually start out with "Thus saith the word of the Lord" or “The word of the Lord came unto me saying” and so on, they never say that this is what they say. This in itself becomes a convincing argument for the existence of something external and independent to the writers. And that is very different to what we have in relation to fairies isn't it? So no its is not as silly as the question in relation to fairies, sorry.

Zombrex · 11-01-2008 11:52am

Soul Winner wrote: »

What do atheists base their un-belief in God on? Have they proven Him to not exist? If so then where is the proof? I would really like to see it.

Depends on the atheist.

Personally I base my "un-belief" in God on a number of things

I can understand why humans would invent the concept to serve a number of purposes in culture, such as giving justification to morals, explaining aspects of nature they don't understand, providing a relief from fear of suffering and fear of death etc

My first doubts of God came from around 11 or 12 when I really started to notice how people around me hanged hope on things that actually had nothing behind them. This wasn't necessarily religious. Without getting into too much personal detail, my grand mother was very sick, and my aunt had convinced herself that she wouldn't die. There was not rational reason behind this (and she did die), but my aunt truly believed this.

My aunt is a rational person, she is a school teacher. She was perfectly aware of my grand mothers state. I asked myself how could my aunt believe this. And the conclusion I came to is that she really really wanted it to be true.

That was probably my first real experience of how the adult human mind can convince itself that something positive is true, even with little reason to believe it. It wasn't that it was certain my grand mother would die. But that was by far the most likely outcome. My aunt convinced herself that the much less likely outcome was going to happen simply because the alternative to that was too hard for her to consider.

From this experience I began to question the ability of the human mind to rationally process something when the person has something hugely invested in a positive out come, a judgment detached completely from the actual likelihood of that outcome.

This lead me to look at religion.

Religion promises the mother of all positive outcomes, an eternal life, eternal love etc. What is the actual evidence for is? Why would people believe in this so strongly? This went back to my aunt.

If one accepts that humans (all humans, not just ones with mental problems) can delude themselves into believe that the positive out come will happen, completely detached from the actual likelihood of said out come, one cannot trust the fact that so many people believe in religion as meaning anything about the likelihood it is actually real.

Long story short this lead to a serious consideration of religion, looking at how through out history and across the world, humans (again all humans) do pretty much the same thing.

The details of the religions change. Some believe in gods, others believe in spirits, others believe in aliens. The almost universal theme remains the same thought, people convincing themselves, often through elaborate stories, that the positive outcome will happen. The details of the religion, what god they worship, what they imagine the after life is like etc etc, are simply padding around this to re-enforce this belief in the positive outcome.

This is no different to my aunt thinking that my grand mother looked "much improved" the week she died. Its padding that the mind creates to appear to rationalize the hope that the positive outcome is in fact likely.

So to answer you question, I can't "prove" God doesn't exist, any more than the rest of my family could prove to my aunt that my grandmother was going to die. In fact it probably wouldn't matter even if they could. "Proof", true honest to Allah proof, exists only in mathematical circles. We can't know anything for certain, and we can convince others of certainty even less.

But I believe that humans invented gods and religion as padding around the need to believe that the positive outcome is more likely than the negative outcome (the details of that outcome changes as does the details of the padding), just in the same way that I believe that is what happened to my aunt.

The universe unfortunately doesn't care either way. Things happen, or they don't happen. There is nothing out there looking out for us. There is nothing that will make sure the positive outcome will happen over the negative outcome.

What we want to happen, what we want to be true, no matter how badly we want it, doesn't change that.

I hope that in some way answers your question.

stevejazzx · 11-01-2008 12:17pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

How do you mean lousy reasoning?

Saying it exists or feeling it exists does not make it so.

robindch · 11-01-2008 12:43pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

How do you mean lousy reasoning?

As steve says, just because you think there's something out there, doesn't mean there actually is.

Lots of muslims feel the presence of Allah in their lives, lost of hindus talk about the reality of Ganesh and Ram and it's pretty much the same for all the other believers and gods. By implication from your line "There are so many people that experience the living God in their daily lives", you've "shown" (to your standards) that all the other gods must exist too, including all the ones which are just as omnipotent, omniscient and unique as your god.

As I said, it's lousy reasoning, and it leads to a completely unjustified conclusion.

Zombrex · 11-01-2008 1:01pm

Soul Winner wrote:

Ok then let me be more specific. What do you value in life and why? And from whence comes this value system?

I value a lot of things, probably too many to list here.

I value human relationships, I value my family and friends and human life in general. It pains me to think of suffering (why I tend to get very annoyed in threads like the one on the events in the Old Testament). I value beauty and see beauty in nature around us.

Where this "value system" comes from is a complicated question.

Evolutionary biology demonstrates that a lot of our emotions that we us to form moral systems, such as guilt, empathy, love, companionship etc have evolutionary justification.

But these emotions have been coupled with our higher intelligence, and as such only form a foundation for the far more complex moral systems humans can develop.

Soul Winner wrote:

How so? If the what is believed in is infallible then it can only be dangerous to those who are threatened by it.

No, it can be dangerous to those who don't accept it as infallible.

So I'm not solely picking on religion, look at the idea in Chinese Communism that religion is damaging to society and should be routed out from all areas of the country, often with force if necessary.

Is this idea infallible? Those who follow it certain appear to believe so. They have been taught that Mao's ideas are perfect and that they cannot be challenged.

So it becomes less of a question of that I believe this idea is wrong, but more of an idea that they cannot accept that it is possible that this idea is wrong.

A religious example would be the idea that God can only do good, therefore anything that a religious person believes is done under the direction of God is moral, no matter what it is. Again it is not only that I believe this idea is wrong, but that those who believe it refuse to accept that it might be wrong. Which leads to people justifying everything from Sept 11, to the genocide in the Old Testament, simply because they believe absolutely in a perfect God that cannot do wrong.

Soul Winner wrote:

Once you can believe that He was raised from the dead as reported in the texts then that would give validity to the other claims He made about Himself

Well no actually it wouldn't.

Consider for example that he was actually Satan. How would you tell?

One of the biggest paradoxes of religion is the conflict between accepting the supernatural as possible, while also believing that we can still determine the truth behind events using our own judgment.

If the supernatural is possible then we actually lose all ability to determine anything.

Jesus could be the Son of God. Or he could have been Satan pretending to be the Son of God. Or Satan might actually be God, and God might actually be an angel pretending to be God.

Now you can say that you don't accept that, or don't believe that. But that judgment is based not on rational assessment but more on how you think it should be. God should be good and Satan should be bad. God shouldn't do bad things. Jesus did good things, he should be God. Satan should only do bad things.

Again this goes back to the "padding" I discussed in the previous post. You believe these things because you have already created a narrative to provide the positive outcome you want to be true.

Very few modern theists consider the idea of a God that can do bad as well as good things, because such a God doesn't fit into the narrative that provides the positive outcome they want. This appears to be a modern-ish phenomena, the older religions had little trouble with a God, or gods, that did bad as well as good, probably because moral concepts like that were less well defined than in modern culture.

Soul Winner wrote:

But if He did not rise as reported then He is a fraud. How can one be sure? Just study the facts in evidence. Read the record.

You can say that about any religion. Want to be shown the Scientology is real? Read Dianetics. What do be shown that Islam is real? Read the Qu'ran. Want to be shown that Hindu is real? Read the Vendas.

You can't prove that any of those things happened, but you can certainly demonstrate that people believe they did.

Soul Winner wrote:

As for the other religions of the world, well which one of their God’s claimed to rise from the grave and made the kinds of claims that Jesus made about Himself?

There have actually been tons of religion where the leader is claimed to have risen from the dead, and all of them had or have followers. There is little unique about Jesus in this regard, nor that his followers believed it happened.

Now I know you won't accept this, but again it is because you want it to be true. You rationalize that Jesus must have risen from the dead in the same way my aunt rationalized that my grand mother was getting much better.

If my aunt had been looked at a woman she didn't know who was in the same condition as my grand mother I seriously doubt she would have believed she was getting better.

In the same way you look at other religions and have no trouble saying that there is no suggestion here at all that any of this is true. People following supernatural deities doesn't in anyway suggest that the supernatural deities are real.

Soul Winner wrote:

You could argue that the biggest contradictions in the Bible are the Old and New Testaments themselves. Which is why the Old Testament had to be fulfilled before the New Testament could take off. Does that mean we cannot learn from the Old Testament? Of course not. That would be like saying just because somebody died we cannot learn from their life’s contributions.

Well it is more like someone in their 20s saying one thing and then in their 50s saying something contradictory.

The problem with that is that God doesn't age and isn't supposed to change positions or view points.

Soul Winner wrote:

For example: “If you forsake not all that you have and take up your cross and follow me then you cannot be my disciple”. Nothing wishy washy about that. Just a declaration. No basis given to it except that He says it.

Well actually that is very wishy washy.

For example, what does he actually mean by "not all"? Are you supposed to forsake everything? Your house, your clothes, your money, your job, your family, your friends, your wife?

Most Christians would say no. But on what basis do they say that. A judgment based on something else no doubt.

Soul Winner wrote:

You could argue that way for all the morals in all religions if that is the case.

You can, and I often do. All religious morality is just human morality (from an atheist perspective). We (humans) made it all up based on our own moral compass. Which is why you don't find anything in any human religion that is a spectacular moral announcement. There isn't a single moral teaching in the Bible that isn't found in countless other sources from other cultures and societies.

Soul Winner wrote:

A few examples would be nice.

Well "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you"[/i]

Does that mean Christians should never go to war? Christians interpret that in vastly different ways. Some say yes, some say no. They end up doing what they probably would have done anyway.

Soul Winner wrote:

If we accept scripture as the source for claiming that the God revealed therein is omniscient then we must also accept from the same source God getting peed off with people.

Yes, but the fact that those two things contradict each other would that not suggest to you that the source is not divinely inspired.

You put a lot of weight in the idea that humans can determine from the consistency of the Bible that it is the truth, something that other holy books demonstrate themselves not to be.

Well, here is an example of contradiction. What does that suggest to you about the Bible?

To say that you have faith that this isn't a contradiction is illogical, because you are only supposed to have faith in the first place because the truth has been demonstrated to you through the Bible.

Soul Winner wrote:

Well it does say that God created us in His image doesn’t it?

Are we omniscent beings that exist outside of space and time with the power to create and manipulate universes at will?

You can see that somethings were exactly Xeroxed perfectly during that creation

Soul Winner wrote:

You are arguing from a purely humanistic point of view which is well and good if there really is no God but we must establish that there is no God first in order to proceed to the next step and centre all reality in how we view it.

Well no actually. Remember all this is supposed to be evidence that he does exist. The Bible is supposed to be so perfect that we can't help but conclude that it is inspired by God. You can't use the proposition that God already exists to excuse issues in the Bible itself. If you do you have to first explain a reason for believing in God that doesn't include the Bible.

Soul Winner wrote:

The same can be said about atheists. They do not know that there is no God.

You are right, they don't. But few atheists would claim they do.

The problem is that religion claims to actually, 100% certain, know things. As in this isn't wrong because God cannot be wrong.

Science has a clause in it called "falsifiability"

What this means is that it must be logically possible to demonstrate that a scientific theory, any scientific theory, is wrong. If it is impossible to demonstrate a scientific theory is wrong then it is not a scientific theory (which is one of the reasons why science ignores God in its theories)

The reason this is in science is because of the realization from science pilosophy that is it impossible to know something for certain. What ever we think we know may in fact be wrong, because we lack the ability in this universe to demonstrate beyond all doubt that something is absolutely correct.

This is a philosophy absent form religion. In fact the point of religion is the exact opposite, that being able to say for certain that something is true.

Soul Winner wrote:

Like I said earlier, if He is then what He says is just is just. He’s not taking votes on it.

But Soul Winner that is up there with the classic though experiment of the liar who claims he is not lying. How do you tell if he if what he is saying is true or not.

This goes back to what I said earlier, you believe God must be just because that fits into the narrative that you want to be true, because you want the positive out come.

The idea of an unjust God simply does not fit into that narrative. A unjust God would not guarantee the positive out come that you need to be true, so you dismiss it as simply be not something to consider.

You attempt to rationalize this as part of the padding but the rational is cyclical reasoning (the worst kind) because I seriously doubt you are basing this conclusion on reason.

Soul Winner wrote:

Just by who’s standards though? Ours or His? I can’t stress it enough. If God is then He is the criteria for what is just and un-just. You don’t have to accept it but it is still true if He exists.

But you have no reason to believe that if God exists he must be just. That is simply a assumption you are making (see above) because you want it to be true.

Soul Winner wrote:

Why can’t He reveal himself to be something and at the same time decide what the standard is?

Because then you can't judge what he did and cannot make a determination from that.

If you say that God reveals himself to be good through the Bible, that contradicts the statement that human standards of "good" are irrelevant for God.

For example, how do you know that God isn't actually Satan pretending to be God for some unknown yet evil scheme

I imagine you would say that you can judge that he isn't by what he does. He does good. Satan wouldn't do good.

But you have already said that what ever God does must be good. So even if God does something that we might consider bad, that is still good because it is God. But what if God is actually Satan pretending. Then Satan does something bad. You can't judge if this is actually bad or not, because you are working on the grounds that what ever he does is good.

Satan could be pretending to be God and you could never tell, because you have already established that what ever God does must be good. You on the one hand say that you judgment can determine God is God, yet at the same time say that your judgment is completely incapable of assessing God.

Soul Winner · 11-01-2008 8:12pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on the atheist.

Personally I base my "un-belief" in God on a number of things.

I can understand why humans would invent the concept to serve a number of purposes in culture, such as giving justification to morals, explaining aspects of nature they don't understand, providing a relief from fear of suffering and fear of death etc

But that cannot apply to the Old Testament Israelites. They claimed an outside source was directing their lives. If they had invented Jehovah why would they not pronounce His name verbally? It was claimed that God said to Moses by the name Jehovah you shall know me which meant it was a name they could utter with their lips. But they threw it back into obscurity by believing it to be too holy to utter. That is not consistent with someone deliberately creating a deity to please themselves.

Also if we are to presume that they invented their version of God then why would they give themselves a law that they could not perform practically? Why would they give themselves Sabbath years? A Sabbath year was introduced to let the land lie dormant for a year in order to regain its nutrients. It meant that they could not plough the land every seventh year, which meant no crops for that year. If they invented their God why would they introduce this law which they broke continually? Which was the reason they were brought into bondage to Babylon for 70 years so God could claim back all Sabbath years they ploughed the land? It doesn’t make sense that they would invent laws like this if they weren’t prepared to obey them. And that’s just one example. I can find more nonsensical examples. When one reads the record it reads to me like they are being dealt with by someone outside of their realm of existence, dictating things that they should do in order to oracle-ise His purposes through them. Like making sure that Moses builds the Ark of the Covenant exactly with the materials and the dimensions that was given to him. What purpose does it serve to kill the High Priest who didn’t present the yearly sacrifice if it wasn’t acceptable as in free from all blemishes like warts etc..? And if these stories are just made up what possible benefit can they have to anyone? “Who writes this stuff?” one might ask. It’s only when you come to the New Testament do you find the full meaning of these types and shadows (as Paul calls them) the substance of which is Christ. The Ark was made of acacia wood and gold the two natures of Christ man (acacia wood) and God (Gold). It contained the unbroken tablets of the law because only in Christ is the law kept unbroken. It also contained Aaron’s rod with budded back to life which symbolises Christ’s death and resurrection and the Manna bread which came down from God out of Heaven, Christ was the bread of life which came down from heaven. He is also symbolised throughout the tabernacle but it would be too lengthy to go into here.

Wicknight wrote: »

My first doubts of God came from around 11 or 12 when I really started to notice how people around me hanged hope on things that actually had nothing behind them. This wasn't necessarily religious. Without getting into too much personal detail, my grand mother was very sick, and my aunt had convinced herself that she wouldn't die. There was not rational reason behind this (and she did die), but my aunt truly believed this.

My aunt is a rational person, she is a school teacher. She was perfectly aware of my grand mothers state. I asked myself how could my aunt believe this. And the conclusion I came to is that she really really wanted it to be true.

That was probably my first real experience of how the adult human mind can convince itself that something positive is true, even with little reason to believe it. It wasn't that it was certain my grand mother would die. But that was by far the most likely outcome. My aunt convinced herself that the much less likely outcome was going to happen simply because the alternative to that was too hard for her to consider.

From this experience I began to question the ability of the human mind to rationally process something when the person has something hugely invested in a positive out come, a judgment detached completely from the actual likelihood of that outcome.

This lead me to look at religion.

Religion promises the mother of all positive outcomes, an eternal life, eternal love etc. What is the actual evidence for is? Why would people believe in this so strongly? This went back to my aunt.

If one accepts that humans (all humans, not just ones with mental problems) can delude themselves into believe that the positive out come will happen, completely detached from the actual likelihood of said out come, one cannot trust the fact that so many people believe in religion as meaning anything about the likelihood it is actually real.

Long story short this lead to a serious consideration of religion, looking at how through out history and across the world, humans (again all humans) do pretty much the same thing.

The details of the religions change. Some believe in gods, others believe in spirits, others believe in aliens. The almost universal theme remains the same thought, people convincing themselves, often through elaborate stories, that the positive outcome will happen. The details of the religion, what god they worship, what they imagine the after life is like etc etc, are simply padding around this to re-enforce this belief in the positive outcome.

But that is not what the New Testament teaches though. You are judging all religions the same with a limited knowledge and understanding of any of them. In the New Testament Christians where first persecuted by the Jews because they departed from the Law of Moses and for preaching a new message apart from that Law and then by the Romans because they became the scapegoat of the Empire’s problems. They were used as lights to light up the gardens of Nero when they where burnt to death at the stake. Whole families where thrown to lions singing praises to Jesus. And all because they believed in a Person who they believed rose from the dead. Even Pilate washed his hands of His blood because there was no true cause to crucify Him. These stories are written as an historical record of the events that took place. They were not written down as fables in order to tickle the religious urge. Forgive me for saying but you’re very limited understanding and knowledge of religion is not a good focus meter to adjudge things you’ve obviously never studied in dept. The personal circumstances you describe with your Aunt and Grandmother are sad in the natural but nowhere in scripture does it say these things will not happen to you as some point in your life. In fact Jesus Himself says that in this world you will have tribulation. If what happened to you personally is proof that there is no God then it could be argued that the many miracles which people report daily in their own lives is proof that there is. And we all know hoe most atheists feel about that kind of testimony.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is no different to my aunt thinking that my grand mother looked "much improved" the week she died. Its padding that the mind creates to appear to rationalize the hope that the positive outcome is in fact likely.

The mind might indeed create padding to soften the blows life inevitably dishes out but this has nothing to with the existence of God. Just because one gets disillusioned with life’s negatives, that should not form the basis for an atheistic viewpoint. If that were so then that is as foolish (as most atheists will say of theists) as basing one’s belief in God on one’s positive experiences and asking people to believe in God based on that. What’s needed is genuine scrutiny of the manuscripts that are available where the basis for the religions in question are formed.

It is my belief that a lot of atheistic positions are based on a reaction to bad theology but because they simply have no basis for believing in a God they never venture to check it out any further themselves. Sad really as there are a lot of really intelligent atheists what allow bad theology spouters (so called theologians) to put them off the subject entirely. I don’t blame some atheists who hate religion sometimes, they were never given any kind of solid foundation to build from. But there are some equally ignorant atheists who place the truth of all things in how they perceive it to be and if God is not there in their limited capacity to see Him then He doesn’t exist.

Wicknight wrote: »

So to answer you question, I can't "prove" God doesn't exist, any more than the rest of my family could prove to my aunt that my grandmother was going to die. In fact it probably wouldn't matter even if they could. "Proof", true honest to Allah proof, exists only in mathematical circles. We can't know anything for certain, and we can convince others of certainty even less.

If mathematics is what you view as the only and ultimate truth in the universe then how did such an “infallible” truth come to be? And how do you reconcile that view with what you said in an earlier post that “belief in infallible ideas is dangerous.”

Wicknight wrote: »

The universe unfortunately doesn't care either way. Things happen, or they don't happen. There is nothing out there looking out for us. There is nothing that will make sure the positive outcome will happen over the negative outcome.

Again you’re basing your belief on your negative experiences. Or so it seems anyway.

Wicknight wrote: »

I hope that in some way answers your question.

Yes it does thank you for talking the time to do so.

P.S I've just noticed you other replies. Will read and get back as soon as...

Zombrex · 12-01-2008 12:58am

Soul Winner wrote: »

But that cannot apply to the Old Testament Israelites. They claimed an outside source was directing their lives. If they had invented Jehovah why would they not pronounce His name verbally? It was claimed that God said to Moses by the name Jehovah you shall know me which meant it was a name they could utter with their lips. But they threw it back into obscurity by believing it to be too holy to utter. That is not consistent with someone deliberately creating a deity to please themselves.

Well as I said, "padding," the constructs humans use to make these highly unlikely things seem likely.

Humans have to believe that these things are rational. If God exists, and we need to please him, and he is holy, would it not be logical to not mention his name out loud. We don't, after all want to anger him.

For example, if my aunt really wanted my grand mother to be better, why did she not simply convince herself that she no longer was sick at all? Well obviously because the rational side of her brain would simply over rule that as being ridiculous. She was in hospital hooked up to machines struggling to breath.

Instead my aunt latched on to the far more plausible idea that she was slowly getting better. She could rationalise that, it became the padding around the belief in the positive outcome, that things would eventually get better.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If they invented their God why would they introduce this law which they broke continually?

Because humans are like that.

Though I must say you are talking about this as if a council of elders got around in a room one day and decided to invent a god to make themselves all feel better.

If I implied that is what happened I apologise.

How modern religions and modern superstitions arise gives us clues how the older ones did. And it is one big case of Chinese whispers. These ideas evolve, often slowly, and are passed on and change and morph into new ideas. They are generally not controlled by one group of people who decide a strict uniform series of rules. Even Christianity evolved. Compare what Catholics believe now to what 1st century Christians believed.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It doesn’t make sense that they would invent laws like this if they weren’t prepared to obey them.

Why not?

Scientology is a completely made up religion. Some scientologists are stricter than others. L. Ron. Hubbard didn't follow any of his doctrine, probably because he knew he was making it up.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Ark was made of acacia wood and gold the two natures of Christ man (acacia wood) and God (Gold).

Well you could say that about anything. If the ark had been made out of tinfoil and bamboo you could say one represents God and one Christ.

You are fitting the event around the interpretation that you want it to mean.

Soul Winner wrote: »

These stories are written as an historical record of the events that took place. They were not written down as fables in order to tickle the religious urge.

I didn't claim they were.

The early Christians believed very strongly in their religion, and as you say there is strong historical evidence of this. But then so do most religious people. Muslim fundamentalists are prepared to blow themselves up for the promise of a better world in heaven. New age cults commit mass suicides for the promise of a better life on a star.

People will do almost anything for this positive out come that they grave, even die or kill. In fact the more they are willing the more they convince themselves that it must be true. I must be true because otherwise I wouldn't be willing to die. It must be true because otherwise I wouldn't be willing to kill.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Forgive me for saying but you’re very limited understanding and knowledge of religion is not a good focus meter to adjudge things you’ve obviously never studied in dept.

Well no offence Soul but I think you are deliberately ignore my point.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The personal circumstances you describe with your Aunt and Grandmother are sad in the natural but nowhere in scripture does it say these things will not happen to you as some point in your life.

Again that isn't my point, and I find it difficult to believe you honestly though that was my point.

I am not saying my aunt believe Christianity would save my grandmother. My aunt didn't believe anything specific would. But she believe that it simply would be ok in the end. She didn't know how or why (or at least didn't explain that to us), but she believe it would be simply because to her it must be ok in the end. The alternative was not worth considering.

Take the early Christian thrown to the lions. He or she must believe in an after life and in a God that will provide this after life. This need for that to be true over rides even the most basic fear of death. They can either die, and go to heaven, or renounce God, renounce their belief, and cease to exist after they die. To them that would hardly even be an option.

People are so afraid of the idea that the positive outcome will not happen that they will do almost anything to convince themselves that it will, even dying.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If what happened to you personally is proof that there is no God

Again you are, either on purpose or simply by not following my post, missing the point.

The point isn't that because a bad thing happened to my grandmother this demonstrates there is no God.

The point is that because a bad thing was happening to my grandmother my aunt was so afraid of the negative outcome that she convinced herself, in all honesty, that my grandmother would pull through. She convinced herself of the positive outcome, not matter how it happened, would be the outcome.

If my aunt can do that, can forsake all rationality and reality, because she must believe something is true, it is not hard to see how humans could and would develop something like religion to do the same for all of the fears of human existence.

My aunt didn't sit around thinking "How can I invent some belief that my mother will live", and nor do I believe that religion was invented in this deliberate self-conscious manner. She did it self consciously, through interpretation of things and false rational of other things. My grand mother has turned one morning. That must be a sign she is able to move better. that must mean she is improving. She must be getting better. In fact it must be a dramatic change. She must be really improving.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just because one gets disillusioned with life’s negatives, that should not form the basis for an atheistic viewpoint.

It doesn't. It forms the basis of the religious point of view.

Humans create (subconsciously) these delusions of religion to help them cope with the uncopable, to help them deal with what they simply can't deal with.

My aunt simply could not deal with the idea my grandmother would die. So she created a version of reality where it was clear my grandmother was getting better and would pull through.

The positive outcome was more important than the rational assessment of what was actually happening.

The idea of a all powerful, all loving God makes the uncaring, indifferent, world around us bearable for a lot of people. The idea that we simply exist, that we will all of us die and not exist, is simply too much for a lot of people to accept. So we create a different version of reality, a version of reality where we in fact are loved from on high, where we will in fact have eternal life, where we will be rewarded for our struggles, for our devotion.

We turn the uncaring, indifferent universe into a universe that does care, that holds us special.

And to rationalise this, to make it fit with the side of our brain that is cautious of too good a thing, we create religion, the rules and dogma of religion, to put constructs around this belief.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What’s needed is genuine scrutiny of the manuscripts that are available where the basis for the religions in question are formed.

Well the manuscripts are largely irrelevant. If you didn't follow this religion you would simply follow another one. If you were born 5,000 years ago you would follow a religion of the day, and if you were born 5,000 years in the future you would follow that religion.

All religions offer pretty much the exact same thing, the promise of a positive outcome to the things we have trouble facing. Are you lonely, do you feel something missing in your life? Religion is the answer. Which religion? It doesn't really matter? Are you scared of death, scared of the idea of not existing? Religion has the answer. Which religion? Doesn't really matter.

They all provide the same solutions to the same problems.

You simply need to follow the doctrine of the religion and you will be reward for doing so. The problems you fear will be solved, the outcome you wish will be granted.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It is my belief that a lot of atheistic positions are based on a reaction to bad theology but because they simply have no basis for believing in a God they never venture to check it out any further themselves.

Well that may be the case for some, I can't say.

It isn't for me. The more I learn about religion, including yours, the less likely I think that it is possible that it is actually true in what it claims.

When one sees that all religions pretty much offer the exact same thing while expecting the exact same thing its hard to see them as plausible in what they claim.

You naturally believe that your particular religion is some how the exception to the rule. But again you believe that because you want it to be true. The alternative is that no religion is true, that nothing will prove you with the positive out come you want. Which is I imagine a situation you simply cannot consider.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If mathematics is what you view as the only and ultimate truth in the universe then how did such an “infallible” truth come to be?

Well mathematical proofs are constructed by humans. They don't exist anywhere but the rules of mathematics.

For example a + b = b + a can be "proven" to be true, but only true in the sense of the rules of mathematics as already established by us.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And how do you reconcile that view with what you said in an earlier post that “belief in infallible ideas is dangerous.”

Well I didn't really mean mathematical ideas, as there are not many consequences of people refusing to accept the correctness of maths solution.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Again you’re basing your belief on your negative experiences. Or so it seems anyway.

Well I'm basing (some) my believes on how I see humans, and how I see how they work when attempting to deal with difficult things.

More accurately I guess you could say I'm basing it on how I saw my aunt, and others who have gone through similar things, deal with their negative experiences. How it was possible for them, rational intelligent people, to create a version of reality that while providing them with the outcome they needed, had little resemblance to the real world.

Soul Winner · 12-01-2008 8:28pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Evolutionary biology demonstrates that a lot of our emotions that we us to form moral systems, such as guilt, empathy, love, companionship etc have evolutionary justification.

Ok can you show me how evolutionary biology demonstrates this please?

Wicknight wrote: »

But these emotions have been coupled with our higher intelligence, and as such only form a foundation for the far more complex moral systems humans can develop.

Why are humans the only species to have evolved God Worship? Why do we never see animals of any sort building shrines and altars? If evolution and natural selection (survival of the fittest) are true then what are the survival benefits in worshipping something that doesn’t exist?

Wicknight wrote: »

No, it can be dangerous to those who don't accept it as infallible.

But only if it is in fact infallible. If the idea is not infallible then the idea itself cannot be dangerous.

Wicknight wrote: »

So I'm not solely picking on religion, look at the idea in Chinese Communism that religion is damaging to society and should be routed out from all areas of the country, often with force if necessary.

Is this idea infallible? Those who follow it certain appear to believe so. They have been taught that Mao's ideas are perfect and that they cannot be challenged.

So it becomes less of a question of that I believe this idea is wrong, but more of an idea that they cannot accept that it is possible that this idea is wrong.

A religious example would be the idea that God can only do good, therefore anything that a religious person believes is done under the direction of God is moral, no matter what it is. Again it is not only that I believe this idea is wrong, but that those who believe it refuse to accept that it might be wrong. Which leads to people justifying everything from Sept 11, to the genocide in the Old Testament, simply because they believe absolutely in a perfect God that cannot do wrong.

I do not blindly accept that what God does is right or wrong. All I’m trying to get across is this; If God does in fact exist then what He says is right IS right whether I accept it or not. If He exists at all it is not based on whether I believe in Him or not. I do believe in Him but that is not the criteria for His existence. If He is then He is. If people want to rationalise their actions by their belief in God then so be it but that to is not what makes Him exist. You refer to genocide in the Old Testament a lot. Can you point out to me what genocide you are referring to please? I would like to take a look at it and talk about it for a bit.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no actually it wouldn't.

Consider for example that he was actually Satan. How would you tell?

Ok so lets assume that Jesus lived and walked ordinary streets and did the things ascribed to Him in the New Testament texts. Then we can take your hypothesis from these texts directly. In these very texts this issue arises. The Scribes and Pharisees (the most educated men of their day) reasoned amongst themselves in relation to Jesus. They reasoned that He (Jesus) could not do the things that He was doing save God be with Him. Then later on in the texts it says that they say Jesus does these things by the power of the devil. To which Jesus replied can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself how can it stand? So it really boils down to whether you believe He is of the devil or not. So can you say hand on heart that Jesus did the things (Heal the sick, raise the dead, feed the hungry) He did and say the things He said (preached the Kingdom of God) by the power of the Satan?

Wicknight wrote: »

If the supernatural is possible then we actually lose all ability to determine anything.

How so?

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus could be the Son of God. Or he could have been Satan pretending to be the Son of God. Or Satan might actually be God, and God might actually be an angel pretending to be God.

Assuming they all do exist then that could be so but it’s a nonsensical argument. You could be the poster PDN disguised as Wicknight. How do I know you’re not PDN? I don’t actually know you’re not but I am convinced you are in fact Wicknight and not PDN without having to actually know. I don’t actually know Jesus wasn’t Satan but I am absolutely convinced that He wasn’t.

Wicknight wrote: »

Now you can say that you don't accept that, or don't believe that. But that judgment is based not on rational assessment but more on how you think it should be. God should be good and Satan should be bad. God shouldn't do bad things. Jesus did good things, he should be God. Satan should only do bad things.

Assuming all these entities do in fact exist then “Should” is irrelevant. If God is then He does not have to be good in order to be. God just is good. Jesus did not have to come and do what He did; He simply chose to come and do it. Satan did not have to be bad he just chose not to go along with the program and was thus cast out. He cannot be good even if he wanted to be, he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. This is how it is revealed to us and we either accept it or we don’t. You can’t go back and change the revelation otherwise you would have to change your whole opinion of it yourself.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again this goes back to the "padding" I discussed in the previous post. You believe these things because you have already created a narrative to provide the positive outcome you want to be true.

The padding? How has this padding all of a sudden got a foot hold on proceedings here? If it is to have a foothold then please define and explain this padding to me in more detail and explain how exactly it is formed in our minds and how it explains away the worlds religions? I did not create the narrative. It was there before I was born. If I wanted to create a narrative then I would not have created the lake of fire in the narrative because in the natural I don’t want anyone to go there, but it is there in the narrative and the narrative states that some will go there and I must accept it or not accept it, but don’t say I created it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Very few modern theists consider the idea of a God that can do bad as well as good things, because such a God doesn't fit into the narrative that provides the positive outcome they want. This appears to be a modern-ish phenomena, the older religions had little trouble with a God, or gods, that did bad as well as good, probably because moral concepts like that were less well defined than in modern culture.

Then that is a problem for modern theists. I consider myself a modern theist in that I’m alive now (modern) and I believe in God (theist) and I do not accept that God can only do good things. He can do plenty of what we consider bad things as well. If there are modern theists out there who don’t believe God can do bad things then do they believe the story that He flooded the earth? Do they believe the story that He knocked Eli off the log and broke his neck, and story of when He made the earth open up and swallow Korah, and the one where He turned Lot’s wife to a pillar of salt and when He destroyed the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. Pretty nasty things wouldn’t you agree? Modern theists who do not accept these stories just don’t believe God’s Word. If all we are out for in religion is the positive outcome then how come these stories are included in the “narrative”.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can say that about any religion. Want to be shown the Scientology is real? Read Dianetics. What do be shown that Islam is real? Read the Qu'ran. Want to be shown that Hindu is real? Read the Vendas.

But none of the founders of these Religions ever centred everything in themselves. In Islam there is one God Allah and Mohamed is his prophet. Budhah said that he meant nothing that all he could leave is the way he followed, which said way he called the eight fold path. Jesus comes preaching Himself. He said ”I am the way the truth and the life” and “By me shall any man enter in” and gives no basis except He says it. He had no sense of moral inadequacy. He never said “The Lord forgive you” He said “Thy sins be forgiven” He said in the garden: “Father I’ve done all that you sent me to do, now restore me to the glory I once had with you” Glory He once had? Is he for real? Like I said Jesus is different from all other respected founders of religion because he cantered everything in himself. The only thing that can validate His claims is the fulfilment in reality of the claim He also made that He would rise from the grave on the third day. If He did not rise as reported then He is nothing. Not to be respect as good or wise or supernatural. But if He did then He was who He claimed to be and we must deal with Him.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't prove that any of those things happened, but you can certainly demonstrate that people believe they did.

Yes, eye witness testimony is all we have to go on. Jesus said it is more blessed to believe without seeing than it is to believe from seeing. So to get a basis for a belief in Jesus as supernatural we must scrutinise the eye witness testimony. So, where the Disciples who told the story liars or was what they actually reported true? This is a long and lengthy process and one in which I could go into in more detail if you like but here’s just one of many examples which make them at least sound honest. Take Mark’s Gospel which most scholars concede was written to either Romans or Egyptians but certainly to non Jews. In Mark’s gospel he (Mark) has Jesus when preaching to Jews during in His earthly ministry referring to Himself (Jesus) as the Son of Man. So if Mark is a liar and knows he is a liar and is trying to convince non Jews that Jesus was the Son of God, why does he hurt his story by having Jesus always referring to Himself in his Gospel as the Son of Man? To a non Jew the phrase Son of Man simply means he was just like them, a son of a man. Because when Jesus was preaching He was in a Jewish environment where they understood that the phrase “Son of Man” conveyed the Messianic picture as portrayed in Hebrew Eschatological writings as “The” Son of Man coming to set up His Kingdom as Messiah. This is not consistent with a liar. There is a heck of a lot of this kind of intrinsic evidence in the all the Gospels so I’ll just give one more example. Before Jesus performs the miracle of feeding the five thousand one of the records has Him asking Phillip where to buy bread. Another Gospel states that Phillip was from Bethsaida and it is in yet another Gospel that puts the geographic area where this miracle was perform in Bethsaida. Put them altogether and it make sense. Phillip was the right person to ask because they were in an area that he knew well so if there was anywhere they could buy bread then he would know. So here are three different Gospels written by different people at different times in different places probably at a time when they didn’t know if the others were alive or not. If they are liars (and they know they are liars) and all they are doing is trying to save face for the moment by making up a stupid story then why the accuracy in the reports? If they are in fact lying then they don’t know that what they are saying is going to be scrutinised throughout the centuries. All they are doing is saving face for the moment or whatever and making up a lie. You don’t find that attention to detail in a liar who is out to tell a big one like this. Like I said there a many more examples of this kind if evidence which tips the scale more to truth tellers than liars.

Wicknight wrote: »

There have actually been tons of religion where the leader is claimed to have risen from the dead, and all of them had or have followers. There is little unique about Jesus in this regard, nor that his followers believed it happened.

I challenge you to provide for me just 1 example out of the tons you are referring to of founding religious leaders who (before they actually died) claimed they were going to rise form the dead and then show me the record and testimony of the eye witnesses to that event. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead in and of itself is not that impressive its that it is the one who claimed He was going to before He died and the One who said all the other things He said who rose. That’s the amazing thing. If this happened then this gives validity to all the other claims He made. You can go around claiming things no mortal man has a right to claim all you like but you die and rise again on the third day as you predicted then I will take another look at the other things you said. If you were eye witness to these events you’d believe pretty fast the other things He said about Himself wouldn’t you?

Wicknight wrote: »

Now I know you won't accept this, but again it is because you want it to be true. You rationalize that Jesus must have risen from the dead in the same way my aunt rationalized that my grand mother was getting much better.

I think from the above illustrations that you can put to rest the notion that I rationalize Jesus rising from the dead like the way your Aunt rationalized that your grandmother was getting better. There is at least a slight difference don’t you think?

Wicknight wrote: »

If my aunt had been looked at a woman she didn't know who was in the same condition as my grand mother I seriously doubt she would have believed she was getting better.

You are conjuring up (forgive me) ridiculous nonsensical arguments to support your position. I cannot accept them on face value alone. They are feeble at best.

Wicknight wrote: »

People following supernatural deities doesn't in anyway suggest that the supernatural deities are real.

I never said it did.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it is more like someone in their 20s saying one thing and then in their 50s saying something contradictory.

So are you conceding that there was only one author of both Testaments?

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with that is that God doesn't age and isn't supposed to change positions or view points.

Well if the New Testament is true then God does change His mind on certain things because He could not put away the Old Covenant without first fulfilling it. In the Old Testament He wanted to kill all the Israelites and start over afresh with Moses. Moses pleaded with Him to be merciful to them and He repented of the evil He was going to do to them.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well actually that is very wishy washy.

So are most of your arguments if you ask me.

Wicknight wrote: »

For example, what does he actually mean by "not all"? Are you supposed to forsake everything? Your house, your clothes, your money, your job, your family, your friends, your wife?

Most Christians would say no. But on what basis do they say that. A judgment based on something else no doubt

You’re not supposed to do anything, it’s just a statement. If you want to be His disciple then you must be willing at least to count everything else in your life as loss. It is an attitudinal thing. He also said that no one has forsaken without receiving a hundred fold what was forsaken. Most translate this into forsaking in order to gain but that is not true forsaking. It is an axiomatic happening. He says you live by dying, receive by giving and so on, all axiomatic happenings, self evident truths. The attitude is supposed to be one of trust in another to provide all your needs instead of relying on your own ability to do it.
.

Wicknight wrote: »

All religious morality is just human morality (from an atheist perspective). We (humans) made it all up based on our own moral compass. Which is why you don't find anything in any human religion that is a spectacular moral announcement. There isn't a single moral teaching in the Bible that isn't found in countless other sources from other cultures and societies.

If that’s true then tell me what other religions hold to the belief that if you lust in your heart after another woman then you are as guilty as an adulterer? In Jesus’ eyes you are guilty, not in any other religion would you be deemed so.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you"[/i]

Does that mean Christians should never go to war? Christians interpret that in vastly different ways. Some say yes, some say no. They end up doing what they probably would have done anyway.

Christian nations like America, England, France and so on go to earthly war for political and earthly reasons. The wars themselves might have some sort of religious overtone to them, but if religions stuck to religion then they need not go to war with each other in this way. Once you step into that world you leave your primary reason for being purpose. And the primary reason for being purpose of the Church is to proclaim the Good News of Christ to the World and this in itself is a war because Satan as the enemy of God has apposed this purpose throughout History. The only war the Church should be involved in is God’s war with the Devil. This war has been raging for eons and the true Church (the people of faith who belong to the Lord) are but foot soldiers.

Wicknight wrote: »

Are we omniscent beings that exist outside of space and time with the power to create and manipulate universes at will?

No, in His image does not mean we have all his characteristics just some of them. Maybe before the fall we had more than we have now but at no time did we have all otherwise the tree in the garden would not have been put there. It was put there as God’s right to say no. He was still the boss, they were given dominion over everything else and they blew it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no actually. Remember all this is supposed to be evidence that he does exist. The Bible is supposed to be so perfect that we can't help but conclude that it is inspired by God. You can't use the proposition that God already exists to excuse issues in the Bible itself. If you do you have to first explain a reason for believing in God that doesn't include the Bible.

Well Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believed in God before there was ever a Bible. So did Moses for that matter. In fact a long time passed before a reference point for God in a collection of books was first formed. People believe in God long before that so the Bible itself does not limit God’s options on how to reveal His will to anyone. It’s a record of God’s dealings with His people in the Old Testament which looked forward to a Messiah that was going to come which then culminated in Christ and by so doing brought into existence the record of Christ first coming and prophesying of second coming what we call the New Testament.

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem is that religion claims to actually, 100% certain, know things. As in this isn't wrong because God cannot be wrong.

What religion are you talking about? Huston Smith put it this way in his book ‘Why Religion Matters’: “Science has the big answers to small questions and Religion has the small answers to the big questions” If Christ was who He claimed Himself to be then He is the answer to all questions but we cannot know that on this side of eternity for two reasons, one because we are not adequately equipped to know or understand it and two because that’s the way He set it up. We must finish our course down here first. Think of it as a training ground. When you cross over to the other side you have graduated.

Wicknight wrote: »

Science has a clause in it called "falsifiability"

What this means is that it must be logically possible to demonstrate that a scientific theory, any scientific theory, is wrong. If it is impossible to demonstrate a scientific theory is wrong then it is not a scientific theory (which is one of the reasons why science ignores God in its theories)

The reason this is in science is because of the realization from science pilosophy that is it impossible to know something for certain. What ever we think we know may in fact be wrong, because we lack the ability in this universe to demonstrate beyond all doubt that something is absolutely correct.

This is a philosophy absent form religion. In fact the point of religion is the exact opposite, that being able to say for certain that something is true.

“Falsifiability” I like that word. Maybe it cannot be ascertained from a human point of view to substantiate the existence of a supernatural all powerful being by mere observational and analytical means but that is not what the Bible does. The Bible just declares things, which said things are either true or they are not true. It does not start out by saying: “It is our belief that in the beginning a God who calls Himself Jehovah created the Heaven and the Earth” it just declares that “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth” The Bible is not a scientific document, it’s a record of events that took place in times gone by. Events that pertain to a particular people. It never asks to be believed in, it just states things and you either accept them or don’t accept them.

Wicknight wrote: »

But Soul Winner that is up there with the classic though experiment of the liar who claims he is not lying. How do you tell if he if what he is saying is true or not.

This goes back to what I said earlier, you believe God must be just because that fits into the narrative that you want to be true, because you want the positive out come.

The idea of an unjust God simply does not fit into that narrative. A unjust God would not guarantee the positive out come that you need to be true, so you dismiss it as simply be not something to consider.

You attempt to rationalize this as part of the padding but the rational is cyclical reasoning (the worst kind) because I seriously doubt you are basing this conclusion on reason.

But you have no reason to believe that if God exists he must be just. That is simply a assumption you are making (see above) because you want it to be true.

I think I dealt with this already above.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you say that God reveals himself to be good through the Bible, that contradicts the statement that human standards of "good" are irrelevant for God.

How?

Wicknight wrote: »

For example, how do you know that God isn't actually Satan pretending to be God for some unknown yet evil scheme

Like I said earlier, I don’t know but am convinced that this is not true. Numbers 23:19 says “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” If it turns out that God is indeed Satan then it was Satan all along that was the liar. If Satan is God then the same is true but as already pointed out this is just stupid reasoning, not even cyclical. You can never understand anything about the Bible if you argue like this. What it sounds like is somebody who knows he will never accept the Bible no matter what is explained about it. You have your position on it and that is that. You are not willing to let facts shape your opinion, you just assume your way of thinking is right and refuse to be challenged on it.

Wicknight wrote: »

But you have already said that what ever God does must be good. So even if God does something that we might consider bad, that is still good because it is God. But what if God is actually Satan pretending. Then Satan does something bad. You can't judge if this is actually bad or not, because you are working on the grounds that what ever he does is good.

I never said that what ever God does must be (you even italicized the words I didn’t actually use) good. I never said that sorry. I said if God is then what is says is right IS right. If He is the alpha and omega as claimed in the Bible then He IS the criteria for what is right. Not anything He sub sequentially creates down the line.

Wicknight wrote: »

Satan could be pretending to be God and you could never tell, because you have already established that what ever God does must be good. You on the one hand say that you judgment can determine God is God, yet at the same time say that your judgment is completely incapable of assessing God.

You must be reading someone else’s posts because I never said anything like that at all. What I suggest you do is actually read back over what I said then come back with arguments against them, not against things I never actually said. No wonder I do be confused when I read your posts. You assume I’m saying things and then argue against that instead of what I’m actually saying.

Is God Omniscient?

Comments