Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

MaxWig wrote: »

Including yourself. That's our core problem. We search for and create meaning within our lives, but are painfully aware that it's a charade. Can't go on without meaning - but know when we die, any meaning we create dies with us.

Not really. I think some people look for assigned meaning in order to not face up to the daunting task of figuring out what you want out of life. Too many variables, to much risk, easier to just do what someone else tells you.

But once you get passed that, once you get a clear idea of what you want out of life, you would never go back.

MaxWig wrote: »

You tell yourself your life means something.

I tell myself that my life means something to me and my family and friends. I don't really care about anything else. Most of wanting ones life to mean something is ego.

MaxWig wrote: »

No more or less than you or I.

Yes, a lot more than I do. I don't consider it a virtue at all. I consider it silly and harmful.

MaxWig wrote: »

Not that rare. Our world is full of people walking through war zones with bullets flying past their heads.

When you say 'full of' you can probably count a few hundred known cases of this in the last 10 years. Out of the billions of people on Earth.

Humans have a tendency to notice extraordinary events precisely because they are extra-ordinary. Like the recent plane crash. My wife was travelling on a plane yesterday and was freaked out by the crash, but the odds of her dying in a plane crash were still 1 in 30 million (I told her better chance to win the lotto, so buy a ticket)

MaxWig wrote: »

Hasn't stopped anyone dying yet. Again, I'm not sure where the benevolence you associate with science stems from.

From all the good it has done. You keep skirting over that point. In all likelihood you would be dead no if we were living 400 years ago. So would I.

I can't help but think we have become a generation that takes all our modern advances for granted and look back to a "simplier time" with rose tinted glasses. We ignore the smallpox and open sewers.

MaxWig wrote: »

It's not all about Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins day dreaming allowed. It's also reconstituted chicken and Chinese factories belting out iWatches

Which again is a VAST improvement on what has gone before. What time are you referencing that was a better time to live than now?

I think we have a responsibility to pressure Chinese manufactures to increase living conditions. But I've no idea where this idea came that these people would be better off if Apple didn't exist at all. A lot of the workers in these factories have come from the country where they were literally starving to death.

That is not a reason to NOT improve conditions. But it is an argument against this back to nature notion that seems to be sweeping over liberal society in the last few decades.

I think that is personified best by the recent out break of e coli that was traced back to organic veg in Holland.

People have forgotten how terrible the past really was.

MaxWig wrote: »

While man goes about trying to exterminate the f*** out of everyone who disagrees with him. It's a precarious position. Technology you say provides net gains - until when? What about when some goon presses the button? Still a net gain? Or would that be Science 0 - Religion 1. I mean at least faith is an empty barrel, right?

So your argument that techology sucks is that at some point someone might kill us all.

Well stop taking all modern medicine and when your internal organs are melting out of your bottom I will explain that you have returned to the blissful pre-science world where all we had was faith :pac:

Again the ignorance of this modern world is staggering.

You have the freedom to ponder these questions precisely because you are not in a fight for your life against nature. In the past the only people who go to do this were the rich upper classes, priests and kings. Which is why we don't have "Larry the Serf's Bible" instead of the King James.

MaxWig wrote: »

I take your point but I'll disagree. You have to acknowledge that faith has helped very many people face another day in unbearable circumstances.

As opposed to what? It didn't make any of the unbearable circumstances go away.

Science on the other hand actually did.

This is the Mother Teresa problem. When she was alive everyone talked about how she was helping all the poor people of the world.

Turns out she wasn't. She was just putting them all together so that their pain and suffering could motivate them to find God. She wasn't providing proper medical care or pain relief because suffering was supposed to inspire faith, ie you were supposed to suffer so that you could realize you needed God to save you.

Which is like beating a child so the child is grateful when you stop beating them.

I prefer to stop people's suffer. If they lose faith because they no longer suffer I'm perfectly ok with that.

ABC101 wrote: »

But what is important to remember is that the prophets were not Gods definitive answer to humanity. The prophets only were a intro for Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ never spoke or commanded of killing entire tribes or justifying genocide.

If you screen the ot there are at least 2 types of violence, god tells someone to do something or god does something. In both cases there are examples of God behaving in an immoral and unjust way and frankly inconsistent way. I can't reconcile this with the reboot god of the nt. Its absurd

TheLurker wrote: »

Not really. I think some people look for assigned meaning in order to not face up to the daunting task of figuring out what you want out of life. Too many variables, to much risk, easier to just do what someone else tells you.

But once you get passed that, once you get a clear idea of what you want out of life, you would never go back.


I tell myself that my life means something to me and my family and friends. I don't really care about anything else. Most of wanting ones life to mean something is ego.



Yes, a lot more than I do. I don't consider it a virtue at all. I consider it silly and harmful.



When you say 'full of' you can probably count a few hundred known cases of this in the last 10 years. Out of the billions of people on Earth.

Humans have a tendency to notice extraordinary events precisely because they are extra-ordinary. Like the recent plane crash. My wife was travelling on a plane yesterday and was freaked out by the crash, but the odds of her dying in a plane crash were still 1 in 30 million (I told her better chance to win the lotto, so buy a ticket)



From all the good it has done. You keep skirting over that point. In all likelihood you would be dead no if we were living 400 years ago. So would I.

I can't help but think we have become a generation that takes all our modern advances for granted and look back to a "simplier time" with rose tinted glasses. We ignore the smallpox and open sewers.



Which again is a VAST improvement on what has gone before. What time are you referencing that was a better time to live than now?

I think we have a responsibility to pressure Chinese manufactures to increase living conditions. But I've no idea where this idea came that these people would be better off if Apple didn't exist at all. A lot of the workers in these factories have come from the country where they were literally starving to death.

That is not a reason to NOT improve conditions. But it is an argument against this back to nature notion that seems to be sweeping over liberal society in the last few decades.

I think that is personified best by the recent out break of e coli that was traced back to organic veg in Holland.

People have forgotten how terrible the past really was.



So your argument that techology sucks is that at some point someone might kill us all.

Well stop taking all modern medicine and when your internal organs are melting out of your bottom I will explain that you have returned to the blissful pre-science world where all we had was faith :pac:

Again the ignorance of this modern world is staggering.

You have the freedom to ponder these questions precisely because you are not in a fight for your life against nature. In the past the only people who go to do this were the rich upper classes, priests and kings. Which is why we don't have "Larry the Serf's Bible" instead of the King James.



As opposed to what? It didn't make any of the unbearable circumstances go away.

Science on the other hand actually did.

This is the Mother Teresa problem. When she was alive everyone talked about how she was helping all the poor people of the world.

Turns out she wasn't. She was just putting them all together so that their pain and suffering could motivate them to find God. She wasn't providing proper medical care or pain relief because suffering was supposed to inspire faith, ie you were supposed to suffer so that you could realize you needed God to save you.

Which is like beating a child so the child is grateful when you stop beating them.

I prefer to stop people's suffer. If they lose faith because they no longer suffer I'm perfectly ok with that.

I'll just give a general response - hope that's ok.

You compare faith and science based on their effect upon matter.

The gist seems to be that if you have faith that you and yours will be ok, it's a pointless way to live because only science can offer that protection.

Firstly it's a false premise, as mother nature is quite capable of ending you in the blink of an eye by chance or whatever.

But that's (obv) to miss the point.

No one, or at least not me, is suggesting that science (sucks) can not, or has not offered good to humanity.

It has also offered violence and destruction, pollution and warming on a level that is barely conceivable.

The point is that man is neither good, nor bad. Nor is Mother Nature. Nor is science for that matter. But each individuals situation is precarious, regardless of scientific achievement.

Faith is a way in which humanity has attempted to alleviate the anxiety associated with that position.

'Evil' is born out of toil and effort, and striving towards 'goodness'. Those we believe are evil are seeking to live their lives in the way they believe offers them the best outcome they can get, regardless of how deranged the rest of us believe it to be.

That includes religious fanatics, dictators, crazed leaders and the like.
Religious nuts in no way have a monopoly in that regard.
Nor do the faithful have a monopoly in being the willing servants of tyrants.

Science, to date, has not prevented humanity from walking down the wrong road time and time again.

Assessing the affect of Faith in someone else, in my assessment, is doomed to inaccurate answers

The Old and New Testaments are quite consistent with regard to sin and death.
The consequences, wages and penalty for sin was, is, and always will be, death. -Physical, and worse spiritual for eternity.
Scripture makes that clear throughout, and scripture demonstrates man making this mistake over and over again.
The end consequences are always the same.
Christ however, offers mankind salvation and freedom from sin.

MaxWig wrote: »

I'll just give a general response - hope that's ok.

You compare faith and science based on their effect upon matter.

The gist seems to be that if you have faith that you and yours will be ok, it's a pointless way to live because only science can offer that protection.

Firstly it's a false premise, as mother nature is quite capable of ending you in the blink of an eye by chance or whatever.

Science decreases the chances that nature will end you in the blink of an eye.

Faith doesn't. Faith just makes you hope nature won't do that, without providing any system to increase your odds of survival.

It is really that simply.

MaxWig wrote: »

No one, or at least not me, is suggesting that science (sucks) can not, or has not offered good to humanity.

It has also offered violence and destruction, pollution and warming on a level that is barely conceivable.

The point is that man is neither good, nor bad. Nor is Mother Nature. Nor is science for that matter. But each individuals situation is precarious, regardless of scientific achievement.

But you are ignoring (or are ignorant) of the VAST increase in survival that science has brought.

It is not a case that when you add it all together the up and down sides of science balance out. Science has increased the standards of living beyond all imagination 400 years ago.

I feel you aren't giving science the credit it deserves.

MaxWig wrote: »

Faith is a way in which humanity has attempted to alleviate the anxiety associated with that position.

Faith is a system where people pretend bad things aren't going to happen, even though pretending they won't happen does nothing to stop them happening.

Which, as I said, is fine. So long as you don't think faith actually does anything, and so long as you think 'we don't need an actual solution, we have faith'

If you are going to put any effort in you are far better putting that effort into solving your problem, than having faith a solution will appear by magic.

That is where the problems start, this idea that faith is a virtue in of itself, a solution in of itself, that you don't need solutions you just need faith that something else will figure it out for you.

Again look at the Mother Teresa example. She viewed faith in God not simply as a way to get through suffering, but as an alternative to tacking that suffering. Suffering was seen as a way to produce faith, rather than faith as a way to deal with unavoidable suffering.

Faith as a virtue is a dangerous thing.

katydid wrote: »

The actions of God in the OT are stories written by tribesmen trying to justify their own existence as a tribe.

All of them? Including all the bits that Jesus references in the New Testament?

You would think Jesus would have mentioned that the entire basis for the Jewish faith was fake, wouldn't you :rolleyes:

ABC101 wrote: »

Are we talking about morality now or interpretation of history?

We are talking about believing that God inspired the authors of the Bible while at the same time thinking that the parts of the Bible where the same authors attributed genocide orders to God, are made up.

ABC101 wrote: »

Do you not accept that the Books which make up the Old Testament were written by human hands?

Yes. I don't think God had anything to do with any of it.

The problem is thinking God had something to do with some of it, but not all of it.

Who do you terming that God had something to do with the Old Testament but not any of the genocide bits?

ABC101 wrote: »

Are we talking about morality now or interpretation of history?

When reading the Bible, one has to be aware of the cultural / political situation. One also has to be aware of various arthor's, their motives etc.

It is a lot more complicated / sophisticated than cherry picking the Gorey bits and attributing blame to God, as some people who despise religion desire to do.

Do you not accept that the Books which make up the Old Testament were written by human hands?

They are gods the words and he his to blame for whatever his commands are and their consequences, should he even exist! It is the religious apologists that cherry pick what should be taken in or out of context. It is very plainly stated that god ordered genocide, although it appears some argue that god hired very inept scholars to scribe his word! If religious apologist provide evidence to what was the actual word of god and what was not that would go a long way to clearing it all up. As of yet, thousands of year later, god has not sent a laywer to sue for libel!
I believe the Bible as a whole was written by persons with an agenda and their is no supernatural input at all.

silverharp wrote: »

But where is the justice in all this. The fact that a universal god was only interested in communicating with people in an area the size of Leinster is absurd.

Christianity has spread and continues to spread throughout the world.
Scripture is quite clear that Jewish, Christian or not, everyone faces God's judgement, sooner or later.

ABC101 wrote: »

A bit of a typo there, however I think I understand your question.

If God gave the 10 Commandments, then God would be contradicting himself by condoning Genocide. Therefore I do not believe God would instruct genocide.

God does help Israel overcome its enemies in battle, but that does not mean God supports Genocide.

War up until very recently (WW1) was seen as a legally correct manner in which to resolve disputes. It was a legitimate form of settling differences between monarchs.

European history over the last 500 years is a good example of this.

People on both warring sides believed they were fighting on the right side.

War seems to be a human trait, not a Devine trait.

But of course those people who despise God / Religion / Spirituality prefer to blame God for human wars.

15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

It clearly states that god told the isrealites to go an smite the Amalek and even clearly stated that no survivors to be spared including innocent woman,children and even animals! There is absolutely no way this can be misinterpreted!
You say you do not believe that god had instructed genocide, then you are going against the word of god! Either that or the whole bible is nothing more that the words of Iron Age tribes that were sanitized over the centuries with a few undesirable verses left in!

Numbers 16:41-49New International Version (NIV)

41 The next day the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. “You have killed the Lord’s people,” they said.

42 But when the assembly gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron and turned toward the tent of meeting, suddenly the cloud covered it and the glory of the Lord appeared. 43 Then Moses and Aaron went to the front of the tent of meeting, 44 and the Lord said to Moses, 45 “Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.” And they fell facedown.

46 Then Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put incense in it, along with burning coals from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the Lord; the plague has started.” 47 So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. 48 He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped. 49 But 14,700 people died from the plague, in addition to those who had died because of Korah.

Also complaining that god was killing too many he goes ahead and kills more! The more you read the bible the more god seems to be an amoral, jealous, psychopath! Its no wonder the church tried to keep most of it hidden in Latin before the Vulgate version became common!

ABC101 wrote: »

On another point, it is clear that your understanding of the Bible and the historical / cultural context is extremely primitive.

But instead of attempting to educate yourself about how the Bible is put together you come out with all sorts of trash stating the Church supports infanticide!!

You are cherry picking, taking things literally (I had to explain this a few posts ago about Luke and the use of the word Generation)..

Please provide evidence to what is to be taken literal in the bible and to what should not. God has not provided any guidelines so my primitive point of view is just as valid as an indoctrinated religious type! Even more so as I am going by what was written and believed to be true for thousands of years, your point of view regarding this specific verse is all conjecture and wishful thinking.
Why do you also think it is appropriate for an historically complex and an alien cultural text to form the basis of a modern religion that cannot understand the complexity and subtleties that you claim it has?
If you take the Bible on face value and as objective evidence it fails as a moral guide!

Note: I said God supported infanticide not the church! I also dont think every Christian/Jew/Muslim supports infanticide either! (God also ordered the death of every first born in Eygpt)

ABC101 wrote: »

@ the Lurker, jaffusmax,

Chaps I don't have all day to answer your nonsense, blaming the Church for infanticide 3000 years ago when the church did not exist is garbage. It does not deserve a reply.

Nobody blamed the church for anything. I just quoted the word of god according to the bible! The bible which just happens to form the basis of many churchs and religions! If anyone is at fault it is god!

ABC101 wrote: »

@ the Lurker, jaffusmax,

Chaps I don't have all day to answer your nonsense, blaming the Church for infanticide 3000 years ago when the church did not exist is garbage. It does not deserve a reply.

The OT is about Israel. The other considerations I have asked you to bear in mind such as cultural, political, historical, language, agendas of different arthor's etc you just brush aside and ignore. It's all blame God, Blame God.

I do have a job, I do have to get work done today sometime, and I can't hang around trying to help posters who clearly cannot be helped.

If you really have questions about understanding the Bible, you can attend a course down in Milltown Institute, oh. I forgot... They are Jesuits, Now you could not trust a Christian to explain a Christian perspective to you now could you?

Which basically leaves you atheists / non believers in a never ending perpetual loop of ignorance.

So this gives you a get out of jail card everytime , the bad things are allegorical the good things ( according to Christian ) are literal .

And it changes over time with the advancement of science , right now you have one half of Christendom accepting evolution and the other half wanting creationism taught in the science classes and all basing their arguments on the same texts .