Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

indioblack · 26-03-2015 08:12PM

katydid wrote: »

No, it's not and no, they're not.

It's part of scripture, half of the bible. If not acceptance, what are they supposed to do with it?

katydid · 26-03-2015 08:13PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I disagree with this, since as far as I'm aware, I have no such connection. Is it one way (God to humans) and I'm simply not aware of it, and if so, why not? Or is it two...and again, I'm not aware of it?
Also, assuming there is such a God, why should anyone, anyone at all, pay attention to a being with such poor communication skills? According to the religion you're a member, God is infinitely knowledgeable and wise. Therefore, he should know by default how to communicate with us in the most effective and most efficient manner possible so as to impart the most knowledge. If God does exist but chose for some reason to impart knowledge via inspired holy books or through visions and dreams to only select members of humanity (meaning that those are subjective experiences that no one else apart from the dreamer can examine or verify), then why should anyone else bother?

I'm not talking about YOU, I'm talking about those who believe. That is what this discussion is about, isn't it?
IF you believe, and IF you are interested in exploring the connection, then you read the Bible with the understanding in mind that over the course of the Bible this relationship is explored and explained and puzzled over. The Bible was written over centuries, by people at various stages of civilisation and thinking, and much of the OT was simply writing down the legends of an even earlier time. It would be strange if, in that context, the understanding of the divine didn't change and develop.

I don't see the problem with reading and interpreting. It makes one think. And it's not for the select few. Anyone can read (or listen) and think... What would be the point in having everything handed on a plate? Human beings are designed to question and to think. And an awful lot of people are, and have been since the beginning of civilisation, fascinated and curious about the possibility of the divine.

jaffusmax · 26-03-2015 08:21PM

indioblack wrote: »

It's part of scripture, half of the bible. If not acceptance, what are they supposed to do with it?

The NT is just as contradictory and even has its main protagonist Jesus occasionally give into a bit of warmongering, jealousy and fear sowing! This is the type of love and devotion that citizens of North Korea are expected to show for their dear leaders every waking hour, at least when they die they can expect freedom. For Christians death is just the beginning!!

Matthew 10:34-37New International Version (NIV) 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a] 37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

jaffusmax · 26-03-2015 08:28PM

katydid wrote: »

I'm not talking about YOU, I'm talking about those who believe. That is what this discussion is about, isn't it?
IF you believe, and IF you are interested in exploring the connection, then you read the Bible with the understanding in mind that over the course of the Bible this relationship is explored and explained and puzzled over. The Bible was written over centuries, by people at various stages of civilisation and thinking, and much of the OT was simply writing down the legends of an even earlier time. It would be strange if, in that context, the understanding of the divine didn't change and develop.

I don't see the problem with reading and interpreting. It makes one think. And it's not for the select few. Anyone can read (or listen) and think... What would be the point in having everything handed on a plate? Human beings are designed to question and to think. And an awful lot of people are, and have been since the beginning of civilisation, fascinated and curious about the possibility of the divine.

That is all fine as a private and personal belief which you are more than entitled to. It crosses a line when the Church interpretations of primitive text affect my life and that of others!
People would not expect political and social policy to be dictated by astrology then why does religion often get a front seat!

indioblack · 26-03-2015 08:29PM

katydid wrote: »

I'm not talking about YOU, I'm talking about those who believe. That is what this discussion is about, isn't it?
IF you believe, and IF you are interested in exploring the connection, then you read the Bible with the understanding in mind that over the course of the Bible this relationship is explored and explained and puzzled over. The Bible was written over centuries, by people at various stages of civilisation and thinking, and much of the OT was simply writing down the legends of an even earlier time. It would be strange if, in that context, the understanding of the divine didn't change and develop.

I don't see the problem with reading and interpreting. It makes one think. And it's not for the select few. Anyone can read (or listen) and think... What would be the point in having everything handed on a plate? Human beings are designed to question and to think. And an awful lot of people are, and have been since the beginning of civilisation, fascinated and curious about the possibility of the divine.

What would be the point in having everything handed on a plate?
We know from our life experience that it doesn't happen and, as you say, we question and think.
Sometimes our thinking is wrong. Error can lead to error - and so on.
We often act without full knowledge.
If god is content with this journey, that's ok.
I'm not sure how this squares with an omnipotent god, though.

RikuoAmero · 26-03-2015 08:33PM

It would be strange if, in that context, the understanding of the divine didn't change and develop.

Here's the thing about humans and the divine (I'm going to pretend it exists for the purpose of this comment). Our understanding of the divine shouldn't change. At least when it comes to the Christian God, the understanding is revealed through visions, dreams etc. As in, the knowledge is given to people.
So basically, at Time Point A, God gives Knowledge X to Person Y. One of the things we're told about God is that he is unchanging, that he doesn't lie (yes, here I'm taking him at his word). So if he's unchanging and he says at Time Point A, he is X, then he should be X for all time (unless he lied that is, at which point, there's no point in following him). However, that isn't the case with the Christian God. That which is written about him is far too contradictory. He's a tribal war god to the Jews in the OT, only to later 'become' a global god of humanity (can anyone fill me in here, from the theist camp, why he apparently didn't do that from the start?).

In the absolute best case scenario (for the theist's side that is) there is a christian god and the bible, as a complete work, has some truth to it when it's talking about that god. However, there are too many things in it that are false, and there's no objective way to find out what is true.
At least with science, observing reality depends not one whit on who the observer is.

katydid · 26-03-2015 08:42PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Here's the thing about humans and the divine (I'm going to pretend it exists for the purpose of this comment). Our understanding of the divine shouldn't change. At least when it comes to the Christian God, the understanding is revealed through visions, dreams etc. As in, the knowledge is given to people.
So basically, at Time Point A, God gives Knowledge X to Person Y. One of the things we're told about God is that he is unchanging, that he doesn't lie (yes, here I'm taking him at his word). So if he's unchanging and he says at Time Point A, he is X, then he should be X for all time (unless he lied that is, at which point, there's no point in following him). However, that isn't the case with the Christian God. That which is written about him is far too contradictory. He's a tribal war god to the Jews in the OT, only to later 'become' a global god of humanity (can anyone fill me in here, from the theist camp, why he apparently didn't do that from the start?).

In the absolute best case scenario (for the theist's side that is) there is a christian god and the bible, as a complete work, has some truth to it when it's talking about that god. However, there are too many things in it that are false, and there's no objective way to find out what is true.
At least with science, observing reality depends not one whit on who the observer is.

But humans have been evolving in understanding about all aspects of the world over millennia. Why would our understanding/attempts at grasping the concept of the divine be any different? Visions, dreams, inspirations and so on need, by their nature, thought and interpretation. There are no answers, no facts, no certainties.

You ask why wouldn't got give us all the knowledge in one go. I can ask why would he? Why give the answers instead of making us think and wonder?

hinault · 26-03-2015 08:50PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

The NT is just as contradictory and even has its main protagonist Jesus occasionally give into a bit of warmongering, jealousy and fear sowing! This is the type of love and devotion that citizens of North Korea are expected to show for their dear leaders every waking hour, at least when they die they can expect freedom. For Christians death is just the beginning!!

Matthew 10:34-37New International Version (NIV) 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a] 37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

I disagree.

The sword referred by Matthew is the gospel. The peace referred to is the illusory peace that comes with Sin.
The reaction of people to the gospel will be varied. Some will believe, others will refuse to believe.

The effect of the doctrine of the Gospel will set sinner against the righteous, throughout families and throughout wider society.

RikuoAmero · 26-03-2015 09:05PM

The sword referred by Matthew is the gospel.

And how sure are you of this interpretation? How do you know yours is the correct interpretation? Did you contact the author of that quote, by any chance?

But humans have been evolving in understanding about all aspects of the world over millennia.

If in terms of science, yes. With science, we do experiments, observe, rinse and repeat. We're not just handed information direct from on high. We have to work for it. There is no such process with theism.

Why would our understanding/attempts at grasping the concept of the divine be any different?

Because there is no process of improvement, as compared to science. 3,000 years ago, we used abacuses to do calculations (still do in some regions). Now, our understanding of technology has improved to the point where a small rectangular device that fits in our pockets can do millions of calculations per second.
Compare that to theism. Apparently, as per the claim, God gave visions and spoke directly to some people thousands of years ago. Nowadays...he doesn't. What process could we improve to understand God or to communicate with God, like what we did that helped us more efficiently do mathematical calculations?

Visions, dreams, inspirations and so on need, by their nature, thought and interpretation. There are no answers, no facts, no certainties.

And THAT is why we should abandon them, except for some reason, this either hasn't occurred to you or you just disregard this line of reasoning.
If I do a science experiment, there will be facts, there will be certainties. Something as simple as throwing a ball in the air will have one of three outcomes: it will hover, it will continue floating upward or it will eventually come back down. Whenever we do this, and we observe what happens, we get new data. We can say "When we do X, Y tends to happen".
However, with "godly" dreams and visions, there's no such consensus to be had. Someone might see Jesus in a piece of toast. I more than likely won't. Since there are no certainties, no facts to be had, then WHAT GOOD ARE THEY? If there's no facts, doesn't this mean that God himself isn't a fact?

hinault · 26-03-2015 09:40PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

And how sure are you of this interpretation? How do you know yours is the correct interpretation? Did you contact the author of that quote, by any chance?

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/guzik_david/StudyGuide_Mat/Mat_10.cfm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Did you contact the author of that quote, by any chance?

Cut out the attempts at trying to be a smart alec.

RikuoAmero · 26-03-2015 09:44PM

hinault wrote: »

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/guzik_david/StudyGuide_Mat/Mat_10.cfm

Cut out the attempts at trying to be a smart alec.

I wasn't, I was trying to show you the point. I'm not going to bother reading that link because it is (in my point of view) pointless. It's all too easy and simple for me to find other sites, other people, who will look at the bible a different way, come to a different conclusion and say "THIS is what the Bible means when it says this, or when it says that".
However, with no experiments to do, no objective data to look at, no author to contact for clarification...how are we supposed to resolve this? As I've said numerous times on this thread, there are thousands of christian denominations and no way to resolve them.

hinault · 26-03-2015 09:45PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm not going to bother reading that link because it is (in my point of view) pointless

Fine.

I won't be replying to you further so.

katydid · 26-03-2015 09:47PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I wasn't, I was trying to show you the point. I'm not going to bother reading that link because it is (in my point of view) pointless. It's all too easy and simple for me to find other sites, other people, who will look at the bible a different way, come to a different conclusion and say "THIS is what the Bible means when it says this, or when it says that".
However, with no experiments to do, no objective data to look at, no author to contact for clarification...how are we supposed to resolve this? As I've said numerous times on this thread, there are thousands of christian denominations and no way to resolve them.

You are assuming we have to resolve them.

RikuoAmero · 26-03-2015 09:55PM

hinault wrote: »

Fine.

I won't be replying to you further so.

That's your choice to make. Just so there's no misunderstanding, I did not mean what I said as an insult.
Look at it from my point of view.
I've got a book, the Bible, which is available in many different languages and many different translations and edits and versions. It is the holy book of the Christian religion, of which there are tens of thousands of denominations, each with their own views and thoughts on the Bible and other matters.
From my perspective, each and every single one of these denominations looks the same in terms of evidence and general ability to convince, and I do mean the exact same. A Catholic can point me to verses that promote his views of the Pope being the head of the one true church, and say his interpretation of these verses. A Protestant can point to verses that he says are to be interpreted differently. A works-based Christian can point to verses that he says mean that you can earn heaven, while a Calvinist says that these other verses mean that all souls are pre-judged as to whether they go to heaven or hell, and there's no way to change that.

I have no way to resolve these glaring contradictions. None. If I could use the scientific method, I could devise an experiment and see what happens and put it to rest.
However, I can't. There is nothing for me to do. Each and every single claim is equally valid, given the evidence at hand. I cannot falsify any of them.
This is not an insult, this is not me being mean in any way, this is me explaining to you the difficulty I have with your religion.

RikuoAmero · 26-03-2015 09:57PM

katydid wrote: »

You are assuming we have to resolve them.

...why wouldn't we? If I've got a Calvinist on one side telling me there's no point at all trying to earn my way into heaven, and on the other side I've got a works-based Christian saying that yes I can, I can earn my way, how do I find out which of them is right so as to know how I should live my life?
I've only got the one life to live, thus only so much time I can spend doing things.
From what you said, it's like you glorify in confusion and mystery, instead of actually trying to figure things out.

katydid · 26-03-2015 09:59PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

...why wouldn't we? If I've got a Calvinist on one side telling me there's no point at all trying to earn my way into heaven, and on the other side I've got a works-based Christian saying that yes I can, I can earn my way, how do I find out which of them is right so as to know how I should live my life?
I've only got the one life to live, thus only so much time I can spend doing things.
From what you said, it's like you glorify in confusion and mystery, instead of actually trying to figure things out.

We can never figure things out, any more than we can every figure out what God is. It doesn't mean we can't stop trying.

RikuoAmero · 26-03-2015 10:02PM

katydid wrote: »

We can never figure things out, any more than we can every figure out what God is. It doesn't mean we can't stop trying.

However, this is contradicted by yourself. I remember in other threads where you spoke about not using reason at all to figure out God (or words to that effect or with a similar meaning).
As for "we can't figure things out"...things, as in things in general? Specific things? If in general...how did you learn how to speak then, if you can't figure things out like language?
I won't be replying again tonight.

katydid · 26-03-2015 10:10PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

However, this is contradicted by yourself. I remember in other threads where you spoke about not using reason at all to figure out God (or words to that effect or with a similar meaning).
As for "we can't figure things out"...things, as in things in general? Specific things? If in general...how did you learn how to speak then, if you can't figure things out like language?
I won't be replying again tonight.

How am I contradicting myself. I SAID we can't ever figure it out.

I thought it was pretty clear what I meant when I say "figure it out"; we're talking about the divine and our understanding of it, aren't we? Not "things in general"...

RikuoAmero · 26-03-2015 10:14PM

I thought it was pretty clear what I meant when I say "figure it out"; we're talking about the divine and our understanding of it, aren't we? Not "things in general"...

Nope you weren't.
You said

We can never figure things out, any more than we can every figure out what God is.

As in, the way that sentence is worded, "things" and "God" are two different categories, not related to one another.
It'd be like saying "I can never figure out Japanese, any more than I can figure out programming in Python". If I said that, would you think I meant Python both times, Japanese both times...or would you think I was talking about two separate things?

katydid · 26-03-2015 10:18PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Nope you weren't.
You said

As in, the way that sentence is worded, "things" and "God" are two different categories, not related to one another.
It'd be like saying "I can never figure out Japanese, any more than I can figure out programming in Python". If I said that, would you think I meant Python both times, Japanese both times...or would you think I was talking about two separate things?

Yes, I was. That's the subject of this tread;you need to read the previous posts to put what I said in context. "Things" referred directly to what a poster had said about the different interpretation and opinions from different denominations.

jaffusmax · 26-03-2015 10:21PM

hinault wrote: »

I disagree.

The sword referred by Matthew is the gospel. The peace referred to is the illusory peace that comes with Sin.
The reaction of people to the gospel will be varied. Some will believe, others will refuse to believe.

The effect of the doctrine of the Gospel will set sinner against the righteous, throughout families and throughout wider society.

It appears to me the same methods of interpreting symbols by those whom try to find meaning in the Quatrains of Nostradamus is needed to extract meaning from an otherwise pretty straightforward declaration from Christ.

Why could god/jesus not in all their eternal wisdom and knowledge not be able to speak and create the basis of a text that can be read throughout the ages without the need for subjective symbolism?

jaffusmax · 26-03-2015 10:36PM

katydid wrote: »

But humans have been evolving in understanding about all aspects of the world over millennia. Why would our understanding/attempts at grasping the concept of the divine be any different? Visions, dreams, inspirations and so on need, by their nature, thought and interpretation. There are no answers, no facts, no certainties.

You ask why wouldn't got give us all the knowledge in one go. I can ask why would he? Why give the answers instead of making us think and wonder?

I believe it is futile and of no use whatsoever to try and ask Why a supernatural entity has humans fumbling around trying to find meaning on a small planet is an unimaginably large universe.

The question is what are the processes that lead to humans populating the earth and believing that a supernatural entity created the universe. Much of these processes are explained quite well by science and the gaps that the believers filled with a god are getting smaller and smaller!

We don't ask why an Ant, a Tree or a Mountain exists but people seem to have a need to know why humans exist and whom made us!

katydid · 26-03-2015 10:39PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

I believe it is futile and of no use whatsoever to try and ask Why a supernatural entity has humans fumbling around trying to find meaning on a small planet is an unimaginably large universe.

The question is what are the processes that lead to humans populating the earth and believing that a supernatural entity created the universe. Much of these processes are explained quite well by science and the gaps that the believers filled with a god are getting smaller and smaller!

We don't ask why an Ant, a Tree or a Mountain exists but people seem to have a need to know why humans exist and whom made us!

That's fine. I find it interesting and challenging. So there we go.

jaffusmax · 26-03-2015 10:43PM

katydid wrote: »

That's fine. I find it interesting and challenging. So there we go.

whatever get us through the day! As I said a number of times once no religious ideology creeps into politics and policy we can all live peacefully!

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 07:42AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

We don't ask why an Ant, a Tree or a Mountain exists but people seem to have a need to know why humans exist and whom made us!

I think we do. Maybe not with as much interest.

Science says they/we just happened. Definitively.

But I think the point is that we ask 'Why' anyway! It's what we do. We question.

Why are things like this?
Why am I here?
What am I supposed to?

I think you can say something like religion fills the gaps in the absence of a scientific answer to those questions, but that is inaccurate and insufficient.

It's the very fact that there is no answer, and the unbearable reality that this suggests that forces humanity's hand in these things

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 07:44AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

whatever get us through the day! As I said a number of times once no religious ideology creeps into politics and policy we can all live peacefully!

haha

Yes, because it's only religious ideology that causes wars, death and destruction.

Just keep god out of it, and let Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald figure this sh!t out!

Wise heads will prevail once we keep this thing secular

Now that is some religious thinking!!!!

Utopia here we come

jaffusmax · 27-03-2015 08:31AM

MaxWig wrote: »

haha

Yes, because it's only religious ideology that causes wars, death and destruction.

Just keep god out of it, and let Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald figure this sh!t out!

Wise heads will prevail once we keep this thing secular

Now that is some religious thinking!!!!

Utopia here we come

Would you feel safe and secure knowing a Voodoo Witchdoctor was minister for health? I see know difference between a Shaman and a Priest being allowed to influence politics and policy!

MaxWig · 27-03-2015 08:43AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

Would you feel safe and secure knowing a Voodoo Witchdoctor was minister for health? I see know difference between a Shaman and a Priest being allowed to influence politics and policy!

Couldn't care less who's in charge, once the right checks and balances are in place to keep them in line.

The idea that politicians and leaders who have a religious background are more dangerous to the general public is silly.

It's a Bill Hicks joke. But a joke none the less.

Better a buddhist than butt-head.

If the leader is a moron, a narcissist, a sadist, full of hate etc., then what difference does it make what he/she believes

jaffusmax · 27-03-2015 09:15AM

MaxWig wrote: »

The idea that politicians and leaders who have a religious background are more dangerous to the general public is silly.

Taliban/ISIS with their Shia Laws and some leaders in the Nuclear Armed Jewish State that are praying for an Armageddon make me very uneasy! Presidents of the US that have at nausea uttered "God Bless America" as if to elevate their country to some divine providence makes me cringe!

Would you vote for someone whom either openly admitted they believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and want that belief to be given equal or greater stature then evolution or that they believed in the tooth fairy and would die for their belief and conscript others to die also for it!

It is extremely naive based on historical and present day evidence to think politicians with extroverted religious beliefs are not a danger to society!
We can hold individuals accountable for their actions but when it comes to religion the excuse is always the individual perverted religion! I say religion perverts good people and cause them to do bad things!

Better a buddhist than butt-head. I say better an Atheist then a Wahabi Muslim!

katydid · 27-03-2015 09:30AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

Would you vote for someone whom either openly admitted they believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and want that belief to be given equal or greater stature then evolution or that they believed in the tooth fairy and would die for their belief and conscript others to die also for it!

The key is in the final few words there. I don't give a damn what other people believe as long as they don't try to impose it on others.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments