Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Lost faith
Options
Comments
-
Sounds like pure relativism to me - which doesn't help when it comes to those who agree with neither our definition of good nor the consensus that we think adds weight to it. And why should they?
While various religions believe they hold to the absolute truth, each have contrary versions to one another stemming from their own traditions. This actually amounts to ethical relativism. Agreement by consensus across countries and cultures is the exact opposite of this. The reason that it is important is as a race humanity works to an increasingly large degree at a global rather than local level. If we interact and wish to avoid continuous conflict we need basic levels of understanding on how we reasonably treat one another.I think that once you ditch the idea of God then you can't consistently claim a universal moral imperative that applies to all people in all places whether they agree with it or not. If we are all entitled to our own subjective beliefs, and they are all equally valid, then it's very difficult to understand how such a thing could exist.
Individual societies can provide it in a very limited way for the people who live there, and the UN can provide it in a limited way for lots of countries, but only insofar as they all consent to be governed by it. And as we've already said, when UN members (especially the powerful ones) choose to ignore what the UN says, there's not a whole lot that can be done about it. If the UN is god, then unfortunately it appears to have feet of clay.
The UN doesn't impose any moral imperatives, it defines minimum standards of human rights arrived at by consensus which member countries agree to uphold. While the UN doesn't have the teeth to make all countries uphold all of these standards, it is certainly a vast improvement on personal moralities which are aspirational and of no value whatsoever to those who are being maltreated. I find it strange for anyone to argue against basic human rights as set out by the UN.I think this is another point where we will need to agree to disagree. For what it's worth, I understand that prayer is a pointless exercise from your perspective. It would be odd if you thought otherwise.
Fair enough. Out of interest would you consider a Muslim's prayers pointless and ineffective?0 -
one world order wrote: »Yes the OP is a different person because he lost his faith.
In your opinion they are different. How do you think this difference will manifest itself?one world order wrote: »The reality is the Devil tempts us all the time and it is a constant battle to move away from sin. It is why those with strong faith can find clarity in their lives and inner peace.
Reality? Really? What evidence do you have for that? Judas had direct contact with Jesus himself yet turned away. Satan as well. It seems very unfair that even if you have direct knowledge it is not always enough to really believe yet God punishes those that never were able to really believe without any direct knowledge.
But religion provides neither clarity nor inner peace although I agree it can give that impression. What clarity doe having to believe in something that you cannot and nobody ever has any evidence for. Religion likes to think it provides answers, but its not an answer when it simply substitutes "I don't know" with "God".one world order wrote: »In the Old Testament we see God punishing those that lived sinful lives that already had access to the early scriptures, like in Sodom and Gomorrah. When society turns it's back on God, people are not held accountable by a higher purpose and this is why we see so many problems developing in society today.
We have access to these scriptures, and access to the additional story of Jesus. Yet society continues to experience problems? So the best we can summise from Jesus visit to earth was that it was nothing to do with ridding the world of evil, God just wanted more recruits.
The old testament is a pretty horrific collection of stories. God loses his temper with Adam, and has not forgiven him or the rest of mankind to this day. Day wipes out the entire population of the earth, including animals, because people don't worship him enough.
God leads his chosen people out of Egypt but then murders loads of them because they lose faith. Well most people would if they were promised freedom but ended up wandering in a desert for 40 years!
God undertakes mass ethic cleanings, he not only allows but gives instructions on slavery (just not for his chosen people, cos that bad I guess!). He allows the rape of women, the murder of children.
And then Jesus comes along and its all, 'well forget all that stuff, this is God mark II, the loving kind. Simply obey his commands and you will get to heaven. But dare to not obey them, even once, and you will be damned to hell for all eternity.'
'Whats heaven you ask, well I'm not going to actually tell you, except for some vague stuff about happiness and meeting old friends, even though those old friends might have secretly been serial killers in which case you won't meet them again. Or babies that haven't been baptised. Cos nobody wants them in heaven'
Again, there are plenty of really great people that have had religion in their lives, and plenty of bad people. And the same is true for different types of religion and those without any religion.
The one constant is that people can be good regardless of religion, it may form a part of it but it certainly is not necessary.0 -
The ask was animal sacrifice and for people not to kill each other outside judicial procedure. Was execution mandated in the Old Testament ? Yes it was - but you have also suggested God should intervene to punish evil. The giving of those laws was intervention.
I really don't know how to deal with this. You have contradited yourself in the same paragraph.Who says the Old Testament isn't real? Jesus validated it at the time and the Dead Sea scrolls indicate good faithfulness in recording of the actual words.
I take that from many conversations with christians, as when you bring up the OT and the terrible, vengeful, hateful and unjust God that it depicts the usual response is that they don't believe it literally. So I apologies if my assumption on that with regard to you was wrong.
But it brings up a serious issue. If you believe in OT, how can you possibly characterise God as merciful and just, and loving? It kills without warning, without trial. He allows the murder of children, the rape of women, not to mention slavery.If you're suggesting there's evidence to suggest there wasn't a census at that time, then what leads you to suppose that evidence is any more trustworthy than that recorded by witnesses near the time? Have you researched this?
You have really gone down the rabbit hole now. Are you really asking me to provide evidence that something didn't happen in order to disprove your belief that it did? That is not how evidence works. You are claiming something happened, where is the proof? Because even if it did happen,there would be no reason for Joseph to travel to Bethlehem, what census have you ever heard of that required people to return to the place they were born. What possible use would that be to the Romans?Is there reason to doubt that the Gospels were authored by anyone other than the disciples concerned? Why automatically accept contemporary conclusions 2000 years later over what was accepted 100 years afterwards?
Who do you think wrote the gospils? Do you think the disciples did? Because all evidence says they didn't. Even 100 years later it wasn't thought that the disciples wrote them. Even the stories within the gospils clearly has parts in them when the disciples could not have been there at the time. (Jesus birth, John the Baptist). At best these were stories relayed by Jesus to the disciples.Why conclude that ? Other contemporary books excluded from the Canon are available to read if anyone chooses. Some still appear as Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible and a few are even quoted by the apostles. There's no secrecy involved. The upshot is that the Bible represents everything that is required, additional reading is up to yourself but be aware it may not be as reliable.
Why were they excluded? That is the key question? It was a manmade decision which to include and which to not. On whose authority did man decide to exclude the true written word of God. The only was to accept that some were excluded is to accept that not all were truely gods word. So on what basis can we determine that?The language didn't die out, there are line by line comparison reference books if you care to check them out. What universal language would you prefer God used?
Is the language still in daily use today? What was the language that the majority of the books were written in?
A translation, why would God need to create his word which required a translation, which is always going to open to interpretation by man? Why didn't he make a single language across the world? Free will I suppose. I would have preferred he gave a clear message, that anyone could understand, that didn't need vast study and learning of ancient languages to understand. There is a reason why there are so many versions of the bible.
He can make a talking snake but he can't create a universal language?Both. Truth and love. Although I wouldn't agree with the 'war monger' label, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged - for why, I suggest you read the account if you haven't already. Jesus promised mercy and forgiveness for faith and repentance but also judgement for rejection. He caused uproar amongst the merchants in the Temple, castigated liberal and legalist Jews and warned that everyone, believer and non-believer would be judged.
Depends on what you define as a war monger. I would certainly call someone that destroys two entire villages without warning of giving anyone a chance to escape would be counted as one. What would you call someone that did it?
Clearly some people, according to the story, had fallen away from Gods commandments, but that happens today and we don't see people being summarily executed because of it. Why the chance in heart from God? Why was that acceptable then but no longer?
And are you really suggestion that the children born into those villages were are equally culpable as the adults? That new borns were guilty of the same crimes?
Uproar in the temple? Jesus lost him temper and attacked those that didn't agree with him. We lock those people up nowadays.Why would you be surprised that Jesus would be born as a Jew ? And the fact is that most Jews rejected Him anyway throughout His ministry.
I'm not surprised at all, it is totally consistent with a story written by Jews that wanted to turn people to turn version of religion. He was a man born of his time, just like all men were. But this is supposed to be God we are talking about, yet he sticks to the same rules and confines that everyone else has to?
Most Jews rejected him because despite seeing and hearing him directly he didn't line with with the prophecies. They were hundreds of false prophets at the time, the Jews simply say, through experience I would suggest, that here is yet another false prophet.
And we see the exact same today. US evangelical preachers, all claiming to have a direct line to god. To you believe any of them are God?
Ah, well He fulfilled the Law as it applied to the Jews - all the food restrictions, all the feasts and dates. Being sinless included observing every one of the details which He did, freeing us up from pretty much everything but the basic 10 commandments.
Respectfully disagree. God doesn't lie - if He says we will live with Him forever, then that's what will happen. Creating people who have no chance to repent is the act of an insanely cruel deity and if that were the case, we'd be living out some Dante-esque nightmare every day which, hyperbole aside, we aren't.[/QUOTE]0 -
While various religions believe they hold to the absolute truth, each have contrary versions to one another stemming from their own traditions. This actually amounts to ethical relativism. Agreement by consensus across countries and cultures is the exact opposite of this. The reason that it is important is as a race humanity works to an increasingly large degree at a global rather than local level. If we interact and wish to avoid continuous conflict we need basic levels of understanding on how we reasonably treat one another.
Pointing out that religions have different views on what is moral is one thing; whether any of them is objectively right or not is another. If they are all merely subjective beliefs then I guess you would say that they are all equally valid (or invalid)?The UN doesn't impose any moral imperatives, it defines minimum standards of human rights arrived at by consensus which member countries agree to uphold. While the UN doesn't have the teeth to make all countries uphold all of these standards, it is certainly a vast improvement on personal moralities which are aspirational and of no value whatsoever to those who are being maltreated. I find it strange for anyone to argue against basic human rights as set out by the UN.
Again, I think the work of the UN is a force for good, and that basic human rights are also a good thing. Not arguing against them at all. In fact, I would say that both are part of God common grace to the world, and are effective in restraining human evil.
But the problem isn't you or me, who think that basic human rights are good. The problem is the many individuals and countries who disagree with what we (or the UN) says. Who are quite happy to execute political dissenters, oppress women, and act out all the other injustices we see in the news. On that basis, you would have to say that Asia Bibi is one of the lucky ones, and that countless others aren't so lucky. What justice do they get?
In your last post you asked if consensus (such as demonstrated by the UN) provides any moral imperative. I want to say that it does, insofar as the UN reflects a higher moral standard. They certainly act as if such a standard exists, as when the UN calls on countries to (for example) halt capital punishment they don't frame it as a mere subjective belief. In fact, we all act as if a universal moral standard exists, and appeal to it regularly. My question is where that comes from, and why it has such an enduring appeal for us.
For what it's worth, my belief is that our desire for justice, real objective justice, is reflective of the character of the God who made us. And more than that, the God who has promised that justice will finally be done, all wrongs put right, and all evil punished.
How you explain it, as an atheist, is up to you.Fair enough. Out of interest would you consider a Muslim's prayers pointless and ineffective?
That's a fair question. I think it would be rude and unproductive to put it quite so bluntly; Christians are called to share the truth with gentleness and respect (however far short we fall of that at times).
But I do believe that Muslims are fundamentally wrong in how they approach God, and that they need faith in Jesus as much as anyone else. Incidentally, I have no problem at all with a similar Muslim contention that Christians are wrong and should convert to Islam.
Scripture leads me to believe that God has regard for prayers made to him in faith. This means recognising God as he is, and as he has revealed himself to us, which Muslims do not do from my perspective. I'm not an expert on Islam, but I think the Muslim attitude to prayer is also quite different to the Christian one. The Christian ideas of a close relationship with God, and thinking of him as Father, would be quite strange to a Muslim.
In short, I would want to call a Muslim to a better way, and to believe in God as he really is (Father, Son and Spirit) through faith in Jesus, and to pray to him on that basis, rather than smugly saying "you're wrong!"0 -
My definition of science has nothing to do with feelings and belief. I was taking about religion. What, since there is no evidence, is the bases for your position on God and Jesus? Is it a belief or based on actual evidence?
Per the dictionary (where you presumably got it from). It's merely been applied to your position
When did I say that? It is currently the best path we have used. It is certainly far better than relying on a book written by numerous people, over hundreds of years, based on 2nd or 3rd person memories, and for which there is little to no actual evidence and which contradicts itself numerous times.
If you have a better one go ahead.
What do you think the philosophy of science is?
Your experience is that religion is open to question? There is nothing seen as sacred that should not be questioned? OK. Your guess is of no interest to me. No need to attack me personally. Your position should stand up on its own, you have god on your side afterall, so no need so the veiled attack on my ability to be critical.
Why have you added extrapolation into anything. I never mentioned it. I stated that .
I look at what people claim, see on what it is based, and whether they can back it up. Any scientist can claim anything they like, but I would want to see more than, "well I read it in a book".
Science is he complete opposite of all seeing. Science itself acknowledges that it has huge areas that it doesn't understand, and would accept that here are huge areas that it doesn't even know of, yet alone understand.
You seem to be very determined to paint science as a religion, and I don't understand why. There is no faith in science. People may believe they are on the right path, but it is nothing more than a belief until such time as they provide evidence, in which case it long longer requires faith.
But instead of attacking science and what it is based on, use the very same questions you put to me against religion.
Do you believe that science is the only way in which the totality of reality is to be explored? Even if science hasn't yet explored the totality of reality.
If you say yes you have a religion: a faith based belief
Is science the best way to explore the totality of reality? Even if it hasn't yet explored the totality of reality.
If you say 'yes', you have a religion: a belief about the primacy of science. And a belief about the totality of reality ( which you think is accessible to science).
-
This isn't about how science is done. This isn't how good science patently is as exploring the reality amenable to that pursuit.
This is about your beliefs about what science can do. Which stem from your beliefs about what constitutes reality.
Since those beliefs aren't scientifically demonstrable we are dealing with a philosophy. A belief system based on faith (about what you hold the totality of reality to encompass).
Which fits your definition of a religion.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, I said it was the best we have at the moment.
But what it has over religion is that it asks questions, rather than comfort itself by filling in the blanks with stories and beliefs.
So it's not a religion, no matter how many ways to try to make it so.
But the telling thing is that you are attempting to align it to a religion. And you need to do that as you know that religion has no basis and therefore you need to drag other things to the same level.
It has nothing to do with my belief. I can believe in anything I want, as can any scientist, but it's not taken seriously until such time as it is proven.
Science is a method, not a philosophy. Test, retest, open to peers, attempt to disprove. Religion starts with a philosophy and tries to warp everything to fit it.
The bible claims that god invented the world in 6 days. Despite plenty of the bible being debunked, religion continues to claim that the overall must be true because...well they want it to be.0 -
I'm a bit confused about the morality in the bible being said to be "objective" as several times the Law is disputed with God who in fact more than once changes his mind as a result of human beings arguing with him. His instructions are also clearly indicated not to be universal truths of behaviour. The Torah scholars in the Second Temple period did not perceive the Bible's laws and ethical code as objective, universal and rational, that's a later Hellenic conception taken on by some Jewish Neo-Platonists like Philo.0
-
But the problem isn't you or me, who think that basic human rights are good. The problem is the many individuals and countries who disagree with what we (or the UN) says. Who are quite happy to execute political dissenters, oppress women, and act out all the other injustices we see in the news. On that basis, you would have to say that Asia Bibi is one of the lucky ones, and that countless others aren't so lucky. What justice do they get?
While their are countries and individuals who are regularly in breach of UN human rights treaties, they are typically noted and regularly sanctioned for doing so. Asia Bibi may be one of the lucky ones, but there would many more serious human rights violations without the likes of the UN in place. For all their supposed high morals, Christian churches, including evangelical ones, appear more often among those guilty of abuse than those trying to prevent it. What tangible help has your church provided of late to abuse victims for example?In your last post you asked if consensus (such as demonstrated by the UN) provides any moral imperative. I want to say that it does, insofar as the UN reflects a higher moral standard. They certainly act as if such a standard exists, as when the UN calls on countries to (for example) halt capital punishment they don't frame it as a mere subjective belief. In fact, we all act as if a universal moral standard exists, and appeal to it regularly. My question is where that comes from, and why it has such an enduring appeal for us.
For what it's worth, my belief is that our desire for justice, real objective justice, is reflective of the character of the God who made us. And more than that, the God who has promised that justice will finally be done, all wrongs put right, and all evil punished.
How you explain it, as an atheist, is up to you.
Justice and morality in my opinion have absolutely nothing to do with atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. As a secularist however, I'm of the opinion that what is best for us is best decided by us by consensus, in the full recognition that different people in society live by different personal moral criteria. Our understanding of this evolves over time, so if you look at Ireland in the 1950s for example you'd see a country rife with misogyny and homophobia, where today these are deemed by our society collectively as unacceptable Justice is also clearly contextual. If someone goes to court accused of a crime they are tried by a jury, all the facts and extenuating evidence is heard, and where the jury finds guilt, a judge gives a sentence that accounts for the severity and circumstances of the crime. We do not look to divine inspiration to mete out justice at any level nor is religious belief an excuse for misdeeds.0 -
No, I said it was the best we have at the moment.
But what it has over religion is that it asks questions, rather than comfort itself by filling in the blanks with stories and beliefs.
So it's not a religion, no matter how many ways to try to make it so.
But the telling thing is that you are attempting to align it to a religion. And you need to do that as you know that religion has no basis and therefore you need to drag other things to the same level.
It has nothing to do with my belief. I can believe in anything I want, as can any scientist, but it's not taken seriously until such time as it is proven.
Science is a method, not a philosophy. Test, retest, open to peers, attempt to disprove. Religion starts with a philosophy and tries to warp everything to fit it.
The bible claims that god invented the world in 6 days. Despite plenty of the bible being debunked, religion continues to claim that the overall must be true because...well they want it to be.
Your good at making statements but unable to back them up. Give examples if you can how the bible has being debunked?0 -
In your opinion they are different. How do you think this difference will manifest itself?
Reality? Really? What evidence do you have for that? Judas had direct contact with Jesus himself yet turned away. Satan as well. It seems very unfair that even if you have direct knowledge it is not always enough to really believe yet God punishes those that never were able to really believe without any direct knowledge.
We have access to these scriptures, and access to the additional story of Jesus. Yet society continues to experience problems? So the best we can summise from Jesus visit to earth was that it was nothing to do with ridding the world of evil, God just wanted more recruits.
The old testament is a pretty horrific collection of stories. God loses his temper with Adam, and has not forgiven him or the rest of mankind to this day. Day wipes out the entire population of the earth, including animals, because people don't worship him enough.
God leads his chosen people out of Egypt but then murders loads of them because they lose faith. Well most people would if they were promised freedom but ended up wandering in a desert for 40 years.
Judas had direct knowledge of Jesus, but he was still tempted by the devil. Knowing Jesus exists is not enough, you must repent and seek out God for help when tempted.
Jesus dying on the cross for our sins was for us to acknowledge our sinful nature and battle against it. We cannot defeat sin fully in this world but after this world we are meant to complete the process.
When God created the Jewish people, they were meant to be his chosen people, obeying God's commands. When they were in Egypt they lost part of their beliefs as they lived alongside the Egyptians. This is why it took 40 years to reach their new home in Israel as the next generation returned back to God's teachings.0 -
Advertisement
-
one world order wrote: »
Your good at making statements but unable to back them up. Give examples if you can how the bible has being debunked?
Ah, the old 'disprove it ever happened ' line. Religion makes the extraordinary claims of global floods, talking snakes, women turning into pillars of salt, Moses and the plagues, virgin births, Lazarus rising from the dead, Jesus resurrection. Yet provides no evidence of any of it.
But for starters read this
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biblical-literalism_b_4966852. Not comprehensive by any means and clearly written in a flippant style but one thing has clear. There is no evidence, anywhere, of Noah's flood. The timelines don't work, no evidence of flood across the globe, plenty of flood stories across many other religions and races, evolution shows the animals couldn't have come from one place, population growth doesn't work, no evidence that anybody ever lived 900 odd years, no boat could have been built and floated that was big enough, how did the animals eat, defecate, avoid eating each other.
That is just one story. I'm not even going to bother with the complete lack of evidence for Jesus being God.
Is there any part of the bible that you don't believe? Which version of the resurrection story do you believe?0 -
one world order wrote: »In your opinion they are different. How do you think this difference will manifest itself?
Reality? Really? What evidence do you have for that? Judas had direct contact with Jesus himself yet turned away. Satan as well. It seems very unfair that even if you have direct knowledge it is not always enough to really believe yet God punishes those that never were able to really believe without any direct knowledge.
We have access to these scriptures, and access to the additional story of Jesus. Yet society continues to experience problems? So the best we can summise from Jesus visit to earth was that it was nothing to do with ridding the world of evil, God just wanted more recruits.
The old testament is a pretty horrific collection of stories. God loses his temper with Adam, and has not forgiven him or the rest of mankind to this day. Day wipes out the entire population of the earth, including animals, because people don't worship him enough.
God leads his chosen people out of Egypt but then murders loads of them because they lose faith. Well most people would if they were promised freedom but ended up wandering in a desert for 40 years.
Judas had direct knowledge of Jesus, but he was still tempted by the devil. Knowing Jesus exists is not enough, you must repent and seek out God for help when tempted.
Jesus dying on the cross for our sins was for us to acknowledge our sinful nature and battle against it. We cannot defeat sin fully in this world but after this world we are meant to complete the process.
When God created the Jewish people, they were meant to be his chosen people, obeying God's commands. When they were in Egypt they lost part of their beliefs as they lived alongside the Egyptians. This is why it took 40 years to reach their new home in Israel as the next generation returned back to God's teachings.
So how does this difference manifest itself between a person having faith and not?0 -
I really don't know how to deal with this. You have contradited yourself in the same paragraph.
I take that from many conversations with christians, as when you bring up the OT and the terrible, vengeful, hateful and unjust God that it depicts the usual response is that they don't believe it literally. So I apologies if my assumption on that with regard to you was wrong.
But it brings up a serious issue. If you believe in OT, how can you possibly characterise God as merciful and just, and loving? It kills without warning, without trial. He allows the murder of children, the rape of women, not to mention slavery.
You have really gone down the rabbit hole now. Are you really asking me to provide evidence that something didn't happen in order to disprove your belief that it did? That is not how evidence works. You are claiming something happened, where is the proof? Because even if it did happen,there would be no reason for Joseph to travel to Bethlehem, what census have you ever heard of that required people to return to the place they were born. What possible use would that be to the Romans?
Who do you think wrote the gospils? Do you think the disciples did? Because all evidence says they didn't. Even 100 years later it wasn't thought that the disciples wrote them. Even the stories within the gospils clearly has parts in them when the disciples could not have been there at the time. (Jesus birth, John the Baptist). At best these were stories relayed by Jesus to the disciples.
Why were they excluded? That is the key question? It was a manmade decision which to include and which to not. On whose authority did man decide to exclude the true written word of God. The only was to accept that some were excluded is to accept that not all were truely gods word. So on what basis can we determine that?
Is the language still in daily use today? What was the language that the majority of the books were written in?
A translation, why would God need to create his word which required a translation, which is always going to open to interpretation by man? Why didn't he make a single language across the world? Free will I suppose. I would have preferred he gave a clear message, that anyone could understand, that didn't need vast study and learning of ancient languages to understand. There is a reason why there are so many versions of the bible.
He can make a talking snake but he can't create a universal language?
Depends on what you define as a war monger. I would certainly call someone that destroys two entire villages without warning of giving anyone a chance to escape would be counted as one. What would you call someone that did it?
Clearly some people, according to the story, had fallen away from Gods commandments, but that happens today and we don't see people being summarily executed because of it. Why the chance in heart from God? Why was that acceptable then but no longer?
And are you really suggestion that the children born into those villages were are equally culpable as the adults? That new borns were guilty of the same crimes?
Uproar in the temple? Jesus lost him temper and attacked those that didn't agree with him. We lock those people up nowadays.
I'm not surprised at all, it is totally consistent with a story written by Jews that wanted to turn people to turn version of religion. He was a man born of his time, just like all men were. But this is supposed to be God we are talking about, yet he sticks to the same rules and confines that everyone else has to?
Most Jews rejected him because despite seeing and hearing him directly he didn't line with with the prophecies. They were hundreds of false prophets at the time, the Jews simply say, through experience I would suggest, that here is yet another false prophet.
And we see the exact same today. US evangelical preachers, all claiming to have a direct line to god. To you believe any of them are God?
Unfortunately apologies for not having time to give this the full attention it warrants but just a couple of notes.
Firstly, there was a common human language pre-Babel. Again, whether the Tower of Babel is seen literally or figuratively, humanity united in rebellion and as a consequence God separated out tribes and nations by language. Interestingly it can be said that for the first time in thousands of years, humanity is back at that point, first with worldwide telephony and then the internet.
Secondly, in the course of these exchanges, you have raised valid questions which have for the most part been addressed, only to spark more questions. I recognise a lot of them - I wasn't raised in any religion and was a rabid atheist until I was 20 or so (and I was a good deal less polite than you :cool:). I thought the whole thing was a hypocritical sham and even the handful of 'born agains' I knew were too insufferably nice, hopelessly naive and deluded. The fact that they smiled through the barrage of trolling I directed at them was even more annoying.
I was steadfast about one thing though - how could it possibly be fair for Jesus to have demonstrated acts of supernatural power as the Son of God 2,000 years ago in front of a lucky few... and I'm supposed to shrug and believe it? I recall you saying something similar.
A lot happened to open my eyes, I didn't have a sudden uplifting religious experience at all. One thread was becoming aware of how evil almost seemed to be personified, even cunning. The rise of Hitler, Stalin and Mao for example, who seemed to be propped up by something spiritual, a shared mania much more than just a shared political or national vision. Another thread was understanding more of the science behind our existence and biology and realising for the first time how hopelessly remote the chances of all this being accidental really were. There were still other threads besides, I am still discovering them in hindsight.
But I still hadn't had the miracle I had said I needed to see in order to believe. Then a friend of mine and her sister simultaneously fell sick for several years with an untreatable and poorly understood disease leaving both with weakness and limited mobility. My friend - who had been drawn into Christianity somewhat - said she would be attending a prayer meeting that night as the local 'born again' house church wanted to pray for her sickness. Me, I went out on the drink. But before I went, in a quiet moment, I spoke out loud challenging Him to heal her, if He really could.
I got my miracle. In someone's front room and in a group of around a dozen or so people (most of whom didn't know her), she had been prayed for and had started dancing around the room, the weakness and mental confusion had completely and instantly lifted. For as long as I knew her afterwards, this remained so. Meanwhile her sister, the inadvertent control subject, remained sick and regained her strength only years later - and gradually.
If I hadn't been ready to accept that miracle, it wouldn't have convinced me. It didn't convince others who just shrugged and got on with life. But for me it was the last step on a long journey of coming home - from trolling, to thinking, to considering, to reaching out, to commitment. There's no medical evidence showing a before and after, there is only the physical state I knew she was in before she went and how she was when she returned. It was the miracle I had asked for - in arrogance - and which I received. So I made my own commitment, all my questions had been answered.
For yourself, if you really want the truth then I would encourage you to pray to Jesus to ask Him to show you. Whether or not you think this is a waste of time, if you do, you absolutely can expect a response, just be open to it.0 -
No, I said it was the best we have at the moment.
Best/ best at the moment
When you don't know what the totality of reality is and how it might be understood , you can't say whats best /best at the moment.
If the totality of reality contains significant things which science is unequipped to investigate, then 'best at the moment' is meaningless. You can say you believe science is the best way understand reality if you want. 'Believe' is required to avoid the claim about science being 'best at the moment' being a nonsenseBut what it has over religion is that it asks questions, rather than comfort itself by filling in the blanks with stories and beliefs.
Given you are sailing in the boat of belief about science's power. And given you have absolutely nothing, except that belief about science, to proffer regarding it being a 'best at the moment' fit...
Well, lets just say that he who lives by the sword of belief ought not throw stones.So it's not a religion, no matter how many ways to try to make it so.
Why did you leave out 'you' in the sentence above. Was that because it wasn't me who demonstrated your position a religion, but you?
You can't demonstrate 'best at the moment'. What else bit belief have you got?But the telling thing is that you are attempting to align it to a religion. And you need to do that as you know that religion has no basis and therefore you need to drag other things to the same level.
The reason I drag your view into the gutter called 'religion' is because it is you who considers religion a gutter. I make no comment about religion at all here - I'm only using your view, your definition whilst placing you in the same boat you so glibly erect.It has nothing to do with my belief. I can believe in anything I want, as can any scientist, but it's not taken seriously until such time as it is proven.
Science is a method, not a philosophy. Test, retest, open to peers, attempt to disprove. Religion starts with a philosophy and tries to warp everything to fit it.
The bible claims that god invented the world in 6 days. Despite plenty of the bible being debunked, religion continues to claim that the overall must be true because...well they want it to be.
You segue a lot. I understand scientific method. I understand the value and application of science.
I'm dealing with your belief about science. That it is best. That it is best right now. That it is the primary way ... whatever way you want to word your belief ABOUT science.0 -
While their are countries and individuals who are regularly in breach of UN human rights treaties, they are typically noted and regularly sanctioned for doing so. Asia Bibi may be one of the lucky ones, but there would many more serious human rights violations without the likes of the UN in place. For all their supposed high morals, Christian churches, including evangelical ones, appear more often among those guilty of abuse than those trying to prevent it. What tangible help has your church provided of late to abuse victims for example?
Justice and morality in my opinion have absolutely nothing to do with atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. As a secularist however, I'm of the opinion that what is best for us is best decided by us by consensus, in the full recognition that different people in society live by different personal moral criteria. Our understanding of this evolves over time, so if you look at Ireland in the 1950s for example you'd see a country rife with misogyny and homophobia, where today these are deemed by our society collectively as unacceptable Justice is also clearly contextual. If someone goes to court accused of a crime they are tried by a jury, all the facts and extenuating evidence is heard, and where the jury finds guilt, a judge gives a sentence that accounts for the severity and circumstances of the crime. We do not look to divine inspiration to mete out justice at any level nor is religious belief an excuse for misdeeds.
So smacl. Where were we on the matter of if/then.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »So smacl. Where were we on the matter of if/then.
IF your god exists THEN
IF he is as you imagine him to be THEN
IF he is talking to you personally THEN
you are right
ELSE
you are wrong
ELSE
you are wrong
ELSE
you are wrong
Nor reason or evidence to suppose any of your conditions hold true let alone all of them. All seems rather BASIC from where I'm sitting.0 -
IF your god exists THEN
IF he is as you imagine him to be THEN
IF he is talking to you personally THEN
you are right
ELSE
you are wrong
ELSE
you are wrong
ELSE
you are wrong
Nor reason or evidence to suppose any of your conditions hold true let alone all of them. All seems rather BASIC from where I'm sitting.
We're looking whether it is possible for a person to have an objective view, even though it isn't verifiable by others.
That quest is not interested in whether you have reason or evidence as to whether the conditions are true or not - since the condition state isn't affected one way or the other by there being no reason or evidence available to a third party.
-
Your logic is a little bit off. In the first instance, AND IF is the proper connection not THEN IF. THEN is a conclusion following the state (true / not true) of the previous logic elements.
That first THEN IF (i.e. AND IF) isn't necessarily required. There need be no reliance on me (my imagination in this case). IF God exists AND IF he communicates with me THEN my imagination doesn't need to come into it.
The focus is on act of God. Not reliance on me.
-
Can we now agree that IF God acts a person can have objective knowledge all on their owney-own.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Your logic is a little bit off. In the first instance, AND IF is the proper connection not THEN IF. THEN is a conclusion following the state (true / not true) of the previous logic elements.
My logic is off? IF a THEN IF b THEN c is logically identical to IF a AND IF b THEN c, where c only gets evaluated if a and b are true. Note also that AND IF is rubbish as AND as a logical operator implies the IF.The focus is on act of God. Not reliance on me
Wrong. If god exists he still might not communicate with you yet you still might imagine that he has. The existence of a god or gods does not preclude the possibility of humans to misinterpret or imagine their intent. You seem to be placing yourself in the role of Moses here.0 -
One thread was becoming aware of how evil almost seemed to be personified, even cunning. The rise of Hitler, Stalin and Mao for example, who seemed to be propped up by something spiritual, a shared mania much more than just a shared political or national vision.
They tapped into the same "APIs" in the human brain that religion does, it's not all that surprising that people reacted to them in a similar way that they would to religion (which includes vehement rejection as well as full-blooded acceptance, community conformity, parental instruction in the "faith", etc.)Another thread was understanding more of the science behind our existence and biology and realising for the first time how hopelessly remote the chances of all this being accidental really were.
No offence but you need to increase your understanding of biology some more as this is an extremely simplistic view.
"This looks designed/improbable, therefore god did it" isn't an answer.
Given what we know about the age and immense scale of the universe, it would be a surprise if there were NOT intelligent life arising somewhere.
Evolution is NOT random or improbable change, it is directed change, directed by natural selection. The vast majority of changes are incompatible with life or disadvantageous and are selected against, the beneficial changes are selected for and eventually further beneficial changes build upon them.There were still other threads besides, I am still discovering them in hindsight.
Retconning your experiences to fit in with your beliefs?I got my miracle.
Your miracle? Not the other people's?
Sounds like some sort of psychosomatic condition tbh. Although unexpected cures do happen, these are not evidence of miracles.
You'd think if there was a beneficial effect it'd have been statistically observed by now. Actual studies show that prayer has no effect over placebo - except when the patient knows they are being prayed for, and then on average they do marginally worse.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »They tapped into the same "APIs" in the human brain that religion does, it's not all that surprising that people reacted to them in a similar way that they would to religion (which includes vehement rejection as well as full-blooded acceptance, community conformity, parental instruction in the "faith", etc.)
No offence but you need to increase your understanding of biology some more as this is an extremely simplistic view.
"This looks designed/improbable, therefore god did it" isn't an answer.
Given what we know about the age and immense scale of the universe, it would be a surprise if there were NOT intelligent life arising somewhere.
Evolution is NOT random or improbable change, it is directed change, directed by natural selection. The vast majority of changes are incompatible with life or disadvantageous and are selected against, the beneficial changes are selected for and eventually further beneficial changes build upon them.
Retconning your experiences to fit in with your beliefs?
Your miracle? Not the other people's?
Sounds like some sort of psychosomatic condition tbh. Although unexpected cures do happen, these are not evidence of miracles.
You'd think if there was a beneficial effect it'd have been statistically observed by now. Actual studies show that prayer has no effect over placebo - except when the patient knows they are being prayed for, and then on average they do marginally worse.
You see, your post serves to illustrate what I had said about being ready to accept a miracle by faith. Pretty much everything you have said here I had argued at some time or another. What you call retconning is realising, in hindsight, that the healing itself was not the primary reason I came to believe. It was a critical final part - an undeniable response to a prayer I had made short on belief, long on cockiness - but if the background work had not been completed, I would have written it off as you have - something psychosomatic - and pointed to other incidences of spontaneous remission not linked to religious activity or belief. That's why I describe it as my miracle, acknowledging that it was also miraculous for herself and the other witnesses and accepting that most would simply not believe it.
And that's the problem, the trap of "I don't believe in God, show me a miracle and then I'll believe" followed swiftly by "That wasn't a proper miracle! It can be explained by x,y and z and it's just coincidence it happened just after you prayed for it to happen." Moreover, in a world of deep fakes where any photograph or video can be created from scratch - what kind of proof would you accept if it were not somehow personal to you or at least in your direct line of sight?
As for your recommendation that I increase my understanding of biology, when I went to University I began as an atheist studying biochemistry and biological chemistry. When I graduated, it was as a Christian convert - and I hadn't changed subjects. In part, ignorance of the complexity of issues like DNA replication and repair mechanisms had given me false confidence in science and Darwinism as having all the answers. Lifting the veil on just how complicated and fragile a single living cell is was enlightening and cast considerable doubt on the ability of any single-celled organisms or their progenitor structures surviving long enough to multiply in a hostile primordial environment.
It's funny but telling that we can both look at the same ridiculously improbable mechanisms and say on the one hand: God and on the other hand: rolled sixes. Millions and millions of years of rolled sixes before natural selection even got a look-in. But one or the other is true.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's funny but telling that we can both look at the same ridiculously improbable mechanisms and say on the one hand: God and on the other hand: rolled sixes. Millions and millions of years of rolled sixes before natural selection even got a look-in. But one or the other is true.
Divide your millions and millions of rolled dices by the size of the universe and then by the age of the universe and you get an altogether smaller number. For those of the opinion that life might exist on other planets, that number is likely to be considerably less than one. Conversely,
the probability of creation firstly by a god or gods and then specifically by your God, as opposed to any creation myth that mankind has ever imagined, might ever imagine or might never imagine, seems rather remote by comparison.0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »They tapped into the same "APIs" in the human brain that religion does, it's not all that surprising that people reacted to them in a similar way that they would to religion (which includes vehement rejection as well as full-blooded acceptance, community conformity, parental instruction in the "faith", etc.)
No offence but you need to increase your understanding of biology some more as this is an extremely simplistic view.
"This looks designed/improbable, therefore god did it" isn't an answer.
Given what we know about the age and immense scale of the universe, it would be a surprise if there were NOT intelligent life arising somewhere.
Evolution is NOT random or improbable change, it is directed change, directed by natural selection. The vast majority of changes are incompatible with life or disadvantageous and are selected against, the beneficial changes are selected for and eventually further beneficial changes build upon them.
Retconning your experiences to fit in with your beliefs?
Your miracle? Not the other people's?
Sounds like some sort of psychosomatic condition tbh. Although unexpected cures do happen, these are not evidence of miracles.
You'd think if there was a beneficial effect it'd have been statistically observed by now. Actual studies show that prayer has no effect over placebo - except when the patient knows they are being prayed for, and then on average they do marginally worse.
Actual studies? Whilst I've due admiration for science the idea that you could study such a thing belongs to the realm of pseudoscience
Are the pray-ers Christians per God's definition of same? Because if they are not..
Would God, who it appears is reluctant to evidence himself, empirically evidence himself in a study? Assuming not, could we expect prayer effect (if any) altered by his non cooperation?
Fatal (and easily discernible) flaws in any 'study'. Yet someone has figured this scientific.0 -
Divide your millions and millions of rolled dices by the size of the universe and then by the age of the universe and you get an altogether smaller number. For those of the opinion that life might exist on other planets, that number is likely to be considerably less than one. Conversely,
the probability of creation firstly by a god or gods and then specifically by your God, as opposed to any creation myth that mankind has ever imagined, might ever imagine or might never imagine, seems rather remote by comparison.
At any stage in that first and subsequent developing microcluster, roll a five and suddenly the temperature rises and the protein chains uncurl. Or a burst of UV smashes the microcluster back to square one - and then you need to roll even more sixes just to get back to where you were. Not to mention that your calculation needs revision as most of the observed universe cannot support organic life of any kind anyway.
Versus the improbability of creation by God attested to by the historical person of Jesus who out of nowhere inspired a religion which overcame hundreds of years of Greco-Roman paganism and whose life, death and resurrection fulfilled in great deal the even older Hebraic prophecies, all of which can be studied and compared today in most parts of the world. Something inspired the apostles and first converts to willingly give themselves up to peaceful martyrdom because their belief was so complete. This at a time when the Jews were more used to armed uprisings and insurgency.
And suddenly it doesn't look so remote.0 -
Wrong. If god exists he still might not communicate with you yet you still might imagine that he has. The existence of a god or gods does not preclude the possibility of humans to misinterpret or imagine their intent. You seem to be placing yourself in the role of Moses here.
Which, in effect precludes God from communicating with someone - since the person must always consider it to be their imagination?
God, we would be supposing, created us to be able to discern empirical reality. It would have been him who designed us to place value on all the elements we place value on in concluding we know things. If he hadn't then we would know nothing using these elements: the observation of others, repeatability, etc.
But he is unable to enable another way whereby we can discern the reality of him.
He is limited to empirical means of self demonstration (something created and enabled by him). Because smacl says so.
That about right?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Which, in effect precludes God from communicating with someone - since the person must always consider it to be their imagination?
God, we would be supposing, created us to be able to discern empirical reality. It would have been him who designed us to place value on all the elements we place value on in concluding we know things. If he hadn't then we would know nothing using these elements: the observation of others, repeatability, etc.
But he is unable to enable another way whereby we can discern the reality of him.
He is limited to empirical means of self demonstration (something created and enabled by him). Because smacl says so.
That about right?
Nope, not even close. That a god, were one to exist, doesn't deign to communicate with any one person does not preclude him from communicating with others. As I understand it, the number of people claiming direct communication with your God is rather small. Given your god is purportedly omnipotent it implies he chooses not to communicate with most people rather than being unable to do so. Do believe it is possible for a person to suffer from self delusion?0 -
Nope, not even close. That a god, were one to exist, doesn't deign to communicate with any one person does not preclude him from communicating with others. As I understand it, the number of people claiming direct communication with your God is rather small. Given your god is purportedly omnipotent it implies he chooses not to communicate with most people rather than being unable to do so. Do believe it is possible for a person to suffer from self delusion?
Suffer from self delusion a possibility for a person? Of course.
Now back to God and imagination. I may be wrong but you appeared to be inserting the obstacle of imagination as a means to avoid the conclusion arrived by the logic.
To clarify. Is it:
God (if he choses) can communicate with a person and the person has objective knowledge (because all objective knowledge we avail of would be relying on God's design anyway)
or..
Even if God communicates with a person, they can't be sure its not their imagination.
Or something else?
-
By the way: communicating with God needn't be:
- substantial. As you could imagine, a single communication, which merely confirms his existence (which was previously unknown of) would be life altering.
- identified as God of the Bible. Suppose an AA participant bows to an unbelieved in higher power and that higher power acknowledges such that the participant knows the higher power exists.
- conflicting with other Gods. If there is a root issue with mankind, which transcends time and place. And if there is a longing placed in man to which he responds then it need not matter much that God is identified as some other god. It would depend on what issues are important to God and his dealing with men. Like, you could get the gist of a Suzuki 200cc engine stripdown by reading the Haynes manual for a Kawasaki 350.
All of which to query where you get your sense of the level claims regarding God communicating. I'd have no idea so wonder how you have an idea.0 -
Nope, not even close. That a god, were one to exist, doesn't deign to communicate with any one person does not preclude him from communicating with others. As I understand it, the number of people claiming direct communication with your God is rather small. Given your god is purportedly omnipotent it implies he chooses not to communicate with most people rather than being unable to do so. Do believe it is possible for a person to suffer from self delusion?
You seem to be unduly concerned with our God, possibly influenced by your beliefs that gods of any type just don't exist, so by extension you believe we're deluded. This leaves Science and hard verifiable facts as your only source of information regarding all matters, and it appears science knows very little as Einstein refers to the universe as being incomprehensible. Some more quotes from Einstein which align more with Christian thinking than atheist thinking.We still do not know one thousanth of one per cent of what nature has revealed to us.That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe forms my idea of God.I am not an atheist. I d not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem is too vast for our own limited minds.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Suffer from self delusion a possibility for a person? Of course.
Now back to God and imagination. I may be wrong but you appeared to be inserting the obstacle of imagination as a means to avoid the conclusion arrived by the logic.
To clarify. Is it:
God (if he choses) can communicate with a person and the person has objective knowledge (because all objective knowledge we avail of would be relying on God's design anyway)
or..
Even if God communicates with a person, they can't be sure its not their imagination.
Or something else?
-
By the way: communicating with God needn't be:
- substantial. As you could imagine, a single communication, which merely confirms his existence (which was previously unknown of) would be life altering.
- identified as God of the Bible. Suppose an AA participant bows to an unbelieved in higher power and that higher power acknowledges such that the participant knows the higher power exists.
- conflicting with other Gods. If there is a root issue with mankind, which transcends time and place. And if there is a longing placed in man to which he responds then it need not matter much that God is identified as some other god. It would depend on what issues are important to God and his dealing with men. Like, you could get the gist of a Suzuki 200cc engine stripdown by reading the Haynes manual for a Kawasaki 350.
All of which to query where you get your sense of the level claims regarding God communicating. I'd have no idea so wonder how you have an idea.
Might I add that if you had the correct Haynes manual for the bike concerned and there was a perceived error in the electrical section, it wouldn't matter if you were overhauling the engine. You certainly wouldn't rubbish the whole manual on the basis of it, as some are hell bent on doing here with the Bible.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Suffer from self delusion a possibility for a person? Of course.
On which basis that even if god exists he might not be as you imagine him to be and he might not be talking to you directly, you could simply be deluded, hence all the ifs are valid. Among those that believe in a Christian god, there seems to some serious differences of opinion on the specifics of what he is like and who he talks to directly.0 -
Advertisement
-
You seem to be unduly concerned with our God, possibly influenced by your beliefs that gods of any type just don't exist, so by extension you believe we're deluded. This leaves Science and hard verifiable facts as your only source of information regarding all matters, and it appears science knows very little as Einstein refers to the universe as being incomprehensible. Some more quotes from Einstein which align more with Christian thinking than atheist thinking.
Something of a non-sequitur there. Just because Einstein did great work in his areas of expertise doesn't make his views on religion any way definitive. That said, let's have quick look at your quotes;We still do not know one thousandth of one per cent of what nature has revealed to us.
No arguing that, but just because we know very little about our universe doesn't make it reasonable to plug the huge gaps in our knowledge with the notion that "god did it". Nor for that matter is there any reason to suppose this is what Einstein was saying.That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe forms my idea of God.
Again, this is not an implication of your god, more to a pantheist notion of god.I am not an atheist. I d not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem is too vast for our own limited minds.
Again, this doesn't in any way align with Christian thinking, more closely with traditions such of Taoism. Some of his final words in relation to religion were as follows;"The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. [...] For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. [...] I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them [the Jewish people]."0
Advertisement