Bible - God - Lie?

[Zeinland]

Whether God exist's or not? I don't know, but I know that the Bible is all a lie, why? You think our creater wil just come and talk to us? I think there's more to it. I think there was some force behind the Big Bang.

Maybe there was life before the Big Bang? Maybe there tecnology was far superior to our's, maybe, just maybe they created a UMD (Universe Mass Destruction). But I don't know what I am thinking... There was something begind that explosion, Im sure of it. While we ust breed and die, some of us dedicate ourselves to find the mistery of life, maybe our "God" is playing trick's on us. I remember when somebody said that he was a ruthless killer and was Mass-destroying our species.

"God" killed at least 200 million people and more. Wait that's worse than Sadam Hussein and Osama Bind Laden. Yes it 1000X worse than both of them combine. Somebody said that if he was a human, taht he will be seen as a Ruthless, Cold, Hard, Killer or Dictator. I don't know about our "God" being a killer I just can't imagine that.

Oh wait, did I mention there were four messiah's? Yea believe it or not, there were four Messiah's, two before Jesus, and another One after Jesus, and he could fly! Well he broke his leg (unlucky him) and his disciples left him. In the Bible there are many, many arrors there so many, You gotta read it to find out. (Exit Mundi)

Now let's talk about Noah's Ark. There's no way that Noah can get 10000 animals or even 12 million species (2X). And if they did that, the only survivors will be himself and his familty. And to survive they will have to inbreed. This will lead to the human species exticion and if they survive in about 10 year's humanity as we know it will be retarded.

[qwerty]

It may well be a lie. At the end of the day if incites a question in your mind then isn't that what has set out to accomplish?

People generally act on what they see as an important issue and if it means that you prove that you can be non-religious and still be an inherently good person then really hasn't the bible succeeded in preaching goodwill?

Like wise a deeply religious person will turn to the bible for answers in their darkest hour and will pray for mercy. Believing that something is there to catch a person when they fall is an extremely powerful tool that lets people take risks in the name of goodness.

Myself I am agnostic, in that I can't see the logic in any type of scripture or doctrine and even whereas the idea of a god seems illogical to me I am quite happy to not close the door on the subject as there are so many unknowns. The god we know of may well be some physiological being or substance and that understanding gives me some peace and protects me from the insanity of having an empty universe without meaning.

So before I start coming off a loony freaky deaky religious nutter, I'll say this a second time for the sake of not repeating myself later: I don't and will not celebrate a prophesied almighty being rather I am open to the possibility of a god in the sense of a higher/multi dimensional being that may or may not exist. And this god is not something I would ever worship, it serves merely as an academic write off as to 'why' or 'what', that needs to be solved at one point or another. Nothing is omnificent as that breaks the physical rules of the universe.

[Guido]

I've always thought of the bible as more of a collection of fables that convey morality. Nothing that gets rewritten many times over the course of millennia can be that accurate. Also, it was written by man... so I'm sure there's a lot of deadwood in there that shouldn't be. As for the rest, it's fun to think about it but you can't really draw conclusions about it, so I've become pretty apathetic about trying to figure it out. If you're an INTJ you'll probably end up like this too when you get older. Either that, or you're actually an INTP and doomed to contemplate it for life :P

If God did do all the things the bible claims he did, I don't think we have any place to fault him. To predict everything through time would be a difficult task indeed. To decide an idea is wrong, you have to have a degree of understanding.

Also, if you're looking for good God bashing quotes, check out some from Richard Dawkins. (ISTJ I would think?) He's got some good ones.

[StJimmy]

I've got some INTP tendencies, so I've spent quite a lot of time deciding how I feel about this. qwerty and i occupy a lot of the same ground.

religion, by it's very nature, attempts to define the undefinable. this is where faith comes in, and it can be a beautiful thing. it can also be the cause of terrible injustice. the faith of man is sometimes inspiring, but faith IN man for me is very fragile indeed.

also, in my view, people who try to interpret the bible literally are kidding themselves. i've came into close contact with people who believe stuff like "the earth is only about five to six thousand years old" and... that there is no "space," it's all done in the movie studio. i mean, how would you even go about beginning to refute something so obviously false? they won't believe anything you tell or show them.

being SURE, i mean ABSOLUTELY SURE, about going to "heaven" when you "die," must be very comforting. at least i know that i am really "one" with the universe, quite literally made up of the same particles that comprise matter everywhere.

and i'll close with, “I am God. Thou art God. And any jerk I remove is God, too."

[rwyatt365]

Ascribing godly qualities to the bible is a (successful) attempt to lift it above the realm of human frailty and give it, and those who claim its sanction, power over anything and everything. Therefore, if I do such-and-such in the name of "God" according to the precepts of "His Holy Bible" then I am right and justified in whatever actions I take.

Personally, I don’t agree with the above characterization. To me the bible is a quaint collection of fables and moral guidance for those that need an instruction manual to life. Like StJimmy states, literal belief in the bible is irrational. A recent conversation with my wife illustrated that point; she insisted that the bible is the literal word of god, and is true in all things. I asked her how then can she reconcile "Thou shalt not kill" with the bloodshed of the Old Testament, and the fact that this is only one of several inconsistencies in the bible. The conversation deteriorated quickly after that.

I believe that there is a higher power (call it "God" if you will) that has stamped its design on the universe that we live in. as Zeinland states, "Maybe there was life before the Big Bang?" frankly I can see no reason why there should NOT have been. Perhaps we are the result of a collision in an immense particle accelerator and "God" is charting our decay on an oscilloscope! We are all nano-quarks with a half-life of pico seconds on God's Geiger counter. How's that for being humbled?

God is not a lie, he is an invention of humans to subjugate and control other humans. Deity has never been about morality and righteousness, it's been about power. The true "god" is in the laws that make the universe run - and that "god" does not require worship, it requires understanding.

[Tarrick]

A I asked her how then can she reconcile "Thou shalt not kill" with the bloodshed of the Old Testament, and the fact that this is only one of several inconsistencies in the bible. The conversation deteriorated quickly after that.


Simple. Because the word "Kill" doesn't mean what it does today what it meant back when the KJV version for of the bible was written. Or to put it differently, what it really means is "You shall not murder."

As for doing things justified in the name of God, yes a lot of people throughout history have taken liberties with that. Why? Because the church got corrupted and twisted things from their original intent. Any real Christian knows that we should "Love our neighbor like ourselves." Sadly most people ignore this.

[rwyatt365]

A I asked her how then can she reconcile "Thou shalt not kill" with the bloodshed of the Old Testament, and the fact that this is only one of several inconsistencies in the bible. The conversation deteriorated quickly after that.


Simple. Because the word "Kill" doesn't mean what it does today what it meant back when the KJV version for of the bible was written. Or to put it differently, what it really means is "You shall not murder."

As for doing things justified in the name of God, yes a lot of people throughout history have taken liberties with that. Why? Because the church got corrupted and twisted things from their original intent. Any real Christian knows that we should "Love our neighbor like ourselves." Sadly most people ignore this.

...so if i kill someone inf warfare, that is not murder (as did the Israelites throughout the OT)? And if I stone someone for adultry, that is not murder (as is part of Moses' law)? Murder only presumes evil intent?

Just trying to be clear.

[Tarrick]

...so if i kill someone inf warfare, that is not murder (as did the Israelites throughout the OT)? And if I stone someone for adultry, that is not murder (as is part of Moses' law)? Murder only presumes evil intent?

Just trying to be clear.

If you kill in war, it's not murder. If you painted it that way, you may as well round every soldier in the world and try them for murder, attempted murder, and accessory to murder. Self-Defense, Warfare and Execution as dictated by the legal laws of the land, after a fair trial, are not murder.

As for the very stringent laws that the Israelites had to live by, I can't say. The conditions that they had to live in were very harsh. The best answer I can give you is that they needed very hard laws in order to maintain civil discipline because they had to stay together as a nation while being nomadic, without any tradition of being nomadic, for 40 years.

What I wonder, but don't really have anyway of checking, is what the laws, or customs, of other nations were at that point in the region. I'm sure that a lot of them weren't so enlightened to punish a man from killing his wife if she cheated on him though. Does this justify it? No. But for the Israelites, it was a legal law, and all the tribes accepted it.

[rwyatt365]

Interesting, Tarrick I'd like to pursue this line of thinking (perhaps another post?).

But to the original posters point, is the bible / god a lie? I'd say, as preached by conventional established (christian) religions, yes. However, is the concept of "god" (an omnicient, all-powerful being) a lie?

[Guido]

To state God is an invention which was used to control other people isn't a fair statement. Many religions have controlled people yes, but you're statement there is saying "God doesn't exist as He is but an invention."

[HackerX]

Whether God exist's or not? I don't know, but I know that the Bible is all a lie, why? You think our creater wil just come and talk to us? I think there's more to it. I think there was some force behind the Big Bang.


You can't prove any better that he didn't talk to humans, than that he did talk to humans.


Maybe there was life before the Big Bang? Maybe there tecnology was far superior to our's, maybe, just maybe they created a UMD (Universe Mass Destruction). But I don't know what I am thinking... There was something begind that explosion, Im sure of it. While we ust breed and die, some of us dedicate ourselves to find the mistery of life, maybe our "God" is playing trick's on us. I remember when somebody said that he was a ruthless killer and was Mass-destroying our species.

"God" killed at least 200 million people and more. Wait that's worse than Sadam Hussein and Osama Bind Laden. Yes it 1000X worse than both of them combine. Somebody said that if he was a human, taht he will be seen as a Ruthless, Cold, Hard, Killer or Dictator. I don't know about our "God" being a killer I just can't imagine that.


Nope, even if somebody kills somebody else "in the name of God", that person's still the one to blame. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"


Oh wait, did I mention there were four messiah's? Yea believe it or not, there were four Messiah's, two before Jesus, and another One after Jesus, and he could fly! Well he broke his leg (unlucky him) and his disciples left him. In the Bible there are many, many arrors there so many, You gotta read it to find out. (Exit Mundi)


Might want to read up about the definition of a messiah. Nobody claimed there only can be one of them.


Now let's talk about Noah's Ark. There's no way that Noah can get 10000 animals or even 12 million species (2X). And if they did that, the only survivors will be himself and his familty. And to survive they will have to inbreed. This will lead to the human species exticion and if they survive in about 10 year's humanity as we know it will be retarded.

It's pretty much accepted that a lot of the stories in the bible are meant to be taken as fables. However, there is a fair bit of evidence around that the flood as described in the noahs ark story (and in quite a few other religion's texts) really did happen. As for the whole inbreding thing, are you sure you know how that whole genetic process works?

And that's the wonderful thing about being agnostic, you can take the stories for the minimum of what they are, fables of morality, all with a pinch of salt, and question the rest to your hearts content. But you can no more say that you know them to be false, because you simply can't prove it.

[StJimmy]

great thread. it's so nice to be in the company of other rational agnostics :thumbsup:

personally, i'm of the bent that there are forces in this universe that we have not even begun to quantify. but maybe we will be smart enough to extend our existence as a species long enough to figure them out.

[rwyatt365]

To state God is an invention which was used to control other people isn't a fair statement. Many religions have controlled people yes, but you're statement there is saying "God doesn't exist as He is but an invention."
Not quite what I'm saying...

My intent was to say that there is some rational design to the workings of the universe, and that design implies (or can be argued to imply) that there is a designer. One could reasonably call that designer "god". However, organized religions have taken that concept further and said, "God is real, God is on OUR side, God has given us permission to subjugate YOU." So, "godly" (lowercase) design has been perverted into "God (uppercase), the rationale for our actions".

[rwyatt365]

great thread. *it's so nice to be in the company of other rational agnostics *:thumbsup:

personally, i'm of the bent that there are forces in this universe that we have not even begun to quantify. *but maybe we will be smart enough to extend our existence as a species long enough to figure them out.

I don't know who this quote belongs to but I have heard the purpose of science to be "...to learn more and more, about less and less until you know everything about nothing." When science has achieved that, we will truely know god.

[lollercancer]

I find myself to be an extreme athiest.
Richard Dawkins is one of my heroes :lovestruck:

Faith, in anything, is something i believe to be very silly. I observe people all day long and i find that it thrusts me into such a terrible depression that I almost lose all of my morality, in my head at least. I refuse to even have faith in myself. It's like there are two forces in my head, two voices, even. One creates ideas and is very excitable and ready to do and the other is terribly pecimistic and totally critical. I'm constantly trying to be in the exact middle of the two forces.

anyway, i feel that god is an expression of the human will to create. he's like our projection of ourselves onto nothingness. It's comforting to have a friend just like us, especially one who has our back. god is that ultimate friend. Long before we had rational minds as humans, we thought in images and symbols. god is one of these symbols that has persisted. Jung, the guy who did all the work for these personality scales, has a lot of writing on our projections and of symbols. worth listening to if your interested in it.

[HackerX]

*It's like there are two forces in my head, two voices, even. *One creates ideas and is very excitable and ready to do and the other is terribly pecimistic and totally critical. *I'm constantly trying to be in the exact middle of the two forces.


The first being N, iNtuition. The second being T, Thinking

[matthew]

Faith is merely an heuristic tool - it can be accurately or inaccurately applied to data.

When co-opted by pathology it wastes the mind.

[Tarrick]

Faith is merely an heuristic tool - it can be accurately or inaccurately applied to data.

When co-opted by pathology it wastes the mind.

Faith is belief in something "that cannot be/or has not been" proven to you. You have "faith" that a friend will meet you for lunch if he emails you about the day before. You have "faith" that when you order something online it'll arrive to your doorstep in a few days. These only require very small amounts of faith because they are common in society.

However things that take larger amounts of faith, such as believing in God, are viewed as something inherently odd and people call for fact.

Fact, we are here.
Fact, God has not been proven.
Fact, nether has the "Spontaneous Universe Creating/Macroevolution" Theory.

So, everyone operates on "faith" of some sort or another. We believe that there is a God. And you believe that someday, maybe, that Spontaneous Universe Creating/Evolution will be proven.

[matthew]

Faith is merely an heuristic tool - it can be accurately or inaccurately applied to data.

When co-opted by pathology it wastes the mind.

Faith is belief in something "that cannot be/or has not been" proven to you. You have "faith" that a friend will meet you for lunch if he emails you about the day before. You have "faith" that when you order something online it'll arrive to your doorstep in a few days. These only require very small amounts of faith because they are common in society.

Right, one is "skipping ahead" in the processing of available information.
Thus it is essentially an heuristic tool, used all the time.


However things that take larger amounts of faith, such as believing in God, are viewed as something inherently odd and people call for fact.


Nothing is "inherently odd".
People can have pathological reactions either pro or contra any object whatsoever.


Fact, we are here.
Fact, God has not been proven.


Consistent standards of categorically-appropriate evidence have not been established.
"God" as such, with the extraneous bits that such a thing usually entails, has "been proven" many times.


Fact, neither has the "Spontaneous Universe Creating/Macroevolution" Theory.


Actually I am not convinced that such a theory is even falsifiable to begin with.


So, everyone operates on "faith" of some sort or another. We believe that there is a God. And you believe that someday, maybe, that Spontaneous Universe Creating/Evolution will be proven.

You may have confused me with someone else.

It is my stated opinion that phenomena as they arise, have continued to arise, throughout beginningless time; thus that there is no absolute "point of inception"; also that phenomena arise according to comprehensible, consistently organized, and intrinsically directed principles of process.

It seems to me that there have possibly been entities, variously localized and nonlocalized, which have on different occasions convinced other entities, or even convinced themselves (perhaps on the basis of evidence not investigated rigorously enough) that they are in fact The Progenitor, Pantokrator, or some such equivalent title. I consider it even likely. This does not mean, provided one accepts the potential existence of such entities in the first place, that one must take such claims at face value - even given the possibility of demonstrations of power within a given situation.

The mind has certain identifiable ways of contextualizing the information value of events in such a way that our perception of them remains convenient to the agenda of our ego. This above many things should be factored into any analysis of our own opinions.

[Tarrick]

You may have confused me with someone else.

It is my stated opinion that phenomena as they arise, have continued to arise, throughout beginningless time; thus that there is no absolute "point of inception"; also that phenomena arise according to comprehensible, consistently organized, and intrinsically directed principles of process.



Yes, except that there is a great deal of evidence that there was a "Point of Inception" my likely by a Big Bang or something similar. And your argument that "Faith" is a heuristic tool still seems flawed to me.

A heuristic tool is something that you would use to teach a principal or lead someone on a path of discovery. Faith is much more about trust and making a leap based on limited knowledge with no guarantee of perceivable results. You can "suppose" that you will meet someone and simply because you do so regularly does not make it heuristic. Even time is different, and simply because the person has proved reliable doesn't make it default that that will be the outcome. More over, faith as a final step in a logical thought process, based on inductive reasoning, will not always yield a definable answer that can be applied as fact, expect based on faith itself.

[Jack]

Ascribing godly qualities to the bible is a (successful) attempt to lift it above the realm of human frailty and give it, and those who claim its sanction, power over anything and everything. Therefore, if I do such-and-such in the name of "God" according to the precepts of "His Holy Bible" then I am right and justified in whatever actions I take.

Personally, I don’t agree with the above characterization. To me the bible is a quaint collection of fables and moral guidance for those that need an instruction manual to life. Like StJimmy states, literal belief in the bible is irrational. A recent conversation with my wife illustrated that point; she insisted that the bible is the literal word of god, and is true in all things. I asked her how then can she reconcile "Thou shalt not kill" with the bloodshed of the Old Testament, and the fact that this is only one of several inconsistencies in the bible. The conversation deteriorated quickly after that.

I believe that there is a higher power (call it "God" if you will) that has stamped its design on the universe that we live in. as Zeinland states, "Maybe there was life before the Big Bang?" frankly I can see no reason why there should NOT have been. Perhaps we are the result of a collision in an immense particle accelerator and "God" is charting our decay on an oscilloscope! We are all nano-quarks with a half-life of pico seconds on God's Geiger counter. How's that for being humbled?

God is not a lie, he is an invention of humans to subjugate and control other humans. Deity has never been about morality and righteousness, it's been about power. The true "god" is in the laws that make the universe run - and that "god" does not require worship, it requires understanding.


:D Gift Of Determination!

[matthew]

Yes, except that there is a great deal of evidence that there was a "Point of Inception", most likely by a Big Bang or something similar.


The universe as a continually expanding and contracting supercontext for phenomena goes back to the Vedas. I don't have a quote or cite handy, but will presume that you're capable until you request one. Even the Big Bang, with all of the excellent evidence there is for it (all of which tends to support my corollary position of comprehensible ongoing cause & effect processes, versus "chance") only takes us back to a basic nugget of superdense forces. There is no a priori transition from absolute existential void to this nugget of superdense forces. That is the kind of evidence that would be required for a creator. Understandably, such evidence (by its very nature) cannot be produced. What could conceivably be demonstrated, on the other hand, is the process of universal collapse from which such a nugget might find a plausible, naturalistic origin.

It is one of life's spicy little ironies, for a Buddhist, that for a creator entity to be properly demonstrated requires firstly some kind of measurement-value for emptiness.


And your argument that "Faith" is a heuristic tool still seems flawed to me.

A heuristic tool is something that you would use to teach a principle or lead someone on a path of discovery. Faith is much more about trust and making a leap based on limited knowledge with no guarantee of perceivable results. You can "suppose" that you will meet someone and simply because you do so regularly does not make it heuristic. Even time is different, and simply because the person has proved reliable doesn't make it default that that will be the outcome. Moreover, faith as a final step in a logical thought process, based on inductive reasoning, will not always yield a definable answer that can be applied as fact, except based on faith itself.


As much as it is a terrible source, please see:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

and also somewhat:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

An heuristic does not have to produce accurate or even regular results to be an heuristic. There is nothing preventing an heuristic from being a faulty heuristic, or even a situationally faulty heuristic.

I reject your assertion that faith is mutually exclusive to guarantees of perceivable results. Faith that cannot be confirmed by some means or another is not faith - but instead mere delusion. Note that I am considering post-mortem confirmation as acceptable to those religions which communicate no explicit (practical) methodology by which perceivable results may be obtained. Similarly, the actual guarantee that is imputed by a given doctrine may be oblique, and require analysis for it to be pinned down. In a Buddhist context, in which specific methods are recommended in the pursuit of specific ends (which can vary according to tradition), one is understood to "have faith" that the methods propounded by the Buddhas, and accomplished ones of various states, will bear fruit when one undertakes them. We continue to consider this "faith". It is even considered to have four subcategories, in my tradition.

[StJimmy]

i meant to ask this the other day but i forgot, anyway, what are the four subcategories, if you don't mind elaborating a little?

[matthew]

what are the four subcategories, if you don't mind elaborating a little?

Keeping in mind that I am a practitioner, and not a qualified teacher, I will provide passages.

From Patrul Rinpoche's "kunzan lama'i shelung" or, The Words of My Perfect Teacher (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), Part Two, Chapter One:


I. Approaches to Taking Refuge

1. Faith

Just as taking refuge opens the gateway to all teachings and practices, it is faith that opens the gateway to taking refuge. As the first step in taking refuge, therefore, it is important to develop a lasting and stable faith. Faith itself is of three kinds: vivid faith, eager faith and confident faith.

1.1 Vivid Faith

Vivid faith is the faith that is inspired in us by thinking of the immense compassion of the Buddhas and great teachers. We might experience this kind of faith on visiting a temple containing many representations of the Buddhas' body, speech and mind, or after an encounter with a great teacher or spiritual friend we have just met personally or whose qualities or life-story we have heard described.

1.2 Eager Faith

Eager faith is our eagerness to be free of the sufferings of lower realms when we hear them described; our eagerness to enjoy the happiness of higher realms and of liberation when we hear what they are; our eagerness to engage in positive actions when we hear what benefits they bring; and our eagerness to avoid negative actions when we understand what harm they cause.

1.3 Confident Faith

Confident faith is the faith in the Three Jewels that arises from the depth of our hearts once we understand their extraordinary qualities and the power of their blessings. It is the total trust in the Three Jewels alone that comes from the knowledge that they are the only unfailing refuge, always and in all circumstances, whether we are happy, sad, in pain, ill, living or dead. (Footnote: This means that our faith in the refuge will enable us to deal with the experiences of the intermediate state (bar do) after death.) The Precious Lord of Oddiyana says:

The faith of total trust allows blessings to enter you.
When the mind is free of doubt, whatever you wish can be achieved.

Faith, then, is like a seed from which everything positive can grow. If faith is absent, it is as though that seed had been burnt. The sutras say:

In those who lack faith
Nothing positive will grow,
Just as from a burnt seed
No green shoot will ever sprout.

Of the seven noble riches, faith is the most important. It is said:

The precious wheel of faith
Rolls day and night along the road of virtue.

Faith is the most precious of all our resources. It brings an inexhaustible supply of virtues, like a treasure. It carries us along the path to liberation like a pair of legs, and gathers up everything positive for us like a pair of arms.

Faith is the greatest wealth and treasure, the best of legs;
It is the basis for gathering all virtues, like arms.

The compassion and blessings of the Three Jewels are inconceivable, but nevertheless their ability to reach into us depends entirely on our faith and devotion. If you have immense faith and devotion, the compassion and blessings you receive from your teacher and the Three Jewels will be equally immense. If your faith and devotion are just moderate, the compassion and blessings that reach you will also be moderate. If you have only a little faith and devotion, only a little compassion and blessings will reach you. If you have no faith and devotion at all, you will get absolutely nothing. Without faith, even meeting the Buddha himself and being accepted as his disciple would be quite useless, as it was for the monk Sunaksatra (...) and for the Buddha's cousin, Devadatta.

Part One, Chapter One, Section 2.1.2 "The Six Stains", references an endnote describing the fourth type of faith:


In the Well Explained Reasoning, it says:

Pride, lack of faith and lack of effort,
Outward distraction, inward tension and discouragement;
These are the six stains.

(...)

If you have no faith, the entrance to the Dharma is blocked. Of the four types of faith, aim for faith11 that is irreversible. (Endnote 11: The first three are explained in Part Two, Chapter One. A fourth, irreversible faith, is sometimes added to denote the culmination of faith, when it has become an integral part of one's being.

I have also seen "irreversible faith" called "unshakeable faith", and "vivid faith" called "clear faith". It is just a matter of translation. These faiths are a part of refuge in the Three Jewels obviously, which all subsequent Buddhist practice develops. Faith or devotion can, again, be understood generally as a kind of dedicated clarity of concentrated attention (or ritualistic practices promoting such clarity), which permits a kind of psychological receptivity toward a given object when it is considered to be 'worthy' of such receptivity.

[brstng4]

Personally, I like to think of God as an old man with a long white beard sitting on a massive chair, laughing at every move we make. But that's just me. ;D


I don't necessarily believe that "God" is a lie, but I believe that man has, with many year, corrupted our thoughts and ideas on a supreme being. I think that it comes from the fear of the unknown that death brings with it. It makes sense to want to think that there is something more when you die, but who knows for sure. No one. This is where religion comes into play. If you live by these rules and do these things than you will get rewarded when you go to the unknown. We as humans are so in touch with the physical world we usually pay no mind to what we cannot see and touch. I do personally believe there is more out there than we can see with the physical eye, but only if we open up to it. Then again, maybe I just have a vivid imagination! With that being said, I don't follow any particular religion, I just pick and choose whatever I like from all different ones and do what I feel works for me. I don't follow any 'rules' or whatnot in my everyday life. Anyways, back to religion and killing people.. "I'm gonna kill you in the name of (insert your god here)" is just stupid. What makes people think that whatever is right for them is right for someone else? Oh and how do they even KNOW for sure that they are 'right' themselves! From my experience the people that think this way are the uneducated ones who have never experienced life any other way. I personally know some Marines who were referring to the war - 'We just need to go kill all of them over there because they aren't Christians and they want to kill us'. Well they didn't take it too well when I said that those people are thinking just like you are, "we need to kill them because they aren't Muslim and they are trying to kill us." Needless to say the guys didn't take it so well. I think everyone is entitled to believe however they believe, as long as you aren't letting religion be an excuse for being a maniac.

[SirJac]

As this thread has already shown, INTJ is as capable of beliefs outside of what can be proven as anyone else. The only difference would be that INTJ beliefs would almost exclusively personal in nature. Being a christian doesn't automatically make the person a fundamentalist, nor does it mean that they wholly subscribe to one of the many organised denominations. Despite the common perception among non-believers, religion and free thought are not mutually exclusive.

While I don't know if there is anyone else that shares beliefs anyway similiar to my own, I have no issues with those that follow any of the mainstream religions. The unprovable aspects of any religion really arn't terribly important, rather it's the teachings that I choose to focus on. I don't have to believe that Jesus died for my sins so I could go to heaven to agree with what the Bible says about how to live a good life for example.

If someone is living a good life because of what they believe in, then it doesn't really matter to me what they believe. If a man is a good father and husband, always helps people in need and spends much of his time volenteering around the community, he can believe he was sent to earth by a race of hyper-evolved beavers for all I care.

The whole of existance is so massive huge that it is beyond all human comprehention. The only thing I know is that everything that we believe about what cannot be proven is wrong. Christians are wrong, muslims are wrong, athiests are wrong and what I believe is wrong. It's terribly unlikely that anyone will ever truely get it right. So it's not about who is right or wrong, but simply how what we believe affects our daily lives.

[Nomad]

What he said. :thumbsup:

That being said, I find it interesting that most folks here argue their point for atheism or agnosticism based on the concept of an Abrahamic deity. Could not God be the water and we the fish?

-Nomad

[jtskinner]

**Cough**To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.**Cough**

[blueback]

Yay!

[stuntgp2000]

Hi,

well, I'm a Muslim and I witness to the existence of the only one God, Allah the merciful and all-mighty; and that Muhamed is his prophet.

Although, I was raised in a Islamic society, I myself rediscovered Islam's teachings.

Why ? because being an INTJ ( a system builder) I know after a lot of thoughts, observations and introspections that the whole life in earth and all this universe operate in highly precise system, perfectly designed to serve us, with quality and ultimate harmony and consistent in every detail. This cannot be achieved by any type of evolution except if it was made by a supreme and powerful existence that designed it which is the only one God, Allah.

Then, I proceeded to examine the Qur'an (Islam's holy book) using a rational, logical and skeptical thinking. I was shocked, overwhelmed by the precise descriptions, systematic operations, fair laws, good manners that are stated in the Qur'an.

And please, don't make any rush judgments about what actually happening by some fanatics.

I'm happily living my life with a double blessing, a Muslim + INTJ. This is how I see things, I would encourage everyone to do the same but that's your ultimate choice.

Regards,

[jtskinner]

From the Qu'ran "Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89". You don't support this do you? Thus you have not examined it logically, you can find more at the link: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. then you can examine both sides of the argument and chose which is better. Like I have done with Christianity and determined it was better I have no religion. Also, from the Qu'ran: "Joseph saw in a dream eleven planets. Does this mean that according to the Quran there are eleven planets in our solar system? 12:4". I intend no offensive, I am not a bigot.

[stuntgp2000]

Hi,

Thank you jtskinner for highlighting this issues, you certainly hit a broad topic which has many inter-related matters connected to each other. I neither have the expertise to discuss it nor the knowledge required.

All I can say is this :

Certainly, they are misinterpreted / mistranslated. I've read the 4:89 verse in Arabic and found it was mistranslated.
It says in The Qur'an (Arabic) : "Don't take any disbeliever as a leader. They wish you were like them (a disbeliever) until they become believers but if they return to their disbelieve then kill them whenever you find them".

Since I have no knowledge about whom (which disbelievers in that situation) were meant by that verse, I can't really say it's the action that we need (all Muslims) to take. It was a warning/advice/command from Allah to prophet Muhamed in the situation he is facing.

For the second verse it's a dream Joseph had. It doesn't mean that the solar system has 12 planets. As far as I know, those 12 planets meant their 12 brothers.

I hope I was able to clarify the issues you brought using my limited knowledge.

And please don't worry, there is no offense in discussing such things :thumbsup:. We are INTJs, aren't we !? ;)

Regards,

Med

[Ian]

The Seven Minute Universe

I saw this argument many years ago and despite trawling the web, I cannot find any reference to it – maybe I am looking in the wrong places in the way. Apologies if you have seen this before, and, yes, it is based on the Judeo-Christian mythology with the 7 day creation thing.

Are we sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin…..

I was sitting in my garden one evening contemplating the eternal questions of the origins of life, the universe, and everything, the existence of god and the lack of evidence for the existence of an omnipotent being, the validity of faith and the like.

So, I invited god, if he/she/it was really there and listening in on my thoughts, to come an join me for a mid afternoon beer and to chat for a while. Instantly, and somewhat unexpectedly, god appeared, sat down and said: “So, you want some answers, then? About life, the universe and everything. And me, and my existence I suppose?”

“Well, yes, I suppose” I said, a little surprised a the appearance of The Almighty.

God said, “Would it surprise you to know that the universe was created only 7 minutes ago?”

I laughed: “Well, yes. I can’t see how, though! I have personal memories that are older than 7 minutes. I remember growing up, birthdays, family and friends, school, loads of things that I have personally experienced.”

“I created those memories for you, every so-called personal memory for every being in the universe, just under 7 minutes ago”; came the reply.

“Well, what about dinosaur bones, and fossils, and the scientific evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old?”

“I created the scientific evidence, along with all of the tests and the logic that would lead to the conclusion that things are really, really old. In fact, 8 minutes ago, there was absolutely nothing, nada, zip, bugger all. Then I created it, the universe, and all of the conditions that would lead to these so called conclusions”; god added. “I let there be light, so to speak, and it was good”, he/she/it/they added with a smile.

I thought about this for a few minutes: “Then why not just create the conditions that would prove beyond all doubt that everything in the universe was created by you 7 minutes ago instead of all of this cloak and dagger stuff with fossils, and cave paintings and geological records? It all seems to be a bit over the top, doesn’t it?”

“Because without faith, I am nothing” god said, then disappeared, along with his beer.

Well, can’t argue with that, I thought. Time for another drink…. *:suspicious:

[jtskinner]

That logic backs up the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. If God truly gave a damn, he would not condemn his creations to an eternity in hell. God's always changing calculations because 2 + 2 is really 3 but he just adds a 1 to that so you'll be confused. Oh and the universe is 1 second long, Jesus told me that one. It's not I don't want to believe, it's that I can't. If you can use that logic to back things up, only God knows what else you use to back up your actions(no pun intended). But I'll stick to my guns and you stick to yours, after all we need both sides presented to make a truly logical choice. But there's the problem of evil. Why allow free will if it causes evil? Also, why doesn't God stop evil? Why does God offer only one man or a select few visions? Anyways, that's my point of view. I agree that holy texts can be mistranslated or misinterpreted due to the action's of humans or those who wish to change a certain thing but then shouldn't God stop them? I'm truly glad this isn't a sloppy argument, we INTJs can have a truly logical argument!

P.S.: I'm glad you didn't take any offense, and we can have a constructive conversation about the Qu'ran.

[stuntgp2000]

Hi,

@jtskinner

I am happy we are have a mature discussion, expressing our point of views, opinions and beliefs while respecting them even if we don't come to an agreement.

In 113 Surats of Qur'an, they all begin with one beautiful and relieving expression : "In the name of God The all-merciful".

In Islam it's said that Allah has 99 mercies (think of them as levels of mercies), and he only give one mercy of them which we all, including animals, share with each other, the simplest bit of is what prevent a female animal from hurting its baby by its feet.

In Islam Allah can't be humanly described or in any physical shape. Allah doesn't have a son or woman. There is nothing such as personification of God, crucification or scarification. According to Islam, this was introduced in other religions because of alterations made by some ill-intentioned persons. This is way Qur'an is the only remaining valid and unaltered holy book.

Yes, Allah gave us free will. He gave us choice. He didn't want us to be like angels. According to Islam, before we were created by Allah, he (Allah) told angels that he is going to create "humans" who will live in earth. They (angels) questioned him and told him. "are you going to create those who will do wrong and kill each other and we (angels) pray for you and thanking you". He (Allah) said "I know what you don't know".
After he created our father "Adam" he told angles and Ibliss (Lucifer) to bow to Adam. They all bowed to Adam except Ibliss. Then Allah asked Ibliss why didn't you bow to Adam. Ibliss replied "you created me from fire and Adam from ground I am better than him" --- see Ibliss has free will too. Then Allah said to Ibliss "Go out from it (paradise) and you are damn forever". Ibliss replied "I will seduce them and corrupt them all except those who have truly chosen you". Then Allah replied "go you and all who followed you, you shall burn all in hell."
Ibliss couldn't live with such a sense of failure, he seduced Adam and Eve to eat from the Damned Tree. After they did, Allah told them, "didn't I told you not to eat from it, you will be sent to live in earth, where you will have to work in order to eat."
After Adam and Eve were sent to earth, Allah taught Adam some expressions of how to ask forgiveness from Allah, and Allah also said he will send guides to help us and save us (humans). Guides are religions through revelations to some selected prophets.

Our purpose in this life is to believe in the existence of the Only One God, Allah, the merciful and that Muhamed is his last prophet; and to follow the guidelines of the last book and religion which were sent to all humanity, which remained without alteration, the Quran and Islam.

People are the one who do wrong, who hurt, kill each other. Although we are constantly seduced by the whispers of devils (Ibliss sons) we remain the only one who proceed to do the actions. Devils don't have the power to force us do something.
Therefore we remain the only one responsible for our actions, either good or bad. And because we can't be left without being judged, there must be a judgment day, where everyone will get his right back, where will be ultimate justice.

Those tyrants, and those who did wrong intentionally, those who chosen malice intentionally, who killed people without right will get their punishment. In this case, go to hell for some period but the disbelievers (persons who died and were still disbelievers) will be punished severely and will stay in Hell forever.

Even if the punishment seems to be terribly sever for those disbelievers, know this. Allah will allow everyone who had the tinniest bit of belief (something less than the weight of a tiny grain) about him to enter paradise

In Islam we are advised, recommended to do good. More precisely, it's our responsibility to do good, to guide and help and take care of each other, to correct each other, to be kind and merciful to each other. It's our responsibility to resist the whispers of Ibliss and his sons and it's our responsibility to insist to do good.

Finally, as humans, we have the ultimate choice, we can either have faith and believe in Allah and follow what he asked us to do/follow through Islam, or refuse him and we lose ourselves here and there.

Regards,

Med

[OFL]

I'm agnostic. I do belive there can be a higher entity of some type that created the universe (like said before i believe something had to influence the big bang if that is what happened), but i do't believe in any religion that is present in our world. I have done research into christianity because i wanted to see if there is any evidence to back it up. From what i studied i made my judgemnt not to believe. Joseph Campbell wrote many interesting books on subjects related to religion and his studies have revealed that all religion is connected in some way or another. Many religions tell the same stories, but in different ways. There were many flood stories like Noah's ark in religions that don't seem to be related. The evidence that someone brought up about the floods was tied to the Niles delta in Eygpt that would flood yearly and cause many problems for the Eygptians, and guess what they attributed it to; GOD. There has been other explainations, but it is believed that the Noah story started in eygpt like many other aspects of religion ,and was adopted by other religions, and explained in their own way.

Christianity hs been flawed since the beginning of its conception. Jesus preached to the other Jews of the time to believe his orm of te jewish faith, but his words was not for everybody, just Jews, so i find it funny that so many groups of people are Christian, but Jews are not represented. The reason this has been so badly misconstrued was because Peter made the first church of christianity and from there Christians started disagreeing with what Jesus really meant in his teachings (including Peter himself). From there we have the reason for so many different brands of the same teachings. Once Emperor Constantine decided that he was going to make the Roman empire Christian because of a vision that he believed came from God Christianity spread like wild fire. If it wasn't for the Emperor, who knows if Chrisitians would be where they are now, and what other religion would be in there place.

In present day the teachings of Jesus have been changed so many times, who knows what he really said when he was alive. The mere fact that the first Gospel was writen several decades after his death leaves it open for change since it was passed along as a story. Not to mention that most of Jesus's followers during the time he lived were not literate and uneducated. It is also believed that most of he Gospels were not written by the men that the Gospel was told by and there were many other gospels written including the ones we know now that had very sharp differences in how they told Jesus's story.

If you look at culture now it is heavily influenced by religion that was made too long ago to still be relevant today. Religion is causing many of the problems we are experiencing now. Look at Hinduism and the culture that accompanies it in India right now. They are killing off their baby girls when they are born because they cannot afford to pay the dowry that the religion and culture expect the parents of the daughter to pay in marriage. The more poor people of India will not keep their child if it is not a boy (not all, but it is a very real problem). Many mothers are dying during birthing because they choose to have the baby without help, and are not prepared for complications. How about people only mating within people of their own religion, which is preached in many religions. Over time this will cause a shrinking of the gene pool, which will lead to more genetic problems than we already have in the world. This very much goes against the natural mixing of the gene pool. Also how about Christianites view on nature and their dominance of it, so they can exploit it anyway they see fit (which damages our Earth/ Home and it is evident with the eco problems we are having now). These are just some examples of religion/ culture working against human nature (there are many more) and the Earth, so i don't buy into the whole idea that if people stay true to their religion that there is nothing wrong with it. In the sense that people will be good (what does that mean anyways, the definition people have for a good person varies wildly) if they follow religion in the proper way can be a good thing, but in the big picture it creates racism(i have experienced this first hand many times), War and many more problems for us as the human race. In my humble opinion, religion causes too many problems today than what it is worth.

So with all this info plus much more i made my judgement on religion. Like said before, they are just fables, myths, and morality that try to tell us how we are supposed to live our lives. Those teachngs are seriously outdated and should be looked at as a source for information on the time that Jesus lived, and take the lessons taught less seriously. I'm not saying all that was said is wrong. It just does not apply to our time as it is now.

OFL :o

[blueback]

the whole life in earth and all this universe operate in highly precise system, perfectly designed to serve us, with quality and ultimate harmony and consistent in every detail. This cannot be achieved by any type of evolution except if it was made by a supreme and powerful existence that designed it which is the only one God, Allah.


First, I'm not a bigot but sometimes I can come across as a bit caustic.

Okay, if everything in existence is perfectly designed then why does my lower back hurt right now? The physical therapists tell me that the multiple bones in my hips and lower spine are being pulled out of alignment by strong/weak muscles. They say that almost everyone has the same problem but it doesn't cause pain in some people. So, I put it to you, if our body causes itself pain then how is it perfectly designed? Pain is the signal for "something is wrong" so why would our own body cause that problem all by itself? I'm not even sedentary. I work out every day and eat correctly but my body is still pulling itself out of alignment and causing me pain.

But in a broader sense, how can you say that life on earth is designed to serve us? If we are thrown naked into the jungle we end up pretty low on the food chain. As animals we aren't very competative. It's only through our massive brains that we obtain an advantage and then only by forcing nature back with pure willpower and tenacity. As soon as we leave an area the world grows back and erases almost all traces of our presence. Nature is indifferent to our presence, not tailored to it.

On the other hand, evolution is an incredibly elegant explanation for everything we can observe. It explains why my back hurts; because our skeletal structure was adapted to upright walking, not designed for it. It explains why we have to fight the natural order to grow our civilization; because nature is a constant struggle for survival, not a walk in the garden of eden.

[jtskinner]

I ask one question: Why don't animals other than humans have Gods? Because they are not intelligent enough, we humans have evolved to be intelligent thus in order to be less afraid of our surroundings we adopted religion. We first worshiped the sun, and the moon, the stars seemed like their servants. The morning star would accompany the sun in the morning and then seemingly fall from it's grace. Death and night would become personified as evil, animals like lions would be given demonic characteristics. A man would then say or believe he could change this, and he would become a shaman, the rest of his tribe would starve before him. When early man slept, he had dreams these seemed like visions or walking with spirits especially if he saw his dead friends or saw his tribe happily eating a large meal and conquering their foes. He thought once he died, he would accompany the rest of the stars at night but if he was bad he would fall from the sun's grace. When it rained, the gods would be pleased if it become stormy they were angry. Eventually this evolved into something bigger. If there is a God, it is silent, operates within the laws of science, and is unknowable this God would be the universe itself.

[Jennywocky]

Okay, if everything in existence is perfectly designed then why does my lower back hurt right now? The physical therapists tell me that the multiple bones in my hips and lower spine are being pulled out of alignment by strong/weak muscles. They say that almost everyone has the same problem but it doesn't cause pain in some people. So, I put it to you, if our body causes itself pain then how is it perfectly designed? Pain is the signal for "something is wrong" so why would our own body cause that problem all by itself? I'm not even sedentary. I work out every day and eat correctly but my body is still pulling itself out of alignment and causing me pain.

That and simple aspects of the human body that make no real sense (such as visual images coming into our eyes being upside down and have to be "flipped around" by our brain) suggests a more residual effect that would be likely to occur during an evolutionary process, not a straight 'efficient' design.

I don't think this sort of thing can definitely prove or disprove some sort of God being....but there seems to be much evidence (due to the waste/residual effects/quirks of our bodies) of a blinder process adapting us.

[blueback]

Well, yeah. God used to be the explanation for everything (back before loinc-cloths) but now God is used to explain almost nothing. Because science has given us the ability to understand and work with most of the natural forces we have access to we find that we don't need another explanation. It used to be that we had to pray to God for rain, or maybe sacrifice something to him. Now we check the weather channel and accept that we will never control the weather and that we will only ever have a limited ability to predict it.

As scientific/natural explanations have been accumulated and built upon religious/unnatural explanations have been discarded. At this point God is pretty much limited to being unknowable. He doesn't flood the world anymore, he doesn't rain down plagues anymore, he doesn't create new languages from scratch anymore, etc. He pretty much only answers ambiguous prayers and plots for the day he decideds to end the world.

It's fun reading through history and watching one deistic explanation for how the world works after another be overturned. For a while people cling to it but relatively quickly it simply fades from memory and everyone wonders how anyone ever believed that. Think about it; try imagining that you believe the sun revolves around the earth. . .just for a second. It seems pretty absurd, doesn't it. Well, believeing something absurd is no less human now than it was centuries ago, it's just that the only absurd things left are either on the fringes of science or outside it completely.

[jtskinner]

Exactly, God's dead(metaphorically speaking of course).

[blueback]

I don't think this sort of thing can definitely prove or disprove some sort of God being....but there seems to be much evidence (due to the waste/residual effects/quirks of our bodies) of a blinder process adapting us.

Exactly. It's impossible to ever prove or disprove God because there is nothing to compare him to. However, it is possible to compare human to animal and animal to really-old-animal. When we do that we can't help but produce evidence supporting evolution. I mean, almost every system in our body shows evidence that it wasn't designed. We have a four-chambered heart because the blood going to our lungs can't be at the same pressure as the blood going to the rest of our body. We have a nervous system that is always in some sort of balance between two competing systems, one which tries to excite us and one which tries to depress us. Even our liver works through secondary means. Instead of filtering bad things out of our blood it filters EVERYTHING out of our blood and then filters the good things back in. We have little muscles that try to keep us warm by puffing up our hair, but we have hairs that are too short and spread out to actually provide any warmth. Our cells are an incredibly horrible mish-mash of different systems all reacting based on simple chemical reactions which accidentally produce useful work. The only part of our body that works better than any other similar structure in nature is our brain.

None of that disproves God, but it does disprove creation.

[toonia]

How people presently define the Bible can be a lie, but the Bible itself is merely a collection of historical writings based on human perceptions from various times and cultures. They wrote descriptions of how they understood what was taking place in their world. That in itself is a sort of truth - from a *phenomenological standpoint. Truth and lies are difficult to define because of the fragility of human perception.



*quote from To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions.

[jtskinner]

The bible is not historical proof can be found here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The bible as absorbed many beliefs from the Jewish faith, ancient Greek philosophy and Sumerian beliefs, etc. That dismisses your query.

[blueback]

Yeah, one of my favorite Christian apoligist arguments is that key events in the Bible were new. However, there is nothing new in the Bible. The virgin birth, the 12 apostles, the ressurection, the miracles, the cross, etc. were all thought of by older religions. Even Christmas, Christ's birthday, was invented becaues no one could agree on when he was born. They just picked a popular pagan holiday.

[jtskinner]

Whenever there is contradictions, mistakes, amorality or anything else wrong in the bible Satan did it. Also, all world religions were created by Satan and his demons. Plus, everyone but Christians are Satan worshipers. Science is also a creation of Satan. There is scientific proof of God but I know in my heart even though he is invisible and exists outside of space and time he's real. That logic as been used for far too long, anyone else agree? Love God or be destroyed!

[Nomad]

I ask one question: Why don't animals other than humans have Gods? Because they are not intelligent enough, we humans have evolved to be intelligent thus in order to be less afraid of our surroundings we adopted religion. We first worshiped the sun, and the moon, the stars seemed like their servants. The morning star would accompany the sun in the morning and then seemingly fall from it's grace. Death and night would become personified as evil, animals like lions would be given demonic characteristics. A man would then say or believe he could change this, and he would become a shaman, the rest of his tribe would starve before him. When early man slept, he had dreams these seemed like visions or walking with spirits especially if he saw his dead friends or saw his tribe happily eating a large meal and conquering their foes. He thought once he died, he would accompany the rest of the stars at night but if he was bad he would fall from the sun's grace. When it rained, the gods would be pleased if it become stormy they were angry. Eventually this evolved into something bigger. If there is a God, it is silent, operates within the laws of science, and is unknowable this God would be the universe itself.

Well, our house cat thinks he is God.
In all seriousness, that last sentence? Immanence of the Divine. Fundamental to me in my spiritual practice.

-Nomad

[jtskinner]

Well when God is observable I'll worship him or her or it or whatever okay? Until then I will choose to remain an atheist and defend my beliefs to those who wish to impose their will upon me.

[GOD]

What he said. *:thumbsup:

That being said, I find it interesting that most folks here argue their point for atheism or agnosticism based on the concept of an Abrahamic deity. Could not God be the water and we the fish?

-Nomad

To me, there are plenty of errors in the bible that catch the "writers" out. The sea shells in the mountains would have led them to the story of a great flood and probably Noah's Arc. (I worked that out at Sunday School Church... still though, I did get the dinosaur ruler for remembering the whole New Testament names... *:-X)

However, I think people should look at the Bible as a form of written law before statutes came into force as the main way to control people’s actions. The first courts in Britain were run by the Church.

The Church is a potential for "good". However I see more prejudice and racism committed by religious people all over the world than us atheists. I see the weakness in the Religions to stop atrocities committed in their name. I see Religious leaders unable to talk to other religious leaders to stop the killings. If I was really GOD I'd strike the Pope and Muslim leaders with lightening...on their arses *;D

[jtskinner]

Oh no you didn't :-X :P

[tmix]

Whenever there is contradictions, mistakes, amorality or anything else wrong in the bible Satan did it. Also, all world religions were created by Satan and his demons. Plus, everyone but Christians are Satan worshipers. Science is also a creation of Satan. There is scientific proof of God but I know in my heart even though he is invisible and exists outside of space and time he's real. That logic as been used for far too long, anyone else agree? Love God or be destroyed!

This logic, of course, is of fundamentalist christians who have not really read the bible for themselves *:'(. Unfortunately, there is truth to the statement 'people fear what they don't understand' and in this case I find that most people don't understand their own religion or science...so they stick with the most persuasive voice they hear. I agree that this kind of mentality is abused by leaders and the source of many headaches for religion scholars. I have looked at the two webpages posted in the recent threads (skepticsbible and bibleorigins) and wish to perhaps enlighten this discussion with my humble educated opinion via religious studies courses. The following quote from bibleorigins.net reads:
* * * * *
* * *"Archaeology and Geology reveals there never was a Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve, nor was there ever in the earth's geologic history a universal Noah's Flood, and the Exodus -as portrayed in the Bible- is fiction according to the findings of archaeology. The discipline of Literary Criticism has established that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, in the 16th or 15th century B.C. as claimed by Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions, the texts were composed in the 7th or 6th century B.C. ------I present myself as "an amateur bible scholar," not having ANY formal education in Bible studies beyond a general Intro to "History of Western Civilization 101" in college. What I know is ALL "self-taught." (the author of the entire website)" ***I have read through some of his articles and found a few of his flaws due to a lack of understanding of the specifics of Hebrew religion and a basic understanding of Hebrew itself. However, I do admit he has some good points.**

I would like to point out that religion scholars also agree with these points. Scholars do actually call the book of Genesis myth stories or ancestral narratives. Genesis wouldn't have been written until circa 1000 BCE and even then many of the stories which are often told in two versions were added during the Hebrew exile to Babylon and even after the exile to justify God to them at that time. The rest of the Pentatuch would have also been written beginning circa 1000 BCE because this was when the Hebrews first became a political entity united under their first monarch. Ancient Hebrew religion (called Yahwehism) assimilated the practices and stories of other religions into their own. Ancient Hebrew society was oral until the first monarch appeared and began to keep logs of everything, so this is not surprising. Also, the Hebrews wanted their God to rival the other gods of their enemies.

Why do I talk so much of the ancient Hebrews? Well, a) I have studied them more ;D and b) you might be able to see these traits with the Christian Bible by better understanding the religion which Christianity grew out of. The point I am hoping to make is that the Bible as most Americans understand it today is a collection of writings written and painfully selected to help people understand and cope with God. No original copies of any biblical texts exist. That is fact. So the flaws that are often exposed surface from mistranslations to difference of opinions of the original authors. For instance, the first three gospels in the new testament were not written by the disciple indicated by name of the book. They would have been written by men who followed these men perhaps two generations later and who knows what different ideas where added to the original teachers. Another vital translation issue is the ancient Hebrew language didn't have vowels! So the translated phrase "gtmct" could spell more than one combination of words and it was reliant upon the translator to make up what he thought was best.

Science and religion operate in opposite (and often hostile) worlds. I find it difficult for either side to definitely say anything about the other and I sincerely wish there were more constructive forums for these two areas to neutrally talk.

I do hope this positively contributes to this thread. *:)

[lancelot]

I belive in God, He is a person who guides my life.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Are you sure you want to call God a "person"? He might take offense to that.

[Mr Zip]

After spending most of my life in an organized christian religion, I'm done with it. It makes zero sense to me in my day to day life, and its principles are terribly contradictory if you do not pick and choose them, even when understanding their historical backgrounds.

What scares the hell out of most christian religions is the fact that faith in their principles are 100% unneccesary for happiness or a principled life.

I believe in responsibility. That alone will save the human race, and is independent of theology.

If JRR Tolkein mixed in theology with his stories, they would have been far superior to any scripture out there. At the very least, they'd have been interesting.

[ssfanatic]

Are you sure you want to call God a "person"? He might take offense to that.
Ive learned better to get in a debate of religion with you ;)
But dont minimize God to take offense to such mundane things.





ssfanatic added to this post, 2 minutes and 16 seconds later...

Whether God exist's or not? I don't know, but I know that the Bible is all a lie, why? You think our creater wil just come and talk to us? I think there's more to it. I think there was some force behind the Big Bang.

Maybe there was life before the Big Bang? Maybe there tecnology was far superior to our's, maybe, just maybe they created a UMD (Universe Mass Destruction). But I don't know what I am thinking... There was something begind that explosion, Im sure of it. While we ust breed and die, some of us dedicate ourselves to find the mistery of life, maybe our "God" is playing trick's on us. I remember when somebody said that he was a ruthless killer and was Mass-destroying our species.

"God" killed at least 200 million people and more. Wait that's worse than Sadam Hussein and Osama Bind Laden. Yes it 1000X worse than both of them combine. Somebody said that if he was a human, taht he will be seen as a Ruthless, Cold, Hard, Killer or Dictator. I don't know about our "God" being a killer I just can't imagine that.

Oh wait, did I mention there were four messiah's? Yea believe it or not, there were four Messiah's, two before Jesus, and another One after Jesus, and he could fly! Well he broke his leg (unlucky him) and his disciples left him. In the Bible there are many, many arrors there so many, You gotta read it to find out. (Exit Mundi)

Now let's talk about Noah's Ark. There's no way that Noah can get 10000 animals or even 12 million species (2X). And if they did that, the only survivors will be himself and his familty. And to survive they will have to inbreed. This will lead to the human species exticion and if they survive in about 10 year's humanity as we know it will be retarded.
All i have to say is that dont be so foolish as to say that all of the Bible is false. Any rational atheist will tell you that the morals of the Bible are appropriate and sufficient. Its not a history book. Look at the stories as fables.

[Octavianus Caesar]

To say somethng is a "lie" is to say that the intent of the entire book was to decieve. That statement is to be proven by the one who made it, not the bible.

Isa 7:1 Now it came about in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not conquer it.

COS 2, 285, 2.117A - Calah Annals ca. 738-37
I received the tribute of…Rezin, the Damascene, Menahem, the Samarian, Hiram, the Tyrian

COS 2, 288, 2.117C - Summary Inscription ca. 731
I (Tiglath-pileser) carried off to Assyria the land of Bit-Humria (Israel), its auxiliary army…all of its people,… I killed Pekah, their king, and I installed Hoshea as king over them. I received from them 10 talents of gold, x talents of silver, with their possessions and I car ried them to Assyria.

I plundered its livestock, and I spared only (isolated) Samaria. I overthrew Pekah their king.

2Ki 15:29 In the days of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria came and captured Ijon and Abel-beth-maacah and Janoah and Kedesh and Hazor and Gilead and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria.

A contradiction between sources, can be explaind by upping themselves in the sight of their people or legitmizing them being king.

2Ki 15:30 And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and struck him and put him to death and became king in his place, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.

But this proves the event took place, both agree that Assryia took Israel (northern tribes) and that Tiglath-pileser is the assyrian king who did it.

A biblical source and a secular source agree on an event, the details will differ based on point of view and information available and how they view the event through their god.

[ssfanatic]

A biblical source and a secular source agree on an event, the details will differ based on point of view and information available and how they view the event through their god.

So whose to judge which source is wrong? Not to say that one is better than the other, i dont know, and the truth is, i dont think we can prove either way.

[Octavianus Caesar]

So whose to judge which source is wrong? Not to say that one is better than the other, i dont know, and the truth is, i dont think we can prove either way.

That is the point, to a degree of what i am saying.

To make a claim that the bible is a "lie" and then I can find a source that is non-biblical, that tells a very similar event. Shows that the statement of the bible being a lie, is wrong.

The other problem is, if we question history as some question the bible "as a lie" than we know nothing. Books on MLK are lies (even if we can prove it, it still comes out as "false"), just as much as works by Julius Caesar or Homer, then the old Philosophies of Aristotle are lies as much as Plato.

The problem with using the word "lie" with the bible, and since it is only used with the bible, then that draws up some problems.

1. The bible is a lie
2. The bible is written by Jews
3. Therefore, Jews are liars.

Thus, the statement of the bible is a lie is an anti-semetic remark, to discount the works and lives and history of the Jewish people as "decievers".

Too much problems arise from the statement "the bible is a lie".

[ssfanatic]

Now there you are wrong saying that just bec a person believes the Bible is a lie, makes them anti-semetic. Jews do not believe in the new testament, they discredit its philosophies, therefore they believe that Jesus was the messiah is a lie. That would make them anti-semetic would it not?

The reason that people call the Bible a lie is bec they find contradictions. We dont find contradictions in the works of Homer, Plato, Aristotle et. al.
Thats not the problem with it. The problem with judging whether it is all a lie or not is that the morals are solid, firm, and sound. The history is shaky, thats where we get the idea that it is a fancy bed time story.

All people get their perception of right and wrong from some form of religion, they just dont realize it. I have heard the point several times that if something hurts someone, then it is wrong, otherwise, there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. But then you get into the argument on whether something hurts someone or not. One persons opinion is different than another, therefore, if you dont believe in some form of religion, you judge your own right and wrong. And if you judge your own right and wrong, then right and wrong can differ from one person to the next. That then gives evidence to the statement that there is no real right and wrong for a person with no religion.

"The axiom of hell rests on the fact that one thing is not another, and, therefore, oneself is not another self. Your good is your and my good is mine."
-C.S. Lewis

[Octavianus Caesar]

Now there you are wrong saying that just bec a person believes the Bible is a lie, makes them anti-semetic.

No i was pointing out a potential problem, the bible was written by Jews, whether they believe in the OT or NT, the point of what i was saying is true.

That would make them anti-semetic would it not?

No they do not go around like many scholars proclaiming the bible to be a lie, the Jews have a valid reason for disclaiming Christ.

The reason that people call the Bible a lie is bec they find contradictions.

Contradictions are there, but the lie does not come from that, the lie comes from the perception of belief from the way the bible was written.

Most say that Moses wrote parts of the OT, ect. When you look at the bible you see that it was at one point divided up, I believe JEDP theory is correct, thus the contraditctions are gone, but when you see it as a universal whole, then contradictions appear and then the problems occur. The bible is not the lie, the lie is the tradition of which the bible is looked at.

[ssfanatic]

What is the JEDP theory?

[Octavianus Caesar]

What is the JEDP theory?

It is the theory that at least four people wrote the first books of the bible.

J= Yahwahist
E= Elohist
D= Deutoronomist
P= Priest

"To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts."


this gives a nice overview.

The idea is that four people wrote the first five books, based on writing style, words and ideas and context.

[ssfanatic]

Yeah, when you didnt answer back i researched it. I dont know what i was expecting you to tell me :)

So how does this theory rid the Bible of all contradictions. It only cancels the ones in the books of the law.

[Octavianus Caesar]

It lessons alot of them, the ones that exist can be explained by either lack of information, different source, or different period it was written.

The traditional thinking of "the bible is perfect, there is no contradiction" creates alot of problems, especially when they tie in the tradition that Moses wrote the first five books, which adds even more confusion to it.

If you are interested, Who wrote the bible by Richard Elliot Friedman is a good laymens book on the subject and it has been taken serious enough by scholars as well so it is a good book.

Friedman argues that Joshua - Kings (except Ruth) were written by the same person, along with Dueteronmy. He argues that Jeremiah is the main author of the Old Testament. He also argues that he is one of the final editors, and that the composistion of the books, with Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah were all put together by Ezra. And then over time the other books got put into them as well. He also Argues that Ezekiel was another redactor or writer as well.

[vkut79]

For the majority of people, not all beliefs need to be based on empirical evidence and logic/reason. For them it is enough that a.) the belief is useful, meaningful, and/or beneficial, and/or that b.) it is believed by others who encourage this belief. The combination of these two factors leads people to believe in religion, and why arguing that their belief is illogical is pointless. They are drawn to that belief nonetheless.

[Octavianus Caesar]

For the majority of people, not all beliefs need to be based on empirical evidence and logic/reason. For them it is enough that a.) the belief is useful, meaningful, and/or beneficial, and/or that b.) it is believed by others who encourage this belief. The combination of these two factors leads people to believe in religion, and why arguing that their belief is illogical is pointless. They are drawn to that belief nonetheless.


I agree, but someone like me, likes to know where everything comes from and how it all fits together. For me to believe i have to understand everything, examinging the right and wrong of the system and removing what is wrong and replacing it with a right conclusion.

[ssfanatic]

It lessons alot of them, the ones that exist can be explained by either lack of information, different source, or different period it was written.

The traditional thinking of "the bible is perfect, there is no contradiction" creates alot of problems, especially when they tie in the tradition that Moses wrote the first five books, which adds even more confusion to it.

If you are interested, Who wrote the bible by Richard Elliot Friedman is a good laymens book on the subject and it has been taken serious enough by scholars as well so it is a good book.

Friedman argues that Joshua - Kings (except Ruth) were written by the same person, along with Dueteronmy. He argues that Jeremiah is the main author of the Old Testament. He also argues that he is one of the final editors, and that the composistion of the books, with Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah were all put together by Ezra. And then over time the other books got put into them as well. He also Argues that Ezekiel was another redactor or writer as well.

Thats all just dandy, but what does that have to do with the new testament. There are plenty of contradictions there, and if i had to choose the most important, it would definitely be the NT.
I agree, but someone like me, likes to know where everything comes from and how it all fits together. For me to believe i have to understand everything, examinging the right and wrong of the system and removing what is wrong and replacing it with a right conclusion.

Hence my quote...To follow blindly is rather not to follow at all.
Which was/is said by me.

[Octavianus Caesar]

The JEDP does not affect the NT in any way, I do not think there is a theory like that for the NT, other than the mysterious "Q".

I agree to follow blindly is to follow nothng :)

[ssfanatic]

The JEDP does not affect the NT in any way, I do not think there is a theory like that for the NT, other than the mysterious "Q".

I agree to follow blindly is to follow nothng :)
I dont think we can label the NT as false bec one hidden document says so. Ive heard, of course this is just word of mouth and i have no information to back this up, that the Romans created this doctrine to stop the spread of Christianity in the empire.

[Octavianus Caesar]

I dont think we can label the NT as false bec one hidden document says so. Ive heard, of course this is just word of mouth and i have no information to back this up, that the Romans created this doctrine to stop the spread of Christianity in the empire.


I do not lable them false by any means, I view them simply as different sources and documents telling the same event in different ways.

[ssfanatic]

I do not lable them false by any means, I view them simply as different sources and documents telling the same event in different ways.
Everyone does. But the difference is that people choose which one is false and which one is true. You cant say they are both true, the are contradictory.
Do you believe in universalism?

[Octavianus Caesar]

Everyone does. But the difference is that people choose which one is false and which one is true. You cant say they are both true, the are contradictory.
Do you believe in universalism?

It depends how one determines something is true or false.

If John says: X and Mark says: Y, is that a lie?

I would say no, no more than two eye witnesses "contradict" each other at a crime scene. So on that basis, I can say one is false and one is true, but that one is viewed differently than the other.

If you were to write a book and you had two sources, odds are, they will not 100% agree with each other, one of them will put more emphasis on one source and the other may put its emphasis on another source, thus the two books tell the same event, but just tell it differently based on the sources at hand.

I do not believe in Universalism or Relativism or anything similar. I take things based on what is in front of me and make the best descion, even if the two should "contradict" If one was to look hard enough, any rough spots can be smoothed over.

[ssfanatic]

I see what your saying, and i agree, but, i still think that one is right or they are both wrong. You cant give two accounts that have major differences and both still be right just bec of their different viewpoint.

[Octavianus Caesar]

I see what your saying, and i agree, but, i still think that one is right or they are both wrong. You cant give two accounts that have major differences and both still be right just bec of their different viewpoint.

You nailed the problem of "divine inspiration".

One can be right and one wrong, or both can be wrong or both can be right.

[MNRon]

Interesting, Tarrick I'd like to pursue this line of thinking (perhaps another post?).

But to the original posters point, is the bible / god a lie? I'd say, as preached by conventional established (christian) religions, yes. However, is the concept of "god" (an omnicient, all-powerful being) a lie?

I think the attributes of omniscence, permanence, omnipresence, omnipotence, and exhaustive foreknowledge are fabrications of a Neo Platonic world view, and not based on an open reading of the Bible. I am not saying I fully endorse the latter, but the dynamic, relational God revealed in the Bible is much more appealling to me than the the Platonic one -- even if neither exist.





MNRon added to this post, 3 minutes and 57 seconds later...

It is the theory that at least four people wrote the first books of the bible.

J= Yahwahist
E= Elohist
D= Deutoronomist
P= Priest

"To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts."


this gives a nice overview.

The idea is that four people wrote the first five books, based on writing style, words and ideas and context.

And some Bible scholars buy into the to the extent that they say that at some times the final redactor was so skillful that the original sources are cannot be distinguished. Makes me go hmmmmmmmmm.............

[ssfanatic]

And some Bible scholars buy into the to the extent that they say that at some times the final redactor was so skillful that the original sources are cannot be distinguished. Makes me go hmmmmmmmmm.............

Thats also called "jumping to conclusions."

[ArchonAlarion]

I recently have gone back to being an atheist, do to fun things like the law of identity and the nature of existence.

The Bible is full of contradictions and if you want an overwhelming amount of eaxamples then I direct you to this linl and the podcast number 29

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I mean, seriously, the state and religion are the greatest and most horrifying scams in human history.

[lancelot]

Are you sure you want to call God a "person"? He might take offense to that.

Yeah, God is actually, according to my faith, three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[Octavianus Caesar]

I recently have gone back to being an atheist, do to fun things like the law of identity and the nature of existence.

The Bible is full of contradictions and if you want an overwhelming amount of eaxamples then I direct you to this linl and the podcast number 29

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I mean, seriously, the state and religion are the greatest and most horrifying scams in human history.


How religion looks at God determines how God is. Most object to the Christian God because they see him as the tyrant in the sky and the theology of God does not change that fact.

God is perfect, therefore, God can not interact with you. Because that would mean God is not perfect. Therefore, God had to change to interact with you. Yet, in Churches they say God is loving and personal and "wants to get to know you" and yet the theology says that is not possible, so within Christianity you have that major glaring contradiction.

[nightengale]

How religion looks at God determines how God is. Most object to the Christian God because they see him as the tyrant in the sky and the theology of God does not change that fact.

God is perfect, therefore, God can not interact with you. Because that would mean God is not perfect. Therefore, God had to change to interact with you. Yet, in Churches they say God is loving and personal and "wants to get to know you" and yet the theology says that is not possible, so within Christianity you have that major glaring contradiction.


sort of.

God is perfect and holy, right? Because sin entered the world and because we sin, we've got to pay the price and so we are eternally seperated from God. Since God loves us, he made a way for us to be with him via Jesus, his son, who paid the price for us. It's a choice. One we don't have to make.

So, God wants to get to know us and theology says it's possible- by asking God to forgive your sins and believing Jesus came to die for them. To me, that's not a contradiction. There are bigger ones :)

[Jed3]

I don't see how there can be some 'allmighty' spirit who created this planet and everything on it.
It's just not logical.
That's why I dont believe in god or religion.

[Homini Lupus]

Why god, being perfect, wouldn't be able to interact with us? If he created us he has already interacted with us. Any god unable/unwilly to interact with our reality would be inexistant by definition.

And god already knows us (in the gospels). By defining god in a personal way Jesus doesn't state what god actually is but how the common man should think him; thus he says "kingdom of heaven is like... ". Imagine Jesus talking to the ignorant masses about creation from nothingness and immobile motor and so on. That's not good policy isn't it?

[nightengale]

God has always interacted with humans, from the beginning of time to now. When I say eternally seperated, I'm saying we can't be with him after death. forever.

I'm not sure I understand your second point. Jesus does state who God is, and in a personal way? well, he sort of is God so you would expect him to talk about himself in a personal way, wouldn't you? Jesus talked in parables because ordinary people could relate better to them, then if he just outright told them.

I don't know if that deals with what you're talking about. I just woke up too, I'm sort of out of it :)

[Homini Lupus]

Second point is just a personal conclusion i came to when I found that God was described in terms wich seemed to "human" to me. It's quite heretic. But questioning everything is heresy by itself.

[gettothepoint]

I call myself a Christian because it is the way I was raised and it is the "norm" in my life. I do struggle with it though. Logically, it just doesn't seem right but the lessons in the bible are good. I continue to practice it under the assumption that if I am right I will enter heaven and my creator will tell me "well done my good and faithful servant". If I am wrong then what did it hurt? Faith is a big undertaking. I read a book last year by Francis Collins called "the language of God". Mr. (Dr.) Collins was the head of the human genome project that mapped our dna. It is really neat how he ties science and a creator together. Life is truly an amazing thing. All I can say is I think it is going to be a subject that I will struggle with all of my days.

[nightengale]

I call myself a Christian because it is the way I was raised and it is the "norm" in my life. I do struggle with it though. Logically, it just doesn't seem right but the lessons in the bible are good. I continue to practice it under the assumption that if I am right I will enter heaven and my creator will tell me "well done my good and faithful servant". If I am wrong then what did it hurt? Faith is a big undertaking. I read a book last year by Francis Collins called "the language of God". Mr. (Dr.) Collins was the head of the human genome project that mapped our dna. It is really neat how he ties science and a creator together. Life is truly an amazing thing. All I can say is I think it is going to be a subject that I will struggle with all of my days.

Someone once said that you're a fool to have faith in God. And I agree. Faith is foolish, because it's illogical. But that doesn't mean having faith in God is wrong. I always find INTJs who believe in God interesting, because most INTJs consider themselves too rational to believe in God, when to be a believer of logic makes so much more sense.

Another point- faith is believing in something withou necessarily having hard evidence or also put in the popular saying,"faith is believing without seeing." You can't have faith in something without having questions too.

[Octavianus Caesar]

Someone once said that you're a fool to have faith in God. And I agree. Faith is foolish, because it's illogical. But that doesn't mean having faith in God is wrong. I always find INTJs who believe in God interesting, because most INTJs consider themselves too rational to believe in God, when to be a believer of logic makes so much more sense.

Another point- faith is believing in something withou necessarily having hard evidence or also put in the popular saying,"faith is believing without seeing." You can't have faith in something without having questions too.

I think what end up happening is that the way Faith is presented, it is presented in such away that it is illogical. On one forum I was discussing a topic with someone and on a logical basis his doctrine was based on the argument of silence, and I pointed that out, yet he replied by saying that i called it a fallacy because his view did not agree with mine, so he holds to a belief that is illogical and that is the view that is believed by many Christians today.

So faith is not illogical it is how faith is defended that is illogical.

[nightengale]

I think what end up happening is that the way Faith is presented, it is presented in such away that it is illogical. On one forum I was discussing a topic with someone and on a logical basis his doctrine was based on the argument of silence, and I pointed that out, yet he replied by saying that i called it a fallacy because his view did not agree with mine, so he holds to a belief that is illogical and that is the view that is believed by many Christians today.

So faith is not illogical it is how faith is defended that is illogical.

i guess i hold to the belief that faith is logical in an illogical way.

[blueback]

So faith is not illogical it is how faith is defended that is illogical.

Wow.

Words have definitions. If you're using a word incorrectly you don't get to change the definition to make yourself feel better.

American Heritage Dictionary
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Faith is not logical. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. If you reach a conclusion through nothing but comparing one piece of evidence against another, then you used logic. If at any point you reached a conclusion by skipping a step and claiming it happened by magic, then you used faith.

[nightengale]

Wow.

Words have definitions. If you're using a word incorrectly you don't get to change the definition to make yourself feel better.

American Heritage Dictionary
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Faith is not logical. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. If you reach a conclusion through nothing but comparing one piece of evidence against another, then you used logic. If at any point you reached a conclusion by skipping a step and claiming it happened by magic, then you used faith.

agreed. i guess what i'm trying to get across is that faith itself is illogical, but I find it logical to choose to have faith. There are reasons for me to have faith, or to believe in an illogical way.

[thod]

This guys makes some good points. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._continue

Athiesm does seem to have a vision of some techno-rational future where everyone is atheist. It has the view of progress towards something instead of "what has been before, so shall it be again". In that sense its evangelical. Atheists want to enlighten theists in the same way theists do. They both see the future as a promised land if only others would convert.

Its also true that atheists see religion as proto science, as men attempting to make sense of the world around them. This allows for the dismissal of ideas as 'primitive' and the followers as 'throwbacks'. Yet the advocates of faith would tell you that faith is not about explanations.

[blueback]

Yet the advocates of faith would tell you that faith is not about explanations.

Faith is all about explanations. . .not good ones, tho.

The only reason to have faith is when you don't understand what it going on but want to feel like you do anyway. When you actually understand what's going on it becomes impossible to have faith because you are basing your conclusions on evidence.

For example; people have faith in prayer. They have faith in prayer because they believe it works but have no objective evidence that it actually does, or if it does, how exactly it works. If someone came out with a study that validated the effects of prayer on the real world and described the mechanism by which it works and their study was corroborated by a dozen other studies then no one would have faith in prayer anymore, they would simply know that it worked and how it worked.

Religion began as nothing more than an explantation of why it sometimes rained and sometimes didn't. Eventually it mutated into an explanation of everything else. Then science was invented an all of a sudden people were finding emperical evidence that the religious explanations for things were wrong. Scientific explanations gradually replaced religious ones because they work better, being based on reality and all.


Also, atheism is a faith just like theism. Atheists say that there is no God, but that is just as impossible to prove as when theists say there is a God. God is inherently outside any possible scientific explanation; he can never be proved or disproved.

[thod]

I disagree. Faith is not about explanations. When you were a small child you had faith that your parents would be there for you. You didn't seek to explain why that should be so or question if they would in fact be. You just knew it. In the same way many people have faith in a better tomorrow. They don't know what form that future will take, how we get there etc. Yet they still believe it to be so.

The religious have faith in a higher force without need for proof. That this entity is beneficent and wants men to behave in a certain way etc. As you will have found you cannot change minds with the evidence argument. The two things are total different. If faith is belief without need for evidence lack of evidence does not refute it. You would have find proof to the contrary.

The hardest part is to identify those elements of your own psyche that are based on faith. I would postulate that its an awful lot if not the majority. You believe you will be alive tomorrow and not die in the night. The evidence is you will die at some point, yet you assume its a long way off. That is faith. You really cant prove the scientific hypothesis that all effect has a cause, that is a faith too.

[blueback]

I disagree. Faith is not about explanations.


That's refreshing :-) it's so straight forward, no messing around with feelings on the subject.


When you were a small child you had faith that your parents would be there for you. You didn't seek to explain why that should be so or question if they would in fact be. You just knew it.


Not everyone has that "faith." Kids who don't have parents for example. Kids who grow up in broken homes, orphanages, foster care never get used to the idea of having a parent around. Only kids who's parents actually are around every day have that "faith." Which makes it not faith at all, but an educated guess. They base their plans for tomorrow on the fact that their parents are always around. No parents, no assumption that a parent will be around tomorrow.


In the same way many people have faith in a better tomorrow. They don't know what form that future will take, how we get there etc. Yet they still believe it to be so.


I'm not sure I'm following you here. What exactly is "faith in a better tomorrow"? It sounds pretty vague. The more vague your evidence gets the harder it is to refute it and therefore the less it supports your argument.


The religious have faith in a higher force without need for proof.


Correction: "without need for proof" is the definition of faith. You can't have faith if you have proof.


As you will have found you cannot change minds with the evidence argument. The two things are total different.


What evidence argument? That there is no evidence of God? I never try to argue anyone out of their faith in God, or their faith in anything for that matter. It is impossible. Faith is impervious to rational argument. On the other hand, you can't have faith if you have proof. . .so I do like to present proof whenever possible. Then faith disappears on its own.


If faith is belief without need for evidence lack of evidence does not refute it. You would have find proof to the contrary.


I would argue that it's hard to find proof that contradicts faith. Often faith is attached to subjects that can't be proven, thus the faith. When people hold an erroneous faith attached to a subject that can be proven, and they ignore the evidence that contradicts their faith, that is just ignorance.


The hardest part is to identify those elements of your own psyche that are based on faith.


True. I've been working on that for most of my life.


You believe you will be alive tomorrow and not die in the night.


Nope. I have a lot of evidence that I will be alive tomorrow, therefore it's not faith. I have woken up every other night, that's almost 10,000 nights without dying in my sleep. I am healthy, I live in a safe environment, so the odds of be dying are very low.


The evidence is you will die at some point, yet you assume its a long way off. That is faith.


No it's not. It's statistics. There is a lot of emperical evidence that supports the assumption I won't die for a long time. That is not faith. Faith would be if I believed I was going to die tomorrow despite all the evidence to the contrary.


You really cant prove the scientific hypothesis that all effect has a cause, that is a faith too.


That's a whole 'nother subject, right there. Can you expand on it?

[green eyes]

Blaise Pascal made the point in "Pascal's Wager" that we should bet on Christianity...because the rewards are infinite if it's true, while the losses will be insignificant if it's false. Pascal also says, "It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason...that is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason...faith is different from proof. One is human and the other a gift of God...."

[stasis]

Blaise Pascal made the point in "Pascal's Wager" that we should bet on Christianity...because the rewards are infinite if it's true, while the losses will be insignificant if it's false.
It's somewhat of a terrible point though. If we were to pose the idea that Christianity's rewards are infinite if true, do we not require the same idea potentially applied to any other religion promising similarly infinite rewards? In that event, what makes Christianity in particular the religion to bet one's life upon? And which sect of what religion, for that matter. After all, some of them are wholly opposed with regard to what qualifies a person for infinite reward. Betting our lives upon the wrong one in that event could mean infinite torment instead of insignificance.

But if the mortal life is in fact the whole of that which human life consists, and the different religions that people have believed in throughout the years are false with regard to their (widely varying, conflicting, evidence-less) afterlife concepts, then 'wasting' it in the establishment of falsehood could be regarded as effectively wasting absolutely everything from one's own perspective. It's not a good bet without strong odds, is it? So I don't see how the 'there is little to lose and infinity to gain, therefore Christianity' wager can be called substantive (actionable). I would assume that the substance would have to come from some prior faith-based conviction in the religion, which would then be reinforced by this.



Pascal also says, "It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason...that is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason...faith is different from proof. One is human and the other a gift of God...."
My heart apparently pumps blood.

[blueback]

Good post, Stasis. You covered the things I would have, although with fancier words ;-)

I would like to add that there's no such thing as a gift from God. For it to be a gift from God would require that God exists. Since it is impossible to prove that God exists, you can't prove that anything is a gift from him. You would have to believe that something was a gift from God, and that's okay.

I don't have any problem with people who have faith. I have a problem with people who pretend their faith is somehow a rational conclusion derived from logical analysis of emperical evidence. It cheapens both faith and rationality. Why do men of faith have such a hard time admitting that they have faith? Why do they have to dress it up with logic?

Well, I think that they feel the need to pretend their actions are logical because some part of them understands that logic is superior to faith. There is some part of them that wants to actually know how things work, that part is just small and scared and is comforted by the big tough part that is armored with faith.

[thod]

In that event, what makes Christianity in particular the religion to bet one's life upon? And which sect of what religion, for that matter.

On a trip to India I made a point of jumping in the river Ganges at Benares, so thats my sins washed away. I also visited the Sikhs holy temple at Amritsar and sat meditating with them. I need to persuade them to let me into the black cube in mecca next so I can do my Haj and get that one out of the way. It doesn't hurt to cover all your bases after all. You may burn in hell, but its 72 vir