Theist

KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Theist

I'm a theist. I was raised in a Christian home and at the age of 17 I denounced my religion for agnosticism. At the age of 19, I came to a new understanding of the Bible which led me to believe differently. I'm disgusted with the pervasive idea of Christianity today. I don't find much solice in their company. I would like to understand your points of belief in the nonexistence of God. I've been in debates both electronically and in person. I'm not here to criticize your belief. I'm here to debate and gain a better understanding of the arguments. Looking forward to learning from you all and making friendships along the way.

 

I have interest in camping, jeans, boots, technology, business, leather, and music.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Welcome.The main point of

Welcome.

The main point of contention you'll see here is that while the believers are passionate in their belief in whatever God they have, there is no substantial evidence behind it.

There are as many interpretations of religious texts as there are adherents. Despite their insistence that it is so, they can't all be right.

What are yours?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Hello!I don't know much

Hello!

I don't know much about God's non-existence, but I have a question. What is that new understanding of Bible that you achieved? If it isn't a secret. Do you consider Bible as original, unchanged and ifnallible word of God?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
I see that myself in

I see that myself in Christian circles today, mainly my family's. I think for me to explain my beliefs would have to begin with a statement. I think you can divide all humans into two categories: the ones who believe in the metaphysical or supernatural existence; or the ones who do not. I choose to believe that there is a metaphysical existence. I believe my mind exists beyond my body and that with that mind I have a soul. In a sense you could say that my existence is a verification of a creator.

I don't adhere to a denomination or "religion". I have faith in the Bible. I believe there are some historical evidences that parts of the Bible are true but you cannot prove the validity of Jesus Christ's relation to God. That is the element of faith. Faith defined as believing something that cannot be physically proven.

I believe humans were created for the purpose of God's glory. I believe we have free will to choose to believe in His existence and furthermore the atonement of Jesus Christ for our shortcomings. I believe that because we had the right to choose not follow Him makes Him God.


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Hello!I don't

Luminon wrote:

Hello!

I don't know much about God's non-existence, but I have a question. What is that new understanding of Bible that you achieved? If it isn't a secret. Do you consider Bible as original, unchanged and ifnallible word of God?

Hello Luminon!

I think I might have answered this in my previous post to jc but I'll give it another shot for more detailed clarification.

I'm in the process of understanding the Bible which will never fully be achieved. Much like the art of clock making or painting, It is not quantifiably measurable. I believe the ancient Greek texts to be the original "paraphrased" existence of God. The translations we have today are mere attempts to capture the significance of those texts. By infallible do you mean that word for word God uttered it? No. I believe the gospels are accounts by individuals who witnessed the actions. Unchanged? My understanding(I don't read Greek) is that the translations we have today are as close to the original as we can get.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote: I would like

KPO89 wrote:

 I would like to understand your points of belief in the nonexistence of God. 

Is belief in the nonexistence of god your definition of atheism?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 I hesitate to put the

 I hesitate to put the theist badge on you because it would seem you are the type of person who will walk away from theism after extensive discussions here.  Nevertheless you are currently a theist, so I've applied the badge.  If you change your mind, I'll hear about it.  

Enjoy your time here, I hope you grow.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Welcome KPO....Hope you

Welcome KPO....

Hope you enjoy your time here...


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Atheism

The nonexistence of God or any other deity. So in a sense...yes.


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Thank you

I have already walked away from Theism once. I don't foresee it in the future but I will take that as a compliment from you about my open-mindedness. 

 

 


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote:The nonexistence

KPO89 wrote:

The nonexistence of God or any other deity. So in a sense...yes.

Some people might argue that atheism is the lack of belief in god instead of belief in the lack of god.  I know it is subtle distinction, but it might be relevant in some discussions.  You will probably find your time on this sight much more enjoyable if you don't make to many assumptions about what other people's positions are.  I know that everyone makes assumptions about other people sometimes.  It is pretty hard not to, but as a theist on this particular site you will probably get a lot farther in discussion if you ask people what their positions are instead of telling people what their positions are.  


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:KPO89 wrote:The

RatDog wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

The nonexistence of God or any other deity. So in a sense...yes.

Some people might argue that atheism is the lack of belief in god instead of belief in the lack of god.  I know it is subtle distinction, but it might be relevant in some discussions.

It would be relevant in all discussions with me, that's for sure.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:KPO89 wrote:The

RatDog wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

The nonexistence of God or any other deity. So in a sense...yes.

Some people might argue that atheism is the lack of belief in god instead of belief in the lack of god.  I know it is subtle distinction, but it might be relevant in some discussions.  You will probably find your time on this sight much more enjoyable if you don't make to many assumptions about what other people's positions are.  I know that everyone makes assumptions about other people sometimes.  It is pretty hard not to, but as a theist on this particular site you will probably get a lot farther in discussion if you ask people what their positions are instead of telling people what their positions are.  

 

I apologize I was going by the definition of the word atheist. I've always thought that the belief in the lack of God would lean more toward agnosticism. I was merely trying to communicate my position by using webster defined english terminology.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote:RatDog

KPO89 wrote:

RatDog wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

The nonexistence of God or any other deity. So in a sense...yes.

Some people might argue that atheism is the lack of belief in god instead of belief in the lack of god.  I know it is subtle distinction, but it might be relevant in some discussions.  You will probably find your time on this sight much more enjoyable if you don't make to many assumptions about what other people's positions are.  I know that everyone makes assumptions about other people sometimes.  It is pretty hard not to, but as a theist on this particular site you will probably get a lot farther in discussion if you ask people what their positions are instead of telling people what their positions are.  

 

I apologize I was going by the definition of the word atheist. I've always thought that the belief in the lack of God would lean more toward agnosticism. I was merely trying to communicate my position by using webster defined english terminology.

 

 

This is obviously an important issue here, the definitions I have laid out include Websters and include my usage:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

 

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition

 

Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

  1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
  2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
  3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
  4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

 

Here is the OED's definition of 'agnostic':

agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

 

Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged

 

Here is Webster's definition of atheism:

atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct

disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true

disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief

Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.

FAQ

Q: But I don't disbelieve in god! I just don't believe!

A: Again, if you literally 'don't disbelieve' then it would follow that you believe. You obviously don't mean to say this! What you probably mean to say is that you don't believe, OR reject the possibility of 'god' claims either. This leaves you without any theistic beliefs. Unless you are a pantheist or a polytheist (a person with god beliefs other than theism), this makes you an a-theist. Atheism does not necessarily imply anything other than a lack of theistic belief.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote: but you cannot

KPO89 wrote:

 but you cannot prove the validity of Jesus Christ's relation to God.

So why believe it?   What about Muhammad's relation to god, do you have any faith in that? 


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

 but you cannot prove the validity of Jesus Christ's relation to God.

So why believe it?   What about Muhammad's relation to god, do you have any faith in that? 

Well I can't disprove his relationship to God. In fact I can't prove or disprove anything metaphysical, hence the prefix "meta-". I have faith. Faith I define as belief in  something that cannot be proved or unproven. It is a step beyond the boundaries of the physical realm. Regardless of the logic conclusions each one of us may draw of God or Muhammad there is no possible way to prove our logical arguments as sound. Your definition of truth is what you believe. I do believe that there is only one absolute truth, but that is my faith.

I believe God based on the Bible. Muhammad claims Christ was a prophet. I don't believe any additions to Christ were called upon by the Old Testament prophets. I would go as far as to say that Paul's epistles are not inspired. But the whole idea of inspiration is a man-made philosophy and a tangent that is not germane to this conversation.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote:RatDog

KPO89 wrote:

RatDog wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

The nonexistence of God or any other deity. So in a sense...yes.

Some people might argue that atheism is the lack of belief in god instead of belief in the lack of god.  I know it is subtle distinction, but it might be relevant in some discussions.  You will probably find your time on this sight much more enjoyable if you don't make to many assumptions about what other people's positions are.  I know that everyone makes assumptions about other people sometimes.  It is pretty hard not to, but as a theist on this particular site you will probably get a lot farther in discussion if you ask people what their positions are instead of telling people what their positions are.  

 

I apologize I was going by the definition of the word atheist. I've always thought that the belief in the lack of God would lean more toward agnosticism. I was merely trying to communicate my position by using webster defined english terminology.

This is really more about other people's positions then your position (Unless your saying your an atheist).  There is no need to apologize, but you should know that if you use that definition it is likely to lead to misunderstandings and/or arguments.  Like I said before you will probably enjoy you time here more if you just ask people what their positions are.   


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:KPO89

RatDog wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

RatDog wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

The nonexistence of God or any other deity. So in a sense...yes.

Some people might argue that atheism is the lack of belief in god instead of belief in the lack of god.  I know it is subtle distinction, but it might be relevant in some discussions.  You will probably find your time on this sight much more enjoyable if you don't make to many assumptions about what other people's positions are.  I know that everyone makes assumptions about other people sometimes.  It is pretty hard not to, but as a theist on this particular site you will probably get a lot farther in discussion if you ask people what their positions are instead of telling people what their positions are.  

 

I apologize I was going by the definition of the word atheist. I've always thought that the belief in the lack of God would lean more toward agnosticism. I was merely trying to communicate my position by using webster defined english terminology.

This is really more about other people's positions then your position (Unless your saying your an atheist).  There is no need to apologize, but you should know that if you use that definition it is likely to lead to misunderstandings and/or arguments.  Like I said before you will probably enjoy you time here more if you just ask people what their positions are.   

What is your position RD? What do you believe? Or perhaps you would feel more comfortable telling me what you don't believe.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote: Faith I define

KPO89 wrote:

 Faith I define as belief in  something that cannot be proved or unproven.

Well Jesus rising from the dead, walking on water and all those miracles would have been some fairly good proof of his connection to something "meta", atleast to the people who witnessed it right?  So this belief you have, could it not be "proven"?  It seems to me it could atleast be shown to hold some water. 

 

KPO89 wrote:

It is a step beyond the boundaries of the physical realm. Regardless of the logic conclusions each one of us may draw of God or Muhammad there is no possible way to prove our logical arguments as sound. Your definition of truth is what you believe.

What I believe to be true changes based on evidence.

KPO89 wrote:

I do believe that there is only one absolute truth, but that is my faith.

And by that you mean Christianity?  The bible?  Jesus?  All three?

 

I guess my question to you is why?  Why believe these things based on faith?  Is there a specific reason you choose to do so?  Why stop there, what else do you choose to believe based on faith?  Why have faith in one set of ancient myths and not another? Why not have faith in everything?

 

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Welcome, KPO89! KPO89

Welcome, KPO89!

KPO89 wrote:

I'm a theist. I was raised in a Christian home and at the age of 17 I denounced my religion for agnosticism. At the age of 19, I came to a new understanding of the Bible which led me to believe differently. I'm disgusted with the pervasive idea of Christianity today. I don't find much solice in their company. I would like to understand your points of belief in the nonexistence of God. I've been in debates both electronically and in person. I'm not here to criticize your belief. I'm here to debate and gain a better understanding of the arguments. Looking forward to learning from you all and making friendships along the way.

I have interest in camping, jeans, boots, technology, business, leather, and music.

Awesome, you sound like you'll probably enjoy yourself here. I'll just mention a few basic arguments since you asked.

Basic argument for disbelief: There are no good reasons to believe that any religious claims are true. Of course, there are 'reasons' (like, "I believe because it makes me feel good" ), there just aren't any *good* reasons. A good reason would involve some sort of independently verifiable evidence. So far, I have never seen or heard of any. Hence, I do not believe.

Another argument: 'Faith' is an inherently bad reason for believing anything. Two people can believe two diametrically opposite things, and both believe them by 'faith'. Neither person can convince the other that they are correct, and adding 'more faith' to the situation only makes their disagreement *stronger*. Faith is divisive and the source of incredible amounts of real, life-and-death conflict in the world. Not only is faith a bad reason for believing anything, it's a dangerous thing in itself.

In contrast, evidence is an inherently good reason to believe whatever the evidence supports. Two people with poor evidence can believe diametrically opposite things, but if you add 'more evidence' to the situation, eventually one idea or the other (or neither) will be shown to be supported by the evidence, and the two people will eventually reach agreement. Evidence reduces conflict, while faith increases conflict. Nobody ever killed anyone over whether Einstein's Relativity or Quantum Mechanics were true or not, they just followed the evidence.

So, you've had whatever religious/spiritual experiences you've had, and you retain your culturally inherited belief in a god. Whereas someone in India has had their own religious/spiritual experiences and believes in Vishnu. How do you know you're right and the Hindu is wrong? Could you convince the Hindu that he's wrong and you're right? Do you have any good evidence to support your beliefs?

Some ideas to ponder.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:Well

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Well Jesus rising from the dead, walking on water and all those miracles would have been some fairly good proof of his connection to something "meta", atleast to the people who witnessed it right?  So this belief you have, could it not be "proven"?  It seems to me it could atleast be shown to hold some water. 

 


What I believe to be true changes based on evidence.


And by that you mean Christianity?  The bible?  Jesus?  All three?

 

I guess my question to you is why?  Why believe these things based on faith?  Is there a specific reason you choose to do so?  Why stop there, what else do you choose to believe based on faith?  Why have faith in one set of ancient myths and not another? Why not have faith in everything?

 

 

 

For me I do believe that to be evidence (that He rose from the dead) but to believe that you must believe the historical account of it in the Bible. Do you?


As utterly circular as a question can be, I ask you "Why not?" To be honest it makes sense to me. I look at a tree and I think that has to be designed by something or someone. I can't grasp how an explosion that came from gases created matter. I know the argument of probability but It seems by now we would have discovered how something like that could happen. I can't for the life of me understand evolution. I've tried. I don't understand how there is still evolution after all these years without a missing link. I just can't believe that life and all the complexities involved in it are the result of random chance. It's a very simple argument and I can understand you labeling me as a simpleton for it but I don't know how else to communicate it. To me, the Bible seems to be pretty clear in most parts. I've read the contradictions but I see it as our inability to translate or understand the culture of the time period it was written in. Other religions seem to be full of much more unbelievable ideology, ideology that goes against the nature of mankind and the world. That is why I have chosen to place my faith in the Bible and Jesus Christ. Christianity is a broad topic that deals more with the works of men than of God. This is my position. What is yours?


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Welcome,

natural wrote:

Welcome, KPO89!


Awesome, you sound like you'll probably enjoy yourself here. I'll just mention a few basic arguments since you asked.

Basic argument for disbelief: There are no good reasons to believe that any religious claims are true. Of course, there are 'reasons' (like, "I believe because it makes me feel good" ), there just aren't any *good* reasons. A good reason would involve some sort of independently verifiable evidence. So far, I have never seen or heard of any. Hence, I do not believe.

Another argument: 'Faith' is an inherently bad reason for believing anything. Two people can believe two diametrically opposite things, and both believe them by 'faith'. Neither person can convince the other that they are correct, and adding 'more faith' to the situation only makes their disagreement *stronger*. Faith is divisive and the source of incredible amounts of real, life-and-death conflict in the world. Not only is faith a bad reason for believing anything, it's a dangerous thing in itself.

In contrast, evidence is an inherently good reason to believe whatever the evidence supports. Two people with poor evidence can believe diametrically opposite things, but if you add 'more evidence' to the situation, eventually one idea or the other (or neither) will be shown to be supported by the evidence, and the two people will eventually reach agreement. Evidence reduces conflict, while faith increases conflict. Nobody ever killed anyone over whether Einstein's Relativity or Quantum Mechanics were true or not, they just followed the evidence.

So, you've had whatever religious/spiritual experiences you've had, and you retain your culturally inherited belief in a god. Whereas someone in India has had their own religious/spiritual experiences and believes in Vishnu. How do you know you're right and the Hindu is wrong? Could you convince the Hindu that he's wrong and you're right? Do you have any good evidence to support your beliefs?

Some ideas to ponder.

 

Again I would go back to the this: can you show me evidence that the metaphysical world does not exist? It seems to be more of an issue of whether something beyond our physical reality exists than whether God or Muhammed or Peter Pan exists.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote:Again I would go

KPO89 wrote:

Again I would go back to the this: can you show me evidence that the metaphysical world does not exist? It seems to be more of an issue of whether something beyond our physical reality exists than whether God or Muhammed or Peter Pan exists.

It's up to you to present evidence that the metaphysical world DOES exist.  Until you can, belief in it is no different than believing that monkeys fly out of my ass.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote: For me I do

KPO89 wrote:

 

For me I do believe that to be evidence (that He rose from the dead) but to believe that you must believe the historical account of it in the Bible. Do you?

Ofcourse not.  The reason for this is:

A)-There is 0 evidence that such an event occured

B)-There is overwhealming evidence such a thing is impossible

C)-There is no good reason, logical or otherwise to believe it

 

KPO89 wrote:


 

As utterly circular as a question can be, I ask you "Why not?"

A)-Because there is no good reason.

B)-There is no good evidence for your claims

C)-Your holybook is violent, immoral and frankly disgusting at times

D)-The god depicted in your bible is violent, immoral and frankly disgusting at times

E)-If I believe in this set of silly stories based on faith and no evidence, then I have no good reason not to believe in that set of silly stories based on faith and no evidence.  So I would either have to believe in unicorns and leprocauns and allah and intergallactic reptile space aliens who genetically spliced there dna with apes and made man, or not believe these silly things keep my firm belief in the absolute truth of christianity, and that would make me self-contraditory.

and much more......

 

 

KPO89 wrote:

To be honest it makes sense to me. I look at a tree and I think that has to be designed by something or someone.

Well that pretty much sums that up.  You do know how trees work right?

 

KPO89 wrote:

 I can't for the life of me understand evolution. I've tried. I don't understand how there is still evolution after all these years without a missing link.

You don't understand how there is still evolution?  Without a missing link? What?

You are either joking or in serious need of a basic understanding of evolution, really!!!  Without atleast a basic grasp of evolution you coudn't possibly expect a serious reply.  I have read the bible many times, I bring that to our conversation, you bring not even the slightest understanding of evolution, that's not good.

KPO89 wrote:

I just can't believe that life and all the complexities involved in it are the result of random chance. It's a very simple argument and I can understand you labeling me as a simpleton for it but I don't know how else to communicate it.

It is a bad argument, I'm sorry but that is the truth.  It is simply an argument from ignorance, you don't understand so you insert something with no good evidence instead of just admitting you don't know and investigating further. 

KPO89 wrote:

To me, the Bible seems to be pretty clear in most parts. I've read the contradictions but I see it as our inability to translate or understand the culture of the time period it was written in.

Forget the few contradictions you are referring to, how about the book as a hole.  Bloody, gory, violent, strange, immorral, just plan bat shit crazy.  Do you really allign yourself with this book?  How can you?  The book refers to rightous men loved by god raping virgins, empregnating their daughters, slaughtering cities women and children.  What is it about this book you find attractive?  Do you really take the few cheery parts and make your own version?  What is it about the blood thirsty very twisted god it depicts you find attractive?  Have you read the bible straight through?


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote:What is your

KPO89 wrote:

What is your position RD? What do you believe? Or perhaps you would feel more comfortable telling me what you don't believe.

I believe that all faith(as you have described it) is equal, and because different faiths contradict each other in explaining reality all faith is worthless as a tool for learning about it. 

I believe that all claims about reality need to be backed by evidence.

I believe that all arguments about what is real need both an empirical and a rational element. 

I believe that reality is what exists independently of what you believe. 

 

I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I lack a belief in god/gods.  I don't have any evidence of god, and therefore the concept of god to me is no different the the concept of an invisible pink unicorn.   It is meaningless. 

 


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Ofcourse not.  The reason for this is:

A)-There is 0 evidence that such an event occured

B)-There is overwhealming evidence such a thing is impossible

C)-There is no good reason, logical or otherwise to believe it

A)The Bible is the most historical proven document of mankind to date.

B)Such as? I fail to understand how evidence of a metaphysical can be disproven because proving something requires physical facts which do not apply to metaphysical events.

C) What is your purpose in being alive other than to serve a greater good?

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

A)-Because there is no good reason.

B)-There is no good evidence for your claims

C)-Your holybook is violent, immoral and frankly disgusting at times

D)-The god depicted in your bible is violent, immoral and frankly disgusting at times

E)-If I believe in this set of silly stories based on faith and no evidence, then I have no good reason not to believe in that set of silly stories based on faith and no evidence.  So I would either have to believe in unicorns and leprocauns and allah and intergallactic reptile space aliens who genetically spliced there dna with apes and made man, or not believe these silly things keep my firm belief in the absolute truth of christianity, and that would make me self-contraditory.

and much more......

A) See "A" above

B) And there is no evidence otherwise which means all we can do is speculate.

C) Reading certain stories yes it can be. But often times those stories are set in a cultural far removed from our own system of justice. An absolute being is not bound by what you or see deem by our cultural standards as right and wrong.

D) How so? I see a merciful benefactor of mankind who has not only given us life but a purpose to enjoy said life. But I suppose that is has to do with the intent with which you read the Bible.

E) I would say that being the most historically proven and longest lasting document of mankind...(save a couple of other texts from the middle east which have a bit more obscure origin)...when viewed with an open mind God's justice can be perceived much differently than leprocauns.

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Well that pretty much sums that up.  You do know how trees work right?

 

Yes I do. A unique form of synthesis known only to the Kingdom of Plantae. Certain parts of the tree can only function if all parts are there.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

You don't understand how there is still evolution?  Without a missing link? What?

You are either joking or in serious need of a basic understanding of evolution, really!!!  Without atleast a basic grasp of evolution you coudn't possibly expect a serious reply.  I have read the bible many times, I bring that to our conversation, you bring not even the slightest understanding of evolution, that's not good.

 

It is a bad argument, I'm sorry but that is the truth.  It is simply an argument from ignorance, you don't understand so you insert something with no good evidence instead of just admitting you don't know and investigating further. 

 

A link between one species and another. Say man and apes for instance. So far we haven't found in "Ma-pes"

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Forget the few contradictions you are referring to, how about the book as a hole.  Bloody, gory, violent, strange, immorral, just plan bat shit crazy.  Do you really allign yourself with this book?  How can you?  The book refers to rightous men loved by god raping virgins, empregnating their daughters, slaughtering cities women and children.  What is it about this book you find attractive?  Do you really take the few cheery parts and make your own version?  What is it about the blood thirsty very twisted god it depicts you find attractive?  Have you read the bible straight through?

 

I do align myself with this book. I understand stories by themselves can be very disturbing but if you read the context of the stories and understand the purpose and culture behind them it can be taken differently.


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Understandable. But I could

Understandable. But I could say the same for the contrapositive of that statement. So then in turn we are all just speculating...I know many members of my system of belief have probably yelled at you and wronged you and for that I apologize. It is sad that the majority of people who claim to be followers of my Jesus seem to feel obligated to stone you or convert you but that is not my purpose and as far as the Biblical account of Jesus that was not His purpose. I'm here to discuss...rationally...the differences between our viewpoints. We both are analyzing the same world...we just reach different conclusions. The argument of our origin or our purpose has no immediate answer. This argument is as old as time itself and will never be proven or dis-proven.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote:The argument of

KPO89 wrote:

The argument of our origin or our purpose has no immediate answer. This argument is as old as time itself and will never be proven or dis-proven.

We understand with actual evidence much more than you realize.  I hope that's not lost on you and that you make continuous attempts to research human origins.  If you enjoy tv/movies over reading I suggest you dedicate yourself to watching some programming about the topic of human evolution.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote:A)The Bible is

KPO89 wrote:

A)The Bible is the most historical proven document of mankind to date.

Doesn't mean a thing, even if you could demonstrate this is true.  Why?  Because a text being somewhat historically accurate does not prove everything in the text is true.  You do see that right?  If I wrote a story that said I am so an so and live over there next to so and so, and you can prove this is true, this doesn't make the rest of the text explaining I poop naked mermaids true.  I may be so and so, I may live over there next to so and so, but you would need a little more than that to believe I poop naked mermaids, correct?  Or is that enough, because it is true.  I do poop naked mermaids.

KPO89 wrote:

B)Such as? I fail to understand how evidence of a metaphysical can be disproven because proving something requires physical facts which do not apply to metaphysical events.

So what you are saying is you have no good reason to believe anything you are saying.  This metaphysical you speak of, does it "DO" anything at all.  Does it even effect us and the natural world, because if it does then it can be proven, tested or atleast detected, and if it does not then it and your beliefs are useless, your chasing smoke man.  

 

KPO89 wrote:

A) See "A" above "The Bible is the most historical proven document of mankind to date."

What exactly do you mean by this, that it has the most historically accurate parts amongst the complete bs than other ancient holy documents, percentage wise?  And if so...numbers please.

KPO89 wrote:

C) Reading certain stories yes it can be. But often times those stories are set in a cultural far removed from our own system of justice. An absolute being is not bound by what you or see deem by our cultural standards as right and wrong.

Wow, sometimes it amazes me how regurgitated some theists words are, almost word for word the same old flawgical bogus jargon.  Are you saying their is a context, or time in which it is ok to order the slaughter of entire cities, the raping of women, the killing of babies, slavery?  I want you to think very clearly about that for a second, YOU are saying at times, when dealing with your god, these things he commanded are ok.  Say it again, think,  Ccccommon.   Don't you find it strange your god clearly states over and over in your holy book he likes the smell of BURNT FLESH.  Are you telling me none of these things raise a red flag in your book on the character of this diety, NOTHING?  This is disturbing.

 

 

KPO89 wrote:

A link between one species and another. Say man and apes for instance. So far we haven't found in "Ma-pes"

Oh man, I didn't think you'd say it, but there it is, wow.

 

 

  

KPO89 wrote:

I do align myself with this book. I understand stories by themselves can be very disturbing but if you read the context of the stories and understand the purpose and culture behind them it can be taken differently.

I'm sorry but this is absolute bullocks, and you should be ashamed of yourself.  There is no "cultural context" in which it would make it ok for some deity to order the rape of women, and the slaughtering of babies. Are you  saying God can do anything because he is above these things, if so you should be ashamed of that aswell. 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Good day KPO89, Welcome to

Good day KPO89,

 

Welcome to the forum.   Enjoy.  I understand most of what you wrote including some common degree of religious ignorance about disbelief in evolution and belief in historicity of the Bible.  Nothing's new under the Moon.

 

One statement, however, looks like a puzzle to me.  Please could you explain logic behind this statement:

KPO89 wrote:

I believe that because we had the right to choose not follow Him makes Him God.

Perhaps, it is something well known, but I feel I've missed something here.

Literally, by your logic, "the right to choose not to follow Hitler made him God."

 

Thank you.

 

100%


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
I never said he condoned

I never said he condoned those things. When did he ever order the rape of women or the killing of babies? I don't remember reading that. Granted it probably came from the old testament. Which is a very different from the new testament. Have you read the Bible cover to cover?


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:Good

100percentAtheist wrote:

Good day KPO89,

 

Welcome to the forum.   Enjoy.  I understand most of what you wrote including some common degree of religious ignorance about disbelief in evolution and belief in historicity of the Bible.  Nothing's new under the Moon.

 

One statement, however, looks like a puzzle to me.  Please could you explain logic behind this statement:

KPO89 wrote:

I believe that because we had the right to choose not follow Him makes Him God.

Perhaps, it is something well known, but I feel I missed something here.  

Thank you.

 

100%

 

Sure thing 100%. This is a philosophy of my own. I know that sounds a bit strange that a 21 year old kid has a philosophy developed by himself which he adheres to but here it goes:

 

I believe God is all-powerful because He created beings with the ability to choose. If God created beings that only did as He commanded(end result determinism by all-powerful being) He could not be all-powerful. Why? Because He would then just be a master puppeteer. We can create robots. Things that do as we say. We can create anything but a will. A will that is free to choose whether to follow us or stay. This is the only way humans can have free will and God be all powerful is if we have the right to not chose to believe in Him.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote: I never said he

KPO89 wrote:

I never said he condoned those things. When did he ever order the rape of women or the killing of babies? I don't remember reading that. Granted it probably came from the old testament. Which is a very different from the new testament. Have you read the Bible cover to cover?

Have you read it or dd you just skim through the parts you found appealing? I'm doing this from my phone but when I get to my laptop I'll be back with plenty of scriptures that he ordered rape of women and killing of not only babies but other people too. I can't believe you said that.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
KPO89

KPO89 wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Good day KPO89,

 

Welcome to the forum.   Enjoy.  I understand most of what you wrote including some common degree of religious ignorance about disbelief in evolution and belief in historicity of the Bible.  Nothing's new under the Moon.

 

One statement, however, looks like a puzzle to me.  Please could you explain logic behind this statement:

KPO89 wrote:

I believe that because we had the right to choose not follow Him makes Him God.

Perhaps, it is something well known, but I feel I missed something here.  

Thank you.

 

100%

 

Sure thing 100%. This is a philosophy of my own. I know that sounds a bit strange that a 21 year old kid has a philosophy developed by himself which he adheres to but here it goes:

 

I believe God is all-powerful because He created beings with the ability to choose. If God created beings that only did as He commanded(end result determinism by all-powerful being) He could not be all-powerful. Why? Because He would then just be a master puppeteer. We can create robots. Things that do as we say. We can create anything but a will. A will that is free to choose whether to follow us or stay. This is the only way humans can have free will and God be all powerful is if we have the right to not chose to believe in Him.

 

Thank you.  Now I understand better your logic.

Your response raises two more questions:

1)  If we learn to make robots with free will, would you give up believing in God?

2) Afterlife is a central idea of any religion.  Say we have a free will to choose between believing, believing a different deity, and not believing.  What does it matter if we do not have ANY choice regarding our eternal life?  According to you then, our planet looks like a Nazi camp set up by a deity.

3) Remember Greek Gods?  There was too much free will.  Smiling  Or you believe that Yahweh&Christ can be replaced with time with other God(s)?

 

Thanks.

100%


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

A)The Bible is the most historical proven document of mankind to date.

Doesn't mean a thing, even if you could demonstrate this is true.  Why?  Because a text being somewhat historically accurate does not prove everything in the text is true.  You do see that right?  If I wrote a story that said I am so an so and live over there next to so and so, and you can prove this is true, this doesn't make the rest of the text explaining I poop naked mermaids true.  I may be so and so, I may live over there next to so and so, but you would need a little more than that to believe I poop naked mermaids, correct?  Or is that enough, because it is true.  I do poop naked mermaids.

KPO89 wrote:

B)Such as? I fail to understand how evidence of a metaphysical can be disproven because proving something requires physical facts which do not apply to metaphysical events.

So what you are saying is you have no good reason to believe anything you are saying.  This metaphysical you speak of, does it "DO" anything at all.  Does it even effect us and the natural world, because if it does then it can be proven, tested or atleast detected, and if it does not then it and your beliefs are useless, your chasing smoke man.  

 

KPO89 wrote:

A) See "A" above "The Bible is the most historical proven document of mankind to date."

What exactly do you mean by this, that it has the most historically accurate parts amongst the complete bs than other ancient holy documents, percentage wise?  And if so...numbers please.

KPO89 wrote:

C) Reading certain stories yes it can be. But often times those stories are set in a cultural far removed from our own system of justice. An absolute being is not bound by what you or see deem by our cultural standards as right and wrong.

Wow, sometimes it amazes me how regurgitated some theists words are, almost word for word the same old flawgical bogus jargon.  Are you saying their is a context, or time in which it is ok to order the slaughter of entire cities, the raping of women, the killing of babies, slavery?  I want you to think very clearly about that for a second, YOU are saying at times, when dealing with your god, these things he commanded are ok.  Say it again, think,  Ccccommon.   Don't you find it strange your god clearly states over and over in your holy book he likes the smell of BURNT FLESH.  Are you telling me none of these things raise a red flag in your book on the character of this diety, NOTHING?  This is disturbing.

 

 

KPO89 wrote:

A link between one species and another. Say man and apes for instance. So far we haven't found in "Ma-pes"

Oh man, I didn't think you'd say it, but there it is, wow.

 

 

  

KPO89 wrote:

I do align myself with this book. I understand stories by themselves can be very disturbing but if you read the context of the stories and understand the purpose and culture behind them it can be taken differently.

I'm sorry but this is absolute bullocks, and you should be ashamed of yourself.  There is no "cultural context" in which it would make it ok for some deity to order the rape of women, and the slaughtering of babies. Are you  saying God can do anything because he is above these things, if so you should be ashamed of that aswell. 

NMCP...I think our discussion is branching off to several different paths. Lets consolidate: (sorry I'm getting alot thrown at me and I'm trying to make sure I keep my posts straight)

 

A)You are asking me to provide some evidence that the Bible is historically accurate. This is by far not enough but for the sake of time, a quick find on google that has some interesting facts: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/365092/is_the_bible_scientifically_and_historically.html?cat=38

B)The metaphysical: I do believe it does something. I believe it is the 'realm' of our soul's existence. Which deals with morality...and eternal existence.

C) My God's commandments:

1.Baby murder and rape of women: I don't recall reading anything about this in the Bible and I've read the Bible cover to cover several times and taken several classes both theological and historical on the Bible.

2. Burning cities and slaughtering nations: Let's take the example of Sodom and Gommorrah. God burned the city and all but Abraham's nephew because there was not a righteous man in the city. Sounds terrible doesn't it? On second thought we need to reexamine the context. The night before(or might have been week, who knows) the inhabitants of the city banged on Abraham's nephew's door and demanded that the guests(two angels) be brought out so that they could be raped. For whatever reason, Abraham's nephew(his name is escaping me at the moment) delivered his daughters to them who were gang raped repeatedly. I don't know about you but any city who condones raping individuals has some fairly messed up morality. I believe God delivered justice.

3. Burnt Flesh: The Bible says God savours the smell of offerings to Him: being oxen slaughtered at the altar of sacrifice. Not flesh of humans.

D) Evolution:

 

1. Missing Link: Is this part of the topic off limits? My main concern with evolution is it's inability to produce the basis of it's belief. If men, animals, plants, etc. evolved where are the middle "men".

2.Other problems I have with evolution: the pre-Big Bang gases(where did they come from?), no present evolution(why in the last 2000 years have we not seen positive mutation), positive mutation(have we ever witnessed a positive mutation that can be of use to person who has mutated?), The Big Bang(explosions destroy not create), evolutions adherence to the Laws of Thermodynamics which are basic laws of the universe(entropy)

 

E) My alignment with the Bible: I can understand how you feel that way. As I explained to Sapient, this whole discussion comes down to whether or not you believe in Metaphysics. Its an age-old question. It can never be proven or disproven. I would appreciate it if we could keep this argument free of ad hominem. I believe I have done my best to keep this conversation on an agenda and not slander. My beliefs are not being shoved upon you. I am on your ground. I'm discussing this in an opinionated form. Which is lacking empirical data on both our parts. For good reason.

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote:A)The Bible is

KPO89 wrote:

A)The Bible is the most historical proven document of mankind to date.

 

The Bible Unearthed by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein. 

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283916360&sr=1-1

Imagine someone wrote the history of the US: "Once upon a time, hundreds of years ago, there were two great cities on opposite coasts, New York and San Francisco.  The buildings towered over all creation and the streets were paved with gold."

Okay, New York and San Francisco exist - and they existed two hundred years ago.  But San Francisco was a collection of huts and the buildings in New York certainly didn't tower.  Even though they do tower today.  If not over all of creation.  And neither has ever had streets paved with gold.

Just one small example:  Where is the evidence for an exodus of hundreds of thousands of people roaming the desert for 40 years?  Slit latrines, garbage dumps (middens), huge collections of camp fires - where are they?  Archeologists found staining on a slab of sandstone from a campfire built by a paleolithic group of hunters in Australia.  They think maybe there were 1/2 dozen hunters in the group.  So where are the campfire remnants in the Sinai desert for hundreds of thousands of people?

All those Jews who moved back to Israel after WWII - whether or not you think they should have moved there - sent their children to University and encouraged them to study the bible and biblical history.  A lot of those children became archeologists and the "holy lands" have been some of the most studied in the world.  No campfires, no latrines, no garbage dumps.  Did god/s/dess send down legions of angels to scoop the poop?

Edit: I should have said young people were encouraged to study the Torah and Talmudic history - since they were Jewish - but it is also part of biblical history.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Good day KPO89,

 

Welcome to the forum.   Enjoy.  I understand most of what you wrote including some common degree of religious ignorance about disbelief in evolution and belief in historicity of the Bible.  Nothing's new under the Moon.

 

One statement, however, looks like a puzzle to me.  Please could you explain logic behind this statement:

KPO89 wrote:

I believe that because we had the right to choose not follow Him makes Him God.

Perhaps, it is something well known, but I feel I missed something here.  

Thank you.

 

100%

 

Sure thing 100%. This is a philosophy of my own. I know that sounds a bit strange that a 21 year old kid has a philosophy developed by himself which he adheres to but here it goes:

 

I believe God is all-powerful because He created beings with the ability to choose. If God created beings that only did as He commanded(end result determinism by all-powerful being) He could not be all-powerful. Why? Because He would then just be a master puppeteer. We can create robots. Things that do as we say. We can create anything but a will. A will that is free to choose whether to follow us or stay. This is the only way humans can have free will and God be all powerful is if we have the right to not chose to believe in Him.

 

Thank you.  Now I understand better your logic.

Your response raises two more questions:

1)  If we learn to make robots with free will, would you give up believing in God?

2) Afterlife is a central idea of any religion.  Say we have a free will to choose between believing, believing a different deity, and not believing.  What does it matter if we do not have ANY choice regarding our eternal life?  According to you then, our planet looks like a Nazi camp set up by a deity.

3) Remember Greek Gods?  There was too much free will.  Smiling  Or you believe that Yahweh&Christ can be replaced with time with other God(s)?

 

Thanks.

100%

 

Answers:

1) Free Will: Hmmm...hypothetically...in a sandbox...yes. But free will has to be coupled with intelligence and emotion(hence the passion so often flaunted by my affiliates). It is an integration of the too. I don't think Honda will be producing this anytime soon...or at all.

2) I'm a little confused by your question. Our choice to believe in Him is the conclusion of our existence which will either be punishment in Hell or eternal euphoria in Heaven(probably not the best words but you get the point). We do have a choice.

3)Here again I'm confused. I do remember the Greek Gods. I fail to understand the argument or the conclusion. Free will is not quantitative but qualitative. You have it or you don't. Yawheh, or Lord(Hebrew translation), is God. I believe there to be only one deity. I do believe you can know Him without know the name "God" or "Yawheh"


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote:I never said he

KPO89 wrote:

I never said he condoned those things. When did he ever order the rape of women or the killing of babies?

 

And that awnsers the have you actually read the bible question.

KPO89 wrote:

 Have you read the Bible cover to cover?

Multiple times. 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote:1. Missing Link:

KPO89 wrote:

1. Missing Link: Is this part of the topic off limits? My main concern with evolution is it's inability to produce the basis of it's belief. If men, animals, plants, etc. evolved where are the middle "men".

2.Other problems I have with evolution: the pre-Big Bang gases(where did they come from?), no present evolution(why in the last 2000 years have we not seen positive mutation), positive mutation(have we ever witnessed a positive mutation that can be of use to person who has mutated?), The Big Bang(explosions destroy not create), evolutions adherence to the Laws of Thermodynamics which are basic laws of the universe(entropy)

 

Hey,

I piece of advice.  Start with something simple.  Not with "pre-Big Bang gases".  Do you know what gas is?  Do you know what is entropy, what is its relationship to statistical mechanics? etc. etc. etc. 

 

There are positive mutations in the last 2000 years, sure.  How about dogs, for example?  If you talk about humans, and if you want to talk at a more elaborate level, I am sure that there are some members here who understand in genetics and evolution theory.   I think it would be useful if you could clarify your preparation level.   So far, what you have stated here is a fountaining bullshit mainly.  Don't be fool, seriously, even at 21.

If you have a question about "the Laws of Thermodynamics" ask please.  And if you don't, please don't talk about something in which you have very little knowledge or understanding.  Especially, please do not pretend you know. 

 

100%

 

 


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
I'm not trying to be mean to

I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything so don't take this the wrong way. I suspect you are bluffing about reading the bible cover to cover. Had you read it you would more than likely remember these parts.

 Leviticus 26:27-35 cannibalism

Leviticus 26:21-32 killing children of sinners

Exodus 31:12-15 killing people for working on sabbath

Zechariah 14:1-2 god assists rape and plunder

Deuteronomy 3:1-7 murder,pillage and plunder

And last but not least because this one really pissed me off Judges 21:10-24 rape to force marriage on wen and murder

 

Again, I'm not insulting any of your intelligence but you should probably read it again

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:KPO89 wrote:A)The

cj wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

A)The Bible is the most historical proven document of mankind to date.

 

The Bible Unearthed by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein. 

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283916360&sr=1-1

Imagine someone wrote the history of the US: "Once upon a time, hundreds of years ago, there were two great cities on opposite coasts, New York and San Francisco.  The buildings towered over all creation and the streets were paved with gold."

Okay, New York and San Francisco exist - and they existed two hundred years ago.  But San Francisco was a collection of huts and the buildings in New York certainly didn't tower.  Even though they do tower today.  If not over all of creation.  And neither has ever had streets paved with gold.

Just one small example:  Where is the evidence for an exodus of hundreds of thousands of people roaming the desert for 40 years?  Slit latrines, garbage dumps (middens), huge collections of camp fires - where are they?  Archeologists found staining on a slab of sandstone from a campfire built by a paleolithic group of hunters in Australia.  They think maybe there were 1/2 dozen hunters in the group.  So where are the campfire remnants in the Sinai desert for hundreds of thousands of people?

All those Jews who moved back to Israel after WWII - whether or not you think they should have moved there - sent their children to University and encouraged them to study the bible and biblical history.  A lot of those children became archeologists and the "holy lands" have been some of the most studied in the world.  No campfires, no latrines, no garbage dumps.  Did god/s/dess send down legions of angels to scoop the poop?

Edit: I should have said young people were encouraged to study the Torah and Talmudic history - since they were Jewish - but it is also part of biblical history.

The first argument seems to have the characteristics of a straw man but I will answer it. Exaggeration is common, even today. People wrote the OT. Not God.

My gut instinct when you asked about the campsites was this: "isn't the desert sand...not sandstone." Shifting sands and wind, unless I miss understand the environment, would most likely spread it out, blow it away, and cover what is remaining. And if not that, why not detorioration of those items after 3000-4000 years.

Another answer to this and many other questions that are being posed about the OT is this: The Old Testament is written and meant to be taken much differently than the New Testament. I believe a person can have faith in my God without ever knowing a single fact of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is historical. This means that many things may not be literal. I don't know about infallibility of the OT. Perhaps the OT was more history tied with story. I believe the fundamental concept being the time leading up to Christ's birth and His geneology but other than that...who is to say what is wrote history and what is possibly folklore. It isn't an extremely important concept in my beliefs. 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote:Answers:1) Free

KPO89 wrote:

Answers:

1) Free Will: Hmmm...hypothetically...in a sandbox...yes. But free will has to be coupled with intelligence and emotion(hence the passion so often flaunted by my affiliates). It is an integration of the too. I don't think Honda will be producing this anytime soon...or at all.

 

Intelligence and emotions are already available in robots.  No problem.

 

 

KPO89 wrote:

2) I'm a little confused by your question. Our choice to believe in Him is the conclusion of our existence which will either be punishment in Hell or eternal euphoria in Heaven(probably not the best words but you get the point). We do have a choice.

Well, if this list of two available choices is all that is given to us by God according to you then I have another question.  If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would believe in Allah.  So, how those who are not born to Christian families have any choice according to your religion?

 

 


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

1. Missing Link: Is this part of the topic off limits? My main concern with evolution is it's inability to produce the basis of it's belief. If men, animals, plants, etc. evolved where are the middle "men".

2.Other problems I have with evolution: the pre-Big Bang gases(where did they come from?), no present evolution(why in the last 2000 years have we not seen positive mutation), positive mutation(have we ever witnessed a positive mutation that can be of use to person who has mutated?), The Big Bang(explosions destroy not create), evolutions adherence to the Laws of Thermodynamics which are basic laws of the universe(entropy)

 

Hey,

I piece of advice.  Start with something simple.  Not with "pre-Big Bang gases".  Do you know what gas is?  Do you know what is entropy, what is its relationship to statistical mechanics? etc. etc. etc. 

 

There are positive mutations in the last 2000 years, sure.  How about dogs, for example?  If you talk about humans, and if you want to talk at a more elaborate level, I am sure that there are some members here who understand in genetics and evolution theory.   I think it would be useful if you could clarify your preparation level.   So far, what you have stated here is a fountaining bullshit mainly.  Don't be fool, seriously, even at 21.

If you have a question about "the Laws of Thermodynamics" ask please.  And if you don't, please don't talk about something in which you have very little knowledge or understanding.  Especially, please do not pretend you know. 

 

100%

 

 

 

Well then inform me. Please don't call me stupid and leave it at that.

 

Dogs are still walking on four legs and barking. They've changed color and size but not features that affect their "lifestyle"

 

Entropy is the law that energy must continually imputed into a system or else the system fails. What is the energy behind evolution?

 

How much more simple can I be than the beginning? Inform what the belief is if I'm incorrect but I've learned from books and informative TV that some scientist claim it to be gases. Something had to exist before the bang to cause the bang. If it existed forever then it is infinite. Infinite is only a term that relates to the supernatural or mathematics. Mathematics being a law of nature.

 

Ad hominem: my age.


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson wrote:I'm

rebecca.williamson wrote:

I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything so don't take this the wrong way. I suspect you are bluffing about reading the bible cover to cover. Had you read it you would more than likely remember these parts.

 Leviticus 26:27-35 cannibalism

Leviticus 26:21-32 killing children of sinners

Exodus 31:12-15 killing people for working on sabbath

Zechariah 14:1-2 god assists rape and plunder

Deuteronomy 3:1-7 murder,pillage and plunder

And last but not least because this one really pissed me off Judges 21:10-24 rape to force marriage on wen and murder

 

Again, I'm not insulting any of your intelligence but you should probably read it again

 

Leviticus is God chastening his children. He did not commit these acts. He is prescribing fear to keep them in line. Much like a 2 year old gets from his parents. A threatened consequence. Most theologians I know don't take these passages literally. Hyperbole is capable by God as well. A metaphor for the destruction that would come upon them if they did not follow God.

Exodus: Yes God did command that. It was His Law. Which is now abolished. If He created us He has the right to make those laws. Much like parents do with their children.

Zechariah: I'm not a Theologian but my understanding is that Zechariah is a prophetic statement of the New Jerusalem. In verses 3 and 4 it says the Lord will come and be the savior of Israel. He gathers the nations against Israel to prove his power...then casts them down. Verse 3"then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations" This is speaking of things that have not yet happened yet.

Deutoronomy: The Lord delivered these cities to the Israelites. Military conquest. To understand this you must have a full understanding of the lineage of Israel and their promised land. Many years before this they had their land stolen from them. They were taking back what the conquerors had once stolen from them. This was justification for the sins of those people in putting the Children of Israel into slavery.

 


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

KPO89 wrote:

Answers:

1) Free Will: Hmmm...hypothetically...in a sandbox...yes. But free will has to be coupled with intelligence and emotion(hence the passion so often flaunted by my affiliates). It is an integration of the too. I don't think Honda will be producing this anytime soon...or at all.

 

Intelligence and emotions are already available in robots.  No problem.

 

 

KPO89 wrote:

2) I'm a little confused by your question. Our choice to believe in Him is the conclusion of our existence which will either be punishment in Hell or eternal euphoria in Heaven(probably not the best words but you get the point). We do have a choice.

Well, if this list of two available choices is all that is given to us by God according to you then I have another question.  If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would believe in Allah.  So, how those who are not born to Christian families have any choice according to your religion?

 

 

 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.76.8600

Projected intelligence or AI is not the same as consequential intelligence.

 

To say I am a product of my community is to not have free will. I do believe people in Saudi Arabia have the choice to search out other religions other than the one they are born into. My religion is not deterministic.


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
I will participate in

I will participate in discussion. I have classes and work. My response rate does not signify my lack of answers as I'm sure you all can understand.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
KP089 This is just to much

["Another answer to this and many other questions that are being posed about the OT is this: The Old Testament is written and meant to be taken much differently than the New Testament. I believe a person can have faith in my God without ever knowing a single fact of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is historical. This means that many things may not be literal. I don't know about infallibility of the OT. Perhaps the OT was more history tied with story. I believe the fundamental concept being the time leading up to Christ's birth and His geneology but other than that...who is to say what is wrote history and what is possibly folklore. It isn't an extremely important concept in my beliefs."/]

Please tell me how we are going to take you seriously when you think that you can use just the parts of the bible that fit your life style.

Here I will explain: The bible tell story's of god killing people for not believing in him to just living in the wrong place at the right time. "read some of the verses that my wife posted..."

You are right that there is some differences between the OT & the NT. You are saying that this allows you pick and choose what parts you want to believe are true. You want some more facts about the bible. It was written at a time when fiction was not allowed. The books of the bible were never delivered by there authors and deemed as fact. There were all found years later. Now say what you want but that alone gives reason to question it. 

Now if you want the free pass to say that you can pick and choose your verses to create the bible of your liking. Then you must go ahead and say that you don't believe any of the bible.  

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote: Well then

KPO89 wrote:
 

Well then inform me. Please don't call me stupid and leave it at that.

 

Dogs are still walking on four legs and barking. They've changed color and size but not features that affect their "lifestyle"

 

Entropy is the law that energy must continually imputed into a system or else the system fails. What is the energy behind evolution?

 

How much more simple can I be than the beginning? Inform what the belief is if I'm incorrect but I've learned from books and informative TV that some scientist claim it to be gases. Something had to exist before the bang to cause the bang. If it existed forever then it is infinite. Infinite is only a term that relates to the supernatural or mathematics. Mathematics being a law of nature.

 

Ad hominem: my age.

 

Everyone who can hear is not stupid.

 

I am not sure if dogs could bark before they became dogs, and also "dogs" did not stay with humans so their "lifestyle" has been changed for sure, but anyway... what do you want?  Compress millions of years in a few years?  It's like learning quantum mechanics in one night.  I am not a specialist in evolution theory, but since you make strong claims you should be pretty well educated in it.  What is your source(s)?  Scientific please. 

 

You have no clue what the entropy is.  Sorry. But it is okay.  Most people don't know it.  Briefly, the entropy is basically a measure of the number of ways to organize things.  The second law of thermodynamics says that any system, which is not in thermal equilibrium with environment or with another system, will tend to reach an equilibrium state with at which the entropy will reach its maximum.   If you like, you can think of this state as the state with the maximum number of possible choices for a system to be in.  My rough hand-waving application of this to evolution would be that given a certain number of ways to organize bio-materials, a planet will tend to maximize the diversity of species. 

Your question "what is energy behind evolution?" does not make sense because I am not sure that you understand your own question.   Please try to ask it again.  Use terms that you understand (try NOT to use energy, entropy, and evolution).


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
KPO89 wrote: My gut instinct

KPO89 wrote:

My gut instinct when you asked about the campsites was this: "isn't the desert sand...not sandstone." Shifting sands and wind, unless I miss understand the environment, would most likely spread it out, blow it away, and cover what is remaining. And if not that, why not detorioration of those items after 3000-4000 years.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n24_v134/ai_6924560/

Science News, December 1988 wrote:

From more than 59,000 fossil fragments unearthed at Swartkrans, Brain and Sillen identified 270 burnt pieces. The fragments came from numerous layers of one level of the cave that is at least 1 million years old, but not from two older levels dating to about 1.8 million years ago.

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=13297 wrote:

Mungo, Australia submitted by Petercastle
One of the many hearths found around the dry lake edge. This one has charcoal as well as fish bones, caught and cooked when the lake was full 15000 years ago, beside the darkened earth. This one and the others have been uncovered by erosion.

 

 

One of the ones in Australia is a comparative youngster - but much older than 3000-4000 years.

So evidence from campfires dates back at least 1 million years.

And where are you from?  You are not familiar with deserts, are you?  My home town - which I cheerfully left years ago - is Yuma, Arizona.  Near Yuma, the desert is hard ground with a layer of smooth stones embedded in the ground.  Almost like a mosaic.  Or like concrete when you wash it to have the aggregate showing as a finish.  You can pry the rocks out and the ground retains the shape of the rock.

Less than 45 miles from Yuma in the Imperial Valley is the Imperial Valley Sand Dunes.  Sort of like the Sahara but in miniature.  Sand dunes are not all that common in the Central Basin desert areas of the American West.  For a look at some of the desert around Morocco, watch "Hidalgo" - it's cheesy and inaccurate, but the locations are interesting.  Also, you can look up various desert areas in the Middle East.  Here are some pictures of the rocky and sandy areas of the Sinai peninsula.  http://www.allsinai.info/sites/desert.htm

 

KPO89 wrote:

Another answer to this and many other questions that are being posed about the OT is this: The Old Testament is written and meant to be taken much differently than the New Testament. I believe a person can have faith in my God without ever knowing a single fact of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is historical. This means that many things may not be literal. I don't know about infallibility of the OT. Perhaps the OT was more history tied with story. I believe the fundamental concept being the time leading up to Christ's birth and His geneology but other than that...who is to say what is wrote history and what is possibly folklore. It isn't an extremely important concept in my beliefs. 

 

If you wish to exclude the OT from your commentary, then you need to say so.  The discussions of historical accuracy are different depending on which portion you are discussing.  The OT has a lot of history, the NT only for the early christian church.  You may get some argument from other posters over this.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


KPO89
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-09-07
User is offlineOffline
I answered your wife's

I answered your wife's verses in sequential order above.

I'm not picking and choosing parts of the Bible. The Bible has always been picked and chosen hence the purpose of the canon. Its a series of texts written thousand and thousands of years ago. Misinterpretation is going to apply.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
KPO89

KPO89 wrote:

rebecca.williamson wrote:

I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything so don't take this the wrong way. I suspect you are bluffing about reading the bible cover to cover. Had you read it you would more than likely remember these parts.

 Leviticus 26:27-35 cannibalism

Leviticus 26:21-32 killing children of sinners

Exodus 31:12-15 killing people for working on sabbath

Zechariah 14:1-2 god assists rape and plunder

Deuteronomy 3:1-7 murder,pillage and plunder

And last but not least because this one really pissed me off Judges 21:10-24 rape to force marriage on wen and murder

 

Again, I'm not insulting any of your intelligence but you should probably read it again

 

Leviticus is God chastening his children. He did not commit these acts. He is prescribing fear to keep them in line. Much like a 2 year old gets from his parents. A threatened consequence. Most theologians I know don't take these passages literally. Hyperbole is capable by God as well. A metaphor for the destruction that would come upon them if they did not follow God.

Exodus: Yes God did command that. It was His Law. Which is now abolished. If He created us He has the right to make those laws. Much like parents do with their children.

Zechariah: I'm not a Theologian but my understanding is that Zechariah is a prophetic statement of the New Jerusalem. In verses 3 and 4 it says the Lord will come and be the savior of Israel. He gathers the nations against Israel to prove his power...then casts them down. Verse 3"then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations" This is speaking of things that have not yet happened yet.

Deutoronomy: The Lord delivered these cities to the Israelites. Military conquest. To understand this you must have a full understanding of the lineage of Israel and their promised land. Many years before this they had their land stolen from them. They were taking back what the conquerors had once stolen from them. This was justification for the sins of those people in putting the Children of Israel into slavery.

 

 

Justify however you wish. I'm just giving you the parts you said you didn't recall. I did notice you said nothing about the raping of women. Care to justify that one? I'm not trying to be a smart ass but come on. You are already picking and choosing which bible is true and which is not ( referring to cj quote ).  My understanding is if you are a christian then you believe in the word of god and you don't get to pick and choose what parts you believe and don't. I don't remember a post where you stated you are a christian but I'm just saying. If you going to pick and choose then how can you come back and justify it? All I was doing was showing you where he did order killings of women, men and children which in any case I really don't care for any reasoning to it.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.