Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
God...
May 8, 2010 12:36:58 GMT -5
Post by Silverrida on May 8, 2010 12:36:58 GMT -5
Instead, consider what we KNOW. E=mc^2 (Energy= mass*the speed of light ^2). Without energy, nothing can exist. In order for something to have energy, that thing must have mass. The soul, as well as God are claimed to be real, however they have no physical bodies. You cannot touch them, you can not physically alter them, therefore they have no mass. No mass = No Energy, No Energy = No existence. Also, if God did have a physical body, where is He? He cannot travel faster than the speed of light because His physical matter would tear itself apart. If (S)He created the Earth, then he must have been somewhere near by at some point. If this were the case, then we would still be able to see Him moving around the universe, even if He were traveling just below the speed of light. If he created this universe, it stands to reason he himself is not controled by its principles. Therefore it is perfectly possible to have no mass or energy and yet still exist. If this is the position you take then you are asking us to believe in something that will literally forever be unprovable as we cannot use our knowledge to show anything about God is real. This is the basis for faith and is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Russel's Teapot comes back in. If I told that there was a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars that could never be physically seen no matter how much we advance in technology, you would never believe it's there. Every example of a contradiction I've seen can be fairly easily put down to a lack of biblical understanding in the vast majority of cases. I've seen many disproof's of these examples, and most of them are grasping for straws and interpreting different verses 10 ways to Sunday. Most are truly ridiculous. But let's try one out. "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake..." Genesis 7:2:21. This is God showing regret. He did not like what came of flooding the Earth and says he will never do it again. This would mean that God made a mistake in his own eyes. This would mean he is not perfect, in any sense, because He felt He made a mistake.It depends on what you mean by perfect. To be more specific "the perfect *what?*". To explain, if you have the perfect computer, it may be for example have all its components made of superconducting material, have plating that can resist any damage etc. A perfect chisel however will not have any superconductors because that is not its task. In this case, the perfection we are talking about in Human beings is their ability to love. God, in giving us the perfect ability to love, meant that we also had to possess the ability to not love. By its nature, love requires a level of choice. Off of what are you basing this assumption? I've ever seen God spell out what He saw as perfection in human's. Also, our ability to love is irrelevant. You can love the idea of God, or sometimes God Himself, yet your mind refuses to let you believe in Him. I've seen people in this situation. Refusal to believe in God or Jesus, even if you still love them, puts you in a position where you are sent to Hell, which in itself is ridiculous because, as has been said, you go for an infinite amount of time for a finite crime. I don't care if you disobeyed the supreme ruler for all 70-some years of your life, you DO NOT DESERVE TORTURE FOREVER. There is absolutely nothing you could possibly do EVER in this life to deserve something like that. It is NOT a just punishment, it is an unfair one, especially since he is able to see why we commit our transactions against Him. I do not believe in God because of this, this, and this. God knows this and would be able to see why I see them as valid points, yet I get punished anyway?God has multiple characteristics. He loves all but also is just to all. Love and justice are not mutually exclusive. The love 1 Corinthians talks about is describing the human condition. God's love is more complex than that. It is a sorrow, in that he wants us to come to him, but we are in many cases not. See above.Science is also stagnent in areas where it does not know the entire truth. You only say it is stagnent because it has not changed. But if it is true, why would it? Things in the Bible have been proven to not be true within a possibility of 99.99%, yet people still believe in them. Things like creationism have been proven false unless you are a non-empiricist philosopher, which not many are. Yet scores of people still believe in creationism.Where are you being silenced? Not by you, but others don't like people contradicting their ideas.Actually, the proof comes to us in the form of the rather large ammount of historical evidence, which the personal experiance fits in line with. Please show this evidence. All of the actual historical evidence I have seen has been shown to have been tampered with at some point in time. Now, I believe Jesus existed as so many stories about somebody influential named Jesus exist, I just don't believe the stories themselves.As are the gospels verifiable history. No, they really aren't verifiable. There is no proof of Jesus' death and resurrection ANYWHERE and no mention of it but in the Gospels through the Bible, which itself is full of contradictions.So if you believe, understand why. You like the reference group, you enjoy the almost unconditional acceptance of religion, and it is the only way you can validate having a life (you feel like there is a greater purpose, am I right?). I would advise you to avoid patronising religious people by saying that their belief system emerges from a social phoniminon. If you are going to say that, many people would also believe that science stems from a social phonominon, that of human arrogence. The idea that everything in the universe is beneath us, can be broken down and understood, by humans. If you want to use social phonominon to patronise religious people, you should expect it back against scientists.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
God...
May 8, 2010 13:47:25 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on May 8, 2010 13:47:25 GMT -5
If God were truly good: 1) He would be able to forgive people for transgressions. He can, that is what Jesus's death was. He will not simply wave an omnipotent wand to forgive, because otherwise there is no cost. Jesus's death should be unnecessary. Why would belief in Jesus be necessary, and not just belief in Yahweh? Why judge based on whether or not a person thinks something happened 2000 years ago? Isn't a morality judgement better based on someone's morality than historical beliefs? Moreover, while you way he can, it's clear he doesn't. Besides, you're referring to Jesus dying to forgive us of other sins. I'm speaking of the 'sin' of not believing Jesus was divine. He can't forgive that one? Our own morality, the best judgement we can go by. Even the religious have their own morality; they associate it with the bible, but get it from themselves. The only ones who truly take all their morality from their holy book, well... we call them terrorists, most of them. You claim that not believing in Jesus causes spiritual harm. So far as I can tell, the only spiritual harm is that caused by the punishment for failing to do so. In other words, it's still Yahweh's arbitrary decision. Disobeying someone with ultimate power over you may not be a good decision for your health, I'll admit. It would be, for example, like someone refusing to kill their own son to be spared their life. It probably gets them killed. But it can be the better moral decision, if that being with power over you is, him/herself, immoral. Spiritually harmful is rather vague of you. I suppose thoughts can be mentally harmful (for example, depression has clearly measurable harmful effects on a person), however the lack of a belief in Jesus clearly is not; Christianity may be among the largest religions out there, but there are still more non-Christians than Christians, and I think we'd notice if there were any mental or 'spiritual' problems from the lack of that belief. Again, it appears to only be spiritually harmful if Yahweh punishes you for not believing. Without that, there would be no spiritual harm from not believing in Jesus' divinity. Once again, it's Yahweh arbitrarily doling out eternal punishment (Think about that for a second! Punishing you countless billions of years for a mistake in a human lifespan? Really?) to people who don't think Jesus was resurrected 2000 years ago. There's no reason he has to or should, so if it is true that he punishes non-believers, he's just being a jealous, vengeful and evil god, unworthy of our praise.
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
God...
May 8, 2010 13:56:50 GMT -5
Post by metoyou on May 8, 2010 13:56:50 GMT -5
Thanks for taking that Silverrida.
2 more things to add.
1) Your point about science being stagnant in areas where it does not know all the answers: We do not have infinite resources. We cannot research everything all the time. However science, by it's very nature is progressive. It is always growing and changing.
2) a religious group is a social phenomenon, that is not me being patronizing, I really think that. Durkheim really nailed it with his theory of how religion came into being. It is a unifying totem that groups people together. Disagree? Then why does religion cluster? If truth existed in religion then it would be more evenly dispersed, like science is. Instead you see religions clump in regions. The only reason they survive is because they are passed down from one generation to the next, and with few exceptions most people are initially indoctrinated when they still believe in santa clause. Science is not based out of human arrogance. Most scientists will admit when they have been proven wrong. True it is not always graceful, but a person who is dedicated to science cannot deny it when they have been proven incorrect. That is the beauty of using facts and evidence. The arrogance you speak of is actually more prevalent in religious groups, where despite the amount of evidence and rational that is presented, and regardless of the truth value of it, people of faith refuse to accept it because they think they already have the answer. This lack of consideration and acceptance, i.e. the belief that you are right no matter what argument is presented is a very arrogant stance, one that I run into all the time. And when those kind of arrogant people are in power it leads to the oppression of ideas and reason. This, coincidentally, is the problem that I face. And fyi, arrogance is not as much of a social construct as an individual disposition. True it can be trained through socialization, but it is still more on the individual end. Science itself is less of a social phenomenon and more of a pursuit. Yes there are organizations that can be joined where one is surrounded by others who think similarly, but the difference is they are exclusive. They require an understanding and knowledge of the topic. Although it doesn't sound as appealing as a group that is all inclusive, the requirement of understanding keeps the group from veering off course, from accepting or clinging to dated ideas that are limiting. I think this kind of structure is what you are mistaking for arrogance. It is actually more for protection against false and/or irrational ideas. But yes, I think most things are constructed socially. Those that aren't are the repeatable verifiable conclusions that can be reached when culture is removed. 2+2=4 is not a social construct, and neither is E=mc^2. God is. Without culture and socialization, you cannot deduce the existence of Him.
And as a side note, seeing the contradictions is not based off of a lack of understanding, but a thorough. Why do you think Seminary is one of the largest producers of atheists? Maintaining faith (belief without evidence) requires a lack of questioning or an unwillingness to apply logic. You must understand that this is coming from someone who was Christian for 19 years. I have seen it and still do. If it weren't for the fact that I started really studying religion I would still believe in God.
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
God...
May 8, 2010 15:09:57 GMT -5
Post by metoyou on May 8, 2010 15:09:57 GMT -5
If you are not one to reject evidence and are willing to consider the other side, that Christianity is created by humans, then this might be of some interest to you. Keep in mind, Horus predates Jesus by about 2500 years. www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htmand www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5d.htmThese are lists of similarities. The information begs the question, how original is the idea of a Jesus figure?
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
God...
May 10, 2010 15:15:48 GMT -5
Post by FranticProdigy on May 10, 2010 15:15:48 GMT -5
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
|
|
Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
God...
May 10, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Post by Silverrida on May 10, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270 Too bad Epicurus wasn't an atheist. He used that proof to reject the commonly held view on God.
|
|
|
God...
May 10, 2010 16:53:50 GMT -5
Post by Lex on May 10, 2010 16:53:50 GMT -5
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270 Too bad Epicurus wasn't an atheist. He used that proof to reject the commonly held view on God. Deist, was he not?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
God...
May 10, 2010 16:57:04 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on May 10, 2010 16:57:04 GMT -5
He was (what we now call) deist; he believed in gods, but didn't think they messed in human affairs -- at all. He would have rejected the modern day concept of the personal god Yahweh or Christ just as readily, in all likelihood. His belief was specifically that gods did not care one way or the other about humans, which is at least vaguely relevant to the thread (which is not about the existence of god, but rather his nature according to Christianity). Probably not the best quote to use, though, I'll admit.
|
|
|
God...
May 10, 2010 17:26:29 GMT -5
Post by Lex on May 10, 2010 17:26:29 GMT -5
^^ so, pretty much my views on God
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
God...
May 10, 2010 17:35:35 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on May 10, 2010 17:35:35 GMT -5
lol, didn't notice that you'd sniped me there.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
God...
May 10, 2010 22:12:05 GMT -5
Post by FranticProdigy on May 10, 2010 22:12:05 GMT -5
It doesn't matter what he was, he could be an scientologist, jew, or muslim and the fact still stands. Epicurus was known as an atheist by many, first pointed out by Lanctantius. Why would you call somebody god if they didn't affect humans. Id call that something else, unwilling.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
God...
May 10, 2010 23:36:20 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on May 10, 2010 23:36:20 GMT -5
That's really just wordplay. Deists are not atheists, though they are considered to be freethinkers along with atheists and agnostics, because their religion has zero impact on their view of the world. Epicurus was a deist and (by our standards) a freethinker, but he wasn't an atheist by any shake of the stick; he believed in the existence of multiple gods.
|
|
|
God...
May 11, 2010 12:28:51 GMT -5
Post by Lex on May 11, 2010 12:28:51 GMT -5
It doesn't matter what he was, he could be an scientologist, jew, or muslim and the fact still stands. Epicurus was known as an atheist by many, first pointed out by Lanctantius. Why would you call somebody god if they didn't affect humans. Id call that something else, unwilling. Then would Universal Architect cut it for you?
|
|
|
God...
May 11, 2010 22:15:22 GMT -5
Post by KipEnyan on May 11, 2010 22:15:22 GMT -5
OP said that the Gospels are verifiable truth?
Right.
So, we take some stories, pass them down an absurdly long game of "Telephone", where at pre-determined intervals it has to go through rough translations of largely incompatible languages, then at the end, the last person has to write down all of these stories.
Do we call these stories verifiable truth?
Sure, the Bible has many verifiable facts of actual places, actual people, and actual events. But many people who use the Bible as their religious justification do so in an explicit, rather than an abstract manner, and based on the source material, this is an inherently flawed method.
For example, Genesis claims an Earth that is approximately 6000 years old. During the first few centuries CE, the most evidence people could gather was that people had been around for a couple thousand years before them. At least, that was the common knowledge.
We now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is VERIFIABLY false. We can test empirically the age of rocks that predate these numbers by millions and billions of years.
When we don't have the means to scientifically prove something, we do so through other, non-factually based means. This is perfectly acceptable, as human curiosity is damn near insatiable otherwise.
However, the problem that most traditional theists seem to be having is letting go of these supernatural explanations for things now that we have concrete, testable ones. As we disprove religious explanations for the world around us, they should inherently become obsolete and unused, and anyone who clings to them is akin to the April Fool of old.
If you could, explain to me how you, without employing the use of doublethink, believe fervently in the teachings of a book, large portions of which have been proven unequivocally false.
|
|
|
God...
May 12, 2010 10:26:41 GMT -5
Post by Trey on May 12, 2010 10:26:41 GMT -5
If the OP is going to describe christianity with a simile, I will do the same..
Christianity is really like God lining up 20 mortal men in bounds and handing you a gun while he tells you, "You must kill all of these men, except for the one I call my son. If you kill the one I call my son, I will torture you for eternity! BWAHAHAHA!"
/\ || || That is fucking sick of you to believe. If the person you call "God" is forgiving, why does he send me to hell for simply not knowing which religion is the right one?
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
God...
May 12, 2010 16:51:04 GMT -5
Post by FranticProdigy on May 12, 2010 16:51:04 GMT -5
It doesn't matter what he was, he could be an scientologist, jew, or muslim and the fact still stands. Epicurus was known as an atheist by many, first pointed out by Lanctantius. Why would you call somebody god if they didn't affect humans. Id call that something else, unwilling. Then would Universal Architect cut it for you? I dont care what you call him, call him santa claus for all I care.
|
|
|
God...
May 12, 2010 20:47:32 GMT -5
Post by Lex on May 12, 2010 20:47:32 GMT -5
If the OP is going to describe christianity with a simile, I will do the same.. Christianity is really like God lining up 20 mortal men in bounds and handing you a gun while he tells you, "You must kill all of these men, except for the one I call my son. If you kill the one I call my son, I will torture you for eternity! BWAHAHAHA!" /\ || || That is fucking sick of you to believe. If the person you call "God" is forgiving, why does he send me to hell for simply not knowing which religion is the right one? Because, to a lot of Christians, they perceive Christianity as being the obvious right choice. At this point, they assume that everyone sees it this way; Jesus died for our sins, rose from the dead = Chrsitianity is right. Those details are the product of how they were raised and their total attitude towards it is the product of the conditioning from friends and family. They usually fail to realize this, which leads to much confusion when they proclaim that Christianity is obviously the only true religion. Then, when confronted by the question "Why?", they spew little bible facts (see Lee Strobel's Five E's) that, because were so convincing to them when they were children, they still believe them. Though, to those who weren't raised to believe in it, it is utterly incomprehensible and completely ridiculous to believe.
|
|
richie
Meteorite
Jackie xx
Posts: 34
|
God...
May 17, 2010 14:29:17 GMT -5
Post by richie on May 17, 2010 14:29:17 GMT -5
I have read the bible, when I was younger. I think it was shortly after that I became an atheist. I think Richard Darwin was right when he said that the christian god is one of the most evil fictional charecters in human fiction.
Not to mention... People talk about how fictional media such as movies, games, rap etc causes violence, What about religion? That's cause suffering a plenty.
|
|
|
God...
May 17, 2010 15:59:08 GMT -5
Post by Lex on May 17, 2010 15:59:08 GMT -5
I have read the bible, when I was younger. I think it was shortly after that I became an atheist. I think Richard Dawkins was right when he said that the christian god is one of the most evil fictional charecters in human fiction. fixed. i think you combined Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins together.
|
|
richie
Meteorite
Jackie xx
Posts: 34
|
God...
May 18, 2010 10:35:31 GMT -5
Post by richie on May 18, 2010 10:35:31 GMT -5
I have read the bible, when I was younger. I think it was shortly after that I became an atheist. I think Richard Dawkins was right when he said that the christian god is one of the most evil fictional charecters in human fiction. fixed. i think you combined Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins together. Haha, seems I did. Made a creationists worst nightmare? Besides logic and reason, of course.
|
|