[frookenhauer]

One of my favourite articles : LINKY

I'm sure Gem could have used some of that sage advice.

AWESOME reading, I kid you not.

[Gnaw]

The way to make your point that your magical entity exists is to quote the magical book?

*yawn*

[Aptorian]

Quote

Are Militant Atheists Using Chemtrails to Poison the Angels in Heaven?

Asking the important questions we all want to know.

[Maark Abbott]

...And these people are entitled to the oxygen I need. Goodness me.

[Gorefest]

At what point does satire disguised as zealous rhetoric, become zealous rhetoric?

[Grief]

Apt, on 23 April 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

Quote

Are Militant Atheists Using Chemtrails to Poison the Angels in Heaven?

Asking the important questions we all want to know.

Sounds like the premise of a great steampunk novel to me.

[Maark Abbott]

Grief, on 23 April 2015 - 04:13 PM, said:

Apt, on 23 April 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

Quote

Are Militant Atheists Using Chemtrails to Poison the Angels in Heaven?

Asking the important questions we all want to know.

Sounds like the premise of a great steampunk novel to me.

Hey, now that's an idea I can get behind. Chop chop, then!

[Powder]

Fun!

1.) What verifiable, peer-reviewed scientific proof is there that God exists? There can be none, this question is a false question.

Proving or disproving a being that is higher than our reality by using concrete tangible elements from within our reality is categorically impossible. By its nature of being outside or above our reality observing it is not possible.

We can however observe its effects, but Scientific bias prohibits even the possibility of a miracle (the effect) happening. Even if there was a miracle which happened in a laboratory setting, with laboratory equipment running, and those things could not provide an answer for what has happened, that scientist would be forced to say 'I don't know what happened' at best. At worst, they would exclude the data as outlying and ignore it. Therefore, based on the systems which we have set up it would be impossible to prove the existence of God based on the levels of proof required by this system.

However this system is equally unable to give scientific 'proof' as outlined above for any number of things which we consider essential to human existence. Even the truth claim 'Only things which can be scientifically tested in a laboratory are true' is unable to meet its own truth claim. As that statement cannot be proven in a laboratory setting, but must be taken on faith as a given. Similar examples might be things like good, evil, beauty, justice, the self, or any metaphysical reality which our language allows us to talk about, but unable to test. Yet, no one argues that these metaphysical realities do not exist, or require scientific proof that something like a sunset is beautiful.

2.) Why doesn’t God perform a miracle and grant all humanity health and salvation? He has, through the person of Jesus, done exactly that. However the response will be 'that didn't happen, because that can't happen', which again is disingenuous. How can you ask a question which makes the God in question seem evil and unfair, and because he is evil and unfair he must not exist, and then when that God gives answer in the form of a supernatural event, immediately discard that event because 'it can't happen? If you will not accept any answer to the question, is it still a real question?

3.) If God is omnipotent, why does evil exist in the world? In order to have free moral agents those moral agents must have the possibility of choosing evil, the possibility of evil can lead to someone actually choosing evil. Evil self perpetuates, therefore there is evil in the world. God could have chosen to make the world without the possibility of evil, but to do so there would be no free moral agents. Unless we want to change the definition of any of the above parameters, redefine what it means to be free, or moral for example. (Also God cannot draw a square circle, thwart himself, or any other self contradicting statements which require him to do and not do something at the same time).

4.) Which religion is the one true religion? The one whose leader/early devotees are ones I wish to emulate based on my own personal understanding of the universe (for me Christianity). Also the one where the deity has responded to me, again for me Christianity.

5.) Is the Earth really only 6,000 years old? - No, why would you use an ancient text as a scientific account of how things came to be when it doesn't even have words to express things as we see them today. This kind of anachronism on both sides of the aisle, religious and not, is incredibly frustrating.

6.) Explain dinosaurs! - See above.

7.) I promise some of us (those who are religious) think about and question our beliefs. Some of us think logically and rationally about the world we live in. Some of us even continue to question our assumptions and predispositions throughout our time in the faith.

Does this adequately answer some of the questions above?

[Illuyankas]

You're taking a comedy article mocking strawmen a bit too seriously.

Also you missed 8.) why does God hate both amputees and figs

[Powder]

We are on a discussion board, why not use satire and comedy as a jumping off point for real discussion?

God doesn't hate figs. If your question isn't flippant, I can and will go into why that action was significant within the context of the gospels in which it is contained.

God doesn't hate amputees either. Again we have a flaw in the question at hand. Your line of thinking states that: 1. 185,000 people a year lose limbs due to amputation, 2. There are no scientifically peer reviewed studies of amputees regrowing limbs, 3. God hates amputees. I think this argument falls flat in a few places. First, death is a much more prevalent condition than amputation (which is usually to prevent death), and much more serious, why not use dead people instead of amputees to prove your point? Second, see above about the impossible nature of scientifically verifying anything supernatural given the standards of said verification, and the way we unequally apply that proof. Third, I think it is a logical jump to say that because people lose limbs, or die that therefore God hates them. Especially when at least the God we seem to be talking about does not run from that very thing, and dies alongside humanity.

[Maark Abbott]

Slayer have already proven that god hates us all, and any counter argument cannot be valid because Slayer fans will shout the name Slayer at you with great volume. Guilty Gear players will perk up but then realise their teleport dashes are unwelcome in this instance.

[Illuyankas]

Powder, on 30 April 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

We are on a discussion board, why not use satire and comedy as a jumping off point for real discussion?

God doesn't hate figs. If your question isn't flippant, I can and will go into why that action was significant within the context of the gospels in which it is contained.

God doesn't hate amputees either. Again we have a flaw in the question at hand. Your line of thinking states that: 1. 185,000 people a year lose limbs due to amputation, 2. There are no scientifically peer reviewed studies of amputees regrowing limbs, 3. God hates amputees. I think this argument falls flat in a few places. First, death is a much more prevalent condition than amputation (which is usually to prevent death), and much more serious, why not use dead people instead of amputees to prove your point? Second, see above about the impossible nature of scientifically verifying anything supernatural given the standards of said verification, and the way we unequally apply that proof. Third, I think it is a logical jump to say that because people lose limbs, or die that therefore God hates them. Especially when at least the God we seem to be talking about does not run from that very thing, and dies alongside humanity.

Ha, definitely took this to be in the Inn when I opened the thread from View New Content.

God's problem with fig trees not bearing fruit while out of season meaning withering and figocide aside, the point I was making (which you know but others may have missed this pithy reference) is that when there is a disease or condition that doesn't leave such drastically visual permanent body-altering effects, such as terminal cancer or ebola, that either spontaneously goes into remission or else somehow defies medical diagnosis and doesn't kill the patient, it often gets attributed to God curing the person for reasons. But yes, the joke (is that website even still up?) is that no one's ever grown a severed limb back so God may love cancer sufferers or disease-ridden unfortunates but amputees are up shit creek and whether or not they have a paddle is irrelevant if they can't paddle with it.

Jokes aside as this is now a serious thread, my responses to your points are:

1) if God cannot be proven to exist than why bother to factor it in for modern real existence;

2-3) speaking extremely personally (and explicitly not aimed at you) for a moment, the existence of an entity that created, allowed and perpetuates horrors like rape, pedophilia, FGM, or birth defects such as harlequin syndrome (to name just a few) and in fact, suffering in general would disgust and repulse me to such a degree that the only moral decision that could be made would be to destroy it completely. The concept of having to go up to a grieving mother and tell her that God was why her child was born with its skin inside out but that it was all for an infallibly capital g Good plan is abhorrent on a level I almost can't conceive. So that's pretty much one of the major reasons why I'm an atheist and also why I loathe the God works in mysterious ways take on religion~

4) I've always wondered what someone who says God has spoken to them thinks about other people from other religions who have had their deities speak to them.

5-6) Something we can agree on! I wish more religious politicians in the US writing your legislature agreed with you.

7) At the risk of coming across as even more of a jerk New Atheist of a jerk, this sort of thing is cool and good and something I appreciate.

[Grief]

Powder, on 29 April 2015 - 03:02 PM, said:

3.) If God is omnipotent, why does evil exist in the world? In order to have free moral agents those moral agents must have the possibility of choosing evil, the possibility of evil can lead to someone actually choosing evil. Evil self perpetuates, therefore there is evil in the world. God could have chosen to make the world without the possibility of evil, but to do so there would be no free moral agents. Unless we want to change the definition of any of the above parameters, redefine what it means to be free, or moral for example. (Also God cannot draw a square circle, thwart himself, or any other self contradicting statements which require him to do and not do something at the same time).

Regarding this, do you believe that humans are at some objectively "true netural" moral position?

That is, rather than asking "why does evil exist in the world at all?", I would be asking "why does the specific amount of evil we have exist in the world?" or "why are people on average not just slightly nicer/nastier?". On average, it seems to me, people could have either more or less of a tendency to choose evil (and we must be somewhere on this spectrum already). So, is our exact position the one necessary for free will? And if so, what convinces you that this is the case? And if not, why is the world not slightly less evil?

Similarly, there are plenty of things that people can't choose -- is there a particular reasons that we need the precise amount of free will each person has, but not more or less?

[Powder]

Wohoo Discussion!

1. Why bother? I bother because it has increased my joy and happiness in life to increase. Also God can not be proven not to exist either. So if the answer to the question is neither 100% yes, or 100% no, and both require faith to believe with any kind of certainty, I prefer the option of belief as it makes me happy.

2-3. I think I hear what you are saying here, but I could be wrong. Would it be fair to say that you think God is evil based on human suffering? If so I can attempt to address my POV on this issue in a separate response.

I would also argue for resurrection, limbs growing/straightening, people getting spiritually tossed across rooms, and other supernatural expressions of power. I mean logically if I believe God can reverse death, what difficulty is there in a limb?

4. When I meet other people who also have a connection to their God/gods/god/spirit/whatever, its about power. Whose God is stronger?

5-6. IKR. The rampant anachronisms present in most discussions about the OT really drive me up a wall.

[Aptorian]

Powder, on 30 April 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:

2-3. I think I hear what you are saying here, but I could be wrong. Would it be fair to say that you think God is evil based on human suffering? If so I can attempt to address my POV on this issue in a separate response.

I'll jump in on that question.

If the Christian god actually exists, he/she/it is the architect of everything. By the very concept of Christianity, God is incapable of being evil because the gods word is law. It doesn't really matter what you think or what you do, God decides what is right or wrong. God controls everything.

This is something that has made me curious particularly about die hard Christian republicans, These people are against big government. Against governments making laws infringing upon their freedoms, demanding taxes, controlling education and medication, etc.

But isn't this really what Christianity already is? Does the church not demand that you donate to God? That you raise your children by his laws? That you only worship him? In the kingdom come when Jesus ascends his throne do you imagine that you will have any say in where you can go? What you can think? Do you imagine that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be democracy?

Are you just going to cross your fingers and hope that Heaven is going to be all sunshine and picnics in green field?

Keeping in line with Illy's arguments.

I don't think that the discussion about the existence of God is that interesting because scientifically speaking he obviously does not. No, what is interesting is why is it morally okay to worship this son of a bitch.

Why would you praise and thank an omnipotent and omniscient being who allows children to be raped to death? Because he is god? Because his ways are unknowable? Should it not be shameful to worship god? Should you not be ashamed that this creator allows all this suffering to take place? Are you in fact not in part responsible for the worlds suffering by associating yourself with this cruel god?

If God existed, considering what the world looks like, would it be right or wrong to worship him?

This post has been edited by Apt: 30 April 2015 - 08:16 PM

[frookenhauer]

Powder, on 29 April 2015 - 03:02 PM, said:

5.) Is the Earth really only 6,000 years old? - No, why would you use an ancient text as a scientific account of how things came to be when it doesn't even have words to express things as we see them today. This kind of anachronism on both sides of the aisle, religious and not, is incredibly frustrating.

But Isn't this ancient text, the fundamental crux of the entire Abrahamic God multi-religion? When someone says god, I don't think of multi armed shiva, Buddha or anything else...its that big bearded guy wot smote the gyptians and drowned the world with...er 40 odd days and nights of rain (typical springtime in the uk )

If the fundamental parts of something are, how should I put it...flawed, lets say, then how can anything else written beside it count for anything? IF the biblical accounts for how it all started matched what we now understand and take as fact then by god, I'd be a believer. I think I might need to labour this point a bit:

If the ancient texts stated that millions of years before god decided to make mankind he had a bit of fun with some giant reptiles and then got bored and wiped most of them out with a ruddy great rock (or whatever)...then i'd be a believer.

If the ancient texts explained that the earth is a infinitesimally small speck in the utterly humongous (love that word) universe AND that the earth actually revolves around the sun AND that those sparkly things in the sky are giant balls of gas burning billions upon billions of miles away...i'd be a believer.

If the ancient texts...oh balls, I think that's enough. The reason why those texts include a 'how it all began' thingy is to give them credibility. If you find the origin story to be pretty darn weak, then does that not mean everything else is also pretty darn weak too? But I suppose it doesn't really matter whether there was even grain of truth in them there ancient texts because if you fast forward thousands of years to the present: you have the glorious abrahamic god with 1/5th of the world following him in various forms. With parents indoctrinating/conditioning/brainwashing (take your pick) their children into the same belief system...catch em early enough and they'll believe anything ...Even as I'm writing this, I know (or at least am pretty damn certain) that nothing I can say or have already said can counter the juggernaut of belief that you (and other believers) carry inside yourself, whether you caught the bug from your parents or even from societal pressure. It doesn't really matter that the book has been proven to be just plain wrong, does it? your belief will make all the excuses you need to continue functioning as a believer.

Damn! It seems as if the abrahamic god is here to stay! Cant really say Im at all partial to culling the planet of that pesky 1/5th just to get rid of one persistent deity

[Andorion]

I would just like to raise a couple of points.

With regard to Evil, it has been posted upthread that evil exists to avail man the opportunity of exercising free will and morality. So for example if a baby girl, or for tha tmatter a grown woman is raped, the rapist failed in exercising his free will and moral sense. Of course the victims in these cases get completely screwed over regarding their lives and moral choices. My question is, what if great suffering takes place where no human choice is involved? For example, in the recent Nepal earthquake a survivor says he has lost his faith in God. Why? His enture family, and I mean not just his immediate family, but his uncles, aunts, cousins and grandparents were all killed. They were in his house observing a religious ceremony. The earthquake caused the entire house to collapse. SO, how exactly do you explain divine existence in this situation?

If the creation part of the Bible, the genesis section is to be disregarded as clearly unprovable, then what about the rest of the Bible? How does one know which part to take seriously and which part to discard? Is it the Word of God only in certain sections? The histoorical view is that the Bible is an accumulation of human opinions, heavily edited and altered over time. If this istrue, there really is no point in continuing to rerat it as a holy book is there?

This part has me really confused. It seems to me, (I may be wrong here) that the entire point of life according to most religions is to act and think in such ways that we end up in heaven after death. This would make sense if God just came along, found humanity in a mess and made arrangements for salvation. But that is not how it is. God apparently created humanity from scratch. So, if he wanted people to end up in heaven, why not just put them in heaven? Why make them go through life first?

[Maark Abbott]

As regards the point of believing because it makes people happy, fair enough - if they need that, it's not something I hold against them (although my personal thoughts there are that belief in deities is a crutch for people who aren't able to handle the fact that ours is a crapsack world and that we are overall a pretty vile species).

It's not something I'd do 'on the off chance', though. Pascal's Wager has always seemed flimsy to me. I used to believe (once upon a time) but looking at things objectively, there was no other course but to reject my old religion utterly.

[Maark Abbott]

Andorion - there's also the argument that goes as follows:

God creates man. God gives man free will. God commits mass genocide because man uses free will and deviates from God's 'plan'. Which sort of begs the question of why an omnipotent creator would create a race with something that their omnipotence allows them to see what will happen if that something is given to said race.

From there it's painfully easy to conclude one of three things: Either god is not omnipotent, or they revel in mass murder on an unprecedented scale (and with a flood that Hawaii would shrug off as it has done in the past), or they simply aren't there.

[Powder]

I don't remember this forum being so overtly hostile in the past, but I guess things do change. I would prefer in polite discussion to avoid ad hominem attacks on my person, or those like me. That being said I would like to continue to discuss this topic in a civil fashion. In addition to this I am obviously in the minority here, and while I will try to engage all of the posts, but will probably miss some. If I do call my attention back to points I have missed.

What I am continually surprised by is the incredibly narrow band of interpretation people set up when mocking my faith. It's like only the fundamentalist interpretation of the scriptures is ever allowed into discussion. From my understanding of texts, textual criticism, and culture, the texts in question are not as straight forward as people are making them out to be. Let me use Genesis 1-11 as an example of a group of texts frequently misunderstood by those within the faith and without. I think this group of texts will be useful in answering some of the above.

For instance, Frook seems to want these 3,000 year old texts to contain comprehensive scientific information couched in the language and philosophy of the present. If such a text were to exist, it would have be unintelligible to readers for the vast majority of this time. This is further complicated by the fact that the people of the day did not have words for things which we take for granted such as: Million, space, planet, globe, ocean, etc. Therefore, if a God existed, and that God wished to communicate with this ancient people I can see two logical possibilities. Either he could A) give them a collection of words which to them have no meaning, and no usefulness to them, or he could meet them where they are, and communicate with them using their own limited language with the intent of guiding them towards further understanding.

Linguistically speaking Genesis 1-11 is of a different sort than Genesis 12-50. While there certainly are Christians who hold to the literal nature of 1-11, given these linguistic differences, as well as differences in theme, I cannot hold to them literally, but do so thematically. Within language there are many different Genres of literature spoken and written. It is improper to apply the rules of one Genre say "History" to another Genre "Fantasy". Their goals, aims, themes, etc are different. Now most of this we can do instinctively when reading in our own language, however when we are separated from a text by thousands of years and a language barrier the work that goes into determining how a text is written is significantly increased. Even with a cursory reading of the scriptures you can see these different Genres at work, as well as other literary devices like metaphors, hyperbole, etc. This gets just a bit more complicated when we consider Genres that are either weak in the present day (Look how much hate SE gets for his poetry rap battles) to ones which simply no longer exist (like Apocalypses), or ones which we blatantly don't know what to do with.

Given the Genre, word choice, and style of 1-11 I hold that section as categorically different from 12-50. Not because it is inconvenient to do so, but because I was confronted with all of this linguistic theory and had to change my previously held opinion that it was in fact literal. In fact, changing my opinion on this section has cost me a fair bit of marketability because the literal interpretation though false to my eyes, sells better because it is more easily understood. Does that make sense? (This all includes the flood, which IMO was not global the people of the day did not even have a word for globe as we know it).

Onward to Apt's question. There are a few assumptions behind what you are saying which must be questioned before I can attempt to answer you. I find your understanding of God is different from mine. I do not want heaven to be a democracy. In my understanding God is the highest good. Things are not good because God says so, they are good because they are in line with God's character. Now I think by and large we are oversimplifying a very complex problem when we talk about evil in relationship to God's character. For instance it is often pointed out 'How can God be a God of love when he commands people to kill?" But what about Justice? What about love to those who are being oppressed? By saying God can never harm anyone, or if he does he is evil, is a gross oversimplification. Given that we are free moral agents, and that God loves all free moral agents, there are going to be situations in which one of those agents will need to be brought to justice, else it would be unloving to other free moral agents. Love without Justice is impossible.

The second assumption being made is that heaven will be like in kind to this existence. To that, I say I don't know what heaven is like. What I do know is that it is eternal, that is to say timeless, or above time. If it is above time--how does causality work? I am not sure. To be honest my head spins when I start thinking about things outside of time. Personally I think joining Christianity for pie in the sky when I die is a rather weak motivation. I find much more compelling the increase in quality of life here and now, the reunited relationship with God now, and the increase in spiritual awareness and power now, much more compelling personally.

Third, how is it not moral to worship a being of perfect love and Justice. Inherent within the question is a denigration of what/who God is. I would completely agree with Apts statement if one piece of the religion was missing. I believe that on the cross Jesus suffered all of the evil of humanity within his own body. He bore the weight (physical and spiritual) of every sin ever. This weight crushed him utterly. This is what is meant when we say he bore our sin. So are children raped to death? Yes, and Jesus suffered that with them. Do people suffer under various illnesses, yes, and Jesus suffered through them on the cross. If God was not also suffering alongside humanity I agree, such a God allowing us to exist would be contemptible.

@ Frooks second point, about my 'juggernaut of belief', turn that statement back around on yourself. I doubt that there is anything I could say that would convince you of my beliefs, which is why I did not start this thread by saying 'Do you have a minute to talk about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?', but instead started it by answering the questions asked as I was able. I don't really have a goal for this exercise, it is one which I consider 'worth it' simply for the shared journey we have undertaken.

Edited: For a random emoji

This post has been edited by Powder: 01 May 2015 - 01:59 PM