Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dwarf]

in which Dwarf attempts a civilized discussion about how God, (he which Dwarf will not address with capitalized pronoms) in his opinion, does not exist.
Keep it civil, guys


First, I shall look at the Bible. Some people think it's a mass of fiction, other think it's the Ultimate Truth and everything written in it is true. (Which is disproven by the fact it takes 3 as π)

I think neither of the extremes. Partly, it really is a storytelling book, but more importantly, it contains interpretative stories.

Let us, as example, take the Genesis, in which is written how Adam and Eve got banned from the paradise.
We obviously can't take this literally, but must use interpretation:

By eating the fruit and knowing what is good and what is bad, the human has gained free will and, more importantly?, the ability to make moral decisions.
In doing so, however, they have lost their innocence, the innocence of being an animal. No longer can we do something claiming it is natural, because always, we can decide if we want to do it and also choose a less evil way, which we not always do.

(Example: You eat meat. Were you an animal, you could claim it's simply the way you are. As a human, not so.
Because you know that an animal has lived and died only for the purpose of nourishing people. That can be considered evil, because you could also choose to live on plants. Which again throws up the question if plants are living beings.)

More importantly, however, God curses us from then on. Women must give birth under great pain and we must forever work for our food. It has been mutliple millenia since. This makes me doubt the good-will, kindness and love God has for us, shall he exist. Were any of us there when they picked the fruit, were we born when they made that fatal decision? Is this just?

Furthermore, it makes me doubt the intelligence of God. He emphasizes that they must not, under any circumstances, eat from that tree. Had he built a wall around it, or not even created the tree at all, this disaster wouldn't have happened.
Also, he created the humans. Shouldn't he have known that the human is naturally curious, or that the snake is treacherous and wrong? Is he not omniscient after all?

But all this is requiring the truthness of the Bible. Let us instead look at real-world examples.

Now, let us look at the suffering and evil in the world.
We will dismiss the possibility of murder and similar deaths to the fact that God wishes not to affect what we decide with free will.
But then, there are a lot of accident related deaths. Car crashes, failing bolts, ropes snapping, you name it. These make no differences between Christians and Atheists or people of other religions, do they?
Why does God not prevent such accidents, which nobody is really guilty of?
There was a recent example of a mudslide in Italy - even the church was destroyed.
Is God so cold-hearted and cruel he eradicates an entire village to show us we're not believing enough?
Why does he not send a very much clearer message, like speaking to all villagers?

Speaking to people and their interaction, another interesting subject.
In the Old Testament, God was very active. He spoke to people in person, whilst in the New Testament, God is already much less active, up to today, where there's nothing at all.

In the Old Testament, God is cruel and unforgiving. There is a story in which one wants to count the population of Israel. Because God wants not that his people are counted, he kills 120'000, making the census wrong. He also let the man live, so he may be mocked.
The image of God has since then been skewed to benevolent and loving. It is just that we are not noticing that.

[Jude]

Did it occur to you that the Bible could  be wrong and say, Hinduism could be right

just sayin

[Ampersand]

First you said that you don't think that the bible is just a mass of fiction, and then you went on to describe it as a storytelling book that contains interpretive stories.

I could say the same about Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings, which I think we'll agree are both fiction. Just because I write a book that is entirely fictional except for one part that is based on an event that actually happened, the story, on the whole is not less a work of fiction. All good works of fiction must tell us something that is true, or else we cannot relate to the story.

[Jude]

Also, the Bible as literature has more in common with Batman than with, say, Harry Potter. In terms of how various contradictory stories are accepted as part of the same canon because the definition of historical truth is not what we would use in today's formal study of history. Just as you can have two different Batman movies that tell two different stories of Batman engaging the Joker, you have two different stories of creation, two different stories of David having a chance to kill King Saul but choosing not to, and so on.

[Fooj]

in his opinion, does not exist.

OK

First, I shall look at the Bible.

First flaw. The Bible is not a reliable source to do anything with for an argument. Besides it losing all the context and original meaning after thousands of years and translations and edits, it was effectively written by a bunch of Neanderthals given the age it was written in. Lastly, it's the word of people on the word of god, not the word of god directly.

So you think it having contradictions is significant how?

We obviously can't take this literally

No kidding.

Had he built a wall around it, or not even created the tree at all, this disaster wouldn't have happened.

You might as well be deconstructing and overanalyzing Aesop's fables.

But all this is requiring the truthfulness of the Bible.

So why'd you bother?

In the Old Testament, God was...

You're doing it again...

Now, let us look at the suffering and evil in the world.

Go cut yourself.

That is all. Come back with something solid.

Shit, wait. Everyone else already responded with that.

[winner]

it was effectively written by a bunch of Neanderthals given the age it was written in.

What???
Neanderthals died out entirely 30,000 years ago and were completely gone from the middle east and asia by 50,000 years ago.

[Cthulhu]

Possibly (Or even likely) allegorical accounts display God doing things I feel are bad.

Therefore, God does not exist.

People always do that, and I've never understood why disagreeable actions somehow constitute evidence against a God.  It's fine not to believe in God, but doing things you don't like doesn't really count as concrete evidence against.  Choosing not to worship God whether He exists or not for said reasons, however, is perfectly valid in that line of thought.

In addition, the OP has been stated probably thousands of times, often much better than the OP.  Since General Discussion has lost its chill composure (Hopefully it's just pre-release jitters) I predict this will end in harsh words.

[Fooj]

What???

Neanderthals in the derogatory sense. Is Philistines more historically accurate for you?

The point is that back there was no difference between a spaceship and flaming chariot, between a freak storm and wrath of god, between talking to a greater power and a drug trip etc.

They were effectively stupid and unreliable historical witnesses to major events.

[Dasleah]

oh boy it's this thread again

Protip: If you're feeling the need to rationally and critically explain your faith, then you've missed the point of faith entirely. And I don't care which corner of the internet you want to have this argument in, it's never going to work. You don't want to change your faith, and the only people who will ever post here will feel the same about whatever the fuck kind of perspective they have. No-one ever wants to debate religion with an open mind, and that's because no-one honestly gives a fuck that doesn't already have deeply-held beliefs and is attracted to this sort of thread to argue, troll, or denounce.

[Ampersand]

Possibly (Or even likely) allegorical accounts display God doing things I feel are bad.

Therefore, God does not exist.

People always do that, and I've never understood why disagreeable actions somehow constitute evidence against a God.  It's fine not to believe in God, but doing things you don't like doesn't really count as concrete evidence against.  Choosing not to worship God whether He exists or not for said reasons, however, is perfectly valid in that line of thought.

In addition, the OP has been stated probably thousands of times, often much better than the OP.  Since General Discussion has lost its chill composure (Hopefully it's just pre-release jitters) I predict this will end in harsh words.

I believe he was trying to get to the Epicurean problem of evil. If he is able but unwilling to prevent evil, then he is evil, if he is able and willing, then why is there evil? If he is unable and unwilling, why call him god?

But really, I just find all these discussions about whether or not the Christian God exists to be utterly asinine, as if Atheists only reject that one specific entity. Call me back when a fundamentalist Shinto practitioner wants to argue about whether or not Amaterasu exists. That would be original and interesting.

[chaoticag]

Well, my opinion on that is that Atheists argue against a Judeo-Christian God because only the Judeo-Christians give a damn about Atheism these days.

As far as I'm concerned, you don't need faith to be a good person. The two are mutually exclusive in my eyes, since I hear of some religious people performing horrible acts in their faith, and some athiests trying to help Africans.

[alway]

Indeed. One cannot call oneself an atheist when one has only disproven 1 god. Be more catagorical about it! I, for example, am an atheist in the sense that I neither believe in souls nor in deities which magically intervene. Because of this, I can catagorically reject a large chunk of deities. Any deities which do not fall into this catagory are neither important for an afterlife (no soul) nor for help/magic/intervention and as such have really no visible impact; and in particular, no reason to worship them.

[Cyx]

Now, let us look at the suffering and evil in the world.

Go cut yourself.

That is all. Come back with something solid.

Actually, that one was a really good point. The Problem of Evil. It's already been mentioned in this thread. Do you believe in God ?

[Euld]

Working on a fairly length post... in the meantime,

Keep it civil, guys

edit: OK!

(Which is disproven by the fact it takes 3 as π)

At least know the verse when you say this...

1 Kings 7:23 (New International Version)

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Here's a link for the whole chapter in NIV translation: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Kings+7&version=NIV  If you have a different version you prefer, by all means share it.  Anyway, notice the italized words describe the measurements differently.  It doesn't use the word 'exactly' for the ten cubits and five cubits, but certainly doesn't use a non-specific term to describe those measurments.  Then notice that it's different for the circumference of the Sea; a 29.XXX... cubit circle would in fact "take" a 30th cubit to measure around it but would not be 30 cubits.

By eating the fruit and knowing what is good and what is bad, the human has gained free will and, more importantly?, the ability to make moral decisions.
In doing so, however, they have lost their innocence, the innocence of being an animal. No longer can we do something claiming it is natural, because always, we can decide if we want to do it and also choose a less evil way, which we not always do.

Choosing to eat the fruit at all would be a moral decision.  God told them not to, and they did it anyway.

Genesis 2:15-16
5 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

You and some friends go on a camping trip.  You bring someone who's an expert on the plants, animals and other such of the area you're going to.  You set up camp, then the expert points out a bush of delicious looking berries.  "Whatever you do, don't eat those berries there.  They will kill you."  Most people would follow his advice.  Sure you could move the campsite somewhere else, but really, your group probably consists of people who are more than capable of making sensible decisions and wouldn't eat those berries.

Furthermore, it makes me doubt the intelligence of God. He emphasizes that they must not, under any circumstances, eat from that tree. Had he built a wall around it, or not even created the tree at all, this disaster wouldn't have happened.
Also, he created the humans. Shouldn't he have known that the human is naturally curious, or that the snake is treacherous and wrong? Is he not omniscient after all?

God being omniscient would not stop him from planting the tree.  He would know full well that they would do that, but would let them do it because it would be their decision.  Sure, Adam and Eve weren't told the full list of consequences from eating that fruit, but God himself telling them they would die should have been enough.  In my example above, a fellow human being saying the same thing is enough.  Or is it?  Maybe you never met the expert until the day of the trip.  Sure he acts very professional, but anyone can do that.  Besides, you've been camping, you've read the books, you know a decent thing or two... in fact your friends know that too. 

Why would your friends hire this guy to tell you what you already know?  Would your friends even waste the money to hire a real expert anyway?  Maybe he's really a fraud, he's sure been a big jerk the whole time, acting like he knew every plant and tree along the way.  He didn't even say how poisonous those berries were, maybe they're actually safe to eat and exeedingly delicious, but he and your friends don't want you have to any because there's not enough for everyone.  Maybe you could try one... maybe smell it first, a little taste, if it tastes bad then just throw it away or make yourself throw up.  Just a little taste won't hurt, right?  After all, if it turns out that you're right and he's wrong, then you're even better than the train expert.

Hopefully that example was good enough.  Adam and Eve were tempted, not forced.  People can be tempted, but inevitably, it's their choice to say, spiral down to obesity when a walk every day and some dieting would improve their lives.  Here's Genesis 3.  Read what the snake said... closely.  His question in verse 1 has a huge exaggeration, then follows up with a half truth.  Yes her eyes would be opened, and she wouldn't die immediately, just eventually.  If God had never put the tree there, Adam and Eve would proabably try to find another way to rebel.

More importantly, however, God curses us from then on. Women must give birth under great pain and we must forever work for our food. It has been mutliple millenia since. This makes me doubt the good-will, kindness and love God has for us, shall he exist. Were any of us there when they picked the fruit, were we born when they made that fatal decision? Is this just?

True, that is not just.  I'm personally irked about the Tiger Woods scandal for example.  I'm pretty sure many Americans have secret girlfriends/boyfriends in addition to their spouses, have cheated several times, but then they turn around and get on Tiger Wood's back for doing the same thing.  It's also unfair that the (American economy anyway) took a dive because of the bad decisions of a few (at least, that's what people say, they all seem to blame each other really), and it's unfair when people die of an easily curable disease in a civilized country just because their health care filed the wrong paperwork.  But those few people had a choice, they could do the right thing or do what would only benefit them and hurt others.
And this is my personal belief, but I believe anyone could have taken Adam and Eve's place and would have eventually done the same thing.  /Christian_doctrine Everyone sins, in different ways of course, but we believe that every time we, as people, as humans, sin, it reaffirms that we would have done the same thing many times over.

But then, there are a lot of accident related deaths. Car crashes, failing bolts, ropes snapping, you name it. These make no differences between Christians and Atheists or people of other religions, do they?
Why does God not prevent such accidents, which nobody is really guilty of?
There was a recent example of a mudslide in Italy - even the church was destroyed.
Is God so cold-hearted and cruel he eradicates an entire village to show us we're not believing enough?
Why does he not send a very much clearer message, like speaking to all villagers?

/nitpick For car crashes, I recall the words of my driving instructor, who was a police officer: "We don't call them accidents, we call them collisions.  They aren't accidents, collisions happen because someone wasn't obeying the rules of the road."  I stand by what he said, it makes a lot of logical sense.  If an accident occured when everyone was following the rules... then the rules need to be changed before someone else gets hurt.
And I thought nobody was hurt during that mudslide?  Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong one.  The destruction of a church is no biggie for Christians really, sure it's a surprise, but we just move on... it's just another building.  Hard to say if natural disasters are directly from God, nature taking its course, or humans being neglectful of nature.

Speaking to people and their interaction, another interesting subject.
In the Old Testament, God was very active. He spoke to people in person, whilst in the New Testament, God is already much less active, up to today, where there's nothing at all.

Nothing at all for you, that is.  Christians report miracles all the time, revelations all the time, nobody believes us of course.  Even people who say "I"ll believe if I see a miracle," then I tell them about miracles I've seen firsthand, and they still don't believe.  I couldn't produce scientific proof on the spot though, there's certainly medical records that could prove it... I just don't have access to them.

In the Old Testament, God is cruel and unforgiving. There is a story in which one wants to count the population of Israel. Because God wants not that his people are counted, he kills 120'000, making the census wrong. He also let the man live, so he may be mocked.

Quit making me work so hard

tl;dr version: If you're going to talk about specific events in the Bible, at least know the verses involved...

Protip: If you're feeling the need to rationally and critically explain your faith, then you've missed the point of faith entirely.

Blind faith maybe.  I don't have blind faith in God, I have personal proof and faith that makes up my faith :O

[Cyx]

Euld, about natural disasters, the thing is, nothing can be independent from both humans and God. Now, we know earthquakes aren't our fault. We know everything that isn't the product of our free will is the product of God's will. We know God created the universe, thus that he knowingly made Earth so that earthquakes would happen. Why ?

And if you do think that it has a purpose somehow, why hasn't God figured out a way that doesn't involve killing children ?


About miracles : the problem is that they happen both ways. For every guy cured from cancer there's a poor sod dying of spontaneous human combustion. Ten guys who actually die from their cancer. Someone who drops dead one day and nobody can really figure out why. For every guy who sees God or Jesus or his long lost brother, someone is hallucinating a giant brown frog or killing his wife because an angel asked him to in his dreams. Why would it be a miracle when it's good and a sad accident when it's not ? If everything we can't really explain is divine intervention, the way things work would indicate that God is neutral or inexistant, but certainly not good. Don't you think ?