Why I believe in God?

[skasian]

See, I used the words "knowable to a certain limited extent" for a reason. You can have partial knowledge of X and the remainder will remain unknowable to you but X itself is not unknowable. If God is 100% unknowable, then you cannot possibly know anything about Him.

God is not 100% unknowable, therefore agrees with your logic of X which can be substituted as God.

[Pewnut]

Whaa?

Your exact words before:

In this way, as God is 100% unknowable, we can never have full knowledge in the unknowable.

And your exact words now:

God is not 100% unknowable, therefore agrees with your logic of X which can be substituted as God.

OK, I'll make this easy for you because you're starting to confuse yourself. Is the word you're looking for unknown?

Unknown = (a) Not established or verified (b) Not identified or ascertained

Unknowable = Impossible to know

[skasian]

Whaa?

Your exact words before:



And your exact words now:





OK, I'll make this easy for you because you're starting to confuse yourself. Is the word you're looking for unknown?

Unknown = (a) Not established or verified (b) Not identified or ascertained

Unknowable = Impossible to know

It looks like you have misunderstood what I am saying.
Could you please read the WHOLE extract I wrote in each of these situations?
In this way, they dont mean the same thing. However maybe I am maybe using the wrong adjective.

[laidbackperson]

I hope JacobF, you read this for I like the earnest way you put forward your points:

We first begin with the assumptions that there is no God.
So everything started with a Big Bang as Science says. A dense ball burst throwing matter in all directions. In course of time, galaxies were formed from this matter and these galaxies are still receding at a high speed. In one such galaxy, Milky way galaxy, there is our Sun with number of planets orbiting around it. In the third planet, known as earth, life forms begin to appear with time. Starting from coacervates, to unicellular life, to marine, to vegetation, higher forms (animals) of life begin to appear in earth. Eventually human beings came who were endowed with better thinking ability. From stone age where they moved unclothed and fed on animals, human being learnt to live in community, learnt to make fire, invented wheel, started agriculture and kept progressing. Then science started dominating some 150 years from now and how quickly we have progressed and where we have reached now. If in a time machine with some of our gadgets and AK47 rifle, we could go back to the old age we will be taken for God.

Here I question you.

Assuming that everything happened as Science says, does it not look wondrous that we are the outcome of a Big bang that occurred some 12-15 billions years ago. Do you feel that evolution is just a series of coincidences occurring in long term ( In long term, a remote coincidence can always occur as per theory of probability) and we are the product of all this trial and error.
Secondly, delve into any science subject: Physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, just anything. You will find an astonishing beauty. How non-living and living things work? The amount of complexity and planning in each work of nature and universe. As per science we have to assume that all this happened by itself. Science has only discovered these secrets which have been always there. And science has only used these discoveries to make its own inventions. Cell phone, aeroplanes, Edision’s bulb etc all are there because scientists and technologists are knowing some secrets of matter and nature. Many modern inventions may still pale in comparison of its counter part existing in nature.

It is the discoveries made by science that may make you ask the question: Is it all by chance or is there someone behind, guiding everything to the minutest detail. It looks mind boggling but here I turn towards God. Also you may come across many scientists and doctors believing in God – in existence of a Higher Power.

You need not believe in religious text, word by word. God has to be beyond all religions.

Each one of us have to find our own answer, believe our own heart and be really open minded, not just a pompous atheist seeking scientific proof of God like ‘gravity’.

Second picture is that let us assume that a God is there.
Let us also believe that God started the big bang and evolution occurred under his guidance and we have reached to our present level.
First question is what is the purpose of all this. I read an article which asked: what if you are given infinite power, all knowledge, all richness, everything that can be there, then what will you do. The answer given was that you would eventually like to share this with all others. May be God’s doing the same although no one is competent to read God’s mind. I like to think of it all as a play of God and live with following beliefs.
• We are not gone in time and space when we die but keep getting re births again and again, till we are ready for God consciousness.
• I believe as you sow, so you reap but the rewards and punishments I don’t restrict to a single lifetime.
• Though God do not reveal Himself openly but His signs you may find everywhere and in your day to day life, if you care to look closely enough.
• I believe God loves all of us more than anybody else is capable of loving us inspite of suffering the world sees. But He also work in the principle of ‘you reap what you sow’ so how we work with our free will is important.
• Also nobody is going to rot in hell for ever, if there is really a hell.
• I believe, you need not believe in the God till you are ready for it. If you are good, you will be taken care of. If you are bad, you will turn up becoming good after number of re-births. I believe all are going to be saved. All are going forward, some are more ahead, others are behind. But God is pushing everybody towards Him.
• Atheist may keep on harping for scientific proof and it may never come. So one has to think beyond science.
• I believe that God like simplicity, honesty and humility in humans to arrogance and the habit of pulling somebody down and gloating over it. God must be loving a humble atheist more than a crooked believer.

I recollect a monk’s words that I read years ago:

We (human beings) are like small children playing in a sea-shore. We are lost in our play with water, sand, pebbles, sand castles and other such things. But the moment we had our fill, the time we feel our play is over, we we will loose interest in everything and will go rushing towards the waiting arms of Mother ( God).

[Redzeppelin]

1. Weren't the writings of Flavius Josephus deemed to be forgery?

Not that I'm aware of.

2. I admit I'm speaking out of hearsay for this one, but I'm pretty sure Tacitus' writings were deemed to be added in by Christian scholars as well. Plus, Jesus died around 30-35 A.D. That account is decades after the life of Jesus.

That the account is decades later doesn't make the subject imaginary. History is rarely written the minute it happens. Since Jesus was 33 at the time of his death, it is possible the even 40 years later to have people writing who knew him personally. I don't think an attempt to make all historical documents refering to Jesus a Christian conspiracy theory will have much traction.

There really aren't enough records to deem Jesus as a real person. Even if Jesus was a real person, there is no evidence, not even after his time, that he performed miracles or was at all divine. His identity was formed by later Christian scholars.

One of the strongest arguments against your position is the Bible itself; the books about Christ's life (the Gospels) were written and disseminated while people who lived during Christ's lifetime were alive - if they were simply fabrications, there would have been refutations published during the time denouncing the veracity of the Bible. Such refutations do not exist - and certainly not for lack of people to do so. There are plenty of people who would have immediately come forward to challenge the gospels if they had been false - especially the Jewish leaders - who look pretty bad in terms of how they come across in the gospels. That there were no challenges to the published life of Christ suggest that it was accepted as true by his society.

Interesting that you should say that...

The whole 'denying god out of fear' is ham-handed to me. People denying alcoholism because they don't want to quit. People deny their financial debt because they don't want to endure something that directly inconveniences them. The idea of god, however, is completely intangible, and really does not harness the immediate power to inconvenience someone enough to the point of denying god. If someone really was scared of god, there are churches and bibles everywhere. They could just get down on their knees and pray. In Islam for instance, all you have to do is say that you accept Allah and you are saved.

I'm not pursuing the argument that far - I'm simplying reminding you that the fear that you claim is behind believers' choices to believe ironically can be turned around as the root of many nonbelievers' attempts to deny the existence of God. It is well documented that human beings quite willingly deny that which they do not wish to be true. It is a viable explanation for at least some nonbelievers' choices to deny the existence of God.

In the grand scheme of things, people only carry out the tasks in the bible (well, ideally they do, but as history has shown that doesn't always happen) to get to heaven. There's no other motive. They only do it because god said so. I do good things in my life for others because I summon the motivation myself. The bible is altruistic.

There you go again - making sweeping generalizations about what motivates believers. And how do you know this? How can you definitively say "there's no other motive"? What privileged knowledge do you have into the contents of the hearts of millions of Christians worldwide?

As another side note, I don't see the goodness in 'loving your enemies.' How about just not having any enemies at all? I know I don't have any. We'd all be better off without holding grudges.

Not having enemies at all is virtually impossible. Even peaceful, nonviolent men like Ghandi had enemies (the British weren't real fond of him in his movement to liberate India). Enemies are inevitable - the only way to avoid them is to have no opinions and take no stands on any issues whatsoever - and at that point, you may have no enemies, but you probably won't have many friends either. You certainly won't have any respect. Hating one's enemies poisons your own heart and hurts you more than them. That doesn't mean that we must like them - love means doing what is in your enemies best interest - and that best interest might be in turning him into the authorities, or confronting him for something wrong he's doing.

As I've already argued many times, Christianity is a remedy for fear. There's really nothing else to it. Sure, there's the allure of being closer to god, but that's only because when you are closer to god you won't go to hell. Here we see that "loving yet vengeful god" paradox again.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't see much to substantiate it beyond your opinion. If only humanity acted out the same principle in reality - you might have a stronger argument. In other words, desire for reward and fear of punishment has only limited success in controlling human behavior - and that is with consequences and rewards that are clearly tangible and "provable." Why should the intangible consequences and rewards of hell and heaven carry any weight if tangible ones have only limited success? The reality is that many people choose to believe because God answers the questions they have about life, about the universe, about reality, about human nature that no other philosophy or belief system properly answers. People come to Christianity by as many routes as those who leave it.

Sure, some people may enjoy Christianity for the aspect of community it provides, but that's a minor reason because community can be found in many other places.

But not community that changes one's life for the better. Christianity doesn't just offer fellowship - it offers a new life and an eternal life to boot.

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I guess I meant 'better' person (even still the goal is to be good). When humanity subscribes to any organization that makes them feel better about themselves, doing the 'right thing,' they feel like they are a good person -- validated. As for sin, from a catholic perspective, all you have to do to rid yourself of your sins is go into the confession box X times per year. From a protestant perspective, you pray and go to church and read the bible. Isn't the only rule laid out by the New Testament "love god"? In the end, that's all it boils down to anyway. You can be a terrible person, commit horrible crimes yet when you 'accept god' you can still go to heaven.

Christianity does not really make people feel better about themselves - that is a major misunderstanding. Becoming a Christian first and foremost requires a person to accept that he/she is a sinner - someone incapable of being good on his/her own - and that our attempts to control our lives only results in failure. Christianity teaches us to put others before ourselves, to love the unlovable, share what we have with those who have less, to serve others. Which part of that sounds smugly self-serving to YOU? Christianity is much more demanding in terms of what is expected out of an individual behaviorally and morally - it's not for wimps.

And from my experience going to a protestant church for 13 years, Christians aren't all that modest. Some are I am sure, but a lot aren't. Even still, they're only sinners because God said so. A person should correct their faults because THEY think it's the right thing to do, not the bible.

There's always those who don't fly the flag well - no institution, group, organization, etc is immune to zealots and miscreants. They are sinners because they act contrary to the character of God. The problem with your supposition is that without a standard by which to evaluate our behavior, why should be think anything wrong? Why should we be motivated to do "the right thing" if the only weight it carries is from other flawed people like ourselves? The Bible doesn't create reality; it verifies it.

I guess the favourite part of talking to a theist is knowing that they wasted so much time by subscribing to antiquated and transparent beliefs.

Another grand assumption that cannot be proven in any way to be true - simply your biased evaluation of the value of Christianty - which carries zero weight.

You said "things created out of fear do not change peoples' lives." You did mention the bible and christianity but you were talking about fear very generally.

People did not write the Bible or establish Christianity because they were fearful. There is nothing to substantiate your claims beyond your assumptions.

When did I ever complain that god will stop all the suffering? When I referred to god being as loving as he is vengeful, I was poking at the paradox that Christianity seems to buy into.

You didn't - I brought it up as an example how many times nonbelievers slam God from both sides. There is no paradox: love requires that God be just - and for God to be just, He must take vengeance upon those who have earned it. On earth, we see that as admirable.

The concept of god is based on faith and faith alone. There is no rationality to it. I'll assume for a second that god does exist -- if he does, he would be unfathomable. No human or being would be able to conceive of his existence. No scripture could outline what god really is. To claim that you are in possession of the knowledge of something that is divine -- beyond human comprehension -- is absurd. So, as beings who are governed by logic and rationality, atheism is the best choice.

The Bible outlines the character of God - His actual existence and the potentialities of His abilities we cannot fathom - but we can gather certain things about Him - especially from the life of Jesus Christ - who said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." That was Christ's mission - to reveal God to humanity.

I'm sorry - the odds of abiogenesis are approximatley 1 in 10 to the 33, 133 power. That number is astronomical - especially considering that it has been calculated that the number of particles in the universe is approximately 10 to the 60th power. (I'm quoting from memory, so I'm prepared to have those numbers challenged). Now, tell me that that number is a rational number - tell me that the those odds are believable - because in my mind, numbers that big become so unreal as to almost become as "unreal" as God is to others. Why is that incredible number more believable than a Divine Being? Tell me its rational to believe that the incredible complexity of this world "just happened" even though nothing in our world conforms to that principle - that in reality, matter grows less complex and less organized as time goes on - not more complex and more organized.

Well, that's the thing about theism -- it's governed by faith, not logic.

Please - very few things in this life that make life worth living - relationships, love - follow the laws of logic. Our human hearts defy that logic on a daily basis - and not always to our detriment.

It didn't give us the science because the science has proven it wrong. We all know the world wasn't created in 7 days. They didn't know any better, so they just made it up.

You don't "know" anything about how the earth got here - you simply have what you believe to be true. Science can't prove its competing theory either.

Well, evolution has evidence. No scientist really denies evolution because of the sheer amount of evidence behind it. The only thing in science that comes close to faith are hypotheses. But after the tests and observations, the hypothesis doesn't matter. I'm not saying evolution is completely true -- no theory is -- but at least it's not supported by faith and faith alone.

Most evidence requires interpretation - and interpretation requires the employment of a subjective interpretive framework - that's why evolutionists and intelligent design scientists can look at the same evidence and arrive at two different conclusions.

Abiogenesis cannot be tested or observed - it can only by hypothesized.

So? There's no evidence that points to Jesus being the son of god. There's nothing that says biblical locations actually hosted the events which happened. And as I've previously mentioned, a lot of the stuff is forgery. Christianity was a tool of authority in its birth, and history always 'edits' history to its own advantage. Yes, Scientology is funny, because it's probably about as true as Christianity is. Aliens coming here and implanting stuff in our minds, that's totally silly... but a virgin birth and a talking snake, that's believable.

You have no proof for your accusations - you are simply parroting the standard (and rather hysterical) arguments thrown against the Bible and Christianty. Archeology makes finds year after year that confirm people, locations and events that the Bible reports. This is all well-documented. Textual criticism of the Bible has esatablished that the original language copies have a 99.5% integrity rate - higher than any other ancient texts; the rules for copying texts in the Jewish community are incredibly exacting - the Dead Sea scrolls confirm the integrity of the Old Testament. Frankly, you're simply grasping at straws. And, if God can create the universe (whether it took 7 days or longer) and raise the dead to life - well, a virgin birth and talking snake are mere child's play - don't you think?

And this is what I hate most about religion. The fact that everyone thinks their own is right. Religion was necessary to expand empires and give people hope in antiquity, but now it really just causes more problems than it solves. We don't need it anymore; in my opinion, it's just holding back humanity.

Well, Jacob, hate away - but religions are all mutually exclusive - not just Christianity. Islam and Judiaism do not say that all other religions are correct - no religion does that. In reality (look at the world around you) not everybody gets to be right. Sorry. That's kind of how reality works - at least that I've noticed.

Why don't you detail all the problems religion causes and then show me how those problems outweigh the benefits (which you should list in order to be fair). I'd be very interested in hearing you actually lay out the specifics of these charges instead of simply tossing out sweeping generalizations (which comprises the majority of your posts).

[JacobF]

One of the strongest arguments against your position is the Bible itself; the books about Christ's life (the Gospels) were written and disseminated while people who lived during Christ's lifetime were alive - if they were simply fabrications, there would have been refutations published during the time denouncing the veracity of the Bible. Such refutations do not exist - and certainly not for lack of people to do so. There are plenty of people who would have immediately come forward to challenge the gospels if they had been false - especially the Jewish leaders - who look pretty bad in terms of how they come across in the gospels. That there were no challenges to the published life of Christ suggest that it was accepted as true by his society.

It suggests it, but it doesn't confirm anything. Maybe there were challenges, and they were simply supressed/rewritten.

I'm not pursuing the argument that far - I'm simplying reminding you that the fear that you claim is behind believers' choices to believe ironically can be turned around as the root of many nonbelievers' attempts to deny the existence of God. It is well documented that human beings quite willingly deny that which they do not wish to be true. It is a viable explanation for at least some nonbelievers' choices to deny the existence of God.

Maybe there's a few people who choose atheism just because they're denying their fear of god. But, like you said below about Christians, they generally aren't real atheists.

There you go again - making sweeping generalizations about what motivates believers. And how do you know this? How can you definitively say "there's no other motive"? What privileged knowledge do you have into the contents of the hearts of millions of Christians worldwide?

That's the only motive that, really, is present. There may be variations of that motive, subsects of it, but in the end that's the core motive. I don't know why you continue to think I project myself as someone who knows everything that a Christian is thinking about Christianity. Obviously I don't. And there's another part of that quotation where I said some may do it for the community, because it's true there a plenty of Christians who go to church to see their friends. But please outline more genuine motives other than the desire to go to heaven. Seems to me that's really all Christianity offers that you can't achieve without being Christian.

Not having enemies at all is virtually impossible. Even peaceful, nonviolent men like Ghandi had enemies (the British weren't real fond of him in his movement to liberate India). Enemies are inevitable - the only way to avoid them is to have no opinions and take no stands on any issues whatsoever - and at that point, you may have no enemies, but you probably won't have many friends either. You certainly won't have any respect. Hating one's enemies poisons your own heart and hurts you more than them. That doesn't mean that we must like them - love means doing what is in your enemies best interest - and that best interest might be in turning him into the authorities, or confronting him for something wrong he's doing.

Well, Ghandi was a martyr. He had adversaries -- but I wouldn't call them enemies. An enemy is someone for whom you'd go out of your way to annoy/ignore/harm et cetera. To me, enemies are mutual in their hate toward each other. Not everyone is going to like you, and many people will inconvenience you, but do they have to be your 'enemies'? I don't think so. But this, like your argument above, this isn't one I really put much weight on.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't see much to substantiate it beyond your opinion. If only humanity acted out the same principle in reality - you might have a stronger argument. In other words, desire for reward and fear of punishment has only limited success in controlling human behavior - and that is with consequences and rewards that are clearly tangible and "provable." Why should the intangible consequences and rewards of hell and heaven carry any weight if tangible ones have only limited success? The reality is that many people choose to believe because God answers the questions they have about life, about the universe, about reality, about human nature that no other philosophy or belief system properly answers. People come to Christianity by as many routes as those who leave it.

Intangible rewards/threats can be more effective for the simple reason of fear again -- fear of the unknown. Hell is a place of eternal excruciation: you can barely imagine it, right? So when that threat is asserted, you can either say: 1) I don't believe it, or 2) I don't want to go there, help me avoid going there. The latter comprises of Christians and the former doesn't. It's the carrot-on-a-stick philosophy, as well, for heaven. I'm not really sure where you get that last part, that it teaches people many things about the universe/human nature/et cetera. All the bible really teaches is that 'god is love.' The moral of the story always is 'love god.' Much like in the Hitchhiker's Guide where the answer to everything is 42, it doesn't reveal a whole lot.

But not community that changes one's life for the better. Christianity doesn't just offer fellowship - it offers a new life and an eternal life to boot.

Okay, but a lot of people have Christianity or any religion for that matter rooted into their upbringing that, even if they may or may not believe the religion, going to church is traditional. I've spoken to many church-goers and they say they enjoy church because they've met a lot of friends there.

Christianity does not really make people feel better about themselves - that is a major misunderstanding. Becoming a Christian first and foremost requires a person to accept that he/she is a sinner - someone incapable of being good on his/her own - and that our attempts to control our lives only results in failure. Christianity teaches us to put others before ourselves, to love the unlovable, share what we have with those who have less, to serve others. Which part of that sounds smugly self-serving to YOU? Christianity is much more demanding in terms of what is expected out of an individual behaviorally and morally - it's not for wimps.

It isn't as obviously self-serving as, say, buying a huge mansion and laughing at the poor people from your 70-inch screen TV. But, it's still self-serving because 1) it legitimizes yourself as a person (the whole thing that you just said with not being worthy as an independent human being) and 2) you simply feel good about your own self-esteem for helping others. Some Christians may have better intentions than others but the fact still remains we are self-serving species, with Christianity or without.

There's always those who don't fly the flag well - no institution, group, organization, etc is immune to zealots and miscreants. They are sinners because they act contrary to the character of God. The problem with your supposition is that without a standard by which to evaluate our behavior, why should be think anything wrong? Why should we be motivated to do "the right thing" if the only weight it carries is from other flawed people like ourselves? The Bible doesn't create reality; it verifies it.

Morals are not only extracted from religion, but nature too. We should be motivated to do the right thing because it's in the best interest of our race. For instance, killing each other for no reason is not in our best interest. At any rate, the 'right thing' is quite subjective and never absolute, and that's another gripe I have with the bible -- it attempts to solve everything with a quick fix that if you worship god, everything will be okay.

Another grand assumption that cannot be proven in any way to be true - simply your biased evaluation of the value of Christianty - which carries zero weight.

That wasn't an argument, by the way -- it was my belief, in response to yours which seemed kind of out of place anyway, or else I would have embellished on it.

People did not write the Bible or establish Christianity because they were fearful. There is nothing to substantiate your claims beyond your assumptions.

There is nothing to substantiate many of your claims beyond faith, but here I am arguing with you about it. Do you know why they wrote the bible?

You didn't - I brought it up as an example how many times nonbelievers slam God from both sides. There is no paradox: love requires that God be just - and for God to be just, He must take vengeance upon those who have earned it. On earth, we see that as admirable.

I don't really see that as admirable, but to each his own.

The Bible outlines the character of God - His actual existence and the potentialities of His abilities we cannot fathom - but we can gather certain things about Him - especially from the life of Jesus Christ - who said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." That was Christ's mission - to reveal God to humanity.

I'm sorry - the odds of abiogenesis are approximatley 1 in 10 to the 33, 133 power. That number is astronomical - especially considering that it has been calculated that the number of particles in the universe is approximately 10 to the 60th power. (I'm quoting from memory, so I'm prepared to have those numbers challenged). Now, tell me that that number is a rational number - tell me that the those odds are believable - because in my mind, numbers that big become so unreal as to almost become as "unreal" as God is to others. Why is that incredible number more believable than a Divine Being? Tell me its rational to believe that the incredible complexity of this world "just happened" even though nothing in our world conforms to that principle - that in reality, matter grows less complex and less organized as time goes on - not more complex and more organized.

There are no traces of the divine in our universe. Therefore, it's only logical to pass it up as mythology. No evidence exists that proves the divine. We have scientific explanations for a lot of things, definitely not everything, and generally the only things we don't have explanations for (such as the origins of the universe) are deemed as unknown. Why does everything that we can't explain have to be carried out by a divine being? There's nothing that inclines us to believe that, except for our imagination.

Please - very few things in this life that make life worth living - relationships, love - follow the laws of logic. Our human hearts defy that logic on a daily basis - and not always to our detriment.

Love is logical to reproduce. Relationships are logical because they give us our own identity, and therefore make us feel good. That doesn't make them valid, but they are logical. Theism is, in a way, logical, because it has proved to be a good mechanism to control civilizations and give easy answers, thus making life easier to deal with -- but the truth of theism isn't logical. It's faith.

You don't "know" anything about how the earth got here - you simply have what you believe to be true. Science can't prove its competing theory either.

I'm pretty sure we've disproven that, the mass amount of matter called Planet Earth, wasn't created in 7 days. I don't think it even needs to be disproven.

Most evidence requires interpretation - and interpretation requires the employment of a subjective interpretive framework - that's why evolutionists and intelligent design scientists can look at the same evidence and arrive at two different conclusions.

Abiogenesis cannot be tested or observed - it can only by hypothesized.

They arrive at their conclusions not based on their status as a scientist, but due to their beliefs. A scientist will say: "this is how x happened," while an intelligent design scientists will say: "this is how x happened; plus, god helped." The raw evidence itself is the same, however. Since when can abiogenesis not be observed? There are many observations of it.

You have no proof for your accusations - you are simply parroting the standard (and rather hysterical) arguments thrown against the Bible and Christianty. Archeology makes finds year after year that confirm people, locations and events that the Bible reports. This is all well-documented. Textual criticism of the Bible has esatablished that the original language copies have a 99.5% integrity rate - higher than any other ancient texts; the rules for copying texts in the Jewish community are incredibly exacting - the Dead Sea scrolls confirm the integrity of the Old Testament. Frankly, you're simply grasping at straws. And, if God can create the universe (whether it took 7 days or longer) and raise the dead to life - well, a virgin birth and talking snake are mere child's play - don't you think?

Since when can archaeology excavate the evidence that there was a virgin birth, a talking snake, a man named Moses who received the 10 commandements, et cetera?

Well, Jacob, hate away - but religions are all mutually exclusive - not just Christianity. Islam and Judiaism do not say that all other religions are correct - no religion does that. In reality (look at the world around you) not everybody gets to be right. Sorry. That's kind of how reality works - at least that I've noticed.

Why don't you detail all the problems religion causes and then show me how those problems outweigh the benefits (which you should list in order to be fair). I'd be very interested in hearing you actually lay out the specifics of these charges instead of simply tossing out sweeping generalizations (which comprises the majority of your posts).

Not everyone gets to be right. But why must one religions assert that other religions are wrong? That's what I hate about it: fighting over mythology. You can try to patronize me to support your argument and accuse me of generalizing, but I still hold there's no reason why religion needs to exist. It gave people hope and kept them in their place in the past, but we don't need it anymore. A study was released that showed IQ rates to be higher as the dependancy on religion of a nation grew smaller (I don't have the link to it, but it's easy to find i'm sure). It's holding us back. But while I dislike the existence of religion, I can see why we still have it. Still, we don't need to.

I do, however, admire your tenacity at trying to support your faith with evidence and rationality -- I genuinely do. A lot of theists respond with the same stuff over and over again, but you've forced me to think about my responses. And that's why I'm going to step away from this debate now. I've said what I've needed to say. I guess you can use that against me in your next post (if there is one) but this argument, while I've learned quite a bit from it (i really have) is to the point where it is merely exhausting.

[Redzeppelin]

It suggests it, but it doesn't confirm anything. Maybe there were challenges, and they were simply supressed/rewritten.

In order to honor your "exhaustion," I'll keep responses brief.

First, the suggestion that all challenges to the life of Christ were suppressed by the church I find on par with just about any other conspiracy threory.

Maybe there's a few people who choose atheism just because they're denying their fear of god. But, like you said below about Christians, they generally aren't real atheists.

Fear of God isn't what makes some people choose atheism: it is fear that they way they are choosing to live is not right. What better way to feel OK about the life you live than to get rid of the standard by which you are evaluated?

That's the only motive that, really, is present. There may be variations of that motive, subsects of it, but in the end that's the core motive. I don't know why you continue to think I project myself as someone who knows everything that a Christian is thinking about Christianity. Obviously I don't. And there's another part of that quotation where I said some may do it for the community, because it's true there a plenty of Christians who go to church to see their friends. But please outline more genuine motives other than the desire to go to heaven. Seems to me that's really all Christianity offers that you can't achieve without being Christian.

The core motive is to be in the presence of our creator - the Being from whom love and beauty are derived. Who wouldn't want to be in the presence of the source of all goodness, beauty and love in the universe?
What higher motive do people need than to be united with the Being who created them?

Well, Ghandi was a martyr. He had adversaries -- but I wouldn't call them enemies. An enemy is someone for whom you'd go out of your way to annoy/ignore/harm et cetera. To me, enemies are mutual in their hate toward each other. Not everyone is going to like you, and many people will inconvenience you, but do they have to be your 'enemies'? I don't think so. But this, like your argument above, this isn't one I really put much weight on.

Hair-splitting. You're playing around with the definition of "enemy" in order to try and refute my point. Someone may consider me their enemy without me feeling likewise.

Intangible rewards/threats can be more effective for the simple reason of fear again -- fear of the unknown. Hell is a place of eternal excruciation: you can barely imagine it, right? So when that threat is asserted, you can either say: 1) I don't believe it, or 2) I don't want to go there, help me avoid going there. The latter comprises of Christians and the former doesn't. It's the carrot-on-a-stick philosophy, as well, for heaven. I'm not really sure where you get that last part, that it teaches people many things about the universe/human nature/et cetera. All the bible really teaches is that 'god is love.' The moral of the story always is 'love god.' Much like in the Hitchhiker's Guide where the answer to everything is 42, it doesn't reveal a whole lot.

You dismiss "God is love" very easily - do you understand what that really means? It means that the greatest examples/experiences of love on this earth are mere shadows of the Being which is love embodied. Since our desire for love is one of the primary motivations and goals of most everybody on earth, I think you're dismissing pretty easily something amazing - who wouldn't want to be in the presence of love embodied, if we will do just about anything here on earth simply to experience even this highly flawed experience that we call "love" here? What answer need be given beyond God is love?

Okay, but a lot of people have Christianity or any religion for that matter rooted into their upbringing that, even if they may or may not believe the religion, going to church is traditional. I've spoken to many church-goers and they say they enjoy church because they've met a lot of friends there.

Fine - but if that's all it offers, it won't keep people for long because the tenants of Christianity require much more out of an individual than other communities do.

It isn't as obviously self-serving as, say, buying a huge mansion and laughing at the poor people from your 70-inch screen TV. But, it's still self-serving because 1) it legitimizes yourself as a person (the whole thing that you just said with not being worthy as an independent human being) and 2) you simply feel good about your own self-esteem for helping others. Some Christians may have better intentions than others but the fact still remains we are self-serving species, with Christianity or without.

You are flat-out wrong. I have no idea how me acknowledging that I'm a sinner "legitimizes" me as a person. Second, the Bible teaches us that any good that we do comes from the presence of God in our heart - so the Christian who "feels good" about what she/he does is all wrong and is enjoying the sin of pride because the source of those good deeds is not me - it's God within me. Christianity is hard because it demands that we consciously work against the human tendency to be self-serving.

Morals are not only extracted from religion, but nature too. We should be motivated to do the right thing because it's in the best interest of our race. For instance, killing each other for no reason is not in our best interest. At any rate, the 'right thing' is quite subjective and never absolute, and that's another gripe I have with the bible -- it attempts to solve everything with a quick fix that if you worship god, everything will be okay.

Sometimes what is in my best interest is to be selfish and manipulative. Killing someone to get his money or car might just be in my best interest. Once right/wrong becomes subjective, there is no reason for me to bow to any law but that which serves my best interest. Only a higher law above human revision can stop us from becoming tyrants.

There is nothing to substantiate many of your claims beyond faith, but here I am arguing with you about it. Do you know why they wrote the bible?

Playing "tit-for-tat" doesn't change the fact that your claim has nothing to substantiate it.

The Bible was written to reveal the character of God and His history with the Jewish people. The New Testament was written as the revelation of Jesus Christ - God's son - in order to offer all people redemption from sin and the chance to accept the free gift of eternal life.

I don't really see that as admirable, but to each his own.

Oh come on - are you telling me that you don't think justice being served - a murderer being put in prison for his crimes - isn't admirable? Don't you want a just society that punishes wrong-doers? Please don't ask me to believe that you're trying to make justice into some sort of fancy that not everybody believes in. Everybody wants justice.

There are no traces of the divine in our universe. Therefore, it's only logical to pass it up as mythology. No evidence exists that proves the divine. We have scientific explanations for a lot of things, definitely not everything, and generally the only things we don't have explanations for (such as the origins of the universe) are deemed as unknown. Why does everything that we can't explain have to be carried out by a divine being? There's nothing that inclines us to believe that, except for our imagination.

What's your proof of no divinity in the universe? Because you can't find it? Because science hasn't found heaven or a big man in the sky it has decided that God doesn't exist? You're kidding, right? As if a Being who is capable of creating the universe from the atoms up could simply be found by our devices? You MUST be kidding...

Our sense of moral justice and the complexity of creation and the existence of love all point to a creator.

Love is logical to reproduce. Relationships are logical because they give us our own identity, and therefore make us feel good. That doesn't make them valid, but they are logical. Theism is, in a way, logical, because it has proved to be a good mechanism to control civilizations and give easy answers, thus making life easier to deal with -- but the truth of theism isn't logical. It's faith.

No - you're talking about relationships and the logic of being in them; sure - but while in these relationships we will often make very illogical decisions; logic does not rule the heart - it rules the head.

I'm pretty sure we've disproven that, the mass amount of matter called Planet Earth, wasn't created in 7 days. I don't think it even needs to be disproven.

And how was that proved? By what standard do we establish that an almighty being couldn't create the universe in 7 days beyond the fact that we can't imagine that kind of power? Ancient civilizations couldn't imagine most of the simple devices we use today.

They arrive at their conclusions not based on their status as a scientist, but due to their beliefs. A scientist will say: "this is how x happened," while an intelligent design scientists will say: "this is how x happened; plus, god helped." The raw evidence itself is the same, however. Since when can abiogenesis not be observed? There are many observations of it.

Wrong again; the scientist's beliefs do not come into play until the scientist must answer the question as to the "first cause" - at that point both scientists choose their foundation; the creationist chooses to believe that the First Cause is God; the evolutionist chooses as his First Cause naturalism. Both CHOOSE the First Cause they wish to point to.

Since when can archaeology excavate the evidence that there was a virgin birth, a talking snake, a man named Moses who received the 10 commandements, et cetera?

Those need not be proven for the Bible to be credible. It is sufficient to have people and events be shown to be true. If the miracles weren't true, where are the refutations (oh yeah, the conspiracy theory...)

Not everyone gets to be right. But why must one religions assert that other religions are wrong? That's what I hate about it: fighting over mythology. You can try to patronize me to support your argument and accuse me of generalizing, but I still hold there's no reason why religion needs to exist. It gave people hope and kept them in their place in the past, but we don't need it anymore. A study was released that showed IQ rates to be higher as the dependancy on religion of a nation grew smaller (I don't have the link to it, but it's easy to find i'm sure). It's holding us back. But while I dislike the existence of religion, I can see why we still have it. Still, we don't need to.

Any religion that claims to have the "truth" (that would be all of them) automatically brings the truthfulness of others into question simply by existing. It's only mythology to you - to us, its reality. I'm not impressed by the study on IQ - as if IQ is some sort of determination of the worth of people - let's not go down that road because we've already had plenty of exposure to people who thought in terms of "master race" - right? Do you choose your friends based upon IQ? Does IQ have some magical power to make someone better than someone else in a way that really matters?

I do, however, admire your tenacity at trying to support your faith with evidence and rationality -- I genuinely do. A lot of theists respond with the same stuff over and over again, but you've forced me to think about my responses. And that's why I'm going to step away from this debate now. I've said what I've needed to say. I guess you can use that against me in your next post (if there is one) but this argument, while I've learned quite a bit from it (i really have) is to the point where it is merely exhausting.

Understood and acknowledged.

[jon1jt]

You can try to patronize me to support your argument and accuse me of generalizing, but I still hold there's no reason why religion needs to exist. It gave people hope and kept them in their place in the past, but we don't need it anymore.

Jacob, you're as patronizing to Red Z in the sense that you seem to have it all figured out---and this early on in your life. You know what they say about people who fall on the side of right all the time? I highly suggest that you watch or read Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, a man who devoted his life to understanding the role of myth in human affairs across the historical spectrum---a phenomenon he found inextricably bound up with the who we are and why we're here. Because you and others trivialize myth doesn't diminish its role or importance.

And when you say something like "we" you speak for the human race, and that's solipsistic, or should I say pretentious. You need to learn to temper that. Anyway, interesting argument, gentleman.

[JacobF]

Jacob, you're as patronizing to Red Z in the sense that you seem to have it all figured out---and this early on in your life. You know what they say about people who fall on the side of right all the time? I highly suggest that you watch or read Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, a man who devoted his life to understanding the role of myth in human affairs across the historical spectrum---a phenomenon he found inextricably bound up with the who we are and why we're here. Because you and others trivialize myth doesn't diminish its role or importance.

And when you say something like "we" you speak for the human race, and that's solipsistic, or should I say pretentious. You need to learn to temper that. Anyway, interesting argument, gentleman.

I don't claim to have it all figured out, and I don't know where you get that from, unless you're just using the prejudice of "I'm younger than him, therefore my arguments are less valid." I know have a lot to learn, and I've acknowledge that numerous times. And I'm not saying that simply to victimize myself by claiming ignorance, because I know it's true. When I called red patronizing I wasn't pointing to all his posts, I was pointing to a specific quotation... which is why I quoted it.

By the way, I've seen disrespectful/rude/"know-it-all" assertions of atheism which were bar none worse than mine (not on this board, though). Atheists would reply with "you're a moron, I hope you burn in the hell you've created," among other things which would get me banned.

And maybe I'll be a Christian in 10 years, I don't know. But these are the beliefs that I currently hold and I may as well throw myself in the ring and see how I do. That's how I learn sometimes. I'm not as mature or wise as older posters but I think I have the right to input my views. It's the internet after all.

Sorry you found my use of 'we' pretentious. It's a force of habit, and I'll duly note it. It's just a lot easier to refer to things as we, I guess.

I promised myself I wasn't going to re-engage in the debate but there's something I'd like to clear up. I don't think I trivialized the role or importance of religion or myth in society. Of course it plays a huge role, and I don't think it should. That was the basis of my argument.

[skasian]

Christianity does not really make people feel better about themselves - that is a major misunderstanding. Becoming a Christian first and foremost requires a person to accept that he/she is a sinner - someone incapable of being good on his/her own - and that our attempts to control our lives only results in failure. Christianity teaches us to put others before ourselves, to love the unlovable, share what we have with those who have less, to serve others. Which part of that sounds smugly self-serving to YOU? Christianity is much more demanding in terms of what is expected out of an individual behaviorally and morally - it's not for wimps.


You didn't - I brought it up as an example how many times nonbelievers slam God from both sides. There is no paradox: love requires that God be just - and for God to be just, He must take vengeance upon those who have earned it. On earth, we see that as admirable.


The Bible outlines the character of God - His actual existence and the potentialities of His abilities we cannot fathom - but we can gather certain things about Him - especially from the life of Jesus Christ - who said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." That was Christ's mission - to reveal God to humanity.

I would like to appreciate for sharing your thoughts and belief about God, it was spiritually refreshning.

[atiguhya padma]

To act ethically dfor a Christian is much easier than it is for an atheist. A Christian can just look up the rules and regulations in his/her handbook and pull out some moral teaching that suits her/him. An atheist on the other hand has think things through and come up with fresh approaches to fresh problems.

Its all very easy to use scripture to support your actions. When there is no scripture to refer to, then you have to be creative, bold and act in the knowledge that, though you might be wrong, you've done your best to act in a good way.

[Redzeppelin]

. Anyway, interesting argument, gentleman.

Thank you jon

I would like to appreciate for sharing your thoughts and belief about God, it was spiritually refreshning.

Thank you skasian

To act ethically dfor a Christian is much easier than it is for an atheist. A Christian can just look up the rules and regulations in his/her handbook and pull out some moral teaching that suits her/him. An atheist on the other hand has think things through and come up with fresh approaches to fresh problems.

Wrong. The Bible isn't a "rule book" we consult. It is the revelation of God's character and we are directed to "become" like God. As we grow in relationship, we voluntarily choose to engage in behaviors that mirror His character. Don't patronize us by making us sound like bean-counters who mindlessly parrot the behavior the Bible suggests we engage in. The atheist's philosophy of behavior isn't self-created; they consult their own "rule books" - whether that be conventional morality, social contract theory, utilitarianism, or other philosophies they have read or been exposed to. I don't buy this "Christians are parrots but atheists are creative" idea in terms of moral behavior. The supposed "freedom" of atheist ethics also makes their ethics unstable and unreliable.

Its all very easy to use scripture to support your actions. When there is no scripture to refer to, then you have to be creative, bold and act in the knowledge that, though you might be wrong, you've done your best to act in a good way.

Pretending that atheists create their own "bold creative" response to the cirucumstances of the world strikes me as a bit self-aggrandizing. Atheists adhere to morality by-and-large that they inherited from Christian morality or other sources.

[blazeofglory]

There are many disputations about God, creation, different gods, faiths, sources of faiths.

I do not think one God is greater and another smaller. Even paganism is also as good as Christianity.

At times Christians try to dodge paganism as a religion or cult of the savage but I hold it strongly that paganism is as complex and as advanced as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism.

People become so irrational and dogmatic when it comes to defend their particular sets of beliefs and now never than ever before we have fundamentalists and fanatics waging all kinds of wars.

They want to assert their ideas and religions at any costs
This is sheer foolhardy. Politics of religions is sheer politics and not religions at all.

Politicizing it as a religion is to debase it and rather to be interested in politics only.

[billyjack]

[QUOTE=jon1jt;663077]Jacob, you're as patronizing to Red Z in the sense that you seem to have it all figured out---and this early on in your life. You know what they say about people who fall on the side of right all the time?/QUOTE]

he is right and he wasn't patronizing.

[QUOTE=jon1jt;663077] I highly suggest that you watch or read Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, a man who devoted his life to understanding the role of myth in human affairs across the historical spectrum---a phenomenon he found inextricably bound up with the who we are and why we're here. Because you and others trivialize myth doesn't diminish its role or importance. /QUOTE]

i've dabbled in campbell's "hero with a thousand faces". myth played a role. so did the stone age. we don't swing stone axes anymore but the beliefs of that time still hold, its a shame and a sham

[Niamh]

Just a reminder for you all to discuss the topic, and not each other before you all get carried away..