The holy bible...........or not so?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Krumple
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 05:38 pm
@Klope3,
Klope3;172261 wrote:
The belief that a God exists is reinforced by the evidence.


I hear this response often, but it is never backed with anything at all. So what is this evidence?

Klope3;172261 wrote:

First, most religions have some element of the truth that Christians profess. Many, if not most, religions deal with some sort of higher being--which God is. I'd say that's a mark that God left. Now, why are there so many different religions? I would put forth that it's because God has 1) given humans free will to believe what they choose, and 2) given those who believe in him a field in which to live for him (going on Christian missions, for example.) But we are once more, we are debating God's reasoning behind doing things. This doesn't satisfy anything (except philosophical/theological curiosity), since most of God's reasoning we will probably never know.


It doesn't stand though. Because a majority of religions are not monotheistic in nature. So which is it? Is there a group of gods in reality or not? You have to be realistic. It's like if you were to thank a person for working on a project, but yet the project was a collaboration of many people who had equal amount of work on the project. By only thanking one of the people you have left out the others. It would seem absurd that if the reality were that there are in fact multiple gods then monotheistic would cause a conflict of interest. Not to mention that you would create other conflicts as well so you can't just say, this religion has multiple gods but since it is talking about a "higher" power it qualifies as having the exact same point as all the others. That doesn't work and a god would know that having all these different religions would actually create conflict and problems, why not influence them instead? That way you insure they won't fight over the details?

Klope3;172261 wrote:

Second, your analogy works only up to a certain point. I believe that math is fact and that God is just as much of a fact. But there is another factor present in the case of belief in God that is absent in the case of belief in math. If you disbelieve that the Pythagorean theorem is true, and I prove conclusively to you that it is true, that's not going to have any bearing on what you do with your desires, your urges, and your choices throughout your life.


I don't follow your reasoning here. You could have absolute knowledge that a god or gods existed, yet decide not to obey their commandments. The bible is chalked full of accounts where people had first hand experience with god, yet chose not to obey. So I don't accept your argument, it's even right there in the beginning. Adam and Eve had face to face interaction with a god, did that ruin their free will? No, they still chose not to follow the rule. So why would you assume that if god revealed itself that it would some how conflict with a person's choice to do what they wanted? They would still have the choice.

Klope3;172261 wrote:

However, if I prove to you (let's save the question of whether or not I can prove this for another thread) beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists and that he created everything that exists in the universe, that will potentially have some bearing on the way you live your life.


Maybe, but not necessarily. Just like my example above. If I thought that this god was a tyrant, I wouldn't just follow it's commands because it threatens me with damnation. I do not submit to threats, not even if they are violent ones. So if I felt this god was just, then sure I might change my behavior, but if I thought it to be unjust, then I wouldn't follow it no matter what it told me.

Klope3;172261 wrote:

In atheism, there is (technically) no moral accountability.


This is nonsense, there is too accountability. My own self and those people around me. You think I don't care about the effects I have on society? You think that I do not have concern for what others will think of my actions? Maybe you don't have any empathy for humanity but I do. Maybe you need to have the threat of a god to be a considerate person or what ever, but I don't need anything than my own self reflection. I have to live with my self knowing what I have done in the past. You can argue if you want that god gave me the conscious that I am referring to but I say I don't need any god to be accountable.

Klope3;172261 wrote:

However, if it's proven reasonably to you that God created people and then you observe that most if not all people possess some sort of moral code within,


This is nonsense too. You have to be taught morals and those morals that you are taught are what society has agreed upon. You get your morals from your guardian who raises you, which is determined by that society. Not every society have the same moral principles. If it were true that there are some underline universal moral code, then every society would have exactly the same moral principals. The reality is, they don't.

Klope3;172261 wrote:

it's not unreasonable to conclude that God placed that code there deliberately. The implication, then, would be that a person would have an obligation to obey the code. A pre-established unwillingness to do so may conflict with an acceptance of the evidence for Christianity provided.


Your argument fails because morality is adopted not innate.

Klope3;172261 wrote:

I've sort of already responded to this. I disagree with your premise and your conclusion. I'd say God's mark can be found on most, if not all, world religions--and even if this wasn't so, it wouldn't be a very good reason to disbelieve the existence of God.


You are right, it wouldn't be a very good reason to disbelieve in the existence of god. A far better reason would be that there is absolutely nothing substantial to base believing in the existence of a god or gods. So please, provide for me your evidence you stated in your first paragraph.
 
Klope3
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 06:03 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;172278 wrote:
I hear this response often, but it is never backed with anything at all. So what is this evidence?


Really? We've recently discussed this quite a bit in a different thread. Necessity of the beginning of the universe; evidence pointing to the Big Bang; the fine-tuning of the universe; the design and irreducible complexity of life. There are subpoints for each of those, as well as many counter-arguments. I'd be happy to explain them and argue for them (as I have already done), but this may not be the thread to delve deeply into these things...?

Krumple;172278 wrote:
It doesn't stand though. Because a majority of religions are not monotheistic in nature. So which is it? Is there a group of gods in reality or not? You have to be realistic. It's like if you were to thank a person for working on a project, but yet the project was a collaboration of many people who had equal amount of work on the project. By only thanking one of the people you have left out the others. It would seem absurd that if the reality were that there are in fact multiple gods then monotheistic would cause a conflict of interest. Not to mention that you would create other conflicts as well so you can't just say, this religion has multiple gods but since it is talking about a "higher" power it qualifies as having the exact same point as all the others. That doesn't work and a god would know that having all these different religions would actually create conflict and problems, why not influence them instead? That way you insure they won't fight over the details?


My point is that most religions acknowledge a higher power, whether that power is comprised of one being or multiple beings. That in itself seems significant.

Krumple;172278 wrote:
I don't follow your reasoning here. You could have absolute knowledge that a god or gods existed, yet decide not to obey their commandments. The bible is chalked full of accounts where people had first hand experience with god, yet chose not to obey. So I don't accept your argument, it's even right there in the beginning. Adam and Eve had face to face interaction with a god, did that ruin their free will? No, they still chose not to follow the rule. So why would you assume that if god revealed itself that it would some how conflict with a person's choice to do what they wanted? They would still have the choice.


It seems to me that if you concluded that God exists and that he holds us to a moral standard, you would at least feel an obligation to meet that standard. You wouldn't necessarily choose to do so, but the compulsion would most likely be there.

Krumple;172278 wrote:
This is nonsense, there is too accountability. My own self and those people around me. You think I don't care about the effects I have on society? You think that I do not have concern for what others will think of my actions? Maybe you don't have any empathy for humanity but I do. Maybe you need to have the threat of a god to be a considerate person or what ever, but I don't need anything than my own self reflection. I have to live with my self knowing what I have done in the past. You can argue if you want that god gave me the conscious that I am referring to but I say I don't need any god to be accountable.


Let me rephrase: In atheist materialism, there is no reasonable justification for the upholding of any moral standards. Assuming materialism, I could say:

1) All that exists or matters is the material.
2) A moral law is not material.
3) Therefore, a moral law either does not exist or does not matter.

I was considering starting my first thread on this forum based on this topic. If you, your family, and the rest of humanity are no better than single-cell organisms (since they're just wackily mutated versions of the latter), what's really the problem with killing and eating your fellow human beings? If you think human tastes good, and you happen to be hungry, I suggest you catch someone in a dark alley, tie them up, and eat them alive. Their pain and suffering don't matter--yours don't even matter. So what's the problem?

It all sounds quite caustic, but it seems to me that the inevitable conclusion following logically from atheist materialism is that nobody matters, morals are mere fantasy, and life and existence itself are a big joke.

Krumple;172278 wrote:
Your argument fails because morality is adopted not innate.


I think there is evidence on both sides of this topic. It would be interesting to delve into this, but it may be another tangent from the thread at hand. (We are probably already on a tangent, in fact.)
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 06:34 pm
@Klope3,
Klope3;172289 wrote:
Really? We've recently discussed this quite a bit in a different thread. Necessity of the beginning of the universe; evidence pointing to the Big Bang; the fine-tuning of the universe; the design and irreducible complexity of life.


Actually no, none of these are any evidence. I have refuted IC on many occasions and it is well documented to be a fallacy. I also have provided an alternative to the big bang theory, even though I am not against the theory. As far as fine tuning the universe, I think it is a gross misrepresentation of natural laws. How can you know how things would or would not be? It's like looking at something and saying, well this thing would be all chaotic but it's not because god made it not. It is a little absurd to reason that out without knowing the state of existence of the universe in all it's possible states. Not only that, but none of those things point to a god existing.

Klope3;172289 wrote:

My point is that most religions acknowledge a higher power, whether that power is comprised of one being or multiple beings. That in itself seems significant.


You might consider it significant but I don't. What about the cultures that never developed a religion at all? Your argument is nothing more than an unspecific generalization.

Klope3;172289 wrote:

It seems to me that if you concluded that God exists and that he holds us to a moral standard, you would at least feel an obligation to meet that standard. You wouldn't necessarily choose to do so, but the compulsion would most likely be there.


No, how can you make that argument when the bible even states a case where it did not happen how you are even arguing? Actually there are about a dozen cases in the bible where they knew of gods existence yet chose to disobey his commandment. So how can you actually make that claim?

Klope3;172289 wrote:

Let me rephrase: In atheist materialism, there is no reasonable justification for the upholding of any moral standards. Assuming materialism, I could say:

1) All that exists or matters is the material.
2) A moral law is not material.
3) Therefore, a moral law either does not exist or does not matter.


Yeah you could try to make this claim but it is a common fallacy. My thoughts themselves are not material yet they have a huge impact on the things I do. So what would give you the impression that I would hold no value to my own personal morality?

Klope3;172289 wrote:

I was considering starting my first thread on this forum based on this topic. If you, your family, and the rest of humanity are no better than single-cell organisms (since they're just wackily mutated versions of the latter), what's really the problem with killing and eating your fellow human beings? If you think human tastes good, and you happen to be hungry, I suggest you catch someone in a dark alley, tie them up, and eat them alive. Their pain and suffering don't matter--yours don't even matter. So what's the problem?


It is a problem for me because I would sympathize with the situation. I don't even eat animals because I sympathize with their position. Why am I considered more important than any animal or human? I am not, I am equal to any animal or person, so killing them for myself to continue living is unjust in my opinion. So I would never kill a person, just so I can wave off dying of hunger. Not only that but your scenario is flawed. Think about it, if it really required me killing someone so I wouldn't starve, what happens after I eat them? Am I miraculously saved? Or do I have to go find another person to eat? If that was the last person, then I am screwed anyways. So instead of killing them I would rather offer myself up instead. You are going to die at some point, so why place yourself above everyone else?

Klope3;172289 wrote:

It all sounds quite caustic, but it seems to me that the inevitable conclusion following logically from atheist materialism is that nobody matters, morals are mere fantasy, and life and existence itself are a big joke.


You make that claim but that is not how I see it. Perhaps you need to have this threat over your head to have respect for others, but I don't. I see myself in others, so I can easily put myself into their perspective. If I am trying to take advantage of that, it would be nothing different than someone else taking advantage of me. Since I do not like being taken advantage of, I can respect the fact that I won't take advantage of anyone else. It is simple logic and it doesn't require any god at all to understand.

Klope3;172289 wrote:

I think there is evidence on both sides of this topic. It would be interesting to delve into this, but it may be another tangent from the thread at hand. (We are probably already on a tangent, in fact.)


That can be solved with a forum topic that discusses it, but I doubt that will happen.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 06:39 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;170922 wrote:
The Holy Bible is a collection of books made out of paper. Do you percieve it as a Holy document, or not?


I'm definitely no expert on the bible. I don't know its origin. I'd like to think it was left by those associated with the xenogenesis project to get the human race off to a good start....thats just one idea. I have all kinds of crazy ideas.

The word "Holy" means nothing to me. I dont associate it with god, or whatever else is responsible for creation. The Bible is ambiguous and boring. It answers none of my questions. Nor does anything else with certainty for that matter. But this forum at least gives me reasonable theories to consider. Albeit with my very limited knowledge/intellect.

Theoretical Physics is my Bible. I'd like to know more about the Superforce, and the Big Bang.

For what its worth, if I must answer the above question. Then my answer is no.
 
Klope3
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 07:00 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;172295 wrote:
Actually no, none of these are any evidence. I have refuted IC on many occasions and it is well documented to be a fallacy. I also have provided an alternative to the big bang theory, even though I am not against the theory. As far as fine tuning the universe, I think it is a gross misrepresentation of natural laws. How can you know how things would or would not be? It's like looking at something and saying, well this thing would be all chaotic but it's not because god made it not. It is a little absurd to reason that out without knowing the state of existence of the universe in all it's possible states. Not only that, but none of those things point to a god existing.


They ARE evidence--what matters is the conclusions you draw from the evidence. I have seen yours and others' refutations of IC, and I don't agree with them. (I make such a simple statement because this isn't an IC thread.) Also, your argument against the fine-tuning of the universe is a little vague.

Yes, they do point to a God existing. They are evidence in support of the fact. What you're saying is that because you feel you've refuted the theist conclusions drawn from the evidence, there was never any real evidence to begin with.

Krumple;172278 wrote:
No, how can you make that argument when the bible even states a case where it did not happen how you are even arguing? Actually there are about a dozen cases in the bible where they knew of gods existence yet chose to disobey his commandment. So how can you actually make that claim?


I'm not making the argument that we would have no choice but to obey a moral standard. I'll reiterate: there would be the COMPULSION, but obedience would not necessarily follow from this. You don't think that Adam and Eve would have felt the slightest pang of conscience after following God's commands like they did?

Krumple;172278 wrote:
Yeah you could try to make this claim but it is a common fallacy. My thoughts themselves are not material yet they have a huge impact on the things I do. So what would give you the impression that I would hold no value to my own personal morality?


Your thoughts are not material? I thought everything you do is governed by electrical impulses in your brain? That's what the scientific EVIDENCE suggests. Now, if you're not completely materialist, then my argument doesn't apply to you as much.

Krumple;172278 wrote:
It is a problem for me because I would sympathize with the situation. I don't even eat animals because I sympathize with their position. Why am I considered more important than any animal or human? I am not, I am equal to any animal or person, so killing them for myself to continue living is unjust in my opinion. So I would never kill a person, just so I can wave off dying of hunger. Not only that but your scenario is flawed. Think about it, if it really required me killing someone so I wouldn't starve, what happens after I eat them? Am I miraculously saved? Or do I have to go find another person to eat? If that was the last person, then I am screwed anyways. So instead of killing them I would rather offer myself up instead. You are going to die at some point, so why place yourself above everyone else?


This is where you go wrong. First, yes, from a materialist point of view, you are equal to any animal or human animal. And that is why there would be no problem with eating them; lower animals eat each other, so why shouldn't we? Second, what happens after you eat them is that you keep on surviving for a little while longer. After all, in materialist evolutionism, that's all that life does--it uses the stimulus provided to seek out food, so that it can go on to reproduce and then die; the goal of life is self-perpetuation. Pretty useless, if you ask me.

Krumple;172278 wrote:
You make that claim but that is not how I see it. Perhaps you need to have this threat over your head to have respect for others, but I don't. I see myself in others, so I can easily put myself into their perspective. If I am trying to take advantage of that, it would be nothing different than someone else taking advantage of me. Since I do not like being taken advantage of, I can respect the fact that I won't take advantage of anyone else. It is simple logic and it doesn't require any god at all to understand.


If you don't need to believe in God to accept morality, then in order to do the latter you have to at least allow that there are things in existence that are not material. Also, the last part of your paragraph isn't logic--it's compassion and empathy, two things that, from a materialist point of view, stem from mere chemicals floating around in the brain (in addition, perhaps, to acquired and arbitrary societal values).
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 07:22 pm
@Klope3,
Klope3;172310 wrote:
They ARE evidence--what matters is the conclusions you draw from the evidence. I have seen yours and others' refutations of IC, and I don't agree with them. (I make such a simple statement because this isn't an IC thread.) Also, your argument against the fine-tuning of the universe is a little vague.

Yes, they do point to a God existing. They are evidence in support of the fact. What you're saying is that because you feel you've refuted the theist conclusions drawn from the evidence, there was never any real evidence to begin with.


Why has IC never been accepted by any scientific media? There is not a single scientific paper that supports or endorses IC as being a legitimate possibility, not a single one. Science is not anti-religion, so there would be no reason why IC wouldn't have been documented in a scientific finding. Yet there are none, and the reason is, there is absolutely nothing that backs up IC as being a legitimate theory.

Klope3;172289 wrote:

I'm not making the argument that we would have no choice but to obey a moral standard. I'll reiterate: there would be the COMPULSION, but obedience would not necessarily follow from this. You don't think that Adam and Eve would have felt the slightest pang of conscience after following God's commands like they did?


The simple fact that you have to ask me that question is telling.

Why would they have such a reaction? Didn't they know who god was? Wouldn't that have been enough for them to make a proper decision? Or did god leave them in the foggy haze or lie to them about who he was? I find it incredibly hard to believe that a being interacting with the maker of the universe would be so candid and uncaring to a single and simple rule. It doesn't logically make sense unless they were ill informed of who it was making the rule, or they were absolute morons.

A young child even grants their parents a portion of respect on that front. Sure a child doesn't always obey their parent, but at the same time their parent isn't waving damnation over their heads either. So would they have some compulsion to act in any particular way? The answer is no.

Klope3;172289 wrote:

Your thoughts are not material? I thought everything you do is governed by electrical impulses in your brain? That's what the scientific EVIDENCE suggests. Now, if you're not completely materialist, then my argument doesn't apply to you as much.


Sure there are electrical impulses but the thoughts themselves are not the impulse itself. Probably more like a byproduct of the chemical reaction within the neurons. The same for emotions. I wouldn't consider them a physical thing either, if they were, I bet humanity would be far more unstable than it currently is. It is the fact that these emotions do not always arise, where we can actually change our behavior in either good or bad ways. If they were physical, this wouldn't be possible.

Klope3;172289 wrote:

This is where you go wrong. First, yes, from a materialist point of view, you are equal to any animal or human animal. And that is why there would be no problem with eating them; lower animals eat each other, so why shouldn't we? Second, what happens after you eat them is that you keep on surviving for a little while longer. After all, in materialist evolutionism, that's all that life does--it uses the stimulus provided to seek out food, so that it can go on to reproduce and then die; the goal of life is self-perpetuation. Pretty useless, if you ask me.


That is how you chose to see it but I don't see it so bleak. Yes all life has it's source that it requires for it's own survival. The funny thing is, you were arguing morality, as if eating a human were considered wrong, but then you turn around and state a naturalistic course. As if you can say that animals eating animals is good, but a human eating a human isn't. Why would a god chose either way? Sounds like picking and choosing to me without any particular reasoning. So in reality if god designed animals to eat other animals then by all means humans are animals it should stand that it would be okay for humans to eat other humans.

Klope3;172289 wrote:

If you don't need to believe in God to accept morality, then in order to do the latter you have to at least allow that there are things in existence that are not material. Also, the last part of your paragraph isn't logic--it's compassion and empathy, two things that, from a materialist point of view, stem from mere chemicals floating around in the brain (in addition, perhaps, to acquired and arbitrary societal values).


Well I have already stated two cases of things that are not material. I would consider them thoughts and emotions. Other than those I can't think of anything that would be immaterial that I have substantial evidence for. I could always make a bunch of stuff up though, but that doesn't mean they are true. I could say that the reason you don't believe me is because the flying pink elephant just doesn't like you and refuses to allow you to know the truth. Would you accept that claim? Probably not.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 07:15 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;172278 wrote:
That doesn't work and a god would know that having all these different religions would actually create conflict and problems, why not influence them instead? That way you insure they won't fight over the details?.


Hi Krumple,
I don't want to stray from the thread point - But, what makes you think that God's intention isn't to create conflict and problems? Man cannot know or assume the intentions of God.

Thank you, Krumple, and journey well, sir.

Mark...
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 07:49 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;172433 wrote:
Hi Krumple,
I don't want to stray from the thread point - But, what makes you think that God's intention isn't to create conflict and problems? Man cannot know or assume the intentions of God.


I'm not in conflict with that possibility, and I have brought it up in the past. However; I think it is incredibly rare that any theist actually believes that god is actually against them. I think a majority believe god has their best interest in mind. It is just another assumption without any evidence so why assume it either way?
 
mark noble
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 08:13 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;172437 wrote:
I'm not in conflict with that possibility, and I have brought it up in the past. However; I think it is incredibly rare that any theist actually believes that god is actually against them. I think a majority believe god has their best interest in mind. It is just another assumption without any evidence so why assume it either way?


Hi Krumple,

If they've read their bible they will (Those attached to said system, of course).

Have a glance at Isaiah 45:7.

Thank you, Krumple.

Mark...
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 08:30 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;172442 wrote:
Hi Krumple,

If they've read their bible they will (Those attached to said system, of course).

Have a glance at Isaiah 45:7.

Thank you, Krumple.

Mark...


Yeah I am familiar with the passage. But there is a whole different side to the psychology of a christian. Since a majority do not even read it, they don't ever consume any thing other than what their minister or pastor feeds them. So there tends to be a lot of selective readings with a whole log of verbal editing mixed in. I bet you a million dollars there is an apologetic response to this line, ill go find it for some laughs.

"Scholars have observed that "evil" can be used with a purely secular meaning to denote physical injury or times of distress."

This doesn't make any sense because if they didn't mean the word evil, why use it? Why use a word that could create confusion? Why not be more specific and use a term that wouldn't be confused. I bet the original word is also evil yet they want to insist that the term meant other things other than evil.

So there you go, an apologetic response to the passage. God really doesn't bring on the evil, it means, god will mess you up if you don't obey. If you ask me it's a very fine line and quiet honestly sounds the same to me. I never liked abusive parents.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 09:30 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;172447 wrote:
Yeah I am familiar with the passage. But there is a whole different side to the psychology of a christian. Since a majority do not even read it, they don't ever consume any thing other than what their minister or pastor feeds them. So there tends to be a lot of selective readings with a whole log of verbal editing mixed in. I bet you a million dollars there is an apologetic response to this line, ill go find it for some laughs.

"Scholars have observed that "evil" can be used with a purely secular meaning to denote physical injury or times of distress."

This doesn't make any sense because if they didn't mean the word evil, why use it? Why use a word that could create confusion? Why not be more specific and use a term that wouldn't be confused. I bet the original word is also evil yet they want to insist that the term meant other things other than evil.

So there you go, an apologetic response to the passage. God really doesn't bring on the evil, it means, god will mess you up if you don't obey. If you ask me it's a very fine line and quiet honestly sounds the same to me. I never liked abusive parents.


Hi Krumple,

Yes - the original hebrew word is "rah" and it means "evil", "wicked", etc.
And I agree completely that the majority of christians merely follow suit and never question the validity of what it truly means to be - a Christian...

Nice discussion, thank you, and good tidings.

Mark...
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 10:13 am
@ABYA,
ABYA;171780 wrote:
Scuse me interupting guys.
I understand exactly what your saying Mark, but, how would you feel about chucking a Bible into a fire or tearing one up to shreds. Even though I agree with you, I feel that it would be sacrilegious to willingly destroy a Bible.


Are we really still wrapped in this supernatural nonsense? Come on, guys. Burning a book in and of itself, is not wrong.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 10:36 am
@mark noble,
Is this whole thread not based on the pretense that the message in the Bible is not to be talked about, and Christians are supposedly worshiping ink and paper when they read daily?

Sad

Some people read books to be entertained or feel smart (really, the same thing). Obviously, the Bible is not that sort of book.

"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done."

"A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push."
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 11:21 am
@jack phil,
jack;172465 wrote:
"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."


If we are not suppose to be enjoying ourselves then life is not worth living at all. Consider that shallow if you want but quite honestly in a world so filled with suffering, I think the best philosophy is to find enjoyment where ever you can as long as it's not purposely causing others to suffer in the process. So if there is some other purpose, then I don't want it. Id rather have nothing if I can't have at least some enjoyment in this existence.

jack;172465 wrote:

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done."


Yeah perhaps, but also silly things can lead to a lack or prevention of getting things done as well.

jack;172465 wrote:

"A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push."


A man will also be imprisoned by make believe fantasy if he gives validity to something for which has no evidence. If he believes there is a creature in his closet that will attack him if he moves then he will be incapable of doing anything so long as he believes it.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 11:38 am
@ABYA,
ABYA;171780 wrote:
Scuse me interupting guys.
I understand exactly what your saying Mark, but, how would you feel about chucking a Bible into a fire or tearing one up to shreds. Even though I agree with you, I feel that it would be sacrilegious to willingly destroy a Bible.


I'd like to answer this,

I would feel nothing whatsoever in performing the above act. Why? Because religion in general is a plague of this planet. It corrupts minds, and teaches people to not think for themselves. It breeds terrorism, and brings death to those who oppose anothers views. Its a form of brainwashing.

The leaders of religion are the shepherds, and the followers are sheep. Thats a good analogy.

The greatest irony is that many of these supposed men of God, who are "holy", righteous, are nothing of the kind. They are sick, evil, and perform their perverted acts on children.

The good that comes from religion, will never outweigh the destruction that it causes. Its no wonder that if there is a god, its why he remains obscure.

Shredding and burning bibles. You may be onto something here.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 11:45 am
@jack phil,
jack;172465 wrote:
Is this whole thread not based on the pretense that the message in the Bible is not to be talked about, and Christians are supposedly worshiping ink and paper when they read daily?
."


Hi Jack,

Not at all, it is about placing special significance on something "Material". The message within can be spoken, and is therefore not material. A place, such as Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Jericho, Mecca, etc - A thing, such as, a cross, shroud, font, water (holy water), church (building) - A document such as, a gospel, letter, book, scroll, etc - - - All "Material". The reverement of ANYTHING "Material" is classed as idolatry in the book of Isaiah, and many other places, in collective scriptures, fundamental to the processes of orthodox christianity.

Thank you Jack, and have a great day, sir.

Mark...
 
mark noble
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 11:58 am
@Neil D,
Neil;172490 wrote:
I'd like to answer this,

I would feel nothing whatsoever in performing the above act. Why? Because religion in general is a plague of this planet. It corrupts minds, and teaches people to not think for themselves. It breeds terrorism, and brings death to those who oppose anothers views. Its a form of brainwashing.

The leaders of religion are the shepherds, and the followers are sheep. Thats a good analogy.

The greatest irony is that many of these supposed men of God, who are "holy", righteous, are nothing of the kind. They are sick, evil, and perform their perverted acts on children.

The good that comes from religion, will never outweigh the destruction that it causes. Its no wonder that if there is a god, its why he remains obscure.

Shredding and burning bibles. You may be onto something here.


Hi Neil,

Stop stealing my "Shepherd and Sheep" analogies, but, if you must - Don't forget the "wolves".

I don't think we should typify the whole, for the sake of the few though - Church aid groups feed, educate and house millions of third-world inhabitants, as well as the needy and impoverished in developed nations.

Overall - I believe that good and evil are subject to opinion, but equally prevalent in all walks of human social systems.

As for the corrupt and perverse. "What goes around, comes around" They WILL in my view suffer in exactitude that they exact... Eternally, at that.

Thank you Neil, I enjoy our encounters. Have a great day, sir.

Mark...
 
jack phil
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 12:23 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;172491 wrote:
Hi Jack,

Not at all, it is about placing special significance on something "Material". The message within can be spoken, and is therefore not material. A place, such as Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Jericho, Mecca, etc - A thing, such as, a cross, shroud, font, water (holy water), church (building) - A document such as, a gospel, letter, book, scroll, etc - - - All "Material". The reverement of ANYTHING "Material" is classed as idolatry in the book of Isaiah, and many other places, in collective scriptures, fundamental to the processes of orthodox christianity.

Thank you Jack, and have a great day, sir.

Mark...


So, the word is material? Or is the Gospel is material?

I guess there was some unspoken logical entailment in your post, but I didn't follow it.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 12:47 pm
@jack phil,
jack;172509 wrote:
So, the word is material? Or is the Gospel is material?


At first I thought, yeah he made a great point here. The message would have to be immaterial and then it got me thinking again. No the message actually is not immaterial. But why?

It stands to reason that the message could have been altered through out the course of christian development. Not to mention that the early days of Christianity the message was not written down, it was instead passed verbally. I have a huge skepticism when it comes to verbal integrity because all it takes is for a few people to embellish a little before the message gets bent and manipulated. Since this is a possibility it actually makes the message material, even though it is still contained within the realm of the mind. By altering it's contents it has become something new, something different than the original intent. This means the message is not something permanent, free from stain or perfect.

To believe that the "word" of god has never been tampered with is contradiction in itself. You could make the argument that god saw to it that the "word" would not be manipulated by man so it would remain pure and retain the message perfectly. However that does not stand with man being so corruptible in nature. Surely a person who is "evil" in nature wouldn't try to manipulate the "word" and god would just step in to prevent it? If that is the case why doesn't god step in for other circumstances then? Seems a little bit imbalanced that it would only care about preserving the message and care nothing for all those other corruptions.
 
Klope3
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 12:51 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;172319 wrote:
Why has IC never been accepted by any scientific media? There is not a single scientific paper that supports or endorses IC as being a legitimate possibility, not a single one. Science is not anti-religion, so there would be no reason why IC wouldn't have been documented in a scientific finding. Yet there are none, and the reason is, there is absolutely nothing that backs up IC as being a legitimate theory.


Michael Behe? He wrote a book on irreducible complexity, and though I haven't gotten the chance to read it, I have heard that he presents scientific evidence to back up his claims. You may disagree with or think you can disprove the conclusions he drew from those claims, but there was still evidence to back him up.

And besides, there has also not been any evidence presented proving conclusively that a human can evolve from an ape. Sure, there are remarkable similarities between ape and human DNA and body structure. But that could mean a number of things (including that humans and apes had a common CREATOR, instead of a common ancestor).

Suppose a criminal is on trial after being accused of burglary. Muddy shoeprints are found on the carpet of the victim's house. This is evidence--of something. That "something" is the conclusion that must be agreed upon, and eventually this conclusion will be made BECAUSE there is evidence to support it. The shoeprints are a fact; they can only prove something if that "something" (a conclusion) is proposed. Evidence does not prove anything on its own. It is first found, and THEN a conclusion is drawn.

The point is, you can't say that someone's evidence-based conclusion is invalid simply because they never had any evidence in the first place. If they cited empirical scientific findings, then they have evidence. The evidence may be good or bad, and the conclusion might be faulty, but both of these would be up for debate. The fact would still remain that evidence existed.

Krumple;172319 wrote:
Why would they have such a reaction? Didn't they know who god was? Wouldn't that have been enough for them to make a proper decision? Or did god leave them in the foggy haze or lie to them about who he was? I find it incredibly hard to believe that a being interacting with the maker of the universe would be so candid and uncaring to a single and simple rule. It doesn't logically make sense unless they were ill informed of who it was making the rule, or they were absolute morons.


The terminology you use ("absolute morons") is strong, but it does come close to describing the situation. Humans were imperfect from the beginning. (You can't claim that humans don't make mistakes now.) This imperfection came through when Adam and Eve made the mistaken decision to disobey God. They let their desires (which, incidentally, they thought were good) get in the way of their obligation to God.

It doesn't logically make sense--but Genesis doesn't say that it was a logical decision, either.

Krumple;172319 wrote:
Sure there are electrical impulses but the thoughts themselves are not the impulse itself. Probably more like a byproduct of the chemical reaction within the neurons. The same for emotions. I wouldn't consider them a physical thing either, if they were, I bet humanity would be far more unstable than it currently is. It is the fact that these emotions do not always arise, where we can actually change our behavior in either good or bad ways. If they were physical, this wouldn't be possible.


The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you're not completely materialist (I hadn't understood that yet). You believe that things like thoughts and emotions are not comprised entirely of matter and/or energy. I'm not against that--I'm not a materialist either.

Although, I would feel the necessity to go on to ask whether you're concluding this about thoughts and emotions because you have evidence (which you demand for IC and most other topics) to support that such things are indeed (partially) immaterial. It's hard to have material evidence to support the existence of immaterial things. (I know this sounds like your argument against the existence of God, but that's not what we're discussing here. I still think there's material evidence to support his existence.)

Krumple;172319 wrote:
That is how you chose to see it but I don't see it so bleak. Yes all life has it's source that it requires for it's own survival. The funny thing is, you were arguing morality, as if eating a human were considered wrong, but then you turn around and state a naturalistic course. As if you can say that animals eating animals is good, but a human eating a human isn't. Why would a god chose either way? Sounds like picking and choosing to me without any particular reasoning. So in reality if god designed animals to eat other animals then by all means humans are animals it should stand that it would be okay for humans to eat other humans.


Sorry if I made this unclear. I am NOT a materialist/naturalist. I believe that eating another human would be very wrong. The point I am making is that there is no materialist that can conclude such a thing without being completely dishonest with themself. By believing that only material things matter but then choosing to believe in immaterial moral laws, they would be picking and choosing what they want to believe (as they accuse the "religious" of doing). The empirical evidence they demand for everything else is not there to support any sort of moral law.

-------------------------

Neil;172490 wrote:
I would feel nothing whatsoever in performing the above act. Why? Because religion in general is a plague of this planet. It corrupts minds, and teaches people to not think for themselves. It breeds terrorism, and brings death to those who oppose anothers views. Its a form of brainwashing.

The leaders of religion are the shepherds, and the followers are sheep. Thats a good analogy.

The greatest irony is that many of these supposed men of God, who are "holy", righteous, are nothing of the kind. They are sick, evil, and perform their perverted acts on children.

The good that comes from religion, will never outweigh the destruction that it causes. Its no wonder that if there is a god, its why he remains obscure.


How about this:

It was government that acted on Manifest Destiny and drove countless Native Americans from their rightful homes. It was government that massacred millions of Jews for no better reason then their heritage. It was government that sent hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers to fight a war in Vietnam which many people still believe was unwinnable. It STILL is government that dictates that unborn children can be terminated before they have a chance at life. "The good that comes from [government] will never outweigh the destruction that it causes." Therefore, all government should be abolished forever.

Doesn't seem like a very rational conclusion to me. There are tons of positive things that government has accomplished for humanity (a good amount of freedom, justice, and equality). Likewise, there are plenty of positives that Christianity and other religions have accomplished for humanity (missions to help the poor, the reinforcement of morality, etc.). You can't condemn these things just because there have been negatives to them.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 08:14:47