Are you an atheist?

[Alc]

Adam and Eve always worried me. I got chucked out of bible study for asking how come when Cane killed Able God sent him to live with another tribe? Up until then there was only Adam and Eve and their two boys...

Somebody else did post something - may have been a different thread - along the lines of 'well, just because the Bible doesn't specifically mention other people, that doesn't mean there weren't any'. That seemed like a bit of a cop-out answer, to me.

 

[Alc]

I believe they have been manufactured as motivating themes. They don't impact on my entertainment of the existance of God.

Wasn't suggesting otherwise, honest.

I'm trying to get an idea of why people who believe in God think the Bible was written the way it is.

At present, I think I'd agree with what you've said about the Bible, but I'd interpret it as 'evidence' supporting the non-existence of God. It's genuinely interesting - if a tad unusual - to hear someone who agrees on some of the *ahem* exaggerations in the Bible but still has a strong belief in God. So often, I hear the line of reasoning 'God exists because it says so in the Bible'.

 

[dan-cat]

Wasn't suggesting otherwise, honest.

I'm trying to get an idea of why people who believe in God think the Bible was written the way it is.

At present, I think I'd agree with what you've said about the Bible, but I'd interpret it as 'evidence' supporting the non-existence of God. It's genuinely interesting - if a tad unusual - to hear someone who agrees on some of the *ahem* exaggerations in the Bible but still has a strong belief in God. So often, I hear the line of reasoning 'God exists because it says so in the Bible'.

Ahhhh, well, you see... the question on the poll wasn't about Christianity.

Let me try and break it down for you. If the consideration of God was good enough for the likes of Aristotle, Hegel, Plato, Descartes etc etc then it's good enough for me. Like I said before I'm not certain, I'm just leaning towards what I find comfortable. Like most others do.

I didn't find Alisa's use of the 'Spaghetti monster' condescending, I and this is me personally, simply don't find it appropriate when considering such things. The universe is based on construction, the 'spaghetti monster' theme relies on deconstruction which is fine but, for me, it flies in the face of what is actually happening in the universe. It simply serves to deconstruct which I find of little value.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Like I said before I'm not certain, I'm just leaning towards what I find comfortable. Like most others do.

I think that makes you an agnostic theist according to some definitions, Wiki I think has some.

Yeah it does and looking at them I guess I'm an apathetic or mild agnostic, my wife thinks I'm pathetic most of the time so I guess it may be the former.

Brian

 

[Alc]

Ahhhh, well, you see... the question on the poll wasn't about Christianity.

I wasn't specifically thinking about Christianity, but I get your point.

I didn't find Alisa's use of the 'Spaghetti monster' condescending, I and this is me personally, simply don't find it appropriate when considering such things. The universe is based on construction, the 'spaghetti monster' theme relies on deconstruction which is fine but, for me, it flies in the face of what is actually happening in the universe. It simply serves to deconstruct which I find of little value.

I tend to think that the Spaghetti Monster is of less use in trying to disprove the existence of God than it is in pointing out the potential fallacy in believing that just because something-or-other is written down it's true.

After all, even if God exists, the Bible was written by people, translated by people, and copied out over a long period of time by people. It may well be totally fictional or, at best, full of errors There's no way anyone today can know that what they're reading is what was originally intended.

As you say, none of this detracts from the feasibility of God existing, since - if he does - he's quite capable of doing so without needing to appear in print (unless God is something like Paris Hilton, but that's a whole different theological discussion).

 

[Alc]

Yeah it does and looking at them I guess I'm an apathetic or mild agnostic, my wife thinks I'm pathetic most of the time so I guess it may be the former.

Don't put ypurself down, Bri.
If anything, I bet she sees you as The pathetic, not just A.

 

[Brianwarnock]

IAs you say, none of this detracts from the feasibility of God existing, since - if he does - he's quite capable of doing so without needing to appear in print (unless God is something like Paris Hilton, but that's a whole different theological discussion).

But one would think that if he does exist he or an obvious representative would appear again , after all why just the once some 2000 years ago?

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Don't put ypurself down, Bri.
If anything, I bet she sees you as The pathetic, not just A.

LOL so much conveyed in just a few letters.

Brian

 

[Alc]

But one would think that if he does exist he or an obvious representative would appear again , after all why just the once some 2000 years ago?

Brian

[Playing Devil's advocate]
How do we know He doesn't appear, regular as clockwork, every 3000 years?

 

[dan-cat]

Yeah it does and looking at them I guess I'm an apathetic or mild agnostic, my wife thinks I'm pathetic most of the time so I guess it may be the former.

Brian

She's biased, I'm voting mild

 

[Alisa]

Neither does anyone else - whats your point?

Are you trying to add to the debate - or just belittle other peoples beliefs, by likening God to a spagetti monster?

You could at least make the effort to understand what God is for billions of people, even if you don't believe in him.

You fail to show any understanding, or perhaps respect. Which makes your requests for reasonable debate laughable.

As Ouma said, my point is simply that I don't worry about things that probably don't exist, and that in my mind god, Santa, the tooth fairy, and the flying spaghetti monster are equaly unlikely to exist.

I am not trying to belittle or disrepsect anybody, and I have made the effort to understand how believers think about god, because I think it is a very interesting subject. The most interesting question to me is, how is it that to billions of people, most people in the world in fact, it seems perfectly reasonable to believe that there is some all powerful being out there, while to others, the idea is preposterous?

I truly don't think that it is disrespectful to question or challenge someone's belief in god. Is it disrespectful to question someone's support for a political candidate? Do you belittle someone when you challenge their ideas about crime or the economy?

 

[dan-cat]

As you say, none of this detracts from the feasibility of God existing, since - if he does - he's quite capable of doing so without needing to appear in print (unless God is something like Paris Hilton, but that's a whole different theological discussion).

Indeedy.

Let me try to flip the atheists argument on it's head. This is the argument that because of the overwhelming lack of evidence of God, the reasonable assumption is no God. It's the Occams razor, common sense approach.

When we look at the workings of a pocket watch what is the common sense approach? Was it luck that these parts came together or was it's origination contrived?

Then look at the universe which we keep discovering more and more structures to. A 'infinitely complex system' it has been referred to on this thread. What does the atheist do? Throws all common sense out of the window and claims 'luck'.

They wouldn't dare make such claims at a pocket watch would they? Why? Because the pocket watch and it's origination can fit within their frame of reference. Anything that goes beyond this frame of reference must be absurd.

I deny this absolute.

Fire at will.

 

[Alisa]

Then look at the universe which we keep discovering more and more structures to. A 'infinitely complex system' it has been referred to on this thread. What does the atheist do? Throws all common sense out of the window and claims 'luck'.

You are funny. It is believers who claim luck. Think about it this way. We have good evidence to support the theory that all life on earth probably evolved from very simple life forms.

There are only two places where luck is required: 1. It was luck that the earth formed at a certain distance from the sun, with a nice regular orbit and a nice thick atmosphere to stabilize the temperature, and a good mix of elements. 2. It was luck that a bolt of lightning, or some other event, somehow triggered the creation of the first "living" thing. That's it. Given that there may have been thousands of big bang events forming millions of planets, and given that the earth has been around for billions of years, there was a LOT of chances for these two events to occur. The fact that we haven't found life on any other planets in our solar system supports the idea that the origins of life on this planet were a rare and lucky event. If god had created life, he could have put life on mars and venus too, but he didn't. Why?

The theory of evolution explains the complexity of life that we see, there is no luck required for that.

Now compare to those who believe that there is an all-powerful being out there. How much more luck would it require for a god to be created? Not just a single cell, but a god?

 

[Alc]

When we look at the workings of a pocket watch what is the common sense approach? Was it luck that these parts came together or was it's origination contrived?

Then look at the universe which we keep discovering more and more structures to. A 'infinitely complex system' it has been referred to on this thread. What does the atheist do? Throws all common sense out of the window and claims 'luck'.

They wouldn't dare make such claims at a pocket watch would they? Why? Because the pocket watch and it's origination can fit within their frame of reference. Anything that goes beyond this frame of reference must be absurd.

I deny this absolute.

I wouldn't say luck, but I do believe in coincidence.

Look at how big the universe is meant to be. Within that is an awful lot of space for an awful lot of failed things to have existed and then vanished. One view of humans is that God specifically designed us to be as we are and that we couldn't be attributed to chance. Another way to look at it is that perhaps we were nature's one millionth 'attempt' and the others just weren't adapted to life on earth, so died out.

The watch is entirely manmade. Every part was constructed specifically for a set purpose and it wouldn't exist if this weren't the case. I don't think this applies to the universe as a whole (or even specific things within it), since I've never heard anyone suggest a plausible purpose for anything 'natural' existing. Yes, there's the whole 'we can't understand how God plans things' view, but that always strikes me as being a bit like 'Because I said so', as far as a convincing argument is concerned.

Incidentally, I was once cornered (literally) on a bus, once by an ex-neighbour who went through exactly the same argument but using a car instead of a watch. I have to admit, at the time I was more concerned with the fact that he was leaning towards me and waving a church leaflet than I was with reasoned debate, so my reply may have been along somewhat less polite lines than he would have liked.

 

[dan-cat]

Let me answer both of you at the same time. You can get off the bus whenever you like, me first probably

Doesn't it require a system for something to succeed/fail within?

If it takes gazillions of failures for something to succeed. Doesn't that suggest that what it is trying to adhere too is all the more, what's the word, choosy?

 

[Alisa]

Doesn't it require a system for something to succeed/fail within?

If it takes gazillions of failures for something to succeed. Doesn't that suggest that what it is trying to adhere too is all the more, what's the word, choosy?

Are you trying to say that the existence of an all powerful god requires less luck than a single fortuitous event that created one living organism?

 

[Alc]

Let me answer both of you at the same time. You can get off the bus whenever you like, me first probably

Doesn't it require a system for something to succeed/fail within?

If it takes gazillions of failures for something to succeed. Doesn't that suggest that what it is trying to adhere too is all the more, what's the word, choosy?

Absolutely. Which makes the chances of things surviving all the more rare. It doesn't make it impossible, though.

What would be the system in which God came to exist? Presumably, since He created everything, He also created the system in which He himself exists. How could He have done that?

 

[dan-cat]

I'm trying to answer you at both the same time so bear with me.

Absolutely. Which makes the chances of things surviving all the more rare. It doesn't make it impossible, though.

Right, so evolution is reliant on this complex system. It doesn't create it, it simply takes the odd 'chance' to conform and thus thrive within it's complex structure. It starts small and grows big all the while conforming to the mandate of it's environment.

Are you trying to say that the existence of an all powerful god requires less luck than a single fortuitous event that created one living organism?

No, I'm not talking about luck at all when it comes to God. Evolution requires luck. It needs it in order to survive within a more powerful environment.

 

[Rabbie]

Hurrah!




I'm sure alot of it is based on historical facts. The portrayal of Egyptian slavery etc etc.

When it comes to the word of God, though, it seems to have a massive blip. The new covenant says that actually 'an eye for an eye' is wrong, you're supposed to turn the other cheek. It smacks too much of 'if it at first you don't succeed, try, try again', if you know what I mean.

An adjustment of one's approach to suit the political climate, let's say.

Strange then that there are no Egyptian records of this. You think they might have recorded the loss of an army in the Red Sea as described in the bible. The plagues too should have been mentioned especially the death of the first-born.

 

[Alisa]

Right, so evolution is reliant on this complex system. It doesn't create it, it simply takes the odd 'chance' to conform and thus thrive within it's complex structure. It starts small and grows big all the while conforming to the mandate of it's environment.

I am not following you . . . what system? Do you mean the natural laws of physics and chemistry, etc.?

No, I'm not talking about luck at all when it comes to God. Evolution requires luck. It needs it in order to survive within a more powerful environment.

Where did god come from? Did the creation of god in the first place not require an enormous amount of luck (or misfortune, as the case may be)?

Evolution does not require luck - creatures that survive reproduce, creatures that don't, don't. It is very simple and does not require any luck at all. What "more powerful environment"?