Debating the existance
This won't last long
I was just now thinking that it seems to me, every arguement that atheists make against the existence of god aren't directly related to that issue.
Their arguements are against the descriptions of that God AS DEPICTED by religion.
descriptions and depictions of religious perseptions ARE NOT GOD
Whether or not a God exists outside the realm of religions descriptions are seldom adressed..
I would like to hear them if you have them.I guess it's roughly equivalent to ants discussing how the anthill managed to grow so large whilst standing on the top of a skyscraper looking upward and downwards in astonishment?
The negative mind creates its own folly so that it can function.
otherwise it would be at peace, which is not an attribute of the negative mind.Very true. Just an easy cop out. Same as saying no evidence. Should really say no evidence that we can find. But obviously many things exist we do not know of. Human ego.
If a god is not defined or described via religion, how is it defined or described? Who do you ask? Who do you trust when everyone's experiences are unique and are neither verifiable or provable? If it weren't for religions or religious literature, how would you know anything about that god at all?
How do you define god? What are its qualities, and how do you know?Worse, how do you even discuss the subject?
There, their and they're are bad enough, but now you've got God, God, God, God God, God, God, God God, God, God, God God, God, God, God God, God, God, God God, God, God, God God, God, God, God God, God, God, God, God and God, every one of which has a different meaning.not to mention that you can't even discuss their meanings because it might be perceived as a "religion" and then you're back to square one with nothing but the word 'god' which, for all I know, could be the name of your pet hamster, and I have no way of discerning the difference.
I'll take the same kind of religion that Abraham Isac and Jacob had. They didn't have a book.
I don't think that Daniel had a book either. The only reason that Judiasm accepted Daniel as a prophet is because they watched most all of his prophesy coming into fullment. And then Jesus confirmed Daniel as a prophet.
.Religion didn't exist then.the belief in the god of the bible is, by definition, a religion. You accept all of the descriptions of god according to the bible - and those descriptions can be challenged. You just don't like the word "religion" because it has negative connotations. If you're adhering to the biblical god, why do you have a problem with people challenging his attributes?
Religion: Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.so, since you seem to accept at least some of the biblical stories, but you don't like the religion that they're a part of, define god for me - and tell me where you got that definition from.
Well according to scripture He wouldn't define himself so I would be out of boundaries if I tried to.
Though I will say this much. To me it would seem that God is that thing that is just outside of this physical realm which by some means influences the grand sceem of things.
Just my opinion To profess much more would be only speculation.god defines himself in scripture all of the time. The problem is that he defines himself in mutually exclusive ways.
It is written that He is happy and he is sad, forgiving and judgmental. patient and quick to anger, etc. But as YOU mentioned before, much of the text is influenced by the person writting it and then the church interprets that.
So ... are you sure that God said those things? You can't have it both ways.ALL of the text is influenced by the person writing it, because no god was whispering in their ear and telling them what to say. But you hold parts of the bible as true and proof for your god, while throwing out others due to "interpretation" or "human influence" How do you know which is which? Do you read the original languages? I do. I can't read the original copies because NONE EXIST.
The only basis for your belief in this god is a book that you admit to being flawed, influenced by man and unreliable. What else do you have?oh I'm sorry - do you have the original copies of the bible under your bed?
Let me clarify - the original copies no LONGER exist. What we have today is copies of copies of translations of copies - and the earliest copies we have don't agree with each other. There are more differences in the copies of the new testament than there are words in the new testament - most of these differences are minor and can be attributed to a spelling error or using the wrong letter, etc - but some changes are very major and change the entire meaning of certain passages. Without the originals, though, there's no way to tell what they actually said. The earliest copy of the complete new testament in existence dates to the 3rd or 4th century. That's a lot of room for error.
I understand that. My question then is why do you pick one to make your point and not one of the other opposing ones. Unless you can have it both ways.
one of the other opposing religions? I rail against them, too - but I'm talking to you right now, so we're talking about your beliefs.
NO I'm talking about you using a particular verse in the bible when you just said that there are many versions of every verse . How do you choose which one to use in debate.
In a debate, I refer back to the original language. I don't tend to trust the translations as much.
It all boils down to this, "God is Love."
This statement isn't a new one in the religious debate. But, I've always wondered why it comes up. There are several hurdles I don't believe anyone can cross.
The Bible is written in three different languages. Now, most everyone can speak at least one other language. Some can speak several. But being fluent in a language doesn't necessarily make one aware of the subtle nuances and underlying meanings. Also, most of us are not raised speaking multiple languages simultaneously, so that creates a problem. Different regions have variances in meaning of many words. The writer may not have meant what the reader interprets. Even if the writer grew up in the vicinity of the reader.
Another problem is the passage of time. Hebrew, as a spoken language, died out when? Around 200 ce? Revived in the 19th century. How do you know the language today is the same? I've heard if we went back 500 years we wouldn't understand a word of English, so I would be very suspicious at a claim that anyone is positive they were reading any text exactly as the writer meant to relate it.
Attempting to get to the root of the intent of ancient writers is admirable, however I wouldn't trust anyone except those with years of formal study to translate ancient text accurately. We have a glut of religious sects primarily because too many people have interpreted too much and then developed a following.your point is valid, but it fails to point out that even if the language barrier could be crossed (and I do have years of collegiate formal study in written hebrew, latin and greek) we don't have the originals to examine. We have nothing to compare the copies we do have to except other copies - and none of them agree.
Well, I agree (to a point) on the comment about not having the originals. By my understanding, the books of the Old Testament survived the copy process fairly well. The gospels don't have many great variations in the translations from what I've read. Sure, one of them ( is it Matthew?) had some bizarre verses tacked onto the end. Other than that, what particular deviation are you referring to?
I personally think those discrepancies are the least of the hurdles. I would think that seas parted, first borns slain, the rotation of the earth stopped, cities annihilated, virgin births, miraculous healing, the dead brought back to life and the resurrection would be the deal breakers. Accept that and the rest is a cake walk.The gospels DO have great variations in them. Both Both john and mark have endings and entire passages that have been tacked on several hundred years later. There are more discrepancies between the copies of the new testament that exist than there are words in the new testament. This is not debated, it's a fact.
You're right - the extraordinary claims should have physical, tangible proof - or some place in the historical record, and they just don't. At all. no contemporary evidence exists that demonstrates that jesus christ was ever a human being that lived in the first part of the first century at all - and there were multiple historians IN jerusalem that took notice of (and wrote about) other self-proclaimed messiahs. Technically speaking - the earth didn't stop rotating according to the bible - god made the sun stand still. You'd think that a god that CREATED the world and the universe would know that the sun always stands still - but he misses that.Technically speaking, it doesn't matter how the writer recorded it, if it happened the earth stood still.
In a stargate episode, time slowed down for one group of people while outside of that area time was unchanged. i know; just a sifi television.
Hey, so far most everything we've imagined in sci fi has been determined to be possible.
And, I've always thought the argument that the writer should have known it was the earth, not the sun, is erroneous. I don't think that particular section of the text is considered to be prophetic. It was simply documenting their understanding of events. There is no reason to assume a would be historian knew anything that the rest of humanity didn't know. You don't need to understand why to document what you think happened.it has also been scientifically shown that, were the earth to stand still, it would be catastrophic. There would be tidal waves, tsunamis, etc. It would be devastating for the rest of the world - but there's no indication that any of those things happened.
Yes, I know. In case you are confused, I'm not defending the Bible. I simply think some arguments against it aren't the best.
agreed....but a lot of times I use silly arguments sarcastically - and that sarcasm unfortunately gets lost in translation from my head to the screen.
Hello Julie.
Aside from this debate, or anything to do with the bible, would any of the following sound odd to you? "I have been up since before sunrise. Once the sun came up, I began working outside in the yard. I kept up with it until the sun went down. I enjoyed the beautiful sunset, and went back in the house just as the moon began rising". Scientifically, that doesn't hold water, but it is commonly used descriptive language.
Imagine the headlines if the event in question occurred today. Would anyone say the sun stopped? I suspect we would hear the sun was stuck, that it stood still, and almost certainly someone would say it was "frozen in the sky". Also not scientifically correct, but they would convey to us that daylight was extended for a day and the sun appeared in the same location in the sky the whole time.
Regarding all horrible things that should have happened, you have to take into account the premise. A God who created all things and is the author and enforcer of the laws that govern the physical universe would certainly be free to suspend, or amend them as needed for any purpose he desired. That is the point of a miracle...something that doesn't make sense based on all that we know, happening anyway. Can you see where to a believer, none of this would be a stretch for God?I can see that, and agree to it up to a point. but by your very definition, a miracle is something that doesn't make sense, that can't seem to be explained scientifically. That's the classic definition of an argument from ignorance. (not that you're ignorant, or that I'm calling you out - it's an actual logical fallacy)
Thanks for pointing it out though - I never really thought of it that way precisely, but you do have a point. Still doesn't mean that it happened though - especially if you considered the context of when this event took place - so Joshua would have enough daylight to make sure he slaughtered everybody.
When would you say that religion started, then? Was it the day that the high priest climbed a mountain, chipped some writing into stone slabs and carried them back down, claiming that God did it and everyone now had to follow the rules he made up?
You claim that he's the "creator". "god" has just as much baggage as the word "religion" does. What is this god like? what does he do? How do you gain this information?
Emile R,
You said: I personally think those discrepancies are the least of the hurdles. I would think that seas parted, first borns slain, the rotation of the earth stopped, cities annihilated, virgin births, miraculous healing, the dead brought back to life and the resurrection would be the deal breakers. Accept that and the rest is a cake walk but most of those things, except the slain first born, can be explained based on events which has happened in our time.
The pillar of cloud which kept Israel and the Egyptians separated was a cloud covered UFO {they have been seen during our day} of cigar shaped which entered the Red Sea and parted the water {air craft have been known to drop thousands of feet because of entering them unseen} and once Israel was out it lifted off and the water returned.
Earth's rotation didn't stop, 2 cigar shaped UFOs, one illuminating the area and the other blocking the sun from it until it set and again as it rose the next morning, caused the illusion of the earth stopping.
The annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah can be recognized by what happened in Japan in 1945 although it doesn't explain Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt.
The virgin's conception happened by a holy ghost {a whole man which can do everything any boy does, like Jesus was after his resurrection}, per the book, so he came to Mary once the egg settled in her womb and seeped sperm at the opening of her body and she conceived. Being an enlightened being, he could ensure it was all boy sperm.
The miraculous healing was done by communicating lifeforce to lifeforce because every lifeforce has the power to correct everything in our bodies. And to bring the dead back to life is possible because of NDEs {near death experiences} and OBEs {outa body experiences}. Jesus spoke lifeforce to lifeforce in raising Lazarus and observed where they moved his body and reentered it after about 39 hours when he rose.The things made and seen I include, the Bible says, reveals the unseen in Romans 1:20.
Oh my gosh. UFO's? Of course. It's all so clear now.
I'll go have my head checked. If they give me the all clear let's start a cult.
Since the term man means mind able to comprehend all things or become wise it alone suggests man are god in or out of religion's context. The word Emmanuel, in the Bible or Hebrew scriptures, had the original meaning of in man is god but was redefined as god with us to prevent man from looking within themselves for our answers. So long as man are looking outside for we are what the Bible's Adam renamed us, woman or woven from man, because in obtaining the mind of good and evil we lost the ability to comprehend all things.
JMcFarland .... does your last comment say that you are attempting to discredit God through religion because you can not discredit God directly?
I don't get what you mean by discredit. Am I trying to "discredit" god by questioning his existence?
the belief in the god of the bible is, by definition, a religion. You accept all of the descriptions of god according to the bible -
=- = -
Me
I don't know where you got that idea?
===================================
and those descriptions can be challenged. You just don't like the word "religion" because it has negative connotations. If you're adhering to the biblical god, why do you have a problem with people challenging his attributes?
= - = - =
ME
The only problem I have with the word religion is that it means too many things to too many people. Religion .... is an organization that says that it (which ever sect they happen to be) are the true representive for God. Everyone knows that there can't be that many diffrent true representives.
So ... go ahead and attack religion. With all the different ones to choose from, you will never run out of discrepencies to attack.
That is the point! You are mad at religion; not God.
=================================
Religion: Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
========================
And I can ask you; what color is correct when describing a bird.
What commonality does all religions have in comon.Hi Jerami. I get what you are saying and agree to an extent, but JMcFarland has a point. You can feel like a party of one, having your own ideas about who God is, but it always comes back to some religious text, since that is the beginning where the idea was born.
I've always enjoyed your posts, but those who post that they aren't religious and then go on to describe Jesus as their savior make me scratch my head. Where did they come up with that? They read it in a religious text. They warn of hell. Where did that come from? A religious text. They speak of sin. Where did that come from? A religious text.
Any claims of cosmic knowledge come from reading a religious text. You, yourself, have some detailed ideas on prophesy. Where did you get that information?I was almost finished with a quite long answer when the page fell out from under me.
back in a few minutes after redoing it.Emile remember the text did not write themselves....
I am not speaking for all text nor all writers but.
Neither was the text and many writers of any consequence while they the writers were alive....
I am promoting the text but one must admit there must be something it....
It is not wise to nay say any text because someone misunderstood it....
You/they may very well be misrepresenting the author.
In religion that is very popular .....and even on this very forum with your own writingsEveryone is simply voicing opinions here. I don't think it is unwise to speak one's mind. Nor do I think there is something there that can't be found a thousand other places. I don't know what you are referring to when you say I misrepresent the author. I don't attempt to represent the authors. I give my opinion as do you. It doesn't make me right, or wrong. You have to decide what makes sense to you and give others the latitude to do the same.
Hi Emile R, I have always enjoyed all of your posts as well. keep up the good work.
You said
Hi Jerami. I get what you are saying and agree to an extent, but JMcFarland has a point. You can feel like a party of one, having your own ideas about who God is, but it always comes back to some religious text, since that is the beginning where the idea was born.
= - = - =
.Me
When I was about 7 or 8 I went to Sunday school. We could say that a seed for thought was planted; however tiny of a seed it was. About all that it was is “Jerami meet Jesus Jesus this is Jerami” Seed for thought. I didn’t water that seed until I was about 20. I started going to church for a very, very short time.I stopped going because my non-programmed mind didn’t see in print what they were saying that I should see. I stopped reading scripture and or going to church until in my mid forties.
I just happened to read the book of Daniel. Religion teaches that these prophesy are telling us what is to happen at some time in our future. Gabriel says differently. I read about 674 years of prophesy which ends when that Hebrew Nation comes to its end of days. I can admit that the finished product such as my faith is did come from scripture but certainly not from the teachings of religion.
According to “My Own” beliefs, organized religion is the beast John describes in Rev. 13.
And if it is? Scripture says that “IT” will cause the people to worship “IT” instead of worshiping God. You have to admit that many Believers are worshiping their religion more than they do God. The interpretations made by religion are in direct opposition of many things that Jesus is said to have said. Jesus said that “This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.” Religion says that these words are wrong. Which means Jesus was wrong, but we must believe everything Jesus said!
My beliefs such as they are now does come from the scriptures ... Not from religion.
=========================================
I've always enjoyed your posts, but those who post that they aren't religious and then go on to describe Jesus as their savior make me scratch my head. Where did they come up with that? They read it in a religious text. They warn of hell. Where did that come from? A religious text. They speak of sin. Where did that come from? A religious text.
= - = -= - =
ME
“That same text also says that one sin is no greater than another”. Stealing murder rape all fall under one category That is the catagory of disobedience. Religion, Not God, orchestrated the NT in such a way as to fool even the elect. In order to do that it had to stay within many of the guide lines already set up with the most elect, while throwing in just enough fodder as to spoil the barrel. That fodder is that Jesus didn’t say exactly what he meant to say but we are to believe what is written that he said anyway. A tiny chip in a glass jar over time will break the jar in half.
=============================
Any claims of cosmic knowledge come from reading a religious text. You, yourself, have some detailed ideas on prophesy. Where did you get that information?
= - = -
ME
From the book of Daniel In 538 BC Gabriel told Daniel that “They” will kill the Messiah after 62 weeks.
If Jesus was the Messiah; 568 years pass then “they kill the Messiah” This is a very important message which religion keeps sweeping under the rug every time it is exposed.
If this is accepted, a whole new subject will apear. A great big pile of questions that religion does not want to examine.
When this is examined, organized religion is seen in its true colors. It is the fox in the Hen House; which opens up a another set of questions which leads us to another place such as we have already been. Another set of questions. It is much simpler for everyone when we just leave it alone as organized religion would have us to do.
This life is all vanity no matter how we slice it. At least this is my opinion.what do you think makes the bible reliable?
I fundamentally with your assesment of "religion" vs. the "true religion" meant by Jesus. the bible is the only way to know what he is supposed to have said, and it's the only evidence in existence to show that he existed at all. We know certain books of the new testament are forged. We know other passages have been altered/changed. We know that multiple books were left out entirely and destroyed.
You know these things too, and that's why you don't accept the "religion" part of christianity. So what do you base it on? You yourself admit that the scripture has changed - but we have no originals to compare it to. So what makes you think any of it is reliable, when you admit that some of it is not.
On prophecy, I think the claims of biblical "prophecy" are absurd. In order for a prophecy to actually be a prophecy at all, it has a very strict criteria that I do not have time to fully list. It has to be specific enough that it can only be accomplished by one specific act. If you go out of your way to fulfill it, you're not actually fulfilling prophecy. Additionally, the entire new testament was written AFTER the old testament - and since Matthew (or the gospel of matthew, not that matthew actually wrote it - because he didn't) and Paul specifically say over and over again "this was done according to the scriptures" they were obviously aware of specific things that the old testament said. That means they can alter their writings to line up with scripture - and that is not actually prophecy being fulfilled. on top of all of THAT, the jewish list of prophecy that applies to a Messiah is a completely different set than the ones the "christians" claim. Why? Because the early christian fathers picked through the old testament to find ANYTHING they could to validate their "messiah" - despite the fact that the jews vehemently disagreed. The church fathers were forced to do this for a very simple reason - there are no extra-biblical, contemporary sources that support the idea that jesus existed at all.Firstly .... Everyone knows that the church spent much time during their first 1000 years of dominance collecting any and everything they could get their hands on pertaining to religion and science. It is all in the Vatican.
As I mentioned earlier The 62 weeks until they kill the Messiah ... being 568 (approx) means that a week in prophesy as described by Gabriel would have to be approx 9.13 to 9.16 of our years.
When this equation is applied to prophesy and prophesy is arranged in proper sequence STRANGE things begin to apeare.
forty two months that the beast was given to blaspheme (Rev 13) would then be approx 1648 years. What was happening in the world approx 1648 years ago?
The church rose up out (of the sea) in 326AD (1687 years ago)
In 367 one of the 10 popes/bishops was defrocked and sent into exile by the emperor. He recovered three years later when he was called back to Rome to regain his seat. (1644 years ago)
In 380 The church was officially proclamed to be the only acceptable religion in the Roman Empire.(1633 years ago). When this equation is applied to prophesy it apears as footprints through the sands of time.You're doing the same thing the early christians were doing when they were "prophecy mining" the old testament for validation off jesus as the messiah. You're looking at the book. Then you're looking around at history. Then you're REINTERPRETING the text to coincide with what you believe. That is not intellectual honesty.
I'm confused on your statement that all sin falls under the category of disobedience. I think sin has to do with how your actions affect others. It is a lack of harmony. The more you disrupt the balance the more it disrupts the balance within you.
I wasn't meaning to be expressing any opinion just throwing a verse out there that one sin is no greater than any other but I guess I did express an opinion concerning them all being an act of disobenience.
I shouldn't even be posting considering I've had about an hour of sleep (about 16 hours ago) in the last forty. I may not be making any sense though my brain won't shudup.
I'll have some hot chocolote in a minute and lay me down
I got that idea by what you said above. you believe in jesus. You believe in biblical "prophecy". You believe in Abraham, et all. How would you know anything about any of those people without "religion"? Your belief in those people is defined as "christianity" and like it or not - it's a religion.
What gives you the impression that I'm mad at anything? I'm not mad at religion, and I can't be mad at god. How can you be mad at something that you don't think exists?
Religions don't have anything in common, although some religions are similar. What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?They came out in the 60's with a newspaper saying God does not exist but there have been too many that are alive today to tell the story that their life was spared and changed by their relationship with the God of the bible and I am one of them. I hate religion and God hates religion because it is all about man reaching up to God but Salvation is God reaching to man. I suggest reading my book "The Way To God" but in the end we will discover the truth and it will either be for us or against us.
I've read a lot of books. They don't seem to do the job very well, if they're supposed to be convincing me.
I'm drinking my COCO and rolling it up for the night. Been good chatting with YA
Related Discussions
- 32
Religion and Evolution
by TruthDebater 11 years ago
How do some people believe both religion and evolution? Any religious text I have heard or read claims different times for the earths beginning from what evolution claims. Most religion also claims humans were created before animals. Evolution claims other life came before humans. I can understand...
- 26
What is the difference between a religious person and spiritual person?
by Tim Mitchell 4 years ago
What is the difference between a religious person and spiritual person?Where that question leads to is can a spiritual person be a Christian? In other words, does a Christian have to be religious?
- 480
Should Christians waste their time debating with unbelievers?
by Pratonix 10 years ago
One of the greatest tricks of the devil is to get Christians wasting their time in arguing and debating with unbelievers. Unbelievers will not understand Christianity, unless God opens their eyes (the eyes of their understanding). One way of knowing the truth is to humbly and sincerely open the...
- 9
What is your particular religion's view on sexuality?
by Jacqui 7 years ago
What is your particular religion's view on sexuality?Be it homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, adultery etc. What does your religion, and religious text, speak of in regards to these? Please also provide the religious text/verse/chapter etc where these things can be found...I'm genuinely...
- 44
Some thoughts on using the words sin and sinner
by Don W 11 years ago
Okay, so some of the issues between Christians and non-Christians relate to fundamental differences in belief. But some are caused by communications problems.The words 'sin' and 'sinner' have very specific meanings, and are tantamount to technical terms in the context of Christianity. But they also...
- 130
Is Atheism Becoming Another Religion?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 8 years ago
Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.I myself am an atheist, and I think it is not necessary to speak against religions. Instead of that we should...