Question to Atheists

[candle glow]

There are almost no original ideas--only ways of repackaging old ideas that make them more relevant to a particular person's life experience and existing beliefs. That means that the vast majority of people are going to be more inspired by a modern teacher than an older one.

I don't see any problem with "repackaging" or "rephrasing" a teaching as long as the words used still reflect the basic lesson.

But I think there are quite a few original teachings from Jesus, either because of the extremity of the teaching or because of it's diversity.

Jesus gave a command against using special titles for one another like "Father", "Sir" (which is a shortened form of sire, which means father), or "Mr." which is a shortened form of "master". It's a teaching aimed at dealing with flattery, respectability and emotional ties (which prevent us from seeing one another as spiritual brothers and sisters.) (matthew 23 for anyone who is interested).

From my experience, it's hardly practiced in any Christian denomination or any other religious denomination that I know of. Are you aware of any religions with a similar teaching?

There are also several teachings about forsaking materialism and dealing with greed. I'm aware that some other religions also deal with these issues, but that it is limited to anyone who happens to feel it is right for them.

With Jesus' teachings, it's an across the board teaching required for everyone based on learning how to share with one another. In fact, Jesus even goes so far as to claim that his followers cannot work for God and mammon (money and the things money can buy) at the same time without cheating on one or the other. He said our new job is to work for love.

Again, it's one of those teachings that's hardly practiced by any Christian denomination, (even though it's what the early disciples did), and I am not aware of any other religion which goes so far in dealing with the love of money.

Would Jesus suffer a witch to live? Of course not!! Jesus's main purpose was to eradicate the impurities of the religious community and bring the right religion to the world!

Can you elaborate on how you came to this conclusion, using examples from Jesus? (since Jesus' behavior is the subject of your comment)

Would Jesus be an abolitionist? Of course! Jesus's main purpose was to bring freedom to the oppressed!

I also don't understand what you are saying here.

 

[candle glow]

Hi lost,

It's late here and I need to sleep so I'll respond to your post tomorrow. I think our communication has improved a lot, though!

 

[Mling]

I don't see any problem with "repackaging" or "rephrasing" a teaching as long as the words used still reflect the basic lesson.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with it, certainly. I mean, I wasn't restricting it to religions--it's an old cliche: there are seven stories in the world, and we just keep retelling them. Same with moral teachings--people don't come up with new ideas, they find new ways of making old ideas resonate with different groups of people. I was bringing this up specifically in response to the implied accusation that atheists who live in ways that reflect Jesus's teachings are nevertheless unwilling to recognize their association with Jesus. I was pointing out that even though the overlap is there, it's fairly trivial, because it's an overlap that exists with a ton of other people, and it doesn't reflect direct association or inspiration.

But I think there are quite a few original teachings from Jesus, either because of the extremity of the teaching or because of it's diversity.

Jesus gave a command against using special titles for one another like "Father", "Sir" (which is a shortened form of sire, which means father), or "Mr." which is a shortened form of "master". It's a teaching aimed at dealing with flattery, respectability and emotional ties (which prevent us from seeing one another as spiritual brothers and sisters.) (matthew 23 for anyone who is interested).

From my experience, it's hardly practiced in any Christian denomination or any other religious denomination that I know of. Are you aware of any religions with a similar teaching?

I'm not limiting myself to people who've founded religions. Yes, a ton of people have discussed the equality of all humans and the meaninglessness of titles, as well as dealing with people honestly and without flattery.

There are also several teachings about forsaking materialism and dealing with greed. I'm aware that some other religions also deal with these issues, but that it is limited to anyone who happens to feel it is right for them.

With Jesus' teachings, it's an across the board teaching required for everyone based on learning how to share with one another. In fact, Jesus even goes so far as to claim that his followers cannot work for God and mammon (money and the things money can buy) at the same time without cheating on one or the other. He said our new job is to work for love.

Again, it's one of those teachings that's hardly practiced by any Christian denomination, (even though it's what the early disciples did), and I am not aware of any other religion which goes so far in dealing with the love of money.

Communism does. A lot of hippies and artists, also, recognize that it's "selling your soul," to sacrifice your values because it's profitable.

Can you elaborate on how you came to this conclusion, using examples from Jesus? (since Jesus' behavior is the subject of your comment)

I also don't understand what you are saying here.

They were both examples of ways that the teachings of Jesus were interpreted in wildly different ways, due to the different cultures in different times and places. It was to preempt the inevitable point that Jesus is an exception to my assertion that almost everybody will resonate more with a modern teacher than an ancient one: the Jesus that people follow is always a Jesus as interpreted through a modern lens. They don't just independently pick up the New Testament and decide to follow Jesus--they listen to how modern clergy and writers describe what Jesus really means, and what, according to them, he would say in response to a modern conundrum, and then follow that vision of what Jesus would be, if he was modern.

At different times, it has been very easy to take a comment about Jesus being the only way to The Father, and the cleansing of the temple, and inventing Jesus the Inquisitor; or looking at Jesus's treatment of the poor, and writings by Paul about how there is no slave or free, and inventing Jesus the Abolitionist.

 

[SaraJarvis]

Personally, it's a mixture of reasons.

1) As an atheist, I find that I need to know what Christians are saying about atheism. Many Christians seem to think that we're immoral heathens (not all Christians, but I've met a select few), and I feel that it's only fair that I voice my opinion on this. Atheists may not live by the Bible, but we do know the difference between right and wrong.

2) I'm a feminist. Some teachings of the Bible appear sexist to me, and I've had it used against me on various occasions. Hence, just as I would voice my (strong) opinion against racism, I see no reason not to do the same with sexism.

3) Politics. Christianity sometimes affects our laws, and as I live in society too, I like to discuss these things, and present my opinion.

Aside from these things; I simply feel that as an atheist, I should read about peoples journeys with Christianity, and try to understand their explanations, and maybe have them understand mine.

 

[razeontherock]

Jesus gave a command against using special titles for one another like "Father", "Sir" (which is a shortened form of sire, which means father), or "Mr." which is a shortened form of "master". It's a teaching aimed at dealing with flattery, respectability and emotional ties (which prevent us from seeing one another as spiritual brothers and sisters.) (matthew 23 for anyone who is interested).

The first Church I was part of as an adult, as well as my current Church both practice that

 

[razeontherock]

Some teachings of the Bible appear sexist to me, and I've had it used against me on various occasions.

Hi, and welcome to CF! Let me point out that the Bible "gives us enough rope to hang ourselves with," meaning people can use it to justify whatever wicked thing they choose. It's still wicked. That includes sexism, and I honestly believe the Bible doesn't teach that. We may get the chance to discuss that someday ...

 

[candle glow]

Hi sara, welcome

. I was bringing this up specifically in response to the implied accusation that atheists who live in ways that reflect Jesus's teachings are nevertheless unwilling to recognize their association with Jesus.

Ok well thanks for that.

I was pointing out that even though the overlap is there, it's fairly trivial, because it's an overlap that exists with a ton of other people, and it doesn't reflect direct association or inspiration.

Ok so it's not really Jesus the teacher you have a problem with, but Jesus the divine? I think I can handle that, though I don't know what you mean by "it doesn't reflect direct association or inspiration".

I don't think Jesus was the only teacher with good teachings on how to show love for one another, but I think he has the best teachings in that area. It's not a religious loyalty that causes me to promote him as a teacher (even to the point of being willing to drop the issue of his divinity) but it is the quality of his teachings.

It makes no sense to me that someone who is interested in showing love would feel no" association or inspiration" from what Jesus taught.

I think I understand it is because you say you see nothing special about what Jesus taught more so than what so many other teachers have taught in the history of the world, but I don't agree with that.

I'm not limiting myself to people who've founded religions. Yes, a ton of people have discussed the equality of all humans and the meaninglessness of titles, as well as dealing with people honestly and without flattery.

It's probably just a lack of experience on my part, but it really does seem like something is missing here. I'm not talking about just discussion, but an actual rule against the use of flattery. I don't know of any other religion which takes the issue of flattery, respectability, and emotional attachments far enough to actually make rules against it.

Communism does. A lot of hippies and artists, also, recognize that it's "selling your soul," to sacrifice your values because it's profitable.

Actually, what Jesus was teaching is more like the purest form of anarchy, where people are accountable to God alone. They don't need laws to corral them into doing the right thing because they judge themselves and do the right thing as a result of genuinely wanting what God wants.

Even the commands of Jesus are like a stop-gap measure, compelling people to do the right thing, but only insomuch as they need to be compelled. The ultimate goal of those rules is to teach people to internalize the values and reasons behind the rules, at which point the rules become pointless because people will act on those values regardless.

This issue of working for love vs working for money is like that. It's a rule from Jesus, but it's not a system of government at all, where people follow the rules because they must follow rules without ever understanding the spirit behind the rule.

They don't just independently pick up the New Testament and decide to follow Jesus--they listen to how modern clergy and writers describe what Jesus really means

Yes, this is the most common way that people hear about Jesus, i.e. through the testimony of others.

But I think you miss the point of the reason behind the teachings and the ability of those reasons to influence people, quite apart from whatever kind of preaching they hear about those teachings from third parties.

For example, what happens when a person decides NOT to agree with a particular interpretation or decides to turn against an interpretation based on what he/she reads for themselves? If a person can see reasoning in the teaching which opposes what they were taught, isn't that different from what you are saying about how there is no independent study or conclusion?

Could it be that you have some bias showing?

 

[candle glow]

It's to avoid this bias that I don't think I need to read the NT (not only because of this but because it's not needed to disprove your religion, as I said before, but let's move on). I'll simply ask the person for the verse and then there's no way around it: it's right there, black in white. Even tho most of them are open for interpretation, the most literal interpretation always counts.

There are heaps of religious books I've not read, too. I don't expect people to read the NT as a sign of sincerity or interest in truth (though it would be nice if they did).

However, what you did was to use specific verses from the NT and claim they were contradictory. When you move into challenging the specifics of the book, then I feel you have a responsibility to read what you are challenging. I think that is not only reasonable, but common sense and, quite obvious, too.

I'm not going again to search for contradictions because there is no need to do that now. If that's what you believe he said, and that's the message you're spreading, then I see nothing bad with it and I encourage you

Thanks. I'm not against dealing with challenges and I did ask you to present what you felt were you 2 or 3 strongest arguments for more in depth discussion. I'm still open to that.

 

[LostWarrior]

Thanks. I'm not against dealing with challenges and I did ask you to present what you felt were you 2 or 3 strongest arguments for more in depth discussion. I'm still open to that.

I suppose those arguments are about Jesus' teachings right? If so, I won't be able to answer right now, as I will start reading the NT when I find myself avaliable from personal life and school
If you are talking about OT or Christianity in general, we can have that discussion right now, but it's gonna have to be on another thread because we're already way off-topic here.

 

[candle glow]

I suppose those arguments are about Jesus' teachings right?

I was suggesting that we each bring up what we feel are our own strongest points. This means I'm willing to hear whatever you feel is your strongest argument and respond to that, while you do the same for me, but that we limit the arguments to a very minimum number so that we're not trying to deal with so many arguments at once.

I think razed addressed this point earlier on, too.

 

[Mling]

Ok so it's not really Jesus the teacher you have a problem with, but Jesus the divine?

I don't have any problems with Jesus at all. I have problems with Christianity, the human-made religion invented to unite the Romans in the 4th Century, and which still exists today. Jesus had little to nothing to do with it, except that his name was exploited. I believe it has done unspeakable, incomprehensible amounts of harm to humanity over the past few millenia, and even in more recent years, when secular governments have hobbled its most destructive abilities, it still continues to cause more harm than good.

More generally and less passionately, I simply don't believe in supernatural anythings--gods, souls, spirituality in general. I wouldn't say that I "have a problem with Jesus the Divine"--I just don't believe he was so.

I think I can handle that, though I don't know what you mean by "it doesn't reflect direct association or inspiration".

Do you like music? So do I. It's not because you taught me to, or I taught you, or because we had parents who taught us both. It's because almost everybody who has a chance to experience it likes it. It's just a ubiquitous trait of humanity.

Somewhat less ubiquitous, but still very common, is the idea that the best form of society is one where everybody takes care of everybody else. Tons of people have written or discussed their personal interpretation of how that would play out. Communes have been started, and Communism has been attempted. Socialist Democracies are a somewhat tempered form of the same idea. This doesn't mean that any one of them inspired the others, or even influenced anybody else. It means the idea springs to the human mind easily, and is likely to be found appealing.

My guess is because, before the Agricultural Revolution, before the invention of the bow, when people lived in extremely small communities, we actually did live like this for an extremely long time. Our natural instincts work best in that kind of society, and everything else feels wrong, so as we go through our lives, feeling wrong about this or that and good about this or that, observant, thoughtful, empathetic people will eventually put together what they like and realize, "This is what I want our society to look like! This is how I want to live!" Toss in some writing, speaking or leading ability, and you've got yourself a teacher. And even if they'd never heard of anybody else who believed what they believe, they'll still sound very much like everybody else who said the same thing they're saying.

I don't think Jesus was the only teacher with good teachings on how to show love for one another, but I think he has the best teachings in that area. It's not a religious loyalty that causes me to promote him as a teacher (even to the point of being willing to drop the issue of his divinity) but it is the quality of his teachings.

Cool. That's pretty much a matter of taste. I think he had good teachings, but I am much more moved by people who approach the topic from an understanding of how the modern world works and who incorporate recent discoveries of how humans evolved into their reasoning. But I'm a big ol' geek.

It makes no sense to me that someone who is interested in showing love would feel no" association or inspiration" from what Jesus taught.

See above...insert your own different interpretations for people who are art geeks instead of science geeks, or who speak different languages and the translation just doesn't work well, or who are more about "REVOLUTION!!!" than Jesus's approach of individual, personal actions....

I think I understand it is because you say you see nothing special about what Jesus taught more so than what so many other teachers have taught in the history of the world, but I don't agree with that.

k.

It's probably just a lack of experience on my part, but it really does seem like something is missing here. I'm not talking about just discussion, but an actual rule against the use of flattery. I don't know of any other religion which takes the issue of flattery, respectability, and emotional attachments far enough to actually make rules against it.

I'll agree with you--off the top of my head, I can't think of other groups that have actual rules against flattery or against using honorifics. I can also only think of one group that has rules against honoring one day above any others (Jehovah's Witnesses); or against killing any and all animals, to the degree of sweeping the path in front of you to make sure you don't accidentally step on an insect (Jainism). In the community I just left, there was a strong push to create an environment where people were expected to clearly ask for permission any time they touched another person, for any reason (with some flexibility for long-standing relationships). Different cultures and subcultures tend to be distinct from each other, not because they have such wildly different ideas, but because they live by common ideas with the emphases in different places.

I just don't see it as enormously significant that, in a particular time and place, this particular group had this particular rule. I mean, it's as interesting as those other examples above, certainly, and I'd be interested to see what sort of social dynamic that creates...but it's not any more spectacular than any other quirk of any other social group.

Actually, what Jesus was teaching is more like the purest form of anarchy

Ya know, I've never actually heard that before. I usually hear of the early apostles' lifestyle compared to communism, but anarchy does put a different spin on it...I think I might like your comparison better, actually.

where people are accountable to God alone. They don't need laws to corral them into doing the right thing because they judge themselves and do the right thing as a result of genuinely wanting what God wants.

Even the commands of Jesus are like a stop-gap measure, compelling people to do the right thing, but only insomuch as they need to be compelled. The ultimate goal of those rules is to teach people to internalize the values and reasons behind the rules, at which point the rules become pointless because people will act on those values regardless.

I wish more Christians thought like you in this regard.

This issue of working for love vs working for money is like that. It's a rule from Jesus, but it's not a system of government at all, where people follow the rules because they must follow rules without ever understanding the spirit behind the rule.



Yes, this is the most common way that people hear about Jesus, i.e. through the testimony of others.

But I think you miss the point of the reason behind the teachings and the ability of those reasons to influence people, quite apart from whatever kind of preaching they hear about those teachings from third parties.

For example, what happens when a person decides NOT to agree with a particular interpretation or decides to turn against an interpretation based on what he/she reads for themselves?

Depending on the time period, they may be tortured until they renounce the heresy, or else burned at the stake or otherwise killed. They might be forced to leave town and end up creating the beginnings of new state (in early America, anyway). They might just start their own cult or denomination...

If a person can see reasoning in the teaching which opposes what they were taught, isn't that different from what you are saying about how there is no independent study or conclusion?

I've never said that there is no independent study or conclusion. I said that people re-invent Jesus to fit their own views. Those views are often formed by independent (often secular) thought.

Could it be that you have some bias showing?

Could be--though I'm not sure which bias you mean. I think we might be having two different conversations and doing a lot of talking past each other a lot.

 

[LostWarrior]

I was suggesting that we each bring up what we feel are our own strongest points. This means I'm willing to hear whatever you feel is your strongest argument and respond to that, while you do the same for me, but that we limit the arguments to a very minimum number so that we're not trying to deal with so many arguments at once.

I think razed addressed this point earlier on, too.

You did; I was wondering about the subject. Do you want to talk about Jesus, the Bible as a whole, religion in general....

 

[candle glow]

Could be--though I'm not sure which bias you mean. I think we might be having two different conversations and doing a lot of talking past each other a lot.

Ah ha ha you're being so reasonable.

I also have the impression that we may be talking past each other (though I don't know If I'd say it's a lot, twice). I'm trying to think of how to get past that. Maybe it will just be a matter of trial and error for us.

I've never said that there is no independent study or conclusion. I said that people re-invent Jesus to fit their own views. Those views are often formed by independent (often secular) thought.

I think this may be a good example of what you've suggested about talking past one another. When you say "reinvent to fit their own view" I feel it is different from what I said about a person being able to look at what is written and act on it as it is written. In other words, people change "their own views" to conform with what they read, rather than what you've suggested here about people reinventing what they read to conform to their own views.

I don't have any problems with Jesus at all. I have problems with Christianity, the human-made religion invented to unite the Romans in the 4th Century, and which still exists today. Jesus had little to nothing to do with it, except that his name was exploited. I believe it has done unspeakable, incomprehensible amounts of harm to humanity over the past few millenia, and even in more recent years, when secular governments have hobbled its most destructive abilities, it still continues to cause more harm than good.

*hi5*

More generally and less passionately, I simply don't believe in supernatural anythings--gods, souls, spirituality in general. I wouldn't say that I "have a problem with Jesus the Divine"--I just don't believe he was so.

I can accept that.

Do you like music? So do I. It's not because you taught me to, or I taught you, or because we had parents who taught us both. It's because almost everybody who
has a chance to experience it likes it. It's just a ubiquitous trait of humanity.

Sorry, I think I'm still missing your point here. I was asking about your comment on how you don't feel directly inspired or affected by Jesus' teachings on love, which I was questioning because I was talking about how the expression or practical application of love is not limited to confessions or acceptance of divinity.

If we have a desire to show love, it seems strange that we would not feel directly inspired by ANY teaching about how to show love. I took this basic principle a step further by suggesting that MORE inspiration should come from a source with more specific teachings about how to show love and suggested Jesus' teachings have the most far reaching application of showing love than any other source (though other sources may have some consistencies with what Jesus taught).

Somewhat less ubiquitous, but still very common, is the idea that the best form of society is one where everybody takes care of everybody else. Tons of people have written or discussed their personal interpretation of how that would play out. Communes have been started, and Communism has been attempted. Socialist Democracies are a somewhat tempered form of the same idea. This doesn't mean that any one of them inspired the others, or even influenced anybody else. It means the idea springs to the human mind easily, and is likely to be found appealing.

Nearly every community which tries to apply these teachings ends up failing. I think the reason this happens is because the concept sounds so appealing, but the discipline it takes to make it work is not.

Criticism (or a lack of it, rather) is a HUGE part of what makes communities fail. Criticism is almost always difficult to accept, but even more so in a Christian context where the ideal is supposed to be about everyone being all lovey-dovey with one another.

Greed is probably the most significant factor. Although a lot of Christian communities talk of love and caring for one another, very rarely will the members of that community face their fear of poverty in the way Jesus asked all his followers to. It takes a near constant return to the basic principles of forsaking all and working for love to keep a clear vision and not get sidetracked back into materialistic thinking.

My guess is because, before the Agricultural Revolution, before the invention of the bow, when people lived in extremely small communities, we actually did live like this for an extremely long time. Our natural instincts work best in that kind of society, and everything else feels wrong, so as we go through our lives, feeling wrong about this or that and good about this or that, observant, thoughtful, empathetic people will eventually put together what they like and realize, "This is what I want our society to look like! This is how I want to live!" Toss in some writing, speaking or leading ability, and you've got yourself a teacher. And even if they'd never heard of anybody else who believed what they believe, they'll still sound very much like everybody else who said the same thing they're saying.

Yes, I think your explanation is consistent with basic human thinking, but it is also why I suggest that sometimes the rules are necessary (hence the teachings of Jesus).

"This is what I want" may or may not line up with what it means to be fair and loving to everyone. In an even more complicated situation some aspects may line up while others do not. It's like that in our current worldly governments. There are some genuinely good laws which are consistent with the teachings of Jesus, but then there are heaps which are not.

In those situations where they are not consistent, a Christian must decide how far they are willing to go in turning their backs on the system. I feel another way of referring to this is loyalty, or faithfulness.

Non Christians would probably refer to this as an ethical dilemma (i.e. not something spiritual).

Cool. That's pretty much a matter of taste. I think he had good teachings, but I am much more moved by people who approach the topic from an understanding of how the modern world works and who incorporate recent discoveries of how humans evolved into their reasoning. But I'm a big ol' geek.

Sounds interesting. Please elaborate.

I just don't see it as enormously significant that, in a particular time and place, this particular group had this particular rule. I mean, it's as interesting as those other examples above, certainly, and I'd be interested to see what sort of social dynamic that creates...but it's not any more spectacular than any other quirk of any other social group.

I'm not sure if I'm getting you here, but in the case of the special titles, it creates a VERY explosive situation NOT to use them.

Imagine grown children who decide not to refer to their parents by "dad" and "mom" anymore, but by their real names, like any other adult would.

Imagine employees who decide to stop using "Sir" or "Mr" at work. And yet, that is the point of the teaching, confronting those emotional ties and issues of respectability.

This one of titles is super duper sensitive. I've seen employers and parents become very angry over this issue.

I wish more Christians thought like you in this regard.

 

[candle glow]

*waits patiently*

 

[LostWarrior]

*waits patiently*

You never ended up answering me, but I'm gonna give you my 3 best arguments against religion as general (because it echoes with the original question and doesn't allow me to get much OFF-Topic), as you wished for. HOWEVER this is not how it's supposed to be done. You are the one who has to justify your belief, instead of me justifying my desbelief. Anyways, here they are:

1. Science allows me to say there is no God. There are 3 "rules" for a law or something else that can't be proven or seen to exist: a) It can be used to predict future events: for example, gravity - even tho it can't be observed - allows me to know for sure that if I drop a key, it will fall down. b) Its effects can be seen in Nature: for example, even tho we have never been in the Sun to feel its heat, we know it's hot due to the radiactions and the effects those have in our planet. c) It is necessary in some part of the Universe: for example, in the Quantom World, we know it's needed a Super Force to keep the protons in the nucleum. Even tho we can't see it, we know it has to exist because otherwise, athoms wouldn't exist either.
Your God fits in none of this standards. Therefore, without a scientific base, belief isn't reasonable.

2. The similarity between Gods and Humans / The diversity of religions: It seems that people created gods and not otherwise: people who are understandable and understandable god. People who are agressive believe in an agressive God, etc. It should be consider that a god should differ from human beings in a way that humans couldn't, without a doubt, create him. But this isn't the case.
The problem is agravated when this contraditory believes create several contraditory religions whose Gods cancel each other, and even contradictory doutrines and believes within the same religion (for example, depending on the interpretation and the personality of a person, they may believe that the Christian God is bad, or good, or the creator of the Universe, or created after the Universe, even tho they are still Christians).
Those religions can't be all right, but they can be all wrong. With so many contradictory believes, belief in a God is still unreasonable.

3. The lack of good arguments for a God and a big ammount of arguments against him: This goes back to my original point where you are supposed to be the one presenting arguments, not me. I could present the Argument of Evil (where, due to all the Evil in world, a all-good, all-powerful God can't exist), the Argument against Scriptures (that all Holy Books have flaws), the Argument against Prayer (that no prayer in no religion has been proven effective, which contradicts powers the God of that religion). But all this arguments are only used in a response to yours. So you need to present yours first.

 

[candle glow]

Hi lost, I had heaps of time earlier, but now I'm rushing!

I'll respond to you tomorrow. Thanks.

 

[razeontherock]

1. Science allows me to say there is no God.

G-d and science are in different realms. Neither speak to the other

There are 3 "rules" for a law or something else that can't be proven or seen to exist: a) It can be used to predict future events:

b) Its effects can be seen in Nature
Your God fits in none of this standards.

Got both of these covered. Forget abut Prophecies from 2 - 4,000 years ago, we have people right on CF who have had them, and had them fulfilled.

As far as your point b is concerned, you seem not to fathom the Almighty's "effects."

2. It should be consider that a god should differ from human beings in a way that humans couldn't, without a doubt, create him. But this isn't the case.

Neither does your "should" statement carry any weight, nor does it really mean anything other than what you would wish it to be.

(for example, depending on the interpretation and the personality of a person, they may believe that the Christian God is bad, or good, or the creator of the Universe, or created after the Universe, even tho they are still Christians).

This is simply false; sorry.

I could present the Argument of Evil (where, due to all the Evil in world, a all-good, all-powerful God can't exist)

This is thoroughly addressed in many books, and not really that difficult a problem. To begin with, we know G-d is a righteous Judge, so the concept of "all good" is false, as plainly stated in Scripture. (Neither does Scripture teach omnipotence, but places some limits upon G-d)

the Argument against Scriptures (that all Holy Books have flaws)

This is meaningless. Books are written by people, who are clearly flawed.

the Argument against Prayer (that no prayer in no religion has been proven effective, which contradicts powers the God of that religion).

Prayer has been proven effective in my life repeatedly, in the lives of many I know, and no doubt to Candle Glow here as well.

In any event the premise of your argument is flawed; that "law" you're trying to use, doesn't pertain to the realm you're considering. It's like trying to apply flotation to flight; it has no bearing til the plane is in the water.

 

[candle glow]

all this arguments are only used in a response to yours. So you need to present yours first.

I will address your arguments after presenting mine here again (thanks for the chance to do so ).

On the issue of proof, my personal belief is that God has set things up specifically so that no single person can conclusively prove his existence for the whole world to see.

It is consistent with God's desire to find people who want what he has to offer more than anything else in the world, including their own comfort and/or lives.

That element of sincerity is taken away when the truth of his existence is irrefutably shoved in our faces. People will acknowledge him because they have no other choice, rather than because they choose to.

But, for the sake of making my point, lets say that God did give a piece of himself to the scientists of the world to put into a little test tube so they could heat it up, spin it around, dissect and break it down to finally prove once and for all that he is real.

Then what? What about his teachings? Would you be willing to do what he says? Would that be because you genuinely believe in the reasons behind the teachings, or because you feel you would have no other choice?

To test those questions, we need only look at the teachings of Jesus. If you feel you could follow Jesus' teachings based on the reasoning behind the teachings, then it makes no difference whether God is real or not, because it's the reasons behind the teachings that are the point.

If you feel you could not follow those teachings, even knowing without any doubt that God is real, then what's the point of knowing he is real if you're just going to ignore him anyway?

Jesus faced a similar issue in his journey regarding miracles. After once occasion of miraculously feeding people who had gone for days without food to listen to him, he quickly ran away because the people were so impressed that they wanted to make him a king.

When they found him again, he rebuked them because they only cared about eating the food (i.e. what he could do for them) and totally missed the point of thanking God for the miracle. They wanted to make him a king because they felt they could get something from him.

This also happened with the phraisees. Miracle after miracle failed to convince them because in the end it wasn't proof of his divinity that they were interested in; it was his teachings. They hated what he was teaching, because he challenged the religious leaders, their organization, their government, and even their own race and country.

That inability to accept his teachings blinded them to everything else he tried to show them.

It's why he said that people won't even be able to see his kingdom unless they listen to his teachings and DO them, because his kingdom IS the application of those teachings.

In other words talk it cheap. If you want proof, you have to earn it. Just how hungry and thirsty are you?

There are 3 "rules" for a law or something else that can't be proven or seen to exist:

Where did these rules come from, who made them? Can they be found in any books and if so are you suggesting those books are infalliable books, much like Christians (though not me) claim the Bible is infallible?

How do people know to stop at only 3 rules? Does your assertion that there are 3 rules (i.e. stated as a fact) exclude the eventual discovery of a 4th or 5th rule?

If not, then is your science complete, and if not then is it really scientific to use science to suggest that things which have not been discovered yet cannot reasonably exist?

a) It can be used to predict future events: for example, gravity - even tho it can't be observed - allows me to know for sure that if I drop a key, it will fall down

Is there ever a situation where the key would NOT fall down, according to your prediction? How did people explain gravity before they knew about gravity? Was there anyone who was also "sure" about explanations which history shows were not particularly accurate regarding their understanding of science?

b) Its effects can be seen in Nature: for example, even tho we have never been in the Sun to feel its heat, we know it's hot due to the radiactions and the effects those have in our planet.

My understanding of the odds of everything in existence coming together the way it has by accident is apparently extremely, super duper, extra fantastically low.

All of nature suggests some kind of intelligent design (whether you feel it happened according to the Bible's version of a literal 6 days or a longer version of billions of years).

c) It is necessary in some part of the Universe: for example, in the Quantom World, we know it's needed a Super Force to keep the protons in the nucleum. Even tho we can't see it, we know it has to exist because otherwise, athoms wouldn't exist either.

"Super force"? I don't understand what you mean by that, but okay for the sake of your exmaple, where did this super force come from? Where did atoms and protons come from?

Tracing it all the way back as far as humans have been able to even theorize, they eventually get to a "singularity" from which everything else in existence came from. But the same question remains, where did the singularity come from?

It seems that people created gods and not otherwise: people who are understandable and understandable god. People who are agressive believe in an agressive God, etc. It should be consider that a god should differ from human beings in a way that humans couldn't, without a doubt, create him. But this isn't the case.

Yes, i agree that humans have the tendency to create explanations for existence which suit their personal biases; it's certainly not limited to religion.

The same could be said for scientific theories. History is riddled with such abuses, but we don't say that this disproves science altogether.

But following from your theory, If you read the OT you will see that over and over and over and over again the God of the OT expressions frustration with his creations at being so selfish, greedy, stubborn, proud and just generally faithless to him.

This hardly seems consistent with what you are saying about people who make convenient God's for themselves.

A similar theme is expressed in the NT as well where people just can't seem to understand Jesus' teachings simply because he was teaching something so incredibly different and opposed to what most people are used to, especially concerning areas of self preservation and greed.

It is not normal to forsake material wealth and it is not normal to lay one's life down for others, especially in a situation where you may be doing so for people who won't even appreciate it anyway.

Something bigger than basic animal instinct inspired these teachings.

The problem is agravated when this contraditory believes create several contraditory religions whose Gods cancel each other, and even contradictory doutrines and believes within the same religion (for example, depending on the interpretation and the personality of a person, they may believe that the Christian God is bad, or good, or the creator of the Universe, or created after the Universe, even tho they are still Christians).

The exact same explanation can be applied to all the various theories in the science world, or are you suggesting that there are no contradicting theories in science?

If you use this explanation, you must be willing to apply it across the board, and not just to religions; otherwise it betrays a bias on your part and is not scientific at all.

Those religions can't be all right, but they can be all wrong. With so many contradictory believes, belief in a God is still unreasonable.

Just because we have suspicions that something COULD be wrong is not rational grounds to conclude that something IS wrong.

An assortment of contradictions is NOT grounds for disproving a theory. It simply means that each contradiction must be assessed and tested one at a time to discern where the real answer is amongst all of them, if there is an answer.

For example, lets say I ask for lunch at 12oclock. One person thinks I mean 12am and another person thinks I mean 12pm. Over here in Kenya they measure time a bit differently by adding and subtracting 6 hours depending on the time of day, so 12 would actually be 6.

So out of the three, which is it? Let's make things even more complicated by suggesting there are people who don't want me to have lunch because it will affect their schedules, or because they don't want to do the work involved or they just don't like me or they think I'm not really talking about lunch at all, but some kind of gardening project for growing food, etc...

Do all these contradictions prove that I never asked for lunch? Obviously, the best way to know what I actually said is to ask me.

 

[candle glow]

Prayer has been proven effective in my life repeatedly, in the lives of many I know, and no doubt to Candle Glow here as well.

Yes, razed I have. However, our personal experiences are not the kind of conclusive evidence lost is wanting.

But in the same way our personal experiences is not enough to convince lost, so too can we say that lost's disbelief is not enough to disprove the legitimacy of those experiences.

It's just something we must accept about one another.

 

[RoadWarrior]

G-d and science are in different realms. Neither speak to the other

Since God created the Universe and all the "natural laws" contained inside of it, I'd say it's pretty obvious God speaks to science. The problem is science has the limitation of only being able to address issues covered by natural law. Therefore, while God may speak to science, science cannot speak to God since science is a subset of a greater whole.

This is why people who deny science are effectively denying God. God gave us brains and the expectation was that we'd put them to good use.