Questions from a heathen

[mrmccormo]

I'm not offended, OP, and I hope you feel comfortable asking more questions.

You say "I am not just taking someone else's word for it", but you truly, truly are. Unless you are doing all of the research and investigating all of the information, then you are taking someone else's word for it.

Now, if you admitted "hey, I don't believe in God. I have no proof either way. It's just what I believe" then that would be another issue entirely. But when you use "proof" from various sources to validate and support your belief, then - I'm sorry - you are "taking someone else's word for it".

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Ultimately, we have to have a little faith and trust what other people are saying is true. It's not a big deal. But let's recognize the truth for what it is. You've learned these things from other people, and that's fine. You didn't come to these conclusions all on your own, and that's fine. You didn't research and investigate these evidences all on your own, and that's fine.

You said that it's ironic that I advocate for religion because religion is pretty much "taking someone's word for it". I somewhat agree, but I somewhat disagree. As I said above, at some point in our lives we simply MUST "take someone's word for it". We have to assume that the white liquid in that plastic jug is actually milk. We have to assume that the current President (who I've never met in person) is actually the President. We make assumptions all the time. It's okay.

But I do not believe in Christ because someone told me to. I believe in Christ because I have first-hand, personal experiences that act as "proof" to me. They probably won't act as "proof" to you because...well...then you'd just be "taking my word for it".

Instead of discussing evidence, I would encourage you to do something, OP. I'm not going to tell you to pray or to read the Bible or anything like that. I'm going to ask you to apply the same logic to your own beliefs. You look to science for a lot of your proof, and that's fine, so we'll use science. Has science ever caused people harm? Has science ever been wrong? Has science ever led people astray? Has science ever been abused by people in authority?

If you want to be logical, then you need to be logical. Stop saying illogical things like "It feels like if God was...." and "What if you choose the wrong god?" These things are based on feelings, not logic. Be scientific, if you truly believe that science is what you should believe in.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Thanks again for your reply. However I am not going to retort to your comments, you are entitled to your opinion and we can agree to disagree this time. I would merely suggest you read a few books on evolution if you wish to fully understand what I am doing a poor job explaining in such a small amount of time (before dismissing it). A lot of what you say about evolution is completely wrong and I don't think you have given it a fair chance like I am trying to do with religion.

Here's an odd question though, did God make me an atheist? I don't feel like I have had any choice in the matter.

Good luck to you!

You're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but I assume that if you're going to prove something to me about evolution, you would give me an article or textbook or something. I only said two things about evolution, which was that two things are needed to create a diverse group and that evolution teaches chaos and survival of the fittest, if that's wrong my apologies.

But it's the same thing, you've asked questions that could have been answered if you read up on the bible more and I'm doing my best to explain them to you. You can do the same thing and explain some of my questions back, but just like you don't believe every answer because someone tells you, I too won't believe your answers simply by describing a bit of evolution and wanting me to believe exactly that. I have been through evolution, I was taught that throughout my academic history at the university for I had a bachelors of Science in Psychology but before that I was a Biology and Chemistry major, so I'm sorry if your concept of evolution is completely foreign to me.

But I'm not here to speak about Evolution, I was here to answer some of the questions you asked.

As for the question "did God make you an atheist?" Why would you ask that question if you don't believe there is a God? It's your choice to believe that a God doesn't exist. As for the evidence you seek for God, you have to ask yourself, what is it that you're seeking and what is it that you want to know? Because the evidence you seek you can justify them in your head if you're not searching for God.

 

[razeontherock]

My apologies, I read your site rules more carefully and I shouldn't have posted because we have different beliefs, it didn't occur to me that christians would do this!
A site mod will undoubtedly remove my questions, but I don't mean any harm and I would really value the christian point of view on my what I have said. So can you please leave this until a few people have replied so I can leave you in peace?

Not sure what makes you think you violated the rules with your questions; your thread seems perfectly appropriate to me. I would go further and say that if you are sincere, this is the very reason we have an outreach section.

Are these all really your own questions, or did you find them on a website somewhere? There really is quite a lot of ground to cover, on each. I could spend a LOT of time I don't have addressing any of them, so I'll let this develop a bit and see what progress is made first.

Of particular interest to me, is the idea that because other civilizations had similar ideas, that makes the Gospel false. How does this make any sense?

 

[razeontherock]

The point I am making is that the story isn't original and can be found from many sources which should cast some doubt on the validity of the witness accounts in the bible.

Amazing. Having more testifying of the same thing, somehow makes it less credible?

 

[razeontherock]

I don't really understand this though:

"Christ's blood went both backwards and forwards. God set up the old law, that those who follow it would have forgiveness of their sins when Christ died, His blood went backwards and covered them and went forward and covers us"

Do you mean it in the 'timeless' sense again? The part that confuses me is 'where' the people without any knowledge of God (or the rules, sin etc) would be before Jesus saved them? Could they have spent thousands of years in hell first?

We don't have detailed info on this. Even OT Saints were in "sheol," which is essentially the grave, or hell. Not necessarily 'flames of torment.'

You misunderstood my point regarding heaven and hell though so I will try and reiterate. What I meant is that from an outsiders perspective it seems that you follow the word of God in order to spend eternity with him in the afterlife. So from my point of view you aren't acting in an altruistic way if the only reason you act a certain way is to get a reward later on, or because of a fear of punishment.

Your question here comes from a mindset of thinking we "earn" Eternal Life, Salvation, or, "heaven." (The Bible never says we go to heaven when we die)

This is a very fundamental misconception that most of the people that sit in Church pews every Sunday still make, so don't feel bad! Understanding here comes under the category of "law vs Grace."

I have heard many Christians question whether you can infact be good or loving without God etc.

My own Faith never got anywhere until I first had some valid concept of who G-d is. (It took many other things, but this is foundational)

G-d is so big, that anything good IS Him. So yes, anyone being good is doing so via His Power! C's (Christians) often don't like that idea, preferring to think they have a monopoly on the Divine; an idea that runs against G-d's stated purposes.

You also completely misunderstand evolution. Evolution does not in any way imply we came from only two people, the bare minimum physically possible to explain the diversity in mankind would be 10,000.

Thank you. I considered trying to address this, but there's quite a lot on the plate already! There are huge problems with trying to explain our existence via non-theistic evolution, but let's focus on basics already within the thread?

You cannot be omnipotent and omniscient, how can you already know what's going to happen yet still have the power to change it? They directly contradict each other.

1) Only if one were constrained to time, which G-d is not.

2) The Bible never reveals G-d as any of the Omnis, except omni-present. A case could be made for omniscient, but not in any quantum sort of way. As for power, He is "Most powerful," as in, the most powerful being. Many things limit what He will do, including the fact that He gave dominion over this planet and everything in it to US. A thorough and detailed understanding of this is necessary before you can fathom the proper place of prayer.

 

[razeontherock]

What I meant was I am not just taking somebody elses word for it. There is no-one in my life that takes the role of a priest. I live in a Christian country and could easily have followed the crowd and believed what I was told, but I haven't.

And that makes 2 of us.

Isn't faith a synonym for 'no evidence' also known as 'superstition'?

No it's not. Many professing believers may be so watered down that that's all they have, but you can encounter many solid believers here, from all around the globe.

 

[lucaspa]

However many of the discussions and doubt on this forum are the same arguments the scientific world use to find their own conclusions so I am very curious how you come to such contradicting conclusions.

Science is agnostic, not atheist.

" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists." SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992. Stephen Jay Gould "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," 1992

Are you all aware of the ancient egytpian God Horus? Almost all of the stories of Jesus are EXACTLY the same as Horus, some examples are:

Born on the 25th Dec, from a virgin called miri and a father called Joeseph.
He was the only son of God.
Birth Heralded by a star in the sky, announced by angels, witnessed by shepherds.
Brought three gifts by three wise men.
No history between the ages of 12 and 30.
Baptised at 30 in a river, baptiser beheaded.

You seem to have gotten some really bad information about Horus: Ancient Egypt: the Mythology - Horus

Also, if Jesus only spread the word of God 2,000 years ago does this mean that everyone born prior to this went to hell? On a related note why does God reserve the right to heaven to so few people ie what about muslim born children who never hear the stories of Jesus? Are they all doomed to an eternity of hell purely because they were born to the wrong parents. Where is the morality?

"Judgement is mine, says the Lord". There are many people who like to say how God will judge, but they don't know. One view within Christianity is that God made many paths to Himself. Christianity is one. See the books of Harvey Cox.

If Jesus died for our sins, (the original sin caused by adam eating the forbidden apple) then why is there still sin in the world? Why did God have to be so dramatic about it, could he not in his infinite wisdom have thought of another way? (Why is Jesus white in every painting?)

1. Jesus died to reconcile us with God. We are separated from God because we sin (disobey God). Jesus never claimed to put an end to sin. In fact, Jesus made even some thoughts sin, and thus made it impossible not to sin.
2. We sin because natural selection can't do anything but selfishness. The Adam and Eve story is an allegory that stands for each and every one of us. At some point in our lives we are going to be selfish and put our desires above what God wants, and we are going to disobey Him. We are sinful due to the very method that God used to create us. And no, He couldn't have done it any other way if our lives were to have meaning.
3. Jesus was Semitic. However, most of the paintings were done by Europeans. So they mistakenly made Jesus be like northern Europeans.

If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, why is there such a huge diversity in human genetics?

1. Actually, human genetics is not that diverse. A small population of bonobos in West Africa has more genetic diversity than all 6 billion currently living humans. H. sapiens went thru a genetic bottleneck about 100,000 years ago. 7. A Gibbons, Studying humans -- and their cousins and parasites. Science 292:627-629, April 27, 2001.
2. Remember, we attach immorality to mating of brother and sister. But we are the only species who really does. Other species will mate readily with close relatives. If there are accumulated deleterious alleles, the offspring simply die.
3. In the creation story in Genesis 1, God creates human beings, both men and women, both plural. However, neither creation story is meant to be read literally and neither tells us how God actually created. Creation itself -- what science studies-- does that.

It appears that your basic problems are with a literalistic reading of Genesis 1-3.

How can it be argued that God is a loving God when he has created such a cruel world. Evolution for example is incredibly cruel, with 99% of all species now being extinct. So WHY would God create so many species just for them to die a horrible death, especially if you believe they were created for man (who has only lived to see 1%, if that).

Species don't "die a horrible death". Species simply dwindle until there are no members left. Individuals die. I will dispute that evolution is "incredibly cruel". You are putting your judgement on that. In doing so, you are going far beyond the science. I suggest chapters 7 and 8 of Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller for a fuller reason why God would use evolution to create. The short answer is: having a universe with a history and open future is the only way to ensure our lives have meaning; that actions have real consequences.

Why do you pray? If God has a plan and a reason for everything then surely praying for anything is going directly against God's will?

You sound like you are talking about "vending machine" prayers: ask for something specific. Like the Janis Joplin song "Please Lord, buy me a Mercedes Benz; my friends all drive Porches; I must make amends. Worked hard all my lifetime; no help from my friends. Please Lord, buy me a Mercedes Benz"

I pray that I do God's will, not my own. I pray for help in in having courage, compassion, and empathy. I ask for courage, wisdom, and strength to deal with problems, not for specific solutions.

If God is omniscient then how can there be free will?

He's not. For whatever reason, God created a universe where even He cannot know everything. Try reading about the Uncertainty Principle. God is very knowing, but not omniscient within the universe. Now, He may be omniscient outside the universe, but there is no knowledge about that.

Isn't it also impossible to be omniscient AND omnipotent at the same time?

God is also not omnipotent.

Why would a human need to fear hell or want heaven to be good? Surely that is just pseudo-'goodness' as it is a purely selfish act.

Not "purely" selfish. Don't we give our children motivation to be good? Didn't your parents ever tell you "Be good and I will buy you ice cream" or "Be good or I will give you a time out"? Why wouldn't God do the same for His children?

If you dismiss the big bang because it has no beginning, then who created God? If he can come out of nothing then surely that's hypocritical logic?

First, I don't dismiss Big Bang. It's how God started the universe. Second,

Why does God go to such extradinary lengths to hide any evidence of himself?

He doesn't. He has intervened in human history. He has communicated with hundreds of millions of people over the centuries. I think you are mistaking your opinion that there is no evidence to God hiding evidence. Instead of asking about God, how about if we ask why you refuse to see the evidence for God.

You may be referring to the lack of scientific evidence. That's mostly the fault of science, not God. Science has a limitation called "Methodological Naturalism" that keeps us from directly testing for God. MN is what Gould is referring to when he says "legitimate methods".

Not to mention all of the people who claim God talks to them, why one and not all? Why did he allow the bible to be written if he wants people to rely purely on faith.

Faith does not mean "lack of evidence". It means "lack of proof". By proof we mean evidence that is available to everyone under approximately the same circumstances (intersubjective evidence).

Now, why doesn't everyone communicate with God? There are several possibilities:
1. God does contact them, but they dismiss the contact because they have a prior belief God doesn't exist. As an atheist, you probably fit in this category.
2. God must communicate with us thru our material brain. It's possible that we need a circuit in the brain -- a God-detecting module -- that arises from evolution. What we are looking at with 10% atheists/agnostics is simply incomplete penetrance of this trait into the population. IOW, it takes lots of generations for a trait to be "fixed" in terms of evolution. That God detecting module simply hasn't had enough evolutionary time to become fixed.
3. There are some people God doesn't want to contact. I can think of several atheists who I am supposed to want to be Christians but, personally, I'm just as glad they are atheists.

We are all atheists, you just believe in one more God than I do. After all you don't believe in the Islamic stories, or Greek etc....maybe you do believe in the Egyptian ones though!

This is quite a popular atheistic comment. However, did you ever stop to think 1) how theists decided those other versions of deity were wrong and 2) why they have not decided that this version is wrong? No, you just decided that, since all but one version is wrong, then that version must also be wrong.

You see, this argument sounds good, but it is a poor substitute for critical thinking. Think about this in terms of scientific theories. The scientific theories that we accept as true are the ones we have not been able to falsify. So, in terms of the shape of the earth, we all believe in one more shape. None of us believe that the earth is flat, pyramid, dodecahedron, donut, etc. But we all believe the earth is round. By your logic, we should disbelieve that shape also.

 

[lucaspa]

What I meant was I am not just taking somebody elses word for it. There is no-one in my life that takes the role of a priest. I live in a Christian country and could easily have followed the crowd and believed what I was told, but I haven't. By 'think for myself' I mean literally that, not that I have single-handedly done all my own research or I am trying to say I am the original source which would be ridiculous. But my sources are varied and based on reality, not stories.

Why do atheists think that theists believe only because a minister/priest tells them to?

Actually, I bet you have "followed the crowd" for many things you believe. Have you actually done your own research on the Big Bang? Or have you taken the word of cosmologists?

What do you think your "reality" sources are? Science is agnostic. So that can't be a source.

I don't need to prove God doesn't exist in order to not believe in him. The same way I don't need to try and prove Santa doesn't exist or the tooth fairy.

Actually, we can disprove both Santa and the tooth fairy. And have. The experiments have been done.

Yes, you can believe God doesn't exist without proving that. That's what belief is, after all: without proof. For instance, both you and I believe there are no teapots in orbit about Mars, but we haven't proved that, have we?

The caveat is that you must be careful to say that your belief is a belief. If you mistakenly stray into making "knowledge" statements, then yes, you must prove God doesn't exist.

The burden of proof falls on the shoulders of those that are making huge claims against all rationality/logic and the overwhelming evidence that proves you are wrong.

Now you are into knowledge statements: "proves you are wrong". You are now making a claim. You now have a burden of proof to back that statement. You are committing the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. A fallacy beloved by atheists.

So, what is this "overwhelming evidence" of yours?

Different countries have overwhelming majorities of certain religions, doesn't that tell you something?

That for some cultures different versions of deity resonate among the members. It says nothing about the objective reality of the existence of deity. Does it?

That there are minorities does show that theists do exercise critical thinking and come to conclusions against the majority. So you cannot claim that belief in God is due only to culture and what you are taught as a child.

I am not close-minded and readily change my mind if new evidence presents itself. That I think is the difference between you and I. I see religion not as something spiritual, I see religion as a failed science. Before modern science humanity was ignorant of where we came from etc so they came up with the best theory they could. For one reason or another people find it difficult to leave religion behind when new evidence presents itself, and yes I have studied the psychology behind it which explains a lot.

Sorry, but this shows you don't understand science or Judeo-Christianity. Nothing in science has falsified Judeo-Christianity. Nothing in science has falsified that deity exists.

Where we "came from" in modern science is the same as "where we came from" in 500 BC when Genesis 1 was written: we come from God. What has changed is knowledge about how we come from God.

I don't mean this to be as rude as it sounds, but I find it ironic your main argument is that I am just taking somebody else's word for it when that is exactly what religion preaches.

Where did you get this idea? Judeo-Christianity teaches that each of us has a relationship with God. That is not "taking somebody else's word for it"! You have knowledge of God.

Isn't faith a synonym for 'no evidence' also known as 'superstition'?

Ah, here's the root fallacy. No, faith is not a synonym for this. Faith is ": firm belief in something for which there is no proof " Notice that "no proof" is not the same as "no evidence".

This is the complete opposite of science!! Science is about moving forward, without it you would be living in the dark ages!

The Dark Ages were about the lack of a stable political system, not the lack of science.

The only way to move forward is to admit when a theory is wrong and embrace the truth that's infront of your eyes.

The problem is that there is no conclusive evidence that the theory of deity is wrong. In fact, because of limitations of science, we can't get either the proof of existence or the proof deity does not exist.

Wishful thinking by religious individuals has a lot to answer for. Just look at what the AID's problem in Afica and tell me who is to blame for preaching against condoms.

Wishful thinking is the problem. In this example the wishful thinking was done by people who were also theists. In other examples, the wishful thinking has been done by people who were also atheists. Look up "Lysenkoism" and see what it did to agriculture in the Soviet Union. Lysenko and his fellows were atheists.

One other point, did jesus not say 'a camel has more chance of passing through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to make it into the kingdom of heaven'? (I don't know the exact quote). So why isn't more good being done? If you believe in heaven why don't you celebrate when someone dies, why don't you kill yourselves?

1. You need to separate the existence of God from the people who believe in the existence of God. That God exists does not compel moral behavior from people who say they believe God exists.
2. Saying good-bye to people you love is sad. It's sad when they move across the country, it's sad when you fight and decide never to see each other again. Death is a separation. Yes, there is the belief in an eventual reunion, but right now it is a separation. So people are sad.
3. Suicide is rejecting this life. That is a disrespectful response to a gift. Besides, remember that personal relationship with God? We don't have to kill ourselves to have contact with God.

 

[lucaspa]

You also completely misunderstand evolution. Evolution does not in any way imply we came from only two people, the bare minimum physically possible to explain the diversity in mankind would be 10,000. Genetic evidence backs this up.

Sorry, but the genetic evidence shows that, at one point, H. sapiens was less than 50 breeding pairs -- 100 people. See that article I referended.

What you need to remember is that evolution is blind of the future, we didn't evolve on purpose with any guided direction it was completely random.

This you cannot state. Here you are going way beyond evolution. Evolution is not "completely random". The variations are random, but only random with respect to the needs of the individual or the population. In your example of dogs, that particular environment "needed" larger dogs, but in each generation, just as many dogs are born that are smaller as are larger. The selection part of natural selection is the opposite of random. It is pure determinism.

Now, natural selection cannot see into the distant future and see what future environments are going to be like. So when mammals first evolved natural selection could not see ahead to decide that a modified ape would be able to earn a good living by using tools and being sapiet.

BUT, we cannot say, as scientists, that evolution was not "guided". There are at least 2 ways that God can guide evolution and not be detectable by science. Both of these methods are discussed by atheists (one by Richard Dawkins and the other by Daniel Dennett), so it's not apologetics:
1. God can directly cause particular mutations. These few mutations would be lost in the background noise of non-God-directly-caused mutations.
2. God can engage in a bit of artificial selection. We cannot read the fossil record fine enough to detect this.

So, you cannot truthfully say that " we didn't evolve on purpose".

I won't ramble on about evolution any more, but it is proven scientific fact

Not a problem. Evolution is how God created the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin stated this first:
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has undergone a thread clean up.

As a reminder, the ONLY non-Christian who can post in this thread is the OP.


​

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Thank you for your reply, however there are more parallels that you might find interesting, including many of the miracles Jesus was said to perform. Again I should stress I am not trying to have a go at christians or be offensive nor trying to convert anyone.

Horus also:

Had 12 disciples
Was taken up a mountain by satan
Walked on water
Cast out demons
Healed the sick
Restored sight to the blind.
He "stilled the sea by his power."
Raised the dead (his father Asar, Translated into Hebrew, Asr is "El-Asar." The Romans added the sufffix "us" to indicate a male name, producing "Elasarus." Over time, the "E" was dropped and "s" became "z," producing "Lazarus" whom Jesus raised)
He was crucified
Accompanied by two theives
Buried in a tomb
Raised from the dead 3 days later
Known as the saviour of humanity, the good shepherd, the lamb of God, the bread of life, the son of man, the Word, the fisher, the winnower

Even if you disregard this evidence for one reason or another, this is just one of many stories portraying the same stories. They have been credited to various individuals over thousands of years. Not to mention the vast parallels between christianity and ancient paganism.

Perhaps not all of this is accurate and I would happily admit that as I am not an expert on egyptian mythology. The point I am making is that the story isn't original and can be found from many sources which should cast some doubt on the validity of the witness accounts in the bible. I am curious why you can so easily disregard ancient egyptian religions as myth, yet believe the same stories set much later as factual truth.

Thanks again for answering my question

I'm guessing you recently watched the movie Zeitgeist? Whether or not you have, this (link) should answer many of your questions with some decent satisfaction. The article, and similar such articles can be found across the internet, doesn't just deal with the movie's [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-poor scholarship as far as Historical Jesus studies go, but deals with the other conspiracy nonsense the movie handles poorly. Note: The site I've linked isn't a Christian website, I've done this deliberately so no one can try and say it's just "Christian apologetics".

The fact of the matter is that while most historians and scholars in fact do see commonalities between some ancient pagan cults and Christianity; but many of these commonalities are fairly superficial and in a few cases there's plenty of disagreement over who influenced who (if at all). An example of this latter notion is when one gets into Mithraic studies, as the Roman cult of Mithras post-dates the beginnings of Christianity by several decades (the Roman Mithraic religion more-or-less began around the year 80, mostly a military cult, appropriating the Vedic deity of Mithras from Persia).

Anyway, I'll let the link do most of the talking, but in brief: The statements you've made comparing Jesus and Horus are without any basis in reality, nobody with any credentials whatsoever believes what you've posted, it is the product of pure imagination and pure fabrication. It is no more credible to say Horus was called the "Son of Man" "the Word" that he had twelve disciples (et al) than it is to say that the moon is made of cheese and pigs can fly.

And if you aren't convinced, then I implore you, do your research. Avoid the conspiracy nuts and just use good, solid scholarly resources with reliable sources.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm guessing you recently watched the movie Zeitgeist?

Atheists have been coming up with this rubbish since before the dawn of time. Admittedly Zeitgeist seems to have given it a boost.

 

[Curious Atheist]

I have had many more replies than expected, thanks for everyone taking the time to answer my questions. Especially those who seem to have answered them many times before.

What I am finding very confusing though is the variety of answers I am getting for the same questions. Surely all christians took the creation story as literal before the theory of evolution? Or surely a lot more than are around today. So what process do you use to illiminate certain parts of the bible? Why is there such a large variety of opinions on which parts to believe? Surely if you follow this process to its end you would become an atheist? After all you are asking non-belieivers to find evidence to 100% disprove something before you will accept it. I just can't help finding this hypocritical. It is also non-sensical because you can't disprove anything 100%, so the only means of deciphering what to believe is to use scientific methods and to believe the most likely answer, like evolution and the big bang.

I disagree you need to have faith in life, it is NOT faith to believe the Sun will rise tomorrow morning. You can use science to map the orbits and deduce that it will do so for millions of years. It isn't faith to think your car will start when you can use science to prove it is in working order. Not assuming something has tampered with it each morning is NOT faith. Faith is believing something when there is no rational reason to do so, often in the face of contradicting evidence.
You might see it as faith to 'belieive' in science. But it isn't. The default for science is 'we don't know'. Something can't be called a theory until there is multiple evidence to back it up, what you are referring to is a 'thesis'. The same way it isn't faith to trust a doctor, you know they have the knowledge to understand your illness and the medicine has been proven to work scientifically. You know this due to the scientific processes in place, not because you blindly have faith.

I am trying to see your point of view but please use your own arguments to try and prove the existence of say, fairies. You can never disprove a fairy isn't there, so why don't you believe in fairies until someone disproves it?

I have never heard of a film called zeitgeist, but I am familiar with the word meaning 'of the time' I think. I get all of my ideas from reading various books, journals and asking questions.

My point about evolution and the world being unnecessarily cruel is a valid one. I agree if you look at things with a nihilist attitude (which I do) then there isn't anything immoral etc. But why would a loving God choose a method that requires so much pain and death? If it is man that makes the world cruel then that is exactly my point, if God created man then God created us this way and made us cruel intentially.
I don't see the logic of saying God can do canything and is wise beyond knowing, then in the same sentence make it seem he couldn't stop humans being cruel. You can argue free will, but he would have known our choices would be so and did it on purpose, there is no denying this.
Is there not also a story when two angels met one good man in a town full of evil people. The locals were going to rape the angels, so the good man gave them his daughters instead? Or another where a man kills his son? Or the plagues where God kills all the first borns, or incites war. Or how God takes sides in war and seems to be a fascist with who he chooses to speak to and save. These are not the actions of a loving God.

What I would really like to know is that if Jesus returned, how would you know it was Jesus? (or an angel etc). Like I said before there are thousands of people claiming to be him, or to having a direct link with God. So why don't you believe them? Are you contradicting yourselves and waiting for them to prove it? I thought God didn't need to prove anything?

Why is it that God doesn't perform miracles any more? Everything claimed to be a miracle in recorded history has a much simpler explanation. A good example being the millions who visit holy sites to be cured. Perhaps some will get back to full health, but statistically some of them would and it has nothing to do with God. They are always people who can get better without magic, no-one has ever regrown a limb for example.

I assume you are also all familiar with the placebo effect? Also the psychology of imaginary friends and the mathematics of coincedence. For example it is statistically quite likely someone you were just thinking about will phone you at that moment. You can interpret this as being psychic if you wanted, and clearly many do. But rationally you must see it isn't anything psychic.

Thanks again for the replies, I am sincere in wanting to understand because it trully does baffle me.

 

[lesliedellow]

What I am finding very confusing though is the variety of answers I am getting for the same questions. Surely all christians took the creation story as literal before the theory of evolution?

It may be true that more Christians read the creation story literally before the theory of evolution, but by no means all of them did. St Augustine has become famous for warning against the idea that they must necessarily be read literally, in case future discoveries made that untenable. For those of us who are not creationists, that is, of course, precisely what has happened.

Or surely a lot more than are around today.

The first time European Christians learn of the number of creationists in America, their reaction is to be slightly shocked.

So what process do you use to illiminate certain parts of the bible?

We leave science to investigate the physical world, and we use the Bible for matters of faith. More precisely, just as observation is the primary source of data for the physical sciences, that which God reveals about himself in the Bible is the primary source of data for Christian theology.

Why is there such a large variety of opinions on which parts to believe?

Firstly, to say that not all parts of the Bible are to be read literally is not to say they are to be disbelieved. That is a misconception that creationists and atheists seem to share. The key to reading the Bible is to take into account the intentions of the writer. It clearly could not have been the intention of the author of Genesis 1 to write about physics or biology many centuries before those disciplines got off the ground. Instead he was talking about God's role as Creator and to speak about his relationship to man. It was not, and could not have been, an attempt to give a physical account of creation, because such a thing wouldn't have entered into his mental universe.

Secondly, there are varieties of opinions because people are different, and it is not only religion where differing opinions are to be found. As of this present day there are differences of opinion amongst physicists over whether string theory should be dumped as a failed theory. At the moment the majority are probably not of that opinion, but there is a growing minority who are.

Surely if you follow this process to its end you would become an atheist?

No. Science will never be competent to comment upon the existence of God, or his requirements of man. That is simply outside of its remit, which is the study of the physical world.

I disagree you need to have faith in life

It simply is not practical to go through life being skeptical about everything. You have to take it on trust that the person coming down the road isn't going to mug you. If you want to stay married for very long, you have to take it on trust that your wife is being faithful to you. If you are an astronomer, and you spend your time looking at objects as they were millions of years ago, before you can make any deductions from what you see you have to take it on trust that (for instance) gravity hasn't been stronger or weaker in the past, and that it is constant throughout the universe.

Even if your doctor is fully qualified, you have to take it on trust that he isn't incompetent, and that he isn't going to prescribe you a lethal cocktail of drugs. A few people in the past have discovered that their faith in their doctor was wholly misplaced.

I have never heard of a film called zeitgeist, but I am familiar with the word meaning 'of the time' I think. I get all of my ideas from reading various books, journals and asking questions.

Zeitgeist was a film which came out with the crap about Horus you listed above, and some more besides. The Horus nonsense can be traced back to an English poet by the name of Gerald Massey at the end of the nineteenth century. In his own eyes he was also an Egyptologist, but nobody in academia takes him seriously today. (Horus was not born of a virgin; he was born of Isis and Osiris; he was not born on 25 December; the Egyptians didn't even use the Roman calendar; There is nothing in Egyptian mythology about him having twelve disciples, and so on.)

My point about evolution and the world being unnecessarily cruel is a valid one. I agree if you look at things with a nihilist attitude (which I do) then there isn't anything immoral etc. But why would a loving God choose a method that requires so much pain and death?

It is simply the case that we live in a world which has pain in it. Atheists are fond of saying that if we can't explain something, that doesn't mean goddidit. Well, that cuts both ways - not being able to explain something doesn't mean that God didn't do it.

What I would really like to know is that if Jesus returned, how would you know it was Jesus? (or an angel etc).

Restoring a four day old corpse to life might help to give him credibility.

Why is it that God doesn't perform miracles any more?

Some Christians believe that miracles still happen, some don't.

Everything claimed to be a miracle in recorded history has a much simpler explanation.

How can you possibly know that? What we are hearing here is your philosophical presuppositions dressed up as if they were a matter of fact.

 

[lucaspa]

Surely all christians took the creation story as literal before the theory of evolution?

Actually, they didn't. St. Augustine of Hippo argued against a literal Genesis 1-3 back in 400 AD. John Calvin stated quite clearly that Genesis was not literal in his Commentaries in the 1500s.

The Biblical literalism we see today is modern. It came as a reaction to Higher Criticism of the late 1800s. The seminal documents were a series of pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals published between 1900 and 1910. You can find them online if you are interested.

So what process do you use to illiminate certain parts of the bible?

Have you read the first quote in my signature?

Surely if you follow this process to its end you would become an atheist? After all you are asking non-belieivers to find evidence to 100% disprove something before you will accept it.

1. Ah, the slippery slope argument of creationists! In the mouth of an atheist. Any creationists here, please look at this. This is one of the reasons Biblical literalism/creationism is such a danger to Christianity. Look at how Curious Atheist uses it to bolster atheism.

Curious Atheist, no, the process does not lead to atheism. The Bible is a theological document. It tells us theological truths. The theological truths in Genesis 1-3 are set in the best "science" of the time: the Babylonian cosmology. Those truths are just as valid today with what we know via science as they were then.

2. What we are saying is that if you stated as a fact that God does not exist, then you must prove it. If you state it as a belief that "I do not believe God exists", then that is OK. We disagree, but you have not tried to mistakenly state a belief as "fact".

It is also non-sensical because you can't disprove anything 100%, so the only means of deciphering what to believe is to use scientific methods and to believe the most likely answer, like evolution and the big bang.

Sure you can disprove 100%. That's what science does all the time! In fact, it is the only thing science can do. Have you ever heard of deductive logic? True statements cannot have false consequences. This allows you to disprove things. A flat earth has been 100% disproven. Any argument about that? Phlogiston has been 100% disproven. Ditto for proteins as hereditary material, the aether, pure determinism, and young earth. The list goes on and on.

Do you think evolution and the Big Bang disprove God and creation? Think again.

I disagree you need to have faith in life, it is NOT faith to believe the Sun will rise tomorrow morning.

No, but it is faith that your mother and father love you. You can't demonstrate that by science. It is faith to believe that a particular type of music is "good", or that a particular restaurant has "good" food. It is faith to believe that honesty is a good policy, or that a particular candidate will do better than his rivals. Every time you vote you are stating your faith.

So, we all have faith in our lives. In fact, only a small portion of our lives are lived via science.

Now, as it turns out, believing that the Sun will rise tomorrow and that your car will start are faith. Both are examples of inductive reasoning. You can never prove by inductive reasoning. An atheist, David Hume, showed that back in the 1780s. If you don't understand how those are faith, then ask and I will explain in more detail.

Faith is believing something when there is no rational reason to do so, often in the face of contradicting evidence.

Now you are making up a definition. This is not the definition of faith. I gave you the definition of faith from Merriam-Webster.

Something can't be called a theory until there is multiple evidence to back it up,

Sorry, but you have the science wrong. All theories start out with no evidence. Theory first, evidence later. See my thread Hypotheses, theories, and laws - Christian Forums

All you need do is think about Ekpyrotic Theory or No Boundary Theory. Neither has any evidence to back them up.

The same way it isn't faith to trust a doctor,

When you invoke "trust", you are talking faith. Again, you have made a strawman definition of faith. Let's try the dictionary again:
"b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust " Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

See? You are talking about complete trust in a doctor. That is faith. While medicine is a science and doctors are trained, you don't know that this particular doctor is competent. Part of my job is to teach medical students and residents. I have a list of them never to touch me, because I know they are incompetent.

I am trying to see your point of view but please use your own arguments to try and prove the existence of say, fairies. You can never disprove a fairy isn't there, so why don't you believe in fairies until someone disproves it?

Please state to us the characteristics of "fairy". You see, whether we believe or don't believe depends on the characteristics and whether we can test for the entity.

Let me try one on you. What's your attitude toward tachyons? Tachyons are particles allowed by Special Relativity. They can only go faster than light. Thus, we cannot ever see a tachyon because it can never react with our retinas. We have no instruments to detect tachyons. Because they move faster than light, tachyons would carry information from the future. In fact, they were routinely used in the Star Trek series as a means of time travel and detecting time travel. So tachyons violate cause and effect. In short, tachyons, if they exist, are a pain in the backside. What's you belief about them? What do you think science's attitude toward them is?

My point about evolution and the world being unnecessarily cruel is a valid one.

Repeating a point refuted by argument without a counter argument is not valid. I thought atheists were supposed to be critical thinkers.

But why would a loving God choose a method that requires so much pain and death? If it is man that makes the world cruel then that is exactly my point, if God created man then God created us this way and made us cruel intentially.

Saying evolution "requires so much pain and death" is not scientific. You are projecting human sensibilities onto nature. This is called the Naturalistic Fallacy. Due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, no physical being can be immortal. Everything dies, including eventually the stars. Pain is a good thing in that it senses the environment and tells us about things that damage us. Imagine what a world where individuals do not feel would be like. Charred hands from putting them on a hot stove, bleeding to death from a cut, etc. Neither pain nor death are "bad" things in and of themselves.

As it turns out, Darwinian selection is the only way to get design. When humans design, they still use Darwinian selection. It's just that we create the first variations in our minds by imagination and do the first generation competition against the environment in our minds. Natural selection is just Darwinian selection in nature. I already told you why God would choose to use it. Did you go read chapters 7 and 8 of Finding Darwin's God? Until you do, don't keep repeating the same ignorance, please.

Now, a good deal of love consists in letting the lives of those we love have meaning. To have meaning, our actions have to have real consequences. IOW, when I help out in a food kitchen, that must be the way people get fed. My choice to help has real consequences for real people. Now, it God decides to miraculously feed the hungry, then what does it matter whether I help in a food kitchen or not? My help is meaningless. Even if I help feed hungry people, God is still going to do so. Or perhaps God will perform a miracle so that those people don't need food anymore.

But, what this means is that we have to have free will so that all our actions have consequences, both good and bad. If I look at a beautiful woman, desire her, but make no move to harm her, that is part of me as a person. OTOH, if I rape her, that is also part of me as a person. For God to step in such that only good things can happen, that destroys the meaning of our lives. That is no longer love, but the ultimate control freak.

Is there not also a story when two angels met one good man in a town full of evil people. The locals were going to rape the angels, so the good man gave them his daughters instead? Or another where a man kills his son? Or the plagues where God kills all the first borns, or incites war. Or how God takes sides in war and seems to be a fascist with who he chooses to speak to and save. These are not the actions of a loving God.

In the story of Lot, Lot offers his daughter. However, she is never raped. Try to get the stories correct. The plagues of Egypt were to demonstrate the existence and power of Yahweh. It is God announcing His presence in language understandable by the people of the time. You must always keep that in mind: the limitations of the people God is trying to communicate with. As humans "grew up" and understood more, God could make clearer the message.

What I would really like to know is that if Jesus returned, how would you know it was Jesus? (or an angel etc). Like I said before there are thousands of people claiming to be him, or to having a direct link with God. So why don't you believe them?

The same way we evaluate data in science. We have information on what Jesus taught when he was a human in 1st century Palestine. We can test the returned Jesus the same way Thomas tested the risen Jesus: nail holes in the hands and wound in the side. We test people claiming to speak for God by comparing what those people say and what we already have information about God. So when Pat Robertson says God says Haitians made a pact with Satan to get their freedom from slavery back in 1800 and the earthquake is punishment for this, we remember that God freed the Hebrews when they were slaves and that God would have helped the Haitians free themselves from slavery, not Satan. Therefore Robertson is wrong.

Why is it that God doesn't perform miracles any more? Everything claimed to be a miracle in recorded history has a much simpler explanation.

Not really. There are medical examples where there is never an explanation.

Perhaps some will get back to full health, but statistically some of them would and it has nothing to do with God.

Excuse me, but just how do you know that those who get better without going to the holy site had nothing to do with God? You are presuming the very thing you are trying to prove. That fallacy is called "circular logic".

They are always people who can get better without magic, no-one has ever regrown a limb for example.

Strawman. Why would you make that the criteria for what is a "miracle" cure?

Thanks again for the replies, I am sincere in wanting to understand because it trully does baffle me.

It would baffle you less if you didn't make strawmen and actually used some critical thinking on your own positions.

 

[Curious Atheist]

"Actually, they didn't. St. Augustine of Hippo argued against a literal Genesis 1-3 back in 400 AD. John Calvin stated quite clearly that Genesis was not literal in his Commentaries in the 1500s."

Perhaps a few did, my point was the majority not the individual. The point being that some aspects of the bible have been left behind or interpreted as non-literal stories. Yet the process for illiminating these relies on logic. Very few rational people would argue that a snake can talk, or that a rational God would then banish all snakes of that species to crawl on the ground for eternity. Does this assume snakes used to walk upright? Without a fossil why don't you point this out as a 'gap'? Then wouldn't it be frustrating if atheists used this gap to form a new unproven theory, purely based on the said gap? Like the gap worshippers in evolution?


"Have you read the first quote in my signature? "

Yes, it confirms that you merely re-interpret your previous beliefs instead of embracing new ideas. I am of the opinion this isn't the best way to a better future and promotes out-of-date ideas such as sharia law which I feel belongs in the past.


"1. Ah, the slippery slope argument of creationists! In the mouth of an atheist. Any creationists here, please look at this. This is one of the reasons Biblical literalism/creationism is such a danger to Christianity. Look at how Curious Atheist uses it to bolster atheism."

I don't have an agenda to bolster atheism, I am trying to satisfy my own curiousity.

"Curious Atheist, no, the process does not lead to atheism. The Bible is a theological document. It tells us theological truths. The theological truths in Genesis 1-3 are set in the best "science" of the time: the Babylonian cosmology. Those truths are just as valid today with what we know via science as they were then."

If you use new scientific ideas, logic, reasoning and morality to leave parts out of the bible such as slavery, creationism, noah's ark and adam and eve then surely there has to be a reason that you draw the line there. Why would it not lead to atheism if you analysed all of the bible with the same reasoning and sceptism? The context doesn't matter, you alone are choosing which parts to take literally. Doesn't it say in black and white how humans were created? That God created Adam from 'dust' and Eve from his rib? It does beg the question why he couldn't just create them from nothing like the rest of the universe. Some stories were intended as stories, like some spoken by Jesus where as others were written as truths (again, like creationism). I would find it easier to understand if there was only one way to interpret the text.

"2. What we are saying is that if you stated as a fact that God does not exist, then you must prove it. If you state it as a belief that "I do not believe God exists", then that is OK. We disagree, but you have not tried to mistakenly state a belief as "fact"."

I have said it is impossible to disprove anything 100%. If I told you I could fly, surely you wouldn't just believe me unless I could prove it. If I told you I could fly unless you could prove I couldn't then we would be left with the same dilemma. There is literally no way you could prove I couldn't fly. Sceptism isn't a bad thing, it keeps you from making poor judements.


"Sure you can disprove 100%. That's what science does all the time! In fact, it is the only thing science can do. Have you ever heard of deductive logic? True statements cannot have false consequences. This allows you to disprove things. A flat earth has been 100% disproven. Any argument about that? Phlogiston has been 100% disproven. Ditto for proteins as hereditary material, the aether, pure determinism, and young earth. The list goes on and on."

Have you heard of a false premise? A false premise leads to a false result. You could say that the earth is flat, but God makes us think it is round. You cannot prove he does not. I believe the Earth is referenced as being flat in the bible actually, and insects having four legs. Many creationists believe in a young earth based on the text in the bible, yet you don't because evidence proves otherwise. What would it take for you to stop having faith in a 2000 year old book full of errors?

"Do you think evolution and the Big Bang disprove God and creation? Think again."

You are trying to force a square peg in a round hole with this logic. The bible says different and does not mention a big bang it says God created light etc first. Do you think Christians immediately accepted these theories until it was all but impossible to deny? The first scientists were convicted of heresy for suggesting such things. It is a matter of time only before there is more evidence and you will need to re-interpret again.


"No, but it is faith that your mother and father love you. You can't demonstrate that by science."

Wrong, there are chemical changes in the brain and you can use brain mapping to see which parts of the brain are working. This has nothing to do with faith.


" It is faith to believe that a particular type of music is "good", or that a particular restaurant has "good" food."

No, that is opinion

" It is faith to believe that honesty is a good policy, or that a particular candidate will do better than his rivals. Every time you vote you are stating your faith."

Wrong again, we have evolved as a society to work together and use empathy to see things from other perspectives. Voting is based on which canditate you deduce using logical debate would be the best for the role, you can be decieved obviously but this isn't faith.

"So, we all have faith in our lives. In fact, only a small portion of our lives are lived via science.

Now, as it turns out, believing that the Sun will rise tomorrow and that your car will start are faith. Both are examples of inductive reasoning. You can never prove by inductive reasoning. An atheist, David Hume, showed that back in the 1780s. If you don't understand how those are faith, then ask and I will explain in more detail."

I don't understand because it isn't faith to believe in gravity. It is a scientific principal that we understand. Understanding how something works requires no faith at all!


"Sorry, but you have the science wrong. All theories start out with no evidence. Theory first, evidence later. See my thread Hypotheses, theories, and laws - Christian Forums"

You aren't thinking of the scientific definition of a theory
"Noun1.scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"


A theory without evidence is a thesis, which needs to be tested and repeated before it can be granted theory statis. Creationists often say evolution is 'just a theory', but everything in science is a theory. Gravity is a theory!


"When you invoke "trust", you are talking faith. Again, you have made a strawman definition of faith. Let's try the dictionary again:
"b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust " Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

See? You are talking about complete trust in a doctor. That is faith. While medicine is a science and doctors are trained, you don't know that this particular doctor is competent. Part of my job is to teach medical students and residents. I have a list of them never to touch me, because I know they are incompetent. "

Glad you can be sceptical sometimes. But if trust is earned then you have a reasonable argument to put trust in someone. It isn't unreasonable and requires no faith that someone who has reached the stage of doctor has some competency in what he is doing. The same way it isn't faith to not believe in God, that's like saying that health is a disease!


"Please state to us the characteristics of "fairy". You see, whether we believe or don't believe depends on the characteristics and whether we can test for the entity."

Pretend for arguments sake that the fairy has all the powers of your God. You cannot test for this fairy, it is just there. Can you test for God? Your argument is based on requiring scientifcic methods.

"Let me try one on you. What's your attitude toward tachyons? Tachyons are particles allowed by Special Relativity. They can only go faster than light. Thus, we cannot ever see a tachyon because it can never react with our retinas. We have no instruments to detect tachyons. Because they move faster than light, tachyons would carry information from the future. In fact, they were routinely used in the Star Trek series as a means of time travel and detecting time travel. So tachyons violate cause and effect. In short, tachyons, if they exist, are a pain in the backside. What's you belief about them? What do you think science's attitude toward them is?"

I will have to leave this one as I don't know anything about tachyons. I would assume they would be required to solve an equation, and if enough evidence supports them then they may be a valid theory. When there is new evidence that contradicts this evidence then it would be dismissed, very much like a recent debunking of the supersymetry theory. Scientists involved haven't continued to try and prove it due to new evidence. All I am asking is religious people do the same.


"Saying evolution "requires so much pain and death" is not scientific. You are projecting human sensibilities onto nature. This is called the Naturalistic Fallacy. Due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, no physical being can be immortal. Everything dies, including eventually the stars. Pain is a good thing in that it senses the environment and tells us about things that damage us. Imagine what a world where individuals do not feel would be like. Charred hands from putting them on a hot stove, bleeding to death from a cut, etc. Neither pain nor death are "bad" things in and of themselves."

God could have come up with a kinder alternative if he wanted to. It seems unnecessary to me. Whether you are being anthropomorphic or not is irrelevant, pain is pain and humans feel pain just the same don't we.


"Now, a good deal of love consists in letting the lives of those we love have meaning. To have meaning, our actions have to have real consequences. IOW, when I help out in a food kitchen, that must be the way people get fed. My choice to help has real consequences for real people. Now, it God decides to miraculously feed the hungry, then what does it matter whether I help in a food kitchen or not? My help is meaningless. Even if I help feed hungry people, God is still going to do so. Or perhaps God will perform a miracle so that those people don't need food anymore."

If you were put on this Earth to help the needy, then what were the needy put on the Earth for? Trying to give your life meaning is a strong reason why people cling to religion, but it is a circular argument. It is obscene to think a loving God would let people starve to make the more forunate feel a bit better...

"But, what this means is that we have to have free will so that all our actions have consequences, both good and bad. If I look at a beautiful woman, desire her, but make no move to harm her, that is part of me as a person. OTOH, if I rape her, that is also part of me as a person. For God to step in such that only good things can happen, that destroys the meaning of our lives. That is no longer love, but the ultimate control freak. "

If God can only do good (the best thing to do), then surely he doesn't have free will himself does he? You choose not to rape because you know it is the wrong thing to do, you don't require God to tell you this. I can't see how a God that allows an innocent person to get raped simply to allow the evil person to have free will makes any sense.


"In the story of Lot, Lot offers his daughter. However, she is never raped. Try to get the stories correct. The plagues of Egypt were to demonstrate the existence and power of Yahweh. It is God announcing His presence in language understandable by the people of the time. You must always keep that in mind: the limitations of the people God is trying to communicate with. As humans "grew up" and understood more, God could make clearer the message."

Where is this clearer message? Nothing could be clearer than a plague of frogs. There are numerous evils in the bible perpetrated by God, surely you are aware of them better than I? I can recall one where God kills 70,000 innocents to get back at one man, as well as many baby killings.


"Excuse me, but just how do you know that those who get better without going to the holy site had nothing to do with God? You are presuming the very thing you are trying to prove. That fallacy is called "circular logic".

What I am saying is no-one got better that couldn't of by natural means. A boy can fall through ice for 20 mins yet be revived later and is often deemed a miracle. Yet this isn't an uncommon event and surgeons use this cooling method to slow the heart.

"Strawman. Why would you make that the criteria for what is a "miracle" cure?"

I don't really understand what you mean by strawman, I assume I am supposed to take some offence? I would say a miracle would be something like healing blindness or growing back a limb long before science has the means to do so. Something that couldn't have happened without magic.

"It would baffle you less if you didn't make strawmen and actually used some critical thinking on your own positions."

I do, as you can see I am sceptical and rational with my reasoning. You haven't provided any rational argument for God.


I don't want this to be 'science vs religion', surely we all only after the same thing? Which I would assume is the truth. The best way to find the truth is to test the observations around us and come up with the most logical and statistically most likely answer. Most importantly if new evidence is presented that casts doubt on any of these theories we must be prepared to leave old beliefs behind. Can you honestly say you are doing the same?

 

[lesliedellow]

Lucaspa: Excuse my butting in on this.

Very few rational people would argue that a snake can talk,

Only creationists. So what? Most of us aren't creationists.

Without a fossil why don't you point this out as a 'gap'? Then wouldn't it be frustrating if atheists used this gap to form a new unproven theory, purely based on the said gap? Like the gap worshippers in evolution?

Only creationists manufacture "gaps" in the fossil record.

Yes, it confirms that you merely re-interpret your previous beliefs instead of embracing new ideas. I am of the opinion this isn't the best way to a better future and promotes out-of-date ideas such as sharia law which I feel belongs in the past.

It confirms his refusal to fit into the creationist slot you are trying to force him into, because it would suit your purposes if you could do it.

If you use new scientific ideas, logic, reasoning and morality to leave parts out of the bible such as slavery, creationism, noah's ark and adam and eve then surely there has to be a reason that you draw the line there.

He doesn't leave them out. He interprets them in a non-literal fashion. And you "draw the line" by interpreting it in accordance with what you perceive the writers intention to be.

Why would it not lead to atheism if you analysed all of the bible with the same reasoning and sceptism?

Because, unlike you, he doesn't approach it with the presuppositions of an atheist.

The context doesn't matter, you alone are choosing which parts to take literally.

If you are trying to rightly understand any text, the context matters a great deal.

Doesn't it say in black and white how humans were created? That God created Adam from 'dust' and Eve from his rib?

The point of the story is that they were created by God. Do you seriously expect something which was written around 1,000BC to contain something about evolution? I assume the answer to that question is no, but their inability to give a modern scientific account of creation does not invalidate their theology.

It does beg the question why he couldn't just create them from nothing like the rest of the universe. Some stories were intended as stories, like some spoken by Jesus where as others were written as truths (again, like creationism). I would find it easier to understand if there was only one way to interpret the text.

Unless you are going to keep it at the level of "The cat sat on the mat" there is always more than one way to interpret a text.

A false premise leads to a false result.

Well you don't say.

You could say that the earth is flat, but God makes us think it is round. You cannot prove he does not. I believe the Earth is referenced as being flat in the bible actually, and insects having four legs. Many creationists believe in a young earth based on the text in the bible, yet you don't because evidence proves otherwise.

Atheists and creationists have more than one thing in common. One of the things they have in common is their insistence upon trying to read the Bible as if it was intended to be a scientific text book. It isn't. It is about God.

What would it take for you to stop having faith in a 2000 year old book full of errors?

Suppose somebody was writing a chemistry text book, and to make his point used the analogy of plastic balls linked together in a lattice to describe a molecule, in the process mentioning that the balls were made out of bakolite. If they were in fact made of something else, would you thereby conclude that what he had to say about chemistry must be worthless?

You are trying to force a square peg in a round hole with this logic. The bible says different and does not mention a big bang it says God created light etc first. Do you think Christians immediately accepted these theories until it was all but impossible to deny?

I take it you know the part Christians played in the development of those theories? If not you might want to google the name Georges Lemaitre.

Wrong, there are chemical changes in the brain and you can use brain mapping to see which parts of the brain are working. This has nothing to do with faith.

That is one of the most idiotic pieces of reductionism I have ever heard. If you think you can read my beliefs regarding global warming out of the current state of my brain, please tell me how you would go about it.

 

[razeontherock]

Surely all christians took the creation story as literal before the theory of evolution? Or surely a lot more than are around today.

While this idea has been developed by at least a couple others in this thread already, please look at my tagline. What Jews have to say about Scripture should be important to Christians, because our own Scriptures tell us that Jews have advantages over us, chiefly that God's Word was committed to them. And they NEVER looked at that story as literal!

So your idea expressed in this quote I snipped here, is a modern invention, leading to the false notion of a "god of the gaps." (Small g intentional)

We don't have to agree on everything, but it would be good to understand one another. I'm not sure if it is already clear to you how your idea in this quote is connected to the idea of "the god of the gaps," but the whole thing is a falsehood to be dismissed, just like creationists maintain falsehoods about the theory of evolution only correctable by learning.

[I should also mention as an aside, that our friend from England is using the word "creationist" in a sweeping way that is far too general; hopefully we don't need to get side-tracked on that]

So what process do you use to illiminate certain parts of the bible? Why is there such a large variety of opinions

It's not a process, but a relationship. It is possible to know G-d via His Holy Spirit, who teaches us as much as we are able to hear about the Author's intent of Scripture. We could probably make a crude analogy that much like science, at any given time each of us may have some understanding that we may have gotten wrong. Just like within science, that doesn't mean that every idea we have is completely wrong.

Faith is believing something when there is no rational reason to do so, often in the face of contradicting evidence.

Sir, this is not how the word is used in the Christian vocabulary. Of course you have the right to associate that concept with this word, and I could also think a TV works by little men performing live in a box

If communication has any value to you, it would behoove you to learn what the word is used to mean among the people you are trying to converse with. (Or avoid the term entirely)

The same way it isn't faith to trust a doctor, you know they have the knowledge to understand your illness and the medicine has been proven to work scientifically. You know this due to the scientific processes in place, not because you blindly have faith.

Speak for yourself! Medical science says I should have died 30 years ago, due to inability to breathe. I will be performing 2 shows again this weekend, singing for most of each 4 hour show, as well as playing keyboards. My primary instrument is trumpet. You know, breathing is *kinda* important. Medical science has NO explanation nor understanding in my case.

Care to explain that? Please put this into perspective of your "not Faith" argument, and take a moment to consider this!

if God created man then God created us this way and made us cruel intentially.

FALSE.

What I would really like to know is that if Jesus returned, how would you know it was Jesus?

We already know Him now, in the present. There is no counterfeit for the Holy. Unholy angels bear NO semblance to anything Holy! And yet we know that even those closest to G-d will be not only tested but shaken, and deceived if at all possible. Every Christian goes through periods of judging
G-d, just like you have expressed in this one post. This has the purpose of acquainting us with what Love is from God's POV, rather than the way we might use the word which could apply to puppies and rainbows, a seventh grade crush, or bubble gum.

Those that "enter into Life" come out of a refining process, the details and full extent of which none of us know completely.

Why is it that God doesn't perform miracles any more?

Your accusation is laughable I do have compassion on your lack of experience though.

I am sincere in wanting to understand because it trully does baffle me.

Just for the record, how anyone can be an atheist also baffles me. Not to discourage your quest or usage of CF as a resource, but I started here primarily to understand how atheists can be atheists and have had FAR more opportunity to engage this subject than I ever have had in 46 years of real life. IRL people are not so willing to divulge such personal info, and sadly I think that is wise. What I HAVE been able to do, is find some common elements within particular "segments" of non-Christians. Can I ask you, have you ever read the Bible? The whole thing? In what order? Which parts?

 

[zaksmummy]

Well I dont know anything about Horus, but Jesus wasnt born on the 25th December, he was most likely born on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, mid sept - mid oct.

Evidence to support this can be found in the gospels and include the fact that the shepherds around Bethlehem were on the hills surrounding the town, if he had been born in the winter they would have taken their sheep off the hills and kept them in the pens closer to the town. There is other evidence but I thought this would be the most obvious and well known one.

 

[lucaspa]

Perhaps a few did, my point was the majority not the individual.

You can't document that. What I gave was a few examples of the more famous Christians. The vast majority of Christians who left us the evidence by things they wrote did not take Genesis 1-3 literally.

The point being that some aspects of the bible have been left behind or interpreted as non-literal stories. Yet the process for illiminating these relies on logic.

The process is God's Creation. Yes, Christians have allowed extrabiblical knowledge to guide their interpretations of scripture. As I said, see the first quote in my signature. BUT, they didn't use "logic". They used evidence from God's other book. And yes, Christians have always had the tradition that God has two books. Scripture is one. The physical universe (what science studies) is the other. You will find this quote in the Fontispiece of Origin of Species by Charles Darwin:
"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

Very few rational people would argue that a snake can talk, or that a rational God would then banish all snakes of that species to crawl on the ground for eternity. Does this assume snakes used to walk upright?

Again, you are insisting on reading Genesis 2-3 literally. But you are not supposed to read it that way. It is clearly an allegory, and would have been even clearer to the people of the time. Yes, the serpent talks and tempts Eve and Adam. That is part of the allegory. Then, when it comes to the punishments, we get some naive but charming myths about why 1) farming is so difficult, 2) why women have pain in childbirth and, despite that pain, continue to have sex, 3) why snakes have no legs, and 4) why people have an instinctive hatred and fear of snakes.

A better example for your point of "logic" would be Balaam's mule, which talked. But here you have a miracle. Yes, the theory is that mules don't talk, and that theory is supported by many observations. However, in science observations (data) always trump theory. So it doesn't matter whether it is "logical" or not.

[quot]Yes, it confirms that you merely re-interpret your previous beliefs instead of embracing new ideas.[/quote] So much for your claim about wanting to listen to what we say. The quote refers to work done showing 1) the earth was very old and 2) a world-wide flood never happened. The quote shows that Christians accepted these new ideas. What you are missing is that the new ideas did not falsify belief in God. I realize you personally want to believe they did, but objectively, they did not. Instead, the scientific data falsified a particular interpretation of the text.
Using data from outside the text is a standard way of interpreting any text. For instance, texts from the 2-4th centuries described "plagues" in the Roman empire. We could interpret that to mean Bubonic plague, since that is how "plague" is used in recent literature. However, we use our medical knowledge to realize that those epidemics were not Bubonic plague. See Plagues and Peoples by MacNeil for a complete discussion.

I am of the opinion this isn't the best way to a better future and promotes out-of-date ideas such as sharia law which I feel belongs in the past.

Excuse me? You do realize sharia law is in Islam, right? It has nothing to do with Christianity. How did you possibly make this illogical leap? What the Christians of the time (1832) did was get rid of outmoded ideas like a young earth and a world-wide flood.

I don't have an agenda to bolster atheism, I am trying to satisfy my own curiousity.

Nonsense. See the your paragraph above! "it confirms that you merely re-interpret your previous beliefs instead of embracing new ideas" " I am of the opinion this ... promotes out-of-date ideas such as sharia law which I feel belongs in the past." Atheism doesn't do these things in your opinion, does it? Please, don't try and con us when you give us a smoking gun to the contrary.

If you use new scientific ideas, logic, reasoning and morality to leave parts out of the bible such as slavery, creationism, noah's ark and adam and eve then surely there has to be a reason that you draw the line there. Why would it not lead to atheism if you analysed all of the bible with the same reasoning and sceptism?

And you think I haven't analyzed the Bible with the same reasoning and skepticism? Or that my fellow scientists like Kenneth Miller, Francisco Ayala or Francis Collins haven't?

1. Creationism: this is a scientific theory inspired by a literal reading of Genesis 1-8.
2. Noah's ark: as you are using it, same thing. Also "Adam and Eve".
3. Slavery. Yes, the OT and NT condone slavery. But again you need to set the text in the historical and social context. People of the time thought slavery was good. The OT is actually as against slavery as is possible for the people of the time. The OT laws on slavery are the most restrictive in the ancient world.

Now, if you knew any recent history, you would realize that it was Christians who were the abolitionists and leaders in the civil rights movement. Interestingly, atheists are conspicuously absent. Just as atheists are conspicuously absent in challenging creationism in the courts. To date, all the plaintiffs suing to keep creationism out of public school science classrooms have been theists. Many have been ministers or rabbis.

Now, when you analyze all the Bible, you find that science doesn't show the major theological statement to be false. Nothing in science falsifies the existence of God or that God created. What science does is show how God created.

The context doesn't matter, you alone are choosing which parts to take literally.

LOL! Historical and social context determine how we interpret any and every document. http://www.digistat.com/gcf/8rules.htm
Apologetics research resources on religious cults and sects - The Eight Rules of Bible Interpretation
Apologetics research resources on religious cults and sects - Bible Interpretation

Doesn't it say in black and white how humans were created? That God created Adam from 'dust' and Eve from his rib?

That is Genesis 2. Now go and look in Genesis 1. God speaks humans into existence, men and women (both plural in the Hebrew) into existence at the same time. That is a neon sign that we are not supposed to read the text literally. Yes, Fundamentalists don't heed that neon sign, but if you are really here to "satisfy my own curiosity", then you will take this as the truth and be satisfied.

It does beg the question why he couldn't just create them from nothing like the rest of the universe.

He does in Genesis 1. So there your question is no longer "begged", is it?

Some stories were intended as stories, like some spoken by Jesus where as others were written as truths (again, like creationism).

What you call "creationism" was never meant to be read as creationists read the text. Now, are you here to satisfy your curiosity or are you here to insist we all be creationists?

I have said it is impossible to disprove anything 100%.

And if you would have read my entire post before saying this, you would have found this is mistaken.

If I told you I could fly, surely you wouldn't just believe me unless I could prove it. If I told you I could fly unless you could prove I couldn't then we would be left with the same dilemma. There is literally no way you could prove I couldn't fly.

Sure there is a way to prove you cannot fly. Take you up 2,000 feet in a helicopter and throw you out! When you fall, reach terminial velocity by gravity, and smack the ground, that proves you cannot fly. Don't atheists teach each other any critical thinking?

Now, when you claim "I can fly" I test that against already known data: the mass of humans vs the mass of air you displace, any means of propulsion of the human body thru the air, the absence of airfoils on the human body, etc. All that data falsifies that you (a human) can fly. So at that point I ask for supporting data of the claim, something that will falsify the falsifying data.

Have you heard of a false premise? A false premise leads to a false result. You could say that the earth is flat, but God makes us think it is round. You cannot prove he does not.

Since you insist God doesn't exist, you don't have that premise, do you? So why is it you cannot prove the earth is not flat?

What you have done is not give us a false premise, but constructed an ad hoc hypothesis.
Statement: the earth is flat.
False consequences: method of disappearance of ships at sea, shadows at different latitudes, circumnavitation of the earth, observations of the whole earth from space, etc. All this 100% disproves the earth is flat.

But now you make an ad hoc hypothesis to save the statement from being disproved: God makes it appear round. Ad hoc hypotheses are invalid unless they can be tested from the statement they are trying to save. This one can't be.

Now, ironically, the disproof of this particular ad hoc hypothesis comes from religion. God cannot deceive us this way and still be God. I can go into that a bit more if you want, but look up "Oomphalos" to see more.

I believe the Earth is referenced as being flat in the bible actually, and insects having four legs.

That is only because they are. The accepted theory then was that the earth was flat. Again, are you arguing that this has not been 100% disproved?

Many creationists believe in a young earth based on the text in the bible, yet you don't because evidence proves otherwise. What would it take for you to stop having faith in a 2000 year old book full of errors?

Disprove the theological statements. Let's start with disproving the Resurrection. Now remember what I said above about theory and observation. You have to use correct science.

You are trying to force a square peg in a round hole with this logic. The bible says different and does not mention a big bang it says God created light etc first. Do you think Christians immediately accepted these theories until it was all but impossible to deny? The first scientists were convicted of heresy for suggesting such things. It is a matter of time only before there is more evidence and you will need to re-interpret again.

Actually, it was a Christian that proposed Big Bang. A Catholic priest, in fact. Not even accused of heresy. Where are you getting such blatant misinformation?

Have you ever read the Nicene Creed? It is a list of the foundational beliefs of Christianity. It only says that we believe God created. It does not say we must believe a particular method that God created. I already pointed out that Genesis 1-2 contains 2 contradictory methods of creation by God. This means we aren't supposed to read either one literally. Instead, we can go look at God's other book -- Creation -- to find out how God created. Do you have anything from Creation to say Big Bang is not God creating?

"No, but it is faith that your mother and father love you. You can't demonstrate that by science."

Wrong, there are chemical changes in the brain and you can use brain mapping to see which parts of the brain are working. This has nothing to do with faith.

Sorry, when applied to your individual parents, it's not science:
"It is important to recognize that not all "facts" are susceptible to scientific investigation, simply because some observations and experiences are entirely personal. I cannot prove that someone loves his or her child. The emotions that any individual claims to have are not susceptible to scientific documentation, because they cannot be independently verified by other observers. In other words, science seeks to explain only objective knowledge, knowledge that can be acquired independently by different investigators if they follow a prescribed course of observation or experiment. Many human experiences and concerns are not objective, and so do not fall within the realms of science." Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial, the Case for Evolution, 1995, p 167.

Even with the brain changes, there is no way to prove scientifically that there is "love".

" It is faith to believe that a particular type of music is "good", or that a particular restaurant has "good" food."

No, that is opinion

And the difference is? Faith is without proof. So is opinion. They are synonyms.

Voting is based on which canditate you deduce using logical debate would be the best for the role, you can be decieved obviously but this isn't faith.

Sure it is. The deductions are obviously not proof since so many people vote differently than you! In order to have "proof" we would have to have both alternative futures to observe, one with each candidate serving. We can't get that evidence, can we?