Questions from a heathen

[Curious Atheist]

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.

This would not prove I could not fly if I wanted to, just that I didn't fly that time. The same way that if I dropped you from 2,000ft and asked God to catch you. When he didn't could I claim he doesn't exist? You would say no, God can't be told when to intervene etc and doesn't work like that. So neither can be disproved 100% can they, yet they are as irrational as each other. Of course if I say I can fly no-one should believe me until I had proven it. If I flew infront of a crowd, would that be enough? NO, humans are fallible and can be tricked so the only way would be to test my flying ability scientifically like you suggest. You could use your logic against everything in the bible. 'Do serpents have vocal cords?' No. (Not implying you are a creationist, but you aren't the only person reading this). Can you become pregnant without sex? etc etc etc. You have to decide for yourself to believe there is a power that can break the rules, despite even with the level science has reached NOTHING in our universe breaks the rules. There are many things we don't understand yet, but it isn't unreasonable that new technology and research can answer these in time.
You simply cannot claim creationism is a scientific theory when it is based on only the words of fallible humans, 2,000 years ago and written by multiple humans hundreds f years apart. I am not saying you are all creationists, but surely a creationist would use the same arguments you are using to back up there own beliefs? You cannot prove God didn't do everything exactly as it is written like creationists believe so there must be something that makes you think differently.

The problem I have with the majority of your arguments is that you have faith in scripture. But it was all written by humans, which contains errors. How can you say it is the factual word from God and can either be taken literally or as a metaphor etc. Then say 'you can't expect people 1,000 years ago to condone slavery'. No, I wouldn't expect humans to be as civilised in the past as today, but I would expect God with his foresight to have written a better book to begin with. If it was trully the word from God, and those writing it were in direct contact with God then they wouldn't make such errors would they? The simple fact that there is any error should put some scepticism into your mind. Why would God be so frustratingly vague, and allow his one proof to the world to be so easy to misinterpret. Why didn't he write a version in plain english and not hebrew so more people could understand? It is so incredibly contradictory and illogical. I just can't help thinking that a being as powerful as God wouldn't be a bit better at writing. Why does it make sense God wouldn't give some more information away, why say he created us from dirt when he could easily have given a brief description of evolution?
The bible suggests that the Earth is the centre of the universe, did these ideas come from God? There are still people today that believe this.

Can you not see that you could easily use your reasoning to believe in anything? Can you see my point of view?

 

[Curious Atheist]

A better way of saying it would be that if you eliminated the impossible from the bible, known to be impossible based on the facts we know like how you have eliminated noahs flood. Then what are you left with? A man walking around faith healing and saying he is the son of God...Do you believe in faith healing? Or psychics? Psychics merely give the impression they are psychic and those with faith make it fit in to their own lives. The same way astrology works by making a broad statement that applies to anyone and then those with faith make it fit.

I am greatful for your replies. I don't think us having different beliefs means we are in any way against each other. I have many friends from most religions (muslim, sikh, catholic, christian, jewish and some inbetween). We can all get along, I just wish the world could. Wouldn't it be better if we were all good because we wanted to be good, but it seems that by rejecting the idea of God you are labelled as somehow being a bad person. Admittedly some of my religious friends are a bit arrogant as they believe they are special, a bit cocky in their belief they are chosen. Seeing them have faith in such contradictory ideas raises the questions I have more and more. None can see the others point of view, I think if we all made an effort to do so then there would far less hatred and in-group mentality that leads to hatred. We all have empathy and know right from wrong, but it is often religion that makes us forget this.

 

[oi_antz]

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

Just an observation about this. It seems in your zeal you have thought a lot about things in light of a mindset of God not being who He claims to be. This has caused you to misunderstand God, or in other words to draw a false image of God. When I say "false image" of God I mean that your concept of God contradicts a Christian concept of God. I'm sure you would agree to that.

This is not unusual, in fact it is the single reason why people don't trust Him. So my advice to you is to focus on getting one thing right at a time. I mean, really really apply your efforts to changing into what God needs you to be. I know a verse that is very appropriate for your growth stage. If you can manage to apply this verse to your behavior and thought processes then you will certainly benefit. Instead of the information baffling you, you will find the information astounds you. In fact as long as you apply this verse to your attitude toward God, you will never ever be disappointed with Him. Here is the verse: Matthew 18:3.

Notice what it says is that you must become like a child. Have you ever known a child? Have you noticed how they are always asking questions and thinking a lot, they are eager to learn? Well one day that child becomes an adult and they begin giving answers instead. This is what has happened to you. If you read your posts as an observer such I have done, you will notice that your efforts have all been focused on trying to assert your knowledge and then asking for rebuttal.

In fact what you need to do is accept that God will teach you if you will listen. But you aren't listening, you are arguing. There is a difference. This is what I think you need to concentrate on. Take small bites, take one step at a time. You are clearly overwhelmed by the information in the bible. Concentrate on building your house brick by brick. First thing you need to understand is why Jesus would want you to be in His world for the rest of eternity.

You might need to ask yourself about this. Is there something about you that He doesn't like? Remember He defines the standard of perfection that is called "holy". If you can find His judgment against you don't ignore it! Instead repent and by obeying Him you will earn His favor. There is so many verses I can put to you but you will over-think it if I do.

How about taking a few deep breaths, think about what are your real hurdles and discard these trivial arguments about horus and the cruelty of evolution because you know it isn't biblical. In other words cut to the chase and find out why Jesus has not yet chosen to give you eternal life.

Why do you not love Jesus?

 

[Curious Atheist]

"Just an observation about this. It seems in your zeal you have thought a lot about things in light of a mindset of God not being who He claims to be. This has caused you to misunderstand God, or in other words to draw a false image of God. When I say "false image" of God I mean that your concept of God contradicts a Christian concept of God. I'm sure you would agree to that."

God has never claimed to be anything, humans have claimed their is a God. You need to ignore many facts to believe anything humans have claimed in the bible. There are too many Christian views on God to not contradict somebody such as creationist vs intelligent design.

This is not unusual, in fact it is the single reason why people don't trust Him. So my advice to you is to focus on getting one thing right at a time. I mean, really really apply your efforts to changing into what God needs you to be. I know a verse that is very appropriate for your growth stage. If you can manage to apply this verse to your behavior and thought processes then you will certainly benefit. Instead of the information baffling you, you will find the information astounds you. In fact as long as you apply this verse to your attitude toward God, you will never ever be disappointed with Him. Here is the verse: Matthew 18:3.

It isn't the information that baffles me, it is the lack of information that leads to faith that baffles me. Although reading the psychology behind myths etc explains a lot, I still struggle to understand the mindset. You explain it quite well, you really do need to put a lot of effort into changing your mindset before you can begin to believe in God. Bit like only being able to see fairies unless you believe in them first, bit hard to get your head round isn't it?

"Notice what it says is that you must become like a child. Have you ever known a child? Have you noticed how they are always asking questions and thinking a lot, they are eager to learn? Well one day that child becomes an adult and they begin giving answers instead. This is what has happened to you. If you read your posts as an observer such I have done, you will notice that your efforts have all been focused on trying to assert your knowledge and then asking for rebuttal."

Children are certainly eager to learn, can you not see that giving a blanket answer of 'God did it' to much of the world around us kills these questions? It doesn't promote learning to preach 2,000 year old out-of-date beliefs. What you are saying is as contradictory to the scientific principals of truth-finding as it is possible to be. Science is all about observation, faith is about observering these in such a special way as to come to a different conclusion. Or sometimes without any observation at all.

"In fact what you need to do is accept that God will teach you if you will listen. But you aren't listening, you are arguing. There is a difference. This is what I think you need to concentrate on. Take small bites, take one step at a time. You are clearly overwhelmed by the information in the bible. Concentrate on building your house brick by brick. First thing you need to understand is why Jesus would want you to be in His world for the rest of eternity."

I think if the concept of God can't stand up to a bit of debate then it surely isn't worth investing any time in to. No-one understands why Jesus would create life just to die and go to heaven/hell. Don't ask me to make sense of the insensical.

"How about taking a few deep breaths, think about what are your real hurdles and discard these trivial arguments about horus and the cruelty of evolution because you know it isn't biblical. In other words cut to the chase and find out why Jesus has not yet chosen to give you eternal life"


I don't understand what you mean by my 'real hurdles'. What is the relevance?
You may try and discard facts as trivial so you can continue believing what you want to believe. But the fact is that the story of Jesus is much older than the time he has born. For thousands of years pagans and other religions have used the same myths.
No, it isn't biblical. Or you should say that nothing biblical has anything in common than the real world around us.

"Why do you not love Jesus?"

Why do you not love Muhammad, or any other deity or prophet from any of the thousands of religions in the world? If you can answer that question you have answered your own.

 

[razeontherock]

It isn't the information that baffles me, it is the lack of information that leads to faith that baffles me.

You display completely false ideas about what is going on here. For you to understand, first you need to remove those false ideas.

Children are certainly eager to learn, can you not see that giving a blanket answer of 'God did it' to much of the world around us kills these questions?

Speaking of false ideas ... no part of Biblical Christianity does what you accuse here.

I think if the concept of God can't stand up to a bit of debate

More false ideas; my G-d holds up to scrutiny - QUITE WELL!!

No-one understands why Jesus would create life just to die and go to heaven/hell.

Speak for yourself. YOU don't understand, because you've got your head filled with false ideas on the subject.

I don't understand what you mean by my 'real hurdles'. What is the relevance?

The relevance is you are trying to understand some things you currently cannot. Antz did a fine job of pinpointing some of those obstacles in your way.

the fact is that the story of Jesus is much older than the time he has born. For thousands of years pagans and other religions have used the same myths.

The truth in your statement is that G-d has spoken to mankind throughout our history, and there is some consistency between some diverse cultures. How in the world you use the powers of reason to conclude it's altogether wrong, rather than bolstering one another, is beyond me ...

nothing biblical has anything in common than the real world around us.

FALSE. You speak from your own experience, but many of us know for a fact the Bible can literally "come alive" within you. I used to think understanding it was impossible apart from that experience, but Antz and I both encountered one professing atheist here who certainly has a solid grasp on Scripture. (The only one I've ever seen, I must add)

 

[Curious Atheist]

"You display completely false ideas about what is going on here. For you to understand, first you need to remove those false ideas.

Speaking of false ideas ... no part of Biblical Christianity does what you accuse here."


Please give an example of how holding on to ideas from the bronze age benefits the development of mankind? The bible speaks of many ideas such as witches, slavery, sexism, war among other things that are better left in the past. Or do you ignore these parts so you can delude yourself the bible is perfect? Is this an example of a false idea or do you agree much of what God does in the bible is immoral?



"More false ideas; my G-d holds up to scrutiny - QUITE WELL!!"

Ok then. If God doesn't show himself to allow us free will then surely free will is very important. But not to the many thousands you say he communicates with? How does he rationalise free will? For example how does he decide the free will of a rapist not to be forced into believing in a deity, is more important than the victimes free will not to be raped?
He only holds up to scrutiny if you are scrutinising the evidence trying to make it support what you already want to be true.


"No-one understands why Jesus would create life just to die and go to heaven/hell.

Speak for yourself. YOU don't understand, because you've got your head filled with false ideas on the subject."


Ok then please answer if it is obvious to you. What is the meaning of life? Don't you mind it a tad arrogant to profess to having all the answers? Science hasn't answered everything there is to know, so we say 'we don't know' to such questions.



The relevance is you are trying to understand some things you currently cannot. Antz did a fine job of pinpointing some of those obstacles in your way.



"The truth in your statement is that G-d has spoken to mankind throughout our history, and there is some consistency between some diverse cultures. How in the world you use the powers of reason to conclude it's altogether wrong, rather than bolstering one another, is beyond me ..."

Not quite, the stories tell the story of a messiah that is much the same as Jesus (or even called Jesus). They don't back up your story of Jesus if they precede it chronologically do they? They show your story of Jesus is an old myth, no different to the modern day faith healers which are easily disproved. Jesus could have been easily shown false if he was born in modern times.



"FALSE. You speak from your own experience, but many of us know for a fact the Bible can literally "come alive" within you. I used to think understanding it was impossible apart from that experience, but Antz and I both encountered one professing atheist here who certainly has a solid grasp on Scripture. (The only one I've ever seen, I must add)"

What are you trying to say? You need to already believe it to be true before reading the bible? What would be the point in the bible if that were true? Surely God put it there to convert people?
Why would an atheist have a solid grasp of your scripture? Do you have a solid grasp of the islamic scripture, have you read the bible in its original hebrew? What about ancient greek Gods...surely buddhism? Have you studied all other religions in minute detail before deciding Chritianity must be the one true religion? Possibly not I would wager.

 

[lucaspa]

""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!

Believing that the "something" will work in the future requires faith. Yes, we understand that the earth rotates on its axis and therefore the sun "rises" in the morning. However, to say "the sun will rise tomorrow" is faith. It is inductive reasoning based upon "the sun rose the day before yesterday, the sun rose yesterday, the sun rose today, therefore the sun will rise tomorrow." You can't prove by inductive reasoning. So we can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow.

Instead, what we do is make a theory that the sun will rise each day, based upon the theory of earth's rotation. Each day then becomes a test of the theory in an attempt to falsify it. Of course, you are still working on your fallacious definition of "faith".

"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"

Where did you get this definition? It is in error. Did you read the thread? Just to point out one error, not all theories considered science are falsifiable. No Boundary is a prime example. It is not falsifiable. No one has said Stephen Hawking did not make a scientific theory.

When first proposed, scientific hypotheses/theories don't have evidence. Evidence comes later when tests are undertaken specifically to test the hypothesis/theory:

"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

"To my mind the great strength of Karl Popper's conception of the scientific process is that it is realistic -- it gives a pretty fair picture of what actually goes on in real-life laboratories." "The Threat and the Glory", by P.B. Medawar (Nobel Prize winner in medicine), HarperCollins, New York, 1990 (original publication 1959). pp 96-101.

A theory without evidence is a thesis, which needs to be tested and repeated before it can be granted theory statis.

This is the false idea that being called a "theory" gives some form of certainty. The definition you provided above shows the falseness of the idea: "scientific theories must be falsifiable" Now, if a theory is falifiable, then it can be false. If you look over the history of science, you find that 99.999+% of all theories have, in fact, been shown to be false -- wrong. Think about phlogiston. Think about the theory that proteins were the hereditary material. Think about the Hawking's theory that time would flow backwards as the universe contracts. All of them are wrong. None of them were demoted to a "thesis", were they? All of them are still considered scientific theories.

So, calling an idea a "theory" does not say anything about its truth value. A theory can be 1) untested, 2) tested and falsified, and 3) tested and supported.

Creationists often say evolution is 'just a theory', but everything in science is a theory. Gravity is a theory!

We don't let creationists define scientific terms. As it turns out, of course, both gravity and evolution are strongly supported theories. But phlogiston is a falsified theory. Creationism itself is a falsified theory. Oh wait! You are the one that said we can't falsify anything!

lucaps: "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. "

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.

Look at the definition! Faith is "no proof". Not "no evidence". That is where you go off the rails. Faith has evidence. But yes, it does require faith to think that someone who has an MD has some competency. As I said, I can name several who don't. Yet they managed to get an MD. Some even managed to get thru their orthopaedic board exams and are orthopaedic surgeons.

The same way it isn't faith to not believe in God, that's like saying that health is a disease!

That also is faith. I presume you have your reasons. So far, none of your proposed reasons are valid. However, there are valid reasons for the faith of atheism. But look at the definition. You have no proof.

Also, in order to be an atheist, you must make some statements of faith for which you have no evidence at all. None. Zip. So, even by your warped definition of "faith", atheism is a faith.

Pretend for arguments sake that the fairy has all the powers of your God.

In that case, all you've done is called "God" "fairy". You haven't done anything at all. "A rose by another name ..."

Can you test for God? Your argument is based on requiring scientifcic methods.

No, your argument is based on science. Mine isn't. Science can't directly test for God. It's a limitation of science. Not a problem on God's end, but a problem on science's end. The problem is called Methodological Materialism or Methodologican Naturalism. Often MN for short.

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.

I gave you all the information needed. As it turns out, your assumption is wrong. They are a possible solution to the equations of Special Relativity. Just as matter can only move slower than light, and photons can only move the speed of light, there are possible entities that would only move faster than light -- tachyons.

So, back to my question again: what is your attitude toward tachyons? Do you believe they exist? Do you believe they do not exist?

God could have come up with a kinder alternative if he wanted to.

How do you know? What is your alternative?

It seems unnecessary to me.

That is the Argument from Personal Incredulity. I've shown the necessity of pain. You have just denied the necessity. How's the weather in the Land of Denial? It's raining at the moment in my corner of Reality.

If you were put on this Earth to help the needy, then what were the needy put on the Earth for?

Ah, the irrelevancy. I never said that was why I was put on the earth. I said that my actions in helping the hungry have meaning. Why? Because people actually get fed. Meaning is having real consequences to your actions.

The "needy" are also the real consequences of actions. Some are by humans in reducing the number of workers employed in a business. Some are due to brain chemistry and the resulting mental illness. But even here we have consequences of the actions of people, don't we? We as a people could decide to pay enough taxes to have programs to take care of the hungry. But the majority of us have voted against that. So a reason the "needy" are present is a consequence of the actions of humans. Real consequences of real actions. So, why do you invoke God? You said "It is obscene to think a loving God would let people starve to make the more forunate feel a bit better...". I never said that nor what I said implied that. You made this strawman.

If God can only do good (the best thing to do), then surely he doesn't have free will himself does he?

It would be better to say "God chooses only to do good." We aren't privy to all of God's thoughts, are we?

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 was talking about consequences. Both to me and to the women. I wasn't talking about why I chose how I chose.

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.

It's all love. To deny the rapist free will is not to love that person. In fact, to manipulate us so that none of us ever has the choice is not loving the good person either. What you have is a god that uses us as puppets, keeping us in a mental prison so that certain choices are forbidden to us. Don't you like freedom? Do you really want someone -- even a god -- compelling you on what you can and can't do? If none of us can rape, how would we "know" it is the "wrong" thing to do? Part of our decision making process is knowing about the bad consequences to women who have been raped. Right? So, in order for us to know rape is the wrong thing to do, God must allow it to happen.

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.

The frogs weren't very clear to pharoah, were they? He still refused to listen.

There are many acts in the Bible attributed to God. Are they all God's? Or are many of them acts of people who decided to blame God? After all, even today we have people committing or advocating bad acts by saying "God said". The reference you make is one of the latter, IMO. It is in 2 Sam 24: 1-17. David insists on a census. Many of the people resist this because of it's possible political misuse: the king can now draft and he can tax more efficiently. In fact, they object to it so much that the authors of the histories are even willing to move Satan from friend of God to enemy of God and have Satan be the cause of David's decision. So, instead of saying "the people rose in rebellion" or even "the people will rise in rebellion if the present king ever tries to do a census", they have God punish David the King. It's a lot easier here for people to blame God than to take responsibility themselves. God is their political cover.

lucaspa: "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.

Again, how do you know that no one ever got better except by natural means? Again, you are using circular logic here. The example means nothing because 1) such examples were never hailed as a miracle and 2) it isn't addressing someone with a diagnosed illness that got better and there is no medical explanation. IOW, the example is the Red Herring Fallacy.

I don't really understand what you mean by strawman, I assume I am supposed to take some offence?

You don't know what a Strawman Fallacy is? Knowing that is basic to critical thinking. Here: Fallacy: Straw Man You can also use the site to look up "Red Herring".

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.

How about spontaneous remission of cancer? This is where you have the Straw Man. You are picking things that you are pretty sure never happened. However, you are excluding documented cases where science still didn't have the means to do so.

I don't want this to be 'science vs religion',

Sure you do. That's why you use science. You think it is firmly on the side of atheism. However, you have a distorted picture of science that you use, because you need the distorted picture to support your atheism.

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.

Which is what theists have done.

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?

Yes, but you aren't. You are sticking with the "old belief" of a literal Bible. So, tell me, why are you not prepared to leave that old belief behind?

Let me tell you. Because a literal Bible is the only way you can argue against Christianity. So you are trying to saddle us with this false idea -- not because you want to "listen", but because you need that old belief for your own belief.

 

[razeontherock]

Please give an example of how holding on to ideas from the bronze age benefits the development of mankind?

Clearly you do not see the benefit in love, nor are you actually curious at all.

The bible speaks of many ideas such as witches ... among other things that are better left in the past.

You have no idea how many professing witches there are, on CF alone! And not one is a professing Christian, I can assure you. So much for you thinking you have some "enlightened stance." You would have to regain some actual curiosity, to be willing to learn anything about these topics you choose to speak on.

do you agree much of what God does in the bible is immoral?

Clearly you have not done your homework. What in the Bible was done by God? Answer that question, and you will be forced to re-evaluate your position(s).

Ok then. If God doesn't show himself to allow us free will then surely free will is very important. But not to the many thousands you say he communicates with? How does he rationalise free will?

These questions are based on some ridiculous assumption. No doubt it has something to do with whatever you mean by "free will," which I haven't seen defined. If you wanted to have any intelligent discussion about this, you would be referring to "dominion." THAT is G-d's concept of what is involved here, and it is equally distributed to every human.

For example how does he decide the free will of a rapist not to be forced into believing in a deity, is more important than the victimes free will not to be raped?

Upon what pretense do you blame G-d for this? How can you possibly fail to comprehend that in any crime, (especially rape) the most significant aspect is the perpetrator wrongly concludes his own needs are more important than those of another?

Fixing that problem is at the very heart of every idea promoted as good in the Bible; you know, from those savage bronze age types (Where's the rolly eyes emoticon when you need it?)

Not quite, the stories tell the story of a messiah that is much the same as Jesus (or even called Jesus). They don't back up your story of Jesus if they precede it chronologically do they?

Yes. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

the modern day faith healers which are easily disproved.

Sorry, but miracles happen all the time, and Doctors are sometimes are of this; don't let the facts confuse you though.

Surely God put it there to convert people?

NOW we get to your heart! No, the Bible is not "there to convert people." This is apparently the root of your confusion. In it's pages, there is more than enough rope for each of us to hang ourselves with. You can attack it to try to discredit G-d. Many have done that before you, there is nothing original in your approach to date.

You do this to your own demise. There is a whole world of unseen activity that goes along with that. Some of us may, from time to time, be able to point you in a beneficial direction, but most often those opportunities are relatively fleeting.

 

[lucaspa]

Please give an example of how holding on to ideas from the bronze age benefits the development of mankind? The bible speaks of many ideas such as witches, slavery, sexism, war among other things that are better left in the past.

This is the fallacy of Biased Sample. Let's look at some other ideas from that "bronze age" document:

"love your neighbor as yourself." Lev 19:12.
Didn't the idea of a day of rest in the week benefit mankind? Or do you want to give up your weekend days off?
"Honor your father and mother."
"You must not murder."
"You must not steal."
"You must not testify falsely against your neighbor. "
"You must not covet your neighbor's house. You must not covet your neighbor's wife, male or female servant, ox or donkey, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor."

Would you care to argue that holding to these ideas did not benefit the development of mankind?

Or do you ignore these parts so you can delude yourself the bible is perfect?

Strawman again. Razorontherock has never argued that the Bible is "perfect". Neither have I. All we are saying is that it is theologically accurate. You are arguing against Fundamentalism, not Christianity. In case you haven't noticed, several of us here argue against Fundamentalism!

Now, you think science has contributed to the "development of mankind", don't you? Well, the very existence of modern science depends on ideas in that "bronze age" Bible! The existence of science depends on 5 assumptions about the nature of the physical universe. You can blindly make these 5 assumptions, but they are not obvious. The lack of 1 or more of these assumptions explains why Greek, Chinese, and other attempts to do science all died stillborn. Modern science got these assumptions as conclusions from Judeo-Christianity. The assumptions are conclusions about the universe based on the theological ideas about God in the "bronze age" Bible. FYI, the assumptions are:
"The search for truth in science is based on agreement concerning just such basic assumptions. It is a gamble, if you will; a gamble that certain articles of faith which cannot be proved by science are nevertheless well-founded enough to provide a springboard for all scientific investigation. It is intriguing to find that religion shares much of science's basic view of reality. How is it that two approaches, science and religion, both claiming to be avenues of truth but in many ways reputed to clash with one another, should be in agreement on so basic a level? ...
"Scientists of the seventeenth century, most but not all of whom had religious views closer to my grandparents that to Hawking ... developed a procedure that would systematically separate what is true from what is not true. That is the procedure that we call the scientific method. It has served us splendidly ever since its birth and made our spectacular technology possible. Whatever the scientific method's origins or its philosophical foundations, we have no cause to doubt its usefulness.
"Depending upon whether we believe in God, you or I might leave God out of the following." (I put the comments related to deity in [ ] to separate them.)

"1. The universe is *rational*, [reflecting both the intellect and the faithfulness of its Creator]. It has pattern, symmetry, and predictability to it. Effect follows cause in a dependable manner. For these reasons, it is not futile to try to study the universe.
"2. The universe is *accessible* to us, not a closed book but one open to our investigation. [Minds created in the image of the mind of God can understand the universe God created.]
"3. The universe has *contingency* to it, meaning that things could have been different from the way we find them, and chance [and/or choice] played a role in making them what they are. Whether this is contingency in the sense that chance [and choice] play an on-going role within the universe, or merely in the sense that there was a initial chance occurrence [or choice] which brought about this universe instead of a different one or none at all, one cannot learn about the universe by pure thought and logic alone. Knowledge comes by observing and testing it.
"4. There is such a thing as *objective* reality. [Because God exists and sees and knows everything, there is a truth behind everything.] Reality has a hard edge to it and does not cave in or shift like sands in the dessert in response to our opinions, perceptions, preferences, beliefs, or anything else. Reality is not a democracy. There is something definite, some raw material, out there for us to study.
"5. There is *unity* to the universe. There is an explanation -- [one God], one equation, or one system of logic -- which is fundamental to everything. The universe operates by underlying laws which do not change in an arbitrary fashion from place to place, from minute to minute, or even millenium to millenium. There are no loose ends, no real contradictions. At some deep level, everything fits."
"Divorced from the assumption that there is a God, these five assumptions about the universe, these five articles of faith, if you will -- rationality, accessibility, contingency, objectivity, and unity -- continue to underlie the practice of science. Some would argue that upon them depends all possibility of doing science as we know it." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations pg. 8-9

For example how does he decide the free will of a rapist not to be forced into believing in a deity, is more important than the victimes free will not to be raped?

And where does the force stop? How much force can God exert before His actions are no longer love? Take this out of religion for a moment and consider it in relation to your own parents, or to your kids if you have any. How far can your parents force you to do something before they are no longer showing love for you? Even when failure to compel your compliance means that you will emotionally or physically hurt someone else? C'mon, where is the line? Should they imprison you to keep you from going to a party where there is going to be drinking? So that you don't have the possiblitiy of driving drunk and hurting and innocent person in an accident? How about imprisoning you to keep you from a date so that you don't date-rape? How about accompanying you on the date? Watching you make out with your girl and stopping you when you might go over the line?

What is the meaning of life? Don't you mind it a tad arrogant to profess to having all the answers? Science hasn't answered everything there is to know, so we say 'we don't know' to such questions.

Hey, leave science out of this. You are abusing science. Science is a limited form of knowing. It can never give us the answers to everything.

However, when you do have all the answers, is it arrogant to say so? Creationists think we scientists are arrogant for saying we know how the diversity of life arose on the planet? Do you agree that we are arrogant? Or do we really have the answer in evolution?

So, if Christians do have the answer to questions you don't, from a source you refuse to accept, are we being arrogant? Sauce for the goose.

"The truth in your statement is that G-d has spoken to mankind throughout our history, and there is some consistency between some diverse cultures."

Not quite, the stories tell the story of a messiah that is much the same as Jesus (or even called Jesus).

He isn't talking about sacred stories. He is also talking about the personal experience of deity that people report. There is remarkable consistency between what these people report, consistent between diverse cultures.

They show your story of Jesus is an old myth,

Are you referring to your discredited reports of Horus? That blunder ruined your credibility to make statements like this.

Jesus could have been easily shown false if he was born in modern times.

Ah, I recognize this argument from Richard Dawkins The God Delusion. Unfortunately, Dawkins didn't say exactly how it would have been easy. If it was so easy, then you would have thought the Jews of the time would have done so. Interestingly enough, the writings of contemporary Jews show that they could not show Jesus was false.

What are you trying to say? You need to already believe it to be true before reading the bible?

Not at all. Insstead, he is saying that the Bible spoke to them so that it did "convert them".

Why would an atheist have a solid grasp of your scripture? Do you have a solid grasp of the islamic scripture, have you read the bible in its original hebrew? What about ancient greek Gods...surely buddhism? Have you studied all other religions in minute detail before deciding Chritianity must be the one true religion? Possibly not I would wager.

Oh, please wager a lot. I am trying to pay off loans to put my kids thru college and I could use the money.

Why couldn't an atheist have a solid grasp of scripture? As you said, the Bible is out there for everyone to read. So what is to prevent an atheist from doing so? Several atheists have an extremely good grasp of scripture and there is more than one published Biblical scholar who is atheist.

 

[lucaspa]

Surely God put it there to convert people?

Absolutely not! The Bible tells us about God. It's purpose is to tell of the encounters of people with God. It is not there to "convert" people. From the end of the gospel of John:
"This disciple is the one who testifies to these events and has recorded them here. And we know that his account of these things is accurate. Jesus also did many other things. If they were all written down, I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written."

Nothing there about "conversion". It's a testimony to events. Period.

 

[Migdala]

I've never heard of this Horus, so what is interesting to me is that shows how insignificant he really is. Jesus is glorified everywhere we see...in churches, on Tv, in every Christian's life. This has been going on for thousands of years-Jesus, not Horus, is glorified! Jesus says in Matthew 24:5 that many will come in His name (claiming to be the Christ) and will deceive many.

So in this day and age, why are no miracles happening in the name of Horus? Are people being HEALED of their diseases and pains in the name of Horus? Not that I've heard! I myself have been healed twice by the name of Jesus Christ. I literally felt a warm tingling go through me and I knew, without a doubt that I was healed...in the name of JESUS, not Horus. Miracles like this are happening all over the world, and have been for thousands of years. Is anyone proclaiming miracles in the name of Horus now, in this time? Is his name being glorified all over the world? No, but our Lord Jesus' name sure is! He is the true Son of God,the true Messiah, the Lamb of God, who is worthy to be praised and glorified! Not some nobody that most of the people in the world have even heard of. If Horus was truly the son of God, then then God would have revealed this person to us as the Savior. But He didn't because Jesus is the true Messiah.

 

[oi_antz]

Children are certainly eager to learn, can you not see that giving a blanket answer of 'God did it' to much of the world around us kills these questions? It doesn't promote learning to preach 2,000 year old out-of-date beliefs. What you are saying is as contradictory to the scientific principals of truth-finding as it is possible to be. Science is all about observation, faith is about observering these in such a special way as to come to a different conclusion. Or sometimes without any observation at all.

Science and faith are not at odds, unless you want to treat science as a god. Many people do, and you are suggesting here that you do too. Saying that "God did it" does not kill questions, it raises more. We naturally want to know more about God, and those who love life will naturally want to love God. It is unfortunate that many people give God a bad reputation, I'm discussing this presently with another atheist and it pricks my heart to know how much he is suffering to love God, but he just cannot see God in a context which satisfies him. We are discovering that this is due to his experience with bad Christians and false Christianity.

I think if the concept of God can't stand up to a bit of debate then it surely isn't worth investing any time in to. No-one understands why Jesus would create life just to die and go to heaven/hell. Don't ask me to make sense of the insensical.

You don't have to make sense of it, because God has already done it. All you need to do is trust what He tells you and you will begin that voyage of understanding which we never seem to finish.

I don't understand what you mean by my 'real hurdles'. What is the relevance?

The relevance is that you are a unique individual with a unique understanding. There is no cookie-cutter faith machine that we can just stamp on you to make you understand God, you have to look internally at what stands between you and faith.

I don't think you can reasonably say that science is more deserving of worship and glory than God, maybe that is one thing you need to think about. Anything we love about this world is a fleeting moment and will be taken away from us, the only thing that will count when we leave our body is the relationship we have established with God. If you are wise, you will want to know more about God rather than squandering your time chasing false realities.

It is good to pursue science if you feel it contributes goodness to the world, we can all benefit from cancer cures. All I'm saying is we spend a long time dead, and you only get one chance to live. Making sure we live in a manner that pleases God is the only reason God is going to extend your life, and He has made that promise to you should you choose to live in a sinless manner. It's over to you whether you want to accept His offer.

 

[lucaspa]

You need to ignore many facts to believe anything humans have claimed in the bible. There are too many Christian views on God to not contradict somebody such as creationist vs intelligent design.

First, notice what I bolded. There are many claims in the Bible that are not contradicted by anything. Nothing needs to be "ignored". Yes, there are some claims that are wrong. But these are not the essential claims. You want to use the claims that are wrong to make a blanket dismissal of all the claims. This is not valid thinking.

Let's take this out of the Bible to demonstrate it. Origin of Species has several false claims. As an example, Darwin claimed that the absence of wings on some species of beetles living on islands was due to Lamarckian mechanisms. He also claimed that the fossil record would eventually show a gradual series of transitional fossils between every species. Both of these are wrong. The latter is based upon an unspoken claim of phyletic gradualism as the the only mode of speciation. Punctuated equilibrium claims that allopatric speciation is the major mode of speciation and, therefore, the "gaps" in the fossil record record how evolution happened. So, are we not to believe anything Darwin claimed in the book? NO! We don't, and we should not. The same thing applies here.

Second, creationism/ID (they are the same thing, with ID being a variant on creationism) are scientific theories. They don't talk about the nature of God, but about how God created. In its extreme form, creationism is actually talking about a different god. The god of YEC is a literal Bible. Not God.

It isn't the information that baffles me, it is the lack of information that leads to faith that baffles me.

And what do you consider that "lack of information"? It looks to me that your bafflement comes from your dismissing information. Yes, if you dismiss all the information, then you are baffled. Ask Einstein. He dismissed all the information about uncertainty, and was baffled why scientists did not stick to strict determinism.

Children are certainly eager to learn, can you not see that giving a blanket answer of 'God did it' to much of the world around us kills these questions?

You have just built another strawman. Christianity stopped doing that. ALWAYS.

It doesn't promote learning to preach 2,000 year old out-of-date beliefs.

Here is circular reasoning. What exaxctly are these "out-of-date beliefs"? That God exists? That God became human and died for our sins? These beliefs have not been demonstrated to be "out-of-date". If you mean "out-of-date" because they are beliefs about God, then you are guilty of the fallacy of circular thinking.

What you are saying is as contradictory to the scientific principals of truth-finding as it is possible to be. Science is all about observation, faith is about observering these in such a special way as to come to a different conclusion. Or sometimes without any observation at all.

Sorry, but a look at history and present day scientists shows how wrong this is. By my experience as grad student, post-doc, or faculty in 5 medical schools in 5 different states, 95% of the biomedical scientists attend church, synagogue, or mosque. There is nothing in Christianity that is inherently counter to "scientific principals".

Now, when the poster says "In fact what you need to do is accept that God will teach you if you will listen. But you aren't listening, you are arguing." this is the embodiment of scientific principals. You came here asking questions. We gave you answers. You refused to accept the answers. That is the opposite of scientific principals. Your attitude is like that of a scientist who insists his pet theory is correct and will not listen to any data that contradicts it. If you want an example of failure to follow "scientific principals", Curious Atheist, all you need do is look in the mirrro.

I think if the concept of God can't stand up to a bit of debate then it surely isn't worth investing any time in to. No-one understands why Jesus would create life just to die and go to heaven/hell. Don't ask me to make sense of the insensical.

Just because you don't understand it, don't think there isn't an answer. Let me give you one to ponder:
By all the information we have from God's Creation, God used Darwinian selection to design us. When humans use Darwinian selection to design, we end up with designs that we don't understand how they work. This appears to be what happened to God with humans. As you read the Bible, what you get are stories indicating that God keeps trying to communicate with us and fails. The first attempt God makes to communicate with humans is the Exodus (Genesis is backstory) and He gives us the Law. It's a code to behave the way the parent (God) knows would be best for us. But people don't. We disappoint God by disobeying. Just like for human parents, disobedience cuts us off from our parent. In the OT, there is no "hell" like there is in the NT. Sheol is just a place where humans are present but God is not. God then sends prophets. They also fail. God is obviously missing something. So, in order to understand this creation and how it works, God then becomes human. What God understands then is that humans inherently will disobey. What is needed is forgiveness on God's part; infinite forgiveness. As a sign of this attitude of forgiveness, God suffers a very painful death.

You may try and discard facts as trivial so you can continue believing what you want to believe. But the fact is that the story of Jesus is much older than the time he has born. For thousands of years pagans and other religions have used the same myths.... Or you should say that nothing biblical has anything in common than the real world around us.

Demonstrate that. We have shown that your Horus example is bogus. In the case of evolution, you simply got the science wrong. Your view of evolution has nothing in common with the real world around us.

Why do you not love Muhammad, or any other deity or prophet from any of the thousands of religions in the world? If you can answer that question you have answered your own.

Because Islam does not fit the data or logic about God. Christianity does. It's the same way we do science. Why do I not accept MOND or all the other theories of gravity except Relativity? Wht do I not accept all the other theories of evolution except Darwinian evolution? Why do I not accept all the other theories on the origin of cancer except that cancers arise from multipotent adult stem cells?

This is what you fail to understand. You expect that, because we falsify a lot of theories, we are supposed to falsify all of them. Because we don't believe in all other versions of deity, we are not supposed to believe Chistianity. Science and critical thinking don't work that way.