Exactly Why Don't You Believe In the God of the Bible?

sozobe,

The thing I really like about you is you get your point across to me and make me laugh while you are doing it!

I know, I don't get things out very clearly at times. I am working on that also. I speak from the heart too often without getting it clear in my head before putting it to paper. I need to engage my brain a bit more first!

Yes, I noticed the tone in this thread. I am thrilled by it! I am learning so much. I have a much better understanding of so many now. I am hoping that this will help me in further communication on A2K.

I guess we are co-existing, aren't we? Man, I have got to get my dictionary out and start using more appropriate words.

sozobe, thank you so much for having this conversation with me. I found it enjoyable, lighthearted, and extremely informative. I appreciate you so much.

0 Replies

Glad that was helpful. ;-) Again, I do think that this thread shows you're starting to get the hang of things. Keep it up.

0 Replies

sozobe,

Coming from you, that means quite a lot to me.

0 Replies

Momma wrote:

It seems most that are atheists at the very least agree that Christ's teachings were very valuable and something we should all try to live by.

Yes, Jesus had some fine things that he said...............but so did many other philosophers. I don't think that it is necessary to follow Jesus, or for that matter, even be concerned that he ever existed, in order to lead a civilized, appropriate life.

So when you say "something we should all try to live by", again you are falling into the religiocentric stance. It is a big, wide world out there Momma, and there many other very wise people who have left their mark on the world.

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

Give me an example of a way someone may be saved from death that couldn't be explained any other way.....or

give me an example of a simple physical phenomena which science couldn't explain or which appeared to violate will understood scientic laws.....or

tell me how you would know it was God on a videotype or God was appearing to you personally.

I know what evidence means, I'm asking you for any type of example that would have that evidence.

I'd like a concrete example.

I could comply, but why? Presumably there would just be more and more questions. It is perfectly sufficient if I simply say that I will not believe in God without some reasonable evidence to suggest that he exists. Any intelligent person can figure out what reasonable evidence means. There is no reason why you should not understand that.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Momma wrote:
It seems most that are atheists at the very least agree that Christ's teachings were very valuable and something we should all try to live by.

Yes, Jesus had some fine things that he said...............but so did many other philosophers. I don't think that it is necessary to follow Jesus, or for that matter, even be concerned that he ever existed, in order to lead a civilized, appropriate life.

So when you say "something we should all try to live by", again you are falling into the religiocentric stance. It is a big, wide world out there Momma, and there many other very wise people who have left their mark on the world.

Phoenix,

I did it again! Wow, I didn't realize just how often I do that.

What I should have said was that the love that Christ spoke of is what we should all practice with each other. I think most would agree with that?

0 Replies

MOAN wrote:

It seems most that are atheists at the very least agree that Christ's teachings were very valuable and something we should all try to live by.

This is an unwarranted assumption. Someone may have a sufficiently well-developed notion of the stability of the social contract, for example, to understand that murder is an unacceptable practice without having any referent to the so-called "ten commandments."

Simply because someone considers certain ideas to be noble, or pragmatically efficacious, and those ideas are the same as what people claim were advanced by the putative Jesus, does not mean that christianity were the source. Nor is there any reasons to assume that the ideas attributed to the putative Jesus were unique to his philosophy.

0 Replies

I don't believe in the God of the Bible because I have read the Bible. The whole thing. Cover-to-cover. The Old Testament is a hodgepodge of myths, history, outmoded laws, wisdom, pseudoscience, tedious genealogies of God's Chosen People (even though they are no longer his favorites), details for building temples and sacrificing animals to God's exact specifications (including what to wear), violence, intolerance, immorality, philosophy, dreams, poetry, priestly rants, pleadings and praise - but it is clearly not the Holy Word of a true God.

The basic premises of the Abrahamic religions are illogical. A perfect God who created people and animals would blame himself, not his creation, for its inherent sins and not drown them in a snit. A just God would just forgive people for being human without demanding that they kill and worship his son first. A compassionate God would alleviate suffering by fixing the serious design flaws in his creation and answer prayers consistently. A real God would appear personally to each person without making them guess who he is and what he wants, and would not demand that they psych themselves into believing in him by faith alone before revealing himself - indirectly, of course.

The New Testament is a compilation of carefully selected writings that the Ecumenical Councils decided (sometimes by just one vote) reflected the "correct" theology. Many books were omitted, and there is still no agreement on apocryphal books. The earliest gospel (Mark) was written about 40 years after Jesus' death. None were written by eyewitnesses but relied on oral traditions and earlier writings which have not survived. Saul/Paul's letters were only written a few decades after the fact, but Paul never actually met Jesus and some of the things he preached were contradictions to what Jesus supposedly said, such as whether Jesus came to uphold God's Law or negate it. Its misogynistic writings still influence the church and society, and the Bible's stamp of approval on slavery caused untold misery.

One has to wonder why God would send his Son with the most important message the world would ever hear - but only have him appear to a tiny minority and write nothing down. The rest of the world would not hear the message for hundreds or thousands of years and then indirectly, through interpretations of interpretations of tales told about the events in question. For me, belief in God requires more than ancient myths and legends.

The question has been asked, "What would convince you of God's existence?" If God transmitted his Complete Requirements for Mankind simultaneously to everyone in the world, clearly and unambiguously and without the "junk DNA" of outdated laws, irrelevant details, just-so stories and someone else's history, written indelibly on imperishable media in each person's native language with a personal greeting containing information that no one else could know, then I would believe. Simple, really, for an omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent God, if any such exist.

0 Replies

Not only is the bible, both old and new testament, a hodgepodge, large parts of both are redacted texts. That is they are made up of parts of earlier writings that have been combined and edited to meet whatever goal the editor had in mind.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I still didn't explain that well enough. Ok, let's just take the posters here on A2K for an example. We have all kinds; atheists, agnostics, apatheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, etc. There is so much division, whether we all like to admit it or not, there just is. Some of the things I have been learning through this thread are helping me to see how I have been enabling that "we" and "they" mentality. This is what I mean, sozobe. How do we calm these waters?... I

The "we" and "they" mentality is key, Momma. Not only with interactions on A2K, but globally as well. As long as one group feels self-righteous to the point of attempting to instill it's beliefs on others then there will be contentions. When you spout the rhetoric of the bible as undeniable truth then those who don't believe will deny. When muslims spout the rhetoric of the Koran as undeniable truth then those who don't believe will deny. It's the same in the political arena and in international relations. When one group puts on the cloak of the self-righteous and claims moral authority over another then there will be trouble.

How can it end? Tolerance, preferably with acceptance. If we each took a position of personal belief, philosophy, morality and acknowledged that it works for us but possibly not for others and stopped trying to impose our will then much of the disharmony would ease. It doesn't mean that those with differing opinions shouldn't discuss their differences. Nor does it mean that people can't or won't change their opinions over time, but it isn't necessary to take a difference of opinion as a personal affront.

Some of your earliest responses to my posts on this forum were in the nature of, "That's a lie!" I think you've come quite a ways from insisting that anything stated that doesn't tightly fit the Christian doctrine is a lie, but you still foster an atmosphere of those who know Truth as you define it and those who don't. You're trying, I grant you that, but if you want something to reach for, both from you and toward you, it would be tolerance.

0 Replies

Beautifully said, J_B.

0 Replies

Soz has that exactly right . . . i was changing my sig line as she posted that . . .

Brava, J_B . . .

0 Replies

I just saw your sig line on another forum and just about choked, Set.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

I just saw your sig line on another forum and just about choked, Set.

There you go Set you nearly made someone choke.....and for all the right reasons!

JB I agree with your sentiments and you expressed them very well. When one group claims exclusivity on truth it is hardly a recipe for tolerance. But I think it takes more than just a difference in philosophy for conflict to arise. The actual causes of conflict between different groups which themselves have identifiable and distinct cultures and religions are more likely to be disputes over matters of this world than the next, e.g competition for limited resources, land, water grazing rights...trading routes, you name it, one group somewhere is jealously trying to protect its interests from another. Group A might think Group B are in league with the devil because of their disgusting and obviously WRONG ideas about God, but war breaks out when Group B are at the same time trying to infringe OUR rights over....whatever.

Thus for example I think the causes of terrorism are not just religious intolerance. Religion might justify and give an incentive for terrorism (doing gods will, secure place in paradise etc), but the actual cause is much more down to earth. (Or indeed below the earth!).

Any road up got sidetracked. I agree with your plea for tolerance. But does tolerance have limits? Must we make room for the intolerant? And what happens in a world of mutual respect and tolerance when one set of ideas is actually better than another? e.g. earth centric v solar centric. Creationist/evolutionist. Round earth/flat earth. Do we have to say well of course I respect your opinion and yours is as valid as mine? Or does there come a point when we have to say we know better, and if you find us arrogant or rude for saying that well tough?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I could comply, but why? Presumably there would just be more and more questions. It is perfectly sufficient if I simply say that I will not believe in God without some reasonable evidence to suggest that he exists. Any intelligent person can figure out what reasonable evidence means. There is no reason why you should not understand that.

You could comply, but why?

Becuase I'm asking, and nicely. And because I won't have your answer until you give me one.

Presumably there would be more questions?

Why do you presume that? Actually no, if you were to answer with a concrete example, I would need to ask anymore. That's the only question I'm asking, I wasn't thinking it would lead to more.

Any intelligent person should be able to figure out what reasonable evidence means

Come now Brandon, don't stoop to calling me unintelligent. You know better than that.
As said, I know what reasonable evidence means, I'm asking you for an example, a concrete example.

That seems to go back to the "well I could tell you but you would say that's not evidence" routine. Try me. More than likely, if you gave a concrete example, response would likely be "Oh, ok, thanks, you gave an example"

There's no reason I should understand?

How can I understand something you won't answer?
You won't give a concrete example, so I have nothing to try to understand.

I'm starting to think you can't think of an example, and can't answer. I'm mean, it's not a hard question. You've just ignoring my question, hoping it will go away.

It you can't give an example, just say so. No harm in that.
Other atheists can't seem to give an example either, so if you are an atheist, you're in good company.

But until you can forthrightly answer, I'll suspect you just don't know of one.

I don't know art, but I know what I like.

I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it.

That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

What's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah obfuscation.

0 Replies

J_B wrote
How can it end? Tolerance, preferably with acceptance. If we each took a position of personal belief, philosophy, morality and acknowledged that it works for us but possibly not for others and stopped trying to impose our will then much of the disharmony would ease. It doesn't mean that those with differing opinions shouldn't discuss their differences. Nor does it mean that people can't or won't change their opinions over time, but it isn't necessary to take a difference of opinion as a personal affront.

Better define what you mean by tolerence. I find that many people want me to be tolerant of their ways, but the only way they are satisfied that I am being tolerant is through acceptance of their beliefs. Yet I don't want to accept their beliefs- not if I don't believe it. At best tolerence to me means agreeing to disagree- live and let live -under the golden rule. Most religions have some reference to the golden rule- Do unto others....

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I could comply, but why? Presumably there would just be more and more questions. It is perfectly sufficient if I simply say that I will not believe in God without some reasonable evidence to suggest that he exists. Any intelligent person can figure out what reasonable evidence means. There is no reason why you should not understand that.

You could comply, but why?

Becuase I'm asking, and nicely. And because I won't have your answer until you give me one.

Presumably there would be more questions?

Why do you presume that? Actually no, if you were to answer with a concrete example, I would need to ask anymore. That's the only question I'm asking, I wasn't thinking it would lead to more.

Any intelligent person should be able to figure out what reasonable evidence means

Come now Brandon, don't stoop to calling me unintelligent. You know better than that.
As said, I know what reasonable evidence means, I'm asking you for an example, a concrete example.

That seems to go back to the "well I could tell you but you would say that's not evidence" routine. Try me. More than likely, if you gave a concrete example, response would likely be "Oh, ok, thanks, you gave an example"

There's no reason I should understand?

How can I understand something you won't answer?
You won't give a concrete example, so I have nothing to try to understand.

I'm starting to think you can't think of an example, and can't answer. I'm mean, it's not a hard question. You've just ignoring my question, hoping it will go away.

It you can't give an example, just say so. No harm in that.
Other atheists can't seem to give an example either, so if you are an atheist, you're in good company.

But until you can forthrightly answer, I'll suspect you just don't know of one.

I don't know art, but I know what I like.

I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it.

That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

What's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah obfuscation.

Chai, I like you, but there's something fundamentally wrong with your question. You really ought to know what would be reasonable evidence that something is true, because you deal with such considerations a hundred times a day.

But if I must, I will give you one or two and see whether or not it is followed by a lot more questions over something not complicated. If the Popes never got sick until the illness that finally ended their lives, that would be some evidence. If a bus of schoolchildren being driven over a cliff by a drunk bus driver were suddenly transported to a safe location. If God appeared to me visibly and audibly. If some plant that cured a serious disease showed no sign of having evolved, but just seemed to have appeared all at once. Anything that looked like the hand of the creator.

0 Replies

aurorell,

Thanx for answering aurorell. I do appreciate it.

I do not expect anyone to accept my beliefs. That is not what I mean by tolerance. I find it intolerant when anyone starts labeling things like idiotic, unintelligent, imaginary friend, etc. Those may be the views of someone I understand. But the intolerance comes into play when one starts voicing those labels.

I do not believe as some do that we were created by aliens. I do not believe as some do that Jesus is Satan. I do not believe as some do that there is no God. So what? I don't believe it but if I started labeling them with derogatory terms for what they believe, I would be intolerant IMO.

0 Replies

Well thar ya go Brandon.

Thanks

0 Replies

It appears that I am harder to convince than you are. For example...

Brandon9000 wrote:

If the Popes never got sick until the illness that finally ended their lives, that would be some evidence.

Actually, I wouldn't be impressed much by that. It would take a lot more "hard" evidence to convince me.

Brandon9000 wrote:

If a bus of schoolchildren being driven over a cliff by a drunk bus driver were suddenly transported to a safe location.

If I saw a bus fly off a cliff and vanish in thin air and re-appear safely back on the road, I would question my own sanity before I would assume God intervened. For something like that to convince me, I would hope that a hundred people saw it. And even then, I would assume some kind of super-technology from an unidentified source, rather than "God".

Brandon9000 wrote:

If God appeared to me visibly and audibly.

Again, I would question my own sanity before assuming "God". I would need multiple people to physically confirm some outrageous miracle, and then for "God" to proclaim itself in association with that miracle.

Maybe if the Empire state building were to rise off the ground and hang there for several weeks while undergoing tests, and then for some being to arive and demonstrate the ability to control the phenomena and also claim to be God... but of course, some normal person might simply have discovered an alien super-technology device and be using it to deceive everyone into believing in God.

It's tough for me to think of any particular event which would prove to me that a supernatural "God" existed. Very tough.

0 Replies

Exactly Why Don't You Believe In the God of the Bible?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know