1
   

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

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 07:34 pm
Doktor S wrote:
Speak for yourself. I feel neither isolated nor incomplete. I have a theory that feeling that way is a side effect of believing in religious fantasy, as you believe man is by default inadequate


Then, by most accounts you are truly exceptional, even among those who do not partake of' 'religious fantasies'. Take care that it lasts. (Fitzgerald, by the way was an atheist).
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 07:37 pm
georgeob1- I have come to the conclusion that not only do human beings not know everything, they don't know much. I have no illusions about learning the truth about consciousness and existence, during my lifetime. Human beings have not evolved to the point where any of these answers will be forthcoming in the forseeable future.

Relinquishing ones intellect because we don't have all the the answers, to me, is the height of cowardice.

By the way, I don't feel isolated. I am incomplete, in the sense that I am a work in progress.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 07:44 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
georgeob1- I have come to the conclusion that not only do human beings not know everything, they don't know much. I have no illusions about learning the truth about consciousness and existence, during my lifetime. Human beings have not evolved to the point where any of these answers will be forthcoming in the forseeable future.

Relinquishing ones intellect because we don't have all the the answers, to me, is the height of cowardice.


There is no evidence in recorded history that suggests that human evolution will ever get us to these answers. Acknowledging the limits of human intelligence is not the same thing as "relinquishimg it", and it is not cowardly. Claiming a security that one does not actually posess or which has not been fully tested is not bravery.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 07:45 pm
Quote:

Relinquishing ones intellect because we don't have all the the answers, to me, is the height of cowardice.

By the way, I don't feel isolated. I am incomplete, in the sense that I am a work in progress.

Quoted for truth.
Marry me?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 07:49 pm
Quote:

There is no evidence in recorded history that suggests that human evolution will ever get us to these answers.

Uhh..there's no 'evidence' of anything in the past that conclusively proves what answers we will attain. If there was, we would have the answer at the same time as we made the prediction.
Your logic is rather crooked, sir.
It IS cowardly to abandon reason and science because they cannot answer every question we can imagine. If they could, we would be at a progressive standstill.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 07:53 pm
As humanity retrogresses on so many fronts, the great minds of science continue to expand the frontiers of human knowledge. I would give anything to be able to look in on the next few centuries of discovery.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 07:57 pm
georgeob1 wrote:

There is no evidence in recorded history that suggests that human evolution will ever get us to these answers. Acknowledging the limits of human intelligence is not the same thing as "relinquishimg it", and it is not cowardly.


By embracing the supernatural, asserting that answers are unknowable, IMO, one is relinquishing one's intelligence. I am the first to acknowledge the limits of human intelligence, but in order for humanity to evolve, we must keep on ever peeling away the layers of ignorance, in the attempt to find the truth. We may never find it, but that is besides the point. We must never capitulate to irrationality by grasping for easy answers, that require little thought.

Doc- Awww.......... Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 08:07 pm
Quote:

Doc- Awww..........

OK OK..we can skip the formalities and go straight to the consummation....
Never one to be warm and fuzzy!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 09:12 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Then, by most accounts you are truly exceptional, even among those who do not partake of' 'religious fantasies'. Take care that it lasts.


How very Jesuitical . . . perhaps you experience "fear and loathing," and "the sickness unto death," and therefore make a Kirkegaard leap to faith. That does not warrant, however, extrapolating your superstitious fears to everyone else.

Quote:
(Fitzgerald, by the way was an atheist).


If you refer to Eward Fitzgerald, the reclusive English "orientalist" of the nineteenth century, most noted for his translations of Omarm Khayyam's Rubaiyat--then i consider that statement to be without foundation. Fitzegerald, né Purcell, attended Trinity College, Cambridge and later married the daughter of a noted Quaker poet. Although there has been advanced a not unreasonable contention that he may have been bi-sexual or homosexual, i know of absolutely no basis for a contention that he were an atheist.

Do you have a source for your contention, or do you refer to a different Fitzgerald? If the latter, it's very sloppy of you to refer to a poet named Edward Fitzgerald without making the distinction, as the Edward Fitzgerald to whom i refer is easily the best known poet in English by that name.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 09:14 pm
Edgar Could be your lucky day ....my DIY Cryogenics kit just arrived from ebay !!

Momma, I know you will have seen this before, but since you ask directly, I thought I would paste this again here:




The logic that leads me to conclude that it is highly unlikely that any gods have ever existed is basically Occam's Razor.

I see no evidence of any gods.

The universe needs no gods to be exactly as it is. That is to say it is entirely possible to have come about from the big bang without any intelligent direction.

I know that if humans did evolve that inventing gods would be an inevitable consequence of unexplained phenomena.

In other words if we assume there are no gods, would we still invent them?....yes, we would.

I look at all the religions of the world and without exception the mythologies fit the cultures of the people...similarities exist between the religions to the extant that you would expect...but no more than that.

Then there are the paradoxes that preclude things such as omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence co-existing.

Then there are the many MANY reasons why belief in gods prospers...fear of death, the redress of wrongs, the return to loved ones, etc, etc.

Then there is the simple problem of the gods increasingly unnecessary role in unexplained phenomena...no paranormal explanation has ever been proven for anything.
Sure many things remain unexplained but it seems extremely unlikely that suddenly a god will be required to explain any of them. Every day for hundreds of years another mystery gets crossed of the list...turns out - no gods involved.

What was "before" the big bang is a mystery...for a god to have existed "before" that would only complicate the problem more, not solve it!

Perhaps gods do exist, the ones that go to extraordinary lengths to conceal their involvement...the ones who created an entire universe just to test our "faith".

So ultimately I can never prove that no gods exist, but a quick swish of the Razor shows me "beyond reasonable doubt" that there are no gods.

Yes, it's a guess, I know....but it's a guess I would stake my life on any day of the week.

I guess that's why I am prepared to be an atheist despite the impossibility of proof for non-existence.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 09:14 pm
Phoenix Wrote:

Quote:
Relinquishing ones intellect because we don't have all the the answers, to me, is the height of cowardice.


I am quite perplexed by this statement, Phoenix. You think that because one is religious and believes that God is the answer they are cowards? Am I reading that correctly? If I am correct, how are they cowards? What are they afraid of? For me, believing in God takes away my fears. Sure, I still have some fears of things, but I do not fear life nor death. So, what would someone be cowardly about?

Just because one believes in God that does not mean we don't still seek answers.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 09:18 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Phoenix Wrote:

Quote:
Relinquishing ones intellect because we don't have all the the answers, to me, is the height of cowardice.


I am quite perplexed by this statement, Phoenix. You think that because one is religious and believes that God is the answer they are cowards? Am I reading that correctly? If I am correct, how are they cowards? What are they afraid of? For me, believing in God takes away my fears. Sure, I still have some fears of things, but I do not fear life nor death. So, what would someone be cowardly about?

Just because one believes in God that does not mean we don't still seek answers.


If I may, and forgive me Phoenix if I get this wrong . . .

MA, I believe what Phoenix is trying to convey here is that accepting a story, regardless of the numerous holes and flaws it contains, is essentially giving up on understanding and truth. It boils down to 'If you can't it figure out, just take the first reason that comes up and run with it.'

It's neither the best route to take, nor is it overly admirable to those attempting to discover the real reason/truth. It merely disguises ignorance.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 10:18 pm
Chai Tea wrote:
Actually Rosborn, I didn't think Brandon's answer was all that hot either, especially considering he was basically repeating what someone else said earlier.

But at least he took it a step further and mentioned that the bus was transported to safety.

I didn't get the one about the Pope either the first go round. My first thought was, "why the Pope?" that was rhetorical of course, not actually asking a question. "Why not Tom Hanks, or my neighbour next door? Why the Pope?"

Huh, go figure....but at least he answered what would satisfy him.

If the Pope's, as God's representative, were granted an exemption from illness, that would be evidence - not proof, but definitely evidence.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 10:20 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
In reference to Brandon's "tests," and Ros' reaction thereto--i had believed it was Azimov who made the following quote, but i checked it online, and it was Arthur C. Clarke:

The genius of science fiction wrote:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


This is really the core of the problem for me. And the key word here is "indistinguishable", meaning there is *no way* to determine the difference. Once you lose the ability to determine the difference, then all choices become faith based. Proof is impossible.

Science is a naturalistic endeavor. It is impossible for science to deal with the supernatural because it is impossible to "test" the supernatural. The very concept of a "test" implies some correlation to a foundation from which to validate. And there is no such foundation when dealing with the supernatural.

This is why ultimately, belief in God is intrinsically a faith based thing. It can never be otherwise.

If God appeared to you and performed miracles and so forth, and you didn't at least regard it as a strong plausibility argument, I think that would be your problem, not a problem with the evidence.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 10:21 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Chai Tea wrote:
Actually Rosborn, I didn't think Brandon's answer was all that hot either, especially considering he was basically repeating what someone else said earlier.

But at least he took it a step further and mentioned that the bus was transported to safety.

I didn't get the one about the Pope either the first go round. My first thought was, "why the Pope?" that was rhetorical of course, not actually asking a question. "Why not Tom Hanks, or my neighbour next door? Why the Pope?"

Huh, go figure....but at least he answered what would satisfy him.

If the Pope's, as God's representative, were granted an exemption from illness, that would be evidence - not proof, but definitely evidence.

Brandon,

I am very curious. You are not a Christian, right? You feel the Pope is God's representative? I think I am missing something here. I am sorry if I did but could you explain please? Thanx.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 10:22 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Chai Tea wrote:
Actually Rosborn, I didn't think Brandon's answer was all that hot either, especially considering he was basically repeating what someone else said earlier.

But at least he took it a step further and mentioned that the bus was transported to safety.

I didn't get the one about the Pope either the first go round. My first thought was, "why the Pope?" that was rhetorical of course, not actually asking a question. "Why not Tom Hanks, or my neighbour next door? Why the Pope?"

Huh, go figure....but at least he answered what would satisfy him.

If the Pope's, as God's representative, were granted an exemption from illness, that would be evidence - not proof, but definitely evidence.

I mean "Popes." I wish we could still correct our posts.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 10:24 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Chai Tea wrote:
Actually Rosborn, I didn't think Brandon's answer was all that hot either, especially considering he was basically repeating what someone else said earlier.

But at least he took it a step further and mentioned that the bus was transported to safety.

I didn't get the one about the Pope either the first go round. My first thought was, "why the Pope?" that was rhetorical of course, not actually asking a question. "Why not Tom Hanks, or my neighbour next door? Why the Pope?"

Huh, go figure....but at least he answered what would satisfy him.

If the Pope's, as God's representative, were granted an exemption from illness, that would be evidence - not proof, but definitely evidence.

Brandon,

I am very curious. You are not a Christian, right? You feel the Pope is God's representative? I think I am missing something here. I am sorry if I did but could you explain please? Thanx.

You are acting like someone of less intelligence than you undoubtedly possess. The Pope is supposed to be God's representative.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 10:26 pm
Brandon,

I am sorry but the Pope is not considered to be God's representative by everyone.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 10:28 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Brandon,

I am sorry but the Pope is not considered to be God's representative by everyone.

Well, if they were all utterly immune to illness from the moment of their elevation to Pope, that would be a bit of evidence that they might be God's representative, wouldn't it?
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 10:30 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Brandon,

I am sorry but the Pope is not considered to be God's representative by everyone.


Only by most christians, MoAn, not everyone.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/08/2025 at 12:16:04