religious debate

[Guest]

I've only read the God Delusion. From that, it's clear to see why he winds up theists. I put off reading it for a while because I tend to avoid polemics which put forward an opinion I basically agree with, as they generally just serve to reinforce preconceived ideas and provide little genuine food for thought. However, on this occasion, I needn't have worried. I found myself often disagreeing with what Dawkins was saying, or thinking it was unnecessarily confrontational, only to be subsequently won over by the weight of logic that followed. To call the God Delusion interesting and provocative is a bit like calling the Taj Mahal a "nice garden ornament". If you have a brain and don't mind using it, you really need to read that book. My only criticism is that Dawkin's style could put off many theists, who may find the full frontal assault on their treasured beliefs to be anathema. Perhaps in this way his uncompromising style compromises the message that it has to offer. Nevertheless, to theists I would say read it by all means, and think about it if you dare.

I've picked up The God Delusion in a book store and read a few pages, and I've read numerous excerpts of his various writings online, but I fully intend to get around to reading more when I have make the time for it.

The two most immediately irritating aspects of his writing were the arrogant tone and ridiculous use of strawmen. You want to make theists look weak? Easy. Just quote dumb theists and only present examples of dumb stuff that has been done in the name of religion (aren't atheists similarly irritated when someone points out that most of the greatest mass-murderers in history were atheists, as though Stalin and Mao are somehow representative of the group?). Then go on to present an extremely warped, one-sided description of the biblical God to make it appear that what you're arguing against is preposterous. Suddenly your arguments against the existence of God don't need to seem as strong.

I'll grant that there are a small number of perplexing biblical teachings, such as the implicit acceptance of slavery*, but those are vastly outnumbered by the scriptures that describe God in the manner accepted by Jews, Christians, and Muslims: loving, just, wise, powerful, merciful, etc. We can discuss that in another thread sometime, but my point is simply that Dawkins very intentionally tries to make his adversary look stupid, and I'm pretty sure he does so because he truly believes theism to be so. Yet, by failing to acknowledge that many highly intelligent people have grappled with these questions for ages, and that many, in view of the evidence, have concluded that an intelligent creator is the most logical answer, he actually weakens his argument.

Also, he tears down the same weak version of faith (belief without reason) that I try to tear down in other theists. I spend a good deal of my time showing people that the beliefs they've accepted aren't based on the Bible (and again, the divine inspiration of the Bible is clearly another thread). So, when he lumps the type of theism that I hold right in there with belief in Ra or the Flying Spaghetti monster, I'm rather ... miffed. It certainly doesn't incline me to graciously listen to his arguments.

In any case, despite those complaints, based on very limited exposure, I certainly wouldn't call him a jerk. He is quite mild-mannered and generally likable in interviews, and being as intellectual as he is, he usually comes across as very logical. I recently watched a clip of him talking to Bill O'Reilly. That was ridiculous. I wanted to punch Bill in the face, but Mr. Dawkins handled it quite well.

*Though it should be noted that slavery practiced by the Israelites was not to be abusive; e.g., a slave owner was to be put to death if he killed his slave, and the slave was to be freed if he was seriously injured. There does seem to be a bit of a double standard, however, regarding treatment of fellow Hebrew slaves in contrast to foreign slaves, which makes me scratch my head a bit. For example, only Hebrew slaves were automatically freed after seven years of service, while all slaves were freed on a Jubilee year (every 50 years, regardless of how long they had served). I must conclude it was simply tolerated, just as polygamy was tolerated for a time, but it wasn't in harmony with God's original intentions for humans.

[unreality]

you say "God's original intention for humans", which leads me to another thought- do you, theists, really have free will? You say you do, yet God knows everything that's gonna happen. So you don't.

And, on a side note of that, how is it your fault if you sin and go to hell? God made everything, designed everything, knows everything that happened or will happen, according to you. You can't argue against that, it's what you yourselves say. So how does that fit in with the free will bit?

[Guest]

but those are vastly outnumbered by the scriptures that describe God in the manner accepted by Jews, Christians, and Muslims: loving, just, wise, powerful, merciful, etc.

So loving that he gave Micheal J. Fox parkinsons disease

or was going back to the future not in god's plan?

so just that he gave us all these giant SUVs and Hummers, at the same time gas prices go up.

so wize that, like Unreality said, gave us free will that isn't free at all.

I won't deny that your god is powerful

so merciful that he waved his magic wand and sent Katrina down on Nawlins

or was he on lunch break when all these things happen.

for loving us so much, he really doesn't do much to help.

He's like Aslan,

except for the part where Aslan actually helps in the end

[unreality]

lol

theist responses to this are usually like "he is infinitely mysterious, we cannot even began to imagine to think to be able to perceive the possibility of maybe understanding an infintesimal of Him and His Wondrousness!" lol. Or "Do not question Him!!!!!!!!!!!! He must have His own Good reasons!"

[Guest]

yeah

God is so infinitely amazingsupremebossgangstaotherrapperterms

that he sent Katrina, because he knew the winds would cool down someone miles away who was so hot he was going nuts and would decide to kill 50 people then kill himself.

so god thought "50 people for thousands of people? Sounds fair to me"

[Guest]

I've only read the God Delusion.

<snip>

Nevertheless, to theists I would say read it by all means, and think about it if you dare.

Actually for those overly sensitive theistic types I would recommend Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett instead (or before), he is the least confrontational of the "Four Horsemen"

His previous book: Darwin's Dangerous Idea is also highly recommended for the Creationist types, who reject evolution as well. Especially if impressed/persuaded by the Design Argument

[Guest]

you say "God's original intention for humans", which leads me to another thought- do you, theists, really have free will? You say you do, yet God knows everything that's gonna happen. So you don't.

And, on a side note of that, how is it your fault if you sin and go to hell? God made everything, designed everything, knows everything that happened or will happen, according to you. You can't argue against that, it's what you yourselves say. So how does that fit in with the free will bit?

This is almost the same as the topic you raised in Are God's actions predetermined?, except now you're turning back to the more common question of human free-will in the context of an all-knowing God. My answer is, of course, no different. I simply don't believe God already knows everything that will happen, and that we do have free will.

Let me use a typical sci-fi illustration ... AI. Let's say that technology advances to the point that AI androids are indistinguishable from humans using any external test (they blush, they laugh, etc.). They acquire the same information as humans from their environment, have continually changing memories and value systems by which they can evaluate input and respond accordingly. In short, they have the ability to "decide," i.e., free will.

Now, if the designers were to plug the android's computer brain into their test equipment, they could trace through the billions of lines of code to determine exactly how the android would respond in any given situation. Yet, outside of the laboratory, such prediction is impossible. The factors determining how the android will respond are simply too complex. Let's take it further and say that the designers, wanting to make the androids generally good, yet still realistic, programmed in an inclination to act unselfishly, but allowed the android's self-interest-module to override it. They might expect that the android will act in a kind manner, but they wouldn't necessarily know in advance what circumstances could cause the selfish override.

I believe it is similar with God's creation of humans. Why would he create intelligent beings? Would scientists create the androids described above if they could? Of course. Why? Because we enjoy using our creative intelligence, and creating other intelligent life is a particularly interesting use of such power. Doing so enabled God to share the joy of life with others. Now, with that in mind ... Why does everyone always assume that an "all-knowing" God would choose to know every detail in advance about the life he had created? Why would he want to? Wouldn't that detract from the joy of having shared intelligent life and interacting with it?

In my opinion, many of the difficulties people have reconciling suffering with the 'God of love' described in the Bible result from drawing hasty conclusions based on absolute terms such as Perfect, Omniscient, Omnipotent, etc., and by making unfounded assumptions about the nature of God's interaction with the universe (such as Ploper's comments about God causing Katrina or Parkinson's disease).

[Guest]

theist responses to this are usually like "he is infinitely mysterious, we cannot even began to imagine to think to be able to perceive the possibility of maybe understanding an infintesimal of Him and His Wondrousness!" lol. Or "Do not question Him!!!!!!!!!!!! He must have His own Good reasons!"

Then try talking to better-informed theists. However, as I've noted before, if one concludes that there is a creator of the universe, then I would think it highly logical to assume that a being with such intelligence and power might be able to think things through a bit deeper than you or I. In other words, if there is a God, it would make perfect sense to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume there are many things he understands that we don't. Otherwise you'd be like the 5-year old that concludes his parents are stupid because he doesn't understand or agree with their rules.

Of course, if you don't believe in a creator, none of that applies.

[Guest]

yeah but just becuause he can think stuff that we can't, doesn't mean he HAS to

why can't he just dumb-down out words for us.

You know, like when people make new bibles that don't use words like Thy and Thee and stuff

cuz us Americans are too stupid to understand

[Guest]

yeah but just becuause he can think stuff that we can't, doesn't mean he HAS to

why can't he just dumb-down out words for us.

You know, like when people make new bibles that don't use words like Thy and Thee and stuff

cuz us Americans are too stupid to understand

Heh heh. I suppose that what God thinks and what he tells us would naturally be on different levels. When the 5-year old asks his mom why he has to clean up his room, she may simply say: "Because I said so." Is that dumbing it down? Well, kinda. When he asks her where babies come from, however, she's most certainly going to provide a dumbed-down answer. If we are simply incapable of mentally grasping the metaphysics of existence outside the bounds of time, then there's not much value in explaining it to us, at least not until we're much older. So, in that sense, I believe the Bible is very much "dumbed-down."

However, you seem to be asking: Why didn't God just spell it out a whole lot clearer? Why give us a book which is so fuzzy and open to interpretation, when he obviously could have explained it quite simply? That's a complicated topic and probably outside the scope of this thread, but I believe the answer is related to the same issues as the question of why God permits suffering. I'll try to summarize, but I find short answers usually aren't satisfying. Eh, here goes nothing ... The angel who became Satan challenged the rightfulness of God's rule and claimed we are better off on our own without God's governance. God is allowing time to pass for that issue to be resolved, but in the meantime provides the hope of salvation (i.e., eternal life) for those who show their loyalty to him. In other words, he has allowed himself to be tried in court, and if he directly and clearly interacted with humanity in a manner that could not be dismissed (e.g., global miracles, irrefutably inspired writings, etc.), it would be like tampering with evidence, and Satan could claim that it wasn't a fair trial. Hence, the Bible is written in such a way that those who want to reject it (and the subsequent authority of God that follows) can easily find reason to do so. Similarly, those who accept there is a God but are not really interested in submitting to his authority will always be able to misinterpret the Bible to believe whatever they want. Hence, "Christianity" can hardly be called representative of the Bible's teaching. Incidentally, if you accept this line of reasoning, it quickly becomes clear that most religion is actually a deception used to fill people's spiritual desire while preventing them from knowing the truth about God.

Incidentally, I know that's all off topic, but one of the assertions that atheists frequently make is that belief in God is illogical, and belief in the Bible even more so. I feel obligated to explain the underlying rationale behind my belief in order to defend the fundamental notion of God's existence. Otherwise, my belief really isn't a whole lot different than belief in an ancient sun god.

[unreality]

Interesting... so you're saying that humans are God's jury? People that believe vs those that don't?

Well, it's an attempt at explaining the discrepancies and falsehoods of the Bible and the pointlessness of religions doctrines... but what about all the other religions of the world? Seriously.

They have similar arguments as yours- yet each claims that only their own religion is right.

Look at this way, a simplified version but accurately capturing the image:

Say there are four religions: A, B, C and D.

Religion A claims that B, C and D are unfounded and wrong.

Religion B claims that A, C and D are unfounded and wrong.

Religion C claims that A, B and D are unfounded and wrong.

Religion D claims that A, B and C are unfounded and wrong.

Atheists say that they're all wrong. Really they're saying the same things as the other religions, just showing how all four are the same thing, with slight differences, and claiming each other are wrong. There is no evidence in the first place to support A, B, C or D, and certainly no evidence to support a single one of those over another.

[Guest]

Interesting... so you're saying that humans are God's jury? People that believe vs those that don't?

No, human society as a whole serves as the evidence. Satan said God is an unjust ruler and that everyone would be better off without his authority. Incidentally, the word "devil" comes from a root meaning "slanderer," which is exactly what Satan did. However, in order to prove Satan wrong, God allowed time to pass without his direct rulership. From start to finish, the Bible shows how God has intervened in man's affairs in such a way as to provide a way out of the current situation while at the same time clearing his own name of reproach and settling the issue for all time.

Consider this illustration (from the book What Does the Bible Really Teach?): "Imagine a teacher is telling his students how to solve a difficult problem. A clever but rebellious student claims that the teacher's way of solving the problem is wrong. Implying that the teacher is not capable, this rebel insists that he knows a much better way to solve the problem. Some students thinks he is right, and they too become rebellious. What should the teacher do? If he throws the rebels out of the class, what will be the effect on the other students? Will they not believe that their fellow student and those who joined him are right? All the other students in the class might lose respect for the teacher, thinking that he is afraid of being proved wrong. But suppose that the teacher allows the rebel to show the class how he would solve the problem ... When the rebels fail, all honest students will see that the teacher is the only one qualified to lead the class. They will understand why the teacher thereafter removes any rebels from the class."

Well, it's an attempt at explaining the discrepancies and falsehoods of the Bible and the pointlessness of religions doctrines...

Strong words. Any apparent discrepancies are certainly very minor in nature, and there are not nearly as many as you probably think. When you refer to "falsehoods" I'm assuming you must be referring to historical accounts that the Bible presents as literal which you do not accept (Adam and Eve, the Noachian flood, miracles, etc.). Obviously, whether or not you believe they are false if going to be affected by whether or not you accept the Bible as God's word. As to the "pointlessness of religious doctrines," you might pause to consider that on the off chance you're wrong and there is a God, teachings about him and how humans are supposed to live would certainly be far from pointless. In fact, the truth about such things would be of greater importance than any other knowledge.

but what about all the other religions of the world? Seriously.

They have similar arguments as yours- yet each claims that only their own religion is right.

Look at this way, a simplified version but accurately capturing the image:

Say there are four religions: A, B, C and D.

Religion A claims that B, C and D are unfounded and wrong.

Religion B claims that A, C and D are unfounded and wrong.

Religion C claims that A, B and D are unfounded and wrong.

Religion D claims that A, B and C are unfounded and wrong.

Atheists say that they're all wrong. Really they're saying the same things as the other religions, just showing how all four are the same thing, with slight differences, and claiming each other are wrong. There is no evidence in the first place to support A, B, C or D, and certainly no evidence to support a single one of those over another.

That's fallacious reasoning. Of course there's evidence to support some ideas more than others. For example, consider the following four viewpoints:

A: The earth is a square supported on the backs of very large turtles.

B: The earth is a sphere at the center of the universe, and the sun and stars revolve around it.

C: The earth is a sphere which revolves around the sun, which is actually just one of many stars.

D: A, B, and C all make equally unsupportable claims. There is certainly no evidence to support a single one of those over another.

You're argument is that because A, B, C, and D all state or imply that the others are wrong, they must all be wrong. In this case it's obvious that one is in fact right, but only because you've considered evidence leading you to that conclusion. If you want to reject religion and accept atheism because you've considered the evidence and feel that the latter provides a better explanation, fine, but if you use that kind of reasoning to make your decision, you're doing no better than the billions who accept their religious belief without serious thought.

[unreality]

That's fallacious reasoning. Of course there's evidence to support some ideas more than others. For example, consider the following four viewpoints:

A: The earth is a square supported on the backs of very large turtles.

B: The earth is a sphere at the center of the universe, and the sun and stars revolve around it.

C: The earth is a sphere which revolves around the sun, which is actually just one of many stars.

D: A, B, and C all make equally unsupportable claims. There is certainly no evidence to support a single one of those over another.

You're argument is that because A, B, C, and D all state or imply that the others are wrong, they must all be wrong. In this case it's obvious that one is in fact right, but only because you've considered evidence leading you to that conclusion. If you want to reject religion and accept atheism because you've considered the evidence and feel that the latter provides a better explanation, fine, but if you use that kind of reasoning to make your decision, you're doing no better than the billions who accept their religious belief without serious thought.

I know, it was a simplified point- it was presented badly, sorry yes, I see what you mean about the fallacious reasoning now.

But I'll try to restate the point I was trying to make (but didn't make very well, lol)

Let's look at Christianity and Greek Mythology. You might think they are very different, but they're not. They're very similar. Each are equally plausible, and equally un-plausible. There's no palace atop Mount Olympus- yet, there was no worldwide flood either. Etc. They have similar concepts of life, afterlife, god wars, monsters, heroes, etc. There's a similar flood story. And many other parallels. The only major difference is the actual 'Christ' part of Christianity. I guess I'm just talking about the Old Testament and its relations with Greek Mythology.

Now why do you think God > Zeus? Why Noah > Deucalion?

Well, hopefully I presented my point better this time ;D The overall point was, why one religion over the other? I know it's sort of not related to the actual religious debate, cuz it's not about the existence of God but of which god... so I apologize for the crappy A/B/C/D diagram lol

Strong words. Any apparent discrepancies are certainly very minor in nature, and there are not nearly as many as you probably think. When you refer to "falsehoods" I'm assuming you must be referring to historical accounts that the Bible presents as literal which you do not accept (Adam and Eve, the Noachian flood, miracles, etc.). Obviously, whether or not you believe they are false if going to be affected by whether or not you accept the Bible as God's word. As to the "pointlessness of religious doctrines," you might pause to consider that on the off chance you're wrong and there is a God, teachings about him and how humans are supposed to live would certainly be far from pointless. In fact, the truth about such things would be of greater importance than any other knowledge.

Yeah, but do you believe in everything the Bible says blindly without questioning it? I hope not. I was making that remark based on your remark, that the Bible is a simple-downed version, so the stories are simpler to understand for a more primitive person. That was what you said (not word for word, but close)- so I took that to mean that you knew much of the Bible was simplified stories or metaphors.

Building on that, aren't we ready for an "update"? We understand more of the universe around us and the physics that guide us, shouldn't God make us a slightly-less-simplified Bible?

Consider this illustration (from the book What Does the Bible Really Teach?): "Imagine a teacher is telling his students how to solve a difficult problem. A clever but rebellious student claims that the teacher's way of solving the problem is wrong. Implying that the teacher is not capable, this rebel insists that he knows a much better way to solve the problem. Some students thinks he is right, and they too become rebellious. What should the teacher do? If he throws the rebels out of the class, what will be the effect on the other students? Will they not believe that their fellow student and those who joined him are right? All the other students in the class might lose respect for the teacher, thinking that he is afraid of being proved wrong. But suppose that the teacher allows the rebel to show the class how he would solve the problem ... When the rebels fail, all honest students will see that the teacher is the only one qualified to lead the class. They will understand why the teacher thereafter removes any rebels from the class."

I like the analogy. But did Satan ever get the chance to show the class how he would solve the problem? Or are you saying that's what's going on right now? We're the class? Or the angels are the class?

[Guest]

Let's look at Christianity and Greek Mythology. You might think they are very different, but they're not. They're very similar. Each are equally plausible, and equally un-plausible.

Really? Huh. That's funny, 'cause I've studied the Bible for a long time and found it considerably different than Greek (or any other) Mythology. How much do you actually know about the Bible? Ever read it?

Let's take creation myths as an example. Regarding Greek myth, The Oxford History of the Classical World says:

"Hesiod tells the story, known to Homer, of the succession of sky gods. First Uranus was supreme, but he suppressed his children, and Gaia( Earth) encouraged his son Cronos to castrate him. Cronos in turn devoured his own children, until his wife Rhea gave him a stone to eat in place of Zeus; the child Zeus was brought up in Crete, compelled his father to disgorge his siblings, and with them and other aid defeated Cronos and his Titans and cast them down into Tartarus. ... Its ultimate origin seems to have been Sumerian. In these eastern stories we find a succession of gods, and the motifs of castration, of swallowing, and of a stone recur in ways which, though varying, show that the resemblance with Hesiod is no coincidence."

Then there is Chinese folk religion. A professor of Oriental art writes "We learn that Chaos was like a hen’s egg. Neither Heaven nor Earth existed. From the egg P’an-ku was born, while of its heavy elements Earth was made and Sky from the light elements. P’an-ku is represented as a dwarf, clad in a bearskin or a cloak of leaves. For 18,000 years the distance between Earth and Sky grew daily by ten feet, and P’an-ku grew at the same rate so that his body filled the gap. When he died, different parts of his body became various natural elements. . . . His body fleas became the human race."

And then the Bible:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters. And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light," followed by an expanse of waters, dry land, vegetation, visible luminaries (sun and moon), sea animals, birds, land animals, humans.

Now, of course you can say "Birds before land animals? We know that's wrong," and whatever other criticism you want. I addressed some of them in a post in the macroevolution thread a while back. I find it interesting that one poster responded by saying that the Bible's account is similar to and likely derived from other creation myths. It's true that a few myths are more simplistic than the Greek or Chinese stories, but I've never seen one that stated the order in which natural elements appear with the simplicity and overall accuracy of the Bible. Even if they do exist, I'd be curious what the basis is for saying that the Genesis account was derived from them.

In any case, the creation account is simply one very small way in which the Bible differs greatly from other religious texts and myths. The majority of the Bible (almost all of the Old Testament) presents a historical account of the development of the nation of Israel and God's dealings with them. There are indeed miracles, but there are no god wars (there is only one God), monsters, and few supernatural heroes (there were only a few men who were empowered by God's spirit to deliver his people, such as Samson). For the most part, it's a very human account of normal people, complete with their personal and national triumphs and failures. The flood story is indeed similar to stories in a huge number of cultures, but that only supports the existence of a significant historical flooding event, so you can hardly call that a religious parallel.

The afterlife is barely even mentioned in the Old Testament, with only a few references to the state of the dead and the hope of eternal life in the future.

So, in short, I think your statement that "the only major difference is the actual 'Christ' part of Christianity," and the very idea that there a numerous parallels between the Bible and other contemporary religious beliefs is rather naïve. (Incidentally, if beliefs which came afterwards borrowed from the Bible, that wouldn't really be relevant to the discussion, would it?) It seems to me that you've only been listening to the sources you want to hear, rather than researching both sides of the issue.

Now why do you think God > Zeus? Why Noah > Deucalion?

Simple. Even in Greek mythology, Zeus is not the creator; he's just the king of the gods, and is known for, among other things, his sexual conquests. It's ridiculous to say they are analogous. As already noted, flood accounts are globally shared, and Deucalion certainly corresponds to Noah. However, the Greek myths surrounding Deucalion have the typical flavor of fantasticality to them. For example, to repopulate the earth, "they threw the rocks behind their shoulders and the stones formed people. Pyrrha's became women; Deucalion's became men." Noah, on the other hand, simply had three sons who were in the ark with him, along with their wives.

Yeah, but do you believe in everything the Bible says blindly without questioning it? I hope not. I was making that remark based on your remark, that the Bible is a simple-downed version, so the stories are simpler to understand for a more primitive person. ... I took that to mean that you knew much of the Bible was simplified stories or metaphors.

You ought to know by now that I do question it, sure. However, because my study of the Bible has lead me to the conclusion that it is inspired by God, my default position is to accept it as true unless I have reason to believe otherwise. If there is an apparent discrepancy, I am obligated to investigate. It may mean I have to adjust my understanding of the biblical account, and that's fine, but at this point, it would take an awfully huge adjustment to cause me to conclude the whole thing is a giant fraud perpetuated by dozens of writers over many hundreds of years who all carefully wove together a bundle of lies. That, of course, is what you're implying.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in what I meant by saying that the Bible is "dumbed-down." I don't believe it simply contains metaphorical stories. I just meant that the information it does contain was intended for humans living over a period of thousands of years, and thus it would not be practical to provide detailed explanations of quantum mechanics or other such material. I believe it was provided primarily as a guide to understanding God, what he expects of humans, and what he will do to resolve the major obstacles and issues which have been raised. This information is accessible and relevant to people of all time periods and cultures.

I like the analogy. But did Satan ever get the chance to show the class how he would solve the problem? Or are you saying that's what's going on right now? We're the class? Or the angels are the class?

Yes, I'm saying that all of human history has been during that trial period. I suppose the class in the analogy would primarily be the angels, but it could be extended to include all humanity as well. A million years from now, no human could say "I think this God guy is cramping my style. I'm doing my own thing. Anyone in?" Having established a legal precedent, the issue would be settled forever.

Incidentally, many people object: "How could you possibly need thousands of years to resolve this?" However, consider the technological advances of the past century. If God had ended things sooner, Satan could have objected: "Come on, that's not fair! They could have solved their problems with science if you had given them longer!" However, now there is clear evidence that even the best applications of science will not overcome innate greed and selfishness that plagues human society. There is sufficient proof that, as the Bible states at Jeremiah 10:23, "it does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his own step."

At Genesis 3:15, the Bible describes a prophetic battle between Satan (the serpent) and a woman's seed. The clarification of who that "seed" would be is gradually revealed over time, and is shown to be, primarily, Jesus (Galatians 3:16). In the book of Daniel, a heavenly kingdom is described in which a king is granted authority by God and destroys earthly governments (paralleling earlier prophecies in Psalms 2 and elsewhere), thus reestablishing God's rule over humanity. Jesus talked about this "kingdom" constantly throughout his ministry, and is clearly identified as the king. The book of Revelation describes how the king of the kingdom would act against Satan and his followers, first casting them to earth, where they would cause trouble, and then destroying them completely, thereby ending the dilemma that was raised thousands of years earlier (the rebels in the classroom) and restoring mankind to God's original intentions.

Now, you can say what you will about the Bible in comparison to mythology, but nowhere else will you find a coherent story written by diverse writers over hundreds of years (1600 years, by some estimates) which provides an explanation for human suffering, combined with phenomenal insight into human behavior, including the origin of religious belief (Satan's way of satisfying the religious desire of people while blinding them to the truth about God). Even ancient mythology can be better understood in the context of the events described in the Bible, which says that before the flood, angels came down to earth and had children by human women who were unusually mighty, thereby providing a basis for stories about gods like Zeus and demigods like Heracles. (Gen 6:1-4)

Of course, I realize that I'm not providing convincing evidence of the Bible's divine inspiration by means of a quick biblical summary, but hopefully this will at least help you to look at the Bible in a different way. Since the Bible is by far the most widely distributed and translated publication of all time, any educated person ought to be familiar with its contents, especially if they want to criticize it.

[Guest]

More fun with religion! I can't resist a quick dabble every now and then...

Let's take creation myths as an example. Regarding Greek myth, The Oxford History of the Classical World says:

"Hesiod tells the story, known to Homer, of the succession of sky gods. First Uranus was supreme..."

Then there is Chinese folk religion. A professor of Oriental art writes "We learn that Chaos was like a hen's egg..."

And then the Bible:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...

Now, of course you can say "Birds before land animals? We know that's wrong,"...It's true that a few myths are more simplistic than the Greek or Chinese stories, but I've never seen one that stated the order in which natural elements appear with the simplicity and overall accuracy of the Bible...

If I may paraphrase, what you seem to be suggesting is that the Christian creation myth is somehow more valid because:

1) It is less bizarre than the others (though still pretty bizarre, with stuff like God creating Eve out of a rib)

2) It's more congruent with scientific knowledge (given a lot of creative interpretation and papering over the cracks)

The other myths could also be explained away by saying they are metaphor or a means of explaining things to simple people. If you justify the biblical account by saying it is less bizarre and involves less magic, that same logic is also a very good justification for throwing out all religious myths, including the Bible, in favour of an opinion based on scientific knowledge. The biblical account may be the closest to being accurate, but as you know it falls short of actual accuracy. If it were the "word of God", I'm sure God could have got it 100% right.

In any case, the creation account is simply one very small way in which the Bible differs greatly from other religious texts and myths. The majority of the Bible (almost all of the Old Testament) presents a historical account of the development of the nation of Israel and God's dealings with them. There are indeed miracles, but there are no god wars (there is only one God), monsters, and few supernatural heroes (there were only a few men who were empowered by God's spirit to deliver his people, such as Samson). For the most part, it's a very human account of normal people, complete with their personal and national triumphs and failures. The flood story is indeed similar to stories in a huge number of cultures, but that only supports the existence of a significant historical flooding event, so you can hardly call that a religious parallel.

Once again what you're saying is that the Bible has some bizarre stuff in it but not as bizarre as some religions. If that makes it fundamentally different it is only in the sense of being the lesser of several evils (I'm speaking figuratively; in practice its greater plausibility makes it all the more pernicious). As our understanding of the world has increased, religions that are incompatible with that understanding tend to fall by the wayside, and we are left with the more compatible ones. Modern religions are better adapted, but the fact that the Bible contains bizarre and magical occurrences, contradictions, impossible events, and obsolete moral values, shows that it is not fundamentally different.

Simple. Even in Greek mythology, Zeus is not the creator; he's just the king of the gods, and is known for, among other things, his sexual conquests. It's ridiculous to say they are analogous. As already noted, flood accounts are globally shared, and Deucalion certainly corresponds to Noah. However, the Greek myths surrounding Deucalion have the typical flavor of fantasticality to them. For example, to repopulate the earth, "they threw the rocks behind their shoulders and the stones formed people. Pyrrha's became women; Deucalion's became men." Noah, on the other hand, simply had three sons who were in the ark with him, along with their wives.

I think the point here was that Zeus is no more or less plausible, or evidence-based, than God, and the same with Noah. Given the parallels in flood myths, it seems highly likely that in many cases one myth evolved from another. The later myth would then be no more accurate than the earlier one.

You ought to know by now that I do question it, sure. However, because my study of the Bible has lead me to the conclusion that it is inspired by God, my default position is to accept it as true unless I have reason to believe otherwise. If there is an apparent discrepancy, I am obligated to investigate. It may mean I have to adjust my understanding of the biblical account, and that's fine, but at this point, it would take an awfully huge adjustment to cause me to conclude the whole thing is a giant fraud perpetuated by dozens of writers over many hundreds of years who all carefully wove together a bundle of lies. That, of course, is what you're implying.

I don't think anybody would suggest that the Bible is a deliberate fraud. Myths and religions develop over time in the same way that superstitions do, by a process of selection. The only likely fraud is that committed by the early catholic church who compiled a bunch of myths and labelled it "the word of God", in order to avoid internecine bickering over the validity of "apocryphal" texts and to create a definitive canon for Christianity. What puzzles me is why protestants still accept that compilation as being divinely inspired while not accepting the divine inspiration behind other catholic nonsense, like selecting a pope.

Yes, I'm saying that all of human history has been during that trial period. I suppose the class in the analogy would primarily be the angels, but it could be extended to include all humanity as well. A million years from now, no human could say "I think this God guy is cramping my style. I'm doing my own thing. Anyone in?" Having established a legal precedent, the issue would be settled forever.

Seems to me the whole experiment's gone wrong. Instead of following God or Satan increasing numbers of people are deciding there is no reason to believe either exists. Which you can hardly blame them for, given the lack of evidence. It's probably all for the best, since buying out the jury by offering them eternal life over damnation was never going to result in a fair trial anyway.

[unreality]

nicely put, octopuppy I was scrambling there... as Duh Puck showed, I don't much about the Bible, lol. But from what I've known and heard, a lot of the overall mythologies are similar

[Guest]

Similar?!

How can you say a Religion about a Most Powerful entity (God) with numerous lesser such entities (angels) and a son (Jesus) born of a earthly woman (Mary); With two places for after one dies, one as a reward (Heaven), and the other as a punishment (Hell); The latter ruled over by another such entity (Satan) who has close ties to the Most Powerful entity (A high ranking Angel); not to mention a tree that gave everlasting life (Tree of life), and a Great flood (Genesis Flood) - is in any way similar to:

A Religion about a Most Powerful entity (Zeus) with numerous lesser such entities (lesser gods) and a son (Heracles) born of a earthly woman (Alcmene); With two places for after one dies, one as a reward (Elysium), and the other as a punishment (Hades); The latter ruled over by another such entity (Hades) who has close ties to the Most Powerful entity (his brother); not to mention a tree that gave everlasting life (Tree of the Golden Apples), and a Great flood (Deucalion)?!

Next you will be trying to tell us that it is in any way similar to another religion about a Most Powerful entity (Odin) with numerous lesser such entities (lesser gods) and a son (Thor) born of a giantess (Jörd, personification of the Earth); With two places for after one dies, one as a reward (Valhalla), and the other as a punishment (Hel); The latter ruled over by another such entity (Hel) who has close ties to the Most Powerful entity (Daughter of Loki, Odin's adopted son); not to mention a tree that gave everlasting life (Iðunn's tree with Golden Apples), and a Great flood (Bergelmir's Flood)

I don't see the connection, I really don't <_<

[Guest]

Wow. I just finished reading (/skimming some of the longer posts) all 50 pages of this debate. Man you guys have a lot to say. Even though I was basically with you other atheists before reading this thread, I definitly learned a few things along the way. Interesting arguments and discussions.

Personally, I never really believed in God, my parents never really forced it upon me. I like to consider myself a logical person that bases things on evidence. For example, when I was still a kid, I didn't really believe in Santa Clause, not only for the fact that his actions are physically impossible, but as our chimney leads straight into a furnace (not a fun ride for Santa).

While it's true that it would be nice if God existed and there was a heaven after death, there isn't any real proof of any of that. It's not that I don't want a God to exist, it's that I don't logically believe one does, though it's completely possible that there is one, just not very likely. I prefer to think that religion is not very important, it's who you are as a person. If there is a heaven (which I doubt), I think that no matter what religion (or no religion) you are, as long as you are a good person, you will go to heaven. This is similar to the views of someone who posted earlier.

None of this really relates to the current discussion (which has changed like ten different times), but I just thought I'd share my two cents.

Sorry if I repeated anything unnecessary.

[unreality]

you pretty much summed it up, Frost

to continue the analogy, we atheists would LIKE to think Santa exists but we'd rather know the truth

[Guest]

okay wow i just skimmed over some of the arguments and wow.

I will say that i am a christan. It was not that my parents made me be on

but i wanted to be one. i have nothing against ppl that don't believe in god!

I think u don't have 2 b friends with ppl that are only in ur religion.

I have cathlic friends atheist friends and Jahova witness or howev. u spell that friends

i don't like ppl that choose there friends by religion. i respect what u say. but many i do

not agree in but i will say that there is a heaven and hell and there is god and there is

satan. well i'm good just wanted 2 clear that up w/ all of u!

[Guest]

Wow. I just finished reading (/skimming some of the longer posts) all 50 pages of this debate. Man you guys have a lot to say. Even though I was basically with you other atheists before reading this thread, I definitly learned a few things along the way. Interesting arguments and discussions.

Personally, I never really believed in God, my parents never really forced it upon me. I like to consider myself a logical person that bases things on evidence. For example, when I was still a kid, I didn't really believe in Santa Clause, not only for the fact that his actions are physically impossible, but as our chimney leads straight into a furnace (not a fun ride for Santa).

While it's true that it would be nice if God existed and there was a heaven after death, there isn't any real proof of any of that. It's not that I don't want a God to exist, it's that I don't logically believe one does, though it's completely possible that there is one, just not very likely. I prefer to think that religion is not very important, it's who you are as a person. If there is a heaven (which I doubt), I think that no matter what religion (or no religion) you are, as long as you are a good person, you will go to heaven. This is similar to the views of someone who posted earlier.

None of this really relates to the current discussion (which has changed like ten different times), but I just thought I'd share my two cents.

Sorry if I repeated anything unnecessary.

Okay i respect that u think logically but i am a christan and believe that the lord created r earth but seeing how the scientist have no proof on how the earth was created therefore u can't say that there is not a god. But i respect ur beliefs. Ik a couple ppl believe in the "big bang" theroy but c'mon ppl how did the earth get here in the first place how did outter space get here. Truthfully sometimes i doubt my own religion this way like how is god created when there was nothing 2 creat him but i don't like to ask that question because then i start doubting my religon. If there r any christans on this please send me a message 2 help me.

just putting my input in!

[Guest]

I was brought up christian, and I'm kinda half christian. What I belive is religion was a thing that people came up with to explain the unexplainable. But I also belive that there is probally a higher power.

Edited June 12, 2008 by giterdone

[unreality]

Okay i respect that u think logically but i am a christan and believe that the lord created r earth but seeing how the scientist have no proof on how the earth was created therefore u can't say that there is not a god.

yes, but you don't have proof either- but we have more proof than you do. You have next to zero proof. The scientific postulates we have today (and continue to develop) are much more viable than a magical man creating the universe. We may say that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"- but that's not really it. Extraordinary claims can exist without people knowing. We didn't know about dark matter until recently, but that didn't mean it DIDN'T exist before we found evidence of it. Know what I mean? So what I'm saying is, atheists are atheists until proven wrong. And right now, everything supports atheism, sorry logically and scientifically, I see no reason nor proof for a deity or flying spaghetti monster of any kind, so that's what I'm sticking to, as do millions of other atheists ;D

But i respect ur beliefs.

thanks! This is always appreciated

Idk a couple ppl believe in the "big bang" theory

a "couple people"? lol... try "most of the scientific and even non-scientific community". I'm not so sure I myself am sold, cuz I semi-agree with you on your next point:

but c'mon ppl how did the earth get here in the first place how did outer space get here.

earth got here like any other planet. it's just OUR planet is one of the small percentage of planets that can support life. And of course it is!!! It's not a coincidence. The very fact that I said "OUR planet" shows that... if a planet didn't have life, the un-existing organisms aren't gonna be wondering why they un-exist, know what I mean? What I'm saying is, earth isn't special in the cosmic sense

as for this part:

how did outer space get here.

that's where big bang stuff comes in. I think that the universe and time have probably existed forever- the Big Bang was just a point where the universe was highly concentrated, I think. Not entirely sure, but if it did happen, that would be my guess

What if time and the universe hadn't existed forever? Then how did God exist? Is there a higher level of universe above this one then, from which God created this level of universe... then the same question is posed, how did God's universe come to be? etc and etc. And if God can come spontaneously out of nothing, than so can the universe.

Truthfully sometimes i doubt my own religion this way like how is god created when there was nothing 2 creat him but i don't like to ask that question because then i start doubting my religon. If there r any christans on this please send me a message 2 help me.

just putting my input in!

would you rather fearfully turn away from doubting your religion, or embrace the truth and look at the solution clearly... you might conclude that your religion is an unneeded part of your life. Know what I mean? To be liberated from such doctrine is a good thing. Atheists are free

[Guest]

yes, but you don't have proof either- but we have more proof than you do. You have next to zero proof. The scientific postulates we have today (and continue to develop) are much more viable than a magical man creating the universe. We may say that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"- but that's not really it. Extraordinary claims can exist without people knowing. We didn't know about dark matter until recently, but that didn't mean it DIDN'T exist before we found evidence of it. Know what I mean? So what I'm saying is, atheists are atheists until proven wrong. And right now, everything supports atheism, sorry logically and scientifically, I see no reason nor proof for a deity or flying spaghetti monster of any kind, so that's what I'm sticking to, as do millions of other atheists ;D

thanks! This is always appreciated

a "couple people"? lol... try "most of the scientific and even non-scientific community". I'm not so sure I myself am sold, cuz I semi-agree with you on your next point:

earth got here like any other planet. it's just OUR planet is one of the small percentage of planets that can support life. And of course it is!!! It's not a coincidence. The very fact that I said "OUR planet" shows that... if a planet didn't have life, the un-existing organisms aren't gonna be wondering why they un-exist, know what I mean? What I'm saying is, earth isn't special in the cosmic sense

as for this part:

that's where big bang stuff comes in. I think that the universe and time have probably existed forever- the Big Bang was just a point where the universe was highly concentrated, I think. Not entirely sure, but if it did happen, that would be my guess

What if time and the universe hadn't existed forever? Then how did God exist? Is there a higher level of universe above this one then, from which God created this level of universe... then the same question is posed, how did God's universe come to be? etc and etc. And if God can come spontaneously out of nothing, than so can the universe.

would you rather fearfully turn away from doubting your religion, or embrace the truth and look at the solution clearly... you might conclude that your religion is an unneeded part of your life. Know what I mean? To be liberated from such doctrine is a good thing. Atheists are free

You remind me of something. Oh yeah...The catholic church trying to convert people. sorry...I had to say it.

[Guest]

yes, but you don't have proof either- but we have more proof than you do. You have next to zero proof. The scientific postulates we have today (and continue to develop) are much more viable than a magical man creating the universe. We may say that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"- but that's not really it. Extraordinary claims can exist without people knowing. We didn't know about dark matter until recently, but that didn't mean it DIDN'T exist before we found evidence of it. Know what I mean? So what I'm saying is, atheists are atheists until proven wrong. And right now, everything supports atheism, sorry logically and scientifically, I see no reason nor proof for a deity or flying spaghetti monster of any kind, so that's what I'm sticking to, as do millions of other atheists ;D

thanks! This is always appreciated

a "couple people"? lol... try "most of the scientific and even non-scientific community". I'm not so sure I myself am sold, cuz I semi-agree with you on your next point:

earth got here like any other planet. it's just OUR planet is one of the small percentage of planets that can support life. And of course it is!!! It's not a coincidence. The very fact that I said "OUR planet" shows that... if a planet didn't have life, the un-existing organisms aren't gonna be wondering why they un-exist, know what I mean? What I'm saying is, earth isn't special in the cosmic sense

as for this part:

that's where big bang stuff comes in. I think that the universe and time have probably existed forever- the Big Bang was just a point where the universe was highly concentrated, I think. Not entirely sure, but if it did happen, that would be my guess

What if time and the universe hadn't existed forever? Then how did God exist? Is there a higher level of universe above this one then, from which God created this level of universe... then the same question is posed, how did God's universe come to be? etc and etc. And if God can come spontaneously out of nothing, than so can the universe.

would you rather fearfully turn away from doubting your religion, or embrace the truth and look at the solution clearly... you might conclude that your religion is an unneeded part of your life. Know what I mean? To be liberated from such doctrine is a good thing. Atheists are free

Okay so what i am getting from u is that atheists are the way 2 go. but in my religion it gives me strength and courage in what i need help most in. When i say ik some ppl that believe in the big bang theroy i mean in ppl i have experienced in my whole life. Well please tell me how long forever is cause scientest don't even know that. Okay from what i see all throughout the world a huge majarity of ppl have a religion. what i have learned from mine is how the earth got created and if u r telling me 2 become an atheist there is no way, i mean no affence but i believe in god. As u said there is many things that can't be found. so who created them, god of course the simple answer. now i am not telling u to become a christan but this is what i believe in. I mean think about it if u look at how u commented u took apart everything i wrote and made reasons 2 not believe in it. Just consider it for a second. i mean can u really believe scientist all the time. they could b telling u a lie.