Why should one care that God exists?

[Deidre32]

I'm an atheist but also a former Christian. Instead if asking Christians to show me evidence of god's existence (which there is no objective proof; the Bible isn't proof of anything) why not tell me and other atheists, why is believing relevant? Why should anyone care if a god exists?

If a god exists, why does he/it need my buy in?

Why is believing in a god ...necessary to living a good and productive life? (It's not but I'm interested in learning from Christians here, why they feel otherwise)

Thanks!

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to tortured soul]

Subjective truth is a logical fallacy

something is true or it is not. Truth is not subjective.

If I believe the sun orbited around the earth and that I see it moving up and down in the sky confirming this. It would still not make it true. That would just be my perception

If you say they can't all be right, then you are admitting that truth is subjective to the person, and is dependent only upon the individual mind that believes it.

No I am not admitting that at all. The truth of what they describe is independent on their perception of it. Truth is not subjective to the individual.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 97 by tortured soul]

Like I've said before, I personally know a person who never knew his father, who went to prison for an extreme sexual crime, and the son went to prison for the exact same crime, which he committed at the age of twelve, and is in prison to this day for similar crimes which his father had also committed in his life. I never met my father until I was 21, and while I was staying with him, his wife (a practicing psychiatrist) noticed certain personality characteristics and mental responses which we shared.

This is the problem with looking at anecdotes. The sample size is to small. Every here the phrase correlation is not causation? The genetic predisposition to commit those crimes could have existed long before either the father or the son committed them and could be entirely unrelated to the crime itself. Perhaps they have a higher testosterone production than others this would increase aggression and sex drive. The cause of the higher testosterone production could be cause by a wide variety of other factors than rape.

It is not surprising that you and your father are similar. After all you share is gene pool. This does not mean his behaviors modified his genetic code and passed that down to you.

[tortured soul]

[Replying to post 100 by DanieltheDragon]

So, you are saying that objective reality overrides any subjective activity, is this right? A materialist sits upon a rock, he knows it is a rock by definition and experience, so he is convinced that it is a rock through objective reality. Standing up, he looks again at the rock and "begins to reflect", and after a time of reflection, within his mind he sees the rock as a bear cub, so he takes some tools and chisels the form of a small cub. The question would be, how did the rock, which was a only a rock at one time, take the form of a bear cub? This did not happen objectively, but first subjectively, and once the subjective idea came into the mind, the bear was formed. This tool that I am using to write with was first subjective, being born in someone's mind, and over time, the physical body was eventually used to build it.

The Most High God is Mind, and within His Mind we live and move and have our being. Therefore, when one looks up at the heavens, they are looking within the Mind of God. God has no form but Mind, and what He creates begins as Idea, and then through His Intelligence (Word) He creates the material. We are created in the likeness of God, so we are mental beings, and will cognitively continue to evolve and expand even without the physical body. We, as humans, are first mind, and then material. This is how we are created in the likeness of God. So, when God said Let there be light (within His Mind) His Word (Intelligence) created the light. This is exactly how our minds work. Subjective first, and then objective. The soul is attached to the brain, and remains attached through intrinsic electrical highways, so once the electricity stops, the soul leaves the body (orb- shape of the brain). This is what we are.

[tortured soul]

[Replying to post 101 by DanieltheDragon]

Ground zero for genetic disposition begins in Eden (Biblically). Paul stated, As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death "spread" to all men, because all men sinned. What Paul was saying is that everyone who was to live on earth was in the loins of the man, and since everyone shares his genetic disposition, all people would have made the same decision as him when placed in the same situation, for everyone comes from him. When the fruit was eaten, his genetics were altered, and every person born on earth receives the same poison in their souls as the first man (sin). Also, through the events that took place within the garden, two impressions remain for all generations to experience, the issues of not listening, and not obeying, two characteristics that are found within all people from birth, and can be seen even in the actions of infants when a parent tells them not to do something and they do it anyway.

The writer of Hebrews explained this using Melchizedek and Abraham as an example, that through Abraham, Isaac also paid tithes to Melchizedek, for Isaac was "in the loins of Abraham" when the tithes were paid. God was clear in Exodus when he said, The sins of the father will be "passed" to the children, even to the third generation.

[KenRU]

[Replying to tortured soul]

... can be seen even in the actions of infants when a parent tells them not to do something and they do it anyway.
Um, you do realize that infants lack the ability to understand language, right?

[tortured soul]

[Replying to post 104 by KenRU]

Um, do you realize that infants still have a mind, um? I believe you can also say that they have a progressive mental awareness, soaking information into the brain like a sponge, and this at a rapid pace. When you tell them no the first time, okay. How about the tenth time? twentieth? Not listening and obeying continues, even through adulthood.

[Zzyzx]

.

Ground zero for genetic disposition begins in Eden (Biblically).

If one confines their thinking to the bible or "interprets" modern knowledge according to bible stories, there does not appear to be any valid place for genetics. If "goddidit", genetics don't count.

Paul stated, As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death "spread" to all men, because all men sinned. What Paul was saying is that everyone who was to live on earth was in the loins of the man, and since everyone shares his genetic disposition, all people would have made the same decision as him when placed in the same situation, for everyone comes from him.

Many Christians, ancient and modern, reject Paul's opinions and his teachings. That his religion gained power by Roman adoption as official religion of the Empire does not attest to its accuracy or truthfulness.

When the fruit was eaten, his genetics were altered, and every person born on earth receives the same poison in their souls as the first man (sin).

Eating fruit is not known to alter genetics – to geneticists / biologists who study such things, but may be "known" by religion promoters who study theology rather than biology.

Also, through the events that took place within the garden, two impressions remain for all generations to experience, the issues of not listening, and not obeying, two characteristics that are found within all people from birth, and can be seen even in the actions of infants when a parent tells them not to do something and they do it anyway.

How, exactly, does the characteristic of humans (which appears to be shared with other animals) of not following their parents somehow relate to any "garden" experience?

The writer of Hebrews explained this using Melchizedek and Abraham as an example, that through Abraham, Isaac also paid tithes to Melchizedek, for Isaac was "in the loins of Abraham" when the tithes were paid. God was clear in Exodus when he said, The sins of the father will be "passed" to the children, even to the third generation.

This "punishing future generations" concept attributed to the Christian God seems irrational and unjust. How can it be rationalized enough to be consistent with a God who is also claimed to be just, fair, omniscient?

[tortured soul]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Genesis chapter 4 and 5 are strictly concerned with two different genetic dispositions, one dealing with evil (Cain) and the other dealing with Seth (good). In Genesis chapter 6, the two gene pools collided, which ultimately led to the absolute influence of evil, and the flood arrived soon afterward (meaning no genetic hope remained for mankind, except Noah who represented the good gene pool). Also, in Genesis 6, the Nephilim are mentioned, who are the children of the first man and woman within Eden. Obviously, there was a difference in genetics, for when the Nephilim came into the daughters of men they created genetic anomalies that have been recorded in many ancient cultures, especially Greek culture. Since these were the man and woman's first children, the one's Cain seemed worried about when he was ostracized from Adam's clan, they were genetically different, having not eaten from the tree of knowledge.

The life within the fruit comes from the tree (source). Obviously the two trees were unique in what they produced, offering the man either to have his heart (chi\core) initiated with either life or death (notice God removed Eden, with the tree of life still remaining within it, keeping it from the man and woman, showing that the two trees were indeed unique creations- one of a kind). The tree of life still remains in Paradise (Eden) according to Revelation 2.

So, before eating the fruit, the man remained like the animals, content and static in his pursuits, not desiring to go in any one direction, or being ambitious to pursue an identity (ego). Animals do have a mind, a will, and emotions, but since they did not eat from the fruit of either tree, they remain static in their pursuits and child-like in personality. In fact, animals are considered innocent (like the man before eating from the tree of opposing experiences\contradictions), this being the reason they were used as temporary atoning sacrifices for the Israelites.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 107 by tortured soul]

So essentially your argument is that we should care god exists because:

1.To lift our burden of knowledge

2.Remove our genetic imprints

3.So we can focus on spiritual pursuits


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Is that correct?

[Zzyzx]

.

Genesis chapter 4 and 5 are strictly concerned with two different genetic dispositions, one dealing with evil (Cain) and the other dealing with Seth (good).

Are we to discuss biological genetics or theological genetics? The two are VERY different.

One studies what occurs and can be demonstrated in nature (starting with the work of Gregor Mendel Franciscan monk 150 years ago) while the other studies scriptures and attempt to include scientific research that seems to support certain religious teachings.

According to theological genetics, A&E carried "evil genes" as well as "good genes", right? If so, where did they get those genes? Since supposedly created directly by God, those genes MUST have been supplied by God. Right?

In Genesis chapter 6, the two gene pools collided, which ultimately led to the absolute influence of evil,

According to theological genetics, the evil gene "pool" must have been composed of dominant genes, right (otherwise, if recessive, or not dominant they could not dominate a population). Right? Or is it different in theological genetics?

and the flood arrived soon afterward (meaning no genetic hope remained for mankind, except Noah who represented the good gene pool).

So, the claim of "absolute influence of evil" was not absolute at all because there were exceptions. Right?

If Noah and family represented the "good gene pool" and everyone from the "bad gene pool" was killed, HOW is it possible for anything other than "good" humans be their offspring?

In other words, killing off the entire population of the Earth except Noah and family should have rid the Earth of "evil" since they were "good" – but did no such thing as is obvious since "evil" still exists.

Did something go awry with God's plan to purify the human race using Noah and killing everyone else?

Also, in Genesis 6, the Nephilim are mentioned, who are the children of the first man and woman within Eden.

According to Genesis Chapter 6, the origin of the Nephilim:
"Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Thus, the Nephilim were supposedly the offspring of human females with "sons of God" (often said to be angels) – the were supposedly "the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

How does this fit with theistic genetics?

Obviously, there was a difference in genetics, for when the Nephilim came into the daughters of men they created genetic anomalies that have been recorded in many ancient cultures, especially Greek culture.

Are the Greek culture recordings to which you refer BEFORE or AFTER the storied flood?

What, specifically, in Greek writings or mythology refers to Nephilim?

Were the Nephilim killed off in the flood (or were they aboard the ark)?

Since these were the man and woman's first children, the one's Cain seemed worried about when he was ostracized from Adam's clan, they were genetically different, having not eaten from the tree of knowledge.

Wait a minute. No one is said to have eaten from that tree besides A&E and their "sin" is supposedly transmitted to all humans – who are claimed to be their offspring (including Cain and Able).

The tale seems to have become somewhat confused.

The life within the fruit comes from the tree (source). Obviously the two trees were unique in what they produced, offering the man either to have his heart (chi\core) initiated with either life or death (notice God removed Eden, with the tree of life still remaining within it, keeping it from the man and woman, showing that the two trees were indeed unique creations- one of a kind). The tree of life still remains in Paradise (Eden) according to Revelation 2.

If God removed the tree(s) then no one else has eaten the fruit. Right?

Thus, all humans (according to the tale) must "inherit" that knowledge as well as the "sin."

So, before eating the fruit, the man remained like the animals, content and static in his pursuits, not desiring to go in any one direction, or being ambitious to pursue an identity (ego).

Would that all apply to all residents of the Garden (which apparently consisted of A&E)?

Animals do have a mind, a will, and emotions, but since they did not eat from the fruit of either tree,

Biological / psychological research indicates that other animals DO have a mind, a will and emotions.

Does theological biology / psychology know something different? If so, what is that knowledge based upon?

they remain static in their pursuits and child-like in personality. In fact, animals are considered innocent (like the man before eating from the tree of opposing experiences\contradictions), this being the reason they were used as temporary atoning sacrifices for the Israelites.

Many cultures and religions have used animal and human sacrifices to appease their "gods" (including Christianity with the crucifixion / resurrection story).