Theism? Seriously? EVERYTHING from NOTHING?

[Waiting4evidence]

In a recent post, a theist grossly mischaracterized the atheist position.

Instead of accepting the simple definition that an atheist is one who does not believe in deities, he just made up the definition that an atheist is one who believes that the entire universe came from nothing.

We do not know how the universe came into existence, and we don't even know if the universe ever came into existence.

We make NO conclusion based on our ignorance of the universe's origin.

We do NOT, as per the theist's allegation, say "We don't know, therefore nothing did it". We just say "We don't know, therefore let's not pretend we know, but rather let's try to find out".

So, I am hoping we can put that bogus accusation to rest.


But there is another ramification of the theist's absurd accusation.

He (rightly) claims that it's wronng - given our current knowledge - to hold the dogmatic belief that the universe came from nothing.

At the same time, he believes that an entity much more complex than the universe exists.

So I can't help but ask. If it's absurd to think that something as complex as the universe can come into existence from nothing, then how do you account for the existence of something even more complex than the universe?

How did God come into existence? "You don't know therefore nothing did it"?

Do you see the absurdity of your position, given that you accuse atheists of holding a fatal flaw in their belief, while in reality they do not hold that belief, but you do?

[kayky]

Science is prepared and waiting to put your God to the evidentiary test wherever and whenever He becomes discernible and something more than superstition. In the interim, psychological and behavioral testing demonstrates that human beings can't keep a story straight for an hour when retold, let alone decades, and are susceptible to all manner of hyperbole, emotion and deception from propagandists.

And I was not attempting above to speak as to all theists. I clearly singled out Christians who believe the unbelievable based upon deficient and implausible source material.

Did you even read my post? I repeat: Religion has no right to call science heresy, and science has no right to impose its methods on religion. They each deal with totally different realms of human experience. Referring to all religious belief as superstition is just as silly as the fundamentalist who claims the earth is only six thousand years old.

[kayky]

Now, can you show that actually 'demonstrates God', rather than showing emotional reactions that can be attributed to god, and philosophical and ethical musings that are attributed to god, but actually have their source in the intelligence and imagination of man.. that is the question.

Of course not. That's why I said on an earlier post on this thread that this type of debate is pointless. Yet for some strange reason we keep engaging in it...

[catalyst]

Waiting4evidence;

Your statement is not entirely true, for the Atheist has made up their mind that there is no god, which is to me, as absurd as someone making up their mind there is one.

Agnosticism is our better choice, I simply admit that I do not know whether there is or is not a god. I weigh the data before me, have my personal ideas and hopes, but at the end of the day I know that I do not really know.

I don't agree with you and I am an atheist. I for one don't buy into ANY of the god models that have been presented to me and others. I have researched upward of 1000 different HEAD god models, and ALL of them have fallen short of what I EXPECT a "god" to be. WHY? because all of them are quite human in it seems in mentality and actually, if it comes down to it, display the worst traits OF humanity and in some cases nature itself, as being some kind of "super power" and along with it, comes elements of fear.... the GOD has. All these gods are always fearful that some other god is going to TRUMP them in some way. They are all human constructs, conjured from the minds of people who at the time did not understand as much as they wanted to.

BTW that does not count the "underling" gods of which there are around 20000 of. I remain "agnostic".. to all those underling gods.... only because I can admit that I have not researched them as thoroughly as I have the head gods... but... as they ARE underlings to the "HEAD" gods I HAVE researched, then it is safe to assume that they are NOT the "ABSOLUTE" god that is supposedly "out there".

Anything that would be capable of creating all would fear NOTHING. It would not rely on fear tactics to make a point of its ABSOLUTENESS. As such, I deny these gods. I don't pick just ONE to deny, I deny them ALL. (Nummoh comes close to being pretty awesome, but she also falls short when it comes down to it).

Now, if you can tell of of a HEAD god model I don't know of and about, and show me that they have unquestionable traits of an entity that IS absolute, then I will become agnostic to THAT "god", until I have an opportunity to explore it myself.

Is that fair?

Until that time though, I remain an atheist.

I would be interested to know the gods you have personally explored to have the agnostic position you do?

Catalyst.

[kayky]

Have you heard of Panentheism? I find it the most coherent concept of God I've ever encountered, and it coincides with my personal experience of God.

[Flail]

Science is prepared and waiting to put your God to the evidentiary test wherever and whenever He becomes discernible and something more than superstition. In the interim, psychological and behavioral testing demonstrates that human beings can't keep a story straight for an hour when retold, let alone decades, and are susceptible to all manner of hyperbole, emotion and deception from propagandists.

And I was not attempting above to speak as to all theists. I clearly singled out Christians who believe the unbelievable based upon deficient and implausible source material.

Did you even read my post? I repeat: Religion has no right to call science heresy, and science has no right to impose its methods on religion. They each deal with totally different realms of human experience. Referring to all religious belief as superstition is just as silly as the fundamentalist who claims the earth is only six thousand years old.

There are more ideas of religion than colors of the rainbow, so I recognize the danger in painting all religion with the same brush. I do respect Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism and other conceptual, philosophical concepts. But I wonder if perhaps we are so accustomed to and reliant upon science and evidentialism to provide us with reliable information that when it comes to speculative concepts like Gods and Devils where there are no answers, we opt too quickly for the traditional and common instead of exhibiting patience and keeping open minds. Opting for superstitious ideas about 'Gods' is really deficient and dangerously credulous IMO.

[Flail]

Have you heard of Panentheism? I find it the most coherent concept of God I've ever encountered, and it coincides with my personal experience of God.

Yes kay, of course I have heard of pantheism, but I reject it along with other theisms as assuming too much when it comes to 'God'. Have you hear of Ignosticism? If you want to discuss PM me.

[kayky]

There are more ideas of religion than colors of the rainbow, so I recognize the danger in painting all religion with the same brush. I do respect Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism and other conceptual, philosophical concepts. But I wonder if perhaps we are so accustomed to and reliant upon science and evidentialism to provide us with reliable information that when it comes to speculative concepts like Gods and Devils where there are no answers, we opt too quickly for the traditional and common instead of exhibiting patience and keeping open minds. Opting for superstitious ideas about 'Gods' is really deficient and dangerously credulous IMO.

OR we have become so enthralled with science that we have come to believe it is the end-all of everything. It isn't. Can't. Never will be. Theory of everything? It will take both science and spiritual understanding to make that happen.

[kayky]

Have you heard of Panentheism? I find it the most coherent concept of God I've ever encountered, and it coincides with my personal experience of God.

Yes kay, of course I have heard of pantheism, but I reject it along with other theisms as assuming too much when it comes to 'God'. Have you hear of Ignosticism? If you want to discuss PM me.

My question was directed to Catalyst. And, yeah, I know what Ignosticism is. I guess we're both too smart for our britches.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Oh? Tell me, how can a collection of oral traditions and legends, which often conflict to the point of being mutually exclusive, and that are from wildly differing sources with wildly differing agendas and approaches and attitudes, and which has not been read literally or slavishly obeyed for at least two thousand years (if ever), be "all about controlling the masses"? How can that be its "raison d'être"? How were "the masses" "controlled" by it, and who, specifically, was using it to "control" them? What is your historical and literary evidence for this? Can't wait to see it...

I like to stay close to the Bible in my religious discussions. Whether you consider that historical evidence or not depends I suppose. 2 Chronicles 34:14 and 2 Kings 22:8 tell of the "discovery" by the Levite priests of a Book of the Law in the Temple at Jerusalem. The Book of the Law which was "discovered" was Deuteronomy. This "discovery" of Deuteronomy, the existence of which was heretofore UNKNOWN, occurred in 621 B.C. during the reign of King Josiah (640-609 BC).

Book of Deuteronomy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Since the evidence was first put forward by W.M.L de Wette in 1805, scholars have accepted that the core of Deuteronomy was composed in Jerusalem in the 7th century BCE in the context of religious reforms advanced by King Josiah (reigned 641-609 BCE)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomy

The Temple in Jerusalem was constructed during the reign of King Solomon (961-922 BC). Moses lived somewhere around the 12th or 13th century BC, circa 1300 or 1400. Kibg Josiah reigned from roughly 640 to 610 BC. In other words a book which Christian and Jewish scholars maintain was written by Moses himself, and which no one had ever heard of or even suspected existed prior to its "discovery" in 621, lay hidden for some 600-700 years in the Temple of Solomon which wouldn't be built for some 300-400 years after Moses died, in a city, Jerusalem, which Moses never managed to reach in his lifetime. Now that is really fine trick. Damn near unbelievable in fact. A book which appears for the first time some 700 years or so after the death of the man who is supposed to have written it is a book with a very suspicious background, to say the least. When we are then told that it was discovered hidden in a building which was not even constructed for centuries after the death of it's author, most reasonable people might be forgiven
for reaching the conclusion that the claims may be somewhat less than righteous. For 700 years or so, a book of the law of God Himself that no even suspected existed, much less was missing turns up in a building not even constructed for centuries after the author of the book died. In other words, for 700 years the provisions and commands proclaimed by God Himself contained in Deuteronomy went unknown and therefore ignored. OUCH! Now that is what I call a serious religious faux pas.

2 Kings:
[8] "And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.
[9] And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the LORD.
[10] And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
[11] And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.
[12] And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying,
[13] Go ye, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us."

2 Chronicles
[14] "And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the LORD given by Moses.
[15] And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan.
[16] And Shaphan carried the book to the king, and brought the king word back again, saying, All that was committed to thy servants, they do it.
[17] And they have gathered together the money that was found in the house of the LORD, and have delivered it into the hand of the overseers, and to the hand of the workmen.
[18] Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king.
[19] And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes.
[20] And the king commanded Hilkiah, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the son of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king's, saying,
[21] Go, inquire of the LORD for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD, to do after all that is written in this book."

How does a Book of God become so "lost" that no even suspected that it ever existed for centuries? And what new information does it contain? Let's have a look.

Deut.12
[1] "These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the LORD God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth.
[2] Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:
[3] And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.
[4] Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God.
[5] But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:
[6] And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:"

No more consecrating your offerings to the Lord in just any old place, but instead it must be the place God chooses, and it better be the very finest offerings or else. And of course by the time the "lost" book was "found," the place of His choosing had long been chosen. The temple in Jerusalem, the very stronghold of the Levite priests.

Deut.12
[16] "Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty:
[17] Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee."

Deut.18
[1] "The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.
[2] Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them.
[3] And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.
[4] The firstfruit also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him."

Wow! What a huge break for the Levites! Three times a year you must come to Jerusalem and make your offering to the Lord of the finest things you possess. And once your offering is consecrated it becomes the property of the Levites. The very finest of all things produced, and home delivered.

But there is more:

Deut. 17
[14] When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
[15] Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."

The Jews had never had a king over them during Moses' time. But Moses "prophesizes" that one day they will have their own land and will one day have a king over them. Well wasn't Moses clairvoyant. 700 years later the Jewish nation does indeed have a king. And Deuteronomy endorses it, making the position of King one chosen by God Himself. What a break for King Josiah! He now holds his position as a matter of Divine Will of God.

Now, if you don't catch the inference I am making here as to who "inspired" the Jewish Bible, it WASN'T any God. Genesis and Exodus give the Jewish nation a sense of their God, and of there national origins. Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy lay out the position and duties of the priests in Jewish society, and the duties customs requirements and restrictions placed on society as a whole by God Himself. These duties customs requirements and restrictions were required to be followed by ALL of the people ALL of the time. And woe to the nation if God should decide that they weren't complying uniformly enough to suit Him. And what a brilliant piece of covering their ass THAT was for the priests! In most societies being a priest had its rewards of position and power, but also could have a rather severe down side. Priests were expected to understand the will of the gods, and to predict calamities before they occurred, as well as the outcome of battles. When they failed and proved themselves to be less than their claims the consequences were harsh. But the Jewish priests had managed to position themselves to gain all of the rewards inherent with their position, but had indemnified themselves from running any of the risks. If a calamity befell the nation, and they would, it wasn't the fault of the priests, it was the fault of the nation as a whole, FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW GOD'S LAW ALL OF THE TIME. And I have to give them credit. The priests laid out their proscriptions so well in fact that 3,000 years later hundreds of millions of people ARE STILL BUYING INTO IT!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I am agnostic when it comes to the afterlife. I think you will find that I am not the typical theist. If you're going to debate with me, you'll have to up your game.

Apparently so. To debate with you I would first have to find something we disagree on, since you don't seem to give the Bible much credit for viability either. And in that case, there's really not much point. In what way do you define yourself as a Christian? Just curious. Being from Kentucky it must be convenient to at least pretend to be one.