Atheism, Group No.4

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

E.G
Student
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 7:56 pm

Atheism, Group No.4

Post #1

Post by E.G »

[center]Atheism, Group No.4 [/center]

I have presented previously three groups of atheist, through these ongoing intelligent discussions a fourth group was presented, which I suggest to be another form of “emotional reaction�
The first three groups were arguably presented in Post 1: Sun Sep 11, 2016, titled: Atheism, the art of defying logic, reason and commonsense.

I would like to state first that the purpose of my open dialog is in line with the objective of this site debate format through civil and engaging debate in pursuit of knowledge and truth. There is nothing I would like to gain personally, and I have no intention to “defeat� others’ opinions, but rather, through dialog, the truth may reveal itself.

The discussion here will focus mainly on group -4

The scientific argument:
Mass can neither be created nor destroyed… and so the universe's entire mass can be concentrated at one point. Without God
- This concept is applied to any system closed to all transfers…an isolated system.
- The concept of mass conservation was discovered in chemical reactions by Antoine Lavoisier in the late 18th century, the closely related concept of matter conservation was found to hold good in chemistry to such high approximation, it failed only for the high energies treated by the later refinements of relativity theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

The very fact that the theory failed for the high energies based on modern theory of relativity can be seen as an indicative of the presence of a higher power (energy, some prefer to name it “God�).
I humbly suggest you are missing at least one group.
4- Those who decided to research the claims made by religion and found them to be unsupportable. This group has found no compelling reason to believe in any god based on all evidence so far.
Claims made by religion? Who made those claims? are they trustworthy, and how can a claim made by a “religion� relate directly to the question of the existence, or nonexistence of God?
This group has found no compelling reason to believe in any god based on all evidence so far
what are those all evidence in your post? This is not fitting nicely within a “ Reasoning rebuttal�, rather emotional.
“there are an ever increasing number of folks who aren't constrained by the beliefs born in the Dark Ages, when Judeo-Christianity murdered science along with every man woman and child who disagreed with what didn't make sense in the Bible.�

This argument also could be classified as "emotional", since there is no evidence from Biblical verses requiring killing “science� or those who disagree. This act was taken by people who had their own motive, using religion as a cover. Therefore, this argument is rather week and frankly, irrelevant.
I propose that if these "people of God" would just quit using their religious beliefs as a cudgel 'Cause "You'll believe, or you'll burn in Hell"
Once again, this argument proves the point that there are these groups of crooks, within Christianity, who had their own motive, using religion as a cover.
The Biblical teaching (taken directly from the Bible) is, “I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly.� John 10:10
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.� Matthew 11:28-30.

The question is, why some do allow themselves to listen and fall in a trap set by the crooks and those whom the Bible describes as, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.� Matthew 7:15.
I would suggest that the overwhelming number of Christians "believe" in Christianity because they were indoctrinated into it, and they have simply bought into the teachings that if they dare to question this God or doubt him they will be cast into eternal damnation for their insubordination. I believe most Christians keep the faith out of fear of damnation, or the lust for the promised reward.
Scientifically, you need to provide a credible statistic supporting the claim “the overwhelming number of Christians�, on the other hand, I would agree with the general premise of your statement.

A classic example of “Group 4�:
My family is very religious, I have not had negative personal encounters with religion. I keep my beliefs to myself. I will dabble anonymously on the internet not for fame or fortune, but simplly to have an intellectually stimulating conversation. I don't fit into any of the categories you listed. Perhaps it's time you start revising your position.
I am an atheist because after years of biblical study I started finding issues with the written word itself. To me it became a self contradiction. it was no longer logically compatible. Yet it was not here where I gave up on religion and spirituality. I had just posited to myself that the written word had been lost to time and just trust in God to show me the way. This led to varies religious and/or spiritual beliefs. In the end one by one they continually failed in terms of logical and reason. At this point it would be intellectually dishonest for me to be a believer.
I would like to ask if you had a chance to examine the fact that modern-day Christians often bring their own interpretation to their reading of the Bible, not considering how deeply their underrating of the Bible is affected by 21st.- century worldview.

The faith that we profess today was birthed in the land of Israel, and is inextricably linked with the culture, customs and societal mores of the Jewish people. Without having a good grip and understanding of the Bible background, we can’t come to a just and reasonable interpretation for our modern days, since the core Biblical message is universal and generational?

I need also to ask myself, am I clear on the notion that modern explosion of information and the surrounding noise could affect my thought process, and, sometimes, drifts my mind from the state of being unbiased thinker to leaning more toward emotion, based on past experiences?

May I suggest once more to all, that there is a difference that can't even be measured by the distance separating heaven from earth, between the loving true God of the Bible, who once took the form of a human, came and dwelt among us, taught for three years across the lands, left an example and a teaching that has changed the entire world. A teaching of moral and social system, upon which, nations have framed their constitutions and justice systems. Later, those nations became the envy of the rest of the world and the most desired destination for many people seeking a new home.

Yes, there is a magnificent difference between this proven fact, and the prevailing twisted message of the Bible by false prophets. It is unfortunate that many have fallen into the trap and ended up being hurt and rejecting the true God.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Atheism, Group No.4

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

E.G wrote: Yes, there is a magnificent difference between this proven fact, and the prevailing twisted message of the Bible by false prophets. It is unfortunate that many have fallen into the trap and ended up being hurt and rejecting the true God.
Is there a question for debate here? Or is this just a preaching thread? :-k

I thought the Biblical religion was supposed to be about morality? Not about a God who can't communicate clearly.

The God that is actually described in the Bible is ignorant, immoral, and totally untrustworthy. I don't say this as an "emotional reaction" to the Bible but rather I just state it as a matter of fact, based on what the Bible actually has to say.

However, let's say that someone reject the Biblical God because from there perspective the Biblical God appears to be a really horrible jerk. Who's fault would this be? I would suggest that it can only be the fault of the supposedly omnipotent God who was unable to present himself clearly.

Also, what kind of a God would allow good people to "fall through the cracks" of his inept religious dogma and then try to pin the blame on them for having gotten the wrong idea of what he might actually be like?

I always point out that if there actually exists a truly decent, moral, and trustworthy God, that God would necessarily need to be extremely pleased that I would reject the Bible. This necessarily would need to be the case because the Bible makes God appear to be an ignorant immoral jerk.

Surely you're not suggesting that anyone should bow down and worship what appears to them to be an ignorant immoral jerk?

If anyone has a "wrong" picture of God because of the Bible, then the "Real God" (the God that isn't anything at all like the Bible describes) should be overflowing with joy when people reject that "wrong" picture of God that they have supposedly been exposed to in the Bible.

This God needs to fix up his Bible if he doesn't want to be seen as an ignorant immoral jerk.

He can hardly blame anyone else for that.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #3

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Atheism, Group No.4

Post #4

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 1 by E.G]

The problem, EG, is that the Bible does not provide a consistent picture of God as loving. In many OT passages, God is presented unmerciful, juridical, and absolutely draconian. Remember, God is asserted to have told Moses to act without mercy. As we read in Hosea 13:14,"I shall put compassion out of my sight." Vss. 15-16 say a blast will come from God that causing babes to fall by the sword, be smashed against the ground, and "pregnant women will be ripped up." And then you have OT laws, such as Exod. 21, that sanctify slavery.

E.G
Student
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 7:56 pm

Re: Atheism, Group No.4

Post #5

Post by E.G »

[Replying to hoghead1]

I will be glad to reply to your question.

I believe that I have indirectly and partially provided an answer in my previous post saying: “The faith that we profess today was birthed in the land of Israel, and is inextricably linked with the culture, customs and societal mores of the Jewish people. Without having a good grasp and understanding of the Bible background, we can’t come to a just and reasonable interpretation for our modern days, since the core Biblical message is universal and generational?

Let me provide some elaboration:

First, what was the governing rule that, from the very beginning, overshadowed God’s dealing with people who are committing dreadful crime and injustice?

The answer can be found in Genesis 18:26, “The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?�
“If I find forty-five there,� he said, “I will not destroy it.�
The conversation between God and Abraham continued until it came down to just ten people and God responded, ““For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.�

What is the simple translation to this incident that took place early in the human history? It has shown clearly God’s heart full of mercy and compassion.

Now, if you agree that this merciful God is also a fair judge and the ultimate authority responsible for executing justice and defending the poor, week and the undefendable, in order to maintain peace and healthy societies, then let us examine the conditions that move God to take an action, which can be found in Genesis 15:16 “After four generations your people will come to this land again and defeat the Amorites. That will happen in the future because the wickedness of the Amorites has not reached its fullness to lose their land.�

God being the ultimate merciful, yet, fair judge would not punish until every possible opportunity for people to change their ways has been exhausted.
Now, I hope that the premise of this discussion wouldn’t be asking for a world full of love but no Justice?

This leaves us with the question, why God allows for children in some incident to be killed?

The answer has multidimensional aspects:

- When a child dies (not reaching the age of maturity and able to understand his/her action and the consequences), their destination is heaven.
- If their parents were justly receiving God judgement and will die (every possible opportunity for people to change their ways has been exhausted in this case).
(God is asserted to have told Moses to act without mercy.)


- The Israelis would be reluctant to take them under this circumstance, and even if they did, there is no guarantee that they will treat them fairly, knowing in their hearts (as human) that these children belong to their enemies. Therefore, God in his mercy would rather take these children back home (heaven).

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Atheism, Group No.4

Post #6

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to E.G]

My point is that the OT God is introduced as without mercy, can act in a draconian manner, and is certainly not always fair.
I believe that God is loving. and When you love others, you do not seek to coerce them with threats and punishments. That's why I don't believe the OT is a full or definitive revelation of God.

One of the things that has alienated so many from the churches is their double-bind or contradictory message, whereby God is credited with taking an attitude of "love me, or I'll bet the tar out of you." That' not love, that's hypocrisy. But, unfortunately, the OT, and key aspects of teh NT, do just that.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Atheism, Group No.4

Post #7

Post by Divine Insight »

hoghead1 wrote: One of the things that has alienated so many from the churches is their double-bind or contradictory message, whereby God is credited with taking an attitude of "love me, or I'll bet the tar out of you." That' not love, that's hypocrisy.
Exactly, but this can hardly be blamed on the churches since this is fundamental to the actual doctrine upon which the churches are based:
hoghead1 wrote: But, unfortunately, the OT, and key aspects of the NT, do just that.
That's exactly right. It's the doctrine that does this leaving any church that claims to be founded on this doctrine no choice but to echo what the doctrine actually says.

This is why I always say it's not the Christians (i.e. the followers of this religion), or even the churches or clergy of this religion that is the problem. The problem with this religion lies directly in the Biblical scriptures themselves. And that can hardly be changed.

So it's the Bible itself that is the problem.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Atheism, Group No.4

Post #8

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

The Bible certainly is part of teh problem. Too often, people assume it was all dictated word-for-word to purely passive scribes who wrote it down just the way god said it. That, I think, is a sad mistake. Divinely inspired as it may be, the bible is still the product of a prescientific, semi-barbaric, racist-sexist society. That doesn't mean that the Bible is all worthless, throw it all out, just that we have to use considerable discretion when reading it.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Atheism, Group No.4

Post #9

Post by Divine Insight »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

The Bible certainly is part of teh problem. Too often, people assume it was all dictated word-for-word to purely passive scribes who wrote it down just the way god said it. That, I think, is a sad mistake. Divinely inspired as it may be, the bible is still the product of a prescientific, semi-barbaric, racist-sexist society. That doesn't mean that the Bible is all worthless, throw it all out, just that we have to use considerable discretion when reading it.
The only problem I have with these kinds of proposals is that I see no reason at that point to bother with the Bible at all.

It seems to me that if the Bible was truly inspired by an omnipotent God there would be no reason for God to allow his "Holy Inspired Texts" to become so corrupt and filled with falsehoods and antiquities.

And this is especially true if this God is demanding that we follow his directives and commandments precisely lest he'll condemn us even to a mere death, never mind an eternal state of torment.

Surely an all-wise trustworthy and loving God would be sure to at least make his directives crystal clear.

And finally, let's assume that we allow for God's inspired word to become corrupted and deteriorate. Then which parts to we credit to God, and which parts do we credit to ignorant barbarism?

If we need to make the judgments concerning which parts seem "moral" and which parts don't, then we are the ones who must decide what we think is moral or makes sense. And in that case, how could we claim to be getting anything from a Holy Book when we need to push our own moral values onto it before we can decide which parts seem to us to have most likely come from what we would consider to be a "moral" God?

So I disagree with this argument that we shouldn't toss the baby out with the bath water. To the contrary, once the scriptures are recognize to clearly not be fully 100% the directives and moral desires of an actual God, then there's nothing left worthy of rooting through. Even if we find things we like, all that could possibly amount to are things that we already agree with in the first place.

At that point we may as well just sit down with a blank sheet of paper and write our own "Holy Scriptures".

So I totally support trashing the whole thing once its been recognize to not be entire "divine".

In fact, I don't see where any of it amounts to anything more than "common sense" in any case. I cannot find anything in the entire Bible that I couldn't come up with on my own as a moral principle.

In short, I simply wouldn't need it at all.

Even the Christian New Testament and the moral values attributed to Jesus. At best all I can say is that I personally give Jesus a "Thumbs up" on many of his moral ideals. But there's certainly nothing there that leaves me standing in awe saying, "I would have never thought of that".

So why would I need Jesus if all he's going to do is agree with the moral values I already have on my own?

In fact, I agree with the atheists who hold that anyone who actually needs the Bible for their moral guidance is already in seriously bad shape.

And that's especially true if they are the ones who need to "pick and choose" from a Holy Book that is filled with obvious immoral principles to boot. If they are looking to the Bible for moral guidance what's going to prevent them from thinking the immoral principles held up by the Bible aren't "moral". Look at ISIS, they toss gay people off the roofs of buildings thinking that this is what this God deems to be "moral" behavior.

The world in general would be far better off without people who take the Bible seriously.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Atheism, Group No.4

Post #10

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I think that divine omnipotence is a major theological mistake. Essentially it argues that God predetermined everything, right down to the smallest detail, and so it all happens just as God predetermined it to. The problems that this makes us into puppets, preprogrammed robots. It makes freedom impossible, and God the author of terrible sufferings and events. If we have some real degree of freedom, we have to make our own decisions. God cannot decide our decisions for us. God can lure us, inspire us, but cannot force us, guarantee a certain outcome. Of course, some critics will argue that a God unable to predetermine it all is a weak God. However, I think their God is too big. I think they forget that it takes more talent to govern a democracy, which is how I like to thing of the universe, that a dictatorship. I think that God is the ideal model of power, and that means power over powers, participating in the free self-decisions of others.

I certainly don't think that everyone has to have the Bible, that it is the be-all and end-all of God's revelations. I don't think God ever intended that, in the first place. I also think that personal experience, not dogma or the "holy books," should be the ultimate authority. At least, that is the way it is with me. However, the dogmas and the holy books are definitely helpful resources. I view God as Cosmic Artist, luring the world to greater beauty. Now, to me, beauty means depth and breadth of feeling, feeling more deeply in ourselves and feeling more deeply into others. Hence, reading the Bible is important in this aesthetic quest in that it enables us to better identify with the emotional lives of our ancestors. feel more deeply into our past, whether we always agree with it or not.

Post Reply