The God Who Wasn't There

[BrianFromWA]

believing jesus wasn't god has absolutely nothing to do with believing he may have taught some moral principals that are of potential social benefit. linking the two is apologetic excuse for "evidence" that jesus must have been god.

Jesus's nature as a Deity has zero bearing on whether I think his moral principles are of potential social benefit. He's the Son of God to me in part b/c he fulfilled hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before he was born, in part b/c of my faith (which I don't expect any others to "get" or believe), and in part b/c no one's ever given me a reason to not think so.

specifics are irrelevant.

Really? I'm asking you how you can parse a verse in half, believe the first half is moral and the second half can be discarded? How you can pick and choose which of his commandments were moral, and which were delusional? And it's "irrelevant"?

 

[e_blazer]

wishful thinking. there could be, but if you're claiming to be certain about it you're just as delusional as fundamentalists.

I always find this line of reasoning curious. You believe without any evidence that a universe can arise from nothing through strictly natural processes and you believe, again without any scientific evidence, that life can arise within that universe absent any external processes, and yet you deny as wishful thinking the thought that some power beyond what we can see could be a causative agent in these events.

 

[crowTrobot]

I believe the earth is about 6500 years old, to be precise. I think that having an "old earth" brings up a lot of questions you (and the scientists you "believe in" to help you think for yourself) don't seem to be able to answer when they're posed to you by retarded apologists like me. I understand that there are questions yet to be answered in both hypotheses, which imho puts me one step ahead of a "think for yourself-er" like you seem to think you are.

that the earth is billions of years old isn't a matter of debate. outside of a vanishingly small minority with an obvious pre-set creationist agenda, the world's entire scientific community believes that, including almost all scientists who are theists. the significance of that should smack you in the face, but somehow you're choosing to ignore it. the evidence for an old earth is everywhere you look and it is overwhelming and undeniable.

if you're an educated person who believes the earth is 6500 years old it goes without saying that you're being influenced by religious fundamentalist propaganda and not thinking objectively for yourself. if you care that your belief is nothing but a joke to 99.99% of people that are well versed in specifics of the subject you're quite capable of dropping your propaganda-inspired preconceptions and researching those specifics objectively from both sides for yourself. if you don't care no point in me wasting my time arguing about it here.

I have a hard time believing that you're more well-versed in either Christian theological arguments or scientific arguments than I.

what you claimed in this thread about the nature of jesus is self-refuting nonsense. it's not a matter of "theological" argument.

 

[crowTrobot]

So those who believe in evolution are "thinking for themselves," and anyone who believes in creation is not? Do I have that right?

the former isn't necessarily true, no. obviously lots of people blindly accept what science tells them.

if by "believes in creation" you mean believes that speciation by descent with modification doesn't happen the latter is true however.

 

[hasoos]

The number one facilitator of human on human violence on our planet is religious belief? I'm not positive I agree with that, unless you're counting political will and human nature as "religious belief". Did Hitler kill 6M Jews b/c they were followers of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or they didn't fit in with his plan for world domination? Did Stalin and Mao kill tens of millions b/c they believed in a God, or because they didn't believe Stalin was God? Are African warlords killing hundreds of thousands of people b/c of religion, or race?

You seem to see the world through a lens that blinds you into believing that human nature is much better than "oversized cults". Forget the Hobbes vs Locke debates, I guess. If any professing Christian tells you to be like them, then I agree that they are hypocrites. Christians don't tell you to be like them. They tell us that we're created to be like Jesus, and our sin nature condemns us. Jesus existed to save us from that. Believe it or not, care about God or not, that's your choice. Our government founded on a lot of philosophical 18th century theory based on NT teachings allows you to bash (or ) my belief or any other. I'm not so sure the Romans, Egyptians, Philistines, Persians, Communists, Nazis, Sandinistas, Mayans, or most others would have allowed you to.

You know its amazing that you try and make it look like Hitler was killing the jews only because of his hunger for power. Its pretty obvious that he was doing it because of their religious views. Its also well known that his views which promoted that, were a twisted form of Christianity that promoted such behavior. So ignore it if you wish, but it was known. Why do you think they had a broken cross as their symbol?

While Mao and Stalin may have killed people based upon their religious belief in the name of power, part of the problem with your argument is that while those are mass killings, they don't hold a stick to the number of people killed in the name of religion over the years. How do they compare to numer of Shiites and Sunni Moslems that have killled each other in war? How about all of the centuries of the crusades? How about all of the wars in the area around Israel? How about the number of Christians that killed each other when the Protestants split from the Roman Catholic Church? How about the Sikh and Hindu's killing each other in India? Your arguments about the Warlords in africa is about as generic as it gets. Which Warlord(s) are you talking about, and we will be able to say why they are killing people? Are some killing for power? Yes. Are some killing over religioon? Yes. Once again, you throw them all in the same boat, and make a generic blanket statment of which can be only applied to a few of them.

Your generic arguments for what Christians do and do not stand for is not valid either. There are currently over 33,000 christian denominations. Chances are every single one of them will have a different answer to what you proposed up above, all depending on what their version of the interpretation of the religious text is. Some of them believe in pushing their religion. Some of them don't. You canot make a blanket statement that says what they do and do not believe, because it doesn't work. Also you seem to forget the fact that I am not pushing at just Christianity. I make this point with all religions.

Our government is not formed so much on the ideals you state. Our government is based much more on the ideals of the enlightenment, and Thomas Jeffersons ideas. Surely he learned as any scholar would, which is from the past. I would expect no less, and base our government on what has been learned. It does not make our government formed on the ideas of religion. In fact, I would go so far as to say, that Jefferson learned from the mistakes of the past and was smart enough to separate church and state.

Lastly, I could care less what all of those organizations would or would not allow to be said. I live in the fucking United States of America, where I can say what I want, when I want, as long as its not yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. What was the point of that line anyhow? Was that some sort of veiled threat?

 

[crowTrobot]

Really? I'm asking you how you can parse a verse in half, believe the first half is moral and the second half can be discarded? How you can pick and choose which of his commandments were moral, and which were delusional?

people who say jesus was a moral teacher but not god aren't saying they take their morality from jesus. all they're saying is had some moral insights that have proven through time to be of social benefit. there is no connection between that and whether he was god or not.

 

[crowTrobot]

I always find this line of reasoning curious. You believe without any evidence that a universe can arise from nothing through strictly natural processes

i don't believe anything. i'm not the one claiming to know anything specific about origins. for all i know "what exists" always has existed in some sense. if you think that can be true of god there's no reason it can't be true of the universe itself.

and you believe, again without any scientific evidence, that life can arise within that universe absent any external processes

again, i don't "believe' anything. i think there is no evidence that indicates it couldn't happen and some evidence that indicates it might have, but i'm not the one claiming to be certain what happened.

and yet you deny as wishful thinking the thought that some power beyond what we can see could be a causative agent in these events.

i'm not denying the thought, i'm denying certainty. there's a difference between someone thinking it might be possible for there to be a higher power and someone saying they know there is. the former is speculation, the latter is delusion.

 

[mook]

This has all happened before. This will all happen again.

Yup, I'm a believer in the Church of Cylon. Now I'm going to go listen to some All Along the Watch Tower.

 

[e_blazer]

i'm not denying the thought, i'm denying certainty. there's a difference between someone thinking it might be possible for there to be a higher power and someone saying they know there is. the former is speculation, the latter is delusion.

Actually, the latter is called faith.

 

[crowTrobot]

Actually, the latter is called faith.

faith is just another name for self-delusion.

 

[mook]

...anyway, I've given up on debating religion. Somebody pointed out to me the inherent problem in language, and how futile it is to try to use it in arguing things like the bible. Here's an example:

Examine the statement: I have a tree in my back yard.

Seems like a fact, right? Maybe not, though.

Imagine that somebody has a great interest in disproving the idea that I have a tree in my back yard. He could argue:
The tree isn't really in your yard, as branches overlap another yard.
It's not really your yard. You are a renter.
It's not really your yard. It's the native americans' land.
It's not really a tree, but a tall bush.
It's not yard at all, just a small space behind the house.
The yard and the tree don't really exist, but are really just metaphors for god's benevolence.
etc. etc.

They may in return retort that although it can't ever be demonstrated one way or the other because there are so many variables to account for, they have faith that the tree isn't in my yard. And I should respect that faith. No matter that when I look out my back window there's a god damned tree standing there.

Now, instead of asserting that I have a tree in my back yard, try asserting that there's no fucking way a brontosaurus would fit on Noah's ark, even if it happened to be around 5000 years ago.

 

[Minstrel]

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No man cometh unto the father, but by me."

Now, if Jesus wasn't "the way, the truth, and the light," he'd have to have some serious mental problems to claim that he was. So why would you want to listen to a guy like that? .

Brian already asked me that identical question and I've already answered it. Because source is irrelevant, what matters is the substance of what they say. If a crazy person says "Two plus two makes four," I'm not going to say he's wrong just because he's crazy.

The teachings ascribed to Jesus (whether he really said them or not is a different question) have a great deal of sense to them. Therefore, it doesn't matter who said them.

 

[Minstrel]

This has all happened before. This will all happen again.

Yup, I'm a believer in the Church of Cylon. Now I'm going to go listen to some All Along the Watch Tower.

The Sect of Bob Dylan or the Sect of Jimi Hendrix?

 

[WarriorFan]

i don't believe anything. i'm not the one claiming to know anything specific about origins. for all i know "what exists" always has existed in some sense. if you think that can be true of god there's no reason it can't be true of the universe itself.



again, i don't "believe' anything. i think there is no evidence that indicates it couldn't happen and some evidence that indicates it might have, but i'm not the one claiming to be certain what happened.



i'm not denying the thought, i'm denying certainty. there's a difference between someone thinking it might be possible for there to be a higher power and someone saying they know there is. the former is speculation, the latter is delusion.

I don't understand the angry tone in many of your posts.

You believe the universe is created strictly through natural processes. As proof, you offer that there is no evidence that it couldn't happen? Fine, no one is mocking your view or the fact that you are the only one here claiming anything with certainty (that creation is delusion). There is no proof that God didn't creat the universe either, so why are you so quick to label it as false? Why can't you accept that no one here really knows and it's faith regardless of which side you're on.

 

[mook]

The Sect of Bob Dylan or the Sect of Jimi Hendrix?

There is only the One True Prophet, Jimi Hendrix. Although the scripture originated in The Book of Dylan, his version was unlistenable and it is now blasphemous to put it on your iPod.

Hendrix showed us that to truly appreciate life, you must avoid the harmonica, play the guitar in an interesting way, and not sing through a clogged nose.

Praise be upon him.

 

[e_blazer]

faith is just another name for self-delusion.

Faith, to me, is accepting as true, absent absolute proof, what you believe to be the most likely explanation as to what you observe. If you really think science offers absolute proof on these basic issues, then I would call that self-delusion.

 

[mook]

Just as a side note, how cool are these lyrics anyway?

"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief,
"There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth,
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth."
"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke,
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too.
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl,
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl.

I think the two riders are actually the joker and the thief, and the prince is watching them from above as they discuss the indignities of being artists. Interestingly, the thief is the one who's relaxed with the situation--seems like it almost foretells music piracy. I suppose the wind represents some sort of social revolution that only the joker and thief seem aware of....

 

[crowTrobot]

I don't understand the angry tone in many of your posts.

mocking in certain cases to make a point strongly, but if you think my posts are angry you're taking this too personally

You believe the universe is created strictly through natural processes. As proof, you offer that there is no evidence that it couldn't happen? Fine, no one is mocking your view or the fact that you are the only one here claiming anything with certainty (that creation is delusion). There is no proof that God didn't creat the universe either, so why are you so quick to label it as false? Why can't you accept that no one here really knows and it's faith regardless of which side you're on.

gaaah you didn't read a thing i wrote. try again.

 

[Shooter]

faith is just another name for self-delusion.

In some cases, "scientific thought" is just another name for self-delusion . . .

 

[crowTrobot]

Faith, to me, is accepting as true, absent absolute proof, what you believe to be the most likely explanation as to what you observe.

talking about truth in terms of probability ("most likely") based on observable evidence is definitionally not faith : )

If you really think science offers absolute proof on these basic issues, then I would call that self-delusion.

so would i. good thing i didn't say that.

 

[crowTrobot]

In some cases, "scientific thought" is just another name for self-delusion . . .

science is just a method for determining probabilities based on external evidence. it's not an internal thought process.

 

[e_blazer]

talking about truth in terms of probability ("most likely") based on observable evidence is definitionally not faith : )

Not true. There's no requirement that you check your brain at the door of a church. The Bible says that there is enough evidence in creation for anyone who is willing to look to see that God exists. However, you'll never be able to offer a scientific test that will prove it. One has to accept that this is one area where we're not going to know with absolute certainty in this lifetime. In the face of that, as I see it there are three options:

1. Accept God's existence on faith.
2. Deny his existence and believe in the origin of the universe and life through strictly natural processes even though science has limitations that ultimately make this a statement of faith of another kind.
3. Simply don't make a choice.

 

[WarriorFan]

gaaah you didn't read a thing i wrote. try again.

You're right, my apologies.

if by "believes in creation" you mean believes that speciation by descent with modification doesn't happen the latter is true however.

I misread this as saying that believing in creation is delusional.

I still find it strange how many people here are so quick to claim that creation, or a creator, is absolutely false when there really is no more proof that the universe and life was created naturally.

 

[Shooter]

science is just a method for determining probabilities based on external evidence. it's not an internal thought process.

You're splitting hairs. What I meant, and what you must surely understand, is that people can use the claims of "science" to justify their personal beliefs just as easily as others can use the claims of the Bible for the same purpose.

 

[crowTrobot]

Not true. There's no requirement that you check your brain at the door of a church.

not your brain, just your objectivity.

The Bible says that there is enough evidence in creation for anyone who is willing to look to see that God exists.

"anyone willing to look" is meaningless cult-speak. obviously millions of people look at nature and don't see evidence for god. BILLIONS look at nature and don't see evidence for the intervening manipulating hebrew god described in the bible.

However, you'll never be able to offer a scientific test that will prove it.

if you want to hide god in a corner detached from the physical world you can't disprove him, no. however there is plenty of scientific evidence that the bible contains a LOT of historical inaccuracy and fits a pattern of typical human mythology, and metaphysical claims in it have a probability approaching 100% of being false. so if you want, god in the christian sense most people here are talking about has already been for practical purposes scientifically disproved.

One has to accept that this is one area where we're not going to know with absolute certainty in this lifetime. In the face of that, as I see it there are three options:

1. Accept God's existence on faith.
2. Deny his existence and believe in the origin of the universe and life through strictly natural processes even though science has limitations that ultimately make this a statement of faith of another kind.
3. Simply don't make a choice.

if you're accepting that we're not going to know the truth of the origin of the universe in our lifetime that's all you need to say, and all you can say - WE DON'T KNOW. duh. no need to delude yourself one way or the other with "faith".

 

[crowTrobot]

You're splitting hairs. What I meant, and what you must surely understand, is that people can use the claims of "science" to justify their personal beliefs just as easily as others can use the claims of the Bible for the same purpose.

sure, but that says nothing about the validity of science itself. unlike religious belief science itself has nothing intrinsically to do with faith.

 

[crowTrobot]

I still find it strange how many people here are so quick to claim that creation, or a creator, is absolutely false

this is a bit of a straw man. i've been reading about and debating this stuff for 15+ years and i've never heard anyone actually say that. they may say the specific gods as described in the bible, koran, vedas etc are absolutely false, or that the evidence indicates an intelligent designer isn't necessary to explain the physical world, or that god is improbable to some extent, but nobody ever claims a creator is "absolutely" false.

 

[WarriorFan]

this is a bit of a straw man. i've been reading about and debating this stuff for 15+ years and i've never heard anyone actually say that. they may say the specific gods as described in the bible, koran, vedas etc are absolutely false, or that the evidence indicates an intelligent designer isn't necessary to explain the physical world, or that god is improbable to some extent, but nobody ever claims a creator is "absolutely" false.

This is the type of thing I'm talking about and I'm sure I 've seen many other posts saying similar things

Now if we could get people to quit believing in oversized cults in general, that would do a lot of good

It's ridiculous that all religions get lumped together as "oversized cults" and I've seen many posts claiming how religion brainwashes and anyone who has faith in a God is not thinking for themselves. Personally, I'm not very religious, but I am much more religious now than I was 10 years ago. The reason for this, IMO, is that I started thinking for myself. There are too many questions left unanswered by science for me to think there isn't some other factor.

 

[Minstrel]

Personally, I'm not very religious, but I am much more religious now than I was 10 years ago. The reason for this, IMO, is that I started thinking for myself. There are too many questions left unanswered by science for me to think there isn't some other factor.

I respect your choice, but that doesn't seem like a compelling reason to believe in religion to me. The so-called "God of Gaps," filling in unknowns with god, is what cultures have done for eons and it rarely seems to have been necessary in hindsight. At one time, thunder and lightning were "unanswered questions," and thus people used god as the answer. Now we can answer questions about the nature of thunder and lightning using scientific explanations, so the God of Gaps is applied to new things. Many of which may well be answered with rational, testable explanations, which will push religion (for those who are inclined) to be about something else.

Far be it from me to tell other people what to think, but it seems like an unnecessary exercise to me.

 

[WarriorFan]

I respect your choice, but that doesn't seem like a compelling reason to believe in religion to me. The so-called "God of Gaps," filling in unknowns with god, is what cultures have done for eons and it rarely seems to have been necessary in hindsight. At one time, thunder and lightning were "unanswered questions," and thus people used god as the answer. Now we can answer questions about the nature of thunder and lightning using scientific explanations, so the God of Gaps is applied to new things. Many of which may well be answered with rational, testable explanations, which will push religion (for those who are inclined) to be about something else.

Far be it from me to tell other people what to think, but it seems like an unnecessary exercise to me.

But that goes both ways, doesn't it? If science can prove to me how life can to be, fine, I can accept that. But what if science can one day prove that God exists? At this point, I believe that a creator is the most logical conclusion. Not the story of creation or even some guy sitting in the heavens, but that some force made life and reproduction and evolution possible.

Like I said before, I don't claim to know how the universe was created, it just seems thickheaded, to me, to rule out one possibility.