They don't want us to know

[Randall]

... Good morning guys...and maybe girls. I see we are still going on here about how cruel God is supposed to be ...

Um ... no. God ( if you choose to believe in one ) isn't "supposed to be" cruel. That's the whole point. So when one reads about the biblical God and reads all the stuff that it says God did, it becomes impossible to reconcile with what God ( any God ) should be ( assuming you think that such a God would be above all else good ). On the other hand, some people are into Gods that are vengeful and powerful, capable of destroying all life on a planet ( save a few souls in a wooden boat he makes them build ), or killing all the first born of an entire culture ( and the list goes on ). Is that your God? Or do you feel that you have associated yourself with another force, one that has led you to pick and choose only the best of what God should be? There is no escaping that fact that there are two distinctly different choices here.

​

Does this God really deserve your worship?​

 

[Goggs Mackay]

For me the thing about a cruel god or a caring god is that fact that there seems to be these 2 sides. If someone does good deeds most of their lives but one day goes beserk and kills the family then we tend to look harshly on them do we not?

The point is, even if there is lots and lots of nice fluffy lovey-dovey stuff in the bible in addition to all the cruel nasty stuff, one does not balance out the other. The fact the nasty stuff is there is all the proof needed that this god, depicted in the bible, has a horrendously vengeful and violent sadistic streak.
If someone admitted to you that they had beat their wife many times but also told you that they also took her out for dinner and bought her flowers when remembering her birthday, would you overlook the wifebeating side cos of the fluffy side?

It may seem that we are picking and choosing all the worst bits and ignoring the good bits. Yes, indeed we are for the same reason as above. When looking at someone's character you look at the whole and one violent crime is enough to make anyone give a very negative appraisal. Many, many violent crimes are pretty hard to ignore?

It is the christians I think that pick and choose more than the atheists. I am willing to look at the whole thing, the whole message, the good and the bad - and I am left with thinking there is way too much bad. All the good in the world/universe cannot balance the bad. Religious people have blinkers on and only really refer to the good stuff.

Anyway, for me personally, all the good/bad stuff is irrelevant. I just do not believe the bible is the word of god dictated through the authors. Are we to believe that god spoke to these people over hundreds of years and then asked them to compile it all together and market it as the exact word of god? Please.


Now, please do not mistake my contempt for the bible for misunderstanding the good parts. Yes, there absolutely are many very good and sensible messages and lessons to be had from the bible. I can imagine if more people acted in the way of these good lessons we may have less suffering in the world. My own religious relations are without doubt the people I know who do the least bad. They are excellent members of society - productive, loving, caring, honest etc but I argue that they would be like that without the bible. I hope I am.

It matters not to me if some stories are false and some are true. It's the supernatural part, the Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water etc. He either did these things for real or he did not. I strongly think he did not.
Even the religious have to concede that when it comes down to it, all they can really do is state that they have 'faith' as there is no way to prove the stuff in the bible here today. I do not and never have had 'faith' in that sense. I think christianity is no different than any cult, apart from the fact that it is an extremely successful and long-lasting one.

@Starise - lastly, no-one in this forum has anything against you personally, you have absolutely every right to be here and state your case. I know the religious threads can get a bit heated from time to time but if you are strong in your beliefs and can take a few knocks then i say to you that please, please, stick around and stand up for what you are. I love the debate on this topic but there would not be much debate if those with religious inclinations did not hang around for us to argue with! Trust me you are very welcome and if you feel you should post a video from youtube for your argument then you are entitled to do so as the rest of us are!

I promise, even if it might seem that way, I don't think anyone here does not welcome the debate - as long as we can all take the knocks now and then!

Goggs

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Oh, and I think many religious are only that way cos they think they need to 'pay' for whatever comes after death. It's a great gimmick that, make people think they will have eternal punishment unless such and such.

I don't believe in heaven. But! Guess what? Regardless of that, I still choose what I think is a moral, caring course in life. I am naturally the good samaritan. Even though I do not believe there will be a 'reckoning' after death, I still intend to try and always help rather than hinder and also, I've managed to get to 38 without falling in love with wealth.

All that said, If there is a god and a reckoning, and he puts me to punishment for not being a christian (never mind that I try to be good always) - well, if I had the choice, I would want nothing to do with that god anyway. Seems to be you can be all sorts of an asshole throughout your life but as long as you repent all is forgiven? Really? What an asshole that god must be.
You will notice I say that god and the reason I do is that maybe there is some divine creator and if so, I am positive he is not the deity depicted in testaments old and new.

 

[starise]

I really don't think a few of you even bothered to read the link I posted on the atheist authors. How they contradict themselves, how hypocrytical it seems to say that Christians have unbased beliefs when saying so is being dishonest intellectually. By that I mean that you choose to look at us in one particular light and you choose to stereotype us all into one compartment. You make rash judgements about us based on something like a televangelist which we should know is far away from reality in most local churches. In an athiests mind we are blamed for all of the worlds ills. Any honest study of history will prove this presumption false. Christians have been most often tortured and killed for their beliefs and not the other way around.

The Bible never taught that we are forgiven and then we can all go our happy way. There are real reprecussions to sin. The sin itself is always forgiven but the implications of that sin remain in this life. If you sin as a Christian the sin is forgiven but the effects may remain. A murderer doing time will still need to finish his sentence. When Jesus hung on the cross there was a thief hanging on a cross next to him who Christ said would see him in heaven as a result of his belief in him.For the Christian there is even a "sin unto death".

I never said an atheist could not be a moral person although a quick study of many famous atheists reveals that they tended toward what most consider to be a very immoral life. An athiest might try harder to be moral .My argument rests in the fact that many atheists claim that they are more moral than God. They see God as an evil being who enjoyed killing people. I see God as a righteous judge who had good reasons for doing what He did. I know you fully disagree with that but so be it. God is the ultimate judge and He can do whatever He thinks is right . In this age of so called"modern thinking" where any belief seemingly is ok all things are watered down into one sloppy pot of mush and nothing means anything. Where men suppose to decide what God should be doing.The God who actually calls people to some kind of a standard is mocked and doubted. Everything in this world that seems important to the masses is a big facade.In 50 more years where will you be? Everything that seems to have a finality is in fact the beginning of something else.

God is not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentence. He is described in the Bible as a patient God.

I would recommend that anyone who is positive that the God of the Bible is not really God to re examine it from all angles. You might just be surprised at what you see.

If your mind is already made up in concrete than so be it. We will all go where we decide to go.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

That's the thing though - if there is indeed an all powerful god, the creator that knows all then fair enough. I am not necessarily arguing against the existence of a god.
What I am arguing against is the account of god told in the bible. I just don't think the bible can be the word of god for a number of reasons, I am positive there was a Jesus figure but he was the same as any man and was not a special son of god. Considering the whole of christianity is based around the belief Jesus was the son of god sent to save us, me not believing the Jesus bit precluded belief in any other supernatural aspect of the bible.
There is no doubt lots of actual historical events recorded in the bible. It's only the bits that are supposed to demonstrate Jesus as something special, apart from the rest of us.


I am paraphrasing but is there not something in the NT like 'no-one shall come to god but through me' - you get the idea. So, we are supposed to think that one must believe in Jesus as the saviour for anyone to join with god.
Considering Jesus lived about 2000 years ago - why would god send his son to the area now called palestine, and in his lifetime and for a long, long time after, the VAST majority of humans on earth could have had NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER TO HEAR OF JESUS, LET ALONE CONVERT.
Why would god favour one geographical region over another? For instance, exactly when do you think the Aboriginal people of Australia or New Zealand FIRST even got a chance to hear about Jesus? So why would god make it so if you live in the Middle East or Europe, you can hear the word of god through Jesus, but if you live on the other side of the world, you are buggered? Seems god has a favouritism thing going on?

If you counter by saying that there are other paths to god/heaven, for those not exposed to Jesus' teachings then there is no real need to become a christian then is there? Just be good and when you die, heaven. Job done?

Don't you think it a strange coincidence that Jesus came about in the same area that the Jews of the old testament were? That god chose a jew to be his son and considering Abraham and Moses etc, it does seem that god really likes those people but not other people as much?
And then we have islam. Funnily enough muslims accept Moses and Jesus as prophets but not the last prophets. So was Mohammed the last prophet of the same god of Moses and Jesus?
Is it not a bit weird all this god stuff being about the same previous religion but a new improved version? How many times does god intend changing the set-up?

Me saying I don't buy the bible is not the same as saying god does not exist. But I just cannot see how anyone can fail to spot the obvious; that man created religions for a number of reasons and people have tried to modify existing religions into new ones?
If the bible is the word of god, then all the hindus are praying to loads of deities, none of which are in the christian bible. Surely they must be worshipping demons then?
It is obvious to me beyond belief that ALL religions cannot be correct at the same time and it is arrogant to think just one religion is correct (always the religion of the person thinking that!), so it seems just plain and simple that they are all not the real deal. That is not to say there is not good points in all of them but are they the one true word of god, intended for man to obey? I think not but I am entitled to my opinion and so are you. I am happy to talk about any and all aspects of religion in general or one in particular, or one part of one etc. Anything considered!

 

[Ancientsaturn]

double edged sword that statement.. for on the other hand would you not be presupposing that we are born more than once?

Given the lack of real concrete evidence that we are born more than once then it is safe to conclude that we are only born once until such time that it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that rebirth happens.

Burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim for supernatural events/beings not the other way around.

Not so. I'm addressing your argument that an individual is born in a particular region, and therefore can't be exposed to Christianity and you then posit that shows a flaw in Christianity. In this case you are making an assertion you can not prove. So the burden is on you and it is your pre-supposition. You may assume or believe for yourself that there is no such thing as reincarnation, but you can't prove there is not, and therefore you can't dismiss this assertion.

If you want to go in the other direction, namely that "supernatural events" can't be proven, well then you can't prove anything at all, because atheism is a religion just like anything else. You have faith that you are only a body, but there is no evidence this is correct. Your thinking is certainly metaphysical, and yet it exists and you use it.

 

[Randall]

For me the thing about a cruel god or a caring god is that fact that there seems to be these 2 sides. If someone does good deeds most of their lives but one day goes beserk and kills the family then we tend to look harshly on them do we not? ... The point is, even if there is lots and lots of nice fluffy lovey-dovey stuff in the bible in addition to all the cruel nasty stuff, one does not balance out the other. I promise, even if it might seem that way, I don't think anyone here does not welcome the debate - as long as we can all take the knocks now and then!

After a while though, when rational thought fails, there isn't anything else to be done. We tend to think that everyone is able to process the same information and come up with pretty much the same answers, but the real knocks for me aren't being shown I'm wrong. In fact I like those knocks because they advance my understanding toward the truth. The real knocks for me are when the rational and the obvious are willfully ignored by people who present themselves in a way that leads others to assume they have respect for the truth, when in fact there is some agenda they have that is more important. Usually such denial is the result of a significant investment in some paradigm or another that if shattered will lead to life changes that the invested person is unprepared for and could possibly have a deleterious effect on. I know it's hard to relate to, but this was pointed out to me by a very close friend who in her youth helped to facilitate AA meetings. She says that if you are going to shatter someone's paradigm, what are you going to replace it with? The cold hard truth? They can't handle that. They need to have faith in whatever greater power has picked them up off the side of the road, got them straightened out and contributing again to their own welfare and the welfare of others. Without that they simply can't face the world. Others have different problems like pride and guilt. They've gotten in so deep and convinced so many others that what they think is right that abandoning it would seriously hurt their social and personal status. Still there has been more than one preacher who has left the pulpit in search of a greater truth, and I respect them more for it. We all have the right to seek out an existence greater than we have now. Among our biggest sins ( if we can use that for a moment ) isn't mistakenly giving others the wrong information, it's lying to ourselves after we recognize what we've done and not doing something to fix it.

 

[Ancientsaturn]

As far as the presupposition of a single life-time goes, I personally have no memories or any other indication that I have lived before. I can't even wrap my head around the mechanism for such a thing. So, based on what I have to work with, I can only think we have but one chance at life.

The human personality can be demonstrated to depend on the physical structure of the entire organism in reaction with its environment. To imagine its survival beyond the decay of the physical structure requires me to imagine some sort of backup copy of the individual human being's physical structure or something replicating its entire complex functions operating beyond the original's destruction. My immediate thought is, "Where is the evidence for such a thing, what would constitute its structure, and how is its integrity maintained?"

There is a great deal to work with here, and only so much time! First, let me say this is well stated. But let me back up and for a moment to make sure I am clear about why I brought up reincarnation. I saw several posts that were making the argument I'll state as follows: Christianity has an absurd premise that only those who learn of Christ can be saved and yet most of humanity never learns of Christ in their geographical location. - So the assertion was being made that the mechanism for the Christian belief system was flawed, even for the believers. That is where I identified a presupposition. Regardless of whether you believe in reincarnation or think reincarnation is fantasy, you can't argue the Christian mechanism of being saved through knowledge of Christ is flawed. All you can say is that you don't believe either in reincarnation or Christ for yourself. Now you could also argue that mainstream Christianity does not recognize reincarnation, and so the argument could be levied against them, but my point is for Christians who believe in reincarnation.

I have to run, so I'll have to continue on the reincarnation theme another time...

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Hmmm, so WHICH life -in the endless cycle of reincartnation- are we judged on? Isn't that against the teachings of the bible, that you have one life, live it well for at the end you are judged worthy or not of everlasting life in Jesus Christ?

I am talking about christianity solely cos it's the religion I have had most exposure to. It could be any other so I am not singling out christianity.

So yes, I am stating that the christian mechanism of being saved is flawed because we don't all have the same chance to be saved through christ.
Then you counter by saying that maybe we have more than one life, so, if I get you correctly, we can maybe be exposed to one thing in one life and another in another life etc

But, we are talking about christianity and as far as I remember, the teachings of that religion seem to say we get one life? You cannot claim to be christian and counter an anti-christian argument with beliefs that are contrary to christianity surely? (there can only be one ever-lasting afterlife, so which life does that follow? It just does not make sense and I think people are so desperate not to lose faith that they avoid these huge gaps in religious doctrine by just pretending they don't exist.)

I'm all for faith if it's what you feel and want. I really am. But at the same time I think people should be willing to call faith faith, not confuse knowable facts with unknowable things like faith.

I promise I'm not trying to be difficult but in my eyes the above point is self-evident.

Can I ask if you believe all of the bible, OT and NT? If not, how can one pick and choose what might be correct and what might not be? Surely if they are the dictated word of god there cannot be any mistake? (I have never received what I consider even a remotely relevant answer to this)

 

[stonehart]

Not so. I'm addressing your argument that an individual is born in a particular region, and therefore can't be exposed to Christianity and you then posit that shows a flaw in Christianity. In this case you are making an assertion you can not prove. So the burden is on you and it is your pre-supposition. You may assume or believe for yourself that there is no such thing as reincarnation, but you can't prove there is not, and therefore you can't dismiss this assertion.

If you want to go in the other direction, namely that "supernatural events" can't be proven, well then you can't prove anything at all, because atheism is a religion just like anything else. You have faith that you are only a body, but there is no evidence this is correct. Your thinking is certainly metaphysical, and yet it exists and you use it.

Bollocks what you are talking about is being born again in Faith...

The simple fact is if you are born in a region where the dominant religion is not Christianity then it is far more likely that you will not be a christian.
But I will go further than that, if you are born into a family that is predominantly Hindu then it follows that you will identify with being Hindu.

Changing your religion is not proof that there is a god

so being born again into Christianity is a matter of faith and ....... Faith is not evidence!!!!

You also need to study what the burden of proof really means..

Here is a handy video for you.

And whats more Atheism is not a religion at all.. it is the absence of a religion or faith in any god period.

I do not in fact identify with being an atheist.. I prefer the term human.

 

[Randall]

Reincarnation: The whole concept of reincarnation is flawed. It is totally dependent on the idea that the memories we possess belong to some other person who lived in the past. The problem is that first off, it's never all the memories that are present. At best it's usually only a few memories that can't be substantiated in any objective way. The dominant memories are always still those of the person in the here and now. So simply having a few memories, even if they are accurate, in no way means you are the same person as someone who lived in the past. Plus you have an entirely different body, an entirely different brain, and entirely different parents. So there isn't necessarily even any genetic relationship. But what about the concept that you have had some sort of "spiritual" transplant? Even if that's true it still doesn't mean that you are 100% the same person. If you chop off your leg and replace it with another one, are you still 100% the same person? No. In fact you might not even retain the same personality and become depressed and angry. So what rationale would allow us to discard everything but some ethereal floating consciousness, become someone else, loose most of what that consciousness is ( memory and personality ) in the process of being "reborn" and then claim that because of a few unsubstantiated fleeting glimpses of some former existence, that suddenly we can lay claim to being someone else? Even if we could somehow reproduce a 100% perfect body, mind and memory version of someone who lived in the past, the most we could claim is that we've made an accurate copy ... they still wouldn't be that same person. If there is any truth at all to the phenomena associated with reincarnation that give rise to the presumption of a past life, it can only be within the few memories that are used as evidence, and there could be other explanations from the mundane to the incredible but unlikely. But reincarnation itself belongs on the shelf along with other ill conceived notions about our existence.

 

[stonehart]

Say a friend tells you that they believe that pixies are living in their garden, and that the pixies have this book that says if you follow the teachings of the great pixie that this book teaches then you can also go to pixie heaven.

So you ask, “what evidence do you have that said pixies exist in your garden”, given that the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim for the existence of the pixies.

The friend says I have read the book and it says that the pixies exist and that the great pixie died for all of us.

So you ask “what evidence do you have that the book was written by the great pixie?”

Your friend says that I have faith! and that the book says it was written by the pixie. It is the revealed word of the pixie!!!

So then you ask “show me the great pixie or even just a pixie”, but your friend says that they cannot tempt the great pixie and that you must have faith in the existence of the great pixie and all pixies.

But why you ask should I have faith in the great pixie and all pixies?

Your friend then asks you "don't you want to be saved?", "Don't you want to enjoy eternal life in the great pixie heaven with the almighty Celestial Pixie?"

For if you do not follow the the Great Pixie then you will be sent to the Cave of the Trolls for all time and suffer great pain for not having faith in the Great Celestial Pixie!



So is god any different to this?

No.

 

[trainedobserver]

Now you could also argue that mainstream Christianity does not recognize reincarnation, and so the argument could be levied against them, but my point is for Christians who believe in reincarnation.

These would be Christians ignorant of Hebrews 9:27-28 I guess, which places the surety of a single life along side that of Christ only having to be sacrificed once to assure the salvation of many.

Hebrews 9:27-28
27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

 

[pixelsmith]

I will have to ask again because this question was ignored by starise.

Starise do you believe everything in the bible or just parts of it?​

 

[pixelsmith]

starise you speak of contradictions by atheists, have you read all the contradictions in the bible?

 

[stonehart]

starise you speak of contradictions by atheists, have you read all the contradictions in the bible?

I doubt it as most Christians cherry pick what fits their interpretation of that book.

 

[Randall]

... You also need to study what the burden of proof really means ...

There is a problem with the "Burden of Proof" video. It implies the idea that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which it's not. Why? Because logically, the claim that a lack of sufficient evidence constitutes proof of non-existence is as flawed as claiming the absence of proof of non-existence proves the existence thereof. So it works both ways. In the absence of sufficient evidence to prove or disprove an extraordinary claim, nobody claims a victory. The best any reasonable skeptic can do is remain unconvinced either way. As the video points out at the beginning, we only need sufficient evidence to believe that it is reasonable to believe one thing or another. Then we need to define "reasonable" and that's where the real debate begins.

Evidence comes in more than one form; but the scientific skeptics only see valid scientific evidence as sufficient. The problem with that is that our most common form of evidence is firsthand experience, and as I've illustrated in another thread, firsthand experience can and does provide accurate information on a much more consistent basis than the skeptics like to admit. Skeptics also tend to avoid the fact that everything we experience, including the perceptions of what they think is valid scientific evidence is ultimately the result of things that have been filtered through our senses. Therefore their own arguments are based on a chain firsthand experiences, usually removed from the original source and therefore even more subject to corruption. So clearly the skeptic's claim of the fallibility of firsthand experience is not sufficient enough to dismiss it as evidence. Therefore by offhandedly rejecting firsthand experience they've taken their first step into denial.

Unfortunately the skeptics will sometimes go yet another step further and cry hoax! Now it's one thing to go into denial and reserve judgment, and another to make accusations. At that point the burden of proof shifts to the skeptic to prove the accusation. Like the video says, "When you make a claim you give yourself a burden of proof". If a skeptic claims there is a hoax then they better be able to back it up with evidence. If they can't then the opponent still may not have sufficient evidence to make them reasonable to believe, but the skeptic should loose credibility points. Sometimes the skeptics will go even further, resorting to misinformation mockery and ridicule ... all again clearly out of bounds in a civil debate. As for the debate on the existence of God. Certain Gods can be demonstrated to exist for some people. Most cannot.

 

[Randall]

Say a friend tells you that they believe that pixies are living in their garden, and that the pixies have this book that says if you follow the teachings of the great pixie that this book teaches then you can also go to pixie heaven.

So you ask, “what evidence do you have that said pixies exist in your garden”, given that the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim for the existence of the pixies.

The friend says I have read the book and it says that the pixies exist and that the great pixie died for all of us ... ...

... ... So is god any different to this?

No.

Well actually it might not be quite that simple. As I've pointed out before, I don't doubt that there have been phenomena that constitute personal experiences that have been interpreted as being caused by something they associate with the concept of God. So it's more like the friend says with respect to the evidence, "I saw pixies and I wrote it all down here with pictures", then the same thing happens to someone else, and sometimes more than one person sees the same thing at the same time, and over time the stories build up and change. After a couple of millennia most of the accounts are probably quite different from the originals, but as with any mythology, it seems to contain elements of truth and fiction, and what's more, the phenomena is still popping up from time to time ... but now we have different ways of looking at it. Unfortunately some people won't break out their superstitious or supernatural paradigms by exploring the issue with the knowledge we have today.

 

[Ancientsaturn]

These would be Christians ignorant of Hebrews 9:27-28 I guess, which places the surety of a single life along side that of Christ only having to be sacrificed only once to assure the salvation of many.

Hebrews 9:27-28
27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

The Bible is not to be read any more literally than any other great book or novel. No doubt you have studied great works of literature at the college level? If so, there are many layers of meaning to any work. Take Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov", full of meanings at many levels. The Bible was also edited by the Catholic church, which changed meanings to meet their interests. The Catholic church did not want references to reincarnation, because that blocked their control over the masses. So I know I am opening more questions than closing, but I am a spiritual scientist, not a traditional believer. I approach religious phenomena the way I do physical phenomena. No doubt this will be a topic of great debate!


Catholicism's Second Council of Church Fathers, in Constantinople in 553 A.D., deleted many direct references to reincarnation from the Bible.

Some that survived:
Biblical References to Reincarnation

 

[stonehart]

Well actually it might not be quite that simple. As I've pointed out before, I don't doubt that there have been phenomena that constitute personal experiences that have been interpreted as being caused by something they associate with the concept of God. So it's more like the friend says with respect to the evidence, "I saw pixies and I wrote it all down here with pictures", then the same thing happens to someone else, and sometimes more than one person sees the same thing at the same time, and over time the stories build up and change. After a couple of millennia most of the accounts are probably quite different from the originals, but as with any mythology, it seems to contain elements of truth and fiction, and what's more, the phenomena is still popping up from time to time ... but now we have different ways of looking at it. Unfortunately some people won't break out their superstitious or supernatural paradigms by exploring the issue with the knowledge we have today.

lol you are running with this it a totally different direction to what was being conveyed by the post but hey keep running as it is an interesting take.

Change pixie for blue astral monkeys or sentient tea cups if you like the thrust was that of evidence and proof burden. And was meant in a comedic fashion.

I have had many door knocking missionary who all you needed to do was change the Word God for Pixie and it is more or less the same story.

Hence why I left out the word picture or such like at the start as I do not see many original photos of Jesus or God floating around and it was not needed for the story.