Do u beleave in God

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

Most atheists I know have read the entire Bible, and most have read different versions, and even compared them.

After doing that, what exactly brought them to the conclusion that there is no God.

Quote

So basically you have no way to find who is Christian and who is not as soon as everyone says that they accepted Christ as their savior?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[SpeedRacer 1]

wow. 951 replies. I think I'll just say bla bla bla blabla bla bla bla bla bla.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

a designer could do a better job than that........ This is not a wise god this is a blood thirsty god.

The thing created judging the Creator? The standards by which you critique His work couldn't possibly match His. I won't apologize for God's design; He doesn't need me to! "a blind spot"???? I have no definitive answer for you. Was it created with this blind spot, or did it develop over time? In the meantime, maybe you could look at the eye's "blind spot" as symbolic of man's blind spot in being able to fully comprehend God and his creation!

Quote

Furthermore, the fact there are no original manuscripts mean we dont even know what the original story was.We don't knwo what the original bible says because we don't have any original manuscripts. I believe the oldest complete bibles (correct me if Im wrong) we have date back ot the 5th century, there is a copy of part of the OT that dates back to 464Ad in the British Museum.

Yes, the oldest compilations of both O.T. and N.T. TOGETHER in one volume, date back only to the 400s and 500s. But complete (or nearly complete) N.T. manuscripts and complete O.T. manuscripts date hundreds of years earlier.

We don't really have a need for the originals. Comparing the thousands of very old hand-copies coming from many parts of the ancient world enable scholars to determine/reconstruct what the originals said.

Take a look at http://www.logos.com/greek/nt --- no need to read every word if you don't want to, just scan through it--- to get an idea of all the resources which are and have been available to textual scholars. I have no doubts that my bible as I have it today contains a trustworthy representation of what God intended.

Quote

" is it written in a Hebraic sort of poetry, where not all concepts are literal, but is dramatizing the simple fact that God was the creator? I don't know! I believe that some day it will all be disclosed. But for now, I just don't have all the answers. I'm not afraid to say "I don't know.I don't believe that what science has discovered/uncovered in the way of evidence is necessarily incorrect! I just think it hasn't all been reconciled-- brought into focus-- yet. "

Whether the days are literal days or metaphorcial days does not help your case. Science has shown that not only is the dating in the bible incorrect, but also the order of creation in the bible is also incorrecrt. Now if the bible gets the creation story wrong then why should we trust any of it?

See reply in bold above.

Quote

It seems to me that there are no circumstannces when you would ever consider anything wrong, to you everything can always be reconciled even when you cant suggest how.

This is close to my position. Science can't fully explain God. It sheds light on a LOT of His laws and on how He made things work. If science finds evidence which appears to conflict with an obviously literal statement of scripture, I think science will eventually be able to reconcile the supposed conflict... yes, because the conflict is only "supposed." The conflict comes from our limitations.

As I've said before, Philh, our differences are philosophical, and we won't come to a point of agreement, unless we agree to disagree. We can keep talking about it if you want to, but it may not lead anywhere.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[GravityJunky 0]

I've ALWAYS believed in myself, my children!
Oh, no wait I'm SATAN... My Bad!
Carry On!

*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}

[philh 0]

"After doing that, what exactly brought them to the conclusion that there is no God. "
Well I can only speak for myself but my degree of belief in something is proprtional to the amount of verifiable evdiece for it. No evidence=no belief. There is no evidecen for god so I have no belief in god. I also read the bible in the light of two models, one it was written or inspired by a divine being and two that it was written by ignorant ancient men without any divine intervention. If you read the bible with this second model in mind you will find it is much more consistent with the facts than the first model.

"The thing created judging the Creator? The standards by which you critique His work couldn't possibly match His. "
Your views of god being great, perfect , loving or whatever are also a judgement. Just because you come to a positive judgement and I come to a negative one does not mean both opinions are not judgments. Even if we agree that super being created the universe that does not iin anyway way imply that he is perfect.

"maybe you could look at the eye's "blind spot" as symbolic of man's blind spot in being able to fully comprehend God and his creation! "
So lets get it straight, whenever you find something amazing about nature its evidence of god, whenever you find that something that is clearly imperfect in nature then you say its symbolic. Ultimatlley what you are saying is no matter what evidence you find around you will contort it to fit your dogma.

Real truth comes from tesitng ideas and allowing them to be proved wrong if the evidence demands. For example relativity predicts moving clocks will tell time slower than stationary ones, if they dont then its wrong, pure and simple wrong. When we do the experiment we find that not only do the clocks run slower, they run exactly the amount slower predited by the theory. This is how we know things are true. Imagine if we said well if they run slower its true, but if they dont its also true. Where would that sort of thinking get us? It would get us nowehere, we would never know what is true and what is not. That is why when Christian thought was most dominant,the era was known as "The Dark Ages".

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

"maybe you could look at the eye's "blind spot" as symbolic of man's blind spot in being able to fully comprehend God and his creation! "
So lets get it straight, whenever you find something amazing about nature its evidence of god, whenever you find that something that is clearly imperfect in nature then you say its symbolic. Ultimatlley what you are saying is no matter what evidence you find around you will contort it to fit your dogma.

No, I'm not "ultimately" saying anything about the unexplainable or "imperfect"!! But if I can't learn the "why" behind something right away, I may as well learn something from it, and in the case of the symbolic blind-spot, it seemed to fit the bill. Hey, just a good object lesson! Peace.

Quote

Real truth comes from tesitng ideas and allowing them to be proved wrong if the evidence demands. For example relativity predicts moving clocks will tell time slower than stationary ones, if they dont then its wrong, pure and simple wrong. When we do the experiment we find that not only do the clocks run slower, they run exactly the amount slower predited by the theory. This is how we know things are true. Imagine if we said well if they run slower its true, but if they dont its also true. Where would that sort of thinking get us? It would get us nowehere, we would never know what is true and what is not. That is why when Christian thought was most dominant,the era was known as "The Dark Ages".

I agree with your first statement 100%... in cases where God has not given direct revelation about a thing.

I like the clock relativity example. And you're right, if you made up your own mind in advance and said that the results of the experiment wouldn't make a difference to the conclusion, you wouldn't really learn anything. You'd be settling on believing in a guess. Discovery would not have taken place.

The only problem is that supernatural acts of God aren't subject to the same type of scientific investigation. That is what makes them SUPERnatural. The supernatural (I would add, especially supernatural origins) is not learned by science, tho' the effects of supernatural acts (what I consider "evidence") can be, sure. To learn about the supernatural [God, that is], we must depend on direct revelation from Him, otherwise we go in circles 'cos we're not able to prove anything about Him. If the universe & its origins were merely natural, science would be very dependable in that area. But since God has provided direct revelation of himself and of what He did, all evidence becomes subject to His revelation. If it doesn't sync yet, it will eventually. This is where my own inquisitiveness especially enters the picture, as I was trying to tell another Poster.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[philh 0]

"No, I'm not "ultimately" saying anything about the unexplainable or "imperfect"!! But if I can't learn the "why" behind something right away, I may as well learn something from it, and in the case of the symbolic blind-spot, it seemed to fit the bill"

If god exists we do not know his motives and so you cannot know whether your explantion of the blind spot is correct or not. What we can do is test the idea that humans beings are designed by a pefect desginer. The idea of a designer comes from the idea that there is not complete chaos in the universe. Some attribute this to natural causes, others to super natural causes. Now lets assume there is a super natural cause, is this super natural designer perfect or imperfect ?- we can observe his handiwork. If we see imperfections we cannot conclude that he/she is perect. Of course its possible there is a reason for that imperfection, but we can never know that. All we can do is observe the imperfection and say the observed facts are not consitent with the idea that if there is a god he is perfect. Thats all we can ever do with knowledge, do the facts support the ideas? The idea that god is perfect is not consitent with the facts.You have no reason to conclude god is perfect or even good.

"I agree with your first statement 100%... in cases where God has not given direct revelation about a thing. I like the clock relativity example."

Thats great your learning a bit about science and how we can tell what is true and what is not true. There is no such thing as absolute truth in science. There are only ideas which have subject themselves to falsification and shown not to be falsified. Let me give you another example:
The idea the humans share a common ancestor with great apes can be falsified when we look at the genomes. Apes have one more chromosne pair than humans. If we desended form a common ancestor that chromosone must have fused, if we look through the genome and dont find the fused chromose this evolutionary theory is proved wrong. Scientists were not able to conduct this test until recently when human and chimp genomes were sequenced. Guess what they found? Sure enough the chromosone fusion was found just like the theory predicted it would be. for a fuller discusion of this i reccomend:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

"To learn about the supernatural [God, that is], we must depend on direct revelation from Him,"

im sorry but we cannot do this because we have no means to tell what revlations are really from him(if he exists) and what are not. If someone gets a revelations from god how do you know it is genuine? if you hear his voice, how do you know it is not your imagination? You have no way to tell this and so this cannot be used.

[JackC 0]

Quote

The only problem is that supernatural acts of God aren't subject to the same type of scientific investigation. That is what makes them SUPERnatural. The supernatural (I would add, especially supernatural origins) is not learned by science, tho' the effects of supernatural acts (what I consider "evidence") can be, sure. To learn about the supernatural [God, that is], we must depend on direct revelation from Him, otherwise we go in circles 'cos we're not able to prove anything about Him.

Rubbish. Neutrinos can't be detected directly, we can only detect the tiny effect they have on other things. Does that make a neutrino supernatural? Absolutely not. We can actually tell quite a bit about neutrinos by their interactions with other things. Likewise, if god did any interacting with the universe we would also be able to tell a bit about him through those interactions.

Quote

If the universe & its origins were merely natural, science would be very dependable in that area. But since God has provided direct revelation of himself and of what He did, all evidence becomes subject to His revelation. If it doesn't sync yet, it will eventually. This is where my own inquisitiveness especially enters the picture, as I was trying to tell another Poster.

Science is a hell of a lot more dependable if you want to find out about the universe than divine relealation. The mere fact that you have to keep reinterpreting revealation to fit with empirical evidence surely must say something about the quality (or lack thereof) of the revealation.

[Mockingbird 0]

Nothing comes to mind as a reply other than things I've already said. I think we're just butting heads at this point! I've enjoyed the tenor of the discussion over the last day or so.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[hairyjuan 0]

thomas jefferson: the christian religion is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man



thomas paine: "whenever we read these obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the bible is filled, it would be more than consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of god. it is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my part, I sincerely detest it, as i detest EVERYTHING that is cruel."



www.truthbeknown.com
www.jesusneverexisted.com



THE ONLY THING A BELIEVER CAN DO IS DENY,

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

What issue doesn't transcend religion?

my response here is a bit tougher to verbalize. However, I would argue that you are aware of topics that tend to align with religious vs. non-religous viewpoints. One of these would be gay-marriage and I would argue that you would agree that the religous vote carries much weight on this topic.

yes?

My opposition to "gay marriage" has more to do with what I deem marriage to be. (no commentary from the Bible is necessary for my beliefs) To me, marriage is a union between ONE man, and ONE woman. If you want to say it can be between two men, or two women, why not one man, and three women? Or two men & two women? How about a man and his Harley?

steveOrino

[billvon 3,009]

>If you want to say it can be between two men, or two women, why not one
>man, and three women? Or two men & two women?

If they want it, that's fine. Marriage should be performed by churches, not by the government. If Mormons want to marry three women, why should that be illegal?

Of course, that's religion, not government. The only thing the government should be involved with is setting up legal unions between two people, or corporations between more than two.

>How about a man and his Harley?

If you want to proclaim marriage between a man and an object, feel free. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously, or any legal recognition. But if you want to start your own church and start marrying people off to Buicks (and hopefully making some money in the process!) feel free.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

If they want it, that's fine. Marriage should be performed by churches, not by the government. If Mormons want to marry three women, why should that be illegal?

Of course, that's religion, not government. The only thing the government should be involved with is setting up legal unions between two people, or corporations between more than two

Do you think the only objection to polygomy is religous?

steveOrino

[billvon 3,009]

>Do you think the only objection to polygomy is religous?

Not at all! I'm sure that many people have many other objections. A good solution - these people should not marry more than one person.

[steveorino 7]

Do you believe any non-religous objections to polygomous marriages have any merit?

steveOrino

[billvon 3,009]

> Do you believe any non-religous objections to polygomous marriages
> have any merit?

If we keep the system we have now - yes, there are a lot of basic logistical problems (i.e. inheritance.)

If we switch to religious marriage and governmental civil union/corporation formation, then I don't believe there are serious problems with polygamy (or polygyny.)

[steveorino 7]

Okay, I see your point, but I don't think you would eliminate "any" of the problems as people will still sue for inheritance and spousal support regardless if it is a civil or religous ceremony.

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

After doing that, what exactly brought them to the conclusion that there is no God.

Because there is no proof. Just words.
Have you watched "The Matrix" movie? What exactly brought you to the conclusion that the Matrix does not exist?

Quote

I'm not sure what you're asking.

You have said that a Christian is not a Christian until he/she accepts Jesus as a savior. So I'm asking you how'd you know that the person has accepted Christ as savior? Just by his/her words?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

My opposition to "gay marriage" has more to do with what I deem marriage to be. (no commentary from the Bible is necessary for my beliefs) To me, marriage is a union between ONE man, and ONE woman.

So you consider it is right to restrict others from doing things just because they do not fit your definition of "normal behavior"?
If everyone was like you, we would not have opportunity to skydive - as the majority considers skydiving dangerous activity, which doesn't fit into "normal behavior" pattern as well.

Quote

If you want to say it can be between two men, or two women, why not one man, and three women? Or two men & two women?

I have no idea why. One man and three woman can already legally live together as domestic partners. What's the problem of geting through the official ceremony? There might be some complications, but most of them are resolvable. In my opinion it is just typical hypocrisy of our society: pretend it does not happen.

Quote

How about a man and his Harley?

Well, the marriage must be consented - and there is no way to get consent from Harley :)

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

So you consider it is right to restrict others from doing things just because they do not fit your definition of "normal behavior"?

yep, I like to restrict the rights of people to drink and drive, have sex with thier children and pets, partake of drugs while teaching school too. I'm such a party pooper.

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Okay, I see your point, but I don't think you would eliminate "any" of the problems

You don't need to. Basically what the government should do is to say that it is tough, and may have major legal cosequences you'll have to solve on your own. So if people who go that way have any disagreement about divorce (like if a woman marries two men, could she divorce just one of them?), adding extra people to marriage, inheritance, children, spouse support - they'll have to agree on everything before entering the marriage. They could do it by signing the marriage contract, for example. And if they do not, or someone changed their opinion, they are free to go to court.

Quote

as people will still sue for inheritance and spousal support regardless if it is a civil or religous ceremony.

And so? The people are already suing for inheritance and spousal support right now.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

yep, I like to restrict the rights of people to drink and drive, have sex with thier children and pets, partake of drugs while teaching school too. I'm such a party pooper.

The things you listed are not the things which just do not fit your definition of "normal behavior". They are harmful to others, and this harm could be proven. I was talking about things which do not fit your definition of "normal behavior", but do not do any verifiable harm to others. Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[bigtexan 0]

wow - I am stunned to see this conversation is still topping the charts...

Steve ie baby...

If you vote against gay marriage because you feel it is wrong based on your religious views alone - I would say this is you trying to enforce your religious view point on others.

If you vote against it because you personally think it is not a good thing - that is ok with me.

Religious objections to gay marriage seem to dominate the news coverage of the issue and in my opinion/view the religious community is the loudest objectors to this topic and just another example of that community trying to push their moral view of the world on others.

Marriage between one man and one woman is a cultural norm - ie - it is based on tradition in a partictualr cultural arena. This idea has no foundation in anything except our history as a people and how we have come to accept public relations amoung adults.

(I am leaving children out of this picture although it should be noted that children and adult sex is normal in some cultures - not that I agree with it - as my views have been formed by my environment and they give me a negative view for that activity - however - it is important to note - that other groups of humans have a view point that this is normal and healthy and they live with it for better or worse)

Now.. back to our conversation on democracy.

We (in the US) do not live with a pure 'representative democracy'; we live with a 'constitutional republic'. The difference is that while yes we elect our represenatives - they are bound by the our constitution (sp - man I hate spelling words). This constitution provides limitations on their power to enact laws of certian types; such as religous laws - ie. our famous 'freedom of religion' - or is that 'freedom from religion' - not sure..

See - if congress through the will of the people enact a law based on a specific religions desires - it will be knocked down as unconstutional - as it is unconstutional. Congress shall make no laws reguarding religion; or something simular. (I am no expert here so please correct me when I am wrong).

So - if your groups of religous folks try to get a law passed outlawing gay marriage based on your objection from a religous basis - it will not stand.

If you however find an argument that stands on its own without religious overtones - then that may stand a chance - but you have to have good solid reasons why this is not an good idea for our society.

so - when I see religous folk pounding our elected folk to put their beleifs into law; well your no better than the taliban.

so -keep this in mind -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This is a gift to you to practice your religion on your own - not your pass to force others to do as you beleive. Thus the above can also be read as

Freedom From Religion

When you try to take from me my right to this ; well your just a talibany in my opinion.

[steveorino 7]

Amazing how you guys feel everyone but religous people can lobby and vote their conscience.

steveOrino

[bigtexan 0]

Quote

Amazing how you guys feel everyone but religous people can lobby and vote their conscience

vote your conscience - or vote your religion? their separate - yet the same - i understand - but you should take care to not vote your religion for religous sake.

and it's not a feeling - imagine if a religion you didn't like gained control of our government.

Keeping the government as free from religion as possible is a good thing; for everyone including yourself.