The existence of God

[Harmonie]

I would just like to ask you one question, then. According to Christianity, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and human beings are (quite obviously) none of the above. Why, then, do you get to say that X "wasn't the morality of an all-knowing God"? Are you sure that you, a flawed human being like the rest of us, are in a position to tell God what's right or what's wrong?

Ah, yes. The argument that I am inferior and thus can not tell right from wrong for myself. No matter how I came about, I am a being with my own mind and agency. I did not want to go into this, I was being pretty respectful with my original post, not trying to put down your beliefs.

As a being with my own mind, I do not, for one second, see how it is 'moral' to "punish" a rapist by making him marry the woman he raped. That is punishing the victim. I do not see how slavery is and could have ever been considered moral. (Yes, slavery was a fact of matter during Biblical times, however, my argument here is that if God is all-knowing and just, then he would have never tolerated slavery at all. He is supposedly the being with the ultimate, unchanging morality) I do not see how stoning a man because he laid with another man could ever be right in any context, etc., etc.

My point here is that, if the God of the Bible were an all-knowing force of absolute morality he would have established a just morality from the beginning, no matter how revolutionary the ideals were to the time. He is the lord, he should have been able to accomplish this and convince the people of his time no matter what. Instead, what I see in the Bible are the ethics and morality of the people of the time.

 

[Marugi]

How can the whole universe be a result of random chance? Just take a look at something like the human eye or brain. What about the memories stored in your brain? Doesn't it make more sense that complex things like these were created by God?

Ah, yes. The argument that I am inferior and thus can not tell right from wrong for myself. No matter how I came about, I am a being with my own mind and agency. I did not want to go into this, I was being pretty respectful with my original post, not trying to put down your beliefs.

As a being with my own mind, I do not, for one second, see how it is 'moral' to "punish" a rapist by making him marry the woman he raped. That is punishing the victim. I do not see how slavery is and could have ever been considered moral. (Yes, slavery was a fact of matter during Biblical times, however, my argument here is that if God is all-knowing and just, then he would have never tolerated slavery at all. He is supposedly the being with the ultimate, unchanging morality) I do not see how stoning a man because he laid with another man could ever be right in any context, etc., etc.

My point here is that, if the God of the Bible were an all-knowing force of absolute morality he would have established a just morality from the beginning, no matter how revolutionary the ideals were to the time. He is the lord, he should have been able to accomplish this and convince the people of his time no matter what. Instead, what I see in the Bible are the ethics and morality of the people of the time.

In Christianity, God does not control you. In fact, he gives you free will, or the choice to believe in him or not. God actually wants us to be like Him by living a holy life (helping others, doing the right thing etc.)

On your point about slavery, slavery for the Jewish people was a lot different than slavery in more modern times. The slaves were treated like part of their family, and people only became slaves to pay back other people.

 

[Gilles de Rais]

For me there is no comfort that there is "a big guy in the sky" making our decisions and life choices.

God doesn't make decisions for people. Free will does exist. He does, however, judge everything you've ever said, done, and thought.

I identify myself as an antitheist. Critical thinking has been an invaluable part of my life and has allowed me to grow in cognizance. I come from a moderately Christian family in a moderately Christian culture, so it was not a breeze to relinquish those bindings or to declare myself as a dissenter to my parents.

But I am glad I did, when I did. I live my life without the promise of paradise, which makes it that much sweeter.

This is a very common response from skeptics and atheists. It's also very misguided. Real critical thinking would require that you consider where logic itself came from, see that naturalistic atheism cannot explain it, and seek a different path. You may be happy now, sure, but this life is a mere moment compared to eternity.

The idea behind the 'brainwashing' part is that most people are indoctrinated at a young age. I mean, if we were all just allowed to make our own choices, wouldn't there be more of everything instead of Christianity being the majority?

Christianity is the majority because a lot of people are Christian, and then they pass it on to their kids, who are taught to be Christian at a young age, who then grow and do the same with their kids. Some break away into other religions or become Atheists, but for the most part people tend to stick with what they were taught as a kid.

In some sort of way, you are stuck believing what you were taught as a kid unless you break out of it. For example, if you were born in the Middle East, you'd likely be a Muslim right now.

So that's where the 'brainwashing' part comes from, not from convincing a full grown adult to join your religion. Hopefully that clears some stuff up.

It's usually other religions that try to brainwash people, atheism and Islam chief among them right now, especially in the USA. It's against the law to not go to public school, but over 99% of public schools indoctrinate children into secular naturalism through the textbooks used that claim "only the natural matters, don't look into the hocus-pocus supernatural," and the teachers aren't allowed to teach anything different whatsoever. At the very least, public schools should fairly present both worldviews and let the children choose for themselves.

Ah, yes. The argument that I am inferior and thus can not tell right from wrong for myself. No matter how I came about, I am a being with my own mind and agency. I did not want to go into this, I was being pretty respectful with my original post, not trying to put down your beliefs.

As a being with my own mind, I do not, for one second, see how it is 'moral' to "punish" a rapist by making him marry the woman he raped. That is punishing the victim. I do not see how slavery is and could have ever been considered moral. (Yes, slavery was a fact of matter during Biblical times, however, my argument here is that if God is all-knowing and just, then he would have never tolerated slavery at all. He is supposedly the being with the ultimate, unchanging morality) I do not see how stoning a man because he laid with another man could ever be right in any context, etc., etc.

My point here is that, if the God of the Bible were an all-knowing force of absolute morality he would have established a just morality from the beginning, no matter how revolutionary the ideals were to the time. He is the lord, he should have been able to accomplish this and convince the people of his time no matter what. Instead, what I see in the Bible are the ethics and morality of the people of the time.

It's simple logic. Of course a mere human being is inferior to the God of the Bible. You shouldn't be offended in any way by that, nor was I trying to offend you.

First, the rape case. Would you rather punish the child with death by having an abortion? The child is innocent. Having to marry the victim sounds to me more like making the best of a horrible situation, because at least you have a proper family unit out of it. The hope there was that the rapist would understand the error of his ways, still not escape punishment, and learn to love as God meant for people to love. And nobody's saying the woman didn't have rights, too; there were laws regarding adultery, and if the rapist went after another woman, she could leave him without any stain on her reputation. He, on the other hand, would be executed, along with his mistress.

Second, slavery was actually quite rare in those days, and it didn't work at all the same way as what Americans did to Africans in recent history. Simply put, in those times, you could sell yourself into slavery to pay off a debt you otherwise couldn't pay, or as a lawful punishment, and there were laws regarding the treatment of slaves that were in place to make sure they were treated fairly and as human beings.

God did establish morality from the beginning, and I've already shown why the problem of evil does not refute Christianity. As an aside for your post, however, I will note that murder was considered wrong even before Mosaic Law. The Bible wasn't kidding when it talks about God's law being "written on the hearts of man." However, you must also understand that free will exists. As a human being, you do have your own mind and agency. The question is whether you will use them responsibly or sinfully.

 

[Harmonie]

On your point about slavery, slavery for the Jewish people was a lot different than slavery in more modern times. The slaves were treated like part of their family, and people only became slaves to pay back other people.

No matter what reason the slavery may have come about, it is immoral, and that is concrete. Slavery was NOT all sunshine and rainbows in Biblical times. Even in the Bible, it is not prescribed that way. There is one verse that states that you can beat a slave, as long as they live, for a day or two, without punishment.

Exodus 21:20-21

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

First, the rape case. Would you rather punish the child with death by having an abortion? The child is innocent. Having to marry the victim sounds to me more like making the best of a horrible situation, because at least you have a proper family unit out of it. The hope there was that the rapist would understand the error of his ways, still not escape punishment, and learn to love as God meant for people to love.

Who said a child is involved? Even if a child was involved, you absolutely do not punish a rapist by tying him to the woman he raped. It's bad enough for a woman to know her rapist hasn't been locked away, but to have to see the face of that man everyday as your husband, I can not imagine. This is a completely absurd way of punishing a rapist.

And nobody's saying the woman didn't have rights, too; there were laws regarding adultery, and if the rapist went after another woman, she could leave him without any stain on her reputation. He, on the other hand, would be executed, along with his mistress.

Oh, so if he had a woman - who might have been completely innocent and did not know a thing about what he was going to do - she will be punished alongside him... by death. You have not done a thing to prove that women were given any rights. Quite obviously both orders do nothing but punish the woman.

...and there were laws regarding the treatment of slaves that were in place to make sure they were treated fairly and as human beings.

You mean like the verse I quoted to Marugi above? That is absolutely not a law about treating them "fairly as human beings". I stand by my case: No just God with absolute morality would have ever supported this, much less ordered it.

 

[Mana1]

I tried to resist but :c.

That is actually incorrect. A religion is simply a philosophy regarding spiritual matters, how the universe came to be, why it is in the state it is in now, and so forth. Atheism claims that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct, there is no afterlife and no God, and we are the ultimate result of nothing more than random chance. Not only has all of this been debunked many times (and you can actually test this out for yourself).

I'm not really sure where your information is coming from :s It's simply ignorant to deny natural selection and evolution in this decade. Both have sufficient evidence and Natural Selection can be observed in labs, in nature, and even artificial selection practised on every farm proves the existence of genetic inheritance and speciation.

The fact that Atheist's "believe" in evolution is a horrible misuse of words on the part of religion. Atheists accept evolution/natural selection as the most likely cause due to the evidence available, Religious belief is not based on worldy facts. Since Atheists do not tend to have spiritual believes, they often fall into the "believe in the evidence suggested by decades of vigorous scientific testing" bracket.

I'm also curious if you know who your username's namesake is

 

[Gilles de Rais]

No matter what reason the slavery may have come about, it is immoral, and that is concrete. Slavery was NOT all sunshine and rainbows in Biblical times. Even in the Bible, it is not prescribed that way. There is one verse that states that you can beat a slave, as long as they live, for a day or two, without punishment.

Exodus 21:20-21

[/I][/COLOR]
Who said a child is involved? Even if a child was involved, you absolutely do not punish a rapist by tying him to the woman he raped. It's bad enough for a woman to know her rapist hasn't been locked away, but to have to see the face of that man everyday as your husband, I can not imagine. This is a completely absurd way of punishing a rapist.


Oh, so if he had a woman - who might have been completely innocent and did not know a thing about what he was going to do - she will be punished alongside him... by death. You have not done a thing to prove that women were given any rights. Quite obviously both orders do nothing but punish the woman.


You mean like the verse I quoted to Marugi above? That is absolutely not a law about treating them "fairly as human beings". I stand by my case: No just God with absolute morality would have ever supported this, much less ordered it.

In that case, I hope you never get a job. After all, that would be slavery, because without the money you earn from a job, you cannot live anywhere but on the street as a beggar.

...Do you see my point yet? You're still defining ancient slavery by the same terms as recent slavery. You are also not paying any attention to our answers.

By the way, you do understand how children come to be, right? You are completely misunderstanding the context of pretty much the entire case. For one, and this is true even to this day, Jews live in a very tightly-knit community. Everyone knows who is married to whom, so it stands to reason that things like who raped whom and who had sex with whom aren't exactly things one can hide.

I stand by what I said earlier. You don't get to impose your own morality on the One who created it to begin with, no matter what you may think of Him.

 

[Kanzler]

I stand by what I said earlier. You don't get to impose your own morality on the One who created it to begin with, no matter what you may think of Him.

Why not? What consequence is there for questioning anything? Insofar as there is no penalty for doing something, we "get" to do something. So I don't see the problem of "imposing" morality. But "imposing" really has to be the wrong word, for I don't exactly see how one could even impose on an omnipotent god.

 

[Gilles de Rais]

I tried to resist but :c.

I'm not really sure where your information is coming from :s It's simply ignorant to deny natural selection and evolution in this decade. Both have sufficient evidence and Natural Selection can be observed in labs, in nature, and even artificial selection practised on every farm proves the existence of genetic inheritance and speciation.

The fact that Atheist's "believe" in evolution is a horrible misuse of words on the part of religion. Atheists accept evolution/natural selection as the most likely cause due to the evidence available, Religious belief is not based on worldy facts. Since Atheists do not tend to have spiritual believes, they often fall into the "believe in the evidence suggested by decades of vigorous scientific testing" bracket.

ICR, Answers in Genesis, and many more organizations regularly publish in scientific journals and demonstrate that evolution is a load of bunk. You should also understand that the theory of evolution is not the same as natural selection.

I disagree. The first definition of the word "religion" given by the link I posted (to dictionary.com no less) is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Atheists believe the universe's purpose, if any, is to be, that it was caused by random chance, and that it evolves slowly over trillions of years. I am not misusing the word at all, and the fact that atheism is built on blind faith in a dead man who stayed dead merely proves my point further.

Why not? What consequence is there for questioning anything? Insofar as there is no penalty for doing something, we "get" to do something. So I don't see the problem of "imposing" morality. But "imposing" really has to be the wrong word, for I don't exactly see how one could even impose on an omnipotent god.

Okay, maybe I chose my words poorly there. From a philosophical standpoint, when you compare the typical human being to the God of the Bible, obviously He is superior to the human. Certainly the human has every right to question, but if the human's not going to accept the answers given, what was the point of the question? To take what God says out of context and try to make Him look like a villain? Because, no offense, that's exactly what everyone who is against Christianity does, without exception. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

I guess, from my own point of view, it would be better if we all remembered our place.

 

[Kanzler]

Okay, maybe I chose my words poorly there. From a philosophical standpoint, when you compare the typical human being to the God of the Bible, obviously He is superior to the human. Certainly the human has every right to question, but if the human's not going to accept the answers given, what was the point of the question? To take what God says out of context and try to make Him look like a villain? Because, no offense, that's exactly what everyone who is against Christianity does, without exception. "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

I guess, from my own point of view, it would be better if we all remembered our place.

Aren't you assuming that God exists?

 

[Gilles de Rais]

Aren't you assuming that God exists?

Aren't you assuming He doesn't?

 

[Kanzler]

Aren't you assuming He doesn't?

Well, I have no reason to believe that he exists, so I don't. It's as if you asked me "aren't I assuming my mother is not Donald Trump?" I have no reason to believe that my mother is Donald Trump.

 

[Marugi]

No matter what reason the slavery may have come about, it is immoral, and that is concrete. Slavery was NOT all sunshine and rainbows in Biblical times. Even in the Bible, it is not prescribed that way. There is one verse that states that you can beat a slave, as long as they live, for a day or two, without punishment.

Exodus 21:20-21



[/I][/COLOR]
Who said a child is involved? Even if a child was involved, you absolutely do not punish a rapist by tying him to the woman he raped. It's bad enough for a woman to know her rapist hasn't been locked away, but to have to see the face of that man everyday as your husband, I can not imagine. This is a completely absurd way of punishing a rapist.



Oh, so if he had a woman - who might have been completely innocent and did not know a thing about what he was going to do - she will be punished alongside him... by death. You have not done a thing to prove that women were given any rights. Quite obviously both orders do nothing but punish the woman.



You mean like the verse I quoted to Marugi above? That is absolutely not a law about treating them "fairly as human beings". I stand by my case: No just God with absolute morality would have ever supported this, much less ordered it.

I've noticed that you are mostly attacking the Old Testament section of the Bible. Christians follow the New Testament, since the OT is the Jewish law. Jesus never told people to own slaves, or kill people as a punishment. However, Christians do follow the ten commandments.
I'm not trying to attack your beliefs, I'm just defending mine.

 

[Mana1]

ICR, Answers in Genesis, and many more organizations regularly publish in scientific journals and demonstrate that evolution is a load of bunk. You should also understand that the theory of evolution is not the same as natural selection.

I'm a Biology teacher, trust me I know! However, they are closely linked. Natural Selection leads to Evolution. One supports the other. Both can be demonstrated and observed in bacterial species (hence diseases like MRSA and other resistant strains) and in species with fast reproductive cycles, such as Drosophila species.

Journals equivocally support evolution, not deny it. Whilst I don't think linking specific journals and articles would help, here's some quick stats I could come up with using my own scholar.google.co.uk searches.

> "Evidence for Evolution" - 9,050 hits
> "Evidence against Evolution" - 251 hits (<3%)

This covers both scientific and non-scientific journals (philosophical journals, for instance). I'm afraid if you haven't found this yourself, you perhaps haven't looked in the right places, but from this the numbers are fairly clear.

 

[Gilles de Rais]

Well, I have no reason to believe that he exists, so I don't. It's as if you asked me "aren't I assuming my mother is not Donald Trump?" I have no reason to believe that my mother is Donald Trump.

Actually, we all have every reason to believe that He exists, so I do and the rest of you should. It's as if you're arguing vocally that air doesn't exist while expecting me to hear you.

I'm a Biology teacher, trust me I know! However, they are closely linked. Natural Selection leads to Evolution. One supports the other. Both can be demonstrated and observed in bacterial species (hence diseases like MRSA and other resistant strains) and in species with fast reproductive cycles, such as Drosophila species.

Journals equivocally support evolution, not deny it. Whilst I don't think linking specific journals and articles would help, here's some quick stats I could come up with using my own scholar.google.co.uk searches.

> "Evidence for Evolution" - 9,050 hits
> "Evidence against Evolution" - 251 hits (<3%)

This covers both scientific and non-scientific journals (philosophical journals, for instance). I'm afraid if you haven't found this yourself, you perhaps haven't looked in the right places, but from this the numbers are fairly clear.

Then I would challenge you to demonstrate evolution to me with a simple experiment. Go outside, set up a video camera that I can connect to from my home, and train its focus on a pile of rocks lit by sunlight. Then all we have to do is wait, and the rubble should eventually become life. After all, that's what the theory of evolution claims happened, so surely you can just demonstrate it again, right?

If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's because it is. All that can possibly result from such an experiment is rubble, potentially dust if we waited long enough. If we add design to the equation, however, presto! Life! Thank science for the addition of information!

Except that for design, you require a Designer, which is an idea you and every other secularist seems to hate. Oh well.

By the way, since when does the majority dictate what is true? If a society as a whole unanimously decided that 1+1=892365892375892738947293857892345789023748923798523, would that make it true? Of course not. I think here I can refer back to the reference to Galileo in the thread about homosexuality.

Furthermore, as a biology teacher, how do you explain the existence of animals such as the beaver or giraffe from an evolutionary standpoint? The way I see it, they would have had to have been created as they are today in order to survive at all. Evolution claims small changes happened over time, but if that's true, these animals couldn't have survived at all.

Anyone who supports evolution either does so blindly or hasn't looked at the ridiculous assumptions made by the theory itself. I do not state this as an insult, but as a fact, no more or less charged than "1+1=2."

 

[Elysieum]

This is a very common response from skeptics and atheists. It's also very misguided. Real critical thinking would require that you consider where logic itself came from, see that naturalistic atheism cannot explain it, and seek a different path. You may be happy now, sure, but this life is a mere moment compared to eternity.

I am going to ignore the smug pedestal you've put yourself on and ask you to introduce some humility in the way that you write. Telling people they are on the wrong path (and I suppose you are ready to tell me about the right one too?) is unpleasantly preachy.

I see you imply that your god is where logic comes from. That a vast number of people live and have lived their lives according to it without ever having heard of your god is evidence enough that the two are unrelated.

Naturalistic atheism? What does that mean? Just so we are clear, atheism means without a god. Nothing more. To draw a parable, let's say Christians watch The Amazing Race on television. Catholics watch Real Housewives of Atlanta. Jews watch House of Cards.

Atheism is the equivalent of turning the television off.

 

[Kanzler]

Actually, we all have every reason to believe that He exists, so I do and the rest of you should. It's as if you're arguing vocally that air doesn't exist while expecting me to hear you.

Such as?

 

[Palamon]

I'm Jewish, and I only believe in God because I like the feeling of someone higher than me keeping me in check. That doesn't mean I'm a diehard believer, nor does it mean I'm gonna shove god up your throat. I like the feeling that I'm not any center of power, but someone else might be. HOWEVER, I don't beleive in Jesus. I never really did. Maybe this is a bit perplexing or something, I don't know, but I just never believed that someone like that existed. I believe in God in that one sense, and one sense only--that someone with some sort of power is watching over me. But only the power, not all that other stuff in the bible, etc, just that one thought.

 

[Mana1]

Then I would challenge you to demonstrate evolution to me with a simple experiment. Go outside, set up a video camera that I can connect to from my home, and train its focus on a pile of rocks lit by sunlight. Then all we have to do is wait, and the rubble should eventually become life. After all, that's what the theory of evolution claims happened, so surely you can just demonstrate it again, right?

If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's because it is. All that can possibly result from such an experiment is rubble, potentially dust if we waited long enough. If we add design to the equation, however, presto! Life! Thank science for the addition of information!

Well there's one fallacy, right there. Evolution is not the theory that accounts for the Beginning of Life. That's completely different.

But then we could talk about how Scientists are working to replicate such a thing. They have already found that cell membranes can form spontaneously from their component molecules to form spherical 'bubbles' in the correct conditions. We also know that DNA can operate on an incredibly simple level. I won't go as far to say science can "prove" how life started, but we're slowly connecting together the dots.

You're suggesting that rock (not what kind of rock, but lets say calcium carbonate in general) is going to spontaneously gain atoms, deconstruct its molecules and recombine to form a rabbit. You have some huge misconceptions about what Scientists put forth as the beginning of the life - they start incredibly small.

By the way, since when does the majority dictate what is true? If a society as a whole unanimously decided that 1+1=892365892375892738947293857892345789023748923798523, would that make it true? Of course not. I think here I can refer back to the reference to Galileo in the thread about homosexuality.

Furthermore, as a biology teacher, how do you explain the existence of animals such as the beaver or giraffe from an evolutionary standpoint? The way I see it, they would have had to have been created as they are today in order to survive at all. Evolution claims small changes happened over time, but if that's true, these animals couldn't have survived at all.

Anyone who supports evolution either does so blindly or hasn't looked at the ridiculous assumptions made by the theory itself. I do not state this as an insult, but as a fact, no more or less charged than "1+1=2."

The Giraffe is like the standard explanation of Natural Selection. Giraffe's ancestors favoured longer necks to reach areas where food was under less competition > Long neck Giraffe Ancestors were more likely to breed and pass on their genes > alleles for longer necks become more prominent > overall necklength slowly increases as the generations pass.

I have a degree in Biology, I teach it, I still study further in my own time. How can I possibly be looking at this 'blindly' when you're refuting Science that the vast majority of Scientists agree on. In the UK knowledge of Evolution and Creationism are both covered by the curriculum. I believe I've been dealt a fairly balanced hand when it comes to information.

Interestingly, I don't know any Christians IRL who outright deny Evolution or believe in Creationism as in The Bible.

 

[manego90]

maybe this will help:

We Were Once Gods
By Leo

We were once Gods,
living high in the mountain tops
Free of order, roaming the free land,
The day was young, but it had yet to grow,
Giving time the opening to run aimlessly

But then the day grew old,
Time limited itself, order became my captor
holding me with its bare hands as time marks my new boundaries,
I now sit on a flat land with no ups and downs
Restricted to travel a day's worth abroad my new land,
Never again are we to reach our beloved land

The mountains were high
And the Greenland was low,
Never again we were to access our beloved land,
Foreign to us as we now know it,
But still strong in our roots
To only serve as a reminder to what kind of life we once lived,
As our only option we helped these new Gods grow,
Nurturing the Gods because they remind us of what was once ours,
For we too were once in their land,
As we had fallen from the mountain tops,
They will do accordingly,
Side by side in the land where time age,
No longer in the Mountains where youth persist
For this is the life of us Gods

 

[Pokemon Game Fan]

It's usually other religions that try to brainwash people, atheism and Islam chief among them right now, especially in the USA. It's against the law to not go to public school, but over 99% of public schools indoctrinate children into secular naturalism through the textbooks used that claim "only the natural matters, don't look into the hocus-pocus supernatural," and the teachers aren't allowed to teach anything different whatsoever. At the very least, public schools should fairly present both worldviews and let the children choose for themselves.

Atheism isn't a religion. Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting rocks is a hobby, or abstinence is a sexual position.

Also, I agree that they should have a religious studies class. But you do realize that would cause more people to become Atheists, right? I was a Christian until I actually started reading the bible and realized it was complete nonsense. I was a Christian cause I was raised to be one, then I became my own person and started actually thinking critically about things.
Disregarding that, religion has no place in a science class. Science is our understanding of the world through facts, logic, and comprehension. Religion is based on faith, not facts.