Atheists what is your proof?

[gmilam]

Women in general (wives or otherwise) were pretty much considered property throughout the world at that point in time. The basic error here is that everyone tries to read the Bible in the context of "Today." The reason so many things don't make sense, to theists and atheists alike, is that they fail to understand the context of the world at the time. The second error people seem to be making is the idea that God was some sort of earthly king handing out edicts.

The basic premise of God communicating to others (and I have described this already, but I think everyone ) is that regular people, leading regular lives, in their regular timeframes, are struck with inspiration that is recognized as being so transcendent that it is divine. It isn't some sort of trance in which people hear some disembodied voice that is giving them information that is beyond their time. As such, one would not expect an understanding of anything that is significantly beyond that of the common understanding of the day. One would also not expect an instantaneous revelation of all things right and wrong. It comes out in bits and pieces, spread over thousands of years.

If anyone tries to read anything more into the nature of God, it is going to seem out of whack, because it IS out of whack. That is what has been happening on this thread (and in the rest of the world for centuries now for that matter), and I think many of us have been getting so argumentative that this basic premise has been lost. As an example, people getting hung up over the historical references of Israel, are confusing history with divine inspiration. The belief that the Old Testament is "the inspired word of God" doesn't mean that everything in it is ordained by God. There is plenty of history in the Old Testament that provides context for the way the people understood and knew God. And the history is just that - a history of what happened. I'll admit, I've gotten so wrapped up in arguing that I too failed to stick to this basic premise, but it is a core element to the theological faiths of Judaism and Christianity.

I understand the context of the time. I also understand that the bible was written by human beings and not dictated from on high. The problem is that the human writers claimed to have received the info from on high. While it appears to me that they were just rationalizing what they wanted to do anyway.

Which we all do to a certain extent. But some of us admit it and take responsibility for our own actions. Others say "God told me it's ok."

 

[SolusCado]

I understand the context of the time. I also understand that the bible was written by human beings and not dictated from on high. The problem is that the human writers claimed to have received the info from on high. While it appears to me that they were just rationalizing what they wanted to do anyway.

Which we all do to a certain extent. But some of us admit it and take responsibility for our own actions. Others say "God told me it's ok."

I think gmilam that you may be one of the only people on this forum that DOES understand what I am saying. And I of course recognize the problem in people making claims that "Gold told them so". In fact, the Bible cautions against that very thing. Another notable point here (I think) is that the prophets of the Old Testament were almost universally met with derision during their time. They claimed "Gold told them so" and everyone around them thought they were full of shit. It wasn't until later (often times after some prediction came to pass) that their message was revered as actually of divine inspiration, and it was written down so that those who followed would learn from their mistakes. It really isn't a helluva lot different than societal knowledge today; the primary difference is that today we understand WHY things are true - back then they simply understood that they WERE true.

 

[birch]

The basic error here is that everyone tries to read the Bible in the context of "Today."

ridiculous and non-theists don't. as if people don't know how it was different in the past.

the issue is that the bible is not some timeline of a history book by christians. the bible is a source cited for moral principles.

if you want to say that moral principles will change with the whims of a given society over time, then so be it. but that is not the claim christians are making which is it is an edict from god.

this is why christianity is even more amoral or immoral or there morals are even more shallow. they justify it as 'it was the way things were done' or 'god was justified at that time'.

not all non-christians look back in history and condone what was done just because it's history.

for instance, pedophilia may have been acceptable in the past but today we don't look back in history and condone it "itself" excusing it as if that was necessary.

basically, your interpretation of christianity and god is that there really are no moral priniciples or values at all but merely survival of christians or whoever gets the upper-hand.

if that is the case, why pretend that the bible is some moral code.

It wasn't until later (often times after some prediction came to pass) that their message was revered as actually of divine inspiration, and it was written down so that those who followed would learn from their mistakes.

actually you are not understanding him. the point is the bible makes clear and emphatic examples of immoral acts as approved or even commanded by god.

your interpretation is like saying to look at the old testament as a mistake or wrong god did/commanded and learn from it.

 

[SolusCado]

ridiculous and non-theists don't. as if people don't know how it was different in the past.

the issue is that the bible is not some timeline of a history book by christians. the bible is a source cited for moral principles.

if you want to say that moral principles will change with the whims of a given society over time, then so be it. but that is not the claim christians are making which is it is an edict from god.

this is why christianity is even more amoral or immoral or there morals are even more shallow. they justify it as 'it was the way things were done' or 'god was justified at that time'.

not all non-christians don't look back in history and condone what was done just because it's history. that's how you learn and change a society for the better.

for instance, pedophilia may have been acceptable in the past but today we don't look back in history and condone it "itself" excusing it as if that was necessary.

basically, your interpretation of christianity and god is that there really are no moral priniciples or values at all but merely survival of christians or whoever gets the upper-hand.

if that is the case, why pretend that the bible is some moral code.

This post makes it clear that you still don't get what I am saying, but I have made it as simple as possible - so I don't believe you can't get it, but rather won't. And I don't have the time or energy to waste on the subject anymore.

 

[phlogistician]

This post makes it clear that you still don't get what I am saying, but I have made it as simple as possible - so I don't believe you can't get it, but rather won't. And I don't have the time or energy to waste on the subject anymore.

Your problem is that you are vague, shifty, and say nothing positive that can be discussed. You say a lot of things your God isn't, but nothing it is. It really is a 'god of gaps' fallacy you are peddling.

 

[birch]

This post makes it clear that you still don't get what I am saying, but I have made it as simple as possible - so I don't believe you can't get it, but rather won't. And I don't have the time or energy to waste on the subject anymore.

it is like this; consider, hypothetically, that the bible is still being written now and there are prophets/scholars who are still recording religious related events to incorporate into the bible. we can look back on the inquisitions and understand why they were that way and why they thought the earth was flat and why they burned heretics etc because they were ignorant.

we do not condone it today or in the past because we know it was wrong. just like we know the earth is not flat and it never was. just because they believed it true in the past, does not make it true or justified in the past either. it's only understandable in a context of cause and effect.

however, it is getting into dangerous territory if it's recorded that god approved of these actions or commanded them (inquisitions, for example). because then, in essence, the reasons as well as the actions would be justified because god said it was right or necessary.

even today, textbooks which have faulty information are discarded or revised constantly as new discoveries are made or enlightenment is attained.

the problem with the religion and texts as the bible is believers consistently not only try to justify the entire bible using various excuses but use it to live in modern times with no real revisement. that is not really a problem, it's the constant hypocritical justification of the past even though christians claim different morals today.

why it's dangerous is because those things in the past can be used again and justified as instead of keeping it as a record of the past to learn from it and hopefully to not repeat it. it is held on to be justified which is even worse.

 

[spidergoat]

Can he disprove a jealous, sadistic, human shaped, human acting, god who while siting in a empty vacuum created the earth and universe and natural laws for this universe 4,000 years ago, out of god stuff, while designing the earth and universe to appear as if nature was evolving and as if there had been a big bang and created these illusions just to fuck with us.

Yup.

 

[SolusCado]

it is like this; consider, hypothetically, that the bible is still being written now and there are prophets/scholars who are still recording religious related events to incorporate into the bible. we can look back on the inquisitions and understand why they were that way and why they thought the earth was flat and why they burned heretics etc because they were ignorant.

we do not condone it today or in the past because we know it was wrong. just like we know the earth is not flat and it never was. just because they believed it true in the past, does not make it true or justified in the past either. it's only understandable in a context of cause and effect.

however, it is getting into dangerous territory if it's recorded that god approved of these actions or commanded them (inquisitions, for example). because then, in essence, the reasons as well as the actions would be justified because god said it was right or necessary.

even today, textbooks which have faulty information are discarded or revised constantly as new discoveries are made or enlightenment is attained.

the problem with the religion and texts as the bible is believers consistently not only try to justify the entire bible using various excuses but use it to live in modern times with no real revisement. that is not really a problem, it's the constant hypocritical justification of the past even though christians claim different morals today.

why it's dangerous is because those things in the past can be used again and justified as instead of keeping it as a record of the past to learn from it and hopefully to not repeat it. it is held on to be justified which is even worse.

I actually agree with everything you just said, and it is my intent to open the eyes of not just the Christians who want to apply the limited scope of the past to today, but also the atheists who want to refuse to regard the limited scope of the past as justification for tossing the whole thing out. I think both sides are adopting extreme positions so they can fight one another, and it is that fight that I want to end. Unfortunately, I have been guilty to some degree of doing the same thing over the past several days with my own posts (and for that I apologize). It is far too easy for people in general to take a stiffer position than they really hold in order to stregthen their opposition to another position.

 

[SolusCado]

Your problem is that you are vague, shifty, and say nothing positive that can be discussed. You say a lot of things your God isn't, but nothing it is. It really is a 'god of gaps' fallacy you are peddling.

This has been because I have been too busy 'defending' to be able to present my own position. The times I have presented information about what God is, or what the Bible says (instead of who he isn't or what it doesn't say), those posts have been ignored while others continue to apply the misconceptions to their reasons as to why the Bible is wrong. My responses have not however been vague or shifty.

 

[phlogistician]

This has been because I have been too busy 'defending' to be able to present my own position.

OK, after nearly 60 pages, why don't you just describe your God for us?

Stop defending, just make some statements we can discuss.

 

[SolusCado]

OK, after nearly 60 pages, why don't you just describe your God for us?

Stop defending, just make some statements we can discuss.

I've done so many, MANY times. But, once more, just for you.

This is not only my view, but that of most actual Christian theologians. Unfortunately, it is not the mainstream view - mostly because the mainstream is populated with the uneducated and uninitiated. Feel free to prepend all the statements below with "I believe" or "The Bible says". I am stating them as facts, but I fully recognize that it is something I believe, and cannot possibly know until I am dead - assuming on death there is anything left of me to know anything. I also fully recognize that there are a gazillion different interpretations of many of the things in the Bible, but just because there are a million misconceptions doesn't mean there cannot be one that is correct. I adjust my views as necessary when new information comes to light, in a constant effort to find that one correct truth.

First and foremost, "God" is the creator of our universe. He created time and space all at once, so everything that occurs does so according to His will. Not because he is constantly interfering, but because at the moment of creation, he created everything the way he wanted it. The parts of the Bible that describe God's actions are times where mankind has recognized some fundamental reality of the universe that had no other explanation. Over the past several thousand years, we have of course identified HOW such things came to pass - whether it be through improved understandings of weather patterns and geological upheavals, or through better understanding in human psychology and evolution. That we now know HOW such things happened doesn't have any relevance to the fact that everything was still created by God, and as such is still a reflection of His will.

This is where it starts to get interesting. As mankind has evolved, we have developed such things as consciousness, morality, and guilt. Psychologically, we didn't understand these things thousands of years ago. For that matter, we barely understood social structures and civil theory. We were, psychologically and spiritually child-like. In a lot of respects, I am sure we still are. Just as we look back on the people of thousands of years ago and think "what ignorants", I am sure our descendants of thousands of years from now will say the same thing about us. There are things we must learn through experience. When ANYONE has a thought creep into their mind that seems fundamentally different than their typical thoughts (otherwise known as an epiphany) it is recognized by the "spiritually inclined" to be God talking to them. Many of course claim God talks to them, and if it is later borne out to be true, it is typically recognized by others as well to be God talking to them. Of course, by virtue of creation, and the fact that every single natural process was defined by God in the first place, even if we later find some physical explanation for such epiphanies, that doesn't change the fact that it was still part of God's creation. Recognizing that "God did" or "God said" is just another way of saying you don't know how it happened, but know that it did happen (or will happen). In this way, one COULD think of God as simply the term applied to the unknown, but again - the spiritually minded continue to see God in everything, even those things where we do now know "how" they occur.

In a nutshell, that is how I see God, and his interactions with us and the rest of the universe. It of course carries with it some implications that one can derive through logic. Since messages from God must still develop in our minds, our minds must be capable of having the thoughts. This means that many thoughts - many epiphanies - many "messages from God" will not occur until as a society, as a civilization, we have developed to a necessary threshold. In much the same way a 5 year old cannot know everything he will as a 50 year old, we as a people could not know everything 4 thousand years ago that we do now, and we could not possibly fathom now the things we will know 4 thousand years in the future.

And finally, as a Christian, I believe that Christ was perhaps the last great "messenger from God". In other words, he was one of those people that claimed a lot of things about God that I believe to be true - even if as a society we do not yet know how or why it is true. So, I strive to live my life in the way Christ taught our lives should be led. Primarily, this involves the virtues of love, peace, and forgiveness. I am vehemently opposed to judgemental behavior and attitudes, and I wish nothing but the best for everyone. I believe vengeance is wrong, and wanting to see others "get what's coming to them" is just as wrong. These all stem from what we know of the messages of Christ. Some of it we know through commentary by leaders of the "Christ movement" in the hundred or so years that followed Christ, and some we believe we know from the words of Christ himself, in whatever capacity they were recorded.

Note, this does not mean that after Christ God stopped talking to people, but rather that mankind had developed to a point where perhaps the majority of us have grown enough to be able to have all those epiphanies that the spiritual person recognizes to be God. I think that about covers it.