Reasons not to believe in God

[river]

Presumably the Dead Sea Scrolls were associated with the residents of Qumran, since they were found near the site. It's always possible that someone else stashed them there. But I think modern wisdom links the documents with these people, the Essenes, who were apparently dissatisfied with the direction the Sadducees and Pharisees were taking Judaism, and migrated to the desert and built Qumran as their holy city. The incident in the temple, and others, where Jesus rebukes the Sadducees and Pharisees, almost seems like a dramatization of the Essene disgust with them for their pollution of the sacred religion.

While digging for water the Essenes discovered there was useful rock to be quarried, which they traded for supplies from other people in the region. The quarries turned into bath houses, and this may explain the reference to John baptizing in the wilderness. For all we know John is a metaphor for the Essenes. The Zealots arose in Jerusalem, defending the Temple from Roman desecration. One likely place for a Zealot to hide would be in Qumran, where, if Romans did bother to search the town, provided those secret caves nearby for hideouts. The Essenes probably gave the Zealots sanctuary. For all we know, the Essenes were the most outraged by the desecration of the temple, and most likely to fight to defend it. So Qumran could have been the birthplace of Zealotry.

If John represents the Essenes, then Jesus probably represents the Zealots, who were crucified for their resistance to Roman authority. Hanging mutilated bodies up in public display was an effective way to terrorize the populace into submission, even to motivate informants. Peter's denial of Jesus and his betrayal by Judas seem to symbolize this period when Zealots stopped standing up for each other and their acquaintances would have been motivated to turn them in, to end the rebellion and get the Roman legion out of Jerusalem.

The connection between Jesus and the Zaddikim fits within this scenario. The pronunciation is similar to Sadducee. In any case, it puts Jesus in a class of people who the Essenes may have considered humble and pious, the traits given to Jesus in the story. We only know him as Iesu, the Greek name, so there are many possibilities for how the Essenes may have arrived at this name, if, in fact, he is some sort of dramatic character they invented. I'm assuming the Jesus story is nothing more than one of their sagas about the war with Rome. Unfortunately, it became misunderstood as a literal account of history. Clearly it's not.

To further what you have presented Aqueous Id

From John Lamb Lash's book " Not in His Image " (pg 70-71 ) chapter 5 Messianic Madness

"The monastery[at Khirbet Qumran ] , this structure of stone that endures, between the bitter waters and the precipitous cliffs, with its oven and it's inkwells, it's mill and it's cesspool, it's constellation of sacred fonts and unadorned graves of the dead is, perhaps, more than Bethlehem or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity "

" Khirbet Qumran, " the ruins of Qumran " , is located about thirty miles east of Jerusalem, overlooking the Dead Sea. From 1947 into the late 1950's excavations at this desolate site produced an unprecedented trove of ancient writings. The finds included complete works such as the earliest manuscript of Isaiah, as well as thousands of stamp size fragments that had to be painstakingly joined , like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The scrolls were written between 250 b.c.e. And 70 c.e. , when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army in a draconian attempt to repress the Jewish Revolt. The aim of the revolt was to establish an autonomous theocratic Jewish state in Palestine, consistent with the first two elements of the redeemer complex. Such was its political and military aim, at least. But the cult of the Khirbet Qumran also had another agenda, an apocalyptic program of final retribution, consistent with the third and forth components of the redeemer complex:the coming of the messiah and the last judgment. The lethal combination of militant and mystical factors is not unfamiliar to the modern world, of course. The Zaddikim sect of the Dead Sea presents the larval form of the global terrorist syndrome of today "

Just to add what is meant by the redeemer complex by John

1) the creation of the world by a father god independent of a female counterpart

2) the trial and testing ( conceived as a historical drama ) of the righteous few or " Chosen people "

3) the mission of the creator god's son (the messiah) to save the world

4) and the final, apocalyptic judgment delivered by father and son upon humanity

 

[river]

If you have further interest with what John has to say on this topic go to

Http://metahistory.org

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

AiD,



Are we to understand that you see children with birth defects as cursed?

jan.

Thanks Jan, you answered Aq's question for me.

 

[Neverfly]

Actually, it's more pointed in your direction. An atheist cannot believe a child is cursed... but you can.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Sorry but I'm not in the habit of bowing to anyone, least of an invisible magical daddy who lives in the sky. Not to worry though. I WILL pray to my trash can tonight and expect the same results. lol!

Whatever you do, don't demean yourself.

Now back on the thread theme - many may want to argue that there is no point in having "reasons not to believe in God," because that suggests that God exists, only God does not seem to come to the party and explain why there is suffering.

You can't say for example, that deformed births are bad, because there is no "good" and "bad" in this world according to science, it's all relative, part of probability and subject to time and circumstance.

If you believe that the general consensus to be compassionate is "a developed human trend worth keeping",

then, we cannot say it must be kept, indeed, compassion may be preventing progress, and may have to be eliminated.

Only the general trend of evolution has the right to determine what is acceptable and what is not, and it does that through the god of science - pure mathematics, and of course many accidents.

But you are saying - defects are sorry and bad, therefore that is a reason not to believe in God. Do you have a right to make a statement about good or bad?

In that case, it is of equal importance to say that, if flowers bloom, couples fall in love and the vast majority of babies are terrific, they are reasons not to believe in God.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Actually, it's more pointed in your direction. An atheist cannot believe a child is cursed... but you can.

Why would you say that when it is clear that I have not stated it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Actually, it's more pointed in your direction. An atheist cannot believe a child is cursed... but you can.

m

Neverfly, go back through the thread and see where the idea of deformity (in children), and the link to God, originated.

It seems like a gigantic freudian slip, and elaborated on by Neverfly.

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

Why would you say that when it is clear that I have not stated it?

I did not say you did. I said you're capable of believing it even if you do not. An atheist, however, cannot believe God cursed a deformed baby as an atheist does not believe that there is a God. There cannot be a curse. The atheist is incapable of believing what was asked him. The question is an absurdity.

A believer in God can. An atheist cannot.

m

Neverfly, go back through the thread and see where the idea of deformity (in children), and the link to God, originated.

It seems like a gigantic freudian slip, and elaborated on by Neverfly.

jan.

Tell me where to look. I don't feel like reading the whole thin over again based on your claim that I've missed something. I know, that seems rude, but it's honest. I really don't feel like doing it so I won't.

 

[Jan Ardena]

m

Neverfly, go back through the thread and see where the idea of deformity (in children), and the link to God, originated.

It seems like a gigantic freudian slip, and elaborated on by Neverfly.

jan.

Apologies, I meant to say ''elaborated on by AqueosID.

jan.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

I did not say you did. I said you're capable of believing it even if you do not. An atheist, however, cannot believe God cursed a deformed baby as an atheist does not believe that there is a God. There cannot be a curse. The atheist is incapable of believing what was asked him. The question is an absurdity.

A believer in God can. An atheist cannot.

Tell me where to look. I don't feel like reading the whole thin over again based on your claim that I've missed something. I know, that seems rude, but it's honest. I really don't feel like doing it so I won't.

Quite right, you did say "can" - and defined why.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I did not say you did. I said you're capable of believing it even if you do not. An atheist, however, cannot believe God cursed a deformed baby as an atheist does not believe that there is a God. There cannot be a curse. The atheist is incapable of believing what was asked him. The question is an absurdity.

A believer in God can. An atheist cannot.

Tell me where to look. I don't feel like reading the whole thin over again based on your claim that I've missed something. I know, that seems rude, but it's honest. I really don't feel like doing it so I won't.

An atheist is capable of seeing imperfection in things.

For example an atheist will argue that this world is a poor and imperfect design therefore God (as defined) cannot exist. True or False?

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

An atheist is capable of seeing imperfection in things.

For example an atheist will argue that this world is a poor and imperfect therefore God (as defined) cannot exist. True or False?

jan.

This is one way of looking at things. However, it's the lack of intelligence, design, or creation that makes atheists lack belief in the described God.
It's not just that there's no intelligence on design, it's a lack of any interference whatsoever in real life that believers in God claim as evidence.

I realize the satirical videos for you may be awful, but it illustrates my point very well.
[video=youtube;fnjfxCp92pc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnjfxCp92pc&feature=relmfu[/video]

[video=youtube;Lcrq5OOkQdk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcrq5OOkQdk[/video]

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

An atheist is capable of seeing imperfection in things.


jan.

Profound with implications that cannot be denied.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

This is one way of looking at things. However, it's the lack of intelligence, design, or creation that makes atheists lack belief in the described God.
It's not just that there's no intelligence on design, it's a lack of any interference whatsoever in real life that believers in God claim as evidence.

I realize the satirical videos for you may be awful, but it illustrates my point very well.

It takes a creative mind and intelligence to appreciate God's handiwork. The objections of an atheist are self defeating.

Nobody is denying an imperfect world - with many problems, but the good stuff is far more proliferant, otherwise life could not go on.

I may be on a tangent here.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I did not say you did. I said you're capable of believing it even if you do not. An atheist, however, cannot believe God cursed a deformed baby as an atheist does not believe that there is a God. There cannot be a curse. The atheist is incapable of believing what was asked him. The question is an absurdity.

A believer in God can. An atheist cannot.

Tell me where to look. I don't feel like reading the whole thin over again based on your claim that I've missed something. I know, that seems rude, but it's honest. I really don't feel like doing it so I won't.

Post 17, then post 35.

jan.

 

[geeser]

It takes a creative mind and intelligence to appreciate God's handiwork.

These people have both, and see no reason to contemplate a god.

People like Forrest Ackerman, Terry Pratchett, Isaac Asimov, Douglas Adams, Kingsley Amis, Arthur C Clarke, Anton Chekhov.

More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_authors.

Please try not to make such imbecilic statements.
Please do think first.
Your point becomes moot, when you don't.

 

[Neverfly]

It takes a creative mind and intelligence to appreciate God's handiwork. The objections of an atheist are self defeating, if not revealing.

How so?

The apparent lack of intervention is a sign of two things, whatever is created has sufficient compensations for dysfunction, nature is a fine example of that,
Interventions are not generally perceived, therefore of Divine origin.

Pretty much you just said what that video I posted said- He's invisible and intends to be invisible. Let me paraphrase what you said a moment ago:
"It takes a creative mind and inventiveness to appreciate God's handiwork."

Nobody is denying an imperfect world - with many problems, but the good stuff is far more proliferant, otherwise life could not go on.

This does not follow. The very concept of "good" is subjective and based on our perceptions. Life, out there, in the wild, has a lot of hazard and sickness and frankly, a hell of a lot of "bad." It goes on- Life goes on- even when individuals do not. Over 99% of species that ever existed have gone extinct. Life is rough, it's hard. Survival is not an easy task. Life manages and it copes. We find the 'good' in some things, we shun the 'bad.'
A coping method you may have is to pray. To hold a faith in a divine being that cares about you as a person. That watches over you. And that is fine. Another person might have a tic, like twirling hair or twiddling thumbs. As an atheist, I object to the lack of critical thinking only when that religious beliefs condemns scientific progress and understanding as "Bad" because it kinda... shows where some of their beliefs are absurd. It's not as though scientists intended to do that- they merely wanted to understand the world. Nonetheless, some religious folks take great offense to this and they encourage ignorance. I find that a douche thing to do.
But if a man goes about his business, does the best he can and takes comfort in praying to God each night, I'm not offended by that. If he demands that I do it- then I'm offended. It's not really a bias, it's a preference for a working model of reality, not a fantasy. What's this to do with kiddos with five legs?
How does that parent cope? Hmmm... The implications for religious belief then become problematic, where excuses and vague apologetic become required. Options?:
-Pray about it. May help emotionally cope but the physical results will equal exactly squat.
But from a secular stance, it's a matter of acceptance of what simply is, then finding a working solution to the problem:
-Remove excess limbs and corrective surgery to adjust two proper legs in alignment to facilitate walking.
-Leave limbs in place and use physical therapy and equipment to assist the child until the child is old enough to choose for himself whether he wants the surgery
-Dress child up as an unfortunate overgrown insect and pass him off as the family pet. This is the least popular option...

Post 17, then post 35.

jan.

Thanks- Post 17 shows a reason he does not believe in God as a designer, no mention of deformities as a curse.
Post 35 explains in detail that it's a reason he shared for lack of belief in the designer, again no mention of the accursed.

 

[cole grey]

But from a secular stance, it's a matter of acceptance of what simply is, then finding a working solution to the problem:
-Remove excess limbs and corrective surgery to adjust two proper legs in alignment to facilitate walking.
-Leave limbs in place and use physical therapy and equipment to assist the child until the child is old enough to choose for himself whether he wants the surgery

this is not a secular stance, this is ANY reasonable stance. Please don't equate all religion with christian scientists, that is incorrect. Most religious people would pray that a surgery goes well, not in place of the surgery, and if perhaps, prayer is not for making God intervene but is for the person praying, so what, that is no rational requirement for not doing it.

 

[Neverfly]

this is not a secular stance, this is ANY reasonable stance. Please don't equate all religion with christian scientists, that is incorrect. Most religious people would pray that a surgery goes well, not in place of the surgery, and if perhaps, prayer is not for making God intervene but is for the person praying, so what, that is no rational requirement for not doing it.

Cole grey, it is secular. That position (regardless of the beliefs of those involved) does not deal with any divine intervention, any God in any way. The rationalizations that some Christians will do, (Both surgery and prayer) is merely a method of coping, not an effective way of finding resolution.
The methods are entirely secular.

I find it interesting that you point out that it is the reasonable stance.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

Thanks- Post 17 shows a reason he does not believe in God as a designer, no mention of deformities as a curse.
Post 35 explains in detail that it's a reason he shared for lack of belief in the designer, again no mention of the accursed.

As I said, AiD elaborated.

But the question still remains, why bring up deformed children as an example of God's non-existence in the first place?

jan.