There is no god

[Sierra]

I'm sorry. I know this is hard. There is no god. There is no invisibile man who watches everything you do.

If all the people on the planet were reduced to 10 people and all the ratios kept the same, only 3 of those 10 would be christian.

"God" is not going to send 70+% of his "children" to "hell" just because no one told them about him.

Look up at the night sky and marvel at the amazing random chance that put you here. Appreciate each day. Its all you have. When you are gone, you are gone.

If you are lucky enough to beloved by someone else, don't squander it. True love is not that easy to find and should not be casually thrown away...even if the "feeling is gone". Get it back. Its all you have.

Dave

[Dave]

Dear Dave

Thanks for sharing your personal viewpoint - there's room for all here, and we respect your right to hold your views - though we may not all agree.

Your statistics are probably about right on a global scale, though here in UK in the last census, more than 7 out of 10 declared themselves Christian, and less than 15% said they had no religion. On a global scale most people believe in some form of God.

I am certainly not going to try here to argue logically for the existence, or non-existence of God - many greater brains than mine have written many great tomes on the subject, and none can prove the point one way or the other.

What I will say however, is that for those who do profess a faith in a spiritual dimension to life, and God, it brings hope. A universe that just happened along by chance (why??) is a bleak and cold place, in which the only logical laws are those of survival - why care about anyone else, or anything else? What for?? A universe that exists to show the shear beauty and magnificence of its creator, whose whole nature is holiness and love, is a place where there can be a purpose to life, to relationships, to all of existence.

Your last paragrapgh is strangely poignant. True love is what I am offered, true love without any cost or expectation of return, true love that will lay down it's life for me. As you so rightly say (even to yourself I suggest) "Get it back; it's all you have." It is.... it's the love of Jesus

Dave

[Sierra]

Dave,

I know its hard. Its a hard cold thing to face. But thats it.

You say without god life would be about survival. Is it not already? Why is that so hard to accept? We all compete - for jobs, education, love, money....everything. There is no supreme being operating. Just because something breaks your way is not proof of god, nor if it breaks the other way proof of a "devil".

3000 people died on 9/11. "God" did not lift a finger to save a one of them.

Lots of things offer hope. A new dawn, as pretty and inspiring as it is is no proof of god.

Its fun to sit in America and watch when a tornado roars down a street destroying all the homes on one side while leaving those untouched. Those with the untouched homes will get on TV and tell us that were it not for the grace of god their home would have been destroyed too. Then why did god want to harm the other homes?

Religion is fine. Believe if you wish. The problem is that few believe in isolation. Remember, the bible tells christians to spread the word. That translates into me having christian beliefs and morality forced upon me.

I respect your beliefs. If its what you need then have at it.

Dave

[Concerned Reader]

Dear Sierra

I'm sorry if you have had a run-in with one of the more closed-type of Christians.

Please can I say, just for the record, that over the years I have found working with and knowing Christians a pleasure.

Not being a Christian, I find much of what they say illogical, riddled with contradictions and at times plain ignorant of basic science.

Then I look at what they do, as opposed to what they say, and I find people who are willing to give what ever aid they can without question. Some of them are more evangelistic, but I have never experienced any of them making aid conditional on agreeing with them.

So whether I hold a set of beliefs they approve of does not seem to matter; it is just lucky for me that they do hold those beliefs because then they do things such as setting up websites, running soup kitchens, creches, visiting me when I am ill and being prepared to deal with all the people I would run a mile from.

Or if it isn't plain luck, it could be an argument for the existence of God.

[Sierra]

Couldn't it be that some people are just kind and generous. Regardless of what motivates them some people will reach out to others when others won't.

When a marriage ends it is not a sign that a "devil" crept in. If a marriage works it is not proof that "god" smiled upon them.

Life is about two things and two things only - choices and chance.

When a hopelessly retarded baby is born "god" has not sent anyone a "special gift". When a person dies "god" has not "called them home" because they were just too dammed beautiful to live any more.

People can rationalize anything. Its in there that god was invented. Everything MUST have a reason and a purpose, right. I mean, when your beautiful child dies suddenly it just couldn't be a sad accident. I just must be "god". He needed her.

What kind of a "god" would kill a child?

I don't have any silly misgivings. I am kind to those around me because I chose to be, not for reward points in some imagined afterlife. I don't see purpose and meaning in everyting....some things just are. There is no "heaven" waiting for me. The only way to be immortal is to live in the memories of those around you.

Love your wife and your children. Write yourself into their memories and hearts and in some small way perhaps you will slip the bonds of your ultimate death.

"God" is not watching or waiting for you. Make sound choices and if random chance operates in your favor perhaps you will be around here for a while.

[pause for thought.]

Surley if the whole point of god is simply faith then you have to have children die, and one side of streets destroyed.
3000 thousand people will die on the roads this year in the UK and god will not lift a finger to help them. But then thats where faith comes in is not? Choice and chance? A choice to believe perhaps, and a chance that god does exist.
Your problem sierra is that you are trying to humanise god into your HUMAN viewpoint. God is god. We can never understand the workings of god because of human viewpoint. If you could humanise god he would not be god He'd be man.
Hardly worth worshipping.

And you speak as if you have some concrete evidence that proves your perceptions (and ironically beliefs) to be facts. Show me it and I will agree with you.

But I leave you with one final thought. Every single race of humans since we began has worshipped a god. Every single one. All these races were once upon a time totally unrelated, but they all still believed in a god, whether it be a dog headed man, a shark, an invisable prescence or just the sun itself. Why? If there is no god why has there never once been an atheist race of humans? Simply coincidence??

[Sierra]

You are right. Every society worshiped something. And according to the bible, all that existed before 0036 (or threabouts) went to hell. Thats a lot of people.

Right now only 30% of the people on the planet are Christian. That means 70% are going to hell.

Think about that.

There has never been athiest race of people because only in the last few hundred years has man understood how the world worked.

There is still a flat earth society.

They have been around a long time.

Doesn't make them right.

D

[Concerned Reader]

Dear Sierra

I'd be interested to know where you are 'coming from' on this one.

The problem of the existence of God rightly interests people such as Archbishop Rowan Williams (it's his job, innit?). But the average citizen can get by without bothering about it - there are plenty of more immediate problems.

Writers such as Richard Dawkins become very excercised by the issue partly because their job (extending public understanding of science) has historically been at cross purposes with elaborate theology. They also have a strong instinctive reaction that were beliefs are held on irrational grounds, bad things can follow.

The current unlucky inheritors of this tension would be the pleasant and professional science teachers in the USA who are now at loggerheads with pressure groups who want to present creationism as a scientifically valid theory.

(I have no sympathy with that - creationism bears the same relationship to science as astrology bears to astronomy.)

It would help me to have an idea of where you are on this spectrum, especially why you see other people's belief in God as something which prevents them from grasping direct moral truths which should rightly guide their actions. (Have I understood your position? My apologies if I've misunderstood.)

[Sierra]

Ok,

First of all, I don't "not believe". That implies that there is something real to believe in and I chose to ignore it.

I actively know that there is no god. None whatsoever and there never has been.

Most people worship a god because they were taught to worship one by their parents and peers. Even my mother tried this but it did not stick. Even my teens I could see the hypocracy and the science was undeniable.

People use "god" as a tool for understanding things they find difficult to face. They use religion as a means to wash themselves clean of things they don't wish to acknowledge without actually having to do anything (ask forgiveness).

It would be better to treat each other better than to apologize for it in closets.

The universe could not possibly be counstructed as religion tells us. It is impossible for it to be that poorly designed.

D

[John]

Hi Dave,
Thanks for your interesting thoughts. I can very much empathise with your distrust of organised religion as being a cultural-sociological phenomenon, handed down through the generations. I agree that often the institution of the church is full of hypocrisy and confusion. And science does appear to raise some questions about the origins of the universe that are hard to reconcile with the Bible.

However, as a Christian I find myself disagreeing with a number of the conclusions that you have come to from looking around at this world in which we live. I don't think that I will be able to convince you through philosophical or scientific argument about the truth of the God in whom I believe. I wonder whether you might be willing to do something that I think you would find instructive and useful: to read an account of the life of Jesus and report back to us here what you conclude. If you were willing to do that then perhaps I could have a go at some of your objections to the Christian faith.

Mark's gospel is the shortest, and can be read in about an hour. It's available online here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=1&version=31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%201;&version=31;)

There are two key questions that need to be assessed, on which the Christian faith stands or falls:
1. Who did Jesus claim to be and what did he claim to be able to do?
2. Are his claims justified and believable?

If you were able to answer those two questions from reading Mark's gospel then I think that you might understand a bit better where Christians are coming from, even if you still don't agree with them.

If you would like to set a similar exercise for me about the Atheist faith, then please feel free!

Let us know how you get on!

John

[Sierra]

Ok,

I don't have time to read all of that and I can assure you I would draw nothing from it. The bible was put together by the coucil of Nicea so "Jesus" isn't supposed to be anything other than what served their interests (at the time).

The point is that most people believe the bible was some inspired work translted and passed down (manipulation free mind you) since about 500BC.

The reality is much different. I can show you today different versions of the bible which say either "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shat not murder". Big difference.

You can not escape the fact only 30% of the worlds population are christian. The other 70% believe as steadfastly in their faith as christians do.

Christians are not "right". Muslims are not "wrong". Its all a belief system. Buffet style. Take your pick.

If there is a message or meaning in life at all it is that for a brief time we are here. We can accomplish or not but in the larger scheme we are nothing. Shocking as it was the world has gone on nicely since 9/11.

If you need religion then I reach for it. If it serves you then embrace it. But know that many many of us need or want not.

I am immune. I love my wife not because I am commanded to, but because I choose to. If I wrong you as my neighbor I will apologize to you, not a priest ina closet somewhere.

If "god" is so great and powerful, why is he so concerned about what I do on a daily basis?

Life is full of possibilities but we are on our own to live them.

D

[John]

Hi Dave,
Thanks for the interesting points that you raised. I am sorry that you don't feel that you have the time to read all that. I think that you would gain a lot by doing so, especially if you have never done so before.

On a factual basis, I am afraid that you are wrong about the council of Nicea. That council was held to decide about the 'Arian heresy', questions over the divine nature of Jesus. However, the council of Carthage (397AD) was important in contribution to what we have today in the Bible. But we must be clear what that council was doing: it was affirming what had been the recognised collection of Scriptures for several hundred years. They were not giving the Bible authority, they were merely recognising the inherent authority that the Scriptures had (because they were written by Jesus' 12 apostles and close friends). For example Irenaeus (130-200AD) listed an almost complete selection of the New Testament books (those that people regarded as authoratative, since they came from the apostles) well before any councils.

The manuscript evidence supporting the Bible is vast compared to any other ancient literature. I don't know the figures off the top of my head, but scholars agree that what we have today is what was written thousands of years ago. There is more manuscript evidence that Jesus was an amazing historical figure that there is evidence for the existance of Julius Caesar - and I'm sure you don't doubt him and his accomplishments!

Scholars cannot deny the fact that the Bible we have today is essentially the same is when it was written. It's the truth or fallity of the writings that must be considered.


Your next point about only 30% of the world being Christian... At one time, everyone thought the sun orbitted the earth. That was, until a man name Copernicus realised that this wasn't the case. Just because he was the only one that believed this didn't make him wrong. Truth is truth whether we like/believe it or not! The same is true about Jesus: if he's God, then it doesn't matter if 99.99999% of the world don't believe him - he's still God!

If you don't want to believe that Jesus is God then that's your choice. No one is forcing you to believe. I was just encouraging you to read Mark so that you could make up your own decision rather than just going on others' opinions and misinformation. Perhaps you don't consider your eternal destiny important enough to sit down and consider Jesus' claims for an hour?

The problem with a buffet style approach to religions is that it presupposes that they're all false and actually just a psychological crutch, rather than based on some external reality. I find this deeply offensive, as does God. Christianity says Jesus is God. Islam says he isn't. They can't both be right! They might both be wrong. Either Jesus is God or he isn't. Each of us has to weigh up which religion we think is true.

One day, we'll see which one is true. I believe that this will be when Jesus returns in his glory, then everyone will see that he is indeed God. God is great and powerful. You may choose not to believe in him, but I think that one day you will have to face up to reality. He is being patient now, giving us a chance to turn to him. He is our creator and deserves our full worship, since he made us. He has the right to call the shots, to determine how we should live. He's given us a chance to choose how we will live. If we choose to reject him and not thank him for all his good gifts (like life!) then he will eventually reject us, withdrawing all his good gifts from us (so there's won't be friendships, fun or anything like that in hell).

In fact, all of us by nature reject God. That's why Jesus had to come. God loves his creation so much that he chose to let his own son die so that we might have the opportunity not to. That's why Jesus went to die on the cross. God didn't want us to die, so anyone who puts their faith in Jesus has had their rebellion against God forgiven. Basically there's been a swap - Jesus died, taking the punishment I deserve, so that I don't have to die and face God's judgement. That's why the message of Christianity is one of good news. It's not all about rules and laws, but rather about being bought back into right relationship with the creator and ruler and judge of the universe. This is validated by historical facts, not just by someone's philsophising and thinking. This is why the person of Jesus is so important and worth considering.

I hope that I've managed to address some of your points. Please forgive my someone direct style - I'm typing this quite fast as I'm in a hurry. Please let me know what you think!

Thanks,
John

[Sierra]

I appreciate your candor. I expect people to defend their beliefs and be open to liberal, pointed discourse. Freedom is built in such way. The administrator hates me, but I have never been profane........still............

The purpose of the council of Nicea was to declare an authentic truth. Every book they chose not to include was declared heresy. They thus created a version they approved of. That is called editing.

If god existed he did not need mans help to get his word out. The "church" in all of its forms has been the greatest detriment to man of all time. Think of the vast wealth stolen over the centuries as the ignorant were billed for their salvation. There mere fact that the vatican exists and did so at a time when most people lived in filth is an abomonation.

The mere fact that "god" would allow men to burn other men and women at the stake for crimes such as believing that the earth orbited the sun is unforgivable. If he existed I would have no part of him for that alone.

Frankly, you have to decide whether the bible was written by god and is therefore infallible or what written by men and it therefore a story. The two groups are mutually exclusive. For instance, do you believe as the bible tells us in Leviticus that:

No beard trimming (Lev. 19:27)
No clothes of two fibers (cotton/polyester blend for instance) (Lev. 19:19)
No eating of shellfish (Lev. 11:10)
Slavery is ok (as long as they are non-believers) (Lev. 25:44)

And then, when we catch people (especially those at the shopping malls) working on sunday, we must immediately put them to death. (Exodus 35:2)

I think you get my point.

These are either unavoidable commandments (the infalible bible theory) or they are not. If they are not, then the bible is just a storybook. Period.

Did you ever wonder about the nature of "god". I mean, if he is so powerful and has the physical ability to create the universe vast as it is, with all the planetary bodies and what not........why is it so important to him that people "worship" him.

Don't you think such a being would have a more important agenda.

Lastly, believers enjoy a singularity in the universe. Its earth, heaven, god and thats it. Did you ever ask yourself how all that would change if we got a radio signal from another galaxy (or even found bacteria on mars) for instance? What if we had poof of intelligent life elsewhere.

Did god create them too? Kind of blows the singularity thing dosent it.

There must be live out there somewhere. Its a good bet they are not christian.

D

[John]

Thanks for another good reply with some interesting thoughts. I'm sure that the admin don't hate you, but perhaps your negative attitude to the aims and values of this site does bring you into some conflict, which could be avoided?


Let me repeat again: the council of Nicea had nothing to do with deciding which books were "in" and which were "out" in the Bible. It was all to do with deciding a question of doctrine. For a summary see here, or do a Google search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=council+of+nicea):
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
So it had nothing to do with excluding or including books.

You may be thinking of the council of Carthage, which I referred to in my last posting. Books that were not recognised as having apostolic authority were not automatically declared heresy - they just weren't given the authority that those included in our Bibles were. Indeed, 'The Shepherd of Hermas', the 'Didache' and a number of other books were included on their list of recommended reading, even through they weren't classified as authoratative and infallible.

As for your proof that the Bible is infallible, I would like to add another quotation to bolster your point:
"There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)
However, to take such a brittle and narrow view of the Bible's infallibility is to completely miss the point of literature, context and history. Does Psalm 14 really say that there is no God? Unsurprisingly, it doesn't: 'The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." ' This simple and facecious example must teach us though that we must be sensitive to the genre and context of the Bible's writing before we jump to quick conclusions.

All the quotes that you have made are from the Old Testament Law, which was given to the theocratic (ie God-ruled) nation of Israel. Clearly things have changed a bit since then. For starters, Christians no longer live in a nation-state! While the questions of how to interpret the Old Testament Law are too long and involved to go into, I hope that you can see that just because I believe the Bible to be God's infallible word to mankind doesn't mean that I will go and kill everyone out working on a Sunday (and besides the Sabbath in the Bible is a Saturday anyway!). The fact that Jesus has come means that we must read all of the Old Testament 'through Jesus', as it were, using him as a lens. Jesus came to fulfil the law, he says, so that Christians today are no longer bound in the same way to the Old Testament Law, but rather to a person, Jesus. Which is why I keep on coming back to him and especially the accounts of his life. Only after we have come to know and understand Jesus will we ever be able to understand the Bible - as he says:
"[speaking to the Jews about the Old Testament] These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39-40)


I agree with you that many abominations have been committed in the name of the Christian church down the centuries. Many things that Christians ought rightly to be ashamed about. However, I am not trying to point to the church or to myself and say how great we are: we are all fallible human people who have, do and will make mistakes. I am trying to point you towards Jesus, as he is the only one who truly and faithfully represents God to mankind. Make decisions based on his witness, not on the witness of Christians from the last 2000 years.

Do you really think that God gladly lets the world continue out of some sadistic pleasure? To think that is to have a view very different to what the Bible says about him. The Bible shows God as a perfect, holy and pure God, who cannot stand rebellion against him in any form, whether it's outright rejection of him and his character, ungratefulness for the life and creation he has given us, mass murder, burning people at the stake, or just a few little lies or unfaithful thoughts about other beautiful women in our hearts. They are all offences againt him and we should be very grateful that he has not punished us for them straight off. He gives us a chance to turn back to him and seek his forgiveness, rather than judging us the moment we fail to worship him as he deserves. Who could stand before a perfect God? He's also a God of love, which is why he gives us this second (and third and fourth, etc) chance to turn back to him. As the Bible says:

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise [to come and judge], as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. (Romans 2:4-5)

God hasn't bought his final judgement on the world yet as he wants people to seek his love, mercy and forgiveness. If you are worried about God's justice then you shouldn't be: the day of God's wrath will come, and we will see the full extent of his justice.


As humans we have the gift (or perhaps curse!) of being able to hypothesise and philosophise about the nature of "god". But in the end, that's all our human ideas our: hypotheses, philosophies and speculation. If we want to know about God, we have to do it on his terms: in the Bible, we see that God is (amazingly!) interested in us human beings. We are the bearers of the image of God in creation, so it's right that he should be concerned about our behaviour. To take a simple analogy: if you have kids, you would expect some respect and love from them, since you are their father and you bought them into the world. Now of course this doesn't always happen, but it's the ideal. The same is true on a much bigger scale with God. He wants to be in relationship with us, as he has made us as the pinnacle of his creation. Sadly humans very often reject him and refuse to worship him, but as our creator, the one who bought us into the world, I think that he has every right to be intimately interested and concerned about his creation. Of course, this is not to say that he needs us; he can get along just fine without us. But he does want to know us, which is an amazing fact. I'm not going to try and understand why he wants that, but rather rejoice that he does and enjoy the purpose that it gives to life.


As for other intelligent life-forms, I don't know. The Bible talks about God creating the whole universe in Genesis 1. And humans are, as I just said, the pinnacle of that creation, the unique creatures on earth to bear God's image. However, when we try to get the Bible to do science (or conversely, get science to do theology!) we are often walking on thin ice! Personally, I do think that humans are unique in there place in the universe, but if evidence came to light to the contrary I would have to reconsider my opinion. However, we are dealing very much in the hypothetical realm right now, which is a game that can be played for a long time, but is really just idle speculation until there is any hard evidence.

I do not think that my faith would be shattered just because of the discovery of life on other planets. This is largely because my faith rests on the historical person of Jesus, not on some clever scientific proof or anything like that. I know that I keep on coming back to Jesus, but that's because I think that he's so important! In the end, it's our relationship with him that decides our eternal destiny:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him. (John 3:36)


As ever, let me know your thoughts!
John

[Sierra]

Ok,

First, god would not need the council of Nicea to decide doctrine. To do so is to edit the bible. Its a man written story.

The second is the buffet. You may say that the bible is to be taken in its historical context. That fine for you. But there are just as many people if not more in the world who believe the bible is infallible word-for-word and is to be taken literally.

Both of you feel you are Chirstian. If what you both say is true, one of you is wrong. Its either buffet style or strict contsruction. There is no room for both.

The other problem is the static nature of the bible. In the US the Mormons feel they have another testament. It seems to meet all of the "it came from the sky" requirements of the other two, but everyone thinks they are nuts.

Regardless of how you look at it a large number of Christians are wrong.

Men wrote the bible. Men assembled it. Men decided what it meant and men have translated and passed the story forward for 2000 years. Its a nice story and has some rules that work well if we all want to live together, but its a story.

What if tomorrow a UFO landed and out walked a guy from another galaxy (from a planet with two suns). He walked up to you and wanted to tell you about the twin gods that created the universe in 8 alternate days and their twin sons Simsam and Salesh who died for the sins of all sinners everywhere. He wants to convert you. He says he is commanded to. He has a nice book to show.

Which one of you is wrong? How do you know?

D

[John]

Of course God doesn't need any councils to decide doctrine. But humans do! The council of Nicea went back to look at the Bible and work out what it was actually saying. They weren't editing the Bible - they were reading it! They were trying to work out what the Bible actually says about Jesus.

I believe that the Bible is infallible word-for-word and is to be taken literally. But that doesn't mean that I read it in a wooden and rigid way. It means that I take account of it's historical context. I don't read Psalm 19:4 ("In them [the heavens] he has set a tent for the sun") and think that people then believed that the sun lived in a tent - no, I read it as poetry, describing (with the surrounding verses) how God sustains the earth day-by-day. Countless examples could be taken! I doubt very much if there is anyone who lives by the Old Testament laws that you quoted - unless they're locked up in prison for murdering weekend shoppers.

In the end it's not all about whether I feel I'm a Christian or how I choose to interpret various obscure parts of the Old Testament. It's about living in relationship with Jesus, knowing that I am forgiven and have a secure future in heaven. God doesn't require me to have a perfect understanding of scripture in order to be a Christian (if he did, I'd certainly not stand a chance). Now clearly there are Christians who disagree - but that doesn't mean that they're both right and truth doesn't matter. It usually means that they're both wrong in some ways, but I am sure that they would agree on the essentials: things like Jesus being God, and the only way for our sins to be forgiven, etc.

The heart of the Bible is a historical account of God's actions in history, climaxing in the coming of Jesus. They're not just ideas or doctrines or dreams coming out of nowhere and claiming divine authority - they're records of historical, supernatural events that point us beyond this material universe to a reality beyond. Jesus made some amazing claims - but they would just remain as claims if he had not back them up in his miraculous actions, culminating in him rising from the dead. It is on these historical grounds that we can accept the biblical writings about him; in the same way we can reject other documents as just people's ideas, rather than from God. Which is why I have kept on challenging you to actually read some of the Bible - you will see that it cannot be just man-made ideas, because in such a large document there is so much integrity and such a ring of truth to it. You don't write down a biography of a man's life just a few years after he has died and make it full of lies without anyone at the time raising a fuss. Even Jesus' sharpest critics could not deny that he had done amazing things - it's just they could not stomach the claims that he made alongside those miracles that he was God. No one can deny that Jesus lived 2000 years ago and did some amazing things - but we must all come to some assessment of his claims, about whether they are true or false.

What if God turned up tomorrow and announced that he was here to judge the earth? It would be a bit late to turn back to him then! Which is exactly why we don't play the 'what if...?' game, and instead we rely on the historical documents of the Bible, compiled over 1000 years by about 40 different authors - yet it all holds together with one central message: mankind has rebelled against their creator God, but God wants to offer them a way back to him, so he sends Jesus, his only Son, to die in mankind's place. Try it - read it - tell me I've missed the point of the Bible. But stop deflecting the possibility that the Bible may hold truth by hiding behind hypothetical situations and illogical arguments that don't hold water.

Sorry if that was a bit blunt...I felt that my answering your questions wasn't really getting across my point... Please take me up on my challenge to read some of the Bible - it's time much better spent than discussing ideas with me!

[Sierra]

John,

I have read the bible extensively. You would be suprised.

Sure, the poetry aspect exists, but when god commands people to kill those who work on the sabbath, that is not poetic. I also studied the book of Ezekial. When I tried to discuss it with a pastor I knew he wrote it off saying Exekial was nuts.

I think Ezekial describes a flying machine. No one ever wants to discuss it.

I encourage you to believe as you wish. The problem is is that is the first step of a two step problem. The second step is that "believers" insist in ramming down the throats of everyone else.

Religion works its way in to law and that is offensive to me. In the southern US many states will not sanction the sale of alcohol on Sunday for instance. If you are comfortable in your beliefs then I should be able to live next to you, stay drunk all the time, read pornography and buy lottery tickets to the extent I want.

The problem is that the christians all become intent on saving me.

D

[frigate]

Not being a Christian, or anything else for that matter, and not feeling the need to belong to any other "club" that worships according to a given "code of laws" I can sympathise with the views of sierra. The main problem with present day western european Christianity (and north/south american) is that it is based on the Idolatrous Roman Catholic model. Roman Catholicism is a tweaked from of christianity that is fundamentally designed to hold an empire together and religiously unite it in a concentrated effort against it's "infidel" enemies. It is a religion of fear and oppression. The simple minded citizen is not receptive to the educational form of christianity so idolatry was reintroduced to overawe the masses, sound familiar? Anything goes so long as the pope clears it, even brother and sister marriages (it happened a few times among the newly baptised Inca's in Spanish occupied Peru. Recognition of illegitimate children was also sorted out for both the spaniards and Inca nobility.) At first this was the case with the Roman Empire then it was that unquestionable justification for war, and christian crusade among the fueding states of medieval europe. With a simple application (and a cash bung) to the pope, a despot with enough military might could assemble his men and ride or sail off to bring christianity to the uninstructed "barbarians". If this meant slavery, torture, mutilation, rape, looting and razing villages during the "conversion" (conquest), then so be it. Modern day christianity is based on the institutions created during these times, it is still archaic. The bibles translation and interpretation has been severely warped during this period also.

Personally I don't believe that Jesus Christ was the son of god, because I find it strange that the supreme being would send his son in human form to intervene in this world. Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Islam evolved from Christianity. They are all stages of development of the same religion. The idea of god sending a son to earth is more in keeping with early roman/greek polytheistic mythology it is out of character for monotheistic religions.

I believe, as is being popularly vaunted at present though for my own reasons, that Jesus Christ was indeed heir to the throne of the king of Israel and not the son of god. In ancient civilisations the king was the representative of god on earth if not proclaimed as his son by some mysterious decent. This is just another example of this combined with bad translation, which is probably the key to all the mysteries of the bible.

My point is that Christianity is several "clubs" or cults, not a true religion. It has been so much corrupted by time and events it's just not llegitimate any more. There is truth in the bible if you read between the lines and do some serious research as people have, but those who have done this have found that the bible is a seriously questionable work and that it's spectacular and miraculous contents are the most questionable. Those who have not and continue to blindly believe it because they want to and are afraid to question, usually don't have the knowledge to back up what they're saying. They just have faith which usually means that they were indoctrinated from birth or sucked into a cult like the "Church of Jesus Christ" (mormons) by some manipulative individuals. Think about it this way, if you'd been born into another culture then you probably wouldn't be a christian, this means that your culture or other people chose your faith for you.

Also the statistics for 70% christian are somewhat false. Many people in the UK "tick the christian box", but thats as far as their christianity goes.

Just my opinion though... :rolleyes:

-edit: don't try to save me.

[Sierra]

Excellent post. You said it better than I could. Christianity can ultimately trace its beginnings to the cults of Isis, Osiris and Dionysus.

The point is that it is a story. A nice story but it has been re-written and "adjusted" time and time again. In reality it is a dangerous message that is a tool of perversion.

If Jesus existed as a historical person what he is and was is long gone. He was not the son of a god. There were countless "messiahs" on records at the same time, all performing miracles and passing out fish.

If god truly existed women would not have been relegated to the role they have in history. Mary Magdalane was probably Jesus's wife and co-ruler. She was unlikely a prostitute, but this message was created by men for the purpose of controlling women.

Again, if Christianity did not grow and creep I would urge people to have their faith. The problem is before long people begin to classify a nation as a "Christian nation" or a "muslim nation" and that is where the trouble begins.

I would question any god for instance who could create a tree but then did not feel complete unless I sat around telling him how great it was.

The new testament tells us that god is a "jealous god". Why? If he is it what is there to be jealous of.

I suggest you read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy.

The more you understand about the universe the less you will need a god. There is none.

Dave

[Naomi]

Dear Sierra,

You seem to have a very confused idea of what Christianity is all about. Just one little example is you saying the New Testament says God is a jealous God. Those words actually come from the Old Testament. Words can be easily misunderstood out of context. If my husband went off with another woman I would be jealous because I love him and would want him back. That sort of jealousy is not destructive and spiteful but the pain of betrayal and loss.

True biblical Christianity is not a religion it is a way of life that is entered into through faith. it brigns out the best in people not the worst. I can't prove to you that God exists but I have examined the evidence and staked my life on it.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would rather live my life usefully serving others and praising God and die trusting that there is a life with God beyond death than live in the cynicism and hopelessness that is all you have to offer. One day we may all have to meet God - I'd rather be prepared for that moment. If He isn't there then I will have lost nothing.

Naomi

[frigate]

You seem to have a very confused idea of what Christianity is all about.

I'd say he was spot on.

Just one little example is you saying the New Testament says God is a jealous God. Those words actually come from the Old Testament.

The bible is the bible, I hardly think a petty error or typo is relevant?

Words can be easily misunderstood out of context.

That is the exact problem with the bible.

If my husband went off with another woman I would be jealous because I love him and would want him back. That sort of jealousy is not destructive and spiteful but the pain of betrayal and loss.

You're adding the word "jealousy" into a paragraph where it is just doesn't make sense.

True biblical Christianity

Which version of the bible are we talking about here?

...is not a religion it is a way of life that is entered into through faith. it brigns out the best in people not the worst. I can't prove to you that God exists

So now christianity is a "way of life" and not a religion? Exactly what I was saying earlier.

...but I have examined the evidence and staked my life on it.

So now there is "evidence" that you have "examined"?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would rather live my life usefully serving others and praising God and die trusting that there is a life with God beyond death than live in the cynicism and hopelessness that is all you have to offer. One day we may all have to meet God - I'd rather be prepared for that moment. If He isn't there then I will have lost nothing.

Naomi

So even you doubt? You are simply going through the motions in case it's real?!

[Dave]

We have no problem with this debate about Christianity taking place here, but the tone is rapidly deteriorating into one of personal attack - something which is not helpful to the main purpose of this board which is to support those struggling in their marriages.

Forensic demolition, as attempted in the last post, is rarely useful in any relationship - indeed if the tone adopted by Frigate and Sierra is indicative of the way you have approached your relationships, I cannot be surprised that you have wandered into a place for those whose relationships are not working.

Part of the art of building a relationship is to listen to a whole arguement, not to react to each word and phrase - only in this way does a constructive understanding get built.

Take a leaf from the posts of Kate, Liz, Concerned Reader, and even John and Naomi below, and practice a little wholesome listening, gentleness and self control please.

Dave

[frigate]

I fail to see the "personal attack" in what I posted here? You are offended because people have criticised your religion, it's as simple as that.

That was not "forensic demolition", the post I criticised attempted to do just that to sierra's last post. And now you insult the way I have approached my relationships?! That makes your "tone" one of "personal attack" not mine.

This is the typical attitude of the holier than thou christian mentality.

Chao

[Sierra]

Alright everyone.......lets not go overboard.

The problem is that now Dave and Naomi consider themselves good christians.

If Naomi seeks to adopt christianity as her "way of life" thats fine. The problem is that she and those like her soon declare "their way" as "the way" and begin forcing it on everyone.

There is no "evidence" of god. Not one tiny bit. In fact the only thing that suggests his existence at all is a little book. If you want to have "faith" that the happy hunting ground is waiting for you that is your business. But while you plan the reunion with your dead relatives does it not make you wonder why there are so many in this world going straight to hell?

I mean we have jews, muslims, buddists, mormons, pagans, zoroaster(sp?), hindis, not to mention aboriginees and other tribal faiths.

The big argument I get is "do you really think you are right and so many others are wrong?". Actually, yes I do, and so do Dave and Naiomi. Dave and Naomi wake up every day "knowing" that they have discovered the correct path to god.

There will never be a day when they announce "you know what....the muslims are right and I am wrong".

That means that yes, Dave and Naomi believe that 70%+ of the people in the world are wrong and they are right.

Think about this. If Dave and Naomi had been born in Bophal, India, they would not be Christian. They would be whatever their indian parents trained them to be. Religion is a "way of life", its just that it is a man-made concept that is taught.

Show me one piece of evidence of "god" that can be independantly verified and I will begin worshiping immediately.

D

[Naomi]

Dear Sierra,

You are very welcome to your opinions and beliefs. I am not trying to force my beliefs on you or anyone else. You chose to post here and so must expect that some of us will disagree with you. Why else did you post?

As to showing you one piece of evidence that can be independently verified, there is lots of evidence that the bible is one of the most accurately passed down book with loads more early manuscripts than any other ancient book. There are references to Jesus' life by non-Christian contemporary authors in early documents. There is more evidence for his existence than for Julius Caesar. There is also evidence that thousands of people over the years have accepted his teaching and found it gave them a purpose in life. You focus on the thousands who don't know him - just your own personal view of life as no doubt you view mine!

My challenge to you is can you provide evidence that God does not exist?

Naomi

[Sierra]

Naomi,

In order to support the belief in god, you must prove he does exist (proving a positive) instead of me proving he does not exist (proving a negative). A lack of evidence of a negative is not proof of a positive. I would not ask you to prove UFO's don't exist. It would be incumbent on me to prove that they do.

Additionally, the fact that large numbers of people CHOOSE to believe the fallacy of god and feel that it gave them "a purpose in life" is no proof of god. Most everyone in the world at one time believed the the earth was flat too. Widespread belief does not make a thing a fact.

Lastly, for every book that says god exists there is one that says he does not. Check out the gnostic gospels. They have a very different view of who Jesus supposedly was. I suppose they were written by the devil just to trick everyone right?

You are right about one thing. I did choose to post here and I am happy people disagree with me. Most people are still shackled to religion.

In a lively discussion I just want to try to make you think and ask questions. The church would tell you that to question represents "the devil creeping in". Thats crap. If god did exist, to question to reaffirm proper faith would be a good thing.

The church does not want you to question because you might ask a question they can not answer.

You look up a the night sky and see the hand of god. If that is what you need, so be it. I look up at the night sky and see the wonderful random chance that made it all possible. I marvel that I can comprehend it at all.

Beware of people who tell you to believe and have faith (in any situation). That is where the atrocities start.

D

[Travis]

Sierra,

"There is no "evidence" of god. Not one tiny bit. In fact the only thing that suggests his existence at all is a little book."

Can you provide me with conclusive proof that you are conscious..?

Nope.

Its self-evident to you that you are, based on your everyday experience of consciousness. All I can do is judge that you posess it, based on how you appear to behave to me. No amount of science can fully explain consciousness, it can detect certain electrical signals in the brain that we suspect are connected with conscious activity, it can posit numerous models for how the mind works... but this is not 'proof' of consciousness. Belief in it is purely subjective, based on personal experience. (is it not?)

A similar thing applies with God. Very few people turn to Christianity because they have studied the Historicity of the Bible, and high levels of theology. They simply experience God in their life every day, just as you experience consciousness every day. Thats all the evidence that is needed. Neither can be proven scientifically or logically.

Rational Logic has severe limits, and is ultimately self-defeating. It has a very important role to play, but your criticism of faith is false, as all reasoning is ultimately based on faith (whether it be faith in your senses, or faith in your own ability to reason etc). You cannot rationally demonstrate that God exists. You cannot rationally demonstrate that rationality leads to truth.

My point is that you need to strike a balance. Ultimately how is your crusade against religion any more productive than a believers crusade against you..? You operate on blind faith everyday, this is based on your collective experience over the years. Just as a believer operates on the faith that God exists, based on their everyday experience of Him over the years.

It is impossible for us to show who is right... you or them. All you can do is recognise that your beliefs are actually based on exactly the same grounds as theirs.. (...speck...log...eye...??)

Let it be.

[Sierra]

You are mixing apples and oranges. I can prove I am conscious as soon as we define objective criteria against which to test. Even if that becomes a debate I can still prove I EXIST.

You prove to me that god exists and then we can debate whether or not he is conscious (or any other aspect of his nature). Lets find him first.

My beliefs are NOT based on the same grounds. No one has handed me a little book, told me it was written by a god, that I must believe it without question and that if I do I get to go to an imaginary afterlife.

THAT is the non-thinking approach. No one "experiences god everyday". People are taught however that every time an opportunity breaks their way it is proof of "gods" active hand in their life. After all, a near miss in a auto accident is not luck or random chance, christians are taught that god reached out and physically prevented and accident from happening. That becomes the "experiencing god everday" of which you speak.

I, on the other hand, am ok saying "whew, that was close" and moving on with my life. I don't see invisible people and forces protecting me everywhere I go.

My beliefs are based on rational understanding of the world around me. For instance, there is NO WAY the earth flooded to the tops of the mountains. There is no way Jesus (a male) was born from a virgin. There is no way Noah took animals 2x2 and repopulated the world. There is no way that a god created the world in 7 days and there is no way that (as biblical scholars will tell you) the earth is 36,000 years old. There is no mention of dinosaurs and we know they existed (for instance).

These things christians are told to believe are factually untrue and physically impossible. The bible is therefore composed of significant material factual error. Yet it is suposedly written by god.

You may believe if you wish. It does not exist.

The bible is a nice guide for friendly social behavior which is nice to have if we all want to live together. However, to suggest any of it is "real" or "factually accurate" defies logic and even a modestly objective observation of the planet on which we live.

D

[John]

I'm back again having kept my head down for a bit to watch proceedings...

Dave, your 'rational understanding' of the world is based on certain presuppositions that require you to have faith. This is exactly the same kind of faith that I exercise when I choose to believe that there is a God.

You presuppose that there isn't a God
-> therefore Jesus couldn't be born from a virgin
- -> therefore the Bible isn't true
- - -> therefore Christianity isn't true
(?- - - - > therefore there isn't a God)

Your logic is flawless (except perhaps the last step!), but what I am arguing is that your presupposition is unfounded. This is how my thinking works:

I presuppose that there might be a God
-> therefore Jesus could have been born from a virgin
- -> therefore the Bible could be true
- - -> therefore Christianity could be true

Your 'rational understanding' that presupposes that there is no God depends on you having faith that he is not there. Just because you have never experienced him (or have never recognised it when you have) does not necessarily prove that he does not exist.

I think that this is the point that Travis was making...

[Dave]

This I have to see - even Descartes failed to prove his famous treatise "Ergo Cogito Sum".

So please Sierra, go ahead and prove you exist - it has defeated the greatest philosophers for the last 5000 years, but if you have the answer I shall be delighted to be the board owner where the truth was finally revealed!!

Dave

[Sierra]

Somebody is typing this. It occurred and can be independantly observed. If I stand before you, you and others will see me. I'm tactile. I can be photographed. Touched. I may not exist, but either way at least you have something to test.

With god, when faced with not a shred of physical evidence, christians trowel "faith" into the crack. It smooths over the fact that there is no evidence to support the assertion.

My logic goes like this.

The bible tells us there is a god.
> Factually we know the bible to be riddled with impossibilities
>>Therefore the bible is not true and therefore unreliable
>>>If we are to prove god we must find other evidence
>>>>There is no objective evidence.
>>>>>Er go god does not exist.

That is exactly why they call it faith. Outside of the bible (an incorrect book that tells us it is perfect in every way) there is no objective proof of god other than throngs of people who believe in the bible (I believe they call that a mobius loop).

I think you guys go:

I have been told there is a god
>I really want there to be a god
>>I chose to believe there is a god
>>>I interpret information against a foregone conclusion there is a god
>>>>This information proves that god exists
>>>>>Anything that does not fit is discarded and replaced with faith.

I suppose there could be a god. There "could be" a lot of things. The list is infinite. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, martians, mermaids, on and on.

Just because something COULD BE and there is no proof that it ISNT is not proof that it IS. Logic does not work that way.

You can not prove to me that Santa Claus does not exist.

D

[Travis]

Sierra,

"I can prove I am conscious as soon as we define objective criteria against which to test. Even if that becomes a debate I can still prove I EXIST."

'Objective criteria'..?! such as what. You misunderstand what I meant (my fault, I phrased it badly). Of course you can pretty much prove to yourself that you are conscious/exist... you cannot in any way show to ME that YOU are conscious, thats another matter entirely. Im simply taking your scepticism to its ultimate logical conclusion.

When I speak of people experiencing God in their everyday lives, im not talking about dramatic near car crashes etc. Im talking about experience on the most subtle level. God doesnt even need to do anything particular day to day for someone to experience him, hes just... there... just like consciousness (to stick with the same analogy).

The believers logic goes more like this

I experience what I understand to be 'God'
>There is no reason not to believe this experience to be accurate
>>The Bible supposedly describes this 'God'
>>>The Bible (understood in context - emphasis on context) is historically accurate
>>>>Therefore I can rely on it
>>>>>So i have a faith in God, based on my relationship/experience with him, aided by reading the Bible.

There is a fundamental problem with your utter reliance on logic/rationality when approaching God.

Here is a logically valid argument:

1. Dogs bark
2. My cat is a dog.
therefore
3. My cat barks.

Obviously senseless. Logic is concerned with the structure of thinking/reasoning... the truth of the original premises is another matter entirely. Logic ultimately descends into an infinite regress... you must prove the premises for your arguement true (ie that 'dogs bark')... then prove your proof for your premises, then the proof of the proof of the proof etc etc. Ultimately, to avoid complete scepticism, you must assume some of your experiences to be true.

You seem to start from the (utterly unsupportable) premise that rationality leads to truth (fair enough, based on your experience it generally does), believers start from the premise that rationality is secondary to their experience of God. Like I said before, a BALANCE is needed.

Every day you place blind faith in many things. Everytime you cross the road you assume you can rely on your senses to show you where the traffic is (experience tells you they are generally reliable). Believers use the same logic to rely on God, something they think they experience everyday.

One other thing,

"The bible is therefore composed of significant material factual error. Yet it is suposedly written by god"

Christians do not believe the Bible to be written by God. It is written by men, inspired by God. As such it is open to a degree of whatever cultural/personal bias the writer posesses. Sure, many Chrsitians may believe in things that are factually untrue.. this is not the point though, (without a degree in Physics we all believe things that are inaccurate) every belief about floods, creation, arks, dinosaurs is completely secondary to the believers relationship with/understanding of Jesus. If you want to attack Christianity then forget these peripheral details, the core of the religion is perceived relationship.. something that, like consciousness, is a strictly personal thing.

'Proof' is a word I have lost all understanding of. Your appraoch to Christians is not going to get you anywhere... there are much more pertinant ways of criticising religion than through reason.

[Dave]

If I understand you Sierra then proof of existence = it can be observed with one or more of your five senses.

Does anger exist? Does happiness? I may observe the contorted face and raised voice of another and posit that the other is angry - but what does that prove? If an actor acts angry, does that mean he is angry?? I can certainly experince anger in myself at a situation, but does that make it real? Another in the same situation might experience amusement, or embarrassment - which of our observations is the truth?

If a tree fall in the midst of a vast forest and no-one observes it, did the crash it made exist or not? Presumably since there is no evidence remaining of this noise it didn't happen. Well, you'll say, most falling trees make a noise, so if this one fell, then it probably made a noise too. But that doesn't prove anything - it's just a hypothesis which may be useful, but it doesn't prove truth.

It gets even more exciting if we go off into the realm of scientific observation. Tell me how you can accurately observe and ascertain absolute truth when Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle expressly says that if I know exactly where something is, I cannot simultaneously be certain of its velocity etc.

All an external observation does is to reinforce, or occasionally change, ones own current model of reality - it doesn't prove anything - it only supports the internal model that we choose to use. It's all based (as I think both John and Travis have said) on a set of pre-suppositions about the nature of the observer, the observed, and the medium conveying the information.

Anyway, you promised to prove to me that you exist! The only observable fact I have right now is that some photons from my LCD screen have transferred to my retina in a pattern which, fortuitously, I have an entirely learned model for that I shall use to imply another abstract construct called language, which again using another model I shall imbue with some meaning!! Every one of these models can be changed - for eample I can rather easily change the font to Wingdings and all of a sudden there is no useful meaning transferred - ah, you have ceased to exist!!


Dave

[Sierra]

Your consicousness statement makes no sense. Define an objective criteria against which my and your states can be measured and I will "prove" what state I am in.

I love this statement:

"there are much more pertinant ways of criticising religion than through reason"

Roughly translated that means that although it dosen't make sense, we are going to believe anyway.

Don't give me that "inspired by god" stuff for bible writing etiher. Ask any evangelical christian (or most any other for that matter) that they will tell you that it is a FACT that the bible is the INFALLIBLE word or god, written by inspired me, that is free from error. Lets be clear....there is absolutely no wiggle room here. The bible is the PERFECT word of god. God is speaking.

Then you say "every belief about floods, creation, arks, dinosaurs is completely secondary to the believers relationship with/understanding of Jesus." What that means is when confronted with a mountain of evidence that points to a version of Earth history that differs from what the bible says, we will chose to believe anyway.

I believe that most people do this as they are seeking some common thread throughout their lives that give it all meaning. In short - it makes your life seem better if there is a "purpose" and you have a "partner" helping you along.

Thats fine. So be it. It is your choice.

Your argument fails though. You insist that because I can not prove that god does not exist, he must. That does not work.

This says it all:

I experience what I understand to be 'God'. Fine, but your "understanding" is a choice. You interpret the situation that way. Essentially what you are saying is no experience is still and experience. Again, proving a negative. "I can't prove it, but I know he was there."

If you want to "understand" that fine. Every December my children "understand" that Santa is watching a finalizing a list with their name on it. It is very real to them as are the letters they write to the north pole. They fully experience the acticipation and tingle at the very thought the fat bastard is going to squeeze down our chimney.

You said it best:

"Believers use the same logic to rely on God, something they think they experience everyday."

I agree. They THINK they experience it.

Dosen't make it real. Santa is not watching.

There is no god.

Dave

[Dave]

Dear Sierra

I'll let Travis answer most your latest response (I presume it was to his post) - he seems to me to have a rather clear understanding of philosophy.

Let me just point to some rather quaint logic in your position:


I love this statement:

"there are much more pertinant ways of criticising religion than through reason"

Roughly translated that means that although it dosen't make sense, we are going to believe anyway.



"Roughly translated" - what, we're not going to actually read what it says using cold logic? All Travis says is that reason (logical reductionism) won't get you to where you want, and there are better ways!

"although it doesn't make sense" - ah, a presupposition, only "reason" can equal "sense", plus a heirarchy of values (another presupposition): "sense" is a higher value than "belief", and without logical rational deduction, belief is unacceptable.

Now then, let me see the logic for the statement "I exist" - oh yes, it was based on observations through five senses - but at best that can only inform a belief - "I see you, therefore I believe you are there". Suppose what I saw was only a reflection, would you still exist? Or if I shut my eyes and picture you with two heads, do you now exist in this form?

Please provide a rational arguement for your existence, without any presuppositions!

Dave

[Travis]

Sierra, thankyou for your response.. but a few things to clear up.

I havent made any statement of my beliefs thus far, Iv simply explained the two sides of the problem.

This is (what I understand to be) your thought process.

1. Rationality (ie. a series of logical laws) leads us to truth about the universe.
2. Rationality dictates that there are contradictions in religious beliefs in God. In other words, religion/belief in God is irrational.
therefore
3. God cannot exist.

Your problem is that statement 1. cannot be verified in any way. Its an assumption that many of the greatest thinkers throughout history (Plato, Hume, Berkeley, Wittgenstein, Satre etc) have rejected.. its actually a fairly recent phenomenon to believe 1. at all.

Neither can statement 2. be verified. You cannot prove that your perception of what is 'rational' is correct. Your understanding of the laws of logic is purely subjective... logic is a model we create to understand the universe. Nor can you demonstrate that 'God' (whatever that means) is subordinate to logic.

Therefore 3. cannot be said with any sort of certainty. If can be accepted, but not on any conclusive or rational grounds.

"Your consicousness statement makes no sense. Define an objective criteria against which my and your states can be measured and I will "prove" what state I am in."

No such criteria exists (or we are not capable of knowing it).. that is the point. There is no way for me to objectively and rationally prove that you are conscious. Likewise there is no way to rationally prove that God exists. If such a proof exists that you are conscious (as opposed to just showing all the outward and secondary signs of consciousness - this does not constitute 'proof') then please share it with us.

"Roughly translated that means that although it dosen't make sense, we are going to believe anyway"

No, roughly translated, that means that you are giving to Rationality undue authority. Religious issues that are necessarily beyond rationality (as has been shown to be perfectly possible/necessary) cannot be attacked by rationality. Rationality itself is based on the same subjective perception that religion is.

This question is related (in fact its central), and I would appreciate a simple answer: how would you define Beauty..? Is it a quality an object posesses, or in the eye of the beholder..? Define it.

"Then you say "every belief about floods, creation, arks, dinosaurs is completely secondary to the believers relationship with/understanding of Jesus." What that means is when confronted with a mountain of evidence that points to a version of Earth history that differs from what the bible says, we will chose to believe anyway."

No, Im saying that to a believer the history is the Earth is ultimately irrelevant. If some believers believe things about science and history that are actually untrue then in the grand scheme of things this is unimportant... all thats important is their belief in God. If thats wrong or right then its significant, anything else ultimately doesnt matter to them.
Im not saying this is my belief, but there is more at stake than knowledge/intelligence for its own sake here.

"I experience what I understand to be 'God'. Fine, but your "understanding" is a choice."

...is it...? Can you choose to believe in Father Christmas..? Go on.. try... I cant. (I can intellectually entertain the idea that he exists, but I cant 'believe' he does.) Belief in God requires a certain amount of choice in terms of accepting evidence as going one way or another, but its not so simple as choosing what to wear one day to the next.

All you are doing is demonstrating that it is equally impossible to argue to God's existence, as it is to argue to his non-existence. I am not saying that just because you cant prove he doesnt exist Im going to believe to him.. try this..

(to use an old analogy...)

I want to prove to you that you are not conscious.. is there anything I can say that would actually persuade you of this..? There are various logical or scientific arguments I could use against you, but none are conclusive. This is all you are doing. You currently perceive yourself to be conscious.. fine. Believers currently perceive themselves to be in a relationship with God.. why is that any less fine, or any more subjective..?

This has been a very negative dicussion so far, may I ask what you DO believe..? Why are you here? (Why does the question 'why' really mean anything at all..?) What is your response to the above question concerning Beauty..?

Thankyou.

(To clarify, I am not trying to convert you to Christianity, or even persuade you that God exists. I am merely trying to show you why your arguments are ultimately useless.)

[Sierra]

Ok, first of all, I get it....I do. Out is coming all the "how high is up" .... " prove you exist" ......on and on....argument to try to defend a belief in something that does not exist.

Lets face it....when you start debating why does "why" mean anything you demonstrate that you are grasping at straws.

God does not exist. There is no evidence that will survive scrutiny.

These argument sound persuasive and very logical but in the end they try to circle back on themselves in that they seek to prove via a lack of proof that something exists.

As soon as logical arguments against the existence of god are presented we kick down into this nonsense. Prove you exist.....she me you are conscous....Facts go out the window.

I am not versed in the logic and argument of Plato. Not relevant here.

As far as beauty is concerned, that involves interpretation. Interpretation of something that exists. The existence of something is the first step to interpretation. That existence can be a concept. Democracy is a beautiful concept. So is god.

But then we have to take a big fat step into reality. We have to realize that religion came from a time and from the same place that tells us white is good and black is bad. It stems from a time when people feared what was just outside the light of their campfires and the world was a mystical place full of things that could not be explained.

Man created myths to explain the unexplainable. He drew figures in the stars and worshipped those consetllations as real. He took the actions he could to control the universe he understood. Remember the good old days when if the ground shook it mean the gold were angry and it was time for a sacrifice.

Hungry gods. Angry gods. Numerous gods.

And then we grew up.

You asked what I believe in. In short - NOTHING. I am not here for any reason. There is no purpose other than what I create. There is no "purpose" in life.

Why is that so hard for you to accept.

I think it is beautiful and freeing. I can accept each day as an opportunity. I can marvel at random chance, evolution and the whole improbability that it all came together the way it did. I am not screwing everyone in this life as I get ready for eternity. I appreciate all of it.

The odds against winning a big lottery are millions to one against but almost every week someone does. It dosent mean a god wanted them to have extra money. It just worked out that way.

The winning point for me is that if you showed me god existed, or he bothered to, then I would believe. You on the other hand, not one moment of your life would likely concede that he does not. Its like the "christian scientists". They already know the answer.....their job revolves around manufacturing proof.

Lets hear you rattle off some positive proof of god. There is none. He does not exist. Religion is about indoctrination.

Dave

[Travis]

"Ok, first of all, I get it....I do. Out is coming all the "how high is up" .... " prove you exist" ......on and on....argument to try to defend a belief in something that does not exist."

*shrugs*

All Im saying is that all this arguing is utterly pointless. You cannot 'prove' a thing, nor can those you're arguing with.

"These argument sound persuasive and very logical but in the end they try to circle back on themselves in that they seek to prove via a lack of proof that something exists."

?? Noone is trying to prove that God exists, or that because of lack of evidence for his non-existence he exists. Im just telling you that 'proof' is irrelevant, as it is unattainable without certain assumptions.

I have no problem with accepting your position.. I am merely pointing out that your inability to accept others positions is baseless. I can understand perfectly why you dont believe in God, and Im not trying to persuade you of anything different. Im simply saying your beliefs are your beliefs, others perceive the world differently and you cannot show them to be incorrect.

You came here to announce that 'There is no God'. This is not something that is possible to demonstrate... there are a million ways to explain the world without God, but if they fundamentally conflict with some peoples (ie. 99% of people in history's) immediate experiences and perceptions of existence then these people reserve the right to believe in him, just as you have the right to choose not to believe in him.

Your faith in rationality is a result of indoctrination, just as much as anyones belief in God. This is not a conversation that is going to reach a definitive conclusion, it simply comes down to two fundamentally different, but equally subjective, views of existence.

[Sierra]

What I came here to announce is that people need to stop waiting for an invisible man to solve their problems.

Recognizing that there is no god feed unbridled self-reliance. Religion fosters dependence. It is exactly like a drug.

The problem is that those who insist on relying on the religous crutch all too often forego their responsibilities and then either pray to be saved or ask that society at large step in and save them.

I once saw on TV here in the US a group of people, who, when faced with the prospect of a hurricane roaring down on North Carolina, ran down to their church and began praying. They had them on the news. "Dear lord, please turn this dread storm back out to sea..............."

These same people will want donations when they lose their possessions because they "did not have time" to board up their windows.

Believe if you wish.

There is no god.

D

[Dave]

So round and round we go!!

Travis seems finally to have nailed the "proof" issue - it's neither possible nor useful to talk of proofs.

We come back then to utilitarian arguements - Sierra chooses to riducule and charicature those believing in God, whilst at the same time being offended if we don't take on his opinions. Yet in an earlier post he indicated a desire to "stay drunk all the time, read pornography and buy lottery tickets" (and live next door to me!!). Nihilism (a belief that there is nothing beyond us, and that all is as a consequence of chance) logically leads to such outcomes - after all why care about the future, the society or others? It's entirely self consistent, and works for a few generations and then breaks down - anthropology has plenty of examples of civilisations that took this path - and died out.

Deistic societies generally have constructed a social order, based upon a set of rules and customs that have steadily increased the productive energy of society and have progressed. Interestingly, and here you have to go back to the works of J D Unwin in the 1930's, these societies tend to stagnate or regress when the regulation of sexual behaviour starts to break down.

Moving down one level, from civilisations to societies, it's interesting to note that the vast majority of voluntary caring work, social care etc is provided by those involved with some form of religion (Christians in the UK and US, but I dare say other religions in their own societies). Their belief systems typically require care for the weak, vulnerable etc.

I am not arguing that historically some pretty terrible things have been done in the name of various religions. But then if you take Nazism, Marxism, Phol Pot to name but three from the last 100 years, all fundamentally nihilist and atheist, their track record doesn't look so rosy either. One can probably draw the conclusion that attempting to impose any belief system by force is genrally not productive.

At a purely personal level the belief in a God is useful too. Sierra, you castigate those who believe in this way as being "dependant" - well actually we all are - take a look at Maslow's heirarchy of needs - dependency (emotionally) is critical to the evolution of the species in his view - it guides survival. The difference is that if I believe in a God who meets my needs, then I am freed from seeking satisfaction of the needs from those around me - I have a far wider range of responses available to me (You'd need to read some of Larry Crabb's psychology work to go further with this). What it fundamentally allows me to do is to have non-manipulative relationships based upon unconditional self surrender. Probably doesn't sound very attractive to you, but trust me this is the only route to total intimacy with another, the joys and pleasures of which defy description.

Finally, at a purely pragmatic level, if I am right about a God and afterlife, and have lived a pleasing life to God, then I will have the possibility of some further existence. If I am wrong, and there is nothng, then I will have lost nothing. If you take the alternative view believing there is nothing, and living accordingly, and there does turn out to be a God and afterlife, then you could be in for a really nasty shock!! This is a "minimum regret" strategy for those into Game theory.

So in summary, since we have dispensed with the "prove it" line (and a Philosophical approach), and now turn to tests of usefulness, let's have a mature discussion about whether a belief in a God is more or less useful - we can do this in the spheres of anthropology, sociology or psychology - I have breifly outlined some issues in each.

Do please set out your stall in any or all of these, but let's please do it by outlining why it works from our perspective instead of your usual style of attempted character assasination of others views by ridicule - let's move a more mature debate.
Dave

[S-H]

Wow! Well hello everyone. I must say his has been a very interesting and educational read. I really don't think there is anything I can add to either side. The problems and arguements have been chewed over and then chewed once more. But I just have one small question that has been bugging me ever since opening this topic...

What is the point behind this discussion?

There have been countless complaints in this topic at Christians 'shoving their beliefs down people's throats' and 'trying to convert people'. But i must ask what on earth was the point behind this topic except for to 'push the belief down people's throat' that 'there is no God'?

Correct me if I am wrong (as I am sure someone will), but is not this topic merely an attempt to 'convert' christians away from their beliefs? Why is it not possible to accept that we believe one thing and you believe something else? I understand that there are many Christians out there who may feel the need to actively 'convert' people but as far as I have seen the need to convert people is not apparent on this forum. Instead the tables are turned and it is an attempt to stop people believing in God !?! It seems a little hypocritical.... What is the point?

I'm afraid I have a dislike of confict and so that part of my personality has prompted me to question the point of throwing the same arguements back and forth at each other when neither side wishes to change their minds and people are merely getting frustrated. However, if people still feel there is a need to do this, feel free, knock yourselves out!

S-H

[Sierra]

The point is that many perople either create or increase their suffering in life while they await the intervention of a non-existant god.

Look at all the people here who are seeking widespread prayer to save their marriage here.

It is sad and unfortunate that people invoke these things rather that recognizing the success or failure of the endeavor is entirely within their (collectively) hands.

There is no "god" to save your marriage. No "spirit" that will cure a sick child and no diety to invoke to help with any number of causes of suffering. You spouse did not leave you because the "devil" got hold of her and "god" is not going to drive this devil out.

"God" the bible and christianity have been little more than a cuase of immeasurable suffering and self denial for centuries.

It is time people broaden their minds, stop living under the boot of a god who's "wrath" needs to be feared and go forth and take affirmative charge of their lives.

"We find collected in this book [The Bible] the superstitious beliefs of the ancient inhabitants of Palestine, with indistinct echoes of Indian and Persian fables, mistaken imitation of Egyptian theories and customs, historical chronicles as dry as they are unreliable and miscellaneous poems, amatory, human and Jewish-national, which is rarely distinguished by beauties of the highest order but frequently by superfluity of expression, coarseness, bad taste, and genuine Oriental sensuality." Max Nordau (1849-1923)

There is no god.

Live you life for you.

D

[Sierra]

P.S. - I am not trying to "Character assasinate" anyone. Being told you need to think and stop being a mindless deciple is not character assasination.

D

[Naomi]

No it's just insulting because you are saying that anyone who believes in God is a mindless disciple who never thinks.

I'm a trained scientist who thinks very deeply about life yet I have come to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the God who cares deeply for every human being and who gives hope to many in a difficult world. That hope does not make us lean on Him in the helpless way you describe, but frees us to face our problems and live life to the full.

You have a very distorted view of Christianity, but that's the way you see it and you're welcome to it.

Naomi

[Dave]

OK - time to draw a line under this I think


My thanks to all who posted and developed some of the discussion.

Sierra I'm saddened that you felt unable to take up the challenge of arguing why your atheistic views were more utilitarian than those who base their lives on a belief that there is a God. Once again you decided to try to rubbish the opposition instead of developing any kind of positive argument at any level from your viewpoint.

I guess that's just Nihilism in action!!

Thread Closed

Dave