Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
So you are not criticizing the Bible for what is says then, just what you think it says. If everything is just a metaphor, can you really blame a book for the way that you interpret it?

no I criticize the people who try and say its something to be taken literally or its some divinely inspired book. They need the standard movie blurb at the front of that book Then because to many people believe in that one book, they then start to think they are somehow better than those who don't. and they can pass laws to force their morals onto others. And based on the way the book gets interpreted its clearly a work of evil.

If it was some divinely inspired book, then why are there 42,000 different sects of christians who can't agree on anything it says? So clearly the bible was written by a group of men, with no more reason to take it seriously than to believe a long time ago in a galaxy far far away the actions of luke skywalker kept our planet from falling into the hands of the emperor.

Its not the books fault, its just a book. A book of metaphors and parables and other flights of fantasy, a book belonging on the fiction shelves.

 Orlanth wrote:

As its a hot topic it is not surprising its findings are attacked. This goes both ways.

The source you cited had no findings of its own, and is well known for misrepresenting the findings of others. That was the thrust of my post.

Did you not read what I wrote?

 Orlanth wrote:

Its a difficult issue to provide data on, most is provided by observation of parents

Which should give you pause.

 Orlanth wrote:

Fair question. We cannot completely define God, we would need to be able to observe infinity to do so, can have however have a limited understanding.

You didn't answer the question.

 Orlanth wrote:

However with omniscience comes accuracy in decision making to the point that I question if it is possible for God to be arbitrary.

How do you discern between the two?

 Orlanth wrote:

Good catch, but that doesn't remove from the arbitrary nature of man. Silence is oftimes an answer of itself.

Good job restating what I just said, "Socrates."

 Orlanth wrote:

Or you could say that God is symptomic of the universe, or alternately the consciousness of the universe. This will fit with many of the Eastern religions directly as well as Judaic religions because God is 'everywhere' and embodies all things.

You could, but that isn't what you stated before.

 Orlanth wrote:
We know the answer is not arbitrary because we know that God is unchanging in his attributes which are (counting the relveant ones) omniscient and truly just.

You're substituting "believe" with "know". This indicates to me that you understand neither.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So you are not criticizing the Bible for what is says then, just what you think it says. If everything is just a metaphor, can you really blame a book for the way that you interpret it?

no I criticize the people who try and say its something to be taken literally or its some divinely inspired book. They need the standard movie blurb at the front of that book Then because to many people believe in that one book, they then start to think they are somehow better than those who don't.

So you quote the Parable of Talents and interpret it literally, going so far as to say "god comes across as a mobster". Although you criticize people who take it literally. When I give an alternate explanation of the parable (which by definition is not to be taken literally) your rebuttal is simply "that is just your interpretation". So your criticism is based on a literal interpretation, a non-literal meaning is just an interpretation, but you criticizing people for taking it literally even though that is what you are doing.

There are also many people that don't believe in that one book and then start to think that they are somehow better than those who don't.

and they can pass laws to force their morals onto others.

The Bible should not be used to pass laws, I agree with you there. That was not the purpose of the Bible and forcing others to follow "the Christian way" has no Biblical foundation.

And based on the way the book gets interpreted its clearly a work of evil.

If you take passages out of content, then anything in the book could be used to describe how it is evil.

If it was some divinely inspired book, then why are there 42,000 different sects of christians who can't agree on anything it says?

The many different sects pretty much agree on the meat and potatoes section of the Bible. The core is followed by most, the disagreements are about small things. I can also invoke the "a book divinely inspired by God is going to be hard to understand by non-divine people" reason, but that would just get shut down as some sort of "get out of jail free" card.

Just as some areas of science still have people disagreeing about different theories (not talking about evolution here) even though there is only one truth.

So clearly the bible was written by a group of men, with no more reason to take it seriously than to believe a long time ago in a galaxy far far away the actions of luke skywalker kept our planet from falling into the hands of the emperor.

Its not the books fault, its just a book. A book of metaphors and parables and other flights of fantasy, a book belonging on the fiction shelves.

If you don't want to take it seriously, then don't. But that does not mean it is fake just because some people believe it to be.

 d-usa wrote:


If you don't want to take it seriously, then don't. But that does not mean it is fake just because some people believe it to be.

The point is, If you agree that the bible is full of metaphors and parables, then how can you possible claim that god is real and not just another metaphor from a book of metaphors. If you admit that their are metaphors in the bible and its not literal in any way, you are admitting its a work of fiction. God ends up being just another metaphor.

Would you call a book called "The History of Tanks" fictional just because it uses some metaphor about knives through tissue paper every couple of pages?

A figure of speech is just a figure of speech. Calling them inherently fictional is misleading. Likewise a parable is not inherently a fictional story. George S. Patton's life is a massive parable on what being an badass gets you in life, but that doesn't make it fictional

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


If you don't want to take it seriously, then don't. But that does not mean it is fake just because some people believe it to be.

The point is, If you agree that the bible is full of metaphors and parables, then how can you possible claim that god is real and not just another metaphor from a book of metaphors. If you admit that their are metaphors in the bible and its not literal in any way, you are admitting its a work of fiction. God ends up being just another metaphor.

If a person is making metaphors, that doesn't mean the person is a metaphor himself.

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

If you don't want to take it seriously, then don't. But that does not mean it is fake just because some people believe it to be.

The point is, If you agree that the bible is full of metaphors and parables, then how can you possible claim that god is real and not just another metaphor from a book of metaphors. If you admit that their are metaphors in the bible and its not literal in any way, you are admitting its a work of fiction. God ends up being just another metaphor.

If a person is making metaphors, that doesn't mean the person is a metaphor himself.

I agree, some real person wrote the bible.

But that does not mean it is fake just because some people believe it to be.

No, its fake because it is absolute nonsense. Why do people trust the scientific method in every aspect of their lives other than Religion? You trust planes and trains and automobiles and doctors, but suddenly they have got it all wrong when it comes to how things came to be?

Magic isn't real, its clearly impossible. So what's more likely? That illiterate halfwits 2000 years ago made gak up, or magic is real?

As I said, I've no problem with the possibility of a God, the deistic God makes at least some sense, I mean, its not very likely, but its possible, its something we could have an interesting conversation about.

But seriously, the proper full on Christian God with all his smiting and his old testament and all that gak.. its clearly nonsense. Nobody ever 100% impartial would ever look at all of the different explanations for things and pick the bible as the most sensible.

I can understand the lure, I can understand indoctrination from childhood and the illusion of choice. What I cant understand is why people aren't adult enough to just say "I suppose it is a bit silly, but I was raised this way so there you go" because that would be good enough for almost everyone.. each to their own. For example I fully admit my hatred for Islam is ridiculous, its steeped in indoctrination and too many tours of Iraq and Afghanistan. I KNOW it makes no sense, and I know its irrational, but I still have it, and I explain it to people and say "I try to not be overtly rude or aggressive to them, but its a cross I have to bare and I will probably have a distaste for them my entire life" and they go "Ok fair enough"

Why cant Christians hold their hands up and say "Yes I generally don't believe in wizards and magic, but what can I say, I've always been a Christian and it helps me/makes me feel better/enriches my life" Instead of desperately trying to spend their entire lives convincing everyone else that you can fit a square peg into a circular hole with really bad non-explanations that any purely impartial observer would absolutely have to say are incredibly likely to be false, with most actually being proved exactly that with as about much evidence as we can muster for pretty much anything?

Creationism IS false, we know this for a fact. A fact as sure as any in modern Science. Why must I be polite about mocking it? Wouldn't creationists mock me if I wanted to teach voodoo in schools?

Anti-theism to me seems to be finding the stupidest most cack-handed religious person you can, then proving why he's wrong. There's been very little theology in this debate, just people picking holes and talking about religion rather than the idea of god.

 mattyrm wrote:
tl'dr

So what you are saying is that I am a creationist Christian that has always believed in it because my parents indoctrinated me from birth and it just makes me feel better.

Or is that just your prejudicial opinion of anybody that says they are a Christian?

 mattyrm wrote:


No, its fake because it is absolute nonsense. Why do people trust the scientific method in every aspect of their lives other than Religion? You trust planes and trains and automobiles and doctors, but suddenly they have got it all wrong when it comes to how things came to be?

Do you trust planes and automobiles to give you a reason to wake up in the morning? Do you do your job because you love your family, or because E = mc^2? Rarely in the Gospels (the Old Testament is rubbish) does Jesus mention God as an intelligent being - the old dude in the sky. God is the word, he is love, forgiveness, compassion in the face of cruelty and light in the dark.

 mattyrm wrote:

Magic isn't real, its clearly impossible. So what's more likely? That illiterate halfwits 2000 years ago made gak up, or magic is real?

We now know that it is impossible to turn water into wine, because they're mollecularly different. Believe it or not, people didn't always used to know that. I don't know about you but I believed all sorts of bs when I was a kid - vampires, fairies, werewolves. Then as I got older, the empirical evidence available to me changed my mind. Imagine living in a world without that empirical worldview. Where lions and manticores were both considered to be equally "real". In such a circumstance, is turning water into wine such a far stretch? Consider some of the fables that follow around real world leaders and charismatic individuals.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
tl'dr

So what you are saying is that I am a creationist Christian that has always believed in it because my parents indoctrinated me from birth and it just makes me feel better.

Or is that just your prejudicial opinion of anybody that says they are a Christian?

It's easier to attack the lowest and stupedist form of religion.

But when you look at someone like Rowan Williams, or plenty of intelligent religious people (my friend's dad is a professor of theology, very bright chap), it becomes a lot harder

Wouldn't creationists mock me if I wanted to teach voodoo in schools?

Knowing how to sacrifice some chickens for a little good luck never hurt anybody imo

And think. You can recycle the chickens into dinner when you're done

 Testify wrote:
Anti-theism to me seems to be finding the stupidest most cack-handed religious person you can, then proving why he's wrong. There's been very little theology in this debate, just people picking holes and talking about religion rather than the idea of god.

The idea of a god does not prove a god. Feel free to prove he exists. Maybe all the christians, muslims and any other theists could have a prayer day and pray for god to appear on Oprah.

Enter circular argument about "You have to prove that he exists" "No you have to prove that he doesn't exist"...

 d-usa wrote:
Enter circular argument about "You have to prove that he exists" "No you have to prove that he doesn't exist"...

And the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. You claim a god exists, provide your evidence. If I claim a pink unicorn is in my basement, do you need to prove it doesn't exist, or do I need to prove it does?

Wait, religion is about proof? Than what's all this faith nonsense about?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Enter circular argument about "You have to prove that he exists" "No you have to prove that he doesn't exist"...

And the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. You claim a god exists, provide your evidence. If I claim a pink unicorn is in my basement, do you need to prove it doesn't exist, or do I need to prove it does?

Faith is a concept that I see you haven't quite grasped yet.

djones520 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Enter circular argument about "You have to prove that he exists" "No you have to prove that he doesn't exist"...

And the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. You claim a god exists, provide your evidence. If I claim a pink unicorn is in my basement, do you need to prove it doesn't exist, or do I need to prove it does?

Faith is a concept that I see you haven't quite grasped yet.

I'm just not that gullible to believe something without proof.

sirlynchmob wrote:

djones520 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Enter circular argument about "You have to prove that he exists" "No you have to prove that he doesn't exist"...

And the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. You claim a god exists, provide your evidence. If I claim a pink unicorn is in my basement, do you need to prove it doesn't exist, or do I need to prove it does?

Faith is a concept that I see you haven't quite grasped yet.

I'm just not that gullible to believe something without proof.

So dark energy can't exist then right, nor could the higgs until a few weeks ago

Faith is belief in something without proof except for "personal" feeling, which isn't evidence.

Could I get some evidence? Please.

Anyone who approaches religion from a standpoint of scientific proof just doesn't get religion or doesn't care (probably the later).

Anyone religious who plays into the proof game will hopefully learn better... Eventually. I doubt it...

You know what? I'm just going to repost.

WIKIPEDIA:
Socrates asks whether gods love the pious, because it is the pious, or the pious is the pious, because it is loved by the gods? In other words: do the gods love something because it is pious, or is something pious because the gods love it?

This can be adjusted to a christian God:
As Leibniz presents this version of the dilemma: "It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."

The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is commanded by God because it is right): some actions are right or wrong in themselves, independently of God's commands.
This horn of the dilemma presents a significant challenge to the attributes Christians define for their concept of a God, indicating that their concept of a God does not sit on this horn:
Sovereignty: If there are moral standards independent of God's will, then "[t]here is something over which God is not sovereign. God is bound by the laws of morality instead of being their establisher. Moreover, God depends for his goodness on the extent to which he conforms to an independent moral standard. Thus, God is not absolutely independent."
Omnipotence: These moral standards would limit God's power: not even God could oppose them by commanding what is evil and thereby making it good. As Richard Swinburne puts the point, this horn "seems to place a restriction on God's power if he cannot make any action which he chooses obligatory... [and also] it seems to limit what God can command us to do. God, if he is to be God, cannot command us to do what, independently of his will, is wrong."
Morality without God: If there are moral standards independent of God, then morality would retain its authority even if God did not exist. This conclusion was explicitly (and notoriously) drawn by early modern political theorist Hugo Grotius: "What we have been saying [about the natural law] would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, or that the affairs of men are of no concern to him" On such a view, God is no longer a "law-giver" but at most a "law-transmitter" who plays no vital role in the foundations of morality.


The second horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is right because it is commanded by God) is sometimes known as divine command theory or voluntarism. Roughly, it is the view that there are no moral standards other than God's will: without God's commands, nothing would be right or wrong.

This horn of the dilemma also faces several problems:
No reasons for morality: If there is no moral standard other than God's will, then God's commands are arbitrary (i.e., based on pure whimsy or caprice). This would mean that morality is ultimately not based on reasons: "if theological voluntarism is true, then God's commands/intentions must be arbitrary; [but] it cannot be that morality could wholly depend on something arbitrary... [for] when we say that some moral state of affairs obtains, we take it that there is a reason for that moral state of affairs obtaining rather than another."And as Michael J. Murray and Michael Rea put it, this would also "cas[t] doubt on the notion that morality is genuinely objective." An additional problem is that it is difficult to explain how true moral actions can exist, if one only acts out of fear for God, or in an attempt to be rewarded by him.

No reasons for God: This arbitrariness would also jeopardize God's status as a wise and rational being, one who always acts on good reasons only. As Leibniz writes: "Where will be his justice and his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will takes the place of reasonableness, and if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act."

Anything goes: This arbitrariness would also mean that anything could become good, and anything could become bad, merely upon God's command. Thus if God commanded us "to gratuitously inflict pain on each other" or to engage in "cruelty for its own sake" or to hold an "annual sacrifice of randomly selected ten-year-olds in a particularly gruesome ritual that involves excruciating and prolonged suffering for its victims", then we would be morally obligated to do so. As 17th-century philosopher Ralph Cudworth put it: "nothing can be imagined so grossly wicked, or so foully unjust or dishonest, but if it were supposed to be commanded by this omnipotent Deity, must needs upon that hypothesis forthwith become holy, just, and righteous."

Moral contingency: If morality depends on the perfectly free will of God, morality would lose its necessity: "If nothing prevents God from loving things that are different from what God actually loves, then goodness can change from world to world or time to time. This is obviously objectionable to those who believe that claims about morality are, if true, necessarily true." In other words, no action has its moral status necessarily: any right action could have easily been wrong, if God had so decided, and an action which is right today could easily become wrong tomorrow, if God so decides. Indeed, some have argued that divine command theory is incompatible with ordinary conceptions of morality.

God's goodness: If all goodness is a matter of God's will, then what shall become of God's goodness? Thus William P. Alston writes, "since the standards of moral goodness are set by divine commands, to say that God is morally good is just to say that he obeys his own commands... that God practises what he preaches, whatever that might be", and Hutcheson deems such a view "an insignificant Tautology, amounting to no more than this, 'That God wills what he wills.'" Alternatively, as Leibniz puts it, divine command theorists "deprive God of the designation good: for what cause could one have to praise him for what he does, if in doing something quite different he would have done equally well?" A related point is raised by C. S. Lewis: "if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the 'righteous Lord.'" Or again Leibniz: "this opinion would hardly distinguish God from the devil." That is, since divine command theory trivializes God's goodness, it is incapable of explaining the difference between God and an all-powerful demon.


@squigsquasher: any chance you could be a bit more civil?

Never expect civility from a thread about religion. That's rule #23

 LordofHats wrote:
Anyone who approaches religion from a standpoint of scientific proof just doesn't get religion or doesn't care (probably the later).

Anyone religious who plays into the proof game will hopefully learn better... Eventually. I doubt it...

I've always viewed atheists who play into the proof thing as those who aren't ready to be done being angry at religion for some various reason or another yet. I was like that when I was younger, but I grew beyond it. I'm now more accepting of folks who have religion then I am of most atheists, because they just seem so angry usually.

I wish more atheists could just be accepting of the choices that everyone makes. Quit getting your panties in a wad when someone wishes to say a prayer around you. Respect is a two way street, and face it, we are in the minority, so more often then not you should be the one giving way to keep things like simple human civility around.

djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Anyone who approaches religion from a standpoint of scientific proof just doesn't get religion or doesn't care (probably the later).

Anyone religious who plays into the proof game will hopefully learn better... Eventually. I doubt it...

I've always viewed atheists who play into the proof thing as those who aren't ready to be done being angry at religion for some various reason or another yet. I was like that when I was younger, but I grew beyond it. I'm now more accepting of folks who have religion then I am of most atheists, because they just seem so angry usually.

I wish more atheists could just be accepting of the choices that everyone makes. Quit getting your panties in a wad when someone wishes to say a prayer around you. Respect is a two way street, and face it, we are in the minority, so more often then not you should be the one giving way to keep things like simple human civility around.

I'd imagine that many of the recent wave of teenage atheists will just become infrequent church goers like the vast majority of Americans. Most atheists I've met are completely normal and respectful people, it's the people who become athiests as a form of rebellion that are fething annoying.

djones520 wrote: Respect is a two way street, and face it, we are in the minority, so more often then not you should be the one giving way to keep things like simple human civility around.

Other people being in the majority doesn't make them more in the right or more worthy of respect. One of the main issues with religion isn't about just refusing to accept the choices of others, it about refusing to accept the beliefs of others being imposed on others. Far to often it is religious people and groups that seek to remove and prevent rights going to minority groups. It is religious groups that are the main ones blocking progress on gay rights or women's rights, effectively promoting inequality. When it comes to marriage, abortion, adoption ong other things, instead of a debate and decisions made on the basis of evidence and fairness and freedom of the individual, it is religious groups preventing all, according to their interpretation of religious texts that the rest of us share no interest in.

By all means be free to choose your religion, but the rest of us shouldn't have to live by it.

djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Anyone who approaches religion from a standpoint of scientific proof just doesn't get religion or doesn't care (probably the later).

Anyone religious who plays into the proof game will hopefully learn better... Eventually. I doubt it...

I've always viewed atheists who play into the proof thing as those who aren't ready to be done being angry at religion for some various reason or another yet. I was like that when I was younger, but I grew beyond it. I'm now more accepting of folks who have religion then I am of most atheists, because they just seem so angry usually.

I wish more atheists could just be accepting of the choices that everyone makes. Quit getting your panties in a wad when someone wishes to say a prayer around you. Respect is a two way street, and face it, we are in the minority, so more often then not you should be the one giving way to keep things like simple human civility around.

I think that's a bit of an unfair statement. I know many atheists who are very accepting of theists and many theists who are very accepting of atheists. Just assuming that the majority of atheists get all worked up whenever someone says anything religious is a bit of a sweeping statement. Whilst being atheist, I still see the value in religion. Anything that teaches love and compassion can't be a bad thing.

Whilst there are some obviously very angry atheists (Richard Dawkins) there are also some very angry theists but they are always in the minority.

Evilledz wrote:

djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Anyone who approaches religion from a standpoint of scientific proof just doesn't get religion or doesn't care (probably the later).

Anyone religious who plays into the proof game will hopefully learn better... Eventually. I doubt it...

I've always viewed atheists who play into the proof thing as those who aren't ready to be done being angry at religion for some various reason or another yet. I was like that when I was younger, but I grew beyond it. I'm now more accepting of folks who have religion then I am of most atheists, because they just seem so angry usually.

I wish more atheists could just be accepting of the choices that everyone makes. Quit getting your panties in a wad when someone wishes to say a prayer around you. Respect is a two way street, and face it, we are in the minority, so more often then not you should be the one giving way to keep things like simple human civility around.

I think that's a bit of an unfair statement. I know many atheists who are very accepting of theists and many theists who are very accepting of atheists. Just assuming that the majority of atheists get all worked up whenever someone says anything religious is a bit of a sweeping statement. Whilst being atheist, I still see the value in religion. Anything that teaches love and compassion can't be a bad thing.

Whilst there are some obviously very angry atheists (Richard Dawkins) there are also some very angry theists but they are always in the minority.

As always the stupidest members of a group are the loudest, there is a difference between getting upset over mandatory prayer in schools and getting upset because a veterans memorial contains a cross

Shroud of Turin. You decide

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
We know the answer is not arbitrary because we know that God is unchanging in his attributes which are (counting the relveant ones) omniscient and truly just.

You're substituting "believe" with "know". This indicates to me that you understand neither.

dogma I am being fair with you, and everyone else here. That was a statement of faith. I know God, I am not alone in claiming such or even having surity for my faith.

I understand both, not neither. I understand that I know because I hear God, know prophesy and the charismata and have been profoundly impacted. I cannot prove that to you, so while I say know in relation to my own walk with God I do not use 'know' in terms of theological argument unless within the paradigm of the Biblical account. However as the arguments are based on the Biblical account that is fair.

For internal consistency I can report as flat facts that God is omnipotent, omniscient and just, you haven't challenged this. Because within the paradigm of the discussion, internal theological argument, those are the facts. In a more neutral setting this would be worded something like 'Christians believe that....' or 'The Bible teaches that.....' In most other threads on religion I haven't explained God in the same way, reporting divine characteristics as a straight up fact, and basing assumptions on understanding the previous statements as a confirmed truth, it would not be fair on those who hold a different religious opinion.

If we take the Biblical account as the foundation of the theology, so we are arguing what Christianity proports, not what people can prove then we use know and believe in different circumstances. The divine love of God and the crucifixion for Sin are examples of things that are known, flat facts within the paradigm of understanding Christian theology. They are only chosen beliefs in a neutral setting. I do my best to keep this in mind at all times, even to the extent of using other faiths as examples of theism, or even the term theism itself.
Christians don't call themselves theists any more than men call themselves Chordates, it may be true, but its not how we define ourselves.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood reaper wrote:
Faith is belief in something without proof except for "personal" feeling, which isn't evidence.

Could I get some evidence? Please.

Ask God. Seriously.

Seek and you shall find.