Support NeoGAF

[poppabk]

we don’t though, our physiology is very similar to other primates and our behaviour for most things (fucking, sleeping, socialising, digesting, sleeping) is not that different from other mammals. We just have really intelligent brains and have perfected intraspecies communication, which has allowed us to continue to survive long enough to reproduce.

Yeah take away food for a week and see how different we are from animals. Actually just put some TVs at half price on black Friday will do it.

 

[FunkMiller]

The fact humans are so radically different than any other species ever existed in billions of years on this planet?

We share 98.6% of our DNA with goats chimpanzees.

 

[funkygunther]

The moment I said something you didn’t like, you moved on to ad hominem. Me commenting “life comes from life” was fair game as it was part of an ongoing discussion.

offering my time for anyone who genuinely curious so that the person can look at it without being influenced by an overwhelmingly negative is a different thing. You are showing me why I’m making the right choice for now, at least.

maybe you don’t know what an ad hominem is but its not that, you are being disingenuous

you asked for an example, I called you out that you haven’t provided example of your own despite proclaiming you have them

and of course the confirmation bias has kicked in, “I’m making the right choice”, you’ve never been comfortable to share your evidence publicly despite announcing it publicly because deep down you know it’s bunk

 

[93xfan]

we don’t though, our physiology is very similar to other primates and our behaviour for most things (fucking, sleeping, socialising, digesting, sleeping) is not that different from other mammals. We just have really intelligent brains and have perfected intraspecies communication, which has allowed us to continue to survive long enough to reproduce.

If you find your wording makes it sound almost as if humans are just like primates, then maybe the problem is with your wording.

The gulf between humans and primates is massive. Listing a few basic similarities will not change that. Why not challenge your point of view and list some of the many, many differences?

 

[poppabk]

If you find your wording makes it sound almost as if humans are just like primates, then maybe the problem is with your wording.

The gulf between humans and primates is massive. Listing a few basic similarities will not change that. Why not challenge your point of view and list some of the many, many differences?

I think he listed the main difference - we are smarter. And by smarter I mean more intelligent.

 

[FunkMiller]

If you find your wording makes it sound almost as if humans are just like primates, then maybe the problem is with your wording.

The gulf between humans and primates is massive. Listing a few basic similarities will not change that. Why not challenge your point of view and list some of the many, many differences?

See lads… this is why it’s pointless debating with really religious people. They either start banging on about horny dream goats, or pretending that we’re not all just shaved apes with anxiety.

Humans are great apes. We’re just more intelligent than the rest of our cousins.

 

[funkygunther]

If you find your wording makes it sound almost as if humans are just like primates, then maybe the problem is with your wording.

The gulf between humans and primates is massive. Listing a few basic similarities will not change that. Why not challenge your point of view and list some of the many, many differences?

opposable thumb and brain the biggest ones, if you kept up with the conversation you’d see that the argument is that we are “alien” which I am now arguing we are not

 

[93xfan]

maybe you don’t know what an ad hominem is but its not that, you are being disingenuous

you asked for an example, I called you out that you haven’t provided example of your own despite proclaiming you have them

and of course the confirmation bias has kicked in, “I’m making the right choice”, you’ve never been comfortable to share your evidence publicly despite announcing it publicly because deep down you know it’s bunk

yes those terms mean you're not providing them, because you have no faith in them or yourself whatsoever

put them in this thread, let's judge your evidence

Unless I’m misunderstanding, you are attacking me personally by saying I have no faith in my beliefs or myself. How could you know such a thing?

 

[Vicetrailia]

I understand that this makes sense to you, but I doubt you would find anyone religious or otherwise that would take the same meaning as you do from it. Why is God existing terrifying? I would be ecstatic to find out that there is a god and an afterlife.

You are excited about the fantasy of an afterlife. You are excited about the fantasy of everlasting peace with a god and peoples who have harmony.

But would you be inclined to say fuck it if it were just an extension of this world? If religion is practiced the same way here as in heaven aka completely unhinged, and god just sat around and watched, would you be happy thinking about that?

Would the goal posts just move to the best version of a fantasy you’d want to realize? It’s very likely.

But a lot of people don’t believe in these fantasies, and there is no reason to. You can hope, but that’s a personal thing.

 

[funkygunther]

Unless I’m misunderstanding, you are attacking me personally by saying I have no faith in my beliefs or myself. How could you know such a thing?

of course I don’t know, I am assuming based on you not showing it…had you conviction in them and yourself you would have given it by now, instead you’re just making excuses and blaming everyone else for what you think they might do when they see this evidence

 

[RainblowDash]

I believe in Goddammit

 

[Chaplain]

I think it would be helpful for many to watch at least one debate. This will at the very least help understand the worldview of the opposing side. I say worldview because each side (theist or atheist) is approaching these conversations from a place that they cannot prove but only provide evidence for. Example:

"Secularity is a new set of beliefs about reality, rationality, human nature—that can’t be proven, are not self-evident, and have as many contradictions as any set of religious beliefs. It is a faith-based worldview that will not admit what it is." (Theologian Tim Keller)

Debates:

 

[strange headache]

tolerance of an estrogen filled male

 

[93xfan]

of course I don’t know, I am assuming based on you not showing it…had you conviction in them and yourself you would have given it by now, instead you’re just making excuses and blaming everyone else for what you think they might do when they see this evidence

i don’t expect everyone to believe based on the evidence I present. In my experience that hasn’t worked. People will always choose to believe what they want, whether it’s in extraordinary coincidence, seeding theory, some conspiracy theory, or whatever explains it away to them.

the purpose of me sharing it is not to be judged by you. I’d lend my time if someone genuinely wanted to learn.

 

[Vick]

Hormone therapy collateral effects.

 

[funkygunther]

i don’t expect everyone to believe based on the evidence I present. In my experience that hasn’t worked. People will always choose to believe what they want, whether it’s in extraordinary coincidence, seeding theory, some conspiracy theory, or whatever explains it away to them.

the purpose of me sharing it is not to be judged by you. I’d lend my time if someone genuinely wanted to learn.

the purpose of evidence is to be judged, you are not judged, the evidence is…that’s how it works, if the evidence “doesn’t work” then it’s not strong or it’s not presented and substantiated well

either way, can’t tell without seeing it and you can continue to blame it on the pupil when really, you as the teacher, are just running away

 

[poppabk]

I think it would be helpful for many to watch at least one debate. This will at the very least help understand the worldview of the opposing side. I say worldview because each side (theist or atheist) is approaching these conversations from a place that they cannot prove but only provide evidence for. Example:



Debates:

It's so sad that Dawkins will burn in hell for all eternity for his beliefs.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Hormone therapy collateral effects.

You don’t help your argument by bringing in peripheral culture war bullshit

 

[kurisu_1974]

If we evolved from the monkeys, why are there still monkeys, right?

Is that more or less where we are here?

 

[funkygunther]

If we evolved from the monkeys, why are there still monkeys, right?

Is that more or less where we are here?

it got pretty close but don’t think it quite got to that

 

[jorgejjvr]

Glad to hear

 

[93xfan]

Evolution started way before life.

http://[URL]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210219111317.htm

[/URL]



Polymeric molecules > DNA > Viruses > single celled organisms > etc...

Sounds finely tuned, along with the Earth and it's axis, the sun and it's size and distance from the earth, the positioning of the moon, etc. Add in beings that can think and observe these things and discuss them amongst each other. People who even have a desire and passion to do that rather than just survive. add in morality and conscience. It all points towards a God.

 

[funkygunther]

Sounds finely tuned, along with the Earth and it's axis, the sun and it's size and distance from the earth, the positioning of the moon, etc. Add in beings that can think and observe these things and discuss them amongst each other. People who even have a desire and passion to do that rather than just survive. add in morality and conscience. It all points towards a God.

it all points just as much to chance

 

[strange headache]

Sounds finely tuned, along with the Earth and it's axis, the sun and it's size and distance from the earth, the positioning of the moon, etc. Add in beings that can think and observe these things and discuss them amongst each other. People who even have a desire and passion to do that rather than just survive. add in morality and conscience. It all points towards a God.

Yeah, so "finely tuned" that it is destined to all go to sh*t in a couple of billion years. So finely tuned that either the sun will go boom, or gravitational forces will pull the planetary orbits apart. So finely tuned in fact, that a single meteorite can end all human civilization. So f*cking finely tuned, that thermodynamic effects have devastating consequences on planetary weather and their eco systems. Mars was one a lush blue planet... not anymore. Even our own planet is an absolute mess on a geological timescale.

The universe so incredibly "fine tuned" that it will ultimately end in heat death consumed by the endless abyss we call entropy. We are as "fine tuned" as a gigantic explosion going off in slow motion on a galactic scale over billions of years. The only reason you think everything works together like a clockwork is because of your inability to grasp the cosmic scale, where unfathomable forces create and destroy in an chaotic fashion.

If our universe was "created", its builders were absolute cretins!

Among the trillions upon trillions of solar systems, there's bound to be planets like ours juts by pure statistical chance. That's it.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Sounds finely tuned, along with the Earth and it's axis, the sun and it's size and distance from the earth, the positioning of the moon, etc. Add in beings that can think and observe these things and discuss them amongst each other. People who even have a desire and passion to do that rather than just survive. add in morality and conscience. It all points towards a God.

Yeah you know a tiny speck of dust in the universe, upon which 70%+ is water, and upon the land the inhabitable regions are quite small…seems really finely tuned for human life? There’s almost nothing in our solar system we can inhabit. The idea that this has been finely tuned for us is absurd. Inhabitable land in the universe is absolutely the exception.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Yeah you know a tiny speck of dust in the universe, upon which 70%+ is water, and upon the land the inhabitable regions are quite small…seems really finely tuned for human life? There’s almost nothing in our solar system we can inhabit. The idea that this has been finely tuned for us is absurd. Inhabitable land in the universe is absolutely the exception.

And like 99.9% of all species have gone extinct to get it fine tuned for us.

 

[93xfan]

Yeah, so "finely tuned" that it is destined to all go to sh*t in a couple of billion years. So finely tuned that either the sun will go boom, or gravitational forces will pull the planetary orbits apart. So finely tuned in fact, that a single meteorite can end all human civilization. So f*cking finely tuned, that thermodynamic effects have devastating consequences on planetary weather and their eco systems. Mars was one a lush blue planet... not anymore. Even our own planet is an absolute mess on a geological timescale.

The universe so incredibly "fine tuned" that it will ultimately end in heat death consumed by the endless abyss we call entropy. We are as "fine tuned" as a gigantic explosion going off in slow motion on a galactic scale over billions of years. The only reason you think everything works together like a clockwork is because of your inability to grasp the cosmic scale, where unfathomable forces create and destroy in an chaotic fashion.

If our universe was "created", its builders were absolute cretins!

Among the trillions upon trillions of solar systems, there's bound to be planets like ours juts by pure statistical chance. That's it.

You’re not far off on part of your assessment:

”Waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!” 2 Peter 3:12

and good point that’s it‘s not just finely tuned, but also kept safe from destruction before the appointed time.

 

[93xfan]

Among the trillions upon trillions of solar systems, there's bound to be planets like ours juts by pure statistical chance. That's it.

with a moon at the right distance for the tides, with an orbit on the right path around its star, with life sustaining atmosphere and with the correct axis and capable of both producing and sustaining life for billions of years (among many, many other variables)?

 

[funkygunther]

You’re not far off on part of your assessment:

”Waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!” 2 Peter 3:12

and good point that’s it‘s not just finely tuned, but also kept safe from destruction before the appointed time.

you understand that by quoting scripture in this manner you are committing to be a bible literalist, right?

 

[93xfan]

you understand that by quoting scripture in this manner you are committing to be a bible literalist, right?

You don't dictate who I am and what I believe and whether I believe in myself. You keep making assumptions about me and acting like you're some authority on who I am.

 

[funkygunther]

You don't dictate who I am and what I believe and whether I believe in myself. You're the only one here about to be ignored.

I am trying to understand your position

by quoting scripture as means to explain the natural phenomenon you are interpreting that passage literally…if you are interpreting that passage literally you must also interpret all other passages literally, or if you are not interpreting it all as literal then which do you choose to be literal and which do you choose to be metaphorical and how are you making that choice?

I’m sorry these questions are difficult for you but it may turn out to be very helpful

 

[SF Kosmo]

So you are admitting that there is no proof of God? If there is no proof of God that no one can show me, then why should any reasonable person believe in something that has no proof to validate its existence?

If, as you say, there is plenty of evidence that points to God, but no concrete proof, then the evidence is by definition weak, and insufficient.

Trying to approach the question by looking for deductive proof of God's existence or biographical details of Jesus' life is a fool's errand, but we don't have to do that to prove the Bible is simply not credible, because we can find places where it contradicts itself and what we know of history or makes claims that are demonstrably false.

This is going to be a long post so, bear with me for a bit, because it's going to take a little time to show what a house of cards this is. I promise I won't be exhaustive, but most people don't really understand the textual history or literary context of the Bible and we need to work out way up.

I grew up religious, and they always tell you that tanach (5 books of Moses) was dictated word for word to Moses and handed down ever since. And that the whole of Torah has remained stable. But the truth is that it's been anything but. The earliest surviving copies of the old testament date to around 1000 years after the supposed exodus, and this version is quite different, full of books that are now considered apocryphal. The old testament wasn't canonized until the first century AD, some 1300 years after the time Moses supposedly lived.

What that means, in short, is that a bunch of priests in the first century looked at a collection of books, written in different languages and at different times and said "Hey, do you really believe all this crap?" And they went "Eh, like maybe 2/3 of it."

So now we're basically deferring to the judgement of a bunch of rabbis in the year 80 AD to sift through this stuff. And you could try make some silly argument that they were divinely guided or happened to get it all right, except we know they didn't.

Let's start with the book of Daniel. The book of Daniel is a second century BC apocalypse -- which contrary to its vernacular usage, refers to a literary form where someone writes a history framed as prophecy attributed to an older source, usually followed by a prediction for the future. These texts were very popular in the first and second century because it was a time of tumult and they framed history as having a plan or purpose.

Anyway, Daniel can be conclusively understood to be this sort of pseudigraphy/forgery. In addition to being written in a newer form of Hebrew rather than the Old Hebrew spoken in the 6th century BC when it claims to be dated, it has many errors. It tells a whole story about Nebuchadnezzar's conversion that, in real history, happen to Nabonidas, including naming family of Nabonidas by name. It also incorrectly references details of Bathazar's death, confused Darius I with Darius the Mede, etc. Like most apocalypses it tends to be vague in the earlier parts and get more.accuratr and detailed later on (because it is actually written in retrospect and more recent history would be better know) and then lead into a final prophecy that never happens. It is very, very clearly not a divinely inspired work.

So if we cannot trust the canonization of the Sanhedrin, then that means we cannot inherently assume any of these works to be true simply by virtue of the inclusion. Now, what of the five books given to Moses at he supposedly received at the covenant?

Well Genesis/Breshit is pretty problematic. There are some small contradictions that are easy to spot. There are a lot of "double tellings" where it tells the same story twice in different language with different details, suggesting it the text was an attempt to harmonize multiple sources (there are other tellings of these stories that did not make the cut to canonization as well, such as the Genesis Apocryohon). The most of these being the flood for 40 days or 150 days. (I am aware there are some clumsy attempts to handwave the latter away as referring to the receding if the flood but this two is contradicted by the details.)

Now the biggest and most obvious problem with Genesis is, of course, the fact that the flood story is plagiarized in entirety from the Ut Napishtim's story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Like down to pretty specific details. Gilgamesh is of course a fictional and much older work. And that connection isn't alone or isolated, Gilgamesh is actually referenced by name in the apocryphal Book of Giants, for example. There are also weird holes in Genesis where stuff was taken out like the strange and poorly dephined nephilim, who are better explained in apocrypha like the Boom of Giants or the Book of Enoch (the latter of which is cannon in Ethiopian traditions and not in others).

And there are a ton of other similar, if smaller plagiarisms like this. Lines and laws taken from the codes of Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi, the story of Moses in the reed basket taken from a pseudepigraphal autobiography of Sargon of Akkad, etc.

Anyway, I could go on and all day about this, textual history of the Bible is something I have read quite a lot about, but at this point I think it's important to note how much even a few cracks in the facade reframe how we consider the rest.

Because it's important to weigh the reliability of a source against the plausibility of its claims. Ancient history isn't always super reliable but when multiple source corroborate relatively believable claims we tend to accept them, and when a source makes a more extreme claim that conflicts with other sources, we better be quite sure of the reliability of that source if we're going to take it at face value.

So when a book talks about magic, and dieties and major historical events that have no historical corroboration, and which is contradicted by everything we know about the physical world, science, and the geographical record, we better be damn sure that source is reliable.

And it isn't. We know for a fact some of it made up and no one really knows exactly how much (spoiler alert: all of it). And there are tons of other texts just like it, and the only reason we pay this particular collection of texts credits is because a bunch of fallible humans in the Sanhedrin and Council of Nicea said so. There's no particular reason to think that any of these texts are any different than any of the apocrypha and contemporary religious texts that we understand to be false.

All cultures have religion based values. including Hindu/Buddhist. Atheism is a momentary phase that cultures keep rebounding from.

I think humans have a natural tendency to frame the world in terms of higher purpose, sure, but that doesn't make any of those religions true. I was a religion minor in school, and you study enough of that and you realize it has more to teach you about people than God.

Interestingly China is the one place that kind of got that. Ancient Chinese religion was generally seen as a way that societies can get people to act right rather than as speaking of any meteohysical truth.

 

[FullMetalx117]

Yeah, so "finely tuned" that it is destined to all go to sh*t in a couple of billion years. So finely tuned that either the sun will go boom, or gravitational forces will pull the planetary orbits apart. So finely tuned in fact, that a single meteorite can end all human civilization. So f*cking finely tuned, that thermodynamic effects have devastating consequences on planetary weather and their eco systems. Mars was one a lush blue planet... not anymore. Even our own planet is an absolute mess on a geological timescale.

The universe so incredibly "fine tuned" that it will ultimately end in heat death consumed by the endless abyss we call entropy. We are as "fine tuned" as a gigantic explosion going off in slow motion on a galactic scale over billions of years. The only reason you think everything works together like a clockwork is because of your inability to grasp the cosmic scale, where unfathomable forces create and destroy in an chaotic fashion.

If our universe was "created", its builders were absolute cretins!

Among the trillions upon trillions of solar systems, there's bound to be planets like ours juts by pure statistical chance. That's it.

I think you intended for this post to show why there is no god. But damn as I read through all the reasons, to me, it just makes god seem all the more likely. Soooo much had to go right for us it’s insane/unexplainable

 

[93xfan]

I am trying to understand your position

by quoting scripture as means to explain the natural phenomenon you are interpreting that passage literally…if you are interpreting that passage literally you must also interpret all other passages literally, or if you are not interpreting it all as literal then which do you choose to be literal and which do you choose to be metaphorical and how are you making that choice?

I’m sorry these questions are difficult for you but it may turn out to be very helpful

Not sure where this mentality comes from. Many (myself included) have been wrong and will likely be wrong on points in the future when choosing. We do our best.

For example, when looked at Israel back in the 19th century or around there, people thought the land was useless and would never grow things again. Mark Twain was even a part of Biblical prophecy as he went through and called the land "cursed". People started the idea that the country of Israel being reborn must've not been literal, because they thought God couldn't due it. However, the country was reborn in a day (in the year 1948) and brought back the Jewish people to the land who were scattered.

The deliberation and making it official even happened within a 24 hour period. "Who has ever seen or heard of anything as strange as this? Has a nation ever been born in a single day?" Isaiah 66:8. They found ways to make it lush again. Other nations wished Israel harm and still do, as was also prophesied.

One of many things we've seen fulfilled.

 

[funkygunther]

Not sure where this mentality comes from. Many (myself included) have been wrong and will likely be wrong on points in the future when choosing. We do our best.

For example, when looked at Israel back in the 19th century or around there, people thought the land was useless and would never grow things again. Mark Twain was even a part of Biblical prophecy as he went through and called the land "cursed". People started the idea that the country of Israel being reborn must've not been literal, because they thought God couldn't due it. However, the country was reborn in a day (in the year 1948) and brought back the Jewish people to the land who were scattered.

The deliberation and making it official even happened within a 24 hour period. "Who has ever seen or heard of anything as strange as this? Has a nation ever been born in a single day?" Isaiah 66:8. They found ways to make it lush again. Other nations wished Israel harm and still do, as was also prophesied.

One of many things we've seen fulfilled.

this doesn’t really answer my question, which is how do you choose which parts of the bible to interpret as literal and which you don’t

we have a good enough example already, the one of the rapture (or whatever the heat death passage was supposed to be about) as an explanation of the natural phenomenon of a star‘s death…first, you interpret that literally right, as the explanation? Otherwise you wouldn’t have quoted it in this context, but I want to be sure from you

secondly, let’s take another example of say the story of Noah, do you interpret that as literal too? As in it is something that happened. If not, why not?

 

[funkygunther]

I think you intended for this post to show why there is no god. But damn as I read through all the reasons, to me, it just makes god seem all the more likely. Soooo much had to go right for us it’s insane/unexplainable

Mars almost went right, but didn’t get that far…and that’s just next door. Now imagine billions of solar systems, it’s not unexplainable but it surely is insane.

 

[strange headache]

You’re not far off on part of your assessment:

”Waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!” 2 Peter 3:12

and good point that’s it‘s not just finely tuned, but also kept safe from destruction before the appointed time.

I think you intended for this post to show why there is no god. But damn as I read through all the reasons, to me, it just makes god seem all the more likely. Soooo much had to go right for us it’s insane/unexplainable

And this is where your belief system completely abandons reason. What we get instead is more bible thumping.

 

[Vick]

You don’t help your argument by bringing in peripheral culture war bullshit

It's the fact you're taking defense of this literal insanity which is not helping yours to me, but whatever.

 

[FunkMiller]

Soooo much had to go right for us it’s insane/unexplainable

This is where so many people get it so very wrong.

In an infinite - or even near infinite - universe, the chances of there not being a planet capable of sustaining life is impossible.

Throw a ball once at a hole 20 feet away, that’s one micron wider than the ball, and your chances of throwing it through the hole are infinitesimally small. Through it an infinite number of times and it’s a guarantee.

Religion forgets, or ignores, probability. It can’t handle or comprehend, scale, size, or length.

That’s really why it exists. Because the absolutely terrifying size and scope of our universe and what happens in it is beyond comprehension. Billions of years, billions of lightyears. Planets and stars without end.

So we create a god to explain it away, because it’s easier, and makes us feel better about our utter insignificance on a universal scale.

 

[kurisu_1974]

It's the fact you're taking defense of this literal insanity which is not helping yours to me, but whatever.

The ironing.

 

[01011001]

I think you intended for this post to show why there is no god. But damn as I read through all the reasons, to me, it just makes god seem all the more likely. Soooo much had to go right for us it’s insane/unexplainable

nothing went "right for us". we are flesh sacks full of water that are barely functional with many flaws and an overall terrible design (mostly because it isn't made by design). we live in an extremely hostile world full of death and misery that can be wiped out instantly if our luck runs eventually out.

we also are stuck on a singular rock in space that will eventually be killed by the very thing that made us possible and will destroy every single thing on this planet, along with eventually the planet itself.

we are just the expression of probability in an extremely hostile environment.


also you can't take an outcome and then say "look how unlikely it is that this happened".
human beings existing was never a "goal" for anyone, it was simply something that randomly happened.

for example, if you throw a paper plane down a 100 floor tall building and it lands on a random spot, you can't just go down there, mark that spot and go on about how unlikely it was that the plane landed there.
yes it was extremely unlikely that the plane landed there but that landing spot is of no significance... it just happend to be where the plane landed.

having a target and THEN throwing the paper plane and it landing in the target you marked before is a completely different thing and not even remotely comparable.

life existing on earth was noone's "target" it just happend to be the spot the paper plane or probability landed on

 

[JimmyRustler]

I think you guys need to chill a bit. Both sides have their place.

I myself have been an atheist for a very long time (and still am) but after reading the Bible and about religion in general am convinced that (despite all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion) we are much better off because of it. The good outweights the bad by far imo.

Have to say that especially the Bible (despite loads of slogs in the Old Testamt) was a much better book that I thought. It blew my mind just how much the „hell“ part of it was exaggerated over time. Talk about the devil and hell is just tiiiiinnnnnyyyyyy.

 

[01011001]

I think you guys need to chill a bit. Both sides have their place.

I myself have been an atheist for a very long time (and still am) but after reading the Bible and about religion in general am convinced that (despite all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion) we are much better off because of it. The good outweights the bad by far imo.

Have to say that especially the Bible (despite loads of slogs in the Old Testamt) was a much better book that I thought. It blew my mind just how much the „hell“ part of it was exaggerated over time. Talk about the devil and hell is just tiiiiinnnnnyyyyyy.

I can't really think of a single good thing religion ever did... be it these days or historically

 

[JimmyRustler]

I can't really think of a single good thing religion ever did... be it these days or historically

Your loss then I guess.

 

[Vick]

Have to say that especially the Bible (despite loads of slogs in the Old Testamt) was a much better book that I thought.

Actually some portions of the Old Testament in the original language are among the most interesting things ever. There's the official translator of the Bible for both Vatican/Universities and commercial versions here in my country holding conferences about it, saying that if you read it and take it literally and simply leave the original terms for many things instead of the translations/interpretations, it becomes the most fascinating sci-fi stuff ever.
Warfare beings coming from the sky to the planet, taking local primate or early human and DNA-altering it to have a guard for their temporary greenhouse/zoo, once noticed with disgusts that he was having sex with all animals they took his tselem (of which literal translation is image, DNA) and made a female copy for him.
Both were then forced to leave the Eden because their obedience was tested by one of those beings who convinced them to try one of the psychedelics they were growing in there, which gave them knowledge they were not supposed to have.

He says the same thing happened all around the world, they were doing their things but at the same time helping early humans and even reproducing with them because they found human females attractive (producing the so called nefilim).
One thing that stuck with me is in the original version of the Iliad, when i read it at school at some point it talked about Gods coming from the sky on horse-drawn carriages, but in the literal original version the same point described clouds opening and shiny flying wagon (which is the only way an ancient population could describe a spaceship, since their max traveling technology at the time was a wagon) descending from it.

Fiction or reality, it's certainly fascinating, especially when you add in all the ancient civilizations "testimonies" of such events.
He always states about how many geneticists told him that if this was true it would explain an awful lot of currently unexplainable things.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

It's the fact you're taking defense of this literal insanity which is not helping yours to me, but whatever.

I’m not defending anything, just trying to keep on topic

 

[Chaplain]

I can't really think of a single good thing religion ever did... be it these days or historically

Here are a few things:

"The first was the impetus that the doctrine gave to Christian charity and philanthropy. The classical world had no religious or ethical impulse for individual charity. Personal concern for the poor and needy was an important theme in the Hebrew Scriptures, which gave rise to the insistence in later Judaism that almsgiving is a duty and even the highest virtue... The classical concept of philanthropia was not merely insufficient to provide the motivation for private charity, it actively discouraged it. In the Graeco-Roman world, beneficence took the form of civic philanthropy on behalf of the community at large. Christianity, on the other hand, insisted that the love of God required the spontaneous manifestation of personal charity towards one's brothers. So, one could not claim to love God without loving one's brother (1 John 4:20-21); and "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God" is defined in part as caring for "orphans and widows in their distress" (James 1:27). Yet Christian love was not to be extended merely to fellow Christians, but to neighbours and even enemies... Glanville Downey maintains that the concept of agape that underlies Jesus's parable marked a radical innovation if we compare it to classical responses that would have been given to the question that was posed by Jesus. In place of a Stoic doctrine of human brotherhood or a definition of the nature of man, it grounded philanthropy in a theological conception that saw human love as reflecting divine love. But it also went beyond Jewish concepts of charity, which was directed inward to one's own community.... A second consequence of the doctrine of the imago Dei was that it provided the basis for the belief that every human life has absolute intrinsic value as a bearer of God's image and as an eternal soul for whose redemption Christ died. This belief led to a stern and uncompromising condemnation of pagan morality in all its aspects. Christians viewed its tolerance of the elimination of unwanted human life and of the cruelty shown to those whom society had condemned or abandoned as an indication that Roman society was incurably wicked. They attacked abortion, infanticide, the gladiatorial games and suicide in the strongest possible terms... Abortion was regarded by some as worse than murder ... Christians also emphatically condemned suicide [regarding it as self-murder], which had been idealized in classical antiquity as a noble means of death... A third consequence of the doctrine of the imago Dei was in providing early Christians with a new perception of the body, and indeed of the human personality. Late pagan proponents of asceticism went beyond the earlier Greek concept of askesis, or training of the body. They expressed no admiration or concern for the body - indeed, they were ashamed of it. They looked forward to the day when at death the soul would free itself from matter, which they regarded as evil... A fourth consequence was that the doctrine of the imago Dei led to a redefinition of the poor... No longer repulsive, they bring holiness and healing from spiritual diseases to those who touch them in order to assist them: "By taking the lepers' flesh in hand, those who minister to them participate in the divine immanence of creation that proceeds from the incarnate Son's essential sharing in both deity and cosmos." The new image of the poor did not reflect a Christian romanticizing of their condition. But it did constitute a challenge to the rich and powerful, who had traditionally claimed to merit a special relation with the gods in their role as patrons of the community." (Gary Ferngren, Professor of Greek and Roman History at Oregon State University)

“Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian.” (Agnostic historian Tom Holland)

Full video:

Justin Brierley is joined by leading New Testament scholar NT (Tom) Wright and popular historical writer Tom Holland to discuss how the apostle Paul changed the world as described in Wright’s recent book Paul: A Biography. An agnostic in terms of his religious commitments, Tom Holland has nevertheless described the way that the birth of Christianity has shaped much of what we value in Western society in terms of human rights, culture and rule of law. He engages with NT Wright on the way that Paul and the early Christian movement stood in stark contrast to the prevailing Roman culture of its day.

Edited

 

[OZ9000]

I'm not surprised that most people answered they believe. If you asked them if they believed in religion the response rate would likely be lower.

I don't think there is any way we can prove or disprove the existence of a creator.

Religion is simply faith at the end of the day. I suspect most people cling on to religion as it provides comfort. Nevertheless I think there are certain elements of religion which are 'good'.

Moral values are rapidly decaying in society and I genuinely fear for the future. Our current mantra appears to be hedonism no matter the cost.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I think you intended for this post to show why there is no god. But damn as I read through all the reasons, to me, it just makes god seem all the more likely. Soooo much had to go right for us it’s insane/unexplainable

If you assume that things are exactly how they need and supposed to be, then I guess you would find it to be an extraordinary coincidence that they are... But why on earth would you think that?

The world isn't random, it is shaped by the laws of physics, by the iterative trial and error that naturally emerges from the process of natural selection, but it is a messy and imperfect world that is always changing.

 

[93xfan]

this doesn’t really answer my question, which is how do you choose which parts of the bible to interpret as literal which you don’t

we have a good enough example already, the one of the rapture (or whatever the heat death passage was supposed to be about) as an explanation of the natural phenomenon of a star‘s death…first, you interpret that literally right, as the explanation? Otherwise you wouldn’t have quoted it in this context, but I want to be sure from you

secondly, let’s take another example of say the story of Noah, do you interpret that as literal too? As in it is something that happened. If not, why not?

I pray about it and look at the surrounding context.

I try to know my limitations and try not to assume.

And this is where your belief system completely abandons reason. What we get instead is more bible thumping.

So it’s crazy to believe God’s word that the world will end some day and that Jesus will come back?

No, it’s a very common belief. Sad to see you go that disrespectful route about it and also pretend it’s mentally ill.

You’re arguing in bad faith