A Challenge to the Theist and Atheist

[Segev Moran]

I tried that once and ended up talking myself out of atheism!

Lol...
It won't happen to me, But thanks for the heads up

 

[Fire_Monkey]

You are the perfect example of why I've done this post!
Thank!!!
Clearly you show a great ignorance.
You need to read and learn before you present your arguments.

Do me (And your self actually) a favor and learn a bit about the Jewish God .

You are the perfect example of why I've done this post!
Thank!!!
Clearly you show a great ignorance.
You need to read and learn before you present your arguments.

Do me (And your self actually) a favor and learn a bit about the Jewish God .


dont mind if I do...
Let's, Just for the sake of this discussion, assume you are right. Indeed... GOD is the most evil force existing...
So F what? Its God..

Lol 2 u 2


Oh.. Indeed I do.
But lets see if you can handle really understanding what it is that you are claiming.

If you say you read the "Tanakh", I assume you can read Hebrew.
If not, then clearly your all talk.
If so, Please try and read some רש"י

Then, Come back and debate this issue like a civilized human being.
Don't use your ignorance to try and present yourself as a brilliant mind.

Your mere state of a secret Agenda in the bible, could have been said in a much wiser way (And then maybe I would've agreed with you)
But you are an illiterate person when it comes to תנ"ך

To prevent you from hours of being lost in the רש"י explanations, Lets only focus on one thing:

עץ הדעת טוב ורע...

Shoot... Show me your amazing knowledge of the Tora


The fact you claim this, shows how little you know of anything.

NOTHING is impossible... ( Actually, not even that )

Oh.. wait.. and The Mission is impossible... ( Forgot about that )

Your turn

dont mind if I do...
Let's, Just for the sake of this discussion, assume you are right. Indeed... GOD is the most evil force existing...
So F what? Its God..

Lol 2 u 2


Oh.. Indeed I do.
But lets see if you can handle really understanding what it is that you are claiming.

If you say you read the "Tanakh", I assume you can read Hebrew.
If not, then clearly your all talk.
If so, Please try and read some רש"י

Then, Come back and debate this issue like a civilized human being.
Don't use your ignorance to try and present yourself as a brilliant mind.

Your mere state of a secret Agenda in the bible, could have been said in a much wiser way (And then maybe I would've agreed with you)
But you are an illiterate person when it comes to תנ"ך

To prevent you from hours of being lost in the רש"י explanations, Lets only focus on one thing:

עץ הדעת טוב ורע...

Shoot... Show me your amazing knowledge of the Tora


The fact you claim this, shows how little you know of anything.

NOTHING is impossible... ( Actually, not even that )

Oh.. wait.. and The Mission is impossible... ( Forgot about that )

Your turn

Actually, I have probably read more about Yahweh than you. And no, I'm not Jewish, nor do I read Hebrew.

And I know all I need to know about Yahweh. Actually, more than I need to know. As I said in my OP, his deeds depicted in the first five books of the old testament are all I need to know that he was an invented warrior sky God by the office oppressed and enslaved Hebrews. It was another tired case of My God is better and mightier than yours. I much prefer Baal, myself. At least he was more godlike and actually did some good, since he was an agrarian life giving and nourishing entity.
Yahweh? LOL..Not so much. More of a homicidal maniac. With human emotions and shortcomings. An absurdly anthropomorphic God.
You're gonna lose this debate, Abe. Everything in my link was verbatim from the old testament. And my example of Yahweh having children murdered for insulting Elisha was also accurate. Do you need a link? So..Since it's documented that Yahweh killed millions, including children and infants, you cannot deny this. So all you're left with is to call his deeds and most of those Old Testament fables as allegories. Or metaphors. If you do this, you admit the Old Testament is not literal. Thus, not true. Thus, mythology. Thus, it belongs right where my copy at home sits.......Next to my Compendium of Greek Mythology. It's Hebrew Mythology.

Actually it's a bit silly to argue the Theodicy of Yahweh, right? As an atheist I don't even believe he existed. No more than Zeus or Odin. So debating the nuances of fictional characters is a bit like arguing about which comic book super hero is the strongest. LOL

Shalom.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

( Speaking out side of the game for a moment.. as an atheist )

I Can understand Deism. I can understand Theism.

I Cannot understand Agnosticism...
You either believe something, or not.

Being an agnostic, means you are an atheist... but not just..
Can't really see how it is a different thing.

Being agnostic doesn't deny belief or hope for a rational possibility. Atheists either claim a belief or certainty in the non-existence of God. If they claim certainty, it's irrational given the complete lack of evidence--same thing in reverse for theists. Since there is no basis for certain knowledge on God or the cause of the universe, every rational person should be at least a provisional agnostic. It's a modifier, not an end of itself, like nihilism is for some people--they're basically materialists who just don't care to think about the subject except to dismiss it out-of-hand.

 

[Segev Moran]

Interesting idea, But you have some misinterpretations there....

In the creation story, God gives instructions to Adam to name everything according to it's kind.

Two things are wrong here...
1. God doesn't "instruct" Adam to name the animals, It brings the animals to Adam and giving Adam the privilege to name the animals.
2. The names Adam gives the animals are not based on their Kind.. they are based on their "soul". Adam names animals based on their "inner meaning and treats" and their behaviour.

For example, the Cat, in Hebrew: "חתול".
it derives from the word "חתל", which means to "diaper"
It is observed that cats "diaper" their body wastes.

Dog, as another example, is "כלב" in Hebrew. which means "As a heart". as Dogs have unconditional Love and loyalty.

Camel: "גמל"... "A Hill on top"
Lion: "אריה" a form of "יראה"... "Fearsome"

And the list goes on and on.

Adam did not name the animals, rather described their already given name : "וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא-לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, הוּא שְׁמוֹ"...
Loosely translates to: And every animal that was called by Adam, That was its name...

If you understand the meaning of it, It means that Adam could "see" the real name of the animal, and didn't invent the names.

Adam, Also named Himself! The name Adam is "אדם", Which is built from the word "אדמה"... Earth.. (As Adam was made of the earth)

In the Garden Of Eden, Adam and Eve chose to partake of the fruit of Good and Bad

It is not the fruit of good and bad. It is the fruit of understanding Good and bad. But it is indeed representing the "Bad" side of the humans.

By doing this their God became a God of there own creation by altering their own perception of God.

Interesting.. You claim that by eating the fruit and now, being able to be influenced by "bad" thoughts, they actually changed their own meaning of God...
nice, Yet doesn't really imply that God is fiction.

It is logical that once they lost their "purity" (ish), they "drifted" away from God.. That's the whole point!

In Exodus God identifies himself as I Am That I Am, in other words, existence. With this in mind, How can a person be for or against any position since positioning is the forbidden fruit creating a God of one's own measure?

Once again, You are not presenting the full answer.
When asked for its name, god said:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה; וַיֹּאמֶר, כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶהְיֶה, שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם. טו וַיֹּאמֶר עוֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, כֹּה-תֹאמַר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב, שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם; זֶה-שְּׁמִי לְעֹלָם, וְזֶה זִכְרִי לְדֹר דֹּר

Yep.. Indeed, a bit longer than what you wrote

Loosely translated to:

And god said: I am that I am, Tell them I Am. And God said, Tell them Yehowa (יהוה) the God of your fathers Abraham, Izak And Jacob, sent me. This is my name, so it shall be remembered for generations to come.

so there is indeed a presentation of God saying: I Am that I Am, Which means Several things:

1. My name is of no relevance, as you will not really need it. (Sort of: I am who ever I am)
2. I Am everything that I wish to be
3. I Am the one who is with them

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Given you signature:

If you really really believe... with all your heart and body... it doesn't mean it is the truth!", Quote by an Atheist

I believe we're on the same page. That could have as easily been said by a deist.

 

[omega2xx]

First of all, Thank you for your effort...It's brave of you and I am sure it is very uncomfortable for you to make claims "against" a god.

Even though you wont continue playing the game, I will answer your post.

Hap;y to continue under my new rule.

Gravity is a natural law, Indeed... Yet no one yet knows what gravity really is.
Einstein said you couldn't tell if you are being pulled down or pushed up...
We know Gravity governs the universe, yet we discover dark matter that acts as sort of a repelling force causing the universe to expand instead of allowing gravity take its course... So maybe gravity isn't really such a "strict" law...

Some of it is. It is unlikely man has 100% understanding of gravity.

As for evidence, proving God is the sum of it all... Will one agree that there is something that is the SUM of everything? of course.. it cannot work the other way around. Asking an evidence to prove that we are a smaller part of something bigger would be the universe it self...

What eve anyone believe about God is beleived b y faith alone. No one can prove He exists and no one can proved He does not.

Indeed... And i can only assume it will continue to be so for thousands of years (Unless we somehow destroy ourselves and our entire species)<<

At some point this creation will come to an end. At dome point the tooth paste tube runs out of paste. At some point the sun will give out of energy/ Although that is not know for sure.

Indeed there is none. But would you accept a possibility of another dimension? why?

I doubt it but I do no reject it completely becaeu there is no evidence to evaluate.

f you lived 1500 yrs ago, and i would have told you that Time is a fiction! it is actual another dimension.. will you accept that ? probably not.. but today we know better... We know Time is an illusion.. I can't see anyone asking for evidence for Time..

There is a big difference in asking fo evidence of time and evidence for another dimension.

Find the proof of time, there you will probably find the proof for other dimensions.

My watch tell me what time it is, but it is silent about another dimensions.

It could.. indeed..
It could happen that in an era of Pegan beliefs, a time where no one knew nothing about the reality of our universe, a man, decided to write a mysterious book, containing knowledge that only today we encounter and can validate.

Possible but doubtful IMO

Genesis story, is one of the most misunderstood books!!!

Around 1500 years ago, a collection of explanations were gathered from the entire Jewish scholars. this collection presents a much deeper and more detailed understanding of Genesis.

Every word!!! each and every word in the Genesis book, has several meanings in the ancient Hebrew biblical language. The beauty of it, is that All meanings are true!

The word "בראשית"... the first word in the bible is very different in its meaning than what you think...
Try reading the Hebrew bible with the instructions how to pronounce each word... you'll discover a whole different story.

A small example can be:

"בראשית ברא אלוהים את השמיים והארץ "

This sentence, when being red incorrectly, will present the following:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ( Sounds familiar ? )

The correct meaning of it is:

"When God created the heavens and the earth"...

This changes the entire understanding of the verse.

The men who translate the Bible into English are well qualified scholars in Hebrew. I would say their
ability to translate is as good as yours, probaobly better, unless you have spent most of you adult life studying the language.

IMO there is not a nickles worth of difference in the usual translation and adding "when." I read somewhere that in Hebrew "in the beginning" is one word, "beginning."

This was not "invented" a few years ago, or even a a hundred years ago. This was explained more than a thousand!!! years ago..
And if red correctly, The genesis book reveals AMAZING information about our universe.

How about an example.

And again, I really respect your attempt to do so.

I do.. I do so in all my other posts

I always put my best effort forward when trying to intepet the Bible.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can you please explain what it is that you mean when you say : God in truth in me?

Indivisible wouldn't be the term i would use.

You are an individual.. and in a way, we are all divided from God... but this is only an illusion of separation.
Our consciousness, whether electrical, chemical or spiritual, gives you the "feeling" that you are a being who is apart from others ( beings or objects ).

But at the foundation level, you are a sum of billions of separated entities who together construct a different form of being.

The only difference between you and other things ( non animated things ), is your awareness to those connections.

The same as billions of things together construct our earth, and billions of stars and whatever astrological objects are out there construct our universe... I can't see a reason to think it works differently in different levels of existence.

(Hope I understood your question correctly)

I mean, do you understand that it is true that God is the source of my being?

Indivisible means that there is in reality no separation, only a perception of being separate, which I understand you are in agreement with, but I don't mind if you have preference for another term.

Individual can mean both separate and not separate. The 'in' prefix means not, the the root 'divide' means just that, thus we get a literal meaning of 'not divided' And of course it "I am an individual" implies separation. I concur human consciousness naturally produces the sense of separation, but I thought you, as a religious soul, would see the third form of consciousness you mention, 'spiritual' awareness, as conducive to the mind's apprehension of the underlying unity of the apparent multiplicity, rather than reinforce the maya of separation?

I am in general agreement with the rest of your post....

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Being agnostic doesn't deny belief or hope for a rational possibility. Atheists either claim a belief or certainty in the non-existence of God. If they claim certainty, it's irrational given the complete lack of evidence--same thing in reverse for theists. Since there is no basis for certain knowledge on God or the cause of the universe, every rational person should be at least a provisional agnostic. It's a modifier, not an end of itself, like nihilism is for some people--they're basically materialists who just don't care to think about the subject except to dismiss it out-of-hand.

I disagree with you on agnosticism versus atheism. Neither you nor I have any way of know whether there's Ming teapot wandering around in the rings of Saturn, or whether there is a herd of powder-blue water buffalo living as the primary life-form on the planet Omega Cowpat VI. No idea whatever. The question then becomes, in my view: "is there any reason to suppose so?"

Agnosticism suggests that there is no basis on which you can assess and possibly answer the questions. Atheism, on the other hand (or aMingPotism or aBuffaloism) takes the view that since there's really nothing at all to suggest that whatever we're talking about is the case, there's really no reason to invest in it, which means to bother believing it. It can, for all practical intents and purposes, be rejected and ignored.

Even if, in the unlikeliest event, it might be true.

That's the kind of atheist I am.

 

[Prestor John]

Lol... Nope, Thank you, I'm quite comfortable with my d$@k, don't really care much about yours ( Even if you'll probably win the contest )

I really do think that people should learn before making claims.

I debate quite a lot.. every day, almost every where. Usually, I am not the initiator of the debate. In Israel, When someone hears you are an atheist, never will it be accepted without many many (many many many) questions.
And at times I encounter people who present me with amazing arguments. so i could of course come up with something our of my sleeve, trying my chance.. but I'de rather study the argument, learn its sources, measure its validity... only then I will feel comfortable enough to claim against it.

And you believe this process leads to the discovery of truth?

 

[Polymath257]

We know Gravity governs the universe, yet we discover dark matter that acts as sort of a repelling force causing the universe to expand instead of allowing gravity take its course... So maybe gravity isn't really such a "strict" law...
[

Correction: Dark *energy* is the name for that expansive 'force'. Dark *matter* is a very different phenomenon. Dark *energy* is essentially equivalent to Einstein's cosmological constant. It keeps the same density upon expansion and, because of the laws of gravity, something that behaves like that will produce a repelling force (which is why Einstein originally proposed it). Dark *matter* has to do with extra mass around galaxies producing velocity curves other than the prediction based on observable matter.

 

[Polymath257]

( Speaking out side of the game for a moment.. as an atheist )

I Can understand Deism. I can understand Theism.

I Cannot understand Agnosticism...
You either believe something, or not.

Being an agnostic, means you are an atheist... but not just..
Can't really see how it is a different thing.

The term 'agnostic' was originally coined by TH Huxley to describe the position that knowledge isn't available. His position was that either (strong agnosticism) knowledge is impossible, or that (weak agnosticism) the current evidence is not enough to produce a firm conclusion.

Because of this definition, is is possible to be both a theist (believing in a deity) and an agnostic (believing knowledge about the question is impossible). It is also possible to be an atheist (not having a belief in a deity) and an agnostic (believing knowledge is impossible). Of course, it is also possible to be a theist and a gnostic (belief and thinking knowledge is possible) or a gnostic and an atheist (lack of belief and thinking knowledge is possible).

And that isn't even getting into questions of ignosticism (that the idea of a deity isn't sufficiently clear to make sense) or apatheism (thinking the existence of a deity is irrelevant).

 

[chinu]

Thanks... Yet clearly you've missed the point here.

Thanks.. And you too

 

[Segev Moran]

Actually, I have probably read more about Yahweh than you. And no, I'm not Jewish, nor do I read Hebrew.

And I know all I need to know about Yahweh. Actually, more than I need to know. As I said in my OP, his deeds depicted in the first five books of the old testament are all I need to know that he was an invented warrior sky God by the office oppressed and enslaved Hebrews. It was another tired case of My God is better and mightier than yours. I much prefer Baal, myself. At least he was more godlike and actually did some good, since he was an agrarian life giving and nourishing entity.
Yahweh? LOL..Not so much. More of a homicidal maniac. With human emotions and shortcomings. An absurdly anthropomorphic God.
You're gonna lose this debate, Abe. Everything in my link was verbatim from the old testament. And my example of Yahweh having children murdered for insulting Elisha was also accurate. Do you need a link? So..Since it's documented that Yahweh killed millions, including children and infants, you cannot deny this. So all you're left with is to call his deeds and most of those Old Testament fables as allegories. Or metaphors. If you do this, you admit the Old Testament is not literal. Thus, not true. Thus, mythology. Thus, it belongs right where my copy at home sits.......Next to my Compendium of Greek Mythology. It's Hebrew Mythology.

Actually it's a bit silly to argue the Theodicy of Yahweh, right? As an atheist I don't even believe he existed. No more than Zeus or Odin. So debating the nuances of fictional characters is a bit like arguing about which comic book super hero is the strongest. LOL

Shalom.

So far you presented an argument of why you think God exists.
I Would love to hear an argument of why you think it is fictional besides reading its deeds in the bible.

Can you give an example?
What deed reads "Fiction" all over it?

 

[Segev Moran]

Being agnostic doesn't deny belief or hope for a rational possibility.

Neither is Atheism. (Excluding a small part nicked "strong" atheist... which sit on the same sit as theist [reason wise] as far as i'm concerned).

Atheists either claim a belief or certainty in the non-existence of God.

No we don't. We claim LACK of belief in the existence of God, not the other way around.

If they claim certainty, it's irrational

I Agree.

Lets present that in the form of question and answers by deist, theist, atheist... and please fill in the Agnostic answer? (Please try and be summarized)

1. Is there a God? (Personal, Active, Unbound to the universe laws as we KNOW them)
(D)eist: There is a God, But it is not active in the universe.
(T)heist: Of course. With a 100% certainty, and it cannot be otherwise.
(A)theist: So far nothing seems to suggest so, so its quite probable that there is no such God.
(Ag)nostic: ???

2. Is Evolution true?
D: Yes.
T: Probably not. But even if it is, It was God who ruled and manipulated it. This is how it created life
A: Yes.
Ag: ???

3. Does Science work? (Meaning providing valid information regarding our universe)
D: Yes.
T: Only when it doesn't contradict my religion.
A: Yes.
Ag: ???

Thanks. This really comes out of curiosity of understanding Agnosticism.

 

[Segev Moran]

I mean, do you understand that it is true that God is the source of my being?

No. God is not the source of you... God is you. I'll explain it using a tree

Imagine a tree.. Is a tree the source of its leaves?
Is a tree the source of its branches?
Is a tree the source of its trunk?

Of course not. The tree is the trunk , the branches and the leaves.
Each leaf is an individual leaf, yet it is a part of the tree.

We, as humans, create this fake separation in order to be able to understand structures.
The same logic apply to understanding God.

We are branches of the tree that is God.
Each an individual, All connected by the same roots.

 

[Segev Moran]

And you believe this process leads to the discovery of truth?

I Believe this process prevents me judging things without understanding them first.

 

[Segev Moran]

Correction: Dark *energy*

True.. I Mixed it up

 

[Segev Moran]

Because of this definition, is is possible to be both a theist (believing in a deity) and an agnostic (believing knowledge about the question is impossible).

So its like believing that there is a God because I don't know if there is a God? I Mean, I am missing something here, I'm quite sure, So sorry for nagging

Lets take a test case:

100s of people die in a collapsed building... only 1 survives...

Theist: God saved him, I know so, as I know there is a God that keeps me safe.
Atheist: It was probably only luck. I Have no reason to believe otherwise.
Theistic Agnostic: God saved him. I don't really Know ?

 

[Segev Moran]

Thanks.. And you too

Please en-light me?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. God is not the source of you... God is you. I'll explain it using a tree

Imagine a tree.. Is a tree the source of its leaves?
Is a tree the source of its branches?
Is a tree the source of its trunk?

Of course not. The tree is the trunk , the branches and the leaves.
Each leaf is an individual leaf, yet it is a part of the tree.

We, as humans, create this fake separation in order to be able to understand structures.
The same logic apply to understanding God.

We are branches of the tree that is God.
Each an individual, All connected by the same roots.

Ok, if you claim that is not correct to say that God is the source of you, but rather God is you, then can you show we skeptics an exhibition of some extraordinary divine power to prove it, otherwise it appears to be merely vain rhetoric