Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

[tayla]

I agree it's probably fiction (I don't like to make claims I can't 100% prove to be true),

Atheists must believe the Bible is fiction since it promotes a view of God which atheists reject.

 

[tayla]

I'd love to talk about a philisophical position on god! Do you mean a Deistic veiw as in "there is probably a god but it doesnt care or even necessarily know about us" sort of thing?

If there is a God, his/her characteristics must be:

1. If God is actively involved with evolution (as an intelligent designer), he/she does it in a manner not detectable by science. I'm proposing he/she occasionally fiddles with the randomness of quantum mechanics wavefunction collapse, for example, by occasionally choosing where the electron will appear and influencing subsequent interactions.
   
2. God is good and beautiful, yet the world has suffering with animals eating each other alive and people torturing each other to death. So therefore, God is aloof from all this. God is not morally bad.
   
3. Consciousness and its contents seems to me to be outside of this physical realm, in what I call the spiritual realm. If there is a spiritual realm, there probably are souls and God.

 

[oldbadger]

There are sentences that are true or partially true. The OT from David on has some historical truth. The book of Acts has some truth. And here and there.

Fair enough.
It's all about personal opinions.
And so, fair enough.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Atheists must believe the Bible is fiction since it promotes a view of God which atheists reject.

Not necessarily- its possible to be agnostic and atheist since agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with belief- I dont make the claim that I know god doesnt exist therefore I must accept that a god might. Santa might also exist, also a teapot which created the universe etc etc. However, I dont believe they do. Hence, I'm both atheist and agnostic - I cant conclusively say that the bible is fiction but I can say I dont believe it is true as far as I can disbelieve any other mythological claim.

Hope that makes sense!

 

[Dan Mellis]

If there is a God, his/her characteristics must be:

1. If God is actively involved with evolution (as an intelligent designer), he/she does it in a manner not detectable by science. I'm proposing he/she occasionally fiddles with the randomness of quantum mechanics wavefunction collapse, for example, by occasionally choosing where the electron will appear and influencing subsequent interactions.
   
2. God is good and beautiful, yet the world has suffering with animals eating each other alive and people torturing each other to death. So therefore, God is aloof from all this. God is not morally bad.
   
3. Consciousness and its contents seems to me to be outside of this physical realm, in what I call the spiritual realm. If there is a spiritual realm, there probably are souls and God.

Interesting! I have some views on this.

1. I'm not qualified to have any opinion on quantum mechanics other than I don't know how it works, so I can't conclude "god(s)". I think thats a fallacious argument to make - the argument from ignorance meaning "we don't understand it, therefore it must be a god".

2. I have to reject that if a god is responsible for evolution the way it has turned out, then god is morally bad. The simple fact that it would have some agency over what happens but does nothing about it would suggest that to me

3. I would suggest that consciousness is entirely material, and is a product of the interaction between the atoms and neurons on our brains. A good analogy of this is thinking about water's wetness. Wetness itself is caused by water but a single water molecule isn't wet. A single brain cell has no consciousness, but a collection of cells interact in a way that creates consciousness, similar to the way a bunch of water molecules make water wet.

 

[tayla]

I cant conclusively say that the bible is fiction

Of course the Bible is fiction. It contradicts science and archaeology, and its stories having different accounts contradict each other.

 

[tayla]

I'm not qualified to have any opinion on quantum mechanics other than I don't know how it works, so I can't conclude "god(s)". I think thats a fallacious argument to make - the argument from ignorance meaning "we don't understand it, therefore it must be a god".

Yes, you are correct. This doesn't prove there is a God, but, merely, that there is a way that God could interact with the universe without violating the laws of physics.

 

[tayla]

I have to reject that if a god is responsible for evolution the way it has turned out, then god is morally bad. The simple fact that it would have some agency over what happens but does nothing about it would suggest that to me

Yes, this is the big conundrum about believing in a God who is good and beautiful. How can these two things be simultaneously present?

1. A God who is good and beautiful.
2. A planet having suffering.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Of course the Bible is fiction. It contradicts science and archaeology, and its stories having different accounts contradict each other.

I mean only to say that I can't be 100% sure I'm not actually a senile octogenarian shouting at a wall while jesus taps me on the shoulder - I don't make truth claims as a rule

 

[Dan Mellis]

Yes, this is the big conundrum about believing in a God who is good and beautiful. How can these two things be simultaneously present?

1. A God who is good and beautiful.
2. A planet having suffering.

Ahhh we seem to have forgotten that gods ways are so mysterious, we cant actually tell what is his doing and what isn't.

Suffering is just god telling us he loves us in a completely unintelligble but absolutely pure and good way

 

[Dan Mellis]

Yes, you are correct. This doesn't prove there is a God, but, merely, that there is a way that God could interact with the universe without violating the laws of physics.

Yeah, which theists seem to take as "god could exist, therefore he definitely does"

 

[Muffled]

Its been a while, I forget the context. But anyway,
ok, that is a belief. It is not what I believe, but
it may not really matter.

I believe I would like to hear what you believe? Is it anything goes? Does it occur by osmosis?

 

[Muffled]

Yes, it is my subjective view that stoning people to death is sick. So what? Are you suggesting it is not sick/bad/immoral/disgusting/inhumane?

I believe it fits in with our throw away generation. If something is broken, trash it. I am not that way. I keep dishes with chips in them. Of course I can never view them as being perfect but I can use them as long as I am careful not to cut myself on the sharp edges. I believe it helps to understand the purpose of things rather than just have an emotional reaction to it.

 

[Muffled]

Clearly the Bible is fiction, so objecting to its descriptions about the nature of God is a waste of time. It is better to demonstrate that Christian claims are false.

I never hear atheists discuss other conceptions of God besides the Christian view, for example, philosophically based views.

I believe clearly the Bible is the Word of God. Evidently your clarity is seeing through a dark shade.

 

[Dan Mellis]

I believe it fits in with our throw away generation. If something is broken, trash it. I am not that way. I keep dishes with chips in them. Of course I can never view them as being perfect but I can use them as long as I am careful not to cut myself on the sharp edges. I believe it helps to understand the purpose of things rather than just have an emotional reaction to it.[/QUOTE=

I believe it fits in with our throw away generation. If something is broken, trash it. I am not that way. I keep dishes with chips in them. Of course I can never view them as being perfect but I can use them as long as I am careful not to cut myself on the sharp edges. I believe it helps to understand the purpose of things rather than just have an emotional reaction to it.

Are you suggesting that keeping a broken dish and not condemning the stoning of gays to death are in any way comparable?

Even viewing it in a completely objective way, stoning someone to death (or discriminating in any way against them) for engaging in an activity which ultimately harms nobody is immoral.

Bringing human emotions into the matter elevates it from being simply immoral to completely repugnant

 

[Dan Mellis]

I believe clearly the Bible is the Word of God. Evidently your clarity is seeing through a dark shade.

Except theres no evidence for it being anything other than a collection of the semi-lucid ramblings of desert hobos.

 

[Audie]

I believe I would like to hear what you believe? Is it anything goes? Does it occur by osmosis?

If you are going to wait so long to respond
it is helpful if you provide some context.
What posts are you even talking about?

 

[wandering peacefully]

I believe it fits in with our throw away generation. If something is broken, trash it. I am not that way. I keep dishes with chips in them. Of course I can never view them as being perfect but I can use them as long as I am careful not to cut myself on the sharp edges. I believe it helps to understand the purpose of things rather than just have an emotional reaction to it.

You must have meant this post for someone else. I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...

People should read the Bible like any book. The above text is relevent to Jews as it was a law for the nation of Israel. They had to kill homosexuals. Plain as day. It isn't that that verse isn't correct. It is that Christians do not follow the Mosaic Law, therefore they do not follow that verse. One just has to read Paul's letters to figure that out. It seems pretty obvious with regard to that verse. In the Bible there are different laws given to different people. The above law was not given to Christians and it can only be enforced in the Nation of Israel, which really doesnt exist anymore. I don't see how it could give people a platform to spew hatred, since all one has to say is that Christians are not under the Mosaic law anymore therefore we do not follow that.

 

[Workman]

Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...

This does not speak of homosexuality..being wrong!.It speaks of the VERY STRONG bond of BELIEF OF LOVE they will feel within them.. and WILL go (AGAINST the ALL) that is against them. The part with the threats is NOT directed to them!..it’s directed towards the one whom will JUDGE them or DESTROY(ing) of the LOVE they have..(because it is the LOVE that is from GOD). For those many against that LOVE will be punishment!