Interesting discussion about religion and evolution

[F1fan]

"Would your belief in God be any different if there was no promise of immortal life?"

Yes, my life would be different. With no promise of a life beyond mortality I would not bother with belief in God, I would maximize my comfort, and I would yield to morality only when doing so would provide a superior economic benefit to me.

So the greed for immortality is better than economic greed. Greed either way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is remarkably ignorant. The "evidence" of tornadoes and subsistent farming does not support the Wizard of Oz.

Aliens disagree, just look at this crop circle:

Oh , and "subsistence farming". Now I have to be wary of Muphry's Law.

 

[Unfettered]

So the greed for immortality is better than economic greed. Greed either way.

Greed for immortality? What does that mean?

 

[F1fan]

Greed for immortality? What does that mean?

Look at what you wrote:

With no promise of a life beyond mortality I would not bother with belief in God​

So you would be an atheist, and also a hedonist, if you weren't promised immorality. And who promised you? Christianity. What makes them truthful? Your say so. The temptation for immorality, just because you believe in a certain God, is irrational. It appeals to the fear of death, and the greed for immorality. Do you really think it's true? And unlocked only by mere belief in some religious ideas?

 

[Unfettered]

Look at what you wrote:

With no promise of a life beyond mortality I would not bother with belief in God​

So you would be an atheist, and also a hedonist, if you weren't promised immorality.

It's all hypothetical, so there isn't a need to get really flustered. But yes, if I knew that my existence were limited to this brief life, there is a good chance I'd be atheist and hedonist. Nature compels every creature to seek its own. So if I did so, nature certainly wouldn't fault me for it.

At the same time, it's possible I'd live a cleaner life; if the perceived risks associated with the hedonistic lifestyle were to outweigh the perceived benefits, the reasonable course would be to conform to that which provides the least amount of risk.

Either way, without a continuing life, every decision would be economic.

And who promised you? Christianity. What makes them truthful? Your say so.

Christianity is a way of life. Or a religious system. Or a way of believing. It's not a person. Christianity promises nothing.

The temptation for immorality, just because you believe in a certain God, is irrational. It appeals to the fear of death, and the greed for immorality. Do you really think it's true? And unlocked only by mere belief in some religious ideas?

Are you asking me sincerely? (The questions seem rhetorical)

 

[Brian2]

That is possible, but the reference is to vague and that does not explain the Exodus or Joshua's army.

Maybe it is vague but is the first mention of YHWH and not too long after YHWH is supposed to have revealed His name to Moses.
It is pointing to a people in the right place and time for Israel. Nobody should be expecting to find mention of Israel at this time, since they were not referred to as Israel afaik.
It is not meant to explain the Exodus, it is just part of the evidence that the story is correct. The Exodus is explained in that book, Exodus.
Most of the battles Joshua fought are with just one two or maybe 3 nation states at a time. Israel does not need hundreds of thousands in their army if they have good strategy and especially if YHWH is on their side and fighting for them. But of course that part about YHWH is not allowed for in academia.

Yes, you have not provided any evidence except for dating the destruction of Jericho and the Bible told me so, which id not evidence. You provided nothing else and you have not responded to the references and evidence I provided.

The Bible is ancient documents which is evidence. If you want to say that Exodus and Joshua etc were made up as origin myths for Israel and the story is not real then that needs evidence and not guesswork based on suppositions. The evidence I provide is confirmation of the Bible documents and shows that the suppositions of deniars are not needed and are wrong,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that would include your references.
It is actually not easy to plough through all the archaeology and theories about this topic and most people who have good ideas also have wrong ideas imo. But I go in with the view that the Biblical dating and story are correct and that makes it easier to sort out truth from error. Faith is good in that way even if academia needs more than faith, they say. But interestingly they use their faith that YHWH is not real and did not do miracles in the stories but don't like to call it that.

Only that Jericho was destroyed, No Joshua army is known by any evidence. The evidence indicates the Egyptians destroyed Jericho. Yes. Joshua tells a story, but no evidence to back up the existence of any such army or the Conquest of Canaan which never happened.

As cited it is Egypt that destroyed Jericho and conquered Canaan,

When did Egypt do that? Which year are you taking for destruction of Jericho? Do you think they could have done it in the way the story says or did they need a huge army? Walking around the city and blowing trumpets is not about a huge army, it is about God.

The Bible cannot justify itself in history without independent evidence. Yes, academic archaeology and history stand on actual objective verifiable evidence. You go to great lengths to cite evidence to justify the date of the destruction of Jericho but play Duck, Bob, and Weave when it comes to back up the important claims when there is no evidence.

I can only give evidence for what there is evidence for.
Is there actual objective verifiable evidence for the fanciful stories, hypotheses that academics come us with? It seems to be based on the idea that there is no evidence for the Exodus and that academia wants any evidence to be in the 12th century. But the evidence I give is for a 14th century conquest, as does the Biblical evidence,,,,,,,,,,,,, and the story is not a fiction based on errors of interpretation, it is the Biblical story which every find of evidence supports.
Interestingly I see evidence which supports the Bible and then check out the interpretation of that evidence by Biblical minimalists and see how they come up with other hypotheses about it instead of relating to the actual stories in the Bible.
How do you ignore the intellectual 'volcano' of Mount Ebal?

Again and again, the Bible like all ancient texts cannot justify itself without independent evidence. Whether this or that town is destroyed is not the real issue. The real issue is there is no evidence for Joshua or his army that claimed to destroy Jericho and conquer all of Canaan. Actually, it is well documented that Egypt conquered Canaan and what was a small Hebrew tribe.

Being justified by academia is not important really, but when academia through what it says is lack of evidence then goes on to hypothesise other scenarios about the origins of Israel, that is sad, especially when a lot of it is just ignoring the evidence that does exist in the Bible and in archaeology and wanting something easily explained without having to bring in miracles from God.

No, It is claimed that Joshua conquered almost all of the Canaanite Kingodom and divided it among the 12 tribes, refernces to follow.

Yes it is claimed that God fulfilled His promises and conquered Canaan and gave Israel a place to reside and grow etc. and that seems to be emphasised whilst ignoring the parts that tell of the areas not conquered and that still needed to be conquered.
The land was divided up and God said that He would drive out the people,,,,,,,,,,,, which over time did happen (see Josh 13:6,7)
See Josh 15:63, 16:10, 17:12-18, 18:1-4, etc
The story is ambiguous but can be read to be a consistent story of a conquest that gave Israel the land but which was ongoing.

 

[Brian2]

That is remarkably ignorant. The "evidence" of tornadoes and subsistent farming does not support the Wizard of Oz.

Presumably you have evidence for whatever theory you accept of the origins of Israel.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why is it certain that Noah's flood and the creation story are based on mythology?

Because it is physically impossible, requires magic and even if we ignore that it makes plenty of easily testable predictions ALL OF WHICH fail miserably when tested.

So it literally fails on every single level, form every single angle.

Why isn't the flood story of Gilgamesh evidence that the flood of Noah is real?

For the same reason that the story of Hercules isn't evidence of gods living on mount Olympus

Is any creation story the same as the Biblical one

In terms of myth-index and lack of evidence, yes.

, which imo can even fit what science has discovered about the early earth etc.

That's a very delusional opinion

That is good evidence for me and I believe it even if I don't have other evidence except faith.

Faith isn't evidence. Faith is what you need to believe something when you don't have evidence.
It's not even an alternative to evidence. It's just plain gullibility.

Or as mark twain said once: Faith is what you need to believe that which you know ain't true

I'm not splitting up what is academically true and what is truely true. True is true for me and I disagree with people deciding the Bible is false because of their opinion and what they see as a lack of evidence even when evidence exists.

It's not merely a lack of evidence that makes the bible false.
It's rather a lack of evidence while evidence SHOULD exist.

For example, say that I claim that my house burned down. Upon inspection, my house is actually fine and there is no evidence at all about anything having burned.
That lack of evidence disproves my claim that it burned down.

The concept of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is only applicable insofar as no evidence being expected.
When you are going to claim, for example, that a global flood killed EVERYTHING except a handful of specimen of all species, then that predicts a MASSIVE universal genetic bottleneck in ALL those species.

When that genetic bottleneck does not exist, then the claim is disproven. That type of absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again... as you said you like evidence... what evidence do you have that one could not have compiled the Pentateuch as Moses received the messages from God? There is no evidence that it did not happen at the time that is was recorded that it happened (Whether in archaic Hebrew or the language used before then).

Blatant shifting of the burden of proof.

What is your evidence that there are no undetectable goblins living under your house?

 

[Kenny]

Blatant shifting of the burden of proof.

What is your evidence that there are no undetectable goblins living under your house?

Nice two-step. One might as well ask "what evidence is there that you aren't an AI response?"

 

[shunyadragon]

Presumably you have evidence for whatever theory you accept of the origins of Israel.

Yes, the evidence is that Israel arose from Canaanite pastoral tribes in the Hills of Judah after 1200 BCE. They were defeated by the Egyptians when they conquered the Canaanites. Before this, they were a minor Canaanite tribe.

The evidence that it was Egypt, not Israel that defeated the Canaanites in the Merneptah Stele

Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[shunyadragon]

As I said, I don't do that.
But it seems you don't want to hear that or the other evidence for the conquest in Joshua.

There is no archaeological nor historical evidence (ie Egyptian records) of the army of Joshua or the conquest of Canaan. In fact, it is the Egyptian records that demonstrate that it was the Egypt that conquered Canaan and the tribes in the Hills of Judah.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe it is vague but is the first mention of YHWH and not too long after YHWH is supposed to have revealed His name to Moses.
It is pointing to a people in the right place and time for Israel. Nobody should be expecting to find mention of Israel at this time, since they were not referred to as Israel afaik.
It is not meant to explain the Exodus, it is just part of the evidence that the story is correct. The Exodus is explained in that book, Exodus.
Most of the battles Joshua fought are with just one two or maybe 3 nation states at a time. Israel does not need hundreds of thousands in their army if they have good strategy and especially if YHWH is on their side and fighting for them. But of course that part about YHWH is not allowed for in academia.

Academia fully recognizes that the Egyptians mentioned the Hebrew tribes of Judah and worshiped YHWH, but the Egyptians were reasonably knowledgeable about all the tribes and Kingdoms of the regions and recorded the information as a result of the trade and conquests. Unfortunately, the Hebrews did not have a written language so we do not have any records from Henbrews until well after ~1000 BCE

There is no evidence that the Hebrews had a significant army at all and as referenced it was the Egyptians who conquered Canaan and by the way the Hebrew tribes.

The Bible is ancient documents which is evidence. If you want to say that Exodus and Joshua etc were made up as origin myths for Israel and the story is not real then that needs evidence and not guesswork based on suppositions. The evidence I provide is confirmation of the Bible documents and shows that the suppositions of deniars are not needed and are wrong,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that would include your references.
It is actually not easy to plough through all the archaeology and theories about this topic and most people who have good ideas also have wrong ideas imo. But I go in with the view that the Biblical dating and story are correct and that makes it easier to sort out truth from error. Faith is good in that way even if academia needs more than faith, they say. But interestingly they use their faith that YHWH is not real and did not do miracles in the stories but don't like to call it that.

As documented by the Egyptian Stella and archaeological evidence Joshua's army is a myth and it was Egypt that conquered Canaan and not Hebrews.

You need to provide independent evidence to justify your claims.

When did Egypt do that? Which year are you taking for destruction of Jericho? Do you think they could have done it in the way the story says or did they need a huge army? Walking around the city and blowing trumpets is not about a huge army, it is about God.

The evidence is clear, Egypt conquered the Hyksos Kingdom and Canaan in the period the evidence demonstrates including the Merneptah Stele

Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Remember there is no independent archaeological evidence that the Hebrews had any written language at the time.

 

[F1fan]

It's all hypothetical, so there isn't a need to get really flustered. But yes, if I knew that my existence were limited to this brief life, there is a good chance I'd be atheist and hedonist. Nature compels every creature to seek its own. So if I did so, nature certainly wouldn't fault me for it.

At the same time, it's possible I'd live a cleaner life; if the perceived risks associated with the hedonistic lifestyle were to outweigh the perceived benefits, the reasonable course would be to conform to that which provides the least amount of risk.

Either way, without a continuing life, every decision would be economic.

The question is what motivates you to believe in a God only because Christins claim you will live forevr if you do?

And it's not just belief in a God, but a set of other ideas that Jesus was executed so humans will have salvation. None of these are plausible nor make sense. So what led to belief?

Christianity is a way of life. Or a religious system. Or a way of believing.

Why need any of these? What is the intention if not emotional needs, and to offset fear of death?

It's not a person.

Really, not Jesus as savior?

Christianity promises nothing.

Really, no everlasting life in heaven? Why do so many Christian claim they have it because they believe they are saved through Jesus?

Are you asking me sincerely? (The questions seem rhetorical)

Yes. You don't seem to have thought out why you believe in Christianity. Your answers are contradictory.

Every theists should be able to answer why they believe what they do, vrsis not believing at all. Let's note that every believer rejects a long list of other religions, so why did the believer pick the one they did, and not another? Did they even have a choice, lik kids who grew up Catholic and had no option to be Muslim or reject religion?

 

[Little Dragon]

Most of us don't want to die.

Well. Fearing death is a healthy instinct, for a biological organism, or maybe, the biologic organic part of a much more complex and unknown entity. As some would suggest. I do not know, but I do know that the universe is a lot more mysterious and weird, than some very skeptical people might appreciate.

I am moderately skeptical, but with caveats.

Caveat number 1 is simple, I don't have access to all possible information about reality/the universe.

 

[shunyadragon]

I see the Nomads of YHWH as mentioned in the hyroglyphs of Soleb as referring to the wondering Israel.

This may be true, but by the evidence, they were pastoral Canaanite tribes in Judah and did not have a written language or a significant army. Yes when Egypt defeated them Egypt likely took slaves with Canaanite slaves to Egypt.

Shasu - Google Search

But I suppose you want evidence for the evidence when all I have is a hypothesis.
It is like Jericho. The evidence shows Jericho having been destroyed when and how Joshua tells us and I see this as part of the evidence that Joshua tells a true story.
Soleb has an inscription of the nomads of YHWH being approximately where and when the Bible tells us Israel would have been. If we want to identify these shasu then Israel is sounds right to me. This does not prove the Exodus or conquest either, but all these pieces of evidence added together make a solid case.



Maybe you do, but I don't see an academic vote as determinant of the truth of history.
But of course there is evidence of a Hebrew invasion under Joshua when and how the Bible tells us. But you have to be open to the how, and that when it says that Israel destroyed a certain town by the sword, it does not mean that the town was torn down or burnt. The destruction of the actual buildings is only in Jericho, Ai and Hazor, as the archaeology shows us.
Israel lived in the towns they emptied of people.
Also as Joshua tells us, much of Canaan was left unconquered even though Israel had peace from war and were able to settle there in their various tribal groupings.
The archaeology also fits this scenario, which is again what Joshua tells us.
By 1200 Israel was settled and part of the Canaanite scenery and for people who do not see the conquest as real, it looks as if Israel emerged from Canaan around then.
Such people also ignore the fact that the Bible says Israel is said to have intermarried with Canaanites and worshipped their gods and syncretised the religion with Canaan religion and at times the prophets of YHWH were sought out to be killed by the reigning Kings of Israel and Judah.
The scriptures had to be taken care of and hidden or they would have been destroyed. This is part of the reason that they think the Exodus story was made up around 600BC as an origin myth.
One error reinforces another, reinforces another etc and pretty soon nothing of worth is left as true in the Hebrew Bible.

Joshua's claim of conquest of Canaan totally conflicts with the evidence on the Stella of Egypt and the archaeological evidence. By the evidence, Egypt conquered Canaan and the Hebrew tribes of Judah. This is also in conflict with later references in the Torah.

Book of Joshua

10:40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills, and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded. 41 Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. 42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

43 Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.

. and then he divided all the lands and gave them to the twelve tribes.

 

[Unfettered]

The question is what motivates you to believe in a God only because Christins claim you will live forevr if you do?

You should understand that it's not a matter of me believing in God because of what Christians say; I believe in God on the same basis that I believe in others—because I know him. I know he is real. He is active in my life, like others I know are active in my life. It would be dishonest of me to disbelieve in him like it would be dishonest of me to disbelieve in my wife, children, or friends, etc.

Hopefully that clarifies.

And it's not just belief in a God, but a set of other ideas that Jesus was executed so humans will have salvation. None of these are plausible nor make sense. So what led to belief?

But the atonement of Jesus Christ does make sense to me. Likewise, the reality of the atonement of Jesus Christ is, to me, not a question of plausibility, but a matter of fact.

What led to belief?...

The foundation of my belief was a combination of personal impressions and the testimony of others (this seems to be what you're referring to when you talk about Christians telling me this or that thing). Impressions that came to me as I grew, along with the things that were taught, testified of or claimed gave form to ideas that, to me, were worthy of investigation—and had to be investigated and explored in order to be believed. That has been my journey—to discern, to investigate and explore, to test and to compare, to seek, knock, ask, and to watch and listen. What I discovered during that process was that God was active in my life the entire time, while I searched. Cause to believe didn't follow decades of search, but came during the search, from the very beginning of the search.

Why need any of these?

Regardless of what the restored gospel of Jesus Christ purports to be, I don't "need" that system or way of life or way of thinking any more or less than any other persons needs whatever system he or she espouses as a guide in life, or as a way of life. I accept that having a moral system is a part of being human. I definitely choose the system of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ; that is true. But it should not be controversial that I choose a system. We all do. In this general sense, that the system I choose touches on life prior to birth and life after death, in addition to our current mortal phase, is incidental. But I have cause to choose the system, just as you have cause to choose whatever system you choose.

What is the intention if not emotional needs, and to offset fear of death?

That's just it; I don't need immortality. I am not afraid of death. Absent the promise of immortality, I would be fine with the prospect of ceasing to exist upon death. The day will come when my body will be broken, my health waning or gone, and a life of accomplishment and satisfaction behind me. Death will be a welcome rest. I don't fear death. Yes, I respond to threats against my life the way all living things are designed to respond—I resist—but my belief in God didn't come because I was wringing my hands every day with worry, clawing about for some hope to cling to because I was afraid I'd cease to exist when I die. That feeling or thinking has never been a part of my experience.

Really, not Jesus as savior?

That's correct; Christianity promises nothing. God is the giver of the promises. Christianity is a label attatched to…well, to a variety of things. But Christianity is not God. It is not Jesus Christ. They are real persons, just like you and me.

Really, no everlasting life in heaven?

Again, what is called "Christianity" includes promises related to eternal life, but Christianity is not the source of those promises; God is the giver of those promises.

Why do so many Christian claim they have it because they believe they are saved through Jesus?

Within Christianity are taught doctrines related to immortality and eternal life, yes.

Yes. You don't seem to have thought out why you believe in Christianity. Your answers are contradictory.

I've spent my whole life thinking about the gospel, and have a very good understanding of why I choose it.

I don't think I've given contradictory answers, but if you think it's critical that I understand where you see them, and that I account for them, maybe make clear where you see the contradictions?

Every theists should be able to answer why they believe what they do, vrsis not believing at all.

I agree, though I don't believe that any person owes it to another person to give answers that the latter finds satisfactory. If there are things in your belief system that I don't understand, I'm not going to find fault with you if the way you explain them doesn't satisfy my questioning.

Let's note that every believer rejects a long list of other religions, so why did the believer pick the one they did, and not another?

I can only speak for myself. I don't "reject" other religions; I just don't espouse myself to them. I accept truth from any source, and expect to find truth in every religion. Such is my religion.

Did they even have a choice, lik kids who grew up Catholic and had no option to be Muslim or reject religion?

A child may be compelled by parents or guardians to go through religious motions, which practice I assert is wrong, but in the end the person goes the way of his or her own understanding and conscience.

 

[Brian2]

Because it is physically impossible, requires magic and even if we ignore that it makes plenty of easily testable predictions ALL OF WHICH fail miserably when tested.

So it literally fails on every single level, form every single angle.



For the same reason that the story of Hercules isn't evidence of gods living on mount Olympus

I am speaking of a large local flood.

That's a very delusional opinion

No it's probably just a different way of viewing what the Bible creation story tells us.

Faith isn't evidence. Faith is what you need to believe something when you don't have evidence.
It's not even an alternative to evidence. It's just plain gullibility.

Or as mark twain said once: Faith is what you need to believe that which you know ain't true

It would be the same if I believed any alternative to creation that a skeptic or atheist might believe. I would be using faith.

It's not merely a lack of evidence that makes the bible false.
It's rather a lack of evidence while evidence SHOULD exist.

For example, say that I claim that my house burned down. Upon inspection, my house is actually fine and there is no evidence at all about anything having burned.
That lack of evidence disproves my claim that it burned down.

The concept of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is only applicable insofar as no evidence being expected.
When you are going to claim, for example, that a global flood killed EVERYTHING except a handful of specimen of all species, then that predicts a MASSIVE universal genetic bottleneck in ALL those species.

When that genetic bottleneck does not exist, then the claim is disproven. That type of absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

But I am speaking of a large local flood, so that example is not appropriate when discussing it with me.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am speaking of a large local flood.

This does not help the argument for a flood as geographically described in the Bible including Mount Ariate. There is absolutely no evidence of any such large local flood involving the region around the Levant

 

[Brian2]

Yes, the evidence is that Israel arose from Canaanite pastoral tribes in the Hills of Judah after 1200 BCE. They were defeated by the Egyptians when they conquered the Canaanites. Before this, they were a minor Canaanite tribe.

The evidence that it was Egypt, not Israel that defeated the Canaanites in the Merneptah Stele

Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't know how the Merneptah Stele which is supposed to be about 1208 BC, would show Egyptian conquest of Canaan in the 1400s, which is where the archaeology points to.
The Stele also has Israel as an existing state in about 1200 BC and is not good for those who say the exodus and conquest was late (1250, 1200) since Israel would not exist as a state then.
Here is a site which wants to use a Revised Egyptian Chronology (REC) to interpret the Stele.

The Merneptah Stele

This famous artifact contains an important reference to Israel: how does it relate to the Bible’s history?

answersingenesis.org

Of course revising Egyptian Chronology may be a good and correct thing to do, but does add an extra layer of confusion to the already confusing landscape of archaeology and history that is the Exodus and Conquest, or whatever theory historians have come up with about it.