Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[muhammad_isa]

Sorry, none of that matters. No Muslims were travelling at a different velocity. 1000 years will never be 50,000 years. It's a mistake..

Almighty God is not a person in space-time .. not a Muslim.
Furthermore, quoting verses out of context, on the basis of a literal English translation is quite pointless.
All it does is serve to mislead.

when Muhammad was writing stuff he forgot what number he used..

More nonsense .. there is no real significance to these numbers .. perhaps Muhammad forgot to add the microseconds, too

Uh, that doesn't debunk the problem here. Earth is first in one and heaven is first in another..

That is not what I see.
I see descriptions of various aspects being created .. not completing one, and then another.

In case you forgot the English translation was done by Arabic scholars?

Some are, some aren't .. but a translation can never be precise .. because some words cannot be translated directly into English words .. it gives a general meaning, and is not meant to be dissected and scoffed at.

Did one of Noah's sons die in the flood?
Yes
11:42-43
Noah cried unto his son and he was standing aloof - O my son! Come ride with us, and be not with the disbelievers. He said: I shall betake me to some mountain that will save me from the water. (Noah) said: This day there is none that saveth from the commandment of Allah save him on whom He hath had mercy. And the wave came in between them, so he was among the drowned.


No
21:76
And Noah, when he cried of old, We heard his prayer and saved him and his household from the great affliction.

So what?
..so one of His sons did not listen to His father.
..and what was Noah's "household"?

..presumably it consisted of women too, that were not necessarily his daughters.
Otherwise, who did Noah's sons marry?

1. 
   No one knows where these seven heavens are or what they're supposed to be.

I don't think that they are part of the physical creation, but God knows best.

 

[joelr]

Almighty God is not a person in space-time .. not a Muslim.
Furthermore, quoting verses out of context, on the basis of a literal English translation is quite pointless.
All it does is serve to mislead.

The translation from Arab is correct. You are trying to create a smokescreen. So when you read the Quran anything could be a mistake and you don't know if anything is true at all?? No, that probably isn't th ecase. You probably read it as if it's the words of a God. Except when a mistake is found, then suddenly there are "translation errors". Doubt it.

It doesn't mislead anything, it's a mistake. Because humans make mistakes and these words are from people.
But now you also suggest that God can't do basic math translations? Absurd? If a God were real he could handle the difference between 1 and 50.

More nonsense .. there is no real significance to these numbers .. perhaps Muhammad forgot to add the microseconds, too

1000 to 50,000 sounds like a mistake. A God like Allah would not allow such a thing.

That is not what I see.
I see descriptions of various aspects being created .. not completing one, and then another.

Now you are lying or in denial.

" And after that He spread the earth...."
"Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven,"



"After that" and "then". very clear.

Some are, some aren't .. but a translation can never be precise .. because some words cannot be translated directly into English words .. it gives a general meaning, and is not meant to be dissected and scoffed at.

Cool, read the Arabic and tell me what they say. If you cannot read the Arabic then this you are saying here is all BS. If you truly believed that then you would not read the English because you would want the 100% exact words of God.

So what?
..so one of His sons did not listen to His father.
..and what was Noah's "household"?

..presumably it consisted of women too, that were not necessarily his daughters.
Otherwise, who did Noah's sons marry?

So what? It's a mistake. He died. And he didn't die. Mistake. Error in the Quran.

Next error, man was created from:
mud
clot
mire
water
clay
wet Earth
dust
a base fluid
a drop of fluid
A gushing fluid that issues from between the loins and ribs
a drop of seed
Dust and then a drop of fluid
Dust, then a drop of seed, and then a clot.
Dust, then from a drop of seed, then from a clot, then from a little lump of shapely and shapeless flesh
Nothing

What were humans created from?
we have a passage for every different creation material. Muhammad forgot some details obviously.

I don't think that they are part of the physical creation, but God knows best.

Nope. This is the Jewish cosmology. The firmament is above earth. The stars and planets are inside one of the heavens. It's a scientific mistake.
God doesn't seem to know anything except science already created by the Greeks, theology from the OT, wisdom and philosophy that was already around and thinks Noah and other Mesopotamian myths were actually real.
This was a person writing and composing this.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Next error, man was created from:
mud
clot
mire
water
clay
wet Earth
dust
a base fluid
a drop of fluid
A gushing fluid that issues from between the loins and ribs
a drop of seed
Dust and then a drop of fluid
Dust, then a drop of seed, and then a clot.
Dust, then from a drop of seed, then from a clot, then from a little lump of shapely and shapeless flesh
Nothing

What were humans created from?
we have a passage for every different creation material. Muhammad forgot some details obviously..

Are you for real?
Do you think that a massive civilisation was built up on people not realising that all these "mistakes" exist in the Qur'an?
That we are all deluded?

They are all correct .. no mistakes .. mankind is created from physical material.

God doesn't seem to know anything except science already created by the Greeks..

The Qur'an is not a science book.
..and neither is the Bible.

Your disbelief does not affect Almighty God .. it is mankind that are in need .. we turn away from truth at our own peril.

We can see the results of turning away from God..
Climate-change .. pandemics .. war..
It cannot improve by following a material philosophy.
That is the reason why we are in this mess in the first place.

 

[joelr]

Are you for real?
Do you think that a massive civilisation was built up on people not realising that all these "mistakes" exist in the Qur'an?
That we are all deluded?

Covering you eyes on clear mistakes in the text and claiming "they are not mistakes" is just denial. The author forgot what he previously had said and made a different claim. It's simply human error.
Yes many people miss mistakes because the book is long and usually not read cover to cover. Then when mistakes are found denial is used. For example.......

Are you deluded? Are JW's deluded who think everyone else is going to hell when the rapture happens soon? It's exactly the same.

They are all correct .. no mistakes .. mankind is created from physical material.

The Qur'an is not a science book.
..and neither is the Bible.

That's funny that one of the major forms of Islamic apologetics says it IS A SCIENCE BOOK and the science in the Quran couldn't have possibly been known and proves it's from a God. That is the main selling point in Muslim apologetics.
Either way it's still extremely telling that the only science in the not-science book is science that the Greeks already knew and was read by Arab theologians before the Quran was written.

They are science books of the time. You seem to forget there was no such thing as a "science book" in those days. That was what a science book was, casual mentions of scientific knowledge.

Your disbelief does not affect Almighty God .. it is mankind that are in need .. we turn away from truth at our own peril.

Disbelief does not effect God because God is a fictional character. Mankind may be in need of things but that doesn't make Krishna, Zeus or YAhweh real.
The Jehovas witness can turn to you and say "we turn away from truth at our own peril."
The Mormons can turn to you and say "we turn away from truth at our own peril."
Christians of any denomination who believe only belief in the Gospel Jesus can bring salvation and say "we turn away from truth at our own peril.".
And none of you have any evidence that any of that is true. Not even a shred of evidence. Massive evidence that it's syncretic mythology and re-used wisdom, ethics, laws and philosophy going around nations at that time. Not one single thing new that humans didn't already know or think.
Yet you still think it's "truth". It has been established you have no evidence or reason beyond emotional attachment. You bought into a story and now cannot fathom it isn't true. Same with all the other religions just mentioned. Instead of debating you just preach.

We can see the results of turning away from God..
Climate-change .. pandemics .. war..
It cannot improve by following a material philosophy.
That is the reason why we are in this mess in the first place.

Again total wu-wu crank.
Climate change is from technology, pandemics are from technology and expanding into rain forests, neither would stop no matter how religious people are. You would just use confirmation bias to move the goalpost. Everyone could be religious and you would find a way to blame sins or whatever on disasters.

Christainity has been in many wars as well as Islam:
Islam and war - Wikipedia).

The more people embrace religion the more religious wars we will have.
The concept of jihad, the religious duty to struggle, has long been associated with struggles for promoting a religion, although some observers refer to such struggle as "the lesser jihad" by comparison with inner spiritual striving. Islamic jurisprudence on war differentiates between illegitimate and legitimate warfare and prescribes proper and improper conduct by combatants. Numerous conquest wars as well as armed anti-colonial military campaigns were waged as jihads.

You cannot deny peoples right to freedom of religion so different religions growing stronger will result in conflict. But as we have seen religions always fight within themselves over different interpretations. So you are wrong on many levels.

What mess are we in exactly? Besides the Russian invasion the world has been in the most peaceful state since WW2? ISIS has been a huge problem, people who believe God wants them to fight.

If you actually think a God strikes pandemics down onto Earth as punishment like people thought of Zeus and Yahweh in the Middle ages then you are too far gone into cult thinking to have a reasonable discussion with. You have left logic and evidence so far behind that you are not ready, and probably never will move beyond Bronze Age superstition.

 

[samtonga43]

It has been established you have no evidence or reason beyond emotional attachment. You bought into a story and now cannot fathom it isn't true. Same with all the other religions just mentioned. Instead of debating you just preach.

Who established this?

 

[joelr]

Who established this?

Because in all the many posts there has been no evidence or reason for the beliefs beyond claims which are generally emotional attachment.

In fact after all the discussion of unanswered historical data, false apologetics and lack of evidence for many supernatural claims I still get this -
"we turn away from truth at our own peril."

As if it's been established that there is even a tiny amount of reason to believe such a thing. There has not and that is dishonest.
After asking repeatedly over and over and not getting evidence I decided to believe the silence and conclude that he has established there is no evidence.
Maybe he is holding out for a big reveal and Gabrielle or God will show up and provide some direct evidence to me or the entire world!



You have yet to respond to post #1193

 

[samtonga43]

Because in all the many posts there has been no evidence or reason for the beliefs beyond claims which are generally emotional attachment.

Strawman. I did not ask ‘Why?’ I asked ‘Who?’
Who established this?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The more people embrace religion the more religious wars we will have..

..and why is that? Do the major religions promote war for material gain? No.
There is always a war going on between good and evil..
There are law courts and a penal system, designed to limit crime, for example.

You cannot deny peoples right to freedom of religion so different religions growing stronger will result in conflict..

You can deny people their rights .. as the Roman Empire did with their persecuting of "heretics", for example.
..but we should not deny people's rights, as long as they are not harming people, no.

Conflict is usually a result of a struggle for wealth and power.
It is not a direct consequence of people's faith. That is just an excuse.

If you actually think a God strikes pandemics down onto Earth as punishment like people thought of Zeus and Yahweh in the Middle ages then you are too far gone into cult thinking to have a reasonable discussion with..

Almighty God does what He wills, but I never claimed that the pandemics are a result of anything but our own greed.

 

[samtonga43]

Conflict is usually a result of a struggle for wealth and power. It is not a direct consequence of people's faith. That is just an excuse.

Exactly. When atheists say something like this, we know that are floundering.

 

[joelr]

Strawman. I did not ask ‘Why?’ I asked ‘Who?’
Who established this?

You don't seem to know what a strawman is.
I clearly explained "who". The person I'm having a discussion with has failed to produce any evidence for several things despite repeated requests.
Same with reason, nothing given except "it's true because I believe it".
The continued lack of reason or evidence has established that he has none. Or that is what he wants me to believe.

 

[joelr]

..and why is that? Do the major religions promote war for material gain? No.
There is always a war going on between good and evil..
There are law courts and a penal system, designed to limit crime, for example.

No religions promote war because a leader convinces people that he has the ear of their God and God wants the heretical religions to be wiped out. It's Gods will.
If one will believe stories without evidence then they will believe a religious leader may have the will of God. The leader may actually think it's what God wants or may use the people for material gain. Only rational thinking will erase this.

You can deny people their rights .. as the Roman Empire did with their persecuting of "heretics", for example.
..but we should not deny people's rights, as long as they are not harming people, no.

ISIS now controls Afganastan and is denying rights to do Gods will.

Conflict is usually a result of a struggle for wealth and power.
It is not a direct consequence of people's faith. That is just an excuse.

Sometimes. Jihad is about forcing social and personal life to obey Gods will.

Almighty God does what He wills, but I never claimed that the pandemics are a result of anything but our own greed.

There is no king in space doing "what he wills". That is fiction. The creative forces in reality are not people, not a deity and not thinking conscious agents. We are conscious. So ancient people put that quality onto a Sky-King who literally lived above Earth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No religions promote war because a leader convinces people that he has the ear of their God and God wants the heretical religions to be wiped out. It's Gods will..

No, it is not God's will.
Almighty God does not want people to be forced into believing a particular creed .. that is all about mankind's ego, and an excuse for their lust for power.
Almighty God does not teach us to attack others, unless it is in self defence.

ISIS now controls Afganastan and is denying rights to do Gods will..

I think that you mean the taliban..
Afghans have had it tough for decades .. I really don't know what will happen next .. most likely they will be drawn into yet another conflict some time soon.

 

[joelr]

No, it is not God's will.
Almighty God does not want people to be forced into believing a particular creed .. that is all about mankind's ego, and an excuse for their lust for power.
Almighty God does not teach us to attack others, unless it is in self defence.

Allah clearly wants people to believe only his book
Cruelty in the Quran

and it isn't hard for people who buy into mythologies to be convinced by a charasmatic leader that Gods will is to remove disbelievers. Brainwashing doesn't happen overnight but it's possible.
Read all that hate. Critical thinking would not allow such manipulation because you first need proof an actual God sent messages. And there is none.

I think that you mean the taliban..
Afghans have had it tough for decades .. I really don't know what will happen next .. most likely they will be drawn into yet another conflict some time soon.

ISIS is the Taliban. People who fought there for over a decade say they are the same. ISIS believe they are doing Gods will and all that hate is not helping. They are throwing acid on female children who attend school. But this is their interpretation and what I'm saying. All religions fight over interpretation and a radical sect often arises. If empirical proof was demanded by all people it wouldn't even exist.
Cruelty in the Quran

 

[muhammad_isa]

All religions fight over interpretation and a radical sect often arises..

..as I say, it is an excuse.

Mankind fight due to their love of wealth and power.
Marxism isn't a religion per-se, but mankind will find any excuse in order to kill and oppress others to obtain power.

 

[samtonga43]

There is no king in space doing "what he wills".

A "king in space"? If you really think that this is how theists think of God, you should be having this ‘discussion’ with a 4-year-old.

You are pushing another of your numerous logical fallacies, joelr.

You are misrepresenting your opponent’s concept of God. In other words, you are building another strawman.

This is dishonest and simply serves to display your lack of critical thinking.

 

[joelr]

..as I say, it is an excuse.

Mankind fight due to their love of wealth and power.
Marxism isn't a religion per-se, but mankind will find any excuse in order to kill and oppress others to obtain power.

None of this has any relation to the truth of religion.

Most war is over land and power.
It isn't always an excuse.
You can read The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism by Shmuel BAr online

page 35, The Western Dilemma is suggesting Islamic Jihad is a religious issue rather than a political issue

 

[joelr]

A "king in space"? If you really think that this is how theists think of God, you should be having this ‘discussion’ with a 4-year-old.

Again, please respond to the post you failed to respond to.

It doesn't matter how you frame this being. There will still be no evidence beyond complete and utter speculation based on a myth. You obviously mistakenly believe adding all the theological nonsense will make a difference. Omni-this and that, beyond spacetime, first....blah blah....that doesn't make it more advanced, that just adds unproven crank onto an already unproven idea. Adding fiction doesn't prop it up.
Or did you want me to be more specific to the theology?
"The God who sacrificed Jephthahs daughter as a burnt offering because words were said"

You are pushing another of your numerous logical fallacies, joelr.

Well that's funny because you haven't been able to point out any other fallacies? Until just now when you said "numerous" as if there are many others........
In fact you didn't reply my last post #1193. So please demonstrate any fallacies. Please prove what you are saying is not a bold faced lie, because I believe it is.
These underhanded character attacks are getting predictable. Someone is butthurt.

You are misrepresenting your opponent’s concept of God. In other words, you are building another strawman.

Right because he cannot demonstrate a king in the sky but any other definition he's going to have no problem? Cool, why don't you give the proper definition and then give the evidence that shows it's a real God.
But why you think he cannot provide his own concept of God...?

This is dishonest and simply serves to display your lack of critical thinking.

1) Excellent, please prove how dishonest I am by proving God and showing he is NOT a king in the sky.

2) OR, read the Old Testament and explain how this is not a king in the sky? Yahweh is riding a chariot in the sky. Yahweh murders many people who displease him.
Psalm 99 - Yahweh is king; let the peoples tremble.
He sits enthroned between the cherubim. Let the earth shake.




why does this not sound enough like a KING?????


Yahweh is great in Zion,
and he is exalted over all the peoples.
3 Let them praise your great and fearful name.
He is holy.
4 And the strength of the king loves justice.
You have established equity;
you have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob.
5 Exalt Yahweh our God,
and worship at his footstool.
He is holy.
6 Moses and Aaron were among his priests;
Samuel also was among those who called on his name.
They called to Yahweh, and he answered them.
7 He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud.
They kept his testimonies and the statute he gave to them.
8 O Yahweh our God, you answered them.
You were a forgiving God to them,
but an avenger of their wrong deeds.
9 Exalt Yahweh our God,
and worship at his holy mountain,
for Yahweh our God is holy.

No sorry, A KING IN THE SKY!!!!!!!!


3)critical thinking, please explain what elements of critical thinking you use to find that syncretic mythology is actually real despite evidence of massive syncretism and every other of the 10,000 God stories are just stories yet this one is real. Even though it literally is the other stories with different names but this time it's real.
I think that might be lack of critical thinking.


Also a Warrior Sky-King
Exodus 15:3:

Yahweh is a man of war;

Yahweh is his name.

Isaiah 42:13:

Yahweh goes forth like a mighty man;

like a man of war(s) he stirs up his fury.

Zephaniah 3:17: Yahweh, your God, is in your midst,

a warrior who gives victory.

Psalm 24:8:

Who is the King of Glory?

Yahweh, strong and mighty;

Yahweh, mighty in battle.

 

[samtonga43]

It doesn't matter how you frame this being.

It matters to you if you wish to appear rational. Why/ Because it is irrational to imply that theists see this Being as “a king in space”.

There will still be no evidence beyond complete and utter speculation based on a myth.

“The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be a myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics

 

[joelr]

It matters to you if you wish to appear rational. Why/ Because it is irrational to imply that theists see this Being as “a king in space”.

Oh wow, you didn't even try to answer my question which completely justified calling Yahweh a king in the sky? You just doubled down on your claim that it's "irrational" to say this? Yet you gave no explanation and IGNORED my answer. So let's re-visit this. The NT doesn't have much from the sky king so we need to look to the OT. So let us do that now.

why does this not sound enough like a KING????? He's called a King, he's riding a chariot in the sky, he demands worship at his footstool LIKE A KING?
Please explain why it's not rational to hear this as a king in the sky? I understand in your mind it may not be that way but you are the irrational person. The book you hold so holy and correct describes Yahweh as a king, many many times over and somehow that goes in and out of your mind. You only take in what you believe, which is not based on actual scripture. This is a cognitive bias.



Yahweh is great in Zion,
and he is exalted over all the peoples.
3 Let them praise your great and fearful name.
He is holy.
4 And the strength of the king loves justice.
You have established equity;
you have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob.
5 Exalt Yahweh our God,
and worship at his footstool.
He is holy.
6 Moses and Aaron were among his priests;
Samuel also was among those who called on his name.
They called to Yahweh, and he answered them.
7 He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud.
They kept his testimonies and the statute he gave to them.
8 O Yahweh our God, you answered them.
You were a forgiving God to them,
but an avenger of their wrong deeds.
9 Exalt Yahweh our God,
and worship at his holy mountain,
for Yahweh our God is holy.

He is also described as a warrior several times which Kings often are as well. A forgiving but avenging God? This sounds like a King in the Sky.

I
“The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be a myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics

Thank you for those apologetics from the 1950s. Before it was common historical knowledge that savior demigods who got followers into a heaven from a passion usually involving a death and resurrection were common right before Jesus and those myths were not "old" but were contemporary religions. Lewis is claiming "but this time it's true" because he doesn't know any better, is misinformed and using confirmation bias.
Lewis first believed the religion then sought to make excuses for it, didn't have any of the modern critical historical studies and his biggest point on Jesus was a huge fallacy.
He says to claim one is the son of God means you are either a madman or a messiah.
He is wrong on so many levels.

First the answer is he's a myth. The end of the quote sounds like he thinks there is some historical value to the Gospel story. Lewis didn't know the gospels were anonymous and non-eyewitness documents. He did not know the other were copied from Mark, that the literary style is complete fiction and re-works OT narratives, Epistles stories and some other common fiction and the theology is totally (not just dying God) found in both cultures that occupied Israel centuries before.
He didn't know the OT is no longer considered historical and isn't the first book ever written.
Every apologetic has been scrutinized by historians and it's all complete psuedo-science crank.

The gospels are considered mythical narratives across the board in historical scholarship. There is no debate on that any more than Krishna or Zeus.
You probably should at least quote an informed apologist like Licona.

 

[samtonga43]

Oh wow, you didn't even try to answer my question which completely justified calling Yahweh a king in the sky? You just doubled down on your claim that it's "irrational" to say this? Yet you gave no explanation and IGNORED my answer. So let's re-visit this. The NT doesn't have much from the sky king so we need to look to the OT. So let us do that now.

Firstly, a word of advice, joel. Please stop with the “Oh wows” and the many unnecessary question marks and exclamation marks. It is very immature and lowers your credibility considerably. You sound like an overwrought teenager.
Why do you need all these question marks anyway? As you can see, one is sufficient.

He's called a King, he's riding a chariot in the sky, he demands worship at his footstool LIKE A KING?

At last! I have discovered a Fundy literalist atheist who knows nothing of metaphor, allegory, poetry! (I am tempted to add an abundance of !!!!s, but I am an adult).

Please explain why it's not rational to hear this as a king in the sky?

I am amazed that I have to explain this to you, joel. But here you are – read and learn…

It is not rational to read it literally. God is not a literal king in a literal sky. A ‘king in the sky’ is a metaphor, joel -- a metaphor.

It is also a mental picture usually used by children. It is figurative. It is symbolic.

Tell me, do you think that we Christians believe that Jesus is a lamb? Or a door? Or a lamp? Or that we ought to hate our parents?

Insisting on nonsensical interpretations, especially from literal readings of nonliteral texts, erodes your credibility.

He is also described as a warrior several times which Kings often are as well. A forgiving but avenging God? This sounds like a King in the Sky.

Sounds like? To a literalist, of course it does.

(Are you sure that kings are often warriors?)
“The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be a myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics

Thank you for those apologetics from the 1950s.

You are very welcome. Truth is truth, even 70 year-old truth.

Before it was common historical knowledge that savior demigods who got followers into a heaven from a passion usually involving a death and resurrection were common right before Jesus and those myths were not "old" but were contemporary religions. Lewis is claiming "but this time it's true" because he doesn't know any better, is misinformed and using confirmation bias.
Lewis first believed the religion then sought to make excuses for it, didn't have any of the modern critical historical studies and his biggest point on Jesus was a huge fallacy.
He says to claim one is the son of God means you are either a madman or a messiah.

Have you read any of Lewis’ work, joel? For example, have you read about his conversion to Christianity?

Every apologetic has been scrutinized by historians and it's all complete psuedo-science crank.
The gospels are considered mythical narratives across the board in historical scholarship.

I just want to be clear about what you’re saying here, joel. I wonder if you would answer the following questions…

1. When you say ‘across the board’, do you mean that every historical scholar considers the Gospels to be mythical narratives?

2. Do ‘mythical narratives’ mean, to you and to every historical scholar, stories which are not true?

3. Do all historians consider every defence of the Gospels complete psuedo-science crank?


I will be interested in your responses. Thanks.