Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[Brickjectivity]

If the story in the Bible is true then the God of Abraham is the creator and the God that the first humans knew.

If the law is Gods law then the Jews were directed to pretend yearly that they were escaped from Egypt. The The reality in the scripture being not of this world, I suggest you only corrupt scripture by overlaying a planet and worldly concerns onto moral and legal ones. Always the law and covenant are the center, not the stories. Talk about straining a gnat to swallow a camel. I understand, Brian, and I come from the same roots as you; but I suggest God did not create this evil and fallen reality.

 

[shunyadragon]

By and large IMV, the main argument against God is "I don't believe so any reason is a good reason". Exception are for those who are actually looking with an open mind.

That is a foolish line of thought concerning the actual real reasons atheists and many agnostics do not believe in God. This is more self justificaton for belief on your part.

 

[shunyadragon]

If the story in the Bible is true then the God of Abraham is the creator and the God that the first humans knew.

I do not believe in the stories of the ancient tribal scriptures of the Bible, but I do believe in a 'Source' some call Gods.

 

[HonestJoe]

The best argument against God, capital G.

Other: Aramaic and Hebrew don't have capital letters.

 

[Brian2]

If the law is Gods law then the Jews were directed to pretend yearly that they were escaped from Egypt. The The reality in the scripture being not of this world, I suggest you only corrupt scripture by overlaying a planet and worldly concerns onto moral and legal ones. Always the law and covenant are the center, not the stories. Talk about straining a gnat to swallow a camel. I understand, Brian, and I come from the same roots as you; but I suggest God did not create this evil and fallen reality.

Us humans had a hand in transforming God's created reality into what we have now, according to the stories, and God is restoring things and wanting to bring us back to Himself.

 

[Kenny]

That is a foolish line of thought concerning the actual real reasons atheists and many agnostics do not believe in God. This is more self justificaton for belief on your part.

I disagree. I didn't say "all" but rather "by and large". It's my viewpoint.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree. I didn't say "all" but rather "by and large". It's my viewpoint.

Both are fallacious. the difference like being almost pregnant. Atheists and many agnostics do not "by and large" do not propose that: "I don't believe so any reason is a good reason". Their reason are more rational and specific.

There is a category mostly agnostic that are simply indifferent concerning the existence of Gods.

My view is simply let atheists and agnostics speak for themselves.

 

[Kenny]

Both are fallacious. the difference like being almost pregnant. Atheists and many agnostics do not "by and large" do not propose that: "I don't believe so any reason is a good reason". Their reason are more rational and specific.

There is a category mostly agnostic that are simply indifferent concerning the existence of Gods.

My view is simply let atheists and agnostics speak for themselves.

What is fallacious can be a matter of viewpoint.

I never said that atheists and many agnostics "propose that: "I don't believe so any reason is a good reason"." That would be a fallacious statement. It was my viewpoint.

Sounds more like you are trying to twist what was said. Why?

 

[dybmh]

And the ones that wrote it far later are even more unlikely to be the originators of the myth.

Correct! The ones who compiled the Torah were not the original source. Who cares?

 

[shunyadragon]

What is fallacious can be a matter of viewpoint.

. . . because you are making unwarranted assumptions about the reasons other people believe as they do. It reflects you you have a biased agenda against atheists.

As O said it is proper that you allow others to give the reasons they believe as they do.

I never said that atheists and many agnostics "propose that: "I don't believe so any reason is a good reason"." That would be a fallacious statement. It was my viewpoint.

By and large IMV, the main argument against God is "I don't believe so any reason is a good reason".

This is the complete statement which is the problem.

Sounds more like you are trying to twist what was said. Why?

You need to wird your posts better. Note the bolded

 

[dybmh]

You are dishonestly jerry rigging stretch of the evidence to justify your ancient agenda.

The only person being dishonest is you. You posted false info copied from a church website.

Since you don't fact check what you post, and you don't know how biblical dating works, and you don't know how these ancient languages work, there isn't any value to what you're posting.

It's all just your faithful ramblings.

There later writings were based on and greatly influenced by KNOWN Ugarit/Canaanite writings.

That's a hoax. There is nothing in the Hebrew bible that is based on Ugaritic/Canaanite writing. The examples you brought from Psalm 89 turned out to be false. The examples you brought from Daniel turned out to be false. The examples you brought about Azazel turned out to be false.

You haven't addressed any of this.

ALL the examples you are overstating are the result of late writing They were a polytheistic culture with overwhelming evidence of the worship of Gods including the female God Asherah as referenced. The common carved pillars depicting Gods supports this.

No. The inscriptions cannot be the goddess Asherah. The inscription has a T in the middle of the name. Regardless the assimilation of the common people is well known. This says nothing but support the story in The Hebrew Bible.

Again, so what? This has nothing to do with where the Hebrew mythology came from.

You are constanting appealing oral traditions to support Monotheism and later written Biblical view of later Judaism and absolutely no evidence supports this. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that Exodus as described ever happened.

You're bouncing all over the place preaching a gospel. Yes, there is evidence of a group of Shasu enslaved in Egypt. Yes there is evidence of monotheism long before 1000bce. It's temple tel Arad.

No known early Hebrew writings support your agenda.

Yes there are. You just don't understand how biblical dating works. And there is no evidence that anything in the Hebrew bible comes from the Canaanites other than rejection.

Again and again you have failed to respond to the citations from your own reference in posts ##538-539.

Still waiting. . . .

Fourth time:
I replied to #538 here -> post 542. All the reliable sources you asked for showing the inscription was purchased not found. There is evidence of two people inscribing not one. It's more like graffiti than professional scribe work which would represent Judaism, the religion.

I just posted a reply to #539 here -> post 545. You are cherry picking and ignoring the conclusion. At that time "asherah" was not a specific deity it was a catch-all term. There is a major grammatical problem which people gloss over, but the author of that meta-study refutes those. Probably because he spent time in Israel and speaks the language.

When are you going to respond to all the false and/or irrelevant nonsense you posted?

----------------------

1) You said that the word GZR is a better fit in the Psalms 89:20, but the word GZR does not exist in Psalms 89:20.
2) You said that there is little doubt that the Ugarit Danil is the origin for the Biblical Daniel, but there is no correspondence at all between those stories.
3) You said that the fact that both Jews and the Ugaritic religion weep for the dead is significant, but doesn't everyone do that?
4) You said it was significant leviathan is in both Isaiah and in the Baal Cycle, but they are clearly different monsters.
5) You said that Azazel ( the scape goat ) is a demon when those are two different words with different spellings.
6) You said that EL was borrowed from Ugaritic religion, but the word is AIL in Hebrew, and you repeatedly refer to it as IL when it is in the Ugaritic tablets.
7) You said that YHWH was borrowed from the Ugaritic tablets but their god only has two letter YW, and they had the letters for H in their alphabet.
8) You claim it is significant that a psalm has a verse that has boats in it, but this is just 1 verse. how can that be significant? They're boats. A lot of cultures had sailors.
9) The inscriptions of YHWH and asherah/asart cannot grammatically be a divine name, and they are considered graffiti, not representative of Judaism. Why do you think it is significant?
10) The king in Judaism is a the chief diplomat, and the Ugaritic king is deemed the chief diplomat, why do you think this is significant? Aren't most Kings considered the cheif diplomat?

 

[dybmh]

The Sumerian, Ugarit/Canaanite writings were first, and the source of the myths for the primitive Hebrew pastoral Hills of Judah

You haven't brought a single significant similarity between the Ugarit/Canaanite writing and the Hebrew myths. Not 1. The earliest similarity attempted was in the book of psalms, but that was 100% false. You don't seem to know anything about any of this.

Just copying from a church website and faithfully believing whatever they say.

Again you have failed to respond to the citations from your own reference in posts ##538-539.

Fifth time:

I replied to #538 here -> post 542. All the reliable sources you asked for showing the inscription was purchased not found. There is evidence of two people inscribing not one. It's more like graffiti than professional scribe work which would represent Judaism, the religion.

I just posted a reply to #539 here -> post 545. You are cherry picking and ignoring the conclusion. At that time "asherah" was not a specific deity it was a catch-all term. There is a major grammatical problem which people gloss over, but the author of that meta-study refutes those. Probably because he spent time in Israel and speaks the language.

When are you going to respond to all the false and/or irrelevant nonsense you posted?

--------------

1) You said that the word GZR is a better fit in the Psalms 89:20, but the word GZR does not exist in Psalms 89:20.
2) You said that there is little doubt that the Ugarit Danil is the origin for the Biblical Daniel, but there is no correspondence at all between those stories.
3) You said that the fact that both Jews and the Ugaritic religion weep for the dead is significant, but doesn't everyone do that?
4) You said it was significant leviathan is in both Isaiah and in the Baal Cycle, but they are clearly different monsters.
5) You said that Azazel ( the scape goat ) is a demon when those are two different words with different spellings.
6) You said that EL was borrowed from Ugaritic religion, but the word is AIL in Hebrew, and you repeatedly refer to it as IL when it is in the Ugaritic tablets.
7) You said that YHWH was borrowed from the Ugaritic tablets but their god only has two letter YW, and they had the letters for H in their alphabet.
8) You claim it is significant that a psalm has a verse that has boats in it, but this is just 1 verse. how can that be significant? They're boats. A lot of cultures had sailors.
9) The inscriptions of YHWH and asherah/asart cannot grammatically be a divine name, and they are considered graffiti, not representative of Judaism. Why do you think it is significant?
10) The king in Judaism is a the chief diplomat, and the Ugaritic king is deemed the chief diplomat, why do you think this is significant? Aren't most Kings considered the cheif diplomat?

 

[shunyadragon]

You haven't brought a single significant similarity between the Ugarit/Canaanite writing and the Hebrew myths. Not 1. The earliest similarity attempted was in the book of psalms, but that was 100% false. You don't seem to know anything about any of this.

Just copying from a church website and faithfully believing whatever they say.




Fifth time:

I replied to #538 here -> post 542. All the reliable sources you asked for showing the inscription was purchased not found. There is evidence of two people inscribing not one. It's more like graffiti than professional scribe work which would represent Judaism, the religion.

I just posted a reply to #539 here -> post 545. You are cherry picking and ignoring the conclusion. At that time "asherah" was not a specific deity it was a catch-all term. There is a major grammatical problem which people gloss over, but the author of that meta-study refutes those. Probably because he spent time in Israel and speaks the language.

When are you going to respond to all the false and/or irrelevant nonsense you posted?

--------------

1) You said that the word GZR is a better fit in the Psalms 89:20, but the word GZR does not exist in Psalms 89:20.
2) You said that there is little doubt that the Ugarit Danil is the origin for the Biblical Daniel, but there is no correspondence at all between those stories.
3) You said that the fact that both Jews and the Ugaritic religion weep for the dead is significant, but doesn't everyone do that?
4) You said it was significant leviathan is in both Isaiah and in the Baal Cycle, but they are clearly different monsters.
5) You said that Azazel ( the scape goat ) is a demon when those are two different words with different spellings.
6) You said that EL was borrowed from Ugaritic religion, but the word is AIL in Hebrew, and you repeatedly refer to it as IL when it is in the Ugaritic tablets.
7) You said that YHWH was borrowed from the Ugaritic tablets but their god only has two letter YW, and they had the letters for H in their alphabet.
8) You claim it is significant that a psalm has a verse that has boats in it, but this is just 1 verse. how can that be significant? They're boats. A lot of cultures had sailors.
9) The inscriptions of YHWH and asherah/asart cannot grammatically be a divine name, and they are considered graffiti, not representative of Judaism. Why do you think it is significant?
10) The king in Judaism is a the chief diplomat, and the Ugaritic king is deemed the chief diplomat, why do you think this is significant? Aren't most Kings considered the cheif diplomat?

Nothing new concerning your misrepresentation of the sources to justify your ancient religious agenda. I believe the referebces were sufficient to document that the Ugarit/Canaanite and earlier sumerian texts are sources for the compilation of Genesis, Exodus and other books of the OT. Your vain attempts of distortion are dishonest, There were more references than just the 'church' reference.

You even hypothetically distorted your own reference double down on the distortion above and NO you did not accurately respond to posts #538 and 539. archaeological evidence documents polytheism among Hebrews beyond any reasonable doubt.


The Hebrews of th eHills of Judah were a polytheistic pastora; tribe in th eHills of Judah and only embraced Monotheism after the return from exile.

 

[Kenny]

. . . because you are making unwarranted assumptions about the reasons other people believe as they do. It reflects you you have a biased agenda against atheists.

As O said it is proper that you allow others to give the reasons they believe as they do.

Not against anyone, just making my personal observation by the interactions I have had. And, yes, have no problem with allowing others to give the reasons they believe as they do. By and large, I have found that most reasons are simply "any reason is a good reason" and certainly I should equally have the right to share my viewpoint.

This is the complete statement which is the problem.

You missed the "IMV" - in my statement

 

[shunyadragon]

Not against anyone, just making my personal observation by the interactions I have had. And, yes, have no problem with allowing others to give the reasons they believe as they do. By and large, I have found that most reasons are simply "any reason is a good reason" and certainly I should equally have the right to share my viewpoint.



You missed the "IMV" - in my statement

IMC does not help your agenda. Everything you say is IMV. The statement the main argument against God is makes it clear the problem is your making a state as to what the atheist argument against God is,

Let them make their statements as to what their argument against God is.

Actually the moat likely common main argument against God expressed in the poll is the 'lack of evidence' therefore there is no reason to believe.

 

[Kenny]

IMC does not help your agenda. Everything you say is IMV. The statement the main argument against God is makes it clear the problem is your making a state as to what the atheist argument against God is,

Let them make their statements as to what their argument against God is.

Actually the moat likely common main argument against God expressed in the poll is the 'lack of evidence' therefore there is no reason to believe.

And here is a great example of "any reason is a good reason". "lack of evidence"="no reason to believe".

Lack of evidence could mean "I need to dig deeper until I find the truth or the evidence one way or the other".

Thank you for supporting my position.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

is the 'lack of evidence' therefore there is no reason to believe.

Hmm... While there may not be evidence, and very plausibly never will be, I don't think that's reason to abandon their beliefs. What if there is the possibility of finding evidence one day, after we develop some super tech?

In 1915 there was no mathematical proof of black holes. One century later in 2015, there was no visual evidence of black holes. In 1997 there was no evidence of Dark Energy. In 1967 there was no physical evidence of quantum particles.

Fast forward any of those dates by one single year and the correlated discovery would be made. I'm glad they didn't discard their theories before discovery.

 

[Kenny]

Hmm... While there may not be evidence, and very plausibly never will be, I don't think that's reason to abandon their beliefs. What if there is the possibility of finding evidence one day, after we develop some super tech?

In 1915 there was no mathematical proof of black holes. One century later in 2015, there was no visual evidence of black holes. In 1997 there was no evidence of Dark Energy. In 1967 there was no physical evidence of quantum particles.

Fast forward any of those dates by one single year and the correlated discovery would be made. I'm glad they didn't discard their theories before discovery.

EXACTLY! It was the point I made in #596 . But for some, and I think by and large, any reason is a good reason not to believe if one doesn't want to believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

EXACTLY! It was the point I made in #596 . But for some, and I think by and large, any reason is a good reason not to believe if one doesn't want to believe.

That would be an unjustified assumption on your part that indicates your prejudice. Many atheists are ex-Christians that wanted to believe, but honesty drove them towards atheism.

It is hard o say why you have this belief. Perhaps because atheists can see that some of the "morality" of the Bible is rather evil makes you think that they "just want to sin". That is not the case. I can see that justifying genocide is evil. I can see that advocating for prejudice against gay people is evil, even though I am not gay. There are all sorts of things banned by the Bible that are not immoral that I have no interest in myself. You appear to be cherry picking when you find one thing that they will do because it is not evil when a person does not do all of the other things banned by the Bible that are not immoral.

 

[Kenny]

That would be an unjustified assumption on your part that indicates your prejudice. Many atheists are ex-Christians that wanted to believe, but honesty drove them towards atheism.

As many Christians are ex-atheists. I know you are jumping in without knowledge of what was said previously.

I didn't say "all" so it would be true that in some cases as you shared -- they have thought through and came to that conclusion based on their experiences and thoughts.

But your statement of "prejudice", IMV, is a prejudice in and of itself.

It is hard o say why you have this belief. Perhaps because atheists can see that some of the "morality" of the Bible is rather evil makes you think that they "just want to sin". That is not the case. I can see that justifying genocide is evil. I can see that advocating for prejudice against gay people is evil, even though I am not gay. There are all sorts of things banned by the Bible that are not immoral that I have no interest in myself. You appear to be cherry picking when you find one thing that they will do because it is not evil when a person does not do all of the other things banned by the Bible that are not immoral.

What is "evil" for humanity seems to be fluid. Not sure why you are bringing in "gay" at this point. Are you homophobic or are you trying to insert a strawman argument? Or is this another example of "any reason is a good reason to not believe in a God"?