Why Does the Biblical God Not Want People To Make an Informed Decision?

[McBell]

How do you justify being an atheist?

Just a wild stab in the dark...
There is no evidence that a god exists.

You have "no" evidence that there is not a God.

That is right.
Just like you have no evidence that there is a god.

Is that not blind faith?

Not believing that something exists because there is no evidence to believe it does exist has nothing to do with faith.

Christians offer thousands of evidence that there is a God to support their foundation of belief.

Really?
Present one.

Just give us two or three evidences that there is no God.

There is no evidence that there is a god.
That is all that is needed to justify not believing in one.

How do you reason from nothing that there is something? How do you do that? Just rationally explain creation to us if you are so intelligent?

Right back at you.
And no, "God Did It" is not a rational or reasonable explanation.
It is nothing more than intellectual bankruptcy.

Ok. Cough it up! We are ready!

Who created your god?

 

[waitasec]

I have no axe to grind with people who think differently - they have a perfect right to their own opinions.
But the OP was regarding the God of the Bible so please forgive me for thinking we could discuss him in that light.

come to think of it, you decided to respond without reading the entire premise....

i'm not talking about an axe to grind, i'm talking about the unwillingness to reason...surely you can understand the skeptics point of view, you are human after all...

in what light? think of doubting thomas. why is it that the blessed ones are the ones that believe without requiring evidence? can you think of a few instances where that can be illogical and even dangerous?

do you actually think the labels the bible, an ancient text written at a time when people basically had barbaric principles, places on "god" is irrefutable?

 

[Beta]

i'm not talking about an axe to grind, i'm talking about the unwillingness to reason...surely you can understand the skeptics point of view, you are human after all...
in what light? think of doubting thomas. why is it that the blessed ones are the ones that believe without requiring evidence? can you think of a few instances where that can be illogical and even dangerous?
do you actually think the labels the bible, an ancient text written at a time when people basically had barbaric principles, places on "god" is irrefutable?

There is no unwillingness to discuss and yes I do understand the skeptics point - I have been there myself. We are not 'born' believers . Certain circumstances take us there.
And as far as faith - believing without evidence is perfectly acceptable to God who after all requires it Heb.11v6. But I would not stretch that to this present evil world as it could indeed be dangerous.
To your last question I would say God is a personal experience to those who give him a chance to speak for himself. If God could not make himself known or heard through his Word (written or in person) there could be no communication and the whole concept of a God would be futile and nothing more than human imagination.

 

[Enoughie]

You are using circular logic.

No, it's not. It's a straightforward logic.

No where in or out of the bible does it say you cannot make an informed decision. The early church said "do as I say" but they were just men. If the biblical G-d had said, do not make any decisions, we would not be allowed to question now.

Here's an example of the difference between having the ability to make an informed decision and not:

If I tell you, "don't try to walk through walls, you'd get hurt." Then you have all the data necessary to make the decision not to walk through walls. You can learn physics and see why it would be impossible to walk through walls, and you can learn medicine and see the damaging effects that hitting a wall causes to the body.

Another example is if I tell you not to steal, because that undermines trust, and generates conflict. Which is harmful to you and others. You can look at trends in theft, and see how that effects other parameters such as violence.

Now, here's an example of what the Bible says: don't have homosexual relations.

Now, the question is, how can I make an informed decision about this demand? There's absolutely no data that shows homosexuality per se to be harmful in any way, or that homosexuality has any other effects. So how does the Bible expect people to make an informed decision on this issue? Simply to believe, with no evidence, that because the Bible says so we must accept it? That is by definition making an uninformed decision.

What you are probably doing is asking the right questions to people who either don't know or don't want to know their religions' history, and find it easier to condemn you than help you find the answers.

Well. Now, I ask you the question above. How can a person make an informed decision on whether to have homosexual relations or not. Based on what physical evidence (and I'm not talking about stories from the Bible here, but rather evidence from reality) can we make an informed decision on the issue of homosexuality?
(and don't tell me that homosexuality causes AIDS, because that is nonsense)


_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[Rakhel]

No, it's not. It's a straightforward logic.

People say A,
A can't be proven to my satisfaction,
therefore A can't be possible.

Here's an example of the difference between having the ability to make an informed decision and not:

If I tell you, "don't try to walk through walls, you'd get hurt." Then you have all the data necessary to make the decision not to walk through walls. You can learn physics and see why it would be impossible to walk through walls, and you can learn medicine and see the damaging effects that hitting a wall causes to the body.

Did you know there are still people that still try to put nails into wall sockets, even after being told not to?

Another example is if I tell you not to steal, because that undermines trust, and generates conflict. Which is harmful to you and others. You can look at trends in theft, and see how that effects other parameters such as violence.

They are still making an informed decision based on their understanding.

Now, here's an example of what the Bible says: don't have homosexual relations.

Now, the question is, how can I make an informed decision about this demand? There's absolutely no data that shows homosexuality per se to be harmful in any way, or that homosexuality has any other effects. So how does the Bible expect people to make an informed decision on this issue? Simply to believe, with no evidence, that because the Bible says so we must accept it? That is by definition making an uninformed decision.


Well. Now, I ask you the question above. How can a person make an informed decision on whether to have homosexual relations or not. Based on what physical evidence (and I'm not talking about stories from the Bible here, but rather evidence from reality) can we make an informed decision on the issue of homosexuality?
(and don't tell me that homosexuality causes AIDS, because that is nonsense)

You really have low opinions of people if you think AIDS is the first thing that comes to mind as a consequence for homosexual sex. I wasn't even going to go there.

The Israelites left a society where sex was rampant. They literally screwed anything that moved. So Moses, in his attempt to build a society totally different from the one they left, made laws based on experience.(We still do this today.)

Do not have sex with your mother. Do not have sex with my mother, unless you're my father. Don't have sex with your son or daughter, Don't have sex with an animal. Don't have homosexual sex.
Part of the reason for dissuading homosexuality was that it was a natural birth control. The Israelites were trying to increase their population and homosexuality, and bestiality, prevented the population growth.

Further, these were informed decisions they made based on personal experiences. Not that these laws were always followed. People had to decide on their own. Even further in the bible people were breaking laws. In fact, even today,in certain states, it is against the law to perform acts of sodomy. How many people do you think abide by that law?


(Please do not read homosexual sex equals promiscuity)

 

[waitasec]

There is no unwillingness to discuss and yes I do understand the skeptics point - I have been there myself. We are not 'born' believers . Certain circumstances take us there.

then why not read the entire post?
edit:
you can't have a discussion if you are assuming what the posts said, you must first read it and understand the point of view...then discuss it.

And as far as faith - believing without evidence is perfectly acceptable to God who after all requires it Heb.11v6.

i already know that, i gave you the example of doubting thomas
why do think that is a wise thing to do, simply because god requires it? is that a rational reason?

To your last question I would say God is a personal experience

how is it personal when it's found in a manufactured book?
i get the experience part, but that isn't what i was referring to.

to those who give him a chance to speak for himself. If God could not make himself known or heard through his Word (written or in person) there could be no communication and the whole concept of a God would be futile and nothing more than human imagination.

if we are to label the god of the bible as a god of signs...parting the red sea for example.
why then would god depend on people to explain who he is to other people if indeed god is a personal experience?

 

[Debunker]

No. I clearly asked why does the Biblical God not want people to make informed decisions about life. Outside of the Bible itself, there's absolutely no evidence for the claims of the Biblical God, and therefore that god does not want people to make an informed decision.

Religion is the natural derivative of the claims made in the Bible, presumably by the Biblical God. Therefore, I ask about the foundation of religion.

Yet, no one ever provides me with any evidence. All I get is excuses and faulty arguments for why the Biblical God doesn't want people to make informed decisions.

We have already pointed out to you Enoughie that the Biblle was first natural philosophy before it was written as revealed theology. You do conversantly ignore this fact. Now you further compound your error in logical pursuit to destroy the foundation of Christian and theistic society with more irrational statements. You say:"Outside of the Bible itself, there's absolutely no evidence for the claims of the Biblical God..." The Bible does not stand alone in its explanation of God as it is so well known that other branches of theistic philosophy have contributed greatly to the definition of God. There is not enough room on this thread to refute this ignorant assumption.

The following is a very poor premise for the conclusions you make.

Religion is the natural derivative of the claims made in the Bible, presumably by the Biblical God.

As a premise for religion this statement ignores all other great religions in the world except the faith of Jews and Christians. That is not smart in your search of the truth.

Yet, no one ever provides me with any evidence. All I get is excuses and faulty arguments for why the Biblical God doesn't want people to make informed decisions.

This is simply not true. You simply ignore what many of us are telling you on this thread. You clearly are the one making uninformed assertions, not the people of the Bible.

 

[Debunker]

You have no evidence that there is a god. Otherwise this debate would not exist.

Again, if there was undeniable evidence for either position this debate would not be taking place. We would all be Christians or Athiests.

I don't know why anything exists, just like everyone else. Unlike some people I'm honest about it. I don't claim to have the answers because I don't know. Why do you assume the universe had to be created from nothing? It could have always just been here.

One of the theist pointed out that the OP used circular reasoning and now you prove that you too do this.

At least the theist is willing to offer what he calls evidence but the atheist does not require that of himself. The theist disproves every premise of the atheist's syllogisms and the atheist irnores all his own illogic

You say there is undeniable evidence for each position. If the is true, give us just a few bits of the evidence for the atheist position. come on, cough it up. We are tired in waiting for this abundant evidence that there is no God.

What reason do you have to assume the universe has always been here? See, that is what we theist thought and that is the reason we think God created the universe.

Sorry, there is a debate and the agnostic whitth all his doubt, adds nothing to the debate.

 

[Enoughie]

People say A,
A can't be proven to my satisfaction,
therefore A can't be possible.

I didn't say it's not possible. I said that if it is the case, then the biblical god doesn't want us to make informed decision.s

Did you know there are still people that still try to put nails into wall sockets, even after being told not to?

And how is this relevant to the discussion? I never said that people always make informed decisions or that people are always rational. If that were the case, there would be no religion.

They are still making an informed decision based on their understanding.

You really have low opinions of people if you think AIDS is the first thing that comes to mind as a consequence for homosexual sex. I wasn't even going to go there.

The Israelites left a society where sex was rampant. They literally screwed anything that moved. So Moses, in his attempt to build a society totally different from the one they left, made laws based on experience.(We still do this today.)

Do not have sex with your mother. Do not have sex with my mother, unless you're my father. Don't have sex with your son or daughter, Don't have sex with an animal. Don't have homosexual sex.
Part of the reason for dissuading homosexuality was that it was a natural birth control. The Israelites were trying to increase their population and homosexuality, and bestiality, prevented the population growth.

Further, these were informed decisions they made based on personal experiences. Not that these laws were always followed. People had to decide on their own. Even further in the bible people were breaking laws. In fact, even today,in certain states, it is against the law to perform acts of sodomy. How many people do you think abide by that law?


(Please do not read homosexual sex equals promiscuity)

This can barely explains why people 3500 years ago should have followed those laws.

But what you're saying certainly doesn't suggest that people today should follow these laws.

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that there is no reason to follow any of these biblical commandments today? Because there is no longer any justification for doing so?

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom.

 

[no-body]

One of the theist pointed out that the OP used circular reasoning and now you prove that you too do this.

At least the theist is willing to offer what he calls evidence but the atheist does not require that of himself. The theist disproves every premise of the atheist's syllogisms and the atheist irnores all his own illogic

You say there is undeniable evidence for each position. If the is true, give us just a few bits of the evidence for the atheist position. come on, cough it up. We are tired in waiting for this abundant evidence that there is no God.

What reason do you have to assume the universe has always been here? See, that is what we theist thought and that is the reason we think God created the universe.

Sorry, there is a debate and the agnostic whitth all his doubt, adds nothing to the debate.

you can't call every opinion and debate tactic you don't like a fallacy. Especially online. Where is that evidence anyway?

 

[Rakhel]

How much further back do you intend to move the goal posts?

No. You are not understanding what I have said nor does appear you intend to. What you are trying to do is jusify your thooughts of irrationality by ignoring my explanation to your question.
I told you why those laws were in place. you didn't lke the answer so you made it say, in your head, what you wanted it to say so you could excuse your inability to understand.

 

[Debunker]

first we need to define what "god" is.
i say limiting our understanding of "god" through the lens of ancient texts would be limiting our capacity because our understanding of the world around us has evolved. and not just our understanding, some of our senses have evolved as well with the invention of the microscope and the telescope.
there is empirical evidence that we are made of star dust, for example.
the same basic atoms in our bodies are found in the cosmos.

well if there are thousands...why didn't you provide 1?

exactly, how do you?

creation in the biblical sense is irrational, if taken literally.

The theist has defined what God is. In the Bible God is dabar and logos
but the atheist does not question these definitions. He questions the definitions that he makes up of God, which does not express the God of the theist at all.

The definition of God has evolved. The Bible agrees with that. That is not new
to the theist. Can you give us a better lens through which to observe this evolution of the definition of God other than what is found in the Bible? We would like to see it.

We do often provide you with evidence with our great logical syllogisms but no matter what we say, you ignore the solid syllogism as false. By providing you with good reasoning we provide you evidence of God.
You say;"creation in the biblical sense is irrational, if taken literally." Ok. I will buy that but the fact is that God or any serious theologian does not view the Bible literally. You want to argue that all Christians take the Bible literally. That is a vast falsehood. We understand imagery, poetry, metaphoric speech,and all those good things. You just don't want to give us credit for our
reasoning ability. You want to paint us in a box of stupidity but that does not work because we are the people of the Book that atheist deplore.

 

[Debunker]

That sure is a long-winded way to say you don't like the question being asked. Anyways, if you really think there is no such thing as blind faith post the evidence that proves "the truth" (your version) of Christianity.

No! No! I do like the question. It does give me and other theist an opportunity to tell you about the true brand of Christianity. If you want evidence, just follow this thread as it evolves and you will receive all the evidence you can deal with.

 

[Debunker]

Just a wild stab in the dark...
There is no evidence that a god exists.

That is right.
Just like you have no evidence that there is a god.

Not believing that something exists because there is no evidence to believe it does exist has nothing to do with faith.

Really?
Present one.

There is no evidence that there is a god.
That is all that is needed to justify not believing in one.

Right back at you.
And no, "God Did It" is not a rational or reasonable explanation.
It is nothing more than intellectual bankruptcy.

Who created your god?

We have already moved past your circular thinking. If you want our attention, say something more intellegent than the above.

 

[Debunker]

No, it's not. It's a straightforward logic.

Here's an example of the difference between having the ability to make an informed decision and not:

If I tell you, "don't try to walk through walls, you'd get hurt." Then you have all the data necessary to make the decision not to walk through walls. You can learn physics and see why it would be impossible to walk through walls, and you can learn medicine and see the damaging effects that hitting a wall causes to the body.

Another example is if I tell you not to steal, because that undermines trust, and generates conflict. Which is harmful to you and others. You can look at trends in theft, and see how that effects other parameters such as violence.

Now, here's an example of what the Bible says: don't have homosexual relations.

Now, the question is, how can I make an informed decision about this demand? There's absolutely no data that shows homosexuality per se to be harmful in any way, or that homosexuality has any other effects. So how does the Bible expect people to make an informed decision on this issue? Simply to believe, with no evidence, that because the Bible says so we must accept it? That is by definition making an uninformed decision.

Well. Now, I ask you the question above. How can a person make an informed decision on whether to have homosexual relations or not. Based on what physical evidence (and I'm not talking about stories from the Bible here, but rather evidence from reality) can we make an informed decision on the issue of homosexuality?
(and don't tell me that homosexuality causes AIDS, because that is nonsense)
.

Come on, keep this thread on target. Have you ever heard oa AIDS? The same argument the homosexual uses for his lifestyle is the same argument that the pedophile uses for his lifestyle. Do you want to be associated with that lifestyle? You said there was absolutely no evidence. That is a stupid thing to say on the very face of it and you turn out to be the uninformed one.

As far as to walking through walls, physics gives you an explanation of how it is done. Did you ever hear Jim say to Scotty, "Beam me up"? Your analogies stink with extreme prejudice.

 

[McBell]

you can't call every opinion and debate tactic you don't like a fallacy.

Well, he can.
But it does nothing more than cost him his credibility.

 

[Debunker]

you can't call every opinion and debate tactic you don't like a fallacy. Especially online. Where is that evidence anyway?

Sorry No-Body but I do not understand your sentence construction. Restate what you are saying and I will try to answer you.

 

[McBell]

We have already moved past your circular thinking. If you want our attention, say something more intellegent than the above.

I see you refuse to actually address the truths in my post.
No big surprise.

 

[Debunker]

How much further back do you intend to move the goal posts?

No. You are not understanding what I have said nor does appear you intend to. What you are trying to do is jusify your thooughts of irrationality by ignoring my explanation to your question.
I told you why those laws were in place. you didn't lke the answer so you made it say, in your head, what you wanted it to say so you could excuse your inability to understand.

Rakhel, you put him in the correct box. I call his tactic a semantical slip. That is a good term to show the irrationality of changing premises in the middle of debate. Keep up the good reasoning brother, it works.

 

[Debunker]

Well, he can.
But it does nothing more than cost him his credibility.

It only cost me credibility with those who twist the facts. Some of these people do not like to be exposed in their fallacious logic.