Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Is there a god?
750 Answers
Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LeedsRhinos. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Just say yes (1) Oh Clanad, see what you�ve done now? � You�re making me argue with you when you�re trying to agree with me!
Genesis 3.4-5: These verses are not lies. It is an account of how Eve was tempted, it uses symbolism. The �serpent� lies to Eve, but the passage itself is not lies.
Yes, I agree in principle with almost everything you said. But I don�t, just at the moment, want to understand all the mysteries and I recognize that some figures are more important than others. It�s much simpler than that. Is there a passage in the Bible that purports to be a factual report but logically cannot be? You say �But those things that are literal are to be taken literally.� The passages concerning the fate of Judas and his silver are an example. Is it possible for both Matt 27.5 AND Acts 1.18 to be true? To make it simpler (because he could have both hung AND fallen): Is it possible that Judas could have �thrown the money into the temple and left� AND �bought a field.� (I can see your response now � �Yes � realizing his wasteful folly, he went back to the temple, picked up the money and then bought a field. And then, just to round off the day, went and bust a gut.�).
Genesis 3.4-5: These verses are not lies. It is an account of how Eve was tempted, it uses symbolism. The �serpent� lies to Eve, but the passage itself is not lies.
Yes, I agree in principle with almost everything you said. But I don�t, just at the moment, want to understand all the mysteries and I recognize that some figures are more important than others. It�s much simpler than that. Is there a passage in the Bible that purports to be a factual report but logically cannot be? You say �But those things that are literal are to be taken literally.� The passages concerning the fate of Judas and his silver are an example. Is it possible for both Matt 27.5 AND Acts 1.18 to be true? To make it simpler (because he could have both hung AND fallen): Is it possible that Judas could have �thrown the money into the temple and left� AND �bought a field.� (I can see your response now � �Yes � realizing his wasteful folly, he went back to the temple, picked up the money and then bought a field. And then, just to round off the day, went and bust a gut.�).
Just say yes (2). The events immediately following Jesus� baptism is an example. Did he immediately go into the desert, or did he entertain guests and go to a wedding?
You just know that the four versions of the Gospel, and any parts of later books that refer to the same story, simply must have at least one point of irreconcilable difference between them. Just one insignificant detail is all it would take�..you know I�m right. This particular argument is done now; it is reasonably proven and only needs the formality of your assent. Then we can conclude the one about God�s anger. And then we can get on to evolution � aren�t you tempted?
Have a good one! ;-)
You just know that the four versions of the Gospel, and any parts of later books that refer to the same story, simply must have at least one point of irreconcilable difference between them. Just one insignificant detail is all it would take�..you know I�m right. This particular argument is done now; it is reasonably proven and only needs the formality of your assent. Then we can conclude the one about God�s anger. And then we can get on to evolution � aren�t you tempted?
Have a good one! ;-)
Well this one has moved on a bit. I'll be honest, I have neither the time nor the inclination to plow through bible verses. Clanad - a personal question now. At what point does defending the bible through outlandish explanations cease to become an exercise in logic and start to become a personal battle to resolve your own faith in the text? Come now, many things 'can' be explained yet lack all credibility. Personally I think you have fallen into the trap of the man who convinces himself he follows logic, yet places his belief in the most outlandish and unlikely theories because of faith.
You have NOT answered many questions relating to your beliefs, you have merely redirected attention away from them with semi-logical babble designed to obscure. Although you claim the scriptures have been open to criticism for 3000 years, that is obviously not the case. It is only in the last 30 years, realistically, that open and honest castigation of the text has been permitted and mainstream. And even now, many face social disapproval for their anti religious beliefs. In addition, those minds who have criticised the bible have done so from a limited paradigm crippled by lack of knowledge. As knowledge increases, so does our ability to disregard quite frankly ludicrous yet powerful beliefs which leech themselves into the human psyche.
;
As for your point regarding the beliefs of primitive peoples and their supposed 'innate' need for a higher being, I have made this point before but it was conveniently ignored. If you actually look, you will see their faith lies in the 'unknown', what lies beyond their knowledge. In addiition, it is my personal belief that the human being has an intrinsically negative self image through various enviromental factors. We love to be told we are not good enough because it absolves us of responsibility for fulfilling our potential. But that aside, how on earth does a primitive being sacrificing a cow to a rain god for a better harvest increase the likelihood for a an omnipotent being? Fear of the unknown is most people's god, whether they understand quantum physics or don't know where rain comes from. Religion works on the most basic pleasure pain principles identified by psychologists, it really is no surprise that it overcomes even admittedly advanced intellects like yours Clanad. But you must think beyond that.
The bottom line is - you can argue about ancient religious texts (of which there are many and all equally both ambivalent and vaguely historically accurate) till the cows come home, but the very idea of a god is both utterly insane and beyond the most tenuous stretch of logic to me. Can you understand where I am coming from? I see no need, no need whatsoever to even consider the existence of your being. The idea is simply allied to the insane and other ancient and misguided beliefs which permeate our civilisation like relics.
I say again, it is time for the human race to grow up and out of their superstitious past. We no longer need fear the dark or the unknown. We must embrace our own humanity and forego the false idols we erected in our ignorant youth. There is a god, and his name is progress.
MERLIN
I beleive you misunderstood me (perhaps I didn't give explain myself properly). Of course I don't believe various sexual persuasions are a recent invention (did you really think I was that stupid...don't answer that!)
I meant that our attitudes today towards 'alternative lifestyles' is very different to that of biblical times, and this is reflected in God's attitudes in the book: Let's say I was writing a bible and I thought that oral sex was repulsive, I would certainly make sure that God shared this view! In a couple of thousand years my bible would look dated - oral sex may be the main form of currency!
It's hard not to use 'religion' as a blanket phrase without making a list - Let's say we're talking about christianity but it could hold-true for many beliefs: Theist, Deist...whatever, and For the record, it's the BBC's list - I may have worded it a little differently, although I do agree with every point to a certain extent.
In answer to your question: I have been an athiest since the age of five (approx.) even if I didn't know what the word meant then! Although It took a little longer to let go of Santa. "Have you actually ever really considered any of them for yourself..." you asked. Considere d as in 'thought about changing my belief (or non-belief)' : NEVER. Considered as in 'looked at objectivley' : yes (not a great deal since R.E. class admittedly).
Errors of Biblical proportion (1): Richard Carrier, who seems as well qualified as anyone to expound on such things, in his �The Date of the Nativity in Luke (4th ed., 2001)�, concludes: "There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of one of the two New Testament accounts of the Nativity". Please see http://www.infi dels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Luke
The four versions of the Gospel were written independently (?) at different times and the authors used different sources. They have undergone translations, too. It is incredible to suppose that there is no disagreement at all between them on even one small detail of history.
There is no need to swamp me with a detailed defence of faith or scriptures as a whole � that does give the appearance of denying, say, an obvious plot continuity fault in a film just because it was a small error and the rest of the film is superlative in every way. That may be so, but the fault is a fact nonetheless, however insignificant, and simply cannot rationally be denied.
The four versions of the Gospel were written independently (?) at different times and the authors used different sources. They have undergone translations, too. It is incredible to suppose that there is no disagreement at all between them on even one small detail of history.
There is no need to swamp me with a detailed defence of faith or scriptures as a whole � that does give the appearance of denying, say, an obvious plot continuity fault in a film just because it was a small error and the rest of the film is superlative in every way. That may be so, but the fault is a fact nonetheless, however insignificant, and simply cannot rationally be denied.
Errors of Biblical proportion (2): This point is very simple and precise. IR said that the Bible was a true and factual document. I try to engage with exactly what anyone claims as the basis for their faith � I try to come right into the camp and tug at the flag ropes. Every time a flag falls, it�s confirmation that my atheism is rational.
What�s surprising about your reluctance to let go of this one is that it�s no skin off anyone�s nose to just say �Yeah, you�re right, so what!�. And I would say �Yeah, so what!�. Sorted.
EL D � You�ve been off ranting about euthanasia, haven�t you? � well I don�t think they�re any better or worse than the youth in Europe (The old ones are the best).
BOBBYX
Religion
Sometimes I think I�m pretty good at misunderstanding.
Have you looked at Deuteronomy and around that area � that�s were the laws are laid out. It is reported that Moses received the laws from God. But maybe Moses was of the same sort of mind as you � �what laws would keep this mass of people civilized?�, he may have asked himself. Being a tad cleverer than the folk around him, he came up with a comprehensive list of rules. But why would they obey these rules? - Just because he wrote them? � Nah!. So, still being a tad cleverer than most folk around him, and understanding the zeitgeist, he came down from the mountain and said �These are the rules God has passed down, these are the rewards and these are the punishments�.
So much more plausible. These thoughts, I suspect, will ruffle feather or two but if you were Moses, what would you have done?
Religion
Sometimes I think I�m pretty good at misunderstanding.
Have you looked at Deuteronomy and around that area � that�s were the laws are laid out. It is reported that Moses received the laws from God. But maybe Moses was of the same sort of mind as you � �what laws would keep this mass of people civilized?�, he may have asked himself. Being a tad cleverer than the folk around him, he came up with a comprehensive list of rules. But why would they obey these rules? - Just because he wrote them? � Nah!. So, still being a tad cleverer than most folk around him, and understanding the zeitgeist, he came down from the mountain and said �These are the rules God has passed down, these are the rewards and these are the punishments�.
So much more plausible. These thoughts, I suspect, will ruffle feather or two but if you were Moses, what would you have done?
BOBBYX
Your points
1. Religion gets people to believe something untrue: Depends on the religion
2. Relig ion makes people base the way they run their lives on a falsehood: Depends on the religion
3. Relig ion stops people thinking in a rational and objective way � actually I know some who are encouraged to think very rationally indeed with the objective of justifying their conclusions
4. Re ligion forces people to rely on outside authority, rather than becoming self-reliant. So debateable - Depends on the religion.
5. Religion imposes irrational rules of good and bad behaviour. The rules are probably rational when considered in the framework of the religion. Christianity has some very sensible rules for behaviour.
6. Rel igion divides people, and is a cause of conflict and war. People are the cause of wars. Religion is used as the excuse.
7. The hierarchical structure of most religions is anti-democratic, and thus offends basic human rights. Being God isn�t quite like being president, and the boss picks his staff.
8. Religio n doesn't give equal treatment to women and gay people, and thus offends basic human rights. No comment.
9. Relig ion obstructs scientific research. Depends on the religion and the science. I don�t think mainstream Christianity is so guilty of that now.
10. Religion wastes time and money. Depends on the religion, depends on where the time and money go.
And the next four points contradict much of what went before. And while they can be accomplished without religion, don�t you think they do better with it?
huh euthanasia? you lost me . . .
And for the record, I don't rant. Its an atheistic sermon ;)
A question then - when was the last book in the bible written, and why has it not been updated? Presumable xstians still regard themselves as under the covenant established by jesus ( normally an escape method for the atrocities of the old testament ), yet biblical christianity is practised in no branch of mainstream xstianity? Given the misunderstanding and fallacy which seems to come hand in hand with the text, wouldnt a new version deliver the intended truth to us all? If xstianity as a religion has moved on, why has no update been given on the book which is supposed to be the instruction manual?
I fail to see, and not through obstinacy, how I�m required to yield. The plain and simple answer to your question has already been answered; the text in the Scripture that is literal is meant to be interpreted thus, the text that is symbolic is meant to be interpreted as such. Again, I offer this: in reading a book, new or old, fiction or not, you are able to understand the writer�s intent. You understand quite well, if the writer says �On Saturday morning, about 5:00 AM, we left home in the hot-rod. We flew to XXX and arrived there only 10 minutes behind schedule.� From the context of the entire page or chapter you are quite able to deduce that they didn�t literally go in some kind of overly warm �rod�. Additionally, from the context and intent you understand that they didn�t literally �fly�, as in an aircraft. If this text had been read some 500 years hence, the person reading the text would have to have some understanding of the idioms and culture of the period, but even that person would most likely be able to understand the general meaning. If the reader in the future didn�t know what a �hot-rod� was or that �flying� can mean traveling at a high rate of speed on the ground, they would still be able to clearly understand that the writer traveled on Saturday morning from X to XXX and was slightly behind schedule.
Additional effort is required if the language of the writer differs from the language of the reader. I�ve used the phrase Sitz im Leben on occasion, but that aspect is very important.
Additional effort is required if the language of the writer differs from the language of the reader. I�ve used the phrase Sitz im Leben on occasion, but that aspect is very important.
A bit of further discussion re: Judas� we know that he was paid an exact amount for his treachery, he then threw the money back at the High Priests. Yet a �Field of Blood� was purchased by him. What is an acceptable reconciliation? We know that �blood money� was defiled tender and therefore could not be touched by the High Priest(s). So it�s quite likely the field was purchased by the money given to Judas by someone who was directed by the Priests. Since this was an act of giving alms, the Priests would have stated the filed was purchased by Judas, since they could not have had direct contact with the coins. I personally understand this possibility because, I�ve taken the effort to read various sources concerning the culture of the Jews of that time. In fact, the outward appearance of doing good was a primary cause of the denunciation of the priests and scribes related in numerous places by the writers of the Gospels.
So, the question is, why is it not reasonable to apply the same �understanding� to the text of Scripture that you apply on a daily basis to other communications? But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
So, the question is, why is it not reasonable to apply the same �understanding� to the text of Scripture that you apply on a daily basis to other communications? But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
Bobbyx refers to a program that I haven�t seen, so I can�t comment directly. But just a few points: In reference 1, the program states �Religion gets people to believe something untrue�. I find in amusing that any argument leads with an assumption not in evidence. As I stated previously, no one can prove or disprove God. To flatly state that He doesn�t exist means that the speaker has omniscience and knows all things and , voila, he is god. This applies to many of the other listings. But # 9, stands out as truly obtuse. Almost all scientists of the past, were believers in the God of the Bible. Sir Isaac Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Gallili, Rene Descartes� ad infinitum. Most of the truly renown institutions of higher learning, I.e., Harvard, Yale, etc. were begun as Christian based facilities. Additionally, almost all of the hospitals, especially ones that accept anyone that walk through the doors, were and are built with funds supplied from Christian organizations, and continue to be today. Your own William Wilberforce - do you really think slavery would have been ended without his, and other Christian consciences of the times? I think not� the economic impetus was to great.
As I�ve stated previously, this argument has continued for centuries. You are not bringing up anything new and I�m not providing any new defenses. It is true that seeming discrepancies that existed and were held firmly 100 years ago, have all evaporated from new discoveries of language, archaeology and other areas of study. It will continue long after you and I are dust, I suppose.
As I�ve stated previously, this argument has continued for centuries. You are not bringing up anything new and I�m not providing any new defenses. It is true that seeming discrepancies that existed and were held firmly 100 years ago, have all evaporated from new discoveries of language, archaeology and other areas of study. It will continue long after you and I are dust, I suppose.
A brief word for el duerino...you continue in failing to offer even one reference or context for your statements. You provide classic circular arguments... "I say it's true, therefore it's true". Yet you chastise me for providing numerous, in depth, reasoned basis for believing the way I do, and your response is capsulized in your usual retort " I don't have the time" or "If I wanted to I could easily brush away your statements". But you have failed miserably in defending your position with facts, references or other supporting evidence other than this is the way you "choose" to believe. I'm certainly not arguing with your right to do that, but to do it based on how you "feel" about it is not a reasoned debate. That is usually the charge atheists make against believers.
I've got my rant screener up, so have at it.
Clanad
Please forgive me this little dig (I try to keep it light on a Sunday). If, as you say, you find in amusing that any argument leads with an assumption not in evidence, then I guess you and everyone with a faith in God must be permanently entertained when you consider your own positions!!LOL :-))
Yes my irony metre just exploded.
Clanad, its all very well saying that, but basically you have set your stall out on the bible and defended it well past any reasonable and logical standpoint. I have asked numerous questions which you simply ignore -these questions normally focus on the bigger picture which is where I draw my basis from, not the minutiae of an old book. If it is so easy to read and understand, why is the xstian faith so divided? If it is so easy to read and understand, why are there arguments even with the xstian community about how to interpret it?
I have not provided one circular argument for your information. If I have, point me to it please.
For example - why would the priests buy a field with judas blood money? Presumably if it was defiled money it could not be connected with the church, so why would they direct someone to purchase a field with it? And if this is the way it happened, clear as day to you, why is it not recorded as such. It's fairly simple, requires no great extra effort beyond recording the account we have, so why wouldn't it be put in?
The Gospel according to who? (again): Please see the accounts of JC�s baptism and thereafter in Matthew 3.11 � 4.3, Mark 1.7-12, Luke 3.16 � 4.3. Then see John�s account of the same episode in John 1.26 � 2.11.
Starting with JB�s reference to JC�s sandals, Matthew Mark and Luke agree that immediately following JC�s baptism, he went out into the desert for 40 days. In John, the baptism isn�t specifically mentioned, but references to the sandals and to the dove are made. After the unmentioned baptism, there is �the next day� and �the next day� and �on the third day� JC went to the wedding at Cana. Please let me hear the Gospel according to Clanad on this one. Will it involve an interpretation of the definition of �immediately� and �at once�?
Starting with JB�s reference to JC�s sandals, Matthew Mark and Luke agree that immediately following JC�s baptism, he went out into the desert for 40 days. In John, the baptism isn�t specifically mentioned, but references to the sandals and to the dove are made. After the unmentioned baptism, there is �the next day� and �the next day� and �on the third day� JC went to the wedding at Cana. Please let me hear the Gospel according to Clanad on this one. Will it involve an interpretation of the definition of �immediately� and �at once�?
Xena1973
Is that a tautology and an oxymoron (I'm not sure)? What is your assumption regarding the existence of God and upon what premiss is that assumption based? How would it be possible to be certain?
We all know you cannot deliver irrefutable proof - we just want to know why we should accept God as an explanation for anything in the first place. Do you have a description of God? Not as in a 'wanted' poster, just your underatanding of the nature of God.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
Shopping & Style63 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles63 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles87 mins ago
