Theology thread

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jun 17, 2016.

  1. Throatpunch

    Throatpunch Banned

    Apr 14, 2016
    So my politicians thread derailed into a argument about religion, so I made this theology thread after people suggested I should make one.

    There is a lack of solid evidence to argue for the existence of God. The only things you have to prove his existence is a bunch of people who had near death experiences and claimed to be saved by angles, who were probably high at the time or attention seeking. Its nonsense.
    Talking of nonsense

    • - There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.
      - Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for three days like the Bible says.
      - God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says, or Eve from a rib.
    If God is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly benevolent then he would eradicate evil and suffering but the world is full of it. Therefore he is either not all powerful, not all knowing, not benevolent or (most likely) does not actually exist. Or is just a psychopath who enjoys watching his little creations suffer.
    Many events in the Bible, such as the creation narrative, the flood, much Old Testament history and the Gospel accounts are not backed up by science or archaeology
    It's nonsensical to say that the world was created in 7 days, and its also nonsensical to claim that Jesus made 5000 loafs of bread out of 1 loaf, or walked on water.

    Some nice advice given to us in the Bible:
    and even nicer:
    the nicest:
    nothing wrong with a good ol' bit of genocide:
    advice on buying and keeping slaves:
    How to deal with your son if he is entering a rebel phase:
    and my personal favourite:
    What lovely advice. Some people also take their cues from the bible on how to live their lives so its dangerous.

    God defies his own commandments, by demanding we kill specific people:

    • - Exodus 35:2 – God demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.
      - Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – God demands that we kill disobedient teenagers.
      - Leviticus 20:13 – God demands the death of homosexuals.
      - Deuteronomy 22:13-21 – God demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry.
    Anybody who says you cant be moral without religion is stupid. I am a moral person who is not religious.
    On the subject of prayer, its useless and achieves nothing. Its basically talking to yourself.

    Any religious people feel free to join the debate, it will be uncivil and probably disrespectful.
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2016
  2. Ragemage

    Ragemage Wept for Zion

    Feb 20, 2016
    Every single one of these "points" you've listed I already refuted in the previous thread, I'm not bothering with it again. I'll go over it again if anyone besides the OP asks.

    Also for that matter:

    >Theology thread

    >Only focuses on the Bible being "false"

    Because the only theology's Christianity right? Christianity's the only one that needs to be "disproved" right? *sniff sniff* You smell that? It smells like someone's just trying to start a flame war here.
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  3. Throatpunch

    Throatpunch Banned

    Apr 14, 2016
    It is sort of a theology thread because I am talking about the nature of God.
    Could you do it again for me, I don't think what you said was enough to justify the stoning of rebellious childeren
  4. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Aug 16, 2010
    Ah, Theodicy, the favourite question of atheist teenagers who have it all figured out.
    One answer would be that God gave humanity free will and let them go. He doesn't want humanity to suffer, but He let them go, so until the Apokatastasis He can't help as suffering is what humanity chose.
    One of many possible answers, really, if one were to dive into the deep end of theology.
    Or one could just realise that theodicy is not exactly a useful question to ask about God to begin with...

    But the modern christian theology is relatively boring, anyway. I like the early proto-christian ideas and gnosticism, with the distinction between the imperfect demiurge who created the world, and the perfect God, who will bring the world back in order. Concepts actually coming from classical philosophy that also work with christian theology (with YHWH being the demiurge, and Christ the saviour God).

    Yes, I'm agnostic or maybe apatheist, but I do find theology quite interesting. Stupidly bashing christianity is not theology, though.
    • [Like] [Like] x 4
  5. Ragemage

    Ragemage Wept for Zion

    Feb 20, 2016
    Uh huh. Well as I've already explained previously, the Old Testament laws were as harsh as they were only so the tribe of Judea could survive. They had to be, in order to keep the tribe from going extinct, considering they were surrounded by enemies on all sides with completely different cultures and religions. But if you wish, I'll go ahead and refute each one of these laws.

    Christ Himself addressed Deuteronomy 22. From John 8:5-

    "They made her stand before them and said, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. So what do You say?” They said this to test Him, in order to have a basis of accusing Him. ... When they continued to question Him, He straightened up and said to them, "Whoever is without sin amongst you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her"."

    In regards to Deuteronomy 21:

    "Like ancient Rome, Israel had a patriarchal society. In such societies, the word of the father in the family was law. Thanks to this law in Deuteronomy, a father who was displeased with his son—whether justly or unjustly—could not simply kill him himself. The patriarch’s power in Israel was thus limited. Previous verses had already made it impossible to disinherit an unfavored son (Deuteronomy 21:15–17), and now these verses essentially guaranteed due process of law to protect the rights of the accused son. The trial was to be held in the city of the accused, where the trustworthiness of the parents and the son’s own character were likely to be well known. Since capital crimes required the testimony of two or three witnesses for a conviction, the word of the father would be insufficient. (According to Matthew 26:59–61, even the prosecutors at Jesus’ trial tried in vain to find trustworthy witnesses who would tell the same story!) The parents’ own responsibility in the upbringing of this defendant could be called into question, as the verses specify the son must have proven himself unresponsive to chastening.

    The charges here are not trivial. We tend to use some of these words lightly, thinking of a glutton as someone with a weakness for pizza and chocolate, a stubborn son as a toddler having a tantrum, and a rebellious son as a teenager pouting and spouting off about being grounded. But the context of these words implies something far more sinister and destructive—an individual with a persistent and well-established character of vile immorality, uncontrollable excess, and bitterness."


    In regards to Timothy 2:12-

    You're taking that one completely out of context. This does not apply to all women. This only applies to women at a synagogue, and it basically boils down to women cannot become priests. The Bible has many strong females, such as Deborah the prophetess who took the reigns of the entire Jewish army when the male commander was too scared, Esther the queen who overthrew the patriarchy, and Jael the assassin whom killed a king of Canaan before the men could even arrive. If this passage applied to all women, we would not have women such as these mentioned in the Bible.

    For that matter, Jesus also overwrote this law once again by allowing EVERYONE in the ministry. There are many female deacons present throughout the New Testament, such as in Acts 1, 18:24-26, 21, and Romans 16.

    I can keep going all day and point out how these passages have either been overwritten by the New Testament or taken out of context, but I really don't think this is worth putting any more of my time into. It's not like any sort of pertinent discussion is going to change your mind, we've already proven that with the last thread. Have a wonderful weekend.
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2016
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  6. Jogre

    Jogre So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 25, 2015
    >Makes a thread about Atheism
    >Immediately Changes profile pic to Richard Dawkins.

    I mean I agree with you, but being so smug about your answer that you change your pic to the most famous atheist alive immediately after posting is likely one of the biggest cliches imaginable.

    Anyway, in response to the actual post.
    You misused the term Theodicy: The problem he presented is called either the Problem of Evil, The Problem of Suffering or The Arguement from Evil. A Theodicy is an attempted response to the problem.
    That argument rests on all suffering being caused by free will. What if you get shredded to pieces in a tornado, or there is a major drought?, It's suffering, but humanity has no choice in it, and has nothing to do with Free-Will.
    I would disagree, it provides a source of debate, and a potential problem to which theologians can come up with answers to.
  7. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Aug 16, 2010
    Yeah, it's probably language barrier: In Germany, it's usually refered to as "Theodizee-Frage" (theodicy question), so I always thought of it as the actual question.
    Not necessarily. Not all suffering is caused by free will, but since humanity detached itself from God He can't intervene at all, even if it's just accidents.
    Indeed, it is an interesting question, but it also assumes that we as humans can actually even begin to understand God, which would then undermine His divinity.
  8. RoboStang

    RoboStang First time out of the vault

    Jun 10, 2016
  9. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Aug 16, 2010
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  10. R.Graves

    R.Graves Confirmed Retard

    Apr 21, 2016
    I agree. One should only read Wikipedia to pass the time. And everything written there should be taken with a heaping pile of salt. Every. Single. Letter.
  11. Brivoo

    Brivoo Powered by Radiant AI

    Jan 20, 2016
    Jesus dude, you're getting straw all over the place.

    Either way, the Problem with Evil is only applicable to a Christian God or any other deity to be omnibenevolent, omnipresent and omniscient. I don't personally believe in this god (or any other god for that matter, but more on that in a moment) and consider theodicies more to be thought experiments rather than anything else. I don't doubt that someone may one day find one that will justify the existence of the Christian God, but it's not proof; it's just confirmation that such a being would not contradict itself.

    This brings me to my next point, the concept of a rational god. I'm sure there's a proper name for this but I can't find it anywhere, so I'm going to go ahead and explain it either way.
    If god is omnipotent, it follows suit that he has powers that stretch beyond the limits of our reality; as such, he must exist beyond our reality and therefore beyond our capability for rational thought and comprehension. If god cannot be explained through human eyes then it doesn't matter if he's real or not, as those are human concepts that cannot be applied to him.

    To put it another way, if a god exists, then they are greater than the concept of existence itself and cannot be explained through any human means, be them religious or otherwise.

    In short, god may be real but all religions are wrong anyway.

    Regardless, religion is not necessarily a bad thing. It offers people a way of life with a strict code of ethics to abide by and though it may spawn fanatics and zealots, it is simply a cause for them to declare; religion itself isn't good or bad, just an opportunity for good and bad people alike.
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  12. RoboStang

    RoboStang First time out of the vault

    Jun 10, 2016
    I just wanted to call out OP for talking in absolutes. Anyway, I don't see this thread going anywhere because:
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2016
  13. eissa

    eissa Artanis "Altáriel" Nerwen Nos Finwe

    Jan 7, 2016
    yeah religion isn't inherently bad, just like a politic is. even if the later is all about the pragmatic and utilitarianism choice
  14. Vergil

    Vergil Banned

    Jul 8, 2014
    Theres also a lack of solid evidence to argue against the existence of God. Everyone loves putting the burden of proof on Christians but never is an atheist asked "how do you know for a fact that theres no God?". Also by your use of Old Testament laws (although you've already been proven wrong on that about 3 separate times now; I'll get to that later) you have a very poor understanding of the Bible (assuming of course you've ever bothered to read it instead of just blindly listening to what others have told you to think about it). I see a lot of misinterpretations and applying far too many of the Bible's stories extremely literally in places where it's not meant to be. Obviously the complete Bible is a compilation from many different stories complied into one text. Thus you have many different cultures and writers throughout many, many, many years. This is why some parts of the Bible are written in a very straight forward way while some are written with extreme hyperbole. For example when the Old Testament talks about the Jews literally wiping out an entire group of people down to the last man with hundreds of thousands of soldiers despite that not being possible, it's important to remember that, that's a very common way that contemporary military records were written down to say that the enemy was totally destroyed even if there obviously were survivors. Not to mention that the Bible that we know today has been translated and re translated hundreds of times. The event may indeed be true, but just like history that we all accept as true, it's important to consider the source and the translation. For example, at certain periods warfare was conducted by two sharply distinguished types of fighting men—the Goliaths and the Davids—the professional soldiers who were fully armed, and the folk army, whose only weapons were those of the peasant shepherd. It seems clear that in a number of places the word for professional soldier has been misunderstood as meaning ‘thousand’. Take, for example, the attack on the little town of Gibeah in Judges 20. Verse 2 says that 400,000 footmen ‘that drew the sword’ assembled. If these were in fact 400 fully armed foot-soldiers, the subsequent narrative makes excellent sense. The Benjamite forces consist of 26 soldiers armed with swords, together with 700 men armed only with slings. At the first attack the Israelites lose 22 of their crack soldiers, the next day they lose a further 18; on the third day an ambush is set, consisting of, or led by, 10 of them. (Could 10,000 men take up their positions undetected?) The losses begin again ‘as at other times’—and in this case the scale of loss has been clearly preserved, for about 30 Israelites (not apparently sword-armed soldiers), 25 Benjamite soldiers and 100 others are killed. Eighteen of them were killed in the first stage of the pursuit, 5 were later ‘cut down in the highways’ and 2 more at Gidom. The remaining 600 slingers took refuge in the rock of Rimmon. Similarly, in the assault on Ai the true proportions of the narrative become clear when we realize that the disastrous loss of 36 men is matched by the setting of an ambush, not of 30,000 men of valour, but of 30. Now of course you may throw out the "argument" that this invalidates the bible as an accurate source however it's no less useful or historic than many of the texts we take and have taken for many years as fact. Mistranslated and misinterpretations from third parties do not invalidate a source entirely otherwise half of what we know about the ancient world would have been thrown out by now.
    This is an amazing strawman you've constructed here. This is literally "all atheist are fedora tippers who drip with pre-cum everytime they hear Richard Dawkins speak" levels of rational. There are more than a few scientists who have attested to believing in the beleivability of God. For people who claim to exist in a world of total rationality atheists ignore the fact that the scientific method has no way of disproving God's existence. He won't know what started the universe (there are theories like the big bang but not only are they just that, theories, they still easily coincide with Christian belief (as it, like so many other discoveries that atheist wet themselves thinking about; was founded by a Christian who believed that it lined up with his Christian faith). Many of the things written in the Bible have been found to be historically accurate, there are written records of events that took place in the Bible, many people from the Bible are confirmed real from those records and almost every scientist who has made some "ground breaking" discovering has been a Christian (I've already listed many of them in the last thread for you). Here I will include some interesting quotes from many of these "nonsensical religious lunatics").

    “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”
    –Albert Einstein

    “A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”
    –Joseph H. Taylor, Jr.,
    who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe.

    “It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.”
    “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

    –Physicist Paul Davies,
    the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics

    “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
    Astronomer, physicist and founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies Robert Jastrow

    “God created everything by number, weight and measure.”
    “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”
    “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”

    Sir Isaac Newton

    “The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.”
    –Nikola Tesla,
    the inventor and futurist scientist known for numerous inventions, but best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electrical supply system.

    And I think perhaps my favourite:
    “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
    Albert Einstein

    So yea, dismissing Christianity as some "nonsensical" tribal foolishness that goes against science doesn't really hold much, if any weight. If you could concretely disprove God's existence when all these other champions of science and rational thought couldn't, go ahead, I'll be waiting.

    For someone who is a sworn enemy of fundamentalist Christians you two sure share a lot of similarities when it comes to misinterpreting the Bible (as well as a few other things....)
    You're taking the "global flood" thing far too literally. This is similar to how people say that Alexander the Great conquered the whole "known world". Obviously if we didn't have lots of maps and other data to show that he didn't literally take over the entire world, we'd assume that a person saying that would be referring to the whole world. Obviously you have to keep in mind the historical context to what you're reading. Do I think it was a total global flood that reached the heavens from here to Japan? Perhaps not, but it's no coincidence that multiple civilizations all from around the same area where the writer of that story in the Bible would have lived.

    Examples include the Flood Story of the Babylonians:

    “The gods were distressed by the disturbance from human overpopulation. The gods dealt with the problem first by plague, then by famine. Both times, the god Enki advised men to bribe the god causing the problem. The third time, Enlil advised the gods to destroy all humans with a flood, but Enki had Atrahasis build an ark and so escape. Also on the boat were cattle, wild animals and birds, and Atrahasis' family. After the flood, the gods regretted their action, and Enki established barren women and stillbirth to avoid the problem in the future.” [emphasis added]

    The Chaldean Flood Myth:

    “The god Chronos warned Xisuthrus of a coming flood, ordered him to write a history, and told him to build a vessel (5 stadia by 2 stadia) for himself, his friends and relations, and all kinds of animals, all of which he did. After the flood had come and abated somewhat, he sent out some birds, which returned. Later, he tried again, and the birds returned with mud on their feet. On the third trial, the birds didn't return. He disembarked and, with his wife, daughter, and pilot, offered sacrifices to the gods. Those four were translated to live with the gods.”

    and the Zoroastrian Flood Myth:

    "After Ahura Mazda had warned Yima that destruction in the form of winter, frost, and floods, subsequent to the melting of the snow, are threatening the sinful world, he proceeds to instruct him to build a vara, 'fortress or estate,' in which specimens of small and large cattle, human beings, dogs, birds, red flaming fires, plants and foodstuffs will have to be deposited in pairs."

    All of these sound familiar to you? They should. It would be a rather amazing "coincidence" for all these different cultures to have the same "nonexistent" flood myth where a God warned a man about an impending flood and that man gathered his family and animals for safety from the angered God's flood. So, at the very least, there indeed was a great flood that fucked up a lot of people.

    Because the world is made to test man. What would be in the point in Heaven or Hell if we had no free will and were never confronted with temptation and sin? If God was just an unreasonable asshole than why would he even give us a chance to get into Heaven? He is all powerful and all knowing but he's relatively hands off. Again, it'd be fucking retarded if he just swooped in and fixed everything, how could you truly judge someone without conflict to test them?

    Already disproved this. Archaeology especially.
    Here is a metric fuck ton of sources though to prove I'm not just pulling this out of my ass.
    The dead sea scrolls 350 BC-100 A.D.

    Crosby-Schøyen Codex.

    7Q5-7q10 and 7q15 Earliest NT manuscripts date ranging 50 AD – 70 AD

    Nash papyrus Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21

    KH1 and KH2 (aka silver scrolls) Deuteronomy 5:10, Deuteronomy 7:9, Daniel 9:4, Nehemiah 1:5 Numbers 6:24–26

    P52 , John Rylands Fragment , John 18.31-33; 37-38 ~125-175AD

    P46, Chester Beatty Papyrus Romans 5.17-6.3?? ~200AD;cc=apis;entryid=x-3570;viewid=6238_41.TIF

    P64 Magdalen papyrus ~200-300 or ~37-70

    P90 , Oxyrhynchus John 18.36-19.7 ~200AD

    P104 Matthew 21.34-37, 43, 45. ~150-200 AD

    P98 IFAO ~100-200 AD

    Papyrus 75 Bodmer Papyrus ~175-200
    Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 ~150-450

    Papyrus 66. Bodmer II, John 1:1-13 ~100-350

    Dura-Europos Gospel, Matthew 27.55–61 = Mark 15.40–47 = Luke 23.49–56; John 19.38-42; Peter 2.3-5; 6.23-24

    Oxyrhynchus Hymn ~300-400 A.D.??

    Egerton gospel Egerton 2.htm

    The Didache. ~50-373?

    First epistle of clement of Rome. Late first century-fourth century.

    Fayyum fragment. Third century based on literature style.

    First creation events. Genesis 1:1 Photon Epoch to the “Dark ages”

    Kalam cosmological argument.

    a similar story to adam and eve: The adapa tablet, the adam and eve seal.

    Culture :Nuzi tablets

    Mari tablets >:( Gen 33:19; 34:1–3 Judges 20?

    Locations and customs: Ebla tablets. Ancient handle(, Related?)

    Weld prism Genesis 5:27

    The flood. virtually Every religion talks about it. Genesis 6:17 ? ?

    Hammurabi Stele Hammurabi was the king of Babylon around 1800 BC and a contemporary of Abraham, the first Hebrew and he is identified by scholars as the "Amraphel" of the Bible (Genesis 14)

    City of Calah. Genesis 10:11 feast.htm

    Shanhar: Shinar. Genesis 11:1-9;article=11803

    Hatzatzon-Tamar Genesis 14:7

    Chaldees. The Royal Standard of Ur Genesis 15:5-7 ,śdim

    But the universe just poofing into existence from the Big Bang, us being related to monkeys, or the formation of our species and planet was just an amazing coincidence doesn't sound nonsensical at all? Even if these all are true it doesn't make them sound any less ridiculous than the World being made in 7 days by an omnipotent creator.

    Ok let me go ahead and say it in huge big letters so maybe you will actually absorb the information this time:

    As for your utter and complete misinterpretation of non Old Testament verses, I refer you back to Ragemage's post.

    Prayer is not a magical wish granting incantation. It's meant to strengthen your bond and relationship with God. I think of it more as a form of meditation (something which has confirmed health benifits so I'd strike out "achieves nothing").

    Well no one here made this claim but ok. However just because you can supposedly "be moral" without Religion it doesn't mean that other, if not most, people can too. Religion gives civilization a framework. From the Sumerians to the America's founding father Religion has played a very important role in society. Sadly not everyone can get along without fear of a God, not everyone can find a purpose in life without Religion, imagine all of the poets, artists, great thinkers and scientist who had divine inspiration for their works stripped of that. So far the only examples of atheist states we have are brutal communist dictatorships or large group of people who live hedonistic lifestyles without a purpose as many people are in the West now. Imagine a world with no Greco-Roman culture or Religion? Imagine a world with no Judaeo-Christian culture or Religion? To imagine a world like that, is to imagine a world without western civilization. Just because you find no belief in a God, doesn't mean that it's an inherently useless belief for the whole of mankind.
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2016
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  15. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dogmeat

    Nov 22, 2009
    For me it's very simple. I never met a priest that was a nice person. I'm sure there are some out there but I never met one. Something about being religious all day long makes people into a-holes.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  16. Brivoo

    Brivoo Powered by Radiant AI

    Jan 20, 2016
    I agree with you for the most part, though I'll address a few points you've made.

    -The burden of proof, though not by definition placed on those making the claim, usually is anyways for simplicity's sake. Even if the general consensus was that atheists needed to disprove God, a lack of evidence for his existence is usually an acceptable answer from a scientific and philosophical standpoint; it's like disproving the existence of dragons or fairies.

    -I agree that there's a lot of bias towards Christians stating that the majority are fundamentalists or literalists due to the sensationalisation of its most negative aspects by various parties; it's the same principle by which people think Islam is a religion of terrorists and criminals.

    -I actually find the Bible very interesting as a historical text and I'm certain a lot of historians and scientists are on the same page; it is, after all, a collection of accounts from various periods of history, skewered towards spectacle or not.

    -In a scientific context, 'Theory' doesn't mean 'I have a feeling this may be right'. It's based on actual evidence and is an explanation for some aspect of the natural world that has been confirmed time and time again; as such, they are reliable accounts of various phenomena.

    -Though I agree that faith and intelligence aren't mutually exclusive, personal belief isn't proof of anything, regardless of who said it. (EDIT: on a second read, I'm not entirely sure that's what you meant, so correct me if I'm wrong)

    -Your first Einstein quote is actually apocryphal, but that's beside the point since he did believe in a god; however, it wasn't a Christian one, for future reference, or at the very least not a Christian God that cared about human beings.

    -Omnibenevolence implies that he wouldn't allow suffering in any form, even if it were to test us. "God moves in mysterious ways" implies he is not Omnipotent as it implies that he has limitations that force him to act in specific ways and "God just doesn't know about every single moment of suffering" defies omniscience for obvious reasons. However, as I said earlier, I believe the Problem with Evil to be more akin to a thought experiment and just because we don't have a solution now doesn't mean that a solution doesn't exist.

    -Just to be petulant, we didn't evolve from monkeys, but from some form of proto-ape.

    Other than that, I agree with basically everything you've said.

    I'd also like to ask; if we are God's chosen children (as I seem to understand from my very basic knowledge of Christianity), do you believe in sentient alien life? Where does that put them in the grand scheme of things?
  17. DVL

    DVL Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Nov 19, 2015
    The burden of proof is still on the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever.
    For practical purposes, nobody asks "How do you know for a fact that there are no unicorns?"
    The same thing applies to little grey men, ghosts and fairies.

    And I am not joking when I say that people are in earnest about those last three. Time and energy is spent. Otherwise educated men once believed vampires were real and acted as though they were.
    Proving a negative for everything is impractical, if nothing else. And when you demand that I believe in your God, you're just demanding more than that I just do a little cognitive dance in my head, but that I also act in all respects like the belief is informative.

    And no matter how much a believer likes to say otherwise, nobody has some direct experience of these events, much less secondhand experience of these things. Or, perhaps backhandedly, they will claim that not everybody does. (The "sixth sense" being the explanation for why you can't see the aforementioned ghosts and fairies either.)

    Stop trying to weasel out of this one. The ball has, and always will be, in your court. Lay it up.

    I seriously wish you did not do this quote-mining thing, because it's extraneous and adds nothing to discussion.
    It doesn't even directly address Doomsdayprepper's argument. Yes, he was probably a little unsparing and insulting. But his argument was never, "A bunch of atheist scientists agree with me."

    Einstein was a Spinozan pantheist.
    He also described himself as an agnostic
    He wasn't talking about your god.
    Einstein was the guy who said he was "spiritual but not religious" before it was cool.

    With all due respect, his opinion, is dumb. There were debates in philosophy about whether the universe is inherently rational and intelligible between schools of Continental rationalism and British empiricist thought. Though there were probably some weird religious Hermetic and Platonic bugaboo before that.

    Aside from all that, I am both an atheist and existentialist who holds that the universe is absurd. And that this is in no way contradictory to the aims of science. I think it's fallacious to assume that the universe is inherently intelligible, so much as it is to recognize that our explanations of it are manufactured for our own animal convenience. It would not surprise me to find that this is pretty much the "default" attitude of our times.

    That is a horrid misrepresentation of the Big Bang. And evidence that you can be apparently a scientist and be guilty of really horrid logical fallacies.
    The Big Bang is the beginning of the universe as we understand it. As in, our conventional notions of time and space started from there. It is difficult to observe the initial conditions of the Big Bang because assumptions of time and space break down.

    How that is supposed to be an act of creation, I'm not sure.
    How the supernatural is involved, I'm not sure.
    Since neither was ever fucking ever observed directly, saying that science proves those things is just too much.

    Textually, you're wrong. Since Jesus never technically retracted The Law.
    And yes, some of them obviously do at their convenience.
    Yes, I get that Christians aren't a monolithic religion that has splintered into about a few kajillion sects.

    None of that really is the point.

    That's your personal interpretation of it.
    You really seem hung up on making equally blanket proclamations about Christians which are, frankly, bullshit.

    I think we can both agree that are probably Christians that do use that as a wish-granting incantation. But you'd probably just say that they're doing it wrong. So the point that I didn't mention above, is that it's your word versus theirs. You have reams of common tradition, but you'll say, at your own convenience, that this part of the Bible is metaphorical, while that part is not.

    You're all just making up stuff as you go along. Fine, if the OT is problematic, just ignore it.

    This whole wish-granting thing is not some contemporary thing either. It's no accident that Isaac Newton was an alchemist.

    But fine, even if we accept your thesis, you're still basically saying that prayer does something. Doomsday is saying that it does nothing.
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2016
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  18. Antiwarprofallout

    Antiwarprofallout It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Jun 13, 2016
    If the Abrahamic God is all knowing, how is he all powerful? If he can see the future, and that future is 100% true, she couldn't change it, rendering that god powerless. But if she could change it, it renders the vision false and therefore that god is not all knowing.

    Also, no one talks about how crappy Judaism is for the males. Gentital mutilation is pretty crappy.
  19. Vergil

    Vergil Banned

    Jul 8, 2014
    The burden of proof is on both sides. To be totally atheist like Doomsday is he has to be 100% objectively certain that there is no God/Gods/Afterlife/Higher power beyond a doubt. He has to be able to demonstrate why this is true, which he obviously cannot. The reason I brought that up is because his dismissive attitude towards religion yet total loyalty towards a belief system he cannot prove within a shadow of a doubt either is hypocritical. I'm not merely defend Christianity (although it is mostly that way since it's the one he is directly attacking) but religion as a whole using Christianity as the example.
    For the same reason no one asks "How do you know for a fact that there is no Zeus and the rest of the Greek Pantheon chillin up on a mountain somewhere". Science has advanced to the point and our ability to see all across the globe have rendered all of these things obviously nonexistant. We can see the entire planet and theres no Mount Olympus. However science and our ability to perceive the universe has not managed to make any concrete advancement that would disprove the existence of the Christian God.
    Aside from fairies simply because that's such a broad thing to discuss (what kind of fairies are you referring to? Theres a lot of different kinds depending on the culture. Looking from a Christian perspective theres many different things that could be confused for); none of those things can be concretely proven to not exist either. No one can point to a piece of evidence that proves there is a 0% possibility of intelligent alien life on other planets and theres nothing you can point to to disprove the existence of ghosts/spirits either. If you cannot determine the non-existence of a higher being like God you cannot deny the existence of something like an alien or as abstract as a "ghost".
    Yes perhaps they once did but as science and time marched on they were proven to be non-existent and educated men acted accordingly. However they cannot do the same for Religious institution such as God(s)/After lives/Supernatural Occurrences caused by those God(s). The same kind of argument could be made about any creatures. Many European scholars had never seen an elephant before and simply had to go by (rather poor) word of mouth when drawing them.

    Obviously these are ridiculous and absurd from a modern standpoint since we all know what elephants looked like now but back then that's all they had. Whose to say that Vampires didn't evolve from someone misunderstanding some form of physical/mental illness and it spread by word of mouth. However as time marched on and things became more accessible and science more robust we managed to figure out that there are no vampires and Elephants don't look like the hilarity that the old medieval Europeans thought they did. However as time, science and exploration has marched on, nothing has come to contradict Christianity or the idea of God(s).

    No one here is demanding anything....? Also in Christianity specifically of course they would try and get you to see that God is real and that Jesus Christ was his son. In the Christian faith denying these condemn you to an eternity of Hell. To not at least mention it would be like me watching as you walk into an oncoming car and doing nothing about it because my yelling might bother you.

    And when you tell me that you know for a fact, without a shadow of doubt that there are no Gods or afterlives that I do a little cognitive dance in my head that literally everything from the creation of existence itself to the formation of the Human species is just "pure coincidence ;^)" despite you not having the same intellect, tools or capabilities of countless other scientists who have failed to come to the same conclusion.

    Just so the rest of the audience is clear, the definition of Informative is:
    1. providing useful or interesting information.
    Are you really trying to tell me that the over a thousand years of Christian Culture, literature, Philosophy, and Art have provided nothing interesting or useful? Going back to the atheist issue it's extrapolated even further. You mean to tell me nothing interesting or useful was gained from Ancient Sumerian religious texts, Greco-Roman Culture, Literature, Philosophy and Art? That belief in a higher power all the way from Sumer to Now hasn't provided us with great thinkers inspired by Gods and Religion? That it's been totally useless?

    The apostles witness Jesus committing miracles and since you can't disprove the Christian God and you can archaeologically back up what's in the Bible, you can't disprove that Jesus Christ was his son either since if you can't disprove God you can't disprove his ability to interact with the world either. Also logically if you use the common argument that Jesus was just crazy or some kinda con man why would he allow himself to be crucified when given multiple occasions to "admit" to lying. Likewise why did many of his followers who saw Jesus commit these miracles allow themselves to be killed and punished if it was all a big ponzi scheme? If they were just opportunistic liars why would they lay down their lives and refuse to denounce the things they saw if they weren't true? I'd say that's enough first/secondhand experience right there to at least raise more than a few questions.
    Not to mention that no one has direct experience of other commonly accepted events such as the Big Bang or Evolution. Not saying either of these aren't true but if you're going to use the "you weren't there how do you know?" argument at least admit that it fucks up your belief system too.

    Plenty of people over the long years have claimed to felt God's presence. Do you have any proof that they didn't? If you cannot disprove God you cannot disprove that he has interacted with people in some way shape or form. Sure some people who aren't right in the head may also claim things like this but it doesn't invalidate all the clearly right minded people who claim to have been touched by God in some way, shape or form. If a crazy man also says that the sky is blue, does that make that untrue as well?

    Literally spending hours of my time discussing this topic. If I was trying to weasel out of it I would have made a tiny post with no sources just saying "ayy lmao ur dumb xD" while posting memes like Doomsday did in the last thread.

    Actually it does add to the discussion and directly address the problem with Doomsday's atheist argument. It disproves Doomsday's disdainful attitude towards Religion by showing a myriad of scientific minds (the kinds atheists claim to hold a higher importance towards than religion) have done great things while still confirming their faith in religion. Also it pokes further holes in his (absolutely logical and 100% factual) belief system by giving examples of men who are far more qualified on the subject than him who all believe in a higher power. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't add anything to the discussion. A discussion that I'm not sure you understand the multi-faceted focus of based on these following remarks....

    The point still stands just as well. He believed at in multiple religious beliefs that from an atheistic viewpoint are "nonsensical" and "illogical". It doesn't matter that he wasn't talking about "my" God. He was still talking about a higher power, which is still contradictory to Doomsday's smug beliefs and on the side of religion. Like I said before, I'm not purely arguing for Christianity, I'm arguing AGAINST atheism. Similar, but different arguments.

    Not an argument.

    Really don't get what the addition of this little passage is to the discussion at hand. Not only did I never claim that Christianity/Religion was contradictory to science (as a matter of fact my post points to the opposite). Plus if the universe is absurd how does that contradict the belief in a God? Honestly struggling to figured out what your point is here, some elaboration would be appreciated.

    Yes it's a theory for the beginning of the universe "as we understand it" but it doesn't contradict even the Christian creation story. It only raises the question of what causes the Big Bang which Christianity and many other religions would answer with "God". Obviously something had to of caused the Big Bang and theres nothing that invalidates that it could have been God. There are multiple ways and theories about the Big Bang and the beginning of the Universe in Christianity being one and the same. Some very glaring similarities between the two.

    How was the theory to explain the universe's creation and act of creation? What?

    Because something had to cause it and science has no explanation or widely accepted theory.

    I don't get how this is against my argument lol.

    Did nobody read Ragemage's post? Is this some kinda meme where everyone just ignores his posts in this thread that I'm not aware of? This has already been addressed.

    Nope. It's the interpretation of an over a thousand year old tradition. The form of Christianity I most like the most is Orthodoxy not one of these "multiple splinter groups" you refer to. I'm not egotistical (ok maybe a little bit :D) to assume that I somehow have a better understand of God's word than the church that is older than most of the countries on the planet right now.
    "The purpose of prayer is to have communion with God and to be made capable of accomplishing his will. Christians pray to enable themselves to know God and to do his commandments."
    "Prayer must be brief. It must be simple and regular. It can be the totally silent inner attitude of the soul before God, the fulfillment of the words of the psalmist: ‘’Commune with your hearts... and be silent. Be still, and know that I am God.’’ Spiritual teachers warn against being too long and demanding of the Lord because prayer directed to God in faith is answered. One may get what they want but should not have. God knows best what is needed, and one should trust him in prayer, "Give what is needed, 0 Lord. Thy will be done."" (a loose source I know but it's just to reinforce the previous source)

    Along with theism in general I'm also defending what I view as true Christianity (Orthodoxy and perhaps most of Catholicism). I'm not gonna break out the Book of Mormon and start defending every little protestant group that exists.

    Not an argument. I've backed up what I've had to say.

    ... because they are. What do you want me to not point this out despite your "epic" prediction that I would?

    Actual it's the word of an almost 2000 year old Church vs theirs :D

    Nope. I will say these things because almost 2000 years of Christian theologians (some who lived during the events of the New Testament themselves) have agreed upon them. I'm not just saying "ayy lmao I know the one TRUE interpretation." Do I look like Joseph Smith or Martin Luther to you? :p

    As you should, just as Jesus taught us to do.

    This barely has anything remotely related to to he discussion.
    We've got:
    The belief that Saints can perform the will of God (ok what does this disprove?)
    The writings of a Greek man before Christ was even born and whose influence was in the Protestant Reformation
    The beliefs of an obscure sect of Christianity
    Another obscure sect of Christianity


    really dude?

    A: *Not my "thesis". The 2000 year old Orthodox Church's "thesis"
    B: And if Christianity (which you failed to disprove) is true, than it clearly must. Unless of course you can prove it doesn't.
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  20. Vergil

    Vergil Banned

    Jul 8, 2014
    I'm so glad that's no longer followed by Christianity. A really horrific shame that it's (((somehow))) become a standard in America.
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2016