I should maybe clarify: By the Ten Commandments, I mean, not stealing or killing--that kind of thing. Those are good rules. The stuff that common sense tells any reasonable person "is bad and will only do harm in some form to someone." Not having other gods or not coveting your neighbor's hot wife. That's ridiculous. If I want to stare at my neighbor's wife's tits, that's really not hurting anyone until she notices or my wife notices in which case I'll either be embarassed or slapped.


Yeah, the New Testament is pretty ridiculous. The first four books essentially all tell the same story, but with contradictions. Right after that, Jesus is an adult. Someone fed him after midnight and he went from cute li'l baby to David Koresh overnight, huh? Actually, with the bizarre inflamatory nature of David Koresh, maybe it makes sense to relate him to Mohammad since he wrote of murdering people simply for believing differently.


Some of the Old Testament books are the ones with points of historical value, really. Well, Revelations too, if you see it for what it is: A then-modern commentary on the state of Roman society and the Church. He tried to plant seeds of visions so as to demonize those in power and make it appear that they're the ones to bring about the End of Days. It's like a written political cartoon from way back in the day.

So you're saying there is true randomness? No. The effect of randomness stems from not knowing all variables of a given situation. Even the most random things, random algorithms, are not random. A coin toss, as such, is not random, because if one knew all variables at play, one could definitively predict the outcome of that coin toss. Thus, free will playing in decisions is only apparent due to our not being omniscient.



A being that is omnipotent, omniscient, ominpresent, and omnibenevolent, but allows his own creations to suffer so? That rules out at least two of those, and simple logic rules out the others. It's impossible to be everywhere at once, and yet nowhere; one would have to be the entirety of the universe for that to be true. So in that sense, the universe itself could be a god, but the Yahweh thing doesn't work out, and universalism just states that the universe acts as an entity, not as a god in the classic sense. Add the factual errors from the Bible, as well as a complete lack of evidence, and you have nonexistence.



Of course we don't! Only fools do. Even in the court system, witness testimonial is used as a secondary tool to gain primary evidence, because any case based on that testimony is prone to flaw. People have terrible memories, and, when under the influence of drugs, boredom, or both, tend to hallucinate.

And that feeling that you thought was god? That was just gullibility creeping up on you. Welcome to the moral majority; to the mindless masses.



Why is it juvenile? Because you say that anything or act without consideration of god as a forethought is immoral, and therefore anything with such would be moral. Killing in the name of god would be sound, but killing someone in the name of self-defense, which then might result in others' lives or limbs being spared, is immoral. You don't consider the direct or indirect consequences, only the cause or train of thought. I would then assume that you believe that the ends justify the means. Is that correct?

And I'd very much like you to tuck your tail between your legs and seek refuge elsewhere, as that is the intention of all debaters.

[/quote]

But a band calling Christianity bullshit, or saying that your Christ, if indeed he was a singular man who endured that which is written within the Bible, should have been tortured much worse than he was, or encouraging the burning of churches, et cetera, is in direct conflict with your beliefs. Any Christian or theist listening to Deicide, Gorgoroth, or a similar band is a poseur piece of shit who acts "hXc!!!11" and "br000000741z" to impress his peers.

Why would God bother letting Satan do such things at all then? Try looking at it from the perspective of Job, rather than from the perspective of God. It could be considered a character building exercise of sorts.

But it says that Jesus was lead into the wilderness by God with the explicit purpose of being tempted. It certainly reads that way, and that implies some sort of arrangement between God and Satan.



I assume you're referring to my posts? I'm just arguing about Satan's role, and the best way to do such a thing is to quote bible verses.

quoting the very first post (i know it's long ago but i can't let it slide) "Calling a Muslim a dogmatic, insensitive asshole is fine, but don't you dare call an atheist that!" have you ever known an athiest to threaten bombings and decapitations if you say things against their lack of religion? i know only a fraction of the muslim population would threaten to murder you if you insulted their religion and by no means is it the only religion this has happened in. but it does seem to be that only with religion will you find people murdering people for insulting something they believe or don't believe.

Actually, the bible never calls God that, so it's really not a good point to argue.

Such as? I believe some parts of it are allegorical
If you saw Bigfoot, but had no way of proving it to anyone else, would you believe that you never saw it? I honestly don't expect anyone to simply take my word as evidence, but you can't expect to just discount what I've experienced.


I was under the influence of neither.

It wasn't a feeling, though. It was an pretty much indescribable change in my life, something that one has to experience to believe and understand.


For one thing, you're misquoting what I said. And another, you're considering that if a statement is true, then the converse is true, which shows that you know nothing about logic.

Absolutely not.

Nope.
I must be an exception, then: I plan on shedding a different light onto the misconceptions that seem to be prevalent here....alas, everyone seems to be unable to admit that their conception of Christianity and others' experience might not be correct. In any case, I most definitely will "seek refuge" anywhere, particularly as there is currently no need to do so.

Maybe I just listen to the music, and don't give a shit about the lyrics. And I don't care what other people think, I just listen to what I want to listen to, and let others listen to what they want to, and no judgment passes between.

How do you know which parts are allegorical and which parts are not? Did God tell you?

The language, mostly. The same way you can tell when just about any other work is allegorical.

So, how about God creating the world and men? Is that allegorical, or literal? And if allegorical, allegorical of what?

Gentlemen, let's try to be a bit more courteous.



I'd like to point out that many people believe they've seen Bigfoot, but what they actually did was misinterpret the visual data that they absorbed and projected an urban legend as a means of explaining the phenomenon. Is it possible that the same has occurred to you?

I was simply trying to pose a hypothetical situation. The thing is, my "Bigfoot" is something I've encountered many times, and in much stranger, far less deniable ways than a "feeling." I simply cannot explain it as anything else, given my circumstances. I know I'm probably about to get torn apart directly after hitting the "submit" button, but oh well.

I understand. I can't deny your subjective experience, though I believe it is explicable through naturalistic means (and thus, invoking supernatural means is unparsimonious). I am much more interested in philosophical arguments regarding god.

Actually, you can't claim to have had a supernatural experience.

In order to call something a supernatural experience, one has to negate all possible natural explanations for it. And in order to do so, one must think of every single explanation, which baiscally means that he has to know everything. But, clearly, he doesn't. So, you can't claim to have had supernatural experiences (and this applies to miracles as well).

I don't find the definition of "supernatural" to be coherent.

In this case it basically means "unnatural," or "not conforming to natural laws."

Well, I could go about listing miracles that I've witnessed, but you'd probably just try to dismiss them with probable causes without knowing the full situation yourself, so I won't bother.

I was saying that you can't call them micracles. Even if Jesus resurrects right in front of my eyes, I can't call it a miracle.

"Take my word for it."

That's brilliant, I've never thought of it like that before. Cheers!

What's the point of this post?

Pretty much pointing out that we'll have to take your word for it that you've had a religious supernatural experience. Which you so wisely decided not to adduce into the argument at hand.

It's also an ironic take on the presence of "belief" and "faith" that feature heavily in religion. So if we're not even going to accept the testimony of Moses, Mohammad and Jesus, well I doubt we'll put much stock in yours. Just saying, that's all.

Doesn't god love all of his creations? If so, I'm pretty god damned sure, pun unintended, that that is the definition of omnibenevolence.



Like the Israelites being in Egypt, right? It's really odd that there are no records from the pharaohs of the approximate period Moses was supposed to exist during of any Israelites being there. Hmm. The whole Genesis thing is wrong; the order of creation, the process, and the timescale. Life before the sun? Odd, 'cause life can't exist without the sun. The moon being a light? We know that the moon reflects sunlight; it does not produce light of its own. The great flood was a global event? No, it actually was a regional thing, occurring only around the Euphrates/Tigris rivers. Do you really want me to continue?

Oh, and no non-biblical records of Jesus from the early CE period can be found.



I would try to logically explain it. Besides, if I see a big hairy thing walking in some woodland, I'm not going to assume it's big foot. If I see lights in the night sky, I won't assume they're alien craft.



You didn't understand the part about anecdotal evidence being totally invalid, did you?



It was a stretch of logic, sure, but my point was highlighting the absurdity. Besides, I do think 'good' is the opposite of 'evil,' so what I said would be valid.



Nope.

Absolutely not what? The ends justifying the means? What about the great flood? Only eight people - Noah and his family - are left living, according to the Bible, along with two of each species. And that was god doing the work, not man. Since god is the ultimate moral compass, I imagine departing from its/his/her morals would be blasphemy, would it not?



Misconceptions abound, good sir! I think we understand your very own canon much better than you.



But a band calling Christianity bullshit, or saying that your Christ, if indeed he was a singular man who endured that which is written within the Bible, should have been tortured much worse than he was, or encouraging the burning of churches, et cetera, is in direct conflict with your beliefs. Any Christian or theist listening to Deicide, Gorgoroth, or a similar band is a poseur piece of shit who acts "hXc!!!11" and "br000000741z" to impress his peers.[/quote]Maybe I just listen to the music, and don't give a shit about the lyrics. And I don't care what other people think, I just listen to what I want to listen to, and let others listen to what they want to, and no judgment passes between.[/quote]

I reserve the opinion of you being a poseur.



There would be much figurative language regarding those errors, then, but there are not.

Consider Isaiah 44:5-7 and Lamentations 3:38 before we assume that the Judeo-Christian God cannot do bad things while loving everything - as far as I know, the Jews never held their God to be omnibenevolent. It is retarded, but whatever.

Edit: Ugh, sorry about the late edit. I come back 10 hours later, and realise that I've written rubbish. I suppose that happens when one is in a rush in the morning

What's the point of this? Like I said, allegory. You can't expect ancient peoples to have had the kind of knowledge that we now have.
That's nice.
Ok, let me try to put it into more down-to-earth terms: If I find that I have all the symptoms of, say, perforated ear drums, then I can assume I have them, no? I wouldn't expect you guys to believe me if I didn't have any presentable evidence, but if there's no reason for me to doubt, then why should I?

So I'm just supposed to discount the things that I experience? What a bunch of crap.



No, you're totally misunderstanding what I said. I said that evil involved actions performed when one considers himself before God or others. This does not say that every act out of self-concern is wrong, or that any act done "in the name of God" is righteous.
You're kind of jumping around here. Please ask a coherent question so I can know what/how to answer.
If this is so, you surely haven't shown it yet. In any case, I follow no "canon." I believe in the truths God has revealed to me, and I'm constantly checking what I believe for fallacies.
That doesn't make a damn bit of sense, but whatever. Your lack of ability to engage in civil debate has already caused me to cease caring what you think, so continue if you like.
Sure there is, especially in the original language. It reads just like an oral tradition.

So, are you admitting that the Bible was written by the people, not God?

You discount "free will" on banality alone. If that's allowed, then I can discount quoting Epicurus on the same ground.

Presuming libertarian free will, how do people make decisions? On what grounds do our souls (I presume you believe that souls are responsible for free will) determine how to act?

Of course it's normally based on the situation, but in the case of something like God, sometimes a person is too wrapped up in sin and pride to let go.

Let me get one thing straight: I don't pretend to have all the answers. Anyone who does is a liar. That's why I keep reading and listening to God about this stuff.

And if it wasn't bad enough for me in this thread, I'm just going to say that I'll pray for you guys. That is not meant condescendingly whatsoever; I know that you guys have your own issues and hard times in life, and I'm going to pray that those are lifted off of your shoulders. I think that I may need to return to this forum at a later time, when I'm not bogged down with exams and work responsibilities. Cheers.

I'll make sure to triple the church arson quota for next season.

The problem is that you are describing a situation in which you already believe in god, but defiantly refuse to obey/follow him. The actual situation is that many atheists simply do not believe in the existence of the deity. Psychologically speaking, atheists are only so proud of their stance as theists are of theirs. I am proud of my atheism because I believe that I have good justification for it. While I was predisposed to atheism because my parents are essentially apatheists (aka implicit atheists), my philosophical outlook was a result of a good amount of reading, research, and many hours of debate. I am also proud of my understanding of my field of study (biology) for many of the same reasons. So, what about people who are wrapped up in philosophical and rational reasoning, and who still do not believe in god? Surely, many such cases have resulted from an open-minded search for the truth and not any desire to do evil.



Have you read any works by atheists? Are you familiar with the basic atheistic criticisms of theism? Also, does god actually speak to you? I'd be curious to read your description of the event.



Fair enough. Do you believe that these prayers will have an effect? If so, what should I look for?

The point is that the being itself, the God, is human. Mankind created in his image, and all that. God takes on a human persona, even physical human qualities. Obviously, you believe all this to be true, but that's not what I'm debating. What I'm saying is that a human god, and the son of god - who is both human and divine - create a very human-centrist perspective. Now, I'm no expert, but I believe that before Judeo-Christianity, mankind's perceptions of a divine being were different. For example, the Greek and Roman gods were imperfect representations. They were often petty, like humans, and they had specific intentions and their own 'domains', so to speak (just like a man can be a fishmonger, a god can govern the seas) and people could choose which deity best represented them and their interests. And, of course, the Egyptians basically worshipped nature through anthropomorphic representations of the sun, the moon, etc. But with Christianity, the implicit intention seems to be to set mankind apart from nature. There is a creator, and that creator is human.

I would like to bring to your attention: Zoroasterianism.

It's the faith from which Judeo-Christian-Muslim faiths constructed the base of their beliefs.

The Standard Wikipedia Link

Ahura Mazda, the chief proponent of Zoroasterianism, is a single deity, essentially, the first monotheistic faith and Zoroaster seems to operate as this faiths version of Jesus, Moses, or Mohammad.

Creation is summed up with 7 "sparks" while the J-C-M faiths have a 7-day timeframe.

There are many common traits between the worship of Ahura Mazda and Zoroaster and the "big three" modern religions. This is one of those things that further backs up why I can't believe in any religion as all modern faiths are just built on past beliefs with copied stories, rituals, practices, symbolism, beliefs and the like. It's evidence to me that no modern religion is "true" simply because if they were, they would be entirely original. Their starting point would be with the dawn of creation, not with the birth of Moses, Jesus, Mohammad or whatever; and they would not be built on or borrowing from past, generally dead religions.


Zoroasterianism is not completely dead, however. There are still several thousand worshippers of this faith in parts of Iran, India, and Europe.

Likewise for me.



It's nice that I proved the Bible is bullshit, and that you're going to keep believing in it, yeah. It's really nice. You and two billion others.



But you don't have any physical symptoms. You have assumptions. You have certain experiences. But what you don't have is a footprint from god, an image of god, or god himself at your side. You comparing your delusion to some physical condition proves how logical you really are.



You can go on ranting about it until you turn blue, but in the end, every rational person in the room will laugh at you. You have no evidence other than your "anecdote." More realistically, it was a hallucination.



To any literate, intelligent person, I think my questions are clear enough.



You believe in the Bible, no? In the Christian/Abrahamic tradition? You do have some canon, but you can't identify it because you clearly don't understand the definition of canon. A canon is a theological 'holy' book, such as the Bible, that is believed by ignorant fools to be true simply because they're told so.



Doesn't make any sense? A Christian listening to antitheistic death metal is like a pacifist engaging in war, or a pro-lifer getting an abortion when their lives aren't at stake. Besides, the lyrics and the message itself is one half of the music, along with the instrumentals. Any way you look at it, you are a hypocrite.



No there isn't. It doesn't say, "God created the earth in like six days." Or, "it was as if six days passed and God had created the universe and all its contents." It doesn't say, "The Israelites were possibly in some far edge of the Sinai peninsula." How, then, is there figurative language? And seeing as you're such an expert, I would hope you can speak Greek and Aramaic so you can translate the original documents yourself.

Yes, Zoroastrianism is indeed close to Judeo Christianity. A couple excerpts from the Wkipedia article I found interesting:

Ahura Mazda's creation — evident as asha, truth and order — is the antithesis of chaos, evident as druj, falsehood and disorder. The resulting conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity, which has an active role to play in the conflict.
Active participation in life through good thoughts, good words and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep the chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism.

Of course I'm no expert on Zoroastrianism, but implicit here, as I see it, is the notion that chaos represents nature. The human-like creator brings order. It is the faith that maintains order on a human level. The natural world apart from humanity is in disarray and must be corrected with morality.

You're falling into the same fallacies the fundamentalist Christians do with the bible (probably as a side effect of learning to attack only their arguments?). The way the bible in general is written suggests that even the ancients didn't consider it to be literal truth; much of it (including the creation myths) are intended as religious texts and as part of the genre of myth, not as history or science. The literary structure of Genesis 1 for instance is structured in a poetic way to emphasize not the actual, literal formation of the earth but to emphasize the importance of the Sabbath as a holy day. The inclusion of the contradictory story in Genesis 2 enforces the idea that the stories are not to be taken as literal, and devices such as the naming of the first man as Adam ("mankind") shows again that it is meant to be allegorical.

The fundamentalists get so caught up in their perfect bible that they ignore the obvious intent of the texts, and their opponents get so caught up in attacking them that they declare the bible "wrong"; both miss the whole point of the text in many areas...

Well, then, what exactly is the "point" of the Bible?

It has many points, it was written for many different reasons, by and for many different people, over many years. So you can't look at every word of it in the same way as those who believe it to be absolute literal truth do.

Okay, then, it was written by people anyway, so there is nothing really "holy" or authoritative about it. In that sense, it is "false," or does not hold any factual truth.

As authoritative than the Vedas or any other religious text, so yeah. Although there is factual truth in the bible of the historical variety (so it isn't fair to say that it contains none), and when talking about myth or philosophy or morality it isn't entirely appropriate to speak in terms of true/false. A myth may not be literally true (be it Genesis 1, the Iliad, Beowulf, anything), but this is not to say that it is devoid of any value.

I'm not saying that it's devoid of any value; I was just saying that it holds nothing when arguing over facts, like the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, etc. Sure, the Greek Mythology is a rich collection of valuable literature based on true information, but no one would use it to argue that Zeus existed.

Pretty much - it's anecdotal evidence, but not much else.