Why The Christian God Is Impossible

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Why the Christian God is Impossible
by Chad Docterman


Introduction

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.


Proving a Universal Negative


It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.


I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.


Defining YHWH


Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.


One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.


Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection


What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.


Perfection Begets Imperfection


But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.


What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.


The Freewill Argument


The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.


Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.


Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?


The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.



All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering


God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.



Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins



God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.


Belief More Important Than Action


Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.


Perfection's Imperfect Revelation


The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.


No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.


Contradictory Justice


One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.


Contradictory History


The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?


Unfulfilled Prophecy


The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.


The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.



The Omniscient Changes the Future


A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.


The Omniscient is Surprised


A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.


We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.


The Conclusion of the matter


I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and freethinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.


Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:


"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

As for me and my house, we shall choose reality.


What do you all think of these arguments? Any Christians care to refute them?

[tombstonequeen]

Woooooooooooooooooo
awsome
keep ur thoughts goin

[japanman]

yep thats why i calll it "it" seriously i dont know how i can bielive his name is god when if he created us how can we name him b/c if we call him god who gave him the name god so on your post basically explains why im not full christian.

[Zephyr]

Yuri, you are amazing = )

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Thanks guys :) I hope I can get some Christians to refute these arguments :D

[Antares]

Keeping in mind that we are not trying to bash Christians we are only trying to prove that most religions have some degree of irrelevency behind them correct?

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Of course, I just presented solid, polite arguments in debate form, and am now waiting for a refutation

[The Batman]

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.


Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.


Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?


The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

This is what doesn't make sense to me God didnt' give us freewill just for happiness he gave it to us so that we could decide our own paths in life.

Also when it talks about the bible it doesn't take into account of mistranslations(both intentional and unintentional) and also that The New Testament debunks alot of The Old Testament purposefully.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

This is what doesn't make sense to me God didnt' give us freewill just for happiness he gave it to us so that we could decide our own paths in life.

Also when it talks about the bible it doesn't take into account of mistranslations(both intentional and unintentional) and also that The New Testament debunks alot of The Old Testament purposefully.

My argument says that god supposedly gave us free will so we would have the POSSIBILITY to experiance happiness, not the certainty.

Why should It take into account the supposed mistranslations? The Bible is what Christians follow, regardless of mistranslations. if they follow the mistranslations, so be it.

And how does the New testament debunk MY arguments? I dont see any refutations here, what are you arguing?

[The Batman]

Yuri I'm tired of hearing things from articles you found around the net I want to hear it in your own words why you think there isn't a god

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

I post the articles because I believe they are correct, and I am in agreement with them, i dont see a problem.

Its pretty simple why I dont think there is a god. A) There is no real proof B) Faith isnt enough for me C) I dont believe in ghosts, spirits, or the supernatural

[The Batman]

I know I'm just curious to here your full account to of it all.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Those three points in my post are it DT :)

[The Batman]

Man of few words I guess but anyway I'm like the complete opposite of all three of those.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

LoL, yea, I figure most religious people have to be the complete opposite, lol

[Andrew56]

All my answers will be based on faith and the Bible, but perhaps you would still like to hear? I'll take sometime studying my Bible looking for what my beliefs state about all of your very intriguing and logically valid points.

Please let me know if you would like possibly the world's largest reply, based on the Bible and faith, so it's not a waste of my time typing it up.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

I would love to hear what you have to say Andrew :) (Although, as you may have gathered, I strongly dislike the idea of faith)

[The Batman]

please type it all of it is welcome

[japanman]

All my answers will be based on faith and the Bible, but perhaps you would still like to hear? I'll take sometime studying my Bible looking for what my beliefs state about all of your very intriguing and logically valid points.

Please let me know if you would like possibly the world's largest reply, based on the Bible and faith, so it's not a waste of my time typing it up.
Go for it. :D

[Andrew56]

Excellent, I'll have it up tomorrow morning sometime.

And, I'm just saying this up front; Let's make sure we keep it a friendly, upbeat debate. I love a good spirited discussion.

You're really 14? That's remarkable. You know what your IQ is?

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Great, I cant wait :)

And I have absolutely no problem with keeping everything nice, friendly, and upbeat. This should be fun

And yes, Im really 14:D I dont know what my IQ is, most tests are unreliable :P

[*Dissident*]

Well, uh, God is like, uh, God can do, umm, Anything, so, uhm THERE!

Good post man. But what have you to say of the eastern interpretation of the divine?

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

What do you mean eastern interpretation? Allah?

[*Dissident*]

Nah, I'm thinking more like the Tao or Zen Buddhism or Vishnu. I havent done much study but I do know that they are MUCH different than what we like to think of as God. Not so much benevolent dictators than regular people who are just really big.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

hmm, well, anything that is supernatural is BS.... xD

Taoism, and Buddhism, I see nothign wrong with those. Those are just about finding true peace inside yourself

[Mzor203]

I must say Hauptmann...
I admire you...
I thank you for bringing FSM into my life...

But it seems that you are looking for trouble now. It would've been smarter to put it in your diary.

But anyways...
w00t... go... was your name Yuri? God so many names... (lol... God) sorry if this is wrong


Anyways, I like the whole idea of Buddhism, though I've tried living a Buddhist's life for one day and couldn't do it.

Nice post.

*Tries to give rep but can't because already gave you rep recently*

P.S., Check out my purple face... lol.

[LxNearxHunny]

That was an amazing argument. My family, everytime I talk to them about religion, they just say im a heathen for not believing in god. Next time I talk to them, I will be sure to bring up some of these points!

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Thanks Mzor, and Im not looking for trouble. As long as I am polite and respectful it should be fine. And yes, Its Yuri :) Nice face xD

Well Near Hunny, Thanks for the complements, but sadly it sounds that if your family calls you a heathen, I doubt they would listen to these points, and even if they did they would just brush them off, even though they are valid.

[Dolphus Raymond]

This is one of the best arguments for atheism (versus the Christian God, at least) I've ever read. It essentially avoids scarecrows and goes for a priori conclusions. Pretty neat. Thanks for posting it.

I'm sure there are some Christian apologists who could find "faults," especially in the Biblical interpretations. But the only devil's-advocate argument I can make, is that the Bible's imperfection does not necessarily disprove the existence of a Christian God under one construct: if we assume that a God who lies to us about His nature can still be a "Christian God."

I doubt many Christians like that view, though.

[Andrew56]

Introduction

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.


Well, firstly, he's starting off by generalizing Christians. I do NOT believe a sane man couldn't deny God. I have numerous highly intelligent friends who deny it. I believe it's wrong to do so, but sane people can lack wisdom and understanding.

Proving a Universal Negative

It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.

I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.

Defining YHWH

Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

I do not believe that you must suffer while you are on earth. I don't know how that came about. Our sins took perfection out of this world, and filled it with sin. We're all just living in the world we infected. No life will be pure pleasure, and that is suffering because of sin, but my life is at least 85% pleasure. Christ encourages us to have a good time and enjoy ourselves, we just need to stay within His guidelines.

I also happen to believe my God is indescribable, but I can do better then the single paragraph he provided. And no I didn't write this part. It's in the Bible.

He's the King of Righteousness, He's the King of the ages, He's the King of Heaven, He's the King of Glory, He's the King of Kings and He's the Lord of Lords!

David said the Heaven's declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork. My King is a sovereign King. No means of measure can define His limitless love, no far seeing telescope can bring into visibility the coastline of His shore-less supply, no barrier can hinder Him from pouring out His blessings
He's enduringly strong, He's entirely sincere, He's eternally steadfast, He's immortally graceful, He's imperially powerful, He's impartially merciful.

He's the greatest phenomenon that has ever crossed the horizon of this world! He's God's son, He's the sinners Savior, He's the centerpiece of civilization, He stands in the solitude of Himself, He's august and He's unique! He's unparalleled, He's unprecedented, He's the loftiest idea in literature, He's the highest personality in philosophy, He's the supreme problem in higher criticism, He's the fundamental doctrine of true theology, He's the miracle of the age, He is the superlative of everything good that you choose to call Him, He's the only one who qualified to be an all sufficient Savior.

He supplies strength for the weak, He's available for the tempted and the tried, He sympathizes and He saves, He strengthens and sustains, He guards and He guides, He heals the sick, He cleansed the lepers, He forgives sinners, He discharges debtors, He delivers the captives, He defends the feeble, He blesses the young, He serves the unfortunate, He regards the aged, He rewards the diligent and He beautifies the meek.

My King is the key to knowledge: The wellspring of wisdom; the doorway of deliverance; the pathway of peace; the roadway of righteousness; the highway of holiness, and the gateway of glory!

His office is manifold: His promise is sure. His light is matchless. His goodness is limitless. His mercy is everlasting. His reign is Righteous. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light.

You can't get Him out of your mind or off your hands! You can't out-live Him and you can't live without Him! The Pharisees couldn't stand Him, but they found out they couldn't stop Him. Pilate couldn't find any fault in Him. The witnesses couldn't agree. Herod couldn't kill Him. Death couldn't handle Him, and the grave couldn't hold Him!

I hope you don't skim that.

That's my King.

One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.

It's not really mysteries. it's unfathomable.

Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

Wrong. That is a definition of perfect created by something admittedly imperfect. We don't know what compelled Him to do as He did. Until we can wrap our finite minds around the fact that He simply always existed, we cannot question what made Him create us when He did.

Also, let's say your IQ is 200. You are unbelievable smart. You can get into any school you want, you can achieve amazing goals. God's IQ in infinite. He holds absolutely all the knowledge of the universe. All that was, all that is, all that will be, all we know, and all we don't. His reasoning and timing is so far beyond our comprehension. You may think you understand, but all your standards are far too low. It's impossible for you or me, to have a high enough bar to see the meaning and reason of His actions and His will.

Perfection Begets Imperfection

Perfection's reasoning and logic is also flawless, so even if we don't understand it and it doesn't follow the guidelines of what we imperfectly define as perfect, who are we to say?

And also if you say that, then good begets evil, and therefore there is a single and strict set of moral rules that is they same for everyone. Which I believe there is, but you can't pick to believe one and ignore the other.

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

I'm 6'1". Tall by most standards. I can create something short if I like. Why would I make something as tall as me?

God chose to create us with freewill. The ability to choose. He created the angels with freewill as well. That's why 2/3 of them decided to rebel against Him, and He kicked them out of Heaven and sent then to Hell and the earth as fallen angels, aka demons. These creatures were pure evil as they used their freewill in an attempt to gain power against a Holy Creator God. Now all they want to do is keep others from learning how to get into Heaven, and destroy lives and Christian testimonies. And Satan did a good job when he convinced Eve to eat some fruit.

And good trees can bear terrible fruit.

The Freewill Argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

God had no control over this decision? Are you kidding? He let freewill play out, He could have stepped in and done anything He wanted.

Love and happiness is a tiny part of what freewill grants you. Personalities, stories and inventions just to name a few. . . all of this come from freewill.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Nothing is impossible for a perfect and omnipotent God. Well, nothing except sin.

Having perfect happy robots is exactly the same thing as nothing existing in the first place.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

That's exactly how He did create them. They were created perfect. The inability to choose is an imperfection though. And the ability to choose evil is an imperfection. Kind of a paradox, eh? They were living perfect lives, until they made a choice to sin. God wasn't surprised. God knew they would. But it's all part of His perfect plan.

It sounds like a typical Christian safety net to say it, but there is no way we can understand something so vastly superior. Take a ant for example. Have it watch a group of humans build a car from scratch, drive it to a store, buy food, cook the food, and eat it. Would the ant grasp and understand it? At all? All the ant MIGHT be able to understand is that we were doing SOMETHING. But that's about it. We can't try to use our human reason and understanding to fathom why a omnipotent, omniscient God does what He does.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

Something perfect can make something imperfect if it wants. We are created in the image of God, not His nature.

Sin is literally carried on through the man's seed. So Jesus was born of a virgin and a sinless God, so it is not within His ability to sin.

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.

We all have a choice to go to Heaven. No one has to go to Hell. God didn't write the future, He made all the parts, and set it in motion and knew what the end result would be.

He is perfectly compassionate, but is is also wrathfully just. He has no problem sending someone who rejects His sacrifice to Hell. If you reject His sacrifice and trod it underfoot, it should not be too hard for you to understand that the same God who sacrificed His beloved Son will cast your rebellious spirit into hell and the lake of fire.

Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

Not even close. We've no say in what is just and fair. We made up our own finite rules and systems based on human reason.

Lets say we don't believe in the afterlife. If a man kills someone, does he deserve life in prison or the death sentence? Because that is his eternity. And that's the rest of his existence gone, for a sin that could have taken just seconds to commit.

Again, if you reject His sacrifice and trod it underfoot, it should not be too hard for you to understand that the same God who sacrificed His beloved Son will cast your rebellious spirit into hell and the lake of fire.

Belief More Important Than Action

Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.

Yes He would. He does. Living a good life without surrendering yourself to Christ is the ultimate offense. It's rejection of the fact the a SINLESS Christ died for you.

Again, if you reject His sacrifice and trod it underfoot, it should not be too hard for you to understand that the same God who sacrificed His beloved Son will cast your rebellious spirit into hell and the lake of fire.

He tells us to go out to those regions and learn those languages and tell those people about Him. That's what Christians are supposed to do.

And the Bible mentions lesser levels of Hell for those who were uninformed. And less rewards for Christians who didn't spread the Word.

Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.

No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self-contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

God does not allow His word to be corrupted. He does not allow anything to be lost in translation.

Nothing in His inspired Word is self-contradictory.

It cannot be understood by the finite human mind. The only way to understand the Word is with your Spirit. An unsaved person will never grasp anything beyond the surface of the Scripture. And the only way a Christian can comprehend any of it is by praying that the Holy Spirit will teach and help his spirit to understand and learn.

Many people agree on what the Bible means too. I don't know where the assumption, "No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean" came from.

And if we understood what the Bible told us the time we heard it, it would be about 3 or 4 pages long.

Contradictory Justice

One needs look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.

Again, we can only comprehend the justice system our tiny little minds can make up and call "fair". We have the skewed sense of justice.

And babies cannot understand anything, and therefore are protected by the age of innocence.

Contradictory History

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?

Confusing, perhaps but contradictory no. I'm only 17, I'm young in the Spirit. It would take a biblical scholar to correctly explain what may confuse you. If you study the Bible and find a "historical contradiction" for yourself, I will get it cleared up for you.

Unfulfilled Prophecy

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.

Omnipotent = nothing is impossible.

However that is plain and simply wrong. If you read and compare those for yourself, we may continue in that stream of discussion if you like.

I could provide you with a stunning plethora of prophecies that have been fulfilled if you wish.

The Omniscient Changes the Future

A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.

Yea, He can. He do what He wants. He's omnipotent. He uses His freewill, and doesn't change it. But He could.

The Omniscient is Surprised

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.

We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.

Not true at all.

You are informed that at the end of the year, you will receive a brand new car of your choice. Guaranteed. That will make you very happy, yes? Well will you experience ANY other emotion during the year? Yes. The fact you're getting a car will not ease the pain of say, you parents dying. You will still be sad and upset about it. But when you get the car, given it was immediately after their death, it will make you happy. Even though you knew it was coming, and you knew it would please you.

Aaaand . . . nothing is impossible for an incomprehensible omnipotent supreme Being.

The Conclusion of the matter

I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non-existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and freethinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

I cannot feel the presence of the IPU. I cannot see her move the hearts, and change the lives of those around me. I do not see a prefect inspired book, written through her will. I see no fulfilled prophecies from her. I see no ultimate sacrifice she has made that would cause our rejection of her existence to be a sin.

And we all have tremendous amounts of faith. You have faith in the Christian God being impossible. You have faith in gravity. Why shouldn't gravity give out? You don't know, but you have faith that in every step you take you will be firmly anchored to the planet by gravity.

As for me and my house, we shall choose reality.

Well holy crap is that blasphemous.

As for me and MY HOUSE we will sevre the Lord!

[Dolphus Raymond]

Andrew,

I found myself replying to several of your paragraphs repetitively. Basically, every time you used the argument "we can't know that because God's knowledge is infinite and ours isn't." Then, how can you - unless your knowledge is akin to God's - know that God exists? Logically, you cannot. You can only presume. On what basis do you presume? Empirical evidence? Your post doesn't really provide any. Unless you automatically believe things until they're disproven, your argument has a massive blind spot.

So, you are asking us to believe in something without empirical evidence simply because flawed human thought cannot be sure it does not exist? That seems to fall flat to me.

I've also not replied to the paragraphs where you're writing odes or just explaining your beliefs. I'm sure you understand why that is.

Here are some of the individual quibbles I have with your reasoning that don't relate to this central point:


I do not believe that you must suffer while you are on earth. I don't know how that came about. Our sins took perfection out of this world, and filled it with sin. We're all just living in the world we infected. No life will be pure pleasure, and that is suffering because of sin, but my life is at least 85% pleasure. Christ encourages us to have a good time and enjoy ourselves, we just need to stay within His guidelines.

You can't simultaneously say we live in a world infected by sin and that you don't believe we must suffer. As far as I know, the Christian Heaven is such because it is perfect and without suffering, and that the purpose of sifting between Heaven and Hell is insuring that Heaven remains God's perfect kingdom. I don't think the paragraph claims that life is wretched suffering. "Not all of life is suffering" doesn't contract the paragraph.

It's not really mysteries. it's unfathomable.

What's the distinction?

I'm 6'1". Tall by most standards. I can create something short if I like. Why would I make something as tall as me?...

That analogy does not make any sense; "tall" and "perfect" have totally different relative properties. Perfection is defined as the absence of flaw. The writer is questioning why a perfect being would create imperfection in an already perfect existence. It's a question of inertia, essentially.

We all have a choice to go to Heaven. No one has to go to Hell. God didn't write the future, He made all the parts, and set it in motion and knew what the end result would be.

Really? Being that our existence is essentially a product of genetics and chemical reactions in our brain, it all seems rather pre-determined to me. Unless we have some sort of "soul power" that overcomes all of this but, again, I don't see the evidence.


He is perfectly compassionate, but is is also wrathfully just. He has no problem sending someone who rejects His sacrifice to Hell. If you reject His sacrifice and trod it underfoot, it should not be too hard for you to understand that the same God who sacrificed His beloved Son will cast your rebellious spirit into hell and the lake of fire.

Considering that he has nothing to lose from not being worshipped, since he's perfect and all, that doesn't seem "perfectly compassionate" to me.


God does not allow His word to be corrupted. He does not allow anything to be lost in translation.

Nothing in His inspired Word is self-contradictory.

It cannot be understood by the finite human mind. The only way to understand the Word is with your Spirit. An unsaved person will never grasp anything beyond the surface of the Scripture. And the only way a Christian can comprehend any of it is by praying that the Holy Spirit will teach and help his spirit to understand and learn.

Many people agree on what the Bible means too. I don't know where the assumption, "No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean" came from.

And if we understood what the Bible told us the time we heard it, it would be about 3 or 4 pages long.

What is the point of an uncorrupted word if the human interpretation is corrupted? It's irrelevant whether the word is corrupted if our understanding is corrupt. The very point is that we cannot be expected to follow a gospel that we interpret incorrectly, so it is our perception - not the actuality - that is important.

Not true at all.

You are informed that at the end of the year, you will receive a brand new car of your choice. Guaranteed. That will make you very happy, yes? Well will you experience ANY other emotion during the year? Yes. The fact you're getting a car will not ease the pain of say, you parents dying. You will still be sad and upset about it. But when you get the car, given it was immediately after their death, it will make you happy. Even though you knew it was coming, and you knew it would please you.

But God already knows how it will please Him, what it will feel like in exact terms, etc. Everything you've argued here is true because man is not omniscient, so again your analogy falls flat. Experience is only new expeience because it is new; to us, the car experience is predicted but still new. To God, it is not.


I cannot feel the presence of the IPU. I cannot see her move the hearts, and change the lives of those around me. I do not see a prefect inspired book, written through her will. I see no fulfilled prophecies from her. I see no ultimate sacrifice she has made that would cause our rejection of her existence to be a sin.

And if you lived in, say, Saudi Arabia, I doubt you would see any of the same in Christianity. No moved hearts, no changed lives around you, nothing emotive to sustain your faith. And since you would have nothing emotive, and you've essentially shown that you have nothing empirical currently, you'd probably be a good Muslim. Nothing wrong with that, but hardly corroboration of the correctness of your faith.

And we all have tremendous amounts of faith. You have faith in the Christian God being impossible. You have faith in gravity. Why shouldn't gravity give out? You don't know, but you have faith that in every step you take you will be firmly anchored to the planet by gravity.

Gravity I can prove as a universal, scientifically verifiable human experience. Religion may seem verifiable to some, but this appears to be a regionalized phenomenon. You can "see" nearly anything if you have the correct faith. Gravity seems to transcend socioeconomic class, religious belief, and geography. If it did not, as an empiricist thinker, I'd have less faith in it.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Excellent refutations Raymond, stole the words right out of my mouth :P Rep + Man!:D

[LxNearxHunny]

Argument from a member (mathewlow) of PlayTCGForums:

Why the Christian God is Impossible

by Chad Docterman

Introduction

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.

>> I disagree, because evidence for the existence of God has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt through science, history, philosophy, and personal testimony. However, we shall continue. <<

Proving a Universal Negative

It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.

I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.

>> I agree with this logic. This is the same kind of logic that I commonly use as well. <<

Defining YHWH

Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

>> Good so far. <<

God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

>> We also suffer due to other people's sinfulness, and through circumstances and situations that don't exactly make sense. However, I firmly believe that He has a plan for every situation. He has made that completely clear for me in the past as I have had mentors who have gone through similar rough time to care for me when I went through them.
As for "rewarded", I don't think that is the best word. Here we need to get into the understanding of two important words: grace and mercy.
GRACE - something given to use that we do not deserve
MERCY - something taken away that we do deserve
In this case, mercy refers to hell, eternal punishment. God is a perfect being that requires perfection to be in heaven with him. We will establish later that He is perfect, so likewise, that means perfection. Now let's think logically, try baseball. Say you're some monster hitter and you start off the season with 20 straight hits. And your 21st at-bat, you ground out. But then you go back onto your hitting tear. However, there lies the problem. You grounded out once. You are no longer perfect, and cannot ever be. That out will never be erased. We can do all the good deeds we can think of (hits), but if we sin (out) just once, we're no longer perfect and cannot be in the presence of a holy (set apart) God. Everyone falls into this situation, somehow or another.

Here's where mercy and grace comes in. God's standards are plain and clear: perfection for heaven, or imperfection for hell. We have a choice. And it seems we cannot reach perfection. So God sent His perfect Son to die for us and to clean us from our sins, so that we would be seen perfect in his eyes. In His MERCY, He takes away our sins, past and future, dying in our place so that we can be seen perfect in front of a holy God. In GRACE, He allows us in Heaven, even though His standard is perfection, something we cannot reach but gives to us anyway.

All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness, this grace, this mercy, choose to go to Hell. We go back to the topic I briefly touched in an earlier post: you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. Christians are called to tell others about this forgiveness, but NOT to make them them accept it (that's the Holy Spirit's job, BTW). A holy God does not SEND us to hell, but rather, honors our choice to go there. He is, out of His genuine love for us, giving us a way out to be with His Father. But for those who do not want to be with a holy God in this life do not want to be in one in the afterlife, and He lets them choose so.

Keep in mind that Hell is just a place where there is no holy God, just as the inhabitants desire while on Earth.
<<

One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.

>> The fool is the one who denies truth, yet truth is what sets you free. <<

Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

>> God is perfect. He wants to share that perfection, that love, with His own children. So in other words, if a newly wed couple are having a perfect life, it's wrong for them to have children and share their love with their kids? The kids could be rebellious. But that's not the matter. God wants to share His love with His children (people on earth) and that's exactly what He's done. <<

Perfection Begets Imperfection

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

>> God created people with the ability to choose. He made things, and saw that they were good. BUT He also allowed us to choose. This is like saying that it is the parents' fault for what a child does. Parents can tell their kids right and wrong (just like God did, don't eat from the tree), but if the child (Adam/Eve) still disobey, it's the child's fault.
God initially made us perfect, without sin. However, we choose to disrupt that. That part is not God's fault, but instead, our fault entirely. Let us not blame others for our faults. <<

The Freewill Argument

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

>> Yup. I'd like to say having freewill is necessary for us to choose. What is the use of God making us to be robots? Our love would be superficial. God enjoys true sacrifice, not of the superficial kind. That can only happen out of choice. <<

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

>> I'd rather think of the idea I presented earlier: free will is necessary to give God true glory (happiness). Glory from robots not so much.
God is not ruining His own happiness. Rather, He's instead giving us what we ask for in our free will, and allowing us to choose (heaven or hell, accept Jesus or reject the Savior). If we don't choose Him, of course that will make Him sad. But that's our decision, and He gives us that choice. <<

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

>> We all have the ability to not choose evil (think "conscience"). The problem is, we still do. We'll eventually run into some situation where there's a bad choice, and someday, we'll pick it. We are not perfect, else we'd be God. That's not to say that there aren't situations with multiple good options, because there are. There are bad ones though. <<

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

>> Humans are miniature images of God, made in the likeness. Jesus was tempted like a human, lived like a human, felt pain like a human, but yet did not sin. We, however, sin. We aren't perfect. A perfect God will not choose evil, but a human is not perfect. That's the difference. He did not make miniature gods, but miniature humans.
Occupants of heaven are in, well, heaven. Heaven is a place where sin is absent. So likewise, they don't made imperfect decisions. Here on earth sin is rampant, and easily able to corrupt our decisions. <<

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

>> You can't blame the teacher for the student's mistake. <<

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.

>> God created Pharoah in Exodus for a purpose. He used this evil man to show the Israelites His power and sovereignty over their lives. God will use evil and morally corrupt people in His plan. Although some people may use sin to harm us, God uses it for good. The 9/11 attacks were in essence evil. But God spun it and used it to unite the people of America, and to share stories of love and awaken the need for God in many lives.
God lets us choose. Those "doomed to suffer" choose to be disobedient. God uses those peoples' decision to help others grow stronger and understand and love Him better. <<

Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

>> The sin that we're committing that is infinite is the rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ to cover our sins. We're saying, "We don't want a loving God who wants to forgive us." In that case, our choice is honored, which is hell, where God does not exist.
Besides, there's no in-between. It's either perfection, or imperfection. A finite sin is still a sin, no matter how you look at it. Who are we to judge what is supposedly a limited offense and what is not? Keep that in mind as well. That is for God to decide, not us. <<

Belief More Important Than Action

Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.

>> Those that do not know about Christ are judged based on their conscience. They will know inherently right and wrong, and judged that way. This is the same idea for children who die before they're able to understand. Hence the urgency to spread the Word to those countries. <<

Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.

>> The essential parts of the Bible in regards to salvation don't seem so indecipherable to me. Those who want to know are given the ability to understand. Seek and you will find, knock and it will be open. God has mercifully given us the Bible (I like to think of it as the instruction manual for being a human being). While He's not responsible for our sinful actions, He's still given us the message of love and how He will never leave us in times of trouble.
God could have eliminated all our problems. Sure. Why hasn't He? To do that, it would require to eliminate free will (problems as a result of others' sins), and some problems occur based on our mistakes and some are used to teach us. God has NOT promised a perfect life. He HAS promised that He will be with us throughout it. To quote some random saying: Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. He uses situations to grow us and teach us.
And whoever said the Bible is imperfect: Incorrect. The Bible is the single most corroborated (back checked, proven historically) document in history to correctness. And even if you wanted to ignore the few minor discrepancies, none of them make any impact on the core message of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. So either way it would be a moot point. <<

No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

>> Self-contradictory? Where?
His perfect will cannot be comprehended by imperfect people. He is infinite, we are finite. We cannot possibly understand something beyond us. We can, however, know that He is in control and He wants the best for His children. His will that we can understand is given to us in the form of the Bible, and that's all we really need. He knows that's what we need. Do not, however, allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, as many people read into things and incorrectly use words out of context. <<

Contradictory Justice

One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.

>> There are so many things wrong with this paragraph it's...
Let's take a story from Acts 5. Ananias and Sapphira are both Christians, and sold a piece of property to give the money to the church. However, when asked about the gift, each said separately that they had given the entire amount to the church. Each time, they were struck dead instantly. This spread a ripple effect in the church, as they had kept some of it for themselves.
This SHOULD make you go O_O. So they lied. Is that worth death? God was using this situation to prove a point; lying to the church is something that is not taken lightly. However, I believe both were Christians. So in other words, upon death, they were taken into Heaven. God was like this: "OK you two, stop introducing sin into my church. Your work is done on earth. Come to live with Me now." And they were taken up into Heaven.
The death of Christians like Stephen (first martyr) as well as the other disciples should not shock you. We are willing to die for truth, as we know that we will go to heaven. God knows this too. Those innocent people that die, God will save. He is Mighty to Save. He's just saying to those: Your time is up on earth. Come to me and live with me forever.

I find that trade-off not too bad. Hence why my life here on this earth is a not my own. I live my life for Christ, as I know He has the future in-store.

And as for the death of His Son - you're missing the point. GOD crushed His Son so that our sins would be forgiven. The uninformed would think that the world won because they killed the Messiah. That's incorrect. God crushed His Son. Remember, Jesus could have easily called down hundreds of angels to stop the crucifixion. But He didn't, because He KNEW that God's will needed to be done to save the world. And thus, that's what was done. What the world and Satan THOUGHT they were doing that would defeat Christianity ended up being exactly in God's plan, and when He rose from the dead on the third day, He defeated death, thereby turning an evil deed into a holy result. <<

Contradictory History

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?

>> I fail to find any historical error in the Bible. There exists none. Instead, I find that history heavily corroborates that the Bible is true, and that such care is put into making earthly matters true that we can trust it on moral and spiritual matters.
Keep in mind that just because something SEEMS to be incorrect, you need to be careful. When generations are done in the genealogies, some are not single generations but instead many.
Matthew 1:6-7 - Solomon was Jesus' ancestor.
Mark 3:31 - Nathan was Jesus' ancestor.
Both are David's son. ??
Simple. Matthew details the father's ancestors (Joseph). Mark details the mother's ancestors (Mary). Matthew wrote to the Jews, so Jesus was shown as a descendant of their father, Abraham. Luke wrote to the Gentiles, so he emphasized Jesus as the Savior of all people.
<<

Unfulfilled Prophecy

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

>> I fail to see where any discrepancy occurs here. Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 both are fine. A virgin (Mary) will be with a child (Jesus) and He will be called Immanuel. It happened. The intention is clear; the foreshadowing of the Messiah that saves. What's the issue?
I see perfect proof and strong legs to stand on. Where the feeble belief and lack of evidence is coming from I don't see it, because there doesn't seem to be any of that anywhere close.<<

The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.

>> None have ever stood up. I stake my life and eternity on that statement. <<

The Omniscient Changes the Future

A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.

>> He can change the future because after all He's the one who made it (rather, He could just make it as the way it should be). He chooses not to. <<

The Omniscient is Surprised

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.

>> Why can't He? I don't see why not. Humans were made in the image of God, except God cannot sin. He is sad when we do not follow Him. He is angry when we turn away. Seems natural to me. He just does not sin. <<

We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.

>> The perfect God may lack nothing. However, we do. We lack God. And that's what God's been trying to tell us, yet we do not listen. <<

The Conclusion of the matter

I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and freethinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

>> I have offered thoughts for the flaws in these arguments. No reasonable or freethinking individual can accept the non-existence of a God who cares for us that He would send His Son to die for us so that we could live in Heaven forever. I believe that more faith is needed to say that there is no God vs that there is one. <<

Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:
"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."
If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

>> I don't call you a fool. I think you're confused. <<

As for me and my house, we shall choose reality.

>> As for me and my house, we shall also choose reality. Reality is Jesus Christ. <<

What do you all think of these arguments?
>> I think you should rethink your position. That is all. I'm not going to argue to beat this into anyone's head. I will say that it is foolish to pass this off as impossible when you haven't looked into it completely.

Seek the truth, and the truth will set you free. <<



I still personaly don't believe in any sort of supernatural being, but I wanted to see how you would respond to this refutation.

[japanman]

The christian god is impossible (my opnion) becasue who NAMED HIM uh humans did i rest my case lol and why would you name something you cant see *shrugs* desu ka? thats why i have made my own religion lol

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

LoL, Dolphus Raymind is in the process of properly refuting these arguments, just be patient:P (The one just above Near Hunny posted)

[Atonement]

I am really interested, why specify that the CHRISTIAN god is impossible, does that mean the muslim and jewish god is possible?

[Dolphus Raymond]

Again, ignoring the parts that are just testimony of belief (which I can't really respond to, because they aren't logical constructs, just statements of opinion).

Again, here, we have a repeated theme of mis-applied logic. There are repeated analogies to explain why you can't blame God for his creations' mistakes. Parents can't be blamed for their children; teachers can't be blamed for their pupils. But since neither parents or teachers are omniscient and omnipotent, so they can't predict the outcome and control it like God can, this is not much of a rebuttal.

A better analogy is "you can't blame a parent for getting pregnant with a child predestined to ruin a perfect existence." Still a bad one, but in this situation, can't you blame them?

(I've discluded the repeated replies that related to this flawed construct.)

I disagree, because evidence for the existence of God has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt through science, history, philosophy, and personal testimony. However, we shall continue.

Eh? I'm not sure how history and philosophy "prove" the existence of God, since neither of them set out to do so. "Personal testimony" is ridiculous; anecdotal evidence is great, except when you consider that some testify about the Virgin Mary, others about Allah, etc. My uncle says he saw monkeys regularly when he was drunk.

And unless he mentions how science disproves God "beyond a shadow of a doubt" (why then are scientists so much more likely to be non-theists?) that's pretty impossible to reply to.

Quibbles:

God created people with the ability to choose. He made things, and saw that they were good. BUT He also allowed us to choose. This is like saying that it is the parents' fault for what a child does. Parents can tell their kids right and wrong (just like God did, don't eat from the tree), but if the child (Adam/Eve) still disobey, it's the child's fault.
God initially made us perfect, without sin. However, we choose to disrupt that. That part is not God's fault, but instead, our fault entirely. Let us not blame others for our faults.

This rebuttal makes no sense. Parents are not perfect or omniscient. The argument this is responding to relies on the assumption that God is perfect and omniscient.

If we were perfect, we wouldn't have chosen sin. God may have made man without sin, but definitionally this isn't "perfect." Perfect things do not gravitate toward evil. That makes them imperfect.

I'd rather think of the idea I presented earlier: free will is necessary to give God true glory (happiness). Glory from robots not so much.
God is not ruining His own happiness. Rather, He's instead giving us what we ask for in our free will, and allowing us to choose (heaven or hell, accept Jesus or reject the Savior). If we don't choose Him, of course that will make Him sad. But that's our decision, and He gives us that choice.

So, God doesn't want glory from robots, because that's just too masturbatory.

But God does want to create an entire race and existence to worship him, and punish them if they don't, because apparently the former is insulting to a perfect being, and the latter is really important...and you've lost me.

The sin that we're committing that is infinite is the rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ to cover our sins. We're saying, "We don't want a loving God who wants to forgive us." In that case, our choice is honored, which is hell, where God does not exist.

I don't? Really? Because I really, really do! More than virtually everything. The idea of a universal creator who safeguards us and punishes the wicked -- totally awesome. But my desire for that reality, and my belief in it, are not the same thing...

Those that do not know about Christ are judged based on their conscience. They will know inherently right and wrong, and judged that way. This is the same idea for children who die before they're able to understand. Hence the urgency to spread the Word to those countries.

And a child who was raised, say, a Jew, and has a compassionate heart and faith in his religion, but doesn't convert immediately when she hears of Christianity...straight to hell? Is that any more fair than the baby thing?

The essential parts of the Bible in regards to salvation don't seem so indecipherable to me.

Argument from "God got the important parts right"...?

As I said with the other post, why does it matter if God's gospel is perfect when our interpretation of it is imperfect? By that argument, the Quran could be totally accurate too, we just don't totally understand it.

Why can't He? I don't see why not. Humans were made in the image of God, except God cannot sin. He is sad when we do not follow Him. He is angry when we turn away. Seems natural to me. He just does not sin.

But, if he knew this before he created us, why would he be surprised/sad/whatever? He'd have already felt the emotions. Either he is not omniscient, he has an imperfect memory, or this is not true.

The perfect God may lack nothing. However, we do. We lack God. And that's what God's been trying to tell us, yet we do not listen.

There's a lot of these in this post - sentences that are testimony, not actually replying to the prior point. Why bother?

have offered thoughts for the flaws in these arguments. No reasonable or freethinking individual can accept the non-existence of a God who cares for us that He would send His Son to die for us so that we could live in Heaven forever. I believe that more faith is needed to say that there is no God vs that there is one.

I really wish the original author was here to defend statements like this and the science one. It seems odd to me that he wouldn't elaborate in the original post, because these are pretty controversial statements.

think you should rethink your position. That is all. I'm not going to argue to beat this into anyone's head. I will say that it is foolish to pass this off as impossible when you haven't looked into it completely.

Which is, as far as I can tell, the same thing this post is doing. It's very easy to encourage an open mind when your opponent is in closed-minded disagreement with you; harder, then, when it is your mind that is to be opened.

[Prince Jellyfish]

I am really interested, why specify that the CHRISTIAN god is impossible, does that mean the muslim and jewish god is possible?

They're technically the same god.:rolleyes:

[japanman]

lol i think religion is confusing so i say bieleve in wat you want and yuri he already refuted those postsd lol

[Dolphus Raymond]

I am really interested, why specify that the CHRISTIAN god is impossible, does that mean the muslim and jewish god is possible?

Well, most of us Westerners are familiar with the Christian God as being omniscient, omnipotent, perfect etc. There are other Gods who share these characteristics, but many Eastern Gods do not. I guess using "Christian God" is shorter than making a laundry list of properties each time. Although "Judeo-Christian God" would be just as accurate...

If this was written for a Middle Eastern audience, I'm sure it would be the "Islamic God." You're right in that it's playing to cultural assumptions - I can't totally blame it, though. Especially since Christianity, Judaism and Islam all claim to have the same God.

The christian god is impossible (my opnion) becasue who NAMED HIM uh humans did i rest my case lol and why would you name something you cant see *shrugs* desu ka? thats why i have made my own religion lol

I'm not sure what you mean. A flower doesn't exist because humans named it? I don't see why a synthetic system of naming makes for non-existence.

[Atonement]

They're technically the same god.:rolleyes:


I know that is what I was thinking. They are extraordinarily similar in so many ways its ridiculous, yet you point out the christian God? hmm. Just found that odd. sorry.

[japanman]

Well, most of us Westerners are familiar with the Christian God as being omniscient, omnipotent, perfect etc. There are other Gods who share these characteristics, but many Eastern Gods do not. I guess using "Christian God" is shorter than making a laundry list of properties each time. Although "Judeo-Christian God" would be just as accurate...



I'm not sure what you mean. A flower doesn't exist because humans named it? I don't see why a synthetic system of naming makes for non-existence.
B/c god told his prophets to write the bible why say that srsly if god was gonna make a bible he could make it himself
and wat im saying why name something you dont fully understand no one understands god we can only comprehend him

[Prince Jellyfish]

I know that is what I was thinking. They are extraordinarily similar in so many ways its ridiculous, yet you point out the christian God? hmm. Just found that odd. sorry.

They aren't just similar, they're actually one and the same.
Jews=Torah (Old testament)
Christians=Old Testament, New Testament
Muslims=OT, NT, Quran

[Atonement]

and its funny that you listed them in chronological order. lol. It all really revolves around who the messiah is. Whether it is Jesus, mohammad, or hasn't come yet.

[Prince Jellyfish]

and its funny that you listed them in chronological order. lol. It all really revolves around who the messiah is. Whether it is Jesus, mohammad, or hasn't come yet.

Exactly.;)

[The Batman]

Muslims are almost nothing like christians I know a few muslim americans and here are a few of their beliefs
1. Woman’s Inferiority. Islam teaches that wives are a possession, and women are inherently inferior to men. The Qur’an says in Suras 2:228 and 4:34(2), “Men are superior to women.” Stating his belief in the inadequacy of the woman’s mind, Muhammad, the premier Messenger of Allah, not only reminded women that their witness is “equal to half that of a man” (Sura 4:11), but also that he had “not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion. (Hadith 2.54). {A hadith refers to written collections of the ancient Muslim oral traditions.}

One flaw the church has continually failed to remove is their view of women from preconceived functions rather than from anointing to justify a non-existent scriptural mandate for a “chain-of-command.”

In her contribution to Voices Behind the Veil on the “Daughters in Islam,” Suzanne Lea Eppling states the complementarian(3) position by saying “men and women are different in function yet equal in essence before God.” Really? Do Christian women buy the theory of male headship in the Body of Christ? Yes! The Bible teaches equality of men and women. Recent scholarship has clarified Paul’s intent in the few passages where he appears to limit women. Unfortunately, the women who take a serious look at the original language and make their judgment based solely on what the Word says in its undiluted form without the trappings of the “doctrines of men” are few and far between.

Did Jesus really mean for the church to be dominated by males with women in subjection not only to their husbands but to male leadership in the church as well? Of course not. Jesus never intended to side with traditional patriarchy but clearly demonstrated His positioning with biblical equality. See the brief chapter on “Jesus, Friend of Women” from Sue Hyatt’s book, In the Spirit We’re Equal.

2. Female Circumcision Such established inferiority is used to justify female circumcision(4). Sometimes called genital mutilation, it not only denies sexual pleasure but also makes intercourse painful and childbirth more dangerous. The importance of this horrific act is underscored by the fact that some 135 million girls and women worldwide have been subjected to female circumcision, of which Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one. Some Muslims believe female circumcision is mandated by Islam, but the practice predates Muhammad and is also common among some Christian communities.

One of the stated reasons is that a woman would not be able to control herself and would end up in prostitution. Such twisted logic takes the focus off the male, who was given permission for polygamy because one wife just wasn’t enough to protect the Muslim man from committing adultery. Therefore, to suppress his desire for sex, he was allowed up to four wives; and he could also add concubines and slaves to his satisfaction.

3. Female Infanticide(5) Although the practice of female infanticide was birthed out of ancient tradition, it is based on the warped notion of their inferiority. Female infants were simply laid facedown in the desert sand or buried in a waiting grave as soon as they were born. Although Muhammad banned the practice of female infanticide when he wrote, “killing them is a great sin” (Sura 17:31), yet he did little more than grant them the right to live.

Female infanticide is a greater problem in India and China, but it has never completely stopped in Muslim nations. Are you aghast that infanticide is found in Islamic practice? Then, surely you are aghast as well that many in the United States are FOR partial-birth abortion. At least females born in the Muslim faith, yet targeted for a “waiting grave” following birth, receive more recognition than an aborted baby in the Western world. Somehow a “waiting grave” has more dignity than a trash can.

If you are one who in the past has yielded to an abortion, remember that God said, “I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely.” (Hosea 14:4). When you ask for His forgiveness, He indeed forgives and promises to love you freely. His ways are never meant to crush but to lift you.

4. Women and Education. Since Muslims believe that women possess an inferior mentality to men, one can see how that logic easily leads to women not being encouraged to seek an education. After all, Muslims view the major function of a woman as fulfilling her designated role as wife and mother (Sura 2:233; 7:189). Never mind that Muhammad supported the right of equal education of men and women. With males firmly in charge of the educational system in Islamic countries, their culture is “safeguarded” from supposed female inferiority. When women are educated or simply able to read, they are more likely to question and reject the cultural and religious systems that limit their influence. The fact that the power to read is denied Muslim women in India is proved by their illiteracy rate of 98 percent. Sadly, most of the Muslim world is ignoring the fact that a large body of research has established a strong correlation between literacy and social development with the greatest social benefits accruing from the extension of basic education to girls and women(6).

5. Women’s Identity in Marriage. A Muslim woman’s identity is largely anchored in her role as wife and child bearer. The duty of the wife is to give her husband comforts in his bed whenever he wants her (Qur'an 61). Christians believe that one’s identity, male or female, is our being bound to our Savior, Jesus Christ. Beyond that relationship, some of us, whether we admit it or not, limit our identity to marriage and motherhood. Whether Muslim or Christian, neither denies that the strength of a people comes from the strength of the family.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali left Somalia for the Netherlands to escape a forced marriage. In many circumstances, the bride and groom do not meet until the day the wedding contract is signed. Muslim culture dictates that a father has the right to marry his daughter to anyone he wishes without her consent, one reason being that marriage is as much a joining of two families as two individuals. Where is a woman’s right to choose her own mate? Surely that question was asked by Ayaan.

Just for the record, the marriage of child brides is alive well in the present century with “child” being a girl younger than fourteen years old. The only requirement is that her menstrual cycle should have started. Eppling concludes her chapter with these words regarding young, Muslim girls: “While they wait for someone to tell them of Jesus, many are brutalized physically, married off young, and left to live in ignorance . . . We as Christians cannot sit back and let feminist groups and secular child advocates fight alone for the plight of millions of girls behind the veil of Islam.” Well said, Suzanne!

6. Women and Abuse. According to the Qur’an, the man has the responsibility to admonish his wife, to desert her sexually, and to beat her to correct any rebelliousness in her behavior. This beating is the husband’s unquestionable right. The Qur’an ties righteousness to a wife being obedient to her husband as well as assuring her the key of Paradise. Should a Muslim woman fear rebelliousness in her husband, she should resort to diplomacy; yet when the husband fears rebelliousness in his wife, the Qur’an commands abuse and sexual desertion.

Beating the wife is the last resort before divorcing her, and that beating must not result in injury (Qur’an 59). Men can divorce their wives in Islam, but the wife does not have that right (Sura 2:228). Muslim women will endure tremendous abuse in an attempt to stay in a marriage. Why? Divorce often means she will lose her children and be left with no means of support.

In a study that goes beyond, but includes, Muslims and Christians, a Harvard study concluded that “globally men’s violence against women causes more deaths and disability among females age 15-44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war.” Another writer determined that globally, one-third to one half of all women report being abused. Although Christianity does not condone the physical, emotional, or spiritual abuse of women, it happens anyway, the church being no exception.

Christians in America have abdicated their responsibility to stand up for persecuted Christians worldwide. With all the tremendous resources at our disposal, the plight of persecuted Christians overseas is largely ignored. That being the case, why should we identify with the persecution of women, especially Muslim women? When we carry the heavy load of our “complementarian” baggage around and fail to see the second-class status of women in our own churches, our vain attempt is likely our own failure to see biblical equality between men and women.

[Atonement]

Okay, I read it, but that doesnt really talk to how the God's are different. This just talks about morals. And no offense, but just throwing it out there, because the quran was written in arabic of course, translations for all the above may be slightly misconstrued. But yes, on the morals of the cultures, we are different.

[The Batman]

I doubt that there would be huge mistranslations because if you would look at the cultures in Iraq and other middle eastern countries you can tell that these are incredibly similar to how their women are forced to act.

[Atonement]

True, but then again there are extremes, in cities like baghdad, women aren't always forced to wear a burqa, while in rural, more extremist places, it is required or death. But that is enough about that. Back on subject please.

[Andrew56]

Wow this is getting very convoluted, so don't think I'm backing out of anything, I just don't have the kind of time it would take to sort this out and refute. So, pm or direct a specific question if you wish to continue on about something I mentioned myself.:D

[The Batman]

Click here for more info about the diffrences (http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2006/09_11_2006/ne110906islamic.shtml)
Come on
Andrew post it we want as much involvement as possible

[Dolphus Raymond]

Most Muslims are much more moderate than some of their fundamental religious teachings.

Women's inferiority - Islam does teach that women are subservient. To Westerners, this looks horrible. Then again, there are many countries where Christian attitudes toward homosexuals are seen as backwards. Besides, the Judeo-Christian Bible has lots of rather sexist stuff (Eph. 5:22-24, I Cor. 14:34-35).

Female circumcision - This horror is fortunately outlawed in most Middle Eastern countries, and progress is being made in Africa too. As the article says, circumcision - male and female - is a cultural practice in the Middle East that some assume has religious origins. It doesn't. Hopefully that will make it easier to end it.

I won't go through the rest due to time limits, but essentially it's the same deal.

That's not to say that Islam is as moderate on women's right as Christianity is. But Muslims would argue that it is part of their religion, even if it rationally seems somewhat cruel, as most American Christians would argue when it comes to denying homosexuals marital rights, and other stuff.

I'm not saying I approve of any of this...but there are some decent, moderate Muslims, and most of these items are believed by a minority of Muslims and even some Christians too.

Like with Christianity, there are moderates and extremists. The extremists tend to be more extreme because it is a more conservative religion. But it's not as if the Old Testament doesn't have some f'ed up stuff too.

[The Batman]

(This thread right here shows that we can handle a religious topic)

I've read all these posts saying that you can't prove that there is a god but the truth is you can't prove there isn't one.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Click here for more info about the diffrences (http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2006/09_11_2006/ne110906islamic.shtml)
Come on
Andrew post it we want as much involvement as possible

That headline seems totally misleading. He says that the beliefs surrounding the actions of the Muslim and Christian Gods are different. Approaching God through Jesus Christ instead of directly does not make God a different God; it makes for different beliefs about how access to the personal God is achieved.

This is really semantic though. It's not as if any of the religions hold another religion's God can exist at the same time. They all believe in the existence of a God; they disagree on the details surrounding it. When people say "Christians and Muslims believe in the same God," they mean that they both believe in a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent God, not that they agree on all the details of the God's existence and intentions. Otherwise they'd essentially be the same religion.

[Dolphus Raymond]

(This thread right here shows that we can handle a religious topic)

I've read all these posts saying that you can't prove that there is a god but the truth is you can't prove there isn't one.

You can, in theory, prove there is a God, as much as you can prove 2+2=4.

It's harder to prove a universal negative, unless you find a contradiction in its existence. To prove that there is a needle in a haystack, you only need to find one needle; to prove that there isn't, you need to search every possible existent space in the haystack and confirm its absence. Now, that haystack is the entire known (and unknown) universe...you can see the problem with absolute "pure atheism" too. That's why there are few absolute, pure atheists.

The atheistic argument is that you can't prove a God doesn't exist in absolute terms, but a lack of empirical evidence for a God - and the lack of scientific support - suggests that there is no God. The argument is not "you can't prove there's a God, so there isn't."

I'd assume that an informed theist has seen enough evidence to assume there is a God, even if they can't prove it absolutely*. Just like how we can't prove gravity absolutely, but still operate on the assumption it exists. That means, at best, the logical existence of God is a theory, not an absolute. Most atheists would probably contest that there is anywhere near enough evidence to elevate it to the status of "theory," though.

* - There are plenty of educated, informed theists who believe because they want to. Believing irrationally doesn't make someone dumb. Arguably it is dumb, but it doesn't mean one is dumb. But that's a different matter. I'm only speaking to people who review their beliefs on rational terms.

[Mzor203]

The thing is, we humans basically created god, because apparently someone in the beginning was spoke to by god or whatever, but how do we know that these people weren't out of their minds?

Also, another thing to take into account that very few people actually know about is that the old testament was written by a pagan just as a random story. But the Christian people stole it and then baptized the guy on his deathbed to make the bible's origin pure Christian.

I know many people are going to refute this, but how do you know that the person who wrote the bible wasn't some crackpot who had weird dreams in their sleep. The problem with religions following a written text is that you never know what the original books went through to get to their present form. In short, you never know what could be a complete load of bull-crap thought up by some maniac.

Oh, another thing these texts pass through is translation, so yeah.

[0=]

The old testament is used by Jews, not just Christians, so you're not making any sense. Also, it's a collection of writings, not from a single person.

[Mzor203]

I am aware of that, but who knows who these people were. They could just be all the same person pretending to be different people. No one has any actual definitive idea of who actually wrote those parts of the bible.

[The Batman]

Actually the people who wrote the new testament are inside of our history books

[Mzor203]

NEW Testament, we're talking abouut the old testament. And even if someone is in ta history book and claims to have seen god or whatever, he could e makin it up.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Actually the people who wrote the new testament are inside of our history books

Sort of. The people to whom the gospels of the New Testament are attributed are widely recognized as known historical figures. But there are two things worth considering. Firstly, date of composition is unclear on many Biblical works. Secondly, there is such a concept as pseudepigrapha, which is basically the idea of attributing a work to a past author. Most Hebrew scholars, for instance, agree that the Book of Enoch was not written by Enoch as claimed. It was removed from the Canon of Scripture, but only after the early Church accepted as as canonical.

The Straight Dope is not my favorite web site ever, but they do a decent job (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html) of covering the question of New Testament authorship. The general verdict from secular scholars pretty much matches their first paragraph:

As with the Old Testament, we just don't know who wrote most of the New Testament. Tradition has assigned the Gospels and most of the Epistles to certain authors, all of whom were important figures in Jesus' life or the early days of the faith. It was important for the early church to believe the authors wrote the works attributed to them, since their eminence lent the writings authority. But since we don't have the original signatures, none can be verified except through textual clues.

Authorship of the Old Testament is even more unclear, since it was written and canonized by a much more diffuse people. The names are real, and the stories corroborate somewhat, but there's nothing at all stopping them from being second-hand, heavily translated, whatever.

[Mzor203]

Yeah, you nnever know what someone was smoking when they wrote something. We relly have no way of telling about if the bible has any sense in it or not, so to really be sure about stuff I just believe in what I kow and what can be proven.

[0=]

The bible is intended to be interpreted in a manner that derives the basic messages, not taken 100% literally. It's a guidebook, not the laws and exact history of everything, so the absolute accuracy of it is irrelevant.

[Mzor203]

A guidebook that cannot be followed at all if you want to actually know what you're following. Say the bible was nothing like God intended the guidelines for his followers? Would God be pleased? Nope. So, the way to go is to follow your life wherever it leads you, and if God really exists, he will guide you through life.

Is this how life goes? Nope. So basically you can't actually say God exists until God shows himself to us.

[0=]

The basic lessons of the bible are very logical, so it makes sense to follow those lessons.

[Mzor203]

In some cases, yes, but this thread is about whether or not God exists.Or actually, about how God does not exist.

[Dolphus Raymond]

The basic lessons of the bible are very logical, so it makes sense to follow those lessons.

I'm a bit confused about what you're arguing. Are you saying that the contents of the Bible conforms to rational moral behavior - "common sense" humanist stuff? In that case, maybe the Bible is a good guide, but that does not say much about the truth behind Christianity or the existence of God.

I'm definitely all for treating other people with compassion and decency, giving reverence when due, and assuring justice, and I love the parts of the Bible that seem to reflect those ideals. I think most non-religious folk feel that way too.

[Gumleaf]

ok, well i'm responding to the op. and all i have to say is that i'm a practicing christian. i believe in the christian beliefs and values whole heartedly. you are all entitled to your opinions and beliefs but i can honestly say that i don't appreciate people attacking or trying to disprove my beliefs. i'm used to it but still i feel very hurt when people do this and i hate it very much. i really don't why people go to such lengths to do disprove peoples beliefs, i think its stupid and selfish. i love God and believe that jesus died on the cross for our sins and i'm proud to believe this.

[Maverick]

I think this article Layne posted is a really good one. I don't think he's selfish for posting it and trying to disprove the Christian God. What's selfish is telling other people of other beliefs not to question and debate the religions validity. Telling people not to discuss something because you don't like it is being selfish. People are as much entitled to post how they think its impossible/false, as you are saying its true.

[Andrew56]

I guess if I stay on topic my final say would be;

No one is going to change the mind of anyone else on here. That's why I think all of this should stay as friendly as this thread seems to be.

I believe God created everything. I believe Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, and had to die because our sin so we didn't have to go to Hell. I believe if you repent of your sins and ask Him into your life, and surrender yourself to Him, you will gain the greatest gift imaginable. You can spend an eternity in Heaven in the presence of Almighty God, you will be strengthened in spirit, and increase in wisdom.

My God is an unproved theory. If it wasn't I would have no faith.

I still believe it takes more faith to believe something else, so don't say you don't like the idea of faith.

Everyone will always have refute in some manner or another to anything I say. My beliefs will always boil down to one of the following:

1) The Bible is the perfect inspired Word of God. If it's in there, bet on it.
2) God is completely incomprehensible, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. The end. That is the answer to everything. That solves all unanswered questions.
3) Faith. I have complete and total faith in the above.

Life as a Christian is the greatest way to experience life, imo. The highs are higher, and the lows are lower. I wouldn't change it for anything. And I would die for what I believe anytime, anywhere.

Having said all that, the op is amazing. And for the reasonable, faithless unsaved person, it sure does seem like definite proof against God. So rep for that Yuri.

As much as my spirit wants to take hours and hours to sit here and explain my beliefs, I've got a concert to play on Friday, and I don't have more then an hour for my computer everyday lately with passing out flyers and posters, and practicing.

So anything else, PM.

I can't keep up with this thread with my limited time anymore. :(

But thanks for posting it Yuri! I've learned more about my faith and about my God. You had me questioning some of my fundamental beliefs very deeply! I honestly, genuinely appreciate it! REP!

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Thank you ANdrew, Im glad that Ive had someone deeply question their beliefs. And I think that if we all look at the real Christians who have no doubt and REALLY believe, like you, we'll find that it is impossible to really refute faith, because faith has nothing to do with logic. We cannot judge or measure faith. And I commend you for sticking to your beliefs in such a politely stubborn fashion :)

[A.J.]

Religion is such a scam. Religions only care about whos right and not helpping the people who need help. People cant decide to join a church and depend to be happier because of it.

[Andrew56]

Oh, and one more thing A.J. reminded me of.

Religion is a scam, but I don't have a religion, I have a relationship with Jesus and I aspire to be like Him, not to point fingers. ;]

[Dolphus Raymond]

Oh, and one more thing A.J. reminded me of.

Religion is a scam, but I don't have a religion, I have a relationship with Jesus and I aspire to be like Him, not to point fingers. ;]

I've heard a lot of people say that, but the dictionary definition of "religion" is:

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

So...what does it actually mean?

Organized churches are scams?

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Most probably are, considering what they spend their collection money on, and how they extort things from willing citizens

[IfPiratesCouldFly]

if the kingdom of heaven is supposably (sp) perfect, wouldn't it become imperfect once the departed enter? Or is it solitary? I don't believe perfection can be had because of the human race.
Secondly, I completely deny the existance of God mostly because, who wrote the bible? Man. Where is the proof to anything in the bible? No where. There's none, how could you believe something that man has written, God did not write the bible. I cannot bring myself to believe something that the one who I am supposed to be worshipping has no proof of existance, and no proof of the things written about him. It could all be a lie for all we know. And yes faith and whatnot, but I just don't think thats enough.

[Mzor203]

if the kingdom of heaven is supposably (sp) perfect, wouldn't it become imperfect once the departed enter? Or is it solitary? I don't believe perfection can be had because of the human race.
Secondly, I completely deny the existance of God mostly because, who wrote the bible? Man. Where is the proof to anything in the bible? No where. There's none, how could you believe something that man has written, God did not write the bible. I cannot bring myself to believe something that the one who I am supposed to be worshipping has no proof of existance, and no proof of the things written about him. It could all be a lie for all we know. And yes faith and whatnot, but I just don't think thats enough.


Excactly so, I agree with you on all points. We can't let others lay out our beliefs, we must live life and then believe what we think is true, not take it from someone else.

[Zephyr]

Okay, so I'm going to tell ya'll a story from my College Prep Biology class from last year.

We were covering evolution, and our teacher thought it would be fair to everybody if he brought in somebody to talk about intelligent design so that we get both sides of the story. Okay, that's cool, I was interested in what this guy had to say. Our guest speaker coms in and gives this whole speach on how Atheism and Evolution are wrong because, "You can't get something without nothing", refering to the point that God had to create us because we just couldn't come out of nowhere.

Sarah (my best friend) and I pose a rebuttal:
Okay, If you can't get something out of nothing, then where did God come from? He had to come from something, according to your theory that you have to get something out of something, rather than coming out of nothing. So where did God come from? What did he come from, because he couldn't have come out of nothing if you truly believe in your theory.

He beat around the bush and gave us the "He's always been there" excuse.

The entire day Sarah and I kept on shooting his theory down with questions that he could not answer. That was a rather enjoyable day... the speaker actually applauded our questioning and admitted that religion is only a theory.

[Mzor203]

Lol, that's great, I admire you for that. Yeah, I bet we could come up with so much evidence against god it isn't even funny. I could make a book out of it lol.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

A book? go for it man! :D

[Zephyr]

Heck, I'd help you out, lol

[Andrew56]

I've heard a lot of people say that, but the dictionary definition of "religion" is:

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

So...what does it actually mean?

Organized churches are scams?

The dictionary defines 'religion' correctly, but the description also describes some beliefs of mine as a Christian. It's kind of like the "all square are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" deal.

And yes, most churches are a scam.

if the kingdom of heaven is supposably (sp) perfect, wouldn't it become imperfect once the departed enter? Or is it solitary? I don't believe perfection can be had because of the human race.
Secondly, I completely deny the existance of God mostly because, who wrote the bible? Man. Where is the proof to anything in the bible? No where. There's none, how could you believe something that man has written, God did not write the bible. I cannot bring myself to believe something that the one who I am supposed to be worshipping has no proof of existance, and no proof of the things written about him. It could all be a lie for all we know. And yes faith and whatnot, but I just don't think thats enough.

You're made perfect and pure by the power of Christ's Blood.

And I believe God wrote the Bible through the hands of man. I believe it is pure and inspired by God.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Okay, so I'm going to tell ya'll a story from my College Prep Biology class from last year.

We were covering evolution, and our teacher thought it would be fair to everybody if he brought in somebody to talk about intelligent design so that we get both sides of the story. Okay, that's cool, I was interested in what this guy had to say. Our guest speaker coms in and gives this whole speach on how Atheism and Evolution are wrong because, "You can't get something without nothing", refering to the point that God had to create us because we just couldn't come out of nowhere.

Sarah (my best friend) and I pose a rebuttal:
Okay, If you can't get something out of nothing, then where did God come from? He had to come from something, according to your theory that you have to get something out of something, rather than coming out of nothing. So where did God come from? What did he come from, because he couldn't have come out of nothing if you truly believe in your theory.

He beat around the bush and gave us the "He's always been there" excuse.

The entire day Sarah and I kept on shooting his theory down with questions that he could not answer. That was a rather enjoyable day... the speaker actually applauded our questioning and admitted that religion is only a theory.

Let's say God is A. If we're assuming something cannot exist without something putting it there, then

B made A

We won't even try to figure who or what B is, but where did B come from?

C made B

D made C

???

E made D

What?! There is no end, the question of where did the first thing come from will never be answered, so why not have faith that the Bible hit the nail on the head, and God simply always has been.

And besides, time is only a finite human measurement.

Lol, that's great, I admire you for that. Yeah, I bet we could come up with so much evidence against god it isn't even funny. I could make a book out of it lol.

There are tons of books with "proof" for God, and with "proof" against God.

Someone could come up with enough "evidence" for any theory to write a book.

[IfPiratesCouldFly]

There's no absolute proof though, I Know it's believed that the bible is written through man's hand by god but theres still no proof of that. I will just neve rbelieve something like that which had been written by man. I believe men are the most terrible of creatures on this world, and i can't trust words like those written by man.

[Dolphus Raymond]

The dictionary defines 'religion' correctly, but the description also describes some beliefs of mine as a Christian. It's kind of like the "all square are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" deal.

And yes, most churches are a scam.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for replying; I was curious.

[thesphinx]

I have a question for a Christian here Correct me if I'm wrong. You believe that homosexuality is a sin correct? Well if god didn't want Homosexuals then why did he make certain animals homosexual? it doesn't make sense to me.

[Dolphus Raymond]

I have a question for a Christian here Correct me if I'm wrong. You believe that homosexuality is a sin correct? Well if god didn't want Homosexuals then why did he make certain animals homosexual? it doesn't make sense to me.

Most Christians don't believe that being homosexual is a sin. They believe that performing homosexual sex acts are. And since animals don't have souls and are therefore incapable of sinning, they aren't responsible for their acts.

As to why God would bother...good question.

[Prince Jellyfish]

Most Christians don't believe that being homosexual is a sin. They believe that performing homosexual sex acts are. And since animals don't have souls and are therefore incapable of sinning, they aren't responsible for their acts.

As to why God would bother...good question.

However, they neglect to follow the other laws of Leviticus by continuing the eat shellfish and by shaving their beards.:rolleyes:

[IfPiratesCouldFly]

Let's say God is A. If we're assuming something cannot exist without something putting it there, then

B made A

We won't even try to figure who or what B is, but where did B come from?

C made B

D made C

???

E made D

What?! There is no end, the question of where did the first thing come from will never be answered, so why not have faith that the Bible hit the nail on the head, and God simply always has been.

And besides, time is only a finite human measurement.



There are tons of books with "proof" for God, and with "proof" against God.

Someone could come up with enough "evidence" for any theory to write a book.

I'm not denying the existance of a god either, which is why I'm agnostic not atheist, howeve, to me, the idea of a god just sounds like an easy solution to a difficult problem. "Where did everything come from"
"God."
"Oh."
"Where did evreythiny come from?"
"We don't know yet, there is so much research needed to be done to find the definite answer."
But just because things are here without an explaination handed to us, doesn't mean there's a god. Millions and millions of years ago, when dinosaurs were around (<3 dinosaurs :3) now, why in the world would he even make dinosaurs? what was there purpose, they're animals and according to Dolphus and the bible maybe (i haven't read it) animals don't have souls, so why are they even there? No humans are there to take them for food, and they were dead long before humans. Now, in support of evolution, life has been around possibly before the big bang even happened or maybe after, I'm not quite sure, I didn't read anything about evolution, I'm simply putting my ideas out.
So then life was made or was scattered, starting off as simple microscopic life forms over the course of the millions of years we became human I suppose. But now, why the dinosaurs? Can this be answered? They're ever so irrelevant if you ask me. Were they just here to baffle humans? To give them something to broaden their knowledge?

[Andrew56]

Animals kill people too. God made animals that can and do kill people, but not for the purpose of it. They are soulless, and so their sins don't matter.

I think homosexuality is merely a perversion of the brain. I don't believe anyone is born gay. Born with a disorder that makes them attracted to the same sex? Yes. But I would say over 95% of homosexuals are simply perverts. They've seen things, or had things done to them that have affected their mind, and they are living in sin.

No species is consistently homosexual. If they were, they'd have been extinct in the first generation. If two animals of the same sex are able to reproduce, then they aren't really gay, they're hermaphrodites.

And why would God do it? For the same unknown reason He made every other weird and odd creature.

[Prince Jellyfish]

Judeo-Christian God is dead. Not literally, for It never existed, but in the sense that God can no longer act as a source of moral code in a society that is ever moving forward! Why is this? Because the Judeo-Christian moral codes are full of nothing but ill will in the guise of resignation for this life.

Believing that one's enemies will forever be punished for their so-called perversions and indulgences in the mortal world, while they, the meek and gentle, give up on this life in hopes of eternal happiness in another life. But what is this? It seems that the very core of this belief is festering with hatred! A foul stench emanates from within the center of this morality.

What is it? It is simply the fact that the Judeo-Christian moral code eternally damns those who go against it, regardless of whether or not those who are "damned" bear any true baseness within them. No, seething beneath the false promise of eternal rewards in the kingdom of Heaven is a malevolence that manifests itself not only in the dogma of Judaism and Christianity, but also within the hearts of it's followers!

These so called meek individuals seek not progress for mankind, but rather hindrance of said progress in order to keep alive their way of life! No longer is the concept of God a necessity for a society to function morally! No longer is the mythology of these outdated beliefs necessary to explain the wonders of the universe that envelope our very reality!

I ask you: Is it truly worth it to follow a system corrupt enough to ignore some of its most basic tenants, while enforcing others? Is it true justice to condemn the homosexual, as instructed in Leviticus, but not the remarried divorcee or seafood aficionado? What about the man who does not shave his beard? Is he not also condemned by the same passages?

Such dishonesty and falsehood offer not salvation, but the ruination of society! By creating a society in which the great are reduced the sinner and criminals, where the lowliest cowards are elevated to the status of martyrs, a great WEAKNESS is created!
A society of victims, specially crafted to stop any possible societal advances that may turn people away from the great culture of weakness!

Is a man not something which is to be overcome? Are we not simply upon this Earth, to achieve our own personal glory through overcoming our weaknesses and rising together as a species to a point of singular greatness? Or are we simply here to toil and writhe as maggots under the eyes of an angry God?

And so I say, do not be afraid to recognize the true value of the world and to unleash your true potential!

[goin to work]

y do u all care

[Prince Jellyfish]

y do u all care

Why do you butcher the English language?

[Andrew56]

Rep to PJ for the above.

And,

"God has given him a name which is above every name – that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…" Philippians 2:9-11.

That's my faith filled, simple answer to an obviously irrefutable, in your eyes, long post, Prince.

I don't need to try and change someone who has so much faith, and is so sure of what they believe, like you PJ. You're never changing me, I'm never changing you. But I respect you as logical, reasonable, intelligent person.

[Prince Jellyfish]

Rep to PJ for the above.

And,

"God has given him a name which is above every name – that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…" Philippians 2:9-11.

That's my faith filled, simple answer to an obviously irrefutable, in your eyes, long post, Prince.

I don't need to try and change someone who has so much faith, and is so sure of what they believe, like you PJ. You're never changing me, I'm never changing you. But I respect you as logical, reasonable, intelligent person.

As long as you can justify your faith and avoid persecuting others, then I'm cool with it. =]
Oh, by the way, I actually really like the Bible as literature. I don't live my life by it, but I can see why someone else would.

[IfPiratesCouldFly]

Yes, but what about the dinosaurs?

[Andrew56]

Why do we call them dinosaurs? Are Rhinos, Elephants, Hippo, Crocodiles, etc. dinosaurs?

Noah took at least 2 of everything on the ark with him, and the 'dinosaurs' apparently didn't do a very good job of reestablishing themselves. They aren't the only species to have died out. Thousands upon thousands of birds, animals, and bugs died around the same time.

Although, I do see a pattern of large animals dying out. Elephants are basically the biggest land animal we've got, and ALOT of dinos could have stepped over them.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

So are you telling me that one boat 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high fit in every species of animal in existance, and Sauroposeidon +60 tons, 60 feet tall.
Ultrasauros 100+ feet long (30 m), +80 tons
Brachiosaurus about 85 feet long (26 m), 40 feet tall, and weighed 70-80 tons. without sinking? Not to mention these dinosaurs were taller than the ark itself! How could they fit? How did the boat not sink while holding over 1000 tons of animal flesh? Especially considering it was made of wood. How did Noah find all the wood, and build such a massive boat in his lifetime? (And Andrew, most of the large animals dying out and other animal extinctions are due to human meddling, such as deforestation and poaching. Especially in the Elephant and Rhino populations)

[0=]

How about the feat of actually traveling the entire world in that time, when it was considered flat and most of it was unknown? There may be valid moral lessons in the bible, but some of it is just myths like in many ancient, dead cultures that we now discount as simply being stories.

[Prince Jellyfish]

Why do we call them dinosaurs? Are Rhinos, Elephants, Hippo, Crocodiles, etc. dinosaurs?

Noah took at least 2 of everything on the ark with him, and the 'dinosaurs' apparently didn't do a very good job of reestablishing themselves. They aren't the only species to have died out. Thousands upon thousands of birds, animals, and bugs died around the same time.

Although, I do see a pattern of large animals dying out. Elephants are basically the biggest land animal we've got, and ALOT of dinos could have stepped over them.

That flood story was stolen from the Sumerian Kings list. =/
Honestly, since carbon dating exists (among other types of dating that aren't too bad either) I can hardly see how any young Earthers can defend such a faulty hypothesis.

Ya see...
Intelligent design: Hypothesis!
Evolution: Theory!
My girlfriend: Pregnant! :wub:

Anyway, large mammals are not dinosaurs simply because they are not at all reptilian. And crocodiles? They're from an entirely different group; although, they are reptiles.:yeah:

[0=]

They just say carbon dating and layers in the Earth's crust are wrong, kind of like how people deny global warming despite ice core samples.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Because the DEVIL put them there to draw us away and make us doubt the true creator! :rolleyes:

[Prince Jellyfish]

They just say carbon dating and layers in the Earth's crust are wrong, kind of like how people deny global warming despite ice core samples.

Yeah, that kind of thing makes me want to kill myself.
Seriously, I consider it sometimes.
Really.
Right now...
I just want to end it.
If I could just blow my brains out in front of a group of creationists so that they would know that my blood was on their hands...

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

That would do more harm to us then good Jellyfish :D

[Prince Jellyfish]

That would do more harm to us then good Jellyfish :D

Yeah...I know...I don't know what came over me.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Intense anger and frustration at irrational thought?

[Prince Jellyfish]

Intense anger and frustration at irrational thought?

Yeah, something like that. =[
It especially gets my goat when Christians hypocritically persecute the gays.

[Andrew56]

How did they fit on the ark? I don't know . . . if they were smaller when they were young it would be so easy to understand . . .

Uncalled for sarcasm, I apologize, but that one's easy.

Aaand.

Matthew 7:5
You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

I should have made it a point to acknowledge my own sins before persecuting anyone in my previous posts.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

So all the animals wer small? Even then, How did they fit Millions of species on there? Even baby dino's were huge. What, did they incubate all the eggs with heat lamps?

[Prince Jellyfish]

So all the animals wer small? Even then, How did they fit Millions of species on there? Even baby dino's were huge. What, did they incubate all the eggs with heat lamps?

FACT: Noah gave birth to all of the animals HIMSELF.

[The Batman]

We don't even know if the dinosaurs weren't already extinct by then and maybe there weren't millions of species because didn't evolution bring about more species of animals (the bible neither acknowledges or denies evolution thats all the doings of humans) I don't know everything, Andrew doesn't know everything, in fact noone knows everything.

[Prince Jellyfish]

We don't even know if the dinosaurs weren't already extinct by then and maybe there weren't millions of species because didn't evolution bring about more species of animals (the bible neither acknowledges or denies evolution thats all the doings of humans) I don't know everything, Andrew doesn't know everything, in fact noone knows everything.

The Bible says that everything living now is as it was created. Furthermore, although we may not know everything, we do know a vast sum of knowledge; surely not enough to fill the great gulf of ignorance that separates us from the dark ages, but enough to cross it!:yeah:

[The Batman]

Where does the bible say that. A funny thing is that some of you guys are taking the bible alot more literal than most christians and the bible wasn't wrote to be taking literal its just guidelines on how to live your life.

[Prince Jellyfish]

Where does the bible say that. A funny thing is that some of you guys are taking the bible alot more literal than most christians and the bible wasn't wrote to be taking literal its just guidelines on how to live your life.

I'm simply refuting something, not generalizing Christians.

[IfPiratesCouldFly]

I'll repeat my original post because obviously it wasn't read, guessing thats why you answered a general questions opposed to this specific question.

"Millions and millions of years ago, when dinosaurs were around (<3 dinosaurs :3) now, why in the world would he even make dinosaurs? what was there purpose, they're animals and according to Dolphus and the bible maybe (i haven't read it) animals don't have souls, so why are they even there? No humans are there to take them for food, and they were dead long before humans. Now, in support of evolution, life has been around possibly before the big bang even happened or maybe after, I'm not quite sure, I didn't read anything about evolution, I'm simply putting my ideas out.
So then life was made or was scattered, starting off as simple microscopic life forms over the course of the millions of years we became human I suppose. But now, why the dinosaurs? Can this be answered? They're ever so irrelevant if you ask me. Were they just here to baffle humans? To give them something to broaden their knowledge?"

[0=]

My question to you is: what makes humans better than other animals? Why are we, the ones destroying the planet, the only ones deserving of eternal life?

[IfPiratesCouldFly]

I don't believe human's are better than animals, I'm a vegetarian, I'm TRYING to establish animal rights. I believe human's are the worst things to have plagued this earth.

[Prince Jellyfish]

I don't believe human's are better than animals, I'm a vegetarian, I'm TRYING to establish animal rights. I believe human's are the worst things to have plagued this earth.

Humans are the only animals that can feel such guilt, that is what separates us from them. While an animal can be happy with lower needs (eating, sleeping, reproducing), humans also require HIGHER needs (learning, companionship, self-actualization). Certainly the drives are similar, but what makes us separate is the simple fact that we are the only known creatures that require the higher needs and, therefore, undergo a higher level of pain! But yeah, I don't believe in souls.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

What is a soul anyway? Anyone care to define?

[Prince Jellyfish]

What is a soul anyway? Anyone care to define?

To clarify, I don't believe in the religious definition.

[IfPiratesCouldFly]

Humans are the only animals that can feel such guilt, that is what separates us from them. While an animal can be happy with lower needs (eating, sleeping, reproducing), humans also require HIGHER needs (learning, companionship, self-actualization). Certainly the drives are similar, but what makes us separate is the simple fact that we are the only known creatures that require the higher needs and, therefore, undergo a higher level of pain! But yeah, I don't believe in souls.

Animal's don't require those needs becausae they don't know them. If man were never introduced to them we'd be in the same position as animals correct?

[The Batman]

The bible neither acknowledges nor denies that animals have souls yet again it is another human assumption. , according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the self-aware essence unique to a particular living being. In these traditions the soul is thought to incorporate the inner essence of each living being, and to be the true basis for sapience, rather than the brain or any other material or natural part of the biological organism. Some religions and philosophies on the other hand believe in the soul having a material component, and some have even tried to establish the weight of the soul. Souls are usually considered to be immortal and to exist prior to incarnation.


Another thing Yuri you asked about the man living alone who didnt know about religion well here is something one that. There are many Christians who also recognize the righteous as those who will equally inherit eternal life in Heaven and enjoy eternal fellowship with God. These include babies and righteous deaf and blind (who had no opportunity to hear the gospel) as well as all the righteous saints who lived before Jesus came and since but have yet to hear.

[Andrew56]

FACT: Noah gave birth to all of the animals HIMSELF.

Pfft. That is so totally a theory.

:P

And what is a soul?

You. You're a soul. You're just in a human body. Every cell of you, isn't you. It's where you're resting. You're a soul, in a body. That's why when you're body dies, I believe if you have given yourself(soul) to Jesus, you don't really die. You just "shed" your body and move on to paradise.

Of course the bible says we get perfect bodies in heaven, so we aren't just souls for more then a twinkling of an eye I suppose.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

Ignoring Jesus is death. Your body dies, and then your souls dies.

[Prince Jellyfish]

Pfft. That is so totally a theory.

:P

And what is a soul?

You. You're a soul. You're just in a human body. Every cell of you, isn't you. It's where you're resting. You're a soul, in a body. That's why when you're body dies, I believe if you have given yourself(soul) to Jesus, you don't really die. You just "shed" your body and move on to paradise.

Of course the bible says we get perfect bodies in heaven, so we aren't just souls for more then a twinkling of an eye I suppose.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

Ignoring Jesus is death. Your body dies, and then your souls dies.

If that truly is the case...then I gladly await the death of my soul.

[Camazotz]

There is no physical evidence of God existing AND no physical evidence of God NOT existing. Its all a matter of faith, if you believe in Him or not. So, Im sorry, I dont understand your reasoning at all.

"A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible. "
How did you come up with this? He sentences you for actions youve commited. If you kill someone, you should go to Heaven? I dont think He'd want someone in his kingdom who has sinned against another so violently

"A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible."
Again, it IS possible for a compassionate creator to create beings which he knows are doomed to suffer. Most people here are compassionate. We have/will have children. We all know the world isnt good, we know that people suffer. Dont we bring humans into an imperfect world? Out ancestors' world had much suffering, yet WE brought humans into the world.

"A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible "
Uh...Im not sure how to explain it really. He wanted us to be imperfect, to see if we can learn to work together, to accept each other, and to live in harmony, creating a perfect world. *Cant believe I thought of that*

"A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible."
No, it's not impossible. He may reveal his will in any form he wishes, even on a piece of notebook paper. Theres really no perfect way to reveal His will.

"A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible."
Its not impossible to be freewilled. Lots of people are freewilled. And we do not actually know if he's all-powerful or not, but Christians believe He is.

"An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible."
No, its not impossible. Even if you are omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect, does not mean you do not experience emotions. He can be mad, when he flooded the Earth with Noah; he can be forgiving, when he sent Jesus to die for our sins. He can be happy when we are not at war, He can be happy when someone donates money to charity.

"If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?"
How are we to trust our loved ones, for they are earthly matters. YOU are earthly matter, so really, can you trust YOURSELF? How are you to trust yourself on spiritual matters then? Its a matter of opinion, if you think you should trust the Bible, or even yourself.

"No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions."
Lets look at it this way. Someone "believes" racism is good, being prejedous is good, believes violence is good, and believes everyone deserves to die. That person believes all things that are immoral and inhumane are good. Does that person deserve to go to Heaven, a place where warm-hearted people go to live happily with other kind people" I agree actions are better to judge, but God also takes into account how that person behaved on Earth.

So, in conclusion, I disagree with almost everything youve said. I dont think youve proved anything, just put untrue facts to make it look like He does not exist. In no way am I flaming at anyone or anyones opinon.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Hauptmann Kauffman is a bitch. I just wanted to get that out there.

(<3 yuri.)

There is no physical evidence of God existing AND no physical evidence of God NOT existing. Its all a matter of faith, if you believe in Him or not. So, Im sorry, I dont understand your reasoning at all.

No conclusive evidence maybe, but no evidence whatsoever? There is evidence for most anything. I assume you base your faith on something - it's not completely arbitrary. That's evidence, isn't it?

"A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible. "
How did you come up with this? He sentences you for actions youve commited. If you kill someone, you should go to Heaven? I dont think He'd want someone in his kingdom who has sinned against another so violently

You're right. This is flawed because it assumes God's "perfect justice" is the same as ours. If we define "perfect" as ultimate, God is perfectly just no matter what. It's a spurious argument.

"A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible."
Again, it IS possible for a compassionate creator to create beings which he knows are doomed to suffer. Most people here are compassionate. We have/will have children. We all know the world isnt good, we know that people suffer. Dont we bring humans into an imperfect world? Out ancestors' world had much suffering, yet WE brought humans into the world.

That's not a valid analogy - we're not omniscient. But the original text falls into the same trap as the last quote. It applies human justice to a being who is "just" in definition.

"A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible "
Uh...Im not sure how to explain it really. He wanted us to be imperfect, to see if we can learn to work together, to accept each other, and to live in harmony, creating a perfect world. *Cant believe I thought of that*

But He's omniscient, so He already knew what would happen, no?

Either He's omniscient or he's not omniscient...he can't be omniscient and self-limit his omniscience when it comes to matters determined by free will. That makes Him not omniscient.

"A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible."
No, it's not impossible. He may reveal his will in any form he wishes, even on a piece of notebook paper. Theres really no perfect way to reveal His will.

Why wouldn't He create it that way? He wants to be fair, no? Why would he not lay out his commandments so clearly that they were impossible to misinterpret? Then decent-intentioned people wouldn't go to Hell.

"A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible."
Its not impossible to be freewilled. Lots of people are freewilled. And we do not actually know if he's all-powerful or not, but Christians believe He is.

I think you're misunderstanding this one. I can explain if you want, but I think you just need to re-read it, really.

"An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible."
No, its not impossible. Even if you are omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect, does not mean you do not experience emotions. He can be mad, when he flooded the Earth with Noah; he can be forgiving, when he sent Jesus to die for our sins. He can be happy when we are not at war, He can be happy when someone donates money to charity.

I've already addressed this. If God is omniscience, there's no new experiences - without new experience, why would there be emotion? The used car example earlier set up the distinction. Even if I know I'm getting a new car, there is a new experience in feeling the actual experience of possessing the car, etc. All human emotion is felt as a stimulus response to new input. If God does not work that way, fine, but the Bible sure suggests He does.

"If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?"
How are we to trust our loved ones, for they are earthly matters. YOU are earthly matter, so really, can you trust YOURSELF? How are you to trust yourself on spiritual matters then? Its a matter of opinion, if you think you should trust the Bible, or even yourself.

I only trust myself and others if I find them trustworthy. No, I don't believe I can be certain in my trust of anything -- this paragraph seems to only be addressing the "certain trust" that Christians sometimes put in their dogmas.

This is a weak paragraph in the work, though, because it works on the condition that the Bible is clearly corrupt/contradictory. That's an area I won't get into. I'm no Biblical scholar.

"No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions."
Lets look at it this way. Someone "believes" racism is good, being prejedous is good, believes violence is good, and believes everyone deserves to die. That person believes all things that are immoral and inhumane are good. Does that person deserve to go to Heaven, a place where warm-hearted people go to live happily with other kind people" I agree actions are better to judge, but God also takes into account how that person behaved on Earth.

I think there was an implication of "beliefs " there. This is the third emotive play in the paragraph though - "[i]how could you believe in a God that sends decent people to Hell?" It doesn't prove atheism. "Because that's how it is," is an acceptable answer. If that's what you've chosen to believe, it's not contradictory.

So, in conclusion, I disagree with almost everything youve said. I dont think youve proved anything, just put untrue facts to make it look like He does not exist. In no way am I flaming at anyone or anyones opinon.

I don't really think these are "facts" so much as a mix of basic philosophical constructs and plays at a humanist sense of justice. There's nothing outwardly wrong here. There are a few a priori conclusions based on assumptions a Christian wouldn't hold, though, so it's mostly preaching to the choir.

There's nothing particularly "untrue" about it, at least in the scientific sense.

[BornActor]

In reply to you saying there's no evidence:
One of the biggest pieces of evidence is that the bible has never been wrong. Science has been wrong a ton of times. Even if you BELIEVE something said in the bible is wrong it is yet to be disproved. And most things that are accepted as scientific "fact" are just theories.

Also, the creator of the evolution theory, Charles Darwin said that it wasn't unlikely that a god could exist.

Even some of the biggest Atheists (C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, etc.) who set out to disprove god ended up finding evidence to support god.

Second, How do u explain soooooooooooooooo much things that most people can't explain without using god, miracle, etc.


My brother is studying this now and I'll email him the article if u have like a link or something and he can probbly explain this so much better than me.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

In reply to you saying there's no evidence:
One of the biggest pieces of evidence is that the bible has never been wrong. Science has been wrong a ton of times. Even if you BELIEVE something said in the bible is wrong it is yet to be disproved. And most things that are accepted as scientific "fact" are just theories.

Also, the creator of the evolution theory, Charles Darwin said that it wasn't unlikely that a god could exist.

Even some of the biggest Atheists (C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, etc.) who set out to disprove god ended up finding evidence to support god.

Second, How do u explain soooooooooooooooo much things that most people can't explain without using god, miracle, etc.

My brother is studying this now and I'll email him the article if u have like a link or something and he can probbly explain this so much better than me.


Science has been wrong so much because its a process of learning. Science evolves over time, and through theories and experiments develops things. the bible is a book that has remained generally the same for thousands of years. If it wasnt for science and mistakes, we wouldnt have electricity, or automobiles, or television. And what do you mean JUST theories? Theories are a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Theories are widely accepted by the scientific community. They arent baseless guesses or hypothesis, that's left to religion.

And why does it matter that some big atheists eventually "found" "evidence" to support a god. Some people are just weak willed. And what about Christians and Muslims and Jews who have become Atheists? Everyone is different, and every side has converts, although Non-Believers are growing much faster than religious.

And secondly, just because science has yet to explain something doesnt mean its work of a supernaturla being. Humans didnt know what the sun was, and attributed it to a god; we now know its a star that was formed by condensed gas.

[Dolphus Raymond]

In reply to you saying there's no evidence:
One of the biggest pieces of evidence is that the bible has never been wrong. Science has been wrong a ton of times. Even if you BELIEVE something said in the bible is wrong it is yet to be disproved. And most things that are accepted as scientific "fact" are just theories.

The Bible has never been wrong? What about these (http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm)? (Again, no Biblical scholar)

And by what standard has nothing in the Bible been proven wrong, but science has...science? Isn't that self-defeating? I doubt you're arguing that we should default everything to "God did it" when our understanding is limited and originally flawed.

Early humans didn't understand why it rained. They had incorrect theories, too. Does that prove science useless?

Also, the creator of the evolution theory, Charles Darwin said that it wasn't unlikely that a god could exist.

Evolution theory is in no way opposed to the existence of a God. I don't see why Darwin's opinion would be any more important than any other given genius scientist.

Even some of the biggest Atheists (C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, etc.) who set out to disprove god ended up finding evidence to support god.

Tolkien was never, to my knowledge, an atheist. He was also uncomfortably close to the fascist movement in Italy because of Catholic fellowship.

I respect both Tolkien and Lewis -- a lot. But Tolkien never wrote much about the specific cause of his belief, and Lewis was a wonderful writer but a very emotive, weak theologian. There are and were much better theological minds than he.

There are, of course, plenty of people (and increasingly more these days) who are brilliant and convert from Christianity to non-Christianity. Their beliefs should be analyzed, but be careful about rationalizing your beliefs in anything by cherrypicking intelligent, decent people who agree with you. It's underestimating your own mind.

Second, How do u explain soooooooooooooooo much things that most people can't explain without using god, miracle, etc.

I've used this analogy before, but if you transported a computer to a caveman, they would have no ability to comprehend it, scientifically, etc. If they were religious, their first urge would be to attribute it to God. They would be wrong (at least in the direct way).

A "god of the gaps" is maybe somewhat suggestive of an existence of a higher being, but it's not nearly conclusive. In my ancestors' religious tradition, animism was prevalent -- you'd probably laugh at it now. But it was all we knew.

My brother is studying this now and I'll email him the article if u have like a link or something and he can probbly explain this so much better than me.

Studying what, out of curiosity? I'd love to hear his thoughts. :)

[BornActor]

Like I MEANT to say I don't know too much about this stuff. My brother is studying the bible. Sorry for being unclear. I emailed him the original article link.
So I might get a reply. if he has time. But I doubt he'd miss any chance to prove an atheist wrong.

No, evolution theory is not opposed to god, but many atheists use it as evidence against god.

Tolkien and C.S. Lewis grew up together and were friends and sought to disprove the bible then later found that it was truth.

He probbly won't respond to the email for a bit so be patient I'll have his and possibly some of his friends' thoughts on it also.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Can you provide and article or link for this story about Tolkien and Lewis?

And thanks for just ignoring our arguments...:P

[The Batman]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/augustweb-only/8-25-52.0.html here is some info about them.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Like I MEANT to say I don't know too much about this stuff. My brother is studying the bible. Sorry for being unclear. I emailed him the original article link.
So I might get a reply. if he has time. But I doubt he'd miss any chance to prove an atheist wrong.

Is he doing comparative religion/theology or just Biblical studies? Because Biblical study students really just study the Bible, and may not be very familiar with philosophy at all. He might be able to provide Biblical answers very well, but I doubt anyone seriously disputes that the Bible says God exists...you know what I mean?

Having him disagree with Bible quotes is going to be a waste of his time, and I don't want to do that. If he has some philosophy/epistemological stuff to add, though, awesome.

No, evolution theory is not opposed to god, but many atheists use it as evidence against god.

They're definitely wrong to. Creationist Christianity, maybe, but not theism.

Tolkien and C.S. Lewis grew up together and were friends and sought to disprove the bible then later found that it was truth.

Tolkien was always religious. They didn't grow up together. They became friends as adults, and Tolkien convinced Lewis to convert (and then disapproved of his choice of churches). I know the story pretty well.

He probbly won't respond to the email for a bit so be patient I'll have his and possibly some of his friends' thoughts on it also.

All right. :)

[Dolphus Raymond]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/augustweb-only/8-25-52.0.html here is some info about them.

Here's another article on it, from a source that concentrates more on literature than evangelical Christianity (and is looking from a less ideological perspective):

http://www.literarytraveler.com/literary_articles/tolkien_lewis_oxford.aspx

Here's the atheistic version of the article you gave, which does point out some interesting points about Lewis as an apologist:

http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/jrrtolkein.htm

Formal apologists and philosophers considered him pretty weak - basically a pop philosopher. One heck of a gifted writer, though. But he's no Thomas Aquinas.

[happytimes]

I am absolutely speechless after I read this thread. I actually consider myself agnostic even though I go to church every Sunday. I like the morals and values the bible preaches but I have a hard time believing this unseen force exists and created our world.

[Andrew56]

The Bible has never been wrong? What about these (http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm)? (Again, no Biblical scholar)

You're not. I'm not. Shall I have the closest thing I have to a Biblical Scholar explain them to me?

I shall.

Forsooth.

I'll let you know eventually.

[Dolphus Raymond]

You're not. I'm not. Shall I have the closest thing I have to a Biblical Scholar explain them to me?

I shall.

Forsooth.

I'll let you know eventually.

Cool.

Although, for the record, I still maintain science "being wrong" is impossible. Our interpretation of the results of science can be. But science is just doing something and noting the result of it.

If that makes sense.

Anyway, I look forward to his reply. :)

[Andrew56]

Cool.

Although, for the record, I still maintain science "being wrong" is impossible. Our interpretation of the results of science can be. But science is just doing something and noting the result of it.

If that makes sense.

Anyway, I look forward to his reply. :)

It makes prefect sense, and I agree.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Splendid! I await your future replies and the following debate Andrew :D

[Andrew56]

The second person I asked referred me to a book, which is supposed to have more specific answers. I'm getting it ASAP and hopefully I can provide a most satisfying (for myself at least) answer.

But in general, the first:

Actually, there are no Bible contradictions, there are only passages which "seem" to be contradictions to some people either because they are unaware of the context, the language may be difficult, they are not considering some other information, or they may not readily understand what's in view. Most of the alleged contradictions are so obvious that a blind man could have seen them and corrected them. Some people point to these as proof that the bible is of men, because of the obvious contradictions. But the opposite is true. If it was of men, the (seeming) obvious contradictions would have been corrected long ago. But they weren't corrected because they aren't contradictions. The Bible testifies of itself that it is the divinely inspired Word of God.

There are so many people who are looking for contradictions that it's expected that they would find them (when there are none). These will grab hold of anything to try and tear down the authority of scripture. Some of these are from the world, and some are of the Church, but all come with an agenda. Most of these purported contradictions can be explained with a little study in the scriptures. But there are also those who won't accept any explanation you give, because they are predisposed to believe there are contradictions. And even some doctrines which most Christians routinely acknowledge as true, some people will look upon as contradictions.

For example, scripture says we are not justified by works, and in another place it says we are justified by works. That seems to be a contradiction to the skeptic who is looking for one. But he who has studied the scriptures carefully knows that we indeed "are" justified by works. We are justified by the works of Christ (Romans 5:9). But we are not justified by our own works. That's why one part of scripture says we are justified by works, and another verse says we are not justified by works. And so both statements are 100 percent true, it's just that the uninformed take them standing alone without the balance of other information in scripture, and thus "think" they are contradictions. Again, we are justified by faith, the faith of Christ! But not our faith! Faith without works is dead, because any faith with no works cannot be Saving faith, but dead faith (as the faith of a religious fanatic who drives a car loaded with explosives into a building). He has faith, but it's not Saving faith it is dead faith, and the works thereof are not the work of Christ, but dead! This is the faith without works. ..without Good Works. A tree is known by it's fruit. So you see, again, there is no contradiction, only lack of understanding of the scriptures.

Another example is Romans 3:23 where scripture tells us that "all have sinned," but we read in 1st Peter 2:22 that the Lord Jesus committed no sin! Is there a contradiction? No, it only seems a contradiction to those who seek one. The "all" in each passage is qualified by other passages. Just as if I were to say that, "I took all of the children to school". The fact is, that could mean that I took only 3 children to school out of 30 that were in a certain class. But it was "all" the Children who were in my house. You see, the word all is qualified. But without the qualifying information, it seems like a contradiction. And that is how many people look at the scriptures. As if it exists in a vacuum and is not qualified by everything else in scripture. In this way, scripture is often misunderstood because the novice doesn't study the scriptures or compare scripture with scripture to understand the additional information therein, which qualifies these statements.

Let's take the practical biblical example of John the baptist. Christ said this is Elijah that was prophesied to come (Matthew 11:14), but John said that he was not Elijah (John 1:21). Is this another contradiction? To the Biblical novice it would certainly appear so. But not at all! Because John wasn't Elijah, the same as Jesus wasn't David. Yet the prophesy of David spake of Christ. Likewise, John wasn't Elijah, but he is the fulfillment of the prophesy of Elijah coming to prepare the way of the Lord. Therefore, when the prophesy spoke of Elijah coming, it didn't speak of an incarnation, it was speaking spiritually of John the baptist. i.e., John coming in the Spirit of Elijah. In the spiritual sense, He was elijah. Not literally his reincarnation! In the prophesy of John the Baptist, we read:

Luke 1:17

"And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord".
When it spake of Elijah coming, it was speaking of a "type", or that there would come a man in the Spirit of Elijah. Christ says John fulfilled that prophesy. Therefore is he the Elijah that was prophesied, not the Elijah that lived years before and was taken up into heaven in a whirlwind.

Likewise, when it spoke of the prophesy of David reigning, it spoke spiritually of Christ. God's Word of truth often uses people, and even things, to spiritually signify or illustrate prophesy. This is not unlike the prophesy of a Nail in a sure place, which spoke of Christ. But it didn't mean that there was a literal nail coming, nor a literal Lamb, nor a literal Branch from a tree, nor a Root! And it's not a contradiction that he wasn't a literal Lamb, but fulfilled the prophesy of a coming lamb. It's God way of showing us something spiritually.

Again, when the 4 gospels record some event in a slightly different way, does that mean it's contradictory? No, because each writer is witnessing according to his God inspired perspective. If you were to have four eye witnesses to a crime, each one would see the same crime, but each one would explain it by highlighting what he remembers best of the time. One may have observed four men go in the building. Another may have only witnessed two go in, and then a third go in later. One may spend most of the time talking about the panic that was created. The other may concentrate on talking about the criminals who were giving orders. If they all had to write about what they saw, one may only give one line to the criminals, while another write 20 lines about them. This is the way the gospels are written, each one giving us a view from another perspective.

Likewise, in the supposed contradiction of names in scripture. Some people in scripture have several names, and sometimes names were so common that many people had the same name. There was also a patriarchal system where the word "begat" doesn't always mean a strict father/son relationship. We could say Abraham begat Jacob. That doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't another Son in between (in this case Isaac). i.e., Abraham was the father of Jacob patriarchally, but not literally. These are just a few of the examples, but most of the alleged contradictions have similar simple explanations, and those few which we may not yet understand, are surely explainable with a little effort or careful study.

[Close102]

i didnt read the whole thing i just sort of skimed it but i thought there were some really good points like

"A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible."

[Dolphus Raymond]

I'm mostly going to address the ontological arguments here, because as we all know, I'm no Biblical scholar. What you've pasted says a lot about how someone, straining, can find contradictions in any work, if that is what they want. Obviously, the inverse is also true. It doesn't seem like the guy who write this minds that much.

Anyway, on to Tony Warren's arguments:

...If it was of men, the (seeming) obvious contradictions would have been corrected long ago.

That's a very odd argument. The Bible must be God's because no one has corrected the apparent contradictions? I don't see how that follows.

But they weren't corrected because they aren't contradictions. The Bible testifies of itself that it is the divinely inspired Word of God.

I don't understand why so many religious arguments written to skeptics use circular arguments from faith like these. If I were to say "1 does not equal 1, and by the way, I'm infallible," I doubt anyone would buy it.

There are so many people who are looking for contradictions that it's expected that they would find them (when there are none). These will grab hold of anything to try and tear down the authority of scripture. Some of these are from the world, and some are of the Church, but all come with an agenda. Most of these purported contradictions can be explained with a little study in the scriptures. But there are also those who won't accept any explanation you give, because they are predisposed to believe there are contradictions. And even some doctrines which most Christians routinely acknowledge as true, some people will look upon as contradictions.

Arguing non-believers only see contradictions because they want to sustain current belief is another really weird argument to make coming from an apologist standpoint.

OK, done with pedantic whining!

Again, when the 4 gospels record some event in a slightly different way, does that mean it's contradictory? No, because each writer is witnessing according to his God inspired perspective. If you were to have four eye witnesses to a crime, each one would see the same crime, but each one would explain it by highlighting what he remembers best of the time.

One may have observed four men go in the building. Another may have only witnessed two go in, and then a third go in later. One may spend most of the time talking about the panic that was created. The other may concentrate on talking about the criminals who were giving orders. If they all had to write about what they saw, one may only give one line to the criminals, while another write 20 lines about them. This is the way the gospels are written, each one giving us a view from another perspective.

But if one were to write that only two men entered, it would be in inaccurate axiom on which to rest any theory of the crime. From this would spring the idea that only two men were involved. This could very well allow a guilty man to go free. It would be fruit of the poison tree. This is not an argument that the Bible is the flawless word of God, but rather that it is testimony. The Bible cannot be simultaneously flawless by design and based on human testimony. "Divinely inspired to perfection" is a fine theory, but why would God's idea of perfection include short-sided perspective issues?

and those few which we may not yet understand, are surely explainable with a little effort or careful study.

Somehow I think that Biblical scholars and apologists have already invested a "little effort or careful study" in the matter. Again, this falls flat because it simultaneously asks us to have an open mind (in the writer's best paranoid: "these [people] will grab hold of anything to try and tear down the authority of scripture") while it also asks us to look for ways to argue to a desired conclusion (the Bible is flawless). Paragraphs and constructs stand on their own, but together, they fail.

This is exactly why most apologism isn't much more than pop theology to me. It's the sort of passionate, good-hearted manipulation we all fall into when arguing for something we care deeply about, but cannot defend against people with frustratingly different mental contexts than us. The only problem is, on closer examination, apologist "logic" crumbles, and it leaves a layer of grime.

There's a good deal of grime in this.

[Andrew56]

That's a very odd argument. The Bible must be God's because no one has corrected the apparent contradictions? I don't see how that follows.

No one is capable of re-writing God's word, fixing the "contradictions", and start printing it as a contradiction-free bible. If they were capable of doing so, they would. God will not allow it.

Well - correction - I'm sure someone has tried, but the same people that founds contradictions in God's Holy Word, could find contradictions in this new bible, and possible additional ones.

but cannot defend against people with frustratingly different mental contexts than us.

I like that. Frustratingly different mental contexts. I'm definitely gonna start saying that.

Dolphus, you're a genius. I can't wait to hear to rip apart what the books I'm getting will say, as best you can. Haha.

[Dolphus Raymond]

No one is capable of re-writing God's word, fixing the "contradictions", and start printing it as a contradiction-free bible. If they were capable of doing so, they would. God will not allow it.

Well - correction - I'm sure someone has tried, but the same people that founds contradictions in God's Holy Word, could find contradictions in this new bible, and possible additional ones.

I'm still not following this line of argument. The Bible must be true, because we cannot correct it and present it in a contradiction-free form. I think we can, as you say...it just wouldn't take off. But that's logically understandable, since who would have an interest in some guy's "corrected" version of the Bible? Christians wouldn't think it divinely inspired. Atheists would just think it's the same old crap, now with addendum. Theologians wouldn't have much interest in a corrupted work.

But, even if they were and it hadn't happened, I'm missing why the author thinks this indicative of divine inspiration.

I like that. Frustratingly different mental contexts. I'm definitely gonna start saying that.

:D

Dolphus, you're a genius. I can't wait to hear to rip apart what the books I'm getting will say, as best you can. Haha.

I'm not a genius...I just have time on my hands and can type too fast. And I'm sure someone could come by and provide an argument that stumped me or forced be to strain credulity. That's why I'm such of a damn fence-sitter, I guess.

[Andrew56]

Because any other books can be re-written, re-vamped, or "corrected" and it would take off and sell.

Modern versions of books show this.

But it simply wouldn't work with the Bible (for the reasons you listed).

[Dolphus Raymond]

Because any other books can be re-written, re-vamped, or "corrected" and it would take off and sell.

Modern versions of books show this.

But it simply wouldn't work with the Bible (for the reasons you listed).

I understand that. The connection I'm having trouble making is between that and the divine inspiration of the Bible. It certainly shows that the integrity of the Bible is more important for human reasons (which I won't demean the impressiveness of) but I don't see what that has to do with divine perfection.

[Andrew56]

Well, maybe I'm missing what you're not understanding, but - that's the very reason it CAN'T be done . . . because it is of God. He won't allow it. He will not allow His Word to be defiled, that's why it is impossible for a person to make a new bible.

In short.

[Sage]

Well, maybe I'm missing what you're not understanding, but - that's the very reason it CAN'T be done . . . because it is of God. He won't allow it. He will not allow His Word to be defiled, that's why it is impossible for a person to make a new bible.

So if I tried to, would my head explode?

[Dolphus Raymond]

Well, maybe I'm missing what you're not understanding, but - that's the very reason it CAN'T be done . . . because it is of God. He won't allow it. He will not allow His Word to be defiled, that's why it is impossible for a person to make a new bible.

I guess I kind of get it.

God doesn't want his Holy Book modified, so he causes it to not happen. Is that about it? In that case, I have a major problem. I see this as still being true irrespective of the existence of a God with such influence.

I find a plot hole in Moby Dick. I modify it. "Moby Dick, with corrections by Alcon [email protected]" (excuse my little anti-Google filter there :P). I doubt anyone would be interested in buying it, let alone adopting it as canonical. Now, throw in the reality that the Bible's primary values are as an allegedly unadulterated religious text, and a historical document. What interest would anyone have in a historical document or "unadulterated" religious text that I've modivated for consistency? None. And God doesn't have to interfere, or even exist, for that to be true.

Besides, the same thing could be argued of the Quran and most any other religious text out there. Maybe God shaped our behavior specifically so we would feel this way, solely for the purpose of keeping the Bible's integrity. But otherwise I don't think this is an argument that is relevant to much of anything.

[Andrew56]

So if I tried to, would my head explode?

If I said yes, would you take the time to do so? No. If I said no, would you take the time to do so? No.

And as I said before, someone could rewrite it, but
a) They would have a curse from God
b) They would leave/create their own contradictions.
c) If it could even get printed, it would be hated by basically everyone, and no one would buy it.

And as for Moby Dick - It was made by man, so there aren't really any things in it that would seem contradictory because at the time of it's creation, man filtered it and made sure that to his mind, it was correct.

It you found a huge contradiction, like what seems to be in the Bible, and fixed it, it would sell.

If you just added filler plot, then you're right, it wouldn't.

And if man had written the Bible without true divine inspiration, then man would have found and fixed the "errors" long ago and it would be accepted.

[Dolphus Raymond]

And if man had written the Bible without true divine inspiration, then man would have found and fixed the "errors" long ago and it would be accepted.

I dispute that. Has this editing actually happened with many (any, even?) major religious text that claims infallibility? Or are they all perfect and/or divinely protected?

As I said before, the Bible has a few primary purposes:

1. Historical document
2. Religious text for those who believe it cannot be wrong
3. Original theological document

Fixing errors and re-printing it would be of no interest to anyone who values the Bible for of these three reasons. It would ruins its historical authenticity, and why would anyone believe in a text with errors that claimed its own infallability, even if it were "corrected" by mortal hands? Besides, there is no way to determine who has the authority to do that correcting. All of these same truths would apply to the Quran, the Vedas scriptures, historical accounts from thousands of years ago...

Logically, "the Bible has not been modified or re-published" might be proof of the Bible's divine inspiration if it was an exception to any pre-existing logical rule on the matter, but I don't see any exception whatsoever.

[Andrew56]

I suppose that's true.

The only difference, and it doesn't validate my point, is that the Bible has been around a lot longer . . . so it has stood the test of time. Nothing else has gone threw as much scrutiny over such a hug amount of time as the Bible.

[Dolphus Raymond]

I suppose that's true.

The only difference, and it doesn't validate my point, is that the Bible has been around a lot longer . . . so it has stood the test of time. Nothing else has gone threw as much scrutiny over such a hug amount of time as the Bible.

The Hindu folks who follow the Vedas scriptures would beg to disagree. They've been around longer, and there are still a whole lot of Hindus, so by that thread Hinduism is the most probably correct religion.

I'm not going to underrate how impressive it is that the Bible has been around so long, is so intricate, and so many people believe in it. But I don't think that makes for evidence for its authenticity, let alone flawlessness.

[Sage]

If I said yes, would you take the time to do so? No.

Assumptions.

And as I said before, someone could rewrite it, but
a) They would have a curse from God

How do you know this and what does this curse involve?


b) They would leave/create their own contradictions.


Not really. With time and effort a good editor would not.

c) If it could even get printed, it would be hated by basically everyone, and no one would buy it.


That's interesting. I know plenty of people who couldn't wait to get their hands all over it. And not everyone is a christian, a modified bible wouldn't offend millions (perhaps billions) of people.

[Prince Jellyfish]

Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to say blast hell to heaven so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast and considering what is more that as a result of the labors left unfinished crowned by the Acacacacademy of Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy of Testew and Cunard it is established beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labors of men that as a result of the labors unfinished of Testew and Cunnard it is established as hereinafter but not so fast for reasons unknown that as a result of the public works of Puncher and Wattmann it is established beyond all doubt that in view of the labors of Fartov and Belcher left unfinished for reasons unknown of Testew and Cunard left unfinished it is established what many deny that man in Possy of Testew and Cunard that man in Essy that man in short that man in brief in spite of the strides of alimentation and defecation wastes and pines wastes and pines and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the strides of physical culture the practice of sports such as tennis football running cycling swimming flying floating riding gliding conating camogie skating tennis of all kinds dying flying sports of all sorts autumn summer winter winter tennis of all kinds hockey of all sorts penicillin and succedanea in a word I resume flying gliding golf over nine and eighteen holes tennis of all sorts in a word for reasons unknown in Feckham Peckham Fulham Clapham namely concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown but time will tell fades away I resume Fulham Clapham in a word the dead loss per head since the death of Bishop Berkeley being to the tune of one inch four ounce per head approximately by and large more or less to the nearest decimal good measure round figures stark naked in the stockinged feet in Connemara in a word for reasons unknown no matter what matter the facts are there and considering what is more much more grave that in the light of the labors lost of Steinweg and Peterman it appears what is more much more grave that in the light the light the light of the labors lost of Steinweg and Peterman that in the plains in the mountains by the seas by the rivers running water running fire the air is the same and then the earth namely the air and then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the earth abode of stones in the great cold alas alas in the year of their Lord six hundred and something the air the earth the sea the earth abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold on sea on land and in the air I resume for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis the facts are there but time will tell I resume alas alas on on in short in fine on on abode of stones who can doubt it I resume but not so fast I resume the skull fading fading fading and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis on on the beard the flames the tears the stones so blue so calm alas alas on on the skull the skull the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the labors abandoned left unfinished graver still abode of stones in a word I resume alas alas abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard . . . tennis . . . the stones . . . so calm . . . Cunard . . . unfinished . . .

[Andrew56]

Dolphus - There are alot of Hindus, but no where near the number of Christians. And even if it is older (which I didn't know) no "Holy" book is studied anywhere near as much as the Bible.

Deschain - I'm ever so sorry I assumed.


Curse:
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it,....." Deuteronomy 4:2.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book" Rev. 22:18-19.

Editor:
Yes, you're right. I take that back. A good editor could bring it out "contradiction" free.

Except for the fact that all scripture is inspired of God for those who believe it, and therefore, man's uninspired, disobedient editings would make the whole thing a massive contradiction.

And honestly, what kind of people would want an edited Bible?

Like Dolphus said, Christians, would have nothing to do with it. Nor would any other religious group. Everyone that already disagreed with the Bible would have no desire to read something that was admittedly fixed by men.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Dolphus - There are alot of Hindus, but no where near the number of Christians. And even if it is older (which I didn't know) no "Holy" book is studied anywhere near as much as the Bible.

This feels a lot like a talking point. There are other books that are thoroughly studied. The Bible is probably the most-studied. The Western world tends to be the center of academic study and its primary religion is Christianity, so that's not especially surprising. But there are plenty of Hindu scholars out there. What's the point? Is the argument that the Vedas texts haven't been studied enough, and if they were, we'd find clear inconsistencies in them that can't be explained in the way the Bibles' alleged inconsistencies can?

Otherwise I don't get the point of this argument.

Like Dolphus said, Christians, would have nothing to do with it. Nor would any other religious group. Everyone that already disagreed with the Bible would have no desire to read something that was admittedly fixed by men.

Exactly. Which is why I'm not seeing this as much of an argument. I mean, maybe if whenever we tried to edit the Bible our skin burnt with the fury of a thousand acids, yeah, that would be some God stuff right there.

But if it's just that no one cares about Joe Somebody's Bible 2.0, I'm not buying that.

[Hyper]

I really don't bother with these things anymore..

I just have one thought.. If you think God doesn't exist, why bother trying to prove that God doesn't exist?

I mean.. Hypothetically you ''think'' god doesn't exist, you don't know.. You think you have enough ''evidence'' based on your own ''logic'' & ''knowledge'' to think God doesn't exist.. But since you really can't prove God exists or doesn't exist scientifically you can't debate it based on science & logic

Thats where all the atheists who try and bother to debate religion just to disprove something just sink in my eyes.

[Dolphus Raymond]

I really don't bother with these things anymore..

I just have one thought.. If you think God doesn't exist, why bother trying to prove that God doesn't exist?

I'm not an atheist, but I guess I can still answer why I debate about this. It's interesting. To a lot of people, it's the biggest thing in the world. It's a huge part of our culture, and is really fertile ground for debate because it's so universal. Religion, and systems of belief, touch every life. So everyone has grounds to talk about it. It's also comforting because it helps me empathize with beliefs that I may never be able to fully understand.

Some atheists (not me, again) also believe that religion is corrosive on society--that it stunts civil rights, or encourages a type of thinking that leads to some undesirable pattern of behavior. That considered, I suppose they feel morally obligated to argue their position.

And of course some just like to be right. Others feel frustrated that Christians evangelize but their beliefs aren't represented in the public square. We non-theists are a clear minority in this country and in the world. A lot feel that the majority position (Judeo-Christian theism) is ripe for questioning. Some even think it's ripe for mockery. I strongly disagree with that, but it's certainly a subsection of "atheist culture."

I mean.. Hypothetically you ''think'' god doesn't exist, you don't know.. You think you have enough ''evidence'' based on your own ''logic'' & ''knowledge'' to think God doesn't exist.. But since you really can't prove God exists or doesn't exist scientifically you can't debate it based on science & logic

Just because you cannot prove something beyond absolute doubt doesn't mean it can't be discussed. That's like saying we shouldn't debate the merits of gravity because we can't yet prove it is true, or isn't.

Thats where all the atheists who try and bother to debate religion just to disprove something just sink in my eyes.

I don't think people should be frowned upon for questioning faith. If someone is worried about being exposed to new, contradictory ideas, they shouldn't enter a discussion like this, IMHO.

I don't personally find disproving anything very interesting. "Winning" -- and you can never really win a theological debate -- seems really boring.

[Hyper]

I don't think people should be frowned upon for questioning faith. If someone is worried about being exposed to new, contradictory ideas, they shouldn't enter a discussion like this, IMHO.

That is the usual debate stunt, putting words in someones mouth.

So I assume you consider yourself agnostic and if not It'd be instresting to hear it from your own mouth.

Just because you cannot prove something beyond absolute doubt doesn't mean it can't be discussed. That's like saying we shouldn't debate the merits of gravity because we can't yet prove it is true, or isn't.

Its not the fact that God cannot be proven or disproven.

What bothers me personally is the ''thing'' for me that you can not debate the existance of God through ''science'' & ''logic'' it just doesn't work out in my eyes..

So all the people who go out of their way to ''prove'' that God doesn't exist.. Well I'd say they are just immature, the reasons for them doing it could be plentyful but it sums up to the trait of immaturity.

I'm not an atheist, but I guess I can still answer why I debate about this. It's interesting. To a lot of people, it's the biggest thing in the world. It's a huge part of our culture, and is really fertile ground for debate because it's so universal. Religion, and systems of belief, touch every life. So everyone has grounds to talk about it.

Some atheists (not me, again) also believe that religion is corrosive on society--that it stunts civil rights, or encourages a type of thinking that leads to some undesirable pattern of behavior. That considered, I suppose they feel morally obligated to argue their position.

Some just like to be right. Others feel frustrated that Christians evangelize but their beliefs aren't represented in the public square.

I agree with you there.. Except the topic title is ''Why The Christan God Is Impossible'' the Christian religion may be centered around God & Jesus but this is solely focused at disproving God. A religious system has certain elements in it 1 of course is the deity but there is more to a ''religion'' than a God, the God is the most important part of the religion but as I said this is solely focused on disproving God.

Now about morals & ethics and the thought about religion being bad for society. If you debated with me about religion and told me religion does more harm to society than good, using the usual debaters tactics; pure cold ''logic'' twisted in your favour..

I'd have to go analogic, metaphoric which does contradict a debate, but you can't look at everything in black & white, especially when you discuss social matters & personal beliefs, ''logic'' & ''science'' just fails there. I'll keep it short religion has done and still does harm, that is only due to wrong people teaching religion and the misuse of religion.

The religious people I have known or still know, that in my opinion have been ''taught right'' are the most kind, tolerant & accepting people.

I realize at the factual & ''logical'' debate I most likely fail, but I am a rambler, yes I like some, feel a moral & ethical urge to post in here

I lost track somewhere now.. I'll post read it and edit it if I think I can explain what I am thinking a bit better.

[Dolphus Raymond]

I'm exhausted. I hope I'm making sense.

That is the usual debate stunt, putting words in someones mouth.

If I put words in your mouth, it was accidental, but I don't think I did.

So I assume you consider yourself agnostic and if not It'd be instresting to hear it from your own mouth.

I've said several times in this topic that I'm an agnostic.

Its not the fact that God cannot be proven or disproven.

What bothers me personally is the ''thing'' for me that you can not debate the existance of God through ''science'' & ''logic'' it just doesn't work out in my eyes.

Why not?

So all the people who go out of their way to ''prove'' that God doesn't exist.. Well I'd say they are just immature, the reasons for them doing it could be plentyful but it sums up to the trait of immaturity.

That seems like an incredibly broad generalization. All people who try to prove that God doesn't exist are doing so because they are immature? That's no more fair than atheists who say that people only believe in religion because they are weak.

I agree with you there.. Except the topic title is ''Why The Christan God Is Impossible'' the Christian religion may be centered around God & Jesus but this is solely focused at disproving God. A religious system has certain elements in it 1 of course is the deity but there is more to a ''religion'' than a God, the God is the most important part of the religion but as I said this is solely focused on disproving God.

I don't get your point. If you disprove the Christian concept of God, you've disproved the Christian religion.

Now about morals & ethics and the thought about religion being bad for society. If you debated with me about religion and told me religion does more harm to society than good, using the usual debaters tactics; pure cold ''logic'' twisted in your favour..

I'd have to go analogic, metaphoric which does contradict a debate, but you can't look at everything in black & white, especially when you discuss social matters & personal beliefs, ''logic'' & ''science'' just fails there. I'll keep it short religion has done and still does harm, that is only due to wrong people teaching religion and the misuse of religion.

I don't see how being analogous or metaphorical "contradicts a debate." I don't look at things in black and white when discussing personal beliefs. I have no idea what you're arguing. We should throw logic out the window because it is too black-and-white? Logic can address emotion and societal issues too. Logic does not have to be robotic.

The religious people I have known or still know, that in my opinion have been ''taught right'' are the most kind, tolerant & accepting people.

Again, I don't think religion is evil and I don't want to destroy it. But here's an example of a frustration that I actually share with some of the atheists you're decrying.

Take homosexuality. There are a lot of wonderful, kind, relatively tolerant people in the religious community who believe that homosexuality should be discouraged and treated as evil and a disease. I could not possibly disagree with this stronger. I think that having that attitude has resulted in a lot of suffering and even death.

That doesn't mean I think religion should be dismantled, but that's an example where some people see mainstream religious beliefs as evil.

I realize at the factual & ''logical'' debate I most likely fail, but I am a rambler, yes I like some, feel a moral & ethical urge to post in here

I lost track somewhere now.. I'll post read it and edit it if I think I can explain what I am thinking a bit better.

That might be helpful. I know it's hard to articulate this stuff, but I'm not very good at tracking stuff and I want to make sure I don't misrepresent what you're saying.

[Hyper]

Too much to quote too lazy

Why can't you debate the concept of God with logic & science? Since God is omnipotent and by our science & logic he can't be proven, how can you debate existance of God? I am sorry I'm not the most eloquent but thats how I can best describe what I mean..

As for disproving the concept of God, if you have something against a religious system you look at the religious system & its teachings, in this case its all about ''God'' in general.. There is no thural view of religion as a whole just an attempt to disprove god and mock religious people, especially with the ending bravado

Now why specifically disprove God? If you have a problem with a religious system as a whole then yes you can debate it, but what does disproving a religions God have to do with morals & ethics? I don't see the connection all I can see is someone desperately trying to push someone else down based on their beliefs & mock them. ( This would also be my main point )

As for the homosexuality.. I haven't met any person who believes in God, well any that I wish to meet again that ''hates'' anything or would go out of their way to make life bad for a person dependant on their individuality. I have met some people who are religious on the net that know gay people and just ignore the fact that their religion deems it to be wrong, not like you become homosexual by talking to one..

I can't say I would be 100% accepting, but I wouldn't shun the person or be hostile to him.. If some friend, good acquintence of mine told me he is homosexual I'd accept it..

[Prince Jellyfish]

Did anyone read a word of what I said???

[Andrew56]

This feels a lot like a talking point. There are other books that are thoroughly studied. The Bible is probably the most-studied. The Western world tends to be the center of academic study and its primary religion is Christianity, so that's not especially surprising. But there are plenty of Hindu scholars out there. What's the point? Is the argument that the Vedas texts haven't been studied enough, and if they were, we'd find clear inconsistencies in them that can't be explained in the way the Bibles' alleged inconsistencies can?

Otherwise I don't get the point of this argument.

I don't think it would have contradictions, or inconsistencies in the eyes of man, because it was written by man. So honestly, I have no idea where I was going with that.



Exactly. Which is why I'm not seeing this as much of an argument. I mean, maybe if whenever we tried to edit the Bible our skin burnt with the fury of a thousand acids, yeah, that would be some God stuff right there.

But if it's just that no one cares about Joe Somebody's Bible 2.0, I'm not buying that.

Haha, God doesn't want to remove all doubt through the flesh. That would sort of be the same thing as taking free-will away. If anyone that tried to re-write the Bible had their "skin burnt with the fury of a thousand acids" (hahaha), then pretty much everyone would hold the Bible in an extremely authoritative position. God works by removing doubt from the spirit, in those who wish to receive it.

Why not?

I supposed what Hyper is getting at is that God has nothing to do with logic and reason. But we need to take into account, because of that very reason, that's the only way to debate Him. With something that has nothing to do with Him.

That seems like an incredibly broad generalization. All people who try to prove that God doesn't exist are doing so because they are immature? That's no more fair than atheists who say that people only believe in religion because they are weak.

I think most(not all, most) people believe in religion because they are weak. I have a relationship with Christ, and I work my hardest to please Him, to honor Him, and to be Him to those who don't know Him. If it's weakness in your eyes to surrender yourself to God because you don't want to go through life with only the help and teachings of man, then I am weak. But I don't see how standing up for something you believe in, even if you lose friends over it or go through harsh ridicule or maybe even die, is weak.

Now I know you didn't say it was weak, I'm just saying.

And I agree, those who try and disprove God are immature. That's just like saying those who try and prove there is a God is immature. Just backing what you believe.

Take homosexuality. There are a lot of wonderful, kind, relatively tolerant people in the religious community who believe that homosexuality should be discouraged and treated as evil and a disease. I could not possibly disagree with this stronger. I think that having that attitude has resulted in a lot of suffering and even death.

I believe it's wrong, but it's nothing to act upon, or call that person out on. If any gay wanted to attend our church, we would all welcome them with open arms. Well . . . except for a few really conservative old folks. But the Senior Pastor would welcome them, and ask them personally to return.

If they wanted to join the church, that would not be permitted, but they would be implored to continue attending.

I know some gay people, and I treat them like my normal friends. They know where I stand on homosexuality, and they know I know I'm not gonna change them. If the Holy Spirit wants to move in their lives, and change them, my nagging won't help. I just plant a seed, and move on. If God wants to work, I did my part.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Why can't you debate the concept of God with logic & science? Since God is omnipotent and by our science & logic he can't be proven, how can you debate existance of God? I am sorry I'm not the most eloquent but thats how I can best describe what I mean..

But you could invent any number of entities, call them omnipotent, and then say science can't prove them. Most atheists argue that there has to be a foundation for belief. I doubt you believe in a magical omnipotent sky-donut. You'd probably dismiss it as silly. On the other hand, you believe in God. There has to be a reason for different treatment of the two.

I definitely agree with one part. Debating God with logic and science demands that we assume logic and science is correct. That's not necessarily true. But a lot of us think there is more empirical evidence that it's true than, say, God.

As for disproving the concept of God, if you have something against a religious system you look at the religious system & its teachings, in this case its all about ''God'' in general.. There is no thural view of religion as a whole just an attempt to disprove god and mock religious people, especially with the ending bravado

Now why specifically disprove God? If you have a problem with a religious system as a whole then yes you can debate it, but what does disproving a religions God have to do with morals & ethics? I don't see the connection all I can see is someone desperately trying to push someone else down based on their beliefs & mock them. ( This would also be my main point )

I don't understand "thural" or "ending bravado," but I sort of understand what you're saying. It's a valid point about the intent of some atheists. But I just do not see the harm of arguing the existence of God. No one is being forced to read this.

As for the homosexuality.. I haven't met any person who believes in God, well any that I wish to meet again that ''hates'' anything or would go out of their way to make life bad for a person dependant on their individuality. I have met some people who are religious on the net that know gay people and just ignore the fact that their religion deems it to be wrong, not like you become homosexual by talking to one..

I can't say I would be 100% accepting, but I wouldn't shun the person or be hostile to him.. If some friend, good acquintence of mine told me he is homosexual I'd accept it..

If you believe that your religion is the ultimate truth, I don't see how you can rationalize ignoring some of its teachings for emotional reasons.

And while I respect that position of half-hearted, it's not necessarily the mainstream. You cannot ignore the effect that religion has had on maintaining cultural homophobia in this country, and especially others. It has also manifested itself in social policy (prohibition of gay marriage) that I think is immoral and wrong. Most non-religious people feel that Christianity is at least responsible for some moral ill, and some think it is responsible for a lot. I'll write more specifically in my response to Andrew.

But I don't think atheists really need to "explain" why they want to debate God. If it's an intellectual exercise to them, why is it not their right? Yeah, some are pricks and are just in it to make religious people look/feel dumb. But that's the same with any debate.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Haha, God doesn't want to remove all doubt through the flesh. That would sort of be the same thing as taking free-will away. If anyone that tried to re-write the Bible had their "skin burnt with the fury of a thousand acids" (hahaha), then pretty much everyone would hold the Bible in an extremely authoritative position. God works by removing doubt from the spirit, in those who wish to receive it.

I guess so, but in order for the Bible's lack of modification to be indicative proof, I still maintain that it would have to be different than the treatment of any other Holy or canonical book ever published. When something fits into a logical pattern, I don't generally go looking for supernatural explanations. Maybe they're there, but there's no way to tell empirically.

I supposed what Hyper is getting at is that God has nothing to do with logic and reason. But we need to take into account, because of that very reason, that's the only way to debate Him. With something that has nothing to do with Him.

Yeah, and there's the biggest frustration in these kind of debates.

Religious people are annoyed that they have to argue on a playing field that's mostly theoretical, because their beliefs would probably exist irrespective of rationality.

Non-religious people are freaked out by the idea that someone could believe something without logical proof to originate and sustain it.

But I kind of like to ignore that because it makes discussions like these a little anticlimactic. :P

I think most(not all, most) people believe in religion because they are weak. I have a relationship with Christ, and I work my hardest to please Him, to honor Him, and to be Him to those who don't know Him. If it's weakness in your eyes to surrender yourself to God because you don't want to go through life with only the help and teachings of man, then I am weak. But I don't see how standing up for something you believe in, even if you lose friends over it or go through harsh ridicule or maybe even die, is weak.

Now I know you didn't say it was weak, I'm just saying.

Oh, no, I agree. A common atheist line is "they just believe it because they are weak," though. Maybe people do believe in religion because they are weak, but religion gives them the capacity to do very un-weak things. I know how difficult it is to follow my own moral coda, even if I believe in it so much, over my own basic nature and urges. So I think calling religion "easy" is a major cop-out.

I believe it's wrong, but it's nothing to act upon, or call that person out on. If any gay wanted to attend our church, we would all welcome them with open arms. Well . . . except for a few really conservative old folks. But the Senior Pastor would welcome them, and ask them personally to return.

If they wanted to join the church, that would not be permitted, but they would be implored to continue attending.

I know some gay people, and I treat them like my normal friends. They know where I stand on homosexuality, and they know I know I'm not gonna change them. If the Holy Spirit wants to move in their lives, and change them, my nagging won't help. I just plant a seed, and move on. If God wants to work, I did my part.

And that's the best I can really expect from someone who's theologically conservative. I don't think that position does that much harm. But it still entails telling someone that their sexuality and love is a force of evil, and not believing that, I just have trouble standing that.

So, I can kind of see why some atheists express frustration that people hold less-tolerating views on issues like that, and then can't logically defend them. Not to be an apologist for militant atheists, because it's not an excuse for taking pleasure in trying to ruin people's faiths, but that's philosophically very hard to swallow.

[Hyper]

The difference between the Christian God & your omnipotent-sky Donut (lmfao) is that 1 has hundreds of millions of followers, 1 has a religious system with teachings, scriptures, 1 has an ''organization'' dedicated to it with millions of members..

Obviously the omnipotent-sky Donut could receive maybe a hundred idiotic followers.. But thats the most simple distinction I can make..

By ending bravado I meant the '' Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:


"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

As for me and my house, we shall choose reality.''

That just goes to show what kind of a person this guy is who compiled his amazing arguement.. He falls in the same category as every other person I've seen debating trying to disprove religion.

See the thing is you can debate, you can try & rationalize.. But when you already believe in something & you convictionelly try to prove or disprove something. It really isn't a debate its just a ''I AM RIGHT YOUR WRONG!'' dogfight.. There are some very mature people that can debate and that don't let this factor get in the way atleast not to the extent that they'd drop into insulting their opponents or in general acting not appropriately..

I've seen ALOT of religion debates.. And I have rarely seen one where the no religion, god side doesn't end up bashing down the religious side systematically.. Infact thats what I almost always see happen.. Or I see people repeat themselves like record players sending out hidden insults.

And the thing is.. I have seen the religious sided people do the same, but when I look back and compare the 2 ''fronts'' the difference is incredible, the only religious people I see falling to immaturity usually are just some 13 year old brainwashed kids screaming your going to hell, some are above that level and just fall down to an even worse level of personal attacks & insults..

But the point really is if you want to debate religion go ahead, if you execute an ''attack'' on the ''centerpiece'' of someones religion, you are not debating, you're being a jerk.

You can't be against a religion if you don't know the religions teachings, morals, philosophy, scriptures those things in whole are supposed to form the vision of the religons God.. I simply find it inferior trying to go straight after the deity based on a few scriptural quotes & clearly biasedly overlooking a very important side of religion, which is done all the time in religious debates, things you can't explain with science, I can't come up with a word for it, but basically what almost always happens in the religion/god debate is that science & logic are the only things used by the ''non-believers, disprovers'' in an attempt to ''debunk'' everything in religion, now if you know anything about a religious system you'd know that is complete crap..

You may believe your religion is the ultimate truth but that doesn't mean you lack your own opinion, that is why we have different churches, that is why we have people like me who do believe in God & Jesus but who don't really fit in any church.. I believe you can use the bible to ''orientate'' simply because I do think it has pretty much everything in it, and the interpertations can really varie you'd be suprised what I for example or someone else would read out of the same line of text that another person understands as something completly opposite. The point here really is if we do have freewill to think & act we will question things in ways, some of us may not question Gods existance or non-existance but we will question what we are taught and what we read.

& The reason I bother posting this, is because I don't consider religion to be just any other debate.. Things like this split society apart and do alot of destruction & damage even though it could all be avoided with understandment & acceptance

[Dolphus Raymond]

The difference between the Christian God & your omnipotent-sky Donut (lmfao) is that 1 has hundreds of millions of followers, 1 has a religious system with teachings, scriptures, 1 has an ''organization'' dedicated to it with millions of members..

Obviously the omnipotent-sky Donut could receive maybe a hundred idiotic followers.. But thats the most simple distinction I can make..

But those are logical premises. You're arguing that your religion cannot be analyzed logically, and then defending its existence in logical terms. If a religious belief existed independent of rational reasons, it wouldn't matter if there were zero followers. It's also a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum, to argue that "lots of people agree" constitutes proof that something is true.

Besides, there are other religious systems with millions of followers, teachings, scriptures, etc. etc. Yet you essentially totally dismiss their potential validities by believing in yours.

By ending bravado I meant the '' Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:


"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

As for me and my house, we shall choose reality.''

That just goes to show what kind of a person this guy is who compiled his amazing arguement.. He falls in the same category as every other person I've seen debating trying to disprove religion.

I simply don't agree that all atheists who debate against religion are as vitriolic and immature as that author. I've known some who are reasonable, and just interested in belief systems.

See the thing is you can debate, you can try & rationalize.. But when you already believe in something & you convictionelly try to prove or disprove something. It really isn't a debate its just a ''I AM RIGHT YOUR WRONG!'' dogfight.. There are some very mature people that can debate and that don't let this factor get in the way atleast not to the extent that they'd drop into insulting their opponents or in general acting not appropriately..

I've seen ALOT of religion debates.. And I have never seen one where the no religion, god side doesn't end up bashing down the religious side systematically.. Infact thats what I almost always see happen.. Or I see people repeat themselves like record players sending out hidden insults.

And the thing is.. I have seen the religious sided people do the same, but when I look back and compare the 2 ''fronts'' the difference is incredible, the only religious people I see falling to maturity usually are just some 13 year old brainwashed kids screaming your going to hell, some are above that level and just fall down to an even worse level of personal attacks & insults..

I don't see any of that happening here.

But the point really is if you want to debate religion go ahead, if you execute an ''attack'' on the ''centerpiece'' of someones religion, you are not debating, you're being a jerk.

If I do it respectfully, no, I'm not. Why would I be? I'm not trying to disprove anything, anyway, just challenge it.

You can't be against a religion if you don't know the religions teachings, morals, philosophy, scriptures those things in whole are supposed to form the vision of the religons God.. I simply find it inferior trying to go straight after the deity based on a few scriptural quotes & clearly biasedly overlooking a very important side of religion, which is done all the time in religious debates, things you can't explain with science, I can't come up with a word for it, but basically what almost always happens in the religion/god debate is that science & logic are the only things used by the ''non-believers, disprovers'' in an attempt to ''debunk'' everything in religion, now if you know anything about a religious system you'd know that is complete crap..

I doubt you know all those things about the other religions of the world, yet you're "against them."

And I understand that you do not believe that science and logic have any place in your faith. But if someone else believes in science and logic, it's not that they don't understand that your faith claims that it is free from such constraints. It's that they believe it's irrational to believe without them.

That's not to say that there isn't anything free from the constraints of logic. But lots of atheists argue that, being that logic is all that we've able to see as demonstrably true in our world:

1. There's no rational reason to believe in an illogical God; that does not mean one doesn't exist (like our donut friend) but it does mean there's no reason to believe that one does other than "that's what my pastor and parents told me to believe."

2. A God who demands that they disobey empirical evidence is not a just God.

You may believe your religion is the ultimate truth but that doesn't mean you lack your own opinion, that is why we have different churches, that is why we have people like me who do believe in God & Jesus but who don't really fit in any churche.. I believe you can use the bible to ''orientate'' simply because I do think it has pretty much everything in it, and the interpertations can really varie you'd be suprised what I for example or someone else would read out of the same line of text that another person understands as something completly opposite. The point here really is if we do have freewill to think & act we will question things in ways, some of us may not question Gods existance or disexistance but we will question what we are taught and what we read.

I really do understand a little more about Christianity and theology than you're giving me credit for. I know there are different churches and different interpretations. I don't see how that relates to your argument.

& The reason I bother posting this, is because I don't consider religion to be just any other debate.. Things like this split society apart and do alot of destruction & damage even though it could all be avoided with understandment & acceptance

The problem is, when you have two people saying "I believe this, I refuse to change it, I don't care about logic," oftentimes the only way to settle debates is by the sword.

Logic certainly has the potential for rationalization, but at least we can all come to the same table.

If there's an argument against organized religion out there, that's it.

[Hyper]

But those are logical premises. You're arguing that your religion cannot be analyzed logically, and then defending its existence in logical terms. If a religious belief existed independent of rational reasons, it wouldn't matter if there were zero followers. It's also a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum, to argue that "lots of people agree" constitutes proof that something is true.

Besides, there are other religious systems with millions of followers, teachings, scriptures, etc. etc. Yet you essentially totally dismiss their potential validities by believing in yours.

No I'm saying that religion cannot be debated purely based on our own logic & science.


I simply don't agree that all atheists who debate against religion are as vitriolic and immature as that author. I've known some who are reasonable, and just interested in belief systems.

I may have worded my post incorrect, but I have seen some of the no religion side who aren't immature, but the kids who go out of their way to bash religion down and act snotty are overwhelming, even the ''grown ups''

I don't see any of that happening here.

Sorry I see you quoted, I had a typo there.. ''Rarely'' instead of ''Never''.. And the only reason I bother posting in here is because it hasn't happened, and hopefully wont.

If I do it respectfully, no, I'm not. Why would I be? I'm not trying to disprove anything, anyway, just challenge it.

My point remains the same.. You can't ''tackle'' a religion by taking 1 aspect of it and twisting it around.

I doubt you know all those things about the other religions of the world, yet you're "against them."

And I understand that you do not believe that science and logic have any place in your faith. But if someone else believes in science and logic, it's not that they don't understand that your faith claims that it is free from such constraints. It's that they believe it's irrational to believe without them.

That's not to say that there isn't anything free from the constraints of logic. But lots of atheists argue that, being that logic is all that we've able to see as demonstrably true in our world:

1. There's no rational reason to believe in an illogical God; that does not mean one doesn't exist (like our donut friend) but it does mean there's no reason to believe that one does other than "that's what my pastor and parents told me to believe."

2. A God who demands that they disobey empirical evidence is not a just God.

Sorry I can't really understand what you mean by 2.

I really do understand a little more about Christianity and theology than you're giving me credit for. I know there are different churches and different interpretations. I don't see how that relates to your argument.

''If you believe that your religion is the ultimate truth, I don't see how you can rationalize ignoring some of its teachings for emotional reasons.'' Your own words.. I don't see how that doesn't adress exactly that... Human beings think & question that is why there are different churches in the first place, that is why there is difference of opinion, debates, different forms of goverment.. I don't think I have to go on.


The problem is, when you have two people saying "I believe this, I refuse to change it, I don't care about logic," oftentimes the only way to settle debates is by the sword.

Logic certainly has the potential for rationalization, but at least we can all come to the same table.

If there's an argument against organized religion out there, that's it.

Like I said very much above.. I just don't like the fact that most religious debates are just attempts to bash & maim without any constructive criticism, analyzation and consideration of all aspects, my main point is you can't just debate religion & ignore the religion itself & only accept its sides when you can use them to try and contradict the religion itself.

I know I'm off broad, I haven't slept for well over a day and I'm not the most eloquent person + I'm not a native English speaker.. But I imagine my point is understandable, hopefully :rolleyes:

[Dolphus Raymond]

No I'm saying that religion cannot be debated purely based on our own logic & science.

But you can't. You support your own religion's validity (even if it's logically unsound) by pointing out a lot of people believe in it. Then, when someone says "x about your religion is illogical," you say it doesn't matter because logic is irrelevant to belief. You can't use logic when it suits you, and then abandon it when it doesn't. Either logic is relevant to supporting your belief or it isn't, and it's wrong to dismiss religions based on how many people believe them.

My point remains the same.. You can't ''tackle'' a religion by taking 1 aspect of it and twisting it around.

I'm not sure what you mean, since you've already said that you essentially can't tackle a religion at all. You're supposed to believe in whatever you believe, and ignore the fact that you don't have any definite basis to believe it over other religions.

Sorry I can't really understand what you mean by 2.

OK.

1. God creates a world dominated by logic, where everything fits into logic and the scientific process. We essentially are forced to live by logic.

2. God then demands that we ignore that and believe in one certain set of rules, without providing any clear way to distinguish which are true.

A lot of atheists would (reasonably) find that unjust -- and perhaps a logical indication that there is no God.

''If you believe that your religion is the ultimate truth, I don't see how you can rationalize ignoring some of its teachings for emotional reasons.'' Your own words.. I don't see how that doesn't adress exactly that... Human beings think & question that is why there are different churches in the first place, that is why there is difference of opinion, debates, different forms of goverment.. I don't think I have to go on.

I don't believe I ever argued that religious people don't think and question other religions. But that's the same trap you fell into earlier. You are willing to question things on a logical basis, except when it comes to your fundamental belief in God and religion. Why is everything else subject to the rules of logic, even if they relate to components of your religion, except for the belief itself? Clearly you believe in logic to some degree, but you impose arbitrary limitations to it.

Like I said very much above.. I just don't like the fact that most religious debates are just attempts to bash & maim without any constructive criticism, analyzation and consideration of all aspects, my main point is you can't just debate religion & ignore the religion itself & only accept its sides when you can use them to try and contradict the religion itself.

I don't see how I'm doing that.

I know I'm off broad, I haven't slept for well over a day and I'm not the most eloquent person + I'm not a native English speaker.. But I imagine my point is understandable, hopefully :rolleyes:

You're not a native English speaker? Damn, that's pretty impressive, then. I'm sorry for using the word "empiricism" twice. :P I bet that gave you extra dictionary work that I didn't mean for.

(What's your native language, out of curiosity?)

[Hyper]

I am sorry if I made it seem one way or the other, but my point is you can not debate religion if you only use logic & science without looking at other aspects. I don't think you can't apply any logic or science to religion, but there is a certain line for me from which you can't apply logic & science.

That 1. & 2. are quite common.. Who says you can't have both? I consider it to be a co-existance at some point there is a line where logic & science fails.. At some things logic & science excels, there are things that I or I doubt anyone can explain religiously that science & logic can explain.. They may not be as major as the religion debate, but yes my point is both exist logic, science & the ''supernatural''.. And about the unjust part the thing I have with all of these debates is the urge to step out of line to somewhere, where I am just talking to myself..

But I'll still go at it.. Even if God didn't exist or create us.. Who is to say our own logic & science isn't flawed & imperfect, the logic of 1 individual is always flawed in some way, be it ever so minor.. But the thing is things that we consider to be true and valid as ''laws'' could be all wrong in reality, we don't know really the universe is more than we can comprehend.... So on top of that philosophical, quad intelligent rant: anything is possible..

As I said I believe both are there, I believe both have the capacity to explain things, I believe logic & science can not explain everything.. I believe religion can not explain absolutely everything in the world, I do believe that religion for me personally explains pretty much everything major in the world regarding emotions, morals, ethics & such.. I can't really remember what its called but for me logic & science are just parts of the world God created. And if you wish to quote this line and respond with something regarding emotions, morals, ethics & such I'll remind you that I personally don't really fit in any church, I choose to believe in God & Jesus I may read the bible & I may go to church, but I don't belong in any specific church.

'' I don't see how I'm doing that. '' I never said you are.

I really don't go looking for the dictionary if theres 1 word I can't understand, if I see the word I read the entire sentenence and then I just usually know what someone is trying to say..

I actually had to use the dictionary to find out if I am using the right word somewhere along in my point.

My native language is Estonian :: Mu emakeel on Eesti keel

[Atonement]

I know I am not really in this debate or whatever, but I have to say about whoever was just talkin about homophobia and religion.

I am a whole hearted Christian and I have tons of gay friends. I have NO problem with it. I may not agree wtih their ACTIONS of homosexuality, but I cannot condemn them. I am taught to love all people. I dont believe that people are made homosexual. I believe homosexuality is an action. As for homophobia caused by the church, I say bullshit. I believe in another thread we established that most people are homophobic because they are afraid to be though gay too or hit on by the same sex. Though the church may not agree with the actions of homosexuality, we must love each other. And that is all that is important.

[Dolphus Raymond]

I am sorry if I made it seem one way or the other, but my point is you can not debate religion if you only use logic & science without looking at other aspects. I don't think you can't apply any logic or science to religion, but there is a certain line for me from which you can't apply logic & science.

That 1. & 2. are quite common.. Who says you can't have both? I consider it to be a co-existance at some point there is a line where logic & science fails.. At some things logic & science excels, there are things that I or I doubt anyone can explain religiously that science & logic can explain.. They may not be as major as the religion debate, but yes my point is both exist logic, science & the ''supernatural''.. And about the unjust part the thing I have with all of these debates is the urge to step out of line to somewhere, where I am just talking to myself..

You've lost me again, but I genuinely understand the part about logic not applying to your religion. But there is a reason you believe one religion and not another, right? That wasn't random. God may be free from logic, but human behavior isn't, and belief is a human behavior. So, your belief can be logically analyzed just like anything else. Do you see what I'm saying?

But I'll still go at it.. Even if God didn't exist or create us.. Who is to say our own logic & science isn't flawed & imperfect, the logic of 1 individual is always flawed in some way, be it ever so minor.. But the thing is things that we consider to be true and valid as ''laws'' could be all wrong in reality, we don't know really the universe is more than we can comprehend.... So on top of that philosophical, quad intelligent rant: anything is possible..

No, no one can know anything without being omniscient. That doesn't mean we should just give up on thought and revert to tradition, or whatever.

I don't see any reason to believe that logic is flawed. Human use/abuse of logic can be. However, I find logic a lot more comforting than "this is what I believe, you can't change it because I believe it and nothing will ever change that."

'' I don't see how I'm doing that. '' I never said you are.

Well, if I'm not, and no one else is, then it seems kind of irrelevant to the topic.

I really don't go looking for the dictionary if theres 1 word I can't understand, if I see the word I read the entire sentenence and then I just usually know what someone is trying to say..

I actually had to use the dictionary to find out if I am using the right word somewhere along in my point.

My native language is Estonian :: Mu emakeel on Eesti keel

Your English is really good...I'm less confused than I often am with native English speakers. :)

[Dolphus Raymond]

I know I am not really in this debate or whatever, but I have to say about whoever was just talkin about homophobia and religion.

I am a whole hearted Christian and I have tons of gay friends. I have NO problem with it. I may not agree wtih their ACTIONS of homosexuality, but I cannot condemn them. I am taught to love all people. I dont believe that people are made homosexual. I believe homosexuality is an action. As for homophobia caused by the church, I say bullshit. I believe in another thread we established that most people are homophobic because they are afraid to be though gay too or hit on by the same sex. Though the church may not agree with the actions of homosexuality, we must love each other. And that is all that is important.

Plenty of people use religion as a rationalization for their homophobia. If you don't think that religious beliefs contribute to homophobia, I think you should take a look at Africa, the Middle East, most of Asia, Eastern Europe...a ton of countries. It's not bullshit. It happens. It does in culturally conservative secular societies too (e.g., the Soviet bloc) but religion and traditionalist thinking have had a part in perpetuating homophobic attitudes. Even if it's not religion, an "I believe this, I don't care if it's illogical" attitude is still responsible.

And while I do appreciate that you are respectful of gay people, and love them despite their sins, I still profoundly disagree with the idea of treating homosexuality as a "sin." My love and sexuality is important to me. If I were gay, and I had friends who loved me but told me it was evil, it would cut very deeply. The idea of feeling discomfort and shame about something like that horrifies me. So, even though I think taking a loving but anti-homosexuality position is better than outright homophobia, I can't accept or condone it. It's still wrong to me.

Edit: Attitudes toward homosexuality are a sore spot for me, if you hadn't guessed. It's one of the few areas where I think Western religion does more bad than good.

[Hyper]

You've lost me again, but I genuinely understand the part about logic not applying to your religion. But there is a reason you believe one religion and not another, right? That wasn't random. God may be free from logic, but human behavior isn't, and belief is a human behavior. So, your belief can be logically analyzed just like anything else. Do you see what I'm saying?



No, no one can know anything without being omniscient. That doesn't mean we should just give up on thought and revert to tradition, or whatever.

I don't see any reason to believe that logic is flawed. Human use/abuse of logic can be. However, I find logic a lot more comforting than "this is what I believe, you can't change it because I believe it and nothing will ever change that."


I never chose to believe in God or Jesus, I always have.. And when my mother actually started talking about religion I had already thought about it myself for ages and for myself ''knew'' that God was there and nobody ever told me to think so, its just been so as long as I remember.

'' No one can know anything without being omniscient '' well with 2 days of no sleep, drunk and tired I came to a thought I forgot to post..

If by logic or theory we could be wrong in anything & everything, and if our use of logic is flawed.. Damn I lost it sorry.. I really did..... I just blanked out..

But the thing is if your not omnipotent and you don't know for absolutely sure, you can't really say you know anything your just assuming you know based on your own belief & your own created proof. I have no idea if I'm making any sense I'll read it in the morning

And the relevance of me bringing up the point regarding the religion debates & how their handled does matter as I still find the original concept of this thread to be wrong & agitative ( I think thats right xD ).. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted

[Dolphus Raymond]

I never chose to believe in God or Jesus, I always have.. And when my mother actually started talking about religion I had already thought about it myself for ages and for myself ''knew'' that God was there and nobody ever told me to think so, its just been so as long as I remember.

No, you haven't always...you weren't born as a Christian. Somewhere along the way, something made you believe in the religion. Maybe it was because your parents raised you that way and you never questioned it much. Maybe it was for some other reason. I don't really know, but if you weren't born a Christian...wouldn't that really not be the "free will" your religion proclaims in the first place?

'' No one can know anything without being omniscient '' well with 2 days of no sleep, drunk and tired I came to a thought I forgot to post..

If by logic or theory we could be wrong in anything & everything, and if our use of logic is flawed.. Damn I lost it sorry.. I really did..... I just blanked out..

Err, OK...

But the thing is if your not omnipotent and you don't know for absolutely sure, you can't really say you know anything your just assuming you know based on your own belief & your own created proof. I have no idea if I'm making any sense I'll read it in the morning

I think you mean omniscient. Omniscient is all-knowing; omnipotent is all-powerful.

And, no, it doesn't make much sense to me. Unless you mean that you have to accept some truth before you make conclusions from it.

But that still doesn't explain where your belief originated. If it wasn't from empirical evidence, and it wasn't random, and free will exists, what can it be? And how can you be sure that it isn't just lunacy?

And the relevance of me bringing up the point regarding the religion debates & how their handled does matter as I still find the original concept of this thread to be wrong & agitative ( I think thats right xD ).. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted

That's a fair point. The first post article is dickish.

[Andrew56]

As we continue in this, I wanna make sure it's understood, because I've said it a few times and it feels like it's blown over.

I AM NOT RELIGIOUS! I DO NOT HAVE A RELIGION!

I (theoretically, fine, what ever) have a relationship with Christ, and I follow what he tells me to do. Some people may describe that as a religious zeal, or summit, but I do not believe true Christianity is a religion. I want people to understand this in my future replies.

Carry on.

[Dolphus Raymond]

As we continue in this, I wanna make sure it's understood, because I've said it a few times and it feels like it's blown over.

I AM NOT RELIGIOUS! I DO NOT HAVE A RELIGION!

I (theoretically, fine, what ever) have a relationship with Christ, and I follow what he tells me to do. Some people may describe that as a religious zeal, or summit, but I do not believe true Christianity is a religion. I want people to understand this in my future replies.

Carry on.

I've always understood religion to mean "a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe," as my dictionary defines it. That's how I've been using it. You've piqued my curiosity -- how do you differentiate your belief from a religion?

[Atonement]

Plenty of people use religion as a rationalization for their homophobia. If you don't think that religious beliefs contribute to homophobia, I think you should take a look at Africa, the Middle East, most of Asia, Eastern Europe...a ton of countries. It's not bullshit. It happens. It does in culturally conservative secular societies too (e.g., the Soviet bloc) but religion and traditionalist thinking have had a part in perpetuating homophobic attitudes. Even if it's not religion, an "I believe this, I don't care if it's illogical" attitude is still responsible.

And while I do appreciate that you are respectful of gay people, and love them despite their sins, I still profoundly disagree with the idea of treating homosexuality as a "sin." My love and sexuality is important to me. If I were gay, and I had friends who loved me but told me it was evil, it would cut very deeply. The idea of feeling discomfort and shame about something like that horrifies me. So, even though I think taking a loving but anti-homosexuality position is better than outright homophobia, I can't accept or condone it. It's still wrong to me.

Edit: Attitudes toward homosexuality are a sore spot for me, if you hadn't guessed. It's one of the few areas where I think Western religion does more bad than good.

When you said plenty of religions, you sited places with a mainly islamic influence, not christian, and considering this is a thread about the CHRISTIAN god, I find it irrelevant. You named the Middle East and Africa which are mainly islamic. Also, as for the eastern europe part, if you are speaking of germans, russians, polish, etc., A lot of anti-gay laws were created out of atheism, not out of christianity. At all.

The bible and christian leaders reason of homosexuality of "Why would god CREATE people to be unable to reproduce?" Well, the thing is, he wouldn't. See, sin is any actions of FREE WILL that is disapproved by God. Well, have sex with the same gender is a choice of free will. As for me, I have no problem with gay marriage, dating, etc. on a religious or a personal belief. See, I have no problem with the people that are gay, I simply dont believe that the lifestyle is correct.

[Dolphus Raymond]

When you said plenty of religions, you sited places with a mainly islamic influence, not christian, and considering this is a thread about the CHRISTIAN god, I find it irrelevant. You named the Middle East and Africa which are mainly islamic. Also, as for the eastern europe part, if you are speaking of germans, russians, polish, etc., A lot of anti-gay laws were created out of atheism, not out of christianity. At all.

The African Anglican church and the Catholic majority in Poland (which has never been anywhere near majority atheist like the Soviet Bloc countries) are both profoundly homophobic. So is the culture there, and there is an argument that the culture poisons the churches and not vice-versa. However, there is no way to argue that the homophobic attitudes in Poland (and numerous other countries) do not trace their origins to religion. But this all isn't really central to the argument (I'll get to why later on).

The bible and christian leaders reason of homosexuality of "Why would god CREATE people to be unable to reproduce?" Well, the thing is, he wouldn't. See, sin is any actions of FREE WILL that is disapproved by God. Well, have sex with the same gender is a choice of free will. As for me, I have no problem with gay marriage, dating, etc. on a religious or a personal belief. See, I have no problem with the people that are gay, I simply dont believe that the lifestyle is correct.

And I think that this belief, with all respect, is immoral and instills self-shame in people who are doing nothing wrong.

This isn't the place for a debate on Natural Law, but I'll say this since you brought it up. God creates disease that kills people, makes some adults infertile, and a number of other things not exactly conducive to procreation. What about the lifestyle is "incorrect"? Perhaps they are not normally functioning, procreating human beings, but if that is not making their life painful or handicapped to the point of their unhappiness, why does that matter? God is omnipotent; He can create whatever He wants. Unless you believe that humans have somehow free will-ed themselves into homosexuality...

This really is not central to my point, though. Christianity, maybe less so than other religions, has contributed to, and continues to allow for the rationalization of, homophobic attitudes in the U.S. and abroad. Does that mean it's Christianity's fault? Not necessarily. My point is, some atheists feel that until religion is abolished and replaced with rationalism, people will fall back on the "I believe it, you can't change that, facts can't change that" thinking and homophobia will be sustained.

Atheists who believe that Christianity is harmful generally do so because they see evidence that its existence sustains a type of thinking that contributes to concrete, unchanging hate and/or ignorance. They feel it's easier to convince someone to see a logical argument than change faith. I agree on that part, but I think they overestimate the damage religion does and underestimate the good.

I'm pleasantly surprised that you're personally opposed to the lifestyle but aren't to legal recognition of gay marriages, etc., though. Being welcoming and understanding to people whose lifestyle you disagree with, but not enforcing your own views on them, must be difficult. I still think it's wrong to condemn them at all, but that's definitely the softest way that form of disapproval can be expressed.

But how can I condone someone making someone feel guilty for expressing a love that I do not think is wrong? I just can't. Would you really expect me to?

[Andrew56]

I've always understood religion to mean "a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe," as my dictionary defines it. That's how I've been using it. You've piqued my curiosity -- how do you differentiate your belief from a religion?

Well, that definition is pretty accurate for Christianity, but there is too much of a connotation with the word "religion".

Religion . . . All that is, is a distraction. The only thing that really matters is your relationship with Jesus. God wants relationship, not religion. Religion is man's effort to fill the void created when man rejected a relationship with God. Christianity is a relationship with God. It is trusting in Jesus and what He did on the cross for you (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), not on what you can do for yourself (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christianity is not about ornate buildings, flamboyant preachers, or traditional rituals and rules or systems of belief. Christianity is about truly accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

Love is the reason we were created. Love is the reason we live. Love is why Christ went to the cross. Love is why our souls have been freed from the bondage of selfishness and sin. Love is selflessness. Living a life of love is living a holy life. Love is truly what each of us seeks in life. God is love. All Christianity is, is loving God for what He did for you, show His love to others, and doing all you can to please Him. I want God to be happy with what I'm doing for Him.

What about the lifestyle is "incorrect"? Perhaps they are not normally functioning, procreating human beings, but if that is not making their life painful or handicapped to the point of their unhappiness, why does that matter? God is omnipotent; He can create whatever He wants. Unless you believe that humans have somehow free will-ed themselves into homosexuality...

Humans have free-will, but God knows the future . . . It gets kinda sticky there.

Anyways, it's simply a mental dysfunction. Just like any other mental disorder. No biggie. Plain and simple.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Well, that definition is pretty accurate for Christianity, but there is too much of a connotation with the word "religion".

Religion . . . All that is, is a distraction. The only thing that really matters is your relationship with Jesus. God wants relationship, not religion. Religion is man's effort to fill the void created when man rejected a relationship with God. Christianity is a relationship with God. It is trusting in Jesus and what He did on the cross for you (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), not on what you can do for yourself (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christianity is not about ornate buildings, flamboyant preachers, or traditional rituals and rules or systems of belief. Christianity is about truly accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

Love is the reason we were created. Love is the reason we live. Love is why Christ went to the cross. Love is why our souls have been freed from the bondage of selfishness and sin. Love is selflessness. Living a life of love is living a holy life. Love is truly what each of us seeks in life. God is love. All Christianity is, is loving God for what He did for you, show His love to others, and doing all you can to please Him. I want God to be happy with what I'm doing for Him.

I see. So it's not really that you don't agree in religion by the dictionary definition, but that you want to separate your beliefs from those believes commonly associated with "religion." Is that an accurate representation?

Humans have free-will, but God knows the future . . . It gets kinda sticky there.

Doesn't it ever.

Anyways, it's simply a mental dysfunction. Just like any other mental disorder. No biggie. Plain and simple.

Yikes...I just don't know what to say. If everyone around me told me that the love I have for my girlfriend was a mental disorder and a sin, and I believed that it was contrary to universal order, it would probably destroy me. I can't respect that Christian belief. I think it is a big deal to a lot of people. Even if it weren't, wrong is wrong.

Most atheist arguments about Christianity doing wrong are completely invalid to me. This is one of the few that isn't.

No biggie, I guess. Or whatever.

[Andrew56]

I see. So it's not really that you don't agree in religion by the dictionary definition, but that you want to separate your beliefs from those believes commonly associated with "religion." Is that an accurate representation?

Well, I don't really think it's a good description of religion. To me religion is something you have to follow and it comes with justifications and false comforts. I believe what I believe, and do what I do, out of my own desire to please God. Not to save myself from anything. I'm born again and nothing can ever change that. I can spend the rest of my life doing anything I want. But I don't. God asks us to be His representative to everyone else. And I'll do my best.

Yikes...I just don't know what to say. If everyone around me told me that the love I have for my girlfriend was a mental disorder and a sin, and I believed that it was contrary to universal order, it would probably destroy me. I can't respect that Christian belief. I think it is a big deal to a lot of people. Even if it weren't, wrong is wrong.

Most atheist arguments about Christianity doing wrong are completely invalid to me. This is one of the few that isn't.

No biggie, I guess. Or whatever.

Well, has a gay person ever been molested and become straight person? Has it ever been worth mentioning that a person was "born straight"?

50 years ago everyone recoiled at the idea of homosexuality. The amount of gays has increased by a crazy percentage since then too. Why? Because the idea is slowly becoming more and more acceptable.

And to any gays on VT - I'm totally cool with you, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just explaining what I believe.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Well, has a gay person ever been molested and become straight person?

No, but people have been molested and still grown up straight. Having a traumatic childhood does not make anything abnormal that follows from that traumatic childhood a mental disorder. A mental disorder is defined by causing "behavioral or psychological condition or syndrome that causes significant distress, disability, disturbed functioning, or increased risk of harm or pain to one's self or others." It's a touchy definition because simply being abnormal can be characterized as such. I do not agree that homosexuality fits into these definitions unless we make it.

Has it ever been worth mentioning that a person was "born straight"?

I've heard a lot of people referenced as straight. I can't think of a reason why anyone would be referenced as being "born straight" or "born gay" except in the context of an argument over homosexuality. I don't see your point.

50 years ago everyone recoiled at the idea of homosexuality. The amount of gays has increased by a crazy percentage since then too. Why? Because the idea is slowly becoming more and more acceptable.

I don't reject the idea that there has been an increase in self-reporting of homosexuality as it becomes more acceptable. There was a time when many gay guys were forced into loveless marriages to pretend to be straight. I imagine increased acceptance leads to increased homosexual behavior, yeah. I tend to agree with Kinsey's findings in that only a little over a third of the human male population is exclusively heterosexual. It's possible that the percentile on Kinsey's "scale" at which homosexual behavior starts has moved lower due to increased acceptance. I see no reason to believe that homosexuality itself has increased significantly, but we lack honest studies on homosexuality before a certain time, so we'll really never know.

Here's the deal, though. Homosexuality does not fall into the diagnostic criteria of a mental disorder. It does not cause "disability" unless you consider reluctance to have sex with the other sex to be a disability. It does not cause "disturbed functioning." It does not cause "significant distress" unless, as a culture, we let it. There is nothing that stops someone from living a happy, healthy life as a homosexual.

Essentially, the point of medicine is to make people happy and healthy. I understand that you have your Biblical belief on homosexuality. So I don't think it's necessary for you to argue for a secular rationalization...I don't really think there is one. Unless we assume that the purpose of life is to be anything other than a happy, functioning person who shows love and compassion to others, it takes a lot of twisting to fit all cases of homosexuality under the label of "bad thing." And I don't really think it matters, because even if I could fit it all under the label of "good thing," that wouldn't change your belief would it? So, I don't know where this is meant to be going.

[Andrew56]

You're right, it wouldn't.

And again, this is simply down to my faith - God said homosexuality was wrong.

[Dolphus Raymond]

You're right, it wouldn't.

And again, this is simply down to my faith - God said homosexuality was wrong.

Yep, and my arguments - no matter how logically persuasive - aren't going to change your mind.

That's why a lot of secular-humanist atheists feel threatened by Christianity. It entails adopting and maintaining beliefs, even if on rational terms, those beliefs seem illogical, hurtful or immoral. That's a little scary to a lot of people.

(This was all mostly an attempt to answer to what Hyper was saying, by the way. I'm not meaning to drag you out as an example. That's just kinda how it turned out...)

[Andrew56]

No, that's fine.

I've just never found evidence that it definitive enough to have me revoke my faith.

Where is Yuri in all of this?

And I'm turning this into a book.

Not objective, it will be from a Christian stand point, but your points will not be edited or smashed. I will give you credit as a logical, reasonable person, and I'll send you the whole thing before I show it to anyone else.

What does everyone want to be called in the book?

[Dolphus Raymond]

Hah, cool. Feel free to use my real name (MSN in my profile - I'd rather not post it where the search engine spiders can see.) :)

[Prince Jellyfish]

People should reject God defiantly in order to pour out all their loving solicitude upon mankind.

[weredemon]

Christans only need to say "god said let it be and it happened"

[theOperaGhost]

Old thread...plus we try to keep all religious debate here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7985). :locked: