Prove God Exists - Act Three

[Phydeaux]

Don't get it...

All that you have is the part that makes up the code, you don't have the code yet...

This strawman arguement is funny. The author takes some random email from an unknown source, then reads 2 paragraphs of a college biology textbook and says there are errors in what the random email says.... Interestingly enough, it doesn't even mention how exactly bacteria from the rainforest, for example, acquire resistance. All it says is something about bacteria in hospitals collecting plasmids which contain antibiotics which give them resistance. Explain, then, how mosquito's became resistant to bug spray and mosquito repellent. This happened in the country I was born, and causes problems in the rainforest areas.

The bacteria mostlikely just spread over there from people who had them already.
I never heard of the mosquito thing.

Again, Huh? These forces don't even exist! There is no "fire, earth, water and air" in everything! It's just a nice story.

Then what was your point?

Everything he says is an analogy! Jesus preached in parables. Christians do this all the time and call it logic. Logic is not evidence. Here's an example of a religious guy using an analogy to prove his point:

Not every thing He said was a parable.

 

[Smidlee]

You are avoiding me again!

I ask again - Do you honestly think the eden myth to be real?

nice try Curt but I'm not falling for that one. It's like "do you still beat your wife?" kind of questions.

 

[Mise]

The bacteria mostlikely just spread over there from people who had them already.

To the middle of the rainforest? Do you know how many people live in the rainforest? The population density is approximately zero!

I never heard of the mosquito thing.

Then don't talk to me about being ignorant about evolution...

Then what was your point?

The point is that it is a conclusion based on analogy, not on empirical evidence, and hence the conclusion is false.

Not every thing He said was a parable.

Everything of meaning and importance was a parable. He convinced people that he was right by using parables.

The point of me bringing this up was that most, if not all, of the meaningful stories in the Bible are analogies and parables, and this is what convinces people, both at the time and those who read it today, that what the Bible is saying is true. If you thought about most of the things the bible says in more detail, you'd realise that it is largely oversimplifying problems. One example: An eye for an eye. Another example: Turn the other cheek. (Ignoring the fact that these purposely contradict each other). These are simple solutions to complex problems, which don't work (in reality, the best solution is generally a combination of the two, i.e. compromise).

In short, by using parables and analogy, the Bible is peddling a bunch of easy answers.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally Posted by FearlessLeader2
No studious reader of the Bible has difficulty distinguishing between the symbolic and the literal.

That's a good one!

No, it's a fact. People who familiarize themselves with the Word of God by actually reading it on a regular basis have far less difficulty understanding its context and recognising the style differences between metaphorical and literal passages.

But you can't have any of that, so it's time for yet another 'wit'-laden retort, eh?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

If Adam was so perfect at first, why did he sin?
God, having created him, obviously knew how he would react when forbidden from eating from the Tree of Knowledge. What this means, is that god designed Adam in a way that would lead him to sin, and then went and coaxed Adam right ahead into exile, making humankind imperfect while he's at it.
Seems to me like a roundabout way to first flatter ourselves by saying god created us in his own (perfect) form, then put in the obvious imperfection while still maintaining the notion that we were created perfect.

I took the liberty of emboldening a portion of your post, to highlight it. I would like to know where your knowledge of God comes from, because in over a dozen readings of the Bible cover to cover to date, I have yet to encounter chapter and verse where any claim is made to either omniscience or omnipotence. Supremely potent, yes. Supremely wise and informed, yes. Omni of either? Not that I've found.

Good thing too, because your strawman arguments would work great on an omnipotent, omniscient God. Next, I suppose you'll tell me that a God that can't claim those attributes isn't worth worshipping, even though your arguments already invalidate such a being. Talk about conflicted...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Do you really believe that? You know very well, deep inside you, that moral comes not from God, but from religions and laws.

I do. It is clear from what the laws of the land have been watered down to from their roots in the Ten Commandments (and the Hammurabic Code) that man is unfit to the task of making his own rules to guide his footsteps.

But God wouldn't eat the apples anyway! He doesn't need to eat! Adam did the right thing: to search and find his own piece of land, where he and only he would be the lord(and eat his very own apples).

And here is clear evidence: your grasp of morality is, tenuous, at best. If someone does not need their property they have no right to keep it? What if they don't have the strength to keep it, is it up for grabs then?

Just so I know which direction to run when society collapses, where do you live (generally, state is good enough). I don't want to live anywhere near the Omega You.

 

[Stapel]

No, it's a fact. People who familiarize themselves with the Word of God by actually reading it on a regular basis have far less difficulty understanding its context and recognising the style differences between metaphorical and literal passages.

Oh come on. You know that is not true! There are millions of people that actually do study the bible, yet have the same millions of ways to interpret it.

As someone who does read (parts of) the bible on a regular basis, I feel a bit confused by your remark.

How can someone read Jeremia's books, without thinking he was a nasty traitor working for the Babylonians?

How can someone read Paul's epistals, without thinking he was working for the Romans?

How in the world can we know what Jesus means when he sais: Give to Caesar, what is Caesar's. Was he cynical there?

There is absolutely no way how to find out what is meant literal, what is meant metaphorical and above all: what is meant cynical. Some things are obvious, but others are not!

Why do believe Paul was a true christian? Why not a follower of Satan, absuong Jesus, the son of God.
And later, the early catholic church, also led by follwers of Statan, decided his epistals should be part of the Bible.

Though I do not believe in God, nor in satan, I think that if they exist, it would make more sense to say Paul was led by Satan, than to say he was led by God/Jesus.

 

[King Alexander]

I do. It is clear from what the laws of the land have been watered down to from their roots in the Ten Commandments (and the Hammurabic Code) that man is unfit to the task of making his own rules to guide his footsteps.

In ancient Greece, these laws were formal and others were unwritten(the moral). Don't tell me that they came from the 10Commadments; they've never *heard* of them at that time.

And here is clear evidence: your grasp of morality is, tenuous, at best.

Thank you.

Just so I know which direction to run when society collapses, where do you live (generally, state is good enough). I don't want to live anywhere near the Omega You.

I think, God will make things happen that way, that we'll be together when society colapses; don't worry, though: I'll give you an apple pie, so all will be ok.

How can someone read Jeremia's books, without thinking he was a nasty traitor working for the Babylonians?

How can someone read Paul's epistals, without thinking he was working for the Romans?

Brilliant!!! Jeremia & Paul were double agents!!!

 

[Blasphemous]

No, it's a fact. People who familiarize themselves with the Word of God by actually reading it on a regular basis have far less difficulty understanding its context and recognising the style differences between metaphorical and literal passages.

But you can't have any of that, so it's time for yet another 'wit'-laden retort, eh?

Seems to me rather than knowing what's truth and what's metaphor, the person who reads the bible often just learns how exactly they liek to interpret it, and over time easily pick and choose what they like.

I would like to know where your knowledge of God comes from, because in over a dozen readings of the Bible cover to cover to date, I have yet to encounter chapter and verse where any claim is made to either omniscience or omnipotence. Supremely potent, yes. Supremely wise and informed, yes. Omni of either? Not that I've found.

He doesn't have to actually be omnipotent and omniscient for this whole botch-up in Eden. He created Adam, including the brain in its tremendous complexity, and supposedly including the soul and its whole mysteriosity. To create these things, he would have to understand them, I would assume.
So, understanding the mind and "soul" of Adam, he led him right on into damnation. Heck, even us puny mortals know what happens when you tell a kid not to eat from the damn apple tree! Don't tell me Mr. Almighty didn't know it!

Next, I suppose you'll tell me that a God that can't claim those attributes isn't worth worshipping, even though your arguments already invalidate such a being. Talk about conflicted...

It's sort of a moot point... I don't worship god because he doesn't exist. So, in his nonexistance, I don't care just how powerful he is believed to be. If he were to exist, then I would do what needs to be done to survive and prosper, even if that meant bowing down to him.

RE: Morality
I have never for one second underestimated the importance of religion in the developement of the moral societies we have the privelage to live in. I just think that these moral codes were made by humans (good, smart humans) and that their work is all but done, now that we have governments to carry out morality and order.

 

[Stapel]

Brilliant!!! Jeremia & Paul were double agents!!!

An example:
A country is being invaded. One of the president's advisors sais: We should not resist. This invasion is God's punishment. If we resist, God's wrath will only become worse!

After the invasion is complete, the king of the invasion country orders all members of the government of his newly invaded territory to bekilled, except this one advisor.

Hello?
Think!


Another example:
A country is suffering a cruel occupation. Here comes a man, member of the occupying community, that sais he is now a friend of the occupied people and tells them this occupation is God's will, as any government is presented to you by God.



Please.......
I am not the one being cynical here!

 

[Smidlee]

How can someone read Jeremia's books, without thinking he was a nasty traitor working for the Babylonians?

Jeremiah is known as the weeping prophet. Proverb 27:6 "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful." Isaiah was the first one claiming Babylon would judge Isreal even before Jeremiah. Jeremiah was trying to keep his people from rebelling againest Babylon since this would only make matters worst. Jeremiah revealed to Jerusalem that God wasn't going to overrule Nebuchadnezzar while all the other prophets was kissing up and deceited their own people to rebellion againest the powerful Babylonians. So Jeremiah was true to his people by telling the truth. Later the Jews kept Jeremiah's written but forgot the lying prophets.

Beware of those who pat you on the back and act like their are your best friends by telling you what you want to hear. More times than not they will stab you in the back. Yet a true friend will tell you the truth even if the truth hurts.

 

[polymath]

Beware of those who pat you on the back and act like their are your best friends by telling you what you want to hear. More times than not they will stab you in the back. Yet a true friend will tell you the truth even if the truth hurts.

That is why I am a true friend when I tell you that there is no pretty heaven place to go to when you die. There is no God looking out for you. I'm sorry, but it's true.

 

[Perfection]

No, it's a fact. People who familiarize themselves with the Word of God by actually reading it on a regular basis have far less difficulty understanding its context and recognising the style differences between metaphorical and literal passages.

But you can't have any of that, so it's time for yet another 'wit'-laden retort, eh?

Then why is there no consensus among religionists about what is symbolic and what is not?

 

[King Alexander]

Next, I suppose you'll tell me that a God that can't claim those attributes isn't worth worshipping, even though your arguments already invalidate such a being. Talk about conflicted...

Even if God existed, I'd still wouldn't worship him. I worship no one. I'd tell him to look elsewhere for worshipers. I'm the ruler of myself, and not a servant of God.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Even if God existed, I'd still wouldn't worship him. I worship no one. I'd tell him to look elsewhere for worshipers. I'm the ruler of myself, and not a servant of God.

Touche. Then please, regale us, tell us how well you have done for yourself guiding your own footsteps. Are you wealthy? Is your health hale and hearty? Do petitioners seek thy wisdom? Are you free from guilt and blame?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Then why is there no consensus among religionists about what is symbolic and what is not?

Could it be that some are less interested in what is right, and more interested in using Christ's message to control others? Ignore consensus. Revile religion. Read for yourself.

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for all things."

 

[Perfection]

Could it be that some are less interested in what is right, and more interested in using Christ's message to control others? Ignore consensus. Revile religion. Read for yourself.

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for all things."

So, according to you everyone who interprets the bible differntly from you is only doing so as a means to control others?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

No, according to me, it is better to read the Bible for yourself, rather than take someone else's word for what is in there.

 

[Perfection]

No, according to me, it is better to read the Bible for yourself, rather than take someone else's word for what is in there.

I've read the bible.

 

[King Alexander]

Touche. Then please, regale us, tell us how well you have done for yourself guiding your own footsteps. Are you wealthy? Is your health hale and hearty? Do petitioners seek thy wisdom? Are you free from guilt and blame?

FearlessLeader2, I'm afraid, you didn't understood what I was trying to say.

"Are you wealthy? Is your health hale and hearty?" What does this have to do with God? Are you saying that if I believed I'd be wealthy? Do you forget that the religion says "sell your fortunes and give it to the poor ones"(ok, grammar/spelling, as usual)? If you want to know, I'm doing fine, thank you, in both(I even challenge you in whatever exersise you want); Now, I got my current condition, thanks to my efforts and insistence(wow, I had to use a dictionary for that), and not the help of the God.

" Do petitioners seek thy wisdom? " I keep a low profile. That's why I'm relatively unknown(I even don't care to go for the president's chair!!!).

"Are you free from guilt and blame?" I can't explain this to you, because your guilt and blame comes from the religion; mine comes from my religion-free beliefs, and the Constitutional Laws.

No, according to me, it is better to read the Bible for yourself, rather than take someone else's word for what is in there.

Good! So you admit that anyone can interpret the Bible's stories anyway he wants. example: If you listen to a priest's intepretation of the Bible and the priest belongs to another Cristian religion, you'll say that he interpreted the Bible according to his faith. Now, why it isn't possible that the priests of your religion, can't do the same?