Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

About God

profile picture
cosmia
Posts: 46 - Karma: 62
http://www.youtube.com/v/s47ArcQL-XQ?version=3&hl=en_US">





Lots of good reasoning in this video. In one of my favorite responses it is said that when believers speak of the natural world they speak of pretty orchids or butterflies and reason that only an intelligent designer could ever conceive and create it. The believers never say, "Oh, only a God could create a worm that will eat an impoverished African kids face out and make the child blind for the rest of his life." Except it's said much more eloquently in the video. Discuss.
Jul 27 2011 12:00PM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
Good video at least.
Jul 29 2011 4:02AM
0 0
profile picture
SeanTom
Posts: 7936 - Karma: 1,747
Click for larger image

lol, this is on the sidebar.
Jul 29 2011 9:06AM
0 0
profile picture
TechnoPotamus
Posts: 11626 - Karma: 3,522
i said it once and i'll say it again, I aspire to one day reach the level of trolling that religion has.
Jul 29 2011 9:42AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
Actually...

The Old Testament was written over 2000 years ago, all before Jesus was ever around. some of it thousands of years before Jesus.

Much of the New Testament was written by people who lived with, traveled with, and witnessed Jesus die.
Jul 29 2011 10:54AM
0 0
profile picture
ohmythugaim
Posts: 1376 - Karma: 130
No, thats just what it says in the bible bro.
Jul 29 2011 12:24PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
Old testament is mostly oral tradition, scholars will claim first composed around 900-400 BC, taking a final form 400-150 BC. That's at least 2100 years old, practicing Jews obviously had this in a book form in one way or another many years before 1 AD.

Although people dispute the validity of some of the books of the New Testament, it's widely acknowledged that books were probably written in the middle to the end of the 1st century,

Matthew: 80-90
Mark: 64
Luke : 75-100
John - 90

In reality, not specifically penned by the people who lived with Jesus, but the people who those people lived with and followed during their lives. Again, probably partially oral tradition, and partially a combination of previous writings that were definitively authored at the end of the century. Mark is considered the most credible, Mark being a follower of Peter who likely wrote the book based on stories Peter told him. most people doubt that it was John himself who helped author John and more likely a group of people from his community of followers.

It's mostly agreed that the Epistles were written by the authors and at the time they were claimed to be written. Again, there's argument about the letters of John.

And, none of that is specifically what it says in the bible. Most versions of The Bible says these were all written specifically by their authors, likely shortly after Jesus died. Other versions don't make any claims and present the stories for what they are, leaving the interpretation up to the Church that bible is associated with.
Jul 29 2011 1:25PM
0 0
profile picture
ohmythugaim
Posts: 1376 - Karma: 130
Mainly referring to your "old testament was written thousands of years before jesus" bit...



Also, i'm always just trolling in these threads.
Jul 29 2011 1:35PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
Well, the oral tradition is from thousands of years before Jesus. It was probably written down somewhere.

And trolling annoys the piss out of people, it's not funny when it leads to pages of bullshit that people have to weed through to get to the reasonable content. Obnoxious trolling leads to mods.
Jul 29 2011 1:42PM
0 0
profile picture
SirFryanator
Posts: 11149 - Karma: 1,415
You know what? Fuck your academic perspective. I met God...or at least I had what can be called a religious experience. I believe we will eventually be able to solve most of the 'mysteries' of our universe with science, but I do believe that religion has basis in truth...in the sense that angels and gods are representations of the human psyche and heaven/hell is a state of mind.

Live and let live, and if you just want to play the game called the human experience, by all means go for it. If you would rather search for power than for enlightenment, by all means go for it. Just don't blame the consequences that come out of your actions on anyone but yourself.
Jul 29 2011 1:50PM
0 0
profile picture
Cufe.
Posts: 1950 - Karma: 262
Jul 29 2011 2:23PM
0 0
profile picture
mBall
Posts: 1690 - Karma: 2,827
I feel like on thing is often misunderstood/taught. I believe in God, but I don't follow him out of the fear of going to hell. Yes, many christian churches and followers DO teach that, but I don't believe that is the main reason. Yes everyone has there own choice, and that is why there is no irrefutable proof of gods existence. There would be no point in faith if there weren't any doubt.
Jul 29 2011 3:46PM
0 0
profile picture
TEPUKE573
Posts: 224 - Karma: 15
If i had a dollar for every time a religious person said that...
Jul 29 2011 11:40PM
0 0
profile picture
cosmia
Posts: 46 - Karma: 62
SirFryanator: I feel like your reasoning is straight from a rap song. I feel you though. Academics and super meta intellectual thought usually does lead to really empty and nihilistic bullshit.

TWoods: I feel you. To know the history of the word is quite legit and I learned something.

mBall: I feel you. I totally agree with you that doubt is important to faith.

To everyone else that probly won't read this far cause you be scanning: I feel you. This has been about as friendly as an NS debate about God could eva hope to be.

And I love you all.
Jul 30 2011 12:04AM
0 0
profile picture
cosmia
Posts: 46 - Karma: 62
I meant, the Word. Not the word, by the way.
Jul 30 2011 12:06AM
0 0
profile picture
MitchPee
Posts: 8871 - Karma: 1,509
Unfortunately there is an impact. The impact is that the majority of people who subscribe to a particular religion often use it as a canon for their political and social judgements on others. It's basically just another way for us to differentiate ourselves and see each other as unequal, different, and any other term that can reflect differences between ourselves. It promotes hate and intolerance of people in another group because they are not as "enlightened". Yes you may not be among this majority but it is a majority in America and sad as well.

While people may be treating others with kindness in small encounters, on a larger scale it is quite different. It's similar to a political party. If your church allocates funds to a particular cause or supports a particular caucus you in turn support it as well. Even if they advocate a certain political position in their sermons (which happens a lot) it is a group of people with a similar interest in mind. Then, again, you have apartheid treatment and the biggest issue of all: consolidation of power.
Jul 30 2011 1:01AM
0 0
profile picture
Daydreaming
Posts: 1686 - Karma: 48
And by extension, it later allowed us to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs. The Rosetta Stone had Ancient Greek and hieroglyphs on it.
Jul 30 2011 1:27AM
0 0
profile picture
shocker611
Posts: 2599 - Karma: 423
you realize that every single atheist in this thread has taken this exact "enlightened" stance against those of us that are religious. They all take the side that they are the intellectuals and look at us as being idiots. You realize that atheist organizations also often sponsor political candidates and other causes. It goes both ways man, stop acting like your side of the fence is perfect and that religious groups are the ones fucking things up
Jul 30 2011 2:03AM
0 0
profile picture
TEPUKE573
Posts: 224 - Karma: 15
but wouldn't that be a pretty accurate assumption? if there were no religion there would be no problem. and no, it doesn't work the other way.
Jul 30 2011 2:16AM
0 0
profile picture
shocker611
Posts: 2599 - Karma: 423
first time trolling?
Jul 30 2011 2:22AM
0 0
profile picture
TEPUKE573
Posts: 224 - Karma: 15
strong argument dood
Jul 30 2011 2:25AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
That's a dumb statement, of course it works both ways.

If everyone in the world took for an absolute complete fact there was no God, there would still be people that were wonderful philanthropists and people that were heartless killers.

If everyone in the world took any one specific set of religious beliefs as an absolute complete fact , etc, there would still be people that were wonderful philanthropists and people that were heartless killers.
Jul 30 2011 2:36AM
0 0
profile picture
TEPUKE573
Posts: 224 - Karma: 15
^no shit. i thought it would be pretty obvious i was talking about problems that arise/have arisen purely from religion.

and no, it doesn't work both ways.
Jul 30 2011 2:54AM
0 0
profile picture
cosmia
Posts: 46 - Karma: 62
Let's get real guys. A lot of major wars have been fought over religion. Without religion, these wars would not have happened. This seems, to me, like it is beyond opinion.

And for the dude who says intellectuals think they are the enlightened ones. I feel you.
Jul 30 2011 10:29AM
0 0
profile picture
MitchPee
Posts: 8871 - Karma: 1,509
Well I'm glad you assumed I was an atheist. That's your first mistake of being judgmental.

It goes both ways? Really? So you think the platform for atheist political contribution is anywhere near what it is from religious institutions? You are very naive if you think that. Religion has such a strong backhand to how people view social and political problems. This often translates to how they are informed politically and a severe skew of illogical thinking on social issues. For instance if God's way was challenging us in the real life as to our payoff for staying true to him, why would we help others? Wouldn't we just leave it alone because it's their challenge? This is a major fallacy with the way most religions view the world. It leaves for people of different race, sexual origin, religious origin, etc to often get treated as different or wrongly.

Perhaps the biggest point is atheism doesn't consolidate power. Yes there are atheists organizations, but that is hypocritical and equally as illogical as organized religion. Most self-proclaimed "atheists" do not organize and rarely, if ever, attack religious organizations in acts of terror. Atheists get the ability to question their surroundings and get to use diametrical thinking when looking at religions. that's one of the biggest enemies against reason and philosophy.

In essence, yes religious groups are fucking things up. However, this isn't about "sides". I don't feel I am on any side. That's the problem I am trying to describe to you, how "sides" result in severe conflicts throughout the world and have been a plague on our society for a long time.


Jul 30 2011 10:53AM
0 0
profile picture
SirFryanator
Posts: 11149 - Karma: 1,415
except you'd hear me calling 'him' a bastard and being really confused about what that 'other side' is all about, whether there is more than one god, if there are different levels of angels and devils...hence why I said representations of the human psyche and not theological beings.
Jul 30 2011 12:55PM
0 0
profile picture
shocker611
Posts: 2599 - Karma: 423
The main reason that religions have a larger impact is because there are many more people backing religion than atheism. And of course peoples belief system is going to effect their political leanings, theres nothing wrong with that! Youre again thinking in your own way and just deciding that anyone that has conservative leanings has "skewed" logic on social issues. Of course you are all for gay marriage and abortion, but that doesnt mean that there arent two sides to the argument and it also doesnt mean that just because you feel that it is right means that it is. And youre whole "religions dont like to help other people" argument is fucking retarded. Look at the mormon church for example, their people are REQUIRED to serve a mission, going other places to help those in need. Religions are responsible for giving more money to those in need than all of the governments in the world COMBINED . How can you even say that religions just let people struggle for themselves? Thats not even what the bible says, it is the direct opposite. Jesus healed the leper that noone else would touch, Jesus told a parable about how a Samaritan (Samaritans and Jews hated each other at the time) was more righteous than the religious Jews of the day, you obviously have zero knowledge of what is actually taught in the bible and instead have this completely ignorant thought that the bible encourages racism. Jesus taught to love your neighbors, NO MATTER WHO THEY WERE. I will never claim that I am for ORGANIZED RELIGION, so much of organized religion is fucked up, but this is in the same way that organized atheisms is fucked up. However I would like you to find one major thing that my church is doing so wrong. They give money to the poor, help the community, and arent forcing anything on anyone, so please tell me how my section of organized religion is doing so wrong. You just sit in your middle ground and never take a stand on anything, because that is how peaceloving individuals should live (and also how Hitler came to power). Conflict is sometimes good for the world, it brings the problems to the forefront and forces them to be solved.
Jul 30 2011 2:14PM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
Just a few things to think about....

Religion A. Believes that all who don't believe in their god are going to a worser position after they die.

Religion B. Believes that all who don't believe in their god are going to a worser position after they die.

Religion A and Religion B do not have the same god. Which religion is correct?

--------

If god is omnipotent, can he create a rock that is too big for himself to lift?

--------

person A. leads an entirely empathetic, philanthropic, good life as an atheist.

person B. leads a life filled with greed and apathy, and repents to their "merciful" god before death.

person C. leads a horrific shameful life as a murder and finds god in prison.

Who goes to a better place after death?

-------------------------------------------

I'm not judging any beliefs. I'm genuinely curious.
Jul 30 2011 2:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Funnel
Posts: 7816 - Karma: 1,534
Good list of questions.
Jul 30 2011 3:39PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
David Hume is famous for pointing out the absurdity (in the literal sense of the word) of religion by asking such questions repeatedly.

Some more:

- If got is infinite and nonmaterial, how can Jesus be a partial externalization of God?
- Doctrine of Transubstantiation is "nonsense" because an infinite and nonmaterial deity c cannot possibly be in the form of bread and wine.
- A self-proclaimed all-loving God cannot punish subjects to eternal damnation because no positive change is brought about. This is contrary to the definition of "all-loving."
- Natural disasters cannot be the work of God's punishment because no all-knowing God would make the mistake of assuming a large group of individuals are equally guilty for the sins of few, and no all-loving God would wrongfully punish.
- No all loving God would willingly allow suffering to occur if he had the ability to stop it, which an all-powerful God surely should be able to do. Here lies (what Hume calls) one of monotheism's greatest fallacies. Either God is not all-loving or he is not all-powerful. He cannot be both because that would be absurd.

I can't remember any more off the top of my head...
Jul 30 2011 4:10PM
0 0
profile picture
muFFn
Posts: 1040 - Karma: 74
This totally reminds me of Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man is Hard to Find."
Jul 30 2011 4:12PM
0 0
profile picture
SirFryanator
Posts: 11149 - Karma: 1,415
You're limiting yourself to Abrahamic religions. But that's ok. To answer these questions one needs to completely reconsider any mainstream, ignorant christian viewpoint you have been taught.

I won't answer question 1 because that is the main problem with the concept of a morally determined afterlife...which morals in which cultures are the true ones? come on, look at the deep aspects of all religions: a search for our place in the universe. afterlife is such a small part of that.

Question 2: There is a clear separation of spiritual/heavenly realms and physical (mind/body problem? hmmm). Another way to look at this world is animism, which is more of an eastern philosophy that all things are living...that consciousness and the space-time continuum are one and the same...meaning that matter, life, and events are all the same. That ties into Jung's synchronicity concept in psychology, btw...each person's life has individual meaning to one's spiritual self.

Thus, there are a few different ways you could answer it. You could be ignorant and take the commonly misrepresented perspective that the Christian God is a physical entity. That WOULD create an issue, wouldn't it...lol. But if you look at it as God created this universe, and that the laws of nature are God's work, then essentially the rock comes to be as a product of God.

But OH let's bring science in! Our universe is made up of open and closed systems, all building upon each other. If God is the final closed system, or just the infinity point, the rock would be at an unimaginably lower frequency of energy, aka matter (physical properties, etc.). Thus, God wouldn't be able to lift the rock because the rock is a part of God. hmm. Or you could just put god out there as a flash gordon badass dude who's just super strong and then yeah DUH God could lift that rock!

Question 3: Afterlife is bullshit, I believe in reincarnation or something to that extent. If I die into nothingness afterward too then I'ma still keep sayin hakuna matata.
Jul 30 2011 4:20PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I'm genuinely curious, what is your view on polarized faith? A huge criticism of modern Christianity is that polarize and distort parts of the faith to suit their lifestyle, to the point where they aren't even Christians anymore but are technically Deists.
Jul 30 2011 4:27PM
0 0
profile picture
mBall
Posts: 1690 - Karma: 2,827
1. The bible says that God sent his son Jesus to earth and he walked among us. He became flesh. He hasn't always been material, it was when he came to earth that he became material. Jesus has always been with God since the beginning. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God." It later says "The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"
2. If someone will not accept God's gift of eternal life, God can't give it to them. I think your missing one thing in particular... Christianity believes that God gave us CHOICE. Many choose not to follow God and it is their choice not to be saved.

Just thought I would give you my input.
Jul 30 2011 4:32PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
1. Yes, but the bible also states that Jesus is partially God, a proxy of sorts. If the word is God, and the word became flesh, then by the transitive property, God became flesh. This is contradictory to the claim that God cannot be partial and finite, and is infinite and nonmaterial.
2. Why would an all-loving God allow humans to not follow God and suffer for eternity because of it?
Jul 30 2011 4:44PM
0 0
profile picture
ImNotARacist
Posts: 5136 - Karma: -1,030
Person A dies, meets god and chills in heaven, contrary to what he believed, because he is a chill dude with good morals.

Person B dies, meets god and is sent back as a rat, as a lesson for the soul.

Person C dies, and is sent to hell for what he has done, murderers always lose.




I just created my own religion.
Jul 30 2011 4:45PM
0 0
profile picture
ImNotARacist
Posts: 5136 - Karma: -1,030
I may love you, but I shall give you what you deserve.
Jul 30 2011 4:47PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
That is contradictory though. An all-loving being would not deliberately subject a person to an eternity of suffering.

People often draw a parallel between this and a child-father relationship. A father punishes his child because he loves him and wants to raise him right. However this is a false dichotomy, for with a father/child relationship, there is (theoretically) a positive outcome. With a human/God relationship, we are talking an eternity. Positive reinforcement does not exist in this scenario, so one cannot possibly argue that damning a person to hell for eternity has any positive effect whatsoever.
Jul 30 2011 4:53PM
0 0
profile picture
mBall
Posts: 1690 - Karma: 2,827
1. Please tell me who said that God cannot become partial and finite. The Holy trinity is very complex. C.S. Lewis tries to explain it in that they are different parts of God. God the father- the part of God we pray to. God the son- became flesh, died on the cross, the bridge to salvation. God the spirit- our unity with God, the part of God that is with us. Like you said earlier, if God is all-powerful, would he not have the ability to become finite?
2. God is all-loving yes. Think about it, God loves us enough to let us choose what we want. If god made us love him, we would just be "robots" with no choice. He wants us to freely choose him, not to be forced to follow him.
Jul 30 2011 4:54PM
0 0
profile picture
shocker611
Posts: 2599 - Karma: 423
im just going to answer question 2, because 1 really is a confusing concept that i cant say i fully understand. God created us to be perfect, thats what we were supposed to be, but he also gave us choice. We (as a race) fucked that up with the apple. Pretty much we have to be perfect to be able to live in the presence of God (heaven) but of course noone is perfect. That is why Jesus was sent as a sacrifice, to take our sins, and make us perfect again so that we can live in the presence of God. Does it absolutely blow that great people could spend an eternity in hell? of course... That is why as a christians it is hard not to at least mention your beliefs around atheist friends, because that is the fear. Of course we dont want anyone to go to hell, who does, and that is why we may ask you (after knowing you for a while) if youd at least like to come check out what church is all about. Many people go about it all wrong like the dumbasses that yell at you on the corner or the kid that barely knows you but continues to preach to you, but you have to realize that it is a situation where they believe that if you dont convert that you will live in hell for eternity, and they simply dont want that for you. I wont try to convert anyone that doesnt want to hear it, because that will simply push people away, but if I know you well and know that you wont take it the wrong way I will probably ask if you are interested
Jul 30 2011 5:00PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
1. Not partially. Fully man and fully God. Think of God as a state of being more than a Noun, one God meaning there's one state of God, and multiple manifestations. It's hard to explain, really vague concept, but that's what the Trinity is all about.

2. The idea is that God loves his creation, but his creation doesn't inherently love Him. Creation was given free will. There's no glory in forcing people to respect you. He isn't damning them, they are damning themselves. He didn't create hell, the conscious rejection of God by his creation created hell, and therefore created a place for souls that don't love God to go when an earthly existence is over.
Jul 30 2011 5:02PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
1. Ha, you got me there. I don't own a bible, so I can't explicitly cite where it says that. But I distinctly remember reading in the Old Testament that God is infinite nonmaterial; everywhere always. And you're right, if God is all powerful, he would have the ability to become finite. But one cannot be both finite and infinite simultaneously. Isn't this the definition of absurdity?

2. Is it really all-loving if an all-knowing being knows we are going to live a life rejecting him, and allows us to do so only to spend an eternity in suffering for it? In what way is this loving?
Jul 30 2011 5:04PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
And, as to why it's described as eternal torture - if the presence of God is the best thing anyone could possibly comprehend, then it only makes sense that the absolute absence is the worst.
Jul 30 2011 5:05PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
If you were completely unable to control what to believe, what not to, what to love and what not to, I don't see how love could exist. It has to be out of free will.
Jul 30 2011 5:08PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
I agree. But still the problem remains; if it is up to free will, and he can foresee us rejecting him and suffering for eternity, but does nothing, wouldn't that contradict the definition of love as well? Hence the dilemma.
Jul 30 2011 5:13PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
That would contradict the definition of free will before love.

However, in certain cases he's been known to do a thing or two to help us along.
Jul 30 2011 5:15PM
0 0
profile picture
mBall
Posts: 1690 - Karma: 2,827
1. Once again, God is all powerful. "But one cannot be both..." Like TWoods said, God isn't a human confined by boundaries. Christianity believes he made the universe, would he not be able to do something so simple as to become a man and walk on the earth?
2. Ah this one is a tough one... One thing has to be made distinct: Although God "knows" what we are going to do, that doesn't mean he does it for us or has control over our decisions. The analogy this time CAN be made with the relationship between a father and son. I wouldn't lock my son inside a room forever just to keep him from sin. I would let him experience the world and choose to love me. If I locked him in his room forever he cannot possibly learn to truly love me.
Jul 30 2011 5:16PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Could you expand on that? Are you saying that the conceptual inconsistencies of God reciprocate?
Jul 30 2011 5:18PM
0 0
profile picture
SirFryanator
Posts: 11149 - Karma: 1,415
I guess I wouldn't call it a criticism of the religion, it's a criticism of the people for not breaking away from Christianity. I mean, if it says to stick by the Book in the religion and the church services are dedicated toward imprinting a belief system through groupmind then you aren't really learning, you're just being brainwashed. Literally.

So people who find their own parts of the bible shouldn't label themselves Christians. You find similar passages about life tips in every single religious text ever produced. I would label myself a buddhist but I have had both a zen enlightenment experience and a meeting with a monotheistic deity. the zen enlightenment was more a vision into infinity and nirvana, calmness within the body and mind. unity with nature. I read a lot into psychedelic philosophy so you probably find where I'm coming from if you read into Kesey.

this is similar to a belief system I could consider: http://www.universalconsciousness.com.au/

I would definitely consider myself a Deist to an extent. Although I just don't know. I think this universe is yet another closed system inside a body of closed systems beyond what our species will ever be able to perceive. Faith :P
Jul 30 2011 5:20PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
You're right; that was sloppy wording on my part. My bad.
Jul 30 2011 5:21PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
You said : "if it is up to free will, and he can foresee us rejecting him and suffering for eternity, but does nothing, wouldn't that contradict the definition of love as well?"

If He can see us rejecting Him, and DOES do something to force us to not reject Him, then we have lost free will.

I do believe that He does things to push us in that direction. Whether we see those things for what they are is what's not guaranteed.

Maybe that didn't answer your question - could you expand on what you're asking so I understand your question more?
Jul 30 2011 5:26PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)