NationStates Jolt Archive

This discussion boggles the mind.

What is the difference between denying the existence of god and not believing in god? What's being denied is a belief. So, "I deny the existence of god," is implicitly, "I deny that I believe in the existence of god," and so is identical to, "I don't believe in god."

This discussion boggles the mind.

What is the difference between denying the existence of god and not believing in god? What's being denied is a belief. So, "I deny the existence of god," is implicitly, "I deny that I believe in the existence of god," and so is identical to, "I don't believe in god."
No one implies just a lack of something to meet the requirements for believing in god the other implies an active anti god belief

No one implies just a lack of something to meet the requirements for believing in god the other implies an active anti god belief
Alright... what are "the requirements for believing in god"? Perhaps this is where I miss the boat.

Alright... what are "the requirements for believing in god"? Perhaps this is where I miss the boat.
What I ment by it is some of us like me naturally default to “no unless there is more info” we don’t really actively believe there is no god we are just so skeptical as we don’t have enough objective or personal info to convince us

Others have an active belief that there is no god … there is difference

This discussion boggles the mind.

What is the difference between denying the existence of god and not believing in god? What's being denied is a belief. So, "I deny the existence of god," is implicitly, "I deny that I believe in the existence of god," and so is identical to, "I don't believe in god."

If you believe it is possible to KNOW that there are no gods... you are making a statement of faith. You are making a categorical claim.

Thus - you are an Explicit, rather than Implicit Atheist.

If you simply cannot accept any of the concepts of god that you are given - you do not rule out the POSSIBILITY of any gods... you just don't accept the concept. Thus - you are an Implicit Atheist.

Statement of faith versus statement of logic.

I cannot claim there are no gods... because I believe it illogical to make such an assertion. I also cannot honestly claim there ARE any gods, for the same reason. THAT is the Implicit Atheist.

The way my wife describes it, is a fridge and milk. :)

If you look at the closed fridge, and think you can HONESTLY claim there is NO MILK in the fridge - you are an Explicit (milk) Atheist.

If you look at the closed fridge, and think you lack information either way, but don't think you have enough evidence to suspect there IS milk... you lack belief in milk... you are an Implicit (milk) Atheist.


On the third hand, if you are pretty sure someone told you that there was milk in there, and you believed it... well - that's where the believers come in...

On the FOURTH hand... if you CAN open the fridge, you can check if there is any milk... but, since we can't 'open the fridge'... we all have to guess by looking at the closed door. :)

If you believe it is possible to KNOW that there are no gods... you are making a statement of faith. You are making a categorical claim.

Thus - you are an Explicit, rather than Implicit Atheist.

If you simply cannot accept any of the concepts of god that you are given - you do not rule out the POSSIBILITY of any gods... you just don't accept the concept. Thus - you are an Implicit Atheist.

Statement of faith versus statement of logic.

I cannot claim there are no gods... because I believe it illogical to make such an assertion. I also cannot honestly claim there ARE any gods, for the same reason. THAT is the Implicit Atheist.

The way my wife describes it, is a fridge and milk. :)

If you look at the closed fridge, and think you can HONESTLY claim there is NO MILK in the fridge - you are an Explicit (milk) Atheist.

If you look at the closed fridge, and think you lack information either way, but don't think you have enough evidence to suspect there IS milk... you lack belief in milk... you are an Implicit (milk) Atheist.


On the third hand, if you are pretty sure someone told you that there was milk in there, and you believed it... well - that's where the believers come in...

On the FOURTH hand... if you CAN open the fridge, you can check if there is any milk... but, since we can't 'open the fridge'... we all have to guess by looking at the closed door. :)


And agnostic is those of us who do not believe it is ever possible to open the fridge :)

(I will have to remember that analogy)

There IS a need to be identified as 'Atheist' in as much as there is a need to be defined as anything... If someone asks me my religious perspective - what should I say? That I lack belief in a god, but that I don't completely rule out the POSSIBILITY that there could be a god/gods?

It is much 'easier' to identify myself as an Implicit Atheist.

Do you not identify yourself as 'Christian'?

"What are your religious beliefs?"
"I don't have any."
"What do you mean you don't have any?"
"Just that."
"But do you believe there are gods or there are no gods?"
"Neither. I don't know if there are or not. There is no evidence to suggest to me that god or gods exist, but to be fair no evidence they don't. So no religious beliefs."

Just as short of a conversation as -
"What are your religious beliefs?"
"I'm an implicit atheist."
"So you believe God doesn't exist."
"No, I'm an implicit atheist. I just don't believe in God."
Etc. Depending on if they're as stubborn as me.

I'm a theist but I don't completely rule out the possibility that there is no God. You can believe there is no God(s) just as I believe there is a God and still accept the possibility of being wrong.

If you believe it is possible to KNOW that there are no gods... you are making a statement of faith. You are making a categorical claim.

Thus - you are an Explicit, rather than Implicit Atheist.

If you simply cannot accept any of the concepts of god that you are given - you do not rule out the POSSIBILITY of any gods... you just don't accept the concept. Thus - you are an Implicit Atheist.

Statement of faith versus statement of logic.

I cannot claim there are no gods... because I believe it illogical to make such an assertion. I also cannot honestly claim there ARE any gods, for the same reason. THAT is the Implicit Atheist.

The way my wife describes it, is a fridge and milk. :)

If you look at the closed fridge, and think you can HONESTLY claim there is NO MILK in the fridge - you are an Explicit (milk) Atheist.

If you look at the closed fridge, and think you lack information either way, but don't think you have enough evidence to suspect there IS milk... you lack belief in milk... you are an Implicit (milk) Atheist.


On the third hand, if you are pretty sure someone told you that there was milk in there, and you believed it... well - that's where the believers come in...

On the FOURTH hand... if you CAN open the fridge, you can check if there is any milk... but, since we can't 'open the fridge'... we all have to guess by looking at the closed door. :)

See, I hold that if you believe there is milk in the fridge (pretty sure someone told you there was) = theist and if you believe there is not any milk in the fridge (because how would it get in there because we can't open the door but hold out for the possibility that milk could be in the fridge and you just don't know how it got there) = atheist. If you don't know then you're not either one. Of course, there are more extreme forms than what I described but I hold that there are not less extreme forms.

And to the first part, believe does not mean know. I believe there is a God. I'm a theist. I believe there is no God, you said that makes me an explicit atheist, but now you say an explicit athiests feels they KNOW there is no god. See why there is so much debate about this?

And agnostic is those of us who do not believe it is ever possible to open the fridge :)

(I will have to remember that analogy)

I would hold that agnostics believe that we have no reason to believe we will ever be able to open the fridge or they may believe that we won't be able to open the fridge while living. It's clearly possible to be an agnostic and believe that upon death you could be given access to the absolute reality of life (opening the fridge) or that at some point we could be exposed to the absolute reality of life while still living.

The point is the commonality of agnosticism is the belief that if we can't see in the fridge, we can't know what's in it. To suggest it is not ever possible to open the fridge is a judgement on the absolute reality as well.

What I ment by it is some of us like me naturally default to “no unless there is more info” we don’t really actively believe there is no god we are just so skeptical as we don’t have enough objective or personal info to convince us

Others have an active belief that there is no god … there is difference
I like your distinctions better than Grave's. ;-)

If you believe it is possible to KNOW that there are no gods... you are making a statement of faith. You are making a categorical claim.

Thus - you are an Explicit, rather than Implicit Atheist.

If you simply cannot accept any of the concepts of god that you are given - you do not rule out the POSSIBILITY of any gods... you just don't accept the concept. Thus - you are an Implicit Atheist.

Statement of faith versus statement of logic.
I understand that by "accept any of the concepts of god," you are saying that none of the current concepts of god are valid. But that is not disbelief in god, that is just denial that any of the current concepts of god describe anything real. That is not atheism, unless it proposes that concepts of god are actually really god.

This is where my confusion lies.

I cannot claim there are no gods... because I believe it illogical to make such an assertion. I also cannot honestly claim there ARE any gods, for the same reason. THAT is the Implicit Atheist.
That equates to a resounding, "I don't know if god actually exists." Know. Knowing. Gnosis.

The way my wife describes it, is a fridge and milk. :)

If you look at the closed fridge, and think you can HONESTLY claim there is NO MILK in the fridge - you are an Explicit (milk) Atheist.

If you look at the closed fridge, and think you lack information either way, but don't think you have enough evidence to suspect there IS milk... you lack belief in milk... you are an Implicit (milk) Atheist.
Isn't that what agnosticism is, a lack of information? Knowledge is the information lacking.

This is fun by the way, UT and Grave. Can we keep saying fridge and milk because people get so intense when you use the g word?

I believe that if we could open the fridge, we would find the milk had been drunk by Schrodinger's cat.

I believe that if we could open the fridge, we would find the milk had been drunk by Schrodinger's cat.
LOL :)

I don't know about God, but I like Hannibal Lecter's view on Him. A sadistic omnipotent power letting people do horrible things, affecting other things to please his lust for irony. Letting the roof of churches collapse is, according to Hannibal, the best proof of him malicious existence. He's got a point...
(But he ate people too)

Anyhow, I belive in either a sadistic power or just plain human evil. It's hard to tell.

I don't know about God, but I like Hannibal Lecter's view on Him. A sadistic omnipotent power letting people do horrible things, affecting other things to please his lust for irony. Letting the roof of churches collapse is, according to Hannibal, the best proof of him malicious existence. He's got a point...
(But he ate people too)

Anyhow, I belive in either a sadistic power or just plain human evil. It's hard to tell.
He has no more of a point than those who look at love and beauty and say they see god in that.

It says more about the observer than it does about the creator.

I believe that if we could open the fridge, we would find the milk had been drunk by Schrodinger's cat.
Lol that was so horrible … 10 stars :D

i'm an athiest because i am a religious historian. you do the math.

"What are your religious beliefs?"
"I don't have any."
"What do you mean you don't have any?"
"Just that."
"But do you believe there are gods or there are no gods?"
"Neither. I don't know if there are or not. There is no evidence to suggest to me that god or gods exist, but to be fair no evidence they don't. So no religious beliefs."

Just as short of a conversation as -
"What are your religious beliefs?"
"I'm an implicit atheist."
"So you believe God doesn't exist."
"No, I'm an implicit atheist. I just don't believe in God."
Etc. Depending on if they're as stubborn as me.

I'm a theist but I don't completely rule out the possibility that there is no God. You can believe there is no God(s) just as I believe there is a God and still accept the possibility of being wrong.

I might argue that, if you honestly believe there IS a 'god', but hold that opinion as a kind of default... awaiting evidence of the non-existence of 'god'... then you are an Implicit Theist, if we allow such an entity.

The problem is - atheist has been TAKEN to mean "person who believes there is no god".

I am not a 'believer' in 'gods', so I do not fit into the 'Theist' bracket... which leaves me 'a-theist', if you will.

Since I (and persons like me) fit more closely into the Atheistic bracket than into the Theistic bracket, but since we do not MATCH the conception of 'believing there to be NO god/gods' - it is necessary to show where in that bracket, we might reside - in order that we not misrepresent ourselves, or be misunderstood.

Thus - the Implicit Atheist, versus the (more traditionally defined) Explicit Atheist.

And, for those who can't understand why such a distinction might be important... it is much LESS than the distinction between Southern Baptist and Jehovah's Witness (for example)... and yet, I'm sure that members of either of those bodies would happily agree that the two are very different.

See, I hold that if you believe there is milk in the fridge (pretty sure someone told you there was) = theist and if you believe there is not any milk in the fridge (because how would it get in there because we can't open the door but hold out for the possibility that milk could be in the fridge and you just don't know how it got there) = atheist. If you don't know then you're not either one. Of course, there are more extreme forms than what I described but I hold that there are not less extreme forms.

And to the first part, believe does not mean know. I believe there is a God. I'm a theist. I believe there is no God, you said that makes me an explicit atheist, but now you say an explicit athiests feels they KNOW there is no god. See why there is so much debate about this?

So - you expect milk = you are a 'Theist'

And - if you don't expect milk = you are an 'Atheist'.

What about those who see no reason to support the conception of this 'milk' you all keep talking about?

So - you expect milk = you are a 'Theist'

And - if you don't expect milk = you are an 'Atheist'.

What about those who see no reason to support the conception of this 'milk' you all keep talking about?
What is the difference between that and expecting no milk? When you reduce it to expectation, the latter can only have the same expectation as the former. Unless...

Unless he has no knowledge of milk.

So - you expect milk = you are a 'Theist'

And - if you don't expect milk = you are an 'Atheist'.

What about those who see no reason to support the conception of this 'milk' you all keep talking about?

You're neither. If I'm attracted to men I'm homosexual and if I'm attracted to women I'm heterosexual, but what if I'm attracted to neither (yes, I know you can be attracted to both)? You don't have to be one or the other. Note: some will say asexual, but it's actually not used this way and it's presumptuous.

If I asked you to bet on whether there was milk or not you'd say, screw you, cuz I really have no idea, then you're not either one. What law says you have to one or the other.

Do something have to be empty or full? If I'm not big or small, what am I?

We really should expand on the different conceps of theists.

One theist believes in god with no reason to believe, or he doesn't know why he has chosen this path. Perhaps the concept simply appeals to him, or was born into a group that believes, and he, being a follower, has fallen in line. Whatever the circumstance, he has chosen to put his belief behind 'god' without evidence.

Another theist has a reason to believe; has evidence, whether it be apparently objective (beauty, truth) or entirely subjective, on which he bases his belief. He believes firmly in something real that he calls 'god'.

Would these be implicit and explicit theists? Soft and hard theists? Or would some other terms be more appropriate?


God is not the concept of god. The concept is an idea of what god is like, that we hold in our heads. It is how we understand him, how we imagine him to be, how we picture him (even the use of "him" is part of the concept). Either one of these types of believers may separate the concept from the fact and appreciate the difference. Either of these types of believers may hold the concept as god (literalist). The latter is the grand mistake, in my opinion, though some literalist would fight tooth and nail to object. Mythology reveals to us man's penchant for symbolism.

It's another matter when the atheist does this, when the atheist mistakes the concept of god for god. He is (literally) barking up, and at, the wrong tree. He becomes a literalist atheist (for lack of a better term) who pits himself in opposition to the concretization of the concept of god... little realising that what he is opposing is the grand mistake. Does that make him as much a literalist as the theist who does this?

Is it coincidence that the literalists gravitate to the 'soft' side of their respective orientations?

You're neither. If I'm attracted to men I'm homosexual and if I'm attracted to women I'm heterosexual, but what if I'm attracted to neither (yes, I know you can be attracted to both)? You don't have to be one or the other. Note: some will say asexual, but it's actually not used this way and it's presumptuous.

If I asked you to bet on whether there was milk or not you'd say, screw you, cuz I really have no idea, then you're not either one. What law says you have to one or the other.

Do something have to be empty or full? If I'm not big or small, what am I?
Not really a good analogy, simply because not being attracted to either sex/gender doesn't mean you don't have relationships, Platonic ones, and it doesn't mean you've never brought yourself to orgasm. So if asked about milk, in this sexuality context, it's not like they can't put two and two together.

If asked to bet on whether there was milk, they would most like bet "yes," or at least have some opinion about it.

all this talk about milk is making me want cookies damnit.

Not really a good analogy, simply because not being attracted to either sex/gender doesn't mean you don't have relationships, Platonic ones, and it doesn't mean you've never brought yourself to orgasm. So if asked about milk, in this sexuality context, it's not like they can't put two and two together.

If asked to bet on whether there was milk, they would most like bet "yes," or at least have some opinion about it.

Not to hijack the thread, but sexuality is defined by who you're attracted to not who you have sex with. I could be married and have children and be gay the whole time. In fact, many men come out of the closet after just that.

Not to hijack the thread, but sexuality is defined by who you're attracted to not who you have sex with. I could be married and have children and be gay the whole time. In fact, many men come out of the closet after just that.
Who you're attracted to sexually. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with others. The gay man who is married with kids is still attracted sexually to men.
But you're right, we shouldn't hijack this thread.

Who you're attracted to sexually. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with others. The gay man who is married with kids is still attracted sexually to men.
But you're right, we shouldn't hijack this thread.

You said the same thing I did.

I'm posting here not as an NS member but as a very worried person who saw this thread by accident and can't help but try to reply.

I am quite frightened by the staggering amount of you who see religion as, simply, a psychological phenomenon. Monotheists fill more than half the population of the world. Do you honestly think they would all affiliate themselves with religion if it were as simple as you put it?

Mythology started psychologically. The ancient Greeks saw lightning, they named its creator Zeus. They saw waves, they called them Poseidon. That is the characteristic of a mythology. Religion, on the other hand, is different. Christians didn't start thinking of a god because of natural phenomena, but because of the preachings and followings of a man they considered divine, and that man represented a supreme being, a god. They believed in this not to escape guilt, not as some kind of schizophrenia, but as something called faith. Not blind faith, just faith. Faith that a supreme being exists, that there is such an entity.

Science and religion do not contradict; one can be a believer in god while being a faithful and religous person. This is because science does not deal with the question of "why?"; it deals with "how?". Sure, the earth revolves around the sun, but why? Science stops there. How it can deal with, but it does not presume to explain the origins of the forcs of gravity, or the reasons, motives behind the forces in this world. That is where religion starts. The fact is, science cannot prove everything. Sceince is fluid. Next century, scinetists will scoff at what we today call "breakthroughs", and will in turn be scoffed at by their successors. Science is an explanation of what is, what we can see and feel and hear and taste. Religion, for one thing, is an explanation of what's behind it.

Don't try and look for evidence of religion, which would be ridicoulous. Religion is not a science. There is evidence that religion exists, but interpretation of this "evidence" is very subjective. Also, I must note that you shouldn't use probability as your argument, since probability, too, is scientific and you can't factor in the existence of a supreme being that way. It's not that religion is so illogical- in fact, science tends to be just as illogical, if not more, than religion- but that it is not measurable, countable, like other material things. It is a matter of faith. I don't accuse atheists of being somehow wrong or somesuch; I do, however, wish they'd stop seeing religion as a superstition of some sort.

I doubt this post will have any effect on the reader, who will already be entrenthed in his/her own position. I only ask that instead of mocking religion and religous people, talk to a religous authority; not to learn from that person the ways of their own religion and to convert, but to understand better the concept, the essence of religion. You have the full right not to believe any of this; you should not, however, disparage it as something minor. Remember; you are one person challenging a belief that counts more than 3 billion people as its members; you may be right, but you must understand that it isn't something ridicoulous but has some merit. The funny thing is, when a religous person has questions, like the very questions you are asking, they go to their religous authority and ask, and most times recieve satusfactory answers. When atheists have these questions, they harbor them as proofs of their truth, though the asnwers to those questions exist.

If you were wondering, by the way, I am a religous Jew.

I'm curious though, are you a Messianic Jew? Because there is a slight difference between them and a.. regular(?) Jew. Maybe thats too confusing. I myself am a born again Christian believer. Very good post.

I'm posting here not as an NS member but as a very worried person who saw this thread by accident and can't help but try to reply.

*snip*


I can't speak for everyone here, but I think most of the offence against "religious" people on this forum isn't against them having a religion. It's against them applying their religion in either a scientific situation, or applying their religion as rules for others to live by.

See the usual debates about:
creationism vs evolution
pro-choice vs pro-life

Some "atheists" do take this as a personal crusade, and try to tear down the religious's views. See the usual debates about:
atheism vs christianity

Generally, by and large, I don't think many people here have a problem with the religious having their religious beliefs. I know it appears that way, but look very carefully at who the atheists choose to argue against, and how/where those people were applying their beliefs. (not to say the people argued against are in the wrong).

Myself, I'm spiritual, believe that a God could exist, and that we won't find scientific evidence either way. Yet, I'm usually on the side of the atheists because of the context of the discussions.

Am I a messianic Jew? I believe the Messiah will come, any day, year or decade now. I do not believe that the messiah has already come. Does that answer your question?

As to you, EO, I understand that many people are atheistic with no disrespect towards religion, who simply do not accept the teachings of these religions but do not show contempt for them in any way. However, I am referring specifically to the many posters on this thread, many of who do indeed show contempt for the very concept of religion, in the belief of god. I have no debate with the former atheists; I am not trying to convert anyone and I respect this rational rejection of my religion. However, I will debate with those who believe that all religion is ridicoulous, superstitious or silly.

I'm posting here not as an NS member but as a very worried person who saw this thread by accident and can't help but try to reply.

I am quite frightened by the staggering amount of you who see religion as, simply, a psychological phenomenon. Monotheists fill more than half the population of the world. Do you honestly think they would all affiliate themselves with religion if it were as simple as you put it?

Mythology started psychologically. The ancient Greeks saw lightning, they named its creator Zeus. They saw waves, they called them Poseidon. That is the characteristic of a mythology.
This line reveals that you are not versed in what mythology is. It is, in fact, a very spiritual act to find and symbolise meaning in things.

Religion, on the other hand, is different. Christians didn't start thinking of a god because of natural phenomena, but because of the preachings and followings of a man they considered divine, and that man represented a supreme being, a god. They believed in this not to escape guilt, not as some kind of schizophrenia, but as something called faith. Not blind faith, just faith. Faith that a supreme being exists, that there is such an entity.
That's probably true. Please don't listen to those who promote the idea that mythology is some version of primitive 'science' whose purpose is to explain nature.

Science and religion do not contradict; one can be a believer in god while being a faithful and religous person. This is because science does not deal with the question of "why?"; it deals with "how?". Sure, the earth revolves around the sun, but why? Science stops there. How it can deal with, but it does not presume to explain the origins of the forcs of gravity, or the reasons, motives behind the forces in this world. That is where religion starts. The fact is, science cannot prove everything. Sceince is fluid. Next century, scinetists will scoff at what we today call "breakthroughs", and will in turn be scoffed at by their successors. Science is an explanation of what is, what we can see and feel and hear and taste. Religion, for one thing, is an explanation of what's behind it.
Oh! Here scientists have every reason to disagree with you. Science tries to explain "why" and "how." I myself would say the significant difference between them is that science explains how and why of the natural world, and religion, rather than "explaining" anything, is a method of centering or grounding oneself in that world, spiritually, in a community of like-minded people. This is how they are not contradictory.

Don't try and look for evidence of religion, which would be ridicoulous. Religion is not a science. There is evidence that religion exists, but interpretation of this "evidence" is very subjective. Also, I must note that you shouldn't use probability as your argument, since probability, too, is scientific and you can't factor in the existence of a supreme being that way. It's not that religion is so illogical- in fact, science tends to be just as illogical, if not more, than religion- but that it is not measurable, countable, like other material things. It is a matter of faith. I don't accuse atheists of being somehow wrong or somesuch; I do, however, wish they'd stop seeing religion as a superstition of some sort.
I don't find anything illogical about science. Scientists, on the other hand, are human, and not all that comes out of their mouths is science. I rather suspect, though, that illogic is found in not understanding their theories, or even misunderstanding what theory it is that is being put forth, when it is worded as statement.

I doubt this post will have any effect on the reader, who will already be entrenthed in his/her own position. I only ask that instead of mocking religion and religous people, talk to a religous authority; not to learn from that person the ways of their own religion and to convert, but to understand better the concept, the essence of religion. You have the full right not to believe any of this; you should not, however, disparage it as something minor. Remember; you are one person challenging a belief that counts more than 3 billion people as its members; you may be right, but you must understand that it isn't something ridicoulous but has some merit. The funny thing is, when a religous person has questions, like the very questions you are asking, they go to their religous authority and ask, and most times recieve satusfactory answers. When atheists have these questions, they harbor them as proofs of their truth, though the asnwers to those questions exist.

If you were wondering, by the way, I am a religous Jew.
Good advice.

What is the difference between that and expecting no milk? When you reduce it to expectation, the latter can only have the same expectation as the former. Unless...

Unless he has no knowledge of milk.

Simply because the 'true believer' and the Explicit Atheist have a degree of SURENESS.

We Implicit Atheists admit we don't know... and we aren't able to 'believe' (or categorically discredit) without SOME evidence, either way.

And - as you point out, all those who have never encountered any kind of milk-product, are defaulted to Implicit (milk) Atheist.

Simply because the 'true believer' and the Explicit Atheist have a degree of SURENESS.

We Implicit Atheists admit we don't know... and we aren't able to 'believe' (or categorically discredit) without SOME evidence, either way.

And - as you point out, all those who have never encountered any kind of milk-product, are defaulted to Implicit (milk) Atheist.
Alright. I'll keep "a degree of sureness" in mind when I hear or use these phrases.

You're neither. If I'm attracted to men I'm homosexual and if I'm attracted to women I'm heterosexual, but what if I'm attracted to neither (yes, I know you can be attracted to both)? You don't have to be one or the other. Note: some will say asexual, but it's actually not used this way and it's presumptuous.

If I asked you to bet on whether there was milk or not you'd say, screw you, cuz I really have no idea, then you're not either one. What law says you have to one or the other.

Do something have to be empty or full? If I'm not big or small, what am I?

"Do you believe in God?" is the question. I do not - so I am an Atheist.

I don't think I fit the commonly perceived aspect of Atheism (since I don't DENY the existence of 'god'... I just don't 'believe' in 'god') - so I, along with many others, chose to orient myself with a different 'aspect' of Atheism - which, for the sake of debate, we refer to as Implicit Atheism.

It's not a matter of 'laws' about being 'one or the other'.... it's a simple matter of NOT believing in 'god', but NOT identifying with another leap of faith either.

Alright. I'll keep "a degree of sureness" in mind when I hear or use these phrases.

Yay! Perhaps I have finally managed to work a way through my apparent fog of incomprehensibility. :)

The concept seems easy to me... I just can't seem to explain it to others.

I'm posting here not as an NS member but as a very worried person who saw this thread by accident and can't help but try to reply.

I am quite frightened by the staggering amount of you who see religion as, simply, a psychological phenomenon. Monotheists fill more than half the population of the world. Do you honestly think they would all affiliate themselves with religion if it were as simple as you put it?

Mythology started psychologically. The ancient Greeks saw lightning, they named its creator Zeus. They saw waves, they called them Poseidon. That is the characteristic of a mythology. Religion, on the other hand, is different. Christians didn't start thinking of a god because of natural phenomena, but because of the preachings and followings of a man they considered divine, and that man represented a supreme being, a god. They believed in this not to escape guilt, not as some kind of schizophrenia, but as something called faith. Not blind faith, just faith. Faith that a supreme being exists, that there is such an entity.



I'm a little perturbed that there is anyone out there who:

a) Thinks that Greeks were the originators of the first myths,

b) Thinks that the Christian 'god' is somehow unique, and thus, isolated from it's roots in an earlier religion,

c) Thinks that (despite the obvious clues in early Hebrew literature) the Jewish/Christian 'god' did NOT evolve from primarily natural phenomena.

Oh! Here scientists have every reason to disagree with you. Science tries to explain "why" and "how." I myself would say the significant difference between them is that science explains how and why of the natural world, and religion, rather than "explaining" anything, is a method of centering or grounding oneself in that world, spiritually, in a community of like-minded people. This is how they are not contradictory.
Depends on which 'why' you're talking about. Science might try to answer why the sky is blue (more properly worded 'how the sky appears blue'), but it does not actually answer 'why the sun exists', 'why are we here' (not to be confused with 'how did we come to be here'). See the difference? I believe TNZ was referring to questions like 'why are we here'.

"Do you believe in God?" is the question. I do not - so I am an Atheist.

Says who? Couldn't we just as easy change the use of theist to mean anyone who does not believe there is NO god(s)? Couldn't "Do you believe there are no gods/deities?" just as easily be the question. Much like the question could be either is the glass full/is the glass empty, and there are states of fullness/emptiness that are not covered by full and empty. You say it's about the people who are 'athiests' but what if I don't consider myself either a theist or an atheist because I ascribe to use of the classic definition of atheism? Don't people like that get a say?

I don't think I fit the commonly perceived aspect of Atheism (since I don't DENY the existence of 'god'... I just don't 'believe' in 'god') - so I, along with many others, chose to orient myself with a different 'aspect' of Atheism - which, for the sake of debate, we refer to as Implicit Atheism.

It's not a matter of 'laws' about being 'one or the other'.... it's a simple matter of NOT believing in 'god', but NOT identifying with another leap of faith either.

I don't have any response to this part. I understand this about you and find it reasonable. Now stop attacking me like TNZ suggested you atheists in this thread keep doing.

Yay! Perhaps I have finally managed to work a way through my apparent fog of incomprehensibility. :)

The concept seems easy to me... I just can't seem to explain it to others.
No. I was just hoping if I concede some of your points, you'll address mine. ;)

lol

What I hear you effectively saying is that what used to be commonly known as agnosticism is now to be referred to as implicit (I keep wanting to type 'illicit') atheism, and I'm fine with that. Just don't be surprised when people get it wrong.

...it's a simple matter of NOT believing in 'god', but NOT identifying with another leap of faith either.
That's the best worded definition I have heard, yet.

I'm a little perturbed that there is anyone out there who:

a) Thinks that Greeks were the originators of the first myths,

b) Thinks that the Christian 'god' is somehow unique, and thus, isolated from it's roots in an earlier religion,

c) Thinks that (despite the obvious clues in early Hebrew literature) the Jewish/Christian 'god' did NOT evolve from primarily natural phenomena.

I agree with this. Also, it is often hypothesized that the Judaic God was created in response to the heavily matriarcal religions that existed at the time. One can definitely argue that the prevelence of this religion has allowed the oppression of women for millenia. In fact, pretty much no one used the Christian/Judaic/Muslim God to support treating women as equals until the last few decades.

The point is that it's typical for people who want to downplay religions to paint them as mythologies that were just ways for unscientific people to explain things or to avoid facing the 'real' world. Christians are strongly responsible for painting pagans as a bunch of lunatics who don't live in the 'real' world. Is it any surprise that others are now doing that to us (effectively, in my opinion)?

I'm a little perturbed that there is anyone out there who:

a) Thinks that Greeks were the originators of the first myths,

b) Thinks that the Christian 'god' is somehow unique, and thus, isolated from it's roots in an earlier religion,

c) Thinks that (despite the obvious clues in early Hebrew literature) the Jewish/Christian 'god' did NOT evolve from primarily natural phenomena.
Thank you!

I would dispute c) though. Clues can be misread.

Plus, I think he was just using Greek mythology as an example.

Thank you!

I would dispute c) though. Clues can be misread.

Plus, I think he was just using Greek mythology as an example.

Yes, but s/he suggested that it was invented rather than adapted.

By the by, you and Grave might find the trafficking women thread interesting.

I agree with this. Also, it is often hypothesized that the Judaic God was created in response to the heavily matriarcal religions that existed at the time. One can definitely argue that the prevelence of this religion has allowed the oppression of women for millenia. In fact, pretty much no one used the Christian/Judaic/Muslim God to support treating women as equals until the last few decades.

The point is that it's typical for people who want to downplay religions to paint them as mythologies that were just ways for unscientific people to explain things or to avoid facing the 'real' world. Christians are strongly responsible for painting pagans as a bunch of lunatics who don't live in the 'real' world. Is it any surprise that others are now doing that to us (effectively, in my opinion)?
I have to disagree with one point, here. I do agree that the monotheistic god did nothing to advance the cause of women's rights, as the modern Western civilization holds to that idea; however, I don't think we can go so far as to say that that was the purpose of that god, or even that he was 'created' in response to the goddess religions. That is, I think, us imposing our values on a historic situation. I have read very good arguments* for how the monotheistic god grew out of the goddess religions naturally, reflecting an inevitably changing societal mindset, which can be seen in the developing mythology.


*The book was "The Myth of the Goddess, Evolution of an Image."

I have to disagree with one point, here. I do agree that the monotheistic god did nothing to advance the cause of women's rights, as the modern Western civilization holds to that idea; however, I don't think we can go so far as to say that that was the purpose of that god, or even that he was 'created' in response to the goddess religions. That is, I think, us imposing our values on a historic situation. I have read very good arguments* for how the monotheistic god grew out of the goddess religions naturally, reflecting an inevitably changing societal mindset, which can be seen in the developing mythology.


*The book was "The Myth of the Goddess, Evolution of an Image."

Oh, I don't actually believe it to be true, but I have heard excellent arguments as to how THIS God was a reaction by men to reassert dominance. Suggesting that a group might want dominance is hardly us imposing our values on a historic situation. Pretty much all of history can be summed up as one group trying to assert dominance over another.

Oh, I don't actually believe it to be true, but I have heard excellent arguments as to how THIS God was a reaction by men to reassert dominance.
I have heard this suggested by feminist groups, but never excellently.

Suggesting that a group might want dominance is hardly us imposing our values on a historic situation. Pretty much all of history can be summed up as one group trying to assert dominance over another.
*shrug* It suggested that this group had that intent, and since "oppression of women" was not an issue to them back then (it is only an issue to the modern menality, looking back on history) it does impose our values on them.

This line reveals that you are not versed in what mythology is. It is, in fact, a very spiritual act to find and symbolise meaning in things. I did not mean that they simply named natural phenomena by the names of gods; I suggested that the origins of their gods were based on natural phenomena they could not explain, and put a face and name behind each one, believing that entity was a god.

Science tries to explain "why" and "how." As pointed out, I meant that science means to explain what occurs and how it occurs, but not the motive behind it, the meaning.

I'm a little perturbed that there is anyone out there who:

a) Thinks that Greeks were the originators of the first myths,

b) Thinks that the Christian 'god' is somehow unique, and thus, isolated from it's roots in an earlier religion,

c) Thinks that (despite the obvious clues in early Hebrew literature) the Jewish/Christian 'god' did NOT evolve from primarily natural phenomena.[QUOTE] I do not believe that the greeks came furst, as pointed out I was simply using an example. The christian god being unique? A strange way to put it. The christian teachings are unique, though the belief in the one god is shared by other religions, most namely Islam and Judaism. I disagree that the Judaic god evolved from primarily natural phenomena. If you want to believe that the teachings are wrong, that the initial Israelites were delusional, wrong, gullible or somesuch, I won't argue with you. However, the belief in the Judaic god (and those of other religions) did not stem from interpreting natural phenomena as divine.

[QUOTE]Also, it is often hypothesized that the Judaic God was created in response to the heavily matriarcal religions that existed at the time. One can definitely argue that the prevelence of this religion has allowed the oppression of women for millenia. I strongly disagree with this theory for two reasons. The first is the same as my last response; the belief in the Judaic god did not stem from anything but faith; this faith may be wrong, and I respect that opinion, but it was not some kind of trick, nor did it evolve naturally, nor was it a premeditated act. The second reason (quite funny, actually) I can give is that Judaism does not place the male as predominant. In fact, the female is much freer than the male and many obligations of the male are not forced upon the female.

Yes, but s/he suggested that it was invented rather than adapted. I did not mean to imply that, I apologize if I did. I meant that it evolved out of interpretation of natural phenomena as divine. I did not mean that Greeks scientifically invented a pantheon to explain their natural phenomena.

I did not mean that they simply named natural phenomena by the names of gods; I suggested that the origins of their gods were based on natural phenomena they could not explain, and put a face and name behind each one, believing that entity was a god.
Yes; that latter is the postulation that I rally against, for it basically relegates gods to being little more than the former: the force behind a natural phenomenon, with a name. That is incorrect, mythologically speaking.

In Greece, for instance, where Demeter was goddess of the seasons, the harvest and agricultural growth, there is a mythology behind this image that gives it religious meaning. When she grieves for her daughter, in the story of Kore (Persephone) and Hades, life on earth suffers. The people starve and a long winter comes. This tells us she is a symbol of life itself, and her imagry is a symbol of nourishment --she feeds us and, through our eating, the life that is her is transmitted to us. This a religious idea; not an explanation of the phenomenon of seasons or the force that moves them, but a communion with the essence of life, on a par, I suppose, with the Hebrew tradition of life being breathed into people.

EDIT: I use the word "tradition" loosely, as I can't think of a better term.

I have heard this suggested by feminist groups, but never excellently.


*shrug* It suggested that this group had that intent, and since "oppression of women" was not an issue to them back then (it is only an issue to the modern menality, looking back on history) it does impose our values on them.

Read it as dominance versus oppression. Certainly dominating, even owning other groups, was not uncommon in almost any time in history. They didn't have the intent of oppressing women (that was the effect). They had the intent of establishing dominance, giving themselves control, or so it is speculated. Certainly, that is not anachronistic.

I have only heard this suggested by men and while they may have been feminists they certainly did not relate it as such. They were not suggesting that the goal of the religion was to oppress but that it was a reaction to what men felt was the dominance of women.

Wow, so reading's not your strong suit. I continued with the greek argument (what part of anarchy was not discussing greek roots). I just have more arguments than you do so I offered more up instead of just saying, nuh-uh like you did.
You most certainly did not continue your origins argument. You completely glossed over the Greek origins for theos and gnostos. It's understandable why you avoid continuation along those lines. To do so completely invalidates your opinion that agnosticism represents a middle ground on the belief spectrum.

And it was I who brought up the Greek origins of archos, not you. Your discussion of anarchy was in an attempt to establish that words with the "a-" prefix do not derive their meaning by negating the root word that follows. You have utterly failed in proving this to be the case.


Ha, now you redefine antonym pairs to fit your argument. Tasteful is listed as an antonym of tasteless. Your lack of logic knows no bounds. Antonyms very often describe the opposing ends of a spectrum without ever meeting in the middle. That still makes them antonyms. Theist describes one end of the spectrum, atheist describes the other and agnostic describes the middle.
Pay attention. The discussion has been about antonym pairs that are derived from the same base word. Theism/atheism, sexual/asexual, typical/atypical, taste/tasteless, archos/anarchos, etc. There are surely antonyms that do not cover all points on a spectrum (eg- hot and cold on the spectrum of temperature), however you have yet to provide an example where two antonyms with the same base do not cover all concepts within that spectrum. Your best attempt has been tasteful, but as discussed above, tasteless derives from the root taste, not tasteful. So taste and tasteless are sufficient to categorize all foods.


Notice how you had to change the form of the word to make your argument. Because with -ism you can't make your specious argument. Thanks for proving my point.
Really? And I'm the one who's logic knows no bounds? Archism = systems of government with rulers. Anarchism = sysems of government without rulers.


I love this argument, because we all know why you're making it. You wish to be able to argue from a position of superiority on the subject so you don't want to admit that your position of atheism is no more logical than my position of theism.
I believe Freud might call this tactic projection.

Really? And I'm the one who's logic knows no bounds? Archism = systems of government with rulers. Anarchism = sysems of government without rulers.
I laughed out loud at this one.

Theism = systems of beliefs with god(s).
Atheism = systems of beliefs without god(s).

You desperately want to move that little 'without' about don't you. You can argue what the word is evolving to mean as Grave did, but you can't change the origin of the word or the original meaning. You're amusing. Please, keep talking.

And it was I who brought up the Greek origins of archos, not you. Your discussion of anarchy was in an attempt to establish that words with the "a-" prefix do not derive their meaning by negating the root word that follows. You have utterly failed in proving this to be the case.

No, you changed it to anarchy. I was discussing anarchism and as you showed below, the an- negates the root, -arch, not -archism. That's why you keep shifting the argument to anarchy, because otherwise you'd prove my point. Oh, wait, you did that anyway.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I really did say that an- and a- don't affect the root. Maybe I wasn't saying that they affect the root before the suffix is included. Let's see what I said, shall we?

The prefix amends the word before the suffix -ism. The a-/an- affects the belief before the doctrine on that belief can exist. So you have the doctrine based on the belief the universe has a god(s), and the doctrine based on the belief that the universe is without god(s).

Whoops, seems like I said it goes to work on the root and not the root plus the suffix -ism. Seems like you said the same below.

Archism = systems of government with rulers. Anarchism = sysems of government without rulers.

root word = -arch meaning ruler and it seems like you set the an- to work on rulers - 'without rulers' rather than suggesting they were without a doctrine or belief. You keep forgetting that belief is not part of 'theos' it comes from -ism. Thank you for finally agreeing with me, but it's more fun if I get to make my own arguments. You proving I'm right leaves me with nothing to do but gloat.

Let's see if I can find any more examples of me saying a- and an- go to work on the root and not the suffix, shall we?

Atheism does not mean not theism. The root of the word is not theism. Theism is from the greek word theos meaning god and -ism meaning based on or doctrine. Atheism is from the greek word atheos meaning no god. You are using the wrong base. The base is root.

Whoops. My statements seem to disagree with you again. So are you just wrong or are you trying to misrepresent my posts (lying)?

Yes; that latter is the postulation that I rally against, for it basically relegates gods to being little more than the former: the force behind a natural phenomenon, with a name. That is incorrect, mythologically speaking. I didn't say that the entity is solely that force; that is, Poseidon is more than just the deity of the sea, he also has a unique personality and agenda. However, the origin is in the force of nature.
I know the myth of persephone and her abduction to hades, and the winter that ensues because of Demeter's grief, followed by summer when she rejoices because she can meet her daughter. I am actually quite the fan of greek myths, though I've never studied them scientifically.

The spelling fight seems strange to me...the prefix "a" is defined as an antonymic prefix; it presents the opposite of the rest of the word. Therefore, atheism is the antithesis to theism, as atheism is either the belief in no god or the lack of belief in gods.

The second reason (quite funny, actually) I can give is that Judaism does not place the male as predominant. In fact, the female is much freer than the male and many obligations of the male are not forced upon the female.

Really? Does your religion have the story of Adam and Eve? Was it Adam that ate the apple first?

The spelling fight seems strange to me...the prefix "a" is defined as an antonymic prefix; it presents the opposite of the rest of the word. Therefore, atheism is the antithesis to theism, as atheism is either the belief in no god or the lack of belief in gods.

Also wrong. It applies to the root of the word, not the rest of the word. Otherwise the a- and an- words would change meanings when you changed their forms. Asexual, asexuality. Also, it doesn't hold that it automatically means anithesis moral/amoral (in one sense the opposite of moral is amoral and in another it's immoral).

I didn't say that the entity is solely that force; that is, Poseidon is more than just the deity of the sea, he also has a unique personality and agenda. However, the origin is in the force of nature.
Even their personalities are personified symbolism.

I know the myth of persephone and her abduction to hades, and the winter that ensues because of Demeter's grief,
That is, mythologically speaking, incorrect, that "winter ensues because of Demeter's grief." That implies a causal relationship between goddess and natural phenomenon. Myth is not about causation, it is about symbolic identification. Winter does not ensue because Demeter is grieving; rather, winter is Demeter's grief. The winter symbolises the dead time; think of it as life that does not participate in itself. Demeter (life) grieves, lost in her madness, and life ceases.

...followed by summer when she rejoices because she can meet her daughter. I am actually quite the fan of greek myths, though I've never studied them scientifically.
Myths are a wonderful thing. :)

Really? Does your religion have the story of Adam and Eve? Was it Adam that ate the apple first?
I know this wasn't address at me, but I'm terribly curious --what does this have to do with freedoms in social roles, which was the topic you two were batting around?

I know this wasn't address at me, but I'm terribly curious --what does this have to do with freedoms in social roles, which was the topic you two were batting around?

I was talking about freedom. I was pointing that many believed it was patriarcal to battle martriarcal belief systems that were prevelant at the time. Obviously a religion that blames all death and pain on a woman could certainly fit the bill. It's certainly not an absurd notion. Judaism also includes a male God and a patriarcal society was entirely based on it. I'm not suggesting that it was designed to oppress as I've repeatedly stated, it was just a result.

I was talking about freedom. I was pointing that many believed it was patriarcal to battle martriarcal belief systems that were prevelant at the time. Obviously a religion that blames all death and pain on a woman could certainly fit the bill. It's certainly not an absurd notion. Judaism also includes a male God and a patriarcal society was entirely based on it. I'm not suggesting that it was designed to oppress as I've repeatedly stated, it was just a result.

God is said to have a womb and give birth in Job

God portrays Himself as a mother in Isaiah

God portrays Himself as the mother of Israel in parallel with the father image, in Deut 32:18

God portrays Himself as a young wife in Malachi 2:13-16

Jesus portrays the Father, in His redemptive 'search and rescue mission' as a women in search of a lost coin Luke 15:8

Jesus portrays himself as a "mother hen" in Matt 23:37

God is not always portrayed as male

Also wrong. Very well, I'll stay out of this bout, having little personal knwoledge of the issue. I was just curious as to the nature of the debate on that.

That is, mythologically speaking, incorrect, that "winter ensues because of Demeter's grief." I seem to continually trip on semantics. The winter is indeed Demeter's grief, and not a cause-and-effect.

Myths are a wonderful thing. Very much so. Not only from a human, historical point of view, but as a fascinating fantasy as well.

Obviously a religion that blames all death and pain on a woman could certainly fit the bill. Judaism does not blame everything on Eve at all. The snake is the main culprit. Also, Adam is severely punished as well; both are cursed. The only thing I can think of in the torah that is in any way "patriarchal" is the permission of polygamy (which was ruled out later on, BTW). But in modern Judaism, I must inform you that though there are many differences between the law about men and women the women are the ones who are free from many of the obligations (one might say that this obligation is in fact a privelige, but that is another debate). Another example, off the top of my head: the laws concerning a slave who is female are much more in favor of the slave than that of a male slave (slavery, too, is of course no longer existent in Jewish law).

Judaism also includes a male God This is ridicoulous; the god has no gender. The fact that he created the beings of both genders should be a clue to that; god "created" gender.

God is said to have a womb and give birth in Job

God portrays Himself as a mother in Isaiah

God portrays Himself as the mother of Israel in parallel with the father image, in Deut 32:18

God portrays Himself as a young wife in Malachi 2:13-16

Jesus portrays the Father, in His redemptive 'search and rescue mission' as a women in search of a lost coin Luke 15:8

Jesus portrays himself as a "mother hen" in Matt 23:37

God is not always portrayed as male

Interesting that in each instance you said 'Himself' and 'the Father'. Hmmmm... nope, not patriarcal at all.

You desperately want to move that little 'without' about don't you.
You desperately want to avoid discussion of gnostos don't you?


Theism = systems of beliefs with god(s).
Atheism = systems of beliefs without god(s).

Which leaves no room for agnosticism on the spectrum of god belief. Thanks for conceeding the point.

A bit more projection: you've been accusing me of trying to redefine terms, given your lax definition of theism above? Theism is a belief system "with" gods? :eek:

Theism = belief in the existence of god(s).
Atheism = without belief in the existence of god(s).

Atheism is not a positive belief that there are no gods. On the contrary, it is the lack of belief in a positive claim (theism). In other words, atheists see insufficient evidence to merit a belief in gods. Much in the same way that (most) theists see insufficient evidence to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or Invisible Pink Unicorns. Your sad attempts to equate the faith required for belief with the faith required for disbelief are just that - sad. No person in their right mind believes the faith required to disbelieve in Santa or unicorns is commensurate with belief in those entities.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and unfortunately for the theist, there's just no independent evidence to validate a belief in a supernatural power.


No, you changed it to anarchy. I was discussing anarchism and as you showed below, the an- negates the root, -arch, not -archism. That's why you keep shifting the argument to anarchy, because otherwise you'd prove my point.
Anarchism = systems of government without rulers. Otherwise stated: not archism. Either way, you have two antonyms that describe the entirety of governments. And yet you continue to hope that somehow democracy is a middle ground. But a democracy still has rulers, it just describes a way to elect those rulers. Similarly, agnostics may still have god beliefs, they just are uncertain as to the truth of those beliefs.

I continue to be amazed by your obstinance.

You desperately want to avoid discussion of gnostos don't you?

It doesn't fit into the point. Meanwhile you avoided the point I made altogether. It's fine. Were I in your shoes I would as well. It doesn't help your argument seeing as it shows you're wrong.

Which leaves no room for agnosticism on the spectrum of god belief. Thanks for conceeding the point.

Really? On belief system includes gods, one excludes and the middle says they don't know. It's simple. I'm sorry you're having so much trouble with it. I can't actually talk slower, but feel free to read slower. I find that helps when people are struggling with the content of my posts.

A bit more projection: you've been accusing me of trying to redefine terms, given your lax definition of theism above? Theism is a belief system "with" gods? :eek:

with/without = including/lacking

If you can use without, you can use with. I'm sure you're aware of that giving you're amazing ability to capture the language.

Theism = belief in the existence of god(s).
Atheism = without belief in the existence of god(s).

Technically, it's not about existence as you can be a theist and those god(s) could not longer exist.

Second, you keeping trying to negate belief but belief comes from -ism and is not negated by the a- or an- as you pointed out in your own example.

Atheism is not a positive belief that there are no gods. On the contrary, it is the lack of belief in a positive claim (theism). In other words, atheists see insufficient evidence to merit a belief in gods. Much in the same way that (most) theists see insufficient evidence to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or Invisible Pink Unicorns. Your sad attempts to equate the faith required for belief with the faith required for disbelief are just that - sad. No person in their right mind believes the faith required to disbelieve in Santa or unicorns is commensurate with belief in those entities.

Ha, that's hilarious. My sad attempts? I did no such thing. Now you're just flat out lying. I'm not denying that some people like Grave do not accept that there are gods and also do not accept that there aren't. That's the second time you tried to misconstrue what I'm saying. Is your argument so weak that lying is required to not just sound silly?

Burn, strawman, burn.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and unfortunately for the theist, there's just no independent evidence to validate a belief in a supernatural power.

No one is arguing about the existence of deities. Have you just plain conceded the point?

Anarchism = systems of government without rulers. Otherwise stated: not archism. Either way, you have two antonyms that describe the entirety of governments. And yet you continue to hope that somehow democracy is a middle ground. But a democracy still has rulers, it just describes a way to elect those rulers. Similarly, agnostics may still have god beliefs, they just are uncertain as to the truth of those beliefs.

False. I don't have to be an archist or anarchist, but thanks for playing. You're claim would require me to believe in one or the other, ascribe to one or the other, but there is no such requirement. I can simply not know which is better or not care. Thank you for proving my point AGAIN.

I continue to be amazed by your obstinance.
And, yet, I don't have to change your arguments to make them look silly. If I'm just being obstinant then why does your argument require strawmen? Oh, I know, because it has no merit. Don't stop now, though, it's entertaining.

I and every other person here have come to an amicable understanding. Perhaps, that's because they haven't shown an immeasurable lack of understanding of theists, of atheists, of the way an- and - modify the root rather than negating the entire remaining part of the word, of my posts and of the historical definition of atheist. They also haven't modified my posts to make their arguments and then suggested I was obstinant for correcting you. Again, please continue. I'm quite certain I'm not the only one enjoying it.

Interesting that in each instance you said 'Himself' and 'the Father'. Hmmmm... nope, not patriarcal at all.

What do you want me to say? Itself? The fact is that God has been portrayed as male and female. But "it" trancedns both. Now the majority of the refences in the Bible are male, but that doesnt mean that God is somehow favouring to men. He doesnt make it harder for women to be saved.

This is ridicoulous; the god has no gender. The fact that he created the beings of both genders should be a clue to that; god "created" gender.

He created Adam in his image. Not Eve. Eve was a playmate for Adam. HE is referred to He, Him, The Father, etc. I challenge you to find one painting proposing to show the image of God by Muslim, Jew or Christian that did not make Him appear male that was painted more than fifty years ago. Do you use 'She' when referring to 'Her'? I'm not bashing the religion. I'm a Christian. But let's not pretend like things are different than they are. It's patriarcal.

The very concept of gender is ultimately pointless to a Christian. The Bible teaches that all people will be sexless in the afterlife, with only the memories they accumulated to remind them of their gender.

The fact that God is referred to as Father is ultimately us trying to assign a human construct to 'Him.' Before humans were created, there was no need for a delineation between 'male' and 'female.' Cleary both men and women have elements of God in them... they were created in the image of God.

All of the potshots taken by people against the "patriarchal" nature of Christianity are just excuses to lash out at God. For example, feminists who wish to portray God as female... simply assigning another pointless human construct in an attempt to assert their own superiority.

The very concept of gender is ultimately pointless to a Christian. The Bible teaches that all people will be sexless in the afterlife, with only the memories they accumulated to remind them of their gender.

The fact that God is referred to as Father is ultimately us trying to assign a human construct to 'Him.' Before humans were created, there was no need for a delineation between 'male' and 'female.' Cleary both men and women have elements of God in them... they were created in the image of God.

All of the potshots taken by people against the "patriarchal" nature of Christianity are just excuses to lash out at God. For example, feminists who wish to portray God as female... simply assigning another pointless human construct in an attempt to assert their own superiority.
Again, I'm a Christian and understand in concept God is without gender, but in form we paint him as a man, He/Him/His/The Father/The Son. The idea has merit and I've NEVER heard it espoused by feminists as a feminist idea. The attempts to pin the idea on feminists by several of the posters here are spurious and silly. And if it is feminists who wish to portray God as female, what is your word for those who wish to portray God as male? Why is it that to portray God as female is asserting feminine superiority but portraying 'Him' as male is not?

Ascribing an argument to a group and then dismissing it as an idea of that group is weak. Attack the merits of the argument or sit down.

I'm Christian. I believe that god created both in his image. It might just be coincidence that Adam was created first. It's like he randomly chose some features and called it a man. All these beliefs in male supremacy are purely based in psychology and not religion. Males have had more power than females over the past thousands of years, possibly due to the fact that males and females developed certain traits over these years, with those lacking simply dying or something. Males were the aggressive protectors and hunters. Males were the warriors. Females were just there to help keep everyone from dying, which is the same exact job as males. These vital differences bacame unnecesary stereo-types. Both males and females held onto these stereo-types throughout history. Males went out. Females stayed home. Males protected the home from other males and beasts. Females took care of it and the young and weak. Males were the living sperm banks. Females provided the means of giving the sperm some use. My point is, the bible was edited many, many times to fit in some important things.

Atheists are just theists who don't have a god.
Mono-theists have one that bosses them around.
Poly-theists couldn't choose one, so they believe that a bunch of big people are giving them orders.

God doesn't have a gender. There is only one god, thus there is only one gender for God, which is the "God" gender. Only humans, animals and plants have gender.

I havnt read this whole post but i think athiest should be split into 2 groups. There are a lot of people out there who claim to be athiest for whatever reason, a lot of them are younger and it's more like an act of rebellion towards an authoritive group, they dont actually have a reason not to believe other then they just dont want too, then later in life they go back to the church. Then there are true athiest who look at whats in front of them and and go "hey, God didnt build my house, he had nothing to do with it, people made it" or "they devil didnt make that person kill those 20 children, their individual choice and actions killed them." As an athiest i dont like to discourage the belief in god, allah or whatever diety people are, most beliefs are encouraged to make people good in their daily life, to respect and love each other and not to cause harm, and for a lot of people that belief gives them the strength to get through each day. What i am against is the actual religions, these are organizations that people follow, and when you have followers you need a leader whom they follow, this can either be very good if the leader is a good person, or it can be extremely horrible. Think what the world would be like if all the clerics/priests/pope and prophet of the muslim and catholic religions said "embrace the other as a brother and celebrate their different views" This world would be a better place.


off topic im sure but alas, my views as an athiest.

He created Adam in his image. Not Eve. Eve was a playmate for Adam. HE is referred to He, Him, The Father, etc. The "image" question is extremely complex and not at all as simple as you put it. However, I can point out that countless times in the torah god is rferred to as "lach" ('to you' when addrssing a female) and not "lecha" (the male counterpart). Also, the fact is that gender did not exist before the creation fo adam and eve.

On the whole male/female God thing, YHWH used to have a wife, back when he was a tribal war-god -- Asherah, a local version of Ishtar/Ashtaroth. There's a transcript of a radio programme about her here (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/ark/stories/s1095690.htm). More details on the archaeology etc. can be found here (http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/guest/Ancient%20Israel/asherah.htm).

That's simply ridicoulous. Ashera is in fact a pagan god/dess who is mentioned as such in the tanach, her counterpart being the Baal. There is no such thing as "god's wife" and this is a truly preposterous claim. Assigning human traits to god is one thing, but this goes too far.

That's simply ridicoulous. Ashera is in fact a pagan god/dess who is mentioned as such in the tanach, her counterpart being the Baal. There is no such thing as "god's wife" and this is a truly preposterous claim. Assigning human traits to god is one thing, but this goes too far.

I suppose that depends on whether you regard the current idea of the Judaic/Christian God as a fixed and concrete reality, or as the end-product of a whole mass of reworkings and reinterpretations of a collection of cults stretching back into prehistory. Modern Christianity is very different from early Christianity; modern Judaism is very different from the Hebrew religion(s) of the Iron Age. Religions evolve.

That's simply ridicoulous. Ashera is in fact a pagan god/dess who is mentioned as such in the tanach, her counterpart being the Baal. There is no such thing as "god's wife" and this is a truly preposterous claim. Assigning human traits to god is one thing, but this goes too far.

umm, how about you read some roman, greek and egyptian mythology. Their gods didnt just have human traits, they where closer to marvel superheroes than to the silly "God" idea that christians, jews and muslims have.

I became agnostic when I actually started reading about other religions and more importantly, the history of religion and how they started (mainly pre-Judeo-Christian, pagan, and religions from the Asia). Christianity could be any other religion right now, in fact, the most popular religion might have been Mithraism right now if it weren't for certain factors...a religion mind you, that has a "Jesus" with 12 disciples and every other "truth" that Jesus has (crucified, buried in tomb, went to hell, rose again 3 days later, goes to heaven, born on December 25, healed people, etc.); only difference, he came before Jesus did.

So yeah, when I actually started to read and think for myself, and I got something called an education in college...that's when I became agnostic. Previously Christian mind you.

I became agnostic when I actually started reading about other religions and more importantly, the history of religion and how they started (mainly pre-Judeo-Christian, pagan, and religions from the Asia). Christianity could be any other religion right now, in fact, the most popular religion might have been Mithraism right now if it weren't for certain factors...a religion mind you, that has a "Jesus" with 12 disciples and every other "truth" that Jesus has (crucified, buried in tomb, went to hell, rose again 3 days later, goes to heaven, born on December 25, healed people, etc.); only difference, he came before Jesus did.

.
All of the Jesus stories have roots in much older myths. Older than Mithraism, if I remember correctly. Most of them are Egyptian in origin.

Mithraism could have never been as popular as christianity, mainly because women were not allowed and it was fairly selective about what men were allowed (most of them were soldiers). Christianity's appeal to women and the poor accounts for a large part of its popularity.

The "image" question is extremely complex and not at all as simple as you put it. However, I can point out that countless times in the torah god is rferred to as "lach" ('to you' when addrssing a female) and not "lecha" (the male counterpart). Also, the fact is that gender did not exist before the creation fo adam and eve.

That may be but you can still see the patriarcal leanings in the bible. It's not hidden. How many prophets were female? How many rabbis are female? Who led the Isreal of the old testament and early new testament, men or women? Patriarcal.

But not just jews, until recently all Christian spiritual leaders were male. All of the apostles were male. The prophets that foresaw the coming of Jesus, what sex were they? How many of us have witnessed a Christian wedding where the wife was asked to love, honor and OBEY?

Don't even get me started on Muslims (yes, yes, I'm generalizing, but the point holds.)

Again, I offer the challenge of showing me anywhere in literature or art where God was presented as female prior to the 1900s.

Need more?

Exactly how many times in New Testament, Old Testament or Q'uran does God directly address a woman alone? We can all name dozens of examples where God speaks to men, but how many women?

How about in Genesis where a man is permitted to buy a wife and then another from her father?

How about Genesis 3?

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Yep, sure doesn't sound like it's Satan that's being blamed, but instead it's quite clearly Eve.

How about how a woman was passed to the brother of her husband if her husband passed? Yeah, that's not treating her like property.

Is this enough or shall I keep going?

This isn't an indictment of the faith, which of course I hold to, but one can't deny that this faith and these rules were in sharp contrast to the prevailing faiths of the time that held women to be spiritual leaders and worshipped feminine Gods and that the rules and faith and the results of these rules and faith were patriarchal.

Now, go ahead and dismiss it as some feminist conspiracy, again. I have many, many more examples, if you make that necessary.

EDIT: The annoyance about calling this a feminist conspiracy is not aimed directly at you, TNZ. I'm annoyed that has twice been dismissed in this thread as a feminist conspiracy instead of simply accepting the fact that these things are clearly visible in the texts and groups that adhere to those texts.

How many prophets were female? Well, in judges you can see the story of deborah and ya'el; deborah was the main prophet and judge, and ya'el was credited with the victory of the war after killing sisra. There are other examples but you asked for one, you got one.

Again, I offer the challenge of showing me anywhere in literature or art where God was presented as female prior to the 1900s. God is often portrayed and called male, since it is the "default" gender, unfortunately. This is due not to religion but basic human nature which designated at one point that the male gender was superior, though thankfully that stereotype is almost nonexistent in the western world today, though uninstitutionally much of it still exists. When I do not know the gender of someone, I often use "he" to refer to that person. When animals are referred to without using "it", it is almost always in a male way, unless the animal exhibits "feminine" traits.

Exactly how many times in New Testament, Old Testament or Q'uran does God directly address a woman alone? It is true that the vast majority of the prophets are male; however, that is because titles, such as priesthood and such, are inherited from the father. However, before you jump on this as patriarchal, I will remind you that Jewishness itself is inherited by the mother and not the father.

How about in Genesis where a man is permitted to buy a wife and then another from her father? Where in genesis are you referring to?

Yep, sure doesn't sound like it's Satan that's being blamed, but instead it's quite clearly Eve. Well, adam's sin is that he listened to his wife- over god, that is. It is perfectly logical to say "you are punished for listening to your brother and disobeying me by breaking my watch". Does this blame the brother alone?

The annoyance about calling this a feminist conspiracy is not aimed directly at you, TNZ. I'm annoyed that has twice been dismissed in this thread as a feminist conspiracy instead of simply accepting the fact that these things are clearly visible in the texts and groups that adhere to those texts. I too hate a rational argument being called irrational. I see no problem with this view; I didsagree with it, but you are debating it in a civilized and productive manner, and I respect that greatly.

Well, in judges you can see the story of deborah and ya'el; deborah was the main prophet and judge, and ya'el was credited with the victory of the war after killing sisra. There are other examples but you asked for one, you got one.

I didn't ask for one. I asked how many. However, you answered further in the posts that almost all prophets were male (again in sharp contrast to other religions that existed at the time).

God is often portrayed and called male, since it is the "default" gender, unfortunately. This is due not to religion but basic human nature which designated at one point that the male gender was superior, though thankfully that stereotype is almost nonexistent in the western world today, though uninstitutionally much of it still exists. When I do not know the gender of someone, I often use "he" to refer to that person. When animals are referred to without using "it", it is almost always in a male way, unless the animal exhibits "feminine" traits.

Male has not always been the 'default' gender and there are many fairly recent societies that defaulted to the feminine. The odd thing is that if God has no gender why is it considered so offensive to refer to Him as It? It is getting better, but it is by no means gone. I would likely be thrown out of a church if I suggested to put up a painting or a stained-glass window that portrayed God as female or even a feminine-looking male.

It is true that the vast majority of the prophets are male; however, that is because titles, such as priesthood and such, are inherited from the father. However, before you jump on this as patriarchal, I will remind you that Jewishness itself is inherited by the mother and not the father.

Yes, I'm aware that the religion is inhereted from the mother, and it's an important aspect (not a defense Christianity can use). However, not particularly a strong defense when all positions of authority are held by men.

Where in genesis are you referring to?

Genesis 29:16-35

It also suggests that a way to win her husband's favor is to bear him children (Leah).

When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben, for she said, "It is because the LORD has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now."

Well, adam's sin is that he listened to his wife- over god, that is. It is perfectly logical to say "you are punished for listening to your brother and disobeying me by breaking my watch". Does this blame the brother alone?

And the wife's sin was listening to Satan over God. So if her sin was the fault of Satan as you said earlier, Adam's sin was the fault of his wife. I know it's sort of silly but let's say her sin has half her fault and half Satan's. And his sin was half hers and half his. Who carries the bulk of the weight of sin?

I too hate a rational argument being called irrational. I see no problem with this view; I didsagree with it, but you are debating it in a civilized and productive manner, and I respect that greatly.
Thank you. That's why I added the edit, because you've actually addressed the points rather than taking the lazy and inaccurate path of calling it a feminist lie.

hay look i gess i fit in to thse i am a buddhist but i dont beilive in a god the mastrem religion in the u.s. has extremly arogent logic prbpems beiliving that a man can be god and that is for starters 2. a man cant die and come back frome the dead so ether jesus comeing back frome the dead was a lie or he was not relly dead. 3. adem ad eve i am sorry but i relly have a big probelm weht these one it takes a pop of ruffly 1000 indaviuls for a sutanabel population.now that leds me to the flood story if all the world was flood at that time and the was 2 of every thing on there evryting woud be extenct riet now.so my only conclosion is that the flood was local.becouse we stell have the some on the planet today.4. and acrding to the bible the planet 6100 years old now ya like i beilive that one these can be disproven by the fuosll record and by carben dating. there i have shout enff hole throu that book to reder it useless.

Says who? Couldn't we just as easy change the use of theist to mean anyone who does not believe there is NO god(s)? Couldn't "Do you believe there are no gods/deities?" just as easily be the question. Much like the question could be either is the glass full/is the glass empty, and there are states of fullness/emptiness that are not covered by full and empty. You say it's about the people who are 'athiests' but what if I don't consider myself either a theist or an atheist because I ascribe to use of the classic definition of atheism? Don't people like that get a say?


A good question - but the same degrees of definition still apply. Even if the question is reversed, and we are asking are there NO gods... still I don't quite fit into that category, nor into the god-believer category. I'm still in the twilight zone, either way.

And, the reason we start with the assumption that we have to ask "is god real?" is because we live in a largely Theistic society... and the Atheist is the exception, not the rule.


I don't have any response to this part. I understand this about you and find it reasonable. Now stop attacking me like TNZ suggested you atheists in this thread keep doing.

Yeah - sorry... don't know what came over me. :)

No. I was just hoping if I concede some of your points, you'll address mine. ;)

lol

What I hear you effectively saying is that what used to be commonly known as agnosticism is now to be referred to as implicit (I keep wanting to type 'illicit') atheism, and I'm fine with that. Just don't be surprised when people get it wrong.


That's the best worded definition I have heard, yet.

I don't know how anything can have been 'used to be commonly known as agnosticism'... when Agnosticism is such a 'young' school of thought.

Besides which, of course... Agnosticism doesn't mean that anyway.

Maybe the (incorrect) common ASSUMPTION of what Agnosticism means, is close to Implicit Atheism... but I wouldn't argue that Agnostics and Implicit Atheists are closely related ANYWAY.

The only difference is - one can believe in god, and still be Agnostic... and the same cannot be honestly said for Implicit Atheism.

If you liked that last definition... well, we'll keep it till something more appropriate arrives. :)

Male has not always been the 'default' gender and there are many fairly recent societies that defaulted to the feminine. Yes but by the time of the great paintings, this already existed in most of the civilized world.

The odd thing is that if God has no gender why is it considered so offensive to refer to Him as It? Well, I don't know actually; I do not find it offensive, and I know of nobody who does. I think the main objection is that it seems to objectify god; the word "it" implies- though of course is not limited to- inanimate objects. However, as I said before, I don't know what motives people have to objecting to it as I have no such objection.

However, not particularly a strong defense when all positions of authority are held by men. Well, there must be some kind of legal division of authority, for matters of inheritance. My point was it is not completely patriarchal, as it is countered- if not balanced- by another factor.

Genesis 29:16-35

It also suggests that a way to win her husband's favor is to bear him children (Leah). The marriage of Jacob with Lavan's daughters was not a sale of any kind; more of a betrothal. He worked for Lavan not as payment but as a show of gratitude and to gain the permission of Lavan. As for the children, an infertile wife was considered to be less loved by her husband than a fertile one, for obvious reasons. However, it is shown both in this case and in the case of Shmuel that love for the wife often conquered that feeling.

I know it's sort of silly but let's say her sin has half her fault and half Satan's. And his sin was half hers and half his. Who carries the bulk of the weight of sin? The bulk of the sin is taken by the snake. If you mean that she is blamed for "a whole" sin while adam only "half", you can understand that mathematical calculations do not really apply here; it's not a science. However, even the math is quite logical; eve is guilty not only of accepting the sin, being convinced, but also of attempting to convince another (she also had the sin of a mistake when she spoke to the snake, but that is another matter).

WW, I cannot answer your questions on christianity, but I should point out that there exists supernatural forces in christianity; hence a man can die and rise again, two people can populate the world, 2 of each creature can continue the survival of all species, and such. As to your last question, do not think you were the first to think of it; far from it. As I said, a question by which some people "prove" religions are false are merely faith questions for the religous. In this case, the leading interpretation is that the seven "days" in which the world was created (preceding the 5765 years) were not days at all, but periods of time; one of those periods of time was the era of dinosaurs.

A good question - but the same degrees of definition still apply. Even if the question is reversed, and we are asking are there NO gods... still I don't quite fit into that category, nor into the god-believer category. I'm still in the twilight zone, either way.

And, the reason we start with the assumption that we have to ask "is god real?" is because we live in a largely Theistic society... and the Atheist is the exception, not the rule.



Yeah - sorry... don't know what came over me. :)

I think the largely theistic society is questionable. I think there are many people who make the claim they believe in God, particularly the Christian God and, in fact, hell, and will claim to believe in tons of rules that they absolutely and unequivocably don't follow or try to follow. One has to question how you can believe there is a God and that to disobey him will land you in eternal torment and still disobey him? Now personally, I don't hold this belief, but I have met many, many hypocrites and, in the end, you have to begin with the basic question do they believe in God?

Also, I suspect you're talking about the US, because I don't get the impression that there is such an extreme dominance by theists in many, many countries anymore.

I don't think it's a grey area. I think your position is as solid as ours. "Do you believe in God? Nope. Do you believe there is no God? Nope. Well, there you go then." I think you hold the only position that can be based totally and utterly on reason. Unless of course you believe people are actually visited by the Lord or Jesus Christ, in which case there position is one of reason, it's just not reasonable to other people. And for those who claim they could be hallucinating, believing in hallucinations is completely reasonable if they are convincing, but it's also a sign of insanity.

The marriage of Jacob with Lavan's daughters was not a sale of any kind; more of a betrothal. He worked for Lavan not as payment but as a show of gratitude and to gain the permission of Lavan. As for the children, an infertile wife was considered to be less loved by her husband than a fertile one, for obvious reasons. However, it is shown both in this case and in the case of Shmuel that love for the wife often conquered that feeling.

25 When morning came, there was Leah! So Jacob said to Laban, "What is this you have done to me? I served you for Rachel, didn't I? Why have you deceived me?"

26 Laban replied, "It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one. 27 Finish this daughter's bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work."

That's not gratitude, that's payment. "In return for" is payment. I give you twenty bucks "in return for" you giving me a CD.

The bulk of the sin is taken by the snake. If you mean that she is blamed for "a whole" sin while adam only "half", you can understand that mathematical calculations do not really apply here; it's not a science. However, even the math is quite logical; eve is guilty not only of accepting the sin, being convinced, but also of attempting to convince another (she also had the sin of a mistake when she spoke to the snake, but that is another matter).

Right, eve is guilty of both first taking the sin and the knowledge of good and evil unto humans, and then talking another into doing the same. Certainly this piles blame onto Eve. Forgive me if I remain unconcerned as to how much blame Satan gets. I am only concerned in this context of the blame that humans carry and how much can reasonably be place on the shoulders of Eve and on the shoulders of Adam.

As to your last question, do not think you were the first to think of it; far from it. As I said, a question by which some people "prove" religions are false are merely faith questions for the religous. In this case, the leading interpretation is that the seven "days" in which the world was created (preceding the 5765 years) were not days at all, but periods of time; one of those periods of time was the era of dinosaurs.
I didn't think of it, actually. I just accept that there are a lot of examples of the patriarchal nature of these religions.

I also believe that the seven days was not literal. I believe the prophets were shown a vision that took a day so they called it a day. They had no idea how long it actually was.

I agree with this. Also, it is often hypothesized that the Judaic God was created in response to the heavily matriarcal religions that existed at the time. One can definitely argue that the prevelence of this religion has allowed the oppression of women for millenia. In fact, pretty much no one used the Christian/Judaic/Muslim God to support treating women as equals until the last few decades.

The point is that it's typical for people who want to downplay religions to paint them as mythologies that were just ways for unscientific people to explain things or to avoid facing the 'real' world. Christians are strongly responsible for painting pagans as a bunch of lunatics who don't live in the 'real' world. Is it any surprise that others are now doing that to us (effectively, in my opinion)?

Looking at the Hebrew, it seems fairly obvious that the very earliest 'bible' texts were originally pantheistic, and that something has been excised - not just by modern translation, but by the Roman attempts to translate, the Greek-language attempts to conceptualise the Old Testament doctrines, and even by the Hebrews, themselves, over the years.

The Hebrew considered the 'spirit' of god to be feminine (shekinah), and this gendering (if not the same name) is evident in the language of Genesis... along with the plurality of the spirits (the elohim). Even in English, 'god' is attributed as talking to other gods (Psalms, I think... I'll have to look it up), being somehow greater than other gods, being worshipped before other gods, comparing Adam and Eve to some 'us' concept.... etc.

It looks like the Hebrew/Christian anti-women angle started as an attempt to purge all positive feminine aspects of the godhood and humanity from the early scripture.... until all that are left are women who sin by asking questions, by loving in the way that a man does, and even by just dancing.

In my opinion, this culminates in the Virgin Birth/Crucifixion/Resurrection story - which is the ultimate attempt to finally abolish the divinity of women, by entirely replacing women in the reproductive act.

I can go further on that one, if anyone is interested... but I'm trying not to edge TOO far off topic, without any response. :)

Regarding mythology... it is somewhat ironic that the average Christian can apparently view EVERY other religion as mythology, except their own...

Really? Does your religion have the story of Adam and Eve? Was it Adam that ate the apple first?

More likely a banana... if you think about the symbolism...

(Bearing in mind the serpent nudging around the base of the tree).

I strongly disagree with this theory for two reasons. The first is the same as my last response; the belief in the Judaic god did not stem from anything but faith; this faith may be wrong, and I respect that opinion, but it was not some kind of trick, nor did it evolve naturally, nor was it a premeditated act. The second reason (quite funny, actually) I can give is that Judaism does not place the male as predominant. In fact, the female is much freer than the male and many obligations of the male are not forced upon the female.

I did not mean to imply that, I apologize if I did. I meant that it evolved out of interpretation of natural phenomena as divine. I did not mean that Greeks scientifically invented a pantheon to explain their natural phenomena.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't function in a certain pattern PURELY because you might prefer it that way.

The God of the Hebrews shows many signs of having been partially, or wholly, borrowed from earlier Mesopotamian religions... along with several of the 'god' stories.

There may have been faith, as well... but it is likely that THAT faith started out allied to an entity very different to the one the Hebrews finally canonised...

As different as the Christian 'god' is, from it's root in the Hebrew mythology.

That's simply ridicoulous. Ashera is in fact a pagan god/dess who is mentioned as such in the tanach, her counterpart being the Baal. There is no such thing as "god's wife" and this is a truly preposterous claim. Assigning human traits to god is one thing, but this goes too far.

And yet, you seem not to realise that 'Baal' is not ONE entity, at all... but a title (meaning 'Lord'), given to MANY figures in the contemporary era... usually based on the gepgraphy of the 'lord'... such as Baal Zebul.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't function in a certain pattern PURELY because you might prefer it that way.

The God of the Hebrews shows many signs of having been partially, or wholly, borrowed from earlier Mesopotamian religions... along with several of the 'god' stories.

There may have been faith, as well... but it is likely that THAT faith started out allied to an entity very different to the one the Hebrews finally canonised...

As different as the Christian 'god' is, from it's root in the Hebrew mythology.

I don't know why many theists are so threatened by the concept of a religion that evolved from others? What's so dangerous about the concept that others had bits and pieces of the 'truth' already but they hadn't put it all together properly yet. Many religions/mythologies had underworlds in them, does that mean they were wrong because they called them something different? Some of those religions evolved seperately some evolved together, but, come on, we even borrowed some of the names. For example, Goddess of the underworld's name, anyone? Hel. Coincidence?

I think the largely theistic society is questionable. I think there are many people who make the claim they believe in God, particularly the Christian God and, in fact, hell, and will claim to believe in tons of rules that they absolutely and unequivocably don't follow or try to follow. One has to question how you can believe there is a God and that to disobey him will land you in eternal torment and still disobey him? Now personally, I don't hold this belief, but I have met many, many hypocrites and, in the end, you have to begin with the basic question do they believe in God?

Also, I suspect you're talking about the US, because I don't get the impression that there is such an extreme dominance by theists in many, many countries anymore.

I don't think it's a grey area. I think your position is as solid as ours. "Do you believe in God? Nope. Do you believe there is no God? Nope. Well, there you go then." I think you hold the only position that can be based totally and utterly on reason. Unless of course you believe people are actually visited by the Lord or Jesus Christ, in which case there position is one of reason, it's just not reasonable to other people. And for those who claim they could be hallucinating, believing in hallucinations is completely reasonable if they are convincing, but it's also a sign of insanity.

I base my assertion of 'largely Theistic' on the examples I have experienced first-hand (in the US and the Uk) and on the figures purported to detail how many people of each religion dwell on our little world.

I realise that most people that CLAIM to be of a faith, are not observant of the faith... and have assumed a kind of Implicit Theism position... they just kind of 'assume' all the stories about a god must be kind of true... but they don't buy into the whole rule-book idea.

Incidentally - I worked for a little while in Market Research, and so I know how these misconceptions get translated into statistics... example:

Researcher: So - are you a Christian?

Victim: erm.. I don't really... erm...

Researcher: Well, do you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection?

Victim: erm... well, not really the whole thing... erm...

Researcher: Well, do you agree that there MIGHT be a god?

Victim: Maybe. Yeah - I guess.

Researcher: Okay - I'll just mark you down as 'Christian'....


Regarding your last paragraph - I consider SOME Christians (and others) to be perfectly reasonable. They have seen things, and have ASSESSED those things, and they have REASONED a belief from them. These people I call Rational Theists (you seem to be one, and Dempublicents is another good example).

I also agree about the lip-service of most persons to the faith they claim. It's the reason why I refer to both "Christians" (who follow the teaching of Christ, and attempt to live Christlike lives), and "christians", who just use the name.

I don't know how anything can have been 'used to be commonly known as agnosticism'... when Agnosticism is such a 'young' school of thought.
Why? Were you one of those who were "never a kid"? :) I first heard the term in my teens, in the 1970's. It was applicable to me, then, and I adopted it.

Besides which, of course... Agnosticism doesn't mean that anyway.

Maybe the (incorrect) common ASSUMPTION of what Agnosticism means, is close to Implicit Atheism... but I wouldn't argue that Agnostics and Implicit Atheists are closely related ANYWAY.

The only difference is - one can believe in god, and still be Agnostic... and the same cannot be honestly said for Implicit Atheism.

If you liked that last definition... well, we'll keep it till something more appropriate arrives. :)
Cool :)

I base my assertion of 'largely Theistic' on the examples I have experienced first-hand (in the US and the Uk) and on the figures purported to detail how many people of each religion dwell on our little world.

I realise that most people that CLAIM to be of a faith, are not observant of the faith... and have assumed a kind of Implicit Theism position... they just kind of 'assume' all the stories about a god must be kind of true... but they don't buy into the whole rule-book idea.

Incidentally - I worked for a little while in Market Research, and so I know how these misconceptions get translated into statistics... example:

Researcher: So - are you a Christian?

Victim: erm.. I don't really... erm...

Researcher: Well, do you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection?

Victim: erm... well, not really the whole thing... erm...

Researcher: Well, do you agree that there MIGHT be a god?

Victim: Maybe. Yeah - I guess.

Researcher: Okay - I'll just mark you down as 'Christian'....


Regarding your last paragraph - I consider SOME Christians (and others) to be perfectly reasonable. They have seen things, and have ASSESSED those things, and they have REASONED a belief from them. These people I call Rational Theists (you seem to be one, and Dempublicents is another good example).

I also agree about the lip-service of most persons to the faith they claim. It's the reason why I refer to both "Christians" (who follow the teaching of Christ, and attempt to live Christlike lives), and "christians", who just use the name.
That is certainly a reasonable perspective. Given my faith, I have a hard time with the misuse of the word Christian. I think the behavior of many makes people spit out the word Christian like a swear word and it makes me sick. Some are more detailed in their observance of scripture (like PR), and some rely on faith more than scripture (like myself), but in both those categories there are those among us who don't use our religion like a sword to dice up non-believers and send them to enjoy an eternity of fire and brimstone. Mostly, I just try to be open about what I believe and give people an opportunity to see what I see whenever the opportunity arises. Though, you believe differently, I'm relatively certain your goals aren't that different, though I, obviously, have a different purpose in mind.

The most amazing thing is those that would have a person sit before them thrashing and crying until they finally submit to Christianity, but would never listen to one word of reasoning out of that same foul pagan's mouth. I'm quite certain the golden rule came out of Christ's mouth, and I'll not throw away his summary of the Law.

I don't know why many theists are so threatened by the concept of a religion that evolved from others? What's so dangerous about the concept that others had bits and pieces of the 'truth' already but they hadn't put it all together properly yet. Many religions/mythologies had underworlds in them, does that mean they were wrong because they called them something different? Some of those religions evolved seperately some evolved together, but, come on, we even borrowed some of the names. For example, Goddess of the underworld's name, anyone? Hel. Coincidence?

I think many theists feel threatened, because of an insecurity... they feel like EVERY SINGLE brick of their story has to be ABSOLUTELY empirically 'true', because otherwise their faith collapses.

Like the conception that Christians MUST believe in the Genesis account of 'Creation' as entirely literal.

Even Satan seems to have been borrowed from the Egyptian Sett (or Seth)... in some kind of cross-pollination... since the earliest incarnations of HaSatan seem to be clearly describing one of God's own minions (book of Job, anyone?) - who gradually acquires a dualistic nature, until he becomes almost the antithesis of God. (So much for monotheism).

You can see many other parallels... the serpent's fundamental role in the loss of eternal life, the Diluvium and the sole survivor, etc.

That is certainly a reasonable perspective. Given my faith, I have a hard time with the misuse of the word Christian. I think the behavior of many makes people spit out the word Christian like a swear word and it makes me sick. Some are more detailed in their observance of scripture (like PR), and some rely on faith more than scripture (like myself), but in both those categories there are those among us who don't use our religion like a sword to dice up non-believers and send them to enjoy an eternity of fire and brimstone. Mostly, I just try to be open about what I believe and give people an opportunity to see what I see whenever the opportunity arises. Though, you believe differently, I'm relatively certain your goals aren't that different, though I, obviously, have a different purpose in mind.

The most amazing thing is those that would have a person sit before them thrashing and crying until they finally submit to Christianity, but would never listen to one word of reasoning out of that same foul pagan's mouth. I'm quite certain the golden rule came out of Christ's mouth, and I'll not throw away his summary of the Law.

I don't we are that different... we both seek truth, I suspect... and we are both relatively 'content' with the 'truth' as we currently see it. We both seem to have arrived at our positions through reason, and we both seem happy to allow others to find their own 'truths'. We also both seem to enjoy the pursuit of truth through debate, and to have 'read around' the subject.

The only conflicts I can see that we might have, would be those of the 'manifestation' of religion... for example: I take extreme umbrage at the attempts of 'men of faith' to delineate who can be married to whom. (This, despite the fact that I am a happily married heterosexual... it is the attempt to FORCE one 'moral' code onto everyone else).

I think many theists feel threatened, because of an insecurity... they feel like EVERY SINGLE brick of their story has to be ABSOLUTELY empirically 'true', because otherwise their faith collapses.

Like the conception that Christians MUST believe in the Genesis account of 'Creation' as entirely literal.

Even Satan seems to have been borrowed from the Egyptian Sett (or Seth)... in some kind of cross-pollination... since the earliest incarnations of HaSatan seem to be clearly describing one of God's own minions (book of Job, anyone?) - who gradually acquires a dualistic nature, until he becomes almost the antithesis of God. (So much for monotheism).

You can see many other parallels... the serpent's fundamental role in the loss of eternal life, the Diluvium and the sole survivor, etc.

That right there is specifically my point, but I don't think it's about every brick being true. Instead, I think they are nervous about admitting there is any fundamental truth to be found in any other religion. I think, for example, Christians should embrace it if, say, a flood story exists in many other cultures (as we know it does) as it could be used to suggest that all passed down stories of the same flood. Why couldn't pieces of your religion that exist elsewhere be evidence that those peoples have also been influence by God or whatever your version of absolute truth is? In Christianity in particular, we believe in a personal connection to God that existed even before Jesus Christ and that people often hear only parts of the message. Why is it only Christians that hear parts of the message? Can't other peoples hear part and not all?

I don't we are that different... we both seek truth, I suspect... and we are both relatively 'content' with the 'truth' as we currently see it. We both seem to have arrived at our positions through reason, and we both seem happy to allow others to find their own 'truths'. We also both seem to enjoy the pursuit of truth through debate, and to have 'read around' the subject.

The only conflicts I can see that we might have, would be those of the 'manifestation' of religion... for example: I take extreme umbrage at the attempts of 'men of faith' to delineate who can be married to whom. (This, despite the fact that I am a happily married heterosexual... it is the attempt to FORCE one 'moral' code onto everyone else).

I agree with every single part of that post. I actually believe that Jesus is more likely to agree with me than with Pat Robertson on the matter.

My agnosticism (rather than full-blown atheism) is based on the fact that Christianity, Islam, and the religion from which they sprung: Judaism, were basically started by patricarchal extremists as a reaction to the predominant matriarchal pagan religions of the time.

Men were insecure about their sexual inferiority to women (who can bear children - hence their deification as 'creators' - and have orgasm after orgasm, while men are done after the first, by and large..), thus a small faction of mystics within the nomadic Hebrew people created a 'cult' of followers emphasising a masculine, conservative, logical god ('Yahweh/Jehova') to undermine the social and sexual dominace of women. It took a couple of thousand years, but eventually it gained enough popularity to act as a catalyst for the Hebrews' later escape and exodus from Egypt. Upon returning to Caanan, they found that it was full of Caananites, so slaughtered them all, for the 'Promised Land' in which they'd lived for only a couple of decades years previously.

All laws, politics, dogma, industry and economy are in one way or another based on maintaining a (forcibly seized) masculine dominance of society. It is entirely possible that the god Yahweh (aka 'God', Allah, Jehova) was a cynical artifical construct to bolster the cause of masculine dominance, emphasis on 'Father', 'Lord', 'Saviour' as opposed to 'Mother' 'Mistress' and 'Nature' - tenets common all over the world at that time (and some which remain today). Pagan rituals like sacrificing animals, having orgies, gazing at stars and constellations must have really got to these uptight, insecure, anal patricarch figures.

These modern religions all started off as cults, remember, no more or less credible than the Roman or Greek god panethon. Do you chuckle at stories of Dionysus - god of getting leathered and going on the piss - and his celestial buddies? Do you think: 'did people really and honestly believe that?'? Well, a 500BC Roman citizen would laugh at you for believing in an omnipotent fatherly god.. Who's right? It just so happened that the Yahweh-based religions gained massive popularity over a long drawn-out process of pitching, publicising, prosletysing, cajoling, commonly as a pretext for war or invasion (funny how things change :rolleyes: )..

So, sure, spirituality is important and a natural human instinct. But religion as a concept is a thinly-veiled example of social control, and I always wonder why people just can't seem to realise that. To me it seems glaringly obvious.

In laymens' terms: it's all a crock. Simple as.

NB: I have no feminist axe to grind, feminism became ridiculous after about 5 minutes in the 60's. In any case I'm a guy.

Bravo. Finally somone who has done some research into the matter. For further evidence on this topic go to:

http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/lecturers.html

It's a lengthy read but quite enlightening.

Bravo. Finally somone who has done some research into the matter. For further evidence on this topic go to:

http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/lecturers.html

It's a lengthy read but quite enlightening.

Sorry, but I tend to shy away from clearly biased and sexist sources. Read their purpose. Matriarchal societies are always non-violent as opposed to the always violent patriarchal societies. Matriarchal societies support equality of the sexes as opposed to the male oppression of patriarchal societies. It's crap.

Note: Ideally a society would chose it's leaders on their merits on not on the nature of their reproductive organs.

That's not gratitude, that's payment. "In return for" is payment. I give you twenty bucks "in return for" you giving me a CD. I also mow your lawn because you saved me from those thugs. This is much clearer in the marital case; traditionally, the father of the bride is given gifts and rewards for marrying off his daughter. In this case, Jacob was dirt poor when he arrived there, so he had to work.

I am only concerned in this context of the blame that humans carry and how much can reasonably be place on the shoulders of Eve and on the shoulders of Adam. Well, my point was that the punishment was not irrational or exstremetized because she was feminine; the fact is, if positions had been reversed, would we call it feminist? I consider it told as it was, and it was simple chance that she was the one who sinned twice, and therefore punished as such.

I believe the prophets were shown a vision that took a day so they called it a day. They had no idea how long it actually was. Well, obviously the prophets didn't exist then, but it is quite clear that they weren't literal days, since the sun and moon were created after the first "day", meaning that the end of the first day could not have been sunset and night.

The Hebrew considered the 'spirit' of god to be feminine (shekinah), and this gendering (if not the same name) is evident in the language of Genesis... along with the plurality of the spirits (the elohim). Even in English, 'god' is attributed as talking to other gods (Psalms, I think... I'll have to look it up), being somehow greater than other gods, being worshipped before other gods, comparing Adam and Eve to some 'us' concept.... etc. Shakinah is merely god's presence; when god settled upon the temple, he showed his presence, which is called "shekinah" from the root "shikoon" which means residence. Elokim to me implies the continual and universal presence of god, but I think it is hasty to call it a plurality. As for the "above all gods" and such, that is a good question which I have asked myself; the answer is that the other "gods" are called sucgh though they imply the false gods, idols and such. It is always connected to the word "other" (for example, "thou shalt not worship other gods before me"), and this "other" is interpreted as different, distant, and unanswering the prayers of their worshippers (since, of course, these gods do not exist). This question is dealt with at great depth, if you are interested.

And yet, you seem not to realise that 'Baal' is not ONE entity, at all... but a title (meaning 'Lord'), given to MANY figures in the contemporary era... usually based on the gepgraphy of the 'lord'... such as Baal Zebul. Fine, I'm just saying that Ashera was not the companion of the hebrew god but to the antithesis of the hebrew god, baal. The worship of baal was idolic, which is to many the ultimate antithesis to the hebrew god.

I don't know why many theists are so threatened by the concept of a religion that evolved from others? The reason I object to that impression is that I believe these stories and occurrences happened as they are told in the tanach and not a "borrowed" story. If two religions interpreted the same event different ways, that is another thing which I do not object to at all.

For example, Goddess of the underworld's name, anyone? Hel. Coincidence? Yes, the norse goddess of the dead and underworld...I thought of that, but I'm not certain.

they feel like EVERY SINGLE brick of their story has to be ABSOLUTELY empirically 'true', because otherwise their faith collapses. I believe that the tanach speaks truth; I know that my own belief is flawed, and I question my religion constantly. I can assure you, that questioning the faith is extremely universal and even prefrable, since without questions there are no answers. And these questions do not destroy one's faith, they strengthen it.

I believe that the tanach speaks truth; I know that my own belief is flawed, and I question my religion constantly. I can assure you, that questioning the faith is extremely universal and even prefrable, since without questions there are no answers. And these questions do not destroy one's faith, they strengthen it

Thats a nice ideaology, and if thats truly how you view life, then well done!
But, all too often, there are no answers within religion, except those you create for yourself.
Ultimately, every question within most monotheistic religions boil down to "Becuase God said so."

Furthermore, and this has been truest within modern christianity, uncertainty in your faith, is akin to denouncing it.
Particularly among the Fundies, to question your faith tantamount to saying you dont have one.
"Becuase" is the word of the day with these people.

Thats a nice ideaology, and if thats truly how you view life, then well done!
But, all too often, there are no answers within religion, except those you create for yourself.
Ultimately, every question within most monotheistic religions boil down to "Becuase God said so."


Do you expect humans to have the intelligence of God and understand everything He does?

Do you expect humans to have the intelligence of God and understand everything He does?


Thats sort of a loaded question as I dont believe there is a God.

But I can explain it thusly:

For me, as I was growing up, I was a Christian, I believed in it too.
However, many events in life transpired, and many many questions arose.
"Why do bad things happen to good people" etc...
and to this day, no answer in any religion, has truly answered those questions.

Ultimately, its as though, deep spiritual questions on the mysteries of life, are not fully explained at all...becuase WE dont have the answers, and the exscuse that religion provides is..."We cannot know the mind of God" wich is to say...we dont have answer..and arent likely to get any.

Thats sort of a loaded question as I dont believe there is a God.

But I can explain it thusly:

For me, as I was growing up, I was a Christian, I believed in it too.
However, many events in life transpired, and many many questions arose.
"Why do bad things happen to good people" etc...
and to this day, no answer in any religion, has truly answered those questions.

Ultimately, its as though, deep spiritual questions on the mysteries of life, are not fully explained at all...becuase WE dont have the answers, and the exscuse that religion provides is..."We cannot know the mind of God" wich is to say...we dont have answer..and arent likely to get any.

Okay. But consider that if a god really did exist, would it be logical for humans to not know some things that only the god or gods understand?

Just this question.

Okay. But consider that if a god really did exist, would it be logical for humans to not know some things that only the god or gods understand?

Just this question.


Naturally, if he did exist, then there would be many things unkowable to us mere mortals.

But let me ask you this:

Would there be so many of them..and so very critical questions?

"Why do babies who are not baptised and die in birth...bound for hell? they are sinless arent they?..."

You get the idea of the kind of questions Im talking about.

Ones we ask ourselves ever day, and that intertwine with our lives in such a way as to NEED answering.

If there is a God..why is he so vague, and silent?

Naturally, if he did exist, then there would be many things unkowable to us mere mortals.

But let me ask you this:

Would there be so many of them..and so very critical questions?

"Why do babies who are not baptised and die in birth...bound for hell? they are sinless arent they?..."

You get the idea of the kind of questions Im talking about.

Ones we ask ourselves ever day, and that intertwine with our lives in such a way as to NEED answering.

If there is a God..why is he so vague, and silent?

There was a book fair recently over here and I've purchased a very good book that answers many of these seemingly baffling questions. The answers are quite reasonable and simple, I have to say.

For this question: who told you that unbaptised babies will go to hell? Did God tell you Himself? If He didn't you can be sure your answer is not correct, because God is the only - the ONLY - entity that determines who will go the heaven and who will go to hell. But from Jesus' behaviour with the children in the Bible, I think it's pretty safe to assume that those babies will end up in heaven.

I think anything is possible..

I am agnostic..

and yeah there might be a god but its not really relevant to me..cuz he/she/it doesnt do anything.

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

Why is it that atheists always the 'skeptics'? I submit that it's the religious who are skeptical of reality! There, not nice is it?

There was a book fair recently over here and I've purchased a very good book that answers many of these seemingly baffling questions. The answers are quite reasonable and simple, I have to say.

For this question: who told you that unbaptised babies will go to hell? Did God tell you Himself? If He didn't you can be sure your answer is not correct, because God is the only - the ONLY - entity that determines who will go the heaven and who will go to hell. But from Jesus' behaviour with the children in the Bible, I think it's pretty safe to assume that those babies will end up in heaven.


"No man shall enter heaven.....etc...yadda yadda."
Some chapter..some verse.

See..in the end, such questions like this are not given answers in the bible, and are avoided, because man does not have answers to them.
We avoise these types of questions by saying "Its the will of God"..or "only God knows these answers..but he he isnt saying much.

Another question for you:

Isnt there anything...honestly...some question about the world around you, that you have looked to your faith for an answer to...only to come up blank, or inventing an answer that fitted your beliefs in some way?

"No man shall enter heaven.....etc...yadda yadda."
Some chapter..some verse.

MAN! MAN! Some chapter...some verse... God has obviously written that in the Bible for those who can understand that verse!! Can a newborn baby? No.

See..in the end, such questions like this are not given answers in the bible, and are avoided, because man does not have answers to them.
We avoise these types of questions by saying "Its the will of God"..or "only God knows these answers..but he he isnt saying much.

Well, I'm trying to provide answers - hopefully from God.

Another question for you:

Isnt there anything...honestly...some question about the world around you, that you have looked to your faith for an answer to...only to come up blank, or inventing an answer that fitted your beliefs in some way?
Yes. However, my response is not to invent some answer, but to look for help from other people or sources. That's what relationships and the Internet are for. :D

EDIT: The church is there for a purpose. Christianity is not only a self-quest, but also one of brotherhood and compassion for others. You should realise that if you've thought of the problem, so have many others. If you are willing to raise your question you could be pleasantly surprised how many others have the same question in their mind but just, like you, didn't want/dare to raise it.

I don't think it's worth debating as it is all just theory anyway. We're not going to find out untill we're dead so what's the point in putting your faith in a religion when it will probably turn out to be the wrong one anyway!!

MAN! MAN! Some chapter...some verse... God has obviously written that in the Bible for those who can understand that verse!! Can a newborn baby? No.

Forgive me..I was making light of an obvious misquote I was trying to avoid.
I believe the its something like "No man shall enter Heaven unless he ahs been reborn..(accepted Jesus..whathaveyou)




Yes. However, my response is not to invent some answer, but to look for help from other people or sources. That's what relationships and the Internet are for. :D

Ok..but isnt a important spiritual question of faith..just between you and God?
If so, and you have had such a question...are you sure the problem was on your end, so to speak..?

I don't think it's worth debating as it is all just theory anyway. We're not going to find out untill we're dead so what's the point in putting your faith in a religion when it will probably turn out to be the wrong one anyway!!

That's not true. Religion is not pot-shot. Faith is not pot-shot. Faith is taking a calculated and planned risk. If you sit there and wait for faith to take you everywhere, it won't. You have to be at the end of your tether before you can take any leap of faith.

Forgive me..I was making light of an obvious misquote I was trying to avoid.
I believe the its something like "No man shall enter Heaven unless he ahs been reborn..(accepted Jesus..whathaveyou)


Oh...when He was talking to the Jewish judge. Reborn as in to accept Jesus Christ as your saviour consciously. Babies can't accept anything because they can't think consciously. Jesus also said that His followers should revert to the attitudes of children or else none would be saved. Have you read that up too?

Ok..but isnt a important spiritual question of faith..just between you and God?
If so, and you have had such a question...are you sure the problem was on your end, so to speak..?

Please read the edit I made and raise a question again if you have one? Thanks and sorry! :)

I will say this again: the very questions you ask are also asked by the religous, and they are given satisfactory answers. Once against I cannot comment on some of the christian questions, but some of the others I can.

Ultimately, every question within most monotheistic religions boil down to "Becuase God said so." Well, that's a strange way of putting it. Many questions are questioning certain complications in the actual text, which of course cannot be answered in that way. I can tell you that I have not encountered that answer when asking a question.

"Why do bad things happen to good people" etc... That question, being so widespread, has many answers in all religions. I have personally seen it referred to in a book on faith I own. I'm sure if you asked some religous authorities you would indeed receive a satisfactory answer.

If there is a God..why is he so vague, and silent? I will answer this question along with all the questions referring to god's motives. I won't say "because, and that's that". However, it is connected with the fact that we are, after all, ignorant. There are many explanations for this question; in Judaism, the destruction of the temple, the decay of faith, and such brought down the religous world and will rise again someday, with the come of the messiah. Why the silence, we cannot know, but we can assume, try to understand, and hope to reach the correct answers. Until then, we can only do our best to follow the other commands given to us, as best we can and with full hearts.

Isnt there anything...honestly...some question about the world around you, that you have looked to your faith for an answer to...only to come up blank, or inventing an answer that fitted your beliefs in some way? Never have I probed a question very, very deeply, and came out wanting. The reason for this is that all my questions have been dealt with for hundreds upon hundreds of years, with debates and rulings and yes, answers. And the majority of that knowledge is present in our religous authorities today.

I will answer this question along with all the questions referring to god's motives. I won't say "because, and that's that". However, it is connected with the fact that we are, after all, ignorant. There are many explanations for this question; in Judaism, the destruction of the temple, the decay of faith, and such brought down the religous world and will rise again someday, with the come of the messiah. Why the silence, we cannot know, but we can assume, try to understand, and hope to reach the correct answers. Until then, we can only do our best to follow the other commands given to us, as best we can and with full hearts.

Look again at this paragraph.

Basicaly, you answered my question of "why is God so vague and silent?"

with

"We dont know."

That just doesnt make sense to me.

Never have I probed a question very, very deeply, and came out wanting. The reason for this is that all my questions have been dealt with for hundreds upon hundreds of years, with debates and rulings and yes, answers. And the majority of that knowledge is present in our religous authorities today.


As for this question....your answer seems to be "Cause the bible (Torah..whatever the case may be) tells me so.

Isnt that the same as "Beucase God says so."?

Look again at this paragraph.

Basicaly, you answered my question of "why is God so vague and silent?"

with

"We dont know."

That just doesnt make sense to me.


Ahh... but if He wasn't so vague and silent, would you actually take notice?

Ahh... but if He wasn't so vague and silent, would you actually take notice?


I assure you, I have been present for every personal appearance God has made, since Ive been alive.

It's against ALL my better instincts, getting involved in this thread, since arguing religion is more pointless and infinitely more painful that repeatedly headbutting a brick wall :headbang: , but...

***To all Christians/Adherents of any religion***

Most of you live in democratic countries. We appreciate these freedoms. One of these freedoms that you enjoy is the privilege to worship whatever deity it is that you think gives meaning to life. This right, this is just, and I have no axe to grind with the fundamentals of religion.

HOWEVER

One aspect really pissed me off. And that is the small subsection of any faith (or, indeed, of atheism/agnosticism) that take it upon themselves to convert the unbelievers/believers.

The hypocrisy of it is mindblowing. HOW DARE a group that exists solely because of a civil freedom that many countries would kill to have then try to subvert this very founding freedom and deny other group's right to expression, belief, and self-determination? It's a disgusting hypocrisy.

The vast majority of believers are not like this. They are rational, good-natured, and firmyl believe in the goodness of humanity.

The instigator of this topic... Was definitely not. :upyours:

Varengia out!

One aspect really pissed me off. And that is the small subsection of any faith (or, indeed, of atheism/agnosticism) that take it upon themselves to convert the unbelievers/believers.

The hypocrisy of it is mindblowing. HOW DARE a group that exists solely because of a civil freedom that many countries would kill to have then try to subvert this very founding freedom and deny other group's right to expression, belief, and self-determination? It's a disgusting hypocrisy.


How exactly is trying to convert someone denying them any kind of rights. You dont force them to do it, they have to come to their own understanding. All you can do is inform and encourage.

*snip*

I see no problem with trying to share a gift with other people. If you're so not into other people influencing your life, be a recluse.

"Why do bad things happen to good people" etc...

Chrisitanity provides a simple answer to this, there is no such thing as a good person. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Now obviously at this point you say "ok so we're not good by God's standards but we still are good people" which can be said to be true. However, nowhere in the Bible is it promised that good people (specificly Christians) will live good lives. Quite the contaray. But lets take your logic for a second. If there was some kind of force that kept the universe in some kind of moral balance (only bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people) then the following would be true

- Every coin toss would favour the "better" person
- Every hospital would be unessecary seeing as only bad people get ill
- Virtually no one wins the lottery as they aren't "good" enough
- Only the Evil die young
- Natural disasters only affect evil countries

etc etc, now obviously you can see that the idea of getting what we "deserve" is an absurdity of stupid proportions. Furthermore, deservedness presupposes some metaphysically 'real' ethical structure of the universe, and only the kind that can be associated with the absolutes of a God who can 'build' natural consequences (e.g. landslides) into ethical actions. All other systems have a 'human contractual' character hardly something physical laws of plate tectonics should be expected to honor!Picking an ethic and agreeing on it, or 'actualizing it' (whatever THAT means!) by sincerity, will, etc. hardly is going to affect global weather patterns that produce hurricanes or tornadoes (unless, of course, one can get the wing-flapping, chaos-leveraging butterfly to flap its wings in the necessary way to steer the hurricane into uninhabited areas of sea...).

So, IF 'deservedness' requires a God anyway (to even make sense of the concept at all), then you cannot use the same thing to argue against Him, now can you?!

Basicaly, you answered my question of "why is God so vague and silent?"


Silent after Jesus because Jesus has said and done everything that needs to be said and done.

The problem with the "ineffable" argument is that all too often it only gets trotted out to paper over all the holes in the theory. It does seem a little disingenuous to me for people to tell you exactly what God did, wants, and will do, and why the universe looks like this but is actually like that, but who then have no problem in saying "Ah, who can understand the mind of God?" whenever they are confronted with some bizarre and/or unpleasant logical conclusion of their assumptions.

I find it strange in the extreme that people will say "it surpasseth all understanding" when asked about, for example, God's oversight in including an evil serpent in the Garden of Eden, and not giving Eve a sense of right and wrong until after she'd sinned but punishing her and all her descendants anyway, but who will then go on in exhaustive detail to try to demonstrate that huge areas of science must be wrong because they contradict their literal interpretation of the Bible. No-one, apparently, can know why God saw fit to infest only certain parts of the world with parasites that burrow into children's bodies and lay eggs in their eyes, but the origins of the universe and the development of life on earth can be completely encompassed by a few hundred words in a big old book. In short, for a group of people whose object of worship is utterly and forever beyond our mortal ken, some of them seem awfully sure of just how right they are about everything.

Faith is faith, I suppose, and fair enough -- but I would have thought that, in the face of the truly ineffable, maybe a little less zealous certainty would be a bit more appropriate?

The problem with the "ineffable" argument is that all too often it only gets trotted out to paper over all the holes in the theory. It does seem a little disingenuous to me for people to tell you exactly what God did, wants, and will do, and why the universe looks like this but is actually like that, but who then have no problem in saying "Ah, who can understand the mind of God?" whenever they are confronted with some bizarre and/or unpleasant logical conclusion of their assumptions.

I find it strange in the extreme that people will say "it surpasseth all understanding" when asked about, for example, God's oversight in including an evil serpent in the Garden of Eden, and not giving Eve a sense of right and wrong until after she'd sinned but punishing her and all her descendants anyway, but who will then go on in exhaustive detail to try to demonstrate that huge areas of science must be wrong because they contradict their literal interpretation of the Bible. No-one, apparently, can know why God saw fit to infest only certain parts of the world with parasites that burrow into children's bodies and lay eggs in their eyes, but the origins of the universe and the development of life on earth can be completely encompassed by a few hundred words in a big old book. In short, for a group of people whose object of worship is utterly and forever beyond our mortal ken, some of them seem awfully sure of just how right they are about everything.

Faith is faith, I suppose, and fair enough -- but I would have thought that, in the face of the truly ineffable, maybe a little less zealous certainty would be a bit more appropriate?
This post deserves 5 gold stars.

I find it strange in the extreme that people will say "it surpasseth all understanding" when asked about, for example, God's oversight in including an evil serpent in the Garden of Eden, and not giving Eve a sense of right and wrong until after she'd sinned but punishing her and all her descendants anyway,

I dont know how many times I've had to explain Eden to people who have no understanding about it. Ok to your first objection. The serpents inclusion was not an "oversight" on the part of God. If God had kept all other influences out of the garden besides himself then Adam and Eve would love God and obey him purely because they didnt know any better and they would be living in an effective dictatorship. Secondly, the order to not eat the fruit of the tree was not a moral decision, it was a decision of obedience. Eve did not have the capacity to know good and evil but she didnt need one to obey God's command. It was a question of obedience verses disobedience, not a question of good or evil.

On the subject of Eden and what it teaches I have found it a bit flawed. It is based on the notion that children are to obey their father and provider of all things. They are to do this in blindness because they have not the notion of right and wrong. This story teaches obedience above all else and is one of the most widely preached stories of the testament. Especially by church factions of the ages seeking power over it's followers.
If I were to tell my 3 and 4 year old children not to take an object from the coffee table, and explain to them that this was of the utmost importance. I would not expel them from my house if they did.

I also mow your lawn because you saved me from those thugs. This is much clearer in the marital case; traditionally, the father of the bride is given gifts and rewards for marrying off his daughter. In this case, Jacob was dirt poor when he arrived there, so he had to work.

Want to know the difference? I come over and out of the goodness of my heart I mow your lawn. Afterward, you come out see the wonderful job I did and offer me some money, to say, thanks, man, that was nice. However, if I come over and say I'll mow your lawn for twenty bucks, then you are paying me to mow the lawn. He said, work for seven years and you can have my daughter. That's payment. Work for seven years and I'll save you from the thugs. That's payment. Work for seven years or no daughter. That's payment. You can't gloss that over.

Well, my point was that the punishment was not irrational or exstremetized because she was feminine; the fact is, if positions had been reversed, would we call it feminist? I consider it told as it was, and it was simple chance that she was the one who sinned twice, and therefore punished as such.

Not feminist. The opposite of patriarchal is not feminist, it's matriarchal. And, yes, if he was the one who sinned twice, and every spiritual leader and every writer of the bible and leader of the land inhabited by the people who held the bible were all women, then I would say that it was matriarchal. As the opposite is true, it is clearly patriarchal.

Well, obviously the prophets didn't exist then, but it is quite clear that they weren't literal days, since the sun and moon were created after the first "day", meaning that the end of the first day could not have been sunset and night.

Yes, of course. There is also that little tip that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. I've always taken that to mean, if I show you some visions in real time you'll be dead and the world will have ended before you finish seeing them.

That's not true. Religion is not pot-shot. Faith is not pot-shot. Faith is taking a calculated and planned risk. If you sit there and wait for faith to take you everywhere, it won't. You have to be at the end of your tether before you can take any leap of faith.



a leap of faith is a pot shot.. :rolleyes:

all religons are socially constructed...it depends on where you live mainly...to determin what religious belief u have.

"No man shall enter heaven.....etc...yadda yadda."
Some chapter..some verse.

See..in the end, such questions like this are not given answers in the bible, and are avoided, because man does not have answers to them.
We avoise these types of questions by saying "Its the will of God"..or "only God knows these answers..but he he isnt saying much.

That's actually clearly untrue. First, babies are not men. Also Jesus Christ references the fact that children are like sheep and sheep go to heaven. Understanding good and evil is the point at which you are responsible for your salvation. If you can't understand good and evil (as in aren't capable of it, not just refuse to) then you are considered a sheep and saved, whether you are two or sixty-two. This passage protects children and the mentally handicapped.

Another question for you:

Isnt there anything...honestly...some question about the world around you, that you have looked to your faith for an answer to...only to come up blank, or inventing an answer that fitted your beliefs in some way?

If my faith does not have the answer, then I am content with not having the answer. Certainly, if my observance of the world can't answer it and my faith can't answer it, then it won't be answered. I might speculate however like you or anyone else would.

I dont know how many times I've had to explain Eden to people who have no understanding about it. Ok to your first objection. The serpents inclusion was not an "oversight" on the part of God. If God had kept all other influences out of the garden besides himself then Adam and Eve would love God and obey him purely because they didnt know any better and they would be living in an effective dictatorship. Secondly, the order to not eat the fruit of the tree was not a moral decision, it was a decision of obedience. Eve did not have the capacity to know good and evil but she didnt need one to obey God's command. It was a question of obedience verses disobedience, not a question of good or evil.

Can you explain, then, why God punished Eve, Adam and by extension all of humanity for one act of disobedience, when she couldn't know that to disobey God was wrong? Eve "sinned" merely because, as you say yourself, she didn't know any better. And, as Himinn's post suggests, don't you think condemning all humanity to lifetimes of suffering and toil because of one -- innocent -- act was perhaps a slight overreaction? And if the serpent was a necessary part of the whole design, why did God punish it merely for showing up a flaw in His own creation?

I must say as a Christian that asking of what people believe is arrogant and stupid. If you have beliefs of your own, stick to them. It doesn't matter what people believe. And most of all the fact you are suggesting books for them to read is over-righteous. Don't you think they would have heard pretty much all of the story before? So in response not as an Atheist or Christian, If you ask them something, then why do you (overall) question their faith when yours is questionable in the same sense?

The problem with the "ineffable" argument is that all too often it only gets trotted out to paper over all the holes in the theory. It does seem a little disingenuous to me for people to tell you exactly what God did, wants, and will do, and why the universe looks like this but is actually like that, but who then have no problem in saying "Ah, who can understand the mind of God?" whenever they are confronted with some bizarre and/or unpleasant logical conclusion of their assumptions.

I find it strange in the extreme that people will say "it surpasseth all understanding" when asked about, for example, God's oversight in including an evil serpent in the Garden of Eden, and not giving Eve a sense of right and wrong until after she'd sinned but punishing her and all her descendants anyway, but who will then go on in exhaustive detail to try to demonstrate that huge areas of science must be wrong because they contradict their literal interpretation of the Bible. No-one, apparently, can know why God saw fit to infest only certain parts of the world with parasites that burrow into children's bodies and lay eggs in their eyes, but the origins of the universe and the development of life on earth can be completely encompassed by a few hundred words in a big old book. In short, for a group of people whose object of worship is utterly and forever beyond our mortal ken, some of them seem awfully sure of just how right they are about everything.

Faith is faith, I suppose, and fair enough -- but I would have thought that, in the face of the truly ineffable, maybe a little less zealous certainty would be a bit more appropriate?

I think you shouldn't paint all Christians with the same brush. There are only a few questions I NEED the answer to and NEED to be right about. We can disagree about whether Eden was an allegory or literal, whether the seven days is seven days or eons, etc. The thing, the only thing, all Christians have in common is Christ as the savior. In fact, many Christians disagree on what will happen to those who don't hold Christ as their personal savior. I think you'll find that many Christians are reasonable about questions of archeological and historical significance. Most are more firm about questions of faith.

I must say as a Christian that asking of what people believe is arrogant and stupid. If you have beliefs of your own, stick to them. It doesn't matter what people believe. And most of all the fact you are suggesting books for them to read is over-righteous. Don't you think they would have heard pretty much all of the story before? So in response not as an Atheist or Christian, If you ask them something, then why do you (overall) question their faith when yours is questionable in the same sense?

If we discuss medicine, would you not offer me the source of your knowledge of medicine or at least source to back up your claims? Then if we are discussing faith, why would one not bring in sources to support your claims, even if they don't PROVE anything, they give people context into your beliefs and an understanding of why you believe what you believe. People question other people's differing beliefs on politics, on sports, on flowers, why would they not question people beliefs on their faith, particularly when so many feel it is such an important part of our existence? However, I would never demean someone for simply believing differently than I do. I know all of our paths are different and I only try to help people understand how I arrived where I am and give them as much information as they are willing to hear. And, of course, I am always willing to listen to and read about the faith of others regardless of what that is, even if it is a belief that there is no god(s).

That right there is specifically my point, but I don't think it's about every brick being true. Instead, I think they are nervous about admitting there is any fundamental truth to be found in any other religion. I think, for example, Christians should embrace it if, say, a flood story exists in many other cultures (as we know it does) as it could be used to suggest that all passed down stories of the same flood. Why couldn't pieces of your religion that exist elsewhere be evidence that those peoples have also been influence by God or whatever your version of absolute truth is? In Christianity in particular, we believe in a personal connection to God that existed even before Jesus Christ and that people often hear only parts of the message. Why is it only Christians that hear parts of the message? Can't other peoples hear part and not all?

I think for SOME the 'every brick' thing is true... I have met many people who insist on the absolute innerrant nature of the Bible (which I consider dangerously close to idolatry), and will quibble ANY apparent discrepency... because part of their 'case' (as stated) is that the Bible MUST be (supernaturally) accurate.

I think that many theists like to cling to their chosen religion IN ISOLATION because they feel that their religion is somehow cheapened by association with other religions, also. As though, evidence of a story coming from an earlier source somehow makes it LESS true.

Regarding the flood, other Mesopotamian mythologies seem to suggest that 'the flood' was far less excessive than the Biblical account. I believe early Sumerian versions of the story refer to it as a flood that stretched 'as far as the eye could see'. There is SOME evidence that this was the intention of the Biblical version of the story - due to the limited geography over which the story takes place... and also due to the fact that Abraham is later claimed to have 'crossed the flood' (Joshua 24:3).

I agree with every single part of that post. I actually believe that Jesus is more likely to agree with me than with Pat Robertson on the matter.

Yay! Peace in our time! :) ;) :D

I think you shouldn't paint all Christians with the same brush. There are only a few questions I NEED the answer to and NEED to be right about. We can disagree about whether Eden was an allegory or literal, whether the seven days is seven days or eons, etc. The thing, the only thing, all Christians have in common is Christ as the savior. In fact, many Christians disagree on what will happen to those who don't hold Christ as their personal savior. I think you'll find that many Christians are reasonable about questions of archeological and historical significance. Most are more firm about questions of faith.

Absolutely. It wasn't my intention to paint all Christians (or Jews, or Muslims, or other followers of scripturally-based religions) with the same fundamentalist brush. I have no problem whatsoever with intelligent faith. I really don't mind ineffability in the right place, around the big questions: what irritates me is when some people use it as an all-purpose get-out-of-logic-free card to justify a rigid adherence to their literal interpretation of obvious mythology. I've never understood this kind of blinkered fundamentalism: insisting that Genesis is literally true seems to me as daft as insisting that Jesus's parables were literally true. Dafter, if anything: there isn't a stack of cross-disciplinary evidence a mile high against the existence of the Good Samaritan. There's no fossil evidence proving beyond all but the most convoluted doubt that the Prodigal Son never came home again.

If we discuss medicine, would you not offer me the source of your knowledge of medicine or at least source to back up your claims? Then if we are discussing faith, why would one not bring in sources to support your claims, even if they don't PROVE anything, they give people context into your beliefs and an understanding of why you believe what you believe. People question other people's differing beliefs on politics, on sports, on flowers, why would they not question people beliefs on their faith, particularly when so many feel it is such an important part of our existence? However, I would never demean someone for simply believing differently than I do. I know all of our paths are different and I only try to help people understand how I arrived where I am and give them as much information as they are willing to hear. And, of course, I am always willing to listen to and read about the faith of others regardless of what that is, even if it is a belief that there is no god(s).

Ok..I think your faith encourages discrimination and hatred against homosexuals and the transgendered people..

I really dont like it when *some of you guys* try to shove your religious down our throats, to change OUR way of life.

And you see this everywhere...I MEAN EVERYWHERE. Theres *christians* in every part of the world that try to oppose gay rights. Why is that? why do they oppose gay rights , isnt it enough that they just oppose homosexuality in private?

Pleeeeeeeeease, this goes far beyond telling those who are listenning. It forces people to listen by making every social right issue into a *religious* or *christian* issue.

Ok..I think your faith encourages discrimination and hatred against homosexuals and the transgendered people..

I really dont like it when *some of you guys* try to shove your religious down our throats, to change OUR way of life.

And you see this everywhere...I MEAN EVERYWHERE. Theres *christians* in every part of the world that try to oppose gay rights. Why is that? why do they oppose gay rights , isnt it enough that they just oppose homosexuality in private?

I think MY faith encourages no such thing. I disagree with Christians who would do this as much as you do. However, only one of us is using generalizations and practicing intolerance here. Can you figure out which of us it is? Perhaps you should address the issue differently, friend.

Can you explain, then, why God punished Eve, Adam and by extension all of humanity for one act of disobedience, when she couldn't know that to disobey God was wrong? Eve "sinned" merely because, as you say yourself, she didn't know any better?

No, she did know better because God had told her. However God had not restricted her ability to choose, either listen to God or not. She knew who God was and she knew because of who he was he would tell the truth. It wasnt a moral question, to listen to God or not. It was a matter of obedience. A child is treeted in the same way by its parents. They are punished often not because what they do/dont do is wrong but because it is disobedient.


And, as Himinn's post suggests, don't you think condemning all humanity to lifetimes of suffering and toil because of one -- innocent -- act was perhaps a slight overreaction? And if the serpent was a necessary part of the whole design, why did God punish it merely for showing up a flaw in His own creation?

He did not punish the serpent for showing up, he punished it for what it did. And in the same way that all sin entered the world through one person (Eve) so can it leave the world through one person (Jesus). If your going to say that its unfair that we should suffer from Eve's disobedience then you've also got to say that its unfair that we should benefit from Jesus's death.

Shakinah is merely god's presence; when god settled upon the temple, he showed his presence, which is called "shekinah" from the root "shikoon" which means residence. Elokim to me implies the continual and universal presence of god, but I think it is hasty to call it a plurality. As for the "above all gods" and such, that is a good question which I have asked myself; the answer is that the other "gods" are called sucgh though they imply the false gods, idols and such. It is always connected to the word "other" (for example, "thou shalt not worship other gods before me"), and this "other" is interpreted as different, distant, and unanswering the prayers of their worshippers (since, of course, these gods do not exist). This question is dealt with at great depth, if you are interested.


Shekinah is femininely gendered, and Elohim IS plural, just as Cherubim or Seraphim would be.

Try looking at Psalm 82:1 "A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods". In the Hebrew, the word for 'gods' is Elohim. And note further, 'god' stands among those other gods... not above or removed from.


Fine, I'm just saying that Ashera was not the companion of the hebrew god but to the antithesis of the hebrew god, baal. The worship of baal was idolic, which is to many the ultimate antithesis to the hebrew god.


Baal is not necessarily even a 'god'... David was 'Baal'. And bowing before a statue of 'baal' is no more idolatorous than bowing to Moses' graven idol of a serpent, or the Christians tipping their heads to the cross.


The reason I object to that impression is that I believe these stories and occurrences happened as they are told in the tanach and not a "borrowed" story. If two religions interpreted the same event different ways, that is another thing which I do not object to at all.


I'm happy that you believe the tanach implicitly. I don't... and I see no evidence for why anyone should. On the other hand, I see plenty of evidence that seems to suggest that large swathes of the Pentatauch are poached wholesale from other, earlier Mesopotamian religions.

I must say as a Christian that asking of what people believe is arrogant and stupid. If you have beliefs of your own, stick to them. It doesn't matter what people believe. And most of all the fact you are suggesting books for them to read is over-righteous. Don't you think they would have heard pretty much all of the story before? So in response not as an Atheist or Christian, If you ask them something, then why do you (overall) question their faith when yours is questionable in the same sense?

The books that have been sugested are not description books of the faith, but descriptive of evidence which supports that faith. The evidence makes it less and less questionable.

I think for SOME the 'every brick' thing is true... I have met many people who insist on the absolute innerrant nature of the Bible (which I consider dangerously close to idolatry),

DING, DING, DING!!! Tell him what he's won, Bob! Not just dangerously close in some cases. PR and I had this very discussion (not suggesting you've crossed that line, PR). I very much think that worshipping the bible is idolatry and many Christians do exactly that.

and will quibble ANY apparent discrepency... because part of their 'case' (as stated) is that the Bible MUST be (supernaturally) accurate.

Again, agreed. Quit it. Can't have people thinking we're reasonable people. What's next? Dogs and cats sharing a pizza with a mouse?

I think that many theists like to cling to their chosen religion IN ISOLATION because they feel that their religion is somehow cheapened by association with other religions, also. As though, evidence of a story coming from an earlier source somehow makes it LESS true.

Ok, now you're doing it on purpose.

Regarding the flood, other Mesopotamian mythologies seem to suggest that 'the flood' was far less excessive than the Biblical account. I believe early Sumerian versions of the story refer to it as a flood that stretched 'as far as the eye could see'. There is SOME evidence that this was the intention of the Biblical version of the story - due to the limited geography over which the story takes place... and also due to the fact that Abraham is later claimed to have 'crossed the flood' (Joshua 24:3).

Again, I don't rely on the Bible as an archeological or historical reference. I don't think being archeologically, historically or even scientifically correct is the point of faith. I find it interesting that so many Christians are so afraid that people might not agree with them about certain historical and archeological views. Even scientists don't agree on most things, take the intelligence of dinosaurs, for example, and they are working off of emperical evidence. Why is it so hard to believe that we would disagree with a translation of an age-old book that has text in it showing an interpretation by a prophet of a vision? I would quite simply have a heart attack if suddenly everyone in the world agreed about the meaning of a particular book of the bible or even all people in a single religion.

I dont know how many times I've had to explain Eden to people who have no understanding about it. Ok to your first objection. The serpents inclusion was not an "oversight" on the part of God. If God had kept all other influences out of the garden besides himself then Adam and Eve would love God and obey him purely because they didnt know any better and they would be living in an effective dictatorship. Secondly, the order to not eat the fruit of the tree was not a moral decision, it was a decision of obedience. Eve did not have the capacity to know good and evil but she didnt need one to obey God's command. It was a question of obedience verses disobedience, not a question of good or evil.

You can keep right on 'trying to explain Eden'... but you'll still be wrong.

Eve did not disobey - she obeyed the serpent.

'God' had NOT told her that the serpent existed, or that he could lie.

The ONLY other entity (apart from Adam) that talked to Eve, was 'God'.

So - when she encountered a talking serpent, she can have had NO frame of reference... she knew of no talking animals, and she couldn't comprehend the concept of lying (no understanding of good and evil).

So - she obeyed.

And, was punished for it.

No, she did know better because God had told her. However God had not restricted her ability to choose, either listen to God or not. She knew who God was and she knew because of who he was he would tell the truth. It wasnt a moral question, to listen to God or not. It was a matter of obedience. A child is treeted in the same way by its parents. They are punished often not because what they do/dont do is wrong but because it is disobedient.

Well, God didn't tell her not to eat the apple because he didn't want her to; he told her not to eat it because if she did, "she would surely die". But lets ignore that (and all the various theological dodges around what God meant by "die"). God told her not to. But Eve didn't know that to disobey God was wrong. Therefore, eating the apple was an innocent act.

Also, you said before that...

If God had kept all other influences out of the garden besides himself then Adam and Eve would love God and obey him purely because they didnt know any better and they would be living in an effective dictatorship.

...and yet God expels Adam and Eve for failing to obey his commands, despite the fact that they lacked any moral sense. How is this not "living in an effective dictatorship"?

He did not punish the serpent for showing up, he punished it for what it did.

But God allowed the serpent in the Garden. It was part of his design. Who made the serpent evil in the first place? If God hadn't wanted the serpent to tempt Eve, he should have left it outside. If He wanted Eve to resist the serpent's temptation, surely it would have been better to give her a sense of right and wrong beforehand? Then she might have said, "No, you evil serpent. I will not disobey the Lord my God. Get thee behind me!"

And in the same way that all sin entered the world through one person (Eve) so can it leave the world through one person (Jesus). If your going to say that its unfair that we should suffer from Eve's disobedience then you've also got to say that its unfair that we should benefit from Jesus's death.

So, essentially, you're saying that in order to make up for His first massively unfair decision (making the entire human race suffer because an innocent Eve did not obey God unquestioningly), God then allows the whole of humanity to be unfairly saved by the suffering and (temporary) death of His son? Could He not just say "I forgive you"? Or even better, not punish an entire species for one innocent transgression of his original dictatorial command in the first place? Are you sure the whole thing isn't just a story?

DING, DING, DING!!! Tell him what he's won, Bob! Not just dangerously close in some cases. PR and I had this very discussion (not suggesting you've crossed that line, PR). I very much think that worshipping the bible is idolatry and many Christians do exactly that.

Again, agreed. Quit it. Can't have people thinking we're reasonable people. What's next? Dogs and cats sharing a pizza with a mouse?

Ok, now you're doing it on purpose.

Again, I don't rely on the Bible as an archeological or historical reference. I don't think being archeologically, historically or even scientifically correct is the point of faith. I find it interesting that so many Christians are so afraid that people might not agree with them about certain historical and archeological views. Even scientists don't agree on most things, take the intelligence of dinosaurs, for example, and they are working off of emperical evidence. Why is it so hard to believe that we would disagree with a translation of an age-old book that has text in it showing an interpretation by a prophet of a vision? I would quite simply have a heart attack if suddenly everyone in the world agreed about the meaning of a particular book of the bible or even all people in a single religion.

:)

When it comes to things like the Creation story, I don't really understand why some Christians feel the need to adhere to it so implicitly... why take that story as literal? To me - I have no problem with the idea of Creation being SPIRITUALLY true... providing the 'why', if you will... while I can see that observable science can perhaps help us understand the 'how' much more thoroughly than the visions of millenia-dead desert-prophets.

I don't deny that the Bible contains historical data... but then, so do many other books - and we don't assume that ALL texts are true - even those that claim to be (like Lemony Snicket).

Sorry about the being agreeable thing... I don't know what came over me. :)

Oh - I've got some pizza here, if you were hungry... it's a little nibbled because my pet dog, cat and mouse got into it while I was out.... :D

You can keep right on 'trying to explain Eden'... but you'll still be wrong.

Eve did not disobey - she obeyed the serpent.

'God' had NOT told her that the serpent existed, or that he could lie.

The ONLY other entity (apart from Adam) that talked to Eve, was 'God'.

So - when she encountered a talking serpent, she can have had NO frame of reference... she knew of no talking animals, and she couldn't comprehend the concept of lying (no understanding of good and evil).

So - she obeyed.

And, was punished for it.

I see it as an allegory about how our understanding of good and evil has affected how we can see the world and how we are judged by God. The moment we gained the capacity to understand good and evil, we also gained the capacity to feel like death and childbirth and toil and whatnot was unfair. We gained the ability to rail at God about why good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. We gained the ability to understand the consequences of our actions both in a physical and spiritual sense. This story captures that. Once we crossed that threshold we left the garden of Eden and set out into a much more complicated world, but it is not true that we are unable to return. Children are meant to live in that world for a time. As do the mentally handicapped (sometimes). Even some adults return to that world when an injury, a stroke or old age renders them unable to work with good and evil anymore.

I love the story as a means of conveying all of the above to us, as a means to help us understand the burden of our wonderful brains.

I see that a lot of people feel very strongly about this issue, and are willing to contribute insightful arguments either for/against/on the fence. If anyone does wish to take this further, see the 'Rival Think Tank' thread and you can sign up. Religion, and the many facets within it, is an issue we will almost undoubtedly discuss.

Oh - I've got some pizza here, if you were hungry... it's a little nibbled because my pet dog, cat and mouse got into it while I was out.... :D

I'm glad the first sign of the apocalypse if funny to you.

So - when she encountered a talking serpent, she can have had NO frame of reference... she knew of no talking animals, and she couldn't comprehend the concept of lying (no understanding of good and evil).
Well, now... is there really any written evidence that there were no other talking animals in the Garden (plotwise)? Maybe they all talked, but the author omitted it.

EDIT: Eh. Off-topic.

Again, I don't rely on the Bible as an archeological or historical reference. I don't think being archeologically, historically or even scientifically correct is the point of faith. I find it interesting that so many Christians are so afraid that people might not agree with them about certain historical and archeological views. Even scientists don't agree on most things, take the intelligence of dinosaurs, for example, and they are working off of emperical evidence. Why is it so hard to believe that we would disagree with a translation of an age-old book that has text in it showing an interpretation by a prophet of a vision? I would quite simply have a heart attack if suddenly everyone in the world agreed about the meaning of a particular book of the bible or even all people in a single religion.

Preach it, brother (or sister)! Amen to that. :) There's the important stuff (how we treat other people, and the universe at large), and then there's all the fiddling garbage around the edges like what people should or shouldn't do with their own genitals, or what kind of haircut to have, or what end of an egg to break. How is it that the garbage overwhelms the important stuff so often? Is it just because it's easier to make sure that our genitalia are in order and that our hair sits right than it is to not be a bastard to other people, even ones we don't particularly like?

DING, DING, DING!!! Tell him what he's won, Bob! Not just dangerously close in some cases. PR and I had this very discussion (not suggesting you've crossed that line, PR). I very much think that worshipping the bible is idolatry and many Christians do exactly that.



Again, agreed. Quit it. Can't have people thinking we're reasonable people. What's next? Dogs and cats sharing a pizza with a mouse?



Ok, now you're doing it on purpose.



Again, I don't rely on the Bible as an archeological or historical reference. I don't think being archeologically, historically or even scientifically correct is the point of faith. I find it interesting that so many Christians are so afraid that people might not agree with them about certain historical and archeological views. Even scientists don't agree on most things, take the intelligence of dinosaurs, for example, and they are working off of emperical evidence. Why is it so hard to believe that we would disagree with a translation of an age-old book that has text in it showing an interpretation by a prophet of a vision? I would quite simply have a heart attack if suddenly everyone in the world agreed about the meaning of a particular book of the bible or even all people in a single religion.

I find all of this very interesting in that I don't think I've ever personally known a christian who believes this way. But then, I live in Texas. I still think that the religion has serious logical flaws but I have a lot more respect for someone who is willing to allow reason and logic to enter into their spirituality than I do your run of the mill fundamentalist.

Of course, all the fundies out here think you are going to hell.

Preach it, brother (or sister)! Amen to that. :) There's the important stuff (how we treat other people, and the universe at large), and then there's all the fiddling garbage around the edges like what people should or shouldn't do with their own genitals, or what kind of haircut to have, or what end of an egg to break. How is it that the garbage overwhelms the important stuff so often? Is it just because it's easier to make sure that our genitalia are in order and that our hair sits right than it is to not be a bastard to other people, even ones we don't particularly like?
I hope your tolerance of the breaking of old testament norms extends to tolerance of homosexuals.

I hope your tolerance of the breaking of old testament norms extends to tolerance of homosexuals.

That's kind of what I meant about people obsessing about what they (or, more often) other people do with their genitalia. Consenting adults can do what they like as far as I'm concerned: the idea that 21st-century Western society should (or even could be reasonably expected to) conform to the official public moralities of a not-terribly-advanced Iron Age desert culture is lunacy.

Plus, if people are really desperate for things to get morally outraged about, they could try looking at the killing famine in, say, Niger -- not getting their knickers in a twist because two people of the same gender want to get married to each other.

Preach it, brother (or sister)! Amen to that. :) There's the important stuff (how we treat other people, and the universe at large), and then there's all the fiddling garbage around the edges like what people should or shouldn't do with their own genitals, or what kind of haircut to have, or what end of an egg to break. How is it that the garbage overwhelms the important stuff so often? Is it just because it's easier to make sure that our genitalia are in order and that our hair sits right than it is to not be a bastard to other people, even ones we don't particularly like?

I think this was a point that Jesus tried to make. He said the sum of the law and the prophets was the golden rule. Treat everyone like you would be treated. I won't take away their freedom to believe as they wish, because I would have this done to myself. I won't murder, because I don't wish to be murdered. Same with rape, molestation, sleeping with another man's wife. And I won't take away a person's right to be legally bound to the person they love with all the rights and priveleges that go with it, because I would not have that done to me. The golden rule makes it very easy to be a good person AND to be good to others when we're not bastardizing it to fit our agenda.

I find all of this very interesting in that I don't think I've ever personally known a christian who believes this way. But then, I live in Texas. I still think that the religion has serious logical flaws but I have a lot more respect for someone who is willing to allow reason and logic to enter into their spirituality than I do your run of the mill fundamentalist.

Of course, all the fundies out here think you are going to hell.

First, now you have, and I've met many. Second, if they believe that I'm going to hell then they do not believe that accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior earns you salvation and I question their faith. I following the teachings of my savior above all other teachings and I believe his purpose was to teach tolerance of others even if we are not tolerant of their actions. I don't like Nazis but I would fight like hell for the right to believe what they do (so long as they don't force themselves or their beliefs on others).

First, now you have, and I've met many. Second, if they believe that I'm going to hell then they do not believe that accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior earns you salvation and I question their faith. I following the teachings of my savior above all other teachings and I believe his purpose was to teach tolerance of others even if we are not tolerant of their actions. I don't like Nazis but I would fight like hell for the right to believe what they do (so long as they don't force themselves or their beliefs on others).
Well brother, you and I probably agree more than we disagree. I'm glad I've had this conversation.

Well, God didn't tell her not to eat the apple because he didn't want her to; he told her not to eat it because if she did, "she would surely die". But lets ignore that (and all the various theological dodges around what God meant by "die"). God told her not to. But Eve didn't know that to disobey God was wrong. Therefore, eating the apple was an innocent act.


Yes she did. Stop playing with cemantics of "right", "wrong" and "good" and "evil". Eve knew she shouldnt eat the apple in the same way a child knows not to go upstairs if a parent commands a child not to. Its not a moral descision, she doesnt need to know if its morally right or wrong, its just a question of obedience and disobedience. She knew to obey God was what she should do because she knew who God was.


...and yet God expels Adam and Eve for failing to obey his commands, despite the fact that they lacked any moral sense. How is this not "living in an effective dictatorship"?

As I have explained, they didnt need moral sense to obey the command. God did not give them the burden of understanding, only of obediaence.


But God allowed the serpent in the Garden. It was part of his design. Who made the serpent evil in the first place? If God hadn't wanted the serpent to tempt Eve, he should have left it outside. If He wanted Eve to resist the serpent's temptation, surely it would have been better to give her a sense of right and wrong beforehand? Then she might have said, "No, you evil serpent. I will not disobey the Lord my God. Get thee behind me!"

Again, she did not need a sense of morality to obey the command, because the command was not one of moral nature. Think about it for a second. The actual act itself (eating the fruit) of itself had no consequences of serious ramification. The reason that it had serious consequences was because of what God had said about it. The fruit itself had no magic or power, it was the command and significence given to it by God that gave the power.


So, essentially, you're saying that in order to make up for His first massively unfair decision (making the entire human race suffer because an innocent Eve did not obey God unquestioningly), God then allows the whole of humanity to be unfairly saved by the suffering and (temporary) death of His son? Could He not just say "I forgive you"? Or even better, not punish an entire species for one innocent transgression of his original dictatorial command in the first place? Are you sure the whole thing isn't just a story?

God is loving but he is also just. Because of the nature of sin (which we dont often take seriously enough) he had to punish us severly. Just saying "I forgive you" would not be just. Something had to be done

Yes she did. Stop playing with cemantics of "right", "wrong" and "good" and "evil". Eve knew she shouldnt eat the apple in the same way a child knows not to go upstairs if a parent commands a child not to. Its not a moral descision, she doesnt need to know if its morally right or wrong, its just a question of obedience and disobedience. She knew to obey God was what she should do because she knew who God was.



As I have explained, they didnt need moral sense to obey the command. God did not give them the burden of understanding, only of obediaence.



Again, she did not need a sense of morality to obey the command, because the command was not one of moral nature. Think about it for a second. The actual act itself (eating the fruit) of itself had no consequences of serious ramification. The reason that it had serious consequences was because of what God had said about it. The fruit itself had no magic or power, it was the command and significence given to it by God that gave the power.



God is loving but he is also just. Because of the nature of sin (which we dont often take seriously enough) he had to punish us severly. Just saying "I forgive you" would not be just. Something had to be done
Why though? Doesn't God make the rules? If he punished us it's because he wanted to.

So - when she encountered a talking serpent, she can have had NO frame of reference... she knew of no talking animals, and she couldn't comprehend the concept of lying (no understanding of good and evil).


She knew who God was, far better than we do now, the Bible describes how he walked with them in the cool of the day. God did not create Adam and Eve ignorent. They knew who God was and there is no evidence of their ignorence.

She knew who God was, far better than we do now, the Bible describes how he walked with them in the cool of the day. God did not create Adam and Eve ignorent. They knew who God was and there is no evidence of their ignorence.
You are talking from OUR frame of reference

If they knew who god was and that god was “good” then they ALREADY had knowledge of good and evil BEFORE they ate the apple because they KNEW it was good to follow god

As it is they did not know it was any more “good” to listen to god then it was “bad” for them to listen to a snake

Why though? Doesn't God make the rules? If he punished us it's because he wanted to.

It would be unjust to just say "I forgive you" and ignore the sin. You dont understand just how serious sin is.

It would be unjust to just say "I forgive you" and ignore the sin. You dont understand just how serious sin is.
So god is letting "justice" over rule his love for us

It would be unjust to just say "I forgive you" and ignore the sin. You dont understand just how serious sin is.
But if sin is so bad that one instance of it dooms an entire species, why didn't god just create a world without it?

You are talking from OUR frame of reference

If they knew who god was and that god was “good” then they ALREADY had knowledge of good and evil BEFORE they ate the apple because they KNEW it was good to follow god

As it is they did not know it was any more “good” to listen to god then it was “bad” for them to listen to a snake

Stop playing around with words "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong". Ive seen at least three occations where people use diffrent sets of words to curcumvent what I have said. They knew God was telling the truth because they knew who God was and more to the point, what he was like.

But if sin is so bad that one instance of it dooms an entire species, why didn't god just create a world without it?

Two words "free will"

So god is letting "justice" over rule his love for us

Its more like parentral love, its tough but just. Again, you dont understand sin

Stop playing around with words "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong". Ive seen at least three occations where people use diffrent sets of words to curcumvent what I have said. They knew God was telling the truth because they knew who God was and more to the point, what he was like.
Then they knew it was good to follow god and evil to follow another … so they already had the knowledge of good and evil

So what did the tree do for them again?

Two words "free will"

One, that's not in the bible. And even then it doesnt make sense. The freedom to do as commanded or suffer is not free will. It's wanton cruelty. Especially since he created us and therefore gave us the desire to disobey. What's so great about our free will that makes it better than rule by a perfect and loving god?

Then they knew it was good to follow god and evil to follow another … so they already had the knowledge of good and evil

So what did the tree do for them again?

No, they knew they should follow God. It wasnt a moral decsision, it was a command.

Its more like parentral love, its tough but just. Again, you dont understand sin
Oh … parents are “tough” to teach their kids for later in life

But god punishes eternally … so there is no “teaching” for “later”

What a loving guy
:rolleyes:

This is still imcomprehensible to me.

God knew A&E would go munch apples with the snake before it ever created A, E or the snake.

Yet God, in it's infinite benevolence chooses to create all three, and then pour eternal sin on the poor humans, which can can only ever absolve themselves from by accepting god as their master...

And the snake get's to spend forever burning in hell...

Am I really the only one who thinks this is utterly horrible?! I mean, seriously people. How is that god not the very essence of evil?! Even the most psychotic maniac human would eventually be fed up with tormenting people, put an end to them and go for for a beer. But no... Not God. That evil sod never get's sick of torturing it's victims.

I can't understand why people who really believe in the bible stuff, aren't all just cowering in a corner, praying for deliverance day & night... Or burning churches, crosses and bibles.

Just going to church on Sundays and flipping the bird at people on the drive home doesn't really cut it with the biblical god, does it?

Thank god I think it's too silly to believe in. I'd hate to fight a war against god :p

No, they knew they should follow God. It wasnt a moral decsision, it was a command.
But how did they know following god’s command over that of the serpent was the right thing to do?

Yeah, same here, 6 moves and 8 schools by the age of 18, up and down the country. Here lies the root of my issues with the church.


how can moving as a child have anything to with the church?

One, that's not in the bible. And even then it doesnt make sense. The freedom to do as commanded or suffer is not free will. It's wanton cruelty. Especially since he created us and therefore gave us the desire to disobey. What's so great about our free will that makes it better than rule by a perfect and loving god?

He didnt create the desire to disobey, he created the ability. They had the freedom to do as they wanted. But they were given the command to do one thing.

But how did they know following god’s command over that of the serpent was the right thing to do?

Because they knew who God was, they knew him better than we do as he was in direct contact with them, before sin.

He didnt create the desire to disobey, he created the ability. They had the freedom to do as they wanted. But they were given the command to do one thing.
They were given a command but had no idea it was good to follow that command

Because they knew who God was, they knew him better than we do as he was in direct contact with them, before sin.
Therefore they knew it was good to follow god so they already had knowledge of good and evil before the apple

I bet I'm older than you... unless you just act like a 15 year old on the forums.
So should I be coming to my senses any time then?

You are aware that different people have different opinions on what is common sense and what is not, correct? You are also aware that your faith appears quite blind and unquestioning, correct? As though you have done little or no self-examination at any point in your life?

Also, the poster you claim musy be young expresses him or herself much better than you do.

Why do you assume his faith is blind and unquestioning? Do you feel this way about all who have faith in Christ? If so, I find that very blind in itself and intolerant too.

I would say I am an atheist, and it's not that I don't want to believe but rather i just can't get my head around believing. It seems like there are so many contradictions in religion and so many different beliefs to choose from which whilst sharing some characteristics differ on many others. Religion seems the perfect reason to control people as they believe by following rules they will one day get to a better place but is that not just using a person's fear of death to create an environment that some people, somewhere, a long time ago decided would be a beneficial one to have? The idea of basic social rules to live by, with others in harmony, based on rewards that won't be seen in this life is fantastical and as such unrealistic to my mind. Obviously I understand that some find it easier to have faith than others and as religion can never be proved or disproved I would never dream of trying to convert anyone around to my way of thinking, whilst at the same time would also expect others to respect my (lack of) beliefs. Perhaps 'Neo Regolia's' observation that people start to question Christianity when they reach their teenage years is because that is when they start to question everything in their lives, and for many Christianity doesn't have the strength to survive their scrutiny?

A very thoughtful response. However, on the control issue, in the Christian faith we don't believe we go to heaven for following rules. We believe the only way to get to heaven is by the grace of God. Not by what we do and don't do. I can't speak for the other religions.
As far as teens questioning everything. I don't think its that Christianity doesn't have the strength to survive their scrutiny, its more that they don't put any of their scrutiny into it. It is true there is no proof but there is quite a big lot of evidence.

Why do you assume his faith is blind and unquestioning? Do you feel this way about all who have faith in Christ? If so, I find that very blind in itself and intolerant too.
How does that statement qualify as INTOLLORANT? She tolerates it she just does not agree with it … there is a difference

Yes, and I suppose you, in all your wisdom, have a nice theory for the origin of matter that you would show us?

how bout that ever elusive origin of life thingy too.

He didnt create the desire to disobey, he created the ability. They had the freedom to do as they wanted. But they were given the command to do one thing.
But aren't we all filled with the desire to sin? Aren't all humans prone to temptation? God created us that way. So he created a bunch of sinners and then punishes us for sinning.

how bout that ever elusive origin of life thingy too.
Yeah I have been looking for a scientific theory for creation of life from the creationists for a long time (though I suppose by definition I will have to wait forever)

A very thoughtful response. However, on the control issue, in the Christian faith we don't believe we go to heaven for following rules. We believe the only way to get to heaven is by the grace of God. Not by what we do and don't do. I can't speak for the other religions.
As far as teens questioning everything. I don't think its that Christianity doesn't have the strength to survive their scrutiny, its more that they don't put any of their scrutiny into it. It is true there is no proof but there is quite a big lot of evidence.
What evidence? I'd really like to know. I've only ever seen evidence against religion.

But aren't we all filled with the desire to sin? Aren't all humans prone to temptation? God created us that way. So he created a bunch of sinners and then punishes us for sinning.
Bah if there is a truly all loving god out there he will ask us when we die what we want … clearly and with all the information we need to make a good decision

If not he does not honestly deserve my worship

If I were ever to become a christian, I would have to be a gnostic. The gnostics thought that the devil created the earth, and that heaven belonged to god. I just can't buy that a loving god with infinite power wouldn't have given us a perfect world.

I cant understand people who believe in the supernatural. Like some rocks millions of miles away are gonna affect whether you wake up cranky. And if you think dead people talk to you, you need treatment for schizophrenia. If you think ghosts exist (either for no reason but bedtime stories you were told at the age of 3), you need to stop being so bloody paranoid and stupid.

C'mon people, if you believe in God you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Whats more likely,

a) life evolved naturally according to laws of physics determined by the inherent properties of matter, that have been proven, and can be tested at all times, for billions of years

b) all things were created 7000 years ago (despite nearly every rock being at least 3.9 billion years old) by a supernatural, all powerful, all seeing deity that likes to change things (creation of a whole bloody planet...), whom we have no evidence, cannot test for , and for whom there is NO evidence, but a book written by a bunch of peasants who had no idea of science & no idea of the world.

I mean, these people had no idea of how a human body worked, yet they claimed to understand how the entire universe was created, just because someone in the pub (aka the village well) told them so. And the main character of the book, a person (for whom no evidence even exists) who simply performed a few magic tricks and spoke in fables and parables so that people could misinterpret the story at will. How many times have you been amazed by a coin or card trick, and then feel stupid when you find out how easy it is?

Feel stupid yet god-lovers?

And thats just christianity. I wont even start on islam. Ive never heard of such a round-about bullshit story to cover up the meglo-maniacle intent of subjugation and domination.

a) False- there isn't even a valid theory to explain the origin of life. No scientist is even CLOSE to a theory. How can you state its been proven when there isn't even a plausible theory?

b) False- there is quite a lot of evidence. Ever hear of the Cambrian Explosion? It isn't a biblical term. According to this scientific discovery, all complex life forms appeared on the scene fully formed at the same time.

Jesus is a proven historical figure. There is enough non-biblical evidence that NO ONE (except those who don't look it up) disputes. The only people who believe He never lived are those who never bothered to look it up. Your ignorance on the subject is overshadowed only by your intolerant and rude demeanor.

If I were ever to become a christian, I would have to be a gnostic. The gnostics thought that the devil created the earth, and that heaven belonged to god. I just can't buy that a loving god with infinite power wouldn't have given us a perfect world.
Though then you get into the argument that the imperfect can never fully understand the perfect

But yes I think he could have done much better then the bible … along with spending some time working it over the last few thousand years I mean he had no problem directly carving the ten commandments but for some reason writing it on paper is not acceptable

Couldn't I just take the Matrix movies and use them as a basis for a faith? I could then write a book on it baised toward my viewpoint and use it as proof too can't I?

only if you can find some evidence to back it up. Strobel does that in his book. He interviews scientists to back his book up. Today's leading scientists at that.

a) False- there isn't even a valid theory to explain the origin of life. No scientist is even CLOSE to a theory. How can you state its been proven when there isn't even a plausible theory?

b) False- there is quite a lot of evidence. Ever hear of the Cambrian Explosion? It isn't a biblical term. According to this scientific discovery, all complex life forms appeared on the scene fully formed at the same time.

Jesus is a proven historical figure. There is enough non-biblical evidence that NO ONE (except those who don't look it up) disputes. The only people who believe He never lived are those who never bothered to look it up. Your ignorance on the subject is overshadowed only by your intolerant and rude demeanor.

a) There are plenty of theories ... may or may not be provable but arguing they are not close to a THEORY is silly

As for the historical evidence

Come please show us some

Show us some good solid evidence the jesus you propose existed

b) False- there is quite a lot of evidence. Ever hear of the Cambrian Explosion? It isn't a biblical term. According to this scientific discovery, all complex life forms appeared on the scene fully formed at the same time.
Um.... false. The Cambrian "Explosion" describes a leap in diversity of lifeforms that evolved, not "appeared on the scene fully formed." In other words, it marks a time on earth when life ran rampant, with few checks to slow it down. The greater the size of populations, the more branching, and the greater the diversity of the branches.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

How does that statement qualify as INTOLLORANT? She tolerates it she just does not agree with it … there is a difference

You are also aware that your faith appears quite blind and unquestioning, correct? As though you have done little or no self-examination at any point in your life?

This is asking him if he's aware his faith is blind. That's gone past just not agreeing with him. Especially when she goes on to assume he hasn't thought about it a little. Ok, if intolerant doesn't suit you, it IS rather judgemental.

You are also aware that your faith appears quite blind and unquestioning, correct? As though you have done little or no self-examination at any point in your life?

This is asking him if he's aware his faith is blind. That's gone past just not agreeing with him. Especially when she goes on to assume he hasn't thought about it a little. Ok, if intolerant doesn't suit you, it IS rather judgemental.
Judgmental very possibly … but using incorrect descriptors about another person or idea does not necessarily lend itself to honest discussion

Um.... false. The Cambrian "Explosion" describes a leap in diversity of lifeforms that evolved, not "appeared on the scene fully formed." In other words, it marks a time on earth when life ran rampant, with few checks to slow it down. The greater the size of populations, the more branching, and the greater the diversity of the branches.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
Thank you was focusing on the other portions lol glad you caught it

Yeah I have been looking for a scientific theory for creation of life from the creationists for a long time (though I suppose by definition I will have to wait forever)

You'll be waiting forever if you expect the scientists to give you the answer.


What a ridiculous statement. The creationists were the first EVER to give their theory on the origin of life. Its the oldest theory on the subject in the books. duh!

a) False- there isn't even a valid theory to explain the origin of life. No scientist is even CLOSE to a theory. How can you state its been proven when there isn't even a plausible theory?

b) False- there is quite a lot of evidence. Ever hear of the Cambrian Explosion? It isn't a biblical term. According to this scientific discovery, all complex life forms appeared on the scene fully formed at the same time.

Jesus is a proven historical figure. There is enough non-biblical evidence that NO ONE (except those who don't look it up) disputes. The only people who believe He never lived are those who never bothered to look it up. Your ignorance on the subject is overshadowed only by your intolerant and rude demeanor.
I'm sorry, but I have looked it up and there really is no very strong evidence. I tend to believe that he is based on some genuine person, but the historical evidence is scarce. The stuff written by Josephus is the best and it includes some writing that even the most forgiving of scholars acknowledge was added after the fact.

Its more like parentral love, its tough but just. Again, you dont understand sin

I do. Your explanation is terrible and you're doing a disservice to the passage by trying. They are making an excellent point about not being able to understand the 'nature' of God. We can't even understand the 'nature' of God and we are capable of understanding Good and Evil and they weren't. You're injecting a lot of 'us' into two beings that were very different than us.

What evidence? I'd really like to know. I've only ever seen evidence against religion.

The books mentioned earlier, written by Lee Strobel discuss the evidence with today's leading scientists on many different subjects. Some of these subjects include evolution, the big bang, the sightings of Jesus after His death, etc.

Check them out. Even if you don't believe and don't want to believe, even if you won't be convinced, the reading is exceptionally interesting and there's quite a lot to learn about science while you do.

The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith
The Case for a Creator.

All excellently written by a former atheist

Bah if there is a truly all loving god out there he will ask us when we die what we want … clearly and with all the information we need to make a good decision

If not he does not honestly deserve my worship

do you have kids? if so, do you love them?

Again: What evidence?

That you present misinformation about evolution theory?
That Jesus may have existed, and just might have been the son of a legionare?

I failed to catch the evidence.

Also, while noone can currently explain the origin of life, there are several other - non religious - explanations floating about. We just haven't got the means to try them.

And are you disputing what we know about the age of our planet?

do you have kids? if so, do you love them?
Nope not having any either

You'll be waiting forever if you expect the scientists to give you the answer.


What a ridiculous statement. The creationists were the first EVER to give their theory on the origin of life. Its the oldest theory on the subject in the books. duh!
I said SCIENTIFIC theory god is a non falsifiable proposition
Therefore ANY HYPOTHOSIS that includes an all powerful god is NOT a scientific theory

If you think it is rediculous you may want to go review what a SCIENTIFIC theory is

Has this been done yet?


The Christian god is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and infallible.
The Christian human has free will.
The Christian god created the Christian human.

So... The obvious questions here is:

How can humans have free will, when god already knows everything they'll ever do?

How can god it self have free will when it knows everything it will ever do?

If it's because god uses it's omnipotence to have 'selective foresight' (for lack of a better term), how can it be infallible?

It stands to reason it's no longer omniscient or infallible if it limits it's own knowledge.

Has this been done yet?


The Christian god is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and infallible.
The Christian human has free will.
The Christian god created the Christian human.

So... The obvious questions here is:

How can humans have free will, when god already knows everything they'll ever do?

How can god it self have free will when it knows everything it will ever do?

If it's because god uses it's omnipotence to have 'selective foresight' (for lack of a better term), how can it be infallible?

It stands to reason it's no longer omniscient or infallible if it limits it's own knowledge.
I'm using Occam's razor to shave all that away, right now.

Edit: I just want to add, in SCIENCE, a "theory" does not mean the same as in LAYMAN.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Guess which.

a) There are plenty of theories ... may or may not be provable but arguing they are not close to a THEORY is silly

As for the historical evidence

Come please show us some

Show us some good solid evidence the jesus you propose existed

Are you not aware that the romans kept census records? Or records of executions? There are records documenting His crucifixion. You can't be crucified if you don't exist.

Nope not having any either

well if you did, you'd know that even though we love our kids, we don't give them everything they want. Why would God do that to us?

well if you did, you'd know that even though we love our kids, we don't give them everything they want. Why would God do that to us?
Why would he not?

I said SCIENTIFIC theory god is a non falsifiable proposition
Therefore ANY HYPOTHOSIS that includes an all powerful god is NOT a scientific theory

If you think it is rediculous you may want to go review what a SCIENTIFIC theory is

everything is falsifiable and I know what scientific theory is. Every so-called scientific theory on the origin of life proposed turns out either absurdly and astronomically improbable or doesn't answer the question at all. Most only move the problem somewhere else. Like the "life came to earth via a comet" theory. That doesn't answer to the origin, it only moves the origin somewhere else.

Are you not aware that the romans kept census records? Or records of executions? There are records documenting His crucifixion. You can't be crucified if you don't exist.
There is a record of a guy named Jesus being executed. But Jesus was a pretty common name.

everything is falsifiable and I know what scientific theory is. Every so-called scientific theory on the origin of life proposed turns out either absurdly and astronomically improbable or doesn't answer the question at all. Most only move the problem somewhere else. Like the "life came to earth via a comet" theory. That doesn't answer to the origin, it only moves the origin somewhere else.
And a supernatural entity does not? Where did the creator come from etc.

Why would he not?

the same reason we don't. Because everything we want is not always what we need.

well if you did, you'd know that even though we love our kids, we don't give them everything they want. Why would God do that to us?
The reason that we don't give our children everything they want is that

(a) we can't

and

(b) we have to prepare them for a harsh world where they won't get everything they want, and for the fact that we won't be able to make them comfortable and free from suffering or want for the rest of their lives.

God doesn't have those limitations. And even then, I may not give my kids everything I want, but when I have them am certainly going to do what I can to lessen their suffering on this earth. And I can't even imagine sending them to an eternity of torture if they disappointed me.

the same reason we don't. Because everything we want is not always what we need.
So, how do you know this?

Edit: I know someone who gives their children everything they want, there, I just nullified your argument.

the same reason we don't. Because everything we want is not always what we need.

Do we need eternal paradise or eternal damnation though?

If I had the power to give the people I loved everything they wanted with no negative consequences, I would do so without question.

So, how do you know this?

Edit: I know someone who gives their children everything they want, there, I just nullified your argument.

how do you figure you just nullified anything?

the same reason we don't. Because everything we want is not always what we need.
Well, you stated that we don't give our children everything they want. I said "Well I know someone who gives their children everything they want" and now your argument is based on something untrue.

If I had the power to give the people I loved everything they wanted with no negative consequences, I would do so without question.

so if you had this power and you did just that... Think this through. Do you believe the recipients of your generosity would ever learn, or grow, or be grateful, or understand what the good you did meant? What do you get when you give a child everything it wants?

so if you had this power and you did just that... Think this through. Do you believe the recipients of your generosity would ever learn, or grow, or be grateful, or understand what the good you did meant? What do you get when you give a child everything it wants?
If you had everything you needed without negative consequences, why would you need to learn or grow?

so if you had this power and you did just that... Think this through. Do you believe the recipients of your generosity would ever learn, or grow, or be grateful, or understand what the good you did meant? What do you get when you give a child everything it wants?

A happy child???

Well, you stated that we don't give our children everything they want. I said "Well I know someone who gives their children everything they want" and now your argument is based on something untrue.

you have a problem with logic don't you? The fact that you may or may not know someone dumb enough to spoil their kids rotten has no bearing on the matter at hand. My argument isn't that we don't give everything they want, that was a statement, my argument revolves around WHY we dont' give them everything they want. I didn't say nobody does, I said we don't. As in general, people (who know anything about kids and want to be good parents) don't give their kids everything they want.

so if you had this power and you did just that... Think this through. Do you believe the recipients of your generosity would ever learn, or grow, or be grateful, or understand what the good you did meant? What do you get when you give a child everything it wants?
Why would god care about our gratitude. He is the all powerful, all knowing supreme being. And if he wanted that, he could give us that understanding too. He can do anything, after all.

A happy child???

hardly, you get a selfish, ungrateful, spoiled monster.

you have a problem with logic don't you? The fact that you may or may not know someone dumb enough to spoil their kids rotten has no bearing on the matter at hand. My argument isn't that we don't give everything they want, that was a statement, my argument revolves around WHY we dont' give them everything they want. I didn't say nobody does, I said we don't. As in general, people (who know anything about kids and want to be good parents) don't give their kids everything they want.

Yea, but God =! human being so how can we be sure that just because a human won't give it's children everything it wants that God has to be the same way?

If God is almighty and at the same time righteous, then why do natural disasters occur, killing thousands of innocents.

I know someone who gives their children everything they want, there, I just nullified your argument.
Wow... spoiled, or what?

hardly, you get a selfish, ungrateful, spoiled monster.

So they wouldn't be happy though???

you have a problem with logic don't you? The fact that you may or may not know someone dumb enough to spoil their kids rotten has no bearing on the matter at hand. My argument isn't that we don't give everything they want, that was a statement, my argument revolves around WHY we dont' give them everything they want. I didn't say nobody does, I said we don't. As in general, people (who know anything about kids and want to be good parents) don't give their kids everything they want.
No, you have the problem with logic as you are trying to compare a god's behaviour to human behaviour. Which is a no go, sorry.

hardly, you get a selfish, ungrateful, spoiled monster.
Why would this matter?

If God is almighty and at the same time righteous, then why do natural disasters occur, killing thousands of innocents.
Because God doesn't interfere in his creation?

so if you had this power and you did just that... Think this through. Do you believe the recipients of your generosity would ever learn, or grow, or be grateful, or understand what the good you did meant? What do you get when you give a child everything it wants?


I think that the little child in Rwanda thats dying from hunger and AIDs could do without all that "learning and growing". and don't tell me it's Satan thats doing all the evil, because if God is all powerfull,- the Satan factor would be without importance.

So they wouldn't be happy though???

not even close. oh they'll be happy with the instant gratification, but that wears off quickly and they'll decide very quickly they want something else. kinda like a junky. spoiled children are not happy children and they grow up evil and destructive.

Because God doesn't interfere in his creation?

10 plagues, Lot, great flood, ect ect.

Because God doesn't interfere in his creation?
And if God can't do anything for you, why do anything but ignore him?

No, you have the problem with logic as you are trying to compare a god's behaviour to human behaviour. Which is a no go, sorry.


Why would this matter?

why do you get to decide what is a no go? You're using your logic in an argument about God's behavior, why is it a no go for me to do the same?

Round up about 5 spoiled rotten kids, sit in a room with them for about 2 hours and then come ask me taht question.

not even close. oh they'll be happy with the instant gratification, but that wears off quickly and they'll decide very quickly they want something else. kinda like a junky. spoiled children are not happy children and they grow up evil and destructive.

I see the word happy in here. I thought they wouldn't be happy? So you admit they do gain some happyness out of it?

not even close. oh they'll be happy with the instant gratification, but that wears off quickly and they'll decide very quickly they want something else. kinda like a junky. spoiled children are not happy children and they grow up evil and destructive.
He said without negative consequences. WITHOUT. Being uhappy would be a negative consequence.

He said without negative consequences. WITHOUT. Being uhappy would be a negative consequence.

Exactly. He made the entire universe in seven days just by willing it. He couldn't give us happiness (or at least a lack of misery) without making us spoiled or like junkies? I mean, I don't need an ice cream lake or anything, but would it be too much for him not to make me watch the people I love die of horrible painful diseases? I promise I won't get too uppity over it.

why do you get to decide what is a no go? You're using your logic in an argument about God's behavior, why is it a no go for me to do the same?I'm not saying anything about god's behaviour, I'm saying your argument is flawed.

You say "God wouldn't do that because a certain ammount of the world population doesn't do that"
1. Have you asked this certain ammount of the population if they give their children anything they want?
2. What more human actions does god emulate?

Round up about 5 spoiled rotten kids, sit in a room with them for about 2 hours and then come ask me taht question.
:confused:

And if God can't do anything for you, why do anything but ignore him?
Um, because it's not about what God can do for you, it's what you can do for yourself.

I see the word happy in here. I thought they wouldn't be happy? So you admit they do gain some happyness out of it?

yes, I admit they gain a smidgeon of happiness out of it. A child with a smidgeon of happiness is not the same as a happy child. Are you really this dense or are you just being antagonistic?

Um, because it's not about what God can do for you, it's what you can do for yourself.
And I'm sure you're going to explain to me how this has anything to do with anything.

yes, I admit they gain a smidgeon of happiness out of it. A child with a smidgeon of happiness is not the same as a happy child. Are you really this dense or are you just being antagonistic?

So a happy child does not equal a happy child. Sure they are happy, but not really happy happy. Am I the only one seeing this???

And I'm sure you're going to explain to me how this has anything to do with anything.
No, I'm not. Because I don't like your attitude.

He said without negative consequences. WITHOUT. Being uhappy would be a negative consequence.

yup. negative or not though, that would be the consequence of that action.

No, I'm not. Because I don't like your attitude.
Okay then, I win, you loose.

You're fired.

yup. negative or not though, that would be the consequence of that action.
Only if god allows it to be.

So a happy child does not equal a happy child. Sure they are happy, but not really happy happy. Am I the only one seeing this???
Probably.

Happiness (the emotion) is fleeting, but happiness (the state of mind) is lasting.