A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it

[diver52]

not a single one so far as been presented

True, three examples are not "a single one".

Which three are those. I must have missed them.

 

[Meriweather]

Which three are those. I must have missed them.

We can try Deuteronomy 7:7-8 as well: It was not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations. It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out with his strong hand from the place of slavery and ransomed you for the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

We might also consider the realities of love and ardor. Pain and suffering walk hand-in-hand with both.

 

[ding]

This came up because I said I didn't get why anyone would feel comfort in this god.

Because we were made that way. It’s hardwired into us.

The reality is that billions do.

In fact, according to Darwin if there were no advantage in believing in a higher power, it would have been discarded long ago.

The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that it is irrational not to have faith.

 

[ding]

Actually, I see the story of Adam and Eve as the story of the original bad parent. They were innocent, like children. Put something directly in front of a child and tell them they can't touch it and then walk away. What do you think will happen? If God did not want them to eat of the tree, he should not have put the tree there. It was a set up.

As to knowing all good, that is impossible since "good" is an entirely subjective concept. You can only make that evaluation based upon your own standards. But morally you must evaluate and live in accordance with that evaluation. If it is wrong for him to do, it is wrong for me to do. If it is wrong for me to do, it is wrong for him. Your evaluation may differ from mine, but it is mine I must use. To use yours in favor of mine is to abdicate from personal responsibility.

Again, the focus of the story is on the people, not on God. There was a choice before mankind: To know only good and therefore be good like God; or, to know both good and evil and, like God, choose good. Fire is a good example. Mankind could choose to only know the good fire brings about: Warmth, cooking, beauty. Or, he could choose to know the inverse side as well: Injury, even fatal injury, destruction of all kinds, and torture. The story of Genesis is more about the choice mankind made and not about God being a bad parent. Clearly, God counseled His children, because while the choice was ours, He did have a preference. We had a different preference, and like all loving parents God is still with us to love and support, no matter whether the child's choice is to go to college or become a single parent.

And we are back to it. You call God good. I have asked for one example in the Bible which shows God as being good and not a single one so far as been presented. There is zero basis in the Bible to support that claim.

The claim that God is good isn’t based on the Bible. It is based on observations of the material world and logic.

Ancient man recorded this belief in the Bible but since you read it with bias you can’t see it.

 

[Hollie]

Which three are those. I must have missed them.

We can try Deuteronomy 7:7-8 as well: It was not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations. It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out with his strong hand from the place of slavery and ransomed you for the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

We might also consider the realities of love and ardor. Pain and suffering walk hand-in-hand with both.

You're confusing false gods with the true gods: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Tri-party gods. How convenient.

As this is a US based server and the participants are predominately westerners, the gods of convenience are obviously the gods of western culture.

A reading of the OT will suggest that in all of literature, there is no greater evil than Yahweh.This is also one conception of a god who commanded Joshua into the cities of his enemies to kill every man, woman and child inside the walls (exceptin' them virgins).

Yahweh is not a god of love. He never was, he never will be. He's a jealous and self righteous god who is often willing to destroy the unrighteous and the righteous if it suits his needs.

What? the gods condemns little 2 year old Johnny to a short life of suffering from an incurable disease? Yet these same theists don't blink an eye when they insist that the gods of love and mercy created a flood that drowned the world, and obviously drowned many innocent Johnnies and Bonnies who were drowned wholesale.

 

[ding]

Which three are those. I must have missed them.

We can try Deuteronomy 7:7-8 as well: It was not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations. It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out with his strong hand from the place of slavery and ransomed you for the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

We might also consider the realities of love and ardor. Pain and suffering walk hand-in-hand with both.

You're confusing false gods with the true gods: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Tri-party gods. How convenient.

As this is a US based server and the participants are predominately westerners, the gods of convenience are obviously the gods of western culture.

A reading of the OT will suggest that in all of literature, there is no greater evil than Yahweh.This is also one conception of a god who commanded Joshua into the cities of his enemies to kill every man, woman and child inside the walls (exceptin' them virgins).

Yahweh is not a god of love. He never was, he never will be. He's a jealous and self righteous god who is often willing to destroy the unrighteous and the righteous if it suits his needs.

What? the gods condemns little 2 year old Johnny to a short life of suffering from an incurable disease? Yet these same theists don't blink an eye when they insist that the gods of love and mercy created a flood that drowned the world, and obviously drowned many innocent Johnnies and Bonnies who were drowned wholesale.

Many different perceptions of God. Only one God in actuality. The argument that since there are many different perceptions of God there must be many different Gods and therefore there can be no God is illogical.

Our perception of God does not define God. God is not bound by our perceptions.

 

[Hollie]

I have already brought up the story of Job. Let's turn that around. You tell me a story of God interacting with humans that portrays him as good.

The story of Job is not about God. It is about people coming to a new and greater understanding of God. Before was the idea that blessings came down upon good people, and the wicked were punished. However, people raised the question of why do bad things happen to good people. A new thought/teaching emerged: Bad things were not happening because people sinned. And, in the end, Job came to a greater understanding and increased knowledge of how both good and bad can bring mankind closer to God and knowledge of Him. Keep in mind, the story of Job was originally a play where different roles were assigned to different beings.

The bibles make no claim about the tales and fables being interpreted to represent people. Have you written a new version of the bibles?

There are many contradictions, errors and omissions in all of the alleged holy texts. These are contradictions I struggled with when attempting to resolve the “perfect” word of god. Rather than react with apologetics, I try to understand errors in the “perfect word”.

I accept that the scribes and translators can make errors, and in fact did. I champion neither the KJV or the NIV nor any translation. I think you are acknowledging that one of many supreme beings allowed his "word" to be corrupted by the fallibility of man, and I know you will not see the fallacy of proffering such an argument.

Remember, I agree with you 100%! The bible, as all the alleged holy texts has been misinterpreted and mistranslated. Now which parts are corrupt and which parts are not is the game of theologians and apologists. But since Yahweh, Vishnu, don't come down (or send a an administrative type), to ref the match, the validity of one verse being questioned questions the validity of all verses.

And that is why I reject the authority of your holy texts as you reject the holiness of competing gods and their human authored texts. Oh, by the way, remember that your all-powerful eternally supreme god(s) allowed their immutable and perfect word to be corrupted, whereas that pagan god Amun-Ra figured out-- by having his worshippers chisel into stone his "perfect word" -- how to keep his message pure over thousands and thousands of years. That was some clever pagan god, wasn't it?

 

[ding]

I have already brought up the story of Job. Let's turn that around. You tell me a story of God interacting with humans that portrays him as good.

The story of Job is not about God. It is about people coming to a new and greater understanding of God. Before was the idea that blessings came down upon good people, and the wicked were punished. However, people raised the question of why do bad things happen to good people. A new thought/teaching emerged: Bad things were not happening because people sinned. And, in the end, Job came to a greater understanding and increased knowledge of how both good and bad can bring mankind closer to God and knowledge of Him. Keep in mind, the story of Job was originally a play where different roles were assigned to different beings.

No one has asked me to put my faith in the people or to worship the people. If the intent is to understand God then the story is pointless if you are not paying attention to God. I understand that you can't do that if you want to call God good. In that story, God is anything but good.

Where did you get your concept of good from? You can’t know a line is crooked unless you have an idea of what is straight. You can’t say that something is bad or unfair without first knowing what is good or fair. So there must be goodness and fairness in the world that it is being compared to. Right? So it seems to me that you believe right and wrong are universal. Why else would you make an argument that it is illogical for God to allow suffering, if you are not arguing that God’s actions are wrong and unfair. You have literally let the cat out of the bag that you believe there is such a thing as universal goodness and fairness.

 

[Meriweather]

You're confusing false gods with the true gods: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Tri-party gods. How convenient.

Actually, I am not. My daughter's high school friend and college roommate is Hindu. We talked a bit about how we all perceived God(s). However, I know very little about Hindu or all the Hindu Gods and Goddesses.

 

[Meriweather]

A reading of the OT will suggest that in all of literature, there is no greater evil than Yahweh.This is also one conception of a god who commanded Joshua into the cities of his enemies to kill every man, woman and child inside the walls (exceptin' them virgins).

Yahweh is not a god of love. He never was, he never will be. He's a jealous and self righteous god who is often willing to destroy the unrighteous and the righteous if it suits his needs.

I always suggest reading the Old Testament through the lens of ancient Jewish cultures--and to learn the histories of the time as well. Reading it through the lens through modern English, let alone modern American Western Culture, results in inventions of straw men and a straw god. This results in people making up ready excuses for not believing in God (at best) or creating that villainous straw man and parading it through religious forums.

The great beauty of the Jewish faith is that the faithful are willing to learn about God in hard times, when not understanding, and showing their love of Him through actions, taking time to observe all their commandments to remain close and learn more about Him. Jews do not talk about it a lot, but they are convinced of God's love for them.

 

[Meriweather]

What? the gods condemns little 2 year old Johnny to a short life of suffering from an incurable disease? Yet these same theists don't blink an eye when they insist that the gods of love and mercy created a flood that drowned the world, and obviously drowned many innocent Johnnies and Bonnies who were drowned wholesale.

Nice rendition of modern misunderstanding and misinterpretation of a story from another time and culture. Not so great at presenting the lessons the Jewish faith gleans from their story.

 

[otto105]

It appears from all that they post here that they cannot perceive the Spirit that calls forth, comforts and keeps those who remain in faith and believe.

When truth is diligently sought it can open doors unimaginable.

 

[Meriweather]

The bibles make no claim about the tales and fables being interpreted to represent people. Have you written a new version of the bibles?

There is a misunderstanding here. The accounts are about the people and how the people are interacting with God. They are told by people, from the people's perspective. This makes sense as God neither wrote nor dictated these stories. As we move through Genesis we see how these perceptions grow and change throughout the course of history.

 

[Meriweather]

I think you are acknowledging that one of many supreme beings allowed his "word" to be corrupted by the fallibility of man, and I know you will not see the fallacy of proffering such an argument.

Well, this certainly seems true considering how some atheists have corrupted the original lessons being presented.

On the other hand, some scholars and Rabbis have been doing a brilliant job in helping those who would like to understand the pure word of God understand the original intent of Biblical authors. They make the Bible shine.

 

[Hollie]

What? the gods condemns little 2 year old Johnny to a short life of suffering from an incurable disease? Yet these same theists don't blink an eye when they insist that the gods of love and mercy created a flood that drowned the world, and obviously drowned many innocent Johnnies and Bonnies who were drowned wholesale.

Nice rendition of modern misunderstanding and misinterpretation of a story from another time and culture. Not so great at presenting the lessons the Jewish faith gleans from their story.

The only external example of the gods that we have are the tales and fables describing the actions of those gods. The fable of the gods drowning the world because they were disappointed with humanity is the responsibility of religionists to resolve. Suggesting some ulterior motive based upon a subjective interpretation is fine but why shoukd anyone dismiss what is actually written in the bibles in favor of what they woukd prefer be written?

I can’t explain what a "true god" is or is not. There are so many definitions of god(s) that I certainly can’t catalog them all. Merely attempting to define a true god(s) would necessarily be dismissive of each and every one of the other assertions of god(s).

 

[Meriweather]

But since Yahweh, Vishnu, don't come down (or send a an administrative type), to ref the match, the validity of one verse being questioned questions the validity of all verses.

It is not a matter of questioning the validity. It is a matter of delving into the history and culture of the time to discern the intent of the original author...and then considering anything that may have been learned since that author's day.

 

[Meriweather]

And that is why I reject the authority of your holy texts as you reject the holiness of competing gods and their human authored texts. Oh, by the way, remember that your all-powerful eternally supreme god(s) allowed their immutable and perfect word to be corrupted, whereas that pagan god Amun-Ra figured out-- by having his worshippers chisel into stone his "perfect word" -- how to keep his message pure over thousands and thousands of years. That was some clever pagan god, wasn't it?

Anyone who reads the Bible through the lens of modern English and modern Western culture, and interprets it through their own view has no "authority" to reject. It is not present. On the other hand, those of the Hebrew faith, reading the original Hebrew, and handing down the original lessons to all who are interested maintain the original authority of the Word--as does Amun-Ra with His followers.

 

[Hollie]

I think you are acknowledging that one of many supreme beings allowed his "word" to be corrupted by the fallibility of man, and I know you will not see the fallacy of proffering such an argument.

Well, this certainly seems true considering how some atheists have corrupted the original lessons being presented.

On the other hand, some scholars and Rabbis have been doing a brilliant job in helping those who would like to understand the pure word of God understand the original intent of Biblical authors. They make the Bible shine.

Why vent your hate at atheists? The tales and fables being contradictory or reflecting negatively on the gods is not the fault of non-believers.

Finally, lest anyone think I am focusing on the Bibles alone, the above also holds true for the koran, The Bhagavad-Gita, The Book of Mormon, and so on. A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. What I see are adherents of various faiths who tend to peel back the veneer of the faith as they interpret and re-interpret.

Although, the moment you break from the literal descriptions within any of the various holy texts, you fall into the circular loop of interpretation and what, if any, is the real interpretation. Which means, we’ve looped back to the issue of interpretation and translation but then we’d get in the problems with shoddy translation and why the gods would allow that, etc.

 

[Hollie]

But since Yahweh, Vishnu, don't come down (or send a an administrative type), to ref the match, the validity of one verse being questioned questions the validity of all verses.

It is not a matter of questioning the validity. It is a matter of delving into the history and culture of the time to discern the intent of the original author...and then considering anything that may have been learned since that author's day.

Why would I not question the validity of the bibles?

As a materialist, I can dissect the stories because I believe them to be wholly fabricated. Believers have a lot less latitude if you wish to assert a perfect god is the author of all of this, directly or otherwise.

 

[Meriweather]

The only external example of the gods that we have are the tales and fables describing the actions of those gods. The fable of the gods drowning the world because they were disappointed with humanity is the responsibility of religionists to resolve. Suggesting some ulterior motive based upon a subjective interpretation is fine but why shoukd anyone dismiss what is actually written in the bibles in favor of what they woukd prefer be written?

I can’t explain what a "true god" is or is not. There are so many definitions of god(s) that I certainly can’t catalog them all. Merely attempting to define a true god(s) would necessarily be dismissive of each and every one of the other assertions of god(s).

Tragedy striking us has a way of opening our eyes to how we could have done better. One of the lessons of the flood was to open the eyes of humans to how we could have been better. If you do not believe God sends floods today to punish people, then how can you believe God sent a flood in ancient times? This is what I mean about humans opening their eyes to who we are as compared to who God made us to be. The lessons start there.