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

[BreezeWood]

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.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

- the only place anyone can.

not so ...

good being a metaphysical constant necessitates your concept tenuous by your nature rather than that of its reality.

Upon what do you base the assertion that good is a metaphysical constant?

.

Upon what do you base the assertion that good is a metaphysical constant?

by the prescribed religion of antiquity - the triumph of good vs evil - as the means for remission to the Everlasting. from whence we came.

and the functioning order of evolutionary, physiological change over time. physiology being a metaphysical substance.

Then I completely disagree. Good is not a constant, has never been a constant and likely will never be a constant. It is entirely subjective.

I still have not a clue what you mean by "the Everlasting".

.

Then I completely disagree. Good is not a constant, has never been a constant and likely will never be a constant. It is entirely subjective.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

good being a metaphysical constant necessitates your concept tenuous by your nature rather than that of its reality.

Then I completely disagree ...

you chose to disagree without addressing the consonants reality, physiology and its spiritual content and the record of their evolutionary change. in accordance with the religion of antiquity.

 

[diver52]

Sure. God demands Abraham to kill his own son in an act of human sacrifice.

Q: How does the story end? What is its point?
A: Isaac lives. Yes, we must be willing to die for God, but what God asks is that we live for Him.

One of the Jewish legends surrounding Abraham is that as a child he grew up in a family that carved totems (carvings of animals thought to hold the spirit/powers of that animal) and many gods and goddesses. But, as Abraham grew he became convinced there were not many gods, or a god for each person, but one God of all. For Abraham, gods demanding child sacrifice, was customary, traditional. It was happening all around him. Interestingly enough, the god, Moloch, who is known for demanding child sacrifice had horns on his head--just like a ram does. What did God wish to have die--the human being or the thing with horns on its head? It certainly was not the child.

What we see in the story is new insight coming upon Abraham. It wasn't until he lifted his eyes--and really looked around--that he saw a sacrifice that was acceptable to God.

People of Israel (i.e. descendants of Jacob who became known as Israel because he wrestled with God) are known as a people who wrestle with God. We see this in the story of Abraham. He was promised many descendants; he was told to take his son up; then he was told to take him down. This is not a story of God being capricious. Rather it is a story of God showing Abraham the reality in the world around him--and how to recognize and choose a different path, the road less traveled in Abraham's own time.

In the process, Abraham has a story that his child-sacrificing neighbors could not argue against. Abraham just wasn't some godless wimp without the strength to make the ultimate sacrifice. He was the man to whom God revealed that He wanted children to live for Him--not become sacrifices to Him.

The point is that God demanded human sacrifice. He put a father through that kind of hell and for what purpose? Amusement? If you read the story, God didn't even stay Abraham's hand. An angel did that. God really comes off as a complete ass in this story.

 

[diver52]

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

- the only place anyone can.

not so ...

good being a metaphysical constant necessitates your concept tenuous by your nature rather than that of its reality.

Upon what do you base the assertion that good is a metaphysical constant?

.

Upon what do you base the assertion that good is a metaphysical constant?

by the prescribed religion of antiquity - the triumph of good vs evil - as the means for remission to the Everlasting. from whence we came.

and the functioning order of evolutionary, physiological change over time. physiology being a metaphysical substance.

Then I completely disagree. Good is not a constant, has never been a constant and likely will never be a constant. It is entirely subjective.

I still have not a clue what you mean by "the Everlasting".

.

Then I completely disagree. Good is not a constant, has never been a constant and likely will never be a constant. It is entirely subjective.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

good being a metaphysical constant necessitates your concept tenuous by your nature rather than that of its reality.

Then I completely disagree ...

you chose to disagree without addressing the consonants reality, physiology and its spiritual content and the record of their evolutionary change. in accordance with the religion of antiquity.

Yes. I do. Since you provide absolutely no support for your assertion I see no reason to do otherwise.

 

[Meriweather]

The point is that God demanded human sacrifice. He put a father through that kind of hell and for what purpose? Amusement? If you read the story, God didn't even stay Abraham's hand. An angel did that. God really comes off as a complete ass in this story.

Jews seem to understand the story and why it was written the way it was. Every year, during one of their high holidays, this story is told its various meanings and lessons discussed.

I understand you do not care for the story construct. You don't care for how God is portrayed. How would you construct the story? Good stories are centered around conflicts and resolutions. What would your conflicts and resolutions be? Would your story be handed down for thousands of years?

 

[Meriweather]

He put a father through that kind of hell

Did you notice the points in the story where Abraham seemed confident both he and Isaac would return?

 

[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.

We are hardwired to believe. I will certainly grant you that. I do not doubt for a second that belief is a survival trait in humans, as is religion. But that is not the issue. The title of the thread is that atheists and agnostics just don't get it. The "it" being Christianity. I confessed that it true for me. I just don't get it. It isn't that you believe that I don't get, it's what you believe. I have never said it was a problem that others did.

You don't get it because you don't understand the accounts because you haven't reconciled the beliefs of the ancient Jews to those accounts. You probably don't even know how the ancient Jews felt about or saw God. Because I can assure you it wasn't fear. Read Psalms. Read Proverbs.

 

[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.

You mean I didn't read it as a believer? I think you idea of biased might be a bit biased.

No. You read it with bias. You read the Bible and have concluded that God is something to be feared. You ignored everything else that you read that showed how much they believe God loved them and cared for them. You didn't see any of that at all. That my friend is reading the Bible with a bias.

 

[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.

I get my concept of good the only place anyone can. From myself.

I'm pretty sure that's how Adam and Eve saw it too. Unfortunately, good and bad cannot be anything we want them to be which is the logical conclusion of your belief.

 

[ding]

I'm an amiable low voltage atheist. i dont want to convert anybody. when i get to heaven and God asks why i didn't believe, i'm gonna say: "sir, you didn't give me enough evidence!"

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

I'm an amiable low voltage atheist. i dont want to convert anybody. when i get to heaven and God asks why i didn't believe, i'm gonna say: "sir, you didn't give me enough evidence!"

That is an external locus of control answer. You are literally blaming God for your failure.

Think about it. You are describing an exchange between the creator of existence and yourself, right? And you believe it is a good plan to blame your failure on him?

 

[basquebromance]

I'm an amiable low voltage atheist. i dont want to convert anybody. when i get to heaven and God asks why i didn't believe, i'm gonna say: "sir, you didn't give me enough evidence!"

That is an external locus of control answer. You are literally blaming God for your failure.

Think about it. You are describing an exchange between the creator of existence and yourself, right? And you believe it is a good plan to blame your failure on him?

yes

 

[ding]

I'm an amiable low voltage atheist. i dont want to convert anybody. when i get to heaven and God asks why i didn't believe, i'm gonna say: "sir, you didn't give me enough evidence!"

That is an external locus of control answer. You are literally blaming God for your failure.

Think about it. You are describing an exchange between the creator of existence and yourself, right? And you believe it is a good plan to blame your failure on him?

yes

Good luck with that. You might want to read Job 40 for a preview of how that's going to go.

 

[diver52]

The point is that God demanded human sacrifice. He put a father through that kind of hell and for what purpose? Amusement? If you read the story, God didn't even stay Abraham's hand. An angel did that. God really comes off as a complete ass in this story.

Jews seem to understand the story and why it was written the way it was. Every year, during one of their high holidays, this story is told its various meanings and lessons discussed.

I understand you do not care for the story construct. You don't care for how God is portrayed. How would you construct the story? Good stories are centered around conflicts and resolutions. What would your conflicts and resolutions be? Would your story be handed down for thousands of years?

The story construct? If I walk up to a woman holding her child, put a gun to the child's head and tell her I'm going to pull the trigger. Then tell her it's just a joke to show what a great sense of humor I have. Do you think it matters how the newspaper portrays it?

God demands a man kill his own son as a human sacrifice to himself. I really don't get how anyone can look at that, call it good and decide such a being is worth worship. I understand that people do, but I just don't get it.

 

[diver52]

The point is that God demanded human sacrifice. He put a father through that kind of hell and for what purpose? Amusement? If you read the story, God didn't even stay Abraham's hand. An angel did that. God really comes off as a complete ass in this story.

Jews seem to understand the story and why it was written the way it was. Every year, during one of their high holidays, this story is told its various meanings and lessons discussed.

I understand you do not care for the story construct. You don't care for how God is portrayed. How would you construct the story? Good stories are centered around conflicts and resolutions. What would your conflicts and resolutions be? Would your story be handed down for thousands of years?

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.

We are hardwired to believe. I will certainly grant you that. I do not doubt for a second that belief is a survival trait in humans, as is religion. But that is not the issue. The title of the thread is that atheists and agnostics just don't get it. The "it" being Christianity. I confessed that it true for me. I just don't get it. It isn't that you believe that I don't get, it's what you believe. I have never said it was a problem that others did.

You don't get it because you don't understand the accounts because you haven't reconciled the beliefs of the ancient Jews to those accounts. You probably don't even know how the ancient Jews felt about or saw God. Because I can assure you it wasn't fear. Read Psalms. Read Proverbs.

I have. I don't care how anyone else feels or felt about God. I am responsible for my own conclusions, not theirs.

 

[ding]

The point is that God demanded human sacrifice. He put a father through that kind of hell and for what purpose? Amusement? If you read the story, God didn't even stay Abraham's hand. An angel did that. God really comes off as a complete ass in this story.

Jews seem to understand the story and why it was written the way it was. Every year, during one of their high holidays, this story is told its various meanings and lessons discussed.

I understand you do not care for the story construct. You don't care for how God is portrayed. How would you construct the story? Good stories are centered around conflicts and resolutions. What would your conflicts and resolutions be? Would your story be handed down for thousands of years?

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.

We are hardwired to believe. I will certainly grant you that. I do not doubt for a second that belief is a survival trait in humans, as is religion. But that is not the issue. The title of the thread is that atheists and agnostics just don't get it. The "it" being Christianity. I confessed that it true for me. I just don't get it. It isn't that you believe that I don't get, it's what you believe. I have never said it was a problem that others did.

You don't get it because you don't understand the accounts because you haven't reconciled the beliefs of the ancient Jews to those accounts. You probably don't even know how the ancient Jews felt about or saw God. Because I can assure you it wasn't fear. Read Psalms. Read Proverbs.

I have. I don't care how anyone else feels or felt about God. I am responsible for my own conclusions, not theirs.

Then how is that your poor opinion of God’s goodness is diametrically opposed to the ancient Jews opinion that God is good?

 

[ding]

Let me try explaining it like this. It is irrational to use accounts of a people who believed that God is good to prove God isn’t good.

It shows that the person who is trying to use those accounts does not understand those accounts.

 

[Meriweather]

The story construct? If I walk up to a woman holding her child, put a gun to the child's head and tell her I'm going to pull the trigger. Then tell her it's just a joke to show what a great sense of humor I have. Do you think it matters how the newspaper portrays it?

God demands a man kill his own son as a human sacrifice to himself. I really don't get how anyone can look at that, call it good and decide such a being is worth worship. I understand that people do, but I just don't get it.

Sense of humor? Joking? There are no jokes or humor in the story!

Let's try it this way. Construct a story in modern times where abortion is a simple fact of life, "everyone" is doing it; indeed it seems to be expected under certain circumstances. People are so immersed in it they believe God is okay with it as well, that He understands. Imagine a young lady of today who has been convinced that abortion is called for: Family, friends, it seems even God, is okay with it. Then, she looks up/looks around, and sees another alternative. She feels God is staying her hand, telling her to do something different, not to do what the rest of society is doing. She goes and tells her astonished (and probably unbelieving family and friends) that God does not want her to have an abortion.

Try understanding the society/culture that was pervasive in Abraham's day, the pressures he was under, that he should be held to the same standards as everyone else. Abraham broke away. That is the story of the binding of Isaac.

 

[Meriweather]

I have. I don't care how anyone else feels or felt about God. I am responsible for my own conclusions, not theirs.

True. But keep in mind a conclusion can be the point where someone stops thinking. It seems one sentence early in the story has you arriving at a conclusion despite all the information given later in the story.

 

[BreezeWood]

Jews seem to understand the story and why it was written the way it was. Every year, during one of their high holidays, this story is told its various meanings and lessons discussed.

Jews seem to understand the story ...

they wrote the story and did not fulfill their obligation for why the command was given, to separate themselves from their siblings. the distortion of a family / heretic unit and fail to this day and in the conflicts through the centuries to correct their error.

 

[diver52]

The point is that God demanded human sacrifice. He put a father through that kind of hell and for what purpose? Amusement? If you read the story, God didn't even stay Abraham's hand. An angel did that. God really comes off as a complete ass in this story.

Jews seem to understand the story and why it was written the way it was. Every year, during one of their high holidays, this story is told its various meanings and lessons discussed.

I understand you do not care for the story construct. You don't care for how God is portrayed. How would you construct the story? Good stories are centered around conflicts and resolutions. What would your conflicts and resolutions be? Would your story be handed down for thousands of years?

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.

We are hardwired to believe. I will certainly grant you that. I do not doubt for a second that belief is a survival trait in humans, as is religion. But that is not the issue. The title of the thread is that atheists and agnostics just don't get it. The "it" being Christianity. I confessed that it true for me. I just don't get it. It isn't that you believe that I don't get, it's what you believe. I have never said it was a problem that others did.

You don't get it because you don't understand the accounts because you haven't reconciled the beliefs of the ancient Jews to those accounts. You probably don't even know how the ancient Jews felt about or saw God. Because I can assure you it wasn't fear. Read Psalms. Read Proverbs.

I have. I don't care how anyone else feels or felt about God. I am responsible for my own conclusions, not theirs.

Then how is that your poor opinion of God’s goodness is diametrically opposed to the ancient Jews opinion that God is good?

Well, I do not simply accept that the ancient Jews held that opinion universally. The people who wrote the Bible seem to have, but those were also the people who made their living telling people that God was good. So their motivation might be a tad skewed. But even taken your statement as a given, it changes nothing. I am responsible for my opinions. That responsibility does not go away because it differs from other people's.

Let me toss it back to you. The ancient Egyptians felt the same way about their gods, how do you explain your not accepting them in the same manner?