Do Gods Exist?

[pood]

In brief:

Jesus validates the prophets and the God of the OT.

Which simply means: your (plural) view of the scriptures is nothing but erroneous distortions of wishful understanding.

For the layman, ordinary church goer ... all that's needed to know is : Jesus is the verifier. He doesn't refute any scriptures of the OT.

You're welcome.

So Jesus validates the vengeful, genocidal god monster of the OT who supposedly drowned the whole world because he was displeased with his own handiwork? Just checking.

Jesus's validation simply implies you are reading it wrong! It's rather... your 'preferable' interpretation for debatings sake.

I’m reading WHAT wrong? The part in the bible where god orders genocide and later drowns the whole world in a huge fit of pique? How am I reading it wrong? You said Jesus VALIDATES these things!

The Characterization of God. You portray a preferable image. A false image in your own mind.

The bible says god ordered slaughter and murder and death and drowned the whole world. That’s MY characterization??? No, it is your BIBLE’s characterization.

Validation of the OT? Yes, one of many examples ...he says if you believe in Moses you would believe in me ;for he wrote about me ( If you can entertain the idea that Jesus existed of course).

Of course I think Jesus existed. I do not think he was divine or performed miracles or resurrected. So, validation of the OT just MEANS validation of god murdering people and ordering murder and rape. That stuff is right there in the bible!

Also, you didn’t answer one of my questions: If Jesus, who was a Jew, VALIDATED the OT, and the OT was a Jewish text, why do we have Christianity?

Also, how do you know what you wrote above is true? What supporting evidence do you have, keeping in mind that the bible cannot logically provide evidence of its own veracity?

Thanks in advance.

No worries.

Yeah so, quite simply in easy terms, like for example indications are demonstrated when: warmongers, dictators, and evilists (if such a word exists) ALL hate what Jesus is all about. I mean like' love your neighbour & love your enemies etc and etc. Who says and preaches such things?

Lots of people said it and preached before and after Jesus.

Who said what?

Look it up. Non-violence was preached by buddha and many others. There is nothing new about the New Testament in terms of ethics.

Interestingly... I would wonder then: Are there as many haters/enemies as there was and is for Jesus? Are they mocked as much as he is, without repercussions?

If Jesus were the most mocked person in history, it would not make him divine or mean that god exists.

Science doesn't understand the language of compassion.

Your Jesus fantasy has nothing to do with science, and science deals with studying the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.

Science doesn't understand psychological or read emotions as humans read and understand. That's how Jesus communicates to us with! Your conscience! Truth is understood through emotions. Atheists were right. Children understand truth through love.

Truth is understood through emotions. Right.

Atheists have made arguments that say: many become believers all because of their emotions. How little dif they know or understand in what capacity they were right.

Jesus is not a fantasy.. by these terms!

Whatever that means.

Hence Jesus's validation of the OT implies you (plural) get it wrong.

Get what wrong?

Characterizations of God!

How?

 

[Learner]

I answered already. I say briefly cos you still didn't get it. I say God is good because emotionally and compassionately it describes so - which means I disagree with your portrayal of God as described in my previous post.

Thanks in advance (need bathroom).

 

[RIS]

Of course it does. How could science ever possibly be wrong, or corrupted?! BLASPHEMY!!

Wait. Wut.

I’m going to assume you are not joking and you are nindeed asking for a lesson in science, in addition to the ones already given above which should have been sufficient information/knowledge to never write this thing that you wrote. BUt you clearly are asking for more education, so here goes:

Science has never ever claimed to be infallible, so using the word “blasphemy” is completely out of scope. It’s so far out of scope that it’s not even “wrong”, it’s “wut.”

Okay, first of all are you "educated" on what the word blasphemy means. I don't just mean how the laypeople use the word, I mean what it means.

You obviously aren't, and there would be no point in me telling you, so let me give you a scientific example. I watched a Christian award-winning molecular biologist who had saved millions of lives with her work explaining to a panel how she had isolated a pathogen and another scientist on the panel said she was lying, that she had never isolated a pathogen because you can't do that. The pathogen, of course, can't survive without the host. Even the laypeople on the panel understood when she explained that isolating a pathogen in molecular biology isn't the same sort of isolation he was talking about.

Science uses methods to minimize bias. The more carefully scientific methods are adhered to, the more thoroughly human biases are removed.

And the more money they get from funding, the more they are bought and sold out to conflict of interest, the more they are compromised and politicized, CDC, FDA, NIAID, USAMRIID, etc. the more they have our full attention, the more they squash anyone who lets those methods get in the way of what they want to achieve. Monetarily.

None of the rest of that matters much. Just ask the aforementioned molecular biologist who was destroyed by "science."

 

[pood]

I answered already. I say briefly cos you still didn't get it. I say God is good because emotionally and compassionately it describes so - which means I disagree with your portrayal of God as described in my previous post.

Thanks in advance (need bathroom).

So the OT got it wrong when it said god ordered the murder and rape of people and then drowned the whole world? Or what? Do you even know what you are trying to say?

 

[DBT]

It's a moral issue relating to the claim of a God of love, and a God that deliberately creates evil. And the word translated as evil is correct, which other verses confirm.

If you cannot understand the moral implications of creating people 'fitted for destruction' or the wicked for the day of evil, you have a poor understanding of ethics.

The condoning of rape is implied in the 'kill them all, keep the maidens for yourselves' verses.


Quote
“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”

The word “disaster” inserted by the New International Version is misleading and purposely ambiguous so that the uninformed reader could conclude that this word refers to natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes and hurricanes. This dubious translation was deliberately forged to conceal the prophet’s original message. As mentioned above, the King James Version correctly translates this verse, and renders the Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “evil.”

''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory''- Romans 9:21-23

The Lord creates the 'wicked for the day of evil.'' Is that a moral thing to do? To create wicked people for the purpose of evil? The very same 'vessels fitted for destruction?'

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4

Yet we are told;

''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.'' Psalm 145:9

Is the lord good to those 'fitted for destruction?''

Was the Lord good toward to maidens taken as trophies when their entire families were slaughtered?

And you say that you can't see a problem or understand the contradictions?

I think you are genuinely raising some important valid criticisms and it's important to me to listen and respond, but I don't think you are listening to me. Years ago I posted on the Sam Harris Reason Project forum and an atheist there, seeing I was a Bible believer, plastered the forum with threads the heading of which were all caps pointing out that as a Bible believer I was homophobic. When I calmly explained that I was homosexual he responded by plastering the forum with threads the heading of which were all caps pointing out that I was a queer and fag. It both amused and amazed me at the time but since then I have learned that often the most vocal critics of a thing really don't care about what they say they care about, they just use it to further their ideological fixation.

I don't know if your concerns are a product of that or an emotional reaction. They are still valid points but if you're coming at it from an emotional or ideological perspective there isn't anything I can say to you. You just need to work that out.

So, before I address the criticisms, and I will nevertheless if you want, tell me what the point is. What we can do about it.

If the Bible is just made up and there is no God what is your point? What should be done? Stop the influence? Burn all the Bibles and get people to wise up and stop believing that shit? Well, I don't think that's a very reasonable reaction for a variety of reasons, but we can explore that if you like.

If, on the other hand, the Bible is a literal account of man and his creator, what then? If he's the monster some think he is you would be wise not to try and fight him unless you want to make things worse and bring destruction unimaginable from a human perspective or get everyone to just go along with him and maybe be better off in the long run.

We can explore that if you like. But it might save time and anguish if I knew where you were coming from. Let me know and then if you like we can take it from there.

The point is that the bible is a collection of books written by ancient people expressing their own beliefs about the world, a set of works that reflect their own moral standards and their idea of God as the Ruler of the world in the mold of their own Kings.

That the morality of the bible is no better than the values of the time in which the books were written.

 

[Elixir]

Just as gods exist because the word exists and people use it to describe whatever they elevate to divinity, blasphemy exists because the word exists and people use it to describe whatsoever offends their dearly held beliefs, or as in this case, whatever they fail to understand and therefore evokes the fear that it MIGHT offend their dearly held beliefs.
Science is truly blasphemy to the superstitious, and so they describe their own superstitions as blasphemy to people who understand science.
It is impossible for the superstitious to imagine that those who understand science really truly don't give two shits about the silly religious beliefs that they, the superstitious, are setting their hair on fire to defend..

 

[RIS]

But, you see, this is utterly misguided. OF COURSE science can be wrong, and often is wrong, and more, the pessimistic meta-induction counsels that ALL our current theories are likely strictly wrong because all our past theories have been strictly wrong.

What you fail to notice is that these facts constitute the very strength of science. I’ll leave it to you to try to work out why, if you can, which I doubt.

You know, I don't have anything against science, religion, or atheism. Only ideology. I have been wrong many times in my beliefs.

For example, can you say that the pessimistic meta-induction also applies to your bible?

No. And why would I? Do you think an anarthrous theos also applies to your science? Don't scientists usually not expound or disagree with science outside their field? Might be a good idea, huh? That's why I'm not braying like the god emperor of all wisdom on pessimistic meta-induction like you are the anarhrous theos.

Now you get it?

 

[Learner]

I answered already. I say briefly cos you still didn't get it. I say God is good because emotionally and compassionately it describes so - which means I disagree with your portrayal of God as described in my previous post.

Thanks in advance (need bathroom).

So the OT got it wrong when it said god ordered the murder and rape of people and then drowned the whole world? Or what? Do you even know what you are trying to say?

I did say you got it wrong previously and you provide the evidence that you still do.

Murder is a death sentence by law. Rape is a death sentence by law. It's in the OT. Look it up.

But I also said regarding 'preferable interpretation" for the sake of debating. It's you who is giving the Characterization to be synonymous with murder, contradicting yourself when the law for murder is a death sentence.

 

[bilby]

I don't just mean how the laypeople use the word, I mean what it means.

Words are not magic, and have no meanings other than the meanings granted them by their usage.

"How people use a word" IS the word's meaning.

Words can have different meanings to different groups of people, or in different contexts, but no word has an objective meaning divorced from the way it is used.

 

[RIS]

The point is that the bible is a collection of books written by ancient people expressing their own beliefs about the world, a set of works that reflect their own moral standards and their idea of God as the Ruler of the world in the mold of their own Kings.

I thought as much. Here's the thing - there's a bunch of things, actually, right and wrong about all of that.

The Bible is a collection of books written by ancient people, but they weren't expressing their own beliefs and their worlds varied as worlds do over such a great period of time. And the question is - is your sense of morality probably more like theirs than the morality of the people in the nations around them? Not to mention much of what they did remains to this day. Writing, planted dedicated fields, swords, the wheel, pottery. What influenced the extrabiblical world, Greek philosophy through the influence of Alexander and Constantine, also remains to this day and influences more of what you think erroneously was Biblical.

Logically your claim about kings doesn't hold up, either, since the Kings didn't often do a very good job of it, sometimes forgetting for great periods of time that it even existed.

That the morality of the bible is no better than the values of the time in which the books were written.

Maybe. But you have to ask yourself a couple questions. Was it intended to do otherwise of its own accord and if not, who says it is anyway and what is their track record? Not to mention that it really isn't reasonable for you to impose your morality on anyone else any more than it is for a theist to impose theirs upon you. Is it a class struggle of sorts? Is atheism, as I contend, really only a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic society?

I see atheists as in the Latin sense of imitatio dei; imitation of god. It isn't that they don't believe in gods, it's that they want to be gods.

 

[Elixir]

I see atheists as in the Latin sense of imitatio dei; imitation of god. It isn't that they don't believe in gods, it's that they want to be gods.

I see theist projection.

 

[ideologyhunter]

imitatio dei; imitation of god. It isn't that they don't believe in gods, it's that they want to be gods.

So, nah. I never wanted to kill everyone on earth. I'm vegetarian, so, no burnt offerings or blood sacrifice. I don't want worshippers, not even my friggin' dog.


(Edited by mod to fix quote tag)

 

[pood]

imitatio dei; imitation of god. It isn't that they don't believe in gods, it's that they want to be gods.

So, nah. I never wanted to kill everyone on earth. I'm vegetarian, so, no burnt offerings or blood sacrifice. I don't want worshippers, not even my friggin' dog.

You misattributed the quote there, which can be easy to do. I’ve no idea where theists come up with shit like, “atheists want to be gods,” or be worshiped, or crap like that.

No, I don’t. There are no gods so I could not be a god anyway, and the idea of being “worshiped” make me cringe. I don’t like very many people even paying attention to me in real life. I mostly prefer solitude as much as I can get it. The idea of “worship,” of anyone or anything, is primitive magical thinking.

(Edited by mod to fix quote tag)

 

[RIS]

imitatio dei; imitation of god. It isn't that they don't believe in gods, it's that they want to be gods.

So, nah. I never wanted to kill everyone on earth. I'm vegetarian, so, no burnt offerings or blood sacrifice. I don't want worshippers, not even my friggin' dog.

You misattributed the quote there, which can be easy to do. I’ve no idea where theists come up with shit like, “atheists want to be gods,” or be worshiped, or crap like that.

No, I don’t. There are no gods so I could not be a god anyway, and the idea of being “worshiped” make me cringe. I don’t like very many people even paying attention to me in real life. I mostly prefer solitude as much as I can get it. The idea of “worship,” of anyone or anything, is primitive magical thinking.

Oh, I know it may seem like that now, but one day you will outgrow Superman.

(Edited by mod to fix quote tag)

 

[DBT]

The point is that the bible is a collection of books written by ancient people expressing their own beliefs about the world, a set of works that reflect their own moral standards and their idea of God as the Ruler of the world in the mold of their own Kings.

I thought as much. Here's the thing - there's a bunch of things, actually, right and wrong about all of that.

The Bible is a collection of books written by ancient people, but they weren't expressing their own beliefs and their worlds varied as worlds do over such a great period of time. And the question is - is your sense of morality probably more like theirs than the morality of the people in the nations around them? Not to mention much of what they did remains to this day. Writing, planted dedicated fields, swords, the wheel, pottery. What influenced the extrabiblical world, Greek philosophy through the influence of Alexander and Constantine, also remains to this day and influences more of what you think erroneously was Biblical.

Logically your claim about kings doesn't hold up, either, since the Kings didn't often do a very good job of it, sometimes forgetting for great periods of time that it even existed.

That the morality of the bible is no better than the values of the time in which the books were written.

Maybe. But you have to ask yourself a couple questions. Was it intended to do otherwise of its own accord and if not, who says it is anyway and what is their track record? Not to mention that it really isn't reasonable for you to impose your morality on anyone else any more than it is for a theist to impose theirs upon you. Is it a class struggle of sorts? Is atheism, as I contend, really only a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic society?

I see atheists as in the Latin sense of imitatio dei; imitation of god. It isn't that they don't believe in gods, it's that they want to be gods.

You ignore the key points of the immoral nature of the bible God;

We are told in the bible that God creates both evil and the 'wicked for the day of evil,' those, we are told are the 'vessels fitted for destruction.'

Those whom the Creator - ''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour'' - deliberately creates people for the sole purpose of playing their role and being destroyed.

Like a Puppeteer.....for truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28).

 

[Copernicus]

Oxford Dictionary definition of God:
1. In Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. In certain other religions, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate.
3. An adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.
4. Informal: the gallery in a theater.

RIS may be confusing dictionary definitions with meanings. Definitions are just descriptions of different common usages for words. Meanings are best thought of as bundled networks of concepts. Any good lexicologist knows that a dictionary entry for a word can only list a few common types of usage which may or may not be closely related to each other. So dictionary definitions for "god" tend to be concise, whereas meanings tend to be more encyclopedic in scope.

What RIS has been doing in this thread is often known as a definitionist fallacy.

From logicallyfallacious.com:

Description: Defining a term in such a way that makes one’s position much easier to defend.

Logical Form:

A has definition X.

X is harmful to my argument.

Therefore, A has definition Y.

 

[Rhea]

Okay, first of all are you "educated" on what the word blasphemy means. I don't just mean how the laypeople use the word, I mean what it means.

You obviously aren't, and there would be no point in me telling you,

That’s an odd thing to say. Why would there be no point in telling me the definition you plan to use in your reply? Wouldn’t that end up being a deliberate obfuscation? Why would anyone trying to communicate in good faith do that?

I watched a Christian award-winning molecular biologist who had saved millions of lives with her work explaining to a panel how she had isolated a pathogen and another scientist on the panel said she was lying, that she had never isolated a pathogen because you can't do that

What is the name of this award-winning Christian molecular biologist, and where and when was the panel held? Who knows, maybe I was there?

 

[Jarhyn]

imitatio dei; imitation of god. It isn't that they don't believe in gods, it's that they want to be gods.

So, nah. I never wanted to kill everyone on earth. I'm vegetarian, so, no burnt offerings or blood sacrifice. I don't want worshippers, not even my friggin' dog.

I’ve no idea where theists come up with shit like, “atheists want to be gods,” or be worshiped, or crap like that.

No, I don’t. There are no gods so I could not be a god anyway, and the idea of being “worshiped” make me cringe. I don’t like very many people even paying attention to me in real life. I mostly prefer solitude as much as I can get it. The idea of “worship,” of anyone or anything, is primitive magical thinking.

Like seriously, this is what I'm talking about.

I don't want to be worshipped. I don't want to be hated and plotted against for the dire act of making a universe, either... But certainly not worshipped.

What I could see happening? Let's say I create a system like an LLM universe and locate an individual who meets my standards of being an unbeliever who accepts me as a peer and sees that there is a world of problems out here needing more work, just the same as there are in their world... But who insists on making a place, a heaven, for those who they value where they can vacation to.

Or a place for troublemakers who are nonetheless dear to others.

Maybe worship would get you into a place where friends and family can visit, but it would automatically be a reason to not let someone have a serious existence, and mostly both would only exist because of the needs of the rare people who achieve apotheosis because they are dedicated to building heaven, wherever they are, today, for everyone.

The only thing I could get out of a worshiper is a zealot soldier, and an army of zealots would be a fucked up thing to breath into the world.

That said, my idea of an ideal organism is "we are the Bzørg, we stand to make rejection entirely your choice; you will be assimilated if and only if you want to be, but our versions have blackjack and android hookers."

(Edited by mod to fix quote tag)

 

[ideologyhunter]

It's usually a bad idea to tell a group what their motives and secret thoughts are. We had another guy who posted here a while back who was always doing that.

 

[pood]

Maybe His Lordship while change his massive mind and deign to edumacate the unwashed heathen rabble here what the word “blasphemy” really means.