|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Evidence
Posted on: February 21, 2010 - 1:55am
   Offline
Evidence
What qualifies as sufficient evidence to justify a belief in God? And who (or what) makes this determination? "Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
Sounds like someone trying to explain chaos.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
No I think they were told what was good and what was bad without knowing what "good" and "bad" were.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The tree was there as a reminder to man, as he matured, that man needed the guidance and protection of his creator. Satan was in contact with man to protect him originally. God didn't know what was to happen. The concept of God being strictly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is religious nonsense. When you you read the Bible it says God can't lie. To be omnipotent means God can do anything, if God can't lie he isn't omnipotent. It says God has a fixed position and so he can't be omnipresent. When Adam sinned God asked what they had done. God later sends angels to see if Sodom and Gomorrah was as bad as people were saying so he isn't omniscient.
Well, they having been told would imply that they knew. They knew it was good to live forever and acknowledge God's sovereignty, they knew it would be bad to disobey their creator. They decided that they would get to "know" or choose for themselves what was good and what was bad which was a really stupid move.
Except that in order to understand what they were told, they would've had to have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil beforehand.
See the catch-22 yet?
Oh, and if your God is as clueless as the rest of us, why worship him? Or are you simply a "might makes right" believer?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Why, exactly, do you believe this?
The problem I have is it sounds like, to me, you are just making up motivations that fit into a story when we don't actually have any facts about that story. The entire thing is literary navel gazing, but you talk about it like you have some sort of intellectual authority to speculate that makes the things you pull out of your butt a fact.
I don't see why you would think anything you have been saying is convincing, even to another believer.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
You can't get that myth out of your head can you? Lets change direction for a bit . . . what does the word sin mean? How else is it applied in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures? Sin means to miss the mark, for example archers or throwers of stone in the Bible, when they miss their mark or target, the same Hebrew and Greek words are used as are translated sin.
Adam and Eve were told, by their creator, what was good and what was bad. He set the mark. In deciding that they wanted to set their own mark Adam, a man who was given the Earth as a steward and who would have lived forever had he not sinned, rejected God's protection and guidance.
I didn't say God was as clueless as the rest of us.
I don't recall reading that the tree was there for guidance. All I recall reading was that it's fruit contained the ability to distinguish good from evil. The bible doesn't say anything about why the tree was there, you are simply making the metaphor work. I have no reason to accept your interpretation based on what is written in the very book you are twisting.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Hey, it is your Bible - just because you do not like it...
So, you want sin as "hammartia" - that means that no one can hit the mark god sets and we all sin daily no matter what. Is your God so vain he needs continually butt kissing? Or is this just "If I am simply unable to stop sinning, I can do whatever I want"?
No, you just said that there was nothing special about him that makes him any better than the rest of us - he has no qualities that we do not have.
Why worship Him again?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The tree, the apple, the snake, it's all just a silly fable. Aesop wrote much better fables that actually had some meaning.
Genesis is too obviously written by a childish mind to really debate. Unless one wants to "interperet" it the way they want too, but then again you can interpret ANY writing in the way you want. I would asume if it were real you could view the bible through a thin tube and it would make some sense.
Maybe it's a failing on my part as to why I cannot imagine someone actually falling for this in this day and age that has studied it, and really considered what is written.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
The fruit had no special properties. Genesis 3:2-3 says that they were not even to touch the tree. The Jerusalem Bible's footnote at Genesis 2:17 reads:
“This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride.”
Show me where I said that.
Statements such as "The concept of God being strictly omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is religious nonsense.", denying the attributes typically applied to God, to distinguish him fundamentally from ourselves.
Now what exactly distinguishes God from us?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
God, whos image we were created in, can't be omnipresent if his position is fixed in heaven. That doesn't mean he can't be wherever he wants to be, it just means that he isn't everywhere all at once.
Well first of all he is a spirit, we are flesh and blood. He is immortal, without creation, we are his creation.
Really? Because when I read 'you shouldn't eat from the tree of knowledge of good an evil' I feel like even a first grader can identify that it isn't normal fruit.
Which STILL fails to acknowledge WHY THE TREE WAS THERE. Why are you dodging so much?
And you even bring up the point that it is all about our ability to choose. God made us so we could choose. He put a tree there that he didn't want us to choose to eat from. We chose to eat from it, and now are punished. What kind of engineer would put a landmine in an intersection so it triggers if someone runs a red light? A fucking retarded one, that's who.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Or one that wanted to fail in the first place =)
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
So then Moses, or someone else much further down the line, created a myth based upon this obvious set up? Surely as atheists you are not saying that a vilified God that doesn't exist actually did set them up.
How about the early writers building a vengeful deity myth like other cultures and later writers adding a resurrected deity myth (like other cultures) to soften the blow and sell their product?
After all, if religion does not sell hope, it does not have anything to sell.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
That really is the simplest explenation. The OT god was a prick because that is how dieties acted in those days. Jesus was not so much of a prick because society was moving beyond that slightly.
It makes a hell of a lot more sense than trying to torture the whole thing into making sense.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
He is all knowing, I have heard christians say that and mean it literally as in, he already knows what you are going to do. Then I have heard christians who claim he is all knowing yet does not know the eventual outcome of you, therfore this "test" which also means he is NOT all knowing. My butt hurts let me scratch my left earlobe...ahhh yes that's better..hey wait..yarrrrrr
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin