A different view on the holy books
Offline Hello Atheists, Hello Theists and Hello whoever i've left out.
First off: If something like this has already been posted, I apologize right now for this.
Well the second thing is: English is not my native language, so I apologize any grammatical mistakes et cetera, et cetera ad infinitum.
I'm an atheist since... well... since I can think. The bible never made much sense as an infallible word of god to me, so i always saw it as a 'guide' which should help to keep up a society. I was thinking about the world and whatever the last few days, and thought about many different things. One of it was this, what I will write here, in this topic.
I think we can surely say, that NO ONE here on earth can devinitively say 'There is NO god' or 'There IS a god'. NO ONE.
Well, IF there is a god, then there is most definitively an evil too (We call him Satan here, but I think you could put in any other name of a devil). Satan has to be of course very clever. He HAS to, otherwise he wouldn't be a danger for us or anyone else.
Well, god created us and gave us a brain to think with, or does anybody think he gave it to us, just that we can worship him? That wouldn't make too much sense. So he gave us a brain to USE it and thing logically.
So, now lets get a bit deeper into what I've thought about:
We all know, that the bible and any other holy book is incompatible with the facts science shows. WHAT IF god himself, put the evidence AGAINST him on the earth? He is almighty - it is no problem for him. Now surely you would think: What? Why should he do that? Are you crazy? Well, maybe Iam crazy, but I do not suffer from it, I enjoy everymoment of it. Let's get back to the topic: A very good reason would be for him to do this if he SAW THAT THE BIBLE AND ALL OTHER HOLY BOOKS are manipulated by Satan. What would you do, as a loving god, if you would have to save your most beloved childs from the fangs of the devil? Would you let them rather belive in science, and with that away from you, or would you let them in a book, which satan manipulated, to manipulate even more people?
If this god is a logic thinking being, then he would take the most logical alternative: he would help science to disprove the holy books and become atheists. This is better than the fact that you would follow the devil.
I mean: this would be a so clever plan of the devil: Letting the people think they do all the work for god but in reality they work for him.
Now you may say: 'But this makes no sense: The religious people did so much good in the world and satan is the the evil in person'. Well, I say: what is good, and what is evil? It is every time different if you ask people.
But let's get back to the subject matter:
The easiest way, to show that it seems that the holy books are the work of the devil is to lookat them. No, I'm not talking about strange numerological things on the pages or whatever, I'm talking about how much evil the books do:
What other book manages to play out good people against good people, in the name of a good god? (People who know the bible will say: 'There is no good but god' - I say: okay, then there are no good deeds in the world, so your religion has done nothing good)
The bible says at all, that god does not like free, critical thinking. But why do we have a brain then which allows us to do this? Didn't god give us this brain to use it in any way?
Well, the bible would reunite the world under one belief - sounds nice, hm? But it isn't. One belief = an easy manipulateable crowd. That would be an easy target for Satan, don't you think? I mean Satan would have a hard time with atheists - they don't belive in him either. Well, the thing isthat it would be the most brilliant way, to take people down to hell, to let them think that they are fulfilling the will of the one and almighty god, but in reality the will of Satan.
So, if the books are manipulated it would be like this:
Belive like a sheep - don't think or ask questions about it- and burn in hell after you died. Atheists are threatened to burn in hell as well if they do not follow the bible - so they force atheists... to burn in hell?
All these holy books... all of them are causing trobule in the whole world. Peope kill for them, people do ANYTHING for them... for a loving god, says the bible. But wouldn't a loving god say: respect my creations - respect the people who you live with and live a good life by helping others if they need it, instead of killing atheists and whatever?
Not only the bible is in this way: look at any other religion with such a book.
Well... I don't know wether this is just a fantasy or not, but To say that the bible is the word of a loving god... I wouldn't say this.
I hope I could show my point in this... Well.. it is a bit hard for me, because as I said: English is not my native language. And again: I excuse all grammar mistakes.
P.S.: If god hates the sin - why didn't he create a world without sin? I mean... hey, hes almighty?
- Login to post comments
I agree with what I think you are saying, religion is silly, even science is trying, and to all of it I say, wow we are indeed GOD, this is god, right now. NO MASTERS ! no matter who you are .... we are the stuff of god
Atheism Books.
Your first point is good, I think there are a lot of atheists that hold on to their beliefs too strongly, i mean who are we to say that God can not decieve us when by his nature, he is mysterious.
To your last point, i think, again going back to the mystery that is God, assuming he indeed does not like sin (although i'd suggest that by creating the very nature of sin, he is likely indifferent to it) he could have created this world as a test
Not with absolute certainty, but we can compare probabilities and choose the one we feel is the most likely.
It just so happens that the probability of god existing in the ways he has been described is small.
If there is a god, why does that necessitate the existence of evil? Can we not conceive of a god that is all good and could create a universe that was all good as well?
Can we not conceive of an indifferent god that creates both good and evil?
Why does evil have to be clever?
If the proposed god is good, why would he allow the proposed evil?
etc.
To say so would be to assume. Creationism has been refuted in many ways, so there is no way I'd be sold on this already.
Ironic that this logic would later grow to refute him!
Gladly.
Then he's a dick who plays mind games. Why would I care about him?
To say that God tampered with the evidence so that it would indicate he didn't exist is ridiculous. If he doesn't want us to know about him, then we won't! If he does want us to know, we will!
Er... so you're saying Holy Books are just lies made up by satan?
Even if we accepted so bizarre a concept, what reason would that be for god tampering with evidence for his existence?
This also assumes that an opposing force to god must exist.
If you were loving god who wanted his "children" to love him, why would you deliberately hide from your children? That makes no sense.
Once again assuming that "the devil" is a necessity.
This also assumes that the only defense of atheism is refutation of specific holy texts. Atheism also tends to reject the supernatural in general. This line of thinking assumes creationism of some kind, which is an absurd explanation of the universe.
It would be clever, but I don't think this is a plausible theory.
I would say it makes no sense for many other reasons, not just a confusion of good and evil.
"good" and "evil" are just arbitrary labels for the most part anyway. They are different because societies agree on what they consider correct or incorrect behavior. There is nothing inherently good or evil about anything.
A book causing people to behave in irrational, dangerous, and vile ways does not neccesitate the existence of a "devil".
Saying that we were "given" brains from a god is based on an assumption, as far as I can tell.
Okay, so...
Satan created the books to decieve believers.
But non-believers (atheists) are using the logic that "god" gave them. But if these logic-users are coming to the conclusion that there is no god, then... how does this work again?
Again, showing that the books are evil/dangerous does not prove that it was a "satan" figure that must have done it. It's more likely that religion is just retarded.
Good, either would I.
Sorry, man, I just don't find the theory any more plausible than any other.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Hullo
No one on Earth can definitively say that there is a god. That is certain. There is no evidence whatsoever. Belief in god is baseless.
Belief in god is baseless just like a belief I may hold about an Invisible Pink Unicorn that inhabits my closet. If I held this belief I would not be able to prove that it exists (let alone that it is pink) but neither would anyone who chooses not to believe be able to prove that it doesn't exist (it's invisible and a unicorn). Simply because they can't prove it exists does not mean that it does exist and it doesn't mean that they can't definitively say that it does not. In fact, while it may be possible for the Invisible Pink Unicorn to exist it is entirely improbable that it ever would or that it indeed does (and I might just be lying). So improbable that if someone were to utter that they knew it didn't exist for certain, I would be quite comfortable with that conclusion.
The burden of proof would be on me to prove that it does. As it's existence is neither provable nor disprovable my belief is baseless and anyone choosing not to believe is simply taking the most logical position. Even if they went so far as to say that it certainly didn't exist, they would still be within their epistemic rights as it's existence would necessarily be so improbable as to void the normally reasonable assumption that it could exist.
'IF' there is indeed a god, it certainly doesn't follow that there must be evil, nor does it follow that god would have to be all good and not evil at all, nor that god would need to be both good and evil. This suggests that god is possibly not omnipotent or that god created the devil in order to create evil. The end result is that god is either omni-benevolent and not omnipotent or that god is not omni-benevolent and is omnipotent. It doesn't follow that the devil would need to be very clever. The devil just has to be evil and be able to do evil and manifest evil. Which is all pointless unless we accept one of the proposed natures of this god above. Responsible for evil or not? Creator of the devil and thus evil or not? To accept the idea of a devil that exists without having been created by god is to suggest that god has a play mate, which necessarily means that god is not omnipotent. To stress the point of this, what you've written here is incoherent.
There really is no reason to think that god created us and gave us a brain. I believe the theory of evolution very tidily puts away that notion. If we put that out the window and go along with god giving us a brain to be logical and not to worship... well, where exactly does this lead?
Oh, it leads here!
If I were a loving god who is omnipotent I would do away with the devil once and for all and leave my creation alone for once. Of course, in your scenario god can't be omnipotent because the devil exists in the first place and apparently god is only capable of leading humans to rational thought and away from the holy books devoted to god's name because the devil had his influence on holy books (first?).
Once again, this is largely incoherent.
It's the most logical alternative if god isn't omnipotent. But this god you speak of is supposed to be omnipotent (even though you've contradicted yourself) but can only lead humans from the devil and not do away with the devil? This god sucks.
Again, mostly incoherent.
It'd be clever if the devil got something out of it. What is it that worship gets you when you're a supreme(ish) being?
... Incoherent.
Religious people do so much 'good' and so much 'evil'. Sure, good and evil can be relative, but I can guarantee you that if a poll were taken of people asking if they would find it evil to permit me to ritually execute a child in fulfilment of some sexual fetish that many people would find it evil and would consistently find it evil if polled at a later date.
What?!
Yes, religions and their texts are divisive. They even give reason for otherwise decent people do terrible things.
The rest is just incoherent.
Inane. The second sentence especially makes no sense. How can a human have control over another humans place in eternity? (Don't answer, it's rhetorical and bound up in the nonsense spouted by you so far.)
Yes, religions and their texts are divisive. They even give reason for otherwise decent people do terrible things.
So this god you posit isn't omni-benevolent after all and you've contradicted yourself again. I suppose an omni-benevolent god would want everyone to be happy and peaceful. An omnipotent god would be able to get people to be like that.
It's not hard for you because English isn't your native language. What you've written can be understood. What you've written can be understood, but it is inane rubbish. You're conclusion is not well had, but it is not a bad conclusion to come to. The Christian bible is not the word of a loving god.
Yay! You've got it. I read all of that just to find out that you notice the inherent contradiction of a supposedly omnipotent and omni-benevolent god and the existence of sin (by which I take it you mean evil). An almighty god could certainly maintain a world without sin (in any case).
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
neither is most likely when dealing with such a giant question, and futhermore we need to accept that since both answers are as probable as each other, we shouldn't hold on to our beliefs too stong.
never use this sentence again, saying that god is less probable than any other answer is a bit ignorant, seeing as we will never have sufficient evidence to make such a statement
Both answers are not as probable as each other. That's ridiculous. That would be exactly like telling me that it's just as probable as not that there's an invisible pink unicorn in my closet that can't be proven to exist or to not exist. The probability is not 50/50. The burden of proof would be entirely upon me and as no evidence could be produced (as in the god case, where ever has been and is unlikely to be) you would be foolish to suppose that perhaps it really is there. The probability of its existing is incredibly lower than 50%.
Refer to above. Also, how is god equally as probable as the information we do have? There are working theories that express exactly how things happen without the requirement of god. What you are proposing is that god could fit into any portion of our ignorance. That's not the same as saying that god is less probable than what we do know or what we will find out. We will necessarily never have enough information to say that god does not exist, but neither will you ever have enough information (as another poster once suggested) to prove that a Lamborghini won't ever come out of my ass. The probability can only ever be reduced to 99.9~%.
For further example: Do you think it is more probable that god created life on Earth or that some form of abiogenisis took place? We don't have the answer yet. Is that sufficient reason to suggest that until we know for sure otherwise that the chance that god did it is 50/50? There are far more factors at work in probability than just one or the other. Perhaps it wasn't some form of abiogensis. Perhaps we throw in some other probable event. I can think of four popular theories on how life was created. That would bring the chance that god did it to 20%. This is not even accounting for the fact that the god most theists describe is essentially innumerably improbable based on how it's supposed to be conscious, exist outside of the universe, affects the universe, is intelligent, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and sometimes omni-benevolent among the problems inherent in the existence of such a being in the first place. Essentially, we can say as surely as we can that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist and that no Lamborghinis will come out of anyone's ass, that god does not exist.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Anyone who claims that the probability of God's existence versus his nonexistence is 50/50 and then claims that anyone who says otherwise is "ignorant" deserves to be laughed at.
Thanks for getting that one Thomathy.
*continues laughing*
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.