Atheism

[Tigers of Old]

I think they are quite common, but I am no expert. I found a site here on scientific evidence for conciousness survival after death. There are numerous sites.

That site you referenced looks extremely dodgy Dj.
Certainly doesn't convince me in the slightest that there's life after death.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

You could also argue that an architect uses the same base materials for many projects, so a creator would obviously use similar materials to put living creatures together.

This is a pretty logical argument, but a quick look at the evidence quickly reveals its flaws.

1. Why would your god create things imperfectly? Many adaptations are imperfect (ie. the vertebrate eye with its backwards wiring and blind spot) as they are limited by (contingent on) the steps that came before. These imperfections are not necessary (ie the cephalopod eye is a far better 'design' without the limitations of the vertebrate eye, due to is independent evolutionary history - an example of convergent evolution).

2. Similar to above, why would your god make hands, flippers, wings etc. out of homologous bones instead of novel structures that would be more efficient and effective in many cases?

3. Why do vestigial organs and structures exist (ie. the whale's hind legs, the human appendix etc.).

4. Why do we share non-functional, junk sequences in our DNA with our closest relative species, but not those more divergent?

I could go on.

The evidence clearly points to common descent as the most reasonable explanation. Why would your perfect designer create such imperfect designs?

 

[Tiger74]

Though shall have no other Gods - God clearly demonstrates in the OT that he is a jealous God and he uses the OT to warn us of the dangers of being disobedient to him. Eternity in Hell is not where God wants us to be so he warns us what are the cause and effect of not following him.

The same as collingwood albeit on a much less scale, suspending the three players and using that as a deterent to others to do the right thing.

God new that our hearts are hardened towards him and he is using dramatic illistration to get his point accross. Do not disobey God or punishment will follow.

Whats this got to do with the OT endorsing slavery and genocide? I am assuming you don't endorse genocide of non-believers (I honestly do believe you are not saying this), so I don't understand this as a defense of God sanctioned genocide.

 

[Djevv]

That site you referenced looks extremely dodgy Dj.
Certainly doesn't convince me in the slightest that there's life after death.

Well, OK. But they are a fairly well recognised phenomenon. I pretty sure there have been scientific studies on them, there are certainly many claims on different sites. Do you reject this data out of hand?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Why would your perfect designer create such imperfect designs?

He'd have been sacked from most jobs, given the number of imperfections out there that's for sure.

Well, OK. But they are a fairly well recognised phenomenon. I pretty sure there have been scientific studies on them, there are certainly many claims on different sites. Do you reject this data out of hand?

It's impossible to discount it, but it's equally as impossible to take anything from it(believe) unless you have had an experience first hand.
I don't claim to know whether there's LAD but Christians do for some reason despite no one ever experiencing the things they describe.

 

[Tiger74]

T74, are you really being fair-minded (I consider you a fair minded person in general) here? Have you read the OT? Have you studied the OT? When you do you need to realise in OT times things were utterly different to the way they are now, not just technologically but culturally. Misunderstand the culture and you will often completely misunderstand a passage. There a lots of examples of where archaeological findings have shed light on a particularly strange passage.

Another point that is worth making is that God doesn't necessarily approve of all that goes on in the Bible! History is recorded in a very honest fashion so that we may draw lessons from it, and not make the same mistakes. Do you realise that Israel's greatest king, David, 'a man after God's own heart', was an adulterer and a murderer?

One more thing I believe is reasonable is that God approaches people where they are 'at', and that includes nations. The rules for ancient Israel were wholly appropriate for their time and in their socio-cultural context. Does God expect us to live according to them today? Nope, there are 'new' rules - the New Testament.

I have read the OT but not the NT. I have never been a church type, so naturally I have not studied it (I am assuming you mean in a bible class kind of forum).

I actually agree with the sentiment that the bible needs to be looked at in the context of the times it was written, but this conflicts with those who say its the word of god, and every word is absolute truth. If its absolute truth, it should and must remain relevant today.

Personally I found the whole passages of the rebirth of the Jewish homeland disturbing. No negotiation or discussion, just complete and utter genocide of the current inhabitants. Even the Romans didn't pull that kind of stunt back then.

 

[Djevv]

I have read the OT but not the NT. I have never been a church type, so naturally I have not studied it (I am assuming you mean in a bible class kind of forum).

OK, so if we are being fair about things, there is probably stuff you haven't completely understood, but about the cultural context and in how the Bible is interpreted. Some people spend their whole life on studying it. Commentaries are helpful when reading it, as are modern translations. Oh and BTW, Read the New Testament when you get a chance.

I actually agree with the sentiment that the bible needs to be looked at in the context of the times it was written, but this conflicts with those who say its the word of god, and every word is absolute truth. If its absolute truth, it should and must remain relevant today.

Good point here. I agree with you, and I would say that indeed it does remain relevant today, as long as you, I hate to harp on this, understand the context. The Bible is a progressive revelation, so while everything is relevant, some of the old ways of doing things no longer apply. But every part of the Bible contains lessons about who God is and how we can better understand Him.

Personally I found the whole passages of the rebirth of the Jewish homeland disturbing. No negotiation or discussion, just complete and utter genocide of the current inhabitants. Even the Romans didn't pull that kind of stunt back then.

This is the Ancient Near-East, genocide was par for the course in war time! Barbaric times I agree. Still that doesn't excuse it. What TT was trying to say was this was actually Gods punishment on the inhabitants of the land for their deeds (ritual child sacrifice). If they wanted to change sides they could have (Rahab did) or they could have simply fled (they knew the Israelites were coming).

 

[Tiger74]

OK, so if we are being fair about things, there is probably stuff you haven't completely understood, but about the cultural context and in how the Bible is interpreted. Some people spend their whole life on studying it. Commentaries are helpful when reading it, as are modern translations. Oh and BTW, Read the New Testament when you get a chance.

Good point here. I agree with you, and I would say that indeed it does remain relevant today, as long as you, I hate to harp on this, understand the context. The Bible is a progressive revelation, so while everything is relevant, some of the old ways of doing things no longer apply. But every part of the Bible contains lessons about who God is and how we can better understand Him.

This is the Ancient Near-East, genocide was par for the course in war time! Barbaric times I agree. Still that doesn't excuse it. What TT was trying to say was this was actually Gods punishment on the inhabitants of the land for their deeds (ritual child sacrifice). If they wanted to change sides they could have (Rahab did) or they could have simply fled (they knew the Israelites were coming).

The context is the tricky bit though. My work is in the business of testing to Standards, and we are allowed zero interpretation on how we test. The reason for this is to avoid a situation where ambiguity and dispute creep in. The ideal is every lab globally that has an accreditation should be doing the same test, in the same manner, for an identical outcome.

Bringing context in means you bring in individual biases and perceptions. This is what concerns me about this issue. I tend to put bible readers into three groups. A small group who believe every single word is the literal word of god and not up for interpretation. One small group who think its all stories designed to convey a lesson, not a literal truth. Then a whole bunch in the middle who take a mixed view of varying degrees.

This last group is what makes me pull myt hair out, because who decides what is literal and what is viewed in a context? You say study and learn, but under which teacher? You, Jayfox, and TT could all have different views (and probably do on some passages), yet two of you get the bus ride for Hell for not properly following the word of god.

On the genocide, I agree with the historical perspective, but this was God sanctioned, and I really hope TT does not believe that sanction still exists today (truth is some christians do sadly - but this is not an exlcusive issue for christians, again unfortunately).

 

[tigertime2]

This is a pretty logical argument, but a quick look at the evidence quickly reveals its flaws.

1. Why would your god create things imperfectly? Many adaptations are imperfect (ie. the vertebrate eye with its backwards wiring and blind spot) as they are limited by (contingent on) the steps that came before. These imperfections are not necessary (ie the cephalopod eye is a far better 'design' without the limitations of the vertebrate eye, due to is independent evolutionary history - an example of convergent evolution).

2. Similar to above, why would your god make hands, flippers, wings etc. out of homologous bones instead of novel structures that would be more efficient and effective in many cases?

3. Why do vestigial organs and structures exist (ie. the whale's hind legs, the human appendix etc.).

4. Why do we share non-functional, junk sequences in our DNA with our closest relative species, but not those more divergent?

I could go on.

The evidence clearly points to common descent as the most reasonable explanation. Why would your perfect designer create such imperfect designs?

1. Where are the transitional fossil records that show that this convergent evolution took place? Now from my christian point of view God Created a perfect world but Adam and Eve did not listen to what God had instructed them so after this what we call the fall or imperfection entered the created order.

2. this is a argument that comes from a "Consumer Culture" i.e. someone has more toys than they could possible use but always wants more and newer toys. Homologous bones could show that there is a common designer leaving his pardon the pun fingerprint or biotic message to show that their is one originator of things rather than many.

3. They obviuosly exist for a reason and must have a use even though that use may not be known. The Human Appendix used to be routinely removed as was the tonsils, but recently they have found that the appendix is useful for populating the intestine with friendly bacteria and the tonsils alert the immune system to attacks. Medical Science took quite some time to work this out.

4. Again it could be argued that this is evidence of a divine arcitect. The evoluntionist argument that pseudogenes and their respective variations are shared between primates in nested hierachy, can only be explained through common evolutionary descent is an assumption. Evidence for Psuedogene function is still being accumulated.

 

[Djevv]

The context is the tricky bit though. My work is in the business of testing to Standards, and we are allowed zero interpretation on how we test. The reason for this is to avoid a situation where ambiguity and dispute creep in. The ideal is every lab globally that has an accreditation should be doing the same test, in the same manner, for an identical outcome.

Bringing context in means you bring in individual biases and perceptions.

Before the reformation, this was the Catholic Church. The Pope was the final authority in all matters of belief.

This is what concerns me about this issue. I tend to put bible readers into three groups. A small group who believe every single word is the literal word of god and not up for interpretation. One small group who think its all stories designed to convey a lesson, not a literal truth. Then a whole bunch in the middle who take a mixed view of varying degrees.

This last group is what makes me pull myt hair out, because who decides what is literal and what is viewed in a context? You say study and learn, but under which teacher? You, Jayfox, and TT could all have different views (and probably do on some passages), yet two of you get the bus ride for Hell for not properly following the word of god.

Fair point. There are many superficial differences between Christans but there is broad agreement on the basics. You don't have to have everything squared away to be saved - just repent and believe!

On the genocide, I agree with the historical perspective, but this was God sanctioned, and I really hope TT does not believe that sanction still exists today (truth is some christians do sadly - but this is not an exlcusive issue for christians, again unfortunately).

Just think back 100 years at how people did things, and it seems quite foreign and strange. This is over 3000 years ago!

 

[tigertime2]

Whats this got to do with the OT endorsing slavery and genocide? I am assuming you don't endorse genocide of non-believers (I honestly do believe you are not saying this), so I don't understand this as a defense of God sanctioned genocide.

Certainly I dont endorse genocide of anyone or sanctioned by anyone. God has the divine right to do as he pleases with his creation and if you look at these Nations that were destroyed, what were they doing, what crimes were they committing against innocent people?

 

[Tiger74]

Before the reformation, this was the Catholic Church. The Pope was the final authority in all matters of belief.

Fair point. There are many superficial differences between Christans but there is broad agreement on the basics. You don't have to have everything squared away to be saved - just repent and believe!

Just think back 100 years at how people did things, and it seems quite foreign and strange. This is over 3000 years ago!

I actually enjoy reformation history, a great period to study as the politics and the social upheaval was incredible.

On the differences though, they are not insignificant. Some say the Bible says black people are lesser so racism is okay. Some say homosexuality is banned in the bible, so discrimination of homosexuals is gods work. Then you have issues like contraception and so on....

Agree 3000 years is a long time ago, and people do change. Does God change though? He sanctioned genocide of one race in favor of another once, does that mean he is cool with the Brits rampaging through China as they are non-believers?

 

[Tiger74]

Certainly I dont endorse genocide of anyone or santioned by anyone. God has the divine right to do as he pleases with his creation and if you look at these Nations that were destroyed, what were they doing, what crimes were they committing against innocent people?

They committed two primary crimes:

1) not believing
2) being in the wrong spot

The rest is window dressing, because it was these factors that were behind the go ahead to kill EVERYONE. It was the promised land, and God said go for it, take it by the bloodiest means possible, its yours.

 

[tigertime2]

I have read the OT but not the NT. I have never been a church type, so naturally I have not studied it (I am assuming you mean in a bible class kind of forum).

I actually agree with the sentiment that the bible needs to be looked at in the context of the times it was written, but this conflicts with those who say its the word of god, and every word is absolute truth. If its absolute truth, it should and must remain relevant today.

Personally I found the whole passages of the rebirth of the Jewish homeland disturbing. No negotiation or discussion, just complete and utter genocide of the current inhabitants. Even the Romans didn't pull that kind of stunt back then.

The Bible should be read and interpreted in context. Wikipedia - Context (language use), the relevant constraints of the communicative situation that influence language use, language variation and discourse.

 

[tigertime2]

They committed two primary crimes:

1) not believing
2) being in the wrong spot

The rest is window dressing, because it was these factors that were behind the go ahead to kill EVERYONE. It was the promised land, and God said go for it, take it by the bloodiest means possible, its yours.

What is your point? You dont believe in the Bible because you think God is unfair or you dont believe in God because you think he is unfair?

 

[Tiger74]

What is your point? You dont believe in the Bible because you think God is unfair or you dont believe in God because you think he is unfair?

I think the Bible is a collection of stories and events relevant to a time and space, and is not God's word which should be read literally.

I have little respect for a God that deems men cattle to be slaughtered to gain living space for his chosen children. I still remember reading that passage, and wondering what value, merit, or teaching this act contains. The Bible teaches a lot, but that lesson was simply "you are with me or die".

 

[tigertime2]

I actually enjoy reformation history, a great period to study as the politics and the social upheaval was incredible.

On the differences though, they are not insignificant. Some say the Bible says black people are lesser so racism is okay. Some say homosexuality is banned in the bible, so discrimination of homosexuals is gods work. Then you have issues like contraception and so on....

Agree 3000 years is a long time ago, and people do change. Does God change though? He sanctioned genocide of one race in favor of another once, does that mean he is cool with the Brits rampaging through China as they are non-believers?

God made Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve!

 

[Tiger74]

God made Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve!

So you are fine with imprisoning Steve? Allowing state sponsored discrimination of Steve.

Not supporting is one thing, state sanctioned bigotry is another.

 

[tigertime2]

I think the Bible is a collection of stories and events relevant to a time and space, and is not God's word which should be read literally.

I have little respect for a God that deems men cattle to be slaughtered to gain living space for his chosen children. I still remember reading that passage, and wondering what value, merit, or teaching this act contains. The Bible teaches a lot, but that lesson was simply "you are with me or die".

The bible should be read literally but in context.

"you are with me or die". well nearly right, except you are not with him (yet, there is hope for us all) and you are not dead, well not yet anyway and my prayer is that God would reveal himslf to you in this lifetime. seek and you shall find.

 

[tigertime2]

So you are fine with imprisoning Steve? Allowing state sponsored discrimination of Steve.

Not supporting is one thing, state sanctioned bigotry is another.

No I did not say that. I personally would pray for Steve that he would come to his senses. Love the person, hate the act.