 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Rants and articles submitted by and for ex-Christians
By Brother Jeff
1. You believe that an ancient Book of Myths filled with contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, myths, fables, and plenty of nonhistorical "history" is somehow magically the inerrant, infallible "Word of God".
2. You believe that a Magical Being magically brought the universe into existence by speaking a powerful magical spell from Nowhere approximately 6000 years ago.
3. You believe, concerning the origins of mankind, that a Magical Being magically made us by fashioning a doll from a mound of scooped up dirt, which he then somehow magically brought to life via His Spook who is also somehow magically Him.
4. You believe that Three Magical Beings are somehow magically One Magical Being, and that the Three Magical Beings who are One Magical Being are somehow magically Each Other.
5. You believe that mankind "fell from grace" and deserves to be BBQed eternally because two primitive people who lived in an awesome garden located somewhere in the Middle East listened to a lying talking snake and ate some forbidden magic fruit from a magic tree.
6. You believe that this Magical Being who magically created the universe and us is "all-knowing" even though He lost track of Adam in the awesome garden and that he is "all-powerful" even though He has trouble with iron chariots.
7. You believe that you possess some sort of magical inner spook that is the "real" you. You believe that this inner spook can be magically transformed by a Sky Spook and even lived in by an Invisible Sky Man via that same Sky Spook.
8. You believe that because the first two magically created people disobeyed the Magical Being due to the influence of a lying talking snake and some magic inner spook-killing fruit, that all men are born with their inner spooks killed and in need of a magical transformation courtesy of a Sky Spook.
9. You believe that an Invisble Man who lives in the Sky is going to kick a talking snake's ass by sacrificing Himself to Himself and then Magically Undeadening Himself. You believe that if we believe that the Invisible Man is Magically Undead, that a Sky Spook who is also somehow magically the Invisible Man will Magically Undeaden our inner spooks and magically live inside of us and at the same time will "seal" our inner spooks as His so that it is kept safe from the diabolical attacks of the Talking Snake and his evil spooks.
10. You believe that this enormous universe which consists of approximately 125 billion galaxies was created specifically for mankind, and that human history reflects a cosmic battle between an Invisible Man who lives in the Sky and an evil spook who enjoys manifesting as a talking snake. You believe that humans are divided into two groups - those who serve the Invisible Sky Man and those who serve the Talking Snake.
11. You believe that since we "fell from grace" because of some magic fruit and a lying talking snake that we need redemption, and that to accomplish this the Magical Being sacrified Himself to Himself to save us from Himself. But, you also believe that the Magical Being's sacrifice somehow magically doesn't count unless we believe it and accept it.
12. You believe that a Magical Being somehow magically became a man, and that this Manly Magical Being murdered Himself and then Magically Undeadened Himself three days later via the Sky Spook version of Himself so He wouldn't have to toss us into an eternal flaming torture chamber because of the unfortunate incident involving the lying talking snake and the magic fruit.
13. You believe that a Sky Spook who is somehow magically the Magical Being raped a woman named Mary who somehow magically remained a virgin after being raped, and that this glorious union produced a child who was somehow magically the Magical Being embodied.
14. You believe that after the Manly Magical Being magically Magically Undeadened Himself, He somehow magically blasted off and flew up into the clouds to live in the Sky Kingdom with His Father who is also somehow magically Him.
15. You believe that at literally any moment you could find yourself magically floating up into the clouds to join an Invisible Magically Undead Sky Man in a long-awaited event known as "The Rapture". You are so convinced of the imminent nature of this absurd event that you have placed a bumper sticker on your car that reads, "WARNING: In the event of Rapture, this vehicle will be unmanned." Assuming that you are not driving a convertible with the top down most of the time, the issue of how you would float through the roof of your car has never concerned you. You have just left it up to the magic of the Magic Sky Man.
16. You believe that the sky can somehow magically be rolled up like a scroll, and you believe that a Sky Dragon can somehow magically toss a third of the stars down upon the earth, and that the earth will somehow magically survive this assault.
17. You believe that the universe is magically being held together by an Invisible Man who lives in the Sky.
18. You believe that the Magic Sky Man is preparing to ride His Sky Horse down from the Sky Kingdom very soon. You find yourself filled with joyous anticipation at the thought of the senseless torture and slaughter of billions of non-Christian people who will then be tossed into a flaming torture chamber forever to be BBQed without mercy and without any hope of reprieve because when these horrific events occur it signals the end of the line for the Talking Snake and his evil minions (including those pesky rational, thinking people) and the beginning of a wonderful magical eternal life for you up in the Sky with your Three Invisible Friends who are somehow magically One Invisible Friend.
Also see, "You might be a True Christian™ if..."
1. You believe that an ancient Book of Myths filled with contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, myths, fables, and plenty of nonhistorical "history" is somehow magically the inerrant, infallible "Word of God".
2. You believe that a Magical Being magically brought the universe into existence by speaking a powerful magical spell from Nowhere approximately 6000 years ago.
3. You believe, concerning the origins of mankind, that a Magical Being magically made us by fashioning a doll from a mound of scooped up dirt, which he then somehow magically brought to life via His Spook who is also somehow magically Him.
4. You believe that Three Magical Beings are somehow magically One Magical Being, and that the Three Magical Beings who are One Magical Being are somehow magically Each Other.
5. You believe that mankind "fell from grace" and deserves to be BBQed eternally because two primitive people who lived in an awesome garden located somewhere in the Middle East listened to a lying talking snake and ate some forbidden magic fruit from a magic tree.
6. You believe that this Magical Being who magically created the universe and us is "all-knowing" even though He lost track of Adam in the awesome garden and that he is "all-powerful" even though He has trouble with iron chariots.
7. You believe that you possess some sort of magical inner spook that is the "real" you. You believe that this inner spook can be magically transformed by a Sky Spook and even lived in by an Invisible Sky Man via that same Sky Spook.
8. You believe that because the first two magically created people disobeyed the Magical Being due to the influence of a lying talking snake and some magic inner spook-killing fruit, that all men are born with their inner spooks killed and in need of a magical transformation courtesy of a Sky Spook.
9. You believe that an Invisble Man who lives in the Sky is going to kick a talking snake's ass by sacrificing Himself to Himself and then Magically Undeadening Himself. You believe that if we believe that the Invisible Man is Magically Undead, that a Sky Spook who is also somehow magically the Invisible Man will Magically Undeaden our inner spooks and magically live inside of us and at the same time will "seal" our inner spooks as His so that it is kept safe from the diabolical attacks of the Talking Snake and his evil spooks.
10. You believe that this enormous universe which consists of approximately 125 billion galaxies was created specifically for mankind, and that human history reflects a cosmic battle between an Invisible Man who lives in the Sky and an evil spook who enjoys manifesting as a talking snake. You believe that humans are divided into two groups - those who serve the Invisible Sky Man and those who serve the Talking Snake.
11. You believe that since we "fell from grace" because of some magic fruit and a lying talking snake that we need redemption, and that to accomplish this the Magical Being sacrified Himself to Himself to save us from Himself. But, you also believe that the Magical Being's sacrifice somehow magically doesn't count unless we believe it and accept it.
12. You believe that a Magical Being somehow magically became a man, and that this Manly Magical Being murdered Himself and then Magically Undeadened Himself three days later via the Sky Spook version of Himself so He wouldn't have to toss us into an eternal flaming torture chamber because of the unfortunate incident involving the lying talking snake and the magic fruit.
13. You believe that a Sky Spook who is somehow magically the Magical Being raped a woman named Mary who somehow magically remained a virgin after being raped, and that this glorious union produced a child who was somehow magically the Magical Being embodied.
14. You believe that after the Manly Magical Being magically Magically Undeadened Himself, He somehow magically blasted off and flew up into the clouds to live in the Sky Kingdom with His Father who is also somehow magically Him.
15. You believe that at literally any moment you could find yourself magically floating up into the clouds to join an Invisible Magically Undead Sky Man in a long-awaited event known as "The Rapture". You are so convinced of the imminent nature of this absurd event that you have placed a bumper sticker on your car that reads, "WARNING: In the event of Rapture, this vehicle will be unmanned." Assuming that you are not driving a convertible with the top down most of the time, the issue of how you would float through the roof of your car has never concerned you. You have just left it up to the magic of the Magic Sky Man.
16. You believe that the sky can somehow magically be rolled up like a scroll, and you believe that a Sky Dragon can somehow magically toss a third of the stars down upon the earth, and that the earth will somehow magically survive this assault.
17. You believe that the universe is magically being held together by an Invisible Man who lives in the Sky.
18. You believe that the Magic Sky Man is preparing to ride His Sky Horse down from the Sky Kingdom very soon. You find yourself filled with joyous anticipation at the thought of the senseless torture and slaughter of billions of non-Christian people who will then be tossed into a flaming torture chamber forever to be BBQed without mercy and without any hope of reprieve because when these horrific events occur it signals the end of the line for the Talking Snake and his evil minions (including those pesky rational, thinking people) and the beginning of a wonderful magical eternal life for you up in the Sky with your Three Invisible Friends who are somehow magically One Invisible Friend.
Also see, "You might be a True Christian™ if..."
I have a few friends that I'm going to share this with.
Brother Jim Earl
I hear that all the time but I haven't come across that.
Also, if you don't think there is God, then what is your purpose in life? Is it to get all that you can then lose it all when you die? One more question to ask.. If a POW is locked away in jail in a jungle somewhere in Asia and you checked most of the region but haven't found him, does he exist?
Lying for Jesus won’t get you far here, bub. If you claim you haven’t found any contradictions in the bible it’s either because you never read it or you’re lying. Just do a Google search on “biblical contradictions.” Or start here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
MY purpose in life is to enjoy my time here without harming anyone else, take care of my family, and learn as much as I can. Since it’s the only life I have, I’m making the most of it rather than wasting a second contemplating some mythical reward in a mythical afterlife. If life in the here and now is just a waiting room outside the Pearly Gates, it really would lack purpose.
And, finally, your analogy about the POW fails big time. No one in their right mind would be searching for the POW unless he or she were proven to have existed at some point prior to being captured. No such proof exists for your god, who is MIA but not worth the search.
"If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests."
-Baron d'Holbach
goat 2 has the right of it. You're lying, UNClear. Through your teeth, right in everyone's faces. Since you have to resort to lying, you've just proven better than any of us ever could have that Brother Jeff is right in his post.
One does not need a God to have a purpose in life. To need a God to have a purpose in life is illogical. Start taking responsibility for yourself and your actions, UNClear. We humans answer to ourselves, each other, and the world around us. We have a responsibility to those three things. We have the sapience, intelligence, reason and common sense to know better. I can think of nothing better than a world without a God, where people hold themselves accountable for their actions. A world where people do not live in fear of beiing HUMAN, of finding beauty in the NATURAL ORDER and PRECIOUSNESS OF LIFE. None of these things has anything to do with God or religion.
You are welcome, of course, to prove me wrong. Prove to me there is a God, and that the God of the Bible is that God. Otherwise, UNClear, you're going to Hell, too.
I'm looking forward to not hearing from you again, either because of your own cowardice and knowledge that you are wrong, and as such unable to face us, or because the webmaster blocks your posts. This site is much better when we don't have to tear apart the same old piece-of-shit arguments that cowards and morons such as yourself, UNClear, post around here. Be warned, UNClear: the days of religion will end. There will come a time when people stop hating themselves for being HUMAN.
And one more thing: the POW thing?
1. We know POWs exist. There is evidence that POWs exist.
2. We know that God does not exist. There is no evidence that God exist.
Peace out.
UNClear wrote: "Also, if you don't think there is God, then what is your purpose in life?"
Actually, I have more in common with Dolphins than with Christians... so I think I'll write "The Porpoise Driven Life." Afterlife madness really is a pathetic madness and it's an epidemic - it has UNClear terminally ill...
Thank [the Calendar] it's Friday!
Liniasmax
UN-clear, you read this and still don't understand do you?
Read your bible again and this time pay attention, you will find it full of discrepancies.
But I rather doubt you will because you are probably brainwashed too completely.
Come back often we love to kick your ass.
Hey Trancelation - you wrote:
"There will come a time when people stop hating themselves for being HUMAN."
That sentence is a diamond in the ruff - it has captured my thoughts. Rich beyond measure it is.
Max
I agree with liniasmax; what a thought-provoking statement this truly is.
Thanks, Trancelation!
I'm now a kryssstian and I will be praying for all you sinners that do not believe as I do. I am now a follower of the blessed teachings of Bro. Jeff, a true kyrysstian.
I'll be sending you a love offering for your new church and to feed the poor.
I read your post twice. the second time i subtituted magical/magically with f@#k and f@#king and it sounded much better.
I read your post twice. the second time i substituted magical/magically with f@#king and it sounded much better magical magically
You believe that Three F@#king Beings are somehow Fu@#ing One F@#king Being, and that the Three Fu#*ing Beings who are One Fu*!ing Being are somehow F#@king Each Other.
orgiginal:
4. You believe that Three Magical Beings are somehow magically One Magical Being, and that the Three Magical Beings who are One Magical Being are somehow magically Each Other.
http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php#9
But I was wondering if saying "there are contradictions" was just a blanket statement to not believe or did you actually read the bible and come across them?
Trancelation - You called me a liar but I'm not sure why. All of the contradictions can be answered so that is why I have not come across one.
On my purpose question - I wasn't implying that without God you don't have a purpose. I was looking to gain insight into someone who doesn't believe in God and what their purpose would be. I agree with your statement on "One does not need a God to have a purpose in life". Look at Goat 2, his purpose is to enjoy life while he's alive.
All - Every one of us will die one day. We all know this. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not next year or 20 years from now. But your days are numbered. We don't like to think about it but that day will come. So let's say that day is today. Where does that leave you & your purpose? You just enjoyed life and that's it? Then why play by the rules. Why even have morals?
Can you honestly prove 100% you will wake up tomorrow (spare me the it's tomorrow jokes)? But honestly? Not 100%. It's by faith in your body that you say you will wake up tomorrow. That's the best way I can translate God exists.
http://contenderministries.org/
discrepancies/contradictions.php
Clear, what do you do inside to remain clear? How do you avoid being bothered by the need for Christian apologetics?
I called you a liar because you are a liar. Not all of the contradictions in the Bible can be answered. That someone provides a lame, illogical response to the pointing out of a contradiction does not mean that they have provided an ANSWER. Since you claim that ALL of the contradictions in the Bible can be answered, you are a liar. And still a coward, because you will not admit this fact to yourself and deal with it courageously.
Now, I will agree that there are seemingly Biblical contradictions that one can while away. Some websites are guilty of grabbing at the first seeming contradiction just rack up numbers. While I understand their purpose, this is nonetheless a dishonest practice that doesn't serve any sort of anti-Christian cause. But this doesn;t change the fact that the Bible is FULL of contradictions. I have a favorite one. It is as follows:
Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
VS
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Why is this my favorite ibilcai contradiction? Because it's one of the first ones. Right from the beginning of the story, we see that the writers of the Bible are EXTREMELY incapable of world-building and common sense. When I open up a book, I know what sort of ride I'm in from how well the first part is written. So here we are, with one account saying one thing, and a mere few paragraphs later, we have a different story! CRIKEY!
Well, let's see what the Contender Ministries have to say about this . . .
Well. Wouldja' lookee dur? They don't have anything to say about it! I guess that means they didn't answer it, eh?
I have read "answers" to this that there is no contradiction because this is a method of storytelling where basic details about a place or people are described before zooming in closer to specific characters. There are a few problems with this answer:
1. Admitting this means that you are admitting that the Bible is nothing more than a story. Either this is the literal creation account, or it is a story. It cannot be both, and if it is a literal creation account, then it must be more detailed than this.
2. As a literal account, it is too vague to be taken seriously. This, if we are to believe it to be the order in which the world was created, is what we have:
Beast of the earth
Cattle
Things that creepeth upon the earth
Man
Beast of the field
Fowl of the air
Woman
At first look, one might think that there is order here. But, I have to ask . . .
WHAT is a beast of the earth, and how does it differ from a beast of the field?
WHAT is a beast of the field, and how does it differ from a beast of the earth?
WHERE are the insects? Many insects fly, and saying that all insects CREEPETH upon the earth is like saying that all dogs CREEPETH upon the earth. Walking does not equate to CREPETHing just beause you are an insect.
WHERE do the fish come in? Apparently, before everyone else!
Genesis 1:20-21
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And in THAT verse, the FOWL come before everything else, too! Or is a fowl a beast of the earth? Is it a beast of the field? Why are fish and whales not included in the order of things later? Did God make the whale and the fowl, then make everything else, including a DIFFERENT kind of fowl much latter, after the beast of the field but before woman? Are there not-winged fowl? Flightless does not equal not-winged, so what kind of fowl is not-winged and came later while a winged fowl came before it?
As you can see, UNClear, there is clearly a contradiction here. Not to mention the complete and total lack of explanation as to what kind of animals are WHAT. As it stands, there are hundreds of Biblical contradictions, and I have yet to see every single one of them answered.
Hence: there are Biblical contradictions. Peace out.
Genesis 1:20-21
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life . . .
VS
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air . . .
There are those foul fowl again. Didn't it just say in1:2o that they came from the water?
Genesis 1:20-21
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Frigging unbelievable! Which is it, UNClear?
I'm waiting. Which is it? Did fowls come from the water, or from the earth? If they came from both, which came first, and what kind of fowl comes from which?
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if..."
I always like to see how the fundy crowd can be so kind in their misinformed generalizing portrayal of what they think an atheist is or is not.
They really made an argument for the existence of a deity with that one....NOT!
Trancelation - The link I gave only answers some of the questions. There are more sites out there that answer all of the questions. But what you are refering to is not a contradiction. If you look at just those passages at face value, then your bound to get mixed up which looks like you have. If you read those passages in context, you'll understand the flow.
Gen 1:20-21 = Sea creatures are created and birds (Fowl)created.
Gen 1:24 = Here's what was created:
_cattle (meaning domestic animals)
_creeping thing (represents mice, reptiles, insects and so on)
_beasts of the earth (represents wild animals)
These 2 verses represent the total animal kingdom.
Gen 1:26-27 = Man & woman are created.
That is the creation account.
Could the author have provided more detail? Sure. But there's more to the story than just creation.
Now a change in focus, why woman was created.
Gen 1:18 and 19 are not directly linked in thought.
Gen 1:18 God is going to make a helper for man.
Gen 1:19 The beast of the field (meaning creeping things & beast of the earth) that God had already created from the ground in the ealier verses, came to Man to name.
From there, no helper is found so woman is created.
The focus then changes to the fall of man and so on..
So the order is a follows:
Sea creatures
Birds (fowl)
*Both were created the same day so which came first, it doesn't say.
Cattle
Creeping thing
Beast of the earth
*Which came next? It doesn't say. Just that all of these were created on the same day after the sea creatures & birds were created.
So as you see there is not a contradiction here.
Like I said, there are answers to all the so-called contradictions. But you have already mentioned they are either lame or illogical responses, so there's not much more I can say.
But what about the morals question I asked? If we are not held accountable in the after life for what we did in the "here & now", why have morals?
We don't do good things to, and for people because a god will burn us forever. We do good things because it makes sense to treat people as we want to be treated.
According to some of the writings put in the Christian bible, homosexuality is morally wrong simply because the writer says so. WTF.
The first 4 commandments of the 10 commandments are not even issues of morality or ethics. Yet just about every Christian points to the 10 commandments as an example of morality. WTF
They both used the powers of Christian logic to prove they were right. WTF
It's just plain funny how people, filled with the holy spirit and jesus can't get on the same bandwidth.
Looking at Clears definitions, he makes assumptions of the meanings. If it works for him, more power to him. Doesn't work for me because I've already paid good money at Christian colleges and seminaries to lean and debate stuff like that when I was a Christian.
All I really learned was that no two Christians are alike. They each have unique views on the bible, god, the holy spirit and so forth.
It's all a waste of intellect, money and time.
I'm not Fred, but since this is a forum, I hope it's OK to throw in my 2¢.
I think the Golden Rule, which BTW was expressed centuries before Jesus supposedly lived on Earth, makes good sense from a human standpoint, without the involvement of any deity necessary. Look what would happen if no one followed it: If we just used and took from others, they would use us and take from us and pretty soon we'd all be f*cked.
I don't like jerks, I don't want anyone to be a jerk to me, and I certainly don't want to be a jerk to anyone else. It's as simple as that to me.
But, if some people need to believe in the concept of heavenly rewards or hellish punishment to control their jerkiness, it's probably best that they stay in their religion.
It should speak for itself, but you can't seem to look beyond your own bias.
If you really can't figure out why treating people well is the rational and right thing to do, without a god to scare us, then I have nothing more to say.
My friend Thackerie, brings up a good point. I'd like to add that thousands of years before the Bible was ever strung together, people had morals and practiced them without Jesus Christ and hell breathing down their necks.
People still practice moral behavior without having a belief in god.
For that matter, Christians are immoral when they condemn gays and lesbians for their sexual orientation just because some ancient collection of tribal writings called the Bible says they should.
How wrong and immoral is that....to judge and condemn someone to hell for eternity because they like the same gender?
How moral was it for Joshua to kill all the men, women, children and animal because god said so?
"We know that God does not exist."
Unless you know better than Richard Dawkins, you don't actually KNOW that God does not exist. That may be your opinion, and, if you wish, you can say (as Dawkins says in The God Delusion) "God almost certainly does not exist". In an interview here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqYAjBMPOHY, when asked "You're leaving open the possibility that he does [exist]?", he replies "Of course, any scientist would leave open that possibility. You can't absolutely disprove the existence of anything."
Therefore "We know that God does not exist" is an unfounded assertion.
The Bible has examples of people getting away with immoral acts without punishment. Just look at Moses. He murdered an Egyptian and does the Bible say god punished him?
You have an image of what Christianity is based on things people told you, things you've read, and your personal experiences. This creates a certain bias that needs accurate information to either substantiate your position or cause you to rethink your position.
When I was Christian I used to operate under my own version of Evangelical Christianity. I was part of a certain church, denomination and group of Christian friends. I also went to their schools and graduated with their degrees.
There are so many different versions of Christianity that one can not possibly learn them all and make rationally unbiased an informed choice as to which one is right. We need to evaluate the whole concept of a Christian god with as open a mind as we can achieve. This is hard to do if you can not allow yourself to doubt anything the Bible says. It's also hard to do if you fear retribution from Jesus.
Since you have come onto an exChristian web site, I recommend that you ask questions as to why all of us former born again believers left the faith. You might learn something. I learned a lot after many months of reading posts on this site before I ever posted anything myself.
But please don't come here thinking you have something new to add. And please don't come here to witness to us. :(
Take care
Fred
So, if a person has no one to answer to for their actions, in terms of an authority figure, then, it really doesn't matter what a person does - in your example.
Since you've removed individual consequences and the consequences of society from the example, you are suggesting that there must in fact be some "greater" authority to pick up the slack, to make one's life have meaning.
If you are living your life; because of what you believe an imaginary authority figure will think about your behavior, then you don't have a life, you are not independent, you are living a pre-canned script someone gave you - consider your life to be nothing but a play, with spectators who can't throw cabbage at you.
In such a scenario, you hold no meaning in life, you "give" meaning to the authority figure that you mind as a slave, but you have no independent meaning that defines "you" as a person.
Good luck with that life, I think I'll just find my own way in life - such that it "means" something to me - regardless, of what someone else wants my life to mean.
Later,
~C
We know that the word God exists, however, it remains to be shown that the word God has any meaning/existence beyond the source provided to you, or anyone for that matter.
If you learned of the word God from a bible, then the word God is only as real as a word in a book.
If you learned of the word God from a person, then the word God is only as real as the verbal word from the person.
If you learned of the word God from a dream, then the word God is only as real as your dream/imagination.
If you have a warm fuzzy and the word God popped into your mind, then the word God is only as real as you, expressed via the emotional event.
To suggest the word God, represents "more" than the cited source - requires evidence.
Without evidence, no one has any reason to believe that the word God exists as anything more than the evidence suggests; written word, verbal word, dream/imagining, warm fuzzy, etc.
No one, here, is obligated to give the word God more existence than the evidence suggests.
Just because someone really, really, really, wants the word God to mean more than a word, etc., doesn't improve the "possibility" that the "word", refers to the existence of more than just a "word", or its cited source.
So, while I know for a fact that the word God has zero existence per my life experience, I also know...
The word God, can have no more existence to "any" person, than the source from which they received that concept - that would be called a "fact".
If someone suggests otherwise, that would be called a "lie".
Where does it say these things about these different classes of animals in the Bible? Nowhere. Another problem: there is no such thing as a naturally domesticated animal. No animal is BORN domesticated. ALL animals are capable of being wild to some degree, and domesticated to some degree. You domesticate tigers for long enough, they will evolve into a species that is more capable of being domesticated. Expose pomeranians to the wild for long enough, they will evolve to be more capable of living in the wild. As for the fowl; you are conveniently ignoring what it says, and thusly still lying.
Genesis 1:20-21
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
VS
Genesis 2:18-19
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
In one place, fowl come from the water, along with "sea creatures". Later, they come from the ground, along with "beasts". This is a contadiction. You are not answering this contradiction, and thusly it still exists. Since the Bible does not go into the detail that these are different fowl, we have to either assume they are the same fowl - at which point they come from two different places at two different times, which creates a contradiction - or that they are different fowl, which is not described. This is the problem. It is too vague to take seriously as a history of creation, and admitting it is a story is (for a Christian) an admission that it is nothing more than a story. So you have to answer from which location the fowl came from. This has nothing to do with CONTEXT. The CONETXT is that at one point, fowl come from the water, and then later the ground. PICK ONE, UNClear. But stop lying to yourself and others.
Bill F:
I've made this point already. Every version of God that has been claimed to exist has been shown to not exist. This leaves us with two options.
1. God does not exist.
2. God is a liar.
Or, you can have the third option of, there is a God that we do not know about. But what evidence is there of that? I really don't care if something can be disproven or not. It was Dawkins who ALSO said that, to admit the possibility of something just because it cannot be disproven is ridiculous. If you don't believe me, you can view him saying this in his ROOT OF ALL EVIl documentary. To admit the possibility of a God because we cannot disprove the notion of one is absurd. You might as well admit that there is a teapot flying around the Earth that we cannot see, if you're going to admit that. To make such an argument is a logical fallacy. It does not make sense to present the possibility of something existing, especially something that we have NO evidence of existing in any other case. where is the evidence for God? There is none. Why should we admit that it is possible that there is a God? We should not. Seeing as how there is no evidence for a God, and we have never seen a God before, including ones that have been claimed to exist before, we know that there is no God.
Ya' know, one of the things wrong with this world is the sheer amount of people that waste so much time defending the notion of a divine creator instead of just admitting that we don't know, and that there is no evidence for a divine creator. Instead of being reasonable about this, people (specifically, people of faith) waste their time (and ours) moralizing. See, Bill F, morality does not require reason. Morality stems from such devices as religion, and religion is not a device that thrives on reason - otherwise, it would not require faith in the face of such unreasonable claims.
So, let's be reasonable here. What reason is there for seeking evidence for the idea of a divine creator, and then defending that idea when no evidence shows up? What good comes from defending the idea that because something cannot be disproven, it must be admitted to be possible, and thusly be admitted to be real (a logical fallacy)? Why is such a thing reasonable? I fail to see why such considerations are good - how such useless posturing accompishes anything. Is it good to admit that there are invisible pink unicorns flying around in VW Beetles converted to be intergalactic spacecraft that run off rainbows and produce sunshine in their wake, or admit that such a thing is possible, all because we cannot disprove its existence? Is a scientist to be taken seriously when they make this claim? I should think not. Why, then, should we take them anymore seriously when they will not fully discredit the idea of a creator God? Because it's possible because it cannot be disproven?
This is a vicious circle, Bill F, and it is ridiculous. We have three options in the discussion of the notion of a creator God. We know that God fails to meet any of the qualities men promise it has, therefore it does not exist, and is merely the fancy of hucksters and psychotics; or, God is lying, and therefore God is evil; or, there is a creator we do not know about. As I have said already, this third option is a ridiculous pursuit. There is no evidence for it, and when you propose an idea and then seek evidence for it, that defeats the purpose of the scientific process. We have to ask, where is the evidence for such a claim? Ultimately, there is none. It is only reasonable to say, then, that we know there is no God. God is the name people have given this supposed creator deity, but would a creator deity (which we know does not exist because there is no evidence for something called God) want to be called God? Why?
Now, when people cannot come up with any supportive evidence for such a claim, they moralize. They lose sight of reason. They start saying such unreasonable things as, "It must be possible because it cannot be disproven." They start making appeals to absolute authority, such as, "What point is there to morals if there is no Holy Teapot"? Indeed, there IS no point to morals.
Morals are systems of good and evil, black and white, right and wrong, that require no reason or evidence. KKK clansmen have morals. Africans commiting genocide have morals. Child rapists have morals. Muslims crashing airplanes into buildings have morals. Christians bombing abortion clinics and filling the pages of human history with hatred and bloodshed and suffering have morals. When they cannot reason about their claims, when they start to say their claims are valid because they are not disprovable, they moralize about them because they might be possible.
Basically, Bill F, no good can come out of asinine posturing. Down that road lies ruin, as it always has. I, on the other hand, refuse to moralize and be unreasonable. It is perfectly reasonable of me to say I know there is no God. It is perfectly reasonable for me to say I know there is no teapot orbiting the Earth. It is perfectly reasonable for me to say I know that there are no pink unicorns. You know how I know?
Because such claims are unreasonable.
Don't bother accusing me of being overly skeptical. I'm more than open to reasonable claims. But fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. If that fantastic evidence never shows up, we know the fantastic claim is false. I'm more than open to hear ideas on who shot JFK. No one can blame me for laughing when you start talking about pink unicorns.
Maybe I stated the question wrong. I'm asking, what is the point in having morals? I understand all the points made about we should be nice to others because it's the rational thing to do & all. I get. But lets say you live the next 10 years of your life as a nice person doing all the right things, then you you died by chance. And suppose someone else acted like a jerk (or if we take it to the extreme) maybe even a serial rapist for their 10 years & did not get caught. Does it really matter how both acted during this life? There is not a consequence to either behavior (taking him being caught or being on the run from the law out of the equation. This is just a representaion of living the wrong life). "
I'll answer your question with a question: What is the reason for morality?
Answer: If a man is stranded all alone on a desert island, his personal morality is irrelevant. If, however, this same man lives in society with other human beings, his morality is important. Morality has everything to do with human interaction. The serial rapist is harming other human beings, and human beings generally don't appreciate being harmed, so society doesn't approve and will attempt to catch and punish the perpetrator. It's really quite simple. While it's true that some criminals don't get caught, society still finds criminal behavior repugnant. However, societies differ on the definition of immoral. Blasphemy, for instance, was considered immoral for hundreds of years in Christian societies. In some, it was punishable by death. Today, blasphemy is still a punishable offense in Islamic countries.
Now, consider this: If you suddenly stopped believing in a god, do you think you would adopt a lifestyle that included rape, murder, and theft?
Just because a person doesn't believe in a god, it doesn't mean he or she doesn't want to live in an orderly and safe society. And just because a person believes in a god, it doesn't mean he or she sees things clearly. Clearly blasphemy (for instance) should never be punished by death.
If one were to peruse the Maslow Pyramid, they would see that the use of social codes (morality), enables people to live with each-other such that they can achieve their needs; physical, safety, belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization.
Morality is a word used to describe a means of mediating between people who have competing interests and needs.
When one person steals food from another person, they could be seen as immoral, if they are unfairly and unjustly debilitating the person from having their layer one needs met.
The word immoral/moral is a short-hand method to describe what a social community considers "fair".
If it is in the "best" interest of a person to achieve their needs which is the human thing to do, then we seek successful ways of achieving such a objective.
One way of doing this, is to establish social codes (which establish morality/immorality for a society), such that, when people neglect a code, society can "enforce" punishment by a means of justice (legal) - law enforcement can occur.
Morality to the individual, becomes a measure by which we compare our behaviors to the expectations of the social code we are obligated to keep - something we are subjected to by birth and the geographic area we find ourselves.
Morality to a social system is a means to "regulate" human needs, such that regulation leads to the successful cohabitation between people with competing and like needs.
It's interesting to think in terms of a single individual on the planet, because there is only "one" person with needs, and the success they have at achieving those needs, doesn't require some for of regulation between the individual and others who may hinder such achievement.
Thinking along those lines, if there were "one" individual, and a God on this planet, would there need to be a set of social codes (morality)? A God doesn't have needs, a God can snap their fingers and just have anything they wish. Therefore, it would appear that morality would only be necessary to protect the individual from the God, there would be no benefit for a moral system to the God.
However, it appears that throughout the bible, that non-adherence to an "ideology" (which doesn't show up on the Maslow Pyramid), brings down the wrath of God - wrath, from a God who has "no needs" to be met, but yet, "demands" and "imposes" an "ideology" on "all" people, such that it prevents social harmony between entire societies - that's not only "immoral", that's cruel.
To contemplate behaviors without consequences, or to suggest that acts that prevent another person from having their needs met is the same as actions that don't prevent another person from having their needs met, is an attempt to marginalize all behaviors and misses the point - morality is a word used to denote fair and unfair behavior(s) (as defined by the culture).
If the scenario is marginalizing morality, the means to regulate human needs in a society, in order to show that justice may not be equally served, I could agree - morality does not equate to justice automatically. Without the ability to control and enforce social codes (morality), no social justice can be enforced, except by the individual who is effected.
So, just because something is considered "immoral", doesn't mean that justice will be served - consider the example of God, does any religiously affiliated person believe that there will one day be "divine" justice served to a God, that demands the unnecessary sacrifice of human needs, because the God, finds "pleasure" (a want not a need), in demanding complete "servitude" - even to the bloodshed detriment of entire nations because of such servitude...
I think not, while I may note such a God as totally immoral, in terms of limiting humanity from being all they can be, there is no reason to "theoretically" (taking into account we are talking totally in the abstract here), believe, that such a God would be held to justice.
Honestly, the atheist position in this discussion, or just about any other, has less to do with 'having a degree' than it does with simply educating oneself on the art of constructing a logical argument. The position from which you argue is fallacious.
Have you thought about the idea that if we exist and there is no god supporting us that morality, by default, is clearly a human construct? Are you arguing that if you discovered there was no god that your whole moral foundation were to collapse? You would immediately commence stealing from others or intentionally inflicting pain on those around you? Would you murder anyone who got in the way of your happiness just because you found out that you will never be punished (or rewarded)in the 'afterlife'?
If you want to really want to give yourself something new to chew on, read up on logical fallacies. The other thing you can do to really stimulate your thinking is to never assume god exists when you ask yourself questions like this. Try mental exercises where you eliminate the possibility of ANY god--you will be shocked to see just how much you have created your own limitations on your thinking.
Sophia
Care to explain where the beginning of a circle is, thanks.
justaguy: "Why is it so easy to believe a theory compared to the possibility that there is a higher power?"
Who was the higher-power, before the higher-power, and who was the higher-power before that higher-power, times infinity. And why only worship one of those higher-powers, since there is a higher-power than that one.
"So...how did the universe and beings come into existence?"
Ah, duh... I don't know!
And guess what? You don't either. You just don't like "I don't know" for an answer, so you prefer to make one up -- i.e., magic!
Hey fellas! Science doesn't have all the answers to all the questions yet, so let's proclaim various gaps in our knowledge as irrefutable proof that our favorite flying, un-dead, god-man-on-a-stick is real!
Think about it.
Whoo-hoo!
Besides, if you guys have degrees and such, and no longer believe, then what could I ever say that could change your mind.
I don't have a degree or any further education than high school. I once was a dedicated follower but I came to my senses.
I can say that for me, a god does not exist. I have no problem with anyone else saying the same thing.
If you say a god does exist, then prove it. Simple enough?
Jim Earl
Okay, all questions are spawned from one's experience. It's really easy, a person has an experience, let's say; someone experiences a second person talking to them about the beginning of the Universe that "experience", is limited to the conversation alone, and only questions specifically surrounding the events of the conversation can lead to "factual" answers.
Everything provided "beyond" the "evidence" of the conversation itself; would be considered hyperbole, hypothetical, opinions, pre-determined statements, etc.
All answers are not equally worthy of merit, a fact is much more "useful" than an "opinion", if one seeks to use such an answer to establish a more complex truth.
While a question may lead a person to further explore and receive experiences such that they can provide supporting information/data to their hypothetical, opinions, etc., we can rule out some experiences that are dead-ends for human analysis, to name but a few; death and all pre-recorded civilization (to include the beginning of the Universe questions).
However, facts can be accumulated and compiled, to illuminate pre-recorded history, when "all" the "known" facts today, stand side-by-side without "conflict", in a logical form, as to provide a clear response to a specific question - a "theory" is presented - an "educated" conclusion to a question that exceeds the limits of human experience.
Note, however, that when opinions, hyperbole, etc., are strung together, like paper doll orgami cut-outs, in order to present an explanation for a question that exceeds the limits of human experience, in-conflict with known "facts"; we tend to call that "fiction", "fantasy", "story-telling", "lying", etc., based on "uneducated" guesswork.
While "fiction" may give comfort to those seeking "any" explanation at all, to quench their tenaciously nagging curiosity, as they lack/refuse to accept anything else for explanation; "fiction" will not enable a person, to develop plans, strategies, etc., to meet desired effects or basic expectations with any great success in life. It would seem, that living a life based on "fictional" principles will prevent/hinder a person from achieving their goals, unless, their goals include living an unpredictable life, in anxiety, day-to-day.
So, while it's truly important to say "I don't know", when one doesn't know the answer to a question; it's also important to be able to identify and associate questions to answer possibilities/potentials and the quality thereof.
I find that religions tend to create questions, and then provide their own particular answers, using whatever technique allows them to support their message. Some use a combination of science, facts, and then pure hyperbole, in a mix that gives it an air of credibility.
All one need do, is be able to pick out the information that is internally inconsistent in its doctrine, or contradictory between the internal doctrine and any externally validated facts. If the information is amended to reflect the facts, then we have a history book. If not, we have a sci-fi writing, with a mix of facts and fiction.
Well... at times, it's entertaining to point out contradiction to facts, and at others; to just play the one-up game of factually unanswerable questions, to see how long it takes for it to dawn on them ;-)
The bottom line remains: We don't know everything there is to know about the entire universe. However, that is not to say that we will not know much more in the future. We know considerably more about things than we did when Christianity ruled the western world. In fact, when Christianity had full control, we enjoyed the Dark Ages.
Now, if your mind, we will NEVER understand things. After all, we can never understand God or His ways, so it is virtually impossible to understand his creation!
Christianity is just an excuse to remain ignorant while feeling like as if all the questions have been answered.
@no god/no fear - To your question of, If I found out there was no God, would I begin murdering people? What would it matter. That's my point. If I live life as a nice person, a jerk or a murder, it makes no difference. Suppose you live the dream life: The big house, tons of money, nice cars, great spouse, everything you wanted. The moment you die, what difference did it make that you lived the dream life? That's like going to the movies and watching a great movie then at the end of the show, the lights never turn back on. That seems very empty to me.
@WM - I see your point on morality. But let's go back to your island thought. If you landed on a stranded island, would you kill yourself (like swimming out to sea & drowning) or would you wait it out (until you died from hunger or age)? You would most likely wait it out because
there is a hope or a belief in you of being resuced from the island. That's like faith. Believing you'll be rescuded.
@Jim Earl - You want me to prove that God exists? Look in the Bible. Most of the bible is prophecy which history has proven true. Disagree with that? Then look in the mirror because you are part of that proof.. 1 Tim 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils".
On a personal level, there have been 2 separate occaisons that 2 people of God have spoken to my spouse concerning things that have happened in my's spouse's life which NOBODY could have known. They didn't know each other, they don't know my spouse, but they of the knew of the situation because of the divine knowledge given to them by God. Now I know you don't put much weight into this because it's a personal story which can't be verified but
for me, I am convinced!
You don't get the point on morality. It would matter very much if you began murdering or raping or pillaging. It would matter to the people you were abusing. It would matter so much to those people that they would do everything in their power to make you stop.
Now, if you are trying to say that life and behaving in a civilized manner is pointless unless life lasts forever, that's extraordinarily simplistic. Nah, it's worse than that. It's stupid.
If I was stranded on a desert island I'd live, just like I live on this little tiny island in the universe called earth. I and most people keep living regardless of life's challenges because we all want to live. In fact, the survival instinct is so strong in our species that people like you embrace fantastical religions that promise you will never die and you embrace those fantasies with a vengeance.
How we treat each other matters to society, our neighbors, our loved ones, and ultimately to ourselves. If the only reason you behave in a civilized manner is because you think some god will either punish you or reward you for your efforts, then please continue to believe in invisible deities. I'd not want to meet you outside a church.
Or are your wife's friends practicing witchcraft? I've heard that the devil can whisper secrets in people's ears too.
Man oh man. Religion really makes fools of people. Wow.
Totally agree on that point, we have a tremendous potential to know much more tomorrow than today, as humanity - unless we have a rise of illiterates to power via religion :-)
WM: "We know considerably more about things than we did when Christianity ruled the western world. In fact, when Christianity had full control, we enjoyed the Dark Ages."
Amen. And, the more we know, the more inconsistent most religious doctrine contradicts newly obtained facts, theories, etc.
WM: "Now, if your mind, we will NEVER understand things."
Oh, I hope we continue to learn, and think we know a lot already. But, am skeptical that for events that are pre-historic, or pre-date recorded history, we can only assemble today's facts obtained in our era, in order to establish a sound theory that satisfies any scientific hypothesis brought forth.
And, we can't study after-death experiences, so, any hypothesis brought up, can't be falsified using facts.
WM: "After all, we can never understand God or His ways, so it is virtually impossible to understand his creation!"
Let me add "God" to the list of things I don't currently have any facts for :-) based on my life experience and the definition provided to me, by the ever so considerate Christian meme :-).
It's a shame, though, how many Christians seem to lack the ability to just drop/let go, of nonsense questions, so that they can learn more about life and be free from perpetual anxiety.
WM: "Christianity is just an excuse to remain ignorant while feeling like as if all the questions have been answered."
Well said, the Christians I converse with don't seem to have one drop of curiosity, to spark some mental process to ask questions and seek answers - God is the answer for everything that they have no knowledge on.
The recorded message they were given by some religious leader, is their answer to any question they may have - I believe there's a term for that; God Parrot, godidiot, sheeple, etc.
Have a great one.
What do you believe the job of a profiler is? What do you believe the job of a psychologist is? How about a psychiatrist?
~Clear: "They didn't know each other, they don't know my spouse, but they of the knew of the situation because of the divine knowledge given to them by God."
If you are in the dog-house, how hard would it be, to suggest that your spouse was not too happy with you? You are a walking billboard of your other half, if you haven't figured that out yet, you must be young in your marriage.
~Clear: "Now I know you don't put much weight into this because it's a personal story which can't be verified but for me, I am convinced!"
You should be convinced of only a few things, in my opinion. One, someone said something that was true about your other half, and you have no knowledge of the connection between them and your spouse.
What you lack, is knowing for a fact, that your spouse and them never met, unless you are going to suggest you have been tied at the hip with your spouse since birth, and two, that some unknown identified object fed these two people with information about your spouse. Ciao
Interesting, you have a working hypothesis that can't be falsified through the use of facts; that gives you the ultimate artistic license to create any story you want, and declare it as "what you believe".
Sure, whatever you have to tell yourself, in order to sleep at night - hopefully, you respect yourself enough, to not buy the BS you are promoting.
Transparent - OK. Your right. I couldn't have been with my spouse 24/7 since they born to verify. But I'm 99% that was the real deal because:
A) They lived in different states up until that point.
B) Way different age group so that they couldn't remember each other.
C) No outward signs of inner issues.
D) 2 separete people & 2 different time frames with the same A though C circumstances.
So it appears to me to be an atheist I should magnify the 1% and forget the 99%. Is that right?
Also here's the answer to the fowl question:
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=7754525e02c2246d8d27
And for good measure:
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=3d6cc88a4e50a170fc53
You are not a credible source of information; nothing you can be corroborated, for instance;
A) They lived in different states up until that point.
Hope you've heard about the invention they came out with a while ago, it's called mass communication? Phones, Internet, social gatherings within similar religious groups, knowing common religious beliefs/practices and lifestyles regardless of where someone lives, etc.
B) Way different age group so that they couldn't remember each other.
That doesn't make any sense. If they were to "remember" anything at all, they must have at least "met" first. You can't remember something you have never experienced, that's how "memory" works. And, if you are suggesting that your spouse and these two people are of different age groups, I would have to assume that your spouse is older than them, because if your spouse was younger, then these two women were a