Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Erythrean Thebes]

Why would the crimes of your ancestors justify torturing you?

Follow up question, why would I need to "bring proof the Bible is wrong"? The Bible is the one stating such a bold and utterly bullshit claim in the first place.

What do you mean? I won't be convinced otherwise...

[Petrolheadia]

Why would the crimes of your ancestors justify torturing you?

Here's what I think personally: if you're not like these evil 'ancestors' of yours, then you're a member of the new class of the redeemed which Christ created. God doesn't punish you. Whereas, if you really are like them, you're guilty of the same sins...

The historical answer is that when the books of the Bible were being written, it was widely believed that children inherited the personality traits of their parents automatically.

(If you're asking, 'why does God inflict suffering on people in the Bible?', I think you'll find that each instance of God inflicting a punishment on people is rather elaborately explained...)

If God thinks that redemption is good, why do we even have free will?

As far as I can see, he's either:
1. Stupid,
2. Malicious,
3. Not there.

[The Grims]

Why would the crimes of your ancestors justify torturing you?

Here's what I think personally: if you're not like these evil 'ancestors' of yours, then you're a member of the new class of the redeemed which Christ created. God doesn't punish you. Whereas, if you really are like them, you're guilty of the same sins...

The historical answer is that when the books of the Bible were being written, it was widely believed that children inherited the personality traits of their parents automatically.

(If you're asking, 'why does God inflict suffering on people in the Bible?', I think you'll find that each instance of God inflicting a punishment on people is rather elaborately explained...)

The question was "why does god give children cancer if he is allloving and omnipotent".
The answer given was "because their ancestors suck and therefor they deserve it".

I am hoping I am not understanding this correctly.

[Genivaria]

Well my reason for giving up my faith was the moral atrocious commanded by God in the Bible.
Nowadays the main reason is a general lack of evidence.

[Erythrean Thebes]

Why can't we have both a good material and immaterial life?

There's no essential obstacle to that. The point I think is more to the effect that a person of material poverty would appreciate the idea they can have an immaterial reward after death.

[Erythrean Thebes]

Here's what I think personally: if you're not like these evil 'ancestors' of yours, then you're a member of the new class of the redeemed which Christ created. God doesn't punish you. Whereas, if you really are like them, you're guilty of the same sins...

The historical answer is that when the books of the Bible were being written, it was widely believed that children inherited the personality traits of their parents automatically.

(If you're asking, 'why does God inflict suffering on people in the Bible?', I think you'll find that each instance of God inflicting a punishment on people is rather elaborately explained...)

The question was "why does god give children cancer if he is allloving and omnipotent".
The answer given was "because their ancestors suck and therefor they deserve it".

I am hoping I am not understanding this correctly.

Why do you think God gives children cancer?

[Erythrean Thebes]

Here's what I think personally: if you're not like these evil 'ancestors' of yours, then you're a member of the new class of the redeemed which Christ created. God doesn't punish you. Whereas, if you really are like them, you're guilty of the same sins...

The historical answer is that when the books of the Bible were being written, it was widely believed that children inherited the personality traits of their parents automatically.

(If you're asking, 'why does God inflict suffering on people in the Bible?', I think you'll find that each instance of God inflicting a punishment on people is rather elaborately explained...)

If God thinks that redemption is good, why do we even have free will?

As far as I can see, he's either:
1. Stupid,
2. Malicious,
3. Not there.

This only continues the same fallacy. The two points are not at odds. Actually, the fact that we have free will, is the reason why God's opinion whether redemption is good or not has no compelling power over human beings.

[Genivaria]

Why can't we have both a good material and immaterial life?

There's no essential obstacle to that. The point I think is more to the effect that a person of material poverty would appreciate the idea they can have an immaterial reward after death.

Kind of similar to the idea of a slave seeing death as the ultimate freedom.
Of course the value of that is determined by whether or not there IS a material reward otherwise it's just taking advantage of the unfortunate in a rather predatorial manner.

[Ifreann]

God only 'controls' himself; he is 'omnipotent' in the sense that, in his capacity as a discrete entity, he can appear anywhere.

Whose idea was it to call God omnipotent because he can go anywhere?

If I tried to sell people an omnipotent car they'd be pretty mad to learn that what I meant was "off-roader".

[Genivaria]

The question was "why does god give children cancer if he is allloving and omnipotent".
The answer given was "because their ancestors suck and therefor they deserve it".

I am hoping I am not understanding this correctly.

Why do you think God gives children cancer?

Likely the assertions that everything that happens is god's will, the problem with putting everything in the hands of a single being is that then you make that being responsible for alot of horrible stuff to.

That's just one of the one inevitable issues with monotheism.

[Frievolk]

Follow up question, why would I need to "bring proof the Bible is wrong"? The Bible is the one stating such a bold and utterly bullshit claim in the first place.

What do you mean? I won't be convinced otherwise...

You're the one making the claim in the first place though

[Ters Althria]

I ask this: If there is a chair who created it, and if you sought its maker would you find it in the woodgrain, the nails perhaps, or even the glue that sturdy its construction; where within this creation would you find its creator?
If you do not expect to find the maker of such a chair within the confines of its creation. why would you expect to find our creator within the bounds of his creation?

[Neutraligon]

Follow up question, why would I need to "bring proof the Bible is wrong"? The Bible is the one stating such a bold and utterly bullshit claim in the first place.

What do you mean? I won't be convinced otherwise...

Prove that the Bhagavad Gita is wrong. Prove that the Koran is wrong. How about you prove it is correct first.

[Neutraligon]

I ask this; If there is a chair who created it, and if you sought its maker would you find it in the woodgrain, the nails perhaps, or even the glue that sturdy its construction; where within this creation would you find its creator?
If you do not expect to find the maker of such a chair within the confines of its creation. why would you expect to find our creator within the bounds of his creation?

Prove there is a creation.

[Ters Althria]

Prove there is a creation.

My apologies I was unaware chairs manifested themselves from raw wood, glue and nails.

[Neutraligon]

Prove there is a creation.

My apologies I was unaware chairs manifested themselves from raw wood, glue and nails.

I am sorry you failed to understand that a universe and a chair are two separate things. So once again, provide evidence that the universe was created. Oh and Maybe answer this question...how do we tell the difference between something that forms naturally and something that is created?

[Erythrean Thebes]

God only 'controls' himself; he is 'omnipotent' in the sense that, in his capacity as a discrete entity, he can appear anywhere.

Whose idea was it to call God omnipotent because he can go anywhere?

If I tried to sell people an omnipotent car they'd be pretty mad to learn that what I meant was "off-roader".

If anything, this is why the level of vitriol from atheist advocacy confuses me and even agitates me sometimes. If you adhere to any logically consistent formula of the religion, it obviously necessitates some form of cherry-picking things to account for the fact that no material events as we observe follow an always consistent pattern. I don't think there's any way to deny that Christian theologians, before scepticism, did exactly this. Originally, in the Roman era, they were basically famed for this. I feel that should take away whatever is intellectually threatening about the religion, but unfortunately not, I gather.

The number-one fallacy of atheist arguments is that they gravitate directly onto formulated principles - "God is omnipotent." But that's a misunderstanding of the Bible. The Bible is a chronological narrative which explains, one plot development at a time, how the relationship between God and man as it is today came into being. "God is omnipotent," totally misses the real creed of the religion, which is more like "God created a perfect world; the intrinsic evil of humanity ruined it; God turned to hate mankind and planned to destroy them; a remarkably purehearted individual named Noah impressed God; God saved the line of Noah out of begrudging pity for him to create a new human lineage; the corrupted shadow of our species then began to stumble through history in a mix of both piety and arrogance; God took pity on various pure souls, who reminded of Noah, and gave them assistance to foster what he hoped could be the resurrection of his original design for humanity; Israel was founded, but continued to struggle with the intrinsic evil in their hearts; Israel fell because the sin in man overcame his residual piety; Jesus emerged and began speaking as God on Earth; mankind was triggered by the return of God and, being largely evil, were triggered to lash out and murder him because of their evil; Jesus successfully enduring their hatred and going to his grave in totally obedience to God established the model of a way for others to follow in his footsteps and also be redeemed of their sin."

[Togeria]

I believe in a Higher Presence as well as intentional design, but I believe it's up to us find what that design is. I don't believe this Creator which I choose to name Allah is simply leaving us ignorant or naive but that in some sense situations in which we feel deja vu, jamais vu, feelings of unexplained euphoria or motivation, etc are ways to motivate and guide us without telling us directly. Further because of feelings of empathy, sympathy, just generally emotions and behaviors despite having an evolutionary explanation the fact of how deeply we feel them and how we can share it among other creatures and they us speaks to me of it being something more special than its scientific explanation.

Not that science is to be ignored, I see it as a tool and way we can comprehend the universe made available to us. Everything has a origin I believe our purpose is to find it.

[Erythrean Thebes]

What do you mean? I won't be convinced otherwise...

You're the one making the claim in the first place though

I'm sorry, it's not supposed to be a claim in such a way. I don't want to try and convince you of it against your opposition. I'm interested in the debate as an exercise to explore how the Christian religion can accommodate different forms of criticism and skepticism. I believe the Christian view of mankind is an ideology, suitable for those who identify with its precepts.

[Genivaria]

I ask this: If there is a chair who created it, and if you sought its maker would you find it in the woodgrain, the nails perhaps, or even the glue that sturdy its construction; where within this creation would you find its creator?
If you do not expect to find the maker of such a chair within the confines of its creation. why would you expect to find our creator within the bounds of his creation?

Sounds like a flaw on the maker's part, they should know to put a logo or something on it.
Otherwise I can only conclude they don't care if people know who made it.

[Ters Althria]

I am sorry you failed to understand that a universe and a chair are two separate things. So once again, provide evidence that the universe was created. Oh and Maybe answer this question...how do we tell the difference between something that forms naturally and something that is created?

Are you saying a creator cannot form naturally?
I assure you I was born no different from you and yet I am very capable of creating many objects from wood.

Sounds like a flaw on the maker's part, they should know to put a logo or something on it.
Otherwise I can only conclude they don't care if people know who made it.

And what of all those who have said they have come in the name of a creator? Many have left an indellible mark upon creation.

[Genivaria]

Prove there is a creation.

My apologies I was unaware chairs manifested themselves from raw wood, glue and nails.

You are now being dishonest in equating chairs to humanity.
Prove that the equation is valid.

[Korasta]

I don't believe in a god for a variety of reasons, the most obvious being the "easily" rebuked "if there is a god, why is there so much suffering etc" argument and the fact that there is no rational basis for a divine being that created the universe. On another note, if there is a god/Icke lizard/flying spaghetti monster out there, it's got a lot of shit to answer for.

[Frievolk]

You're the one making the claim in the first place though

I'm sorry, it's not supposed to be a claim in such a way. I don't want to try and convince you of it against your opposition. I'm interested in the debate as an exercise to explore how the Christian religion can accommodate different forms of criticism and skepticism. I believe the Christian view of mankind is an ideology, suitable for those who identify with its precepts.

Yeah, and as the person on its side in a debate, it's on you to bring proof regarding to it. You can't say "can you prove the Bible isn't right?" -or well, it's not considered good debating at any rate. It is on you to prove the Bible is right, i.e. by proving that every single one of our ancestors was "people who are defined congenitally by their inexcusable and despicable proclivity to lie, to cheat, to steal, to do harm, to show disrespect to authority, to have no concern for law and order, to put their arrogance before their compassion and do what they want to others." (And then you'd have to somehow prove that it somehow justifies "God's sentence passed upon [us]")

You're the one making that claim (or, pushing for the side that makes that claim). It is only on you to prove it true.

[Genivaria]

I am sorry you failed to understand that a universe and a chair are two separate things. So once again, provide evidence that the universe was created. Oh and Maybe answer this question...how do we tell the difference between something that forms naturally and something that is created?

Are you saying a creator cannot form naturally?
I assure you I was born no different from you and yet I am very capable of creating many objects from wood.

Are you capable of creating a person from wood?