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

[Tarsonis]

For the sake of argument, just because it spread by conquest doesn’t invalidate it by itself. It’s purely possible that is God’s design, (assuming for the sake of argument God exists). You may not particularly like God for it, but that’s not the same thing.

It does. Because A, many cultures and civilisations had no knowledge of this Abrahamic God until Imperialistic Conquests.

Okay, that still doesn’t make it false. Lack of knowledge =\= false.

B, A lot of the stories in the Bible, Torah, Quran, come from ancient Mesopotamian scriptures, especially the Epic of Gilgamesh.

That’s a rather questionable issue. A lot of which came first questions which aren’t wholely conclusive. Ancient Hebrew culture isn’t that easy to date as it was largely oral before the 2nd millennium BC. Archregimancy is better at than I am, and he’ll probably say I’m wrong, but I’ve addressed this numerous times in the CDT. Some are potentially appropriations, some are potentially the influence of appropriations by other cultures. ANE is one of those periods that are very well catalogued in some aspects, but also very murky in some others. Again not an invalidating quality. The Bible is not a single literary work, it’s a compendium of stories, histories, writings, poetry, etc.

C, Prior to the 12 tribes of Israel, monotheism was hardly food for thought, Polytheism was the main aspect for every conceivable culture.

And? It’s different therefore wrong? Not sure what the point is supposed to be here.

D, if the God created the word, all cultures would have believed in the same one.

Not necessarily. Shit according to Exodus the hebrews starting doubting God, even after they had just witnessed God pull some incredible things. There’s limitless explanations as to why cultures would move away from God, something frequently addressed by Scripture mind you.

E, This God was the only God of a small group of Middle Easterners on the coast of the Mediterranean, no one else.

And? Once again not an invalidating quality, especially if God specifically picked those Middle Easterners as the example to the rest of the world.

Come on, A website called infidel.org is biased, and everyone knows it. Further, the author of the article at times acknowledges that Church has responses and just dismissed them as contrived. So it’s not that the explanations don’t exist, the author doesn’t buy them. Which from my reading is largely due to ignorance. Like they’re clearly ignorant of how scripture was formed, things like the documentary hypothesis or the Q-source and things like that. Basically they have a very surface level understanding of biblical knowledge.


Also I’ll counter with literally the response your source gives to these “contradictions”
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologe ... ospels.htm

And yet, all 4 gospels have different accounts, not all of them tell the same story, that is a fact.

Eh, They have differing accounts, not different accounts. The distinction I’m making there is that while yes the details between the accounts can be a bit fuzzy, they still generally tell the same story. There’s a significant number of explanations for this which is what I was pointing out by bringing up the Q-source.

If we assume they’re all eyewitness accounts, then that actually substantiates them more for their differences, not less. Any cop or trial lawyer can tell you, if a person is murdered with 12 witnesses, and you ask each witness what happened, you’re gonna get 12 differing accounts of the same event. Each account will depend on the witness, what they emphasize, what the My don’t emphasize, their relative position, what they were paying attention to compared to what others paid attention to, etc. When the witness accounts are too similar, that’s actually evidence that the stories are likely contrived.

Realistically,, the gospels are not direct accounts rather they’re recording of accounts, compiled using a number of sources. Each Gospel also has the flavor of their authors. For instance the account attributed to Matthew is an account that came out of the Antioch Church. Antioch is the first church and where most Jewish converts came to in the first century. Accordingly, Matthew is the most Jewish of all the Gospels, quoting scriptures and prophecies, mixing Hebrew words in with the Greek etc. Luke’s gospel on the other hand is very gentile, barely making any reference to the OT, and making very universal tact. For instance Matthew’s genealogy starts with Abraham. Why? Because the Jews start with Abraham. Luke starts with Adam, because all peoples come from Adam not just the Jews, he’s making a universal appeal.

John is also a separate gospel from the ones we call the Synoptic Gospels, and is commonly referred to as the Spiritual Gospel, because the gospel focuses less on the history events and more on proof of Jesus’s divinity and specific teachings.

It’s always amuses when atheist sites bring this argument up like they’ve uncovered some great conspiracy and smoking gun. The Church has always been aware of these issues, and has accounted for them. We recognize these as the human elements of scripture. Your problem is that this line of argument you’re making is really only geared towards the YEC fundamentalist evangelicals, who hold scripture to be 10000% correct without any error or contradiction what so ever. That’s a relatively recent phenomenon originating largely in the 19th century. Traditional understandings of scripture are much, much more nuanced than that.

[Celritannia]

It does. Because A, many cultures and civilisations had no knowledge of this Abrahamic God until Imperialistic Conquests.

Okay, that still doesn’t make it false. Lack of knowledge =\= false.

B, A lot of the stories in the Bible, Torah, Quran, come from ancient Mesopotamian scriptures, especially the Epic of Gilgamesh.

That’s a rather questionable issue. A lot of which came first questions which aren’t wholely conclusive. Ancient Hebrew culture isn’t that easy to date as it was largely oral before the 2nd millennium BC. Archregimancy is better at than I am, and he’ll probably say I’m wrong, but I’ve addressed this numerous times in the CDT. Some are potentially appropriations, some are potentially the influence of appropriations by other cultures. ANE is one of those periods that are very well catalogued in some aspects, but also very murky in some others. Again not an invalidating quality. The Bible is not a single literary work, it’s a compendium of stories, histories, writings, poetry, etc.

C, Prior to the 12 tribes of Israel, monotheism was hardly food for thought, Polytheism was the main aspect for every conceivable culture.

And? It’s different therefore wrong? Not sure what the point is supposed to be here.

D, if the God created the word, all cultures would have believed in the same one.

Not necessarily. Shit according to Exodus the hebrews starting doubting God, even after they had just witnessed God pull some incredible things. There’s limitless explanations as to why cultures would move away from God, something frequently addressed by Scripture mind you.

E, This God was the only God of a small group of Middle Easterners on the coast of the Mediterranean, no one else.

And? Once again not an invalidating quality, especially if God specifically picked those Middle Easterners as the example to the rest of the world.

A, It highlights that it takes power to ensure a religion thrives. Once it has cemented into a culture, it maintains relevance. People did not convert to Gods willingly. Force and indoctrination was vital for religion and the belief in the Abrahamic God for centuries.
Without followers, Gods simply fail to be considered relevant, and the religious books, scriptures, or verbal stories are simply tossed aside. The rise and fall of cultures, civilisations, etc, shows us how military might is the main aspect to ensure how religion grew.
Without significant evidence brought to show evidence of this deity, there is no reason to believe in it. But power and force, that will alter a person's belief quickly.

B, Fair enough.

C, Again, without followers, a religion fails to be, and a God ceases to be considered powerful in the minds of humans.

D, Yet, cultures older than the writings or stories of the Hebrews would have it written in their texts why they would escape the Abrahamic God. Yet through historical study, we see that the various religions throughout the world have always been at the forefront of the culture. Geographic location plays a big part into what religion a person will have. After all, the Abrahamic Faiths had no presence in East Asia and India without imperial conquests, and even then, these places were able to deny the Abrahamic Religions from influencing their people to an extreme like Europe or the Americas.

E, Why just the Middle Easterners though? Why not the Chinese? Or the various nations of the Americas? Again, a religion requires followers to keep a deity relevant. Without belief, a religion and a deity ceases to be. And this has been the case since the beginning of Human Civilisation.

And yet, all 4 gospels have different accounts, not all of them tell the same story, that is a fact.

Eh, They have differing accounts, not different accounts. The distinction I’m making there is that while yes the details between the accounts can be a bit fuzzy, they still generally tell the same story. There’s a significant number of explanations for this which is what I was pointing out by bringing up the Q-source.

If we assume they’re all eyewitness accounts, then that actually substantiates them more for their differences, not less. Any cop or trial lawyer can tell you, if a person is murdered with 12 witnesses, and you ask each witness what happened, you’re gonna get 12 differing accounts of the same event. Each account will depend on the witness, what they emphasize, what the My don’t emphasize, their relative position, what they were paying attention to compared to what others paid attention to, etc. When the witness accounts are too similar, that’s actually evidence that the stories are likely contrived.

Realistically,, the gospels are not direct accounts rather they’re recording of accounts, compiled using a number of sources. Each Gospel also has the flavor of their authors. For instance the account attributed to Matthew is an account that came out of the Antioch Church. Antioch is the first church and where most Jewish converts came to in the first century. Accordingly, Matthew is the most Jewish of all the Gospels, quoting scriptures and prophecies, mixing Hebrew words in with the Greek etc. Luke’s gospel on the other hand is very gentile, barely making any reference to the OT, and making very universal tact. For instance Matthew’s genealogy starts with Abraham. Why? Because the Jews start with Abraham. Luke starts with Adam, because all peoples come from Adam not just the Jews, he’s making a universal appeal.

John is also a separate gospel from the ones we call the Synoptic Gospels, and is commonly referred to as the Spiritual Gospel, because the gospel focuses less on the history events and more on proof of Jesus’s divinity and specific teachings.

It’s always amuses when atheist sites bring this argument up like they’ve uncovered some great conspiracy and smoking gun. The Church has always been aware of these issues, and has accounted for them. We recognize these as the human elements of scripture. Your problem is that this line of argument you’re making is really only geared towards the YEC fundamentalist evangelicals, who hold scripture to be 10000% correct without any error or contradiction what so ever. That’s a relatively recent phenomenon originating largely in the 19th century. Traditional understandings of scripture are much, much more nuanced than that.

I am not saying there is a conspiracy, I am saying the contradictions makes it harder to believe the stories or the accounts. And putting the Gospels aside, the entire Bible is full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

[Tarsonis]

Okay, that still doesn’t make it false. Lack of knowledge =\= false.
That’s a rather questionable issue. A lot of which came first questions which aren’t wholely conclusive. Ancient Hebrew culture isn’t that easy to date as it was largely oral before the 2nd millennium BC. Archregimancy is better at than I am, and he’ll probably say I’m wrong, but I’ve addressed this numerous times in the CDT. Some are potentially appropriations, some are potentially the influence of appropriations by other cultures. ANE is one of those periods that are very well catalogued in some aspects, but also very murky in some others. Again not an invalidating quality. The Bible is not a single literary work, it’s a compendium of stories, histories, writings, poetry, etc.


And? It’s different therefore wrong? Not sure what the point is supposed to be here.




Not necessarily. Shit according to Exodus the hebrews starting doubting God, even after they had just witnessed God pull some incredible things. There’s limitless explanations as to why cultures would move away from God, something frequently addressed by Scripture mind you.
And? Once again not an invalidating quality, especially if God specifically picked those Middle Easterners as the example to the rest of the world.

A, It highlights that it takes power to ensure a religion thrives. Once it has cemented into a culture, it maintains relevance. People did not convert to Gods willingly. Force and indoctrination was vital for religion and the belief in the Abrahamic God for centuries.
Without followers, Gods simply fail to be considered relevant, and the religious books, scriptures, or verbal stories are simply tossed aside. The rise and fall of cultures, civilisations, etc, shows us how military might is the main aspect to ensure how religion grew.
Without significant evidence brought to show evidence of this deity, there is no reason to believe in it. But power and force, that will alter a person's belief quickly.

I think you're being quite simplistic in your understanding of the relationship between religion and other sociopolitical realities. As even current world wide conflicts can attest to, the same understanding can be said of virtually any philosophy or theology. We fought global wars over secular ideologies in the 20th century, developed unimaginable weapons to convert the world to our respective ideologies. That doesn't mean communism/democracy have no tangible value to them, simply because violence has been the largest driving force in conversion. I can't speak to the history of Islam, (not my field) but with regards to Christianity, your view is also not really correct. Conversion by the sword is actually prohibited per its doctrine. Now yes, Christians do nothing if not fail to abide by doctrines of the religion, but it's a fair debate as to exactly how the "conversion" mission worked with other sociopolitical issues. In the both the middle and imperial ages, conversion was usually a casus belli for conquest or persecution, but really the goal of any action was sociopolitical: need that land, don't like this minority group, want that fortune, need this resource for trade, etc. In fact, during colonization, Missions actually got in the way of slavers and subjugaters, and were opposed to such things. Jesuit priests in particular found themselves persecuted by secular society for their mission work, and many died defending natives.

The relationship between religion and conquest is an extremely complex one, and I find insufficient as a proof against the value of religion. Those conquests tell me nothing of the value or validity of the Religion itself, but simply inform me that a great deal of its history is tied to warfare. The actual doctrines and theology of religion are where the true test lie. I reject Islam not for its history of violence, but its actual teachings. I accept Roman Catholic Christianity, not because I was put to the sword, but because I studied.

And if your test of validity is tied to conquest, then actually Christianity should definitely pass your test. It took over the Roman Empire through peaceful means, while being violently persecuted. It was only after it had become the state religion of the already conquest happy Roman Empire, that conquest became a part it.

C, Again, without followers, a religion fails to be, and a God ceases to be considered powerful in the minds of humans.

And? As I said earlier, our ability to perceive the teapot has no bearing on the metaphysical reality of the teapot's existence. You seem to have this polytheistic view that "God's" gain their power through the number of followers. The problem is that not all religions profess that view. The Abrahamic ones definitely don't.

D, Yet, cultures older than the writings or stories of the Hebrews would have it written in their texts why they would escape the Abrahamic God. Yet through historical study, we see that the various religions throughout the world have always been at the forefront of the culture. Geographic location plays a big part into what religion a person will have. After all, the Abrahamic Faiths had no presence in East Asia and India without imperial conquests, and even then, these places were able to deny the Abrahamic Religions from influencing their people to an extreme like Europe or the Americas.

Firstly, not necessarily. We're not talking a divergence in the ancient golden age of literate civilization, we're talking a divergence in proto-homo sapiens sapiens. A divergence that begins so early in humanity's infancy, that by the time these religions were fully developed they had no memory. The Abrahamic religions have a story arch of God first being known by all mankind, Humanity's falling away from God, Humanity's fracture into a million different cultures and God's gradual revelation bringing humanity back to God. Remember, Abraham, the beginning of all recordable Jewish/Christian/Muslim belief didn't know who God was, nor was he chosen because he worshiped the right deity. He was chosen because he kept the law of hospitality better than anybody else. God picks Abraham and makes a covenant with him. So there's a time here between Genesis 11 and 12, where God isn't on the humans radar really. (Not that I think Genesis 1-11 literally happened)

E, Why just the Middle Easterners though? Why not the Chinese? Or the various nations of the Americas? Again, a religion requires followers to keep a deity relevant. Without belief, a religion and a deity ceases to be. And this has been the case since the beginning of Human Civilization.

I don't know. We can ask ourselves what ifs and why not's all day but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. What matters is what God did pr God didn't do. I realize the term "God works in mysterious ways." is a bit of a cliched and useless platitude, but with it bears a relevant theological truth. Assuming there is a divine plan, that plan would not likely be understandable to a limited and temporary being as small and cosmically insignificant as a human or the collective human species. Maybe there's a perfectly rational reason why God did it that way, but we just can't see it. Or maybe there's no rhyme or reason to it at all. I can't say.

As an aside, my working theory is life began in that region, seems to me to make sense that, that would be where God would continue to reveal himself.

But as I touched on before, you seem to have a conception of religion that is polytheistic in nature. That any number gods/goddesses are in a chess match of relevancy over who can hold onto the most followers.
"If nobody worships you, you're out till the next round. However the DM will also bury a tablet that reveals who you are, and if anyone finds that tablet, you're back in the game. " Such a paradigm doesn't make sense from the monotheistic viewpoint, where the dynamic is flipped and humans are the ones dependent on God.

Eh, They have differing accounts, not different accounts. The distinction I’m making there is that while yes the details between the accounts can be a bit fuzzy, they still generally tell the same story. There’s a significant number of explanations for this which is what I was pointing out by bringing up the Q-source.

If we assume they’re all eyewitness accounts, then that actually substantiates them more for their differences, not less. Any cop or trial lawyer can tell you, if a person is murdered with 12 witnesses, and you ask each witness what happened, you’re gonna get 12 differing accounts of the same event. Each account will depend on the witness, what they emphasize, what the My don’t emphasize, their relative position, what they were paying attention to compared to what others paid attention to, etc. When the witness accounts are too similar, that’s actually evidence that the stories are likely contrived.

Realistically,, the gospels are not direct accounts rather they’re recording of accounts, compiled using a number of sources. Each Gospel also has the flavor of their authors. For instance the account attributed to Matthew is an account that came out of the Antioch Church. Antioch is the first church and where most Jewish converts came to in the first century. Accordingly, Matthew is the most Jewish of all the Gospels, quoting scriptures and prophecies, mixing Hebrew words in with the Greek etc. Luke’s gospel on the other hand is very gentile, barely making any reference to the OT, and making very universal tact. For instance Matthew’s genealogy starts with Abraham. Why? Because the Jews start with Abraham. Luke starts with Adam, because all peoples come from Adam not just the Jews, he’s making a universal appeal.

John is also a separate gospel from the ones we call the Synoptic Gospels, and is commonly referred to as the Spiritual Gospel, because the gospel focuses less on the history events and more on proof of Jesus’s divinity and specific teachings.

It’s always amuses when atheist sites bring this argument up like they’ve uncovered some great conspiracy and smoking gun. The Church has always been aware of these issues, and has accounted for them. We recognize these as the human elements of scripture. Your problem is that this line of argument you’re making is really only geared towards the YEC fundamentalist evangelicals, who hold scripture to be 10000% correct without any error or contradiction what so ever. That’s a relatively recent phenomenon originating largely in the 19th century. Traditional understandings of scripture are much, much more nuanced than that.

I am not saying there is a conspiracy, I am saying the contradictions makes it harder to believe the stories or the accounts. And putting the Gospels aside, the entire Bible is full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

And I would respond that's because I think you have a flawed conception of what the Bible is. I think you look at it from a flawed paradigm, largely influenced by American Protestant conception that The Bible is how God reveals himself to Humanity, thus the book itself is viewed as having a certain level of divinity. This is a flawed conception. While we (Christians) would say that the Bible is divinely inspired, most don't properly understand how that works. While it is inspired, it is still erected with human hands. The Bible is a very human book, that the Church incorporated as part of its traditions. It's not a primary source of revelation, in the academic sense, rather it's more secondary source, incorporated into the Primary Source, which is the Gospel and Tradition that Christ handed down. And when you start to understand the bible for what it is, those human elements of accounts with different details, and the like, became a lot more understandable as to how and why they're that way.

[Celritannia]

I think you're being quite simplistic in your understanding of the relationship between religion and other sociopolitical realities. As even current world wide conflicts can attest to, the same understanding can be said of virtually any philosophy or theology. We fought global wars over secular ideologies in the 20th century, developed unimaginable weapons to convert the world to our respective ideologies. That doesn't mean communism/democracy have no tangible value to them, simply because violence has been the largest driving force in conversion. I can't speak to the history of Islam, (not my field) but with regards to Christianity, your view is also not really correct. Conversion by the sword is actually prohibited per its doctrine. Now yes, Christians do nothing if not fail to abide by doctrines of the religion, but it's a fair debate as to exactly how the "conversion" mission worked with other sociopolitical issues. In the both the middle and imperial ages, conversion was usually a casus belli for conquest or persecution, but really the goal of any action was sociopolitical: need that land, don't like this minority group, want that fortune, need this resource for trade, etc. In fact, during colonization, Missions actually got in the way of slavers and subjugaters, and were opposed to such things. Jesuit priests in particular found themselves persecuted by secular society for their mission work, and many died defending natives.

The relationship between religion and conquest is an extremely complex one, and I find insufficient as a proof against the value of religion. Those conquests tell me nothing of the value or validity of the Religion itself, but simply inform me that a great deal of its history is tied to warfare. The actual doctrines and theology of religion are where the true test lie. I reject Islam not for its history of violence, but its actual teachings. I accept Roman Catholic Christianity, not because I was put to the sword, but because I studied.

And if your test of validity is tied to conquest, then actually Christianity should definitely pass your test. It took over the Roman Empire through peaceful means, while being violently persecuted. It was only after it had become the state religion of the already conquest happy Roman Empire, that conquest became a part it.

We are not discussion the rise of internationalism, we are discussing how religion came about through Imperialistic Expansionism.
If Rome did not exist, Christianity would not have spread as far as it did. It was due to the inter-connected roads of Rome that is spread.
It was thanks to a Roman Emperor that Christianity became the main religion of Europe.
And It is Thanks to Rome, after its fall, that religion filled the power vacuum of rivalling Warlords throughout Europe.

Yes, the Roman Empire subjected itself to Christianity, but the pagan way of life, although disliked by the Old Rome, they did not force to convert them. Christianity did.

That is rather ironic, you reject Islam for it's history of violence, despite studies proving the Bible's history of violence is far worse?

And? As I said earlier, our ability to perceive the teapot has no bearing on the metaphysical reality of the teapot's existence. You seem to have this polytheistic view that "God's" gain their power through the number of followers. The problem is that not all religions profess that view. The Abrahamic ones definitely don't.

A teapot at least can be observed, studies, tested, etc.
The Abrahamic God needs human's to keep it relevant as much as any religion. Not to mention how humans have to adapt Religion as humanity develops.

Firstly, not necessarily. We're not talking a divergence in the ancient golden age of literate civilization, we're talking a divergence in proto-homo sapiens sapiens. A divergence that begins so early in humanity's infancy, that by the time these religions were fully developed they had no memory. The Abrahamic religions have a story arch of God first being known by all mankind, Humanity's falling away from God, Humanity's fracture into a million different cultures and God's gradual revelation bringing humanity back to God. Remember, Abraham, the beginning of all recordable Jewish/Christian/Muslim belief didn't know who God was, nor was he chosen because he worshiped the right deity. He was chosen because he kept the law of hospitality better than anybody else. God picks Abraham and makes a covenant with him. So there's a time here between Genesis 11 and 12, where God isn't on the humans radar really. (Not that I think Genesis 1-11 literally happened)

Even during proto-homo sapiens, there was no concept of a single god what so ever. Archaeology has showed us the tools and idols they had. Humanity cannot fall away from God, if the idea of God is not there in the first place, and when did the single God spring to prominence? Roughly 3,000 BCE with the Cannanite God. The first recorded human civilisation began roughly 8,000 to 5,000 BCE. First Homo-Sapien, 300,000 thousand years ago.

That's so many long periods prior to one God appearing. This is not including the entire migration period where cultures start developing on there own.

On your second point, Abraham (who is told to kill his own son to show his loyalty to God (although he didn't), would be considered in the modern day attempted murder, child abuse, and insanity, and find himself would be locked up for life) recorded hospitality laws for the Middle Eastern Area, yet through out the world, there were better and stronger laws already established, prior to these.
Here we go, and plenty of them before Abraham's time (if historical accounts of him being around 600-580 BC are accurate).

So we can take away from this, that a single God did not appear until the Canaanites, and only in their area. In fact, Christianity was a sub-sect of Judaism until the expansion of Christianity, making the validity of the single God dubious.

And as you say, it was a story arch, not hard evidence.

-EDIT-
Also, the highlighted part, this is a massive assumption. Your God is no more the one true God (or real) than the 4000 other Gods that have existed before, and during YHWH/God.

I don't know. We can ask ourselves what ifs and why not's all day but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. What matters is what God did pr God didn't do. I realize the term "God works in mysterious ways." is a bit of a cliched and useless platitude, but with it bears a relevant theological truth. Assuming there is a divine plan, that plan would not likely be understandable to a limited and temporary being as small and cosmically insignificant as a human or the collective human species. Maybe there's a perfectly rational reason why God did it that way, but we just can't see it. Or maybe there's no rhyme or reason to it at all. I can't say.

As an aside, my working theory is life began in that region, seems to me to make sense that, that would be where God would continue to reveal himself.

But as I touched on before, you seem to have a conception of religion that is polytheistic in nature. That any number gods/goddesses are in a chess match of relevancy over who can hold onto the most followers.
"If nobody worships you, you're out till the next round. However the DM will also bury a tablet that reveals who you are, and if anyone finds that tablet, you're back in the game. " Such a paradigm doesn't make sense from the monotheistic viewpoint, where the dynamic is flipped and humans are the ones dependent on God.

A theological truth is not truth without hard scientific evidence.
The fact is, the Middle East at the time was brimming with multiple cultures, religions, it was a major trading route. The growth of a singular God there (like any God in any location), just happened due to people coming up with the idea. That's it. Humans create stories to help ease things or pass the time. It's the nature of our psychology.

Your hypothesis however goes against scientific fact that modern human life began in Africa (Although I did read a recent article saying it could have been Europe with new discoveries, but that is a story for another day).

Most cultures prior to a singular God did have Polytheistic tendencies, this is a fact. It ties in perfectly with the human psychology to create stories.

Humans created Gods. Until a God can be proven with grounding Evidence to say otherwise, there is no reason to continue believing in any deity.
Human do not need to be dependent on any God.

Science has advanced this world, not any deity. Through Medicine, engineering, technology, infrastructure, agriculture, etc, Humans adapt and learn to benefit themselves, it is how progress works.

And I would respond that's because I think you have a flawed conception of what the Bible is. I think you look at it from a flawed paradigm, largely influenced by American Protestant conception that The Bible is how God reveals himself to Humanity, thus the book itself is viewed as having a certain level of divinity. This is a flawed conception. While we (Christians) would say that the Bible is divinely inspired, most don't properly understand how that works. While it is inspired, it is still erected with human hands. The Bible is a very human book, that the Church incorporated as part of its traditions. It's not a primary source of revelation, in the academic sense, rather it's more secondary source, incorporated into the Primary Source, which is the Gospel and Tradition that Christ handed down. And when you start to understand the bible for what it is, those human elements of accounts with different details, and the like, became a lot more understandable as to how and why they're that way.

How is my interpretation flawed when I am looking at it from a historical analysis?
I don't live in the US, I have no idea what American Protestants wholly say on the Bible, they just need to rethink using the King James Version.

Again, every Christian denomination has a different interpretation. You will have a differing opinion to a Roman Catholic in Madrid, or an Orthodox Catholic in St Petersberg.
Just remember, the Church incorporated many Pagan traditions to keep the pagans happy while converting them. Christmas? Pagan. Easter? Pagan. Halloween? Pagan.

How can I trust one part of the bible while the rest of it is just stories? Stories, which a lot of the Old Testament were taken from other more ancient stories.

I understand the bible, the stories, actions, and what have you were great for the people then, but realistically, we do not need them now.
Civilisations come and go, and remembering the characters from history is important, but I don't need to go and Worship Admiral Lord Nelson, Sun Tsu, or Plato any more than I need to continuously worship Jesus for the rest of my life and tell my possible children and grandchildren to.

Humans created religion to ease their mind about death, to tell stories, etc, it is human nature and we still do it. But we need to move past this concept as it is not needed. Re-tell the stories yes, they can be beautiful, interesting, uplifting, upsetting and what have you, but the characters do not need to be worshipped.

And without hard evidence proving an existence of any deity, there is n reason to believe in one, but allow the idea of gods to become apart of human cultural history.

---

Look, I am not the most intelligent individual on this thread, I tip my metaphorical hat to NCR, Godular, Dogmeat, ABH, and many others in here that and again deconstruct the religious arguments to the finest detail, combing any irony and critical fault out.
But I will stand my ground for the areas I do understand, and I will argue over the areas I harshly criticise until grounding, indisputable evidence is presented.

[Neanderthaland]

during proto-homo sapiens, there was no concept of a single god what so ever. Archaeology has showed us the tools and idols they had. Humanity cannot fall away from God, if the idea of God is not there in the first place, and when did the single God spring to prominence? Roughly 3,000 BCE with the Cannanite God. The first recorded human civilisation began roughly 8,000 to 5,000 BCE. First Homo-Sapien, 300,000 thousand years ago.

That seems presumptuous. Archaeology has shown us a tiny fraction of the tools and idols some people had over hundreds of thousands of years of human existance. We know barely anything about what these people believed, and even that is only limited to a few of them. It would actually surprise me if YHWH was the first monotheistic god.

[Celritannia]

during proto-homo sapiens, there was no concept of a single god what so ever. Archaeology has showed us the tools and idols they had. Humanity cannot fall away from God, if the idea of God is not there in the first place, and when did the single God spring to prominence? Roughly 3,000 BCE with the Cannanite God. The first recorded human civilisation began roughly 8,000 to 5,000 BCE. First Homo-Sapien, 300,000 thousand years ago.

That seems presumptuous. Archaeology has shown us a tiny fraction of the tools and idols some people had over hundreds of thousands of years of human existance. We know barely anything about what these people believed, and even that is only limited to a few of them. It would actually surprise me if YHWH was the first monotheistic god.

True, I maybe a bit presumptuous on the first part (probably more out of annoyance than anything).
But I suppose I should have just said what you have just mentioned, that it would be surprising if YHWH was created then

[Kowani]

“Viruses are good because they let us figure out how to fight viruses.”

Excuse me while I go tell the millions of dead throughout history that their sacrifices were totally worth it.

And we wouldn't have developed the meds in response and caused less people to die.

But we wouldn’t have needed the meds if they didn’t exist.

[Jolthig]

“Viruses are good because they let us figure out how to fight viruses.”

Excuse me while I go tell the millions of dead throughout history that their sacrifices were totally worth it.

And we wouldn't have developed the meds in response and caused less people to die.

What I'm saying Kowani. Is that yes, the diseases kill people. And its unfortunate and sad. But it also helped us to find new cures to counter these diseases and put an end to them

We put an end to small pox for example.

[Jolthig]

And we wouldn't have developed the meds in response and caused less people to die.

But we wouldn’t have needed the meds if they didn’t exist.

What do you mean?

[Kowani]

And we wouldn't have developed the meds in response and caused less people to die.

What I'm saying Kowani. Is that yes, the diseases kill people. And its unfortunate and sad. But it also helped us to find new cures to counter these diseases and put an end to them

We put an end to small pox for example.

And the fact that we can find cures for them means that the only thing they have done is kill. They served the purpose of allowing us to figure out how to beat them. What an exercise in futility. If God created diseases for a reason, then that reason must always be applicable, otherwise they’re useless. It’s just delaying the inevitable, at that point. But because we can kill them, because we can fight them, the next they have no purpose. It would have served God more if they had never existed. It’s just math.

…You sure you want to use smallpox, a viral disease, in an argument about the benefit of viruses? If you had gone with a bacterial one, that would at least make sense.

[Jolthig]

What I'm saying Kowani. Is that yes, the diseases kill people. And its unfortunate and sad. But it also helped us to find new cures to counter these diseases and put an end to them

We put an end to small pox for example.

And the fact that we can find cures for them means that the only thing they have done is kill. They served the purpose of allowing us to figure out how to beat them. What an exercise in futility. If God created diseases for a reason, then that reason must always be applicable, otherwise they’re useless.

Given that the Quranic view is that diseases can be a trial (with the other being a divine punishment), yes we can say that we can find cure for diseases, and to further advance science. There's even a hadith by Muhammad that says every disease has a cure.

It’s just delaying the inevitable, at that point. But because we can kill them, because we can fight them, the next they have no purpose. It would have served God more if they had never existed. It’s just math.

Then, we wouldn't have free will or able to think for ourselves then.

…You sure you want to use smallpox, a viral disease, in an argument about the benefit of viruses? If you had gone with a bacterial one, that would at least make sense.

Viruses, despite not technically being alive, do adapt. So I don't see how that makes this part of my argument invalid.

[Kowani]

And the fact that we can find cures for them means that the only thing they have done is kill. They served the purpose of allowing us to figure out how to beat them. What an exercise in futility. If God created diseases for a reason, then that reason must always be applicable, otherwise they’re useless.

Given that the Quranic view is that diseases can be a trial (with the other being a divine punishment), yes we can say that we can find cure for diseases, and to further advance science. There's even a hadith by Muhammad that says every disease has a cure.

A trial for what purpose? God already knows everything, so he knows the outcome. As for divine punishment, well. I think we all know how that’s gonna go down.

Yes, but my argument is that we wouldn’t need a cure if they didn’t exist.

It’s just delaying the inevitable, at that point. But because we can kill them, because we can fight them, the next they have no purpose. It would have served God more if they had never existed. It’s just math.

Then, we wouldn't have free will or able to think for ourselves then.

Free will is contingent on the existence of diseases now?

…You sure you want to use smallpox, a viral disease, in an argument about the benefit of viruses? If you had gone with a bacterial one, that would at least make sense.

Viruses, despite not technically being alive, do adapt. So I don't see how that makes this part of my argument invalid.

So, um, how many benefits has smallpox conferred upon humanity?

[Celritannia]

So, um, how many benefits has smallpox conferred upon humanity?

Certainly not the millions of native American nations.

[Hammer Britannia]

So, um, how many benefits has smallpox conferred upon humanity?

It created the United States

But I'm not sure wtf this has to do with belief in a higher being

[Hanafuridake]

during proto-homo sapiens, there was no concept of a single god what so ever. Archaeology has showed us the tools and idols they had. Humanity cannot fall away from God, if the idea of God is not there in the first place, and when did the single God spring to prominence? Roughly 3,000 BCE with the Cannanite God. The first recorded human civilisation began roughly 8,000 to 5,000 BCE. First Homo-Sapien, 300,000 thousand years ago.

That seems presumptuous. Archaeology has shown us a tiny fraction of the tools and idols some people had over hundreds of thousands of years of human existance. We know barely anything about what these people believed, and even that is only limited to a few of them. It would actually surprise me if YHWH was the first monotheistic god.

Just about all primitive societies we've come across have practiced totemism, fetishism, and animism, a lot of them don't even have full fledged concepts of anthropomorphic gods, much less one single deity. I'm not saying it's impossible that there were tribes who worshiped one god, but it seems unlikely with the evidence we have. Judaism itself evolved from polytheistic Canaanite beliefs, just as Zoroastrianism did Iranian polytheism or Atenism did Egyptian polytheism. Which means that it's likely that full polytheism would have to develop first before people decided they liked this one deity more than all the others and he was the one true God.

[Kowani]

So, um, how many benefits has smallpox conferred upon humanity?

It created the United States

But I'm not sure wtf this has to do with belief in a higher being

A very roundabout rebuttal of the idea that everything is good because God created it.

[Hammer Britannia]

It created the United States

But I'm not sure wtf this has to do with belief in a higher being

A very roundabout rebuttal of the idea that everything is good because God created it.

That's an oxymoron, See: Humans

Humans, according to the Judeo-Christian/Muslim worldview, are a sinful, wicked, and easily manipulated race. Most would consider humans to be bad based on this. However, God cannot create something bad

So either God is lying, or we are Devil's spawn, which implies something much worse.

[Tarsonis]

I think you're being quite simplistic in your understanding of the relationship between religion and other sociopolitical realities. As even current world wide conflicts can attest to, the same understanding can be said of virtually any philosophy or theology. We fought global wars over secular ideologies in the 20th century, developed unimaginable weapons to convert the world to our respective ideologies. That doesn't mean communism/democracy have no tangible value to them, simply because violence has been the largest driving force in conversion. I can't speak to the history of Islam, (not my field) but with regards to Christianity, your view is also not really correct. Conversion by the sword is actually prohibited per its doctrine. Now yes, Christians do nothing if not fail to abide by doctrines of the religion, but it's a fair debate as to exactly how the "conversion" mission worked with other sociopolitical issues. In the both the middle and imperial ages, conversion was usually a casus belli for conquest or persecution, but really the goal of any action was sociopolitical: need that land, don't like this minority group, want that fortune, need this resource for trade, etc. In fact, during colonization, Missions actually got in the way of slavers and subjugaters, and were opposed to such things. Jesuit priests in particular found themselves persecuted by secular society for their mission work, and many died defending natives.

The relationship between religion and conquest is an extremely complex one, and I find insufficient as a proof against the value of religion. Those conquests tell me nothing of the value or validity of the Religion itself, but simply inform me that a great deal of its history is tied to warfare. The actual doctrines and theology of religion are where the true test lie. I reject Islam not for its history of violence, but its actual teachings. I accept Roman Catholic Christianity, not because I was put to the sword, but because I studied.

And if your test of validity is tied to conquest, then actually Christianity should definitely pass your test. It took over the Roman Empire through peaceful means, while being violently persecuted. It was only after it had become the state religion of the already conquest happy Roman Empire, that conquest became a part it.

We are not discussion the rise of internationalism, we are discussing how religion came about through Imperialistic Expansionism.
If Rome did not exist, Christianity would not have spread as far as it did. It was due to the inter-connected roads of Rome that is spread.
It was thanks to a Roman Emperor that Christianity became the main religion of Europe.
And It is Thanks to Rome, after its fall, that religion filled the power vacuum of rivalling Warlords throughout Europe.

Yes, the Roman Empire subjected itself to Christianity, but the pagan way of life, although disliked by the Old Rome, they did not force to convert them. Christianity did.

We're clearly not having the same discussion here. I'm aware of how Christianity spread once it became the state religion of the Roman Empire. My point is that history of violent proselytization, doesn't invalidate the religion in and of itself. If you are going to hold a standard that a history of violence = false ideology, then literally every ideology ever to formulate in human minds is invalidated. A history of violence is not proof that a religion is false, it's proof that the adherents of a religion have use violence to further their religion or their own end. That is my point.

That is rather ironic, you reject Islam for it's history of violence, despite studies proving the Bible's history of violence is far worse?

That's not what I said though. I said I don't reject Islam for its history of violence, I reject it for its doctrines.

And? As I said earlier, our ability to perceive the teapot has no bearing on the metaphysical reality of the teapot's existence. You seem to have this polytheistic view that "God's" gain their power through the number of followers. The problem is that not all religions profess that view. The Abrahamic ones definitely don't.

A teapot at least can be observed, studies, tested, etc.

Not in Russel's logic experiment it isn't, though that's a point to bring up for another day as to why Russel's teapot isn't a particularly good thought experiment.

The Abrahamic God needs human's to keep it relevant as much as any religion. Not to mention how humans have to adapt Religion as humanity develops.

You don't seem to grasp my point here. A monotheistic God doesn't need relevancy. The whole world could forget God's existence, and it would not have any effect on the existence/non-existence of God. As I said, you seem to be approaching this from a somewhat polytheistic viewpoint, but I'm not a polytheist, I'm a monotheist which is a very different perspective. The tired line of "i just believe in one less God than you do" while snarky is fails to appreciate the actual difference between polytheism and monotheism.

Firstly, not necessarily. We're not talking a divergence in the ancient golden age of literate civilization, we're talking a divergence in proto-homo sapiens sapiens. A divergence that begins so early in humanity's infancy, that by the time these religions were fully developed they had no memory. The Abrahamic religions have a story arch of God first being known by all mankind, Humanity's falling away from God, Humanity's fracture into a million different cultures and God's gradual revelation bringing humanity back to God. Remember, Abraham, the beginning of all recordable Jewish/Christian/Muslim belief didn't know who God was, nor was he chosen because he worshiped the right deity. He was chosen because he kept the law of hospitality better than anybody else. God picks Abraham and makes a covenant with him. So there's a time here between Genesis 11 and 12, where God isn't on the humans radar really. (Not that I think Genesis 1-11 literally happened)

Even during proto-homo sapiens, there was no concept of a single god what so ever. Archaeology has showed us the tools and idols they had.

We're getting into deep theology here, but essentially were talking earlier than that. We're talking the very earliest point which humans transcended the animalistic existence of their ancestors and started pondering the realities of life. That first moment where the first human looked up from sniveling around in the dirt long enough to ask, "what is dirt? Why is dirt?"

Humanity cannot fall away from God, if the idea of God is not there in the first place, and when did the single God spring to prominence?

Again we're not seeing eye to eye. You're arguing from the perspective that God is merely an idea, where as I'm arguing from the perspective that God is a literal, metaphyiscal being. Humanity can absolutely fall away from God, no matter its religious views, because God is a being.

Roughly 3,000 BCE with the Cannanite God.

Actually the Cannanite's had a rich and diverse pantheon.

The first recorded human civilisation began roughly 8,000 to 5,000 BCE. First Homo-Sapien, 300,000 thousand years ago.

And the event I'm talking about is even before that. The falling away from God I'm talking about is not saying that some 35000 years ago humanity had one perfect religion, and then fell away fractured etc. Id say actually that this falling away predates religion. It's the moment that Humans started ascending and leaving their animal brethren behind. I can't really explain this better without going down the rabbit-hole of Original Sin theology.

That's so many long periods prior to one God appearing. This is not including the entire migration period where cultures start developing on there own.

You're really not appreciating just how far back I'm saying.

On your second point, Abraham (who is told to kill his own son to show his loyalty to God (although he didn't), would be considered in the modern day attempted murder, child abuse, and insanity, and find himself would be locked up for life) recorded hospitality laws for the Middle Eastern Area, yet through out the world, there were better and stronger laws already established, prior to these.
Here we go, and plenty of them before Abraham's time (if historical accounts of him being around 600-580 BC are accurate).

I'm sorry the anachronism here, and punctuation is making this hard to understand Firstly, There's a lot of shit done in history considered justified or good, that by modern standards would be largely horrific. Hell the entire concept of "sacking" a city by todays standards would be an egregious war crime. Secondly, it should be pointed out that Abraham is not presented as a supremely good guy in scripture. He's deeply flawed, makes a shit ton of mistakes and does arguably bad things. But he still kept the law of hospitality, i.e providing for those travelers and strangers in need, and he kept it well. That's why he was chosen.

Now on the Ancient legal codes, here, 1. No you've dated Abraham waaaaaaayyyyy off. 600 BC is second temple judaism. Abraham is more 3000 BC era. 2nd, even if there ware ancient legal codes, that doesn't contradict my point. I don't mean to be rude or dismissive, but I don't think you have a really good enough idea of what Christians believe, to be informedly critical of the doctrine.

So we can take away from this, that a single God did not appear until the Canaanites, and only in their area. In fact, Christianity was a sub-sect of Judaism until the expansion of Christianity, making the validity of the single God dubious.

Nope, because your entire premise is flawed. Humanity's belief has nothing to do with the Metaphysical reality of God's existence/nonexistence. If humans all became atheists, it would have zero effect on God's existence, just like your existence is not determined by my acknowledgment. If I stopped believing in you, you wouldn't disappear in a puff of smoke.

And as you say, it was a story arch, not hard evidence.

I'm not sure what to make of this point, I'm not really offering proof of anything, I'm only trying to explain to you what we believe, and point out the flaws I see in your reasoning.

-EDIT-
Also, the highlighted part, this is a massive assumption. Your God is no more the one true God (or real) than the 4000 other Gods that have existed before, and during YHWH/God.

Says you.

I don't know. We can ask ourselves what ifs and why not's all day but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. What matters is what God did pr God didn't do. I realize the term "God works in mysterious ways." is a bit of a cliched and useless platitude, but with it bears a relevant theological truth. Assuming there is a divine plan, that plan would not likely be understandable to a limited and temporary being as small and cosmically insignificant as a human or the collective human species. Maybe there's a perfectly rational reason why God did it that way, but we just can't see it. Or maybe there's no rhyme or reason to it at all. I can't say.

As an aside, my working theory is life began in that region, seems to me to make sense that, that would be where God would continue to reveal himself.

But as I touched on before, you seem to have a conception of religion that is polytheistic in nature. That any number gods/goddesses are in a chess match of relevancy over who can hold onto the most followers.
"If nobody worships you, you're out till the next round. However the DM will also bury a tablet that reveals who you are, and if anyone finds that tablet, you're back in the game. " Such a paradigm doesn't make sense from the monotheistic viewpoint, where the dynamic is flipped and humans are the ones dependent on God.

A theological truth is not truth without hard scientific evidence.

That's called scientism, and is itself an ironic belief structure considering fundamental principle of Science is that there is no scientific "truth", only things we can observe, which is a limiting prospect.

The fact is, the Middle East at the time was brimming with multiple cultures, religions, it was a major trading route. The growth of a singular God there (like any God in any location), just happened due to people coming up with the idea. That's it. Humans create stories to help ease things or pass the time. It's the nature of our psychology.

That is one theory, that may be persuasive to you, but it's not persuasive to me.

Your hypothesis however goes against scientific fact that modern human life began in Africa (Although I did read a recent article saying it could have been Europe with new discoveries, but that is a story for another day).

I should point out I'm being rather broad when I'm talking about area, as is the Bible. Basically everything from Ethiopia to southern Turkey is the "area" I'm talking about. Though as I said, it's only a working theory.

Most cultures prior to a singular God did have Polytheistic tendencies, this is a fact. It ties in perfectly with the human psychology to create stories.
Humans created Gods.

The problem here is that Polytheistic religions are rooted in the need to explain natural phenomenon. I.e Lighting is a weapon wielded by Zeus/Baal. Monotheistic religions, do not make this proclamation (not that people don't try.) In fact, in the Abarhamic Faiths, the name YHWH literally is given to imply that God is above such trivial nonsense. Even the two contradicting accounts of creation don't actually make those claims, (again not that some people don't try to say they do.)

Until a God can be proven with grounding Evidence to say otherwise, there is no reason to continue believing in any deity.

For you.

Human do not need to be dependent on any God.

I don't think you understand what I mean by dependent. God's existence is not dependent on Humanity. Humanity cannot make or unmake God. God (assuming He exists) can unmake humanity.

Science has advanced this world, not any deity. Through Medicine, engineering, technology, infrastructure, agriculture, etc, Humans adapt and learn to benefit themselves, it is how progress works.

And? You're operating on a religion vs science paradigm. That Science is utterly and diametrically opposed to religion. I do not share that view, I see science and religion as going hand in hand. In fact, when I look at all this wondrous achievement that I see God reflected in ourselves. You see it as proof God doesn't exist, I see it as evidence that He does.

And I would respond that's because I think you have a flawed conception of what the Bible is. I think you look at it from a flawed paradigm, largely influenced by American Protestant conception that The Bible is how God reveals himself to Humanity, thus the book itself is viewed as having a certain level of divinity. This is a flawed conception. While we (Christians) would say that the Bible is divinely inspired, most don't properly understand how that works. While it is inspired, it is still erected with human hands. The Bible is a very human book, that the Church incorporated as part of its traditions. It's not a primary source of revelation, in the academic sense, rather it's more secondary source, incorporated into the Primary Source, which is the Gospel and Tradition that Christ handed down. And when you start to understand the bible for what it is, those human elements of accounts with different details, and the like, became a lot more understandable as to how and why they're that way.

How is my interpretation flawed when I am looking at it from a historical analysis?

No you aren't. You're looking at if from a literary critical analysis. I'm giving you a historical analysis as to why your literary critical analysis is flawed.

I don't live in the US, I have no idea what American Protestants wholly say on the Bible, they just need to rethink using the King James Version.

Yes, but that perspective isn't unique to the Americas, it's just heavily influenced by it.

Again, every Christian denomination has a different interpretation. You will have a differing opinion to a Roman Catholic in Madrid, or an Orthodox Catholic in St Petersberg.

And they're wrong. But that is a rabbit hole for another thread.

Just remember, the Church incorporated many Pagan traditions to keep the pagans happy while converting them. Christmas? Pagan.

Wrong.

Easter? Pagan.

Wrong.

Halloween? Pagan.

Mostly wrong. Yeah the costumes and Jack O'lantern are remnants of Celtic Pagan folklore, but those are popular custom, not Church doctrine or teaching. There's a big difference between Scandi Christian converts using trees to celebrate Christmas, and the Church declaring that the Christmas Tree is a required Sacramental Ritual. The former happened, the latter did not.

How can I trust one part of the bible while the rest of it is just stories? Stories, which a lot of the Old Testament were taken from other more ancient stories.

Can't say for you. For me, I studied. And I'm continuing to study.

I understand the bible, the stories, actions, and what have you were great for the people then, but realistically, we do not need them now.

I disagree.

Civilisations come and go, and remembering the characters from history is important, but I don't need to go and Worship Admiral Lord Nelson, Sun Tsu, or Plato any more than I need to continuously worship Jesus for the rest of my life and tell my possible children and grandchildren to.

Well those people weren't God, where as we believe Christ was. Not a 1-1 comparison from my perspective.

Humans created religion to ease their mind about death, to tell stories, etc, it is human nature and we still do it. But we need to move past this concept as it is not needed. Re-tell the stories yes, they can be beautiful, interesting, uplifting, upsetting and what have you, but the characters do not need to be worshipped.

And without hard evidence proving an existence of any deity, there is n reason to believe in one, but allow the idea of gods to become apart of human cultural history.

And this is what on our side calls the Lazy Atheist argument., though a bit more cordial than the traditional form.

---

Look, I am not the most intelligent individual on this thread, I tip my metaphorical hat to NCR, Godular, Dogmeat, ABH, and many others in here that and again deconstruct the religious arguments to the finest detail, combing any irony and critical fault out.
But I will stand my ground for the areas I do understand, and I will argue over the areas I harshly criticise until grounding, indisputable evidence is presented.

How convenient then that you hold the keys on what you consider to be grounding indisputable evidence.


I should make clear though, that I am not at all implying that you are stupid, nor do I think you're implying believers are stupid. I'm simply saying that from what I'm reading, I don't think you actually understand what it is we believe. You see the issue of God from a very different perspective than we do, and thus your arguments aren't persuasive to us because it doesn't make any meaningful purchase. You think you're swinging at curveballs but really we're throwing sliders. I'm not trying to prove to you that Christianity is the one true religion. You've established a criteria for belief, and I don't have the power to to meet such a criteria. I can only point out where I think you're wrong and give you a little of our perspective.


Honestly, I think you should give Alvin Plantinga's "Where the Conflict really lies." a read. It might be illuminating for you.

[Jolthig]

Given that the Quranic view is that diseases can be a trial (with the other being a divine punishment), yes we can say that we can find cure for diseases, and to further advance science. There's even a hadith by Muhammad that says every disease has a cure.

A trial for what purpose?

To test humanity's faith in Allah and to purify them of sin.

God already knows everything, so he knows the outcome.

Yes.

As for divine punishment, well. I think we all know how that’s gonna go down.

Perhaps.

Yes, but my argument is that we wouldn’t need a cure if they didn’t exist.

Ok.

Then, we wouldn't have free will or able to think for ourselves then.

Free will is contingent on the existence of diseases now?

Yes. It's part of it.

As I've stated, it helped us to come up with a vaccine and wipe out the disease, given our studies of evolution and adaptation.

[Tarsonis]

It created the United States

But I'm not sure wtf this has to do with belief in a higher being

A very roundabout rebuttal of the idea that everything is good because God created it.

That actually depends on how you define “Good”

[Jolthig]

A very roundabout rebuttal of the idea that everything is good because God created it.

That actually depends on how you define “Good”

According to science, it doesn't really have a definition of good or bad. Rather, morality tends to come from God himself as he put it in our minds and conscience.

[Tarsonis]

That actually depends on how you define “Good”

According to science, it doesn't really have a definition of good or bad. Rather, morality tends to come from God himself as he put it in our minds and conscience.

Yes we would say that. But Kowani would not.

[Jolthig]

According to science, it doesn't really have a definition of good or bad. Rather, morality tends to come from God himself as he put it in our minds and conscience.

Yes we would say that. But Kowani would not.

Then, it only shows how contradictory atheist philosophy is on disasters and stuff.

[New Legland]

Free will is contingent on the existence of diseases now?

1. Yes. It's part of it.

2. As I've stated, it helped us to come up with a vaccine and wipe out the disease, given our studies of evolution and adaptation.

1. How?

2. And as Kowani has stated, there would be no need to do so if such a problem never existed. Progress is relative. There would be no need for it if the problems it solves were nonexistent. I can't say I'm particularly distraught that we don't have a way to defend ourselves from giant dragons, and the same would be true for treatments for diseases if they didn't plague us.

Yes we would say that. But Kowani would not.

Then, it only shows how contradictory atheist philosophy is on disasters and stuff.

I fail to see how.

[Nu-Cascadia]

I don't see how anybody can honestly and sincerely believe the veracity of a God or pantheon of gods. The idea that a supreme being (or council of supreme beings, as it were) created Earth, later the cosmos, later all of existence. It's a thought based on community groupthink and the seeking of comfort for life's scary questions. God fills in all gaps in our understanding, but the machinations of humans improved society as we know it. Every improvement in life is about eliminating reliance on exterior forces, and creating our peace - and thus, our place.

And I know, not every denomination of every religion is evil and conservative. Some are perfectly syncretic, and ignore the bad parts of their holy text in the promotion of more positive aspects. By subscribing to an ancient dogma or a dogma that isn't built out of your unique nuanced thought, you are tethering your morality to the cruelties of the past. And to what end? Playing word games and synonym dances to convince yourself of the rationality of your mindset that there is a higher power; or one that intercedes in your life uniquely.

Many of the world's religions exert control and moral authority over personal lives, which can produce good results (charities, free clinics, missions that involve doing labor for worse-off countries), but it comes at the cost of creating many corrupt-to-the-core organizations and vying for power against human autonomy. It comes at the cost of shrugging off the tacit acceptance of sex abuse scandals, or at least forced tunnel-vision ignorance. Religious communities have a priest, cleric, monk, imam that hold a lot of sway over the minds of the locals which can, when radicalized, foment unrest and enable an avenue of 'acceptable atrocity', targeting heretics and infidels.

You do not need religion for morality. I do not kill because I do not want to be killed. I do not kill because I recognize that our society is built upon a foundation of co-operation, and that hostilities and local warfare grind economies to a halt and result in the stifling of culture, and the death of potential. I believe that position is fairly common, and it has no need for God. It's a needless declaration that comes with no proof, and merely seeks to append itself to otherwise rational thoughts that come from a unity untainted by fairy tales and outdated thinking.

You do not need religion for community, and you do not need religion for stability. Just because it has provided both at some point or another does not mean that must be a universal constant. As we grow and reach towards the future and all of its uncertainties, it is my opinion that 'God' should be nothing more than the fictional construct of the past. If we're beholden to each other, we're beholden to a greater purpose. As far as we know based on demonstrable evidence, this life is our life. Our brains are our consciousnesses and when we die, they rot away. "Brain-dead" is a medical point where it is widely accepted to turn off the life support because we know that there's really no coming back. There's no evidence to suggest there's a soul, and investigations in to the supernatural have failed to bear repeatable, lab-tested proof.

So we should endeavor to make this life the best for the sake of humanity, not for our local cultures or our local creeds.