Do you believe in God? (1 Viewer)

[Annihilist]

Lol. It's cool.

Ecclesiastes...yeah, just like the rest of Christianity we, as free-thinking rational agnostic atheists should just ignore it. Cuz it's in the Bible, but nah, it doesn't count. It doesn't sound at all like what we think God is really like, despite being in the Bible!

I'm interested in the arguments too. But only the ones that have decent reasoning behind them (Of which I am still waiting for pro-God existence arguments).

The Bible to me seems to be more consistent with fiction than gospel. It's just another book. It contains stories with meanings and morals and parables, of course, just like anything. The Tree of Knowledge parable in the Garden of Eden is one I'm rather fond of. It illustrates how people are punished for seeking knowledge themselves, for opening their eyes and thinking for themselves. The Serpent encouraged that; to defy God and follow oneself. How authority tries to cover up our eyes to instil obedience and submission; the serpent's character, however, represents defiance of that will. That's just one example.

It's a collection of stories which sometimes have meanings. Like pretty much any story. They are not meant to be taken literally any more than, say, Harry Potter, for example. That is why they are inconsistent with each other sometimes - and that's fine, once we accept that they are not literal stories or Gospels. That they are mere fictions, and one should read into the metaphors and concepts illustrated, instead of simply taking it for face value.

One thing I don't get is why the Bible is seen as proof for God; as a book written by God himself and as factual and true. That makes no sense.

 

[mirakon]

apologists and rationalists believe that we can use our cognitive faculties, empirical evidence and the scripture to determine, or at least grasp at, what is 'good', and thus benevolence, and thus god's will

ah ok, i was just curious because the whole "benevolence" thing has always stumped me tbh.

 

[Annihilist]

Does God HAVE to be benevolent?

I think benevolence is a rather subjective concept and assuming a God exists, why should his benevolence be equivalent to your interpretation or my interpretation?

In fact, why would he have to be benevolent at all?

A skim through the Bible will reveal that he is, in fact, far from it.

apologists and rationalists believe that we can use our cognitive faculties, empirical evidence and the scripture to determine, or at least grasp at, what is 'good', and thus benevolence, and thus god's will

"Good" does not exist. If we determine what we think is "good", that is not *god's* will, it is *our* will. It's our interpretation of "good". The scripture is just another instrument; another tool we can use to prompt our thinking in order to come to our own conclusions.

 

[funkshen]

"Good" does not exist. If we determine what we think is "good", that is not *god's* will, it is *our* will. It's our interpretation of "good". The scripture is just another instrument; another tool we can use to prompt our thinking in order to come to our own conclusions.

ok bro why don't you run along and go tell them that

 

[mirakon]

A skim through the Bible will reveal that he is, in fact, far from it.

"Good" does not exist. If we determine what we think is "good", that is not *god's* will, it is *our* will. It's our interpretation of "good". The scripture is just another instrument; another tool we can use to prompt our thinking in order to come to our own conclusions.

But can you explain how helping an old lady across the road is anything but a good thing?

Or murdering a person for no apparent reason other than "i feel like it" is anything but a bad thing?

I mean whilst there are certainly moral grey areas, i think there are some things that we can pretty much irrefutably call "good" or "evil"

 

[Absolutezero]

Or murdering a person for no apparent reason other than "i feel like it" is anything but a bad thing?

I mean whilst there are certainly moral grey areas, i think there are some things that we can pretty much irrefutably call "good" or "evil"

You're assuming universality based on limited events. There are cultures where murder is acceptable, for example. And in the future, helping ladies cross the street may have negative social consequences.

 

[funkshen]

But can you explain how helping an old lady across the road is anything but a good thing?

old women are a burden on productive members of society. helping them is contributing to a net social loss.

Or murdering a person for no apparent reason other than "i feel like it" is anything but a bad thing?

people are not self sovereign and there is no intrinsic value to human life so the act of the random murder of a person is of no moral consequence

I mean whilst there are certainly moral grey areas, i think there are some things that we can pretty much irrefutably call "good" or "evil"

i think nazi germany irrefutably thought jews were evil (or rather, a moral bad)

 

[mirakon]

old women are a burden on productive members of society. helping them is contributing to a net social loss.



people are not self sovereign and there is no intrinsic value to human life so the act of the random murder of a person is of no moral consequence


i think nazi germany irrefutably thought jews were evil (or rather, a moral bad)

you got me there

 

[Annihilist]

But can you explain how helping an old lady across the road is anything but a good thing?

Or murdering a person for no apparent reason other than "i feel like it" is anything but a bad thing?

I mean whilst there are certainly moral grey areas, i think there are some things that we can pretty much irrefutably call "good" or "evil"

I think the only reason we make these assumptions is because it is part of our moral conditioning. We as a society perceive that these things are good or evil; therefore, we will believe it. I might agree with you that helping an old lady across the street is a decent action, and murdering without a motive is not decent. But this does not constitute "good" and "evil". It does not constitute such absolute moral judgements. The concepts of "good" and "evil" are meant to be objective and absolute; but in reality they are subjective and inconsistent. Only because we, as a society, have believed in the idea that helping an elderly person cross the street is an inherently "good" action, we will perceive and believe that it is so. Why is it a "good" action? Why does it have to be? Is it because it is a kind action? Why does kindness need to be "good"? This is the point - the reason kindness is considered a virtue and inherently "good" is because it is part of the society we have been living in. Over centuries we have developed these ideas and they have become part of our moral framework that we take for granted.

Likewise, murder - why is murder considered "evil"? Why do we take for granted this absolute moral against it? Not going to attempt to condone or promote it, but is not necessarily an "evil" action. In the eyes of our society it is perceived that way. But if we had not had that moral conditioning over hundreds of generations that murder is "evil", we would not perceive it as an absolutely inherently "evil" action. We might come to that conclusion individually, but it would not be a universally accepted moral.

 

[Annihilist]

old women are a burden on productive members of society. helping them is contributing to a net social loss.



people are not self sovereign and there is no intrinsic value to human life so the act of the random murder of a person is of no moral consequence


i think nazi germany irrefutably thought jews were evil (or rather, a moral bad)

Well said.

 

[GoForTheEyes]

But can you explain how helping an old lady across the road is anything but a good thing?

Or murdering a person for no apparent reason other than "i feel like it" is anything but a bad thing?

I mean whilst there are certainly moral grey areas, i think there are some things that we can pretty much irrefutably call "good" or "evil"

Take comfort in the fact that religious people are just normal people too and follow the zeitgeist just like everyone else and religious moral absolutes have changed over time, except for some percent of people that obv. take it all literally. On what makes right/wrong they're just as clueless as everybody else.

plus that old lady was ~Hitler's mother~.

 

[Galapagos]

One thing I don't get is why the Bible is seen as proof for God; as a book written by God himself and as factual and true. That makes no sense.

Lol, it isn't proof - that would be like saying The LOTR trilogy is proof of Frodo's existence.

 

[AAEldar]

One thing I don't get is why the Bible is seen as proof for God; as a book written by God himself and as factual and true. That makes no sense.

God isn't said to have written it, but it's a collection of stories written by others from the word of God.

 

[Galapagos]

God isn't said to have written it, but it's a collection of stories written by others from the word of God.

Written my God through the hands of his disciples inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Edit: In reality they were probably all just nut jobs, perhaps inspired by a little weed.

 

[AAEldar]

Written my God through the hands of his disciples inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Edit: In reality they were probably all just nut jobs, perhaps inspired by a little weed.

Hahaha, maybe

But yes, there's definitely a clear distinction between that and God writing it.

 

[Galapagos]

-_- I am unimpressed that my posts got deleted, I got negged AND received an infraction for expressing an opinion.

Give me one reason, you who doesn't like my opinion, why the writers of the bible were not nut jobs? I mean, have you even read it? (I know you have, rhetorical question).

It's really some of the most evil stuff I have ever come across. It breeds intolerance and misogyny. Excuse me for pointing that this stuff was written my nut jobs.

 

[Azure]

You did not get infracted for an expressing an opinion. You were infracted for taking the thread off topic. If you want to discuss the infraction or the negative reputation then you are free to open a thread in contact moderators.

Posts in this thread should stay relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[mirakon]

-_- I am unimpressed that my posts got deleted, I got negged AND received an infraction for expressing an opinion.

Give me one reason, you who doesn't like my opinion, why the writers of the bible were not nut jobs? I mean, have you even read it? (I know you have, rhetorical question).

It's really some of the most evil stuff I have ever come across. It breeds intolerance and misogyny. Excuse me for pointing that this stuff was written my nut jobs.

To be fair these nut jobs have influenced millions of people for over a millenium

a pretty mighty effort from a bunch of "nutjobs"

 

[Galapagos]

To be fair these nut jobs have influenced millions of people for over a millenium

a pretty mighty effort from a bunch of "nutjobs"

True. But I guess that happens when you write something that sounds good and people like it cuz it gives them hope, then you wait a few thousand years and boom millions of people have read it (as happens with good fiction coupled with power and money-hungry churches).

 

[Annihilist]

Lol, it isn't proof - that would be like saying The LOTR trilogy is proof of Frodo's existence.

Precisely.

God isn't said to have written it, but it's a collection of stories written by others from the word of God.

I hear a lot of people say the bible was "Written by God"