[Scotty]

I would begin with the difference of God of Old and New Testimony and extrapolate from there

I fail to see this as an inconsistency.  In the old testament, there was no Jesus, no one to take the place fore anyone's sins.  With the birth of Jesus and his crucifiction, we are forgiven as long as we have faith.  If you don't believe that he died for your sins, then it won't apply to you.  that is what I am talking about when I say faith.

Since we can't be sure in any way of the (divine) origins of the Bible

I can, even if no one else here can.  

Yes it is.  Otherwise, I could say "hey, the Lord of the Rings is a good book.  It's more entertaining than the Bible, therefore, it's better than the Bible"  The origin and context is absolutely relevant.

I fail to understand why faith would be the most important thing God would want from his sentient creations... I certainly wouldn't.

Then, hypothetically, what would you want?  Is there anything else they can give you that you can't simply make?

"Expelled" is a steaming pile of misdirection, dishonesty and outright lies.

Yeah, and I could say the same thing about The God Delusion by Dr. Dawkins, but I try not to insult things like that, even if it's true.

[Scotty]

The assumption that faith is required is dogmatic in nature. It's based on the dogma. If you drop the dogma, there's nothing that tells you that you should believe in something specific like God.

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

And one of the better know verses:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

   I see no dogma, I see scripture, barring any interpretation.

[Herra Tohtori]

"Expelled" is a steaming pile of misdirection, dishonesty and outright lies.

Yeah, and I could say the same thing about The God Delusion by Dr. Dawkins, but I try not to insult things like that, even if it's true.

Trust me, it's better if I just link you to this and we leave specific discussion about "Expelled" to some other thread or leave the subject entirely. Nothing good is going to come about this thread if we start to go through all the "mistakes" that "Exposed" has...


Regarding the evaluation of content based on the "known" origins; it's basically an appeal to authority (and argumentum ad nauseam and proof by assertion). If you can't evaluate the accuracy of the content based on the content alone, then it is true to you only because of the source. So if you would have been grown to consider Tolkien as Prophet of Eru or whatever, you would consider Silmarillion the truth in the same way you now consider Bible to be true.

Let's try an exercise: Prove that Silmarillion is not an accurate history of the world preceding the cultures rising in Egypt and Middle-East ca. 6000 years ago.

Have fun.

I fail to understand why faith would be the most important thing God would want from his sentient creations... I certainly wouldn't.

Then, hypothetically, what would you want?  Is there anything else they can give you that you can't simply make?

What indeed would I want? Perhaps I would make sure that my creations don't suffer themselves with fear and uncertainty about their existence after apparent death. Perhaps I would make them aware of me and the "real" world from the beginning.

Perhaps I wouldn't expect them to draw the "correct" conclusion from a cluttered and unbelievable various and contradictory pieces of "evidence" that I would have carefully crafted to both lead and mislead the poor sods.

Perhaps I would ask them questions after their life. Who are you. What do you want. Where are you going to. You know, the standard questions of the First Ones.

This is of course purely hypothetical but I certainly wouldn't want them to simply "have faith" on me to save themselves from "sin".

Or perhaps it would all just be a big game for me. Of course, that might make the simulated entities consider me kind of a dickwad. I wouldn't blame them for it.

The assumption that faith is required is dogmatic in nature. It's based on the dogma. If you drop the dogma, there's nothing that tells you that you should believe in something specific like God.

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

And one of the better know verses:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

   I see no dogma, I see scripture, barring any interpretation.

The assumption that the scripture is accurate is a dogma.

[Scotty]

Was it you or someone else earlier who distrusted organized religion or cults because of the dogmatic influence?  Hmm, maybe it was Kajorama.

Dogma (noun): Something held as an established opinion. 

Someone could classify anything and everything as dogma if it is an opinion, and you seem to do just that.  For example, I could classify the Big-Bang theory as dogma.  It is an opinion, a theory, not a law.  It is also well established in the scientific community.  Logically then, the big bang theory is dogma.

Perhaps I would make them aware of me and the "real" world from the beginning

Sort of like with a book that people you spoke to wrote?  Like the Bible.   

Perhaps I wouldn't expect them to draw the "correct" conclusion from a cluttered and unbelievable various and contradictory pieces of "evidence" that I would have carefully crafted to both lead and mislead the poor sods.

Once again, show me a contradiction that is legitimate.  Also, it's only unbelievable to any given person if they choose not to believe it.  It is perfectly believable to me.  Back to my point:  You haven't told me what you could want or garner from any people that you could not make yourself (hypothetically).

Of course, that might make the simulated entities consider me kind of a dickwad.

maybe some of them would (Iamzack, talking about you).  It would truly depend on what you were doing.

EDIT:  I'll post the Simarillion exercise tomorrow.

[Scotty]

Nevermind, looked it up today anyway.

While I know that some people would say that since I believe in the bible, the year 3960 B.C. would be the first year according to fundamentalist interpreters.  However, I ascribe to the idea that one ‘day’ as it is described in Genesis is an unknown amount of time determined by God (Kind of like in Inherit the Wind)

Egyptian/Nile History:

General Timeline Pre-6000 B.C.

Approximately 7000-8000 B.C. isolated groups of  humans in North Africa (present day Sahara) settle into farming societies ushering in the Neolithic age (literally, new stone age, due to the fact that humanity now farmed with stone tools).

Sometime thereafter, a shift on the Earth’s axis changes the climate in North Africa, causing the creation of the Sahara Desert (sahara meaning, in Arabic, “desert”).  Humans are pushed to the Nile river or the Atlantic, over some time, the civilizations of  Egypt, Nubia, and Meroe developed and competed with each other.

5000 B.C. First villages appear on the Nile, history progresses as we know it.

Badarian/Central African History:

Approximately 100,000 B.C. - first incised ochre, indicating the first use of tools

35000 B.C.  First human skeletons dated to this period.

27000 B.C.  First African rock art

8000 B.C.  First known boats evolving into a full blown boat crafting tradition in present day Nigeria, also beginnings of scattered farming.

7000 B.C.  First worked bronze, pottery, and fine sculpture.

European History:

35000 B.C. to 10000 B.C.  First European Paleolithic art.

There, sources from three areas and three different sources.  The sources:

• www.thenagain.info/WebChron/WestEurope/Ancient.html
• wysinger.homestead.com/badarians.html
• www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/PREHIST.HTM

[Herra Tohtori]

Was it you or someone else earlier who distrusted organized religion or cults because of the dogmatic influence?  Hmm, maybe it was Kajorama.

Yeah that's me.

Dogma (noun): Something held as an established opinion. 

Someone could classify anything and everything as dogma if it is an opinion, and you seem to do just that.  For example, I could classify the Big-Bang theory as dogma.  It is an opinion, a theory, not a law.  It is also well established in the scientific community.  Logically then, the big bang theory is dogma.

Science doesn't have dogmas [ideally] because as soon as a more accurate theory is presented and verified to give better results and predictions, it replaces the old theories.

Of course, when scientific theories are taught as facts by people who lack the understanding behind them, they make it certain that the students have certain amount of doubt towards said things.

What I mean is that you consider the scriptures to be accurate because it's an established opinion and therefore dogma. I can just as easily write something and tell people that God told this to me, now you need to jump when I say or you won't get to heaven. Or I can take Silmarillion and make it truth by assertion by telling it's true to some kids I abducted and set to live on an isolated island and in the end I get a group of people who would consider Silmarillion as true, at which point it has become a dogma.

In fact it would be awesome to become a Missionary of Silmarillionism to some recently discovered tribe and give them Silmarillion as "truth" and see where it goes from there. Unethical? You bet. Different from Christian mission? Not really.

Or, as Siddhartha Gautama wisely noted; Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written. Ironically, Gautama himself is considered "perfect person" in Buddhism, which I doubt he would've wanted...

Perhaps I would make them aware of me and the "real" world from the beginning

Sort of like with a book that people you spoke to wrote?  Like the Bible.   

Not at all. I'm talking about first hand experience rather than N'th hand knowledge circulated by clergymen and worse.

show me a contradiction that is legitimate.  Also, it's only unbelievable to any given person if they choose not to believe it.  It is perfectly believable to me.  Back to my point:  You haven't told me what you could want or garner from any people that you could not make yourself (hypothetically).

Well, to start with, some say that there is one god and Mohammed is his Prophet. Others say that there are Father, Son and the holy spirit and that you need to believe in all three to reap the rewards. Some say there are many deities with animalistic features, some say Gods are like humans but more powerful and live in Olympos or Asgård, and some say you will be reborn after death until you reach illumination and meld into the world consciousness or reach nirvana. And some say that In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming. Most of these views claim to be the truth about the world, so there's plenty of contradictions to choose from... not all of them are specific to Christianity.

Of course, that might make the simulated entities consider me kind of a dickwad.

maybe some of them would (Iamzack, talking about you).  It would truly depend on what you were doing.

Indeed. So why should we not view the possible God based on what he has been doing? Which kinda brings us back to the epicurus quote...

[Turambar]

Behold!  Irrefutable proof of God's non-existance or at least utter impotence!



Apparently, he couldn't cause an internet hiccup of a fraction of a millisecond to cause that post to end in a number other than 9.  Pitiful.  And he expects faith and worship out of us?

[Scotty]

Science doesn't have dogmas [ideally]

We can all hope.  Unfortunately, that doesn't make it true.

I can just as easily write something and tell people that God told this to me, now you need to jump when I say or you won't get to heaven.

To which I reply:

Jeremiah 14:14b "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds

Well, to start with, some say that there is one god and Mohammed is his Prophet. Others say that there are Father, Son and the holy spirit and that you need to believe in all three to reap the rewards. Some say there are many deities with animalistic features, some say Gods are like humans but more powerful and live in Olympos or Asgård, and some say you will be reborn after death until you reach illumination and meld into the world consciousness or reach nirvana. And some say that In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming. Most of these views claim to be the truth about the world, so there's plenty of contradictions to choose from... not all of them are specific to Christianity.

None of which are contradictions in the Bible, which is what I was talking about.  Not one of those yet....

So why should we not view the possible God based on what he has been doing? Which kinda brings us back to the epicurus quote...

Your opinion.  I posted mine about a page ago;  Here it is again:

Okay, thought I would re-align the discussion a little bit (feel free to continue as we have been, bit I wanted to actually discus the reason for the thread  ).

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

My big problem with this is that it assumes that if God does not do every single thing in his power to keep anything that could possibly be construed as bad from happening to you, he is malevolent.  To illustrate my point:  Would you call a parent that does not keep their child from every single scrape or bruise, that does not allow them to experience both aspects of the world malevolent?  We would be unable to fathom the concept of good if nothing evil or bad ever happened to us.  Some people may critisize me for saying this, but pain is one of the world's best teachers.  By seeing what evil or bad(ness?) is, we develop more of an appreciation for goodness.

Is he able, but not (always) willing?
Then he is a teacher.
   (I wish they had a [profound] smiley)

[Scotty]

Behold!  Irrefutable proof of God's non-existance or at least utter impotence!



Apparently, he couldn't cause an internet hiccup of a fraction of a millisecond to cause that post to end in a number other than 9.  Pitiful.  And he expects faith and worship out of us?

Yeah, or at least his utter disinterest with everything and anything internet related.    </joke>

That, and I seriously doubt that was the first post or not photoshopped.

[iamzack]

Behold!  Irrefutable proof of God's non-existance or at least utter impotence!

*snip*

Apparently, he couldn't cause an internet hiccup of a fraction of a millisecond to cause that post to end in a number other than 9.  Pitiful.  And he expects faith and worship out of us?

And you call me a brat?

[Scotty]

I can tell he (she/it?) was joking.  You, on the other hand...

[Turambar]

I think 4chan in itself is a strong argument for the non-existence of god...

[Scotty]

   Or God just not wanting to deal with a bunch of stupid people.   

Strong argument FOR the existence of God:  This thread hasn't turned into a Flame War! 

[Turambar]

Nah, that's just the rare occurance of almost everyone here clinging to the hope that you can reason with religious people.  I stick with the House quote.

          "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"

Seriously, you think that an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible man in the sky created everything, talked to some random guys in the desert, didn't talk to -anyone else- and then sat back to do absolutely nothing that can be in any way observed.  Forgive me for not having much respect for your viewpoint.

[Scotty]

You know, it is possible to respect a viewpoint and still not agree with it.  A good example is yours:  I firmly disagree with what you think, but I don't insult your way of thinking and respect your choice to think that way.  It's just being a generally nice person to reciprocate.

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"

If you bothered to notice earlier, I have agreed with and reasoned with several of the above (and next page) posts.  Most notably, the definition of evolution and, subsequently, the discussion of how it is taught in school (I guess I just have one of those exceptions to the rule.  Mine explicitly tells you that evolution is the only answer to the beginning and development of life.).

Seriously, you think that an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible man in the sky created everything, talked to some random guys in the desert, didn't talk to -anyone else- and then sat back to do absolutely nothing that can be in any way observed.

Seriously, you think that all matter came from an infinitely dense and hot speck of a substance and exploded to form the universe and everything we see in it?  And that then, after stars and planets had formed and cooled enough, life just automatically built itself through a series of self-replicating molecules up until present day?  Forgive me for not agreeing with your viewpoint (entirely).

About the 'nothing that can be observed'.  I would call the flood pretty observable.  If you don't believe me, find a single piece of folklore or history or ANYTHING that doesn't reference it.  Off the top of my head, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Enuma Elish, The Ages of Man (Greek), The Creation, Death, and Rebirth of the Universe (Norse), and several others all account the flood.  From the New Testament:  When Jesus was resurrected, over 500 people saw him.  Some people try to pass this off as a hallucination.  Group hallucinations simply do not happen. 

I would call those "observable"

[iamzack]

I think I prefer evangelical religions to preachy atheism.

[Turambar]

Except I don't base my way of thinking on fairy tales and thousand year old books written by committee.  Respecting differences is good, respecting ignorance is something else.

[Herra Tohtori]

Nevermind, looked it up today anyway.

While I know that some people would say that since I believe in the bible, the year 3960 B.C. would be the first year according to fundamentalist interpreters.  However, I ascribe to the idea that one ‘day’ as it is described in Genesis is an unknown amount of time determined by God (Kind of like in Inherit the Wind)

Egyptian/Nile History:

General Timeline Pre-6000 B.C.

Approximately 7000-8000 B.C. isolated groups of  humans in North Africa (present day Sahara) settle into farming societies ushering in the Neolithic age (literally, new stone age, due to the fact that humanity now farmed with stone tools).

Sometime thereafter, a shift on the Earth’s axis changes the climate in North Africa, causing the creation of the Sahara Desert (sahara meaning, in Arabic, “desert”).  Humans are pushed to the Nile river or the Atlantic, over some time, the civilizations of  Egypt, Nubia, and Meroe developed and competed with each other.

5000 B.C. First villages appear on the Nile, history progresses as we know it.

Badarian/Central African History:

Approximately 100,000 B.C. - first incised ochre, indicating the first use of tools

35000 B.C.  First human skeletons dated to this period.

27000 B.C.  First African rock art

8000 B.C.  First known boats evolving into a full blown boat crafting tradition in present day Nigeria, also beginnings of scattered farming.

7000 B.C.  First worked bronze, pottery, and fine sculpture.

European History:

35000 B.C. to 10000 B.C.  First European Paleolithic art.

There, sources from three areas and three different sources.  The sources:

• www.thenagain.info/WebChron/WestEurope/Ancient.html
• wysinger.homestead.com/badarians.html
• www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/PREHIST.HTM

That's just our best attempts to piece together world history. If historians fail to see the truth of Silmarillion, it's not their fault; the world has changed during and after Silmarillion (the sinking of Beleriand and Númenor being prime examples). The story ends at the Third Age, when the Eldar left Middle-Earth. The date of this event on our timeline is difficult to establish. It is probable that after this, some cataclysm came about and returned the culture level to stone age. Dwarves and halflings probably were assimilated into race of Men or died out, leaving little evidence of the existence of the old civilizations.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as some would say. However while that is true, it is always good to remember that absence of evidence to contrary doesn't make random assertions true. Burden of proof is always on the claimants.

There's no proof that dragons don't exist, for example. But I would still need to prove that dragons exist for you to believe it, right? And Silmarillion can't really be disproved. Of course, this is all an assertion that can't be disproved. I would need to prove the Silmarillion is true for my claim to have any validity, right? So why is it that no one apparently needs to prove Bible's divine sources or God's existence for people to believe in them? The point is, if someone really believes that something, anything, is true, it's really hard for them to view the matter objectively. Just look at scientology. And cults of personality. And conspiracy theories. Belief in something doesn't make it a fact. This means that even if you think you have certain information from/of God, it is not objective information verifiable by anything other but circular argument about scriptures being true because God says so in the scriptures.

Jeremiah 14:14b "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds

So... what makes a prophet different from false prophet?

Who gets to decide what gets put into the book? Oh yeah... the councils of Nicaea. People.

None of which are contradictions in the Bible, which is what I was talking about.  Not one of those yet....

I wasn't talking about contradictions exclusive to the Bible. A lot of religions claim they have Word of God in one form or another. There's an ample amount of contradictions right there, no need to get into specific theological problems at all in this context. Though I still think the behavioristic differences in God between Old and New Testimony are rather contradictory. At least they are plenty contradictory to the existence of the Divine Master Plan. God seems to be plenty good at cocking his plans up. First with the Eden debacle with the snake, then letting the world get into state where a purge was needed to restore some kind of plan, then it still didn't work out so he had to have a son and send him to wipe the humanity's collective ass clean, so to speak.

This does not sound like a very good plan to me. Kinda like the Cylons. They had a plan, but it didn't work out so well and now they are just winging it as they go.

Of course, he could have planned all that he did. Which is not very appealing thought.

[iamzack]

Except I don't base my way of thinking on fairy tales and thousand year old books written by committee.  Respecting differences is good, respecting ignorance is something else.

So you're right because you're right and they're wrong because you said so and you're going to rub it in everyone's faces any time the topic comes up (and even when it doesn't), especially when accused of hypocritical self-righteousness.

[Scotty]

I'm sorry everyone.  I accidentally hit the 'modify' button on my last post instead of making a new one.  If you would kindly base your next arguments off of that.  </embarrassed>