Oh My f**king God America... What The Hell Is Wrong With You?

[Al_Fel]

I don't think so. 'Historically altered/inaccurate' doesn't quite cover it for me when you're considering things like the creation of the Universe, man, the burning bush, resurrection, parting of seas, floods and arks, water to wine, feeding 5000 people on a stick of chewing gum etc. As said before there may have been a guy called Bejus who stood up against the powers that be back in the day but everything else, I would guess, is most likely entirely made up. We;'re back to the 99% fiction and if that's all fiction why would Bejus being the 'son of God (kinda)' not be just another of those fictional factors made up to turn a normal dude, lets call him Brian (or Bejus), into a false idol. Once again, if you use logic and reasoning you'd come to the conclusion that the whole thing is pretty laughable. But then if you've got faith then it's ok because you can just ignore logic and reasoning can't you...

Steven Fry told me on QI that the only book from the period of the bible that mentions Jesus is the bible. There were plenty of other writers back then and not one of them mentions him.

[JT!]

With regards to the bible you get so many people treating it differently. Some people take it as literal text - however when It comes to stoning people who work on Sundays they take that as a metaphor to get round it.

And then there's some people who take half literally and the rest metaphorically, the problem with that is they get to choose what content is literal and what isn't to suit them.

Also, there's many translation errors in the bible, some words that don't have a literal translation so someone had to decide what words to use (which will later be interpreted differently by different people). To fully understand what the the bible is saying you have to learn to read it in it's original language. Also, sometimes the bible gets additions like some bibles have been changed from 'stoned' to 'stoned to death' for clarity. Too many people have had their say in it.

[beigemaster]

I'll try and reply to several people's points in one go so sorry if this is gets a bit mixed up.

I don't think so. 'Historically altered/inaccurate' doesn't quite cover it for me when you're considering things like the creation of the Universe, man, the burning bush, resurrection, parting of seas, floods and arks, water to wine, feeding 5000 people on a stick of chewing gum etc. As said before there may have been a guy called Bejus who stood up against the powers that be back in the day but everything else, I would guess, is most likely entirely made up.

Once again, you seem to be lumbering everything together in one package in an atempt to dismiss it all. If we take the character of Jesus for example, you could say "Well he could never have turned water into wine because that is impossible" and this is true if you hold the idea that there is no God and therefore nothing outside of nature is possible. But then, you have already brought this world view to the table and therefore even if a man did turn water into wine several thousand years ago, you would never believe it.

The debate is too vast to investigate all the supposed supernatural events that Jesus supposedly performed, but before you even begin to investigate their probability, you need to ask the preliminary questions whether naturalism is innately true and whether the concept of miracle (an alteration in the laws of nature) is possible. The only very quick thing I would say is that do you not find it odd that a bunch of fishermen (not intellectuals or political leaders) gave birth to a faith that would sweep the globe after the very leader of executed? In short, if Jesus was a man and was indeed executed, how/why did the Christian faith ever grow/spread so quickly? One point that I would say in terms of believing Jesus (the historical character) "stood up against the powers of his time" is pretty inaccurate. The teachings of Jesus state "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s" doesn’t sound terribly revolutionary to me.

It was a bit of a confused and convoluted reply but in short, why does there need to be a creator of life? Why can it just not have happened? And I was basically just asking for your reply not to refer to intelligent design.

For me, I am persuaded by some of the more complicated "first cause" arguments put forward by genuinely free thinking scientists (not those seeking an atheistic agenda) In no sense could the "first cause" justify any type of God that we imagine, but I think it's a first step to suppose (at least) the universe is finite. This then leads me to other concepts such as the argument from reason (see link I put in other posts) to suggest that the first cause must have a foundational basis of rationality.

And then there's some people who take half literally and the rest metaphorically, the problem with that is they get to choose what content is literal and what isn't to suit them.

People don't pick and choose what is literal/analogy ect, the books of the bible are written in different styles. I know this will be the fourth or fifth time I have said this so I best go for bold so people don't forget, The Bible consists of multiple books by multiple authors in multiple styles and contexts Psalms for example is just a collection of Poems. "The Lord is my Shepherd" does this mean every Christian must believe that God is a man who tends sheep?

Also, there's many translation errors in the bible, some words that don't have a literal translation so someone had to decide what words to use (which will later be interpreted differently by different people).

That is very true, obviously the majority of the OT is in ancient Hebrew and the NT in Greek. The bible may have been written with divine inspiration, but it is still written by humans and therefore still fallible. The question is, if you were God, what would be a more superior method of passing on a message that does no infringe on humanities free will?

Steven Fry told me on QI that the only book from the period of the bible that mentions Jesus is the bible. There were plenty of other writers back then and not one of them mentions him.

Again, I think that's perfectly true (well it must be if Fry said it). But then (sorry to go question begging) what other sources would you expecting? The Jewish leaders detested his message (therefore would be unlikely to want to record his message) and the Romans would want to keep the peace and therefore would also want his message/legacy to be swiftly forgotten. It's not the first time such a case has happened in the ancient world, the only evidence for the existence of Socrates is found in Plato's text (Plato being his student) because the Athenians didn't want Socrates' philosophy to spread (hence why they executed him in the first place).

Sorry if that’s all a bit unclear, just trying to address lots of different ideas in one post.

[Tony Harrison]

It's 2010, and yet people still cling onto this idea of a 'God' to give them some kind of purpose in life, some reassurance that we're not the product of sheer chance, a mere blip in the history of something we can't possibly ever hope to comprehend.

It's all so simple: you live your life how you think you should, and you face the fact that some day you're going to die, and that's it. It scares me, but I won't let that fear force me to become dependent on a metaphoric comfort blanket, on a system of self-protecting 'beliefs' ('faith') that claims to guarantee that it'll all be ok in the end.

This is just so frustrating - I can't walk past a church without thinking how absurd it all is, that we begin to even accept this rubbish simply because it was around us as children. It's because I have enough self respect that I won't even entertain the possiblity of this 'God'.

This is a debate that surely can be summed up in a post as brief as this one. It doesn't take essays. Either you're blissfully in love with the idea, and Jesus, and believe that our present-day reality is some kind of elaborate test to determine whether or not you're worthy of the (quite frankly, horrific sounding) eternal afterlife, or you're awake enough to realise it's a load of dross and instead devote your time to enjoying all you know you really have for sure: today.

[beigemaster]

This is a debate that surely can be summed up in a post as brief as this one. It doesn't take essays. Either you're blissfully in love with the idea, and Jesus, and believe that our present-day reality is some kind of elaborate test to determine whether or not you're worthy of the (quite frankly, horrific sounding) eternal afterlife, or you're awake enough to realise it's a load of dross and instead devote your time to enjoying all you know you really have for sure: today.

and sir, your post can be summoned up with one link

[Tony Harrison]

It wasn't aimed at you specifically - as if I have time to read through the reams of stuff you've posted. It was in general at religion and the constant debate over it's relevance, which in turn is relevant to the subject of this thread.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

It's 2010, and yet people still cling onto this idea of a 'God' to give them some kind of purpose in life, some reassurance that we're not the product of sheer chance, a mere blip in the history of something we can't possibly ever hope to comprehend.

It's all so simple: you live your life how you think you should, and you face the fact that some day you're going to die, and that's it. It scares me, but I won't let that fear force me to become dependent on a metaphoric comfort blanket, on a system of self-protecting 'beliefs' ('faith') that claims to guarantee that it'll all be ok in the end.

This is just so frustrating - I can't walk past a church without thinking how absurd it all is, that we begin to even accept this rubbish simply because it was around us as children. It's because I have enough self respect that I won't even entertain the possibility of this 'God'.

This is a debate that surely can be summed up in a post as brief as this one. It doesn't take essays. Either you're blissfully in love with the idea, and Jesus, and believe that our present-day reality is some kind of elaborate test to determine whether or not you're worthy of the (quite frankly, horrific sounding) eternal afterlife, or you're awake enough to realise it's a load of dross and instead devote your time to enjoying all you know you really have for sure: today.

+ ∞[/thread].

Just to address beigemaster I completely agree with Tony- it's not a 'straw man argument' it's just the realisation by modern, educated people that there is little or no need for the illogical babblings of a book which for some reason has maintained a following. I must say after all your learned points and structured arguments I'm really quite disappointed to find out that you are a 'believer'. Ah well, that''s just me being narrow minded.

Even if you were to believe that Bejus existed as described in the bible, turned water to wine and carried out hundreds of true miracles there has been absolutely zero evidence since that time even remotely pointing to the existence of 'God' and to be fair, if there is a 'God' then the only evidence points to him being a proper ©unt.

[Tony Harrison]

to be fair, if there is a 'God' then the only evidence points to him being a proper ©unt.

My man!

[1a2bcio8]

My man!

(atheist) HALLELUJAH!

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

[beigemaster]

+ ∞[/thread].

Just to address beigemaster I completely agree with Tony- it's not a 'straw man argument' it's just the realisation by modern, educated people that there is little or no need for the illogical babblings of a book which for some reason has maintained a following. I must say after all your learned points and structured arguments I'm really quite disappointed to find out that you are a 'believer'. Ah well, that''s just me being narrow minded.

Even if you were to believe that Bejus existed as described in the bible, turned water to wine and carried out hundreds of true miracles there has been absolutely zero evidence since that time even remotely pointing to the existence of 'God' and to be fair, if there is a 'God' then the only evidence points to him being a proper ©unt.

With all due respect, it is a straw man argument because the summary of the opposition was woefully inaccurate and simplistic, which doesn't account for the very intelligent people (who I have already cited) who believe in theism. Using the same logic, I could say "Ah yes, it's all down to a choice really between people who adhere to a moral code and those (atheists) who don't suppose there is no point, meaning or morality and like Hitler, Pot and Stalin, don't believe in the innate sanctity of human beings"

In some ways I am sympathetic to this view, there are a lot of delusional people who probably depend on a belief system just because they were flooded with that ideology as children, but that doesn't affect the ideas/principles that I have tried to address. Yes, people misuse the concepts of religion and faith. However, this isn't all one way. A lot of the principles of the Nazi regime were based on Nietzsche’s ideas of the superman (from "God is dead" ect) which I would hope people would see as a "misuse" of atheistic ideology.

Monkeysee, I will try and somehow overcome your disappointment in me. I guess with time, will power and a lot of drinking, I will get there. One thing you have demonstrated though, the presumption that a lot of people carry which is relative to our modern culture. The general consensus from the mass of philosophically ill-equipped people, is that atheism is true (same way the masses have believed theism and pantheism before then) and therefore, anyone who disagrees with the general consensus must be a fool and therefore what he/she says is obsolete (regardless of the arguments they use). Obviously this is circular reasoning, because you are carrying this presumption to the table and hence why I'm not particularly surprised that you find me a bit of a let down.

[Al_Fel]

Just thought I'd bring this back up. Part 2 made me laugh with the description of heaven.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

With all due respect, it is a straw man argument because the summary of the opposition was woefully inaccurate and simplistic, which doesn't account for the very intelligent people (who I have already cited) who believe in theism. Using the same logic, I could say "Ah yes, it's all down to a choice really between people who adhere to a moral code and those (atheists) who don't suppose there is no point, meaning or morality and like Hitler, Pot and Stalin, don't believe in the innate sanctity of human beings"

In some ways I am sympathetic to this view, there are a lot of delusional people who probably depend on a belief system just because they were flooded with that ideology as children, but that doesn't affect the ideas/principles that I have tried to address. Yes, people misuse the concepts of religion and faith. However, this isn't all one way. A lot of the principles of the Nazi regime were based on Nietzsches ideas of the superman (from "God is dead" ect) which I would hope people would see as a "misuse" of atheistic ideology.

But in some ways why does it need to be more than a 'stick man argument'? If someone told me my car could fly I'd say 'don't be stupid, no it can't, I know it can't'. That's a stickman argument but in the cirumstances I don't think there'd be much need to expand on that. I know that's an over simplification but at the end of the day it is fairly close to my thoughts on the matter at hand.

Monkeysee, I will try and somehow overcome your disappointment in me. I guess with time, will power and a lot of drinking, I will get there.

I'm glad you'll get there. Time heals all wounds after all .

Just thought I'd bring this back up. Part 2 made me laugh with the description of heaven.

I told you he was an unt©.

Edit: "The fourth living creature was like a flying eagle" (with six wings but covered in eyes of course). That would be like telling a snake that he'd have to crawl on his belly for the rest of his days. Oh, wait...

[1a2bcio8]

Just thought I'd bring this back up. Part 2 made me laugh with the description of heaven.

Although interesting as a form of insight regarding the cultural beliefs that surrounded and informed the creation of the bible, the two 'myths' of God and heaven are probably of little use today. Both are quite laughable. It would be quite disappointing though if there is a God and he is the exact one described in the Bible.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Although interesting as a form of insight regarding the cultural beliefs that surrounded and informed the creation of the bible, the two 'myths' of God and heaven are probably of little use today. Both are quite laughable. It would be quite disappointing though if there is a God and he is the exact one described in the Bible.

So why the hell(!) do 2.1 BILLION people want to believe in him and supposedly follow the teachings of the bible?!! It's completely moronic. The only possible sense in it is to follow him because if you don't he'll smite you down and bring pestilence and famine to the world. Sounds like a pretty crap way to live your life to me.

[1a2bcio8]

So why the hell(!) do 2.1 BILLION people want to believe in him and supposedly follow the teachings of the bible?!! It's completely moronic. The only possible sense in it is to follow him because if you don't he'll smite you down and bring pestilence and famine to the world. Sounds like a pretty crap way to live your life to me.

I suspect people have a belief in God, as a generic type, but when Christianity is the prevalent religion it's what people easily end up identifying with, whilst possesing very little knowledge of it. Saying you are Christian is just the average way of saying you believe in God, even though it may not be specifically the God described in the Bible.

Some people who believe in God, also subscribe to an "atheism in the name of God", which basically means that we can't make any positive (cataphatic) statements about God. If God is an entity external to our universe, I'm certainly more inclined to agree with this.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[JT!]

It would be quite disappointing though if there is a God and he is the exact one described in the Bible.

Disappointing? More like terrifying.

[beigemaster]

I see your scientist cherry picking ancient Jewish texts out of context and raise you:

1X Prof of Mathematical Physics (Cambridge) 1X Dr of theoretical astrophysics (Durham) 1X Dr of Astrophysics (Oxford) 1X Dr of Philosophy and 1X Reader in Astronautics, all discussing objective empirical concepts.

ECT

[1a2bcio8]

Disappointing? More like terrifying.

I was thinking in moral terms. It would of course be quite scary. As a confused agnostic (fence sitter), should I expect a divine impaling at some point in the future?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

As a confused agnostic (fence sitter), should I expect a divine impaling at some point in the future?

Sounds better to me than spending eternity sitting on a throne praising God...

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Hehe, Graham Swinerd's office is just up the corridor from mine at Soton Uni.

All that's all well and good but it in no possible shape or form goes any way to support the Bible's version of God.

The whole carbon based lifeform thing doesn't really hold much significance to me- it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there are other lifeforms out there which are silicon based who breath nitrogen or anything else based on any other combination of elements which just 'works' for the particular situation which they find themselves in.

I hear you/them but Christianity is still without question BS.

[1a2bcio8]

I hear you/them but Christianity is still without question BS.

You make a seemingly intelligent statement which you then follow with an absolutist, dogmatic and sweeping statement about an approach to life, which you have only limited knowledge about and surmize regarding one dimension (i.e. God in the sense portrayed by the bible). Christianity is an incredibly diverse religious institute which has evolved many differing manifestations that don't rigidly subscribe to every part of the Bible but are still considered Christianity. I suspect you might object to a complete criticism of all science based on the failings of certain manifestations of science in terms of history or discipline (biology, physics, etc.)? Perhaps though you are involved in that process I previously mentioned of identifying, synonymously, the idea of God with Christianity. Consequently, when you say "Christianity is BS", in fact what you instead mean is " the concept of God is BS"?

I guess I really don't get the need for absolutism/dogma, secular or religious. How do you know you know that much?!

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

You make a seemingly intelligent statement which you then follow with an absolutist, dogmatic and sweeping statement about an approach to life, which you have only limited knowledge about and surmize regarding one dimension (i.e. God in the sense portrayed by the bible). Christianity is an incredibly diverse religious institute which has evolved many differing manifestations that don't rigidly subscribe to every part of the Bible but are still considered Christianity. I suspect you might object to a complete criticism of all science based on the failings of certain manifestations of science in terms of history or discipline (biology, physics, etc.)? Perhaps though you are involved in that process I previously mentioned of identifying, synonymously, the idea of God with Christianity. Consequently, when you say "Christianity is BS", in fact what you instead mean is " the concept of God is BS"?

I guess I really don't get the need for absolutism/dogma, secular or religious. How do you know you know that much?!

But Christianity, any denomination or manifestation, has to be derived from the Bible. I think I've been fairly clear about my thoughts on that subject . As has been said many times before, any failing in Science is considered, researched and the concepts change and evolve to take into account the new information. Christianity simply cannot claim that. It seems unable to even slightly deviate from the bible's basis because to do so would go against everything that Christians base their belief system on.

I'm certainly not saying 'the concept of a God (read first cause or whatever you fancy) is BS', I'm reiterating that the deeper we get into the philosophy, physics, astronomy etc of the Universe, the further we get from anything which is mentioned in the Bible and as such further from Chrisitanity.

Edit: I know I'm not very good at getting my thoughts across on here without coming across like a bit of an arrogant arse but the way I see it the author's of the Bible tried to explain the unanswered questions about life, the Universe and everything. That was fine but you'd think that in this day and age we've moved on enough to realise that, to be fair, the whole thing's just a bunch of fictional stories to try to answer questions that the people of the time had no way of investigating or understanding. I think if someone was to consider the possibilities of the origin of the Universe (and not just the big bang but the possible 'first cause' or whatnot) we wouldn't start righting about a beardy guy in the sky, his magician son who came back to life etc. because it would be laughed off straight away. It would sound as stupid as the story of Xenu and the Thetans. It is in that respect that I think of the Bible (and hence the basis of Christianity) as BS.

[Al_Fel]

So if you want to be a Christian all you do is pick and choose the parts of the bible you like and just say the rest of it is metaphorical? Bollocks! The bible is a load of shit that was wrote thousands of years ago translated and interpreted by loads of different people. There are loads of Religions out there and they are all a load of crap. There is no god.

I watched the full series of those videos and all they kept banging on about was how the universe was fine tuned for life. There's 1 planet in an unimaginable number of other planets that has life now that's what I call a Universe designed for life. Life has developed and survived over millions of years. To say God created it is insulting and I find it offensive, Ignorant and unappreciative. Billions of life forms have suffered and persevered to recreate and get to this amazing place where we are now. To give all the credit to a divine being that does nothing is ridiculous.

You've got to be an idiot to pick Christianity as a religion. There's just so many holes, contradictions and blind ignorance in it. I just don't understand how people can sit there and look at it as being the right choice and "have faith".

We as a species should all be working together to develop science, technology and an understanding of everything rather than basing life choices on an old book full of bullshit stories.

What is the point in god? Do you really want to spend eternity in heaven?

[1a2bcio8]

But Christianity, any denomination or manifestation, has to be derived from the Bible. I think I've been fairly clear about my thoughts on that subject . As has been said many times before, any failing in Science is considered, researched and the concepts change and evolve to take into account the new information. Christianity simply cannot claim that. It seems unable to even slightly deviate from the bible's basis because to do so would go against everything that Christians base their belief system on.

I'm certainly not saying 'the concept of a God (read first cause or whatever you fancy) is BS', I'm reiterating that the deeper we get into the philosophy, physics, astronomy etc of the Universe, the further we get from anything which is mentioned in the Bible and as such further from Chrisitanity.

But to be a Christian doesn't mean you have to be an evangical Christian, taking word for word, as literally true, all that the Bible says. It's not difficult to recognise that those who contributed to the Bible could easily have placed their own spin on what Christianity was supposed to represent as many Christians do acknowledge. Modern Science and we hope better science, has developed from older, we assume less accurate, science but again, we don't identify the two as exactly the same. We think of Science 1710 and Science 2010 and judge each of their individual merits. Consequently, Christianity orignating from Christ, popularized by the Bible, doesn't instantly define later expressions that fall under the same general title. There are meaningful historical ties and some things may remain the same but not neccesarily all things. Some manifestations of Christianity are a problem but some are and have been helpful to humanity.

As I've said before, I feel this is the standard mistake of mistaking a part for a whole. Christianity is such a broad term and can't be defined simply as a "religious system whereby a Christian is only a Christian if they rigidly subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible". I'm pretty sure that would cause a confusing problem for what we would call the Christians that preceeded the Bible.

We as a species should all be working together to develop science, technology and an understanding of everything rather than basing life choices on an old book full of bullshit stories.

So you have faith in Science and Technology as our saviour then? Can you elaborate on the reasons for this?

Edited March 2, 2010 by Ben Rowlands