The Bible says that God is omniscient, that is, God knows everything.

Oh, yeah? Then why didn't God know that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge? Why didn't God know that, even though He wiped out almost all of humanity in the Flood, Noah and his descendants would continue as sinners? The simplest answer is that God is not all-knowing and the Biblical evidence suggests a creator who is just making things up on the fly.

The Bible says that God is omnipotent. that is, God is all-powerful with unlimited abilities.

Oh, yeah? Then why does God allow all kinds of disasters to strike the people He claims to love? Why do so many children suffer? Doesn't Jesus "love the little children?" The simplest answer is that God doesn't interact with humans on a daily basis and that He is powerless to protect His own creations from disaster.

The Bible says that God is omnipresent, that is, God is everywhere all the time.

Oh, yeah? Then why are there so many different faiths? Like the article and video indicate, why isn't God's message automatically implanted in our DNA? The simple answer is that God isn't everywhere.

Even more simply, perhaps there is no God. There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence of God's existence. There's a trope that says that the human eye is so complex that it proves God created us. And yet, the human eye is actually fairly limited in its abilities as it can only perceive a very narrow range of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Also, why do so many people need glasses if the eye is so special?

These are but a smattering of the problems with this belief in a supernatural creator. Broadly, there are conflicting views of what the Bible represents. To some, it's all literal and factual. To some, the Old Testament is metaphorical and the New Testament is literal. And to others, both books are allegories. So which is right?

By the way, this is only one branch of human religions. What about all of the people in the world who hold different faiths? How did that occur? Why are they to be condemned for eternity? Or are their beliefs correct and Christianity is wrong?

It's all so silly and sick at the same time.

locations, and perform at different levels of perfection. One word, elohim, is plural. The genesis 1 God is unknowable completely because it is unseen, but we are told that it is capable of perfection and Good. That is not true of the genesis 2 god. So if "god is everywhere" on earth, that is the lesser god of this world.

This hierarchy of divinities is also in Christian theology, they just don't know it, but Paul said there are many gods but only one supreme god. When the orthodox got rid of all the heretics, they lost the people who knew the higher teachings. We're now stuck at the "children," " baby food" level.

In Judaism (Job), the bad things referred to provide opportunities to strengthen one's faith in another, higher reality. In Christianity, souls leave their source to create a better, more perfect world (working the vineyard or fields). The successful souls, in bringing God values to earth, also increase their soul's God value (earning interest). When a soul has earned enough interest, it can return to its Source.

So, you can add that last bit to the list of incorrect understanding. You will hear that God is unchanging. Yes and no. God's perfect goodness is inherent. However, as souls qualify to join their source, the Source increases in power.

There are aspects of theology which have been proven to all but the most determined materialists.

So which one is correct?

Which aspects of theology have been proven? Show me the evidence otherwise you've got only your belief.

By the way, what is a "most determined materialist?"

A "most determined materialist" is one who denies their own consciousness.

There is no evidence that consciousness is apart from the physical brain.

You can believe otherwise, but you have stated something that has a false basis.

It's called the "hard problem of consciousness" for that reason.

without a brain, then we can talk if they are separate.

It's hard to metaphysics, not neurobiology.

As one example, look into the life and behavior of plants. Very fascinating and no neurological brain in sight. What they demonstrate to me is an ability to adapt and strategize for survival and affluence. If you don't want to call that evidence of consciousness, that's a matter of your definition. But it is life in progress, decisions are being made, actions taken that are intelligent and unique to conditions. We can only observe behaviors of another entity from outside but to my mind, the actions that plants have (and in particular, trees) are more than blind chemical reactions and are evidence of consciousness.

I recommend the book, The Hidden Life of Trees by Peter Wohlleben for a deeper exploration of this. I think you'll find it sufficiently free of "woo" for your tastes. The guy manages forests for a living.

There is life there and plants act in very intelligent ways to the environment even through massive, invasive changes. I call that evidence of consciousness. I do not ascribe to the view that human consciousness is the only form of it.

with intelligence.

I would rather stick with E O Wilson.

Evolutionary behavior doesn't just happen out of some purposeless, unintelligent vacuum of emptiness. Not in my estimation. We can only observe behavior of other beings from the outside. Consciousness is the inside looking outward. You will never see it directly but can only infer it, like I do with you...sometimes. That, again, is why it's called "the hard problem of consciousness" (I didn't make that phrase up, there's some history behind it).

the only purpose is to live and create more of the same species, whatever helps this leads to more of the species with that trait. No intelligence is driving this. that is the great contribution of Darwin.
To think otherwise is creationism.

I am aware of the phrase. It reminds me of discussions of free will or God. Other illdefined concepts.

There's no proof to anything you mentioned previously and by your own admission doesn't even reflect mainstream Christian theology.

"Mainstream Christianity is " stuck at the "children," " baby food" level "

(just a little humor)

We have so much creative energy and possibility that between the two end points, there is much to explore, much to learn about and do. It involves worlds in which both good and evil exist. Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to make the most of it and hopefully something that is a blessing for all who participate. If the evil gets overwhelming, a soul may need a break from time to time and a return to source could be like recharging your batteries. But sitting in eternal silent reverence doesn't appear to be the way creatures of nature were designed. All good things come to an end...but so too with evil things. Exploration is a drive within so many of us, if not all. Sometimes for things close to home, sometimes far away. Big/small, inner/outer, near/far...whatever direction suits our fancy or circumstantial need, we explore.

We're now stuck at the "children," " baby food" level. "


I think you are perhaps even more perceptive than it might appear.

God is playing hide and seek and humanity is the seeker. Problem is god has been at the game for millennia and humans only get a few decades to play.
So god gets better and better at hiding while humanity stays pretty much at the amateur level.

Either that or god gave up and took a bus to some other universe. Hard to tell which.

son of Sophia. He is known for his petty jealousy and atrocious tantrums. For example, he forbid Adam and Eve from obtaining knowledge, and punished them when they achieved consciousness. In this example, the snake is the "good guy" who helped man evolve with knowledge.

His jealousy is evident in the Ten Commandments, as he demands no other gods, no images of His creations, no misuse of His name. When Mankind does not sufficiently honor Him, he smites them with horrific disasters, even wiping out nearly everyone with The Flood because they strayed from His Word.

When Sophia learns of her son's Creation, she looks and is shocked that he created a cruel world where every creature has to kill and consume others to survive, and He torments the living and demands total fealty. So she steps in and supplants him with her love and compassion, sending us Jesus to teach us a new way.


To the Gnostics, salvation comes to each of us from within, we are judged by our actions, not our faith, and doctrine and ritual are just window dressing not essential to leading a Holy life. If you disagree with or don't believe a Gnostic Doctrine, that is fine, as you are the one responsible for your own salvation, and you grow your virtue from within.

My copy is well-worn.

Most interesting to me is Mary Magdalen’s gospel of which half is curiously missing.

Still, they are the thoughts and writings of primitive people who were sincerely, if wrongly, trying to interpret the world around them.

Theism is the default condition among humans for a reason.

refers to the concept of a deity.

Thus there is no need of salespeople, except to sell a particular system.

You say it is the default yet it has never been in my life, ever. I will admit the salespeople frequently annoy me like gnats or fleas which no doubt goes a long way toward me not buying any.

First you claim that it is the default condition, then you make a different claim that 'groups of ?any size? with a written language (have a) concept of a deity'.

Those are different claims.

Societies with a written language often leave a written record. There is evidence for Neanderthal burial practices that suggests a concern for the after life, but absent a written record, we are left with interpreting artifacts.

There is plenty of evidence that human societies generally developed theistic beliefs along with agriculture and cities.

There is also plenty of evidence that theistic beliefs are generally absent in non agricultural hunter gatherer societies.

There is zero evidence that theistic beliefs are any sort of default for humans.

Your neanderthal burial nonsense has been debunked here many times as at best speculative.

I call nonsense on it.

The burden of proof is on you. And what of people with no written language. Humans were around for a long time without a written languages. They had no need for them.

The oldest written language is Sumerian, dating back to 3500 BC. Do you suppose there were no human cultures before that?

A default position to believe in unprovable mythology? And what is the reason for that condition?

Regardless, I know your views and I don't share them. However, if religious faith is a default condition for humanity, why have there been so many different faiths and gods throughout human history? Why did people believe in Zeus or Thor or Buddha? Why should they believe in the newcomer, Jesus? What makes one religion or god more believable than another? If there's one faith that is correct, why did that god allow all these other faiths to distract from the special condition that you suggest is inherent in all humans?

It's all so confusing and it just doesn't make any sense. How does one know which "default condition" to believe?

In fact, there isn't any empirical evidence of the existence of a supernatural god. But I respect your right to hold any faith you want. Just please keep it away from me and don't legislate laws based on your or anyone else's religious views.

Not any particular expression of the theistic impulse.

My objection is simple: there isn't any connection between the thousands of faiths that have existed in human history. Those faiths don't imply that there is a higher power. It actually implies just the opposite: ignorant people tried to explain their world with the very limited information that they had available. They made up stuff to try to understand the universe. The scientific method has yet to demonstrate that any faith is factual. If that were to happen, I'd say, "Well, look at that! Praise the Lord!" But that isn't going to happen. Ever.

But as I wrote, I don't care what anyone wants to believe. After nearly 50 years of being a Christian, as well as deep Biblical study and solid participations in a few churches, religion is no longer a part of my life. I've evolved. There is too much conflict, disagreement, hypocrisy and money/power in the churches/temples/synagogues for me to believe Iron Age (or earlier) myths.

It is not evolving, or devolving, it is behaving as humans behave.

So forgive me for allowing you to do your own reading.

So, I'll repeat:

Citation. Needed.

Quit making shit up.

What an idea, eh?

The oldest religions we know about were non-theistic as were many isolated tribes, not to mention that prior to about 10,000 yrs ago there's no reason to believe theism existed at all. When you consider humans have been around for at least 300,000 years, 10,000 is a blip on our existence. Then you can go back another 200-300 million years to the origin of sentience, there's also exactly zero evidence of theism.

Nobody is born with knowledge or instinct to invent theism. We are all born as atheists. That is the default condition. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply injecting "faith" into their own manufactured reality and when you ask them for proof of their assertion you get the same response as when you ask for proof of their theistic god that allegedly watches them masturbate and decides whether they deserve eternal reward or punishment.

The reason why organized religion was created at the same time civilizations were created isn't just coincidence. It's because religion is a very effective means of controlling large populations.

Many humans are not theists. In fact, theism was a relatively late development among humans. Most basic cultures have naturalistic, animistic religions.

Theism is not "the default condition" just because you think it is.

That reason is evolution. Daniel Dennett explains it much more eloquently, but when ancestors were more subject to predation, those who survived often were the ones who anthropomorphized (assigned agency to) phenomena they did not understand. If they heard a sound in the distance, they were quicker to assume it was something with malicious intent that required caution.

This tendency to assign agency became the default because the cautious survived, and not necessarily because everything unexplained actually has agency. Our brains have evolved to look for patterns and assign meaning, even when there is no evidence for them. "Pareidolia" is the name for the tendency to read something known into an observation of the unknown.

to religion. But the fact that religions are so diverse, contradictory and mutable shows more that it is simple a human trait, rather than any outside reality.

That doesn't mean the reason you have decided upon is the correct one.

...the point, there it goes.

that all people should believe in?

"Every day preach the Gospel. If necessary use words."

This has been attributed to a lot of people but I try to live it. A lot of truly despicable things have been done in G*d's name. As a christian, I aim to both atone for some small small small portion of it and not add to it. Its a struggle inside me, I am not sanctified; I am a man. I do the best I can and keep in fellowship with others of my faith, I try to live Christ's rule: "Treat others as you would be treated." To me that means clothing, feeding, aiding, welcoming with no strings attached, no "commercials", no obligations.

If someone asks me for help as a christian, I do not means test them. If I am 'fooled' then I am a fool for Christ and to me that's a high enough office.

I guess God need your help to get the word out.

Its why I try not to use words unless I am asked for a testimony. I do not want anyone to believe because I do. Its an office we need to elect ourselves to.

even to remote areas that disrupt indigenous people.

is not missionary work and usually is a work of egos and pride.

Like I've said: terrible, terrible things have been done in G*d's name that were nowhere Godly in any sense of the word. It smears shame all over the rest of us.

Members of my family have been involved mission field work in New Guinea for over a century; health care, wells, improved gardening yields have always been the priority.

Which god?

As I wrote above, if god is all-powerful, he sure screws up an awful lot. In the Biblical description, god makes flawed creatures and then punishes them for his mistakes.

That doesn't sound like a thoughtful or forgiving god to me.

Regardless, believe whatever you want. Just keep it out of our governments.

just like you.

your all powerful all knowing god let that happen?

like that had happened to any of my children, it would certainly make me despair.

What happened to him wasn't spontaneous and I don't believe it was G*d's will.

Some things are beyond comprehension and are the unintended consequences of other actions. Drug resistant infections are a terrible consequence of freely made decisions regarding how society uses and overuses antibiotics.

Again, I am so sorry for your son's injury.

from an indifferent universe devoid of magic sky beings.

Oh and if your god does exist it is evil.

...

Water into wine? Anyone?...Bueller...Bueller?

Transubstantiation? Anyone?...

Loaves and fishes?

Staves to snakes?


"Does not do 'parlor tricks'" is absolute fucking BS.


Parlor tricks are all he ever had, at best.

And they're not even 'his', they just belong to 'his' charlatan promoters.

(a carpenter and a fisherman) at the wedding of another working family to keep the joy of the occasion - a celebration of life milestone - going.

As a Lutheran who takes Communion very seriously, transubstantiation is a very deep and spiritual thing for me. I don't get where you find any humor in it, but that is your choice and right. I'm certainly not condemning you over it.

Loaves and fishes was no parlor trick and the what and how it was done is not explained in the scripture. It certainly seems to fed hundreds of Christ's audience.

You get to explain it to yourself any way you need. I find no need to ridicule you over it. Maybe the consideration is called for from you?

We are both doing the best we can.

the truth. We all know G*d from our own perspective.

For me 'he' works.

In a lot of ways we are all blind and describing an elephant. Our differing perceptions don't change the reality of the elephant. To me it explains the differing religions of the world. One G*d, different impressions.

Buddhism recognizes Christ as a perfected being.

Missionaries are religion's salesmen and saleswomen. Simple.

This John Banville quote sums it up for me: Given the world he created, it would be an impiety against God to believe in him.

need marketing.

Star Trek: Why does God need a starship?

If God wants us to follow a certain set of laws, which laws?

If God communicated with us through books, which books?

If God punishes the breaking of His laws, how are we to know which laws are His?

When a criminal breaks the law and is caught by the civil authorities, that person is punished such that the public is aware of the punishment. When a person dies and allegedly faces God's judgement, we do not find out how the person is judged. How are we to know that any justice is done?

...that as is usually the case, all the ridicule, snark, and vitriol being spouted in this thread is coming from those who choose not to believe?

It's completely unnecessary and very unbecoming. If you don't believe then don't believe but ridiculing those who do makes you no different than the Rethugs who ridicule Dems, Libs and Progressives for their beliefs...

But it is the general pattern here.

...and it's sickening.

People who profess to be so tolerant of personal choice castigating and denigrating people who make a personal choice to believe is the epitome of hypocrisy...

Last edited Fri Jul 19, 2019, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

...you need to get over yourself and check your religious privilege at the door.



Ideas will be discussed and torn apart.

You are not an idea, do not conflate ideas with person-hood (yours or anyone else's).

White Supremacy is a bad idea,

Race is a false human construct and a bad idea,

Heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, creationism, sin, sanctity, blood atonement/sacrifice, slavery, transubstantiation, heaven, hell, purgatory, afterlife, reincarnation, theocracy, baptism, angels, devils, demons, etc....

are all BAD IDEAS and can be fully ridiculed without the slightest possibility of real world harm to anyone.

When MAGICAL IDEAS are used as a basis for real world decisions that cause real harm to the world and future generations, do not clutch your pearls and exclaim "I'M OFFENDED", when those ideas are attacked. To do so is to just expose your religious privilege.

‘When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression’

discuss differing ideas and points of view.

Not only does it allow me the chance to learn more about how others think/feel on the topic of religion, but it also encourages me to examine my own beliefs.

Wishing you well and peace!

Tim

...Check my religious privilege at the door? I'm not even remotely "religious" nor am I "offended" in the least so you might want to check your presumptuous privilege at the door, sport.

That aside, since you obviously missed my point in your zeal to be "that guy/gal", I was simply pointing out that it's entirely possible for people to debate/discuss spiritual matters without anyone coming across as a pompous, know-it-all ass.

Perhaps a crash-course in reading comprehension would be a worthwhile pursuit for you going forward...

Illiterate, the whole lot of us. Frankly, it's amazing we manage to tie our own shoes, really.

Last edited Sun Jul 21, 2019, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)

...First off, I don't remember addressing my response to you so there's that. Second, you apparently don't know the difference between lack of literacy and lack of reading comprehension so you might want to work on that instead of involving yourself in discourse that doesn't concern you.

Have a great day...

Maybe later—when you're not too busy—you can explain to me how I can properly distinguish between those public discourses about atheists (which I am) at this forum (where I regularly participate) that concern me, and those that do not. I'll wager it will be every bit as exciting as this spirited defense of the privileged majority.

...When any of my posts concern you, they will include one of the following notations:

Response to Act_of_Reparation or Response to Original Post

When the "Response To" is directed specifically to someone else, it's none of your business, it's between me and them.

It's a pretty fucking simple concept, really...

If I weren't so fucking stupid—which I clearly am—I would suggest that, if you'd prefer to speak to only one idiot at a given time, perhaps try sending them a PM.

Maybe a public forum to discuss religion is not your cup of tea?

...but thanks for your concern...

Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2019, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)

...it's a pretty fucking simple concept, really...

Perhaps a crash-course in reading comprehension would be a worthwhile pursuit for you going forward...

But, to assuage your apparent sensitivities, I apologize to you for posting this in a public forum.

Also, it would appear that you are the self-appointed expert and arbiter of who is "coming across as a pompous, know-it-all ass."
Congrats on that!

...then you shouldn't have addressed it directly to me. Another pretty fucking simple concept, don't ya think?

That aside though, you're correct about one thing; I am absolutely the self-appointed expert of what I consider to be pompous, know-it-all ass-clownery. Feel free to disagree with my criteria but know that I really could give less than a fuck...

...in responding to a question in a public forum, the message was meant only for you (PM's are not a thing).

Genius.

...I remember making a statement, to which you apparently took offense, even though it wasn't specifically directed to you.

Nevertheless, if the shoe fits...

...I was commenting on the erroneous idea that criticism of an Idea is also criticism of the person holding a belief in that idea.


And, upon further review, it does seem that your logic is convoluted (to be polite):

Your post #91 seems to indicate that since my post #59 was addressed to you, it was meant only for you, but now...

Your post #93 disavows that idea, by claiming your post #52 wasn't just for me, even though post #52 was addressed to (only) me.

Genius.

Maybe that old story of Lobotomies for Marines at the end of boot camp is correct after all.

Or maybe you're just a hack, looking for a fight where ever one maybe found.

Reminds me of a joke:

...We've devolved from discussing my original point:

"...it's entirely possible for people to debate/discuss spiritual matters without anyone coming across as a pompous, know-it-all ass."


...to a back-and-forth shitfest about internet forum posting/replying protocol. FFS...

On another note, you need to step up your trolling game. Lobotomies are conducted at the beginning of boot camp, not the end...

....

Ok, if you want to bow out that's on you, no worries here, but I was just starting to have fun

Oh, and for the record, it's not 'trolling' to comment on something you advertise with every post:


And as far as Marine lobotomies go, early or late, yours seems to have done the trick.

...you seem to have singularly and single-handedly proved your own original point.

It's an attempt to silence someone whose views you don't like.

We're better than that here, aren't we? Attack ideas, not people. Don't use extremes like "all" when there are believers who dish it out too.

...which, combined with your other post, comes complete with the aforementioned ridicule, snark, and vitriol...

Do you not understand privilege as a concept, or did your hurt feelings compel you to post despite your lack of a cogent rebuttal?

His tweet today tried to flip the script and claim "the Squad" are the REAL racists. "NO U!"

Standard projection tactics. It's disappointing how few religionists are wiling to consider their own privilege. Lashing out at the person pointing it out seems to be much more common.

God does not need them. Their institutions need them.