Where are you pro lifers on this one

[Neo.]

That the Bible is about forcing beliefs on others.

so in other words you don't know the context of what you quoted.

[Neo.]

I don't think you understood my response, since that's not the claim I made.

Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative

sorry you're right let me rephrase

if you don't mind sharing, why do you personally reject the notion of a god existing? not trying to combat or debate you at all, I just personally like to hear different takes from different people is all, whether we agree or not. if you don't want to share I understand though

[Blake]

so in other words you don't know the context of what you quoted.

I think the context speaks for itself but please enlighten me.

[Neo.]

I think the context speaks for itself but please enlighten me.

explain the context then if it speaks for itself. you're the one who quoted it.

[ElNono]

sorry you're right let me rephrase

if you don't mind sharing, why do you personally reject the notion of a god existing? not trying to combat or debate you at all, I just personally like to hear different takes from different people is all, whether we agree or not. if you don't want to share I understand though

Because from a non-fiction standpoint, there's really nothing to discuss when it comes to theism. You either buy it entirely on faith, or you don't. And I'm not a person of faith. I think my time is better spent on empirical analysis, which I find more compelling and practical.

[spurraider21]

a day doesnt always refer to a 24 hour period of time. day often also can refer to a period of time, even by definition. and its often used in such a manner, for example when old school people say "back in my day, when real basketball was played, the only way to get a foul called was to get chokeslammed to the ground and bleed to death" or "in todays day and age..." etc...

there are even times literally where the bible defines a day as a year, or even as a thousand years, depending on context and to illustrate certain points through hyperbole

sure. like i said, it's not central to my point. but it talks about the first day, second day, etc. resting on the 7th day is why we have the sabbath. either way, its not pivotal

the thing is, all of this is based on the assumption that no god exists. if he actually does exist as the bible says, then that opens up the thought that not everything was done according to the current understanding of science; that some things happened supernaturally in ways that we simply do not know or understand (which i personally dont understand why it should be outside the realm of possibility considering science has barely scratched the surface on understanding much of anything about life and the universe, theres just so much that absolutely eludes human knowledge and understanding).

i disagree here. there could still be a god that started the universe, set space-time into motion... and everything else occurred naturally. it might assume that the literal interpretation of the bible, and by extension, that version of god doesnt exist.

the christian god is not the only possible god... you aren't an atheist just because you dont believe in Zeus or Thor. you're still a theist, but just a very specific kind. there could be theists who dont subscribe to a particular religion, in that they believe there must be some "god" that exists beyond nature/time and set everything into motion

[Blake]

explain the context then if it speaks for itself. you're the one who quoted it.

Well apparently there were those that didn't seek the Lord, the God of Israel. The Israelites didn't like it so they made up a law that whoever doesn't seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death.

Is there more to it than that?

[spurraider21]

sorry you're right let me rephrase

if you don't mind sharing, why do you personally reject the notion of a god existing? not trying to combat or debate you at all, I just personally like to hear different takes from different people is all, whether we agree or not. if you don't want to share I understand though

Because from a non-fiction standpoint, there's really nothing to discuss when it comes to theism. You either buy it entirely on faith, or you don't. And I'm not a person of faith. I think my time is better spent on empirical analysis, which I find more compelling and practical.

missed a golden opportunity to respond with "because i choose to" tbh

[ElNono]

missed a golden opportunity to respond with "because i choose to" tbh

Sure. I'm also careful when we're talking about 'a higher being'. I feel it's misused when it's used interchangeably with deities. A higher being doesn't have to be supernatural.

If we were able to bring an Aztec to our current time, I'm pretty confident that person would think we're higher beings of some sort. Then again, he'll probably hunt us, cook us and eat us, but you get the idea.

[Neo.]

Well apparently there were those that didn't seek the Lord, the God of Israel. The Israelites didn't like it so they made up a law that whoever doesn't seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death.

Is there more to it than that?

there was already an existing covenant between god and the israelites that worshipping other gods would result in death

this covenant was exclusive to the nation of israel, so to be a part of their nation, that was a part of the law by god that the israelites agreed to after being freed from egypt

even in the verses you quoted, literally the next two verses express that the nation agreed to going back to living by that requirement and rejoiced over it. it wasnt forced on them, they willingly agreed to it by oath despite for years having not lived by that law and it not being enforced whatsoever.

additionally, this did not apply to other nations. israelites were not to go slaughter people in egypt or babylon simply because they didnt worship the same god.

humans were never expected to force their relationship with god on others, otherwise jesus would have just walked around using supernatural power to force people to be his disciples, instead of allowing everyone to make their own choices.

many people who claim to be christian do force their beliefs on others unfortunately, which is absolutely wrong and not what a true christian should do. its not what jesus or god taught. everyone was always presented with choice.

[Neo.]

Sure. I'm also careful when we're talking about 'a higher being'. I feel it's misused when it's used interchangeably with deities. A higher being doesn't have to be supernatural.

If we were able to bring an Aztec to our current time, I'm pretty confident that person would think we're higher beings of some sort. Then again, he'll probably hunt us, cook us and eat us, but you get the idea.

i could be wrong but i think he was referring to the user le under my avatar pic lol

[ElNono]

i could be wrong but i think he was referring to the user le under my avatar pic lol

he definitely was. Flew right over my head too.

[Frenchfred]

so in other words you don't know the context of what you quoted.

context? Pretty easy. A bunch of guys invented a god to control the masses. And it worked, the biggest lie in history.

[Neo.]

context? Pretty easy. A bunch of guys invented a god to control the masses. And it worked, the biggest lie in history.

proof?

[ElNono]

I mean, as far as recently, take a look at the theocracies in the Middle East.

We have over a millennia of recorded history to dissect religion as a social tool. It's less prevalent now in the west due to the growth of secularism via a number of routes (education, separation of church and state, democracy, etc).

This is not to say that religion wasn't a useful social tool back in the days of savagery. Projecting fear of the unknown is very powerful, especially at a time where education and communication was severely limited.

What I don't agree with is the notion that it's the only reason for religion, as I don't think everybody uses it as a tool for social control in every case.

[Frenchfred]

proof?

I'm not the one inventing the existence of a god. The burden of proof is on your side. So, in 4000 years not ONE of the 107 billions people who have walked the face of the earth has been capable of proving the existence of one god. Pretty funny that you believe in that crap.

[Neo.]

I'm not the one inventing the existence of a god. The burden of proof is on your side. So, in 4000 years not ONE of the 107 billions people who have walked the face of the earth has been capable of proving the existence of one god. Pretty funny that you believe in that crap.

lol back to the "burden of proof"

in other words, a cop out for those who want to dismiss something they can't factually dismiss

and if you are going to say that human history is 4000 years, that's based on bible claims. so just going with the first writer of the Bible, Moses, he personally claimed to have witnessed divine intervention time and time again. so what makes his claims a fallacy? or the many other writers of books of the bible and eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ? sounds to me like there have been plenty of people who got proof and wrote about it.

what proves that all of these writers accounts were simply made up out of thin air as you seem to suggest?

then again you probably believe that the whole universe came into existence out of nothing at all. lots of great proof we have there

[Neo.]

I mean, as far as recently, take a look at the theocracies in the Middle East.

We have over a millennia of recorded history to dissect religion as a social tool. It's less prevalent now in the west due to the growth of secularism via a number of routes (education, separation of church and state, democracy, etc).

This is not to say that religion wasn't a useful social tool back in the days of savagery. Projecting fear of the unknown is very powerful, especially at a time where education and communication was severely limited.

What I don't agree with is the notion that it's the only reason for religion, as I don't think everybody uses it as a tool for social control in every case.

I agree completely that religion has most definitely been used as a tool for control, and it's pretty sad. but as you said, it's not the only reason.

I personally feel that a proper understanding and application of the bible isnt a matter of control at all, as opposed to a way to know our creator and advice on how to live life decently and have unity with one another. when people use it to try to control others or take away choice, it's a very sad thing and horrible misuse of the scriptures imo

[Frenchfred]

lol back to the "burden of proof"

in other words, a cop out for those who want to dismiss something they can't factually dismiss

and if you are going to say that human history is 4000 years, that's based on bible claims. so just going with the first writer of the Bible, Moses, he personally claimed to have witnessed divine intervention time and time again. so what makes his claims a fallacy? or the many other writers of books of the bible and eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ? sounds to me like there have been plenty of people who got proof and wrote about it.

what proves that all of these writers accounts were simply made up out of thin air as you seem to suggest?

then again you probably believe that the whole universe came into existence out of nothing at all. lots of great proof we have there

if I say that you are pedophile, it is up to me to prove it, not you to prove that you are innocent.

So you believe one guy who talked to a burning bush? If today one guy said the same, you would say that he is drunk or crazy and you know that this is true. So, today with billion of people and the possibility to record photos and videos, not one was able to prove the existence of god, weird, isn't it?

Yes, your writers made up things out of thin air like other cults who pretend that their guru did amazing things, nothing unusual here. Religions are cults created to control people

You don't understand how the universe was created so it has to be a god and yours, not of the other thousands gods, right?

[Blake]

lol back to the "burden of proof"

in other words, a cop out for those who want to dismiss something they can't factually dismiss

and if you are going to say that human history is 4000 years, that's based on bible claims. so just going with the first writer of the Bible, Moses, he personally claimed to have witnessed divine intervention time and time again. so what makes his claims a fallacy? or the many other writers of books of the bible and eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ? sounds to me like there have been plenty of people who got proof and wrote about it.

what proves that all of these writers accounts were simply made up out of thin air as you seem to suggest?

then again you probably believe that the whole universe came into existence out of nothing at all. lots of great proof we have there

What proves that Zeus was made up? Or do you believe in him too?

[DMC]

I don't know where religions came from or why. It makes sense to me that many people in those days believed it, just as many uneducated people today believe in some conspiracy or something else scientifically impossible. Starting with nothing, you have to fill in the blanks with whatever you think fits. Imagine taking a molecular biology test as an uneducated adult and having to fill in blanks with something, anything. Imagine what the end result would look like. Now imagine those end results get taught to other uneducated people, and when someone with some critical thinking ability comes along, all those taught the bogus story will find ways to protect the story from doubt. This is where faith comes in. For some reason, faith has been elevated to a virtue instead of just calling it comfortable ignorance coupled with self assuredness.

The atheist, imo, just refuses to fill in the blanks but they are searching for the answers just the same. But unlike the agnostic, instead of saying "I don't know if what you wrote is true or false because I don't know the actual answer", the atheist says "I don't know the answer to the question but I'm comfortable saying your answer is bull ".

[Blake]

The atheist, imo, just refuses to fill in the blanks but they are searching for the answers just the same. But unlike the agnostic, instead of saying "I don't know if what you wrote is true or false because I don't know the actual answer", the atheist says "I don't know the answer to the question but I'm comfortable saying your answer is bull ".

The difference between the two is really not that much. It's really possible to be both.

[spurraider21]

I don't know where religions came from or why. It makes sense to me that many people in those days believed it, just as many uneducated people today believe in some conspiracy or something else scientifically impossible. Starting with nothing, you have to fill in the blanks with whatever you think fits. Imagine taking a molecular biology test as an uneducated adult and having to fill in blanks with something, anything. Imagine what the end result would look like. Now imagine those end results get taught to other uneducated people, and when someone with some critical thinking ability comes along, all those taught the bogus story will find ways to protect the story from doubt. This is where faith comes in. For some reason, faith has been elevated to a virtue instead of just calling it comfortable ignorance coupled with self assuredness.

The atheist, imo, just refuses to fill in the blanks but they are searching for the answers just the same. But unlike the agnostic, instead of saying "I don't know if what you wrote is true or false because I don't know the actual answer", the atheist says "I don't know the answer to the question but I'm comfortable saying your answer is bull ".

Depending on who you ask, atheism and agnosticism aren’t contradictory positions, ie you can be both

- an agnostic thinks that we don’t (or can’t) know if a god exists
- an atheist doesn’t believe that a god exists
- some people use a term like anti-theist re: the affirmative claim that god does not exist

so you can be an agnostic theist (i believe there’s a god, but we can’t really know if there is one or not) or an agnostic atheist (i don’t believe in a god, but we can’t really know). Those “new atheist” debate lords like hitchens/Dawkins/harris would typically describe themselves with those definitions. That atheism was not making an affirmative claim that god doesn’t exist

but these are just setting definitions up.

[spurraider21]

Or more simply atheism is a belief system whereas agnosticism is a question of knowledge or what can/can’t be known

[SpursforSix]

Or more simply atheism is a belief system whereas agnosticism is a question of knowledge or what can/can’t be known

I'd also add that an agnostic might believe there is a god but also that god is not based on a particular religious definition of god. So that they wouldn't be following the Koran, Bible, etc.
If there is a god, it's not one sitting above and judging people on their actions.