Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[acbytesla]

I don’t think professed agnostics always express a deep thought about their position. Often it is simply a statement that atheism seems too strong, and agnosticism seems more in between.

I have book (forgotten the name, but I presume I can find it if necessary) where the author calls himself an agnostic. He knows all the atheist arguments against God (yes, just the one), but he desperately wants to believe anyway. He comes out more of an atheist, though an unwilling one.

I think agnostic is a BS word or concept. Gnostic means "knowledge of God." And agnostic means "without knowledge" of God. But what is this other than cetainty or a higher degree of belief? Huxley coined the word "agnostic" in an attempt to soften his tone as being an atheist was offensive to believers.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

How can you believe in something you have no knowledge of?

 

[Thermal]

How can you believe in something you have no knowledge of?

*strokes beard*

How can we have any knowledge of anything?

 

[Darat]

I think agnostic is a BS word or concept. Gnostic means "knowledge of God." And agnostic means "without knowledge" of God. But what is this other than cetainty or a higher degree of belief? Huxley coined the word "agnostic" in an attempt to soften his tone as being an atheist was offensive to believers.

Couldn’t agree more, it really only works if you take god/s to be in the picture in the first place .

 

[Darat]

*strokes beard*

How can we have any knowledge of anything?

Ah but what about the whichness of whatness?
(Paraphrased from EE Doc Smith.)

 

[Darat]

The universe creating itself is evidenced?

The Bible doesn’t say god created the universe, the only thing the bible says he made ex nihilo is light.

 

[Darat]

Sort of. An agnostic says "I neither believe nor disbelieve". Which is fine, but doesn't address the question of whether or not they actually belive in a God. "I don't know if there is one" is functionally "I do not believe in a god", whether or not they are still open to evidence and persuasion.

Sagan is pretty dope on that point. He will not say there is no God,because he knows of no persuasive evidence against it (unlike the teapot orbiting Saturn), so he calls himself agnostic. He is also very likely showing deference and respect to his very religious colleagues in doing so.

What we can say however is the god most if not all Christian claim exists doesn’t because the evidence is against it. For example we know that humans weren’t created instantly and singularity .

 

[Thermal]

What we can say however is the god most if not all Christian claim exists doesn’t because the evidence is against it. For example we know that humans weren’t created instantly and singularity .

Agreed. The Abrahamic God in flowing robes living in the clouds is... kinda silly for a 21st century mind. Or 20th. But I do like to allow for those folk who want to wave their hands vaguely and say "I can accept the loose idea of some kind of god, whatever it might be", and leave them alone if they are not beheading anyone.

 

[acbytesla]

*strokes beard*

How can we have any knowledge of anything?

Unless you're referring to hard solopsism, we can have knowledge of all kinds of things. I can test for gravity over and over and over again. The same goes for all the laws of physics.

This is what a lot of desperate theists cling to or suggest that scientists have faith. No, it's not faith that makes me have confidence that if I let go of my pencil, it will drop to the floor every time. I can run tests on these beliefs and they work every time. We not only do not have knowledge of God, we cannot count on it operating at a frequency higher than chance.

 

[acbytesla]

The Bible doesn’t say god created the universe, the only thing the bible says he made ex nihilo is light.

Really?
Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

There was no word for "universe" at the time the Bible was written. The stars were considered part of heaven. And they had no idea of galaxies either. I would argue that the Bible absolutely was saying that God created the universe. As would most Christian theologies.

But of course IMV, that clearly contradicts the findings of science. As science dates the universe to be about 13.8 billion years old and the earth to be 4.5 billion years. Genesis says God created them at the same time.

 

[Darat]

Really?
Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

There was no word for "universe" at the time the bible was written. The stars were considered part of heaven. And they had no idea of galaxies either. I would argue that the Bible absolutely was saying that God created the universe. As would most Christian theologies.

But of course IMV, that clearly contradicts the findings of science. As science dates the universe to be about 13.8 billion years old and the earth to be 4.5 billion years. Genesis says God created them at the same time.

Yep really. The translation is“In the beginning of God’s creating the sky and the earth when the earth had been shapeless and formless, darkness was on the face of the deep, and God’s spirit spirit was hovering on the face of the water God said “let there be light. And there was.” Despite what a lot of people believe Genesis does not purport to start at the beginning of time or the beginning of god creating stuff. It starts when he reshapes the earth that was already in existence.

 

[acbytesla]

Yep really. The translation is“In the beginning of God’s creating the sky and the earth when the earth had been shapeless and formless, darkness was on the face of the deep, and God’s spirit spirit was hovering on the face of the water God said “let there be light. And there was.” Despite what a lot of people believe Genesis does not purport to start at the beginning of time or the beginning of god creating stuff. It starts when he reshapes the earth that was already in existence.

I guess that's one way to interpret it. But of course again that contradicts science as well. It suggests that the Sun and the stars weren't their when the earth was formed. It also says that plants predates the sun. (Keep in mind that Genesis provides not one, but three creation stories.)

 

[arthwollipot]

It is relevant to the conversation because you presented the Christian explanation as your explanation.

No I didn't.

When I questioned you about that, you tried to divert me into semantics, and stated that you had been deliberately unclear. I note you still have not said why.

Because it should be obvious. If I have not said something, I have not said it. You can't say that I've said something by not saying it.

And, yes, I thought you were an atheist. That's why I was so surprised at your stance defending your former church's teachings.

Reporting, not defending.

So, to ask yet again: do you agree with your church on this matter? Do you accept their claim that the OT laws don't apply any more, and their reasons for that?

I deny the relevance of this question. What is it about the statement "I am an atheist" that leads you to believe that I might have a personal belief in the nature of God's covenant?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No I didn't.

Yes, you did:

Which quote? The one I explained earlier?

"I" explained. Not "my church" explained. Thus presenting the explanation as yours.

Because it should be obvious. If I have not said something, I have not said it. You can't say that I've said something by not saying it.

Do you find this endless obfuscation amusing? Do you believe it adds to the conversation?
Think again, and do please stop these silly games.

Reporting, not defending.

Nope. See above.

I deny the relevance of this question. What is it about the statement "I am an atheist" that leads you to believe that I might have a personal belief in the nature of God's covenant?

Nothing. That's not what I said, of course. I assume this is still part of this pointless game of "how cryptic can I be". You seem perfectly content with your church's interpretation of that verse, and have not criticised it in any way. Moreover, you intimated that it was theologically sound. As this is all you have posted on this particular point, at least, all you have posted that is comprehensible and not shrouded in opacity, then all I can do is draw my conclusions from that. My conclusion is that, although you claim to be an atheist, you retain some sympathy for your former belief and church, and so will spring to its defence from time to time.

 

[arthwollipot]

Nothing. That's not what I said, of course. I assume this is still part of this pointless game of "how cryptic can I be". You seem perfectly content with your church's interpretation of that verse, and have not criticised it in any way. Moreover, you intimated that it was theologically sound. As this is all you have posted on this particular point, at least, all you have posted that is comprehensible and not shrouded in opacity, then all I can do is draw my conclusions from that. My conclusion is that, although you claim to be an atheist, you retain some sympathy for your former belief and church, and so will spring to its defence from time to time.

Dude. My man. Friendo. My former church was wrapped up into Hillsong, the biggest evangelical megachurch in the country. The idea that I still harbour sympathy for it is risible. I do have Christian friends, but notably they are not a part of that church but rather a much more progressive one that is still, sadly, very much in a minority among denominations.

No, what I'm doing is different. I'm endeavouring to correct atheists when they lie about what Christians do and do not believe. For example, the idea that there are two covenants, Jesus fulfilled the first covenant, and therefore Christians are not subject to Old Testament Jewish law, is not a dismissive handwave, it is a core part of Christianity - perhaps one of the most important core parts. So when atheists bring up all these Old Testament verses as though it is somehow a fault for Christians to be eating shellfish, or wearing clothes made from two fibres, that is a lie and I don't like it when people tell lies about other people, especially when they do so for political or ideological reasons (in this case in the service of antitheism).

The idea that if someone isn't a rabid frothing intolerant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ of a Christian then they're just not doing Christianity "properly" is one of the most egregious lies that antitheists tell. It's a straw argument, deliberately fabricated in order to make Christians look as bad as possible. Sorry, that's not on as far as I'm concerned.

As I say often, there is enough absurdity in the Bible already. You don't need to make ◊◊◊◊ up.

 

[Darat]

Dude. My man. Friendo. My former church was wrapped up into Hillsong, the biggest evangelical megachurch in the country. The idea that I still harbour sympathy for it is risible. I do have Christian friends, but notably they are not a part of that church but rather a much more progressive one that is still, sadly, very much in a minority among denominations.

No, what I'm doing is different. I'm endeavouring to correct atheists when they lie about what Christians do and do not believe. For example, the idea that there are two covenants, Jesus fulfilled the first covenant, and therefore Christians are not subject to Old Testament Jewish law, is not a dismissive handwave, it is a core part of Christianity -
perhaps one of the most important core parts. So when atheists bring up all these Old Testament verses as though it is somehow a fault for Christians to be eating shellfish, or wearing clothes made from two fibres, that is a lie and I don't like it when people tell lies about other people, especially when they do so for political or ideological reasons (in this case in the service of antitheism).
The idea that if someone isn't a rabid frothing intolerant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ of a Christian then they're just not doing Christianity "properly" is one of the most egregious lies that antitheists tell. It's a straw argument, deliberately fabricated in order to make Christians look as bad as possible. Sorry, that's not on as far as I'm concerned.

As I say often, there is enough absurdity in the Bible already. You don't need to make ◊◊◊◊ up.

Have to disagree with you there - the various Christian religions have a pick 'n' mix approach to what they consider still relevant from the OT i.e. what to follow from the OT, it is not incorrect nor a lie to bring up that point. Especially since one will often find what those Christian religions consider still relevant is in the middle of laws/commandments that they don't follow, that they consider irrelevant. Even the most well-known of Christian laws/commandments (which most if not all Christian religions have a version of) the "Ten Commandments" are found in the OT amidst other commandments/laws. (And the Christian religions cannot agree on which ten commandments are still relevant.)

 

[Darat]

I guess that's one way to interpret it. But of course again that contradicts science as well. It suggests that the Sun and the stars weren't their when the earth was formed. It also says that plants predates the sun. (
Keep in mind that Genesis provides not one, but three creation stories.)

But none start at the creation of "everything" - all start with god transforming stuff he already had lying about (apart from light).

ETA: And that's not an interpretation it's a translation, which is different to an interpretation.

 

[acbytesla]

But none start at the creation of "everything" - all start with god transforming stuff he already had lying about (apart from light).

ETA: And that's not an interpretation it's a translation, which is different to an interpretation.

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. But I wouldn't be surprised that would be the current apologetics. I certainly could not be 5he first to come to that problem.

 

[Olmstead]

Regardless of how the Bible starts, God does refer to himself as "the maker of all things", which seems pretty definitive. Unless you're calling God a liar?

 

[Poem]

Regardless of how the Bible starts, God does refer to himself as "the maker of all things", which seems pretty definitive. Unless you're calling God a liar?

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.