God is an outdated concept

[Trent Wray]

I don't care if you and everyone here mock me. Yes, I believe in God. I believe Jesus Christ.

I disagree with your vague and imprecise premise. What questions "the people" had were "indisputably" answered?

Why? I said "often," as in "some" or even "many." I didn't say "all" or "every" or "most."

The problem is not mine. My quoted examples were the simple mathematics of multiplication and addition on the calendar. Just because numbers were mentioned does not mean numerology was used or I have any use for it. Now insult me some more. It's the typical tolerant and kind-spirited response from your "ilk."

By the way, your heart continues to beat in your chest and you can breathe in again only by His allowance.

So you don't care what we think or how we feel or what our thoughts are. In fact, what you are asking us to do is insult your or mock you.

Interesting.

I doubt you see the "I'm a persecuted martyr, now persecute me," aspect.
I also doubt you see the "I believe in Jesus but I don't care about any or what you all think or your "kind" " irony considering you'll probably claim that Jesus died out of love for our ilk/kind.

Sorry, but you might want to study up some more before you take that final entrance exam.

 

[154]

So you don't care what we think or how we feel or what our thoughts are.

Not true. Again, I didn't say any of that. This seems to be a pattern here toward me. I only said I don't care if I am mocked here.

In fact, what you are asking us to do is insult your or mock you.

Also not true. Feel free to be decent to me.

Interesting.

I agree.

I doubt you see the "I'm a persecuted martyr, now persecute me," aspect.

You are correct. I do not see that. I do not see differing opinions on JREF, regardless of tone, as "persecution," but merely dialogue.

I also doubt you see the "I believe in Jesus but I don't care about any or what you all think or your "kind" " irony considering you'll probably claim that Jesus died out of love for our ilk/kind.

You are correct again. I don't see that either because I certainly never had any intention of evangelism here, but only fleeting dialogue.

Sorry, but you might want to study up some more before you take that final entrance exam.

Was all this really just to jump on the gangbang and thereby avoid admitting whether my simple point to you in our earlier exchange was true? Was I correct there or not Trent Wray?

 

[Trent Wray]

Not true. Again, I didn't say any of that. This seems to be a pattern here toward me. I only said I don't care if I am mocked here. Also not true. Feel free to be decent to me.
I agree.
You are correct. I do not see that. I do not see differing opinions on JREF, regardless of tone, as "persecution," but merely dialogue.
You are correct again. I don't see that either because I certainly never had any intention of evangelism here, but only fleeting dialogue.
Was all this really just to jump on the gangbang and thereby avoid admitting whether my simple point to you in our earlier exchange was true? Was I correct there or not Trent Wray?

What point did you make to me earlier that had a true/false attached to it? I'm not seeing that. Was that in another thread?

Now if you're willing to "go neutral" for a moment I realize that a few posts ago in this thread you claimed Jesus was real. Can you provide any evidence that Jesus is alive, here and now? Specifically, I would like to talk with him, and I'm not kidding. I get tired of believers telling me this is ridiculous to ask. So can I speak with Him face to face? Have you? If you have ... can you explain it? Also ... I'd like to understand why even if Jesus/God are real, why they are trustworthy. And just to let you know, the "give your allegiance or die" thing speaks of untrustworthiness. This should be "common sense" I would hope.

 

[jsfisher]

Demonstrate your critical thinking.

Refute the irrefutable.

First, you tell me why you took something perfectly clear like "69 weeks-of-years" (which is 7x69 = 483 years), then convert it to days using one calendar, then convert it back to years using a completely different calendar, and manage to conveniently lose 8 years in the process.

 

[154]

What point did you make to me earlier that had a true/false attached to it? I'm not seeing that. Was that in another thread?

Post #51, but nevermind, forget it, doesn't matter.

Now if you're willing to "go neutral" for a moment I realize that a few posts ago in this thread you claimed Jesus was real.

No worries. I'm easy.

Can you provide any evidence that Jesus is alive, here and now?

Nope, not really, nothing inarguable, no can do. But for perusal at your leisure otherwise, this happens to come to mind at the moment:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

Specifically, I would like to talk with him, and I'm not kidding.

I believe you. I would too.

I get tired of believers telling me this is ridiculous to ask. So can I speak with Him face to face?

Nope. Not yet.

Have you? If you have ... can you explain it?

Again, no.

Also ... I'd like to understand why even if Jesus/God are real, why they are trustworthy. And just to let you know, the "give your allegiance or die" thing speaks of untrustworthiness. This should be "common sense" I would hope.

This would be great philosophical musing and discussion over beers, but not worth the time and typing here. Sorry. Now what?

 

[Trent Wray]

Post #51, but nevermind, forget it, doesn't matter.
No worries. I'm easy. Nope, not really, nothing inarguable, no can do. But for perusal at your leisure otherwise, this happens to come to mind at the moment:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html I believe you. I would too. Nope. Not yet. Again, no. This would be great philosophical musing and discussion over beers, but not worth the time and typing here. Sorry. Now what?

Why can't I talk with Jesus/God face to face? Do you have proof of why I can't (other than the idea they don't exist, and therefore I can't talk to them)?

See, to me, the idea of whether or not I should even trust a real god counts as beer talk philosophically if god weren't real. But if god is real and I can burn forever and this/that .... then I'm willing to put my double-Jameson-on-the-rocks down and get real b4 I face the flames or the choice of "believe or die, resistance is futile," when Jesus/god decides it's time for me.

So do you have evidence in the here and now why this is relevant and why Jesus is unreachable?

And if you don't, then why are you content to trust or believe in Jesus without current, relevant evidence that he's alive? Is it a gamble you're essentially making?

BTW --- I like your response to my last post, except for the condescending bit at the end. It's hard to differentiate who is talking to you when you think you are being gangbanged. But i'm talking, not gangbanging.

 

[Nursedan]

I don't care if you and everyone here mock me. Yes, I believe in God. I believe Jesus Christ.


I disagree with your vague and imprecise premise. What questions "the people" had were "indisputably" answered?

QUOTE]

The questions I wrote about in the OP. The question of "what are the stars" "what is the sun" "how did the universe come to be" etc.

It's indisputable that the stars are physical objects very far away. During Biblical times, this was not known. This is why, I think, that the bible simply refers to them as "the heavens", as if Earth is all-important. We know now, indisputably, that there are at least several million Earthlike planets in the universe that could possibly support life.

I don't blame the people who originated Christianity or any other religion for doing what they did - they were simply trying to make sense of the world within the context of what they knew to be true. Today, we have exponentially more knowledge, and that, my friend, is why the concept of God is obsolete.

Thanks

 

[Nursedan]

"I disagree with your vague and imprecise premise. What questions "the people" had were "indisputably" answered?"


The questions I wrote about in the OP. The question of "what are the stars" "what is the sun" "how did the universe come to be" etc.

It's indisputable that the stars are physical objects very far away. During Biblical times, this was not known. This is why, I think, that the bible simply refers to them as "the heavens", as if Earth is all-important. We know now, indisputably, that there are at least several million Earthlike planets in the universe that could possibly support life.

I don't blame the people who originated Christianity or any other religion for doing what they did - they were simply trying to make sense of the world within the context of what they knew to be true. Today, we have exponentially more knowledge, and that, my friend, is why the concept of God is obsolete.

Thanks

 

[Tricky]

I believe that the concept of God is obsolete by at least 1000 years. When people did not have the proper technology, it was essential to create myths about the origin of the universe, the Earth, and life in general. We know factually now, through science, that the universe began at a definite point. We know now what stars are, what the sun is and it's function etc etc. The point is, in archaic times, these concepts were unexplainable without some deity to "lord" over them. The sun and stars were themselves worshipped at some point.

A-theism is the only rational viewpoint, in my opinion. It regards the physical world as it is. It doesn't throw up it's hands and say "let God sort it out", or "God works in mysterious ways" when a valid question is asked - Atheism seeks the answer through scientific reasoning. There is nothing that has happened or that ever will happen that isn't explainable through the filter of the world as we know it. The concept of God is so far from rationality that it is self-insulating. "Blind faith" indeed.

How can those on this board who believe continue their belief in God when the questions the people had who originated the Bible and Christianity have been thoroughly answered using methods that are indisputable?

Going back to the OP (sorry about the rerail) I wanted to coment on this. Though I am an atheist, I don't think the concept of God is obsolete. It serves a purpose that has more to do with our nature than it does with any kind of truth. People and other animals are fundamentally insecure. They never know exactly what is coming next. It is not easy to admit this and just accept what happens. Humans want, no, crave answers. If they cannot find them rationally they will dip into the irrational. We see this time and time again in the parade of believers who visit, and sometimes stay here.

Let's face it. Death is scary. Infinity is unfathomable. Right and wrong have such fuzzy boundaries. It is quite comforting to humans to have an answer to those questions, even if the answer makes no sense when investigated carefully. We simply don't like the realization that we don't know that much.

So we make up stories and believe them. Not just once but counless numbers of times, in every remote part of the globe. Even many of the scientists I work with believe the stories. It is a strong need that overwhelms logic.

There is a reason why atheists are a minority, and the reason does not necessarily require that we are "raised on religion". People believe in new religions, like Scientology and NeoPaganism. They desperately want for there to be some controller who is watching over us. Is this need obsolete? No, not yet. Probably not for a long time.
***
"Everybody I talk to is waiting to hear from the one
Who can give them the answers.
To lead them back to that place in the warmth of the sun
Where sweet childhood still dances.

But who'll come along
And hold out that strong
But gentle Father's hand?
Long ago I heard someone
Say something 'bout Everyman."
---Jackson Browne

 

[qayak]

The problem is not mine. My quoted examples were the simple mathematics of multiplication and addition on the calendar.

That is where your problems start. Mathematics has nothing to do with calendars. That's numerology. Your quoted examples are numerology and, as such, useless.

Just because numbers were mentioned does not mean numerology was used or I have any use for it.

It is numerology because of what you claim these "numbers" prove. Math looks like this 1+1=2. Numerology looks like this: 24 is the day of the month my cat was born, 4 is the number of feet my cat has, 2 is the number times my cat visits the litter box in a day, 24/4X2=12 Jesus had 12 disciples . . . my cat is Jesus.

Now insult me some more. It's the typical tolerant and kind-spirited response from your "ilk."

I see you have learned a new word on the JREF. Well then, your time here hasn't been a complete waste.

By the way, your heart continues to beat in your chest and you can breathe in again only by His allowance.

Gee, you'd think your god would smite a disgustingly rude and uppity, non-believer such as myself instead of the young christian boy whose funeral took place next door to my house today. Yeah, that'll teach me. Your faux god has me trembling in my boots.

Next time you are down on your knees giving your god a good blo . . . I mean grovelling, ask the coward where he was tonight . . . if you aren't too afraid that is.

 

[qayak]

What if, after critical thinking has taken place in the absence of emotional bias, the individual still does not "see" their errors? Is it right to assume they are either incapable or do not want to see it? Are these the main options ton conclude I'm wondering?

Interesting question. This is a brain issue. We all know how easy it is to fool the brain and how the brain fills in blanks so that we don't even realize the blank exists. If we think of the idea of god as a blank that the brain has filled in with a story and that story has been retold and, reinforced, over and over until it is an undisputed truth, we can understand why someone would never question it.

If you then ask that person "How do you know there is a god?" and they are receptive enough to actually think about the question and say to themselves, "Yeah, exactly what evidence do I have that I would accept from someone else, that there is a god?"

Many people will simply retell you the story that their brain made up to fill in the blank but some will honestly try to answer the question truthfully.

 

[154]

That is where your problems start. Mathematics has nothing to do with calendars. That's numerology. Your quoted examples are numerology and, as such, useless.

It is numerology because of what you claim these "numbers" prove. Math looks like this 1+1=2. Numerology looks like this: 24 is the day of the month my cat was born, 4 is the number of feet my cat has, 2 is the number times my cat visits the litter box in a day, 24/4X2=12 Jesus had 12 disciples . . . my cat is Jesus.

Multiplying a number of years to get a number of days and adding those to one date to arrive at another date is not numerology. Did you even read the articles?

I see you have learned a new word on the JREF. Well then, your time here hasn't been a complete waste.

Yeah, like someone from my perspective who engages with people of your perspective has never heard the word "ilk" before...

Gee, you'd think your god would smite a disgustingly rude and uppity, non-believer such as myself instead of the young christian boy whose funeral took place next door to my house today. Yeah, that'll teach me. Your faux god has me trembling in my boots.

Next time you are down on your knees giving your god a good blo . . . I mean grovelling, ask the coward where he was tonight . . . if you aren't too afraid that is.

Nice.

 

[Trent Wray]

Interesting question. This is a brain issue. We all know how easy it is to fool the brain and how the brain fills in blanks so that we don't even realize the blank exists. If we think of the idea of god as a blank that the brain has filled in with a story and that story has been retold and, reinforced, over and over until it is an undisputed truth, we can understand why someone would never question it.

If you then ask that person "How do you know there is a god?" and they are receptive enough to actually think about the question and say to themselves, "Yeah, exactly what evidence do I have that I would accept from someone else, that there is a god?"

Many people will simply retell you the story that their brain made up to fill in the blank but some will honestly try to answer the question truthfully.

IOW ... what they have used to fill in the blank has formed such a strong association that even becoming "aware" of something logically might not "override" the neural connections that trigger and continue to habitually fill in the blank?

Hmm ... in this sense, once a person realizes a "truth" and wants to change the current association, in order to do so would require the brain to create or use new associations, which would probably require building new neural groups that trigger and are accessed from certain stimuli in a new way than the previous way.

Yes?

 

[Twiler]

Therefore what?

If your method of extracting prophecies only works for some verses, how do you know that it's the correct method?

 

[qayak]

Multiplying a number of years to get a number of days and adding those to one date to arrive at another date is not numerology. Did you even read the articles?

Did you read the article. It is all about fudging numbers and dates to prove a prophecy . . . that's numerology.

Yeah, like someone from my perspective who engages with people of your perspective has never heard the word "ilk" before...

Good job. Using the word in a sentence will increase the likelihood of it becoming a permanent part of your vocabulary. Isn't the JREF wonderful?

Nice.

That's the best response you've got for the epic fail of your skydaddy last night? You really should cast off the fear and, shackles, of your pathetic religion and live life to the fullest.

 

[Minarvia]

You know, I used to think this way. But, now I am not so sure.

I think the basic ingredients for believing in a God are somewhat innate, and are part of our evolutionary baggage. If someone was not indoctrinated or taught about God, at all, I think the default mode of a typical human would be speculation that a god, or many gods, are controlling things in their lives.

Of course, the specifics would have to be learned: The God of the Bible is not, specifically, innate. Only the general framework to believe is there, to be filled in by whatever the culture happens to fill into there. (With, perhaps, some limits and caveats, etc.)

Perhaps babies, who are not fully mentally developed, are literally atheists. But, then again, they could be said to be a-just-about-anything-ists, also. The basic ingredients for gods and (more generally) magical thinking, develop over time. And, they usually only get worse, over time, even into old age. Unless, of course, one is trained out of them. And, it usually does not come easy. At least not as easy as giving into religion.

I have a copy of the book somewhere, and it was only one case, but there is a book written about Laura Bridgman (the first blind and deaf girl to learn language) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Bridgman and her mentor, Samuel Gridley Howe tried an experiment with her to prove the existance of god and that god is in everyone, since she had never been told about god and had no knowledge of the subject whatsoever.

He dropped her "clues" such as growing flowers and such to try and get her to ask "how does this happen and who made it and us). She never did. He failed in his experiment and because she did not discover or know god innately he then pretty much turned his back on her and said that her soul must have been damaged when she went blind and deaf. "The Silent Prisoner" I think the book is called.

Yes, it's one case, but it showed that for Laura, at least, she did not become religious until it was taught to her. And she was quite educated in language and reading before this. I do think she's at least a good example of the possibility that a god belief is not necessarily innate.

 

[D'rok]

I have a copy of the book somewhere, and it was only one case, but there is a book written about Laura Bridgman (the first blind and deaf girl to learn language) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Bridgman and her mentor, Samuel Gridley Howe tried an experiment with her to prove the existance of god and that god is in everyone, since she had never been told about god and had no knowledge of the subject whatsoever.

He dropped her "clues" such as growing flowers and such to try and get her to ask "how does this happen and who made it and us). She never did. He failed in his experiment and because she did not discover or know god innately he then pretty much turned his back on her and said that her soul must have been damaged when she went blind and deaf. "The Silent Prisoner" I think the book is called.

Yes, it's one case, but it showed that for Laura, at least, she did not become religious until it was taught to her. And she was quite educated in language and reading before this. I do think she's at least a good example of the possibility that a god belief is not necessarily innate.

That doesn't really address Wowbagger's point. It's the capacity for god belief that is innate, not god belief itself. Or at least that is how I take his point. We are pre-disposed to readily accept and internalize god-beliefs. If Lauara had been taught about God, would she have found it silly? I doubt it. If all such beliefs were somehow erased from our cultural consciousness, I think it is likely that we would just develop new ones, despite individual instances where that did not occur.

 

[Minarvia]

IOW ... what they have used to fill in the blank has formed such a strong association that even becoming "aware" of something logically might not "override" the neural connections that trigger and continue to habitually fill in the blank?

Hmm ... in this sense, once a person realizes a "truth" and wants to change the current association, in order to do so would require the brain to create or use new associations, which would probably require building new neural groups that trigger and are accessed from certain stimuli in a new way than the previous way.

Yes?

Sort of like a stroke patient. When the brain is rebuilding and rerouting itself people tend to change. They are not who they previously were and they use new associations for learning, memorizing, and such.

Which makes me think, when a brain is damaged and a person becomes someone else entirely, doesn't that mean that there isn't a "soul?" If there is not a soul, then where does "god" fit in? After my grandfather had a stroke, he was no longer a believer in god. He was before. He completely changed and remained changed for the rest of his 10 or so years of life.

Is this a derail or still on topic?

 

[Minarvia]

That doesn't really address Wowbagger's point. It's the capacity for god belief that is innate, not god belief itself. Or at least that is how I take his point. We are pre-disposed to readily accept and internalize god-beliefs. If all such beliefs where somehow erased from our cultural consciousness, I think it is likely that we would just develop new ones.

Fair enough. I read it incorrectly, then.

If all such god-concepts were erased from our social consciousness, isn't it just as possible the new concepts would not include god-beliefs? I'm just wondering. Of course a lot would depend on if our "erased" consciousness' would revert us to primitive humans once more, or more enlightened ones, as we are (pretty much, imo) now.

 

[CriticalSock]

You fool no one but yourself. You will not because you cannot refute the irrefutable, and then you would be left with the most uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

Not surprisingly, homosexuals are often the most virulent God-haters.

Shake your impotent fist at the Almighty Creator. Enjoy your days among the living. How many days do you have left?
http://www.mydeathspace.com/article-list.aspx

I virulently hate your god 154 as well, but I'm not gay. I do love Complexity though! Keep up the good work matey! In fact, anecdotal though it might be, we had a gay\straight\misc poll here recently and only a few ticked the (anonymous) gay box. Most of us god-haters are straight it seems.

Oh yeah, just to clarify, it's the concept of your god that I hate. I don't think it exists (thankfully) but the creature as put forward by people like yourselves is a loathesome thing.