Do you believe in God?

[justin credible]

The issue is not that you have an opinion.

The issue is the manner in which you present it (which can be taken as both insulting and aggressive) and your unwillingness to support the opinion via discussion and debate.

As I said it not a blog, its a discussion forum, post if you wish to discuss. Not if you wish (pardon the pun) to preach with no expectation of a reply.

I see where I can offend I apologise for that if I did offend.
The one question I do have is open for answers and discussion.
My question is in this day and age and in the UK churches of christian and catholic beliefs are near closing point as they are hardly used, Is the lack of going to church a sign people are turning there back on religon and if so why?

 

[Imari]

With "God", we're not talking about something that exists in a way human-kind can easily measure, classify, dissect, eat etc. etc. There's not even a consensus on what or where "God" is, how he might exist, where to look for him, and what we should be looking for. So, the probability of being able to prove his/its existence, is so low, it almost doesn't matter whether he/it does or doesn't exist, because it's virtually impossible to prove either way.. hence "maybe" -- or at least that's the way I see it.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Except that there's numerous examples, if you talk to believers, of God interacting with our world/plane/whatever you want to call it. If God can interact with our world in a way that we can perceive, then by definition that is detectable, measurable and classifiable.

There's actually no reason to believe that God could not be detected and measured in some way by current technology. We might not be able to detect Him, as such, but we could certainly detect his actions and thereby infer his existence.

...You can't back up a Yes or No answer with a reason...

Really?

Are the dots between the squares white? Yes or no?

Whatever your answer, you're going to have to explain the reasoning behind it in order for it to make any sense to anybody.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

@SuperCobraJet

Re: Inconsistencies

In my opinion, for what is claimed to be absolute truth, it's not good enough. 'Human error' in writing is a complete cop out when many of these people have allegedly spoken with god himself. God is omnipresent and omniscient; his word should not be subject to change or be misconstrued.

This is allegedly the holy text. Surely he would ensure everything in it is accurate and correct?

Percieved inconsistencies, do not necessarily equate to inaccurate or incorrect.
It is entirely possible they are reconcilable.
Besides, of the 20 proclaimed, only about three had any true legitimacy at being inconsistent.
Again, I do not believe it confuses or detracts from the priority aspects of the message being conveyed. I guess I just don't see it as a ligitamate excuse to discount the entirety of writings based on a few percieved inconsistencies of incidentals. But thats just me.
I do see your point though.

What bias, exactly, is he displaying?

He's been trying to tell you that all religions are equally unsupported by any evidence, whatsoever. As such, he's advocating that they all be treated the same. He's basically displaying the textbook definition of not having a bias at all.

Sorry, but you are dead wrong.
According to his standard of evidence, they are all already judged the same.
He is biased in applying his standard of evidence.
That precludes any unpredjudiced consideration on the possibility of one religion being more valid than another.
Accordingly his view is biased.
Here is the definition.
bias
2. a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

Are you suggesting that they only deserved to be free once they had converted to Christianity? I would hope not, but if that's not what you meant, you worded it pretty poorly.

Also, it's worth pointing out that many many many slaves became Christians long before slavery ended. And yet, their owners stayed the course anyway, often using religion to justify it along the way.

No, on your first question.

I was pointing out the failure of the slave owners to realize the gross hipocrosy of keeping a Christian brother as a slave.
Since nearly all of them were supposedly Christian, and we are debating the influence thereof.

Your attempts to suggest that Christianity helped end slavery in any significant way don't really hold water.

On the Southern end it doesn't.
But as I already posted, most that fought on the North, believed slavery to be totally incompatible with their Christian beliefs.

 

[homeforsummer]

With the way this thread has developed (15,000 posts), the poll is a bit limited. What is your religious position, with lots of options would probably give a truer picture. I've still not answered the poll myself as I think the poll implies a belief in a god as laid out in a book.

edited for lots of typos.. man I'm tired.

My main objection to the poll options is that what should have been a simple "no" option was made "no way!". I don't believe in God so I picked "no way!", but I'd generally not express it in such terms. "No way!" seems a bit too much like active disbelief for me, rather than my state of passive non-belief.

Edit: Somehow I managed to combine this with another post from several days ago. All fixed now...

 

[MatskiMonk]

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Except that there's numerous examples, if you talk to believers, of God interacting with our world/plane/whatever you want to call it. If God can interact with our world in a way that we can perceive, then by definition that is detectable, measurable and classifiable.

There's actually no reason to believe that God could not be detected and measured in some way by current technology. We might not be able to detect Him, as such, but we could certainly detect his actions and thereby infer his existence.

If you think you know that, then fine. You believe the probability of god being provable to be high, since it's not been proven, I'm guessing you then deduce that god probably doesn't exist. I'm of the opinion that it's currently virtually impossible to prove the existence of a god. Just as it was impossible to prove the existence of Sub-Atomic particles 2000 years ago. If you want to think that believers make any difference, then fine.

Really?

Are the dots between the squares white? Yes or no?

View attachment 218109
Whatever your answer, you're going to have to explain the reasoning behind it in order for it to make any sense to anybody.

Yes, because they are white, when you look at them, they are white, they are also white according to the easiest methods to double check. I fail to see the point you are making? My argument was that Maybe is a valid response given that it's not currently possible to make such an analysis or double check.. you offer only a Yes or No answer with your example, and the answer is actually presented to us in the picture. Now answer my question.. is there an Invisible moose in the second picture?

 

[Imari]

If you think you know that, then fine. You believe the probability of god being provable to be high, since it's not been proven, I'm guessing you then deduce that god probably doesn't exist. I'm of the opinion that it's currently virtually impossible to prove the existence of a god. Just as it was impossible to prove the existence of Sub-Atomic particles 2000 years ago. If you want to think that believers make any difference, then fine.

It's impossible to prove the existence of anything. We see what we think we see.

You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. You said that God is something that cannot be measured or classified in an ordinary way. You may be partially right, but if any of the claims of God interacting with the world are correct then at least that portion of God that is interacting with our world can be detected.

Believers make no difference one way or the other, I'm merely referring to them as they're the ones that claim that God does things like impregnate virgins. That'd be detectable, if it were to happen.

Yes, because they are white, when you look at them, they are white, they are also white according to the easiest methods to double check. I fail to see the point you are making? My argument was that Maybe is a valid response given that it's not currently possible to make such an analysis or double check.. you offer only a Yes or No answer with your example, and the answer is actually presented to us in the picture. Now answer my question.. is there an Invisible moose in the second picture?

You don't see flickering when you look at that picture? You don't see the dots sometimes flickering to black or grey?

You'd be the only person if not. The rest of us see a flickering pattern of white and black or grey dots, and as such there's a reasonable argument to be made that while the dots are measurably white with instrumentation, but the way that the human eye works causes them to appear not to be white at times. Since perception is an important part of what colour something is, it's reasonable to say that they are sometimes not white.

The point is that Yes or No is sometimes not enough. Sometimes you need to say yes, and qualify what you mean by that yes. You say that the dots are white, but there's visible evidence that they appear not to be, so you would need to qualify your yes. If someone else says no they're not white, they need to qualify that they're only referring to perception, and that they dots are measurably white to an instrument.


And no, there isn't an invisible moose in the second picture. If you can provide any evidence that there is an invisible moose in there then I'll be more than willing to revise my position. But I'm not driving down the road at five miles an hour just in case there's an invisible moose standing in the middle. I'll drive at normal speeds, and if I hit an invisible moose then I will revise my driving patterns accordingly.

Like most humans, I construct my perception of reality based on the evidence presented to me. I don't sit on my bum drooling because I'm trying to "maybe" my way through all the infinite possibilities that I could be not perceiving in any given instant. If I don't perceive a moose, I'm happy to make the assumption that there isn't a moose until shown otherwise. The vast majority of the time I'll be right that there wasn't a moose there, which is why Occam's Razor is such a powerful heuristic.

 

[GBO Possum]

As late as a few hundred years ago, many people believed in dragons. In my opinion, a universe without dragons would be seriously incomplete.

"Most Nords assumed dragons were only a legend....until now"

I can assure you, @Dotini, that this universe is complete.

Back on topic.

I'm sure the principal reason why I used to believe in God was that at a very tender age, I was told to get on my knees and pray to God to bless the members of my family. I didn't know what "blessing" meant (and still don't), I didn't know who God was, but I did know who my family was, and they were important to me. I was also told that my father was with God in Heaven. (He was an Air Force pilot and killed in WW2). Apparently this "God" was looking after my father and could watch out for my mother and make sure nothing bad happened to her.

Quite why God had taken his eye off the ball and failed to protect my father and his fellow crew member eluded me. But Heaven was presented as a kind of consolation prize. Not a goal to be striven for, but a logical destination for those of us who chose to lead a "good life".

At the age of 3 or 4, all this sounded like a reasonable story, especially if one ignored the details, and didn't ask too many questions.

Questions such as "If I die and go to heaven, will (insert name of beloved family pet here) be there with me?" The answer was "yes", because otherwise heaven would not be the wonderful experience it's cracked up to be. Later, I asked if dogs and cats have "souls". Confusingly, the answer to that was "no", at which point I realized I was the ticket to heaven for the family pets, and that what would arrive there was an empty shell of an animal sent only to keep me happy.

Thus began the slow slide back to reality, and many decades later, to my great relief, things made sense as I discarded the myths which had been injected into my mind before I had the tools to be selective about what went in there.

I now wonder. If I had been brought up to see a different "heaven", one which is a goal to be attained sooner rather than later, would I have been one to strap explosives onto my body and venture into crowds of "Other" people with my finger on the switch?

Lest you be concerned, having discarded the entire notion of life after death, I'm safe to be around. Peace!

 

[Dotini]

Lest you be concerned, having discarded the entire notion of life after death, I'm safe to be around. Peace!

On the question of life after death, is it possible to know the global percentages of people who believe/disbelieve?

Would it break down exactly on the global percentages of religious/agnostic/atheist?
Or maybe more along the contours of our GTP poll?

I would make the guess that western European and English speaking nations would be at the disbelieve end of the spectrum.

 

[GBO Possum]

On the question of life after death, is it possible to know the global percentages of people who believe/disbelieve?

Would it break down exactly on the global percentages of religious/agnostic/atheist?
Or maybe more along the contours of our GTP poll?

I would make the guess that western European and English speaking nations would be at the disbelieve end of the spectrum.

The Pew Research study of Americans in 2008 put belief in life after death at 74%.

Of course some would say we are not an "English speaking" nation

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

 

[huskeR32]

Sorry, but you are dead wrong.
According to his standard of evidence...

I, for one, have no interest in rehashing your definition of evidence. You attempted to redefine that word last time you were around, and it makes no more sense now than it did then.

...they are all already judged the same.

Exactly. Judging all things the same, against the same standards of evidence. Not biased. Seriously, how can you be getting this so wrong?

He is biased in applying his standard of evidence.

Provide one example of this, please.

That precludes any unpredjudiced consideration on the possibility of one religion being more valid than another.

It's simple. There is not any reason to think that any one religion, among the many that have existed, is any more valid than another. They are all equally unsupported by evidence. Anyone operating without a bias would see that clearly.

Here is the definition.
bias
2. a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

You mean like your inclination to view Christianity as "more valid" than all other faiths? Your inability to consider that, in fact, there's nothing special about your particular faith? The way that your personal investment in Christianity causes you to place more weight on personal experiences and anecdotes that confirm your views, while discarding any that run counter?

 

[Charlie A]

Yes! I believe in God! Look at yourself as a human, who created you? Yes your parents did but where did humanity come from? Our human brains cannot comprehend that, but when believers die and go to heaven, it all becomes clear! Genesis 1:3, and God said, "Let there be light." God is the creator of this whole universe we live in today! It is very hard to explain, but to understand, you must have faith! If anyone would like to know more about God and how you can accept him into your life, please start a conversation with me. Remember, God is alive!

 

[Pit Crew]

Yes I believe. A Scripture in the New Testament states; we should believe in the lord with child like faith. good enough for me.

I see where I can offend I apologise for that if I did offend.
The one question I do have is open for answers and discussion.
My question is in this day and age and in the UK churches of Christian and catholic beliefs are near closing point as they are hardly used, Is the lack of going to church a sign people are turning there back on religon and if so why?

I've experienced peoples disillusionment with going to church as having more to do with the members themselves and not the word. This is opinion is based on what I observe while in fellowship, not an overall conclusion.

their probably disenchanted with the holier than though personalities for one.

 

[TheMokafan]

I don't. I did, once. Not like casually either. Like full-on gay-hating, holier-than-thou theism. Everyday I think to myself "How could I have been so stupid?" I was brainwashed though, so it couldn't be helped.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I don't. I did, once. Not like casually either. Like full-on gay-hating, holier-than-thou theism. Everyday I think to myself "How could I have been so stupid?" I was brainwashed though, so it couldn't be helped.

That about sums it up.

 

[Carbonox]

Yes I believe. A Scripture in the New Testament states; we should believe in the lord with child like faith. good enough for me.

I'm not sure why grown up people shouldn't use their talent of observing things objectively...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Quick google search. Try these:




It goes on... and on... and on.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Quick google search. Try these:

It goes on... and on... and on.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/morgand03.php

Precisely.

How is an understanding of the biochemical reaction occurring within my brain a bias? Its a statement of fact. Show me facts that update or change that theory and I will quite happily amend it.

That you are dismissing any other explanation at all out of hand (regardless of evidence) is a clear bias.

I'm not dismissing any other explanation out of hand.
I've already evaluated all of that, and personally discovered, they do not apply.
And as already mentioned, that has been, roughly a 40yr endeavor.
So is that biased? From another perspective, such as yours, Yes it is.
From my own, no its not.
Obviously, you are taking the same position.

Not without evidence to support it.

The question I asked does not require evidence.
So if you answered yes, you would not be compromising your standard.
A possibilty of something doesn't establish it evidentially.

Your mixing hypothesis, fact and theory here. Not that I'm surprised given your love of bending meaning to suit your own purpose.

I do not believe that to be the case.

All you have managed to do here is further illustrate why its a poor and unsuitable analogy.

Again, I do not believe that to be the case.
The only difference is you may appeal their(regional authority)ruling and have the payment adjusted.
But you will still have to pay.
In the other example, there is no appeal, since you will have no justifiable evidence to support your claim.
And likewise you will still be required pay.
However you personally, cannot pay that debt.

You claimed the bible was "consistent and reasonable and based on the inherent value of life".

From the perspective of the universal law of exchange, yes that is what I said.
Or that God's judgement on us is reasonable in light of that.

If its been interpreted in a manner that justifies the causing of harm then it doesn't meet that claimed standard at all.

That assumes that causing harm is never justified.
That is not the case.

So once again its not "consistent and reasonable and based on the inherent value of life"

I don't follow how you conclude that.

So the moment the masters noticed the slaves had found god they just upped and freed them!

Quite a bold (and utterly inaccurate) claim to make.

Strange.
I'm actually claiming the exact opposite.
They should have realized that dictated their freedom, even if they did not believe so for other reasons.

Then please explain why its still a part of it, why christians cherry pick from it to justify all manner of things, why the 10 commandments still adorn every church I have been in?

Because they are still relevant and applicable.
Its the same God, just not the same covenant.

You stated "God gave man Dominion or authority, rule, autonomy.
Under that establishment, God cannot just come in and encroach on that, making alternate directives as he pleases.
Its very similar to a landlord/tenant arrangement."

Every one of the examples I gave shows him coming in and encroaching on that, as I said your entire faith is based on him doing exactly that. Regardless of how 'happy' she was with the whole deal its a rather major 'encroachment' to say the least, not to mention the end result was the splitting of the single Abrehamic faith into two, once again quite a significant alternative directive!

The establishment of the Abrehamic covenant, allowed God to interact.
In fact Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only covenant son, which allowed God do to the same.

So you are quite happy with genocide as long as god does it.

No, to the contrary I'm not.
However, niether am I in a position to judge what God did at that time and under those conditions.
If it was necessary to preserve and continue the plan of God, then it was justifed.
As the Bible says, the law never saved anyone, and actually had the opposite affect.
However it also says it was necessary.

And your also quite happy with genocide as long as its done under gods direct orders, not that he apparently makes alternative directions - which the orders he gave to Gideon were - bit of a contradiction that. God gives orders to kill a whole bunch of people because they went to a different religion, but that's not a directive!

Not because they were of a different religion, but because they were expressly evil, and could and would(God only knows) destroy Israel.
And again he could act to help protect them under the covenant.

Unfortunately, you are judging these things from a surface and 21st century carnal perspective, without regaurd to the spiritual aspects.

 

[Liquid]

That assumes that causing harm is never justified.
That is not the case.

Rape cannot be justified.
Slavery cannot be justified.
Mutilation cannot be justified.
Genocide cannot be justified.
Theocracy cannot be justified.

For all the good it claims to have, the Bible also actively encourages many horrible practices and it cannot and should not be used as a moral or legal standard. As @Imari said, just because god brings home ice cream on Sundays, doesn't mean he's a jealous, murderous, petty thug the rest of the time. Assuming he is real and not just a narrative device used by jealous, murderous petty human thugs to justify their oppression.

Unfortunately, you are judging these things from a surface and 21st century carnal perspective, without regaurd to the spiritual aspects.

We are judging it with a scientific and logical basis, as one should do with any claimed knowledge, 'spiritual' or not.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I, for one, have no interest in rehashing your definition of evidence. You attempted to redefine that word last time you were around, and it makes no more sense now than it did then.

Obviously.

Exactly. Judging all things the same, against the same standards of evidence. Not biased. Seriously, how can you be getting this so wrong?

Wrong, or how could it be right?
Its pretty simple, and its already been stated.
The standard he invokes, precludes any possibility that one religion, could be more valid than another.
His standard is blatantly prejudiced, to the question.
The only way, that could be considered unbiased, would be under the assumption, he and his standard are infallible.
Which of course is not the case.

Provide one example of this, please.

Numerous examples of this have been provided over the course of this thread.
And includes practically every technological advancement.

It's simple. There is not any reason to think that any one religion, among the many that have existed, is any more valid than another. They are all equally unsupported by evidence. Anyone operating without a bias would see that clearly.

That wasn't the question.
The question is:
Is it possible, one religion, could be, more valid than another?
And BTW, your statement, "There is not any reason to think that any one religion, among the many that have existed, is any more valid than another," is also blatantly predjudiced and biased.

You mean like your inclination to view Christianity as "more valid" than all other faiths? Your inability to consider that, in fact, there's nothing special about your particular faith? The way that your personal investment in Christianity causes you to place more weight on personal experiences and anecdotes that confirm your views, while discarding any that run counter?

Personal experience? Yes
Anecdotes? No.

I do not discard other religions out of hand, or for no reason.
As far as I can determine, they all claim, righteousness through your own works.
Christianity, is the only one that claims otherwise, and is totally unique in that respect.
From an honest perspective, I find that more logical, rational and applicable.

 

[Scaff]

I'm not dismissing any other explanation out of hand.
I've already evaluated all of that, and personally discovered, they do not apply.
And as already mentioned, that has been, roughly a 40yr endeavor.
So is that biased? From another perspective, such as yours, Yes it is.
From my own, no its not.

How have you evaluated all other options and discovered they do not apply?

Obviously, you are taking the same position.

No I'm not. I understand the effects based on the Bio-chemical reactions LSD causes in the brain (this is not conjecture, its peer reviewed evidence that can be falsified).

That is a totally different position to 'god is one with me because I say so'.

The question I asked does not require evidence.
So if you answered yes, you would not be compromising your standard.
A possibilty of something doesn't establish it evidentially.

And that possibility is of zero relevance and is certainly not a valid reason to based a higher status on any one of them, its possible that you are a post-op transgender Brazilian.

Until you are able to establish how a possibility leads you to conclude that one should have a higher status is a pointless line to go down.

I do not believe that to be the case.

And given your past inability to distinguish between these I'm not surprised by that at all.

Again, I do not believe that to be the case.
The only difference is you may appeal their(regional authority)ruling and have the payment adjusted.
But you will still have to pay.
In the other example, there is no appeal, since you will have no justifiable evidence to support your claim.
And likewise you will still be required pay.
However you personally, cannot pay that debt.

So one can be appealed to and that appeal can make a difference (up to and including a rebate and as such a direct reversal) and the other has not hope or even means of appeal.

You agree that and then still try and state its a valid analogy!

That assumes that causing harm is never justified.
That is not the case.

This has been covered by others, but its worth borrowing a quote as I'd love to see these justified:

"Rape cannot be justified.
Slavery cannot be justified.
Mutilation cannot be justified.
Genocide cannot be justified.
Theocracy cannot be justified."

I don't follow how you conclude that.

Explain how the above can be justified and you will have a point, fail to do so and you don't.

None of the above can be described as ""consistent and reasonable and based on the inherent value of life""

Strange.
I'm actually claiming the exact opposite.
They should have realized that dictated their freedom, even if they did not believe so for other reasons.

That makes no sense at all.

Because they are still relevant and applicable.
Its the same God, just not the same covenant.

Ah so he got it wrong first time around. Then why still include it? Why do people still follow it? Why does his Son say the are still valid?

All seems a bit inconsistent.

The establishment of the Abrehamic covenant, allowed God to interact.
In fact Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only covenant son, which allowed God do to the same.

None of which changes it from being an intervention/going in/alternate directive.

You made a claim that you have both failed to evidence and are now in fact directly contradicting.

No, to the contrary I'm not.
However, niether am I in a position to judge what God did at that time and under those conditions.
If it was necessary to preserve and continue the plan of God, then it was justifed.
As the Bible says, the law never saved anyone, and actually had the opposite affect.
However it also says it was necessary.

Genocide is necessary. Please explain?

Not because they were of a different religion, but because they were expressly evil, and could and would(God only knows) destroy Israel.

Ah so genocide is OK if you think someone might cause you harm, they don't actually have to do it, they just have to potentially think about doing it.

And again he could act to help protect them under the covenant.

Its still an alternate directive. He intervened and you said he didn't do that.

Unfortunately, you are judging these things from a surface and 21st century carnal perspective, without regaurd to the spiritual aspects.

OK so genocide is OK if its spiritually based.

So in a nutshell if god commands you to slaughter a bunch of people then it shouldn't be questioned and its totally OK.

Glad we got to the bottom of that.

 

[Imari]

Rape cannot be justified.
Slavery cannot be justified.
Mutilation cannot be justified.
Genocide cannot be justified.
Theocracy cannot be justified.

There's one really easy way to justify these things, and the reasoning that people use to justify them usually boils down to this one thing.

The victims are lesser beings.

Whether they consider the victims to not be of the true faith, to be the wrong race, the wrong sex, the wrong species, the common thread is that they are considered to be lesser than the criminal. And because might makes right, it is not a crime for them to be abused.

Try it with just about any example of the above you like, it'll usually reduce to the fact that somebody thought they were better than someone else, and thought that meant that they were justified to use force against them if they wished.

Of course, the "logic" behind that is as faulty as all get out, but humans have proven themselves to not be particularly rational creatures. In fact, they'll often intentionally avoid being rational if it gets them what they think they want. Like cuddles from Sky Daddy.

 

[Danoff]

Precisely.

You must have missed my response to that.

 

[GTP_Jimbobo]

I don't believe in God - I'm a Christian Atheist

 

[BobK]

where did humanity come from? Our human brains cannot comprehend that

Speak for yourself. My brain can comprehend it, no problem, without having to postulate the existence of any deities.

 

[Charlie A]

Speak for yourself. My brain can comprehend it, no problem, without having to postulate the existence of any deities.

What do you mean?

EDIT: I was trying to say is that to believe you must have faith in God.

 

[Dotini]

The Pew Research study of Americans in 2008 put belief in life after death at 74%.

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

The Pew pollsters seem to equate belief in life after death as simply a belief in either heaven or hell.

But they say nothing about an intermediate state, sometimes termed as limbo, purgatory, barzakh, bardo, etc. This would be sort of a "waiting room" where souls could be judged, sent back to life, or on into yet another state of being, or non-being, whatever.

If NDE's are one day scientifically verified, it might be discovered this is the source of them. Or not. Recent research has found elevated levels of cortex electrical activity in tests conducted on dead and dying lab rats. Electrical activity. Remember that.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...s-studying-neardeath-experiences-8758148.html

But sometimes NDE'rs see things during their trip outside their bodies which are later verified as true, but impossible for the victim to have known about beforehand. So the jury is still out on a complete scientific explanation of the NDE.

 

[Danoff]

I don't believe in God - I'm a Christian Atheist

The moral teachings of Jesus are respectable, but by no means a thorough or even wholly correct set of morals. Also lacking from them is a real understanding of why they exist (unless you believe they were sent from Our Heavenly Father... in which case it still isn't answered but the question is kicked farther down the road).

 

[RalliArt/////]

You must have missed my response to that.

I must have missed it too. Was that your answer to all 300+?

This might clear things up regarding the first few "contradictions".
“God created light”
This site also answers some specific “contradictions” in Genesis & other books.

 

[Dotini]

God is a well known liar, often referred to as a trickster by hunter-gatherer societies.

That god acted differently at different times for different peoples is evidence of a tricky, sneaky, even capricious entity who plays tricks and manipulates humans in seemingly irrational ways. It is possible that "god", or the program being run if this is a matrix world, is either insane or badly corrupted.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Rape cannot be justified.
Slavery cannot be justified.
Mutilation cannot be justified.
Genocide cannot be justified.
Theocracy cannot be justified.

Unfortunately, under the law, they were considered justifiable.
"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
However, I agree with you in that, "getting even" on these levels, is not justifiable, or a solution.
Jesus, basically said the same thing.
Although, when his kingdom is established, it will be a modified theocracy, wherein the "Deity's
laws", will be interpreted by the "Deity".

For all the good it claims to have, the Bible also actively encourages many horrible practices and it cannot and should not be used as a moral or legal standard. As @Imari said, just because god brings home ice cream on Sundays, doesn't mean he's a jealous, murderous, petty thug the rest of the time. Assuming he is real and not just a narrative device used by jealous, murderous petty human thugs to justify their oppression.

I think it should be pointed out that these practices were a part of a specific era, in the evolution of God's plan and were obviously not the final solution, but a stage of that plan.

We are judging it with a scientific and logical basis, as one should do with any claimed knowledge, 'spiritual' or not

And with the benefit of 2000 yrs of the influence of grace, and other 21st century illuminations.

 

[RalliArt/////]

God is a well known liar, often referred to as a trickster by hunter-gatherer societies.

That god acted differently at different times for different peoples is evidence of a tricky, sneaky, even capricious entity who plays tricks and manipulates humans in seemingly irrational ways. It is possible that "god", or the program being run if this is a matrix world, is either insane or badly corrupted.

Yep, just like the Bible says...


2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.