Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very well stated. I don't believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, but similar to your statement, I think they were the first people God chose to reveal himself too.
I think they were intended to be stand-ins for humanity generally. The story of the Fall is a metaphor for people, and societies, maturing and passing from "innocence" to "adulthood" and personal responsibility.
The narrative is too fantastical to produce anything but problems when you start trying to make the main protagonists into specific humans who actually lived and literally experienced the related events.
I think they were intended to be stand-ins for humanity generally. The story of the Fall is a metaphor for people, and societies, maturing and passing from "innocence" to "adulthood" and personal responsibility.
The narrative is too fantastical to produce anything but problems when you start trying to make the main protagonists into specific humans who actually lived and literally experienced the related events.
Possibly. As I've stated, I'm not a literalist. I thing some of the bible is historical while much is allegorical.
Do I believe Adam was made of clay and a rib was taken for eve? No.
In short, I don't dismiss the lessons in life it's trying to teach even when the story itself stretches our observational basis for reality.
Good life lessons can be taught from a variety of sources. Literalists often miss the point based on the 'rule' or 'sin' being discussed. Those who use mocking terms often miss the point based on their reaction to the proselytizing. To me, it's often the flip side of the same coin: extremism with dug in heels.
This is not another thread about the evidence or lack thereof for a god, so let's please not waste time going there . This is about some statements I routinely see here suggesting that the reason atheists and agnostics don't want to believe in God is because they want to sin. Which makes no sense in and of itself . But I want to directly address this oft repeated statement .
Do theists really believe that the only reason atheists and agnostics don't believe is because they want to sin?
Can theists truly not grasp that some people simply see no evidence of a God , and certainly none that might want a person to follow a particular faith, and see no point in believing in something like this without solid evidence ?
On what basis would a theist who believes this claim that someone like Stephen Hawking just wants to sin ? What evidence would a theist have that Sam Harris's atheism is rooted in a desire to pretend God doesn't exist so he can sin without guilt ? What about Dan Barker , a former Pentecostal preacher who decided he no longer believed ? What evidence would a theist have that Dan Barker left the faith so he could sin at will?
Is the concept of simple disbelief in invisible and silent supernatural beings really this hard to grasp , that theists have to resort to these kinds of allegations ?
IMHO as a Christian some may fail to grasp that but others don't. There are those who at one time "believed" but no more just as there are those who did not believe but became believers. I've met atheists and their reasons for not believing are as numerous as those who were atheists but became believers. Some are atheists because they have reasoned that people more intelligent than themselves have determined that life evolved by a series of serendipitous events. Others became atheists because they cannot fathom how a loving God would: eternally torture people, cause cataclysmic events as punishment or to test one's faith, or cause the death of a loved one due to some plan, or the need for more angels in heaven (or fill in the blank with whatever religious leaders justify God's supposed actions).
One example, my wife and I met a Jewish man who was a concentration camp survivor. He became an atheist after that experience despite being raised in a devout household and being devout himself. But, during his time in the camp he observed a group of people who belonged to a particular religion who held on to their belief right up to the time some were executed via the gallows or gassed. Years passed but he was curious and after our initial visit he would invite us to discuss his experience and what made us "tick" so to speak. Eventually his heart softened and a change took place. He began to understand what is found in the Bible. Calamities happen because we are in the wrong place at the wrong time. God doesn't cause tribulations for people to prove their faith, God doesn't rule this world as so many who are "believers" seem to think and man dominates man to his own injury. The point is this...true Christians care about their fellow human beings. They realize that some who are non believers are non believers because life experiences and certain teachings have made God in their hearts impossible. We also realize that forcing the Bible down people's throats is not the way Christ taught his disciples to reach out to people. Some would like to be left alone in their disbelief and we respect that. However, just as this example shows people's beliefs or nonbelief can change based on their circumstances and so we may "pester" those who don't believe from time to time.
I've met atheists and their reasons for not believing are as numerous as those who were atheists but became believers. Some are atheists because they have reasoned that people more intelligent than themselves have determined that life evolved by a series of serendipitous events. Others became atheists because they cannot fathom how a loving God would: eternally torture people, cause cataclysmic events as punishment or to test one's faith, or cause the death of a loved one due to some plan, or the need for more angels in heaven (or fill in the blank with whatever religious leaders justify God's supposed actions).
Another very obvious reason that some people become atheist is because God has never been seen and has never been detected by any human being in history.
I think religious folks should be able to at least have some understanding why some people might find it hard to believe in a being such as that.
Another very obvious reason that some people become atheist is because God has never been seen and has never been detected by any human being in history.
Depends on which book in the Bible. There is plenty of symbolism and allegory in the Bible as well as many other kinds of literature. For example, I do not think the book of Job reads like history. The story is little more than excuse to embark on a long philosophical/theological dialogue which most of the book consists of.
Genesis clearly has an historical intent, though some of it reaches far before written history and can only have been passed down through the repeated telling of stories. I think it is because story telling tended to combine the purposes of many modern specialization, such oral traditions acquire a mythical character -- part homily, part children's entertainment, part science, part philosophy, part history, etc... They typically have a lot symbolism in order to speak differently to people of different comprehension levels.
But I see no reason why Adam and Eve cannot be real people. I just don't think they were golems of dust and bone fashioned by some ancient necromancer. Neither to I believe the talking animals and magical fruits should be taken literally. Those tree names shout symbolism louder than anything else in the whole Bible.
And of course I do not believe that they were the first homo sapiens on the planet. I think there is even evidence in the Bible that they were not. They were just the ones God chose to talk to. But how then could their actions affect everyone? Because it is through them which came a memetic inheritance from God.
Read Genesis chapter 6 again from that perspective. The sons of god, which the OT uses to refer to God's chosen, usually the Israelites, took the daughters of men (other homo sapiens) for their wives. And their children became giants, men of reknown (leaders of human civilization). Why this is simply the answer to the old conundrum of who did Cain and Seth marry?
That's as rational a post on the subject as one can expect from anyone who is a believer. Kudos!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
IMHO as a Christian some may fail to grasp that but others don't. There are those who at one time "believed" but no more just as there are those who did not believe but became believers. I've met atheists and their reasons for not believing are as numerous as those who were atheists but became believers. Some are atheists because they have reasoned that people more intelligent than themselves have determined that life evolved by a series of serendipitous events. Others became atheists because they cannot fathom how a loving God would: eternally torture people, cause cataclysmic events as punishment or to test one's faith, or cause the death of a loved one due to some plan, or the need for more angels in heaven (or fill in the blank with whatever religious leaders justify God's supposed actions).
One example, my wife and I met a Jewish man who was a concentration camp survivor. He became an atheist after that experience despite being raised in a devout household and being devout himself. But, during his time in the camp he observed a group of people who belonged to a particular religion who held on to their belief right up to the time some were executed via the gallows or gassed. Years passed but he was curious and after our initial visit he would invite us to discuss his experience and what made us "tick" so to speak. Eventually his heart softened and a change took place. He began to understand what is found in the Bible. Calamities happen because we are in the wrong place at the wrong time. God doesn't cause tribulations for people to prove their faith, God doesn't rule this world as so many who are "believers" seem to think and man dominates man to his own injury. The point is this...true Christians care about their fellow human beings. They realize that some who are non believers are non believers because life experiences and certain teachings have made God in their hearts impossible. We also realize that forcing the Bible down people's throats is not the way Christ taught his disciples to reach out to people. Some would like to be left alone in their disbelief and we respect that. However, just as this example shows people's beliefs or nonbelief can change based on their circumstances and so we may "pester" those who don't believe from time to time.
That's fine - so long as it is expected that we will 'pester' back. And I suspect that our rationale for disbelief is actually sounder than that for belief. Rejecting belief because life isn't nice is a sound part of the rationale, though as an emotional rejection, it can collapse just as soon as the "Problem" is explained away - though I don't see how telling me that God doesn't owe me anything and I can't expect a damn' thing from him would reconvert me. But sound, rational reasons for disbelief are a better foundation than disappointment that God is defaulting on his payments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
And you know this for certain, How?????
Burden of proof, Mystic, remember. If one concludes that the claims to have seen, met, been helped, healed or saved by Him and claims that He is proven by Bible, miracle or Personal Experience are not reliable, then belief is irrational until some persuasive evidence is produced. You are well aware that nothing can be known for certain, but will also be aware that a lot can be taken as petty damn' sure.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-12-2016 at 09:27 PM..
Burden of proof, Mystic, remember. If one concludes that the claims to have seen, met, been helped, healed or saved by Him and claims that He is proven by Bible, miracle or Personal Experience are not reliable, then belief is irrational until some persuasive evidence is produced. You are well aware that nothing can be known for certain, but will also be aware that a lot can be taken as petty damn' sure.
He is claiming that atheism is the result of this situation that he cannot possibly know is true. That is a truth claim requiring at least some modicum of proof.
He is claiming that atheism is the result of this situation that he cannot possibly know is true. That is a truth claim requiring at least some modicum of proof.
God is defined by very notable things he is alleged to have done. Thanks to the Bible, we have a remarkably detailed list right in the first chapter of Genesis:
- God created the heavens and the earth.
- He brought forth light.
- He separated day from night.
- He created the sky.
- He separated land from the seas.
- He created plants and trees.
- He created the sun, moon and stars and attached them to the sky.
- He created sea creatures, birds and land animals.
- He created human beings.
Now, I submit to you that there is not any person in history who has seen or detected a God or any other spirit being who creates these things. This account is completely based on the imaginations and oral traditions of ancient people who believed in such a spirit being.
Another very obvious reason that some people become atheist is because God has never been seen and has never been detected by any human being in history.
I think religious folks should be able to at least have some understanding why some people might find it hard to believe in a being such as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
God is defined by very notable things he is alleged to have done. Thanks to the Bible, we have a remarkably detailed list right in the first chapter of Genesis:
- God created the heavens and the earth.
- He brought forth light.
- He separated day from night.
- He created the sky.
- He separated land from the seas.
- He created plants and trees.
- He created the sun, moon and stars and attached them to the sky.
- He created sea creatures, birds and land animals.
- He created human beings.
Now, I submit to you that there is not any person in history who has seen or detected a God or any other spirit being who creates these things. This account is completely based on the imaginations and oral traditions of ancient people who believed in such a spirit being.
Where you are messing up BCD is by getting mired down in the erroneous idea that "GOD" is limited to just Religious Deities. "GOD" is not limited to just Religious Deities.
You are even further stuck...by limiting your focus to just "BibleGod". There are many Religious Gods.
No one is named "GOD". "GOD" is a title that can be assigned to any entity that comports definitively and is perceived as such.
Everyone is aware of the objective existence of the "GOD" that I perceive. And it unequivocally and irrefutably comports with the known expert definition of "G-O-D".
He is claiming that atheism is the result of this situation that he cannot possibly know is true. That is a truth claim requiring at least some modicum of proof.
Read my post again and try to think. Weight of evidence, burden of proof. Santa analogy.
I know you firmly believe what you believe and you wangle the evidence and even logic to suit yourself, but the fact is that atheism is better supported by the evidence than theism. "Know" is simply a theist trick to try to make a case.
Maybe this analogy will get the idea over and I wonder why it never occurs to you. You accept evolution and you marvel at the Eusebian intransigence and refusal to accept the way the evidence actually points, even if '100% Proof' and "Knowing for certain" isn't possible or even relevant. It is just a trick to try to make it look like a believe or not matter, or that evidence isn't reliable or just to win, however it is done. The responses are mainly to show how irrational and dishonest those ploys are.
Now apply that to arguments for a god in any sense that makes any sense and see that Theism does exactly the same, and acts exactly the same when it can't shove its' ploys and gambits through.
Do you get it? It is exactly the same faith -based assumptions, the same rejection of everything science knows about how things work, the the same accusations when the argument doesn't go the way they want. The same ability to ride with with that, knowing that actually, if reason and evidence counts for anything, we made our case, and denial by the anti -evolutionist or the Theist apologist only helps our case, not hurt it.
Do you see that the methods and the argument for and against are just the same? If you can't or won't I shan't be surprised, but at least know that your post above hadn't a hope of working.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-13-2016 at 04:59 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
