about god non exist

[syo]

Given that the four gospels are our main sources of knowledge about Jesus how to you understand that the gospels appeared to use similar sources as if the authors used sources and not their own direct knowledge of Jesus which they presumably had? Also how do you understand the conflicts between the accounts?

These aspects of the gospels seem to me to indicate that most of what we know about Jesus was the result of the creative efforts of the gospel authors based on second hand accounts which themselves may have been creative efforts.

Consider also the hundreds of years old story of the Buddha as well as the contemporaneous story of Apollonius of Tyana. To what extent should we consider the account of the life of Jesus as based in history and to what extent mythic literature?

The author of the Gospel of Matthew shows signs of an awareness of a diverse world of spiritual perspectives. He tells the story of Jesus that most closely parallels the Buddha's own story.

to be honest, i accept the bible as it is. because the holy spirit guided the bible's authors.

 

[sealchan]

to be honest, i accept the bible as it is. because the holy spirit guided the bible's authors.

The Bible as it is is a literary work written by authors who were inspired but also consciously invented the text. Don't oversimplify it or you may miss the very point the author's were intending to make!

The Holy Spirit, which healed my depression, led me to this understanding myself.

Can the Holy Spirit lead people to two contrasting views (literal vs literary)? I believe so. What can God not do?

 

[Straw Dog]

What question or what type of question are you thinking about?

Any way?? Challenge accepted.

What if the god is an extreme libertarian?? Like it creates the world and then thinks it isn't its place to interfere with how things go out of some extreme sense of moral code it has towards non-interference.

Fair enough. I may have been a little too overdramatic earlier this month haha.

Would a libertarian deity require or demand worship in the creation project? Or just completely let us do our own thing without active judgment?

 

[Jumi]

Would a libertarian deity require or demand worship in the creation project? Or just completely let us do our own thing without active judgment?

This got moved to the atheism DIR? I guess I can post because of still subscribing to the non-religious DIRs. Any way I'm going to answer this:

I don't believe God cares if we worship or not or even if we believe, it's more about what we do and experience. I'm not a creationist so I can only say to this that God is independent of the world and how it works. There seems to be a desire for certain good will towards life that is part of my experience of God. I believe any humanist aligning with that is closer to God whether they are atheists or theists.

 

[Straw Dog]

This got moved to the atheism DIR? I guess I can post because of still subscribing to the non-religious DIRs. Any way I'm going to answer this:

I don't believe God cares if we worship or not or even if we believe, it's more about what we do and experience. I'm not a creationist so I can only say to this that God is independent of the world and how it works. There seems to be a desire for certain good will towards life that is part of my experience of God. I believe any humanist aligning with that is closer to God whether they are atheists or theists.

Did it move? Weird... Any way, I'm glad that you responded.

If God doesn't care whether we worship or believe, then why should I?

As far as I can perceive, the desire for good will towards life is very human and probably primitive, as in what the 'good' actually boils down to is a very limited notion of that which benefits "me" specifically plus my close BFFs, when possible, in most cases.

Are any humans being really ready to talk about the best means for achieving maximum biodiversity? I don't think so...

 

[Jumi]

If God doesn't care whether we worship or believe, then why should I?

You don't need to, and if you did it would be fake since you don't believe in God. If you believed, it would be a bit different, it would be like calibrating yourself toward it.

As far as I can perceive, the desire for good will towards life is very human and probably primitive, as in what the 'good' actually boils down to is a very limited notion of that which benefits "me" specifically plus my close BFFs, when possible, in most cases.

Yes, God only extends that to all humans, but it's natural that we think of our tribal units in order of proximity first.

Are any humans being really ready to talk about the best means for achieving maximum biodiversity? I don't think so...

What do you mean by this?

 

[Straw Dog]

You don't need to, and if you did it would be fake since you don't believe in God. If you believed, it would be a bit different, it would be like calibrating yourself toward it.

Groovy!

Yes, God only extends that to all humans, but it's natural that we think of our tribal units in order of proximity first.

So God's a speciesist like us? That's extremely convenient for "me" because I was accidentally born as a human rather than another animal.

What do you mean by this?

What do you mean by good will towards "life"?

 

[Jumi]

Groovy!

Not that belief in God is that useful per se. I think most of it is fake to begin with and obfuscated by religion.

So God's a speciesist like us? That's extremely convenient for "me" because I was accidentally born as a human rather than another animal.

The convenience of being human is the same way it's convenient for us to be humans so we can communicate on RF. We have potential in varying degrees. Whether we use our potentials or even take note of them is our business. There might exist species that have better luck than us, who knows?

What do you mean by good will towards "life"?

Something akin to modern humanist ideas.

 

[Kfox]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth. isn't that enough of evidence? jesus didn't even have a flaw. and what about the miracles he performed? and his empty grave? isn't jesus the proof of god?

The problem with Jesus is that he never wrote anything down, the only thing we know of him is what other men wrote and those claims often contradict each other. The men who wrote the books that eventually became the Bible claim Jesus said he was the Son of God, but according to the men who wrote some of the Gnostic gospels, or even the Holy Koran; according to those books Jesus never even made such claims.
Whatever it is you believe about Jesus is based on which books you choose to believe. I don’t believe any of them.

 

[Sheldon]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable.

That's called a straw man fallacy, if you mean you have heard some atheists make this claim say so, I am an atheist, and I have literally never made this claim.

Each quote from your post below is an unevidenced claim. I'm always surprised when a theist doesn't seem to understand the difference between a bare claim and evidence. just because the bible makes a claim doesn't mean it is evidence.

but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus.

jesus was god on earth.

isn't that enough of evidence?

jesus didn't even have a flaw.

what about the miracles he performed?

and his empty grave?

isn't jesus the proof of god?

 

[Joshua Pryce]

That's a claim and a religious belief. Biblical scripture is not evidence of anything except that the words it contains were written down. Every word in the Bible that is known to be true was confirmed by some other source. Skepticism is the idea that nothing should be believed on that basis alone, especially since the authors were anonymous and we know little or nothing about their character or motives.

Wrong the bible has historical and archaeological value. Israel is an actual place, look at the prophecies of the bible they are happening right now. The signs of the end of days descibed by Paul and Jesus and Peter are happening right now. We all use faith including you. Its doing something with an aim to gain succession and getting to the next step in life. Something as small as brushing teeth is faith. Faith that we will have teeth as elderly people and also for fresh breath and communication advances. That is one example of 1000s of examples of the operation of faith.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the bible has historical and archaeological value.

There is nothing known to be true because it appears in the Bible or any other book for that matter. The words always need external corroboration before being believed.

Israel is an actual place

Yes, but you didn't get that fact from the Bible. That's the point. We believe that Israel exists through extrabiblical evidence.

We all use faith including you.

Not in the sense of holding unjustified belief. It is possible to learn to avoid doing that. Many have, and I am one. It's a habit of thought now called critical thinking. Once one learns to do it, he does it automatically and isn't interested in other paths to belief, all of which can be called faith (unjustified belief), as faith is not a path to truth.

Something as small as brushing teeth is faith. Faith that we will have teeth as elderly people and also for fresh breath and communication advances. That is one example of 1000s of examples of the operation of faith.

That's a different word with the same spelling and pronunciation (homonym). It has a different definition - justified belief, or belief based in experience. A man turns the key in his car's ignition, and it starts like it did the last several hundred times he tested it. Then he drives drunk because he believes a guardian angel is watching over him. Both of these beliefs are called faith - that his car will start, and that he will watched over by an angel, but only one is justified.

I have stopped calling justified belief faith to avoid this ambiguity. I do the former frequently - it's called empirical learning - but I never do the latter. Why would I if I consider belief by faith a logical error and have learned how to avoid doing it? It's an extremely valuable tool that immunizes one against indoctrination or inserting ideas into heads through repetition. One learns to require a compelling, evidenced argument before belief.