Serious question for atheists

There is no other basis which is why christianity, or at least the church I was part of, has come up with the idea that man wrote the bible under the influence of the holy ghost. Basically god wrote the bible through them and since god is incapable of error then the bible is 100% correct. By the way the only bible my old church viewed as being correct is the Original King James version. All others have been "tainted" by human error.

I don't believe this, just vomiting back up some of the bullshit I was feed as a child.

Going through change does not imply there was imperfection. Only we perceive it as such because we believe that all change has to either improve your life or make it worse.

But that isn't the case. And it certainly does not have to be the case for God, cause well if you want to look at the belief, he pretty much made the rules so he can decide what the change means and all we can do is go "I have an idea!"

Anyways. The Bible can be a source for guidance, but an Organized Religion tend to have more focus on the community than scripture. That doesn't mean the community is and will always be a good thing, as it is a power any power can be use for both good and evil purposes.

I know there are some religions that believe the Bible is the Word of God, and that the humans who wrote it were bestowed with the Holy Spirit so they are able to write infallibly. However, the translations alone don't hold up and there are some contradictions from one translation to another. And as no Christian Religion holds the original translation of the Bible, it is impossible for them to hold an infallible copy on that prospect alone.

The only idea that has merit under this premise, is that they did write the Word of God into the Bible, but it is not the same as human words. It is more of the essence of what is being taught that holds the infallibility and not the actual descriptions and text.

Still, you are all in all, basing the Bible as being infallible by the word of the very people who wrote it. So you basically get into a circular argument of.

"How do we know they write the Word of God."

"Because they have the Holy Spirit."

"Who said they had the Holy Spirit."

"They did."

"How do we know that is true."

"Because it allows them to write the Word of God, which is infallible."

repeat argument.


And I am Christian, Catholic to be specific. But that doesn't mean anything more than the community that I was raised in. My religion is my own set of beliefs.

How can you say that you´re catholic and that you have your own beliefes at the same time? It has no sense. First of all, define yourself, then, your beliefs. When you got that, post some comments, otherwise, SAYONARA!!

Forgetting the complete mindfuck of being all powerful, one must not forget the mindfuck of an omniscient god. God knew he was going to change from an asshole to a kinder asshole. Why not do it sooner? Why would an omniscient diety need to change his own holy bible? For someone who's all knowing you'd think the fuck would know the best way to present all his religious bullshit to people who aren't keen on violence and intolerance. Then again, he just might be fucking with us, treating us as entertainment, which still makes him an asshole.

When the morals of a god change as the morals of society change, it is most indicative that people changed the god, and not the other way around.

All I'm getting at is none of this religious mumbo jumbo makes any sense to a rational thinking person.

First to bowserman.

I will explain this very slowly to you.

Christianity, Judiasm, those religions. They are organized religion. Organized religions aren't not the actual belief you hold. You do not believe in Christianity, you share a belief with the Christianity community.

So yes, you can be both a part of the Catholic Church AND have your own personal beliefs or religion. In fact, that is exactly what you end up having.

Is there anything else you would like to try and poorly refute?


As for the second post. First off, I did not specify that it could only be God that went through change. In fact, in one of the little snippets you quoted, you left out the part where I even talked about that possibility. How nice of you to completely ignore that.

But that also doesn't mean that isn't the case. Spiritual, God could have changed. Again, we have this strange sense that all change either makes you better or makes you worse. That is not the case. In fact, there is a whole lot of natural changes going on that mean nothing other than transference of energy.

It is possible, that God had perfectly reasonable reasons for changing that we could never grasp. Or maybe they really are simple reasons that we just don't know.

But again, it is also likely that our own perception has changed as well. That doesn't mean it has any less meaning. Part of humanity, has always been growth. It is good that we can grow from this point to another. So if this was a sign of human growth, then all the better. If it was God who decided for whatever reason, to change, then all the better.

You can be rational and religious, you know. Though I do find it amusing that you like to spout ignorant statements like you do, and then try to take the stance of the rational person.

the ironic thing is that i recall in those bibles or qurans or books of whatever religion a line something along the lines of, "One must not waste the seeds of life that god has given you", in simpler words, dont masturbate...

the question is, what are they doing in a hentai site? hmmmm i wonder....

That is a misconception about one particular part of the Bible.


It does not actually say that.


It's one of those things that is a contradiction.

Granted, this could be taken a number of ways, but I've always gotten a kick out of the imagery:

Genesis:
38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Yeah, I’m very nice, because I excluded that which is irrelevant. People are not what I’m focusing on here. People can change, whoopdee-fucking-doo, that’s normal; I have no problem with that. And I never even implied it could only be God that goes through change. Read it again.



You’re right, it isn’t, and I never made it the case. My problem is with this omniscient god character even needing to change. If he knew he was going to change, why not do it from the very start? You offer:



Fine, it’s possible, whatever. I still put my money on “people made all of this up to begin with.”



Of course, you can be rational about other subjects (like math, politics, history, etc), but not when it comes to religion. Rational thought doesn’t exist there since the system of belief a religion has requires faith. Then this religious thought seeps into other subjects. You talk about god doing this and that, but do you have any valid justification for such assumptions? No, you only have faith.

if the bible contradicts itself, it becomes a dilemma as to which part is correct. Do you choose what you believe is more comfortable for yourself to be more correct? or is the bible really just not telling the truth? If people say that the bible is just stories that are told in riddles to teach people some philosophies, doesnt that mean that the existence of god might just be a story that is told in a riddle to teach people a philosophy as well?

Sorry, by contradiction, I mean that between translations of the Bible. As in one version of the Bible says this and the other say that.

And Rbz, I never said you HAD to believe it. I don't care if you put your money on it. I'm just saying that you can't just go "Well this is the only way to look at things."

That's not how it works. If you stick yourself to just one point of view, you don't grow. This applies to EVERYONE, not just a particular group of people.

Also, you are so full of shit about the rational thought. You CAN be rational and be religious. I know you don't think that is possible, but it is.

Your reasoning that you can't be rational is because Religion is based on faith. I'm sorry? Science is based on faith too. If you don't have Faith in the scientific process, how can you ever trust any results that come out in the scientific community?

You can use both Religion AND Science for rational explanations. I'll show you.

How did we get such a diverse population of species? Science. Why is there such a diverse population of species? Religion.

Both of them can be plausible answers that explain two different aspects of a situation and work together. I'm not going to say everyone does this, in fact there are quite a few people who do not. On both sides.

But I'm saying it is quite possible and does occur.


And finally for this little



You seem to miss why I called you out on that. I wasn't calling you out or even suggesting you were saying that only God could be the one to change.

No, see the reason I called you out on that, was because you took my part about God being the one to change, ignored the part where I also suggested it could be the people who had changed, and then attacked it saying that it could have been the people who could have changed.

I was calling you out because you were trying arguing a point against me, THAT I HAD ALREADY MADE!

That type of selective argument is highly made of fail.

Which I was never implying, btw.



The implication is that I'm closed minded to other points of view. You're wrong, I'm just looking for the most logical one.



You weren't reading my post right. I said they can be rational minded people (In my post I said "you." You are a religious person. Read it again with that in mind.). But, when talking about religion and thinking about it, that is where irrationality happens. The superstitious thought is what's irrational here.



LOLOLOLOLOL! The old "science requires faith" bit.
I refer you to the rebuttal of that claim: https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=37134&start=150#1027465



You were offering up possibilities, yup. I was criticizing one of the possibilities for not making sense. If you think about it, we both agree on the "possibilities." But being possible doesn't mean shit in reality. Countless apologetic possibilities can be invented on the spot.

When I said,


It wasn't used to refute your post, but rather show the more logical possibility. Occam's Razor.

I didn't really read through wall of text. Just felt like quoting.

@Rbz, you could have also mentioned "Peer Review" in there somewhere, ya know, just to explain how Science can't just make claims without empirical evidence and whatnot or at least if they try to, they'll be shot down.

It was implied.

In my eyes, Religion was Science before science came to be during the Renaissance. Religion was a wide, sweeping statement of how the innumerable inexplicable things in the world came to be and continue to occur. As time passed and the world got smaller and smaller, and addendum after addendum was made to keep the institution alive.

I do, however, believe that religion is essential because it helps people deal with the intangible feeling of death, and its principles usually teach to generally be a good person. Granted, there are the followers who don't adhere to these rules, but the point still stands (In my mind, at least).

Heh, ahahaha.

"Science is better because there is always peer-reviewed articles."


Oh man, that is quite humorous.

So basically, you're saying that because other people agree that you were doing things in the correct manner, that suddenly makes it alright?

Don't make me laugh.

Yes, Science does require faith. This is because you cannot, without a doubt, prove anything in Science.

Even the Scientific Method cannot be proved to be the correct method. It's something that was thought up logically. But you can't go "Well here is some evidence that demonstrated why."

Why is this? Because if you were going to try and do this, how would you go about doing this? Well if you were going to use what is viewed as the correct method to us in science, you would have to use the Scientific Method.

But using something to prove itself, not viable.

So yes, Science does require some faith within itself to work.

And again, you can be religious and rational at the same time.

Why not explain to me why you believe it is impossible to be religious and rational at the same time. Why you are unable to use any reasoning when you're just being religious.

Cause I can agree that there are some people who are religious and irrational, but if you're suggesting a portion of the group explains the entirety, then you're displaying irrational tendencies yourself.

Which science doesn't claim it can do. It's not about proving anything metaphysically, it's about coming to a conclusion based on observation, finding cause and effect, experimentation, etc. All of which are empirical, you know, something that can be observed, unlike god.



The correct method of knowing? Maybe not, but it's the best humans have, unlike believing that which cannot be verified.



You referring to the big "why" questions? For example, why are we here, why is there gravity, why is the universe here? If not, the "why" can easily be demonstrated through cause and effect; experimentation. That is how we find the "why". If you isolate enough variables, you'll find the "why". It doesn't matter if we don't know the exact truth behind something, the point is there is strong evidence pointing toward the validity of our conclusions. We didn't know about Einstein's relativity before Einstein presented us with it, but it doesn't mean our previous model of gravity was completely wrong. It wasn't replaced by relativity, rather relativity just elaborated on the subject.



Why can't you use something to show that it works, especially if it provides results?

The scientific method just comes naturally. We observe, we experiment, we attempt to find cause and effect, then we started isolating variables, and calculating mathematical equations (which were later verified by further observations). We saw that this kind of method worked and called it the scientific method, which we constantly try to perfect. So, in a way, this logical method of coming to conclusions through empirical observations (and not faith), proves itself effective.

The conclusions, ultimately, supported by evidence and replication of the conclusion by other scientists. No faith needed or is present.





For the last time, I agree. I do think people can label themselves a certain religion and still be rational thinking people in daily life.



Rather, I'll just clarify myself again. When you speak of your religion, and when you think about it, your thoughts and beliefs are irrational. It's all just belief without evidence and unsubstantiated claims. "God did this, god did that, god wants those, but not these." How can you know any of this? You believe even though you have no compelling reason to believe.

You can't use something to prove itself because it would contain a large amount of bias by doing so.

You don't get what I'm saying. You say empirical evidence, but you have to understand what that means. You verify it through experimentation and the scientific method.

But again, what shows that the scientific method is the right method to use? Nothing but the fact that it seems sound. Again, you can't use something to prove itself, so you HAVE to have faith that it is the right thing because it seems like it is.

Empirical evidence does not decrease the amount of faith you have. In fact, the more you rely on empirical evidence the more faith you need to have in that the system you have works.

Reasoning for why I believe in God? There are plenty of reasons for it. I look at the complexity of the world, all the variety of life, all the beauty that we can see. There has to be a reason that we have this. That we even exist. You can go on all about the how of everything. But that will never explain the why. It can't. Sure, you could suggest that there is no why as your explaination, but that doesn't mean there isn't a reason to believe there COULD be a why.

perhaps you should read rbz's post again?

//EDIT: btw, i think aliens created us humans and placed us on earth (which they created too). how else could you explain the overflowing beauty and complexity of the environment we are living in if it wasn't by the hands of transcendent beings?