Lack of evidence or too much evidence against?

Originally posted by Darfius
Why do each of you reject God and Christianity?

Is it due to a lack of evidence for either's veracity or because there is too much evidence to the contrary?

both and neither
it's your definition of "Christian" i reject out of hand.
the very idea that one christian is more special to god than another just because they're in a different sect is ludicrous ,in the extreme.
and that idea extends to all mankind

Originally posted by Darfius
Why do each of you reject God and Christianity?

Is it due to a lack of evidence for either's veracity or because there is too much evidence to the contrary?

thats easy to answer... i dont reject my gods... and i reject Christianity due to the fact im Wiccan... 🙂

Originally posted by Darfius
Your militant stance against Christians is disturbing. Christianity is leaps and bounds more rational than atheism, that is for sure.

Quite true i must agree with you verry much there... but any religion could have the same said for it...

Originally posted by Darfius
Your militant stance against Christians is disturbing. Christianity is leaps and bounds more rational than atheism, that is for sure.

Would you like to repeat yourself?

"Christianity is leaps and bounds more ational than atheism..."

Atheists don't need to shred their logic to believe in miracles
Atheists don't need to shred their logic to believe in reincarnation
Atheists don't need to shred their logic to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago.
Atheists don't need to believe in Noahchian fairy tales...

Need I continue?

One reason I reject God and Christianity is because I have no choice.

Taking what I know of the Christian God. To me, as described, He seems petty, violent, un-merciful and basically, not the kind of God I'd want to get to know. However, I am willing to believe that God's purpose is not something I, as a mere human can possibly judge. I am willing to believe that I do not have the capacity to understand God and that putting Him in human terms would be limiting an omnipotent being somewhat. Therefore the whole nasty God thing can be got rid of in my view.

However, it seems to me that everything I know about Christian God stems mostly from the Bible. This book is most definately written in very human terms, in a way humans can understand. It might be very deep and have lots of meanings depending on how you look at it but the very fact that it is a book suggests it was meant to be read, presumably by me, a human being. I don't see how the Bible can be anything more than a Koan, a parable, a signpost on a path unless this God is a rather dull human like thing, much like me which I could therefore judge as a rather nasty one. It seems to me, that the Bible can lead me on a path but it can't be relied on for factual information much like the texts of all religions. There is therefore no compelling evidence for Christianity that is any stronger than all the other religions.

An omnipotant being, for me, can not be considered in human terms. He/She/It can not be described to me, can not be shown to me, can not even prove His/Her/It's existence, for I can not understand such proof anyway.

I am left considering that logic and human reasoning is not the way to find an omnipotant God and that leaves two things as far as I can tell. 1) Intuition and 2) Feelings. Both of these tell me to deny the Christian God.

Originally posted by Nemesio
What does this mean?

Nemesio

The "problem of evil", for example, can be used to question the validity of the christian conception of god. The creation story of Genesis can be shown to be factually wrong. Religious people are unable to even agree on what their god is.

These are just three examples of evidence that could be used to suggest that maybe this whole god story is false. None of this "proves" anything, that is true, but it should be sufficient to increase our skepticism and to make us very wary of accepting the christian story on faith alone.

Of course it could also be pointed out that the evidence I've cited only casts doubt upon the literalist, christian conception of god, and it does nothing to undermine the concept of god itself. A deist, unknowable god may still be perfectly viable, that is true. But if we've largely discredited 999 out of 1,000 conceptions of godhood put forward by man over his history (Zeus, Thor, Osiris, etc.), would it not be reasonable to conclude that number 1,000 is likely to be false as well?

Originally posted by Darfius
First I'd like to say that bad things happen to good people because of other men, not God. You might say "Well allowing it is just as bad as doing it, if you can stop it." but I would argue that if God didn't give us [b]complete free will, He'd be more of a monster than anything you misunderstand in the OT.

Secondly, if God were to communicate w ...[text shortened]... served their free will, made sense to the most people, was most effective, in your opinion, Joe?[/b]

God created everything, right? If that's the case, he also created the "other men" who are responsible for some of the bad things in the world. God also creates earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, floods, hurricanes, to name a few. All of those are "bad things" that cause good & bad people great pain that God could stop and would not infringe upon "free will". I think the natural disasters mankind endures are extremely "monstorous" on God's part.

Read my answer in "How would I create the universe' to answer the second part.

Originally posted by Darfius
False. Their is evidence, you just don't consider it viable.

True, but the evidence you speak of is no more valid than me arguing that the Peanuts character "Snoopy" is God. Neither one of us can conclusively proof either.

Originally posted by bbarr
Interesting. So, other men cause infants to die of herpes encephalitis? Other men cause infants to drown in tsunamis? Hmmm. We should find these nefarious men and lock them up. 🙄

Thank you for supporting my point bbarr.

Perhaps this is somewhat cheesy and a little out of context but this sums up how I feel. Taken from the movie, The Devil's Advocate I made sure to censor myself before the mods get squirmy....

"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, **** *** off. He's a tight-***. He's a sadist. He's an absentee landlord. Worship that? Never."

Infants automatically make it to heaven? Is there a scriptural basis for this claim?

1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. Deuteronomy

7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Isaiah

14:29 Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me, 14:31 But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. Numbers

Also, it is not always the case that the death of infants leaves a hole in the survivors, for there are times where there are no survivors. Whole families were killed in the recent tsunami.

The children are in Heaven. The parents had their whole lives to accept Christ, and if they did, they're in Heaven. If not, then that was their choice, and it would have never changed, because God is not WILLING that any should perish (miss out on Heaven).

Further, you have just claimed that one of God's purposes in allowing infants to die may be to create a hole in people that God can then fill. But if God is truly omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then He could find ways to create and fill holes in people that do not require the deaths of infants, couldn't he?

So you'd like them to suffer in another way? You'd like the parents to go blind, have their kid grow up to be a drug addict and have the kid go to hell and the parent live the rest of their life blind but maybe go to Heaven? Interesting.

EDIT: Why the scare-quotes around the term 'good'? Are you claiming that God doesn't allow truly good people to be harmed by natural forces?

Well, since God is THE ultimate good, only those who align their will with His (saved) can ever be called good. Those who worship themselves above God, even if they occasionally do "good" things, are not themselves good.

Would you like to repeat yourself?

Yes, Christianity is leaps and bounds more rational than atheism.

"Christianity is leaps and bounds more ational than atheism..."

You forgot the 'r'.

Atheists don't need to shred their logic to believe in miracles

Neither do Christians. If God exists, then miracles are possible. If you have a bias against the possibility of God existing, then I suppose miracles would seem impossible. However, a bias against God existing is inexplicably lacking in scientific reason.

Atheists don't need to shred their logic to believe in reincarnation

Christians don't believe in reincarnation. And I agree, it's illogical to believe in it, as there is no evidence for it and a lot against it.

Atheists don't need to shred their logic to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago.

I'm ashamed to say I used to believe in that, but that was due to ignorance. Fortunately I've studied the Bible further and see that it never makes the claim that the earth is 6,000 years old and indeed implies that evolution was the method of diversifying life.

Atheists don't need to believe in Noahchian fairy tales...

Fairy tales? You do realize that a flood in the Mesopotamian plains actually happened, right?

I agree that a world flood didn't happen, but Noah's flood did. The Hebrew used was 'erets' which means country or world, but the word is often found with another Hebrew word 'kol' meaning all or whole. So 'kol erets' means all of the earth. And when those are found throughout the OT, they almost always refer to all the people in the world. And since before the Tower of Babel, all people lived very close to another and spoke the same language, it couldn't have been all over the world. There is a Hebrew word that always refers to the entire earth or the entire inhabited earth. The word is 'tebel' which is found 37 times in the Old Testament. Curiously, this word is never used to describe the flood, although it is used extensively to describe the creation of the earth and the judgment of the peoples of the earth. Also, the text itself implies a local flood, because it says stuff like 'then the tops of the mountains became visible' and 'the water was dried up from the earth' and 'the earth was completely dry'. If it was over the entire world, the entire world would be a desert! But curiously, the Mesoptamian plain is for the most part a desert.

The confusion comes when one reads the KJV and it says "world" rather than the "land" the Hebrew meant.

Need I continue?

No, you need to begin.

One reason I reject God and Christianity is because I have no choice.

Of course you have a choice. It's called 'free will'.

Taking what I know of the Christian God. To me, as described, He seems petty, violent, un-merciful and basically, not the kind of God I'd want to get to know.

Do you put the "violence" into context? If you believed in the concept of sin, it would make more sense to you.

However, I am willing to believe that God's purpose is not something I, as a mere human can possibly judge.

I agree.

I am willing to believe that I do not have the capacity to understand God and that putting Him in human terms would be limiting an omnipotent being somewhat.

He put Himself in human terms because He desired for us to know Him.

Therefore the whole nasty God thing can be got rid of in my view.

He was never nasty.

However, it seems to me that everything I know about Christian God stems mostly from the Bible. This book is most definately written in very human terms, in a way humans can understand.

There is a point to that. God's target audience was humans.

It might be very deep and have lots of meanings depending on how you look at it but the very fact that it is a book suggests it was meant to be read, presumably by me, a human being.

Yes, it was. And it is the deepest thing one could ever read because it is from God Himself.

I don't see how the Bible can be anything more than a Koan, a parable, a signpost on a path unless this God is a rather dull human like thing, much like me which I could therefore judge as a rather nasty one.

The Bible is the key to understand what God deemed to show us, and is the key to understanding His purpose and love for you.

It seems to me, that the Bible can lead me on a path but it can't be relied on for factual information much like the texts of all religions.

Umm, where is it wrong? Not 'a' path. 'The' path.

There is therefore no compelling evidence for Christianity that is any stronger than all the other religions.

I beg to differ. The Resurrection. The concept of sin. What God does for you rather than what you must do to reach God.

An omnipotant being, for me, can not be considered in human terms.

I would agree, unless the God made us in His or Her image, which Genesis said was the case. Apparently the God had no interest in bumbling idiots who couldn't understand or communicate with Him or Her.

He/She/It can not be described to me, can not be shown to me, can not even prove His/Her/It's existence, for I can not understand such proof anyway.

Where did you get this idea? What if the He or She desired for you to understand Him or Her? How would they go about showing you, and what would be their intention?

I am left considering that logic and human reasoning is not the way to find an omnipotant God and that leaves two things as far as I can tell. 1) Intuition and 2) Feelings. Both of these tell me to deny the Christian God.


I've used logic and reasoning to find God, and indeed He is the only answer.

The "problem of evil", for example, can be used to question the validity of the christian conception of god.

I see no 'problem of evil' that invalidates God, when free will is put into the equation. Clearly some men will use their free will to deny God, and since God is all good, denying Him opens the door for evil.

The creation story of Genesis can be shown to be factually wrong.

I'm interested in seeing where.

Religious people are unable to even agree on what their god is.

And this is God's fault how?

These are just three examples of evidence that could be used to suggest that maybe this whole god story is false. None of this "proves" anything, that is true, but it should be sufficient to increase our skepticism and to make us very wary of accepting the christian story on faith alone.

Indeed, it would appear to be evidence until one objectively looked at all of the factors.

Of course it could also be pointed out that the evidence I've cited only casts doubt upon the literalist, christian conception of god, and it does nothing to undermine the concept of god itself. A deist, unknowable god may still be perfectly viable, that is true. But if we've largely discredited 999 out of 1,000 conceptions of godhood put forward by man over his history (Zeus, Thor, Osiris, etc.), would it not be reasonable to conclude that number 1,000 is likely to be false as well?

Again, I see no such evidence. And it would stand to reason that we've discredited 999 out of 1000, since only one can exist.

Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Infants automatically make it to heaven? Is there a scriptural basis for this claim?

1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. Deuteronomy

7:16 For before the ...[text shortened]... p themselves above God, even if they occasionally do "good" things, are not themselves good. [/b]

1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. Deuteronomy

7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. Isaiah

14:29 Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me, 14:31 But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. Numbers

None of these quotes are referring to Heaven. Please re-read Numbers and Deuteronomy. Where are these children being taken to? Hint: read Deuteronomy 1:8. The quote from Isaiah is referring to the child Immanuel (Jesus), and not to children in general, and further has absolutely nothing to do with going to Heaven.

So, again, what scriptural evidence is there that God will take all infants who die to Heaven?

The children are in Heaven. The parents had their whole lives to accept Christ, and if they did, they're in Heaven. If not, then that was their choice, and it would have never changed, because God is not WILLING that any should perish (miss out on Heaven).

Surely God is willing that some should perish. If God was not willing, then since he is omnipotent he could present evidence sufficient to convince those who have not accepted Him. Note that presenting evidence sufficient to convince somebody is not a violation of their free will, else your own free will was violated when you received evidence sufficient to convince you that Christianity is correct. Further, even if these infants do go to Heaven (a contention for which you have provided no evidence), then it is still the case that God allows them to often suffer horribly before they are taken to Heaven. This entails that God is not omnibenevolent.

So you'd like them to suffer in another way? You'd like the parents to go blind, have their kid grow up to be a drug addict and have the kid go to hell and the parent live the rest of their life blind but maybe go to Heaven? Interesting.

Please pay attention to what I’m actually writing. I said none of these things and they are not entailed by anything I did say.

If God is omnipotent he could bring people to him by presenting evidence sufficient to convince those people, without needing to make them suffer. He could, for instance, bring it about that people are wistful for Him, and thereby search Him out, rather than relying upon murdering their children. Alternatively, He could sit everybody down and have a town forum style Q&A session, where people get their questions answered. Either way would require much less suffering that that brought about by allowing infants to have herpes encephalitis and or villages drowned by tsunamis.

Further, as I mentioned previously, there are instances where the deaths of infants do not create holes in any of the survivors, because there are no survivors. Additionally, there are cases where the death of an infant so damages parents that they are unable to open themselves to God, and that the extent of their being damaged is beyond their control.

Well, since God is THE ultimate good, only those who align their will with His (saved) can ever be called good. Those who worship themselves above God, even if they occasionally do "good" things, are not themselves good.

But you do think that some actually good people are harmed by natural events, don’t you? Being Christian is not an antidote for ebola virus, nor for surviving tsunamis. Further, when you claim that God is the ultimate good, is that because he conforms perfectly to independent standards of goodness, or is it the case that the term ‘good’ just refers to whatever God is/does? If the former, then morality does not depend upon God. If the latter, then it follows that morality is arbitrary. God could command us to skin puppies on Tuesdays, and that would thereby be good. Of course, this is the Euthyphro question you have still failed to answer.