Does God exist?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You misunderstand me. The statement was rhetoric for the purpose of continued debate. The fact that it's quotable is a secondary benefit.

[Durandal]

Who the fuck needs all these "deep" philosophical possibilities? Let's talk about some fun post-expiration possibilies!

You die, and then your spirit gets hazed by all the other spirits as an initiation.

You die and get reincarnated as an adverb.

You die and are reincarnated as Linda Tripp's brassiere.

You die ... and nothing happens. You're just gone. You don't care because you don't exist.

[Bob McDob]

I'm surprised no one has used the "God is above logic, God created logic, logic does not exist!" line yet . . .

I don't really care if my beliefs are irrational . . . works for me : ) And no, I'm not part of a major religion . . . unless you consider "a heavily modified pantheistic mesh of several sci-fi pseudoreligions derived from Judeo-Christian ethic" to be a major religion

[victorhadin]

I choose to believe you are all figments of my imagination. I need not explain myself to you; you don't exist. I create the logic here!

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Raoul Duke, Jr., give Utsanomiko some fucking time, okay? He's a college student, and doesn't have to devote all of his free time in the world to argue with irrational idiots like you.

He'll be back to slay you in about an hour.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

For the celebrity perspective on the subject:

http://www.theonionavclub.com/avclub383 ... _3837.html

Dave Chappelle: There's no doubt in my mind. If a guy like me can leave home with nothing and eat every day, there's a God.

[Coyote]

Honor parents, don't steal, don't kill, don't lie, don't be jealous, don't cheat on spouse, take a day off each week, don't worship false idols, don't take the name of God in vain and honor/worship God.

I notice you rearranged the order. It doesn't sound quite as admirable when you notice that all of the "worship me" dictates are at the top of the list, and "do not kill" is well behind all of those.

I listed them in this order so as to get the agreeable ones out of the way first. Many Protestant denominations re-arrange them further, in fact combining and splitting off some of them so as to completely re-phrase the Commandments while maintaining their basic spirit.

You're missing the point, which is that those things are being classified as EVIL. Killing, cheating, lying are evil. But worshipping idols? How is that evil? Refusing to worship God on Sunday? How is that evil?
How is it evil to disrespect God? You're not hurting anyone, and surely God is not such a petty being that he would torture people for disrespecting him, would he?

Yes, God felt that these were wrong. God made the world, according to the theory, and as any creator would felt that the credit should go to himself rather than Re, Osiris, Zeus, and other fanciful carvings. I never denied-- and in fact, it is affirmed in the Torah, New Testament, and the Qur'an-- that God is vain and jealous. As for God being 'petty' enough to consign someone to hellish torture and agony for disobeying, again, you are used to the Church interpretation of divine punishment which is reminiscent of Dante's Inferno. My pov is coming from the Jewish outlook, which says that any punishment is proportional and just to the size of the offense. Someone who tormented his sister as a child by putting her Barbies in the disposal is not going to see the same reaction as Vlad the Impaler.

So how does that justify an obviously petty, narcissistic God whose NUMBER ONE commandment is to worship him?

See above. In God's pov, Earth, humanity, and all creation is his intellectual property. He may be petty and vain to demand recognition for that, but then any creator is within his rights to receive recogntion. How'd you feel if I hijacked your entire board, downloaded everything and re-created it under my own name? All the time and effort you went through? I'd redecorate and make it similar but not exactly the same, and distribute gifts to my new core of readers. You'd be rightfully peeved and say that you were the original creator and your idea had been hijacked, and your remaining loyal followers would declare their allegiance to you and spread the word to the public (and the courts) that you are the true creator...

You don't need the rest of the blanks filled in.

You claim the Bible is a bunch of claptrap, I'm saying it may well be. It may be 10% reality and otherwise so full of allegory, rhetoric, projected emotions, modification to justify tyrant kings, and so on that there's no way to know what really got recorded and what didn't. ... but humans have a nasty habit of projecting their desires, dreams, delusions and wishes onto reality and trying to make something of it.
L. Ron Hubbard was a real person too. Doesn't validate any of Scientology, though.

You actually make my point-- people take something real, like the fact that there is, indeed, a destruction layer of tumbled walls around Jericho-- and imply that it must be because some dude blew a magic horn and made them fall. I remind you, it may be an allegory told years later; a desert tribe may have attacked Jericho and sacked the city in such a devastating, well-executed and one-sided battle that the tale got retold as hyperbole. Survivors would say "as soon as the commander blew the horns to attack, the walls were practically down already." The meaning stretched and now you have the 'bible-as-literalists' camp saying, "No, the horns themselves really did the damage because of magic, etc".

So let's take a desert tribe that happens to call itself "Israel". ...A great tale-- And it goes over well in a world where people dig dramatic stories about talking gods and miracle burning bushes and so on. So we end up with the Bible. A collection of legends and tales embellished and projected onto real sites that eventually fall into our hands as archaeology.

Except for a few lines of text which you arbitrarily decide are direct words from God, right?

I don't believe so, but again you cannot quantify that so my answer is meaningless to you. Here we get into the belief part, and I believe the story about the Ten Commandments as divine revelation primarily 'just because'. You'll laugh at this, but I just don't see anything wrong with believing in the existance of a higher power that tries to spread higher ethical concepts to a bunch of tribes that really needed it. Monotheism was not in vogue, in fact considered downright abnormal at the time, and a Pharoah (Akhenaten) got erased from Egyptian memory because of his hieretical beliefs in 'one God', Akhen-Re.

You just said that the only part of the Bible that came from God was the Ten Commandments. This means that "love thy neighbour" came from somebody else (Satan, perhaps?)

A very one-dimensional and petty slap. Odd that a being that 'doesn't exist' should stir such emotion. "Love thy Neighbor" accurately reflects the spirit of the Torah, in fact I don't believe that the actual quote in those exact words appears in the Torah (but I am not a Biblical scholar so I may be wrong). And, no, I don't believe in Satan.

So again, I say that since God personally has not come down and smacked you around, causing this emnity, I'd surmise that others claiming to act on God's behalf have given you (and many others) this foul taste in your mouth. The word of God has been used to justify a lot of hate and pettiness, but that pettiness existed in the hearts of humans and rather than fix their own shortcomings, it is easier for them to rationalize and justify these shortcomings by finding something in the Bible that they can use as a shield and club instead. The Nazis had "Gott Mit Uns" printed on their belt buckles ("God is With Us") but does that make it so? Would you automatically believe everything another person says to you-- especially if it is being used to justify shitty behavior on their part?

The Vague God to whom you refer is an unfalsifiable concept, and therefore meaningless. The Vague God is not even sketchily defined, and it exists solely for the purpose of giving people an excuse to believe in God without being honest and admitting that it is irrational to do so. The Vague God is a gateway drug; pushers try to hook you on the idea of the Vague God so that you will learn to ignore Occam's Razor and be in a mindset to try harder drugs later on, such as the Insane Biblical God.

You have a right to interpret thusly. Don't get the idea I am trying to convert you or pry an admission of faith from you. I'm not. It has taken many years and a cast of thousands for me to become the way I am today, I'd be foolish to assume different for you. I just wonder why so many self-proclaimed athiests have such visceral hatred for God and why they are so quick to take up the sword to strike down something which 'doesn't exist'.

Look at your own faith. You take it on fait, I suppose, that the universe was created as a result of the Big Bang. The Big Bang was, of course, the explosion of all matter from the tight little ball it had all been compressed into. Have you seen this ball? Are there photos of it? We know that the universe is spinning out into the cosmos but do you know that there was a tight little ball? It's a theory, a theory that you take on faith given the evidence you have observed. I actually believe in the same theory-- Big Bang, evolution, etc-- I just put a spin on it you will find exasperating: God made the Bang Ball and kicked back to watch what would happen as the gas and dust swirled.

But remember-- my particular spin on this faith does not threaten you or yours. I don't say you are wrong and must adopt my pov. I don't belittle your pov or say that it is mindless to think that the Ball just appeared one day from nothing. I'm not 'better' than you, I'm not saying 'nyah, nyah, I'm going to heaven and you're not'. I'm just saying, I think God exists, is supposed to mean one thing but has been perverted into another, sparking many people into defensive positions on the subject.

[Utsanomiko]

Actually Spanky, that would only factor into my absence if I had cared to continue the 'debate'. "I had to enjoy this can of Coke" would be a better excuse, as it explains why I finally have time to type, and yet I'm taking breaks to drink and relax. (and no, that's not part of my argument, Raoul. If you want to address it as a major point, I'll have to add "Irrelevant semantical nit-picking" to your list of rebuttal tactics you use, sans logical arguments.)

I already reached the results I felt were sufficient in my last post on the 4th. What the hell kind of results are you looking for, Raoul? (Or, more precisely, how will you back them up?)

The irrational belief in a god or gods is no more objectionable than the irrational belief that thieving, lying, raping, murdering primates are the ultimate form of life in the universe, or that their feeble grasp of that universe equates anything remotely approaching true understanding.

Exactly my point. Irrational faith is no different than irrational immorality, I already addressed that. They are also no different than irrational doubt, irrational morality, or a baseless assumption of true understanding.

All this supports is that beliefs have no integrity without rational support. If a conclusion wasn't reached through logic (assuming none at all, which is near-impossible), then it was either developed by group-minded authoritarian structuring ("The bible is valid because we say it's god's words", "stoning is ok, as long as its done on holidays for entertainment, and people are picked randomly", etc), or purely by individual imagination (stating "I can fly", or "all my stuff has the quality of being boang, which is inherently good", etc etc.).

The latter independent conclusions/beliefs generally have little to do with actual observations and are remain independent of one another, as they would otherwise have to share some ground with comonly-accepted beliefs. Those are the only three methods of coming to a conclusion. If a point wasn't made through logic, then it has to be supported by group acceptance, and if not, then by one's own insistance. Convincing yourself is easy; you can ignore opposing ideas/observations easilly if you simply want to. But if you are objective, and compare ideas and information before you make a conclusion, then you'll need to be rational to yourself. As for convincing others, without logical mindset, and considering that individuals think independently from you, the only way to make a belief seem valid is if it has group-acceptance in the first place.


So essentially, without rational methods to thinking, all beliefs have to be made from scratch by people, for their individual use to give a sense of perspective. In groups, this involves making them through clique-acceptance of common assumptions, ideas, or mass-hallucinations. It really has nothing to do with truth or validity inherent in beliefs held by many; it simply means that alot of people follow one conclusion, rational or irrational. Their sense of morality and truth is defined from their accepted sets of beliefs, not any actual 'truth'.

Simply put, baseless beliefs are all fine-and-dandy if we only have ourselves to deal with, but we don't. We have to share a common ground. Morals, beliefs, and right/wrong values only apply to within the group. Logic and reasoning are devoted to finding truths through valid and invalid processes of reaching conclusions. It's like mathematics; either you get together with everyone else but the quiet new kid, and agree on an arbitrary number, or you setup an equasion and solve it to reach an answer.

Dainel Rogers, if your 'philosophy' does not depend on the latter, it depends on the former. All beliefs are gibberish without common ground, and yours is society's.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Yes, it is... to an extent. And let me also point out that one may accept the belief's of society without necessarily agreeing with those beliefs.

I will assume, for the sake of debate, that you've never killed anyone. I will further assume that at some point (like most people) you have been in a situation at some point in your life where you truly, seriously wanted to kill someone. You may even have had full capability to carry out this desire. Assuming that you had the genuine desire to perform the act, had the ability to perform the act, and had the opportunity to perform the act, why wouldn't you?

The short answer is simple: you don't want to get caught. At some base level, your personal morality must conform to society's definition of morality for the purely pragmatic reason that survival without some form of societal acceptance is difficult, if not virtually impossible.

Here is another example; you do not "troll" this board. Is it because you think "trolling" is wrong? Congratulations -- your beliefs conform to those of this small "society". Is it because you don't want to be exiled? Your individual need for a peer group prevents you from trolling, then.

You are essentially correct regarding my application and adherence to "morality"... the point I'm trying to make, Utsanomiko, is that your application is not all that different from mine.

[Lagmonster]

You'll laugh at this, but I just don't see anything wrong with believing in the existance of a higher power that tries to spread higher ethical concepts to a bunch of tribes that really needed it. Monotheism was not in vogue, in fact considered downright abnormal at the time, and a Pharoah (Akhenaten) got erased from Egyptian memory because of his hieretical beliefs in 'one God', Akhen-Re.

You got the heretic pharaoh almost right but you should check out what historical studies of events (see: The Amarna letters and how they give us a clue tying in the Exodus to the heretic pharaoh) show. If the question is of whether the Ten Commandments came from a god, well, you can pretty much use even what little we know of history to make a strong case against it.

Since we know the rules of the culture the Hebrews (Martu if you go back far enough to grab where they got Genesis from) were in contact with, it's not hard to figure out what was going through Moses' mind when he made up the 'official' rules (even Hammurabi did the same thing when he made his god Marduk king of all other gods). Moses wasn't an idiot. He likely knew that religious solidarity was important to cultural solidarity, a trait he likely got in Egypt, since it appeared that both Moses and Amenhotep IV (AkhenATON, meaning 'useful to Aton') 'drank from the same well'.

In fact, you could reasonably say that Moses used the 'worship one god' clause as an excuse that he wanted unity at all costs. The rest of the commandments are the usual civilized list of rules barring murder, theft and indecency.

[Utsanomiko]

Actually, I have never wanted to kill anybody, or to troll. Both our outside the conclusions I have made of proper social behavior.

Your assumption that socially enforced consequences are on a different level from morality. You do know it's perfectly legal to kill someone in self-defense, right? If you came into my house at night with a machette, I could blow your head off with a Browning 16-guage, and the authorities would accept that I was defending myself and end the report at that. Just thought I'd mention it if you didn't know that US laws justify that kind of 'murder'. If I had actually wanted to kill someone, If I concluded that it was the best solution, I would take those repurcussions into account. If I felt I could get away with it, I might just take that risk. why the hell would I care what society would do to me, if I didn't care what it thought? We don't have to participate in social contructs if we don't truly want to, anymore than we don't have to keep on living if we don't want to.

The thing is, that I do. I have morals, I have beliefs, and opinions. I pick them up either on my own, or through others. But I only hold onto them if they lead to rational conclusions. Sure, taste in music is pretty subjective, as are other things, but I still rationalize them as much as possible. And my sense of right/wrong and morality is independent of its application, but rather my own conclusions of it. My actions within society, however, depend on whom it applies to, and its usefulness and validity. All this I build upon with an obective mindset, a system of prioritizing through reasoning and logic. But I still know when my subjective beliefs are subjective, and don't necessarily limit myself to thinking within their confines. I sure as hell don't define myself by how society reacts to my responses.

If you lived in a society that executed people for humming in public, praised Hitler, or physically forced people to believe in everything they promote, how would you get through it? Are all your conclusions subjective as well as your actions, and conform to what the establishment wants to limit them to, or do you have some method of making your own? What about an un-civilized society based solely on independent actions? Would you be content with gibberish? If they said the sky is the same color as grass, would you have any independent observations? How would you be able to?

That's getting pretty deep into theories of cultural values, but it's still brings up how one can think 'on their own', if society confines them so much. But that still invalidates your position; if the only thing we have to compare to is society, then all beleifs that conflict with that society are inherently wrong. You cannot believe that all human life is valuable because our society accepts executions, abortions, and self-defense killings. Everything else is gibberish.

You have serriously failed to explain how your irrational philosopy validates thinking outside social standards. Your colclusions may be perfectly right and acceptable in a solipsitic group, but in objective terms of making valid, sound, rational conclusions, you have no actual terms of defending your conclusions from random ideas. Your use of 'debate' and 'point' are purely meaningless; what's there to debate if my subjective beliefs are no more valid than your subjective beliefs? "Boang1 is better than boang2", "the sky is green", "Society deserves to be destroyed."

There's no way to distinguish between accepting and agreeing with your definitons, because you only operate either within social boundaries, or beyond all rational/useful measurements. Like a gear in the machine, or a nerve cell, firing off charges for the thoughts of the whole brain, without anything of your own to add. It either accepts the movements, or it doesn't. For them, there's nothing beyond the system, so there's nothing to not agree with. Not much different than saying we're nothing but biological machines carrying out our programming. Sorry, but I have reasons to consider and defend myself as more than just either baseless thoughts or a limited social personality. You do not.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You're really still not getting me, are you, Utsanomiko? My personal beliefs are often logical, sincere, and in direct opposition to many of the beliefs held by the majority of society. However, logic often leads me not to act on many of my personal beliefs, because to do so would impair my ability to live my life as I choose. It would likewise prove unproductive -- or even counterproductive to attempt to sway anyone to my beliefs or sway anyone from their own. Simply put, it wouldn't work -- and could even work against me.

To this end, I am content to act upon my own beliefs to the extent that doing so does not interfere with my ability to achieve my larger goals, and, for the most part, I refrain from wasting excessive time or energy trying to convince others that their beliefs are contemptible or stupid.

Even more simply stated, the contents of every person's head are their own business.

[Coyote]

Lagmonster, I've seen two or three different spellings of 'Akhenaten/Akhenaton's' name, but also the last time I saw the name in print was several years ago, and as people get better understandings of hieroglyphs, pronunciation theories change.

As for the early tribe, the name I had was "Habiru" or "Haviru", from whence the derivation of "Hebrew" is obvious. One of the most fascinating theories I've heard-- and one for which there is a very compelling case-- is that "Akhenaton" was deposed (or killed) and he or his remaining followers were exiled and wandered to Canaan, and that somehow it was there story that became the story of the Exodus. Some say that it was these Egyptian hieretics that became the "Hebrews", others say that they met up with and melded into the existing Canaanite settlements fo "Habiru" and combined religions and legends to come up with the stories we have today.

While there is plenty of archaeological evidence to support the existence of the Hebrew tribes, for example, there is no evidence to support a population of millions of refugees wandering the Sinai for 40 years. But ancient numbers were always inflated; Fulcher of Chartres said of the Crusades that fully "six million men-at-arms crossed into Turkish territory in answer to the call," however, I'd doubt that there were six million people in Europe at all in 1000's, much less six million excess healthy young men with nothing better to do...

And through the Bible, you see numerous references to "Forty"-- Forty years in the Sinai, Forty days and forty nights for Noah, etc... "Forty" was an ancient way of saying "a helluva lot" much the way we arbitraily say "millions" ("million man march", etc). So probably a few hundred refugees went wandering in the desert for a few years, or even less... In my mind, it still doesn't take away from the idea of the belief, I can accept that the tales were blown out of proportion by over-eager Biblical nationalists... I mean, who really believes that Romulus and Remus were sired by Mars and impregnated into a Vestal Virgin, only to be set adrift in the Tiber and raised by a she-wolf? But it made a helluva story, much more exciting than the boring version of Troyan refugees washing up on a beach and striking a deal with the Latium warlord for co-existance...

[Coyote]

Quick question Wong. Now it requires you to suspend disbelief, but lets assume there is a god, and when you die you are brought before him.....what do you say?

Just curious......

I say "where the fuck were YOU during all of the wars, the massacres, the tortures, the inquisitions, and the crusades of the last two thousand years?"

If God had wanted robots, he would have built robots. Why didn't WE stop the wars, massacres, tortures, inquisitions and so on in history? Are we really just looking for an excuse to be passive in the face of human cruelty? At some point, even a child must grow up and take charge of his/her environment, as well as accept responsibility for for our less than admirable behavior.

Here in Boise a local Muslim woman was killed in a hate crime. The killers then tried to burn down her house to incinerate her children (they failed at this). Now this weekend there will be a vigil in the park on the Capitol lawn to show solidarity against hate. The vigil is being organized by my Rabbi as well as Christian leaders and the local Muslim community. For me, the act of hate did not exemplify God; the solidarity it produced did.

[Utsanomiko]

But your beliefs are only coincidentally logical, as you choose to make your goals by society's standards.

As for the rest of your post, I think it speaks for itself.

However, logic often leads me not to act on many of my personal beliefs, because to do so would impair my ability to live my life as I choose

Ah hell, if I knew you'd put it that way, I wouldn't have said I got all I wanted from you last Saturday. What a lovely little nugget of insight.

This, is why- and let me emphasize this- THIS is why you, Raoul Duke Jr, aka Daniel Rodgers... (drumroll, please)

ba-da-ba-da-ba-da-ba-da-ba-da....

ARE A VILLAGE IDIOT!!

Ta-Daaa!

The sky is green, and frogs can fly through brick walls for a simple-minded, social lap-doggie like you to find a reason to put superficial politeness over intelligence. Yes, it was pretty obvious to everyone else for the last week or two, but I thought I'd drag it out a while and make it really fucking obvious that you're out of your league here. Thanks for playing! Have a nice day!

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Yeah, okay... whatever stuffs your animal, man. If you choose to believe that my desire to live a successful life in an already-pervasive and still-growing society is based on the fact that that's what the society wants, feel free.

So tell me... how do you defy conformity? How do your standards deviate from society's, and how do you act on your standards? Hmm? How do you rebel against society? And what makes your adherence to society's rules any less hypocritical or slavish than mine? No wait -- I remember your earlier post: Your beliefs are right and mine are wrong because you say so. Wasn't that how it went?

[Lagmonster]

As for the early tribe, the name I had was "Habiru" or "Haviru", from whence the derivation of "Hebrew" is obvious. One of the most fascinating theories I've heard-- and one for which there is a very compelling case-- is that "Akhenaton" was deposed (or killed) and he or his remaining followers were exiled and wandered to Canaan, and that somehow it was there story that became the story of the Exodus.

That's one of the theories, but it lacks support. If you refer to the so-called Armana letters, which reference the Habiri sacking the lands of pharaoh, you'll see the best known historical evidence that exists that dates and identifies the Hebrew conquest.

The rest of your post references both mythology and history. No one is arguing that ancient peoples made up all the stories, exaggerated some, and fabricated others. I'm just referencing your idea that the Ten Commandments are the legitimate word of a god.

You can, as you have proven you already are aware, amass a reasonable amount of evidence to describe Moses' political and cultural influences and reasons for writing the laws. The fact that he said, 'god said it', is a tactic that you can trace to Menos, Hamurrabi, and a small pile of other lawmakers who used religious authority to enforce their rules or, as in the case of Moses, used religious ideas to enforce solidarity and nationality.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

It's pretty obvious that Utsanomiko's not talking to you anymore, since it's a God damn waste of time, like arguing with a rock.

What, all of a sudden he has to be against society and conformity? What the hell is your problem? What makes you think that Utsanomiko is a nonconformist and against current social trends and culture? Since when has it been fucking mandatory that we be total nonconformists to disregard conformity?

I think this point of view of yours tells more about how old you are than anything else.

And no, I'm not going to "debate" with the rock, either.

Good day.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

It's pretty obvious that Utsanomiko's not talking to you anymore, since it's a God damn waste of time, like arguing with a rock.

What, all of a sudden he has to be against society and conformity? What the hell is your problem? What makes you think that Utsanomiko is a nonconformist and against current social trends and culture? Since when has it been fucking mandatory that we be total nonconformists to disregard conformity?

I think this point of view of yours tells more about how old you are than anything else.

And no, I'm not going to "debate" with the rock, either.

Good day.

Well, that's confusing. One on hand, one of you criticizes me for accepting society's morals, on the other hand, your partner tries to apologize for your retreat by insisting that your view is no different from mine...

No more crack for you!

[Darth Wong]

So tell me... how do you defy conformity? How do your standards deviate from society's, and how do you act on your standards? Hmm? How do you rebel against society?

Dumbass, did it ever occur to you that someone can be a nonconformist without necessarily fighting against every social convention? If one takes the opposite of every major social viewpoint, that makes him a knee-jerk contrarian, not a nonconformist. A non-conformist is simply someone who makes his judgements based on what he thinks is right. If those judgements happen to coincide with those of society, that's handy. Don't exaggerate differences of opinions into opposite polarities.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

So tell me... how do you defy conformity? How do your standards deviate from society's, and how do you act on your standards? Hmm? How do you rebel against society?

Dumbass, did it ever occur to you that someone can be a nonconformist without necessarily fighting against every social convention? If one takes the opposite of every major social viewpoint, that makes him a knee-jerk contrarian, not a nonconformist. A non-conformist is simply someone who makes his judgements based on what he thinks is right. If those judgements happen to coincide with those of society, that's handy. Don't exaggerate differences of opinions into opposite polarities.

Then Utsanomiko and I are both nonconformists, by your definition (which coincides with my own definition.) That is, in fact, the point I was trying to make to him.

[Coyote]

Lagmonster, that is where the issue of believing in something kicks in. I chose to believe in the story about the Ten Commandments being the word of God, and I'm comfortable with it. On the other hand, I recognize that many other people will disagree with me. Christians will say that I erred in not accepting Jesus as the Mesiah, Muslims will say I erred in not recognizing the Qur'an as the word of God. Hindus will figure that all three of us are screwed up. So be it.

What Wong said is true-- when it comes right down to it, believing in God is irrational. In fact, my archaeology instructor, Professor Steve Rosen, said that when evaluating a dig site, you can always tell which building was the temple-- its the building that doesn't make any sense.

'Faith' is the willingness to blindly accept something without reason, cause, or evidence (or flimsy evidence at best). Since it can't be proven or disproven one way or another, I find it interesting to talk about but not worth get foamy about.

As you may have read, I get most of my ancient information from Dr. Amnon Ben-Tor, who is an admitted Biblical archaeologist; he wants to piece together the evidence neccesary to prove much of what the Bible says. The guy I studied with (Rosen) admits that there is a lot of evidence to back up Biblical events but he feels that it is best to do it with a sceptical eye, since there is so much missing. So that's where I am coming from, and why I like the different theories but haven't pinned my hopes on any one in particular yet.

[AdmiralKanos]

You're missing the point, which is that those things are being classified as EVIL. Killing, cheating, lying are evil. But worshipping idols? How is that evil? Refusing to worship God on Sunday? How is that evil?
How is it evil to disrespect God? You're not hurting anyone, and surely God is not such a petty being that he would torture people for disrespecting him, would he?

Yes, God felt that these were wrong. God made the world, according to the theory, and as any creator would felt that the credit should go to himself rather than Re, Osiris, Zeus, and other fanciful carvings. I never denied-- and in fact, it is affirmed in the Torah, New Testament, and the Qur'an-- that God is vain and jealous. As for God being 'petty' enough to consign someone to hellish torture and agony for disobeying, again, you are used to the Church interpretation of divine punishment which is reminiscent of Dante's Inferno. My pov is coming from the Jewish outlook, which says that any punishment is proportional and just to the size of the offense. Someone who tormented his sister as a child by putting her Barbies in the disposal is not going to see the same reaction as Vlad the Impaler.

Actually, the Old Testament is full of incredibly vicious and cruel punishments for minor crimes. Right after the Ten Commandments were recited, Moses had 3000 people killed for worshipping a golden calf. Is this reasonable punishment? Is this fair? How narrow is your vision of the valid portions of the Bible? Literally a few paragraphs after the Ten Commandments straight from God's mouth, it's already corrupted crap? Why accept the former if not the latter?

See above. In God's pov, Earth, humanity, and all creation is his intellectual property. He may be petty and vain to demand recognition for that, but then any creator is within his rights to receive recogntion. How'd you feel if I hijacked your entire board, downloaded everything and re-created it under my own name? All the time and effort you went through? I'd redecorate and make it similar but not exactly the same, and distribute gifts to my new core of readers. You'd be rightfully peeved and say that you were the original creator and your idea had been hijacked, and your remaining loyal followers would declare their allegiance to you and spread the word to the public (and the courts) that you are the true creator...

Of course. But I wouldn't have you (or worse yet, your family) killed or tortured for it. The Biblical God would.

I don't believe so, but again you cannot quantify that so my answer is meaningless to you. Here we get into the belief part, and I believe the story about the Ten Commandments as divine revelation primarily 'just because'. You'll laugh at this, but I just don't see anything wrong with believing in the existance of a higher power that tries to spread higher ethical concepts to a bunch of tribes that really needed it. Monotheism was not in vogue, in fact considered downright abnormal at the time, and a Pharoah (Akhenaten) got erased from Egyptian memory because of his hieretical beliefs in 'one God', Akhen-Re.

Actually because he was intolerant. Intolerance and monotheism have gone hand in hand since the very beginning, for an obvious reason: monotheism cannot, by definition, accept belief in more than one god. At BEST, it can "tolerate" such belief (and for Christians, "tolerance" is considered very open-minded).

"Love thy Neighbor" accurately reflects the spirit of the Torah

Except for all the torture/killing parts which fill up 90% of it.

So again, I say that since God personally has not come down and smacked you around, causing this emnity, I'd surmise that others claiming to act on God's behalf have given you (and many others) this foul taste in your mouth. The word of God has been used to justify a lot of hate and pettiness, but that pettiness existed in the hearts of humans and rather than fix their own shortcomings, it is easier for them to rationalize and justify these shortcomings by finding something in the Bible that they can use as a shield and club instead. The Nazis had "Gott Mit Uns" printed on their belt buckles ("God is With Us") but does that make it so? Would you automatically believe everything another person says to you-- especially if it is being used to justify shitty behavior on their part?

No, that's why I went and read the Bible for myself. After reading it (and being horrified by most of its contents), I realize that my initial negative reaction was not strong ENOUGH.

You have a right to interpret thusly. Don't get the idea I am trying to convert you or pry an admission of faith from you. I'm not. It has taken many years and a cast of thousands for me to become the way I am today, I'd be foolish to assume different for you. I just wonder why so many self-proclaimed athiests have such visceral hatred for God and why they are so quick to take up the sword to strike down something which 'doesn't exist'.

Because even a fictional character can be evil, and when you see people claiming that an evil character is the source of all good in the world, it can grate on your nerves. Worse yet, when you look at what monotheism has wrought in the world, you can see that the problems it creates are far more than fiction.

Look at your own faith. You take it on fait, I suppose, that the universe was created as a result of the Big Bang.

No, I recognize that the universe is observed to be expanding, and that extrapolation of the rate of expansion leads to an expansion starting ~15 billion years ago. No "faith" is required.

The Big Bang was, of course, the explosion of all matter from the tight little ball it had all been compressed into. Have you seen this ball? Are there photos of it?

No. It is a theory which happens to fit the facts.

We know that the universe is spinning out into the cosmos but do you know that there was a tight little ball? It's a theory, a theory that you take on faith given the evidence you have observed.

No, it is the only theory which happens to fit the facts. If you've got a better one, feel free to present it. But no "faith" is required to say that the Big Bang is the best theory.

I actually believe in the same theory-- Big Bang, evolution, etc-- I just put a spin on it you will find exasperating: God made the Bang Ball and kicked back to watch what would happen as the gas and dust swirled.

God is a redundant term in that equation. He can be removed and it works just as well.

But remember-- my particular spin on this faith does not threaten you or yours. I don't say you are wrong and must adopt my pov.

Nor do I. I merely point out that your religious beliefs are irrational, and that the Bible is mostly abhorrent. These are facts, not faith.

I don't belittle your pov or say that it is mindless to think that the Ball just appeared one day from nothing. I'm not 'better' than you, I'm not saying 'nyah, nyah, I'm going to heaven and you're not'. I'm just saying, I think God exists, is supposed to mean one thing but has been perverted into another, sparking many people into defensive positions on the subject.

You can feel free to believe whatever you want about your personal concept of God, but you must recognize that the Bible is simply scary shit, through and through. For every good or benign portion in the Bible, there is easily ten times its volume in hatred. For every item which might be vaguely related to some historical fact, there is easily ten times its volume in nonsense.

[Lagmonster]

Lagmonster, that is where the issue of believing in something kicks in. I chose to believe in the story about the Ten Commandments being the word of God, and I'm comfortable with it.

Fair enough. I believe that accurate theories are derived from examining the facts. We can compare what happened to the Hebrew tribes to other civilizations - all of which had extensive religious dogmas, mythologies and beliefs. Most historians have taken all those beliefs and dismissed them as irrational mythologies made up by people. I see no reason why the Hebrew mythologies deserve any more merit. So long as you do not use the tenets of your faith as a measure when examining evidence, I don't mind what you believe.

What Wong said is true-- when it comes right down to it, believing in God is irrational.

Then we have no disagreement, save perhaps in our nitpicks of each other's interpretation of middle-eastern archaeological findings.

[Durandal]

Look at your own faith. You take it on fait, I suppose, that the universe was created as a result of the Big Bang.

The present incarnation of the universe was created as a result of the big bang. This theory fits with our observations, which include an accelerating expansion.

The Big Bang was, of course, the explosion of all matter from the tight little ball it had all been compressed into. Have you seen this ball? Are there photos of it? We know that the universe is spinning out into the cosmos but do you know that there was a tight little ball? It's a theory, a theory that you take on faith given the evidence you have observed.

This is the problem with the name "Big Bang Theory." Every 2-bit moron who knows what the words "big" and "bang" mean thinks that they are qualified to discuss and present the big bang theory. An explosion is an extraordinarily poor approximation of what took place. There was no "little ball of matter" because matter, as we know it, wouldn't be created for about a million years afterward. There couldn't possibly be photographs of the singularity that existed "before" the big bang any more than there can be photographs of a black hole singularity. There was no time or space "prior" to the big bang, hence the quotations. There was no light; it wouldn't be around until about 10^-12s after the big bang, so how could you possibly expect to have a photograph?

And, no, the universe is not "spinning" out. Spinning would imply a center to the universe, which doesn't exist.

Big bang theory makes predictions which have been tested and verified. It has holes, but it is an otherwise working theory in development. It's not taken on faith; it's taken on the fact that it conforms to what we see. Faith is believing in something with no rational reason to. There is rational reason to believe the big bang occurred. Big bang theory, therefore, is not a matter of faith.

I actually believe in the same theory-- Big Bang, evolution, etc-- I just put a spin on it you will find exasperating: God made the Bang Ball and kicked back to watch what would happen as the gas and dust swirled.

Useless redundancy. Current big bang theory requires no "God" term, which makes it a better theory.