POLL: Is there a God ??

[mcnicKY91]

May I offer up option # 4?

It’s all fictional bulls#it!

It seems to me that you’ve undertaken the task of doing all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to make sense of something that you WANT to be true. Instead of using the reality of the world in which you exist to simply weigh what is possible versus what is not possible.

Is it possible for an invisible being from space and a virgin female to conceive and give birth? No!

Is it possible for a human male that’s been tortured and executed to spend a holiday weekend in a sealed tomb, then come back to life three days later and be lifted up into the sky? No!

Is it possible that these stories that were told verbally for decades, then written down, then translated several times over the preceding centuries, then edited to suit the king of England 400+ years ago into a book, be total fabrications, myths, and fictional nonsense? Yes!

So what is the motivation for all these various authors of each book of the Bible to do so, especially those in the New Testament? What did they get out of this? Fame? Wealth? Women? Power? Adulation? Success? Just for fun? Way to kill time? To have a laugh at gullible people like me?

If all of this is made up, they all were surely trying to get something out of it.

Unfortunately, they were all mostly executed. That was their end game. Interesting to say the least.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

So what is the motivation for all these various authors of each book of the Bible to do so, especially those in the New Testament? What did they get out of this? Fame? Wealth? Women? Power? Adulation? Success? Just for fun? Way to kill time? To have a laugh at gullible people like me?

If all of this is made up, they all were surely trying to get something out of it.

Unfortunately, they were all mostly executed. That was their end game. Interesting to say the least.

Perhaps the stories of authors being executed are also made-up bullsh#t.

 

[crashtestdummy]

So what is the motivation for all these various authors of each book of the Bible to do so, especially those in the New Testament? What did they get out of this? Fame? Wealth? Women? Power? Adulation? Success? Just for fun? Way to kill time? To have a laugh at gullible people like me?

If all of this is made up, they all were surely trying to get something out of it.

Unfortunately, they were all mostly executed. That was their end game. Interesting to say the least.

Perhaps they were executed for convincing others of obvious lies in hopes of joining their religion. Swindling people out of their hard earned money....much like today.
Perhaps fraud was punishable by death then?

 

[mcnicKY91]

Perhaps the stories of authors being executed are also made-up bullsh#t.

Unfortunately that's where the rubber hits the road...it is well documented by many historians in the first century that the early Christians/disciples were executed for perpetuating the resurrection of Jesus.

In the first century, Rome was notorious for crucifying early Christians for speaking about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

Unfortunately that's where the rubber hits the road...it is well documented by many historians in the first century that the early Christians/disciples were executed for perpetuating the resurrection of Jesus.

In the first century, Rome was notorious for crucifying early Christians for speaking about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

I’m certain that the sources you’ve read have fulfilled your confirmation bias.

 

[mcnicKY91]

Perhaps they were executed for convincing others of obvious lies in hopes of joining their religion. Swindling people out of their hard earned money....much like today.
Perhaps fraud was punishable by death then?

The problem with that is the disciples and early Christians were well aware of the consequence of publicly speaking about the resurrection of Jesus. They knew by doing that they would ultimately be executed...which is what happened. There was nothing to financially gain.

As I said in another post, Rome was notorious for crucified early Christians in the first century.

 

[mcnicKY91]

The history and pathology of crucifixion - PubMed

In antiquity crucifixion was considered one of the most brutal and shameful modes of death. Probably originating with the Assyrians and Babylonians, it was used systematically by the Persians in the 6th century BC. Alexander the Great brought it from there to the eastern Mediterranean countries...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I’m certain that the sources you’ve read have fulfilled your confirmation bias.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Is it possible for the rich and powerful back then to create a narrative where the fear of a God would serve as a method of protection of property.

The problem with that is the disciples and early Christians were well aware of the consequence of publicly speaking about the resurrection of Jesus. They knew by doing that they would ultimately be executed...which is what happened. There was nothing to financially gain.

As I said in another post, Rome was notorious for crucified early Christians in the first century.

And criminals today are aware of consequences for breaking laws such as murder, yet they still do. What's your point?
Swindling people out of money is financial gain.
If you donate, you go to heaven with Jesus

 

[mcnicKY91]

Is it possible for the rich and powerful back then to create a narrative where the fear of a God would serve as a method of protection of property.

And criminals today are aware of consequences for breaking laws such as murder, yet they still do. What's your point?
Swindling people out of money is financial gain.
If you donate, you go to heaven with Jesus

But the disciples were not rich and powerful. They were scoffed at, ridiculed, persecuted...they were incredibly poor financially speaking. What property did they have to their name that they were trying to protect?

Just as an aside, giving money to a church/charity/those in need does not get anyone to Heaven, biblically speaking. The Bible is clear that salvation is not earned, but is given by grace through faith, not on anyone's merits.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

So what is the motivation for all these various authors of each book of the Bible to do so, especially those in the New Testament? What did they get out of this? Fame? Wealth? Women? Power? Adulation? Success? Just for fun? Way to kill time? To have a laugh at gullible people like me?

If all of this is made up, they all were surely trying to get something out of it.

Unfortunately, they were all mostly executed. That was their end game. Interesting to say the least.

Willing to die horrible deaths to maintain the collectively “made up bull$hit.” Hhhhhmmm. Is that a real argument?

Takes a lot of faith to believe some of these atheist theories.

 

[crashtestdummy]

But the disciples were not rich and powerful. They were scoffed at, ridiculed, persecuted...they were incredibly poor financially speaking. What property did they have to their name that they were trying to protect?

Just as an aside, giving money to a church/charity/those in need does not get anyone to Heaven, biblically speaking. The Bible is clear that salvation is not earned, but is given by grace through faith, not on anyone's merits.

Powerful people usually effect change from behind the scenes. Sending others to do their bidding. Are you saying this was not possible?

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Powerful people usually effect change from behind the scenes. Sending others to do their bidding. Are you saying this was not possible?

Yes. That is a ridiculous theory.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Yes. That is a ridiculous theory.

And a dude rising from death or virgin birth is not....?

 

[mcnicKY91]

Powerful people usually effect change from behind the scenes. Sending others to do their bidding. Are you saying this was not possible?

Again, they were not powerful, at all. They were persecuted endlessly. Nothing was being done behind the scenes, they were publicly professing the death and resurrection of Jesus. All they gained from this was execution.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

And a dude rising from death or virgin birth is not....?

Let’s just admit that your powerful people theory is ridiculous, before you change the subject back to what you have said repeatedly in this and other threads.

 

[Deeeefense]

I'm intrigued by the philosophy of Idealism which is an alternate idea to describe reality from physicalism. It includes the concept of "source consciousness" which could loosely fit the idea of a god of some sort. Here is how Bard briefly described Idealism:

In simplest terms, idealism is the philosophical notion that reality, at its core, is fundamentally mental or spiritual. This can take various forms, but the main idea is that material things, like the chair you're sitting on, are secondary or dependent on consciousness, mind, or even some higher spirit. Think of it like this: the world we experience might be like a dream or an illusion, shaped by our minds more than by independent, physical objects.


There are different flavors of idealism, each with its own nuances. Some, like subjective idealism, argue that only individual minds and their experiences are truly real. Others, like objective idealism, propose a universal mind or spirit that shapes reality for all sentient beings. There's also transcendental idealism, which says our minds actively structure our experience of the world, but there might be something "real" beyond that structure.


Idealism has fascinated thinkers for centuries, with figures like Plato, Berkeley, Kant, and Hegel all contributing diverse perspectives. While it may seem counterintuitive, it invites us to question our assumptions about the nature of reality and consider the role of consciousness in shaping what we perceive.


So, next time you look at a tree, ask yourself: is it simply a physical object, or could it be part of a grander mental tapestry woven by something beyond our understanding? That's the essence of idealism: challenging us to see the world through different lenses.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Let’s just admit that your powerful people theory is ridiculous, before you change the subject back to what you have said repeatedly in this and other threads.

I presented this as a possibility, far less ridiculous than resurrection from death or virgins giving birth.
Perhaps JC had financial motivation to author these stories.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Again, they were not powerful, at all. They were persecuted endlessly. Nothing was being done behind the scenes, they were publicly professing the death and resurrection of Jesus. All they gained from this was execution.

Can you not recognize influential people could have been controlling these writers for various reasons? Religion is a form of control over others, ya know?
This has a higher probability than a resurrection from death or a virgin birth.

 

[megablue]

Reporters? I think it very easy to apply today’s access to writing materials and today’s motivations to a time when the idea of keeping history was still relatively young. One would need a motive to record the events of the day. That said, the gospels are written very close to the time period.

When the gospels were written, many people who would have had first hand knowledge of the players in the gospels would have still been alive. The Pharisees and people in Pilate’s governing structure would still have been alive. Are there any writings in the first century rejecting the claims of the gospels?

Very Good point about writings in rejection.
That is worth looking into, for sure, as the question begs.

 

[megablue]

Willing to die horrible deaths to maintain the collectively “made up bull$hit.” Hhhhhmmm. Is that a real argument?

Takes a lot of faith to believe some of these atheist theories.

To be fair, open and reasonable, Caveman, which you are … what are your thoughts about Muslims willing to blow themselves up for Allah, 72 virgins, etc … ?? Certainly a horrible death, apparent sincere faith … do you see these deaths in keeping with “made up bull$hit” ???

It is much like their belief that Muhammad ascended into Heaven on a winged horse … an event that was written about 80-200 years after it supposedly occurred, as per my very basic and elementary understanding, based on oral tradition.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Dude has an interesting take on religion.

 

[mcnicKY91]

To be fair, open and reasonable, Caveman, which you are … what are your thoughts about Muslims willing to blow themselves up for Allah, 72 virgins, etc … ?? Certainly a horrible death, apparent sincere faith … do you see these deaths in keeping with “made up bull$hit” ???

It is much like their belief that Muhammad ascended into Heaven on a winged horse … an event that was written about 80-200 years after it supposedly occurred, as per my very basic and elementary understanding, based on oral tradition.

Modern martyrs die for what they sincerely believe is true, but their knowledge comes secondhand from others. For instance, Muslim terrorists who attacked the Twin Towers on 9/11 were not eyewitnesses of any miracles by Mohammed. In fact, they were not eyewitnesses of any events of the life of Mohammed. Rather, they lived over thirteen centuries later. No doubt the Muslim radicals acted out of sincere belief, but their convictions were received secondhand at best from others. They did not know Mohammed personally, see him fulfill any prophecy, or witness him doing any miracles such as walking on water, healing the blind, or rising from the dead. There is a massive difference between willingly dying for the sake of the religious ideas accepted from the testimony of others (Muslim radicals) and willingly dying for the proclamation of a faith based upon one’s own eyewitness account (apostles). The deaths of the terrorists provide no more evidence for the truth of Islam than my death would provide for the truth of Christianity. My martyrdom would show I really believed it, but nothing more.

In contrast to the beliefs of Buddhist monks and Muslim radicals and any other modern martyrs, including Christians, the beliefs of the apostles was not received secondhand, but from personal experience with the risen Jesus (Acts 1:21-22; 1 Cor 15:5-8). They proclaimed what they had seen and heard with their own eyes and ears, not stories received from others (Acts 1:3; 2:22-24). Peter not only claims that he was an eyewitness but that the events took place in public and that his audience had full knowledge of them. The events were not done secretly in a corner. Buddhist monks and Muslim terrorists are certainly willing to suffer and die for a faith they received secondhand, but the apostles were willing to suffer and die for what they had seen with their own eyes.

 

[megablue]

Modern martyrs die for what they sincerely believe is true, but their knowledge comes secondhand from others. For instance, Muslim terrorists who attacked the Twin Towers on 9/11 were not eyewitnesses of any miracles by Mohammed. In fact, they were not eyewitnesses of any events of the life of Mohammed. Rather, they lived over thirteen centuries later. No doubt the Muslim radicals acted out of sincere belief, but their convictions were received secondhand at best from others. They did not know Mohammed personally, see him fulfill any prophecy, or witness him doing any miracles such as walking on water, healing the blind, or rising from the dead. There is a massive difference between willingly dying for the sake of the religious ideas accepted from the testimony of others (Muslim radicals) and willingly dying for the proclamation of a faith based upon one’s own eyewitness account (apostles). The deaths of the terrorists provide no more evidence for the truth of Islam than my death would provide for the truth of Christianity. My martyrdom would show I really believed it, but nothing more.

In contrast to the beliefs of Buddhist monks and Muslim radicals and any other modern martyrs, including Christians, the beliefs of the apostles was not received secondhand, but from personal experience with the risen Jesus (Acts 1:21-22; 1 Cor 15:5-8). They proclaimed what they had seen and heard with their own eyes and ears, not stories received from others (Acts 1:3; 2:22-24). Peter not only claims that he was an eyewitness but that the events took place in public and that his audience had full knowledge of them. The events were not done secretly in a corner. Buddhist monks and Muslim terrorists are certainly willing to suffer and die for a faith they received secondhand, but the apostles were willing to suffer and die for what they had seen with their own eyes.

I understand your point about the apostles and their claims, as differentiated from later martyrs with faith based on what they have heard, but not seen. It is a direct point, not a subtle one.

What are your thoughts about martyrs from other faiths … are they dying for a false belief ?? Do you believe every faith, except Christianity, to be untrue ??
Just curious … not trying to make some kind of point with the question, other than if you see them as untrue and to a false god, then I suppose you might better relate to, if not agree, with thought processes that atheists use for all religions. fwiw …

 

[Caveman Catfan]

To be fair, open and reasonable, Caveman, which you are … what are your thoughts about Muslims willing to blow themselves up for Allah, 72 virgins, etc … ?? Certainly a horrible death, apparent sincere faith … do you see these deaths in keeping with “made up bull$hit” ???

It is much like their belief that Muhammad ascended into Heaven on a winged horse … an event that was written about 80-200 years after it supposedly occurred, as per my very basic and elementary understanding, based on oral tradition.

It’s sad to see a faith premised upon works with people never knowing in this life if they are loved enough, but rather thinking that their entrance into some concept of heaven is solely about their works. Christ did the work. God loves us so much that He did what we could never do. I would like for them to know God in that way.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Perhaps JC had financial motivation to author these stories.

You should actually read those stories to see if you can find proof therein. Good luck!!

 

[crashtestdummy]

You should actually read those stories to see if you can find proof therein. Good luck!!

I wouldn't expect to find truth or proof of any kind in those stories, besides fiction doesn't interest me.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I wouldn't expect to find truth or proof of any kind in those stories, besides fiction doesn't interest me.

I too was once an atheist expert on the Bible I never read.

 

[cole854]

Is it possible for an invisible being from space and a virgin female to conceive and give birth? No!

Is it possible for a human male that’s been tortured and executed to spend a holiday weekend in a sealed tomb, then come back to life three days later and be lifted up into the sky? No!

Is it possible that these stories that were told verbally for decades, then written down, then translated several times over the preceding centuries, then edited to suit the king of England 400+ years ago into a book, be total fabrications, myths, and fictional nonsense? Yes!

You sure get upset over something you don't believe in. There is a lot of fear in your words.

If the above examples are not possible, as you stated, then please explain how we all evolved...planets, galaxies, humanity, emotions, the perfect order of life, etc. I will hang up and listen, but remember.....you can't get something from nothing.

 

[ukdesi]

You sure get upset over something you don't believe in. There is a lot of fear in your words.

If the above examples are not possible, as you stated, then please explain how we all evolved...planets, galaxies, humanity, emotions, the perfect order of life, etc. I will hang up and listen, but remember.....you can't get something from nothing.

I don't understand this something from nothing argument that I read in this thread. Where did the creator come from? If it/he/she came from a creator, then where did the creator's creator come from? And the creator's creator creator? The creator itself is something from nothing. If you want to claim it is beyond our realm or universe or beyond our comprehension, fine -- but then these concepts are incompatible -- a very human concept of one creator with a non-human notion of said creator being beyond our comprehension.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I too was once an atheist expert on the Bible I never read.

And today you're just another theist layman, pretending to be expert on the Buybull.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I don't understand this something from nothing argument that I read in this thread. Where did the creator come from? If it/he/she came from a creator, then where did the creator's creator come from? And the creator's creator creator? The creator itself is something from nothing. If you want to claim it is beyond our realm or universe or beyond our comprehension, fine -- but then these concepts are incompatible -- a very human concept of one creator with a non-human notion of said creator being beyond our comprehension.

Your question is limited because you are temporally influenced. We all are. We live on a timeline. Everything confined by the timeline has a beginning, middle, end. That timeline started, evidently, with a big bang. God created the matter and time. He is not subjected to it. So, your question mistakenly attempts to place the creator of time into a time context.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I don't understand this something from nothing argument that I read in this thread. Where did the creator come from? If it/he/she came from a creator, then where did the creator's creator come from? And the creator's creator creator? The creator itself is something from nothing. If you want to claim it is beyond our realm or universe or beyond our comprehension, fine -- but then these concepts are incompatible -- a very human concept of one creator with a non-human notion of said creator being beyond our comprehension.

I'd also like to understand his meaning of "perfect order of life". Life as I observe seems random and chaotic.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

And today you're just another theist layman, pretending to be expert on the Buybull.

No. Not an expert. Just someone who has actually read it.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

You sure get upset over something you don't believe in. There is a lot of fear in your words.

If the above examples are not possible, as you stated, then please explain how we all evolved...planets, galaxies, humanity, emotions, the perfect order of life, etc. I will hang up and listen, but remember.....you can't get something from nothing.

Not upset or fearful at all. It’s a debate. Nothing more.

I don’t claim to know how evolution works. I’m not in the field that studies those things. I also don’t believe in magic. And none of the religious explanations (I include all religions, not just your favorite one) make any sense.

 

[ukdesi]

Your question is limited because you are temporally influenced. We all are. We live on a timeline. Everything confined by the timeline has a beginning, middle, end. That timeline started, evidently, with a big bang. God created the matter and time. He is not subjected to it. So, your question mistakenly attempts to place the creator of time into a time context.

This seems like the same issue I described above--just reframed.

God -- defined as an all-powerful all-loving creator -- very human concept
God -- not subject to the bounds of time = beyond our comprehension = non-human concept

Same non apples to apples comparison.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

You sure get upset over something you don't believe in. There is a lot of fear in your words.

If the above examples are not possible, as you stated, then please explain how we all evolved...planets, galaxies, humanity, emotions, the perfect order of life, etc. I will hang up and listen, but remember.....you can't get something from nothing.

Please explain how the god as described in the buybull created 200+ billion galaxies?

But remember….you can’t get something from nothing.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

This seems like the same issue I described above--just reframed.

God -- defined as an all-powerful all-loving creator -- very human concept
God -- not subject to the bounds of time = beyond our comprehension = non-human concept

Same non apples to apples comparison.

Well, then, refer to science and the Big Bang. What existed before time and matter exploded into existence? What caused time and matter to suddenly explode into existence? Whatever your conclusion, was the cause subject to time and matter before time and matter existed?

You tell me.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I'd also like to understand his meaning of "perfect order of life".

Not believable.

Life as I observe seems random and chaotic.

the universe is random and chaotic and not given to order. Life is an example of order in that chaotic and random universe. It’s one of the arguments for design. Thanks.

 

[ukdesi]

Well, then, refer to science and the Big Bang. What existed before time and matter exploded into existence? What caused time and matter to suddenly explode into existence? Whatever your conclusion, was the cause subject to time and matter before time and matter existed?

You tell me.

I don't know. My judgement would be to say what our best science/knowledge tells us. I'm OK to leave it at that. However not having an explanation does not justify the existence of a God -- it doesn't disprove the existence of a God either.

 

[MegaBlue05]

But why does the atheist even care what other people believe, and what benefit does he have imposing his beliefs on others? I understand some of you may feel your lives would've been better without Christianity, that maybe you would prefer others in your lives weren't Christian and saw things as you do, but that is certainly not the case for everyone.

I can answer this one as a firm agnostic who teeters on atheism but isn’t confident enough one way or the other to make a definitive proclamation.

I don’t care what others believe or don’t believe …. until said believers go legislating those beliefs onto the population at large (anything from blue laws regardIng alcohol sales to posting one religion’s holy texts in public places that provide services to people of all religions or no religion at all, to legislating who can and cannot get married, and what individuals can and cannot do with their own bodies) or if they knock on my door or approach me in public and start preaching at me/try to get me to join their particular sect.

I’ve never gone door to door recruiting people to not be religious. I’ve never taken a megaphone and stood on a street corner yelling “NOTHING HAPPENS WHEN YOU DIE.” I’ve never once “imposed my beliefs on others,” but damn sure have had others impose their beliefs on me. It’s apparently Ok for believers to go around preaching at people, but if I say “I don’t want to hear it, save your breath,” I am the bad guy. Seems like a bit of a double-standard to me.

I am of the opinion that I don’t mind if religion brings others a sense of fulfillment, purpose, peace, etc. I think that’s great. I mind when said believers preach at me after I tell them I’m not interested.

Just last night, my wife and I had dinner with another couple who are very religious and they know we’re not. We’ve been friends for decades. They asked if we minded if they prayed before the meal. We said of course not. We respectfully remained silent while they did their thing and then enjoyed our dinner. That was the way to handle it. It wouldn’t have been OK if they insisted we pray with them or if we made snarky comments during their prayer.