The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work

[robvalue]

Did someone say Lazarus? Jesus really screwed the pooch on that one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9qDUCQ62j4

[Rekeisha]

With pleasure.

1) For one thing, I fully expect such a being to create a system that doesn't break down the way free will seems to have done. For another, I fully expect a perfect being to be able to get us a message far more perfect than the construct you call the bible. For that matter, I expect an all-powerful being to be able to speak for himself at all times, not just until he stopped doing that about 2,000 years ago. I expect an all-loving, all-powerful being to be significantly more effective than any human effort at stopping all human suffering. For that matter, I expect an all-loving being to create a system that is devoid of suffering.

You might say that suffering is necessary for personal growth. If that's true, it's because god created it that way. He's the one that decided that suffering was necessary for personal growth and then created everything so that this would be true. If he's really all-powerful, he could have just as easily created a system where suffering wasn't even a thing and the only things necessary for personal growth were laying around and eating and cumming all day. Either he wants us to suffer (and therefore deliberately designed things this way) or he can't prevent our suffering (and therefore HAD to design things this way). If it's the first, he is malicious and therefore not all-loving. If it's the second, then he is not all-powerful.

Furthermore, I expect an all-perfect, all-powerful being to be able to do absolutely anything and everything I could do only better, and you know something? I'm able to forgive people without having to take revenge on them, and without having to put my rage off on something else just to be able to move on. When someone wrongs me, I don't require their blood for forgiveness, I don't require them to spill the blood of any animals for forgiveness, and I sure as FUCK don't have my own child viciously executed as an outlet for my frustration or because it's somehow necessary for my forgiveness to take place. I can just take a deep breath, get the fuck over it, and move on with my life.

Gaud, on the other hand, has to spill blood in order to be able to coexist with humans who go against his will, whether it's the blood of animals, humans, or his own damn son (and himself...or whatever). If he chooses not to forgive without murdering something, then he is not even as loving as I am. If he is not able to forgive without murdering something, then he is not even as powerful as I am. If he is neither more loving nor more powerful than I am, why should I revere or worship him? I'm a better person than he is.

He could create a system that wouldn't break down like the free will system but then you wouldn't have free will. He wanted to create beings that are made in His image. This entailed giving us the ability to love freely. Since God is love then we need to have the ability to love. If you don't have free will you don't have love. If you have to ability to choose love the you must have the ability to not choose to love.
 
Could you please elaborate on the construction of the bible, what troubles you about it's construction?
Also what makes you think He isn't speaking right now?
 
What bothers you about suffering?
 
As for forgiveness is there anything you couldn't forgive? If someone murders, or rapes, or defrauds someone you love without remorse would you easily forgive and not seek justice for your family? Would that be just and right? If the criminal asked you to forgive them would it be just to your family to say "I forgive you" and let that person off the hook?  Should there be punishment for those who do wrong?

2) Here's a start: Bible contradictions. The internet is full of lists like that. Google magic. To list at least one myself, the bible claims Jehovah is all-loving and the absolute source of moral instruction, and yet he condones genocide, rape, and slavery in various places throughout the bible (slavery in both testaments). The idea that slavery was wrong didn't even mostly occur to people until well after the bible was done being written and arranged. If the bible is the absolute source of morality, and we now agree that slavery is absolutely morally wrong, then why isn't abolition a thing in the bible?


Your objections with rape, genocide, slavery assumes that people have intrinsic worth so where does this worth come from? If we don't have intrinsic worth then on what bases are you saying these practices are wrong? (especially if morals are subjective). Also could you please point me to the biblical accounts of God approving of these actions.

4) A bias against it? No. A good reason for believing it doesn't exist? Yes. For one thing, a position of non-belief/non-knowledge is by far the most responsible concerning anything supernatural because there is no evidence of anything supernatural. Furthermore, god by every definition I understand is an impossible object, and all available evidence points to the very concept of god being an abstract fiction created by humans for various purposes. To put it bluntly, we have every reason to believe that humans made the gods up and no reason whatsoever to believe in the existence of any of humanity's gods (excepting human rulers who were attributed deity-hood, but those are humans, not gods).

Why is God impossible?

5) My source for truth is not myself. It's the evidence of the world around me. When I was a religious person, my source for truth was ultimately myself and my interpretation (though I thought at the time this was the inspired voice of god in my head). Now I appeal to a higher authority: reality.

How do you know that your reasoning has changed?  How does reality have any authority? It is not a being and only beings can have authority and give authority. So are you your ultimate authority?   

6) The ancient jews qualify as a primitive society because their knowledge and tech were practically non-existent, their morals and myths are barbaric and savage, and their utter lack of human rights and equality is utterly backward by today's standard and completely typical of an uninformed, superstitious, Bronze Age society.

By what standard are you judging these people to say their knowledge was practically non-existent? Along with your study on the bible did you also study the cultures of that day? Also again if morals are subjective why are you judging the way they conducted their society?
What is savage about not lying, stealing, murdering, respecting your parents, not coveting, not committing adultery? Do these laws display a lack in human rights?

7) Yes, morality is completely subjective, though it can be informed by objective facts (i.e. humans objectively exist and are social animals, suffering objectively exists, empathy objectively exists, etc.). There is no objective source of moral truth.

how do you define what suffering is and how can you say that it is objective as well as empathy?

10) I know what's real because there's proof of what's real. It's that simple.

How do you know that that proof is right?

[robvalue]

Did I just read that someone has personal experiences with Sauron? OK this is getting ridiculous. How would that even work?

Damn crazy people. Sometimes it takes a while, but people show their colours in the end.

[Rekeisha]

I've done plenty of research about the bible. It's become clear I know way more than many Christians, both about its content and its history. That should be very worrying, considering I only started studying it a year or two ago.

I don't ever claim absolutely certainty about anything, I have the awareness to note that I could be wrong about anything at all. However, that doesn't mean I am wrong all the time about everything, nor does it mean I should give the time of day to unfounded magical claims with no evidence behind them.

As Redbeard has said, the bible is exactly what I would expect from a load of very human humans trying to explain the universe in a primitive way, and making up stories. I take it no more seriously than any other work of fiction I read. Do I endlessly worry that Sauron might actually be real? No, because I have no reason to think so. The moment there is any actual evidence Sauron is real, I'll happily check it out. Same for the foolish parade of obviously made up characters in the bible.

But by all means, ask the stupid Christian God to come talk to me if he's not too busy pretending to not exist and hiding from science. I haven't got time for frigging peek-a-boo, I grew out of that when I was about 2. If he wants to man up, grow some balls, grow some hair on his spine, he should know where to find me. If not, I'll just keep talking smack about him and Jesus and people will keep throwing empty threats at me about how I'm going to regret it after I'm dead.

And anyone who takes those insults personally is only proving my point that gods only exist inside people's heads.

What kind of sources have you used to research the Bible? Why do you think 2 years of research on the bible is plenty of research?
So what is your view on how the universe has come to be?  Which characters in the Bible do you think are made up and Why do you think they are obviously made up?
I have spoken to you a number of time about how God speaks so why are you trying to discount these and say that He is pretending to not exist? Do you think an attack on His character is a reasonable defense against His existence?
How does anyone taking offense at your attacks prove that God would be just in my head? Since you say you use reasoning you would know that this kind of argument is a logical fallacy of argument by accusation (argumentum ad hominem).

[IATIA]

Why is God impossible?

Infinite regression.

[JackRussell]

Rekeisha,

May I politely request that in response to rob and the pink one, you try to answer your own questions for yourself, by doing some research on how we atheists respond to these questions? The clue is that you have said nothing in response to the detailed replies you received that hasn't been answered about a million times before.

I don't mean this to be rude, but I am wondering what you think you know of the possible objections to your reasoning?

For instance, can you find an instance in the bible where your god condones and advocates genocide, wether or not you think that it is justified? Can you find a biblical contradiction that you can admit is puzzling to you?

Try being an atheist for a second, just as thought experiment, to see if you can better understand where we are coming from.

[Redbeard The Pink]

He could create a system that wouldn't break down like the free will system but then you wouldn't have free will. He wanted to create beings that are made in His image. This entailed giving us the ability to love freely. Since God is love then we need to have the ability to love. If you don't have free will you don't have love. If you have to ability to choose love the you must have the ability to not choose to love.

 
Ah yes...the ability to love freely, and then be punished for loving certain people in certain ways...how nice.

An all-powerful and perfect being could create a system with free will and not have it all come crashing down because of something that he himself built into the system. Something all-powerful and all-perfect could create beings that can choose not to love him and they would all still love him. All-powerful means able to do anything. By all written accounts, your Gaud is an incompetent designer. If he designed the system to include (or even just knowing it would result in) sin and suffering, then he is malicious and not all-loving. If he couldn't create a system without those things, then he is not all-powerful. If he failed to create a system that could not be disrupted by those things, then he is not all-perfect.

Could you please elaborate on the construction of the bible, what troubles you about it's construction? 

Let's see...the fact that virtually all of its stories disagree broadly with mainstream science and history, the fact that virtually all of its tenets and narratives are stolen from other cultures, the fact that it can easily be used to incite and condone horrendous atrocities against humans, the fact that it endorses and regulates slavery (including guidelines for selling one's daughter as a sex slave)...shit, like all of it, basically. It's a horrible book, and it's ALL fictional.

Also what makes you think He isn't speaking right now? 

 
How about the fact that he never spoke to begin with? How about the fact that he most likely does not exist? Those are both good reasons.

What bothers you about suffering?

 
Seriously? What bothers YOU about suffering? It's suffering. Are you saying you aren't bothered by it?

What bothers me about it in terms of Gaud is the fact that it exists at all. If he's really all-powerful, then creating a system that inflicts suffering on anyone was completely unnecessary unless he wanted there to be suffering for some reason. What love-inspired reason could he possibly have had for creating a system where suffering was somehow inherent or necessary? Again, if he chose to do it, he is not all-loving. If he had to do it, he is not all-powerful.

As for forgiveness is there anything you couldn't forgive? If someone murders, or rapes, or defrauds someone you love without remorse would you easily forgive and not seek justice for your family? Would that be just and right? If the criminal asked you to forgive them would it be just to your family to say "I forgive you" and let that person off the hook?  Should there be punishment for those who do wrong? 

Sure, there might be circumstances under which I could be emotionally strained into non-forgiveness and even vengeance, but not for any and every little perceived offense someone commits against me, which is how your Gaud purportedly handles it. Furthermore, there is absolutely no finite crime in this world anyone could do to me or anyone else that would justify eternal torture. That isn't justice by any definition I would accept.

Your objections with rape, genocide, slavery assumes that people have intrinsic worth so where does this worth come from? If we don't have intrinsic worth then on what bases are you saying these practices are wrong? (especially if morals are subjective). Also could you please point me to the biblical accounts of God approving of these actions.

No, it assumes that people suffer when they are raped, killed, and enslaved. Because I know what it is to suffer and I know how I would feel about anyone who raped, enslaved, or killed me, I can reasonably assume that others do not want those things done to them either. If I expect people to respect my wishes not to be raped, enslaved, or killed, it reasonably follows that others should be able to expect the same from me. What part of the Golden Rule is so hard for Gaud people?

Why is God impossible?

Because he is consciousness in the absence of matter.

Because he is said to exist outside the material Universe and yet still be able to affect the material Universe observably.

Because he is supposed to be all-loving and all-powerful and yet responsible for creating a world rife with suffering and malice and leaving it that way.

How do you know that your reasoning has changed?  How does reality have any authority? It is not a being and only beings can have authority and give authority. So are you your ultimate authority?

Authority probably wasn't the right word, considering how you theists love to bandy semantics about. What I'm saying is that evident reality is my standard for Truth. Ultimately, though, we're all limited by our own perception and understanding.

By what standard are you judging these people to say their knowledge was practically non-existent? Along with your study on the bible did you also study the cultures of that day? Also again if morals are subjective why are you judging the way they conducted their society?
What is savage about not lying, stealing, murdering, respecting your parents, not coveting, not committing adultery? Do these laws display a lack in human rights?

By today's standard. What else? I'm right, too. And yes, I've studied the cultures in question. They knew practically nothing of science and the natural world, hence the content of the creation account, the flood story, etc. All you have to do to know this is read the things they wrote.

Morals are subjective, which means that there is no objective source of moral truth, but there are objective criteria by which we can compare two or more moralities relative to each other. Today's modern, western, secular morality objectively contains less suffering and more rights/equality than Bible morality, so today's morality is objectively better than Bible morality.

how do you define what suffering is and how can you say that it is objective as well as empathy?

I define suffering as pretty much any experience a being goes through that said being does not wish to have. A shorter way to say it is that suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. I can say it and empathy objectively exist because we can observe them in objective reality.

How do you know that that proof is right?

Because I have the knowledge and critical thinking skills to tell when I'm looking at good evidence.

[Brakeman]

..
But by all means, ask the stupid Christian God to come talk to me if he's not too busy pretending to not exist and hiding from science. I haven't got time for frigging peek-a-boo, I grew out of that when I was about 2. If he wants to man up, grow some balls, grow some hair on his spine, he should know where to find me. If not, I'll just keep talking smack about him and Jesus and people will keep throwing empty threats at me about how I'm going to regret it after I'm dead...

.. Do you think an attack on His character is a reasonable defense against His existence?..

According to the (hi)stories in the bible, God smites people right and left for not obeying him. Heck, he smote Uzzah just for trying to save his beloved Arc of the Covenant from falling off of it's cart due to a pothole!

Now compare Uzzah's mistake of forgetting god's commandment not to touch the Arc, to my blasphamy of calling god a pedaphile abuser of mangy dogs, and it becomes clear that god no longer has the ability or the balls to act in the real world anymore, just in the fantasy of old books.

[robvalue]

Rekeisha,

May I politely request that in response to rob and the pink one, you try to answer your own questions for yourself, by doing some research on how we atheists respond to these questions? The clue is that you have said nothing in response to the detailed replies you received that hasn't been answered about a million times before.

I don't mean this to be rude, but I am wondering what you think you know of the possible objections to your reasoning?

For instance, can you find an instance in the bible where your god condones and advocates genocide, wether or not you think that it is justified? Can you find a biblical contradiction that you can admit is puzzling to you?

Try being an atheist for a second, just as thought experiment, to see if you can better understand where we are coming from.

Very well said! Thank you

I've tried really hard, as I do with all theists, to have a sensible conversation. But I'm sad to say I gave up a while ago. If we can't agree on the very basics of how a discussion works, nothing can be done. You're right, the theist needs to make at least some effort to understand our position and not examine it through the filter of their own preconceptions. Some are unwilling, or quite possibly unable, to do so.

Slagging off God is just for fun, and like Brakeman said, it's a way to show that he hasn't got any power anymore even if we pretend he exists. I don't need to go around proving characters from story books aren't real. That's not how it works.

[Rekeisha]

Rekeisha,

May I politely request that in response to rob and the pink one, you try to answer your own questions for yourself, by doing some research on how we atheists respond to these questions? The clue is that you have said nothing in response to the detailed replies you received that hasn't been answered about a million times before.

I don't mean this to be rude, but I am wondering what you think you know of the possible objections to your reasoning?

For instance, can you find an instance in the bible where your god condones and advocates genocide, wether or not you think that it is justified? Can you find a biblical contradiction that you can admit is puzzling to you?

Try being an atheist for a second, just as thought experiment, to see if you can better understand where we are coming from.

Why do you assume that I don't know the answers to my questions? I am trying to understand what he is thinking.