“The work of God”?

There are a couple of responses to this. The first (Dawkins' position) is that most people who describe themselves as atheists are technically agnostic, just agnostics who are making a probability judgement that makes the idea of a god so monumentally unlikely that for all intents and purposes they call themselves atheists to differentiate themselves from the people who claim it's unknowable or equally likely either way.

The other response would be one that says that the concept of God described is a logical impossibility. Of course this relies on someone providing a concept of God to give an opinion about. Luckily the traditional religions are quite specific about the nature of their god, right down to what he thinks about particular dietry choices. However, lots of religious people like to present a concept of god that is so wooly as to effectively be meaningless and it's pretty difficult to oppose something that isn't really saying anything.
This is true, however if you’re the latter description of an atheist, then it doesn’t really matter what the concept of God is, so long as it’s a creator of the universe outside of space and time, you find even the most generic version impossible.

I was that type of atheist, it was a total rejection of anything that wasn’t materialist.

I think if you are, then there is a need for evidence to prove the beginning of space and time as an unintelligent event.
 
I’d say with total honesty that it’s a mixture of emotional and objectivity on my part.

I was surprised at how much the Jesus story stacked up against criticism, I presumed a quick google would show it to be complete nonsense and then I read eye witnesses were willing to die, rather than dismiss what they saw.

You’ll disagree with that, I know, but it’s fine, I have no quarrel with atheists and I’m not the type that’s going to push it on others.

The New Testament calls for the opposite of persecution. Love thy enemies and offer them the shirt off your back, doesn’t really check out on the persecution front. Even in Corinthians, where there is further instruction from St Paul, he says to help those that sin. There’s no discrimination from Christ’s teachings in the New Testament.

I know it hasn’t always been the case but Christians and atheists have a good thing going on in Britain and we can exist perfectly in harmony, I think respecting people’s views but challenging them is healthy.

Hope you had a nice Christmas too!
That's not actually true, if you read what Jesus said.

 
Yeah, and you made that up as well. I never compared a flat earther to a christian.
I said I was Christian, you sarcastically said I wonder what he thinks about a flat Earth.

I then asked if it’s a stretch to compare an Anglican to a flat earther and you said “not really”.

None of that is made up and if you weren’t comparing me to a flat earther then you were doing a very good impression of doing so.
 
That's not actually true, if you read what Jesus said.

I’ve had that article before, to be honest with you.

And let me respond.

First of all when he mentions the law he’s specifically talking about Moses, which it states and therefore we can assume he’s referring to the Ten Commandments?

Then what we need to do is see how he behaved and what he said.

It references the stoning of adulterous people to death and yet he stopped that happening, not only that he highlighted that every person is guilty of committing adultery in their heart, by lusting after people who aren’t your spouse.

God’s standard is far greater than what any one person achieved, other than Christ himself and therefore, we’re all guilty and he then says “let he who has not sin, cast the first stone”.

There’s another where he talks about removing the speck out of your brothers eye before removing your own and do not judge for you shall be judged too.

This means we’re all guilty and only the non guilty can punish the guilty for these types of sins.

Therefore I cannot condemn a homosexual because I myself commit sexual sin.

The entire Gospel message is based upon this and whilst Christ came to fulfil the law, there is a significant deviation from carrying it out.

It’s also important to view how ancient Jewish law was implemented. The death sentence was rarely, if ever carried out, because the witness to the so-called offence had to put their own life on the line in being a witness, if it was proven you lied then you’re at risk of getting the same punishment. Also, the victim or the witness could suggest a lesser sentence than death. This meant that it rarely ever happened but that doesn’t make it ok, far from it and I’m not defending for a second that gay people or people who cheat on their spouses should have that sort of sentence hanging over them at trial. But Jesus’s teachings moved away from that and that really is the truth.

He literally intervened and stopped a woman being stoned to death, which shows to me, that the law still stands that sex outside marriage is wrong but that the punishment needed to change.
 
I said I was Christian, you sarcastically said I wonder what he thinks about a flat Earth.

I then asked if it’s a stretch to compare an Anglican to a flat earther and you said “not really”.

None of that is made up and if you weren’t comparing me to a flat earther then you were doing a very good impression of doing so.
'sarcastically' is made up in your head.

To avoid any further mis-conceptions on your part and me having to spend the day 'debating' with you;
In my house, god-botherers are deluded and need a crutch to get them through lifes woes.

Have a lovely day and come on City.
 
'sarcastically' is made up in your head.

To avoid any further mis-conceptions on your part and me having to spend the day 'debating' with you;
In my house, god-botherers are deluded and need a crutch to get them through lifes woes.

Have a lovely day and come on City.
everything is seemingly made up in his head at this point.
 
'sarcastically' is made up in your head.

To avoid any further mis-conceptions on your part and me having to spend the day 'debating' with you;
In my house, god-botherers are deluded and need a crutch to get them through lifes woes.

Have a lovely day and come on City.
You know you weren’t asking me about a flat Earth sincerely.

But yeah, personal arguments aren’t something I want to engage in so let’s leave it there.

Enjoy your day too and hopefully we come away with three points.
 
This is true, however if you’re the latter description of an atheist, then it doesn’t really matter what the concept of God is, so long as it’s a creator of the universe outside of space and time, you find even the most generic version impossible.

I was that type of atheist, it was a total rejection of anything that wasn’t materialist.

I think if you are, then there is a need for evidence to prove the beginning of space and time as an unintelligent event.
But the problem with that it that god always goes back one step at the limits of known science, so it will never be proven to the satisfaction of those who have an emotional investment in believing something else. And that's because disproving something is an impossibility. Every generation of religious people has their own list of things unknown to science that get attributed to God, and every generation, these mysteries are solved in a way that doesn't involve any supernatural intervention. So every generation the goal posts are shifted. When the cause of the big bang in inevitably revealed to be natural, God will be relegated to the entity that caused the thing that caused the big bang. And so and and so on. It is this incredible retreat of things God is responsible for over the entire history of humanity that suggests that actually we're not likely to study the big bang and find out that it came from God lighting one of his farts any time soon.

However, it's also worth mentioning that the cause of the universe is just an interesting debate. The far more problematic part is the "...and I know what he thinks" part of religion.

Anyway, I think I'm gonna leave this topic now. Good discussion.
 
Jewish priests, in making a history for their race, have given us but a shadow of truth here and there; it is almost wholly mythical. The author of "The Religion of Israel," speaking on this subject, says:

"The history of the religion of Israel must start from the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. Formerly it was usual to take a much earlier starting-point, and to begin with a religious discussion of the religious ideas of the Patriarchs. And this was perfectly right, so long as the accounts of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were considered historical. But now that a strict investigation has shown us that all these stories are entirely unhistorical, of course we have to begin the history later on."[54:1]
The author of "The Spirit History of Man," says:

"The Hebrews came out of Egypt and settled among the Canaanites. They need not be traced beyond the Exodus. That is their historical beginning. It was very easy to cover up this remote event by the recital of mythical traditions, and to prefix to it an account of their origin in which the gods (Patriarchs), should figure as their ancestors."[54:2]
Professor Goldzhier says:

...

We have already seen, in the last chapter, that Bacchus was called the "Law-giver," and that his laws were written on two tables of stone.[59:3] This feature in the Hebrew legend was evidently copied from that related of Bacchus, but, the idea of his (Moses) receiving the commandments from the Lord on a mountain was obviously taken from the Persian legend related of Zoroaster.

Prof. Max Müller says:

"What applies to the religion of Moses applies to that of Zoroaster. It is placed before us as a complete system from the first, revealed by Ahuramazda (Ormuzd), proclaimed by Zoroaster."[59:4]
The disciples of Zoroaster, in their profusion of legends of the master, relate that one day, as he prayed on a high mountain, in the midst of thunders and lightnings ("fire from heaven"), the Lord himself appeared before him, and delivered unto him the "Book of the Law." While the King of Persia and the people were assembled together, Zoroaster came down from the mountain unharmed, bringing with him the "Book of the Law," which had been revealed to him by Ormuzd. They call this book the Zend-Avesta, which signifies the Living Word.[59:5]

[Pg 60]

According to the religion of the Cretans, Minos, their law-giver, ascended a mountain (Mount Dicta) and there received from the Supreme Lord (Zeus) the sacred laws which he brought down with him.[60:1]

Almost all nations of antiquity have legends of their holy men ascending a mountain to ask counsel of the gods, such places being invested with peculiar sanctity, and deemed nearer to the deities than other portions of the earth.[60:2]

According to Egyptian belief, it is Thoth, the Deity itself, that speaks and reveals to his elect among men the will of God and the arcana of divine things. Portions of them are expressly stated to have been written by the very finger of Thoth himself; to have been the work and composition of the great god.[60:3]

Diodorus, the Grecian historian, says:

The idea promulgated by the ancient Egyptians that their laws were received direct from the Most High God, has been adopted with success by many other law-givers, who have thus insured respect for their institutions.[60:4]

The Supreme God of the ancient Mexicans was Tezcatlipoca. He occupied a position corresponding to the Jehovah of the Jews, the Brahma of India, the Zeus of the Greeks, and the Odin of the Scandinavians. His name is compounded of Tezcatepec, the name of a mountain (upon which he is said to have manifested himself to man) tlil, dark, and poca, smoke. The explanation of this designation is given in the Codex Vaticanus, as follows:

[Pg 61]

Tezcatlipoca was one of their most potent deities; they say he once appeared on the top of a mountain. They paid him great reverence and adoration, and addressed him, in their prayers, as "Lord, whose servant we are." No man ever saw his face, for he appeared only "as a shade." Indeed, the Mexican idea of the godhead was similar to that of the Jews. Like Jehovah, Tezcatlipoca dwelt in the "midst of thick darkness." When he descended upon the mount of Tezcatepec, darkness overshadowed the earth, while fire and water, in mingled streams, flowed from beneath his feet, from its summit.[61:1]

Thus, we see that other nations, beside the Hebrews, believed that their laws were actually received from God, that they had legends to that effect, and that a mountain figures conspicuously in the stories.

Professor Oort, speaking on this subject, says:

"No one who has any knowledge of antiquity will be surprised at this, for similar beliefs were very common. All peoples who had issued from a life of barbarism and acquired regular political institutions, more or less elaborate laws, and established worship, and maxims of morality, attributed all this—their birth as a nation, so to speak—to one or more great men, all of whom, without exception, were supposed to have received their knowledge from some deity.
"Whence did Zoroaster, the prophet of the Persians, derive his religion? According to the beliefs of his followers, and the doctrines of their sacred writings, it was from Ahuramazda, the God of light. Why did the Egyptians represent the god Thoth with a writing tablet and a pencil in his hand, and honor him especially as the god of the priests? Because he was 'the Lord of the divine Word,' the foundation of all wisdom, from whose inspiration the priests, who were the scholars, the lawyers, and the religious teachers of the people, derived all their wisdom. Was not Minos, the law-giver of the Cretans, the friend of Zeus, the highest of the gods? Nay, was he not even his son, and did he not ascend to the sacred cave on Mount Dicte to bring down the laws which his god had placed there for him? From whom did the Spartan law-giver, Lycurgus, himself say that he had obtained his laws? From no other than the god Apollo. The Roman legend, too, in honoring Numa Pompilius as the people's instructor, at the same time ascribed all his wisdom to his intercourse with the nymph Egeria. It was the same elsewhere; and to make one more example,—this from later times—Mohammed not only believed himself to have been called immediately by God to be the prophet of the Arabs, but declared that he had received every page of the Koran from the hand of the angel Gabriel."[61:2]




Are all of these factual or just opinions ? For example, what investigation has shown that the stories of Abraham(as), Isaac(as) and Jacob(as) are entirely unhistorical ? Maybe there is an absence of evidence, but how do we know for certain they never existed ?

How is the idea of Moses(as) receiving commandments copied from Zoroaster ? Are we even sure of the time when Zoroaster lived ? Britannica says Zoroaster lived in 6th century BCE. That is many centuries after Moses(as).

I agree that there are similarities shared across several faiths, but the conclusion is different from what is posited here. The following verses shed a light on this :

[Qur'an 16:36] - And We certainly sent into EVERY nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship Allah and avoid Taghut (false dieties)"

The prophets of Islam are not restricted to the nation of Abraham(as), this is a concept where we diverge from Judaism. So, it's possible that Zoroaster was a true prophet of God, and thus the similarities in its teachings.

[Qur'an 11:120] - And each [story] We relate to you from the news of the messengers is that by which We make firm your heart. And there has come to you, in this, the truth and an instruction and a reminder for the believers.

Here, we are informed that the stories of the past messengers are being related to us, so that we can strengthen our faith by looking upon the great prophets who lived by God's commandments. So, just because a story of one prophet is retold by another, it doesn't mean it was just plagiarized and they were fake.

Obviously, there are also false prophets who have tried to follow the similar patterns of the prophets for their personal gains. In Islamic history too, we learn about a few of them who popped up immediately after the death of Muhammad(saw), like Musaylima and Tulayha, and they were fought and defeated by the first caliph, Abu Bakr(ra).
 
Last edited:
But the problem with that it that god always goes back one step at the limits of known science, so it will never be proven to the satisfaction of those who have an emotional investment in believing something else. And that's because disproving something is an impossibility. Every generation of religious people has their own list of things unknown to science that get attributed to God, and every generation, these mysteries are solved in a way that doesn't involve any supernatural intervention. So every generation the goal posts are shifted. When the cause of the big bang in inevitably revealed to be natural, God will be relegated to the entity that caused the thing that caused the big bang. And so and and so on. It is this incredible retreat of things God is responsible for over the entire history of humanity that suggests that actually we're not likely to study the big bang and find out that it came from God lighting one of his farts any time soon.

However, it's also worth mentioning that the cause of the universe is just an interesting debate. The far more problematic part is the "...and I know what he thinks" part of religion.

Anyway, I think I'm gonna leave this topic now. Good discussion.
I get the God of the gaps discussion, I would just argue that He is reason for everything we see in the natural world and universe.

We’re just not going to agree on it so whilst it has been a good discussion, I think you’re right that we should leave it there. Enjoy the rest of your day and hopefully we’ll get three points later!
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.