Relationship with god?

596 posts / 0 new
Last post
Deforres's picture
"I have seen proof, but as

"I have seen proof, but as the consequence of attempted manipulation of God, I can't tell anyone what it was. An oath foolishly taken stops me from telling anyone."

I will now write you off as a cultist nutter.
You are clearly afflicted with one(or a myriad) of mental illnesses. You need to seek professional help.

ætherborn98's picture
When When I was younger, I

When When I was younger, I prayed a foolish prayer. Many times I said,"If you do this, I will (or won't) do this." This has caught up to me, hindering me. I was never part of a cult, but I tried to manipulate God with prayer, and I've become ensnared by my own words.

Deforres's picture
"Many times I said,"If you do

"Many times I said,"If you do this, I will (or won't) do this."

(A) Every religious person I've ever known has said something similar.
(B) That's how I figured out prayer dosent work. This was the first stepping stone to atheism for me.

Deforres's picture
Sir, you do realize that, if

Sir, you do realize that, if you cannot prove your God on your own, then the only safe assumption is that he does not exist. At least you realize that personal "proof" isint proof to others. And I don't intend to ask God for shit. Ive said it a hundred times, and I'll say it millions more: The existence of a god would be detrimental to humanity's potential. If he is ever proven to exist, I'm going to get off this rock, if I have to fund my own space program.

chimp3's picture
The quality of being

The quality of being incapable of disproof is evidence for nonexistence.

Kataclismic's picture
@ Hawk Flint

@ Hawk Flint

There should be a box on the right-hand side of the screen that has 'My Profile' as the third icon. Click this and then click the 'Edit' tab to change your picture.

girrod's picture
Once again the peanut gallery

Once again the peanut gallery rears its head and offers no substantial thought process. As they guilt the religious person for not showing evidence, they as well just spew statements with no proof at all. The Bible teaches that one CANNOT rely on feelings, experiences, and intuition as proof for anything (Pr.14:12). So all the talk about experiences is erroneous and anti-biblical.

The statement that the Bible is credible because it conforms to reality is sound when one ACTUALLY reads and studies the Bible with an open and honest mind. Here are examples:
(1) We know things are produced after their own kind, the Bible validates this (Gen.1:12,21).
(2) We know there exists a greater light, the sun, and the lesser light, the moon, which gives us our source of light, the Bible confirms this (Gen. 1:14-18).
(3) We know that man and woman exist and are needed for procreation; the Bible validates this (Gen. 2:22-24).
(4) We know that what separates man from the animal world is intelligence; the Bible confirms this (Gen. 1:26; 2:15-20).
(5) We know that circuits of wind exist and that streams run to the sea; the Bible confirms this (Eccl. 1:6-7).
(6) We know the earth is a sphere; the Bible confirms this (Isa. 40:22).
(7) We know that what leads to evil actions is a distorted mind; the Bible confirms this (Eph. 4:17-19).
(8) We know that anything built must have been built by someone greater than it; the Bible confirms this (Heb. 3:2-4).
(9) We know that evidence is needed to believe in something; the Bible confirms this (Heb. 11:1).

I asked for an additional postulation for how we got here and all I got was an illogical argument - evolution and a single cell. That is not an answer, because it begs the question, who or what is responsible for the single cell? This line of argument can go ad infinitum. I gave as a consideration that a metaphysical Being, whom the Bible describes as mind/thought, is responsible for the world. This Being is the FIRST CAUSE of all things, meaning there is none other beside Him, which interestingly the Bible teaches (Isa. 44:6). This seems more logical and rational than evolution and a single cell. That argument begs more confusion and questions.

What science deals with is what is known, and the problem with atheism using science is making conclusions that since all we have is what is before us, then matter must have always been here. Further, in rejection of God because of bad religion, atheism rejects a Divine Maker of it all. But this is dishonest and illogical. When we arrived on planet Earth, we must ask the right questions and arrive at logical conclusions. We are like homocide detectives, studying and figuring out the clues for our existence. We go from the known to the unknown. Atheism champions evolution, but their explanation of it doesn't conform to logic. At least my response is logical. What this boils down to is, none of us was present at the beginning of time, so know we are left to logically follow the clues to get us from the known to the unknown. This is why I said that God is logical necessity based on the fruits of nature. God cannot be proved with evidence as atheists want, because God is mind and immaterial. All I've mentioned is God is proved by logical necessity.

The point of hermeneutics was spot on and was proved with the foolish remarks from the peanut gallery. In Exodus 33:23 it was said that God through an Angel showed "his butt." Bad hermeneutics! If God had already condemned exposing one's nakedness in Leviticus 18, then why would nakedness be considered there. Further, the phrase "back parts" according to Hebrew scholars is defined as someone's backside, as in back. The point was, God was too majestic and powerful to look at that Moses could not see HIS FACE, but HIS BACK. Once again, the ignorance of the peanut gallery is exposed.

I guess my post wasn't read because I said that there is a process from sender and receiver in communication that must be met. The sender has a message that must be deduced logically by the receiver. I never said that I alone can understand the Bible, rather following the correct process of interpretation anyone can interpret correctly. We do this with other things, such as laws of physics, mathematics, and grammar. We have agreements; likewise the problem is not with what is said in the Bible; only how it is interpreted. Because of misinterpretation, this is the reason why have many false religions and ideologies; which is confirmed in the Scriptures (Deut. 13; Matt. 7:15-20; 2 Pet. 1:20-21).

No one in this forum has proven to think critically and has given me logical arguments to disprove my points. That's a fact!

mykcob4's picture
Your points are just

Your points are just assertions and not fact or supported with facts. Just quoting the bible isn't proof of anything except that you can quote from a fairytale.
Any day you want to deal with facts won't be soon enough.

charvakheresy's picture
@ Gabriel. - Your post was

@ Gabriel. - Your post was too long and far to ridiculous. It was a waste of time reading it and an even greater waste of time refuting it. However being the atheist and a glutton for punishment I will oblige with a rebuttal that as usual you will turn a blind eye to you because of your prejudices no matter how logically sound. So shall we begin....

(1) We know things are produced after their own kind, the Bible validates this (Gen.1:12,21). - There is no such thing as kind. evolution is the best theory to explain diversity of life. And observing that finches give birth to finches and not cockroaches was common back then. Understanding how such variation exists among the canine family and postulating such a theory. Pure genius. In comparison to Darwin your God must be a moron that he did not postulate evolution before Darwin.

(2) We know there exists a greater light, the sun, and the lesser light, the moon, which gives us our source of light, the Bible confirms this (Gen. 1:14-18). The Moons light is reflected not lesser. Come on, this is high school level science. Did "HE" not know the word reflected? Did "HE" not know of a mirror?

(3) We know that man and woman exist and are needed for procreation; the Bible validates this (Gen. 2:22-24).
For procreation of the human race the intervention of a Man and Woman is needed is common sense. The Bibles validation is meaningless. However the bible makes no reference to known Hermaphrodites in the animal world not to the fact that plants may be alive. This book of infinite wisdom only said man and woman make child but no mention of the hermaphroditism in nature or even in the human population.? Surprising from an "All Knowing"

(4) We know that what separates man from the animal world is intelligence; the Bible confirms this (Gen. 1:26; 2:15-20). Actually its the erect posture, Apposable thumb and intelligence. Lacking any we wouldn't have created civilisation. But at the end of it we are still animals and have not lost that animalistic nature.

(5) We know that circuits of wind exist and that streams run to the sea; the Bible confirms this (Eccl. 1:6-7).NO SHIT EINSTEIN

(6) We know the earth is a sphere; the Bible confirms this (Isa. 40:22). Actually the Bible believes the world is flat.

(7) We know that what leads to evil actions is a distorted mind; the Bible confirms this (Eph. 4:17-19). Finally the Bible got something correct Distorted minds - Like religious ones....

(8) We know that anything built must have been built by someone greater than it; the Bible confirms this (Heb. 3:2-4).whats your reference for this. what reference do you have to say that we know anything built must have been built by someone greater. You are misleading or lying. Please provide reference

(9) We know that evidence is needed to believe in something; the Bible confirms this (Heb. 11:1). Another one where the bible is right (Unfortunately for itself). Bad day for Christianity. Wheres the evidence that your God / Gods Exist (Father, Son, Holy Ghost)

As to where we come from
a) Evolution is a theory of diversity of life. Please read this "FOR GODS SAKE "
b) Abiogenesis is a theory. We believe it is a high probability. But thats it. We are not sure and not ashamed of that. We will look for answers rather than believe some stone age nonsense.
c) The most accepted theory of how are universe came into existence says that God is not needed for the universe to begin. Total energy of our universe is 0.

As to how science and atheism work.

Science- It is the best tool we have to understand the world around us From our Reference frame.
Atheism. Do not accept information without evidence.

We are honest. We reject easy ideas in favour of harsher realities because that is where the evidence points. We do not flip flop like theists saying science is wrong because it is incompatible with your GOD.

Hermeneutics is just baseless justification. You convince yourself so hard that you do not realise how absurd you have become.

If god showed Moses his backside (or back) where do you think the buttocks are (Please don't tell me GOD has a Butt on his face.)
whats the point of showing moses his backside. why was he backless. was he interested in moses and trying to seduce him. IS God homosexual. Is that why he hates Homosexuals. (He thinks them as competition or that he is in denial). Hermeneutics made things worse.

You do have many false religions mentioned in the bible. actually all religions warns their followers agains other false religions. its like con men telling their unsuspecting victims to beware other conmen so that only they can profit from the chump.

This entire post was for you to realise the absurdity of your previous rant however as with all of good science you will throw my refutation along with some good sarcasm right out the window and go back into denial. However a rational mind is far more useful than a one closed by dogma.

ætherborn98's picture
Are you talking to me?

Are you talking to me?

Dave Matson's picture
Gabriel,

Gabriel,

"No one in this forum has proven to think critically and has given me logical arguments to disprove my points. That's a fact!" - Gabriel

Judging by your material, I don't think that you are competent to make that call. Critical thinking does not flirt with god-of-the-gaps arguments, for starters! That we don't have a detailed scenario of how life arose does not mean that such a discovery won't happen in the next 100 years! A great deal of progress has already been made. Setting up a false dichotomy, then declaring that the science of abiogenesis will NEVER work out a scenario, then inserting your own rank speculation is prime evidence that you are not thinking critically!

The geologic record indicates that lifeless strata, in places, merge into younger strata with primitive cells. Without invoking mythical beings, the obvious conclusion is that those first cells arose from lifeless matter. The lifeless matter was mostly cooked up inside stars, hydrogen and most helium having been produced by the Big Bang. So, we're back to the Big Bang with regards to your question as to how we got here. There is intelligent speculation by more than one Nobel Prize winner that the Big Bang came from a multi-verse which may have always existed in some form. So now you have a plausible explanation as to how we got here, an explanation that respects what we know best about our universe.

You fault me for starting with the first cell. You asked how we got here but did not specify the starting point. I think that starting with a single prokaryote is a reasonable reply. It certainly makes the idea that God personally made Adam look rather silly. The Bible also says that God made Adam from the earth (very much like a potter makes pots from clay). Look up the human composition sometime and tell us what the major elements are! I don't think that clay or earth is a big staple here.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Gabriel

@ Gabriel

Can't you just attempt to answer my question?
All your arguments are based on the Bible, but you refuse to discuss why you think it has any credibility to begin with.

That makes me assume that you don't know why you believe in the Bible to begin with.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Gabriel

@ Gabriel

Okay, I won't keep pushing for an answer. I know it's hard to question ones own beliefs and even harder when one has been combative in the discussion.

But instead of answering me, you reiterated your position and ended with:
"No one in this forum has proven to think critically and has given me logical arguments to disprove my points."

My question does yank out the rug from under the feet of all your bible based arguments.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Gabriel - "For example, the

Gabriel - "For example, the Bible teaches us that God is MIND (Jn. 4:24) and INVISIBLE (1 Tim. 6:16). God isn't a physical being (Num.23:19)"

Gabriel - "false religions who have cited God as a physical being, of which He is not.""

VS.

Gabriel - "The point was, God was too majestic and powerful to look at that Moses could not see HIS FACE, but HIS BACK."
--------------------------------------------
You told us that God is invisible, then you told us that Moses saw god's back. You can't even keep your own bullshit from contradicting.

ætherborn98's picture
The back of His...spirit?

The back of His...spirit, perhaps? And God chooses to remain invisible.

Nyarlathotep's picture
If you can see someone's back

If you can see someone's back, they aren't invisible. This isn't exactly rocket science.

So we have a contradiction. Therefore one (or more) of the following statements MUST be false:

1) "the Bible teaches us that God is ... INVISIBLE"

2) "God was too majestic and powerful to look at that Moses could not see HIS FACE, but HIS BACK"

ætherborn98's picture
The Bible teaches this: God

The Bible teaches this: God is spirit, we are flesh and blood. He is invisible to us because He is spirit. We cannot see His face and live. Moses saw His BACK, not His face, because God ALLOWED it. He ALLOWED Moses to see His back. He can allow people to see Him. And many people, including that relative of mine, can see spirits. If spirits could never be seen, then we have a lot of schizophrenic people.

Nyarlathotep's picture
If you can't admit that these

If you can't admit that these two statements from Gabriel (not the bible) form a contradiction, then I have misjudged you and I'm totally wasting my time. He told us that god is invisible and he told us that Moses saw god's back. One of those statements must be false.

ætherborn98's picture
I was saying my beliefs based

I was saying my beliefs based on the Bible, and I disagree with Gabriel. God remains invisible to humans unless He wants them to see Him.

Nyarlathotep's picture
OK, cool. At least your

OK, cool. At least your version don't contradict itself. That's a start!

Dave Matson's picture
Hawk Flint,

Hawk Flint,

Read your Bible! Moses was to see God's glory. However, if he saw God's face he would die, so God put Moses into a crack in a rock and covered him with his hand until God had passed by. Moses could then get a glimpse of God's back parts.

ætherborn98's picture
Yeah? I never said otherwise.

I never said otherwise. I just didn't include that part.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Gabriel

@ Gabriel

Thank you for the apology. And thanks you for explaining about hermeneutics.

I understand that you wish to debate the "How did we get here? Who or what made us?" questions, but as far as I'm concerned I have no problem answering honestly that "I don't know". I believe the Big Bang Theory and Abiogenesis are the most likely answers, simply because they are supported by evidence. But what caused the Big Bang (if anything) I don't know and even more to the point, I don't feel a need to know.
And of course, I think that just because something is unknown there is no need to insert anything supernatural. Sorry, but that's pretty much my view on that debate.

However, the rest of your answer is a bit of a disappointment. The ending note says it all:

"The Bible holds credibility because it validates reality. The Bible is a logical and rational book. Ask more questions to see whether it does or not."

It's quite clear that you want a Bible interpretation debate, but since I don't think it's a source that holds any credibility, there is no debate for me there.

You are trying to use the Bible (according to your interpretation) to show that the Bible is trustworthy. It's just as bad as straight out saying that "the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible". There is no better example of circular reasoning than this.

You keep misusing the terms "confirm" and "validate":
When you say that reality confirms the Bible, what you are actually saying is: Reality does not disprove my interpretation of the Bible.
When you say that the Bible validates reality, what you are actually saying is: "The Bible does not disprove reality".

There is a *major* difference between your use of the words, and the normal meaning of the words.

"All of the passages I've used have proved the claim that God doesn't speak to man today as religious people claim today."

Another misused term: "proof". The nature of the evidence is far from sufficient: A text in a book that has no corroboration and highly questionable origins.

"For atheists, the Bible has become just another collection of holy texts, because they have judged the book by the life of feign religious seekers"

No, I don't reject the Bible because of other peoples interpretations. I mostly reject it on the simple fact that it holds no credibility.

I was in a debate with a Muslim in this forum a while back (Valiya a.k.a valiya s sajjad), who claims to have chosen Islam out of several different religions, a quote:
"As I said, I will have to explain to you how the interpretive science works in Islam, for you to be able to appreciate it. But that’s another topic. To give you a peek into it… it’s more or less like how I sifted out one faith from all the other faiths. There is a reasoned and methodical approach to it… that’s intellectually satisfying. It’s not arbitrary at all."

Claiming "special interpretation" is nothing new. Just as Valiya did, you claim that your holy text must be interpreted in the correct way. But this missing the whole point!

The interpretation *is of no consequence* if the Bible, just like the Quran, have no credibility what so ever to begin with. All these religious texts make supernatural claims, contains no special knowledge that wasn't available at that time, lacks corroboration from other sources, etc, etc.

I have no more reason to trust in the credibility of the Bible, than I have to trust in the credibility of the "Venusian Script", which also "validates" and "confirms" reality much in the same way as you claim. At least according to the translation by Omnec Onec, who is the only one who can translate it:
http://omnec-onec.com/venusian-script/

I'm not trying to be insulting or provoking with this example, I'm just trying to illustrate how ineffective I view the Bible as "proof".

So for me, it's back to the only real question:

- What convinces you, apart from the claims in the Bible, that it is a genuine source of information about a god?
or
- Can you say anything to me, that can convince me to believe that the Bible holds credibility about it's supernatural claims?

algebe's picture
@Gabriel

@Gabriel
> How did we get here? Who or what made us? Offer something instead if you don't believe that the God of the Bible was responsible.

I would offer Occam's razor. We do not know YET the origin of this universe, but I am confident that science and reason will eventually provide the answer, hopefully in my lifetime. To explain one unknown (the source of the Big Bang) with a complex set of assumptions about another unknown (god) sounds like a surrender to perpetual ignorance. And of course, if you accept the god hypothesis, you are faced with another question: Where did god come from? Or is it just turtles all the way down?

watchman's picture
@ Gabriel......

@ Gabriel......

I wonder.....perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify a biblical point for me....please......

Matthew 27:3-10 ....

References Judas's "thirty pieces of silver" this passage maintains that the prophecy of 'Jeremiah' had been fulfilled –

and yet this particular "prophecy" does not originate in "Jeremiah" .....

in reality it comes from 'Zechariah' (11.12-13) who uses the actual phrase "thirty pieces of silver"!

I wonder what your "take" is on this apparent contradiction....?

ætherborn98's picture
It happened in both Jeremiah

It happened in both Jeremiah and Zechariah, I've read both.

watchman's picture
Greetings Hawk Flint....&

Greetings Hawk Flint....& welcome.......

No , I'm afraid you are wrong ......

BUT my question was for Gabriel......so if its all the same to you ....I'll await Gabriel's return....and read Gabriel's answer to Gabriel's question.

However I do have a different question for you ....if you will......

Do you believe in the virgin birth and that it fulfilled a prophecy ,as told in Matthew 1:22-23 ?

A simple yes or no will do.

ætherborn98's picture
I haven't read both of those

I haven't read both of those books fully, so I may be wrong, but both Jeremiah and Zechariah have connections to the same prophecy. And the virgin birth, yes? Some may say,"He was never called Immanuel!" But Christ's actual name has been lost to history.

watchman's picture
Odd .....

Odd .....

You sounded so sure.......so authoritative .... "It happened in both Jeremiah and Zechariah, I've read both."

and yet "I haven't read both of those books fully, so I may be wrong, ".....Yup...pretty much..

But I'll keep the reasons why to myself for now .... awaiting Gabriel s' return.....

Now then.....if you are still around and still willing to talk....could I ask you to post the exact chapter and verse of the virgin birth prophecy....

ætherborn98's picture
I meant that I'd read both

I meant that I'd read both parts of the books.

Therfore the LORD shall Himself give you a sign: The virgin shall conceive and give birth to a son, and they shall call Him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)
This took place to fulfill what the LORD had said through the prophet Isaiah: The virgin shall conceive and give birth to a son, and they shall call Him Immanuel. (Matthew 1:22-23)

Please go on, I'm actually interested in where this is going.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.