@Fanas

You wrote:
“But if you say that god intervened in the process of preserving they true intended holy book, then you are saying that god went against humans free will and that negates point a, which would mean that we have no free will in which case religion is false.”

There is no reason to get to this point as the validity of religious texts (in this case Judeo-Christian ones) has not been successfully impeached. Once again, It is not valid to assume that having the ability to do something makes it assured that that thing happened. I may have the ability to undergo plastic surgery and have not done so, for instance.

There is, however, another shaky assumption here. How exactly does the existence of a book that accurately states God’s desire for us, violate the point that people have free-will. People are still allowed to read this book and decide for themselves to follow it or not. Hence no violation of free will has occurred, and as a result Christianity cannot be said to be false at all based upon your logic.

"You can have anything in this garden except this apple."
"Why can’t I have the apple?”
“Because I said you can’t have the apple.”
”If I can’t have the apple then what is it for?”
“What do you mean what is if for?”
“I mean if I can’t have it, why did you make it? It must have some purpose.”
“It’s to tempt you.”
“That’s not very nice, making something I can’t have for the sole purpose of tempting me, I thought you said you’re a gentle and loving god.”
“…”

Just so we are clear, yes I'm an Atheist and no I don't hate religion.
I just don't get it.
Creationism as a science, that I hate.

Interesting, but it includes a whole lot of commentary that isn't in the text of either Creation story. Why would you assume that the reason for the fruit of the tree of knowledge would be only there to tempt man?

Let's take an analogy:

I've had a house built. Quite reasonably, I had electrical outlets installed. I have not completely explained this to my two year old. I merely tell him to leave them alone. Does it follow that I'm not a gentle and loving father?

That's a fantastic analogy.

Thanks, bit more of a metaphor though wasn't it?

Just take the compliment, you Episcopalian splitter.

thanks again. :-)

Out of curiosity-what was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil for? I've never quite understood it.

If you go by the text then there is no more explanation lf it than of ants or man. God created them all but did not go into detail about why he created any of us. To assume that there was a particular reason for any of them is going beyond the story.

**than if it were ants,..."

Confused at Crazy Anglican's last post----->

Sorry, that's what I get for posting after an 18 hour day. I was just attempting to point out that it doesn't matter what we assume about the reason for the Tree being there. No matter what we assume, it isn't backed up by the story, which gives no reason for any creature's existence. The point of the story seems to be more that God created us, and that we should trust and obey his commands.

The implication is there that those commands aren't very strict as well, when taking the bounty of his creation into account.

I'd like to get back on topic for a minute. As somebody already mentioned, it's a mistake to lump together non-Catholics together and call them all Protestants. The Catholic church as well as many Protestant churches were founded as instruments of political control in a manner antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. The idea that any one church, or indeed any religion, has a monopoly on the truth is absurd.

One explanation would be: free will. God wants man (in that case Adam and Eve) to love and serve Him by free choice. You can speculate a lot about the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' and what is said about it in the Bible. But I think if there were no tree - whether symbolic or not - they would not have had a choice - and God didn't want that. At least, that's what I think.

More important is that this life is a second chance. And actually, a lot of chances.

@ SunZi: perhaps some historical and theological research would help you.

@PeripheralVisionary, your post is wrong.
Science demands mountains of evidence and years of research.
Religion on the other hand demands only acceptance of the masses, who have no training in the ways of science.


@Crazy Anglican, ok if we don't have free will then not only religion wouldn't be our choice, but also punishment for our sins would be an evil act. If we don't have free will, then in a sense we are gods ourselves or more exactly a mind extension of the one responsible for our actions. Puppets and puppeteer if you will. If there's no free will then whole religion crumbles to the dust.

Furthermore about changing the holy book. Until recent times majority of population were illiterate. Not only that, but also there was no technology to print book perfectly every time, rewriting it took lots of time and were performed by a selected few. It doesn't even need to be a deliberate change, but rather a mistake by a person rewriting the book.
I'm not even considering translation errors, every single language has some quirks. And one more thing. Can you honestly believe that every single person responsible to preserve the book was afraid of punishment from god?

P.S. @Crazy Anglican, you didn't answer anything about my point, that even the first bible could not be perfect due the fact that the knowledge was relayed through imperfect human.


In any case free will is out of a question. If there is god, there is no free will, period.

Free will is something different than 'do what you like'. Ever heard of ethics?

Free will is something like "do whatever is best option"

Well then, if God exists best option would be listening to Him, wouldn't it?

But if god does not exist, then listening to him would be the worst option.
And even if he exist there's no way I would be worshiping him. Anyone who asks for worship, does not deserve it.

If God does exist, He's not some element of reality like a rock or a cloud or something. If God exists He must be outside His creation (our reality) otherwise He would be subject to time and space, and therefor not omnipotent. So if He does exist He is a totally Other being - we can not even imagine that. Worshipping Him is not a choice like 'which socks will I wear today?' but a choice with eternal consequenses. This is not to scare you, but to point to reality. The Bible says God has patience with this world until the number of the 'faithful' is actually full - so let's hope he'll grant us some extra time! We're playing in His backyard, not the other way around.

Fuck that. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than worship anyone. That is definitely against my beliefs. And this attitude has 3 possible outcomes.
1. The most likely outcome is that there's no god and I don't lose anything.
2. Less likely, there is god, but he doesn't give a dingos kidneys about my worship. In this case I don't lose anything either.
3. Least likely, there is god and he deeply cares about my worship. If that is the truth I wouldn't respect him anyway, so he can do whatever he wants, but I'll take governments stance and won't negotiate with terrorists.

If God exists, he deserves worship on the fact that he's God. It's not like some king or cult leader is demanding worship, it's an all powerful Being who actually can do anything and made us and even loves us.

Comparing worshiping God to negotiating with terrorists is silly and sounds quite a bit like trolling. I know I for one will not waste any more of my time on you, since you don't seem to want to listen to anyone else's arguments.

I'll add my two cents to this never-ending debate:

I am an atheist. I do not believe in God. I do not believe in God because I have never seen any reason to do so. Nothing I have ever encountered, seen, heard or experienced has given me the slightest suggestion that there might be a God. Why would I believe?

I even gave it a chance. I have read a good part of the bible, and I even went to church a few times. Nothing changed in the way I felt, and if anything I remained more certain that there is no God.

Ultimately there are a number of questions which would need to be answered if my position were to change. And I believe they are questions which cannot be answered, thus I will never believe in God:

1. What evidence is there that God exists? As far as I can see there is none. Why would anyone subscribe to a theory for which there is not a shred of evidence?

2. If there WAS a God, and he was 'good' and 'loving', why would he allow innocent people to die on a daily basis?

3. If there is a God and he wants us to believe in him, why doesn't he prove his existence?

4. If God created everything, who or what created God? Who or what created God's creator? (Repeat until infinity)

I'm aware that some of the above has been addressed above, I'm just giving my position.

(Also to go back to the tree of life and eating the fruit and all that - if God is omniscient, he would have known that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit, so it's a bit steep for him to pretend to be shocked by their disobedience. Plus, if he wanted them to behave, why did he create the snake? Again being all-seeing, he would have been able to predict that the snake would tempt Eve into disobeying God)

Invictus, perhaps the god you believe in doesn't have charasteristics similar to terrorists, but sadly I think the god in the bible does.

For an omnipotent being he seems fairly prone to humanesque hissy fits of destruction, and the fact the have to love him or go into the hellfire seems a tad extreme.

If God is above and beyond existence, why does he need or care about our love? Love is something pretty biological; does this weak, fallible, often insincere human emotion really interest the creator that much. This is rather fishy.

FS +1