Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

the evidence for the existence of Free Will lies within you and me, not in the laws of science and material behaviour.

Gibberish. Either you can provide objective evidence or you can't. From the objective evidence of your posts here and your multiple failed attempts to do so, I conclude that you can't.

[Stranger]

Jesus said:

You mean an old book, written well after the relevant time, says that Jesus said.

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.  Luke 26-28

Which contradicts many other parts of the bible where god is clearly described as genocidal, condones slavery, and is vindictive and unjust. 

[Outrider]

I was not disputing the historical evidence about the origins of the Koran. My contention is the lack of evidence that it was divinely inspired.

To elaborate on why it is not divinely inspired, here is an extract from "Voice for Justice":

"The Prophet said, 'The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause . . . and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)'."  Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:2:35.  Similarly, Sura 9:5 says, “Slay the infidels wherever you find them ... and lie in wait for them ... and establish every stratagem (of war against them).” While, in the same vein, Sura 47:4-9 promises paradise to whomever cuts off the head of an infidel.  Altogether, in fact, there are 123 what are called ‘war texts’ in the Koran, calling for death for the infidel, which includes anyone who disagrees with the statement, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.” 
 
Such obvious hatred and glorification of violence does not indicate a loving God.  And if Islam’s heaven truly does reserve a special place of honour for those who, in the course of fighting, indiscriminately rape, torture and kill those who are powerless to defend themselves, then is that final destination really heaven?  Or is it hell?

And you think the error-riddled story of a petulant genocidal tribalist hatemonger is better? The Old Testament has a call to exterminate various non-Jewish people, the advocation of forced marriage of slave taken during conquest, the advocation of slavery, homophobia, misogyny and child mutilation (amongst other), and whilst the New Testament starts to mitigate some of that, it explicitly reinforces those rules in several places (whilst effectively dismissing them in others). You can interpret the New Testament as a missive to 'love thy neighbour' just as easily as you can interpret the Qu'ran as a diatribe of hate and violence, but there is no definitive assessment. There are militant Christians that see a call to arms in the New Testament, and there are pacifist Muslims that see the 'violent' language of the Qu'ran as metaphorical.

What they both are, is unevidenced stories of magic.

And the evidence for the existence of Free Will lies within you and me, not in the laws of science and material behaviour.

We are by all appearances material, and the behaviour of that material is best discovered by science. If you want anyone to take your claims of free will seriously you need to do something more than keep asserting that it's there, and start showing how it can overcome the logical contradictions that have been pointed out to you seem inherent in the idea, and show where the gaps are in scientific understanding (rather than just your own incredulity at it).

O.

[jeremyp]

Jesus said:
But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.  Luke 26-28

Numbers 31.

I'm not going to quote it, but it details how the Israelites genocided the Midianites at God's command and killed everybody except the young girls. Guess what they did with them? They made them slave girls to be raped by the Israelite men. This was all done at the instigation and with the approval of your god.

[Gordon]

Jesus said:
But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.  Luke 26-28

I think, in the interests of accuracy, 'that should be 'Jesus is alleged to have said, according to anecdotal reports that lack provenance'.

[Alan Burns]

Numbers 31.

I'm not going to quote it, but it details how the Israelites genocided the Midianites at God's command and killed everybody except the young girls. Guess what they did with them? They made them slave girls to be raped by the Israelite men. This was all done at the instigation and with the approval of your god.

The OT does contain some information on dubious exploits which are claimed to be divinely inspired, but the teachings of the New Testament derived directly from Jesus Himself must override such claims.  It was CS Lewis, a renowned expert in historic language and literature, who recognised that the writings in the New Testament were like nothing which had gone before - certainly not man made myth.  And as such they formed the foundation of the values upon which our western civilisation is based.

[jeremyp]

The OT does contain some information on dubious exploits which are claimed to be divinely inspired, but the teachings of the New Testament derived directly from Jesus Himself must override such claims.  It was CS Lewis, a renowned expert in historic language and literature, who recognised that the writings in the New Testament were like nothing which had gone before - certainly not man made myth.  And as such they formed the foundation of the values upon which our western civilisation is based.

Let me just get this clear. You are agreeing that some parts of the Old Testament are not divinely inspired. Isn't that contrary to Jesus' own words as reported in the "divinely inspired" New Testament?

Bonus question: do you think the Flood really happened? What about the Egyptian plagues?

[Nearly Sane]

The OT does contain some information on dubious exploits which are claimed to be divinely inspired, but the teachings of the New Testament derived directly from Jesus Himself must override such claims.  It was CS Lewis, a renowned expert in historic language and literature, who recognised that the writings in the New Testament were like nothing which had gone before - certainly not man made myth.  And as such they formed the foundation of the values upon which our western civilisation is based.

You know it would have been quicker to write 'The Old Testament is bollocks'.

[Maeght]

The OT does contain some information on dubious exploits which are claimed to be divinely inspired, but the teachings of the New Testament derived directly from Jesus Himself must override such claims.  It was CS Lewis, a renowned expert in historic language and literature, who recognised that the writings in the New Testament were like nothing which had gone before - certainly not man made myth.  And as such they formed the foundation of the values upon which our western civilisation is based.

And there are modern scholars (a few) who consider it is all a myth with many others considering that there are elements of truth and elements of fabrication in them.

[Gordon]

The OT does contain some information on dubious exploits which are claimed to be divinely inspired, but the teachings of the New Testament derived directly from Jesus Himself must override such claims.  It was CS Lewis, a renowned expert in historic language and literature, who recognised that the writings in the New Testament were like nothing which had gone before - certainly not man made myth.  And as such they formed the foundation of the values upon which our western civilisation is based.

This reads like a fallacious argument from authority with regard to the apologist, Lewis. You'll excuse me for finding nothing of great value in Christianity given its propensity for anecdotal accounts claiming fantastical nonsense: plus you're over-reaching again.

[Outrider]

The OT does contain some information on dubious exploits which are claimed to be divinely inspired, but the teachings of the New Testament derived directly from Jesus Himself must override such claims.

Firstly, no, they don't 'derive directly from Jesus' - they are alleged to be third-hand (at best) accounts of what Jesus was reported to have said, coupled with a load of instruction to the early church that is explicitly alleged to derive from the early followers of Jesus.

Secondly, in those bits and pieces explicitly recorded as being the alleged opinion of Jesus are sections which explicitly reinforce the various prior teachings as still 'the law'.

It was CS Lewis, a renowned expert in historic language and literature, who recognised that the writings in the New Testament were like nothing which had gone before - certainly not man made myth.

He didn't 'recognise', he opined.

And as such they formed the foundation of the values upon which our western civilisation is based.

Not really - we see where Christianity leads civilisation in places with explicit and over Christian religiosity like sub-Saharan Africa and the US. What we have in 'Western Society' is a culture that grew out of shedding the explicitly religious model of morality and law and replacing it with humanist values like human rights and equality. The Church of England is not the core of UK culture, it's what happens when Christianity when it's exposed to actual civilisation.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

.... The Church of England is not the core of UK culture, it's what happens when Christianity when it's exposed to actual civilisation.

O.

What is 'actual civilisation'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Jesus said:
But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.  Luke 26-28

Allegedly.

When you’re asked to justify your beliefs that the Bible (or at least the bits of it that you find palatable) is/are true though, just quoting what the Bible says in reply is dishonest. You need to step outside what it says and to explain what evidence you have for why you think it's “divinely inspired” or some such a priori. Until you manage to do that, you’ll remain stuck in the endless loop of begging the question. 

Once again: in short, you’re not going to persuade thinking people that you’re right with only unqualified assertions and wrong arguments. You still need to reconsider your tactics here.     

[Outrider]

What is 'actual civilisation'?

I would have thought you could find that from context, but something based on an understanding of human nature and rights, subject to review, and not fairy tales about sky fairies.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I would have thought you could find that from context, but something based on an understanding of human nature and rights, subject to review, and not fairy tales about sky fairies.

O.

So how did that come about? And what makes it 'actual'? I mean it seems to me that religion is an entitely human construct, and is part of civilisation but you seem to be positing that it is something else, and that it somehow gets influenced by something that is 'actual civilisation'?

[Dicky Underpants]

I was not disputing the historical evidence about the origins of the Koran.
My contention is the lack of evidence that it was divinely inspired.

To elaborate on why it is not divinely inspired, here is an extract from "Voice for Justice":

"The Prophet said, etc etc.....  Altogether, in fact, there are 123 what are called ‘war texts’ in the Koran, calling for death for the infidel, which includes anyone who disagrees with the statement, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.”
 
Such obvious hatred and glorification of violence does not indicate a loving God.  And if Islam’s heaven truly does reserve a special place of honour for those who, in the course of fighting, indiscriminately rape, torture and kill those who are powerless to defend themselves, then is that final destination really heaven?  Or is it hell?

You might also have quoted:

"That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity. 1 ˹Although˺ Our messengers already came to them with clear proofs, many of them still transgressed afterwards through the land."
Surah Al-Ma'idah - 32 - Quran. (A form of the latter sentiment is also found in the Jewish Talmud.)

So, Alan, what you've done is a nice bit of cherry picking. Others have pointed out how absurdly blinkered your view is in claiming the unique divine inspiration of the Christian bible. You then try to save face by painting yourself as a kind of Marcionite, distancing yourself from the Old Testament entirely. In so doing you both manage to overlook the many of the of noble texts in the OT, and fail to acknowledge the many passages of nastiness in the NT, all of which certainly do not portray the meek and mild Jesus you think is totally representative.

Besides which, I believe someone also pointed out that Jesus considered the Tanakh to be divine truth, and specifically the first five books which are known as The Law. You surely know the text:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfil them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…"
Matt 5:18
And those books contain the lurid Numbers 31, which Jeremy has mentioned.



To add a little balance to your one-sided view, you have to consider that Islam could hardly have built the two great civilisations centred on Baghdad and Cordoba, noted for their religious inclusiveness and cooperation (especially Cordoba) if the central message of Islam were the bloodthirsty caricature that your quotes foist upon it. It's true that many movements within Islam today seem to be moving in that direction, and you certainly won't find me citing Islam as the answer to human problems. The latter movements are certainly inspired by the texts you mention: likewise the gun-carrying Evangelical Christian right in America are no doubt inspired by the wonderful text in Luke:

“He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’”
Luke 22:36

The latter are probably fond of this too:
Then He will say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Matt 7:23
Those gun-tooting Yankies sure think they're standing at God's right hand.

PS. I don't know what a true Scotsman looks like - so please don't go there. I have however seen photos of NearlySane and Gordon.

[Enki]

The OT does contain some information on dubious exploits which are claimed to be divinely inspired, but the teachings of the New Testament derived directly from Jesus Himself must override such claims.  It was CS Lewis, a renowned expert in historic language and literature, who recognised that the writings in the New Testament were like nothing which had gone before - certainly not man made myth.  And as such they formed the foundation of the values upon which our western civilisation is based.

Is this the CS Lewis who  wrote:

Theoretically, I suppose, we might say 'Yes: we behave like vermin, but that is because  we are vermin. And that, at any rate, is not our fault.' But the fact that we are vermin, so far from being felt as an excuse, is a greater shame and grief to us than any of the particular acts which it leads us to commit.

?

Surely not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seven types of a lack of belief in God or gods. In current usage that's what atheism means and don't think the historic usage is particularly important or interesting.

You mean current usage by a particular denomination of atheism which sees itself as orthodox atheism and discounts positive or hard atheism?....presumably on the basis of a ''No true atheist'' argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As always with Gray, it's good writing but muddled thinking.

Your contention, your burden

It's a pity you only follow him in one of those attributes.

Non sequitur playing the man.

[Outrider]

You mean current usage by a particular denomination of atheism which sees itself as orthodox atheism and discounts positive or hard atheism?

The only person I've seen suggesting that there is an orthodoxy to atheism about which to be orthodox is you. Agnostic atheists aren't discounting gnostic atheists, they're just disagreeing with them about how much their arguments can actually justify.

....presumably on the basis of a ''No true atheist'' argument.

Do you believe?

No.

Fine, you're in... not really much of an argument to have, there.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn’t – there’s no particular history of any such “defence”.

I don't think then you have read the Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Atheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean updating your philosophy based upon arguments presented! What a shocking concept...

An atheism merely defined a a lack of belief in Gods eliminates philosophy rather than updates it. The definition is the ultimate deliberate discussion killer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you mean by "unsuccessful"? You theists haven't put a scratch on it.

One has to wonder why then contemporary, ''in your face'' atheism has opted for the apparent, explanatory-resistant safety of ''merely lacking belief in Gods''

[Nearly Sane]

Your contention, your burden Non sequitur playing the man.

Not sure whether I am meant to read this in conjunction with your previous reply to this comment which I said seemed to have some content missing?

As to this reply, you're right, if I want to justify my claim that Gray is a muddled thinker, then I need to back it up. Now I've covered some of this in the past on discussions on here, do you want me to start from scratch on it? I'm wondering if it needs a specific thread, what do you think?


As to the comment on your writing and thinking, that doesn't seem to me to ve a non sequitur. If your thinking is muddled, then it's central to any discussion. That you have a muddled writing style, as covered in my reply to your first reply on this, is also apposite as to understanding the discussion. Neither of those is 'playing the man'. 

[Nearly Sane]

An atheism merely defined a a lack of belief in Gods eliminates philosophy rather than updates it. The definition is the ultimate deliberate discussion killer.

It's not philosophy.