Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Stranger]

We should follow Christ first and foremost.

Even if the Jesus character in the bible was based on somebody real, he's long dead, so this is impossible. All we have is the story books.

The important, primary, “Get this right”, parts of the bible are precisely the bits YOU don’t seem to be interested in.

So you have some magic insight into what parts of a contradictory old collection of books are right? Indistinguishable from cherry-picking and creating a God you'd like, then...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Doesn't change the fact that it's riddled with blatant contradictions.

Hyperbole

How so? You are trying to get people to take part of this old collection of books seriously in the modern world but don't seem to care that the source is clearly unreliable due to the contradictions. It's already been pointed out that even the idea that we should do the seeking is contradicted in other passages (#201).

Again you are making the fallacy of modernity and you need to attend to that. Also you need to ask yourself if any of the contradictions undermine the central theme, message or purpose of the collection and the answer to that is no

Same right as everybody else. There is a pretty good consensus that (for example) slavery and genocide are morally wrong, but are approved and even commanded by the God character in the bible.

I’m afraid after the Fall it all becomes a case of the lesser evil, as far as humanity is concerned.

[Stranger]

Hyperbole

Drivel. The bible is riddled with contradictions. It's an objective fact.

Again you are making the fallacy of modernity and you need to attend to that.

More drivel. I'm not criticising the bible for being old or promoting something newer.

Also you need to ask yourself if any of the contradictions undermine the central theme, message or purpose of the collection and the answer to that is no

Drivel overload. The entire nature of the God character is contradictory. Its actions contradict it being just and good. The message is contradictory, as has just been pointed out. Do we have to do the seeking, does God seek us out? Are the elect predestined? Depends which passages you take more seriously...

I’m afraid after the Fall it all becomes a case of the lesser evil, as far as humanity is concerned.

The fall is a prime example of God throwing a hissy fit and being vindictive and unjust. As for the "the lesser evil", why? Especially for a supposedly omnipotent and perfectly just and good God. Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

[Enki]

There can only be one ultimate God.  Only one ultimate source of all that exists.

Only problem is that there is no evidence for the existence for this ultimate god, and, if it exists, is it akin to Brahman or Allah or the Christian God of the Bible, or the Jewish God of the OT ? Or is it some sort of conscious entity that no one has any knowledge of at all?

Yes, there have been many man made attempts to find God, but these failed attempts cannot be used to deny the existence of the one ultimate God.

I agree about the man made attempts part but  i would suggest that all attempts have been man made and that there is no evidence that this ultimate God actually exists.

But ultimately we do not need to seek God, because God has made Himself known to us by becoming one of us in the form of Jesus Christ.

This is purely an assertion on your part and also one which flies in the face of reality. For instance, your god hasn't made himself known to me in any way, so that's at least one of 'us' where it has failed completely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel. The bible is riddled with contradictions. It's an objective fact.

More drivel. I'm not criticising the bible for being old or promoting something newer.

Drivel overload. The entire nature of the God character is contradictory. Its actions contradict it being just and good. The message is contradictory, as has just been pointed out. Do we have to do the seeking, does God seek us out? Are the elect predestined? Depends which passages you take more seriously...

The fall is a prime example of God throwing a hissy fit and being vindictive and unjust. As for the "the lesser evil", why? Especially for a supposedly omnipotent and perfectly just and good God. Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

I just had a look at the American Atheist list of contradictions.
It seems very short for a claim of "Riddled with contradictions"
It's premise is that it is written by God directly rather than by men inspired by God.
Given it's a short list, one would have thought their pick would be choice. Striking at the heart of the message and purpose of the books or the faith, it doesn't.
Some of the contradictions are contentious.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

Well its a 0-0 draw here at half time in this magnificent stadium of light, both teams showing promise but both lacking that final magic touch, need to see if the managers make any changes both sides sticking to the old formations.⚽

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

I just had a look at the American Atheist list of contradictions.
It seems very short for a claim of "Riddled with contradictions"
It's premise is that it is written by God directly rather than by men inspired by God.
Given it's a short list, one would have thought their pick would be choice. Striking at the heart of the message and purpose of the books or the faith, it doesn't.
Some of the contradictions are contentious.

How about you post a link to the specific list you are referring to - then we can critique it with you?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Enki,

Or is it some sort of conscious entity that no one has any knowledge of at all?


Oh! off the cross bar old son, nearly had the crowd on their feet, conscious entity, see it is that long word again anthropomorphising ( easy for you to say Gonnagle  )

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How about you post a link to the specific list you are referring to - then we can critique it with you?

I have critiqued it Gordon, and that should be good enough for you, my lad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/

[Stranger]

I just had a look at the American Atheist list of contradictions.
It seems very short for a claim of "Riddled with contradictions"
It's premise is that it is written by God directly rather than by men inspired by God.
Given it's a short list, one would have thought their pick would be choice. Striking at the heart of the message and purpose of the books or the faith, it doesn't.
Some of the contradictions are contentious.

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/

That's a fairly limited list. There are many, many more contradictions than that. We've encountered two massive ones in this discussion already. You say we should be seeking, but Alan disagrees, as do other passages from the bible. That's kind of important, don't you think?

[ProfessorDavey]

There can only be one ultimate God.

As Stranger points out, it is kind of self-evident that there cannot be more than one 'ultimate' god AB. But that doesn't mean there has to be an ultimate god - zero ultimate gods is perfectly consistent with there not being more than one ultimate god.

And zero ultimate gods could mean either - there is no god at all, or there is one or more than one god none of which are 'ultimate'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a fairly limited list. There are many, many more contradictions than that. We've encountered two massive ones in this discussion already. You say we should be seeking, but Alan disagrees, as do other passages from the bible. That's kind of important, don't you think?

You will, therefore be able to produce those passages, in the meantime here are the passages telling us to seek God courtesy of AI,
Jeremiah 29:13
Isaiah 55:6
Psalm 105:4
Deuteronomy 4:29
1 Chronicles 16:11
2 Chronicles15:12
proverbs 8:17
Matthew 7:7
Matthew 6:33
1Chronicles 28:9
Acts 17:27
Psalm 27:8

I can’t comment on what Alan said and what he meant but I think we might agree that whether we are truly seeking the true God or whether he presents himself without apparent searching, running away from Christ is still a possible state to be in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As Stranger points out, it is kind of self-evident that there cannot be more than one 'ultimate' god AB. But that doesn't mean there has to be an ultimate god - zero ultimate gods is perfectly consistent with there not being more than one ultimate god.

And zero ultimate gods could mean either - there is no god at all, or there is one or more than one god none of which are 'ultimate'.

But wasn’t it Stranger who asked which ultimate God?

When he asks which ultimate God he is talking in the context of many Gods not Zero gods.

I think basically you are saying there doesn’t have to be an ultimate or maximal anything. I’m looking forward to your thesis on that.

[Stranger]

You will, therefore be able to produce those passages, in the meantime here are the passages telling us to seek God courtesy of AI,

Dicky already posted some of them, and I've already pointed you back to his post. I can't be bothered to find it again just because you're not paying attention.

I can’t comment on what Alan said and what he meant but I think we might agree that whether we are truly seeking the true God or whether he presents himself without apparent searching, running away from Christ is still a possible state to be in.

Nobody is running away except in your bizarre fantasy world. 

But wasn’t it Stranger who asked which ultimate God?

I did point out that we have multiple different concepts of the "ultimate God" depending on which religion, denomination, cult, sect, or even individual we consult.

When he asks which ultimate God he is talking in the context of many Gods not Zero gods.

Since there appears to be bugger all reason to take any of the God concepts at all seriously, we probably do have zero gods.

I think basically you are saying there doesn’t have to be an ultimate or maximal anything. I’m looking forward to your thesis on that.

A God isn't just an 'anything' and it's entirely unclear to me what you mean by "an ultimate or maximal anything". You seem to be just trying to change the subject.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

A God isn't just an 'anything'

Oh! just off the post⚽

But God could be "everything" or, or "nothing" no-thing.

This game is warming up, its that new signing Gonnagle, piss poor start but showing promise⚽

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Vlad

1. The Bible, with the possible exception of some (but not all) of the letters from Paul, has little in the way of supporting provenance.

2. That it contains contradictions make it largely unreliable.

3. That it contains fantastic miracle claims makes it largely unbelievable.

Therefore, your attempt in #237 to cite Biblical references requiring us to 'seek God' is easily dismissed, and is a fallacious argument from authority.

[ProfessorDavey]

But wasn’t it Stranger who asked which ultimate God?

When he asks which ultimate God he is talking in the context of many Gods not Zero gods.

I think basically you are saying there doesn’t have to be an ultimate or maximal anything. I’m looking forward to your thesis on that.

It is a perfectly reasonable possibility to conclude that there is no ultimate god - either that there are no gods or that there are gods but not ultimate ones. I note your presumption that something that is an 'ultimate or maximal anything' must be god. Why should that be the case - surely there could plausibly be something that is 'ultimate or maximal' but doesn't fit your prejudged notion that it has to be god. People have, of course, posited the universe to be such an 'ultimate or maximal' thing.

But I also challenge your notion that there must be one thing that is 'ultimate or maximal' (regardless of whether that is an ultimate god or not). As I've pointed out on many occasions your notion of the necessary entity crumbles to dust when you consider the real possibilities of interdependent networks and you remove the presumption that time is constant and unilinear.

But I'm not claiming there definitely isn't a thing which is 'ultimate or maximal' - merely pointing out that we mustn't assume this as other possibilities are plausible. So there is no burden of proof to 'prove' there is no 'ultimate or maximal' thing. You on the other hand regularly assert that there must be an 'ultimate or maximal' thing (that you call the necessary entity or being) and that this is an ultimate god. So burden of proof on you matey - good luck with that as you have completely failed to back up you assertion with anything other than gobbledygook over many months and years.

[Stranger]

But God could be "everything" or, or "nothing" no-thing.

God being everything is just a bizarre use of language and how, exactly, does "no-thing" differ from simply nothing, i.e. not existing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a perfectly reasonable possibility to conclude that there is no ultimate god - either that there are no gods or that there are gods but not ultimate ones. I note your presumption that something that is an 'ultimate or maximal anything' must be god. Why should that be the case - surely there could plausibly be something that is 'ultimate or maximal' but doesn't fit your prejudged notion that it has to be god. People have, of course, posited the universe to be such an 'ultimate or maximal' thing.

But I also challenge your notion that there must be one thing that is 'ultimate or maximal' (regardless of whether that is an ultimate god or not). As I've pointed out on many occasions your notion of the necessary entity crumbles to dust when you consider the real possibilities of interdependent networks and you remove the presumption that time is constant and unilinear.

But I'm not claiming there definitely isn't a thing which is 'ultimate or maximal' - merely pointing out that we mustn't assume this as other possibilities are plausible. So there is no burden of proof to 'prove' there is no 'ultimate or maximal' thing. You on the other hand regularly assert that there must be an 'ultimate or maximal' thing (that you call the necessary entity or being) and that this is an ultimate god. So burden of proof on you matey - good luck with that as you have completely failed to back up you assertion with anything other than gobbledygook over many months and years.

We were talking about Ultimate gods.
If there is a pantheon in the universe, Which  God decides on the course of the cosmos? How do they come to a common policy rather than devolving into their own universes?There seems to be lots there to demand final adjudication by a singular authority.

Recently everybody here was arguing that the universe was an ultimate unitary entity. I don’t recall you admonishing Bluehillside or JeremyP.

I think you will argue anything to suit at whatever time.

[Nearly Sane]

We were talking about Ultimate gods.
If there is a pantheon in the universe, Which  God decides on the course of the cosmos? How do they come to a common policy rather than devolving into their own universes?There seems to be lots there to demand final adjudication by a singular authority.

Recently everybody here was arguing that the universe was an ultimate unitary entity. I don’t recall you admonishing Bluehillside or JeremyP.

I think you will argue anything to suit at whatever time.

Neither bhs or jeremyp said the universe was 'and ultimately unitary entity'. Stop lying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad



2. That it contains contradictions make it largely unreliable.

With all due respect to you Gordon (And If I think of some i’ll let you know),
Unreliable as what and for what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Neither bhs or jeremyp said the universe was 'and ultimately unitary entity'. Stop lying.

No they suggested it was though. I forgive you though because I take it you were confused about what was being said.

[ProfessorDavey]

We were talking about Ultimate gods.

Initially - and in that context I pointed out that there may less than one ultimate god, either because there are no gods or there are gods but they aren't ultimate ones.

It was you that then broadened this out to implying I was claiming there were not ultimate or necessary anythings.

'I think basically you are saying there doesn’t have to be an ultimate or maximal anything'

To which I simply pointed out that it is plausible that there is something that is ultimate or maximal but isn't god. Alternatively that there isn't anything which is 'ultimate or maximal'. And further we need to accept that 'ultimate or maximal' is an arbitrary and rather subjective claim. What is actually meant by this.

If there is a pantheon in the universe, Which  God decides on the course of the cosmos? How do they come to a common policy rather than devolving into their own universes?There seems to be lots there to demand final adjudication by a singular authority.

Recently everybody here was arguing that the universe was an ultimate unitary entity. I don’t recall you admonishing Bluehillside or JeremyP.

I think you will argue anything to suit at whatever time.

I don't think I, or others here, have argued that the universe is an ultimate entity, merely that it is a possibility that we should not ignore. The point being that your (illogical in itself) claim that there must be an ultimate entity/necessary being, even if accepted (it isn't by the way) doesn't not allow you to go 'hey, tara, god'. Other possibilities are available.

[Gordon]

With all due respect to you Gordon (And If I think of some i’ll let you know),
Unreliable as what and for what?

The content: the details contained within being untrustworthy and not credible, and therefore should not to be relied upon for any substantive purposes.