• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

80% in America believe in God

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thirty7ven

Banned
Why add a god to this equation though? Is it so hard to be a good human without an external supernatural force guiding you (or being convinced it guides you).

You probably ask yourself why we atheists and agnosts are not out there murdering and raping because we have no morals. I mean I'm a pacifist, vegetarian, atheist. Almost like I can make these decisions for myself. Pretty weak that you need a made up tale to find meaning and ethics in life.

God is a concept, that all things are connected. There’s nothing supernatural about it. You keep clinging to religion but religion is just a school and there have been countless schools throughout human history. There’s value in them, but the base concept is what matters.

I have said nothing about morals.

Also you understand that physically speaking, and this is just pure physics, where you are in space time is a consequence of an endless chain reaction right? You have the ability as a human to deconstruct what happened, but you cannot predict what will happen because inherently you understand that very little might be described as being in your control.
 
Last edited:

Hugare

Member
Happy that it is so.

Religion is more than a belief. It is an instillation of core values that make the society greater for what it is. The family unit is one of the core tenets of religion and I strongly believe it makes people happier.
For sure

That's why we dont have peole shooting other people in America.

Must be the other 20%
 

kurisu_1974

is on perm warning for being a low level troll
God is a concept, that all things are connected. There’s nothing supernatural about it. You keep clinging to religion but religion is just a school and there have been countless schools throughout human history. There’s value in them, but the base concept is what matters.

I have said nothing about morals.

Also you understand that physically speaking, and this is just pure physics, where you are in space time is a consequence of an endless chain reaction right? You have the ability as a human to deconstruct what happened, but you cannot predict what will happen because inherently you understand that very little might be described as being in your control.

There is zero point in referring to it as "god" then. You are on some holistic new age tip?

And your last paragraph? I do understand that I have no full control over "what will happen", and you are saying you do? In a wizardly way? Or what does that mean?

I feel you're just trying to sound smart, but yeah, no.
 

MHubert

Member
It doesn’t “need” to be proven by people as it was already proven. We can just refer back to the original proof. This is the entire basis of theorems.
I haven't made a case that he 'needs' to do that. This is part of a discussion about whether or not belief is considered to be a component of knowledge. Which it is by definition, and is a good thing, since it basically makes sharing of knowledge viable. 1 + 1 = 2 is a perfect example of this.

Yeah and they believed lightning bolts were "real" too, they just attributed them to Zeus or whatever. That's not a difference that can be hand waved away, it's not about "what's real", it's about sufficient reason to justify belief. And that only happens with evidence.

All religious people agree with this, by the way, in just about every single other aspect of their lives... but not when it comes to religion, for some convenient reason.



Great. That makes it easy then.



No, they are saying trust in the scientific method transcends faith. And there's a big difference no matter which words you use for these concepts, because everyone believes in something in terms of trusting experience & evidence, but not everyone has faith -- surely not the type required to believe in a god -- in something.
Ok.. so we agree, I guess?
Your entire thesis is based on disproving that human senses are capable of understanding objective truths. Thereby, you’re trying to provide a space for the existence of god, by saying that we can never be sure of anything, so anything could exist.

Okay then.

Why don’t you believe in Zeus? Odin? Ganesh?

If you question everything your senses tell you, why are you so sure those gods don’t exist, but that the Christian god does?

What is the difference?

I can prove 1+1 very easily. You can’t prove your god is any more less or more real than any other imagined construct.
I don't have a 'thesis', I'm pointing out what might litteraly be one of the most uncontroversial and most agreed upon notions in the field of theory of knowledge. Why don't I believe in Zeus, Odin, Ganesh? Why don't you stop smoking crack? And stop with the strawmen. I have pointed out several times in this thread what I'm arguing about, which is a comment made by you saying that basing your judgement on evidence is the absence of belief, which is wrong. For some reason that woke up fedoraGaf accusing me left and right for things I don't believe, things I don't say and having intentions I don't have, and somehow accusing me of not seeing the difference between belief in a deity with belief in evidence when it quite frankly seems to be the other way around. And no you can't prove 1 + 1 'very easy' but you can obviously copy-paste or link me someone who can, like the boss did. Which is kind of the crux of my point.
Principia mathematica *54-43

And what you say doesn't sound cheeky at all, it just shows that you don't understand the scientific approach. Belief has no place there. The closest we ever get to that is an "educated guess" which then needs to be proven aka a hypothesis.


When you have verifiable proven facts then there is no "belief" involved anywhere. You fail to differentiate between "belief" and "trust that the teacher doesn`t lie and knows what he`s talking about" in your example....
It seems your whole argument in this thread is somehow melding the everyday "i believe xy" with belief as in religious faith, which is kinda nonsensical semantics fuckery.
What in your mind makes an educated guess not a form of belief? So I 'fail to differentiate between "belief" and "trust that the teacher doesn`t lie and knows what he`s talking about"' but aren't you the one defaulting to proclaim that belief is somehow a religious concept? You talk about semantic fuckery but then you expect me to accept that 'trust in the teacher' somehow transcends the concept of belief to the point where you claim that there is no belief involved whatsoever. Seriously, what's the problem? Why are you so adamant that belief has to be a religious concept?
Again, please point me to the post where i make the equation with the belief in the framework of knowledge with faith. Because I can sure as hell point you to all the posts where I say the exact opposite.
 

Chaplain

Member
Why add a god to this equation though? Is it so hard to be a good human without an external supernatural force guiding you (or being convinced it guides you).

Your question is addressed in the following debate between atheist philosopher Susan Blackmore and Jordan Peterson.




If you watch the debate you will learn that even though Susan Blackmore does not acknowledge that she believes in a "supernatural force," what she believes and how she lives her life reveal that she acts as if one exists.

You probably ask yourself why we atheists and agnosts are not out there murdering and raping because we have no morals. I mean I'm a pacifist, vegetarian, atheist. Almost like I can make these decisions for myself. Pretty weak that you need a made up tale to find meaning and ethics in life.

The reason atheists and agnostics are ethical and moral is that they are made in God's image: free moral agents made with intrinsic value and worth. This is what the bible claims and experientially can be verified through lived experiences.

edited
 
Last edited:

MHubert

Member
It’s a problem in my view because it’s often put that way with the intention of conflating religious faith with secular belief in reality. From my perspective they’re opposing views, but they are called the same thing in order to make the argument “see, it takes just as much faith to believe in science!” As a defense of blind faith, which is indefensible so people start redefining words.
Okay I see what you mean, but I mean, I didn't say faith. They are definately opposing views, and maybe it's because I'm not an atheist (as in, I don't go around using science to disprove faith, because I find it an inadequate use of science) so I don't have my fingers in the machine like some people here seems to have - and I have always accepted belief as an intricate part of knowledge, because that's what I was taught at university, and it also makes perfect sense imo. But honestly, don't you see it as just a little troubling that it's so hard to have a discussion about something so basic and so human, namely believing, without having it be a part of some science vs. religion battle? I can't see how that would favor anyone.
 

kurisu_1974

is on perm warning for being a low level troll
Dude is still on about his semantics surrounding an off-topîc definition of the word belief... so simple and generally agreed upon still no one really actually does.

for some reason that woke up fedoraGaf

Well we kept it civil until now at least.

and maybe it's because I'm not an atheist

Yeah you didn't fool anyone.
 
Last edited:

MHubert

Member
Well we kept it civil until now at least.
No you didn't. I have voiced my displeasure throughout the discussion about how basically every response I get accuses me of things I don't say and things I don't believe, and it just. keeps. happening. You too. I'm not a part of your stupid science vs. religion war. Acting like that, you are the reason why that meme exists, so it is a well deserved title.
 

kurisu_1974

is on perm warning for being a low level troll
Maybe you should take a breath and go outside if you're so rattled that we don't blindly accept the crap your university or religion or whatever has been feeding you.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Member
I don't know, why don't you tell me?

I’m the atheist, chief. I don’t believe in any of it.

It should be down to believers to give me a reason why their god is any more valid than another, if they’re going to enter into an argument about faith, and claim they are right.
 
Last edited:
I consider myself agnostic, not a full blown atheist. I had a Christian upbringing but I'm not a practicing Christian and definitely have the usual questions:

- can we even show God exists at all?
- why does the Christian God, who is supposed to be loving and benevolent, allow such great suffering to happen to defenseless living things (human children, domestic animals, etc)?
- etc...

From my anecdotal observation, I've seen situations where people are desperate or in life-threatening situations and "revert" to calling out to God. So that makes me wonder if we, as humans, are almost genetically hard-wired to have SOME sort of spiritual/religious belief system.
 
I don't care whether they believe in god or not.

Do they believe in climate change? What are they gonna do about it?
I consider myself agnostic, not a full blown atheist. I had a Christian upbringing but I'm not a practicing Christian and definitely have the usual questions:
Agnostic is the way to be.

I don't believe in god because I never had any proof, inclination or feeling that it did in fact exist. But that's from my experience if that ever changes I'll just go the other way.

Atheists are often self righteous pricks about it (and so are mindless believers).
From my anecdotal observation, I've seen situations where people are desperate or in life-threatening situations and "revert" to calling out to God. So that makes me wonder if we, as humans, are almost genetically hard-wired to have SOME sort of spiritual/religious belief system.
Religion as an institution is designed to be populist in the sense that it places the blame and reason for everything happening elsewhere, offers forgiveness, promises an afterlife, etc.

It's only normal that people turn to it the most when they're in the later decades of their life as it just makes their life and their demise easier.


I personally don't give a rats ass about the religious institutions as a whole. It's what is beyond our existence that should be interesting.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Member
I don't care whether they believe in god or not.

Do they believe in climate change? What are they gonna do about it?

I genuinely fear that the religious folk think the world was put here for them by god, and that he’ll always take care of them, so they don’t need to worry about things like climate change.
 
Last edited:

kurisu_1974

is on perm warning for being a low level troll
From my anecdotal observation, I've seen situations where people are desperate or in life-threatening situations and "revert" to calling out to God. So that makes me wonder if we, as humans, are almost genetically hard-wired to have SOME sort of spiritual/religious beliefsystem.

I'd say it's cultural... We'd have to examine a purely atheist society which does not really exist to know how that works. I'm not sure if i.e. Shintoists would call to god for help or how that works for them.

I think we have some inherent spirituality as a species tho, but that's just brain chemistry.
 
Last edited:

MrMephistoX

Member
I’m more or less a Deist it’s possible we were bio-engineered or seeded by a higher intelligence we can never fully comprehend and that all religions are interpretations of events that people at the time were not intelligent Enough to fully understand.
 
I don't believe in God, but I also don't know how to feel about all of the above, there has to be more out there, something after death. There just has to be.
Sorry, bud. There's no "heaven," "hell," "god," "satan," "angels," "souls/spirits," etc. They're nothing more than man-made concepts/copouts to control gullible people. They're all imaginary, fantasy, fiction. They're as real as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny & the Tooth Fairy are.

Technically, biologically & scientifically, we're all animals in whom we had originated from Africa 300,000 years ago, before we've migrated onto other countries. That's how we all came to be. Google either "Human Evolution," "Homo Sapiens" or "Where did humans come from?".

And what happens to animals when they die? They cease to exist. And since all of us human beings are animals as well, the same thing will happen to all of us, too.

Like FunkMiller mentioned, we'll all go back to the same place before we were all born, which is non-existence. We're all made of atoms, energy, molecules, etc. We didn't have stuff like consciousness before we were born, & we won't have them after we die. All signs are pointing to it.

That's the real truth. So enjoy your life & live it to the fullest!

The reason atheists and agnostics are ethical and moral is that they are made in God's image: free moral agents made with intrinsic value and worth. This is what the bible claims and experientially can be verified through lived experiences.
Morality has existed long before religion, bibles, quran's, etc. & deities ever had.
 
Last edited:

chromhound

Member
Everyone believe in something
Some believe in God
Some don't believe that God exist (Still believing in something ?)
Some believe there's a greater force somewhere
 

MHubert

Member
Maybe you should take a breath and go outside if you're so rattled that we don't blindly accept the crap your university or religion or whatever has been feeding you.
I don't care what you accept, what rattles me is being miscontrued every single step of the way, like any other person would. Then you get triggered when being called a fedora warrior, or at least you felt naturally targeted for some reason, yet you seem to feel perfectly fine acting out the part.
 
Last edited:

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
It's not about insisting that it must be called belief. It is belief, period. While we might agree that having a religious belief is different from say, believing that evidence presented to you is correct, it's not so different as to classify the latter as being merely a matter of semantics and it certainly doesn't mean that we are talking about two different concepts altogether. Again, why is that supposed to be a problem?
So do I get to go to heaven because I believe in God (as a concept) even though I don't think He exists?
I believe that i x i = -1 even though I don't believe that i exists except as a concept.
Basically you are conflating several meanings of the word 'belief' - one is to conceptualize, one is to accept evidence presented to you, and one is to have faith in the existence of something in the absence of evidence.
 

kurisu_1974

is on perm warning for being a low level troll
I don't care what you accept, what rattles me is being miscontrued every single step of the way, like any other person would. Then you get triggered when being called a fedora warrior, or at least you felt naturally targeted for some reason, yet you seem to feel perfectly fine acting out the part.

I'm not triggered, I just thought it was funny since you have such trouble getting your point across with your ramblings that you started insulting people with your fedora and crack smoking remarks. Please continue, maybe at some point you'll start making sense, but seeing as you're not an atheist and also not religious I'm pretty sure about the one thing you are: confused and not really aware what even those words mean for some reason.
 

FunkMiller

Member
So do I get to go to heaven because I believe in God (as a concept) even though I don't think He exists?
I believe that i x i = -1 even though I don't believe that i exists except as a concept.
Basically you are conflating several meanings of the word 'belief' - one is to conceptualize, one is to accept evidence presented to you, and one is to have faith in the existence of something in the absence of evidence.

Agreed. It's a bit of a pointless conversation. All semantics.

Use the word 'faith' to mean religious belief.

To accept the information being supplied to you by your senses is vastly different from having faith in a supernatural entity that you cannot tangibly sense at all.
 

MHubert

Member
So do I get to go to heaven because I believe in God (as a concept) even though I don't think He exists?
I believe that i x i = -1 even though I don't believe that i exists except as a concept.
Basically you are conflating several meanings of the word 'belief' - one is to conceptualize, one is to accept evidence presented to you, and one is to have faith in the existence of something in the absence of evidence.
I was only arguing that it still constitutes as belief. I thought I made it quite clear that I distinguish between its meaning in syntax, and I never used the word faith.
 

Doczu

Member
I consider myself agnostic, not a full blown atheist. I had a Christian upbringing but I'm not a practicing Christian and definitely have the usual questions:

- can we even show God exists at all?
- why does the Christian God, who is supposed to be loving and benevolent, allow such great suffering to happen to defenseless living things (human children, domestic animals, etc)?
- etc...

From my anecdotal observation, I've seen situations where people are desperate or in life-threatening situations and "revert" to calling out to God. So that makes me wonder if we, as humans, are almost genetically hard-wired to have SOME sort of spiritual/religious belief system.
Well i consider myself a Christian who isnslowly returning to faith (cautiously to not overdo ut) so i'll try to answer the wuestions the best i can:

- You can't show the existence of God by requiring scientific proof, but we believe there is, or for some might be, a force (not a person) who (that?) that could create all what we see and feel, or at least orchestrated the creation of life everywhere, or at least on our rock in space
- All in the book of Genesis. God loves us, gave us paradise and by eating the Forbidden Fruit we chose to decide our fate. He doesn't hate us because of what we did (as he did lay a path to redemption for all of us), but we are responsible for all our actions. God did try to meddle and reset everything, but after sending Jesus he does not interfere with our way of mortal life.
- God is loving, but more like a fatherly love where he want you to overcome your weaknesses yourself.
- etc.

We do have a hard wired need for religion and belief. It sits deep in our periaqueductal gray. Scans of our brains have shown higher activity in people who claimed to be religious and the more religious, the more movement in it. Belief is as natural as feeling pain, fear, love and altruism - all in one place 🤷🏻‍♂️ knowing that - can we call believers dumb?
 

FunkMiller

Member
Why is it any stranger to believe in a god that millions upon millions of people believe in, than the Christian god?

I‘m…interested. Do any of you fancy taking a crack at answering this?

Why is your god right and real, and there’s is wrong and fictional?
 
Last edited:
I predict that my answer will be the same as with the 1 +1 = 2 example.

This must be one of those rhetorical gotchas you learn from these amazing Christian science videos on Youtube.
Honestly, how do you want to have a discussion, when we can't even communicate on this most fundamental level?

Why is P not non-P?

Because you cannot even imagine otherwise. You cannot even think that something is true and not true at the same time.
It's simple really.

That is a universal constant and objective truth independent of your personal views.
 
Last edited:
I grew up in a muslim household (same god as Christianity, Judaism). Parents made me go to the mosque almost everyday in elementary though middle school where I had to learn to read the quran, pray, etc. Honestly I was pretty sick of it, had to miss out on several activities with school friends, miss out on gaming time, etc. It was an exhausting lifestyle where I would I would have to finish all my school homework on the bus ride home, chill for 30 min to an hour, and then go to the mosque for the next 3 hours. By the time I came home it was already 9pm and the next hour would be spent finishing up homework/watching tv.

That experience sort of actually turned me away from religion, it was a bit much and even my parents weren't all that religious, they were just following what every other middle eastern/south asian family were doing at the time.

But as I've grown older I've learned to appreciate that experience/religion more and my belief in god to give me peace is growing over time.

People should not just look at religion in a basic low hanging fruit way i.e. "am i going to heaven?" "if there is a god why did he cause this" "no proof of god" etc.

Rather religion is more about a lifestyle that instills basic core value/routine. The community aspect of religion is underrated, the world ironically is becoming less and less connected over time - we are all so busy have other things going on (at least that's what we all say) - but a religious event be it christmas, ramadan, eid, brings everyone together. Many of you who are against religion may be surprised to find out that most of these events are not literally to just worship god in a circle, they're a good excuse for all of us to come together and just catch up/talk about life.

I look back at the time I went to the mosque everyday, while it was frustrating at the time, today I'm grateful because it instilled discipline and routine that I benefit from today at work, in college, etc. While I still drink, I am glad as a child I was taught how bad it was, may even send me to hell. Sure sending me to hell part is a bit extreme, but drinking is objectively bad for you and religion does a good job in my opinion teaching you the basics of how to live your life (method is questionable, not everything bad should send you to hell, but regardless result is the same).

Now that I'm older I've gone back to look at the religious text myself without input from outside parties (such as imam, priest) and low and behold - many of those things that were supposed to send me to hell, as I was taught as a kid, were just made up or left for interpretation by the reader. The grown ups were just trying to instill some values in me, and I'm sure it's been discussed several times by now, but it's the person/institution that bring flaws to the faith, not the faith itself. These religious books are very open ended, somewhat contradictory, vague, they're basically books on philosophy. At the end of the day its up to the individual person to interpret the text and they can probably find justifications for anything by referencing certain paragraphs while the next paragraph over would be contradictory (they wouldn't reference that though).

There are a lot of smart people in this thread, but you must all realize that the average intelligence is not very great. We can pretend that the framework for life/basic core values can be taught without religion, but honestly a lot of people do require a disciplined approach, one that may actually scare them into thinking they will be sent to hell if they did that bad deed. Religion is the framework that can apply to the masses, not everyone can just be given the logical reasons it's probably difficult for many to understand especially 100s of years ago. But everyone understands heaven/hell.

And finally, the "require proof" argument is very basic/unimaginitive/and somewhat arrogant. 100 years ago we didn't understand space-time/general relativity, 500 years before that we thought the sun revolved around the Earth . Can you imagine majority of the population believing the sun revolved around the Earth? It sounds insane today. And even then, all of this science/engineering was designed for the human perception, what our eyeballs, rods/cones, are capable of seeing. Language, math, equations, they are all made by our own perception/reality to understand the universe as best as we are capable. Perhaps we haven't discovered the missing ingredient yet to understand the higher/spiritual realm, maybe we never will just because we're not capable. Personally I like the comfort of believing that there is something after I pass away, that all of this, human existence, actually means something outside of just passing the torch to the next generation.
 
Last edited:

Ballthyrm

Member
Guess so!

Knowledge is a subset of belief.

Epistemology is a thing, it's not that simple. Quote from wikipedia

Belief is an attitude that a person holds regarding anything that they take to be true.

Most generally, "knowledge" is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, which might include facts (propositional knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or objects (acquaintance knowledge). Philosophers tend to draw an important distinction between three different senses of "knowing" something: "knowing that" (knowing the truth of propositions), "knowing how" (understanding how to perform certain actions), and "knowing by acquaintance" (directly perceiving an object, being familiar with it, or otherwise coming into contact with it).

You can know something that you don't believe by lying by omission for example.
 
Last edited:

EruditeHobo

Member
You can know something that you don't believe by lying by omission for example.

Lying / lying by omission doesn't speak to what you actually believe... it is using deception regarding the truth of what you believe, presumably in order to win an argument or get something over on someone.
 
Last edited:

EruditeHobo

Member
...all of this science/engineering was designed for the human perception, what our eyeballs, rods/cones, are capable of seeing.

So are all religions. Unless you have some other way to assess the validity of bronze-aged texts and stories.

Perhaps we haven't discovered the missing ingredient yet to understand the higher/spiritual realm, maybe we never will just because we're not capable.

Us not at all being able to assess something is indistinguishable from that thing not existing at all.

Personally I like the comfort of believing that there is something after I pass away, that all of this, human existence, actually means something outside of just passing the torch to the next generation.

If you're fine believing something on no evidence because it's comforting to you, there's nothing in the known universe anyone can do to stop you. But it remains true that such a belief is not at all based in reality... there's no logical reason to believe it.
 
Last edited:

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
So bizarre to feel like the entirety of media is trolling "believers"... outside of a few brash comedians who are easily ignored most media content is just sort of secular / not specific to a religion but you still commonly hear references to God/praying/etc.

Like it's barely any different than it ever has been from a movie/show perspective.
 
So are all religions. Unless you have some other way to assess the validity of bronze-aged texts and stories.



Us not at all being able to assess something is indistinguishable from that thing not existing at all.



If you're fine believing something on no evidence because it's comforting to you, there's nothing in the known universe anyone can do to stop you. But it remains true that such a belief is not at all based in reality... there's no logical reason to believe it.

Every scientific breakthrough/technology/knowledge we have today started as a belief, we just needed some time to find proof. Us not being able to assess something doesn't mean it isn't there. We can go back and forth on these chicken/egg responses all day.

There is some logic and reality. All the religions we have today - all of them have very similar core tenants. Many of these religions were created independently across many civilizations yet they all turned out to be very similar. Christians believe in a god, aztecs believe in a god yet they're on opposite sides of the ocean with no communication. Is the belief in a higher power instilled in the human instinct? Why did both civilizations decide to have a construct of religion?
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
So bizarre to feel like the entirety of media is trolling "believers"... outside of a few brash comedians who are easily ignored most media content is just sort of secular / not specific to a religion but you still commonly hear references to God/praying/etc.

Like it's barely any different than it ever has been from a movie/show perspective.
It's very similar to most other victimhood complexes.
 

EruditeHobo

Member
Every scientific breakthrough/technology/knowledge we have today started as a belief, we just needed some time to find proof. Us not being able to assess something doesn't mean it isn't there. We can go back and forth on these chicken/egg responses all day.

It's not chicken-egg at all, and I didn't say something not being detectable means it's not there. This is a thread about belief, and something that is undetectable remains indistinguishable from that which does not exist.

Whatever is discovered about god in the future, there remains no logical reason to believe in god now. That's all I'm talking about. And if they find evidence for god/supernatural/ghosts/werewolves, I'd be a believer tomorrow! But there remains no good evidence now.

Is the belief in a higher power instilled in the human instinct? Why did both civilizations decide to have a construct of religion?

Because intellect (and thus imagination) is a key element when it comes to the biological evolution and advancement of a high-functioning conscious species. All those civilizations and thinkers, they essentially came up with superheroes independently from one another as well... that doesn't mean I have a good reason to believe Spider-Man exists; that's literally a logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Ah yes, one of mine favorite passages i threw around in religion classes calling out incest in the Bible - a classic. I thought i was smart using it, found it on a lot of "rationality" pages in the early days of the internet.
Taking anything written at face value (not just the Bible self) and not digging into it makes you lose sight of the bigger picture:

- Lot is a victim of (incest) rape
- Lot's daughters are a product of Sodom and Gommorah, their morality hasn't changed even after they were spared by God in the destruction of their homes and they feared no one else would want them.
- check up on the names of their sons and which historical people they represent and what kind relations they had with the Izraelites of the time
- God in his love and compassion didn't off them after their sin, even though it was (and to this day is) one of the worst things thst you can do.

Last point is quite important to look at as God in the Old Testament wasn't anyone to fuck with. Many other stories in the Bible show that even if the people sinned they were still in his grace after they shown remorse and corrected their way.
The "bigger picture"? God in His love and compassion didn't off them after their sin, and that's okay? Even if people sinned they're still in His grace? Tell that to the entire population of the world who drowned in a flood. Tell that to the neighboring tribes who were genocided and enslaved because God said it was okay and provided instructions about how to do it. What "bigger picture" are you referring to?

Anyway, i could go on and on, but i will stand to my beliefs. The Bible is still a valid read today even for those that don't believe per se. Even if it is "for fun" or to analyze it as a work of art.
I agree it's a valid read and has literary merit. I wasn't contesting that point. The point I was making was that it has no foundation for truth, nor is it an ideal document to derive morals from due to the large amount of harmful activities it condones.

That said, the New Testament is more important to Christians - it changes the perception of God and how he views humanity. It even shows how Jesus changed Gods heart after bring nailed to a cross and asking him to forgive humanity their sins. I mean he brought plagues, death and floods for lesser things, one would think that killing his son would bring apocalypse. Compassion plays a big role in the second half as religion evolved with humanity when they formed enormous (for the time) countries and cities. No more eye for an eye, less killing in general.
If the New Testament is more important, then why are the 10 Commandments still regarded so highly? Why are Old Testament citations still used as justification for acting terribly towards gay people? As the sermon on the mount goes, concepts like an eye for an eye are discouraged in favor of turning the other cheek, yet in that same Matthew 5 chapter, Jesus proclaims that He has not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it, and that those who would break the law and teach others to do so are least in the Kingdom of Heaven. How does that square with your perceived importance of the New Testament?

How does Jesus even change God's heart if He is the embodiment of God Himself? How do you even change the mind of an omnipotent and omniscient being that transcends time and space?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom