Atheists VS Theists

Post Reply New Topic

Do you mean this thread or in general? If the former, this thread was started in a comical vein - by an agnostic I'm presuming - and so has been responded to in kind. If the latter, I agree.

I accept the possibility that there might be a being or race of beings that is significantly advanced or evolved in relation to ourselves that our ancestors would view it/them as a god, but I find it unlikely that such a being would take much interest in our species. At the same time, I find it far easier to 'believe' - based on study and observation of human culture and behaviour - that all religions are tools of control, both an opiate and a whip for the gullible.

Definitely the later.


I would fully agree that in terms of organized religion things have been manipulated as they've been seen useful. In early times order was a much bigger problem than it was today and it was incredibly convenient to use religion to try and marshal human behavior. However on one hand I believe that this is what happens when such ideas or sets of even partial knowledge are put in our hands, on a more personal note though - while I spent many years in my early and mid 20's agnostic bordering atheist I've had too many things happen and have come to understand too many things to have any doubt that there isn't something more behind it all.

To give a brief partial-view at least I think most atheists can agree with this - there is no free will. The universe is a mechanization, every ripple and flow comes from something else and its locked down tight enough to consider that as 100% determinism. One could come to the conclusion that natural causes spit out the big bang in that regard, one could come to the conclusion that it means that absolutely nothing ever has or will happen that's outside of God's will because the entire apparatus of time and space was built before ever being set in motion (which gives a much different sense of theism - prayer works but in a reverse logic; what we would pray for and our will to pray and the answers to our prayers, like everything else were built before the big bang), one could also if contemplating multiverse or inflationary field question whether or not 'natural' cause as we know it or divine creation aren't one and the same. Whether the universe as we know it is God's direct creation or aeonic emanation could be debated but I'm not even sure how meaningful that debate is in the end.

What's also very interesting in the bible is how, between the old and new testament - God changed what he told us. At first one had to do works and follow the ten commandments supposedly to get into heaven, and then afterward Jesus nullified that and informed us that God had only told us this to make us aware that we couldn't do it. That has profound implications regarding the current state of things if you think about it. It means that anything if not most of what he will say on the record to us is half truths that he gives to us to sort out on our own, not for the sake of giving us a line but for the sake of us figuring things out ourselves. Even the current topic - atheism vs. theism - if everything is in his will and atheism has been on the rise since the enlightenment it can be taken gratis that this is his doing as well, something he set in motion for the sake of cleaning out old baggage that organized religion had created and keeping us on the path that he wants us on. All of this of course does have a big effect on one thing - hell seems very unlikely, not even having anything to do with atheists but that if everything is of his will then our spiritual accountability for what he created us to be is somewhat nullified. At the same time what we get as messages we can take as being two-fold, 1) they are first order things that we're supposed to contemplate, 2) as the universe is an air-tight mechanization certain seeds were planted to have certain ripple effects to ensure certain outcomes - their whole face-value factual basis likely isn't something to chase.

The overall gist of what I'm trying to get at though - because the last few messages were given in barbaric times to aid in planting the seeds for society as we know it we can't then turn around and say that the only God that could exist is one that would act barbarically. A God that would bring himself here and die on the cross for us as well as take a heaping bowl of his own wrath at that point is telling us quite poignantly that he does not take what he puts us through in our lives in stride. My big epistemic challenge from that end hasn't been anymore whether to believe or not to believe, I'm quite certain. The question is sorting out who he is, what he wants of us, and where he wants us to go (technically I don't even need to - I just want to due to my own drives and motivations, being my mom and dad's son I also admit that nothing, not my thinking, not my awarenesses, not my motivations, nothing is my own so - best to trust the process and go with what I'm fueled to do).

I'm not at all saying that what I just layed out can't be debated or is 100% true, I don't know, these are conclusions that I've come to. I would suggest though that through analyzing reality for what it is, what we have control over and what we don't, there are a lot of versions, renditions, etc. of God that can easily be ruled out. Then again, IMO, that's exactly where it stops, we have a good idea of who God isn't. That said - whether this post even has any effect or makes anyone think any differently about the issue, or my typing this post, like everything else, was decided or put in motion at that same point long before I ever existed.

I can understand why you'd feel that way, but this strikes me as being off-track.

First of all, faith, not works, "gets you in." Keep in mind that most writings (if not all) in the OT does not distinguish between the "underworld"/"the Pit," and Hell. Their word was "Sheol." Sacrifices are only an outward expression of the faith of the believer, a task through which the sinner acknowledges and confesses sin (among other functions, of course) and places his hope for forgiveness in God. We can't "know" that the blood of sacrifice covers our sins, but we trust God in that what has been done is sufficient.

It's obedience that God wants, not sacrifices, and a sacrifice that isn't done from the heart in the spirit of sincerity and humility isn't really a sacrifice at all.

The 10 Commandments function as a summary of God's desire for the proper conduct of His people--they only cover the basics. Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy function to explain them in greater detail and showing proper execution of God's plan for His people. It's not a bad moral code, even for today. But it does NOT get you in to Heaven without the first commandment, which seems to be the one most easily overlooked.

Jesus did NOT nullify it. He just simply brought back what the original intention of the Law was all about. All Jesus did was take away the sole authority for administrating God's justice and mercy from the religious leaders and put it in the hands of the individual believer. Further, He made sure that His followers didn't "keep it like the Kaiser" as the religious leaders did, but rather that they spread the gospel beyond their own people. The only thing that is "nullified" are the laws, rituals, and traditions that were meant expressly as distinguishing features between the Jews and other nations. Idolatrous practices are still forbidden. But the idea that circumcision was a necessary condition did not have to apply to Gentiles. The "circumcision of the heart" was NOT a new thing in the NT; the prophets wrote about it hundreds of years before Jesus appeared.

Finally, God/Jesus never communicated "half-truths." Maybe what one group needed to hear, but that is no less truthful than anything else. One example I remember is a speech Jesus made to a certain crowd that they must consume His flesh and drink His blood, which you have to admit has a certain shock-value to it. The crowd's response was "this is to difficult, I can't follow that. I'm going home." Jesus said to the stragglers (paraphrase) "Are you still here?" No matter what Jesus said, no matter how difficult it seemed, He couldn't shake their faith, which was the whole point. They believed He was Christ (anointed, Messiah). So while Jesus told the truth, though using symbolic speech, His intention was essentially to "separate the men from the boys." We as believers understand that "eating His flesh" and "drinking His blood" simply means that 1) We take part in the crucifixion and death of Jesus and 2) by following Christ we take in and take on inward/outward characteristics of Christ, consuming what is holy to become holy. It's like the priests who were allowed to eat the meat (flesh) of temple sacrifices (that which is holy). Jesus is saying that sacrifices are no longer necessary and that ALL may become holy because His atonement is for us all.

If anything is difficult in the Bible, it is only because of our own individual lack of vision. We don't understand because we don't WANT to understand. Jesus made that point quite clear because He didn't always explain His parables except to His inner circle. Again, separating the "men from the boys." Those people who kept an open mind would get it. Those who had faith would believe it. The truth is there. You don't have to work terribly hard to understand. You only have to be willing to understand. No need for half-truths here.