View Full Version : [en]10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer
Why God is imaginary.
http://godisimaginary.com/video10.htm
or The best optical illusion in the world!
http://godisimaginary.com/video8.htm
or why the Bible is repulsive.
http://godisimaginary.com/video2.htm
Hmm.. no religious person could probably see these for over 1 minute.
I don't like them either. His tone is very annoying. I would mind him talking about science that way, however good the point he makes might be.
Also, he leaves some questions open to evidence {why is there so much starving in the world then anyway?}, not contributing to the argument either.
I think these websites don't work at all. No healthy Bible-believer is going to watch these.
Personally I get pissed by "narrators" demeaning voice. And I also think those clips were incredibly childish.
But then again, I loathe people who try to change others people opinions/faith by 'outsmarting' them or saying "This is how I think and I got the stats to prove it. So you must now think as I do or else your a big turd"
If you don't believe in god or miracles, for example, then why bother with it?
Anguille2
17-04-2007, 16:50
All those questions are stupid and irrelevant. He's as blind as some fanatical christians who believe every word in the bible is true...it's not.
I am a Christian and these are my answers (everyone's got his own answers:
1: Why won't God heal amputees?
Because God doesn't intervene physically in this world
2. Why are there so many starving people in our world?
It's our world and he's given us freedom to do what we want...if we screw it, it's our own fault.
3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
The old testament is a mixture of stories and truth...God does not demand the death of anyone.
Question #4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
Because it hasn't been written by God but by people who had little scientific knowledge.
Question #5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?
He isn't...same as above. Plus, as i said, he gave us the freedom to do whatever we want...be it good or bad.
Question #6: Why do bad things happen to good people?
Same as above.
Question #7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?
What kind of evidence....fish? people who are not blind anymore? etc?
Anyway...why would faith be necessary if there were evidence?
Question #8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?
He appears if HE wants...he's not there if I want him to be here...
Question #9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
It's a symbol (what an idiot) to remember the sacrifice he made.
Question #10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
Because we are FREE!
That's a simple as that...
Curently I'm still reading a short bopoo called Future of Religion written by 3 our time philosophers... among the things that are explained very well there is the thing that those who don't believe in God should not treat those who do as those who are weaker.. and those who beliebe in him should not treat the others as someone who doesn't understand what the truth is...
People's Republic of China
18-04-2007, 06:29
All those questions are stupid and irrelevant. He's as blind as some fanatical christians who believe every word in the bible is true...it's not.
I am a Christian and these are my answers (everyone's got his own answers:
1: Why won't God heal amputees?
Because God doesn't intervene physically in this world
2. Why are there so many starving people in our world?
It's our world and he's given us freedom to do what we want...if we screw it, it's our own fault.
3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
The old testament is a mixture of stories and truth...God does not demand the death of anyone.
Question #4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
Because it hasn't been written by God but by people who had little scientific knowledge.
Question #5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?
He isn't...same as above. Plus, as i said, he gave us the freedom to do whatever we want...be it good or bad.
Question #6: Why do bad things happen to good people?
Same as above.
Question #7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?
What kind of evidence....fish? people who are not blind anymore? etc?
Anyway...why would faith be necessary if there were evidence?
Question #8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?
He appears if HE wants...he's not there if I want him to be here...
Question #9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
It's a symbol (what an idiot) to remember the sacrifice he made.
Question #10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
Because we are FREE!
That's a simple as that...
No. 4, the Bible was written by God. And there is no scientific nonsense. In, I think Psalms, it says,: that the earth was like unto a sphere, or something like that. There it shoots down flat earth theory. The Bible is not a science book, but where it touches science it is correct.
But all in all, good show, my fellow Believer!
Anguille2
18-04-2007, 08:46
those who beliebe in him should not treat the others as someone who doesn't understand what the truth is...
Not sure if this is for me :confused:
The problem i have with his questions and answers is that they are too simplistic and in no way a philosophical reflection. I have no problem with any form of Belief and i have my serious doubts myself. But if this guy wants to prove that God doesn't exist, i can bring a much better argumentation than he does.
:wink:
I agree that the questions are rather silly.
The guy perhaps wants to find evidence for something what cannot be proven by any evidence. Gods have always been living in human minds but in no physical sphere which could bring any kind of evidence.
One can only believe or not if there is/are God/gods. As you can never prove he exists, you can never prove he doesn't..
I tend to say it is the same with "who have written the Book", but it is different story.
The argument that Bible is written by God is undefendable. Even the authors of the Bible are known, the Prophets are well known to be writtn by humans, the 5 books are said to be written by Moses.
And how can one explain that the same God dictated text of the Koran to Muhammad? and that this revelation speaks of something completely diferent.
Is one who claims to speak words of God a liar, while the other one who speaks of the same isn't? how can you tell the liar from the truth-teller? Or does the God make jokes on our account? Even the Jews and Christians (except religious fanatics of course) don't claim the Bible was written by God because they were told not to lie.
Throughout history books are witten by humans to achieve certain goals. These books have been written in order to speak of revelation of God and bring certain order to the world the authors knew.
Not sure if this is for meso you do think that only through something that was made up in order to bring some order one can realize what the truth is?
Am I wrong JUST because I don't believe?
Tell me what are the most important ideas of cristianity...
Is it to believe? Or do some rituals? or act somehow? or follow someone? What exactly does Jesus demands? to be member of the Church or to remember him, or to do exactly literary what he did, or what is the virtue of his teaching? Tell me please. I believe I am more a follower of Jesus than most of "Christian true believers" who claim to be right in everything while I as non-believer am not.
The point is: We all have some pre-understanding to everything we see or feel. We don't see facts, we see our own interpretations of what happened, the more people agree with certain interpretation the more it is understood as truth. But we can only say that we all see it as truth, but not that it is truth.
Once we learn to respect the other, and love him that he may open our eyes to something new (if we are able to see it), the world will be better place.
Anguille: I think he refers to Christians who take the bible literal.
Anguille2
18-04-2007, 14:23
so you do think that only through something that was made up in order to bring some order one can realize what the truth is?
Elvain, i guess it's me but i just don't understand what you're saying :confused:
Am I wrong JUST because I don't believe?
no
Tell me what are the most important ideas of cristianity...
Is it to believe? Or do some rituals? or act somehow? or follow someone? What exactly does Jesus demands? to be member of the Church or to remember him, or to do exactly literary what he did, or what is the virtue of his teaching? Tell me please. I believe I am more a follower of Jesus than most of "Christian true believers" who claim to be right in everything while I as non-believer am not.
To me there's only thing i have to do: Love. That's the most important message imho.
--
Anguille: I think he refers to Christians who take the bible literal.
Could be...thanks anyway :wink:
I was very unclear, the post was full of typos so very hard to understand, sorry.
I meant, the book I was refering to says that
"ateists" (those who don't believe in God) are used to view "teists" or "believers" as someone who is not as smart as them, as someone weaker who needs help of religion to be able to find orientation in the actual world, as someone who needs irrational explanation (they are not open-minded enough)
On the others side "teists" tend to view "ateists" as people who are lost and can never see truth because of their ignorance (they are not opened enough to God-truth)
The way they offer to both is respect. They find understanding to religious language as some skill rather than universal human need - like a skill to read between lines of poetry - so when someone doesn't feel the need to believe in God he's neither worse nor better than one who does need it, just like someone who doesn't feel need to find wisdom in poetry is no worse nor better than one who finds it in someting else.
I hope this is easier to understand...
To me there's only thing i have to do: Love. That's the most important message imho.We are in absolute agreement in this :angel:
Are the answers given by him somewhat stupid, idiotic? Yes but He is just showing you how one has to make some dilusional nonesence reasoning in other to believe every single word in the bible and christianity.
If God didn't wrote the bible, but men that had no idea about the world that surrounded them did, what makes god even real? Accoring to the bible god has intervened physically many times. Lets see, he destroyed 2 entire cities with everyone in it, he gambled Job's life against Satan just to see if he really fallowed him. He had a son. He gave the commandments to men.And well, he created the world after all.
I'm an atheist, Do I view believers as blind, dumb, idiots,ectt? No,it is their right to have faith in whatever they want to believe, But at the same time I just can't stand all the hypocracy and arrogance of 99% of them.
I believe that if all the people that belive in god knew all the things religion has done for humanity most of them would stop worshiping it. Because no god, superior being, would allow all those things to happen, if he does, then that being is no better than the worst man in all of human history.
I agree, that we should teach love, But also, understanding. And that's why I don't believe in the bible nor religion because they have never teached neither, only hate,discrimination and death.
Anguille2
19-04-2007, 08:52
As i said, my problem is not that he doesn't believe in God...but his argumentation. Some philosophers and thinkers have brought some very good argumentations...i could bring better argumentation myself. So if someone creates a website to prove the non-existence of God...then he should do it correctly. That's how i see it.
And that's why I don't believe in the bible nor religion because they have never teached neither, only hate,discrimination and death.
I don't agree. The new testament doesn't teach any of the things you describe.
I agree with you, Anguille.
And I must emphasize that it is not important wehter you believe in God or not (or even if there is God)
Why should you prove someone (whose opinion most probably won't change, and if, so definitely not after so silly argumentation which will only convince him to stay firm in his faith) that something like God does exist or not? You can discuss about things you both find important and find agreement or not. If your every word is spoken in order to change one's opinion, you will never be able to open your mind and find an agreement. btw, Richard, it is what you criticize on christianity, isn't it?
And christianity has brought many good things. As most of religions. But later they all were corrupted. It is human nature that they corrupt ideologies as the original good idea is lost among rituals and dogmas that were built to protect it but finally kill it.
I agree that his answers are somewhat childish. I guess I was been a little too radical and narrowminded and wasn't paying attention:bash: , but I hadn't got a good night sleep in the past couple of days with alot of crap from school. Sorry if I offended anyone . Call it a truce?:angel: :biggrin:
Anguille2, but the church teached love and understanding? Did the the popes say, do not kill the aztecs, love them? I don't think so, they didn't because there were riches to be obtained, The same reason why the crusades started in the first place, more land and riches for the church. The papal state could have stoped all the senceless killing if they would have just say so. All christian nations fallowed the pope. But no, the church say convert them or kill them.
Well, we have been discussing about the first video, what about the second? or the third?
Lets forget about trying to prove if god exist or not, that's left to your faith and believes. do you agree that many passages in the bible are indeed repulsive?
And there is no scientific nonsense. [...] The Bible is not a science book, but where it touches science it is correct.The ten plagues are nonsense from a scientifical view - nothing can materialize from sand, nor can water be made into blood. So I would conclude that the Bible does not agree with the sciencentific knowledge of today.
People's Republic of China
21-04-2007, 01:01
But the ten plagues were of supernatural origin. You can't just say that the Bible is unscientific because, God upsets the Physical applecart to prove a point. These were miraculous occurences. Water doesn't become blood every day. No human can do this. The Bible is quite sepecific on that. Since God made the world, only He can defy the laws of science when He pleases. The plagues were 'miracles'. Miracles by definition, are something that defies the natural orders of things. Usually for good. In this case, the ten plagues showed the Egyptians, how omnipotent He was, and got the Jews out of Egypt, back to Israel.
But the ten plagues were of supernatural origin. You can't just say that the Bible is unscientific because, God upsets the Physical applecart to prove a point. These were miraculous occurences. Water doesn't become blood every day. No human can do this. The Bible is quite sepecific on that. Since God made the world, only He can defy the laws of science when He pleases. The plagues were 'miracles'. Miracles by definition, are something that defies the natural orders of things. Usually for good. In this case, the ten plagues showed the Egyptians, how omnipotent He was, and got the Jews out of Egypt, back to Israel.
So you'r saying that God phisycally interacts in this world?:rolleyes:
By scientific nonesence, well bible says we are the certer of the universe, we aren't. Bible says the world is some 5000 years old, it isn't In fact it's billions of years old, ect..
Anyways, As for the waters turning into blood, it can easily just be another symbol like that of eating jesus body and drinking his blood.
And the "plagues" can be scientifically explained by a big catasthrophie.
Natural explanations
As noted above, some science writers and Bible researchers have suggested that the plagues were passed-down accounts of ordinary natural disasters, and not supernatural miracles. Natural explanations have been suggested for most of the phenomena:
* (plague 1—water turned into blood, fish died)
o The redness in the Nile could have actually been pollution caused by volcanic activity, which, due to the color of Nile silt, could make the Nile turn blood red, and would also render it undrinkable. Heavy rains in the red-soiled area of Lake Victoria could have caused reddened water to wash downstream.
o Alternatively, a red toxic algal bloom (red tide) could have produced large quantities of toxins that would kill fish.
o Earthquakes could have caused a limnic eruption the same way it happened at Lake Nyos.
* (plague 2—frogs) Any blight on the water that killed fish also would have caused frogs to leave the river and, probably, die.
* (plagues 3 and 4—biting insects and flies) The lack of frogs in the river would have let insect populations, normally kept in check by the frogs, increase massively.
* (plagues 5 and 6— livestock disease and boils) There are biting flies in the region which transmit livestock diseases; a sudden increase in their number could spark epidemics.
* (plague 7—hail) Volcanic activity not only brings with it ash, but brimstone, and also alters the weather system, occasionally producing hail. Hail could also have occurred as a completely independent natural weather event.
* (plague 8—locusts) The weight of hail will destroy most crops, leaving several insects and other animals without a normal food source. The remaining crops therefore would become targeted heavily, and thus be destroyed by swarms of locusts which would otherwise be distributed rather thinly. Or the locusts could have increased due to a lack of predators. Even without these explanations, swarms of locusts are not uncommon today.
* (plague 9—darkness) There could be several causes for unusual darkness: a solar eclipse, a sandstorm, volcanic ash, or simply swarms of locusts large enough to block out the sun.
* (plague 10—death of the firstborn)
o If the last plague indeed selectively tended to affect the firstborn, it could be due to food polluted during the time of darkness, either by locusts or by the black mold Cladosporium. When people emerged after the darkness, the firstborn would be given priority, as was usual, and would consequently be more likely to be affected by any toxin or disease carried by the food.
o The word we know as "firstborn" may have meant the higher social class rather than literally the eldest sons, but the same argument applies.[2]
o In the 2006 documentary Exodus Decoded, Jewish Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici hypothesised the selectiveness of the tenth plague was under the circumstances similar to the 1986 disaster of Lake Nyos that is related to geological activities that caused the previous plagues in a related chain of events. The hypothesis was that the plagues took place shortly after the eruption of Thera (now known as Santorini), which is thought to have happened some time between 1450 BCE and 1650 BCE. The eruption sets off a chain of events resulting in the plagues and eventually the killing of the first born. Jacobovici suggests that the first borns in ancient Egypt had the privilege to sleep close to the floor while other children slept on higher ground or even on roofs. Like in Lake Nyos, when carbon dioxide or other toxic gases escape the surface tension of a nearby waterbody either due to geological activity or over satuation, the gas being heavier than air, "flooded" the nearby area displacing oxygen and killing those who were in its path. Jewish households escaped the fate because they were told to observe their first Passover rituals.
A volcanic eruption which happened in antiquity and could have caused some of the plagues if it occurred at the right time is the eruption of the Thera volcano 650 miles to the northwest of Egypt. Controversially dated to about 1628 BC, this eruption is one of the largest on record, rivaling that of Tambora, which resulted in 1816's Year Without a Summer. The enormous global impact of this eruption has been recorded in an ash layer deposit found in the Nile delta, tree ring frost scars in the bristlecone pines of the western United States, and a coating of ash in the Greenland ice caps, all dated to the same time and with the same chemical fingerprint as the ash from Thera.
The volcanic ash could have polluted the Nile, turning it red, leading to frogs leaving the river. The ash and lack of frogs in the river would have affected the ecology of the Eastern Mediterranean, possibly resulting in the plagues of lice, flies, pestilence, and locusts. Hot ash coming into contact with skin could have caused the plague of boils, if not caused by the lice/flies, and storms caused by the Theran ash cloud could have resulted in the plague of hail, and the ash would have subsequently blotted out the sun (a phenomenon well documented in the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens) to make day into night for the plague of darkness.
However, all estimates of the date of this eruption are hundreds of years before the Exodus is believed to have taken place; thus the eruption can only have caused some of the plagues if one or other of the dates is wrong, or if the plagues did not actually immediately precede the Exodus.
These explanations do not account for the selectiveness the Torah attributes to the plagues: according to the Hebrew Bible the plagues damaged only Egyptians, while the Hebrews remained untouched. Typically, modern writers, and particularly skeptics, account for such details of the account as being pious exaggerations, or literary devices, intended to encourage faith.
Following the assumption that at least some of the details are accurately reported, many modern Jews believe that some of the plagues were indeed natural disasters, but argue for the fact that, since they followed one another with such uncommon rapidity, God's hand was behind them. Indeed, several Biblical commentators (Nachmanides and, more recently, Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetzky) have pointed out that, for the plagues to be a real test of faith, they had to contain an element leading to religious doubt.
But the ten plagues were of supernatural origin. You can't just say that the Bible is unscientific because, God upsets the Physical applecart to prove a point. These were miraculous occurences. Water doesn't become blood every day. No human can do this. The Bible is quite sepecific on that. Since God made the world, only He can defy the laws of science when He pleases. The plagues were 'miracles'. Miracles by definition, are something that defies the natural orders of things. Usually for good. In this case, the ten plagues showed the Egyptians, how omnipotent He was, and got the Jews out of Egypt, back to Israel.There is no supernatural thing that "overrules" science, according to science, because it tries to describe the world completely; so again I conclude that there is no agreement of the Bible with science, when interpreted literally.
By the way "no human can do this" - didn't the Pharao's wizards also turn water into blood and magically do the same thing as in the first several plagues?
Of course, a less literal interpretation of the Bible (thanks to Richard), which I am inclined to, could be a 'solution' of the matter.
People's Republic of China
25-04-2007, 07:12
Never mind. You don't believe. So it's beyond your comprehension.
I take the Bible literally. As far as I'm concerned, The Bible's veracity is non-negotiable, and questioning it, is well. . .not good.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.