There are 4 choices, 4 votes for ShadowDion's debate

why doesn't god exist?

• question

  why does he? well some say thats easy, they say “were here aren’t we? but then again, science seems to explain evolution really well. to some, god is just something that muddles with clear thought (me) and to others it makes thought clear (way too many contradictions in the bible for me to say so) its what you want to put your faith into

  Voted for by Kazrith.

  View 31 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • green-eternity
    April 18, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    will someone please point out all these contradictions in the bible (well you know, at least some of them) that every one feels fine to say there are but not to say any in particular. Its just a step on in arguing skills, you know what i mean?
  • • 
      Kazrith
      April 18, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      well for starters there are the contradictions between the editions of the bibles, one passage will say "...and johnathan kissed david..." or in a nother rendition "...and johnathan shook hands with david..." thats kinda glaringly obvious, and if you wish for me to point out more, i would be happy too, just dont have the time right now.
    • • green-eternity
        April 22, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        I would say that example is not exactly contrasting. Differences in different editions is all down to the translating and the intended audience e.g. it could have meant a warm greeting and the different editions just put it in to their own words. I suppose you could have picked upon the differences in the gospels to a greater affect as that has slightly more differences in than just how one greeting took place but just in case you do here is an answer. If I took a few people to see a play and then asked each of them to write a small account then I am going to end up with slightly different accounts depending on their remembrance and what they thought was important even if I asked one person again they co easily pick on different points than they did last time. That doesn’t mean that any thing they put in the first account was necessarily wrong or "contrasting", if it wasn't included in the second or the other way around (this may be hard to follow as my righting skills aren't up to much, but hope you can). The example you gave was (if you don't mind me saying so) not exactly a crucial point in the bible.
      • • 
          Kazrith
          April 29, 2005
          Edit | Reply
          your asking for someones oppinion, not direct translation. if you translating anything you better get it right!
        • • justonewish
            April 30, 2005
            Edit | Reply
            But not all languages can translate directly into English without some changes in words. There are many English words that other languages adopt because they do not have a word with the same meaning.
          • justonewish
            April 30, 2005
            Edit | Reply
            But not all languages can translate directly into English without some changes in words. There are many English words that other languages adopt because they do not have a word with the same meaning.
      • Evets
        April 30, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        Have you ever tried to translate parts of the bible? Well I have. It's not as easy as it looks. In the origional language that it was written in (greek hebrew and a little aramaic), the bible has no contradictions. Translations are, ultimately, someone's interpertation of that passage. But then, they tell you right from the beginning how it is that they going to trnslate, whether it's a literal or a loose translation or something inbetween. I too would like to see some of these apparant "contradictions" everyone keeps referring to. I've yet to find any. steve
      • • 
          Kazrith
          April 30, 2005
          Edit | Reply
          do a simple google search. bible contradictions. its easy
        • • Evets
            May 4, 2005
            Edit | Reply
            Alright, I've done a google search of "bible contradictions" and yes, I've foudn the lists of supposed "contradictions", and I remain unconvinced. For every page spouting the "contradictions" of the Bible, there was another web page to explain why these people are horribly mistaken. Having seriously studied the bible myself, I know many of the passages that are cited, and I also know that they are horribly mistaken in their interpertation of said passages. When someone who actually knows how to do biblical criticim gives me some REAL objections, then I will listen, but I will not put up with stubborn ignorance. I have no more to say on this. steve
  • ExistentialTheist
    April 18, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Go ahead and point out another one. While you do so I would like to pose the question of whether or not this matters to anyone. The Bible is not meant to be a scientific textbook, nor any other sort of textbook for that matter. Such miniscule details are of little consequence. The overall message, however, bears much more.
  • • 
      Kazrith
      April 18, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      and just to answer your question, each and every little thing supports the big things, without them, the big things dont exist. (eg. hitler, small thing - leads to the extermination of the jewish people.) and another contradiction, christianity ect ect supported slavery, and we know it as wrong, one, JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one. JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. two, GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. three Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, four anymore?
    • • Evets
        April 30, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        One. You need to understand the doctrine of the trinity in order to understand why this isn't a contadiction. But you can't take two random statements like that and say "see! they contradict!" They could have been made as an example of something to prove a point, the speaker could be using hyperbole, parable, or simply just speaking figuratively. Without the context you don't know. Two. If you're trying to point out the fact that there's two creation accounts, I don't see the problem here. The Bible wasn't concerned with WHEN these things were written, only that they actually happened. Do you think the author of the book was actually there when God created the world with a notebook and pencil going "okay... first day... light and darnkness. What else?" Um, no. The POINT of the passage is not the WHEN it's the WHY. Three. o_O? that doesn't even make sense... yeah, enough of this. steve
      • • 
          Kazrith
          April 30, 2005
          Edit | Reply
          have you ever read a novel with a thousand contradictions? well i can say ive tried, got so frustrated at the darned thing i never picked it up again. yet for some reason the bible seems to have all these things and still people read it. does that mean that anything that was writen thousands of years ago is a right off? the bible wouldnt make it in todays publishing world if it werent a religous text
        • • ExistentialTheist
            May 1, 2005
            Edit | Reply
            Well Kazrith I'm afraid on your final point in that post a number of atheistic scholars in centuries past would disagree with you. Do a google search online and see precisely what literary scholars who were atheists, such as Percy Byshe Shelley say about the Bible's literary merit. Once again, seeing contradictions where you see them implies that you are reading the Bible in a certain way that is already geared towards finding contradictions, as in many cases others who are perfectly cognizant of what precisely the text says see no contradiction. Why do you think it is that after thousands of years people still read it? Do you honestly think Christian scholars as early as St Augustine or Jewish ones such as Maimonedes simply were not intelligent enough to see what you see? Quite frankly I doubt it. Give me a novel and if I've read it, I can find you a thousand contradictions if I read it a certain way.
          • • 
              Kazrith
              May 3, 2005
              Edit | Reply

              did i say i was atheist?

              alright, tell me, what is a contradiction to you? to me, it is a discrepancy. should i call them discrepancies? or a contradiction. basicly they are the same thing, but if that is what you want...
            • • ExistentialTheist
                May 4, 2005
                Edit | Reply
                No you did not say you were an atheist nor did I imply that you were one. I was merely pointing out that atheistic scholars, who clearly do not believe in the divinity of the Bible, often still regard it as a great work of literature. I'm not terribly sure what sort of point youre trying to make regarding discrepancies vs. contradictions, but some would not regard alleged Biblical contradictions as inconsistent in any way.
  • ExistentialTheist
    April 19, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Im afraid the categories of "big thing" and "small thing" are a bit too broad the way you use them. There are different sorts of small things within every big thing, however, if we are to stick with your analogy. If Hitler was a little thing regarding the Holocaust, then one could say that Jesus was a little thing in the Bible, or more specifically that his parables were. Without Eichmann, Rommel, Tiergarten 4, Krystalnacht or Zyklon B would the Holocaust still have taken place? Absolutely because the anti-Semitism and the program were still there, yet these were indeed all parts of the Holocaust yet knowledge of these are not essential in understanding the overall implications and evils that propelled the Nazi juggernaut to their monstrous project. I further contend that your "contradictions" follow similar such surface-level interpretations-- mere idiosyncracies forming an ever so thin and transparent layer around a far more meaningful core. If you would like to discuss one individually let me know. Regarding slavery, it is difficult to proclaim that the Bible condones it, but more argeeable to say that AT CERTAIN TIME PERIODS it was tolerated to some degree. You fail to make, however, the distinction between different forms of slavery. Certainly the Bible denounces such treatment as that which the Sonderkommando received in Buchenwald, being lashed, beaten and ridiculed as they hurriedly scrounged up and cremated the corpses of their fallen bretheren, or the way a good chunk of our own ancestors here in America treated their slaves, forcing them to abnormally long workdays, taking sexual abuse and being whipped as animal herds.
  • • 
      Kazrith
      April 19, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      ahh, but without jesus, there is no christianity, with hitler not being elected there is no holocaust and Without Eichmann, Rommel, Tiergarten 4, Krystalnacht or Zyklon B and with hitler, the holocaust wouldnt have been as bad. heres the breakdown of "Big thing and Small thing" lets say s novel is a big thing, we can break that down into chapters, and chapters can be broken down into paragraphs, paragraphs into sentences and sentences into words and word into letters and then letters into ink and ink into its chemical formula. without the chemicals that make up ink (Fe2(Fe3CN)) you have no book. small thing makes big thing possible. with no letters, theres no words and with no words no sentances ect ect. and as for slavery i will have you know that non of my ansestors owned a slave, for proof; i am CANADIAN slavery was abolished before my great great grandfather's and mother's came here, so not one was a slaver. and the face surface interpretations, there is no other way to interprate some of them. as far as i can see, thousands of passages are missinterperted in churches world wide. it was about the same time st. whatever said homosexuality was wrong but slavery was okay. and i really have no want to disscuss any religous passages i trully do not for you will not concsider my opinion because you will think you are right, who knows, maybe you are. besides i thought my comment was quite clear and really not offensive, its my opinion and you can try as you might to change it, good luck
  • ExistentialTheist
    April 19, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    It is not my case to make that "small things" cannot be integral in "big things". I am merely making the case that not ALL small things within the big thing are integral to its existence. For example: Rommel was indirectly related to the Holocaust (he was a general in Africa fighting for Hitler, but taking no part in carrying out "The Final Solution to the Jewish Question), if Zyklon B had not been the method of mass killings used perhaps an ever more heinous method couldve been conceived, Eichmann was only one of many "dull bureaucrats" within the Nazi party (many of whom played a much larger role in carrying out Hitler's plan), Kyrstalnacht was merely an instance of rioting one night in which Germans broke Jewish windows (something else easily could have happened, as the policy was already in place) and Tiergarten 4 (group of buildings that constituted the office for the adult euthanasia program) did not necessarily need to exist for the killings to take place. Take one SS guard out and the same amount of deaths could just as easily occur. If one less wise man came to see the baby Jesus, we still wouldve been born. I agree that Hitler is a prerequisite for the Holocaust and that Jesus is a prerequisite for Christianity. Not all small elements within a big picture or identical in importance, however. Using the book analogy, this is why people quote from books. If you take certain smaller parts out, the big picture is not altered, but taking other parts out hugely alters it.
  • • 
      Kazrith
      April 20, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      to take the smaller parts of it, the big picture is not altered, but taking other parts of hugely alters it? yes there are insignificant things that make up the big things, but as insignificant they are, they are still significant. as for the tiergarten 4. if you did take one ss gaurd out, you change things. they may be as small as a hesitation before pulling the trigger/leaver/valve or whatever but there still is a change. the ss gaurd may regreat it for the rest of his life and eventually kill himself for it. one small thing always leads somewhere. and for the book analogy, if you take certain parts out, everything is changed. write a paragraph and then go and take out every e. in the end its changed. take out a few atoms from the ink, the words arent as clear. take out every period and your hopefully lost. amazing how small things hold up every big thing. you can couldve everything to death but nothing is certain. if its happened nothing will change it and to me i hope nothing will. remember, the small things effect the big things in ways we cant always see. (didnt hitler want to rid the world so its perfect in gods eyes or something?) religion and gods kill. that is my opinion and no one can take that away from me ps this is the last comment i am making on this subject. we have preverted it way too much. nothing in here even co-ensides with my origional comment
  • ExistentialTheist
    April 20, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Lol, umm, tiergarten 4 and the SS were very different things.... If youre going to argue against my example do a little research first. The fact is I have been studying the Holocaust for the last 2 years in college and there are a number of factors that COULD have been altered and not have changed the overall implications of the Holocaust. Same goes for the Bible. What youre doing here is selecting your own examples to make a universal claim: that all "small things" alter the most essential points of the "big things". I am pointing out that the small things can go both ways. In your most recent post you didnt really respond adequately to the examples I gave-- you merely restated your last post. "Religion and Gods kill" is a bit much and reveals that reason isnt everything for you, as this is clearly not dictated by reason. If youre going to say something like that be consistent. O and once again....youre the one thats asserting things are certain, not me.
  • Keegan A Combes
    May 8, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Whoa, it seems that most people follow the Bible, not God. They only know God, through the Bible. Because how else would you follow God, you go to the Bible. And that is why you follow the Bible not the Real God.
  • • 
      Kazrith
      May 9, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      how else would we follow god? with our hearts, our minds and our souls
    • • Keegan A Combes
        May 11, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        Hahahahehehahahaha. Religious People can be so funny some times.
      • • 
          Kazrith
          May 11, 2005
          Edit | Reply
          really? i'm not religious, i despise religions. now thats funny. all i am saying is that a select few people dont need a book to tell them what is wrong or right
        • • Keegan A Combes
            May 16, 2005
            Edit | Reply
            Now I get it.
  • blackcatsxx
    June 14, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Hmm, okay well the bible might not have contradictions in it, but its obviously a bit 'broad' and can be mis interprited, or manipulated to fit a million and one ways of thinking, I am not a fan of religions, i don't have a problem with religous people, or worshiping god or any of that, i just have a problem with organised religion, they have chosen a way to interpret a religion, and make everyone else see it that way, they are not consistant wihtin there own faith half the time, and change the rules when ever they think it will make them look better. I think god and faith should be a personal thing, what you believe inside, not what some man who studied a book for years says is right. To me, i don't believe in god, he seems to me too much like a convinence to cover up peoples fears and insecurities. I can't hold much faith in religous texts, for starters, they were written a long long time after man started living ( why would religion just suddenly come ot us and not always have been there, did god abandon us till we were civilised?), they were 'developed' by people... not a god... There are so many religions in the world, and they were all 'created' in a similar way on a basic level.. someone started writting or telling what they believed, so why does one have more standing than another. Religions arn't always bad, they give poeple comfort, teach them wahts right and wrong, give them good morals, make them better people. But you can be a good person without religion. And there are bad affects of religion, most wars are based on a clash of religions, im not syaing wihtout religions all owuld be right with the world, but they cause a lots of blood shed, maybe wihtout them, another excuse would be found to fight. Small things can cause big things, and small changes that don't appear much, can cause massive changes. The chaos theory. I think it's maybe a belief difference, whether you agree with that or not. But something seemingly insignificant can have a massive impacts. this comment is kinda general to all the above comments. It might not be very organised and clear, so i'm sorry for that
  • ExistentialTheist
    June 16, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Well simply to address one thing you mentioned-- you said that you do not believe in God because of certain conveniences entailed by belief in Him. The genetic fallacy, one of the most often committed fallacies in philosophy states that you cannot judge validity of belief based on how one arrives at belief-- one must take the argument for what it is rather than why one might turn to it. Regarding religion "springing up", the only possible documented evidence of religion is that which is written. We cannot know whether or not religion existed prior to written records-- it is an assumption we may or may not make, nothing more.
  • • 
      Kazrith
      June 19, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      hehe, i like some of your comments! well first off, you cannot question his or her belief for the exact same reasons you gave, and secondly, there is a way to have history recorded, its called pictures and stories. YES stories, told from person to person, and what is that you say? garbled they become? well sometimes they do, but most people wouldnt risk changing things because other people know the story as well. most people know there were religions before the first word was written, look at the natives in America's. they had a religion, weither you belive it or not, but they did, and thats what they believed in. you believe in something you call god, and they believed in something called spirit.
  • ExistentialTheist
    June 20, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    We cannot know the nature of these religions, although I agree that they existed. I am agnostic, but I believe that there probably is a God, so I wouldnt really say that I believe in God although I think I someday will. The question is whether all religions are derived from single, "first faith". Jung believed this (although most say Jung was not religious) and I must say that I do as well. Finding out why I believe this is precisely why I am pursuing a degree in both philosophy and history.
  • ExistentialTheist
    October 8, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Just looking over old posts...if you look at the Native American religions, as an interesting side note, they hint at a God that exists above all the other Gods, rendering their pantheon a social construction of sub-gods to for whatever reason supplant the one true God of long ago.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: