However, I don't share them. And as I said in a previous post, this is the case because I find the concept of god(s) unreasonable (supernatural entities, omniscient beings, etc.) and so I cannot believe in a particular god. You gave me your reasons for your beliefs but I don't find them convincing.
You said that the Bible is a good (eventually the only correct) description of reality but in my eyes that's not the case. The Bible is a smorgasbord of stories and tales from different authors and written over a long period of time. These not only contradict each other in some aspects but very often conflict with contemporary science (and there are many sites on the net dealing just with this topic).
However, I acknowledge the fact that the stories in the Bible describe a society over a long period of time. During this vast amount of time this society was confronted with good as well as bad situations and therefore you find in these writings how people behave under certain circumstances. Our knowledge may have advanced enormously since those times but our nature has not - we're the same humans (especially regarding our emotions) we were 5,000 years ago, even 20,000 years ago.
The society the Bible deals with (that of the ancient Hebrews) was a very stable one. But for societies to exist at all it is necessary that it's individuals trust each other i.e. an individual should not be a threat to the life of an other one. From these presuppositions certain rules arise: don't hurt/injure an other individual from your society (with killing as worst case), don't steal from him and don't lie to him (of course under certain circumstances society has agreed upon, exceptions from these rules can be made). These rules can be found in any society we know of - they are therefore the basic rules of the system called society.
In the Bible are also other rules (commandments, laws, recommendations) that deal with issues that may lead to the cases mentioned above or issues that may in other ways destabilize society. That could be in most general terms uncommon behaviour because in ancient societies people were suspicious and even afraid of what they weren't used to (tolerance is a rather recent "invention" but nonetheless there are people who act as described above).
In the field of human competition,there is almost always the need for an umpire...somebody the contestants mentally assent to as being the highest authority in the game.The higher the competion factor and the more there is at stake...the greater the need for the umpire.If the contestants already know the rules and conditions of play (and we'll assume that most who compete are mentally competent enough to understand them) then why can't we simply rely on reason to rule and dispense with the uneccessary intrusion of an umpire?
Now that's interesting. If you didn't mention that I'd come up with that myself. Why do I think so? Well, man is selfish and therefore he is tempted to breake the rules mentioned above for his own advantage (especially when he thinks he's not going to be caught or he is in a position where he needs not fear any punishment by others) but of course that's detrimental to society. And how do you make him obey those rules? You can explain the rules to him and show him the negative effects his acts can have on society and that he in the end is affected by this. But as you stated above most people are mentally not competent enough to understand that (and it's also a hell of a job to explain that to everyone). Therefore it's easier to tell them to obey the rules because you told them so and it's good for them (I'm sure everyone heard that as a child). But who are you to tell someone else how to behave.
Of course if your an authority (e.g. king, priest, etc.) that's a lot easier but there are nonetheless problems: you cannot supervise the people all the time and if you break one of those rules (you're a human after all) others may see no reason to respect them anymore and do what they want.
Therefore it may be wise to attribute those rules to god(s). These entities are used to explain things people don't understand, they are feared and the most important fact is people are convinced they are everywhere and thus can see respectively know everything and of course last but not least they're immortal. So if people are convinced that these rules are devine and every single action of them is seen by the god(s) and misbehaviour is going to be punished they automatically try to follow those rules.
What's important here is that people believe all that. Whether these gods exist or not is secondary. (In a way it is comparable to the fear of little children that Santa Clause may not leave any presents under the Christmas Tree if they're disobedient.)
So just because something is useful doesn't make it automatically true.
I don't want to say you don't believe in God but IMO you rather believe in 'believing in God', i.e. "you should believe in God because that makes you a better/more moral/more loving/etc. person". But I think if someone arrived to see it that way he can be good/moral/loving and treat others with respect without a belief in a deity. Or to quote Einstein: "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed".
The problem with deities however, is that you never know what they really want. Their will is always subject to interpretation and of course different people have different views of what his will really is (hence the vast number of Christian denominations). A real umpire always makes clear what he wants and how he sees things. Therefore your Superbowl game has no umpire. It is said he made the rules but the players have to apply them themselves. If a foul seems to have occured he is not there to decide whether it really was a foul or not. But the players are left alone to decide that according to his rules. But of course the players of the two teams have different views of this occurrence and one team would say the Great Umpire would say it is a foul and the others would claim the contrary.
Therefore the decision of an umpire should always be clear and the two parties should not have to interpret his decision. and that's why I think that a god is no umpire. In other terms you need an umpire to decide what the Great Umpire really decided.
Though I don't accept the Bible as an authority I don't say that everything in this book is bollocks (though there is a lot that doesn't make sense and so if it was His message he could have done better). If we use ideas from this book we should not use them because they're from the Bible but because we think they are reasonable. If they're not reasonable we should discard them. Our modern society is much more complex than that of the ancient Hebrews and therefore we have to find out for ourselves what is acceptable and what not.
So long
"However, I don't share them. And as I said in a previous post, this is the case because I find the concept of god(s) unreasonable (supernatural entities, omniscient beings, etc.) and so I cannot believe in a particular god. You gave me your reasons for your beliefs but I don't find them convincing."
I gave you a couple of reasons.You consider them based on an unreasonable premise.Fair enough.I will add that I find the concept of 'nothing' exploding being the origin of our universe unreasonable.
"These not only contradict each other in some aspects but very often conflict with contemporary science (and there are many sites on the net dealing just with this topic)"
Yes there are many sites...both for and against.As far as it being in conflict with contemporary science goes...so what? I already told you that I simply don't accept...."In science that's of course an other issue and it's done all the time because that's the way science works but concerning religions that's always a futile venture.".....why?....(your words)..."No,I don't believe I am immune to this,I'm human after all"(#154)..."Well, man is selfish and therefore he is tempted to breake the rules mentioned above for his own advantage"..."and if you break one of those rules (you're a human after all)"
You made some good points about the umpire analogy.I actually meant that as a dig at naturalism and pointed out that a lot of things happening in the world today are linked to it.ie:homosexuality,abortion,moral relatavism etc etc
"What's important here is that people believe all that. Whether these gods exist or not is secondary"
So folks should believe it regardless of wether it's true or not?
I believe I have good reason to believe the bible is the word of God...you believe you have good reason not to.I am trying to point out that as far as reality goes...especially as regards humans...there are many good reasons to believe it.
You counter that you find the concept of the supernatural unreasonable....and therefore cannot believe.I don't find the concept of the supernatural hard to believe at all....I've yet to hear a scientist quantify,love,hate,trust,LIBERALISM (or is that simply chemical reactions and electrical impulses?)character,attitude,free will etc etc...they are NON-physical realities which work in us and through us on a daily basis...it's only the naturalistic minset that tries to reduce everything to chemical reactions and electrical impulses (1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually {something the naturalist simply says doesn't exist,in spite of what the real world points out}discerned.)
What do we have right here and right now as a result of this?....thousands of people drugged up like zombies because they are depressed,after all,sadness is simply a chemical imbalance right?...physical image has become everything whilst what's inside a person (ie:spirit)is considered irrelevant(and we wonder at the moral slide into the sewer that is happening all around us!),or rather,nothing more than chemical reactions and electrical impulses....and what do we have as a result of this "doggy mentality" (as CS Lewis puts it)?...women and girls dying of anorexia because it's now become what's on the OUTSIDE that's all important.An entertainment industry that churns out gratuitous sex and violence with impunity because scientific (read:naturalistic) studies can't show any quantifiable connection between "fillin' yer head with that garbage" and consequent behaviour patterns in society.Ever wonder what drives the 'culture of death'? Romans 8:6 "For to be carnally minded is death".
Conveniently handing those issues of morals over to religion...which science tells us is usefull but not actually real would be fine were it not for the fact that naturalistic science constantly harps on about how what they believe is objective and what anyone else believes is subjective....and therefore so are morals.
"bollocks"...you can say that again!
"The problem with deities however, is that you never know what they really want."
You really think the ten commandments are that hard to understand?....when America was founded there didn't seem to be that much of a problem understanding what God wanted.
As I said before,we can argue this issue endlessly it seems.You have your reasons and I have mine.In the end history will have to show us which world view is the correct one.....as I believe it IS.
Trying to argue against the atheistic world view is difficult...it is a hotch-potch of phantoms...thumping the pulpit when it comes to what supposedly happened in a primordial pond billions of years ago but strangely silent when it comes to present day reality concerning that which is most important...the human condition...preffering to hand-pass such trivialities as morals over to the relevent church authorities etc....it's hard to argue because it's hard to nail down.At least Biblical christianity has the cosmological balls to put it's complete world view on display for any or all to have a go at....and plenty better than you or I have tried...it still stands.
"to quote Einstein: "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed".
The actual quote..."A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." [Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]
here's another quote from Einstien...
"The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man." [Quoted in: Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe, ch. 5 (1979)].
Maybe we are indeed "in a poor way"...and by the look of it,things certainly have not improved....neither can they as long as naturalism reigns in so-called acedemia....because naturalism ignores the fundamental reality that humans are first and foremost "created in the image of God" ie:they are a spiritual being.It's all too easy to look at the state of man's history (and in particular his inhumanity towards his brother) and throw up our hands and say "oh well it's human nature I guess" (you as much as did so yourself)...the trouble is that atheism drives that nature...the bible adresses it,understands it and knows it's only cure...it adresses REALITY.
Thanks again for your reply.
May God bless you BMCDA.