Gonna toss in my two cents.
You seem to be failing the ABCs of religion:
Assure Salvation
Believe a precise theology
Convert non- believers
To be specific, A and B.
This sounds more like agnostic thinking.
"God exists, but doesn't care anymore." Looking to convert? There's already millions of agnostics. No need to convert.

(Slightly ironic since my own religion, Judaism, fails C.)

morality is always subjective no matter who you look at, so I'd basically be arguing on the basis of my own subjective morality.

But you can't because I can't prove you exist. Solipsism for the win.

So Boerd said
But you can't because I can't prove you exist. Solipsism for the win.

Actually I can argue it, may you believe I exist or not.

Magic Magnum said
Actually I can argue it, may you believe I exist or not.

If there is no "You", "You" can't argue anything.

So Boerd said
If there is no "You", "You" can't argue anything.

I clearly am making an argument though. :P
So clearly there is a me.

Magic Magnum said
I clearly am making an argument though. :PSo clearly there is a me.

Who is to say it is "You" arguing and not "Me" arguing with a figment of my imagination, which is also "Me".

Vortex said
Just to play the devils advocate, do you have any support for this?We? You have converted others then?

Technically, if he says morality doesn't exist. He's Devil's Advocate.

So Boerd said
Who is to say it is "You" arguing and not "Me" arguing with a figment of my imagination, which is also "Me".

Brain fucking commence.

Magic Magnum said
As for OT vs NT, there's a lot of scriptures in both that can be used to reinforce he was a violent sadist or that he was a forgiving saint. But such variance and inconsistency is what tends to happen the book is written by a ton of sand people who were not ever allowed to alter one anothers work. That or god is bipolar.2) Not really. Most atheists I run into to tend to say "You Christians are awful, but Jesus was kind of decent" still disagree with Jesus in regards to if Christianity is true. They just find Jesus to generally be a more decent and moral person than most Christians are, so it's basically another way of them saying "I wish you Christians were more moral".

1) I'd slightly disagree. I'd say the bible states that he's neither all-forgiving, nor is he vengeful, but rather trying to balance the two out. If he was one or the other, he wouldn't ever interact with humans (he'd just have destroyed humanity by now or abandoned it). My interpretation is that God is motivated by his love of humanity as a whole (in the sense that he desperately wants to see it improve. He's not particularly fond of the current human condition), To this end, he will do absolutely anything necessary. As such, he's aggressive when he considers it necessary, but wouldn't go out of his way to be cruel either.

As for the desert people 2000 years ago argument, that can be turned on its head. The fact that it's ancient is actually part of its appeal. The fact that it's been unchanged for thousands of years makes it more "timeless" rather than "outdated". If you compare it to music, it's kind of like classical vs. pop music.

2) Obviously, Atheists don't percieve Jesus as perfect, but they do tend to perceive him as very good. And I have seen non-Christians argue that Christians should be more like Christ/consider Christians a misaimed fandom of Christ. To the extent that one considers Jesus to be good, the more valid my statement is.

Protagonist said
As for the desert people 2000 years ago argument, that can be turned on its head. The fact that it's ancient is actually part of its appeal. The fact that it's been unchanged for thousands of years makes it more "timeless" rather than "outdated". If you compare it to music, it's kind of like classical vs. pop music.

But it hasn't remained unchanged at all. Just look at how many different versions of the Bible there are, and how many different sects of Christianity.

bosesbjorn said
But it hasn't remained unchanged at all. Just look at how many different versions of the Bible there are, and how many different sects of Christianity.

It's really more like "different translations" than the bible actually changing. If you can read multiple languages, you can read the untranslated texts easily enough.

As for the different sects of Christianity, that's more a difference in how cultures and individuals react to the bible than a change in the bible itself.

Aragorn said
Gonna toss in my two cents. You seem to be failing the ABCs of religion:Assure SalvationBelieve a precise theologyConvert non- believersTo be specific, A and B. This sounds more like agnostic thinking. "God exists, but doesn't care anymore." Looking to convert? There's already millions of agnostics. No need to convert.(Slightly ironic since my own religion, Judaism, fails C.)

I think the term you're looking for is Diest or Apatheist.
Agnosticism is someone who thinks that God may or may not exist.

In case anyone was wondering, I don't believe that Solipsism crap, but I use it to steer Atheists into an emotion comparable to the one which we feel when constantly harassed particularly in threads not intended to debate God's existence. You know something to be true (in this case, an Objective reality), yet someone incessantly spews philosoph(istr)y at you telling you you haven't seen what you've seen, nor heard what you've heard. Here I will deliberately use a popular and offensive analogy for God. If someone has seen (not that I myself have seen God, but some have) Santa Claus in the sky clearly once, let alone multiple times, but has no other demonstrable irregularities in his vision, you cannot make him doubt it any more than I can make you doubt reality itself with my solipsism. So we get it, some of you don't believe in God. But very nearly have we destroyed an exploration of this fellow's beliefs with another religious debate that never convinces anyone. So let's stop, m'kay?

So Boerd said
In case anyone was wondering, I don't believe that Solipsism crap, but I use it to steer Atheists into an emotion comparable to the one which we feel when constantly harassed particularly in threads not intended to debate God's existence. You know something to be true (in this case, an Objective reality), yet someone incessantly spews philosoph(istr)y at you telling you you haven't seen what you've seen, nor heard what you've heard. Here I will deliberately use a popular and offensive analogy for God. If someone has seen (not that I myself have seen God, but some have) Santa Claus in the sky clearly once, let alone multiple times, but has no other demonstrable irregularities in his vision, you cannot make him doubt it any more than I can make you doubt reality itself with my solipsism. So we get it, some of you don't believe in God. But very nearly have we destroyed an exploration of this fellow's beliefs with another religious debate that never convinces anyone. So let's stop, m'kay?

Maybe. As long as everybody's polite and nobody shouts "BURN THE HERETIC!" I think we'll be fine.

So I actually did (against my better judgment) draft a post for this thread, and the server ate it. Probably not a huge loss. Mostly I was rehashing things I've already explained multiple times, re the apparent disconnect between the laws of the Old Testament (and ensuing interactions between mankind and omnipotent deity) and the covenant of forgiveness in the New Testament (and ensuing ennui between omnipotent deity and mankind). My frustration is that, no matter how many times I walk people through this, the message gets washed away by the empty blanket of 'Well common sense/science/modern enlightened whatever says no.' My main argument now would be, if something is keeping you from learning, that obstacle is probably not 'sense' of any kind. A scientific approach to the supernatural cannot simply ignore a rational discourse, and subsequently use that ignorance as evidence. TLDR we've been through this, Magnum, a lot actually, and a smart person would stop and consider what it is that's keeping him from hearing (and thus, from considering) the other side of the coin.

To the OP and the idea in general -- is it not possible that, with the advancements of human society since 6000+ years ago (strictly speaking in biblical terms here), we simply don't require the same celestial oversight that biblical figures did? There are pages and pages and pages of Levitical code dedicated to the prevention of infectious plagues -- we've got doctors now, God doesn't need to tell us which scabs to pick and which ones to leave alone anymore.

Protagonist said 1) I'd slightly disagree. I'd say the bible states that he's neither all-forgiving, nor is he vengeful, but rather trying to balance the two out. If he was one or the other, he wouldn't ever interact with humans (he'd just have destroyed humanity by now or abandoned it). My interpretation is that God is motivated by his love of humanity as a whole (in the sense that he desperately wants to see it improve. He's not particularly fond of the current human condition), To this end, he will do absolutely anything necessary. As such, he's aggressive when he considers it necessary, but wouldn't go out of his way to be cruel either.As for the desert people 2000 years ago argument, that can be turned on its head. The fact that it's ancient is actually part of its appeal. The fact that it's been unchanged for thousands of years makes it more "timeless" rather than "outdated". If you compare it to music, it's kind of like classical vs. pop music.

2) Obviously, Atheists don't percieve Jesus as perfect, but they do tend to perceive him as very good. And I have seen non-Christians argue that Christians should be more like Christ/consider Christians a misaimed fandom of Christ. To the extent that one considers Jesus to be good, the more valid my statement is.

1) But then there's cases such as rewarding daughters as essentially sex slaves, the drowning of all of humanity save for a small handful of souls, the death of every 1st born infant as a way to intimidate a pharaoh (one he purposely made stubborn). None of these look like acts of a God that cares about the wellbeing of people.

And for the desert people, yes there is an appeal to unchanged things. There is an enjoyment of ancient culture to be seen in that, but that doesn't mean taking their beliefs and systems to heart and applying to modern world. I mean, a lot of people probably love Japan culture back during the time of the Samurai, but I doubt anyone wants to see Japanese laws and beliefs during that time to be followed and carried out today. We might like the look/feel of old english monarchy, but we don't want to suddenly operate the way England did in the medieval days.

Humanity improves over time, our technology improves, our culture improves, our laws improve, our understanding of the world around us improves. The Bible however, doesn't improve outside of OT to NT, which is still 2000 years behind.

2) Once again, if you find someone to be religious but a very moral person you can wish for people to be more like them morally without agreeing with their religious stance.

mdk said we've been through this, Magnum, a lot actually, and a smart person would stop and consider what it is that's keeping him from hearing (and thus, from considering) the other side of the coin.

I did plenty during my time as a Christian, I ultimately found what was stopping me was that God didn't exist in the first place.
That being said, I'm not immune to the idea of there being a God. But proof and evidence does need to be provided, scientific proof and evidence.

But proof and evidence does need to be provided, scientific proof and evidence.

Proof doesn't exist. Look up Munchhausen Trilemma

I think you're missing 2 important things. How do you convert new members, and how do you make this pay for itself?

henrypotema said
I think you're missing 2 important things. How do you convert new members, and how do you make this pay for itself?

1) Preying on the young, poor, depressed, vulnerable and addicted
2) Church donations, and then buy a giant golden cross... with a golden throne, and crown. And a golden toilet while we're at it.

Magic Magnum said
1) Preying on the young, poor, depressed, vulnerable and addicted2) Church donations, and then buy a giant golden cross... with a golden throne, and crown. And a golden toilet while we're at it.

Why do you have such a visceral reaction to religion? Why can't you tolerate us? You would not behave this way if someone said they felt like a man, a woman, and a mule at the same time, so why hate on those who believe in God? There are very Nobel Laureates which believe in God, so clearly Science isn't being hindered. You have already said morality doesn't exist, so there go your moral judgements about it.