I am an Atheist and always have been.

I heard Neil degrasse Tyson speaking about what he calls the "God of the gaps" basically stating that when science can't explain something many folks default to "it must be God." This was followed by 2 interesting statements:

1- “God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
2 - “If that’s how you want to invoke your God, then God becomes what you don’t understand.”

I suppose that if humanity ever reaches a point where science truly accounts for every mystery, the cultural ideology that supports belief in God might weaken. My own instincts lean toward the scientific. I struggle with the idea of a wholly benevolent deity who demands belief as a prerequisite for salvation, yet consigns nonbelievers to eternal suffering. The notion of a cosmic choice of eternal bliss or eternal torment, with no second chances has always felt difficult to reconcile with the idea that "he loves you".
Even as a child, the logic eluded me. Unbaptized infants were said to drift off to Purgatory, though no one could quite explain what that meant. Prayer, too, raises questions. If it truly influenced divine will, wouldn’t the world look different by now? Jim Morrison may have been blunt, but his line, “You cannot petition the Lord with prayer”, captures a certain hard truth.

There are moments when I wonder whether I’m missing something, and I even feel a faint envy for those who believe with ease. But the analytical part of my mind tends to override whatever spiritual impulse I might have had. Perhaps things would have unfolded differently if Sunday Mass had been in English instead of Latin; as a kid, I rarely understood what was happening. And I still find myself puzzled by how a first‑century Middle Eastern rabbi ended up surrounded by apostles with names like John, Peter, Paul, Thomas, and Matthew. One would expect names closer to Ibrahim, Ahmed, or Muhammad.
Just my 2 cents.
 
Rich said:
I heard Neil degrasse Tyson speaking about what he calls the "God of the gaps" basically stating that when science can't explain something many folks default to "it must be God."
Click to expand...
This is an easy trap when trying to process something logically. Mankind wants to understand, but has an even greater need for closure. "God did it" is the easiest and most convenient way to find closure to what we don't know, and it's even taught to us during our formative years to go to that explanation first. It's second nature, but shuts off further investigation into what we don't know. The most rational response when we don't understand is to take the "I don't know" position. At that point, you can just go on with your life, or you can begin an investigation, or you can assume someone smarter might find the answer. Accepting that we don't know seems to be awkward for many people.
 
Rich said:
I heard Neil degrasse Tyson speaking about what he calls the "God of the gaps" basically stating that when science can't explain something many folks default to "it must be God." This was followed by 2 interesting statements:

1- “God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
2 - “If that’s how you want to invoke your God, then God becomes what you don’t understand.”

I suppose that if humanity ever reaches a point where science truly accounts for every mystery, the cultural ideology that supports belief in God might weaken. My own instincts lean toward the scientific. I struggle with the idea of a wholly benevolent deity who demands belief as a prerequisite for salvation, yet consigns nonbelievers to eternal suffering. The notion of a cosmic choice of eternal bliss or eternal torment, with no second chances has always felt difficult to reconcile with the idea that "he loves you".
Even as a child, the logic eluded me. Unbaptized infants were said to drift off to Purgatory, though no one could quite explain what that meant. Prayer, too, raises questions. If it truly influenced divine will, wouldn’t the world look different by now? Jim Morrison may have been blunt, but his line, “You cannot petition the Lord with prayer”, captures a certain hard truth.

There are moments when I wonder whether I’m missing something, and I even feel a faint envy for those who believe with ease. But the analytical part of my mind tends to override whatever spiritual impulse I might have had. Perhaps things would have unfolded differently if Sunday Mass had been in English instead of Latin; as a kid, I rarely understood what was happening. And I still find myself puzzled by how a first‑century Middle Eastern rabbi ended up surrounded by apostles with names like John, Peter, Paul, Thomas, and Matthew. One would expect names closer to Ibrahim, Ahmed, or Muhammad.
Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Yes. And if there is a God, why must He be a personal God? And even if the bible were true, why can't it have been corrupted over time with error or lies or by the devil (as we are warned)?
And when we ask, "Where did He come from?" why doesn't it occur to us that our notion of God's infinity might be due to error?
It seems to me that some people are very certain about what they think they know.
 
rbtvgo said:
The thing about this topic....to me at least, is the diversity of thoughts, ideas, beliefs and opinions. All well and good. All valid, most reasonable and some just sarcastic responses. All understood.
There are no answers here. There is no definitive explanation as to why we are here, who created us, or why we live our lives in a somewhat similar fashion. 10 commandments seem to hold sway in all our beliefs. Why?
Don't like your neighbor...shoot him and kill him. What's the big deal?? Yet we adhere to a code that says this is wrong. Where did the code come from? Why do we believe it? Why do we think, without reservation, that there is a right and wrong. Where did that come from?
Ponder those thoughts or not. Like a beautiful piece of jewelry or art, you were created by something or someone. Who created you?
You are precious to who, and why would they find you precious. Unless they believe like you do, which is what? So many questions. So few answers. Yet, for some of us....God is the answer. Don't know what God thinks about these things but know he does. Just thoughts from me. Don't need a response. Just talking.
all have a good evening
Click to expand...
Well put. I think the Ten Commandments a lot too. They are a great moral code that MOST adhere to or strive to. Of course it's wrong to murder right? Other than maybe in self defense.

Envying thy neighbor, what good does that do? Nowadays I guess one could say envying anyone which is what it means basically. I often say I'm jealous but I always mean it in a good way and also say that I'm happy for the person, but of course would love to have that happen too of course, it doesn't mean I want to take what they have or compete.

Honor thy mother and thy father. That one through the years I've really thought on. Parents are not always perfect and of course as we all get to be adults we have our moments... HOWEVER, never would I not be there in an instant even if a rare moment of upset with ANY family member if they were having a crisis, all that would be let go in an instant and I'd be right there...

Anyhow, we came from somewhere, someone, something...

We are the highest life form on this planet, but I'm not sure we are in the universe, we may be way down that totem pole... Sometimes one has to wonder about the highest form even here when one listens to our news lol...

Anyhow, imo too, all good discussion, whatever the belief.

And all any of us can do is try to navigate and make our own choices and believe what we choose to and adapt to situations...

And hopefully do the best we can and treat others with respect.
 
We are all born atheists; it is not until we are told what to believe, which most of the time involves fear of damnation that we become a certain religion. If children were not brainwashed in anyway and allowed to make their own choices we would live in a different world. There are hundreds of gods and religions, but each one thinks theirs is the only and right one. Crazy.
 
gruntlabor said:
And even if the bible were true, why can't it have been corrupted over time with error or lies.
Click to expand...
I've been told that each new edition of the Bible translates exactly from the original texts, not just from the most recent texts. And the original texts were written by ancients looking up at the stars. In this way the ancient knowledge of the Bible cannot be corrupted (or corrected) through minor changes here and there. The ancient goat herders were much more knowledgeable about the universe than we are today. Back then, "God did it," answered all the unknowable questions with finality, while modern science is in constant flux, constantly updating, and making corrections as new information comes to light. This chaos has led to more questions, rather than fewer.
 
JustDave said:
I've been told that each new edition of the Bible translates exactly from the original texts, not just from the most recent texts. And the original texts were written by ancients looking up at the stars. In this way the ancient knowledge of the Bible cannot be corrupted (or corrected) through minor changes here and there. The ancient goat herders were much more knowledgeable about the universe than we are today. Back then, "God did it," answered all the unknowable questions with finality, while modern science is in constant flux, constantly updating, and making corrections as new information comes to light. This chaos has led to more questions, rather than fewer.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that for a moment!
Rome had plenty of time and to spare to rewrite the scriptures to their satisfaction. We already know, or at least I do, that they had the moral compass of a pink worm on the sidewalk.
 
The Wycliffe Bible is the first (recognized) complete translation of the Bible into English. It was translated in the 1380s directly from the Latin Vulgate, not from original Hebrew and Greek texts. The Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible of the Roman Catholic Church in use at that time.

The King James Bible of the 1600s was translated from Hebrew and Greek texts, not directly from the Latin Vulgate.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
The Wycliffe Bible is the first (recognized) complete translation of the Bible into English. It was translated in the 1380s directly from the Latin Vulgate, not from original Hebrew and Greek texts. The Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible of the Roman Catholic Church in use at that time.

The King James Bible of the 1600s was translated from Hebrew and Greek texts, not directly from the Latin Vulgate.
Click to expand...
I don't know. I've got side-by-side direct translations from Hebrew and Greek into English, and I think, although not sure, from the Latin too, although I haven't looked at them in many years. There are very wide variations in word choice and phrasing --latitudes taken. As has been mentioned here, they are supposed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.
 
gruntlabor said:
I don't believe that for a moment!
Rome had plenty of time and to spare to rewrite the scriptures to their satisfaction. We already know, or at least I do, that they had the moral compass of a pink worm on the sidewalk.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised that Rome would rewrite scripture, or that any other institutions of power would do so to increase the base of their power, but Bible scholars, at least some of them, claim the the words of the Bible come from the original texts. Of course, that's part of the "knowledgeable" authority that also claims the Bible is inerrant, which would suggest that even more Biblical skepticism should be considered.

Where are these original texts kept? Do they still exist? Someone must have seen them, someone who can attest to their authenticity. Unless that claim has now been falsified.
 
gruntlabor said:
I don't know.
Click to expand...
I didn't know either (the information about being translated from original texts). When I saw mention in the forum that all translations were from original texts, I looked it up and posted what I found.
gruntlabor said:
I've got side-by-side direct translations from Hebrew and Greek into English, and I think, although not sure, from the Latin too, although I haven't looked at them in many years. There are very wide variations in word choice and phrasing
Click to expand...
Yes, there are very wide variations (and liberties). I have studied the history of the care taken in translating the KJV (King James Version) so it remains my preference, and that of many others. I have discovered notable differences in the meaning of certain verses in more modern translations than what I see in KJV.

I have no information on the newer translations and don't intend to look into how they came to be. The last time I checked, there are literally hundreds of translations into English.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
I didn't know either (the information about being translated from original texts). When I saw mention in the forum that all translations were from original texts, I looked it up and posted what I found.

Yes, there are very wide variations (and liberties). I have studied the history of the care taken in translating the KJV (King James Version) so it remains my preference, and that of many others. I have discovered notable differences in the meaning of certain verses in more modern translations than what I see in KJV.

I have no information on the newer translations and don't intend to look into how they came to be. The last time I checked, there are literally hundreds of translations into English.
Click to expand...
and then..... You have the Joseph Smith version
 
I had actually forgotten about this when talking about Bible translations, but many years ago in my late teens, I had a copy of the New Testament in modern English called the Phillips Version. It was very readable, so I didn't have to adjust to word usage of the King James era, and it was quite understandable. I read it two or three times.

Being interested in accuracy, I noticed a forward from the author that said it had been translated from the original texts, not from King James. I thought its readability made it a great version of the Bible, and I wished that he had done the Old Testament as well, which to be honest, I never got all the way through, although I did make several attempts. I also read sections that were assigned in Sunday School Classes.
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/JB-Phillips-New-Testament/

Publisher: Archbishops' Council

Version Information
J.B. Phillips (1906-1982) was well-known within the Church of England for his commitment to making the message of truth relevant to today's world. Phillips' translation of the New Testament brings home the full force of the original message. The New Testament in Modern English was originally written for the benefit of Phillips' youth group; it was later published more widely in response to popular demand. The language is up-to-date and forceful, involving the reader in the dramatic events and powerful teaching of the New Testament. It brings home the message of Good News as it was first heard two thousand years ago.
 
There is no answers in ALL the past efforts by MANY worldly scholars to understand the truth about God, who he is and what he is doing.
You either believe or you do not. You either trust by faith or you do not. If you trust then there is much to be said. If you do not then move to another topic.
No one, including myself, will spend the effort to convince you to "give it a try". What do you have to lose etc, !
You either want to reach HIM, or you don't care. No one can bring you to God. You go yourself. I say again.....you go yourself to him in prayer.
Then you wait for his response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top