David Hodgson (born 1939) is an author and Australian appellate judge. He has written an excellent article entitled "Dawkins and the Morality of the Bible (first published in Quadrant 436 (May 2007), 38-43)which you can find at: http://users.tpg.com.au/raeda/website/Dawkins.htmIn this article, Hodgson notes that it is right for Christians and Jews to condemn genocide and terrorism. However, he then suggests that in order for them to be consistent they should acknowledge the following 8 statements:
(1) It would have been wrong for God to order Abraham to kill his son, as the Bible says He did.
(2) It would have been wrong for Abraham to set about doing so.
(3) It is wrong to kill an innocent person because you believe God has told you to.
(4) It would have been wrong for God to kill children to induce Pharaoh to release the Israelites. (It would have been terrorism.)
(5) It would have been wrong for God to order the Israelites to kill all occupants of defeated cities. (It would have been to order genocide.)
(6) It would have been wrong for Joshua and his followers to kill all occupants of Jericho. (It would have been genocide.)
(7) If Jesus believed that God had killed children to induce Pharaoh to release the Israelites, it would have been wrong for him to celebrate the Passover. (It would have been to condone terrorism.)
(8) The Bible stories of Abraham and Isaac, the Passover and the battle of Jericho were written by fallible human beings and convey wrong messages about God and morality.
What Hodgson is calling for is a frank admission of the immorality of what is actually written in the Bible. The fact that many fundamentalist Christians and Jews refuse to make these admissions and instead engage in apologetics to defend the indefensible scares me (see the discussion thread following this post: Scripture warns, if "you did not hate bloodshed, b... ). It is precisely what fuels this blog.
135 comments:
The Bible is a collection of narratives. It was written by people, all kinds of people so of course it has parts that are immoral. Christians tend to make the mistake of reading it as a manual for living. And a manual for living it is not. It is more like a collection of cautionary tales. If read properly one can glean much useful information from its pages. The biggest failure Christians make in reading the Bible is their failure to see humanities gradual decline in moral fortitude as time takes them further away from the moment of creation. This is a huge lesson that applies to people in general. Believers or not the lesson is the same. The farther you stray from your point of origin the less likely you are to find your way back without making mistakes.
I've kind of recently come to accept the teaching that, while the Bible is inspired writing, it was indeed written by fallible humans. I can totally agree with the last statement Hodgson makes. The Israelites' understanding of God could very well be different than our understanding of God. I happen to believe in God, but believe that it was not God that called for the Canaanite genocide but it was done with the understanding that this is what God wants. The two ideas are totally different.
Sorry but that is absolutely wrong. What is not understood is the justice of God in all of these matters. The Bible plainly teaches that God does not desire the suffering of the good or the bad, however, man's sin must be accounted for. Pharaoh was an evil man who refused to set free the slaves of Israel. God gave him chance after chance to make it right but he refused. Egypt brought punishment upon itself, this was no arbitrary vengeful lash from God but a just recompense for atrocities.
Brad, what did Abraham's son do to deserve being put in the situation pictured above?
"Pharaoh was an evil man who refused to set free the slaves of Israel. God gave him chance after chance to make it right but he refused."
It is also said in the bible that god hardened the pharaoh's heart. If god was interested freeing the slaves, why harden his heart?
We know one thing for certain - Australia must be very different than North America in terms of the judiciary. Can you imagine a North American Judge openly raising these questions without trying to disguise his/her identity? Can you say "lynching"?
The story of Abraham is an interesting one. God promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations through his son Isaac. Then God tells Abraham to kill Isaac, who is not an infant at this time, but probably a young teenager (and not innocent in the sight of God). If Isaac were to die, God would break his promise and become a liar and therefore cease to be God. Abraham knew this, and believed it. He told his servants that he and Isaac were going up on the mountain, and that they would both return. Either God was going to raise him from the dead when he sacrificed him or he was going to provide a substitute. Hebrews 11 explains this. This was to test Abraham's faith, display God's grace and mercy, and give us a picture of the Christ to come.
As for the Passover and the battle of Jericho, we have to acknowledge God is perfectly wise and perfectly just, and that he can punish all those who are guilty of sin, both in this life and the life to come. We aren't dealing with innocent people in these stories and an unjust God, but rather we are dealing with sinners deserving of God's perfect and just wrath.
Sometimes people also die because of other people's sins, which is the case for both of these examples and even the great flood (there were babies that died because their parents were sinful). We have all sinned in the eyes of God, and are all in need of Jesus Christ to take the wrath we deserve.
You need a useful book to help you learn to read with insight. The book is entitled How To Read A Spiritual Book by Cousins. Furthermore, learn to recognize what is an elipses designed to get you to go deeper into the text. Quit reading The Bible like the fundamentalists about whom you seem to rail against for their literalism.
Allow me to correct my spelling. I meant "ellipsis" and not "elipses". Also, why don't you bring up your objections to someone well qualified to deal with them? I suggest you read www.cutsinger.net and then pose your questions to Professor Cutsinger. Do it if you are serious about your views and want answers.
I would like to correct the notion that God merely punished an evil man when he retaliated against Pharaoah. If you translate the text correctly (I prefer the NSRV)it clearly says that "God hardened Pharoah's heart..." before each incident, implying that Pharaoh's emotions were influenced by God himself each time he refused to let the slaves go. So if Pharaoh was evil, God made him so. His intentions are never made clear, but you can make the argument that God was not only set on freeing the Israelites, but also revealing his power to the world and showing that He, Elohim was the most powerful deity. Some people call this shock and awe, others call it terrorism.
To be fair, Genesis reads more like an origins story, whereas the morality tales come later. You're not supposed to get your morals from Genesis.
There is a text in the Bible that reads: Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
Does this sound like Faith in God should be rational? Faith in God is in its very nature irrational like the publisher of this Blog refers to Religion. There is no point in arguing the morality or immorality of what God told Abraham to do. It is religion. In those days all governments were theistic so military battles were all done in the name of one god or another. That is the difference between then and now. Today most governments are not. Logic and reason are our gods and morality is a practical by product of it. It is like arguing apples and plastic oranges.
Religious people are one sided. They tend to be critical of all points of views that do not harmonize with theirs. there is no reason to condemn someone to hell because he does not believe as you. I think the important thing for a religious person to focus on if they want me to be convinced about their god. Is not the details but the big picture. The big why? Is what they should focus on.
@Mateo: this is true if Pharaoh's heart was good to begin with, or even a neutral or a blank slate, but it was not. We learn throughout the Bible man is born with a heart opposed to God. No one seeks God, no one does good. We see this theme throughout the Old Testament and even into the New (and especially in current times). Pharaoh is even talked about later in Romans.
Romans 9:14-18, "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Pharaoh was evil because that's what he wanted, and in hardening his heart, God gave him the desires of his heart. Under his own volition, Pharaoh sinned. Yet, God allows this evil so that he can bring about good and bring glory to himself.
Lastly, from the pen of one of my favorite Puritans, Thomas Watson, to illustrate this situation, "A musician plays upon a viol out of tune; the musician is the cause of the sound, but the jarring and discord is from the viol itself; so men’s natural motion is from God, but their sinful motion is from themselves. When a man rides on a lame horse, his riding is the cause why the horse goes, but the lameness is from the horse itself. Herein is God's wisdom, that the sins of men carry on his work, yet he has no hand in them."
Hopefully one day he will discover the Bible!
RT
www.anonymity.us.tc
This is a non-issue.
Gal 4:21-25 states that the story Abraham is an _allegory_.
You only run into absurdities and contradictions when you try to apply a literalist interpretation.
It was like when you heard the story of the "Boy who cried wolf." It does not matter if _really_ didn't happen, the only point is the moral of the story.
If the bible is written by man who is fallible, then how can christians uphold statements in the bible condemning other faiths as the holy truth? Then how can it accuse other faiths to be the worship of false gods? Isn't it potentially one such false god perpetuated by man for their own motives?
If the bible is indeed infallible and not written by man, then this christian god is a genocidal terrorist who should be seen as such. How then can such a god claim to be the one true god? Consider how this same god cower Jobs into submission. It fits with the description of a tyrannical despot who is murderous and contemptous of anyone who does not love him.
Either way, he makes the most villainous criminal seem like a goody two-shoe choir boy.
Steve, I am sorry but I don’t see god’s grace and mercy in Abraham’ story.
Why did god ask Abraham to kill his son? No matter what excuse we have, like He was not going to kill him really, Isaac was going to be replaced or resurrected, Isaac was not innocent, etc; there is no excuse for a being, with the attributes he is suppose to have, to tell Abraham to kill his son.
What was god trying to prove? How come, in his wisdom, god didn’t use another less traumatic way to test Abraham? Couldn’t god just read Abraham’s heart?
Will you ask your wife to kill your son to prove she loves you? Even though, you are planning to hold your wife’s hand with the kitchen knife. Imagine the picture and the trauma.
In god’s test, tell me where is the wisdom?
How come god kills babies because of the sins of their parents? Isn’t that crazy?
@Michael: It states Paul is going to interpret the story allegorically, but that does not means it's an allegory in essence. Notice what it says in verse 24, "Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants." He is saying this may be interpreted allegorically, and here's how, these women are two covenants. Why would Paul continually point out that he was from the lineage of Abraham if believed he was just part of an allegory? The whole story is about his lineage. Or why would he say that those who are of faith are Abraham's seed if the story of Abraham is an allegory? Why would he use Abraham's example of righteousness to give an example of how a man is justified?
I just skimmed Matthew Henry's commentary, and this is what he says, "These things, says he, are an allegory, wherein, besides the literal and historical sense of the words, the Spirit of God might design to signify something further to us, and that was, That these two, Agar and Sarah, are the two covenants, or were intended to typify and prefigure the two different dispensations of the covenant."
"It does not matter if _really_ didn't happen, the only point is the moral of the story." That is only true if it's an allegory or fable, and these verses you gave do not prove the Bible means for it to be an allegory only, but rather it intends for them to be seen as real, literal events that can also have other meanings.
@Brian: You really pose a great question that I really can only answer by saying we are not God and he is not us, his ways are not our ways, and his purposes may not be revealed completely to us. Deut. 29:29, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." If he is infinitely wise, he does the right thing all the time where we may not be able understand why or how. We can understand, however, that he is working throughout history to display his glory through creation and circumstances and he does that with both good and bad events. That does not mean he is author of the evil done, though. You get into all the hairy stuff here with God's sovereignty and man's free will, which we could talk for a while about :)
I go back to the verses I pasted above:
Romans 9:14-18, "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
So couldn't God just read Abraham's heart? Sure! He could have also not made him the father of many nations. Is there really no excuse for God telling Abraham to kill his son? The only excuse is so that God could display his glory and bring good about. If for any other reason, it would be unjust.
So it may sound like a cop-out :) I hope it doesn't seem that way. I'm just not able to question the ways of an infinitely wise, infinitely good, and infinitely powerful being when my wisdom, goodness, and power are all finite and fallible.
I am shocked and disappointed how eager people are to defend such evil-doings just because they are in the bible. In any other situation, these actions would be considered morally indefensible.
Steve,
I was reading something and I thought of you and other theists. I hope you have a few minutes to read it.
I still don't understand how a loving god will do things that only a ver low man would do to show his glory. He has displayed emotions that are ugly in a human being.
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2009/03/unlikelihood-of-christianity-vis-vis.html
@Brian, I appreciate the article, I'll take a look when I get home (just got back to work, but wish I was home!). Just skimming the article quickly, it seems it is talking about God having human-like attributes. Usually, we ascribe these to anthropomorphism. I'll read it in-depth later.
Thanks!
I have a bigger problem with the torture of Job and the murder of Job's family because God and Satan were having a pissing contest.
I'm glad I don't have to warp my mind and come up with all these wacky interpretations to justify all the craziness in the bible.
All you guys should be lawyers, because I'll know who I'm coming to when I need the law bent to my needs.
I have already commented on this in another thread here, but without understanding "theodicy" or "compatiblism" (both biblical concepts), you will not understand God's purposes with Abraham and Isaac.
Of course, if you just want to find uninformed reasons to accuse God of "immorality" (which is ludicrous), you will simply buy this profound analysis from Hodgson. Most of you, I assume, were already looking for an intellectual, *rational* reason not to believe in God anyway, were you not? However, if you're intellectually honest you will give a careful study to the 2 subjects I mentioned above.
Again, it is ironic that an atheist would charge anyone (God or otherwise) with immorality. Morals are not physical entities, cannot be explained by natural means, and do not exist in an atheistic, material universe.
Why do religious people think they are so important that there is a god of all things that has created them? People are ignorant, inferior-minded, brutal beings that I believe are only beginning their evolution into what we could become.
Look back into history and see all the things about our natural world that religious figures and the religious populace were wrong about but "knew" was true. If they couldn't muster the intellect or divine knowledge that our earth was round or that the fires in the 'heavens' were other stars, I surely will not be taking anyone's word for it when it comes to the entire beginning of all things.
Other than the ability to put into writing our thoughts and things we have learned for future generations to build upon, there is almost no difference in us and animals. Other than the fact we destroy our planet and kill not for our food, but instead for our irrational beliefs.
@Tirian said:
"Again, it is ironic that an atheist would charge anyone (God or otherwise) with immorality. Morals are not physical entities, cannot be explained by natural means, and do not exist in an atheistic, material universe."
I hate to tell ya, morals definitely DO NOT come from God. Funny, but, even before the bible was cobbled together, humans, people, were living in communities and had morals. They were necessary for their group to survive. Individual groups had morals that were developed to foster the common good, otherwise they would not have survived. They often clashed with other groups, tribes, whose morals were not for each others survival. We get war from these meetings.
Xtians, no old guy in the sky created morals. Learn what they were, and have become....survival traits for groups of individuals so they grew and prospered and not die off. Those that did not....well, they died off.
Zel
"Theodicy" and "compatiblism" are not biblical concepts. They're philosophical concepts attempting to rationalize why there is evil in a world with an all powerful, all good god and the existence of free will vs. determinism. I really don't see how they apply to Abraham or Isaac. If anything, they're arguments FOR the atheists side.
These concepts were troublesome for believers who couldn't rationally understand how these things could exist AND what they believed about their God to be true.
Sorry but that is absolutely wrong. What is not understood is the justice of Allah in all of these matters. The Torah plainly teaches that Allah does not desire the suffering of the good or the bad, however, man's sin must be accounted for. America was an evil nation who refused to follow Allah's law. Allah gave it chance after chance to make it right but it refused. America brought punishment upon itself, this was no arbitrary vengeful lash from Allah but a just recompense for atrocities.
I actually don't believe a word of this, I would just like to point out to @Brad up there that regardless of what you call your imaginary friends, murder, genocide and terrorism are never justified in their name.
@Zel: Morals as we know it may exist in an atheistic world to an extent (e.g. killing is bad), but there cannot be an objective, absolute morality without a moral law giver (God). For example, if the group of people I live in says rape is wrong, and the group of people you live in says rape is good and ok, who's right? How can you ever tell someone they are immoral if morals come from man? Who has the right to impose a morality on me when that person is just a man like me? Even if a group of people decides collectively, who says they are right or wrong? If a country rises up, takes over the world and says rape is good and right, will they be right or wrong? With the definition you gave, they'd have to be right. In this world, then, morality is completely up to the person.
Men may act morally or immorally, but it is only because they have the moral law within them. Man is born knowing what is right and wrong. You are right, the Bible just contains the moral code given from God, but man has been well aware of that moral code before the first words were penned in the Bible.
To steve43 and others doing the "where do you get your morals without god?" thing.
Well, I'm an atheist and I also believe that morality is objective. (Well... the specifics of that is a long conversation...)
However, here, I'm simply going to argue that the existence or nonexistence of god is separate (or at least not obviously linked) on the objectivity or morality.
Let's say I asked "why do you do what you do"/"why do you consider what you consider moral to be moral"/etc... some variation of that. You'd probably answer something to the effect of "because god said so"
At which point, I'd just like to put forward an additional question: "so?"
ie, why do you think you should obey god?
If you say "heaven if you do, hell if you don't" or some variation their of, then that's not morality, that's just pragmatism. No different than obeying a local thug who'll beat you up if you don't.
If you say something like "You owe god because he created you" or something like that, you're invoking the concept of "owe", debt, obligation, at which point I might ask. "so what? even if in some sense that's true, why should I care one bit about obligations, etc etc?"
ie, you're appealing to some other principle of morality.
If you say (this is the way I used to think when I was younger and religious (Orthodox Jew, FYI) "Well, if god's so smart and wise and so on, he probably understands morality a whole lot better than I do, so if he says something's right or wrong, even if I don't understand it, well, he probably knows what he's talking about."
But even _THAT_ appeals to the idea of a morality that god merely was smart enough to "figure out" and nice enough to share with us.
In other words, still it appeals to a morality that is not _defined_ as "whatever god says"
This would all seem to show that while there may be conceptual difficulties with regards to "morality without god", those difficulties don't go away even with the notion of god added into the mix. The existence of a commanding god (ie, one that gives orders and so on) would seem to not, in and of itself, imply morality, or lack theirof automatically imply lack of morality.
In other words, seems to me there are four basic possibilities (some, based on observation, I consider far more probable than others but we'll ignore that for now) some of which can be subdivided further.
1. God exists and morality exists.
2. God exists and morality does not exist.
3. God does not exist and morality does exist.
4. God does not exist and morality does not exist.
The first option can be further subdivided into "god is moral" "god is immoral" "god is amoral" and various combinations of those, and probably an "other options I haven't thought of yet.
Now, all of the above relates to morality existing, rather than to what extent humans can or do (accurately) know morality. This again is a different (though strongly related) question.
@Steve43 - Egads, that's ignorant. Just look at the changing moral landscape in the last few centuries alone. It is so clearly a social construction mixed with genetic survival, but so what? What was the moral situation before the bible? Q: What if you were born in Pakistan instead of America? A: You would be muslim, beholden to Allah and the Koran. Everything is context.
Psy-Kosh,
Where do you get an objective morality without God? Please explain.
@Psy-Kosh: That's deep and very thought out :) I am not sure what I believe fits into any one of those listed. I believe God and morality are inseparable, meaning that morality is not a set of regulations created apart from God, but rather it is a representation of the very nature and character of God. It is who God is in his moral goodness. We see this in Jesus, as he lived as a man who lived by these morals perfectly, and yet was fully God. Rather than being an arbitrary set of rules created by God to control man, it is a picture of the nature of God and window into his good character.
Now the question of why should I follow these morals from God. Well, if God is the supreme being both in and outside of creation, and he is perfectly good, then his character (his moral goodness specifically) is the standard at which we should strive towards. Living apart from him would be living in opposition to his character and goodness, and this would be sin (since there is a standard I see is better than his). So I suppose why I follow his morals is a combination of several of your answers, with God's glory being the chief end of it all. I live according to God's morals because I want to be like him, and display him to the world through my life; I want to praise and honor him for saving me from the punishment I deserved through Christ; I want to live like him because he commands me to; and I want to live like him because Christ lived like him and bore my iniquities.
If there is no God, I don't see how there can be an objective moral standard. I would like to hear or read how there can be without a moral law giver if you have any articles or links to give.
@Nick: Just because morals of men have changed does not nullify a moral law from God. The moral situation before the Bible was as I explained, man knows the law of God from birth, it is “written on his heart.” It doesn't matter where you are born, you know what you do is either good or evil. You know murder is wrong, lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. The answer to your question would be that you would be obligated to the moral law of God—there is only one law.
“It is so clearly a social construction mixed with genetic survival, but so what?” That is an observation there. Again, back to my points, you cannot have an objective morality without a God. If morality is constantly changing, then it is subjective in its nature. We wouldn't be able to tell Nazi Germany they were wrong because they are just another social group with their own morals. You can't even say those acts in the Bible that people here are saying are wrong are immoral because they are products of the culture of that time. In that thinking, those acts moral during that era but maybe not now.
One day i believe religion will eventually die it. Not any time soon, but it will come. Modern day humans, atheistic or not, have no problems laughing about the gods of the ancient civillisations. Zeus, apollo, aries, aphrodites, ra, horus etc etc etc.
Everybody accepts including modern day theists that they quite CLEARLY do not, and never have existed, they've probably made a few jokes with friends about Zeus smiting sinners with his lightning bolts. For some reason, however, sadly modern day theists deem it acceptable to believe in 'God', which is quite clearly no different to any of the ancient civillizations believing in their 'God'(s).
I suppose the same logic can be applied to modern day religions, look at the amount of different gods that exist in todays world. God, Allah, Ganesh etc etc. Theists are all happy to disregard the existence of each others gods, but hold tight the belief their own.
Based on what i've just written, there can be no argument that justifies the belief of one of these gods over any other. They are quite clearly, just like Zeus and Horus, man made entities that do not, and never have existed.
edit, they will die out, not die it. :)
Tirian: Do you really want me to do another overly long comment? :D
(There's a looooooooong discussion elsewhere on this that basically has (frankly, helped crystalize) my views on this, I'm trying to see if I can find one or two postings that really summarizes it, though. Ah, here. Though it still may be dependent on being familiar with some previously discussed notions, or at least the hypothetical "Pebblesorters" used to illustrate some of the concepts: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/arbitrary-bedro.html )
My point was "morality with god" doesn't really do any better than "morality without god". That is, Saying "because god said so" doesn't actually seem to be a reasonable source of morality _on its own_... you seem to have to go a bit farther to get it. In other words, let me flip that around and ask "where do you get the idea that obeying god is a good thing?" ie, can you explain why you think that to answer to the question "why is it moral to obey god?" is so much easier than to answer "what's moral?" without a god being involved? (or do I misstate your position?)
@Rabhimself: What are you trying to say exactly? Since there are so many beliefs about God that none of them can be true? Is your belief about God and religion included in this group?
steve43: Thanks. I'm not sure I understand the argument you're making, though.
"It is who God is in his moral goodness."
...
"it is a picture of the nature of God and window into his good character."
Where, by "good", you mean "moral", right?
So... to me these statements seem to translate to saying "morality is who god is in his moral moralness, morality is a picture of the nature of god and a window into is moral character."
I don't get it. That is, that sequence of words isn't resulting in a concept in my head. Mind clarifying? Thanks.
The best I can make out is that you seem to be saying "define morality as what god does. Then, by definition, that stuff's moral"
Then you seem to be saying "So obviously since god is perfectly good (by definition) it is 'good' to obey him. (where 'good' is _defined_ in terms of god's character, etc)"
Is that, essentially, your argument?
Most of these examples come from the old testament. The new testament's entire purpose was to rewrite some of the laws and practices that the old testament set down. You really cant say that this shows that Christians believe in genocide, that is a ridiculous stretch.
Mr. Hodgson Makes two very important presumptions in the article that are completely false. If these presumptions were true then yes God would be a most evil and immoral entity. Happily, they are not true and so God's actions turn out to be not immoral.
1. He presumes that God and man are equals. That they share the same authority, rights and privileges as each other. If this were true and one person who is equal to another took their life then the killer would be evil. Since it is not true (truth here is limited to the descriptiion of God in the Bible. The questions raised by Mr. Hodgson deals with the description of actions by characters in the Bible so in order to address them we must limit ourselves to the definitions of the characters in the story as described in the same book.) God (as described in the Bible) is the creator of man. Man (as described in the Bible) is a constructed being with no rights to life or authority of anykind. The creator like all creators has complete authority and right of disposal for his creations. Ergo, God killing a man is no more immoral than Ford Motor Company disassembling a welding robot from their assembly line. Likewise, is it immoral for a farmer to spray roundup (weedkiller) on a weed that is growing in his field?. The relationship between God and man viewed from the aspect of rights and authority is like the relationship between man and a plant in a garden. Does a man have a right to plant any plant he wants? Does he have the right to uproot/kill any plant that he previously planted in his garden? Does the plant have any right to life? Is the gardener immoral?
2. He presumes that man has a right to life. There is nowhere in the Bible in which God grants man the right to life. Life is a free gift from God to man. No human being has ever been born who has purchased his life ahead of time. Nor has there ever been any incidence in which a non-human entity has approached a man after his birth and demanded payment for life. Life is Free, you did not ask for it, you did not pay for it, no one has ever demanded payment for it. As a free gift you have no right to it. You cannot demand that you be given life. Since you have no right to life then is it immoral when the entity that does have authority over your life gives it, or takes it?
ive always said. The bible is either 100% true or 100% false. there is no question about it. a purelly mythological story derived from other mythological stories.
@ Tirian, you said: "I want to praise and honor him for saving me from the punishment I deserved through Christ; I want to live like him because he commands me to"
Are you a moral person because you are afraid of god's punishment?
God saved you from punishment? What did you do so bad to deserve eternal punishment? Couldn't he just forgave you without killing himself or killing his own son?
first.. you guys go somewhere and study about religion, story and human behavior.. oh and literature.. the bible.. specially the firts part isnt to be read and followed like it is, is to be understood and think about what is written and so we do not repeat the story. God asked Abraham to kill his son to prove he was loyal.. obviously it was just a test, and with that the rest of us learn that we have to be loyal and hav faith in God no matter what, cuz he is good, he would never take a son of us, instead he sent his own child to die and sufer and teach us what is really good because in the first part of the bible the humans where almost monkeys.. i mean they had troubles with organization and moral and that stuff, bud God cant just change us, he had to do it slow.. and by the time Jesus came humans where smart enough (or some of them) to acept that things are diferent.. that mariage is important, that women have a place and other stuff. the first part of the bible God have to deal with humans who are very stuborn.. so he had to take some several metods. and well like i said. is to be understood , not to be followed.
thnx
Liliana, Have you studied about religion and history?
Have you ever thought that you might be worshipping the wrong god?
How come this god test Abraham with such a inmoral act? Will you test your kids the same way? Couldn't god use a better way to test Abraham?
"he sent his own child to die and sufer and teach us what is really good"
Again, how come this god kill his own son to teach you good? How come you don't see the stupidity of this?
I will never kill our dog to teach my kids that I mean business. Will you?
You see? you and mee have better moral standards than god.
@Brian: I think you meant me there :) I am not a moral person because I am afraid of God's punishment. Maybe at a time I was afraid, but not since he has saved me. Also, that quote is from a list of several reasons why I try to live morally.
I deserved eternal punishment because I sinned against God. Sin is deserving of an infinite punishment because we have sinned against an infinite God. Sin is of the heart and action, so both my thoughts and deeds were before him. I was guilty before God (and so are you and everyone else) because I had been his enemy for my entire life. The reason the punishment is so great is because the person the crime was committed against is so great. To pay an infinite debt would take eternity. So it was God's wrath that I was under and deserving of.
Now it would be illogical and immoral for God to just forgive with no punishment, he says in Proverbs 17:15, "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord." If he were to make me right before him and turn his eye to my sin, he would be unjust and an abomination to himself. Example, if a judge in our legal system just decided to let a a murderer go free for no reason he would lose his job. That murderer could even apologize all he wanted, but he'd still be guilty. Same goes for us... God must punish evil (if not in this life, then the life to come).
We all stand before God guilty, and we all deserve his punishment. This is why Jesus came to die. On the cross, he bore the wrath of God, which was the very wrath I deserved. He was a substitute in my place (called penal substitutionary atonement). I am free from condemnation from the law now because of what Jesus did. I do not need to fear him or his wrath. This gift of salvation is free to all who will turn from their ways and believe in the work of Jesus.
For those who equate morality with god please refer to this:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
I am still waiting for Tirian's answer to Psy-Kosh's question: can you explain why you think that the answer to the question "why is it moral to obey god?" is so much easier than to answer "what's moral?" without a god being involved?
Liliana, can't you see that asking somebody to murder their son to prove their loyalty (or even suggesting that symbolically) is demented?
Brian, my wife wanted to kill our dog today but that was just because she was sick of the barking. That's just what happens when you're married to The Atheist Missionary and don't have the Bible to use as your moral compass.
@Brian: You said, "Again, how come this god kill his own son to teach you good? How come you don't see the stupidity of this?" He doesn't do it to teach you good or show good (although he does), he did it to save people from his own justice. The atonement of Christ was not to show people how much God loves them (although he does and it does show his love), but rather the main purpose was to redeem people from the curse of the law.
"I will never kill our dog to teach my kids that I mean business. Will you?" This is an incorrect view of the cross. He didn't send his son to die to teach us he means business.
steve43 wrote: I deserved eternal punishment because I sinned against God. Sin is deserving of an infinite punishment because we have sinned against an infinite God
Well, I haven't done anything deserving of an infinite punishment (although this blog might be changing that). steve43, do you agree that the bush pygmy who has never heard of the Bible (or God or Jesus) but has led what all of us would consider to be a "saintly life", is eternally damned? Tirian does and I think he knows I think that thinking is twisted beyond belief. I just had to ask ... it's one of my favorites.
Steve,
I am guilty for what? What is my sin? And why is so big?
The murder/judge analogy does not apply. The murderer could have been found guilty after a trial.
I have chosen not to worship god. Why would I do that? At the same time I live my life as moral as possible, I help my comunity, I love my family, I help the neighbours, etc.
Why should I be punished? And why would my kids be punished for something my great grand father did?
I am sorry Steve, goimg through your comment give me more questions that answers, but I am willing to listen.
@The Atheist Missionary: Sadly, yes. I would probably say, though, that this man didn't live a saintly life. I bet he actually hates the idea of God and hates God himself. Romans 1 teaches this.
Romans 1:18-23, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."
Why is it twisted? Men are not born good, it should be obvious by the world. Men sin pretty much from the womb. It may seem twisted if you see this guy as good, but he's not. You go to that pygmy in the bush and I bet he knows more about God than most Americans and rejects him.
I would say you have done many things to deserve eternal punishment. You've probably lied (or thought lies), or looked lustfully at a woman, or hated someone in your heart. All these things are sin, and the punishment for sin is God's wrath.
I do appreciate you letting me banter on and on in your comments, though :) I might be starting to sound like clanging cymbals to you all by now.
steve43, first of all, I want to let you know that we heathens appreciate it when our theist brethren are willing to engage in a reasoned discussion about their beliefs. As you can appreciate, it is sometimes difficult to coordinate these debates because so many people believe so many different things. As you have heard many times before, you and I are both atheists towards most gods, I just go one further than you (and Thor would be my personal favorite if I was going to believe in any).
Thank-you for addressing my saintly bush pygmy example. But what about childen who die during infancy or those who are misled (perhaps by me) into disbelief? Why would your merciful God want them damned for eternity? I am really struggling with this one.
P.S. Please don't tell me that you reject evolution because it contradicts the literal word of the Bible. We were just starting to get along so well!
@Brian: Thanks for listening :) A lot of conversations end with people throwing up their hands and calling me stupid. I'm ok with that, though, they are probably right in some areas.
"The murder/judge analogy does not apply. The murderer could have been found guilty after a trial." No analogy is perfect I guess, especially mine here. Say the jury let him go. Or say the cop who was going to arrest him let him go. My point is just that wrong and evil have to go punished, and I think you'd at least agree with that.
"I have chosen not to worship god. Why would I do that? At the same time I live my life as moral as possible, I help my comunity, I love my family, I help the neighbours, etc." Well, why do you live morally? For the betterment of others or for yourself? You are putting humans in the same place I have God. You are moral for man's good, I am moral (at least try to be, I fail often) for God's good. God does not accept good deeds done for the glory of another, they are like filthy rags to him.
"Why should I be punished? And why would my kids be punished for something my great grand father did?" You should be punished because you have rejected God in all you do. As for kids being punished for great grandparents, sins are not imputed to children, but people are punished (sadly) for their parents faults. Divorce, drugs, adultery, etc. are all things that are done by parents but bring hardship to children. The decisions we make today affect our children and children's children (although, children shouldn't be having children).
@The Atheist Missionary: True, you heathens have been nice to chat with :)
"But what about childen who die during infancy or those who are misled (perhaps by me) into disbelief? Why would your merciful God want them damned for eternity? I am really struggling with this one."
This is a hard one! But I don't believe God punishes an infant that has never committed a sin. God is good and merciful, and he says the children are his. This is a gray area in the Bible, and we really don't have many examples except for David's son dying and David saying he would go to be with him.
Those misled into disbelief is a tough one too, but man is without excuse. He knows good and evil and he chooses the path he takes. God would save them if they went to him, but they will not go. It saddens me to say that, though.
"P.S. Please don't tell me that you reject evolution because it contradicts the literal word of the Bible. We were just starting to get along so well!" Another day, another time :)
The dog thing was for Liliana.
I know what xtians believe, and the "salvation message" does not make any sense.
No matter how much christians twist their brains to explain the bible, still does not make sense.
Some christians go to bible colleges, some use excellent English writing skills (CS Lewis, Lee Strobel, Craig, etc), some become expert in apologetics.
But, still the tenants of christianity do not make any sense.
"I am a sinner because Adam and Eve (they were a myth) disobeyed god, then god sent his son to be killed so my sin is forgiven that I didn't commit. To receive this I have to accept Jesus, if not I will be punished forever" I am sorry, non-sense there.
Brian, thanks for that link to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. When I read this stuff, I have to admit that I have a grudging admiration for anyone who can read the Bible with a straight face, let alone someone who can advocate reading it literally and patterning their life on it. The admiration is similar to watching a boxer get pummelled and yet refuses to be knocked down.
The problems with these debates is that we are arguing with people who, by and large, could never be persuaded. There is no fact that could be proven and no tragedy too immense to shake their faith. When you ask them the question: what would it take for you to cast off your religious beliefs and get on with your life with the conviction that there is no God, no afterlife and what you see is what you get? ... they are lost for words because they cannot conceive of a worldview which contradicts what they (usually) have been taught since birth.
steve43, the amount of children dying daily around the world due to poverty related causes is staggering (estimated recently at 27,000 a day by Peter Singer in his book The Life You Can Save). My reading of the Bible suggests that these innocents will be just as screwed come judgment day as me so I feel like I will be in good company.
AM,
Here is another one:
http://www.evilbible.com/
The question for my chritian friends is this, or something like this:
If you find out that there is not god, would you change the way you live your life?
If you learn without doubt that there is not god, will you go in a killing rampage? Will you stop loving your family?
I am going to chalk this one up to Elihu's argument in the book of Job.
To put God on trial, or to suggest that we have the moral perspective or authority to judge God's actions as just or unjust is to suggest that we ourselves are God or have some supreme moral understanding and stance. This is simply not the case.
This would be why Christians "won't admit the immortality of what is written in the Bible".
Though there are plenty of immoral acts committed by man and not God that are highlighted.
@The Atheist Missionary: How do you come to this conclusion from the Bible?
@Brian: I am rather convinced there is a God, even just from creation. I'm honestly not sure how I would react if I was 100% sure there was no God. Of course, I (or someone else) would have to go to all the places God might be and see if he's there to know for sure.
If you found there was a God, would you change the way you live your life? What would it take you to convince you?
@Steve43, the point i'm basically trying to make is that the ancient greeks would have ferociously defended the existence of their gods just as much as modern day theists. They would never accept that there is/are no god(s), just like modern day theists.
Yet it is globally accepted now that of course zeus doesn't exist, the ancient greeks were wrong. As are every other ancient civilisation with their own god(s). Yet it is somehow acceptable for modern day theists to defend the existence of the god they believe in just as ferociously as any of these ancient civillizations. Can they not see what is wrong with this??
What im saying is that the stern belief in modern day god(s) is no better now than it was millennia ago, and why? Simple - there is no god.
Look at it this way, the way modern day theists look back and disregard the existence of zeus and co is just like modern day atheists disregarding them. The only difference is, the modern day atheist recognies here and now that the same non-existence of zeus and co applies to all other gods, as where the modern say theists for some reason bizarrely cant apply this.
I wonder if in a couple more millenia people will look back and laugh at all religions, not just those of civillizations past. I certainly hope so.
@ Steve43: I forgot my closing comment, basically steve, you and I BOTH, are atherists, i just believe in one less god than you.
oops, we're not both atherists, we're both atheists :/ my bad.
@Steve43, yeah 4 posts in a row, go me! Anyway, steve, i like to pose this question to hardcore believers. I'm guessing u belong to some form of christianity so that accounts for a staggering third (approx.) of the worlds population. The remaining two thirds however, are not, whether they confrom to another religion, or dont.
So the question is, being in the over-all minority, steve, how can you justify to me, the rest of this blog and indeed the rest of the non-christian world why your religion, your god, and your holy book are correct and all others are wrong? If you believe in god then you are intrinsically implying that all other faiths are wrong, as are non religious people not to follow a religion.
I'm interested to see your response. Thanks.
Psy-Kosh asked:
"let me flip that around and ask "where do you get the idea that obeying god is a good thing?" ie, can you explain why you think that to answer to the question "why is it moral to obey god?" is so much easier than to answer "what's moral?" without a god being involved? (or do I misstate your position?)"
God is the source and standard of "good". Without Him you have no *objective* standard to determine what "good" is. Nor do you have one to determine what "evil" is either. All you have is what you *think* and *feel* is good or bad, which has no bearing upon what other people *think* and *feel*. If you think otherwise, and still want to assert you can have an objective morality without God, please mount your case.
Tirian - thinking and feeling is th source of morality. If you feel and think its bad to do something, chances are your probably right. There are plenty of people in the world that have no idea about the concept of the christian god yet they still have morals.
Not 100% on this, but i believe australian aboriginees believe that their ancestors grew from the earth (like potatoes) and populated the land. Not sure if they actually believe in a god.
Anyway, point is, these people i speak of, whether ive got it right with the aboriginees or not, they work together with one another as a community, care for the sick and elderly, raise their young, give each other gifts, love one another etc etc. All 'good' things, yet they havent heard of god.
Likewise, they dont murder their friends when they lose a game of boomerang, they dont slap their old folks for the hell of it, beat their young because they want to. They know wrong from right my friend, and there aint no god telling them what to do.
Drakr2000 said:
"Theodicy" and "compatiblism" are not biblical concepts. They're philosophical concepts attempting to rationalize why there is evil in a world with an all powerful, all good god and the existence of free will vs. determinism."
From Acts 2:22-23
22"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--
23this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."
If you're going to say something stupid, at least be clever about it. Theodicy and compatiblism are right on the face of the text.
@ Steve, I wouldn't change the way I live my life if there is a god. I would still be the same loving and caring human being as I am now. I live my life as if there is nothing watching me; I do what I do without expecting any reward or punishment.
I really don't think there is a god and if there is I would require evidence. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.
I will change my mind any time if there is evidence. By evidence I don’t mean what another human being has to say about god. I want real evidence, not as another guy might explain it to me. BTW, I wonder how come god spoke to his people through prophets. How come he never spoke to a multitude of people? Is there always someone in the middle?
The bible is not evidence of existence of god, I don’t think the god pictured in the bible is the same Christians promote.
I think you said before that we can’t really know all about god because we are just plain humans (or something like that), then you might be as wrong as I might be.
The most honest way to approach a claim is to approach it as a sceptic. That should be the starting point. Unfortunately, due to historical and geographical conditions we start thinking that there is a god. Our parents (at least mine) used the wrong approach.
Rabhimself is right; many civilizations in different eras of history have had an array of gods, how do you know you pick the right one? Have you ever thought why you believe what you believe? Where does it come from? Do you know where Judaism came from? Do you know how Catholicism started? Do you know who really wrote the books that today form your English translated bible? Will you become a Mormon or a Jehova witness without learning where they came from, and about their core beliefs?
Before asserting that god exists and the bible is the word of god we should study history and learn how what we believe today has been shaped through centuries. That is the right approach.
Rabhimself,
I never said atheists don't have morals, in fact they do. The problem is they cannot account for morality in their worldview.
How would you like me to argue the way you just did in your above comments? "Well, Rab, I know there is a God because I just *think* and *feel* that there is?" Would that convince you?
What you think and feel has no bearing upon me unless morality is objective...
@ Tirian:
"The Acts of the Apostles is supposed to have been written by the author of the Third Gospel. Like this book it is anonymous and of late origin. It contains historical inaccuracies, contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, and conflicts with the writings of Paul. Concerning the last, the Bible for Learners (Vol. III, p. 25) says: "In the first two chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, he [Paul] gives us several details of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story side by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this book contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not the result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design."
These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are "according" to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, "They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority." Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: "They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24). "
Brian,
I would recommend reading some conservative biblical scholarship. Do you think quoting this refutes biblical inerrancy? I think you need to dig a little deeper than "Bible for Learners".
If this is what you read to understand Christian doctrine, no wonder you don't believe it.
Take care,
Tirian, I hope you read my post at 12:57.
The origin of book of Acts and the rest of the bible is pretty dubious. There is not biblical scholarship required to understand this, there are not original manuscripts, the writings that form today’s bible have been manipulated, copied (by hand), translated, written, etc, over centuries. The catholic church had control over the writings for about 16 centuries.
Citing the bible really has not weight in this discussion. The book you have is not the same as it was in the 4th century.
The bible is so poorly written and compiled that has produced many different denominations and sects within the christianism. This is because what you think it says is not what another Christian think it says.
@Tirian
I never said you did say that atheists didn't have morals. I was pointing out to you the existence of a supreme being is not necessary to account for the morals that mankind develops.
Your 'counter' argument about saying to me that u feel and think there is a God is incomparable. The feeling and thought about whether or not an action is wrong or right, is completely different to the feelings or thoughts about th existence of something, thats just nonsense to throw that at me.
As for morality being objective, well that was what my original post was trying to show you. It is, why do you think that morality MUST have stemmed from a divine creator?
There are without a doubt places in the world were communities of people have lived for generations without the concept of a god, yet they have their own laws etc, simply because its within every person to know the difference between right and wrong in the absence of a god.
I'm assuming you dont believe in evolution, so trying to point out to you that our cavemen ancestors looked out for one another and had their own system of morality, you must believe in the whole shebang to think that the only reason why mankind has a concept of morality is due to the existence of a god.
If this is the case then i think i'll just cease to participate in this debate because you quite clearly have your mind made up, which i respect.
EDIT: in the same sentence where i mention our ancestors, it should read, 'so trying to point out to you that our cavemen ancestors looked out for one another and had their own system of morality would be pointless'. Thanks.
@Rabhimself
How are thoughts and feelings about certain actions being "right" or "wrong" a source of objective morality? Thinking and feeling as I understand are individual activities.
If cavemen have their own morality then that implies it is different than modern morality. This seems to support the idea that morality is subjective. What exactly do you mean?
I had a discussion with a particularly devout Christian about the story of Jonah once. I can't help but see it as a particularly abusive story, and tried to explain it to her: Jonah was essentially a courier - he had a message to deliver (whether he actually wanted to be a courier or not was irrelevant).
So I asked her: if a courier refuses to send a message do you a) fire him, or b) threaten to kill him and everyone around him?
She insisted that, because Yahweh already knew the outcome, the means were justified. I was kinda gobsmacked by that.
Another fool is the only atheist I have encountered here that is at least attempting to be consistent with his atheism. Rabhimself wants to assert that cavemen had an objective morality. Where can I download this objective morality? I would love to get my hands on it.
Apparently Rabhimself doesn't understand what *objective* morality is...hence the confusion.
Brian,
The Bible is the most well preserved book from antiquity. Anyone in the field who studies the manuscript evidence does not even question this. That is not even taking into account God's divine superintendence of Scripture. You're citing a liberal source that has shoddy scholarship. You're also making a bunch of assertions without studying how the canon of Scripture was produced. Until you study the conservative scholarship, you're assertions bear little weight. If you're a person of intellectual integrity, I would recommend "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce and D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo's "Introduction to the New Testament" for starters. However, if you prefer to only read the books that confirm your preconceptions about the Bible, you will have a difficult time convincing your opponents.
Take care,
Thank you for the book recomedation Tirian, I went to amazon.com to read the reviews just to have an idea. It seems like the book mentions how the bible was put together, how the books were chosen and how plain human beings made the decisions about what books to include.
My point is still valid. Regular people like you and me making decisions based on their own assumptions.
I have no preconceptions, I was christian too, I have a few books on both sides of the fence before making my decision of becoming an atheist.
As per "God's divine superintendence of Scripture" I strongly don't think so.
There are so many contradictions and inmoral acts that convinced me that the god you market is so different than the one portrayed in the bible.
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm
I think you should read from both sides of the fence too and do the honest thing, approach everything as an sceptic without precoceptions.
I would also like to recommend two books to Tirian then:
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Scriptures-Books-that-Testament/dp/0195182502/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t
and
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t
take care
Tirian.
Alright, i'm big enough to admit when i've got the wrong end of the stick. Prior to reading this blog, i'd never heard the term 'objective morality'. So when i read it, i translated objective in the sense of something that is presented factually, or based on something observable. i.e. morality based on what we see around us, our world. So when you state without god there can be no objective morality, i'm sure you can appreciate (despite my misinterperatation) why i wrote what i wrote.
Now that i realise objective morality is actually a term, and now that i know what it means properly, then i do not think there is any such thing as objective morality. Morality by its very nature is surely completely subjective. It's wrong to kill but is that still the case when ur victim would kill your children if u didnt kill them first? The list of examples could go on and on.
I apologise to all on both sides of the fence for any confusion caused. Everyone makes mistakes.
I believe that identifying god as the standard by which we judge good and evil is nonsense. Which returns me to things i said earlier regarding those who in the absence of god, ( i dont mean atheists, i literally mena people who have had no exposure to the concept of god) still have morals.
Also, i never said cavemen had objective morality, only that they clearly had morals in their society. I believe the more our species has evolved, the more we think about our morals. Which is only natural given our intellect. Like i said previously though, if you think our morality has stemmed from god, then you likely are a creationist too, so what i've just written would spark an entirely different debate with you entirely.
Brian,
Thanks also for the book recommendations, I am familiar with Bart Ehrman.
Supposed contradictions can be explained. I would recommend that you read the books I mentioned for yourself and not skim Amazon's book synopsis. You wouldn't accept my arguments against atheist material based upon an Amazon.com summary, would you?
And how can you, as an atheist, define "immoral acts" objectively? Do you see the dilemma you're in? You want to pronounce God immoral based on what you *think* and *feel*. Why should God be judged by your subjective morality? Remember, your morality has no bearing upon others in an atheist, materialist universe. In fact, morality doesn't exist in a universe where nothing is accepted unless empirically observed and naturally explained. Think about it.
Rab,
No problem, everyone makes mistakes.
As I've said on other comment threads here, I never said atheists aren't moral. Of course they are, because atheists cannot live according to their own worldview.
How can you, as an atheist, define good and evil outside of what you subjectively *think* and *feel*? I may think and feel murdering someone you don't like is OK. You call my mother a bad name, and I bash your skull in. That's "good" in my book. Who are you to say that I'm wrong?
Another Fool gets it. Why don't you?
I just went to Amazon to know what the book was about. I am not judging it based on someone else comments. I will have to go to my library first, lol.
I don’t agree with you when you say that “atheists cannot live according to their own worldview” and “morality doesn't exist in a universe where nothing is accepted unless empirically observed and naturally explained”
I can live fearless and happy as a secular humanist without believing in any goods.
Why should god be judged based on my subjective morality? Because based in my own morality I live my life; I care for others, I care for my family, I care for the environment, I help my community (I pay taxes, I live in Canada, lol), etc, etc; and it’s highly probable that I live my life like you do without causing any harm to anybody.
God, as it is portrayed in the bible does not fit my definition of morality, it does not fit in my worldview; and I care about that.
No matter how much biblical scholarship, theology and philosophy you use to explain and excuse the inmoral/criminal acts by god in the bible they are still what they are. I don’t want to write a list of examples here. (Job’s story is probably my favourite).
The only logical explanation is that the bible was not inspired by a god and it was only written by ignorant illiterate men pretending having heard from god to control and dominate their people.
That brings me back to my point, there is not god, and if there is one, NOBODY knows about it.
And, if there is god and is the god of the bible, I am sorry, and I don’t want to do anything with him. Why should I? Why should you?
Question for you: If you find out that there isn't a god, will you change the way you live your life? Will your morality change?
Think about it.
Tririan,
Thats two posts now you have said to me that you never claimed atheists aren't moral. I politely point out again i acknowledge this. I notice you again evade my comments about creationism, and i don't want to debate about this. I just feel if you are a creationist then the morals debate isnt going to be resolved.
The fact is, generally, it's in peoples nature to be goodwilled. I keep saying there are plenty of people in the world, jungle tribes etc, that have no concept of a god, yet they have the same morals we do. They don't steal from one another, they don't murder one another etc etc.
How do you account for people who have had no exposure to the concept of a divine creator? They live from their own, godless, world view. How do you explain the fact that these people realise that murdering someone off the cuff is wrong? etc..
Brian,
If there was no God, and I was left to my own corrupt heart, I sure would live differently. I did before I was a Christian, but God changed my heart. Before I was converted, I didn't like kids, didn't like old people, I only wanted to do things that pleased me. I only loved myself (and my immediate family) and lived for myself.
So, yes, I would live quite differently were there no God.
Rabhimself,
One's view of creationism has nothing to do with this issue.
If you think human nature is basically good, you must not watch the news or read the newspaper very often. Look at this world. What a mess. Furthermore, consider your own heart, by whose standard do you think you are good? Your own? Every individual in general thinks very well of themselves. But what does God think of you and your "goodness"?
There is no one who doesn't have exposure to a divine creator. There is natural revelation, the perfect order and beauty of the world we live in that points to a divine creator. That is the biblical testimony in the book of Romans. Furthermore, according to Scripture, the law of God is written on the heart of man (the moral law, the 10 commandments), so every man knows (to some degree) right from wrong. That's why we have a conscience. It is marred by our sin, and can be seared as with a hot iron so that it becomes dull or numb, but every man has one. So, I explain atheists having morals the same way the Bible does...
Tirian wrote: I would live quite differently were there no God.
Tirian, perhaps you are correct in one respect. Some people (like you apparently) need to believe in God and need somebody to set out a moral code under which to live. That fact lends absolutely no credence to your arguments about the logical likelihood of the existence of God. I could set out today to develop a far superior and cogent moral code than the one laid out in the Bible. I could even emulate Jospeh Smith Jr. or L. Ron Hubbard and start my own religion. That would not result in the tenets of my religion being anything more than a fantasy even though it could well be that the moral code which I lay out for my followers provides, to use your words, an objective standard of morality.
My friend, you are living a lie but I have to respect your moxy.
Well Tririan, i've got news for you buddy, i do watch the news. You're right, our world seems to be in a sad state of affairs with all the badness put forward to you but let me put forward two points.
Firstly, news usually highlights the bad happenings in the world, not the good. Obviously at any given moment, there is more good going on than bad otherwise the world would be in an even more awful state than it is currently in, so don't overlook that, not saying you did, just pointing out that unfortunately, bad happenings generally make great headlines.
Secondly, a large proportion, and indeed some of the worst atrocities i see on the news are comitted by...... religious extremists. In the name of their god they are willing to sacrifice themselves as well as the lives of innocents, and you know what tririan? They believe fullheartedly in their god just the same as you do, but i bet u have an equally negative opinion towards them as i do. Objective morality obviously doesnt apply to them, good luck on a response to that.
With regards to the exposure individuals have to the concept of a god, natural revelation as you put it means nothing. It also backhandedly answers my question regarding your creationist beliefs. You may not think that your belief in creationism has anything to do with the debate regarding objective morality, but on the contrary, if you are willing to believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old and that all living persons on the planet ae descendants of the same two people, then i believe that your view on the world is so horribly twisted that no points i, nor anyone else could put forward to you would even make you reconsider your position let alone change it entirely. As Atheist Missionary states, you are living a lie.
Furthermore, you seem to think that stating contents of the 'scripture' make everything jusifiable which is of course nonsense. It is no better than me claiming that wizards are real, only to refer to the 'scripture' from J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series.
You do not seem to see the serious flaw behind using the 'scripture' as you're sole evidence for your entire argument.
Open your mind, use the intellect that you as a human being have evolved. How can you neglect so many things that point to the extreme improbability of a god and hold tight to a book?
Also, seeing as you seemt o refer to the 'scripture' so much, and seeing as the earth is such a mess, then why doosn't god order some poor soul to construct a giant ark and fill it with two of every animal again, then flood the earth. Sigh, you'd think with the immense power he surely has that he'd just snap his fingers and erase all the bad from existence instead.... but no, that'd be too easy.
Forgive my sarcasm Tririan but it's late here in Scotland and it just dumbfounds me that there are so many people out there like yourself that can have such a view on life.
AM and Rabhimself,
The fact that both of you *think* I'm living a lie carries no intellectual weight whatsoever, although you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Does it shake your atheism when Christians stop in and tell you "you're living a lie"? Didn't think so.
Any moral code you could come up with would be skin deep at best, but the objective morality of the Bible touches the heart. It doesn't stop at condemning adultery, but condemns lust in the heart. It doesn't stop at condemning stealing, but condemns coveting what doesn't belong to you. "Atheist morality" certainly stops short of loving your enemies.
Be that as it may, I've enjoyed the interaction. I hope I've given you something to think about. At least I've helped increase your comment count.
God bless,
We know that you living a lie is just an opinion, but sorry Tririan. That last post of yours is just a cop out, you completely ignored all the points except one line where i say you are living a lie. You've completely bypassed everything else, i've written responses to all your previous points but you quite clearly don't want to address mine.
Again, you refer to the bible, which as i've tried to show you, is nonsense.
All you have given me to think about is why you have decided to stop the debate all of a sudden although i have to admit, i'm not surprised, this happens all the time.
Makes me think you have no answers other than your blind faith, which ultimately, is what Atheist Missionary is challenging and encouraging people around the world to question.
I hope you reconsider ending the interaction, but if not, then thanks for your time anyway.
God certainly won't be blessing neither myself nor Atheist Missionary, good job we find the chances of him being there let alone blessing us negligibly small.
Rabhimself,
I guess I didn't think anything you raised in your last comments was all that compelling, but if you are asking for a response because you are genuinely interested...
You said:
"Firstly, news usually highlights the bad happenings in the world, not the good."
I was making a point about human nature being innately corrupt and fallen. Simply looking at the news confirms this, no indepth study is needed. It's a plain fact. Did I say nobody ever does anything good? No.
You said:
"Secondly, a large proportion, and indeed some of the worst atrocities i see on the news are comitted by...... religious extremists."
The actions of some adherents to "religion" has nothing to do with the truth claims of the religion they profess. However, most religious extremists who harm people or cause destruction are not of the Christian stripe, and those who profess to be are disobeying the Word of God if they do so.
You see, as a Christian, I have an objective morality by which to judge the actions of other professing Christians.
You said:
"With regards to the exposure individuals have to the concept of a god, natural revelation as you put it means nothing."
That's an assertion minus an argument.
You said:
"It also backhandedly answers my question regarding your creationist beliefs. You may not think that your belief in creationism has anything to do with the debate regarding objective morality, but on the contrary, if you are willing to believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old and that all living persons on the planet ae descendants of the same two people, then i believe that your view on the world is so horribly twisted that no points i, nor anyone else could put forward to you would even make you reconsider your position let alone change it entirely."
I do believe that God created all things, otherwise I couldn't very well profess to be a Christian, could I?. Could you explain what that has to do with objective morality? If you could prove that objective morality is possible without God, I would relinquish my beliefs. Go ahead. I've been waiting...
You said:
"Furthermore, you seem to think that stating contents of the 'scripture' make everything jusifiable which is of course nonsense. It is no better than me claiming that wizards are real, only to refer to the 'scripture' from J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series."
Scripture is the source of truth, it is God's divine revelation of Himself to man. How is that related to Harry Potter? Does JK Rowling claim to be God's prophet or something?
You said:
"You do not seem to see the serious flaw behind using the 'scripture' as you're sole evidence for your entire argument."
Scripture isn't my sole evidence for my arguments, it is of course my primary one. However, you cannot even refute my argument on metaphysical or philosophical grounds. You apparently don't see your serious flaw in trying to justify morality in an atheist universe, where there are no non-physical, non-empirical entities like *morality*.
Could you tell me again why other people should be subject to what you *think* and *feel* is right and wrong?
You said:
"Open your mind, use the intellect that you as a human being have evolved. How can you neglect so many things that point to the extreme improbability of a god and hold tight to a book?"
I use the intellect that God gave me. I have studied the difficult philosophical issues involved here that you skim over without much of a thought. How can you neglect so many things that point to the impossibility of there not being a God?
You said:
"Also, seeing as you seemt o refer to the 'scripture' so much, and seeing as the earth is such a mess, then why doosn't god order some poor soul to construct a giant ark and fill it with two of every animal again, then flood the earth. Sigh, you'd think with the immense power he surely has that he'd just snap his fingers and erase all the bad from existence instead.... but no, that'd be too easy."
Well, for one, God said He would never flood the Earth again. I suppose if you had more than a superficial knowledge of the Bible you would know that. Secondly, God will erase all the *bad* when Christ returns to bring about the new heavens and the new earth.
You said:
"Forgive my sarcasm Tririan but it's late here in Scotland and it just dumbfounds me that there are so many people out there like yourself that can have such a view on life."
No worries, I don't have a problem with sarcasm. It's a favorite literary device among ignorant atheists. It just dumbfounds me that there are so many people out there like you who have such a view of life, pointless, empty, meaningless, and you actually want to argue/debate/defend it!
I mean, with atheism, if you lose you really lose.
And if you win, you really lose.
Atheism is a no-win proposition.
I'm amazed so many want to follow you into that black hole.
Take care
Tririan,
You said:
'I was making a point about human nature being innately corrupt and fallen. Simply looking at the news confirms this, no indepth study is needed. It's a plain fact. Did I say nobody ever does anything good? No.'
You inferred that human nature was basically bad in your initial response that said human nature was good. Remember? You asked me if i watched the news? You were basically inferring that my statement about humans being generally good was false. Simply looking at the news does not sum up humanity as a whole, i tried and abviously failed to highlight this a couple posts back.
'The actions of some adherents to "religion" has nothing to do with the truth claims of the religion they profess. However, most religious extremists who harm people or cause destruction are not of the Christian stripe, and those who profess to be are disobeying the Word of God if they do so.'
You see, you know fine well that to them, they are OBEYING the word of god. Their god. It's neither here nor there whether the god be the christian god or not, you can't just say 'their not christians' and leave it at that. Point i was trying to make there is that they are just as pious as yourself when it comes to their god, yet you quite clearly (and rightly so) disagree with their faith.
You said: 'I do believe that God created all things, otherwise I couldn't very well profess to be a Christian, could I?. Could you explain what that has to do with objective morality? If you could prove that objective morality is possible without God, I would relinquish my beliefs. Go ahead. I've been waiting...'
Well you'd be surprised at the amount of christians that pick and choose what to believe and disregard in the bible, on saying that, you are still one of them, you can't honeslty believe everything the bible says? Anyway, objective morality itself has nothing to do with creation theory, all i was saying is that your opinion on objective morality is quite clearly not going to change if you ridiculously believe in creation theory. Come on man, how can you honestly justify that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? etc etc. As for proving objective morality without god, you can't prove it with god, just the same as i can't prove there is no god (only highlight evidence for him not being there), and you cant prove he is there. For which there is no evidence, i just know your going to resort to the 'scripture' again, but that is NOT evidence.
You said: 'Scripture is the source of truth, it is God's divine revelation of Himself to man. How is that related to Harry Potter? Does JK Rowling claim to be God's prophet or something?'
It's related to Harry Potter because the 'scripture' is man made. If the bible is the source of truth then i will gladly copy plenty of passages out of it which are quite clearly man-written lies to try and manipulate our ancestors who wouldn't know any better. All i was pointing out is that you consistently refer to the bible for 'evidence' when the bible itself is quite clearly a farce. Again, i will gladly introduce you to some passages within it that hihglight this.
You said: 'I use the intellect that God gave me. I have studied the difficult philosophical issues involved here that you skim over without much of a thought. How can you neglect so many things that point to the impossibility of there not being a God?'
How dare you accuse me of 'skimming' over the philosophical issues. There is a good reason i'm an atheist. I too used to believe in god and the bible until my mid teens, thats when instead of approaching things with the pre-conception that god must be there, i approached as a neutral and came to the only rational conclusion that he does not exist. What exactly points out to the impossibility of the non-existence of god? Try and answer that without going back to that damn book. If you ask me certain questions about why he does not, i will give you reasons that are logical, plausible and rational. All you can do is quote the bible.
You said: 'Well, for one, God said He would never flood the Earth again. I suppose if you had more than a superficial knowledge of the Bible you would know that. Secondly, God will erase all the *bad* when Christ returns to bring about the new heavens and the new earth.'
When i read this i got a flashback of sunday school from my childhood, i recall that was said in there wasn't it? Sorry. However, for an omniscient and omnipotent god why must he take such ridiculous measures? I'd say 1939-1945 would've been a good time for the second coming of jesus, wouldn't you agree?
You said:'No worries, I don't have a problem with sarcasm. It's a favorite literary device among ignorant atheists. It just dumbfounds me that there are so many people out there like you who have such a view of life, pointless, empty, meaningless, and you actually want to argue/debate/defend it!'
Just because i'm an atheist does not mean i am ignorant. Yeah, i was sarcastic, shame on me, i did apologise. The stories of the bible are laughable in places, in my defence. The last sentence there i think highlights alot of believers problem. They just can't accept that what you see is what you get, so to speak. You are afraid of death, i believe that when i die, it will be as if i've went to sleep forever, there will be nothing. I'm well aware that that is very bleak and unappealing, but that's just how it is. The only way christians have a 'win' as you put it, is if there really is a heaven. Which there is most probably not. Also, if there was a heaven, before i get sent to the depths of hell fo a life of not believing, i'd like to ask him why he made it so bloody hard to believe? If he is as moral as you make out, then he will have no problem forgiving me!
To top it off tririan, i'd appreciate it if you didn't leave message such as 'take care' at the end if you are going to insult me mid-post. God isn' going to overlook the fact you are not loving your enemy ;)
I argue for atheism because i honestly belive the world would be a better place if we all agreed there is no god. Also, any rational, logical person, when presented with the cases 'for' and 'against' the existence of god, should only come to one conclusion, that there is none.
Rabhimself,
Please forgive me for being cheeky with you, I did not intend to offend you and I'm sorry.
Since you object to using Scripture, let's just discuss this at a metaphysical/philosophical level. How do you, as an atheist, justify non-physical, universal, invariant, abstract entities like the laws of logic? How do you justify love, morality, human rights, human dignity? (remember, we're all just matter in motion, sacks of molecules)Since you can't, as an atheist, assume the uniformity of nature (that is, that the future will be like the past)how do you justify using scientific induction or deduction? What is the difference between heart and soul? What is the difference between brain and mind? Is there a difference?
You see, you want to deny that non-physical entities exist because you can't see, touch, smell, or hear them, but then you want to live as if they exist.
In other words, you can't live consistently with your own worldview. The fact that you're trying to use logic to debate me about the existence of God is a defeater for your atheism. If atheism were true, there wouldn't BE laws of logic, there wouldn't BE rationality, there wouldn't be the preconditions of intelligibility. Without God, you can't prove, or debate, or find the truth, about anything.
If there really was no God, the *idea* of God wouldn't exist either, by the way.
See? No Bible.
And the "take care" is always sincere. I didn't mean it sarcastically...
Tririan,
The brain is a very complex piece of equipment. I'm sure you know this. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that thought processes amongst man are ultimately what lead to our moral standards. It seems to me that because you cannot accept that humans are intelligent enough to define their own moral standards, then a god must exist from which we judge our morals.
Tririan, i urge you to consider what you are saying. Are we to believe that if we had never received a revelation from god, or even if there were no belief in God, a mother would never have learned to love her child? Men and women would never have loved each other? Mankind wouldn't have established right from wrong? Men wouldn't have been able to develop basic logic and reasoning? If we look at the animal kingdom tririan, incapable of accepting any revelations from god, because even you must surely concede they cannot comprehend it, (If you state that they can then god should simply have programmed us all in an identical matter) then you will see that many animals carry out such things as risking their lives for their young, etc etc. Why does mankind need a revelation from god to justify these non-physical entities as you put it? Why tririan?
Are you saying that without god murder would be acceptable? People wouldn't realise that torturing a child is wrong? Is this what you are implying? That we need god to define the standards of good and evil so we can apply morality to such things? Come on Tririan, surely you can't think such things, that god is the only reason why we have such an understanding of them.
You said: 'You see, you want to deny that non-physical entities exist because you can't see, touch, smell, or hear them, but then you want to live as if they exist.'
Can you please go into a bit more detail here please? What do you mean? I have never denied the existence of all non-physical entities. Only gods, much like santa clause, the tooth fairy etc that you also so readily disregard.
Also, you said: 'If there really was no God, the *idea* of God wouldn't exist either, by the way.'
So santa clause, the tooth fair and co do exist because someone made up the idea of them? Correct?
You may not be quoting or referring to the 'scripture', Tririan, but it is ultimately the bible that has brainwashed you. A couple of times you have highlighted on my lack of knowledge on it, have you ever seen any of the laughable sections that i have referred to before?
I said it in my last post. Any rational, logical individual who approaches evidences presented for, and against the existence of god should always come to the conclusion that he most probably doesnt exist.
Could you give me a brief run down as to why, despite the vast majority of the world population not being christians, your religion, your bible and your god are right and all others are wrong? You are intrinsically implying they are wrong to believe so strongly in your god. I'm just curious. Posed the same question to steve43 and he hasn;t been back on here.
Rabhimself,
You said:
"Why is it so difficult for you to believe that thought processes amongst man are ultimately what lead to our moral standards."
Why should anyone be subject to the "thought processes" of others? What if I think stealing is right and you think it's wrong? Why should I be subject to what you think? What about the "thought processes" in Stalinist Russia? There it was OK to kill dissidents, who are you to say that it was wrong?
You said:
"It seems to me that because you cannot accept that humans are intelligent enough to define their own moral standards, then a god must exist from which we judge our morals."
This is not just about human intelligence, that which has to do with the brain. This has to do with human corruptness, that which has to do with the heart. Unless morality comes from *outside* of mankind, from a divine Being, it cannot be objective or binding. All you're left with is what each person *thinks* and *feels* is right and wrong, and you cannot appeal to any other moral standard. Therefore, you cannot rightly pronounce the actions of others as right or wrong. That's why you can't condemn a Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, because to them their actions were morally right and good, even though to you they were appalling. You have nowhere outside of yourself, or your society and culture, to appeal to.
You said:
"Are we to believe that if we had never received a revelation from god, or even if there were no belief in God, a mother would never have learned to love her child?"
That's a non sequitur. No, I never said that mothers wouldn't love their children. God has made mothers that way. I said that we would have no objective standard of morality.
You said:
"Men wouldn't have been able to develop basic logic and reasoning?"
No, they wouldn't have, because you cannot account for universal, invariant, abstract, non-physical entities like the laws of logic. Now, people do (even atheists) use the laws of logic and reason, but they cannot account for doing so in their worldview. You see, atheists deny the existence of non-physical, transcendent entities. In which case, they pull the carpet from underneath their own feet.
You said:
"animals carry out such things as risking their lives for their young, etc etc. Why does mankind need a revelation from god to justify these non-physical entities as you put it? Why tririan?"
Because animals were given instincts, they do not reason. Man was made in the image of God and has a soul, a will, emotions, an intellect, etc. We are not animals.
You said:
"Are you saying that without god murder would be acceptable? People wouldn't realise that torturing a child is wrong? Is this what you are implying?"
No. I'm saying without God you have no objective standard by which to pronounce something wrong that someone else thinks is right. What makes you *more right* than another person?
You said:
"Can you please go into a bit more detail here please? What do you mean? I have never denied the existence of all non-physical entities. Only gods, much like santa clause, the tooth fairy etc that you also so readily disregard."
If you don't deny the existence of non-physical entities, how do you justify their existence in an atheistic, materialist universe where all that exists is matter in motion? And if you don't deny the existence of non-physical entities, why do you deny the existence of God? And if you accept non-physical entities, how do you determine which ones are real and which ones are not?
You said:
"So santa clause, the tooth fair and co do exist because someone made up the idea of them? Correct?"
No, you've got it backwards. Santa Claus, to use your example, has no meaning if *man* doesn't exist. Man exists, correct? So, someone made up a pretend man named Santa Claus. Now there are many pretend gods out there in the world, made up just like Santa Claus, but there is only one real, true God, who has revealed Himself through His creation, through His Book, and primarily through His Son.
You said:
"but it is ultimately the bible that has brainwashed you. A couple of times you have highlighted on my lack of knowledge on it, have you ever seen any of the laughable sections that i have referred to before?"
It is ultimately atheism that has brainwashed you. I'm suggesting that your teenage knowledge of the Bible and of Christianity was deficient and you have rejected something you didn't fully understand. I have studied the Bible for 15 years now, what "laughable" parts are you referring to again?
You said:
"Any rational, logical individual who approaches evidences presented for, and against the existence of god should always come to the conclusion that he most probably doesnt exist."
Strange how some of the most brilliant minds in history disagree with you. Even world renowned former atheist philosopher Antony Flew disagrees with you.
You asked:
"Could you give me a brief run down as to why, despite the vast majority of the world population not being christians, your religion, your bible and your god are right and all others are wrong? You are intrinsically implying they are wrong to believe so strongly in your god. I'm just curious. Posed the same question to steve43 and he hasn;t been back on here."
Well, for one thing, one third of the world population is Christian of one stripe or another. But to answer your question, Christian theism is the only worldview that is internally consistent, philosophically coherent, and metaphysically defensible. All other religious systems collapse in on themselves, and especially "non-religious" ones like atheism. God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary. If God didn't exist, you couldn't prove anything. For atheism to be true, you would have to break down logic, scientific induction and deduction, non-physical entities, the preconditions of intelligibility, in essence, rationality itself. You borrow from my worldview (which can account for these things) in order to attempt to refute it. What you are doing is irrational.
Tririan,
My oh my, we should probably call this quits, becasue you quite clearly think what i am writing is B.S., and i quite clearly think what you are writing is B.S..
However, i don't believe in god becasue there is no evidence for it, tririan, and when i say evidence, i mean proper, scientifically proven evidence.
I could actually make a case to you tririan that thinks such as logic, rationale and other non-physical entities are actually the product of physical processes within the mind.
Your statement about god, 'making mothers that way', is no more than a cop-out. I challenge you to answer me why, in that case, he didn't simply make everyone obey these objective morals he set in place.
My teenage mind gave me enough reasoning to have a good look around ask myself, if ther is a god, where is he? What is he doing? I once had a 4 yr old cousin who died a horrible death due to her bowel detaching. Now, for an almighty divine creator, he sure made a mistake when he was piecing together my cousin, don't you dare try and suggest she had sinned or her parents who were regualar church goers until this happened. Just so you know, this happened well after my decision that god certainly didn't exist.
You always say, 'Why should I be subject to what you think?', i'm not saying you should tririan, i'm trying to argue that mankind as a whole generally have the same notions of right and wrong and that does not require the belief in god, we have evolved to be like this. As for Hitler, Stalin etc, if you study some history you'll be amazed how easily manipulated the human mind can be. Not only that, tririan, but despite omitting the fact, you are aware Stalinist russia and nazi germany were controlled by an element of fear and opression too. You should know what the manipulation feels like, the christian church has quite clearly manipulated you. - Oh and while we were briefly mentioning nazi germany, like i said before, second coming of jesus anybody? I'd say the extermination of 6 million people of Jesus's own religion is surely enough. Then to top it all off the WW2 total death toll was ~52 million, including the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima....
Your claims that atheism have brainwashed me have to be false, there is nothing to follow in atheism, all i've done is look at the evidence and concluded there is no god. There is no ancient scripture, no pious leaders, no entity to answer to. It's not like there is a church of atheism, or atheists go around preaching door to door, hell it doesn't get advertised either, that there is probably no god. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.
So people continue with what their elders told them, and their elders told them, so on and so forth.
"Any rational, logical individual who approaches evidences presented for, and against the existence of god should always come to the conclusion that he most probably doesnt exist."
I guess i must concede that this is an opinion of mine, however, the evidence for god is the same as the evidence for santa clause in reality. We yet again disagree, tririan, man made god. Not the other way around.
Seeing as you believe that he made everything and i think we have evolved to where we are today, without getting into the debate of evolution, what's your cop out answer for dinosaurs? Or clear scientific evidence of the world being billions of years old? God just thought he'd mislead us did he? Test our faith, something like that? It's just full of onsense, how can ypou defend it? We talked about the great flood few posts back, we KNOW it never happened. There is no evidence for it, the time when it was supposed to happen it most definitely didnt, and never has. Two of EVERY creature on a boat?? He even got the pandas to come together!! It really is as fictional as Harry Potter.
What i am doing is rational, tririan, and seeing as you were asking about areas of the bible i'll gladly copy a few in from the latest accepted edition of the holy bible.
Deut 25:11-12
If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.
Gen 38:8-10
Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother.’ But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother. What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.
Deut 21:18-21
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.
Luke 14:26
Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
Ex 21:20-21
When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.
Would you like any more, tririan? Like i said, laughable. I mentioned before that you too are just like every other christain that picks and chooses what to accept in your bible. There is plenty more where that came from.
I'm irrational am i?
When you have a moment, tririan, watch this video in its entirity please. Your response would be appreciated.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/video7.htm
Rab
You Said:
“you will see that many animals carry out such things as risking their lives for their young”
Animals have instincts as do Humans. By the way I am a Christian And I do believe in Evolution. I also believe that they do not contradict each other. Anyway back to what I was saying.
Morality does not benefit our ability to survive or replicate (negatively or positively) which are the only areas that evolution (natural selection) affects, we would survive without morality as easily as any other animal.
Animal instinct cannot explain the force (Morality) that contradicts two separate instincts. For example we have the survival instinct and the herd instinct. If there is a person that we don’t know drowning in a river, we have two instincts to deal with, the one for helping (herd instinct) and the one for staying safe and not helping (survival instinct) however the human species is the only species that will go against the more dominant instinct (survival) to risk their lives to save the person. Now even if you say all instincts are equal with each other, so you would not agree that the survival instinct is in fact dominant, we can at least say that they are equal which means (in both cases) the additional force encouraging the herd instinct is not herd instinct itself but Morality which is separate from instincts and separate from anything that could be explained by the natural process. We can go even further with the example and assert that helping a complete stranger would not even be affected by the herd instinct in the first place because they are not apart of our family, it can even be a person not of our city, or state, or even country and we still have the compulsion to help that person in danger. Surely the entire species is not apart of our perceived “herd”, though if it were the first explanation still stands.
You Said:
“i'm trying to argue that mankind as a whole generally have the same notions of right and wrong and that does not require the belief in god, we have evolved to be like this.”
Because Morality does not support evolution then there has to be a different source (independent of us) to explain its existence.
Now don’t get me wrong I do believe in evolution but evolution has its limitations because it has a limiting definition so when discussing things that have no bearing on our ultimate survival or replication it is not a process of evolution. Concerning creation, I believe that the seven day creation is not a literal seven days rather each day is a representation of thousands of years. It is interesting that in biblical times (before recent scientific discoveries) the order of Gods creation coincide with recent evolutionary understanding. The Sea, sea animals, land, land animals, humans etc. The Big Bang is in my opinion a very plausible theory but who’s to say that The Big Bang was not caused by God and there after earth was Gods work of art that he shaped and developed over time?
We cannot take all of what the Bible says as literal otherwise when people tell parables we would have to believe in the animals talking etc. When science and the Bible go hand in hand it makes more sense. If you start your thinking at a point where they cannot go hand in hand then you have a pre conceived conclusion and they will seemingly contradict each other because your motive is no longer for truth but for pitting one against the other. I do not use the Bible or God as a Gap filler as people suggest. The things that Science discovers or reveals simply clarifies Gods methods, processes, and work. Such as Evolution revealing information on how God worked in developing life (plants, animals, humans etc.) as we know it today.
It has been mentioned that you might have a high school or childish understanding of the Bible and thus cannot make logical conclusions on its content. That may or may not be the case. However the verses you quoted as being ridiculous were all laws directed at the Jewish people for That specific time period, and Jesus freed us from those laws so they are not applicable to us.
Also when you said:
“like i said before, second coming of jesus anybody? I'd say the extermination of 6 million people of Jesus's own religion is surely enough.”
It shows a further lack of Biblical understanding. In the Bible God gave a set of events that are required to occur before the end times, and being as they were not fulfilled back then and even now, it is foolish to expect the second coming. So “the extermination of 6 million people of Jesus's own religion” is in Fact Not enough. And the Bible didn’t indicate that was the requisite. In fact one of the requisites was that the majority of the Jewish people migrate back to Israel which at the time of the holocaust was not at all close.
Concerning the idea that Morality is introduced by education and invented by man but also varies between people, I have difficulty articulating my thoughts about so I would like to use an extensive quote form C. S. Lewis who is much more eloquent than I. This is from his book Mere Christianity:
“This law was called the Moral Law because people thought that everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color-blind or have no sense of tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious.
I know that some people say the idea of the Moral Law the Laws of Nature, or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.
But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teachings of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to, whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought to not put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ A nation may say treaties don’t matter; but then next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong, if there is no Moral Law what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Whatever they say, don’t they really know the Moral Law just like anyone else?
We are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their math wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.
None of us are always following the Moral Law. We have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money came when you were very hard-up. And what you promised to do for So-and-so and have never done, you never would have promised if you had known how busy you were going to be. And as for your behavior to your wife, sister, brother if I knew how irritating they could be. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Moral Law. If we do not believe in decent behavior why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behavior that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.”
“The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about.”
SO the existence of morality which cannot be explained by instinct, evolution or human invention shows us that there is in fact a standard which can only be attributed to God. If there were no such thing as good choices or bad choices (just choices that are all equal) then we would have no concept of right and wrong in the first place all we would know is “choices”.
“if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
WRONG would be without meaning if a standard of goodness (God) did not exist outside of ourselves.
Rab You Said:
"I mentioned before that you too are just like every other christain that picks and chooses what to accept in your bible. There is plenty more where that came from."
You mean how for the millionth time an atheist picks and chooses Bible verses out of context to condemn the Bible? I don’t doubt that there is more where that came from.
Would you like me to address your whywontgodhealamputees.com site? Would you like me to show you how both that site and you are showing an amateurish lack of research and understanding regarding the Bible? Oh wait… Or are you going to call a proper intelligent grasp of the entire context, simply excuses like wwgha.com cleverly does? It’s good to know you have a standard response to shut down explanations we give with a “you are just making excuses” like the average Christian does with “you just have to have faith”.
Do you have an argument that does not directly come from some other atheist’s Christian debunking site? If you would like I am certainly willing to break down wwgha.com and its individual clumsy videos.
That site mentions the repugnance of Christians who do not actually read the Bible. While I agree with that, I also feel equally repulsed by atheists who act high and mighty when they find some verses they don’t like from some website and maybe even crack open a Bible to read that verse and then act as though they have done some intelligent research. That is about as bad as Christians who don’t read their Bibles. How about truly studying the Bible and maybe stop looking for the uneducated Christian to make easy pickin’s with (like a hyena finishing off an already wounded gazelle). Because wouldn’t that be a hollow victory for you? Basically tricking someone who is easily tricked, and you can pat yourself on the back for having imbued a foolish Christian with “intelligence”.
Chip,
You make it seem like i am attacking people here. I'm not. Why should i go and construct atheistic arguments that have already been set in place by people like the creator of wwgha.com? That's just a waste of my time. I completely agree with the logic of the website so if i refer to it, then i don't see the problem. It's not like i'm referring to something that is nonsense. I'll accept your offer of breaking downt hat video though chip. I don't see why your bible is any more correct than the mormon or islamic ones. You are in a big bubble just like the mormons and muslims.
My knowledge of the bible may not be as great as some christians, but i understand enough to know that the bible is not the work of god. It's a book man-made stories to manipulate people, and for some reason, it has stuck. I'm sick of christians using the bible as 'evidence', yet when i present something that contradicts this 'evidence', all of a sudden i'm not qualified to do so. What nonsense. The stuff i highlight is in there, out of context or not. According to you guys, the bible is god's work. So he is quite clearly fallable if this is the case. I was only highlighting stupid sections which tririan challenged me to do.
Understand that we KNOW that the universe is BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years old. Why would god take this long to do these things? To me, you are just another deluded christian (just like to you, i'm a deluded atheist). The one thing i can always take pride with in my stance, is that my entire stance is based on the lack of evidence for god. The bible is nonsense, only devout christians accept such dribble as 'proof' of gods existence.
Also, Chip, i don't think tririan would aprreciate being refered to as foolish. Sure, you don't say his name, but who else do you refer to? I know he is intelligent, and to be honest chip, it is this indication of intelligence that drives me to continue the debate. I cannot comprehend how someone so clever can believe in magic, and thats all it is, chip, magic.
I'm a scientist chip, when i synthesise something in the lab, i don't just have faith that i've made it just becasue i've set up a literature reaction that should make it. I thoroughly test it to make sure that this is the case, presenting physical evidence.
When you claim there is a god, there is NO irreftuable evidence whatsoever. The minute i see clear evidence, i will repent, and begin worship, and when i say evidence, i really mean proper evidence. I know this will never happen though. Don't challenge me to prove he doesn't exist, i can't, only present evidence for the improbability of his existence. However, it is not up to me to disprove a claim of others. If i claimed to see a ghost, quite rightly, people would demand for me to prove it. For me to challenge the non-believers to prove it would be nothing more than closed-mindedness.
Back to morality: You accept evolution, therefore you accept humans evolved intelligence. I believe that creation theory and evolution are incompatible. It quite clearly states in the bible that he made adam and eve *alakazam* style. I believe that humans evolved from marine life, just like everything else, so the fact that the bible claims adam and eve were simply put in place contradicts this.
Anyway, if you accept humans evolved intellect, why is it so difficult to accept that morality is a direct prodcut of this intellect? I also challenge your comments about morality, there are recorded cases of dolphins protecting humans from sharks, seen it on tv the other night. Why would dolphins do this? What do they gain? Was it instinct? I think not. Isn't it coincidental in your opinion that dolphins are also gifted with a fair degree of intellect - and as a result a feeling of do-gooding?
Like i said, the dolphins don't gain anything from this, they simply helped out. Nothing to do with herd instincts.
I'm gonna go back to you referring to me being, 'like a hyena finishing off an already wounded gazelle', cause i'm actually pretty offended the more i think about it. I'm not looking for a personal victory here, i'm looking for one for mankind. Understand that it's not just your religion i think is wrong, i think all are wrong, and as such i advocate the eradication of them. Tririan, is by no means a 'foolish' christian. He, like you, has been indoctrinated into full-heartedly believeing there is a god, instead of looking at the evidence impartially and then coming to your own conclusions. You may try and claim that this is not the case, but there is no way that you would've ended up the way you are without being influenced upon by others. I've stated before, chip, i've been there. I believed it too, i REALLY did. I used to defend it like you do. Then as i matured, i began to develop a mind of my own and logically, and rationally concluded that god(s)do not, and never have existed.
Why do you believe so full-heartedly in your religion? A religion that is clearly man made, and i relatively new if you look at ALL the religions ever invented. For crying out loud man, the ancient inca (or was it maya), anyway, some sort of ancient south american civillization, sacrificed a person every night because they were fearful that the sun god would not let the sun rise unless they did so. They believed in this, just like you believe in your religion. Thats just one civillization and religion out of thousands.
Why don't people open there eyes to the truth? That religion as a whole, is fallacious? It always has been, it always will be.
Get off YOUR high horse chip, you're just as 'bad' as me. Only difference is, i believe in one less god than you. All i am trying to do is encourage you and others like you to take that final step.
Chip (and Tririan if you ever return)
A while ago i referred to tribes of people who have no concept of god or religion, yet they exist and know right from wrong. The Pirahã people of the amazon are one such tribe i refer to. No god. No religion. Yet they have morals.
No objective standard for them, yet they have morals? Contradicts your argument that god is the only explanation.
I will not accept any response that involves anything about burning morals onto mans heart, or something like that.
To state a response along those lines invites the question as to why not everyone is given the same treatment.
EDIT: I've just noticed that at some point i bizarrely started referring to Tirian, as 'Tririan' and haven't sinced ceased to do so.
My apologies, Tirian.
“Understand that we KNOW that the universe is BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years old. Why would god take this long to do these things? To me, you are just another deluded christian (just like to you, i'm a deluded atheist). The one thing i can always take pride with in my stance, is that my entire stance is based on the lack of evidence for god. The bible is nonsense, only devout christians accept such dribble as 'proof' of gods existence.”
Did you even read what I wrote? About the case for God's existence that does NOT use the Bible as proof. I understand perfectly well it is circular logic to say that the Bible is proof of God, and God is proof of the Bible. So I believe in God based on the reality of morality, Then I believe in the Bible. And as I mentioned before I do believe in Evolutions so I am not sure why you are “telling” me about it being Billions of years old. I am not God so I can’t definitively speak for His motive for taking His time but I imagine it is like an artist who takes his time on a painting, a sculpture etc. Keep in mind that Billions of years may be nothing to God so in His eyes it may not be considered taking long at all.
“but i understand enough to know that the bible is not the work of god.”
Do you understand what Speaking in Tongues refers to? If you do then you should understand the parallel to how God can utilize men to put to paper what His intended message is without corruption. And how He can continue to protect his word. Hypothetically (in your case) if you are to believe that God exists it would be ridiculous to fathom that the Creator of all things does not have the simple ability to sustain His Word. Assuming God exists it would actually not be logical to believe He couldn’t do such a thing.
“The stuff i highlight is in there, out of context or not.”
Do you understand what in or out of context means? In the wrong context it can have a completely different meaning. I have spoken to several atheists who refer to 1 Cor. 9:19-24 as scripture that supports lying, and deception. But they always leave out verses 25 and 26 which clarifies that it is about subjugation Not deception. It is about making yourself similar to your audience so they will be more comfortable and willing to readily listen. And of course there is Chapter 10 which goes on to direct us to resist various evils.
So out of context Atheists spin it to promote lying and deception. In context it is actually about selflessly behaving and speaking in the listeners’ terms for their benefit.
So yeah Context Does make a Big difference. And yes it is in there but it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.
“According to you guys, the bible is god's work”
Actually it is God’s Word or message it is work inspired by God and there are insignificant clerical and grammatical contradictions the overall message does not contradict itself (assuming you are taking it in context) so far every contradiction I have been presented with are insignificant and are irrelevant to the message or taken out of context and misunderstood.
Actually no, I was not referring to Tirian as you don’t seem to have changed his mind. Thus you have not imbued Tirian with “intelligence”. But it seems that’s what your attempt is and I suspect you do so elsewhere as well.
“presenting physical evidence.”
Physical evidence is not the only type of evidence. The existence of Morality is something that is a reality yet it is not physical. Or the existence of instincts are reality but they are not physical.
“It quite clearly states in the bible that he made adam and eve *alakazam* style”
Again you seem to not read what I have already written. The entire Bible is not written in the literal sense. I think it is funny, because the only way your argument against creation is plausible is if it is the literal six day creation, so now you are trying to make that MY argument, and that my argument should stay on that ground just so you can still point and laugh calling my “fairy tail” such ridiculousness and that it is still a proof against me. Just like Atheists attempts to pull things out of context to deceptively make it seem that the Bible is ridiculous and full of contradictions. The distortion is all there to keep it on the “crazy non logical Christian” playing field.
“so the fact that the bible claims adam and eve were simply put in place contradicts this.”
Only if taken literally. There seems to be a pattern here.
“why is it so difficult to accept that morality is a direct prodcut of this intellect?”
I guess again you did not read what I wrote.
“dolphins protecting humans from sharks, seen it on tv the other night”
Dogs protect their masters and their family because they have developed a relationship with them thus they are considered part of the pack. Do you have more specifics about the show and can you cite a source so we can check it out as well?
“He, like you, has been indoctrinated into full-heartedly believeing there is a god, instead of looking at the evidence impartially and then coming to your own conclusions.”
How could you know this about me? Oh that’s right you couldn’t and that is why you are wrong. I was not indoctrinated, I used to be atheist but guess what? I impartially looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion.
“You may try and claim that this is not the case, but there is no way that you would've ended up the way you are without being influenced upon by others.”
Oh nice try at stopping me in my tracks. I guess it would have worked if that were true. My family certainly did nothing to push me one way or the other because they don’t really care one way or the other. Also I am not easily influenced because I base my beliefs on logic and people have yet to logically confront me with a legitimate argument against really anything I stand for (Christianity or otherwise). For instance in the Christian world most of them don’t believe in evolution but I do. They have not swayed me. Hmm that is interesting when (according to you) I must be easily influenced by my peers.
About your tribal argument:
Christ is the Word of God and the Truth of God
Psalm 19:1-4
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world.”
This applies to the people prior to Christ and people of today.
God reveals Himself to everyone, and though it is not in the traditional "Read the Bible" format they still receive the opportunity to reject evil and pursue good. They are given that opportunity and if they reject the good then they reject Christ. Now, that is done without consideration of what is written on our hearts.
Rom 1:18-20
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”
But I would like to point out that when you say "I will not accept any response that involves anything about burning morals onto mans heart, or something like that"
It is not very objective for someone who is seeking the truth. First if (for arguments sake) you are saying God exists so that you can ask the question about God's solution for the tribes. Then the answers that are derived from the Bible are (also for arguments sake) admissible thus when the Bible tells us "it is written in our hearts" it is legitimate for Gods reasoning because (for arguments sake) the Bible is the Word of God, His opinions, His answers. Like my example before regarding God being able to protect His Word (because God by default must be all powerful) then God can make up the rules, if He makes us He can certainly write it in our hearts.
That is like me saying "What is your proof that this item dates back to 30 thousand years?" "Oh and I won't accept any evidence like carbon dating". If I am asking a question on your terms I need to at least hear arguments in your terms. I cannot ask a scientific question and demand that you do not give a scientific answer. If you ask a Biblical question then expect a Biblical answer.
"why not everyone is given the same treatment."
They are, everyone has it written (or at least revealed in nature), just some people have the opportunity to see the Word of God directly instead of indirectly. We can succeed and fail just as they can.
After I address your website’s videos I suppose I can take care of Mormonism next. That is somewhat of a lengthy subject so are you sure you want me to have at it here? Either way I am out of time to address anymore today.
Chip.
I am reading what you are writing, and here is why i appear to be the one getting confused. You seem to claim that i twist parts of the bible, or use it out of context etc etc so i can get my point across. You claim that basically, there is a correct way to interpret it, and that is what you do.
My problem is Chip is that i think it is ridiculous that you can so easily tell what parts should be taken literally. As far as i'm aware, the creation story cannot be taken any other way than literally. There is no hiddne message here, no context that it should be taken in. This is what god wanted put in the bible, the story of how he created everything. Yet you claim this shouldn't be taken literally.
Bare with me here, its as if you recognise this: It is ludicrous to believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, obviously the earth, and indeed everything wasnt made this way. What dumbfounds me Chip, however, is that even though you recognise this, you are more than happy to quote sections of the bible (as above) to support your argument,and of course, you know how it should be done, so its ok for you to do this.
You dismiss creation theory, yet you accept a supernatural being has burned morals onto the heart of man, even though this is just as silly as creation. You're picking and choosing chip, and its rather irritating. You can't just rubbish one bit, saying it shouldn't be taken literally, only to accept another equally silly part.
Me telling you i will not accept garbage from the bible is completely different than me referring you to scientific evidence and you know it. Stop being awkward. Your justification behind the godless tribe is just another cop out using the bible. I did not ask a biblical question, to say i did is simply fallacious. I basically asked you why god doesn't force everyone to obey morals. The fact that your response is biblical is not my fault. The bible, however, is the only thing that will, for you and other christians, rationalise the irrationalisable.
If you were once an atheist (which i would find bizarre indeed) then to come to the conclusion there is an omnipotent, omniscient god is simply irrational. What evidence do you have? Show me something convincing and i'll convert, i'll repent, i'll go to church....
I'll say it again chip, i have evidence (hard, logical, rational evidence) that i can present to anyone who questions why i am an atheist. I can't prove that there is no god, such a thing is impossible. I can however support why it is improbable. The only evidence you have for your god is hard evidence to yourself, not to everyone else.
Not all religions can be right, but all of them can be wrong. Below i will reiterate a previous post.
Why do you believe so full-heartedly in your religion? A religion that is clearly man made, and a relatively new one if you look at ALL the religions ever INVENTED. For crying out loud man, the ancient inca (or was it mayans), anyway, some sort of ancient south american civillization, sacrificed a person every night because they were fearful that the sun god would not let the sun rise unless they did so. They believed in this, just like you believe in your religion. Thats just one civillization and religion out of thousands.
Why don't people open there eyes to the truth? That religion as a whole, is fallacious? It always has been, it always will be.
You and i are almost the same Chip, only difference is i believe in one less god than you. You recognise the stupidity of the belief and worship of the liks of Zeus, yet a new era of humans create a new 'god' and you believe and worship him too. Idiocy if you ask me, i'm sorry but it's just plain stupidity.
People like yourself genuinely upset me because despite your intellect, you believe in fairytales. All i am trying to do is encourage you and others like you to take that final step and discard god just like you discard every other god.
There Are 10 videos so I will do one at a time
Starting with the link you gave:
“The problem is that your delusion, combined with the delusion of billions of other religious people like you, is hurting us as a species. It does not matter if you are a fundamentalist Christian, a moderate Christian, or a casual Christian. Your delusion is hurting us”
Actually my “delusion” (which I will refer to as Christianity) hurts no one. The vids argument is an ad hominem one, suggesting that because some Christians cause harm thus all Christians (or the religion itself) causes harm. That is like me saying that because Jeffery Dahmer was atheist then atheism itself causes harm. Christianity itself causes no harm, and in fact encourages and promotes only good positive actions. It is the Christians, the PEOPLE that do evil things in the name of Christianity that hurt people. They are not following Jesus so their actions are not of a Christian nature (despite their claims). So I guess it does matter if you are a Fundamentalist Christian, Moderate Christian, casual Christian. Because the moderate to casual categories probably have few to none that actually harm anyone. Now Intelligent fundamentalist that don’t distort or pervert the Bible also would not be causing harm.
Now the video starts off on Mormonism and starts off on the right track but the overall understanding is amateurish. It mentions cities that were never discovered. Considering the massive cities there would at least be some evidence of their existence which we know through archeology did not exist. So the vid presents physical evidence such as real cities and because those cities could not in any way possible to exist it is a tangible proof against Mormonism. Then it drops the ball with Islam, and Christianity. It brings up things that seem ridiculous but this time does not provide actual evidence against them. I imagine they were hoping the effort they put into Mormonism would convince the viewer that they need not expect further effort to present evidence for unrelated arguments. So actually proves or disproves nothing regarding Islam and Christianity.
“Why is it that EVERY scientific study shows that prayer is a superstition?” (emphasis added)
There are actually studies on both sides and I have seen studies claiming that is definitive that prayer does work and ones that say prayer does not work. Or scientists from either side explaining why the other side got their conclusions. I think it is interesting the vid chooses to be deceptive about the fact that not EVERY study shows prayer is a superstition.
“You dismiss creation theory, yet you accept a supernatural being has burned morals onto the heart of man, even though this is just as silly as creation. You're picking and choosing chip, and its rather irritating. You can't just rubbish one bit, saying it shouldn't be taken literally, only to accept another equally silly part.”
Actually I over passed the written in our hearts idea because you already rejected it. I gave the explanation of God revealing himself to people through the world, in nature etc. You asked what is God’s explanation for the Tribes (and because you are not versed in the Bible) I provided you with the answer. Whether you take those passages literally the message still stands that God reveals himself one way or the other. Like creation taken literally or non literally the message still stands that God created the world. So no I am not picking and choosing.
“You dismiss creation theory, yet you accept a supernatural being has burned morals onto the heart of man, even though this is just as silly as creation.”
Unless you read what I write you have trouble understanding with only what you decide to pick and choose. I DO believe in the creation theory (ie God created the earth) I DON”T believe it was done in a literal seven days. The problem is (again) you are trying to keep the words Sounding magical and supernatural so that we must be ridiculous so you auto win your arguments. But the writing on our hearts does not mean God literally cracked us open and used a soldering tool to literally write these things on our hearts. God utilized evolution to develop us to how we are today, that includes instilling instincts (in our hearts, or maybe brain) in some manner or another. Possibly in a similar way to writing morals in our hearts. So when thought of logically it isn’t silly as you suggest.
“Me telling you i will not accept garbage from the bible is completely different than me referring you to scientific evidence and you know it”
Again you are not reading what I wrote.
I stated that a logical person who asks a scientific question should expect a scientific explanation. Likewise Biblical questions will have Biblical answers. When you ask a question about God’s reasoning then you are inviting the hypothetical that God exists. You are not actually saying he exists just asking hypothetically. So (Again) that makes Gods hypothetical Word admissible to the hypothetical argument. You are acting as if you can pre select the ways people can answer so that way (if they abide by your limitations) they will automatically be stumped and look the fool. But I don’t play your game. I play it as logic dictates.
“Your justification behind the godless tribe is just another cop out using the bible.”
You may as well ask me “What does the Bible say about this” Then say “But you can’t use the Bible to answer the question”. That is not logical. IF you don’t want answers from the Bible then do not ask Biblical questions.
“I did not ask a biblical question, to say i did is simply fallacious”
You said
“No objective standard for them, yet they have morals?”
You made a statement in the form of a question implying you were actually asking a question about objective standards and morals. If that is not the case then do not add a “?” at the end of your statement. To explain how the hypothetical God is an objective standard to apply hypothetical morals to tribes we use Gods hypothetical Word because that is the source for most of His answers.
So, to say you were not asking a question is to say you are just hoping you can make definitive statements with no objections. That is not logical, and that is not the method of someone who is seeking the truth.
But now that you are actually admitting you pose the question:
“I basically asked you why god doesn't force everyone to obey morals”
Then my previous answer stands. Don’t come and say I want God’s explanation, but I won’t accept anything from God’s record of explanations. Sounds a lot like my carbon dating example.
“If you were once an atheist (which i would find bizarre indeed) then to come to the conclusion there is an omnipotent, omniscient god is simply irrational.”
I’m sorry is this another one of your “Make a statement and expect everyone accept it at face value” questions? Simply saying something is irrational does not make it so. That is why when someone said “The Earth is Round” and people responded “That is irrational” those people were wrong despite their declaration.
“What evidence do you have? Show me something convincing and i'll convert, i'll repent, i'll go to church....”
Well the problem lies in your inability or choice to not read what I write so there is only so much I can do.
“I'll say it again chip, i have evidence (hard, logical, rational evidence) that i can present to anyone who questions why i am an atheist.”
You may have said you have the evidence but you have yet to provide it. “improbable” is not hard evidence and so far you have shown your argument without “logical, rational evidence”.
Also your argument that because Christianity is not the oldest of religions make it false is a falaciaouse argument as it is an ad antiquitatem. For instance I do not use the opposite ad Novitatem argument saying that because Christianity is fairly new it must be correct as it is improved and better.
You never answered. Did you want me to actually present the case against Mormonism here? I would be glad to (in fact it is kinda fun) but it is a lengthy presentation.
Chip,
Stop insulting me by continually insinuating that i am not reading what you are writing. It is extremely offensive. I shall return to this later, but firstly, lets look at your 'shoot down' of the video.
This is copied from what you wrote:
' So the vid presents physical evidence such as real cities and because those cities could not in any way possible to exist it is a tangible proof against Mormonism. Then it drops the ball with Islam, and Christianity. It brings up things that seem ridiculous but this time does not provide actual evidence against them.'
This is actually unbelievable chip. The video does NOT present physical evidence that these cities never existed. It actually proposes that there is NO evidence for these cities, or the battlles, or that jews emigrated to america in the time of jesus.
What the video then continues to show you, is that for the equally ridiculous muslim and christian stories, there is also NO evidence.
It is trying to make you realise that you discard mormonism due to lack of evidence, yet you cling tight to christianity, Which, like mormonism, has no evidence.
Your problem is that you accept a man made book (or laughably, parts of it) as evidence of the existence of god. How do you KNOW that it is gods word? Wheres your proof? THERE IS NONE.
Back to the matter of you insisting that i am not choosing to read, or incapable of reading what you are writing. I am reading it; it is you who keeps twisting things I say to make me look like a fool and give off the impression that I’m not understanding.
'But the writing on our hearts does not mean God literally cracked us open and used a soldering tool to literally write these things on our hearts'
I just wanted to say that i cannot tell you how insulting that line was. All i was saying was it is just as silly to believe a supernatural being has implanted morals within you as it is that he created everything. That is all, i didn't take it literally. The creation story however chip, cannot be interpreted any other way. It has to be taken literally, just like the story of the flood, or when moses split the red sea. Apparently, according to the bible, these things happened, no way around it. If you don’t accept these stories, i applaud that, but just don’t understand why you can discard them and not the rest. I know what you said about god not making the earth in 7 days, but you just can’t do that. Like I said, there is no other context or way to take the creation story in. If there is, do explain, but I think your pretty much full of it, and like I said, pick and choose what to believe.
I'm going to highlight on you insisting that i have asked a biblical question. The problem (again) is that you insist that the bible is 100% the word of god (except for how he actually made everything, of course), and always resort to it for evidence.
This is no different from me insisting that wizards are real, only to refer to harry potter.
The question i asked was NOT biblical! For crying out loud man, how can you see this as such? I am NOT asking anything about the bible.
The questions were regarding why a tribe who do not believe in, or who have any concept of god, have morals?
What does that have to do with the bible? I'm listening to you chip, you insist that in order to answer you have to refer to gods word. But this is the problem, you have no way of knowing that the bible is gods word, you simply believe it to be so.
This is different from carbon dating, i cannot understand why you think it is the same argument. Carbon has a half life, from this you can demonstrate, scientifically, that things are approximately x years old.
It is a scientifically proven method, and requires no faith!
I'm going to do now what you persistently do to me. You said:
'Also your argument that because Christianity is not the oldest of religions make it false is a falaciaouse argument as it is an ad antiquitatem. For instance I do not use the opposite ad Novitatem argument saying that because Christianity is fairly new it must be correct as it is improved and better'
YOU are not reading what i am saying. I never said, that because christianity was older than these other religions that it must be wrong. What I was trying to show was that these religions pre date your religion, and you accept them as wrong. Throughout human history there have been many many religions, but with the exception of christianity, you acknowledge that the rest are wrong. Why can't you see that the way you feel about those religions, is equally, and should be applicable to your own?
I don't want your case against mormonism, what i want is your application of reasoning and logic, regarding as to why you disregard mormonism, and turn it onto christianity.
You WILL come to the same conclusion if you did this properly. NO evidence for mormonism, the religion is most probably false. No evidence for christianity, THE SAME SHOULD APPLY.
You said; 'You may have said you have the evidence but you have yet to provide it. “improbable” is not hard evidence and so far you have shown your argument without “logical, rational evidence”.'
When you stop insulting me by insisting non-stop that i am not reading what you write, and when you present your evidence for the existence of god (i know there is none, hence why you cop-out by attacking me), i will give you evidence as to why I’m an atheist and why god probably doesn’t exist.
I have stated numerous times that i KNOW i cannot prove that god doesn't exist. But the onus is not on me to prove he doesn't exist. The onus is on you, who is claiming he does. If i claimed that the flying spaghetti monster was real, you'd demand evidence from me (quite rightly so). It would be close-minded and arrogant of me to ask you to prove he doesn't.
I have presented my argument thus far by applying logic and rational to the concept of a god - an entity that you cannot prove exists, yet you claim that of course he does. You don't believe in magic chip, do you? If not, why not? Your logic and reasoning for this disbelief are equally applicable to the concept of a god. To believe in a being that there is no evidence for, demands the suspension of critical thinking. This is exactly why children will believe in santa and the tooth fairy until they develop a certain level of critical thinking. The only way they will continue to believe in these entities (for which there is no proof) is by suspending this critical thinking.
My statement about you once being an atheist is nothing more than an opinion, why you attack that is beyond me. It just genuinely astounds me that someone, given your intellect, can believe that the bible is a gods work and that there is an omniscient, omnipotent god looking over us and who created everything. That is all.
Please, try not to accuse me yet again of not reading what you write when you respond to this, i know you read what i write, you just come to your own conclusions. I hope by telling you that you aren’t reading what i write has made you feel how i feel every time when you say this.. I do read what you write, you just twist my responses. Just so you know, i will continue to treat religion on the same level as magic and the supernatural, you don't like me doing it because it exposes religion for what it really is, fairy tales. You can't provide me any evidence why god is any less fallacious than magic, so why should i stop treating god and religion as a whole as equally false?
I'll say it yet again chip, you are the same as me, i just believe in one less god than you. Not all religions can be right, but they can be (and in my opinion are) all wrong. The minute you understand why you do NOT believe in every other religion ever invented, and then apply it to christianity, then we will be equal in this respect.
Rabhimself, you just delivered an intellectual body blow to Chip that just might shake his faith. He's probably going to run away and hide. As for Mormon Seth .... that's an entirely different story.
To The Atheist Missionary:
“intellectual body blow to Chip that just might shake his faith.”
Lol body blow! Whew, I needed that.
Irrationality does not shake evidence supported faith. Have you nothing to say AM? Where is your KO to my supposedly easily shaken faith?
To Rab:
Nooo...
For mormonism it presented an argument about something that WOULD have left physical evidence but in no way did. So yeah technically they didn't actually present physical evidence. HOWEVER the Muslim and Christian examples were of happenings that WOULDN'T have left evidence whether or not it really happened. So it is less credible. Also I reject Islam but in the example I gave I identified with the fact that they screwed up regarding Both my religion And Islam throwing out me being irrational simply because I cling to a certain religion. Otherwise I would have blindly applauded the sorry attempt against Islam.
“Wheres your proof? THERE IS NONE.”
Again I presented the case of Morality yet you continue to “ignore” it (if that is how you want to phrase it). It has not basis in evolution because it does not meet the narrow definition of what is considered attributable to the process.
“I am reading it; it is you who keeps twisting things I say to make me look like a fool and give off the impression that I’m not understanding.”
Whenever I claim you are not reading something it comes when you ask an already answered question while making no reference to my original answer (even to disprove my answer) so it either means you are not reading what I write or you are being rude and ignoring it.
“All i was saying was it is just as silly to believe a supernatural being has implanted morals within you as it is that he created everything.”
The problem is when you are asking a question based on the assumption that God exists (for example “Why would God do such and such”) it is not logical then to refute the answer (regarding God’s motive) by saying It is silly that God exists. If that was going to be your rebuttal, then why ask the hypothetical motive of God in the first place? I assumed that is not what you were doing the first time so I figured the “silly” part you were referring to was actually the act of writing it in our hearts hence my response. Because if you were actually referring to the act of writing on our hearts as the silly part (and not God’s existence). Then you are mocking something similar to how God (or nature in your case) writes regular instincts into us.
“That is all, i didn't take it literally. The creation story however chip, cannot be interpreted any other way.”
Wow that is the pot calling the kettle black. So one ridiculous thing such as writing on our hearts can be understood as metaphorical but NOO the literal seven day Creation can not be interpreted in any other way? Why is that? Oh right you need to keep something on the ridiculous field so the entire Bible then falls like a house of cards. The reason you figured out the writing on our hearts was figurative was because a person’s mind usually has the ability to recognize that something that is being described in a non plausible manner is probably not being literal just like the 7 day Creation. We are supposed to use our abilities to reason, to think abstractly for some answers. Those are some things that make us better than the animals.
“Like I said, there is no other context or way to take the creation story in”
Except the context I described.
“The problem (again) is that you insist that the bible is 100% the word of god (except for how he actually made everything, of course),”
“God can utilize men to put to paper what His intended message is without corruption”
Oh and
“Actually it is God’s Word or message it is work inspired by God and there are insignificant clerical and grammatical contradictions the overall message does not contradict itself (assuming you are taking it in context)”
SO I guess you AREN’T reading every thing I write. So don’t cry about me insulting you when I am making fairly accurate assumptions.
That is my actual statement I made earlier. So nice try on suggesting that I have insisted the Bible is 100% the word of God.
ALSO it IS the word of God and I certainly have not rejected Gods Creation. I simply understand it correctly as opposed to your amateurish understanding.
“This is no different from me insisting that wizards are real, only to refer to harry potter.”
Actually it is different as I do not believe the author of Harry Potter claims her books to be of real events. In fact if I am not mistaken they are categorized under fiction. Huh interesting.
“The question i asked was NOT biblical!”
I already explained how it was. I guess you didn’t read that part.
“am NOT asking anything about the bible.”
So when you are asking about a Christian’s God it has nothing to do with the Bible? Interesting.
“The questions were regarding why a tribe who do not believe in, or who have any concept of god, have morals?
What does that have to do with the bible?”
Hmm I guess when you were asking why they had no concept of my God (the Christian God of the Bible).
“This is different from carbon dating, i cannot understand why you think it is the same argument. Carbon has a half life, from this you can demonstrate, scientifically, that things are approximately x years old.”
In this case you may have ready what I wrote but you severely misunderstand the point (which I reiterated). Maybe you never read my reiteration. It is about Asking a scientific question and expecting a scientific answer. You are hung up on the type of scientific answer example I gave. AGAIN if you ask a Biblical question expect a Biblical answer. Just like I expect a scientific answer to any scientific questions I have.
“YOU are not reading what i am saying. I never said, that because christianity was older than these other religions that it must be wrong.”
Actually my response proved that I DID read it but may have misunderstood. When I claim you have not read something is when you ask an already answered question without ever having indicating in any other way that you read it. Such as Q: What is 2+3?, A: 5, Q: But can you tell me what you get when you add 2 and 3?
“What I was trying to show was that these religions pre date your religion, and you accept them as wrong”
The REASON my response was (and still is) applicable to your question is that AGE has nothing to do with why one should accept this religion or that. I reject the predated religions because they have significant flaws and mistakes showing that they are lies. That is the same way I determine new religions are wrong. So if your point was not age then what WAS the point of even mentioning whether or not they pre date my religion.
“and should be applicable to your own”
Because Christianity does not have the significant flaws the others do. Why would you except any understanding. I could say to you Why don’t you reject that the earth is round because you rejected that the earth was flat?
“NO evidence for mormonism, the religion is most probably false.”
Actually I don’t believe in Mormonism because of the definitive evidence that DOES exist Against it. Unlike Christianity which (even if you believe there is no evidence for it) does not have legitimate evidence against it.
“When you stop insulting me by insisting non-stop that i am not reading what you write, and when you present your evidence for the existence of god (i know there is none, hence why you cop-out by attacking me),”
Nice try, I think I’ll go ahead and cop-out and attack. Again I have presented evidence but you must have not read it… okay, okay you read it but are ignoring it. Which is equally bad. Oh and I presented the evidence BEFORE your decisions to not read/ignore it and then I consequently called you on it, thus that throws your theory that I have no answer and I am compensating by attacking you. I simply have no desire to repeat myself (okay I do repeat the fact that you don’t read what I write) whenever you pretend that I have not given an answer to somehow smoke screen/trick the masses into thinking “Well Rab says he didn’t so I won’t bother reading back to see if it is true, I’ll just take his word for it”.
“I have stated numerous times that i KNOW i cannot prove that god doesn't exist.”
So what is with the line:
“I'll say it again chip, i have evidence (hard, logical, rational evidence) that i can present to anyone who questions why i am an atheist.”
What is with all the “hard, logical, rational evidence” talk? Again Probable is not Hard evidence.
“But the onus is not on me to prove he doesn't exist. The onus is on you, who is claiming he does.”
You almost have the right idea. Except that ANYONE making Any claim has the burden to prove it. Even those making the claim that God does not exist. That is also a claim and you have the burden to prove it if you want people to agree with you. If you don’t want people agreeing with you (and changing from this delusional religion) then don’t make the claim or at least don’t act as though you are actually striving to change their mind because if you aren’t making a case then you aren’t really trying to change their mind at all. THAT is a copout to avoid having the responsibility to prove anything, it is your failsafe so that way if you end up being wrong you just have to say “I never had the burden to prove anything, so I was never actually wrong”. If you don’t think you can prove anything then go ahead and quietly sit it out while people who actually think they have proof have the discussion.
“It would be close-minded and arrogant of me to ask you to prove he doesn't”
It would be your choice not to. If I said “I’m not sure I believe your story”. Then I don’t have to prove it but if I said “No, you are wrong No spaghetti monster exists” THEN I am making a claim and if I want you to believe me then I’d better be prepared to prove it.
“I have presented my argument thus far by applying logic and rational to the concept of a god - an entity that you cannot prove exists, yet you claim that of course he does.”
No you have not. You have a preconceived answer in your head you have an expected answer (as shown by your comment). That is not the way logical minds work. They are skeptical and are willing to accept answers supported by proof. You are basically saying “It doesn’t matter what you say I won’t believe it”.
“I have presented my argument thus far by applying logic and rational to the concept of a god - an entity that you cannot prove exists, yet you claim that of course he does. You don't believe in magic chip, do you? If not, why not? Your logic and reasoning for this disbelief are equally applicable to the concept of a god.”
That depends on what constitutes magic. Some people would call the ability to heal, speak in tongues, prophesy as magic.
“This is exactly why children will believe in santa and the tooth fairy until they develop a certain level of critical thinking”
By that logic then everyone who grows up will automatically disbelieve in religion. Otherwise why are there not masses of people who still “suspend critical thinking” regarding such happy figures as Santa Clause? That is because there is actually God behind it. And logic in Christianity.
“Please, try not to accuse me yet again of not reading what you write when you respond to this, i know you read what i write, you just come to your own conclusions. I hope by telling you that you aren’t reading what i write has made you feel how i feel every time when you say this.. I do read what you write, you just twist my responses.”
If you read what I write then don’t pretend that I have never said something by re asking an already answered question. I may come to my own conclusions about what you say but you give no sign of having even made any conclusions about some things I write (twisted or otherwise)
“You can't provide me any evidence why god is any less fallacious than magic, so why should i stop treating god and religion as a whole as equally false?”
Again not the sound of someone who actually seeks the truth “You can’t provide me any ecidence” instead of “So far there is no convincing evidence”. And actually I am not offended if people consider God magic or supernatural because He is.
“I'll say it yet again chip, you are the same as me, i just believe in one less god than you. Not all religions can be right, but they can be (and in my opinion are) all wrong. The minute you understand why you do NOT believe in every other religion ever invented, and then apply it to christianity, then we will be equal in this respect.”
I am not insulted easily. But you Have made this claim several times. So for your persistence I will give you my opinion that I have withheld. You are not equal to me. We are not the same. Even if I lowered myself to atheism again, you would still not be equal to me. How is it possible to apply fallacies of other religions to a religion that has none? Because the fallacies of those religions are the reason I don’t believe in them and the lack of fallacies in Christ that causes me to believe in Him. I am sure it is easy for a person (like yourself) with preconceived results to apply errors of one thing to another just to fit your preconceived result. That is like a person saying that because they discovered that the sun does not revolve around earth then we should apply that proof to the moon.
Oh and AM
Don't play Michael Moore thinking that you can simply say something and the people will fall in line. Anyone who has any remote intellect will not say "AM said Rab delivered a body blow so it must be so. I don't need to actually read it for myself". And if they had already read it did you really expect them to change their minds simply because you gave a hollow statement of support? Like your name holds that kind of weight, to irrationally sway the minds of all readers? Or were you only targeting the mindless drones that usually unquestionably agree with your posts?
Chip, I don't have time to respond to all of your points. However, I was interested by your comment: "That depends on what constitutes magic. Some people would call the ability to heal, speak in tongues, prophesy as magic."
I agree that the three examples you give would constitute magic. But here are your problems:
1. Prayer has been consistently proven to be sterile in an experimental environment. In other words, prayer cannot heal. Of course, the very notion of prayer healing is nonsensical. I assume that you have visited the sites: Why Does God Hate Amputees? and God is Imaginary - they are priceless and thought provoking.
2. If, by speaking in tongues, you mean that someone who does not know a language manages to speak it, I say with 110% certainty that has never been replicated in an experimental setting.
3. What do you mean by prophecy? If your God wants to get my attention, have him/her/it leave me a little note under my pillow tonight with the winning 6/49 (Canada's national lottery) numbers for the April 28, 2009 draw. Or better yet, if God has revealed himself/herself/itself to you, you can tell me the numbers. I will buy a ticket and, if I win, every nickel will go to Oxfam third world relief, I will shut down this site and your glorious Lord will have performed a very simple prophetic miracle. That shouldn't be too hard for an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent being.
Chip,
The reason why i don't refer back to everything you have ever written, and the result being, you think i'm not reading/ignoring it, is because they are quite simply hollow statements. The morality idea is not evidence. All that is is another claim that demands evidence. I tried to counter the morality claim by talking about that tribe. You respond my making ANOTHER claim that demands evidence in itself, that they already know right from wrong as it is already placed within them by god. If you can't prove god exists then you can't use that to prove why they have morals.
On the contrary chip, the age argument is perfect to demonstrate why there is probably no god. Humans havebeen around for thousands of years. Christianity cropped up well after we emerged as a species, and up until and including that point in time, there were many diffeent beliefs in gods. You can't possibly state they all had errors, because to claim that means you have studied every single one of them.
That is besides the point. The point is, they are ALL wrong. For a being who is omnipotent and omniscient, you'd think he'd make it clear from the start who to worship. You don't like me using the hypothetical arguments, i don't understand why. It's no different from saying, if santa is real, why doesn't he deliver presents to everyone at christmas?
There's nothing wrong with having a hypothetical viewpoint in a debate.
You state that christianity has no innaccuracies. Understand that for me, personally, it's not the innacuracies that i target. It is the sheer hocus-pocus factor of everything about it. This, is applicable to all religiong. You find it ridiculous muhammed flew up to the heavens ona magic horse, i do too, but i also find it equally ridiculous that jesus did the same thing, without the horse, after rising from the dead.
I could go on and on like that.
The whole argument about not taking the creation story literally is just a bit off to me. How else do you interpret it? I take it you also don't believe that moses escaped the pharaoh by parting the red sea? Or that god flooded the earth and got noah to put two of every animal on a giant ark?
I'm sorry chip, but just like the miracles of jesus, these things are supposed to have literally happened! 7 day creation included. It's a bit different from intepreting a metaphorical statement. If you genuinely think this, then surely you have to apply it to jesus too. He didn't really feed 2000 people with a few fish and a loaf of bread, it was actually only 20, etc etc. How can you expect us atheists to know what is liteal and what is not when christians as a whole can not make their minds up?
You also accus me of having preconceived answers. You know what? I'll admit to that. Bare in mind i was once christian though, and once upon a time those pre-conceived answers lay on your side of the fence. One day i examined the evidence as i matured in my early teens. Low and behold, i came to the conclusion i'd been foolish to believe such nonsense. Ever since i have thought this, so of course, to a certain degree i have pre conceived answers. The questions i ask you are indeed, designed to make religion seem stupid, or alternatively make the penny drop within your own mind. I make no apologies or reserve no shame for this.
Your 'evidence' is the bible. That is it. A book that i firmly believe is not the message of god, but a book made by our ancestors (a branch of them) to try to control and maniuplate people. So forgive me if you quote it at some point and expect me to buy it, cause i wont.
Again, with regards to preconceived answers, you are just the same as me. For example, when you ask about the morality question, you have a preconceived answer too. It's not exactly a crime. You have your bias, i have mine.
You note that when people grow up, they discard the belief in santa, but not religion. This is my problem chip. They don't believe in santa because they think critically about it, and know there is no evidence for him. Due to the nature of religion however, being well rooted into our society, the same rationale isn't applied to it. This is what i WANT people to start doing.
To finish:
'I am not insulted easily. But you Have made this claim several times. So for your persistence I will give you my opinion that I have withheld. You are not equal to me. We are not the same. Even if I lowered myself to atheism again, you would still not be equal to me. How is it possible to apply fallacies of other religions to a religion that has none? Because the fallacies of those religions are the reason I don’t believe in them and the lack of fallacies in Christ that causes me to believe in Him. I am sure it is easy for a person (like yourself) with preconceived results to apply errors of one thing to another just to fit your preconceived result. That is like a person saying that because they discovered that the sun does not revolve around earth then we should apply that proof to the moon.'
I'll start by politely pointing out that it was with regards to the belief in gods. I'm not saying we are the same, as a person, chip. I quite clearly state that we will be 'equal in this respect'.
'How is it possible to apply fallacies of other religions to a religion that has none? Because the fallacies of those religions are the reason I don’t believe in them and the lack of fallacies in Christ that causes me to believe in Him'
Christianity has no fallacies? Ok. Well, could you point out the fallacies in mormonism for me please? Islam too while you are at it. Show me how your critical thinking leads you to the correct conclusion that they are both wrong. Go for it, i'll respond afterwards.
Oh, and also:
“I'll say it again chip, i have evidence (hard, logical, rational evidence) that i can present to anyone who questions why i am an atheist.”
I'll reword this, as you obviously misunderstand me.
I'll say it again chip, i have evidence (hard, logical, rational evidence) that i can present to anyone who questions why i don't believe in god.
I never said, and in fact have acknowledged many times that i cannot prove that, god doesn't exist. I just find the improbability of his existence extremely high and thus, dont believe in him.
And i'll warn you in advance iun case you ask. My evidences are basically based on the hypothetical existence of him, combined with the lack of evidence that he is there.
AM
Now you are the one not reading what I write
“Prayer has been consistently proven to be sterile in an experimental environment.”
I already addressed that claim with Rab. There are tests on both sides that say prayer is not proven and that prayer is proven in test results. I see them both but it is interesting that you only notice the ones against prayer. Not very objective of you.
“I assume that you have visited the sites: Why Does God Hate Amputees? and God is Imaginary - they are priceless and thought provoking.”
I guess you aren’t paying attention. Yes I have visited the site. I addressed one video so far and intend on breaking apart the rest. None of it is thought provoking to someone who sees the amateurism in the “arguments” they make. It is so easy to debunk their “logic” I don’t even have to try, it is laughable. Even more laughable is that you guys cling to it while ignoring the glaring irrationality of the vids. They don’t make a good case at all and I Have seen atheists make good cases so it is not simply because I disagree with their point.
“If, by speaking in tongues, you mean that someone who does not know a language manages to speak it, I say with 110% certainty that has never been replicated in an experimental setting.”
Actually it is not someone speaking an Earthly language at all, so no, they cannot simply speak any language even if they don’t know it. You are thinking of Xenoglossy. It is a Holy language from God. I have personally heard it spoken multiple times. Studies Have been made about it, because it is not a rare unlikely to replicate act. I know you can do simple google searches and find information regarding studies. So it is interesting that you would say you are 110% sure when it is clear you have not made even simple efforts to backup your claim. Again not the sound of an objective skeptic.
“What do you mean by prophecy? If your God wants to get my attention, have him/her/it leave me a little note under my pillow tonight with the winning 6/49 (Canada's national lottery) numbers for the April 28, 2009 draw. Or better yet, if God has revealed himself/herself/itself to you, you can tell me the numbers.”
Prophesy is not the ability to see any future YOU choose or God as some kind of genie to grant wishes for you. It is about foretelling of future Significant events. A flippant and childish understanding of prophesy (like yours) is not at all an accurate or any where near a close honest representation of it. An intelligent person (even an atheist) would be less immature about their expectations regarding things of that nature. An honest and intelligent skeptic would make a serious search for evidence (or lack there of) of the adult understanding of claims like that. Because any idiot can demand that God tell them about lotto numbers to prove Himself and then irrationally feel they have made a sound conclusion against God when there is no result.
“The reason why i don't refer back to everything you have ever written, and the result being, you think i'm not reading/ignoring it, is because they are quite simply hollow statements.”
Incorrect. I am specifically talking about when YOU ask an already answered question. Even if you did not agree with my answer it would make sense to progress with the debate by rebutting my new point. HOWEVER you simply re ask the question making no reference to my answer to That question as if you did not read what I wrote. I am not referring to the times you simply don’t address a claim that I have made or when you ask a question and I answer and you never bring up that subject again.
“If you can't prove god exists then you can't use that to prove why they have morals.”
You asked for evidence. I claimed that morality was proof. You said it could be explained by evolution. And I said prove it. You never did and then stopped brining it up. My argument was that morality could not be explained by any natural occurrence explaining how it is not applicable to the definition of evolution, nor how it is applicable to instinct. You then say they are applicable without elaborating on how. That leaves my claim as more likely as I gave my case and you could not or would not refute it. So I moved on with the established evidence of morality and addressed a DIFFERENT point you brought up about how they have morality despite not knowing God. I did not use morality as my new proof I used the explanation in the Bible about God revealing Himself in nature as to the proof of how they knew God. ALSO I would not use morality as the proof because God instills morality in EVERYONE (not just the ones that had the opportunity to learn about God) so even IF God did not reveal himself in nature to them they would still HAVE morality. That is like saying that God give some people souls and others no souls based on if they know of Him. That is the whole reason we got into it regarding whether or not you asked a Biblical question because you refused to accept my Biblical answer (not my answer about morality as proof). So don’t skew the truth in an attempt to make it look as though I am using circular logic. My path is Morality Proves God, God Proves the Bible, The Bible Clarifies God’s Motives, and Actions (including revealing himself in nature).
“On the contrary chip, the age argument is perfect to demonstrate why there is probably no god. Humans havebeen around for thousands of years. Christianity cropped up well after we emerged as a species, and up until and including that point in time, there were many diffeent beliefs in gods.”
I already debunked this line of thinking. The age of a thing is not a valid tool used in official debate because it does not follow logical reasoning. If you were to attempt that line of thinking in an official debate it would automatically be thrown out. So I am throwing it out. Age has not bearing on the validity of a subject.
“You can't possibly state they all had errors, because to claim that means you have studied every single one of them.”
Try me.
“For a being who is omnipotent and omniscient, you'd think he'd make it clear from the start who to worship.”
Kinda defeats the purpose of free will doesn’t it? God could have made robots that followed His every command but instead He made humans.
“You don't like me using the hypothetical arguments, i don't understand why”
You keep making statements that I don’t like this or that. But I never said I didn’t want you using hypothetical arguments. Quote me ever making that statement. In fact the only way we have a discussion about God is to expect you to ask a question that in your eyes has to be hypothetical because you don’t believe He is real.
“You find it ridiculous muhammed flew up to the heavens ona magic horse”
Can you please quote me saying this is what I think?
“I could go on and on like that.”
You can go on and on saying I think or said things I never said? I am sure you can.
“How else do you interpret it?”
Did you not read what I wrote about how I interpret the Creation?
“Or that god flooded the earth and got noah to put two of every animal on a giant ark?”
I believe that the region that had people at the time was flooded. Their world was certainly flooded. And there is archeological evidence of a major flood in the Mediterranean area about the time of Noah. Also there is a boat like formation that matches the specification laid out in the Bible AND it is located in the same mountains as the Bible claims. And yes I am aware that some scientists don’t believe it and are trying to establish evidence against the claim. As well as scientists who do believe it but are striving to confirm it. It is unconfirmed and I understand that but it has yet to be officially confirmed as false. I believe that some events in the Bible can be explained by science on the natural aspects that allowed miraculous events take place. For instance science has attempted to explain how Jesus would have walked on water. It is something to the effect of precise temperatures of the sea and attributes of a river and salt that allowed formations of ice and other material to be walkable. As I mentioned before I believe that Science simply reveals God’s methods. I believe that extremely rare events that can be explained scientifically were put in motion by God. So events like the parting of the sea may yet to be explained by science but I believe that there is some scientific explanation for how something can happen as it did. Maybe the common thought that the sea was parted with great walls of waves on either side are not accurate, instead water receding away from something of a land bridge just below the water allowed them to cross and then the water level rising drowning the enemy. Maybe something to do with combinations of wind earthquakes or something I can’t fathom but if walking on water can be explained then I would not be surprised if others can eventually be explained.
“Your 'evidence' is the bible. That is it.”
Incorrect. But I suppose you will ignore the things I have said before.
“to try to control and maniuplate people”
Right to manipulate them into being good and kind people.
“Again, with regards to preconceived answers, you are just the same as me.”
Incorrect again. I base my faith on the evidence. If the evidence can be definitively refuted then I will change what I believe. I am so adamant for Christianity as I am now because it is what is supported by the evidence. I am adamant about whatever the evidence proves.
“For example, when you ask about the morality question, you have a preconceived answer too.”
No, I accepted the idea that morality is not a product of God. Until I realized that it cannot be logically attributed to instincts, evolution, invented etc. If it can be logically proven to be attributed to something other than God then I would change my thinking. The problem is no one has been able to do so yet.
“I'll reword this, as you obviously misunderstand me.
I'll say it again chip, i have evidence (hard, logical, rational evidence) that i can present to anyone who questions why i don't believe in god.
I never said, and in fact have acknowledged many times that i cannot prove that, god doesn't exist. I just find the improbability of his existence extremely high and thus, dont believe in him.”
Again that is not hard evidence it is simply an opinion that there is insufficient evidence.
I would be glad to break down Mormonism in a following post.
Some things I am including are BOM contradictions with The Bible, or scripture from the Bible to refute a claim that Joseph Smith has made. I realize you don’t accept the Bible as proof of anything but it is how I would present it to a Mormon who DOES believe in The Bible. But I have also included proofs of the general Archeological, Linguistic, Historical, and Anthropological nature.
Smith's community (60+ people) has attested to Smith and his family having habits of concocting schemes to cheat people. Which shows he propensity towards greed. So Smith created the Story of Mormon to exploit people. He had a history of using other methods to exploit people. (I can quote the refutation if you would like)
Joseph Smith lied about the “Reformed Egyptian” text. In the Pearl of Great Price Smith claims that Professor Charles Anthon proclaimed that the copy of the text from the magic plates were “Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphics”. When Anthon discovered this he wrote a letter to E. D. Howe refuting the claim. Anthon wrote “The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be ‘reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics’ is perfectly false”. Anthon also wrote “the paper contained anything else but ‘Egyptian Hieroglyphics’” (Ferguson Collection, BYU). (If you would like me to quote you the letter in its entirety to read Anthon’s full account of his denunciation, I will do that for you). For arguments sake lets assume that the text was in fact Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Anthon was mistaken or was not knowledgeable enough to make an educated statement one way or the other. Then Smith still Lied about it. Why would Smith continue to claim Anthon verified the text? Why not get a second opinion from a different expert and use his testimony? That is because the claim itself was a lie in the first place so Smith needed further lies to support it.
The BOM talks about Chariots (Alma 18:9). There is no evidence of actual wheeled vehicle usage in the 2,000 BC to 400 AD time frame in Ancient America.
The BOM mentions Bellows (1 Nephi 17:11), Brass (2 Nephi 5:15), Breast Plates & Copper (Mosiah 8:10), Iron (Jarom 1:8), Gold and Silver currency (Alma 11), Silver (Jarom 1:8), and Steel Swords (Ether 7:9). No evidence indicates that these items existed during Book of Mormon times. Tom Ferguson: "Metallurgy does not appear in the region until about the 9th century A.D."
The BOM mentions the following animals: Ass, Bull, Calf, Cattle, Cow, domestic Goat, Horse (the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies), Ox, domestic Sheep, Sow, Swine, & Elephants. None of these animals even existed in America during the era and timescale of Book of Mormon times.
Numerous LDS books and papers describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and the "narrow neck of land". No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The BOM describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.
None of the place names from the Book of Mormon still exist when Columbus arrived.
There aren’t any examples of "Reformed Egyptian" in Ancient America.
There is no existence of linguistically related correlation between any Native American language and ancient Egyptian or Hebrew.
The BOM language could not have evolved so rapidly into non-related Native American languages. Indo-European is much older than the BOM time period, yet vestiges of Indo-European exist through all of Europe and parts of Asia.
The BOM was cast into the KJV style. "...there is a continual use of the 'thee', 'thou' and 'ye', as well as the archaic verb endings 'est' (second person singular) and 'eth' (third person singular). Since the Elizabethan style was not Joseph's natural idiom, he continually slipped out of this King James pattern and repeatedly confused the norms as well. Thus he lapsed from 'ye' (subject) to 'you' (object) as the subject of sentences (e.g. 'Mos. 2:19; 4:24), jumped from plural ('ye') to singular ('thou') in the same sentence (Mos. 4:22) and moved from verbs without endings to ones with endings (e.g. 'yields . . . putteth,' 3:19)." (The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon, by Wesley P. Walters, 1990, page 30).
Mistakes that were changed from the original BOM to the Current BOM
In Mosiah 21:28 the name of the king has been changed from Benjamin to Mosiah. In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon we read as follows:
". . . king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings . . ." (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition, page 200)
In modern editions of the Book of Mormon this verse has been changed to read:
". . . king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings . . ." (Book of Mormon, 1964 edition, Mosiah 21:28)
According to chronology found in the Book of Mormon, king Benjamin should have been dead at this time; therefore, the Mormon Church leaders evidently felt that it was best to change the king's name to Mosiah.
Another change involving the names Benjamin and Mosiah is found in the Book of Ether. On page 546 of the first edition of the Book of Mormon we read as follows:
". . . for this cause did king Benjamin keep them . . . "
In the 1964 edition, Ether 4:1, we read:
". . . for this cause did king Mosiah keep them . . . "
Contradictions with the BOM and The Bible.
Church began in 33 AD Matthew 16:18 + Acts 2
Church began in 147BC, Mosiah 18:17
3 hours of darkness at crucifixion Luke 23:44
3 Days of darkness at crucifixion Hel 14:20, 27
“Indians wrote many official records” Hel 3:13, “scrolls” Mor 5:23 “and other writings” Mor 9:2; 2 Nephi 9:18
Native Americans never wrote but used simple pictures to communicate.
North American Indians are descended from Jews
Being "mongoloid", are descended from East Asia
Also genetic studies have determined that there is not even a fraction of Jewish DNA in ANY natives. If Jews were living in Central or South America there would be indicators in their DNA. Instead the DNA supports that they originated in East Asia.
God cursed Indians with dark skin. Anyone who marries Indian shall get dark skin too. 2 Nephi 5:21-23; Jacob 3:3-9; Mormon 5:15-17; Alma 3:6-10
If this were true, there would be no part Native American, only full-blooded Native Americans. The statement is genetically false.
When Indians accept Mormon teachings they will become, "white and delightsome people" 2 Nephi 30:5-7; 3 Nephi 2:15
This is white supremacist racism and implies a correlation between skin color and righteousness.
Anthropologists and geneticists have shown that the Mediterranean races from which the Jewish or Semitic race derive bear no semblance to those of Native Americans. It has been determined that they are Mongoloid in origin.
This is a quote from The Smithsonian Institute in Washington:
“There is no correspondence whatever between archeological sites and cultures as revealed by scientific investigations and as recorded in the Book of Mormon. Interpretations of archeological and ethnographic data, moreover, are quite unlike the American prehistory which the Book of Mormon describes…It can be stated definitely that there is no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon…The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book…We know of no authentic cases of ancient Egyptian or Hebrew writing having been found in the New World. Reports of findings of Egyptian influence in the Mexican and Central America areas have been published in newspaper and magazines from time to time, but thus far no reputable Egyptologist has been able to discover any relationship between Mexican remains and those in Egypt.
With respect to some of the questions which you have raised pertaining to the story in the Book of Mormon relating to aboriginal occupation in the New World, I may say thus far no iron, steel, brass, gold and silver coins, metal, swords, breast-plates, arm shields, armor, horses and chariots, or silk have ever been found in pre-colonial archeological sites. It is not until after the conquest of the New World by Europeans that materials in those categories appear in association with aboriginal artifacts. As a matter of fact, there are not many such objects occurring in historic sites. Furthermore, cattle, sheep, swine, horses and asses, such as we know them were introduced in the Americas by Europeans in post-Columbian times. No actual elephants have been found in any archeological site…I do not know of any cases where an archeological site has been identified with any of the names of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The most likely ruined cities would be those in the Maya area, and they all have native names which do not correspond to those in your list. It is possible that some of the anthropologists at Brigham Young University who have done some work in the Maya area may have attempted such a correlation, but if so I have not seen it reported. None of the main workers if the field have made any reference to the possibility of one of the well-known ruins being those of a city mentioned in the Book of Mormon.”
- Smithsonian Institution, pg 35-36 The Book of Mormon Examined by Arthur Budvarson
Smith has prophesied things that clearly have come to be wrong. The Bible says a prophet that prophesies things that do not come true is not a prophet of God. Because Smith has falsely prophesied on many occasions it is clear that he is not a prophet of God.
Deu 18: 21 says:
"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken"
Isa 8:20
“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
Smith has prophesied about things that did not come true.
For instance the Jerusalem temple was never built in Smith's life time.
The Nauvoo House was never built and it says that the Nauvoo House would always belong to the Smith family but that site is now owned by the Reorganized LDS church.
“I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri...that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left.” The wrongs were never redressed.
Joseph Smith said that the coming of the Lord was “nigh — even 56 years should wind up the scene.” (Given in 1835)
Then there is the Patten failure. "he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto the world" (D&C 114:1). David W. Patten died before the next spring thus the prophesy was false.
The BOM and Smith have been disproved Historically, Linguistically, Archeologically, and Anthropologically, as well as what the Bible says, and what people's testimony say.
Chip, i give in.
This debate is completely futile, i completely disagree with your line of thinking. You obviously feel the same about me. Our views of evidence are completely different.
You claim you are a christian because of the evidence for it. What you state as evidence, however, i disagree with. E.g. you claim that god reveals himself to people who have no concept of him simply thorugh the world around us. How is that evidence? How can that possibly prove to someone that there is a god?
With regards to how you intepret biblical stories, thats just sour as well. I've read over what you've written againc chip. All i see is that you don't believe god literally made the earth in 7 days, and that he actually used evolution to aid with the development of man and other creatures.
Again, i think this is simply rubbish! You never seem to directyl adress the fact that biblical stories are actually trying to tell events that actually happen. You PARTIALLY accept it for the story of noah. Partially?? So god didn't actually flood the planet as suggested then. Also, 2 of every animal? That didn't happen either then? Just goes back to this picking and choosing thing, i'm sorry, but it obviously does.
I'll try and state the age argument once more to try and make you see my line of thinking. I'm not saying that because christianity is relatively new in the grand scale of mankinds religions, that it is surely wrong. What i am saying is, that billions of people before christianity have came up with thousands of religions and they are all wrong. Today, you still dismiss other religions apart from your own. The reason you do this chip is by application of critical thinking. Obviously zeus doesn't exist, obviously ra doesn't, horus etc etc. Buy ypur god? Oh no no no no, he does. Definitely. You have 'evidence'.
I'm sure none of these other religions had 'evidence'.....
As for this:
'' “You find it ridiculous muhammed flew up to the heavens ona magic horse”
Can you please quote me saying this is what I think?
“I could go on and on like that.”
You can go on and on saying I think or said things I never said? I am sure you can. ''
Stop being childish and awkward. I know you haven't said it chip, but i know that's what you think, just like all other non-muslims. You don't believe in santa! Do i need to have that in writing for it to be confirmed? Of course not. I cannot see that as anything more than a childish attempt to aggravate me and disregard a fair point.
I also think you attribute something to god if it cannot be logically attributed to something else. By the way, i think morals can be attributed to evolution, why not? You already accept that evolution is gods method of getting us here... but morals cant be a part of that? Even though evolution is god's doing accroding to you? Get off. A species that works together and look out for one another is more likely to survive than one that wrongs each other, i don't see why this instinct can be carried on through generations.
You're line of thinking is just twisted. If you can't explain something it must be god? That's basically what you are implying.
Anyway chip, i think we should give this up, like i said, we are never going to agree, and none of us are going to convert the other.
Now. With regards to you breakdown on mormonism. At last, we agree on something. It really i a well pieced together screed of why mormonism is quite clearly fallacious.
The point i would now like to make, is that someone would be equally capable of writing a simliar piece against christianity. Pop on to the, What to do next time mormons come to your door, topic. Tell Seth, to come and read this, and he will frustrate you (just like you furstrate me) with what will appear to you as a bunch of non-sensical, closed-minded cop-outs that are devoid of critical thinking. But to him - it is the complete opposite.
Not only that, he is the type of person i talk about who could come up with an equally convincing case as to why christianity is wrong.
The overall point is that both of you would view each other as i do. Being the atheist, i have no bias towards either religion, and think they are both as silly as one another, i can then look at both of your evidences as to why each of you are wrong, and agree with both.
That video i showed you a while back, regarding the bubbles. You are well within the christian bubble. He is well within the mormon bubble. You's both highlight exactly what the video is trying to demonstrate.
I'm tempted to put a word in to Seth and see what he comes up with.
“you claim that god reveals himself to people who have no concept of him simply thorugh the world around us. How is that evidence? How can that possibly prove to someone that there is a god?”
Okay you are distorting the conversation. THAT was not the evidence for God it was the answer to the question of how can tribal people be subject to God’s judgment if they have not formally been taught about the Bible. That is a completely different subject. Morality is what I claim as evidence. Either way you are right that it is futile because you reject either as proof of anything so I suppose I am nit picking.
“You never seem to directyl adress the fact that biblical stories are actually trying to tell events that actually happen.”
No I am saying that while the Bible is ultimately not flawed our understanding and perceptions of its content certainly CAN be flawed because that is where the human error can apply. Your issue is you are suggesting that our some human’s understanding of God’s Word is perfect but God’s Word is flawed. THAT is not logical. Assuming God exists, then it is more logical that his Word is not the one which is mistaken but our understanding.
“Stop being childish and awkward. I know you haven't said it chip, but i know that's what you think, just like all other non-muslims.”
Well if we are trying to be logical and use reasoning then NO you cannot know what I think unless I actually say something to that effect. So yeah you admitting that I did not make those statements actually do matter when it comes to your credibility as to what you claim to know about my opinions.
“You already accept that evolution is gods method of getting us here... but morals cant be a part of that?”
Because it does not meet the criteria for the definition of evolution. You cannot fit a rectangle into the category of squares, because it fails to meet the specific criteria of what a square is. Evolution has criteria to be met and morality falls outside of that criteria.
“species that works together and look out for one another is more likely to survive than one that wrongs each other”
Then how can you explain the many species of animals that do not need morality to survive. We would survive without it. Thus it is not a product of evolution.
“If you can't explain something it must be god”
No I am saying that even everything that IS explained is from God. I do not believe God is a gap filler.
“The point i would now like to make, is that someone would be equally capable of writing a simliar piece against christianity.”
Yet no one has…
“Being the atheist, i have no bias towards either religion”
You just have a bias against them.
Yeah, i do have bias against them? Whats your point? You have bias against every other religion except your own so dont go barking up that tree. I have bias because they all provide no evidence for their god's existence. Seems like a fair bias to me.
Morality is a product of intelligence, more intelligent animals work together in general. I don't see why we need a millenia old book to provide us morals.
I'm not twisitng anythin chip, if you claim that god reveals himself in the world around us to people who have no concept of him, then you have no choice but to imply thats evidence of his existence.
I dont see how i can interpret the story of moses parting the red sea any other way than literally. The ten plagues? All that jazz? Is there some metaphorical way i should somehow know to take such stories? Jesus rising from the dead? It's just all nonsense to me.
You are still being childish and awkward regarding your statements on whether or not i know what you think. I've already pointed out that i dont need you to tell me santa doesn't exist for me to know you think that. It's a trivial matter that my powers of deduction are more than capable of dealing with. - Unless, you actually do believe in the muslim stories too??
Plenty of people have ridiculed christianity as you did, go search around you'll find plenty. If you meant nobody has on here, then why dont you talk to Seth? He'll gladly tear your religion in two just as you did his, and he'll still think your wrong , and you'll still think he's wrong. Go to the, 'what to do nexst time mormons come knockinh on your door,' thread and challenge him. I don't want to be responsible for a, ' my religion is more real than your religion', debate.
Chip, what is this? 'Assuming God exists, then it is more logical that his Word is not the one which is mistaken but our understanding.'
Priceless. Another classic example of the atheist not being allowed to use a certain type of argument because they are not qualified to do so, yet the religiot can. It's ok for you to make a hypothetical point or argument, but oh no, when i do it, it is unacceptable.
If god exists, then the majority of people are in a dire position becasue they are in the wrong religion, or not in the correct one. I'd argue if there is a god then i'm an a better position than you, statistically speaking, you are probably worshiping the wrong god. At least if i have to go to the pearly gates to explain myself, your perfect god will surely understand why his intelligent creation examined the evidence and concluded he's not there. Better than trying to tell him you blindly followed the wrong religion.
That's a side argument in any case, and doesnt really matter.
Throughout our existence there have been thousands of religions, but no, they are ALL wrong with the exception of yours. What a load of rubbish, keep dreaming mate.
We should probably end this. Like i've previously stated you think i talk a load of crap and the feeling is mutual.
Bias is unreasoned judgment that is formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge, and irrational attitudes of hostility directed against a group, race etc.
My judgment is reasoned and is formed on more sufficient knowledge of the religions involved than you have. Also as I mentioned before IF someone can provide legitimate evidence disproving Christianity then I will stop believing just like when I converted from my atheistic belief to Christianity. Any hostility I have against other beliefs is rationally derived from the concept that if my religion is correct then the followers of other religions will go to Hell and those religions are causing danger to those who believe them. What kind of person would I be if I didn’t have the desire to save people from that danger? Unlike some atheists (like the amputees one) is Irrationally hostile against Christianity because they claim that Christianity causes harm, which it does not, in fact it encourages love, compassion, and caring of others. So atheists would only have a rational attitude of disagreement with Christianity IF it were not hostile because there is no rational reason to be hostile against the teachings of Jesus only to disagree because you don’t believe it. Most rational atheists simply choose not to believe for themselves and they don’t fight against Christians spreading the Gospel because they know it does not cause harm. It is a rational motive for Christians to convert others because of the danger of Hell, but irrational of atheists to actively convert because Christianity does no harm, so atheists are not saving anyone from any danger or threat.
So there is no such thing as fair bias.
“I don't see why we need a millenia old book to provide us morals.”
God provides the morals not the Book.
“I'm not twisitng anythin chip, if you claim that god reveals himself in the world around us to people who have no concept of him, then you have no choice but to imply thats evidence of his existence.”
No that is not evidence to His existence but to His methods. Morality is the evidence of His existence. I can keep repeating what I actually mean while you keep twisting it.
“You are still being childish and awkward regarding your statements on whether or not i know what you think. I've already pointed out that i dont need you to tell me santa doesn't exist for me to know you think that. It's a trivial matter that my powers of deduction are more than capable of dealing with. - Unless, you actually do believe in the muslim stories too??”
I’m not sure “childish and awkward” means what you think it means because you keep using it out of a context that does not apply towards my attitude. You have repeated it several times and all I can imagine is that you are trying to subliminally imprint the idea that I am “childish and awkward” to (for some reason) convince the readers that I have this character flaw though it has nothing to do with the conversation. The rest of your comment I have already explained though you seem not to have read it.
“Plenty of people have ridiculed christianity as you did, go search around you'll find plenty. If you meant nobody has on here, then why dont you talk to Seth? He'll gladly tear your religion in two just as you did his, and he'll still think your wrong , and you'll still think he's wrong. Go to the, 'what to do nexst time mormons come knockinh on your door,' thread and challenge him. I don't want to be responsible for a, ' my religion is more real than your religion', debate.”
I meant competently and intellectually proved Christianity wrong. Not just made amateurish attempts at it. So no Seth has not done it just as I have. I have searched and searched because I enjoy the conflict and debate but I have yet to find anything legitimate, intelligent etc. What gave you the idea that that or anything he has written even remotely compares to the level or research I am capable of (or at least the level I have shown about Mormonism thus far). Frankly based on his sorry post I would think that even you are a more worthy adversary than Seth. Seth does not believe in Mormonism because of the evidence so when there is proof against the evidence then it changes nothing for him. He continually suggests he is only a Mormon because he finds that it is the most useful structure to use as a guide for social behavior. He has suggested that he would convert if another religion that had more appealing and useful framework not because it is true not because his religion is proven false it is all irrelevant to a person who is willing to follow a religion based solely on the guidelines it provides. I on the other hand follow Christianity based on the evidence for it and for God. Because I respect Mormonism to the extent that they encourage education they have a strong system and they are generally some of the nicest people I have met. BUT I reject them because of the evidence against them. That is the only logical path to take. The way Seth talks reminds me of the typical brainwashing Mormons have been subjected to. If you said you are willing to throw out evidence, reason, logic simply because you like your current belief then the conversation would end because my only arguments are based from evidence logic and reasoning and it would be futile and a waste of time to present evidence to someone already admitting they will reject it no matter what. Seth also misunderstands LDS’s stance on the perfection of the BOM and Smith. He ignores Biblical views (though Mormons claim to believe in the Bible). He misunderstands what constitutes Prophesies and whether or not they can be infallible.
Seth said
"It makes for a much more versatile handling of the doctrinal framework."
He is willing to believe in any religion not based on truth but what is most appealing and what allows him to distort doctrine to adapt to any argument against it. Solid Doctrine does not need "handling" (let alone versatile) if it is right then it will stand on its own. So if his religion needs to be adaptable then there is something wrong with what he believes.
I agree when AM stated
"Although you identify yourself as a Mormon, my sense is that when we get right down to it you are an agonostic with an affinity for the ontological argument supporting the existence of God. You like the idea of God. The supposition of God explains things that you feel require an explanation, such as "useful paradigm for viewing the universe or for contextualizing human ethics". "
He is very much like an undecided agnostic because he is not solid in what he believes. His attitude is that if he presents his beliefs as something he won't hold TOO strongly to then he can plausibly claim he never ACTUALLY said he believed this or that. That is typical of someone who cleverly makes it seem that he believes in something while having plausible deniability the whole way, so no one can ever say he is actually wrong about this or that. It is all smoke and mirrors. And all this says about him is that he is weak minded, that he has no real convictions or beliefs, he does not actually trust his own information enough to be able to make concrete claims. Much like agnostics who are very vague and general about their beliefs to avoid any real confrontation about their opinions. If they say I believe in some Being or Higher Power then of course I would agree with them but then they cut the rest off by basically saying that they won't elaborate or expand giving more specifics about this Higher Power there is not argument left.
"Priceless. Another classic example of the atheist not being allowed to use a certain type of argument because they are not qualified to do so, "
No it is what is in fact more logical. This is a hypothetical that applies to anyone not just Christians. Again Assuming God were real and He established His Word how does it makes sense that an all powerful being would more likely be wrong as opposed to flawed people? You don't have to be Christian to understand this. I am not suggesting (in any way) that you cannot attempt to use Biblical based arguments against Christians. If you found a real contradiction between the Bible and itself then sure you can use it. It has nothing to do with whether you believe in the Bible or not it has to do what makes more logical sense regarding an All Powerful God.
“If god exists, then the majority of people are in a dire position becasue they are in the wrong religion, or not in the correct one. I'd argue if there is a god then i'm an a better position than you, statistically speaking, you are probably worshiping the wrong god. At least if i have to go to the pearly gates to explain myself, your perfect god will surely understand why his intelligent creation examined the evidence and concluded he's not there. Better than trying to tell him you blindly followed the wrong religion.”
None of this line of thinking followed any type of logic.
Chip wrote: IF someone can provide legitimate evidence disproving Christianity then I will stop believing ... and, with respect to Mormonism: I reject them because of the evidence against them. That is the only logical path to take.If you have time, please take a look at my post: http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/04/i-wonder-if-jesus-started-to-smell-on.htmlChip, do you really believe that a dead piece of meat started to rot and then came back to life? If so, why? Please be specific. When answering, please keep in mind the fact that the supposed event of a dead person coming back to life is far from unique to Christianity and was prevalent in several religious traditions which existed thousands of years before the birth of Jesus.
In my experience, some of the most apparently fervent and knowledgeable Christians have difficulty responding to this question.
The evidence which I offer you is that dead, rotting pieces of meat don't come back to life. That's the best one I can come up with off the top of my head and it goes to the core of what Christians believe.
You know what Chip? I give in. I'm sick of you making out like i don't understand, that i'm not reading things, that you are being logical and i am not.
Just to support why i give up briefly:
“Stop being childish and awkward. I know you haven't said it chip, but i know that's what you think, just like all other non-muslims.”
Well if we are trying to be logical and use reasoning then NO you cannot know what I think unless I actually say something to that effect. So yeah you admitting that I did not make those statements actually do matter when it comes to your credibility as to what you claim to know about my opinions.
-- I've read that again and again. You have explained nothing - if the above isn't immature behaviour, then i don't know what is. You are clearly being pedantic. My assertion that you find other religious beliefs to be fallacious is obviously true. I lose no credability whatsoever.
There is no point talking to someone who concentrates more on belittling me than the argument at hand.
You claim you left atheism to become a christian due to evidence. There is none chip. None at all. You might think you have provided evidence but it's not evidence at all. No more so than the quran is proof of islam. Etc, etc, etc. You're just a member of the latest addition of people who have got it all wrong in my opinion.
'my only arguments are based from evidence logic and reasoning'
Really - I'm not going to even bother.
I've spent enough time on this debate with you. I feel like i spend more time reading about how stupid i am rather than any logical points for the existence of god. Have a nice life.
You'll no doubt have some wild explanation for TAM's point above.
-AM
"If you have time, please take a look at my post:"
Why would you think that having me waste my time reading that poorly thought out (and again) amateurish post, would logically convince me of anything? It was short and did not include any revelation inspiring or thought provoking ideas. All you did was point out (the already known fact) that resurrection is a recurring theme in different religions. Then with a failed attempt at a funny comment (regarding the meat section of a grocery store) to some how trivialize the event being discussed. Was that supposed to be some kind of convincing argument against Christianity?
"Chip, do you really believe that a dead piece of meat started to rot and then came back to life? If so, why? Please be specific."
Yeah I do believe cell regeneration is possible. I think even science will get to the point where it can be achieved in typical medicine. With the assumption that an All Powerful God is real then it isn’t even hard to grasp that he would have the ability to cause cell regeneration and in turn resurrection.
"My assertion that you find other religious beliefs to be fallacious is obviously true"
I never said they weren't. We were discussing a specific event in the Islamic religious text. I never said I thought one way or the other about the ridiculousness of said event yet you claimed to know what I thought. That is pretty presumptuous of you. My point is whether or not that is actually what I thought, you would not know because I never said one way or the other. Even if you LUCKILY Guessed what I was thinking that is beside the point. So yeah you do lose credibility because that is not how an objective and logical thinker operates.
"more so than the quran is proof of islam"
This is a poor analogy as I have already explained that the Bible is not the proof of God.
"You're just a member of the latest addition of people who have got it all wrong in my opinion."
Even if we did get it all wrong we certainly are not the latest.
Chip, I regret that you found the I wonder if Jesus started to smell on Holy Saturday? post amateurish - it's one of my all time favorites. I guess we have come full circle. You are willing to believe that events occurred which violate all presently known laws of nature. If you are willing to believe in the literal resurrection, you are willing to believe anything. For example, you should be willing to believe:
1. That Mohammed flew up in the sky on a winged horse.
2. That an angel named Moroni (also resurrected, by the way) appeared to Joseph Smith Jr. and assisted him translate the Book of Mormon from ancient egyptian written on gold plates.
3. That 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans (i.e. souls) then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. You might recognize this as one of the beliefs of Scientologists.
4. Castrating oneself is the only true path to salvation - see the Skoptsy sect.
5. Transubstantiation and infallibility of the Pope.
6. Blood transfusions should not be used under any circumstances in medical treatment.
7. Everything and everyone (including me) are just figments of your imagination. You are God and you are truly alone.
Take your pick Chip or take them all. You are willing to believe anything.
I may believe those things if they weren't accompanied by the plethora of evidence against their religion/beliefs. Unlike Christianity which has none. Also Cellular Regeneration is not a concept which is beyond our grasp. People said the same thing about all sorts of scientific and medical capabilities we have now. Cloning for instance, landing on the moon (or simply being able to leave Earth’s atmosphere). So how is such a thing seemingly out of the capabilities of an All Powerful God?
Chip, suggesting that cellular regeneration can explain the resurrection is like suggesting that Mohammed's ascension could have happened because we now have the technology to fly to the moon. I agree with you - all of my #1 - 7 scenarios could easily be performed by an All Powerful God. What I find remarkable is why you are willing to swallow the resurrection of Jesus and not 1-7. Does it not cause you the least bit of concern that for the first 40 years of Christianity after Jesus' crucifixion, there was no detailed written account of Jesus' resurrection?
Cellular regeneration is the most probable method. Because if the cells did not regenerate then Jesus would have still been in decay. I did not suggest His cellular regeneration was the result of HUMAN doing. So the comparison with Muhammad and modern technology as the explanation for his flight versus Jesus cellular regeneration by God's hand is a poor one. God has all the power from the beginning, God does not advance only when we advance so is not limited with the contingency that we have made the technological discovery first. I was explaining that because cellular regeneration is such a possibility even within our own means how is it not possible that God has that ability in the first place?
Again the reason I don't agree with your examples is NOT because they are so implausible in and of themselves, but because the claims behind them, the claims of their religions or beliefs in their entirety have facts and proofs Against them that cause me not to be inclined to believe additional claims such as the ones you mentioned.
There would likely been an account of the crucifixion because they probably keep records of their executions. Maybe you should phrase it as Undiscovered accounts, in which case I would not be surprised at all.
That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history. However, the first written account (Mark 16) of the supposed resurrection was not written until around 70 AD. If you research this point, you will discover two pivotal facts:
1. Jewish prophets had ben promising for hundreds of years prior to the crucifixion of Jesus that a messiah would come.
2. In Mark's account, the earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 break off abruptly at 16:8, where the men at the empty tomb announce Jesus' resurrection, lacking post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. The modern text of Mark 16:9–20 does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.
As Paul the Apostle fairly admitted: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" 1 Cor. 15:14.
''Even if we did get it all wrong we certainly are not the latest.''
To true Chip.
All religions are wrong chip, not just yours. There is nothing special about your religion over mormonism for example. Sure, the book of mormon is full of ridiculous accounts. But so is the bible.
TAM hits the nail on the head by highlighting on your willingness to believe in the literal resurrection of jesus christ but none of the other equally silly stories he listed.
The words picking and choosing comes to mind again.
You constantly claim of proofs against other religions. Ok. Aside from critical thinking telling you that mohammed never flew to heaven on a magical horse, how do you KNOW it never happened? What proof is there against such events?
I just don't get it chip, i just don't see what claims your religion makes that is so different from the rest of them, or what 'proofs' other religions have against them, that aren't applicable to your own.
I just had to comment upon reading ''Even if we did get it all wrong we certainly are not the latest.''
Does that make christianity better because its not the latest religion? I thought you said age had nothing to do with it when i tried pointing out that thousands of religions predating christianity are wrong, so what makes it so special?
I'm sorry if I am coming into this conversation late and maybe missed something however CHIP has made the same assertion that there are countless proofs that prove his religion and disprove others and I'm curious if he ever mentioned any specific ones or could please explain them without referencing the bible as the source of proof?
You are late matthew, i've asked him for such proofs and he has nothing solid to offer. Of course, we know that is going to be the case before even asking him to present it.
He is happy to tear other religions limb from limb with regards to evidence, and the application of critical thinking. Yet when it comes to his own religion, he (like so many others) cannot apply the same reasoning.
It's a shame because he obviously has a fair degree of intellect.
Post a Comment