This is the introduction for the series An Evil God?
Introduction
“The Bible may be an arresting and poetic work of fiction,” says Richard Dawkins, “but it is not the sort of book you should give your children to form their morals.”
Like most Christians, I once thought that the Bible was the only source of morality for humanity. The thought that it could teach immorality would have been blasphemous. It was the most beautiful book in the world, written by God himself.
In other words, I was delusional. Even though I had read the Bible many times, I could only see it through the lens of faith. If anything was confusing or seemed out of place, it only spoke of my unfaithfulness and ignorance — it couldn’t be anything wrong with the Bible itself.
With that perspective, the Bible cannot be proven wrong. The Bible doesn’t contain contradictions, only paradoxes. God isn’t schizophrenic, he’s mysterious and beyond our understanding. And if your prayers don’t work, well, it’s because you don’t have enough faith.
It’s amazing that anyone can escape the cult of Christianity after using that kind of circular logic for so long.
The Bible Can Support Anything
As history attests, the Bible can be cited to support almost anything. It can inspire both good and evil, for it contains both.
It can be used to support pacifism (Jesus says “do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”) and war and genocide (God commands Saul to “strike Amalek and [destroy] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant…”).
It can be used to support slavery (Paul says “slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling … as you would Christ”) and human dignity (Jesus says “love your neighbor as yourself”); misogynism (Paul says “women are not permitted to speak [in church], but should be in submission,”) and equality (Paul says “there is no male or female … you are all one”); in obeying government (Paul says “let every person be subject to the governing authorities”) and disobeying government (The apostles refused to obey the Roman authorities saying they “must obey God rather than man”).
It can support killing those who disagree with you (God said “you shall not permit a sorceress to live”) or to love and pray for them (Jesus said “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”).
It can support intellectualism and reason (God said “come, let us reason together”) and blind faith (Jesus said “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”); family values (Paul says, “if anyone does not provide for his relatives … he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever”) and family hatred (Jesus says, “[whoever] does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters … cannot be my disciple.”); monogamy (Paul said “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband”) and polygamy (God said “if [a man] takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food or her clothes…”).
It is the same with God. He is a forgiving God who “forgives iniquity, transgression and sin” and an unforgiving God who sends a flood to destroy everyone on earth and banishes anyone who does not believe in Jesus to everlasting torment in hell. He insists he is a just God, yet to prove his justice he cites his unjust practice of “visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” He is love itself, yet hated Esau from birth. This can go on.
Is it any wonder there are so many sects of Christianity that all disagree?
Because It was Written by Men
The Bible can support all these positions because it was written and changed by men throughout thousands of years. It is not, as Christians often claim, a cohesive, peaceful, loving, perfect, God-written treatise.
I am not denying that the Bible has many inspiring and morally uplifting stories and teachings — it does. But I also think we too often ignore or forget the dark side of the Bible.
I’m going to show you that side by looking at some of the stories from a different perspective. As we will see, Yahweh is not just the God of love and justice, but a God full of wrath and jealousy, who delights in acts that most of us — without the blinders of faith — would consider the height of evil.
745 Comments
Can’t wait for this!
I love the idea. The Bible is full of options, you will never run out of posts!
What blasphemy!
Of course an atheist would only focus on the negative stuff!!
Haha… just kidding. Looking forward to these posts!
Only a good Christian would focus on the positive stuff.
For me it’s all or nothing. Most believers would admit that there are some things that don’t make sense in the Bible, but for some reason that in no way discredits anything else they spend their lives believing without question.
Very strang.
@dc-agape: Indeed, it’s hard to narrow down all my options!
Daniel, when I finally sat down and read the whole thing, I was amazed that this thing actually serves as the basis and foundation for 1/3 of the world’s population. It also showed me that if the bible is the foundation, then it is intuitively obvious that it’s all made up. If the very foundation of a belief system is fake and made up, what do they have left?
Maybe I’m being too logical in that, but you look at the obvious con job, the fables, the incorrect statements, etc. and you just have to wonder. You are right:
“It’s amazing that anyone can escape the cult of christianity after using that kind of circular logic for so long.”
I feel so sorry for people who don’t even have the wherewithal to question.
I am enthusiastic for this series. I have tried to read the Bible several times in my life, but, having no religious upbringing, I was confused too quickly by contradictions. When I asked my more religious friends about it, they gave me answers that are not even remotely implicit in the text, so I am looking forward to a description of their thoughts by someone who knows the arguments.
One particular story that has bugged me is Cain and Abel. God says to Cain “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” (Genesis 4:7) Immediately after it says “But unto Cain and his offering he had no respect” (Genesis 4:5). Whenever I ask someone, they handwave and say that it is implied that Cain did not give his best offering, but it always seemed to me that Cain was being disfavored because he did not have any sheep to sacrifice to God, as Abel did.
I am very excited to see the rest of this series!
You raise some good points here. I’ve often heard Christians say (and used to say it myself) that they base their morals on the Bible, while everyone else is acting as his/her own God. But all Christians have to choose which verses to emphasize, which interpretations to prefer, and which Christian group to align themselves with (all of whom have somewhat different teachings). So it’s hard to get away from personal choice as the ultimate authority.
Is this series yours? Or is it something on the web/tv?
I generally agree with you: the Bible has been so polluted by the taint of humanity that, if there was ever a hint of the divine contained in it, it’s buried beneath the vast majority of fractured human fallibility.
As an aside (and not an attempt to convince you of anything), I believe it’s possible to believe in God while rejecting Christianity. You might not want to have anything to do with religion or God now (as it sounds like your break from evangelism left scars), and that’s something I can respect. Still, there’s a huge distinction between the notion of a God, and humanity’s attempts to describe him.
In any case, I stop by your blog every once in a while, and I’ve always found it interesting. Keep it up…
God is Loving but he is Just. He gives us choices and we choose the consequences. I am sincerely sorry you hate God this much, but he did not forsake you.
@ Whateverman:
There is no distinction or difference between the idea of god and “humanity’s attempts to describe him”. Ideas, in the absence of another sapient race, are human derived - hence the idea of god = ideas about god (”humanity’s attempts to describe him”).
The only thing that your convulted logic tells me is that you think there is singular ‘true’ idea of god that did not come from a human source (seeing as how god is a fundamentally human idea, what with giving a face to the faceless).
Whateverman: The thing is, I for one have never seen the need for God beyond a psychological security blanket. Moreover, there is no way I could believe in God without any proof whatsoever of his existence (which there is not).
There is no proof for God but there is proof that points to him. You can not prove a spirit unless it shows itself to you, even then people will not believe. Define proof - Is Proof a video of God in the skies, then no, we have none. But do we have the Bible, the Historical account of Creation and beginning and end - yes, we have this. God created us to glorify him, so I am sorry you don’t want him, but the truth is you do need him. Do you need water? how about food? if I say i do not need food I will feel the consequences of that decision of not eating. The same is with God, whether you want to believe or not, we were created by God and just because you say you don’t want to believe does not make it not real. If I say you don’t exist, do you exist? I can not, and will not try to, force my faith onto you. Christianity is not a philosophy or religion, but a relationship with God, and Lifestyle.
I just happened to find your blog this morning. I absolutely love it. I used to be a devout Christian as well…Now I’m an agnostic. It is wonderful knowing that there are so many of us ex-faithful out there…
Excellent post. I agree completely.
Two words:
GENITAL MUTILATION!!!!
Yay for the Rabbinical laws!
@Whateverman: This is my own series, not taken from web or TV.
Hey! Great blog, and I am going to enjoy reading this series. But I have a few things to comment on:
As someone in the same boat (christian to atheist/agnostic) I still cannot shake some of the lingering questions that I have concerning my upbringing in faith and irrational behaviour that comes from christianity….
When I look at some of these points, the question that raises to me is contextual…. When Jesus said to hate their own family I wonder if that’s more a translation error… To give an example, I am a musician. I have put everything in my life to the side to follow my career in music. Stable Housing, Stable Job, Stable Girlfriend, you name it. Perhaps that is what he was saying in the context of that speech?
Also I am noticing that there is a lot of Old Testament God to New Testament God switches. One of the main arguments that I hear from christians concerning the almost immediate shift from OT God to NT God is that “things change, so does God”, which seems highly contradictory to me, but nonetheless, I wonder if it was necessary for the people of the Old Testament to have a jealous, warfaring, mutinous god who was more concerned about establishing dominance than waging peace. Just a thought about this.
I think that it would be interesting to do a side by side, contextual comparison of the new testament “god”. It would give us who don’t believe more information and abilities to combat closed mindsets :)
Thanks again for this blog. I appreciate it as someone who moved from a mostly liberal area (and being a christian)to an overwhelmingly christian area (and becoming an atheist).
Proto wrote There is no distinction or difference between the idea of god and “humanity’s attempts to describe him”. Ideas, in the absence of another sapient race, are human derived - hence the idea of god = ideas about god (”humanity’s attempts to describe him”).
That’s acceptable if you feel that “God” has never visited the planet. I suspect this not to be the case, but it’s a very personal belief, and something I wont advocate to others.
Still, I feel confident enough of my personal belief to be able to suggest that there’s a difference between a Creator Deity and human ideas about him. If you’re asking me to restate my comment based on your interpretation of the (lack of) evidence, I’m going to have to decline.
Proto wrote again The only thing that your convulted logic tells me is that you think there is singular ‘true’ idea of god that did not come from a human source (seeing as how god is a fundamentally human idea, what with giving a face to the faceless).
I’m curious as to where you think my logic is flawed. Given that this is the first time I’ve ever actually commented on Florien’s blog (as far as I remember), and really haven’t provided much of anything beyond personal opinion (re. arguments, reasoning, logic), I don’t find your claim to be substantially credible.
Could you please give me an example of my flawed logic? Be sure to only use examples from my post on 17-November (or a previous entry, if one can be found).
—
wazza wrote The thing is, I for one have never seen the need for God beyond a psychological security blanket. Moreover, there is no way I could believe in God without any proof whatsoever of his existence (which there is not).
There’s nothing wrong with this. As far as I’m concerned, belief in God can only be sincere and informed (for lack of a better term) if it comes primarily from your own thought process. In other words, if you’ve concluded there’s no God, more power to you.
I’m not confident enough in my belief to assert otherwise.
As an afterthought, I agree with you about the security blanket bit. It does seem obvious that some people feel a need to have all of the tough questions answered, and their place in line for heaven reserved in advance.
—
Mr. Florien: thanks. I look forward to subsequent entries…
Daniel, seriously, the blatant out of context quoting (quote mining) is making my head spin. As this is just an introduction, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you make your case without this fallacy as you get into the series. But please, if you’re going to do this, be fair about it or I’ll be forced smack you with context.
Eric Kemp
@Cryogen:
Actually, I think you’re making much of Daniel’s point for him. Depending on the interpretation you choose, the Bible can say anything, pretty much.
I used to drive truck. Lonely hours on the road and the company of no-one besides yourself and Rush Gasbag can make you crazy, hence the truckstops are full of people who found Jesus in the glove compartment one day.
Whenever one of these fundagelicals (because you never seem to meet the moderate liberal-type christians) started beaking off about “a whole Bible, not a Bible full of holes,” I’d begin by asking them about Leviticus.
Inevitably they knew one verse, something about guys doing guys. Then I’d ask them if they’d ever played football–You know? “Tossed around the ol’ pigskin.” Pig skin. The stuff Leviticus specifically forbids you to wear? You’re damned if you did, y’know.
Did they wear poly-nylon blend socks? Damned again. Ever eat a big ol’ mess o’ crawfish? Oops–God really hates that.
But somehow there were always enough holes in THEIR Bibles for them to crawl through.
If those Christians who most strictly interpret the statutes of god can commit things specifically listed as “abominations” in His sight, then there’s nothing the Bible can’t be used to explain or excuse.
With regard to the other religions using the Bible, well Islam had to torture the text in order to make it fit a sixth-century political movement. Judaism is … well, quaint. If there weren’t some slow progress going on there I could make quite a living as a Shabbos Goy–one who does the work Jews are not permitted to do on Shabbos, like switch on the lights.
When Jesus says to hate your family, it’s poetic hyperbole. As true as a beanstalk reaching to the sky. Or a princess sleeping for a hundred years. And for the same reason.
@Eric: Are you serious? My whole point is that people quote mine and make the Bible say whatever they want. And did you really expect me to quote the entire chapter for each quote? This would have been 50 pages long.
The truth is, it often isn’t a context issue. It’s an interpretation issue. Maybe you haven’t read many bible commentaries, but they are all arguing the context and the meaning and the translation! Well-meaning Christians are always arguing over what a text means, even when the context makes it “obvious” to whichever side is arguing.
It sounds like you take the good ol’ fundamentalist approach: There’s only one meaning to this text, and I’M the one who knows it!
Daniel
“My whole point is that people quote mine and make the Bible say whatever they want.”
And if your motive is to perpetrate this fallacy, then you’ve done a good job. I wouldn’t expect you to quote a chapter in an introduction. But if you’re going to dedicate an entire post to the slavery issue, let’s say, then I WOULD expect some context to be included.
However, in order to show the “dark side” to the Bible, and that God is an evil God, you’re going to have to show that the Bible ACTUALLY says that God supports slavery, genocide etc.
But, like I said, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since this was just an introduction.
Here comes a shocker. I agree with you. Anyone can make the Bible say and support anything they want it to. But that’s the point, it’s what they want it to say, not what it actually says.
“Well-meaning Christians are always arguing over what a text means, even when the context makes it “obvious” to whichever side is arguing.”
and
“It sounds like you take the good ol’ fundamentalist approach: There’s only one meaning to this text, and I’M the one who knows it!”
The first statement assumes that neither one of the sides of an argument CAN be correct. It assumes there is no correct context, interpretation or meaning. As to your second statement: I don’t think I HAVE the meaning, I know that there IS a meaning, a correct context, a correct translation.
That doesn’t mean there is ONLY ONE translation or meaning, but that does mean there is a correct way to go about it. That is to say that the authors of the books of the Bible wrote in a particular language, to a particular audience for a particular place and time. The only correct method for interpreting what the Bible says about a topic or says in a particular passage, is to attempt to discern what the authors meant to say. Words have meaning and authors have purposes to their words, the Bible is no different. To apply any kind of personal ideas or modern cultural understandings to the Bible is to start off on the wrong foot.
“And if your motive is to perpetrate this fallacy, then you’ve done a good job.”
Don’t think of it as perpetuating, think of it as pointing and laughing.
Seriously, one of the easiest way to show the flaws of a method of interpretation is to show how it results in conclusions that no one would accept. If we treat the bible in the same fashion that the mainstream evangelicals do - as a collection of 33,000 fortune cookies for use in proof texting - we can show just how laughable that method is.
“That is to say that the authors of the books of the Bible wrote in a particular language, to a particular audience for a particular place and time.”
You’re preaching to the choir here. I got $50 in my pocket that’s yours if you go to your local megachurch and tell them they’re doing it wrong. They’re convinced that the author of “The Revelation of St. John” is talking about Barack Obama.
Oh, and then get out alive. I don’t pay out to next of kin.
Eric,
Would you say that without trying to interpret the specific quotes of the Bible Daniel included above by including their context, and saying they are “metaphores” for something more meaningful, that they should not be taken at face value?
I am guessing that Daniel is saying that it’s when the meaning of these quotes are over-complicated by arguing over the minute details of every word (both within the quote and before and after it) that we start to run into trouble with people’s biases getting in the way of the supposed “true” meaning.
If there really are mistakes in translations (which there has to be), then that is one thing. But I think all we can really do as skeptics is read it at face value.
As a side note: As I imagine scholors and theologians over the centuries translating the Bible many times to arrive with what we have today, being that they were biased toward their religion (as I can’t imagine a secularist being so willing to translate the word of God), wouldn’t you think that they perhaps even translated certian passages to sound even better than they did originally, so as to make their God sound great? This would of course mean that God could have sounded even more cruel than he already does.
@ Metro:
“If those Christians who most strictly interpret the statutes of god can commit things specifically listed as “abominations” in His sight, then there’s nothing the Bible can’t be used to explain or excuse.”
I completely agree with you and this is the catalyst of why I looked at the whole religion thing and redefined my stance. HOWEVER, I do believe that there is a level of context that needs to be kept when discussing things of this nature. If you take things out of context you can prove/disprove anything that you want to, and (unless I read this wrong) the idea of the post is that the judeo-christian god is contradictory and truly an evil character, more concerned with ego than truly being a “god”.
The problem is that the majority of christians will look at you funny for saying “the god of the old testament and the god of the new testament are the same god and if god doesn’t change then something is fishy”. I’ve even said that, where god has exhibited some heinous human traits (jealousness, envy, spite, anger) and yet claims perfection. It’s a hollow claim, even in the context of righteousness.
Most christians today focus on New Testament christ and say “Jesus came to fufill the law”. I think the bigger danger lies in the fallacies and dangerously ignorant tendancies in the new testament. a two thousand year old book is no basis for modern morality, and what little understanding you can gleam from it, transcends religion or religious thought.
VorJack
“Seriously, one of the easiest way to show the flaws of a method of interpretation is to show how it results in conclusions that no one would accept.”
I honestly have no idea what you mean by that.
“I got $50 in my pocket that’s yours if you go to your local megachurch and tell them they’re doing it wrong. They’re convinced that the author of “The Revelation of St. John” is talking about Barack Obama.”
Are you attempting to suggest that Christians think Obama is the anti-Christ?
I just want to make sure that’s what you mean before I pee myself with laughter.
Eric Kemp
McBloggenstein
That’s got to be one of the best blogger names.
“Would you say that without trying to interpret the specific quotes of the Bible Daniel included above by including their context, and saying they are “metaphores” for something more meaningful, that they should not be taken at face value?”
No, I take poetry as poetry, parable as parable and history as history. I don’t label difficult passages with “figurative” just because I don’t want to tackle them. And I don’t deny that there are difficult, seemingly contradictive, seemingly “why the heck did God do that?” passages in the Bible. I’ll give away all the goodies once Daniel chooses a specific topic, but suffice to say that in general I find it inconsistent to verify the historicity of an act God committed (Jericho) but ignore the reasons and context of that act.
” . . . that we start to run into trouble with people’s biases getting in the way of the supposed “true” meaning.”
I would agree with this completely.
“If there really are mistakes in translations (which there has to be), then that is one thing. But I think all we can really do as skeptics is read it at face value.”
I think you have a misconception on how we got our current Bible. If our current Bible was based upon a single manuscript from a single area, then yea, we might have a bunch of mistakes in there that would change the meaning of the text. However, our current orthodox Bible translations (the big ones being NASB, NIV and NKJV) are based upon thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, and pieces of manuscripts from thousands of sources (locations) over hundreds of years. When you exhaustively pour over each manuscript, and compare them, mistranslations become a non-issue. Why this is the case is too long for me to put here, and plus you wouldn’t believe me, you’d have to research it yourself.
“As I imagine scholors and theologians over the centuries translating the Bible many times to arrive with what we have today, being that they were biased toward their religion . . .”
Yea, you haven’t actually looked into where the Bible comes from. This is an exhaustive topic in itself. I will have to shorten it and say this: if you look at the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts that we have, going back as far as we have them, and looking at the different and separate areas these manuscripts come from, you’ll find that there are ZERO doctrinal changes from our Bible and those manuscripts. That is to say that, although there may be slight word and sentence structure differences, the meaning of a sentence or a phrase never changes. Let me say again, there are no differences in meaning from most ancient manuscripts to today.
Eric,
Thanks for the reply.
I’m going to quote myself, and take out the word “Bible” to replace it with a quote from you, and make the same point that I meant to make in the first place:
As I imagine scholors and theologians over the centuries translating thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, and pieces of manuscripts from thousands of sources (locations) over hundreds of years many times to arrive with what we have today, being that they were biased toward their religion, wouldn’t you think there would be some translation issues? That there is even the slightest possibility?
Of course this is digressing from the main point of whether we should take specific quotes from the Bible at face value or not, and in or out of context.
If you intend to show that the context of lines such as above:
…does not really mean that God wished harm, or that he maybe had a good reason for it, I will have to give a common reference from Sam Harris, that the religion Jainism would in no way, shape or form even hint at any sort of violence such as this.
There would never be any way to interperet that line to mean anything close to pure non-violence, and there would also never be any way to be justified in such an action.
SOmeone mentioned the whole idea of a god thing, and I think Douglas Adams had a great take on it: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let’s try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he’s begun to take a little charge of; he’s begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he’s made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we’ll come and we’ll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who’s a tool maker, doesn’t have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert - he even manages to live in New York for heaven’s sake - and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn’t have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says “I’ll have it off him”. Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day’s tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in - mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can’t get you; in front of him there’s the forest - it’s got nuts and berries and delicious food; there’s a stream going by, which is full of water - water’s delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here’s cousin Ug and he’s caught a mammoth - mammoth’s are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it’s fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, ‘well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in’ and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says ‘So who made this then?’ Who made this? - you can see why it’s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.
Eric Kemp,
Yes, that’s exactly what VorJack means; there are fundies walking around (within 30 feet of me RIGHT NOW) who think Obama is the Anti-Christ. The explanation given to me is because Obama is 1) Attractive, 2) well-spoken (can pronounce “nuclear”?), and 3) comes from the East (What? Hawaii is the East? Well, I guess it’s east of Jerusalem … sort of.).
They should be happy as clams because this is what they have all been waiting for. I suggest they give all their money to the poor or render it unto Caesar and follow Jesus Right Now because the End Is Nigh. I can hardly wait for the Rapture. It will be a blessed peace.
I can’t read all that. Stop having all the best arguments while I’m sleeping!
But I will say one thing. I’ve seen the word “context” a lot, so here’s a question for you.
What sort of context - and you only need one truly viable answer - could possibly lead to a merciful, all-powerful god choosing the one course that leads to genocide, incestual rape, and all the other myriad sins detailed in the Bible as having been ordered and sanctioned by god?
And if god did order these things, is god really merciful and loving?
Atheists don’t sleep, wazza.
We stay up sinning and planning our unethical conquests.
McBloggenstein
“As I imagine scholors and theologians over the centuries translating thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, and pieces of manuscripts from thousands of sources (locations) over hundreds of years many times to arrive with what we have today, being that they were biased toward their religion, wouldn’t you think there would be some translation issues? That there is even the slightest possibility?”
The problem is that you ignored my argument that there are no doctrinal differences, no differences in meaning, from the ancient manuscripts to our current Bible.
“There would never be any way to interperet that line to mean anything close to pure non-violence, and there would also never be any way to be justified in such an action.”
But see, that’s the thing. You’re affirming that God did that act while ignoring WHY He did it and what makes Him able to do it without being “evil”. If you want me to elaborate… I will.
“Atheists don’t sleep, wazza.
We stay up sinning and planning our unethical conquests.”
*gasp* I KNEW IT!!!
Eric Kemp
@ Whateverman, I take issue with the sentence “Still, there’s a huge distinction between the notion of a God, and humanity’s attempts to describe him.”
The notion of a god = the idea of god.
Humanity’s attempts to describe [god] = ideas about god.
Can you see where I’m having trouble seeing any distinction? I don’t see any difference between the idea of god, and ideas about god, other than the plurality of the latter statement.
When I said that your logic was flawed, I specifically meant this sentence appearing internally contradictory.
Playing the anti-devils advocate;
You did mix both the old and new Testaments which most Christians would tell you are comprised of men relating to God in different ways.
The God of the old testament is always viewed as more legalistic and rule bound. In the New Testament, men have Jesus as an interceder or diplomat between men and God to smooth things out and make our relationship w/God more forgiving and flexible.
It’s called being under the time of the law(old Testament) and the time of grace (new Testament).
Just contributing a Christian perspective.
Personally my mind is still open and even as I’m writing this , I realize there are some glaring inconsistencies. Almost as if there are 2 different Gods.
Most Christians would say that Gods’ character is the same, that it’s Jesus who opened the way for a more merciful relationship with Him.
By the way the flooding the earth with water and destroying everybody (’cept Noah) was a one time deal. After that God was saddened and relented (God can change his mind too) and said He would never do that again and gave us the rainbow as a sign that He wouldn’t flood us out (globally) anymore.
The old Testament is mostly made up of the mistakes of the Jewish people in thier relationship to God so we learn not to do as they did. That’s why there’s so much immorality and evil in the old Testament.
@ Proto and Whateverman;
If there is an objective God outside of us, we could no more describe or comprehend Him than we can describe the way the way the universe really works.
Many of our descriptions of the physical universe are still “notions” or “ideas”.
Murrow: if the Flood was a one-time deal, and it made him sad afterwards, and he’s omniscient… why didn’t he save himself the sadness and never do it at all?
@ McBloggenstien
I agree that the genocidal passages in the old Testament are very disturbing and enough to disqualify it as a moral book.
This attitude exists in the Middle East even till today and when that will end is anyones guess.
@ Wazza
Apparently God showed His human side here i.e. anger.
He apparently went to plan B after this which Christians will tell you was Jesus.
Our seeing Jesus’ sacrificial act of love on the cross and, realizing our sinfullness, asking Him for forgiveness is supposed to purify us now so we don’t have to be wiped out by the wrath of God.
Fascinating eh?
again… he’s omnipotent. Why did the world turn out so badly in the first place, and why couldn’t he just fix it when it did?
Of course Jews practiced animal sacrifices for this same pupose until the advent of Jesus. The Jews still trust in thier sacrifices and Chritians trust in Christs’ sacrifice, thus the split, fork in the road, between the Judeo and Christian religions
@ Wazza
Here you have touched on the concept of mans’ autonomy.
In other words God didn’t create us as robots but gave us free will ( even to deny His existence). This,however, didn’t stop Him from getting mad and throwing a few plagues, pestilence and floods our way from time to time.
but it’s not evil to do that?
Most people think that if you get angry and kill someone, you’ve done a Bad Thing. Is God held up to a different standard?
@Eric Kemp:
This sounds like something from a Sunday School apologetics class, not something coming from scholarship. First of all, we don’t have anything near the original manuscripts, so we have no idea what we have now compares to the originals. We can only make guesses.
In fact, there are so many errors that the evangelical doctrine of infallibility is not that the Bible we have is infallible, it’s that it’s infallible in the original manuscripts. But we don’t have them, and we’ve never seen them, so that’s a leap in the dark.
I’ll give one, simple example of a difference in manuscripts that does matter. Take 1 John 5:7-8:
This passage was long used to support the Trinity, but now every modern bible translation has a footnote saying it shouldn’t really be in there. That’s an example everyone can agree upon — it’s such a shut case that even evangelicals agree. (Daniel Wallace, an evangelical scholar, discusses the issue here.)
Don’t you think that’s a pretty major difference in early manuscripts? Another example is Jesus and the woman in adultery, which shouldn’t be in the Bible either, as it was added much later by a scribe.
A simple overview of such differences is Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, which I recommend to you if you haven’t read it.
* * *
@murrowcronkite:
I’m not so sure I agree with you about “most Christians.” Many Catholics, for instance, are happy to say that the early OT was myth.
Even CS Lewis, the “famed Christian apologist” didn’t think that the OT was historical truth — he thought it was mythic truth. He admitted there were errors and knew they were not historical.
Evangelicals, however, insist it is historical truth and they divide into two main camps: dispensational and covenantal theology. The basic difference is this: Dispensationalists think that God acted different throughout the Bible’s “dispensations” and covenantal theologians think that God was consistent throughout the Bible.
Dispensationalism is more consistent with the reality that God acts much different in the OT than the NT, but the way they break things up into ages is absurd and hard to justify biblically. Covenantal theology is an admirable attempt to make the bible more cohesive, but the exegetical loopholes they jump through would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
So there is not much agreement there. There are also other systematic attempts to make sense of the jumble of texts called the Bible, but they are less popular.
* * *
As for the free will argument, you say:
This is the usual scapegoat for Arminian-leaning Christians (there is a large disagreement about whether free will exists between Calvinism and Arminianism — must be because the Bible is so clear!), but the easiest argument against biblical free will is this:
If God has to make us free to love him, what will happen in heaven? If we are not robots, we’ll have free will, which means we can sin — and if we can sin, heaven won’t be heaven.
Or, if God can make us not be robots in heaven, but still not sin, why didn’t he do that in the first place? If he could have, it was his choice and he is responsible, because he could have easily avoided it.
So waving the free will flag doesn’t solve anything — it just leads to more questions and circular reasoning.
Daniel
This is a good example reading what you want to read in order that you can argue against an argument.
You said: “First of all, we don’t have anything near the original manuscripts, so we have no idea what we have now compares to the originals. We can only make guesses.”
If you read my comment again, I was very careful, I never said that we have the original manuscripts. I used the word “ancient” for a reason. My point stands, there are no doctrinal differences.
“In fact, there are so many errors that the evangelical doctrine of infallibility is not that the Bible we have is infallible, it’s that it’s infallible in the original manuscripts.”
This is a case of selective scholarship. Perhaps you are reading from Fuller seminary? There is a theological debate in the academic community as to wether or not the Bible is infallible or inerrant. There is a difference but there is no point in discussing it here. Suffice to say that the vast majority of orthodox scholarship considers the Bible to inerrant and not merely infallible.
“This passage was long used to support the Trinity, but now every modern bible translation has a footnote saying it shouldn’t really be in there.”
Actually, as I understand it, the consensus is that there are later (Post 16th century, so MUCH later) Latin Vulgate manuscripts that ADD to 1 John 5:8 and the only modern translation that includes this addition is the NKJV. The NASB and the NIV all use what the earlier Greek manuscripts say and note the later additions but don’t include them.
Don’t you find it kind of weak to use an example of where comparative research of Greek manuscripts works and finds and excludes the later additions? Doesn’t this help prove my point that the thousands of Greek, Hebrew and Latin manuscripts actually help ensure we are reading an accurate Bible?
Can you give me chapter and verse on the Jesus and the woman in adultery so that I may look that up?
“This is the usual scapegoat for Arminian-leaning Christians (there is a large disagreement about whether free will exists between Calvinism and Arminianism — must be because the Bible is so clear!), but the easiest argument against biblical free will is this.”
Daniel, you’re a smart guy. But you seem to be selective in your scholarship. That isn’t to say that we all have to know everything, but, to put Christians into two camps, Arminianism and Calvinism, is to ignore the reality of theological thought on this issue. The reality is that Arminianism and Calvanism are extremes on either side of the spectrum. TULIP Calvinists say there is ZERO free will, while Arminianists say that there is ZERO divine influence. The vast majority of theologians fall somewhere in the middle. However, you aren’t even accurate to what this debate is about. The Calvinist vs. Arminianist debate is specifically and solely about the question of SALVATION. NO Calvinist will tell you that we don’t have free will in our every day choices.
You also continue to perpetrate the fallacy that because there are two opposing views, that therefore there is not a correct view. You also suppose that the Bible can’t support aspects of Arminianism AND Calvinism without contradicting itself. The truth is that the Bible supports both in a non-contradictory way (this explanation of this would be lengthy), but it is humans who prefer one way or another, and so focus on that.
“If God has to make us free to love him, what will happen in heaven? If we are not robots, we’ll have free will, which means we can sin — and if we can sin, heaven won’t be heaven.”
Here, you ignore the Biblical doctrine of the flesh. That is, Christians battle against our flesh and it is in, and because of, our flesh that we sin. When we are in heaven, we will no longer have this earthly flesh. Sin goes out the window.
@Eric:
I realized you didn’t say original manuscripts only after I wrote the response. So I agree that I responded to a point you didn’t make there.
I realize there are debates about inerrancy, infallibility, inerrancy, etc. I try and give broad summaries when possible, because most non-believers don’t care about all the funny squabbles in evangelism. In fact, I got sick of it sometimes even when I was evangelical.
As for Calvinism vs. Arminianism, I realize that many people don’t take one of the extremes (though I also think you oversimplify — I know 7 point Calvinists who believe in human freedom and semi-peligan Arminians who think there is divine influence). But most Christians usually lean towards one or the other.
For the Jesus and adulterous woman story, see John 8. In the ESV, for example, it’s in brackets. It shouldn’t be in there at all, even if it’s a nice story.
Your argument against free will is admirable, but it doesn’t answer the problem. Adam and Even didn’t have “the flesh” yet they sinned. We won’t have “the flesh” in heaven, but that means we can still sin, just like A & E.
Eric,
You said: “But see, that’s the thing. You’re affirming that God did that act while ignoring WHY He did it and what makes Him able to do it without being “evil”. ”
I’m not ignoring it, because I asked if you intend to show if lines such as those above do not really mean that God wished harm, or that he maybe had a good reason for it.
In other words, will you be able to show through context that he was justified in such acts?
I am not ignoring WHY he did anything. I am saying that there is no way that killing someone can EVER be justified if you are truly all loving and non-violent.
Therefore, God is NOT non-violent, NOT just, and NOT all loving, and I don’t think the idea of him deserves to be justified by any means.
Daniel
“I realized you didn’t say original manuscripts only after I wrote the response. So I agree that I responded to a point you didn’t make there.”
I figured as much.
“I realize there are debates about inerrancy, infallibility, inerrancy, etc. I try and give broad summaries when possible, because most non-believers don’t care about all the funny squabbles in evangelism.”
Believe me, I don’t care either. But I was responding to your suggestion that all (you didn’t say “all” but it was implied) evangelicals don’t even consider the current Bible to be infallible or inerrant. That’s just not the case. Even the more liberal seminaries still consider God’s word to be currently infallible.
“though I also think you oversimplify — I know 7 point Calvinists who believe in human freedom and semi-peligan Arminians who think there is divine influence.”
Right, falling somewhere in the middle.
“But most Christians usually lean towards one or the other.”
This is completely anecdotal, but most Christians I know fall somewhere in the middle. I do know a few TULIP Calvanists but I’ve never meant a full blown Arian.
However, you still are confusing the issue with a question of free will in general. The discussion is about influence of free will when it comes to Salvation and nothing more.
“For the Jesus and adulterous woman story, see John 8. In the ESV, for example, it’s in brackets. It shouldn’t be in there at all, even if it’s a nice story.”
You know, I’m going to bring out a book or two and get back to you on John 8 because a cursory review of the passage yielded no talk of a controversy over the passage. That isn’t to say that there aren’t some differences in the manuscripts regarding John 8, it’s that I couldn’t find any in the 10 min I just looked.
“Your argument against free will is admirable, but it doesn’t answer the problem. Adam and Even didn’t have “the flesh” yet they sinned. We won’t have “the flesh” in heaven, but that means we can still sin, just like A & E.”
Ah, but neither did Adam and Eve have the resurrected bodies that we will have in heaven. They still had bodies of flesh just like we have now not a body like Jesus did when He ascended. Sure, Adam’s body was without a sin nature because he hadn’t sinned yet, but it was still a fleshly body.
McBloggenstein
“I’m not ignoring it, because I asked if you intend to show if lines such as those above do not really mean that God wished harm, or that he maybe had a good reason for it.”
Let me get back to this.
“I am not ignoring WHY he did anything. I am saying that there is no way that killing someone can EVER be justified if you are truly all loving and non-violent.”
Whoa! When did anyone ever say that God was non-violent? Uh, I don’t think that was ever the case. Also, “all loving” doesn’t mean “all allowing”. That is to say that you cannot separate God’s love from his justice, righteousness and wrath. Just because God loves all, doesn’t mean he allows all to scorn His justice, righteousness and wrath. In fact, the opposite is true. Since He loves those that actually do follow Him, He must bring down his justice upon those who do not.
“Therefore, God is NOT non-violent, NOT just, and NOT all loving, and I don’t think the idea of him deserves to be justified by any means.”
Whoa, see now you’re putting YOUR ideas of justice and love upon God. Since there is no absolute morality (right?) who are you to put your morality on ANYONE, much less God? Also, in order to do this, you must flat out ignore the question of where your morality came from in the first place and why you treat your morality as universal as you’ve just done.
But to get back to your previous question. I cannot answer for every context of the OT in one sitting, so I will tackle one of them. In the case of Sodom and Gemorra (if that’s how you spell it), God gave them EVERY chance to repent. God explicitly told them what would happen if they did not. Moses pleaded on their account, that if Moses could find just 10 righteous people (it could have been less, I don’t remember) in the city of Sodom and Gemorra then God would spare them. Moses could not find even such a small number. They were liars, blasphemers, fornicators and sodomites. When God sent angels into the city, the people of the city wanted to rape the angels (you know, in the butt). These people were given every chance, and were told what would happen, they refused. God merely followed through with His word. Lot’s wife was told not to look back, but she did, disobeying what God told her to do, and she paid the consequences.
Anyway, that’s just one example. It is inconsistent to put your own morality upon God and to affirm the acts God comitted by not why He was Righteous in doing so (which is pretty much the point of the story).
-”who are you to put your morality on ANYONE, much less God?”
Who am I to put my morality on God?
You forget. I’m coming from the perspective of talking about God as an abstract concept that I believe to be false.
If I were speaking of him as a real being, of course it wouldn’t have the same meaning…
…and I’m trying to show why I think he doesn’t exist. Isn’t that what we’re all doing here talking?
-”When did anyone ever say that God was non-violent?”
I’m not saying anyone did say that. But the fact that he is violent makes the likelihood of his existence even less for me. That was the point of me saying he is not non-violent.
-”Also, “all loving” doesn’t mean “all allowing”. That is to say that you cannot separate God’s love from his justice, righteousness and wrath. Just because God loves all, doesn’t mean he allows all to scorn His justice, righteousness and wrath. In fact, the opposite is true. Since He loves those that actually do follow Him, He must bring down his justice upon those who do not.”
The idea that there’s someone up there “allowing” or “not allowing” humans to do or not do things because of reasons that you are trying to justify by telling me his love and his justice go together, is absolutely absurd to me.
Again, these are concepts to argue with another believer over who they believe god is, and why he does what he does.
I would like to save you a lot of trouble, breath, and typing in your life.
When addressing and justifying specific examples that an atheist brings up to show why they think God is not great, you need to remember that they are trying to show he is not great because they don’t believe in him. Responding by using logic to talk about God’s justice, righteousness and wrath does not prove truth. I think you should assume when debating with an atheist that the burden of proof is always there, and trying to debate justification for actions does not work when the person you’re debating with doesn’t even believe any of it is true.
Regarding the S & G story, it sounds like God was probably justified and righteous in what he did. I am admitting this solely on the basis that I read the S & G story as just that… a story. I still don’t subscribe to the idea that it’s ok for an omnipotant being to push HIS moral on us.
The problem is I don’t believe in God, therefore showing good justification for an action has no meaning for me. I can’t speak for all non-believers, but just because I tried to point out that I don’t think there can ever be good justification for a creator to kill his children, doesn’t mean I want someone to prove to me that he is justified. That argument does nothing to prove his existence, which is the basis for all arguments about God and religion between an atheist and a believer.
@Eric:
While I skipped a couple of comments to address this here:
“When you exhaustively pour over each manuscript, and compare them, mistranslations become a non-issue.”
Seriously, you gave me a belly laugh that had my boss poking her head over the cubicle wall.
I can’t begin to address the wrong of this one, so I decided on using an example: I copied 2 Kings 7:3, fed it into Babelfish, translated it into French, a language separated from English by a relatively thin wall, and in which I have some slight experience.
The translation comes out pretty well, if ungrammatical:
“Maintenant il y avait quatre lépreux, à entrer dedans de la porte : et ils ont dit un à l’autre : Quel moyen de rester ici jusqu’à nous mourons-nous ? 4 si nous entrerons dans la ville, nous mourrons avec la famine : et si nous resterons ici, nous devons également mourir : venez donc, et courons plus d’au camp des Syriens. S’ils nous épargnent, nous vivrons : mais s’ils nous tuent, nous mais mourir.”
Then I switched it back to English again:
“Now there were four leprous, to enter inside of the door: and they said to l’ other: Which means of remaining jusqu’ here; in do we die we? 4 if we will enter the city, we will die with the famine: and if we will remain here, we must also die: thus come, and run more d’ with the camp of the Syrians. S’ they save to us, we will live: but s’ they kill us, us but to die.”
That’s ONE iteration between two closely related languages. Now I’m sure the machines made mistakes you and I would not have made. But so would Medieval scholars translating ancient Aramaic and Greek interpretations of ancient Hebrew oral texts into Latin, then into English. Not to mention the number of individuals who worked on the texts from the authors to the modern printers.
Mistranslations are part and parcel of the Bible. And misinterpretation, even between English versions, is a natural consequence. Literal interpretationalism is a massive mental and linguistic failure.
Oh, and speaking of Biblical error–Who was it who pleaded for Sodom and Gomorrah again?
McBloggenstein
“You forget. I’m coming from the perspective of talking about God as an abstract concept that I believe to be false.
If I were speaking of him as a real being, of course it wouldn’t have the same meaning…
…and I’m trying to show why I think he doesn’t exist. Isn’t that what we’re all doing here talking?”
It doesn’t matter if you believe in God or if you are arguing God’s existence as a hypothetical (which I, of course, knew you were doing). That doesn’t absolve you of the fallacy of putting your morality upon Him. IF God exists, then He is a person just like us (but not subject to the restrictions of our experience of human persons).
And since you didn’t argue the point, I assume that you believe there is no absolute truth, and that you can’t put your morality upon ANYONE, especially of a different time and culture. Why is God the exception? Because you want Him to be? Because it allows you to deny His existence? Is any of that rational?
“I’m not saying anyone did say that. But the fact that he is violent makes the likelihood of his existence even less for me.”
So you’ve arbitrarily created your own criteria (which is probably modifiable at any time) for what God must be in order to exist, so if any god that is proposed to you doesn’t fit your definition, then that god doesn’t exist. That’s convenient. Perhaps I should try that with laws. I’ll create a criteria for laws and if a law doesn’t fit my criteria, then that law doesn’t exist to me. Hey, this could be fun! If this sounds farfetched, it’s not; this is exactly what criminals do.
The point is that creating your own criteria that God must fit in order for God to exist is irrational.
“The idea that there’s someone up there “allowing” or “not allowing” humans to do or not do things because of reasons that you are trying to justify by telling me his love and his justice go together, is absolutely absurd to me.”
Just because it’s absurd to you, doesn’t mean it’s can’t be true, or is unlikely to be true. In fact, it’s fairly simple. If God exists, then He has the power to create all things, if He has this power, then we could describe Him as all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then He necessarily controls all things. Now, God has reliquished portions of this control because humans have the power to choose, but He still controls none-the-less.
But I’m honestly curious, could you explain to me why the idea of an all-powerful God is absurd to you?
“I think you should assume when debating with an atheist that the burden of proof is always there, and trying to debate justification for actions does not work when the person you’re debating with doesn’t even believe any of it is true.”
This brings up an interesting point that I’m glad we get to discuss. I should tell you that I’ve debated many atheists, and I understand what you are saying. However, what we are discussing here is wether or not that Christian God is evil. That is, are the actions laid out in the Bible that God has committed proof of an evil God, despite what Christians would like to say about Him?
So, you are choosing to hypothetically accept that God actually committed these acts while ignoring the attributes given to God in the Bible. Even on a hypothetical, “I actually don’t believe in God” basis, this is inconsistent. That is, if God exists as the Christians say He does, then He IS justified in His actions, due to his power, justice, righteousness, and wrath. In more blunt terms: Even on a hypothetical basis, who are you to judge the actions of an all-powerful God? Who are you to say what God does with His creation? To hide behind a hypothetical smokescreen is just to stick your head in the sand regarding the inconsistency of such a position.
Also, you are arguing from your no-God worldview, yet you would begrudge me arguing from my God worldview? Forgive me if I don’t comply. If you are unable to explain your belief that the Christian God is evil due to my explanation God’s attributes and your violation of relative morality; hiding behind a hypothetical smokescreen doesn’t make your belief any more rational.
Also, choosing to focus on the acts of God that you deem evil, doesn’t solve your problem, as an atheist, of being unable to explain several phenomena of human existence and experience. But I’ll wait to see if you challenge me on this to explain myself.
“I still don’t subscribe to the idea that it’s ok for an omnipotant being to push HIS moral on us.”
You probably have a higher view of yourself in comparison to an all-powerful God than you should. Perhaps that is the real reason why you find God absurd, because it would force you to re-examine how much control and power you have.
“The problem is I don’t believe in God, therefore showing good justification for an action has no meaning for me.”
This exactly like this conversation:
You: “I don’t believe in God because if He exists then He is evil.”
Me: “But, if God exists, then by His very definition of being God and His attributes, He was justified in His actions.”
You: “Well, then I just don’t believe in God.”
Me: “*sigh*”
Does this make sense to you?
“That argument does nothing to prove his existence . . .”
I could never prove to you that He exists, nor am I trying. I am only trying to show you the inconsistencies and irrationalities you must subscribe to in order to deny Him.
Eric,
Prove the existence of God.
Eric,
Holy crap. You say you debate with atheists a lot. I’d bet that you feel as though you win often, and it’s probably because of your extensive barrage of questions and assumptions.
I’m sorry if I didn’t respond to or address everything you said. It’s just that I don’t have the time to do so, or I didn’t think it was very relevant. So, just because I didn’t argue a point, you shouldn’t assume anything.
Regarding all of the talk about morality, I still think you are missing my point that whether I think he was justified or not doesn’t really matter, because I don’t believe in him.
Every person on this planet judges everyone around them based on their personal morals. Because I do not regard God as real, I subject the idea of God (as well as MY idea of God) to my morals, the same way I would judge any other human being.
If I were to have faith in an omnipotent god, then of course I could not put my morals on him.
-”So you’ve arbitrarily created your own criteria (which is probably modifiable at any time) for what God must be in order to exist, so if any god that is proposed to you doesn’t fit your definition, then that god doesn’t exist.”
I think you have it backwards. I am not creating any criteria for God whatsoever. I have not sat down and made a list of things that a god must be in order for me to believe in him. I merely judge things I learn about him as I learn them. What’s wrong with that? Remember, I am coming at this as a non-believer. People that spread the faith bring the ideas of God to me, and it is up to me as a skeptical and rational person to judge those ideas based on my idea of what this world means to me.
-”Just because it’s absurd to you, doesn’t mean it’s can’t be true, or is unlikely to be true.”
Again, because God is an idea to me, not a real person, the fact that it’s absurd to me DOES make it not true to me.
-”If God exists, then He has the power to create all things, if He has this power, then we could describe Him as all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then He necessarily controls all things. Now, God has reliquished portions of this control because humans have the power to choose, but He still controls none-the-less.”
If this, if that… Do you not realize that these are grand assumptions, and that you are trying to use logic from the basis that he exists? I do not believe he exists, or that he has the power to create all things, or that he controls all things, or that he has reliquished some control to humans. These are all things that a non-believer is not able to assume when debating about truth.
-”But I’m honestly curious, could you explain to me why the idea of an all-powerful God is absurd to you?”
Are you serious? To make this easy… for every reason you’ve ever heard.
I would love to hear your reasons for why you think the idea is not absurd. And please remember, belief does not equal truth.
-”So, you are choosing to hypothetically accept that God actually committed these acts while ignoring the attributes given to God in the Bible. Even on a hypothetical, “I actually don’t believe in God” basis, this is inconsistent. That is, if God exists as the Christians say He does, then He IS justified in His actions, due to his power, justice, righteousness, and wrath.”
Good point.
-”To hide behind a hypothetical smokescreen is just to stick your head in the sand regarding the inconsistency of such a position.”
I don’t understand how my argument being inconsistant means I am hiding.
-”hiding behind a hypothetical smokescreen doesn’t make your belief any more rational.”
My belief? You forget, I don’t have a belief. You’re forgetting that God is hypothetical. Until he shows his his big bearded face to us, he will always be hypothetical.
-”You probably have a higher view of yourself in comparison to an all-powerful God than you should.”
In a believers mind, I’m sure I do.
-”Perhaps that is the real reason why you find God absurd, because it would force you to re-examine how much control and power you have.”
Why would I ever need to re-examine how much control I have over myself? I have never had any reason whatsoever to ever think that anything and everything I have ever done was not in my control. If in my mind I started to feel that things were out of my control, like the weather, then I could see myself starting to wonder if there was someone in the sky pushing the buttons.
Your pretend conversation between us was completely false and not at all what I would ever say.
-”I am only trying to show you the inconsistencies and irrationalities you must subscribe to in order to deny Him.”
You still don’t understand. I don’t need to deny him. Being without belief does not equal denial.
Denial would be if I were to assume that something is true but I still choose not to accept it.
Metro
” I copied 2 Kings 7:3, fed it into Babelfish, translated it into French, a language separated from English by a relatively thin wall, and in which I have some slight experience.”
This shows a complete lack of understanding on how Biblical translation is done. As you partially admitted, the machine is going to make mistakes that humans won’t. However, it’s so much more than that. As I’ve only researched the NIV and NASB translations, I can only speak to those. The NIV and NASB were both translated by hundreds of Greek and Hebrew scholars spanning all denominations and many nationalities (from all over the world is what I mean), both over period of ten years. These people’s lives are dedicated to correctly interpreting those languages. To say the machine won’t make the mistakes humans do is an understatement of monumental proportions when comparing the machine to the NIV and NASB. Even if there are disagreements between the scholars, that’s why there many of them present, to hash out the disagreements and come to a suitable agreement to what English word BEST fits the Greek in a particular passage. Notice that I said “best” and not “correct” because there are many words that could be used and still be accurate.
However, you’ve also completely missed my point. I never said there weren’t any differences in the manuscripts. I said there weren’t any DOCTRINAL differences. That is, not a single meaning was changed from the ancient manuscripts to our current Bible. For instance, in your 1 Kings example, did the meaning of the passage change?
“Oh, and speaking of Biblical error–Who was it who pleaded for Sodom and Gomorrah again?”
Shucks. Was it not Moses? I didn’t look up the story before I talked about it. Was it Aaron? Joshua? Oh well, the point doesn’t change. But do you see how easy it is for me to check my error? Same with the Bible and the ancient manuscripts. BAM! It all comes back around!
Roger
“Prove the existence of God”
Sure, just as soon as you prove to me the existence of physical matter
-”Sure, just as soon as you prove to me the existence of physical matter”
LOL!
Never mind the fact that physical matter can be seen, touched, smelled, and tasted.
In comparison, God is only felt through emotion.
Eric,
That’s not proof–that’s an idiotic dodge. Please try again.
McBloggenstein
“I’d bet that you feel as though you win often, and it’s probably because of your extensive barrage of questions and assumptions.”
If I was into debating to win then I would be sad individual.
“Regarding all of the talk about morality, I still think you are missing my point that whether I think he was justified or not doesn’t really matter, because I don’t believe in him.”
This in direct contradiction to . . .
“Your pretend conversation between us was completely false and not at all what I would ever say.”
My pretend conversation was more like a paraphrase of exactly what was said and what you just confirmed by that above quote. You said that the fact that IF God existed then He would be evil, so that strengthens your belief that He doesn’t exist. I said that IF God exists then He was justified in His actions. You came back with, “. . .whether I think he was justified or not doesn’t really matter, because I don’t believe in him.” I paraphrased you correctly.
But you’re right, the justifiability of His actions isn’t going to make God’s existence more likely to you, however, it DOES make your “If God exists He is evil” argument completely invalid.
” I have not sat down and made a list of things that a god must be in order for me to believe in him. I merely judge things I learn about him as I learn them. What’s wrong with that?”
I never said you sat down and made a list. But you exactly said that since God commits violence, therefore He doesn’t exists. This is an arbitrary criteria that you’ve manufactured. It makes it REAL easy for you to intellectually explain away your denial of God.
“Again, because God is an idea to me, not a real person, the fact that it’s absurd to me DOES make it not true to me.”
I think we’re getting into what your definition of “truth” is. Is there an objective truth or is it only what you decide it is?
“If this, if that… Do you not realize that these are grand assumptions, and that you are trying to use logic from the basis that he exists?”
It’s not that hard man. IF God exists then He is all-powerful by DEFINITION. I’m not arguing that you should believe these things. I’m arguing that your assertion that an all-powerful God that controls all things is absurd to you is a ridiculous position. If God exists then He, by definition, controls all things. It’s a real simple philosophical exercise.
I asked for why you think God’s existence is absurd, you said . . .
“Are you serious? To make this easy… for every reason you’ve ever heard.”
That isn’t an answer.
“I would love to hear your reasons for why you think the idea is not absurd.”
Ok, very simply, where did matter come from?
“And please remember, belief does not equal truth.”
That’s funny, because you’ve been equating your non-God position as truth through out this conversation.
“I don’t understand how my argument being inconsistant means I am hiding.”
You are displaying your beliefs about a hypothetical God and why you don’t believe in Him. I have shown some of these reason to be erroneous, to then turn and say “well it’s just hypothetical!” is to ignore the erroneous beliefs and ideas.
“My belief? You forget, I don’t have a belief.”
Yes, you have a belief that God doesn’t exist. That’s a belief. You have a belief that matter can come from nothing, and that life can come from non-life. These are beliefs you MUST necessarily have to believe that God doesn’t exist.
“I have never had any reason whatsoever to ever think that anything and everything I have ever done was not in my control.”
This is pure self-delusion. Let me explain it briefly. You are nothing but matter. . . right? That is, your brain is nothing but chemicals and electrical signals. . .right? Ok, so no matter what decision you make, it’s nothing more than the chemical reactions in your brain telling you how to respond to a particular stimulus. You don’t have control over the chemistry in your brain do you? So you have no control over your actions. For an atheist, free will is an illusion.
“You still don’t understand. I don’t need to deny him. Being without belief does not equal denial.”
I know that you believe this, but this is just false as well. As I briefly showed above, there are certain beliefs you MUST have once you deny God.
Roger and McBloggenstein
“Never mind the fact that physical matter can be seen, touched, smelled, and tasted.
In comparison, God is only felt through emotion.”
AND
“That’s not proof–that’s an idiotic dodge. Please try again.”
It’s not a dodge, and I’ll explain why. McBlog hit the nail on the head. Matter is MERELY seen, touched, smelled and tasted. That brings us to the question, what ARE the senses? Aren’t they just electrical impulses to the brain? Where exactly do these electrical impulses take place? In the brainstem. So, when you “feel” a table, all you’re REALLY doing is experiencing an electrical impulse in your brainstem. The only thing you can do is PROVE to YOURSELF (and no one else) that you are feeling an electrical impulse in your brain.
That the table is actually there could be an illusion. You have no way of knowing if it’s actually there. Any attempt to prove the tables existence to yourself only leads you back to electrical impulses in your brain. Any attempt to prove the table’s existence to anyone else begs the question to how you know it’s real to you, and how that person can know that YOU are real to them.
This may sound idiotic to both of you. However, all this proves is a complete lack of philosophical training on both of your parts. ANY phil 101 class will go through a similar exercise with you, and the above was an exteremely brief version. ANY study into ancient world religions will show that a large minority of them didn’t believe matter was real, and the Hindus STILL don’t. And here’s the kicker, you could NEVER prove them wrong.
Both of you are flat out assuming, a priori, that matter exists. You are also assuming that you can prove it does. So, go with your assumption. Roger, if my dodge is so idiotic, and McBloggenstein, if your senses can so easily prove to ME that matter exists, go for it…prove it to me.
And that’s the point, Roger, you want me to prove to you that God exists but you can’t even prove to me that matter exists. You can’t even prove to yourself that matter is anything more than electrical impulses in your brain. If you want me to give you a good argument for God’s existence, I’ve got several quick ones at my fingertips, so I will accept any rephrasing of your question to something that is more rational and conducive to discussion.
@Eric: Sorry to say this but your reply is one of the lamest I’ve seen for a long time in the great tradition of “you can’t prove anything absolutely therefore I can believe anything I want.” Honestly this is just FUD because you’re incapable of actaully answering the questions put to you. I mean at least most believers will at least admit that they it on faith.
Jabster
Whoa, I have no problem not being able to “prove” God exists. God, of course, takes faith to believe in, I have no problem admitting as much to anyone. However, to ask a believer to PROVE God when you can’t even prove matter exists is ridiculous and I won’t let people get away with it.
It’s the same as me saying to you, “Prove that God DOESN’T exist”. You can’t prove an absolute negative or positive. It’s an impossible request. And if I walk away going, “See, that dumb atheist couldn’t prove to me his position therefore I’m awesome”, it just shows my ignorance and my inability to actually carry on a rational discussion.
You’re right, we CAN’T prove anything. But that doesn’t make ANY belief correct, it just allows me to be honest and know that ANY belief, even the belief that that chair will hold me up when I sit in it, takes a certain amount of faith. How do I know it won’t break? Can I tell the future? Nope, but the vast majority of the time I’ve sit in chairs, it’s ended up ok, so my faith is justified. If you want to argue that faith is God is NOT justified, great, let’s get to it. But asking me to prove that God exists ignores that you CAN’T prove that He doesn’t, ignores that you can’t even prove matter exists.
@Eric: Nope sorry you still just trotting out the same stupid argument basically because you can’t answer the points put to you. I see you even did the “you have to have faith to sit in a chair” routine which is one of the daftest arguments going. Whatever next - it takes the same amount of faith to be an atheist as a believer? Unfortunately you started off well in this thread but have become rather desperate in you arguments which still boil down to you can’t absolutely prove anything so it’s valid to believe anything I want and more importantly they are all equally valid.
Can’t we just disagree to disagree? lol..
Sorry dude. This could go on forever. I’m done with that.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that we are less learned in philosophy just because we see something differently.
I will say one thing regarding proof of matter.
Of course you’re right, the only reason we know that anything is real is merely because of electrical impulses.
But that is all we have.
You might feel that you have more than that, and you can “feel” Him in your heart and all that good stuff… and that is fine!
I’m my mind, and I assume in many other atheists minds, I don’t walk around wondering if I’m going to bump into something that I for some reason can’t detect with one of my senses, so why would I suspect that there is a supreme being that I also can’t touch, see, hear, smell, or taste?
For me, reality is everything my senses can detect. I have never had any reason to believe that there is anything more than that.
One definition of proof is to provide evidence. If I can detect the table is there with my senses, then that is evidence. I understand that you can say that it is not real evidence, because you could hypothetically hook up a computer to my brain and tell it to “sense” a table, and I wouldn’t know the difference. But if we went through our lives questioning things like this, how is that a way to live? By that same way of thought, it is impossible to prove anything. To live our conscious lives in this universe, we have to assume a few things. There is no reason to assume that God exists in order to live our lives.
For us, the evidence that our 5 senses provide for us is enough to live a happy life. For theists it is not. This we don’t understand.
I really don’t wish to debate this. I just wanted to tell you how I would elaborate on my previous point.
I find it kind of amusing, Eric, that you have been talking about manuscripts and context like you were a biblical expert. But the fact is, you didn’t even know about the John 8 issue — that’s one error that evangelicals even fess up to. It’s 101 in manuscript history. If you had read anything on the history of the Bible, you would have known about it. It seems you didn’t do very much research about the book you believe to be inspired by God himself! I would seriously recommend you do some studying, starting with Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus as a simple intro to manuscript history.
Then, you didn’t seem to know that Sodom & Gomorrah story was told in Genesis, thousands of years before Moses, Aaron, Joshua, etc. And you’re suggesting that I don’t know the context and are going to “smack me down” with it? Talk about irony.
Don’t you see that undermines your credibility? You didn’t even take the time to look up the S&G story after you were called out, speculating that it might be Aaron or Joshua instead of Moses. Look it up, man! You’re the one who thinks the stories are inspired, but you’re getting the basics wrong?
I know it’s an easy enough mistake. I’m not trying to be a jerk. But can you see things from my perspective?
I agree with Jabster about your recent arguments. Speculating we can’t absolutely prove physical matter doesn’t have anything to do with believing in God or Jesus or the FSM. It’s just an epistemological distraction from the fact that you have no evidence for God.
Further, Eric, you resort to ad hominem attacks–as though you know what my philosophical training is and then attempt an end-run by saying that I haven’t proven to you the existence of matter (which is a far different claim than asking for proof of an unseen deity which is supposed to at least occasionally intersect with our plane of existence). The attack against the person is hardly proof of anything other than the insecurity of your own argument. You claim that asking you to prove the existence of God isn’t fair when we haven’t proven the existence of matter is utterly absurd. The existence of matter is absolutely evident; pinch a woman or man on the street–I guarantee you’ll know the existence of matter. Now, as to the existence of your deity; call it down and ask it to make itself absolutely evident to humanity (”faith” is not testable, repeatable, nor conclusive). Finally, it is never the task of the denier to prove the non-existence of anything (I could not ask you to prove the non-existence of Superman–if I believed in the existence of an actual person named Kal-El, it would be incumbent upon me to prove this person’s existence); if you cannot prove the existence of your deity and resort to an argument that chucks reason and objective proof to the side, you have failed.
So, I’ll pose the challenge again: provide incontrovertible evidence of the existence of your deity.
I’m sorry Eric, I’m in complete disagreement.
Speaks precisely to my point.
Each of those scholars saw the languages they were translating through the lens of the time they lived in. Fractal errors, which might initially have been unimportant by themselves, crept in. Add to that the psychological layer imposed by culture and the sense of mission, and you get an historic mishmash of epic proportions.
THEN you get to throw on top of that the various schisms churches have gone through, and what that political exigence has done to their translations. And following THAT you have to consider the selection and throwing-out of various bits of the canon.
But then you double-back, saying:
Which is it? I mean, I can use the “best” word to make sense in English of a phrase that would otherwise be nonsensical in English, or I can use the correct word, which preserves the sense but may not be literally what the author originally had in mind.
When I use the French word “tabarnouche” there is no direct English word that implies the same meaning. The “best” translation would probably be “holy crap!”. The accurate word would be something close to “tabernacle.” Needless to say, the literal English term makes little sense in English context, but the exclamation “holy crap,” with no literal meaning in English, conveys best the sense the speaker intends.
Well, I guess I have to take that as true. Tell you what though, will you look up something in The Infant Gospel of Thomas for me?
–But …
But …
But. You. Didn’t. And it was the work of roughly a half-second via Google.
If you could make that mistake, how many more could some drink-addled middle-ages monk who had to go to the codex, find the appropriate scroll, find the correct passage, interpret it in the best way possible (or else accurately), possibly with input from his Abbot, other prelate, local lord, or mother, and inscribe it by hand (always assuming that his writing was good) have made?
And once printing came in, how many editors and interpreters of prior editions made little corrections and mistakes?
–Yes, exactly.
Changing one word, “one jot, one tittle,” (so saith Paul, or someone. But who’s got time to look it up?) changes the text. Witness the Wicked Bible linked above.
The Bible, in its many translations, cannot be taken literally because it it is riddled with the judgements, translation errors, cultural prejudice, political and social motivation, and plain ignorance of its writers, translators, and editors.
As to your “You can’t prove reality is really really real,” argument. You’re right, sure: Matter is an illusion and we all dwell in the Matrix. But some of us have found the red pill. Or is it the blue one?
Jabster
Call my arguments stupid while not answering a single one of them (which should be easy because their so stupid), and repeating the “prove” fallacy after it’s been challenged. Very well done.
Eric Kemp
McBloggenstein
“Can’t we just disagree to disagree? lol..
Sorry dude. This could go on forever. I’m done with that.”
We can stop at any time.
“I don’t think it’s fair to say that we are less learned in philosophy just because we see something differently.”
My goal wasn’t to insult your education, or insult at all. I don’t even know you! My goal was to point out the ease at which the “prove” fallacy can be avoided. That is, at the most basic level of philosophical education you get smacked in the face with not being able to prove ANYTHING!
“For me, reality is everything my senses can detect. I have never had any reason to believe that there is anything more than that.”
Right, this is called a naturalistic assumption. You are admitting that you believe that matter is everything and the only things that are real is what you can touch with your senses. I stay away from assuming such things as I have no evidence that this is the case.
“One definition of proof is to provide evidence. If I can detect the table is there with my senses, then that is evidence.”
I completely agree with you.
“I understand that you can say that it is not real evidence, because you could hypothetically hook up a computer to my brain and tell it to “sense” a table, and I wouldn’t know the difference.”
And that is also a possibility. I would say the existence of the table is evidence of either.
“But if we went through our lives questioning things like this, how is that a way to live?”
Again, I agree.
“By that same way of thought, it is impossible to prove anything. To live our conscious lives in this universe, we have to assume a few things.”
Agreed. And it’s ok to do so as long as we recognize we are doing so. Roger is not that self-reflective, it’s refreshing that you are.
“There is no reason to assume that God exists in order to live our lives.”
Ah yes, but God allows to explain several things that you can’t. Like where matter came from, where life came from, and why we have order in the universe to name a few.
“For us, the evidence that our 5 senses provide for us is enough to live a happy life. For theists it is not. This we don’t understand.”
You think that Christianity is all about happiness? That we’re so weak that we can’t handle life without the “crutch” of God? Come now. If you want to ask me what Christianity is really about, and not what Skeptics Society tells you it’s about, I’ll tell you.
If you don’t want to debate any longer, that’s fine. I look forward to future word sparring with you, you are a worthy and cordial adversary.
Daniel
“I find it kind of amusing, Eric, that you have been talking about manuscripts and context like you were a biblical expert.”
Whoa! Back up the train. I am no where NEAR a biblical expert, nor have I ever claimed it, I’m not even Biblically trained, like in a classroom. I am theologically self-taught, as I’ve said a few times on my blog (not that you had any reason to see that). And the fact that you’ve caught me in a mistake of names in regards to an OT story does not surprise me at all.
“Then, you didn’t seem to know that Sodom & Gomorrah story was told in Genesis, thousands of years before Moses, Aaron, Joshua, etc. And you’re suggesting that I don’t know the context and are going to “smack me down” with it? Talk about irony.”
But the fact that you’re using my mistaken name choice to ignore my argument is your fallacy. I didn’t research the S&M story because the complete facts of the story is besides the point I was trying to make and you know it.
“I know it’s an easy enough mistake. I’m not trying to be a jerk. But can you see things from my perspective?”
Well, it IS kinda jerky, and I should have gotten it right. but I understand that your perspective is to smack down any Christian for any mistakes they make. Hey, it allows you to ignore their argument entirely AND make them look stupid at the same time. It’s a win win!
However, I disagree that I should look it up. If it had any relevance to my argument, to the point I was making, I would have made sure of my facts before I hit “send”. However, the names of the people involved had NOTHING to do with my argument, and that’s why I’m STILL not looking it up, (that and I’m at work right now).
“Speculating we can’t absolutely prove physical matter doesn’t have anything to do with believing in God or Jesus or the FSM.”
I never said it had anything to do with BELIEVING in God, I used it to merely show Roger that asking me to prove God’s existence, when he can’t prove the existence of matter is irrational and disengenous.
“It’s just an epistemological distraction from the fact that you have no evidence for God.”
If Roger had simply aske for EVIDENCE of God, I would have given him a direct answer. But that’s not what he asked for, so I didn’t talk about evidence.
“I am theologically self-taught.”
Sounds like arguing in an echo chamber to me.
He’s not making anyone look stupid, Eric. But you may be aiding and abetting.
Daniel has put forth a series of good arguments here and elsewhere. He’s consistently thoughtful, and actually clarifies or self-corrects when he’s caught in an actual mistake. You could learn from him.
As for ignoring your argument, when you agree that tables exist, or may be said to exist as near as makes no odds, then we can talk about your evidence for god. But if we can’t agree that “the real world” is bounded by a set of mutually-agreed-upon perceptions, be they actual or illusory, then how are we expected to unscrew the inscrutible?
The person ignoring reason and rational argument, old son, is not Daniel. It might be the person insisting that we can’t agree on the basic reality of the universe as we mutually hallucinate it.
Meanwhile, you’re not coming to dinner at my house. If your faith wavers, your plate may fall through.
Still, I’m curious. Do you have evidence pointing to a god that isn’t either appeal to emotion or tail-chasing sophistry?
And which god are we talking about, just to be clear?
Roger
“Further, Eric, you resort to ad hominem attacks–as though you know what my philosophical training is . . .”
I meant no insult, and I apologize if that’s how you took it. I was merely pointing out the fact that the “prove” fallacy is thoroughly debunked at the basic level of any philosophical training. The fact that you are using it, and sticking by it, speaks to your lack of self-reflectiveness and level of education on the subject.
“and then attempt an end-run by saying that I haven’t proven to you the existence of matter (which is a far different claim than asking for proof of an unseen deity which is supposed to at least occasionally intersect with our plane of existence).”
Proving the existence of matter should then be EASIER, right? So why can’t you do it? Is it because my you can’t get around my “table” philosophical exercise?
“The existence of matter is absolutely evident; pinch a woman or man on the street–I guarantee you’ll know the existence of matter.”
You just again begged the question of where the electrical impulses in your brain are coming from. Is it actually someone punching you in the face? Or are you in the Matrix? OR in a glass jar hooked up to a computer feeding you electrical impulses? You couldn’t prove it to me either way.
“Finally, it is never the task of the denier to prove the non-existence of anything . . .”
Are you kidding me? You can just deny it without being able prove why you are denying YET at the same time demand believers that they must prove their belief? You really think that’s rational?
“if you cannot prove the existence of your deity and resort to an argument that chucks reason and objective proof to the side, you have failed.”
I never set out to prove the existence of God. Never thought I could. However, you are 1. ignoring that you could never prove the NON-existence of God so right there you’re irrational and 2. ignoring that you’re unable to prove the existence of something as “obvious” as matter.
“So, I’ll pose the challenge again: provide incontrovertible evidence of the existence of your deity.”
Wait, now we’ve switched to “evidence”? And, I’m confused, “incontrovertible” to who?
But, you know what, I’ll bite. Here we go
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
And since we know matter can’t have always existed (The Singularity), and that matter can’t create itself, something immaterial must have created matter.
There you go.
Eric, you really should do some reading on these issues.
Start by studying the documentary hypothesis. Study the archeology of biblical lands in the relevant eras. Think on the nature of the belief in JHWH in those times. Think on the how great of a coincidence it is that Moses was a Midianite, and that there was a city there called JWH. Think about how one of the sources of the bible makes Moses the one doing things, while another source makes Aaron do things. Consider how those sources changed the story to suit their beliefs. There is ample evidence of stories being altered after the fact and editted to suit the political situations of the era. Who’s staff had the magic powers? Moses or Aaron? And why does the answer depend so much on which section of the bible you read, and why do those sections of text have such different word choice and describe their god as having different attributes and even use different names for him? Why do the Aaronite priests tell the stories as if it was Aaron who had the power in his staff, and Moses could only hear god? Why do the other priests make Moses the star and tell tales that belittle Aaron?
There are lots of things about the bible that you deserve to know. If you truly care about the holy book of your religion, then you aught to put some time into reading the actual history of the book and of the eras it was written compiled and editted in. Knowledge can only make you more effective at defending your position.
-”You are admitting that you believe that matter is everything and the only things that are real is what you can touch with your senses. I stay away from assuming such things as I have no evidence that this is the case.”
What a way to live life!
You must be either a scientist actively researching string theory, trying to prove the existence of more than 3 dimensions, or you’re religious. :)
-”Ah yes, but God allows to explain several things that you can’t. Like where matter came from, where life came from, and why we have order in the universe to name a few.”
The difference between using God to explain those things, and science, is that science is a system that is based on logical, rational, skeptical thinking that is always trying to prove itself wrong. Being within a scientific community, you are actually praised for proving others wrong, because the goal is always to discover truth. Knowledge of the physical world and how it works will never end with science.
With God, why would there ever be a need to find out how our world works, because there is an easy answer: God did it. I’m not satisfied with that answer.
I am not aware of the current status of sciences claim to the origin of matter or life, but because of the nature of it’s methods, I feel confident that they will be able to get a pretty good hold on it. But even if we can never know through science the tough questions like how matter or life came to be, I personally don’t think it is relavent to life as we know it whether we know the answer or not, and I especially don’t care to know the answer so much as to need to attribute it to an unreasonable source such as God.
Thanks for the discussion.
oh, Eric, the first cause argument? Really? Ok, I’ll bite: so what if something or some entity brought matter into existence. How would that make that entity “God”? Further, I’m sure you know that that argument has quite a flaw: what brought that entity into existence?
Oh, and don’t think for one picosecond that I buy your “apology”–especially since you immediately engage another ad hominem attack. Good try, though. Keep obfuscating your thin arguments with double-talk and nonsense.
@Eric: I would no more challenge your argument than I would the argument that the moon is made a cheese if that person just trots out the “you can’t absolutely prove anything therefore all views are equally valid” phrase every time. Of course this doesn’t mean the argument isn’t stupid just that it doesn’t warrant a discussion.
@Roger: It’s just another example of looking for “facts” to prove the truth. The Universe can’t have popped out of “nothing” so there must have been a creator always seems like a strange argument. Just ask the question of where the creator came from and the stock answer is he’s always existed … erm so why can’t have the Universe always existed but the creator can? Well that’s different as it doesn’t support the main argument so doesn’t count!
I have no real problem with believers who state their belief in a god is based in faith it’s just the ones that trying equate their level of faith to being an atheist, sitting on a chair, the existence of wind etc.
Aor
Can you give me some links or sources to research the claims you just made?
Thanks
Eric Kemp
McBloggenstein
“The difference between using God to explain those things, and science, is that science is a system . . .”
You misunderstand the question. The origin of life, the origin of the universe, and the reason for order in the universe are all things that, by definition, science CANNOT have any evidence for. The origins happened in the untestable, unobservable, unrecreatable past. That is outside the bounds of logical and rational science because it cannot be observed. The order of the universe is a metaphysical question, and science doesn’t deal with metaphysics (if you’re interested, I wrote an article on the order of the universe, a.k.a. the uniformity of nature in an article called “The Atheist is a Theif” on my blog).
“With God, why would there ever be a need to find out how our world works, because there is an easy answer: God did it.”
Science was founded by Bible believing, young earth Creationist Christians who weren’t satisfied with “God did it”. Descartes, Newton, Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, you know, the fathers of science. So please, don’t lump “all” Christians into this “God did it” category. As many Christians as you CAN lump into this, I can lump the atheists that go, “Naturalism did it” (abiogenesis anyone?).
“I am not aware of the current status of sciences claim to the origin of matter or life . . .”
I just posted an article on the subject. That short answer is that they have no idea, in fact, every observable, testable piece of evidence we have (the Law of Biogenesis for one) points to abiogenesis being impossible.
” I especially don’t care to know the answer so much as to need to attribute it to an unreasonable source such as God.”
If you want to go through life having no idea where life came from, believing blindly that somehow it created itself, and not caring enough to really discover if that position is absurd or not, I can’t stop you.
“Thanks for the discussion.”
The same to you, it was fun. If you respond again, I’ll let you have the last word.
Roger
“so what if something or some entity brought matter into existence. How would that make that entity “God”?”
You can call it what you want, but it means there is an all-powerful, immaterial creator out there. What else would you call this creator?
“Further, I’m sure you know that that argument has quite a flaw: what brought that entity into existence?”
Of course, I’ve heard this many times. The problem that any atheist that has said to me has had is this . . .in order to say, “yea, well what started your God?”, you have to first admit that the universe was started by God, are you doing this? If not, then you can’t make the argument.
“Oh, and don’t think for one picosecond that I buy your “apology”–especially since you immediately engage another ad hominem attack.”
Pointing out someone’s need for more self-reflectiveness and education about a subject is not “about the man”.
Also, it must frustrate you that you can’t prove matter
It’s ok Roger, Bertrand Russel knew he couldn’t prove anything but was still able to not believe in God. You’ll be ok.
Jabster
“I would no more challenge your argument than I would the argument that the moon is made a cheese if that person just trots out the “you can’t absolutely prove anything therefore all views are equally valid” phrase every time. Of course this doesn’t mean the argument isn’t stupid just that it doesn’t warrant a discussion.”
I agree, that IS a stupid argument. Good thing I never made it.
“why can’t have the Universe always existed but the creator can? Well that’s different as it doesn’t support the main argument so doesn’t count!”
We know that the Universe can’t have always existed because, think about it, the sun would have burned out infinitely long ago. We also know that the universe had a starting point called the Singularity because the universe is still expanding.
“I have no real problem with believers who state their belief in a god is based in faith it’s just the ones that trying equate their level of faith to being an atheist, sitting on a chair, the existence of wind etc.”
Jabster, just because you have no answer for the argument (none of you have even tried!) doesn’t mean the argument is invalid. In fact, your and Roger’s tactics seem to be to resort to incredulous sarcasm and mockery just so you can ignore the arguments!
Metro
““I am theologically self-taught.”
Sounds like arguing in an echo chamber to me.”
I should have clarified. What I mean by that is that I’ve never been in a seminary classroom in an official capacity. I HAVE, however, been taught by a Greek and Hebrew scholar or two but always on a personal basis. Plus, just reading the Bible is a pretty good education in itself.
“Daniel has put forth a series of good arguments here and elsewhere. He’s consistently thoughtful, and actually clarifies or self-corrects when he’s caught in an actual mistake. You could learn from him.”
I agree with you, Daniel is an intelligent and cordial fellow. If my mistake was at all relevant I would correct it to clarify my argument, and would have confirmed the fact in the first place. Since the name of an individual has nothing to do with the argument the only motivation to correct my mistake is for my own personal edification, which I will obviously look into.
“As for ignoring your argument, when you agree that tables exist, or may be said to exist as near as makes no odds, then we can talk about your evidence for god.”
If we were talking about “evidence” for God from the beginning, I would not have used the table exercise because that would be a distraction. However, I was asked to “prove” God. Pointing out that we can’t prove matter is entirely relevant in showing the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of the original question.
“But if we can’t agree that “the real world” is bounded by a set of mutually-agreed-upon perceptions, be they actual or illusory, then how are we expected to unscrew the inscrutible?”
I agree, we must assume it. But only after the Scientific Revolution has this assumption been commonplace and expected, it has not been so for the vast majority of human history.
“It might be the person insisting that we can’t agree on the basic reality of the universe as we mutually hallucinate it.”
I never said suggested such a thing. I merely want everyone to be self-reflective and admit the assumptions we do have to make. Like I said elsewhere in this thread, making the assumption is only bad if we ignore that we are making it.
“Still, I’m curious. Do you have evidence pointing to a god that isn’t either appeal to emotion or tail-chasing sophistry?”
Sure, what would accept as evidence?
“And which god are we talking about, just to be clear?”
Only the God of the Christian worldview makes any sense. And, yes, I’m serious about that and I can defend it.
@Eric:
“We know that the Universe can’t have always existed because, think about it, the sun would have burned out infinitely long ago. We also know that the universe had a starting point called the Singularity because the universe is still expanding.”
So therefore there must have been a creator who just so happens to be the god I believe in - excuse me while I start laughing at the most stupid logic I’ve seen demonstrated in a long, long time. I’m sorry but your ‘arguments’ are only worthy of sarcasm and mockery as they barely make it to even and semi-intelligent level - oh I don’t know maybe you decided what the answer was and then made an argument (however poor) around it? Some people come here and like to exchange ideas in a reasonable and well thought out fashion unfortunately you are not in the category.
Eric, I gave you the name of the concept. It is called the Documentary Hypothesis. You can type that into google and find out plenty.
I doubt you will bother though. You are clearly set in your ways and do not seem to willing to accept the flaws in your reasoning. Just know this: the experts, historians, archeologists and theologians have gone over the history of the bible and of the beliefs of the Israelites from the time before they were called jews. If you truly care about how the bible originated, what it was constructed from, when and by who, then you should be interested in the documentary hypothesis. If you want a reasonable summary, just use Wikipedia.
Jabster
You are apparently incapable of carrying on a rational conversation. You continue to berate and mock the strawmen you’ve made of my arguments. I show you how your position of an infinite universe is impossible and you first fake an argument I didn’t make and then laugh that fake argument away because you have no answer and sure as heck don’t want people to see your erroneous logic that was just debunked by a Christian. Well done.
Aor
I’m looking into the Document Hypothesis. Hopefully sooner rather than later I can do an article about it.
Thanks for the direction.
@Eric: What arguments? You’ve failed to post anything off any substance at all. Lets be honest here when you where asked to show some proof of your god you completely failed to answer the question all though strangely enough you have yet to post anything to back these claims up - I wonder why that is?
Oh and please don’t me me laugh with you arguments for why it had to be “god that done it” but no on seconds thoughts do please explain and remember to include why it must be a Christian god. I look forward to your interesting post!
Jabster
“Lets be honest here when you where asked to show some proof of your god you completely failed to answer the question . . . ”
I was asked to “Prove that God exists” which is COMPLETELY different than “show some proof . . .”, you’re attempting to twist what happened to suit your position.
As a counter-argument to “Prove that God exists” I showed quite clearly that you and Roger #1 Can’t prove that God DOESN’T exist and #2 can’t even prove that matter exists. Neither of you even attempted to argue either of those points. If you can’t prove something that you can see, you can’t rationally expect someone else to prove something that you can’t see. This invalidates the original question.
However, in a disguised retraction, Roger rephrased his question to include some evidence for God. In response I gave the kalam argument, if you want to read it again go ahead and scroll up. In response to the kalam argument, YOU said that the universe has always existed. I showed that the universe could NOT have always existed because the sun would have burned out infinitely long ago AND because we know there was a Singularity to this universe.
Your position of an infinite universe has been debunked, but instead of answering the kalam argument that is now a looming problem for you, you mock and berate with condescending sarcasm to avoid the problem. Answer the question, what caused the universe? Do you have any idea? Or any reason for why you KNOW it wasn’t God?
Aor
I only spent about an hour on the Document Hypothesis today, but I have some questions. JEPD only refers to the Pentatuch and has nothing to do with New Testament manuscript reliability which is what we were discussing. What was your point in bringing it up again? And how is it an argument against my position of no doctrinal differences in the ancient manuscripts and our current Bible? I’m just looking for some clarification on what JEPD does for you in this discussion. Please be as specific as possible so I know in what direction to research.
Thanks
Eric
Once you accept that the later books of the bible are based on the earlier books of the bible, which you inevitably must if you claim to be a christian, you will begin to understand why horrendous flaws in the first five books affect your beliefs greatly.
The entire book is based on falsehoods. Do you understand? If not, study more.
@Eric: Nope I never claimed that the Universe has always existed, I merely pointed out that logically if someone is happy to claim that the creator either has always existed or popped out of “nothingness” then this can equally apply to the Universe. This is the problem with your whole line of thought. You are happy to use “science” when it suits your pre-determined argument yet discard it when it does not.
Oh and where was this evidence you promised as fyou did not supply any in your post and indeed fell back on your “you can’t prove that matter exists” so I don’t have to prove that god exists argument. Well what you actaully said was that you had evidence so go on post it.
Jabster
“I merely pointed out that logically if someone is happy to claim that the creator either has always existed or popped out of “nothingness” then this can equally apply to the Universe.”
Nope, this doesn’t work. God, by the very definition of God, never began existing, He has always existed. If God began existing, then that means He needs a cause, and if He needs a cause then God is nothing more than a more powerful created being and we can no longer call Him God, because He no longer fits the definition. You can attempt to redefine God all you want to suit your argument, but God has always existed and isn’t bound by the laws of cause and effect of this universe, brcause he’s outside of it.
So, I’ll ask again since you keep dodging the question. What caused the universe? It seems that you are suggesting that you are ok with the idea that all of matter came from nothing; that nothing can create/begin everything all on it’s own. Is this the case?
Aor
I find it disengenous at best that you portray the Documentary Hypothesis as some indisputable factual position. JEPD is a very controversial position at best in the theological community, with more liberal scholars in support of and more fundamentalist scholars disagreeing. JEPD is a dissent from the traditional view of Mosiac authorship. But how do they do this? Well, one way is by claiming that there are four main different literary styles with the Pentatuch, this is evidence by style changes and word selection changes.
Word selection, style changes? Are these things an exact science? Are they concrete in ANY way? I’ve been arguing in defense of Christianity on the internet for about 8 months now, and have written thousands upon thousands of words upon a plethora of subjects with many different goals in mind during my writings. Do you really think that if you had 100 scholars read everything I’ve written on the internet over the past few months, that they would all agree it was the same person? By the JEPD logic, every single time my style and word choice changed I’ve become a new person. Also, my tone, focus and vocab have changed drastically since I first began (I’ve learned, grown and moved goalposts), so, by JEPD logic, my writings now compared to my writings then certainly can’t be from the same person since so much has changed in the last 8 months. Simple question: How long did Moses take to write the Pentatuch? I honestly don’t know the answer, but it must have been quite a while.
Can you tell me specifically, besides that it allows you to conveniently throw out the entire Bible, what it is that you find convincing about JEPD?
@Eric: So exactly who’s definition of god is this? You can’t just say the universe must have rule X apply to it but rule X doesn’t apply to god because I say so and besides it doesn’t fit in with my pre-determined answer.
Do I know where the Universe came from er no I don’t think I even know if it’s a valid question. You on the other hand have claimed you do yet your evidence to support this creator let only a Christian creator basically boils down to “it was god what done it ‘cus I say so.” and you then follow it up with “oh and no of the rules apply to god as he doesn’t have to follow them.” meaning you can claim anything you want to and I could claim that it was a different creator if I so wished and both points would be equally valid under your definitions.
Sorry try again with you evidence or have you decided what evidence means as well as what god means?
Eric,
I think it’s great you are thinking critically about these issues. But I’d like to suggest something radical: apply the same criticism to your own beliefs. You may think you have already done this, but it’s clear to me that you haven’t. You make an enormous amount of assumptions when you write about your faith. It’s hard to see it when you are steeped in it, though.
For instance, ask yourself why you believe in Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Perhaps it is because the Pentateuch claims it was written by Moses? No, there is no such claim. Is it because there is archeological evidence to back Mosaic authorship? No, no such evidence exists. Does it contain anything that could not have been written by Moses? Well, yes, actually. Here are two I know of off the top of my head (and I’m sure there are many, many more):
It once describes Moses as “the humblest man on the earth.” Now nobody is so vain to actually call themselves that — and by calling themselves that, it would make them a real jackass. But it’s obviously the kind of thing a scribe would say about their hero-leader, Moses. Do you really think Moses wrote that about himself?
And then there is the obvious problem: It ends with Moses’ death and burial. How exactly would he write about his own death and burial? It is written in the same style as the rest of the book. But of course a scribe wrote that, as, I hope, you would even admit. But it doesn’t end with Moses signature with a PS by a scribe — it’s just a normal part of the book.
And then you have to make sense of all the repetition. If it was written by one intelligent author, Moses, why does it seem like something scribes put together after some drinks? Why are the same stories repeated twice (like the creation story and Abraham passing his sister off as wife) with small details changed? Why are laws repeated? If it was written by one author, he must of purposely been trying to fool us.
So we have no evidence that Moses wrote it — it’s only Jewish tradition. And you would admit tradition can be fallible, right?
And don’t fool yourself that JEPD is some kind of controversial idea. No scholars believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch except for very conservative Christian and Jewish scholars. There is no evidence to support it, and it’s not claimed by the manuscripts themselves. There are things inside it that we know could not have been written by Moses and would have been absurd if he did write it. And the way there is consistent style differences that rotate seem to point to multiple authorship, later compiled into one account by scribes.
(As a sidenote, I think thoughtful conservative scholars admit that it was largely a compilation — but that Moses was the compiler. I sympathize with their longing for Mosaic authorship, but don’t understand why they cling to it in the absence of evidence. Oh, actually I remember now. There’s a NT reference Jesus makes to “Moses and the prophets,” and since they think Jesus is infallible, and the oral history passed down to eventually become the gospel is infallible, Moses must have written it. But of course, the writer / oral history had Jesus say that because that was the Tradition. But they can’t admit that, since their view of Scripture would crumble, so they must cling to Mosaic authorship, absurd as it is. Kinda sad.)
As I said, I wish you would turn your critical thinking skills to what you believe. I think for many things, you’ll find you believe because you want to and because that’s what you’ve been taught — not because of evidence and reason and logic.
“If you can’t prove something that you can see, you can’t rationally expect someone else to prove something that you can’t see. This invalidates the original question.”
That’s absolutely stupid. You’ve just attempted a straw-man argument. So we don’t respond to your inane request to prove matter exists and thus, you claim that you’ve “won” and have proven God’s existence by our refusal to play your game?
Eric, are you aware that your argument that it’s incumbent upon us to somehow prove that (a) God doesn’t exist is a logical fallacy? You cannot prove the non-existence of anything. Further, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. Where’s the proof of your claim that a supernatural deity exists? Also, your argument that we should somehow try to prove matter exists is both a false argument and rather tepid attempt to shift the question. But hey, nice try with the condescension and all. It’s a rhetorical move I’ve seen many a godbot make, to very little effect.
Jabster
“You can’t just say the universe must have rule X apply to it but rule X doesn’t apply to god because I say so and besides it doesn’t fit in with my pre-determined answer.”
The definition of God is something that has not been created, you can twist the definition all you want, but it just is. Any monotheistic religion will tell you the same thing. And that’s what we’re arguing about, monotheism.
“Do I know where the Universe came from er no I don’t think I even know if it’s a valid question.”
Nope, my argument is that the Universe had to have a cause. If you cant give me some sort of argument on what could cause the universe BESIDES God, then we can talk. You’re right, God is an easy answer because He’s an answer. If you won’t answer the question of what could cause a universe besides a deity, then I guess we have nothing else to talk about.
Daniel
“You make an enormous amount of assumptions when you write about your faith. It’s hard to see it when you are steeped in it, though.”
We all make assumptions. I will freely admit that I make assumptions about my faith. But at least I’m being honest about it. If you are attempting to say that the Document Hypothesis is assumption free, then perhaps you should be more self-reflective about the positions you subscribe to.
The questions you asked are all good questions. However, having no physical evidence to support a position (I’m not sure if this is true of Mosaic authorship because I just honestly haven’t studied the issue) doesn’t mean the position isn’t likely. This is evidenced by your belief in abiogenesis.
But I have a question along the same lines. The Jews, from the beginning, thousands of years ago, believed that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. How did they get it so wrong? Where did they get the idea in the first place? More importantly, if four different sources wrote the Pentatuch, why didn’t the Jews just say so? What’s the big deal about claiming Moses wrote it if it wasn’t true?
“But it’s obviously the kind of thing a scribe would say about their hero-leader, Moses. Do you really think Moses wrote that about himself?”
So because you don’t think Moses would say this, he didn’t right the Pentateuch? Alittle weak don’t you think?
“It ends with Moses’ death and burial. How exactly would he write about his own death and burial? It is written in the same style as the rest of the book.”
I don’t wouldn’t think that a scribe adding in the death of the writer would be a problem for innerrancy. His death DID happen like the scribe said it did right?
” If it was written by one intelligent author, Moses, why does it seem like something scribes put together after some drinks?”
So because you don’t LIKE the style that he put it in, or that the ancient way of writing Hebrew sounds weird to modern western ears, therefore Moses didn’t right the Pentateuch? Really?
“So we have no evidence that Moses wrote it — it’s only Jewish tradition. And you would admit tradition can be fallible, right?”
Sure, but the evidence of Moses NOT writing it is a controversy STEEPED in the presuppositions of the arguers isn’t compelling for JEPD.
” No scholars believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch except for very conservative Christian and Jewish scholars.”
Right, and they don’t count for you so their opinion is discounted a priori.
“There is no evidence to support it, and it’s not claimed by the manuscripts themselves.”
An interesting statement coming from an atheist. The New Testament Manuscripts claim to be written by eyewitnesses who saw Jesus rise from the dead. Do you believe them because they claim it? Of course not, you’ve got all other kinds of reasons to deny them. So suggesting that you would believe in Mosaic authorship MORE if the text claimed it is disengenous at best.
“As I said, I wish you would turn your critical thinking skills to what you believe. I think for many things, you’ll find you believe because you want to and because that’s what you’ve been taught — not because of evidence and reason and logic.”
I honestly haven’t been taught anything about Mosaic authorship nor it’s importance to the Christian faith. This is the first time I’ve ever looked into the issue. And it’s going to take a good amount of time for me to get educated on it and, as I do, I promise you that I WILL be turning a critical eye upon everything I read. However, to be honest with you, I won’t be reconsidering wether or not Jesus is the Christ just because of JEPD and, if you were being honest, you would admit that your presupposition of non-inerrancy and infallibilty won’t be challenge even if Mosaic authorship was proved.
@Eric: Well now I’ve stopped laughing at your logic I think I’m ready to reply. So let me get this straight your evidence for a Christian god is that we don’t know how the Universe was created so you’re free to make up something that just created it with no explanation at all and that must be true. I mean is that really the best you could come up? Whatever next are you going to supply “evidence” for? That god created the Earth in six days several thousand years ago - go on I like a laugh so that would be good fun.
So then come on Eric you’ve said you have evidence that “it was a Christian god that done it” but so far you haven’t supplied any evidence at all so please try again. I’m really not trying to ridicule you and be sarcastic but you make it all to easy as even after repeat requests you haven’t posted any sort of evidence but instead have just try to deflect any questions away.
p.s. If you’re ever thinking of being a lawyer I would recommend you have a good think about it as you standard of evidence my be found to be a bit wanting.
@Roger: Nope apparently god exists because we don’t know how the Universe was created. I’m trying to decide if this is more stupid than not being able to prove matter exists as an argument.
Roger
“That’s absolutely stupid. You’ve just attempted a straw-man argument. So we don’t respond to your inane request to prove matter exists and thus, you claim that you’ve “won” and have proven God’s existence by our refusal to play your game?”
Claiming that something is stupid doesn’t make it so. You must show it. In fact, claiming fallacies without showing them just makes it look like your dodging, which is what you’ve been doing for the past few comments. You have strawmanned my argument at every turn, even after having the strawman explained to you (my “prove matter” position doesn’t prove God, it just shows that you can’t prove matter and so therefore can’t ask others to prove God). This is purposeful and shows that your tactic is to be as dishonest as possible in your dealings with Christians.
“Eric, are you aware that your argument that it’s incumbent upon us to somehow prove that (a) God doesn’t exist is a logical fallacy? You cannot prove the non-existence of anything.”
Exactly, just as I showed you can’t prove the EXISTENCE of anything (besides perhaps your own existence to yourself).
“Further, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.”
This is absolute rubbish. This position allows you to decide what is defined as “extraordinary” and what isn’t. For you, you must be claiming that matter creating itself out of nothing isn’t extraordinary.
“Also, your argument that we should somehow try to prove matter exists is both a false argument and rather tepid attempt to shift the question.”
Your refusal and inability to do so is evidence enough that you can no longer ask theists to “prove God” and be rational at the same time. But you will continue to insult and berate in order to deny the simplicity of it. Have fun.
@ Everyone
This discussion has been edifying and challenging. I appreciate those that engaged me in a rational and cordial manner (Daniel, McBloggenstein, Aor, and Metro) and I feel that we are at reasonable empasses in our particular discussions. I have been given challenges to research, and look forward to taking the time, when I have it, to doing so. If you guys want a new Creationist blog to harass, I’d be glad to have you and hope to post articles on our respective topics (JEPD, manuscript evidence, “prove God”) in the near future.
As I have obligations to my own blog and to other projects outside the blogosphere, I will now be taking my leave and let you all have the last word. But I have truly enjoyed my time here. Thanks especially to Daniel for being an intelligent and cordial host. I’m sure I’ll be back as Daniel continues his series on an evil God, I look forward to tackling some of that with you all.
Thanks again
Wow. Wow. Wow. Now you accuse me of doing exactly what you’ve done over the course of this debate. Your arguments are full of circular reasoning, half-witted attempts at question dodging, conclusion shifting and wizard-invoking (”see, the Universe exists becuz God said so and becuz God said so, clearly the Universe exists!! See! I win!!”) Replace “God” with “Gandalf the Grey” and the arguments make just about as much “sense” (at least, as much sense as invoking a celestial wizard ever could). Well played, god-bot; well played. I’m sure you think that you’ve accrued a heap of “win” and will trot off to your little god-bottery and claim that you’ve triumphed over the evil of the Intarwebs with your dazzling display of (non)logic.
I haven’t strawmanned you (you are aware of what a straw man fallacy is, aren’t you?); rather, you misconstrue a rather simple question that was put to you: Prove the existence of a supernatural deity that you call God. Instead of offer proof, you deflect with a nonsensical question (others and myself are now to prove to you matter exists; something that you, I and every other rational, capable entity on this freakin’ planet knows exists BECAUSE we have scientific evidence of its existence, and such evidence is testable, repeatable and logically deduced and explained) and engage in condescending bits of prattle. Perhaps you could invoke your Imaginary Sky Friend to prove to you that matter exists?
There was me looking forward to the evidence for the existence of a Christian god but it now looks as though I’m going to have to wait a bit longer - oh well.
@Eric
You have not proven, cited, justified or simply backed up a single assertion you’ve made here. You’ve done strawman, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, you’ve shucked, jinked and jived. And not one single time have you held out a shred of the so-called “evidence” you apparently have for the existence of a god.
You didn’t even address the issue of errata in the bible as I raised it. Your arguments, where they have existed, have been sloppy, and possibly dishonest.
Eric FAIL.
The biggest thing I notice is the transition from Old Testament to New Testament.
God in the O.T. has what I like to term as balls. Whereas in the N.T. he’s been emasculated a bit.
Not that I believe in any of it. I just find that part very interesting.
The bigots will harp on the Pentateuch. And Islam, it took the best parts of all to create what very well could be the worlds worst religion.
“@Eric
You have not proven, cited, justified or simply backed up a single assertion you’ve made here. You’ve done strawman, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, you’ve shucked, jinked and jived. And not one single time have you held out a shred of the so-called “evidence” you apparently have for the existence of a god.
You didn’t even address the issue of errata in the bible as I raised it. Your arguments, where they have existed, have been sloppy, and possibly dishonest.”
Eric is a YEC. If you take away the sloppy and dishonest arguments, what else does he have?
murrowcronkite on November 19, 2008 at 1:58 am wrote:
“….flooding the earth with water and destroying everybody (’cept Noah) was a one time deal. After that God was saddened and relented (God can change his mind too) and said He would never do that again and gave us the rainbow as a sign that He wouldn’t flood us out (globally) anymore.”
wazza notes at 2:19″
“Murrow: if the Flood was a one-time deal, and it made him sad afterwards, and he’s omniscient… why didn’t he save himself the sadness and never do it at all?”
to which I want to add:
Why did god do it again, just after Christmas 2004, in the
big tsunami?
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake
“United Nations lists a total of 229,866 people lost, including 186,983 dead and 42,883 missing”
What did these people do to attract God’s wrath, even in New Testament times, presumably with a more forgiving god?
“And if you’re prayers don’t work…”
Should be “your”.
I said global flood (worldwide,all at once) . There is actually archaeological evidence for it.
I reread my post. I said earth.
These comments lack a phycisist or two and I’m not one, sorry, but…
Murrowcronkite
:) Er, no.
Eric Kemp
No! :)
Eric Kemp
Quantum fluctuations create matter all the time. Where does your implicit belief that “everything has to have a (material) cause” come from ?
murrowcronkite
“I said global flood (worldwide,all at once) . There is actually archaeological evidence for it.”
Where?
Once, when I pointed out that repeatedly reading the Bible only revealed questions and contradictions and often left me truly horrified, I was told that my “problem” was that I needed a “guide” to help me over the difficult bits.
Heh.
Eric:
Read Thomas Paine’s “the Age of Reason”, then come back.
Don’t worry… we’ll wait.
Seriously, do yourself a favor and READ IT. It will be the greatest gift you ever give yourself in this life.
Fierce Rabbit
I remember one of those specials on the history or Discover channel showing they found fish fossils 3/4 the way up Mt. Arrarat, the mountain that Noah is said to have landed on. I didn’t check the elevation of Mt. Arrarat but I believe it’s quite tall.
murrowcronkite
Nothing against you Murrow, really, but it’s a basic truth of geology that no mountain has always been there… Mount Ararat isn’t much older than 20 million years, while fish, er lemme check… 400 millions years or more.
Kemp makes the very same elementary mistake thinking the Sun is as old as the universe.
The general ignorance spread by the US education system is despairing - and then there’s hope : Good summaries of XXth century science are available on the Internet, or e.g. through the Discovery channel you mentionned - and as far as only basic notions are concerned, it’s not that much to learn.
I’ve followed the discussion on this post with interest and, increasingly, admiration and incredulity.
Incredulity, first of all, for Eric Kemp’s blind persistence in the face of irrefutable argument. Clearly he is an intelligent man, yet one utterly blinkered (as, to my shame, I once was also) to the nonsense he believes and parrots. His ability to ignore an argument and bounce back with yet more justifications for an indefensible position makes him one of the most pugnacious people I have ever encountered. He will see this as a sneer or an insult–but I genuinely pity him, and feel sad for the expense of intelligence, spirit, time and energy that could be used so much more constructively. Perhaps the greatest irony in his approach is that any thinking person struggling with the irrationality of their Christian beliefs can only be swayed further from them by the straw man arguments Eric puts up. I can’t conceive that a man as clever as Eric doesn’t have moments of utter bleakness as he contemplates yet again girding himself to defend the indefensible. Again, from my own experience, I believe that some of the most strident Christian apologists are often the ones in whom doubt burns most searingly.
My admiration is for the patience so many of you have in your attempts to reason with Eric’s unreason. You are more civil than I believe he deserves, and than I think I would be capable of being. I’d say ‘keep it up’ except that in Eric’s case I think you are wasting your time. It is as you said elsewhere Daniel–a Christian locked in the circular spiral of evangelical logic is armoured from anything. But then again, Eric keeps hanging around here and elsewhere shooting himself in the foot and coming back to shoot the other one. Maybe he really is a seeker after truth.
@GuLi
I don’t think the flood we are talking about occured 400 or even 20 million years ago. Try 8-10 thoudand years ago. Did you miss that or just to focused on my accused lack of education ?
“Try 8-10 thoudand years ago. Did you miss that or just to focused on my accused lack of education ?”
If you believe in a worldwide flood 8-10 years ago, your frightening lack of education has everything to do with it.
Murrowcronkite -
Let me first get that off the way : I started with “Nothing against you Murrow” and blamed the “general ignorance spread by the US education system” because I was afraid you’d take my comment personally. Which you did anyway.
I didn’t want to single you out in my reply, as I think your ignorance is more representative of your country than of anything else. Only barely-laic Turkey does a little worse among “western” nations, and they’re trying to do better,partly because they want to integrate the EU one day.
See there for instance (hope that links works. Damn no preview)
Er, yes, I missed that entirely, as I don’t think you mentioned any date. I can now see you’re coming from a pretty religious background, but while I read the bible too I’m just not used to assume it as a basis of real-life facts.
I simply explained why you find marine life fossils on about every mountain, not just Ararat.
Or do you mean the fish fossils they found there were expertised as dating from less than 10000 years? If so, could you please indicate a source of that fact? As an aside, it should strike you that, if the biblical flood really happened, one would find such (recent) fossils everywhere: the sensationalism of finding them ON MOUNT ARARAT is a bit funny.
I Googled worldwide flood and foud hundreds of articles on the subject. There were many religious but I have included only 2 that are commented on by scientists.
http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/81563-geological-evidence-world-wide-flood.html
http://www.helium.com/items/113430-scientific-evidence-of-a-worldwide-flood
No I’m not overly religious, I just mentioned there is scientific theory and evidence for such an event.
I draw inspiration from many things and sources,trying to keep an open mind.
The scientific community is often egotistical and resistant to change and have persecuted people with new and dfifering theories, even when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
It is proper for scientists to follow protocols and stick to objective methods.
It is regrettable that more research money is not available to chase rabbits down the holes of myth and paranormal phenomena, as there are many secrets to find there.
All myth and paranormal can’t be attributed to mere superstition.
Acient peoples were scientists in thier own way and not insulated from the world and cosmos by civilization and it’s distractions.
Take the “iceman”, found on the Swiss Italian border a few years ago. He was carrying many many things including mushrooms which had antibiotic properties and a bronze spear that pushed back the advent of the bronze age by a few thousand years. Or the Mayans that had completely accurate calendars and accurate tracking of the planets and stars with no telescopes at all. Much knowledge has been lost.
Ego is the biggest weakness in the scientific community.
“I Googled worldwide flood and foud hundreds of articles on the subject. There were many religious but I have included only 2 that are commented on by scientists.”
Link 1: Tsunami != World Wide Flood.
Link 2: Isolated Ice Dam Melting != World Wide Flood.
FAIL!
Murrow:
China has had a continuous, literate civilisation stretching back well over 10,000 years. Somehow they managed not to think that them all being drowned in a global flood was worth writing down. Egytpian scribes similarly failed to notice that they’d all died. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
Suggesting that a global flood depositing dead fish in situ is the only way fish fossils can have come to be on Mount Ararat (and thus are evidence for a global flood) is simply false. The fish corpses were laid down on the sea floor, they fossilised there, and over millions of years, plate tectonics pushed that section of sea floor into a mountain range. This not only explains the presence of the fossils, but also why they’re encased in rock and why they’re distorted as if the rock they’re in had been squashed and folded. And why radiometric dating suggests that they formed hundreds of millions of years ago.
Really, there’s no evidence for a global deluge, ever, and a lot of evidence that says it was impossible.
You said something at first, something about reading the Bible through the lenses of faith, which helped you believe. And after that, you went on talking about ilogical, and unreasonable , and not being able to believe because of too many contradictions. That logic can only be human and therefore flawed[in my opinion].
But I am not going to tell you ”You are wrong” because i am sure that deep down in your heart, having read the Bible, you know what is wrong and what is not . But i am going to say that belief in God is through the lenses of faith only. If you want to be reasonable you dont need faith for that, but if you want God to be a part of your life, you only need to have faith because God, is revealing Himself to the ones that truly want to see Him.
Hope my comment didnt upset you. If it bothers you, there is always the delete button , at your service :-)
“Hope my comment didnt upset you.”
It would only upset us if what you said made any sense.
wintermute/Sunny day
Would you accept “the known world” wide flood. I’m open to moderating my statement. The websites I included above do speak of evidence of some sort of water flooding event in the Middle East of antiquity.
Ok. And..believing that the complex world that we live in, has no Creator, makes sense .
Good one! :P
1 Kings 22:23 “Now therefore behold, Yahveh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; Yahveh has spoken evil concerning you.”
Ezekiel 14:9 “And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, Yahveh, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch my hand out against him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.”
Ezekiel 20:25 “Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am Yahveh.”
2 Thessolonians 2:11-12 “Therefore Yahveh sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
Christians claim that the Bible is the word of Yahveh, and the Bible says that Yahveh sometimes lies. This alone would convince me that the Bible is untrustworthy. It would further make me doubt that this Yahveh character was the real Creator of the Universe; lying is “ungodly behavior’”.
——————————————–
Besides lying, Yahveh commits many other ungodly acts. He often unnecessarily punishes the innocent for things they did not do. Exodus 34:6-7: “The Lord God, merciful and gracious … visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and fourth generation.” Consider the story of Passover, where Yahveh puts pressure on a recalcitrant king by plaguing and killing his subjects. Yahveh kills all the non-Hebrew first-born with his own hand; this would certainly have included children and babies, non-Hebrew slaves, and ordinary working stiffs who had no part in enslaving the Hebrews, and no influence to free them. Yahveh could just as easily have put the screws to Pharoah directly, perhaps by giving him a series of toothaches, forcing him to yank all of his own teeth out one by one until he relented. (According to the story, Yahveh “hardens the heart” of Pharoah, to make him refuse. What sense does this make? It gives him an excuse to torture the common folk of Egypt some more.)
Consider Numbers 31. Yahveh has helped the Israelites to triumph in battle over the Midianites, then supervises the disposition of the spoils, human and otherwise. Look what happens when we get to verses 17 and 18: 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
(From Doug Crews): “So, put yourself in the sandals of a victorious Israelite soldier on that day. You see before you a woman, the widow of a slain Midianite soldier, and her 3 year old son. She is begging for mercy, for her son if not for herself. The boy is frightened and crying and hiding behind his mother’s skirt. God Himself has told you that these noncombatant prisoners are to be killed. Do you kill the mother first, or do you force her to watch her child be killed? Is there a song in your heart as you push your spear into the little boy’s chest? Do you sleep well that night, knowing that you’ve done the Lord’s work, or does the face of that little boy haunt you? Do his cries ring in your ears as you put your foot on his chest to pull your spear out? Do you wonder to yourself why the Creator of the Universe needs you to do his dirty work?”
——————————————–
What’s Wrong with the Bible?
(1) Yahveh is evil.
Suppose Professor Rifkin of the University of Illinois decided that the human race was contemptible because they were violent with each other. He has a cult following of eight people. He cooks up a genetically-engineered supervirus with essentially 100% lethality, gives a vaccine to himself and his eight followers, and releases the virus with the intent of wiping out the human race. We would normally regard Professor Rifkin as an evil person, would we not?
Suppose the mayor of Blacksburg, Virginia organized the men of the town to go a few miles over to Radford, kill all the Radford-dwellers and take all their goods as plunder. This would normally be regarded as a horrendous crime, would it not?
According to the stories told in the Bible, Yahveh does things like this all the time. He is a mass killer, slave trader, bandit leader, baby killer, and he collects foreskins as trophies of war. (By contrast, according to the same book of stories, Satan never does anything that would get him arrested.)
Anyone who reads the Bible with the same eyes they would use to read any other book, has to conclude that it is a collection of stories from a barbaric time and place.
—————————————-
The above is an excerpt from a much longer letter, “Why I don’t believe in God”, the part that I think is relevant to this thread.
I just discovered this blog today, referred to by someone on an email list I frequent. Let me commend folks here on their patience. But I think you let Eric sidetrack you with off-topic arguments.
I’ve had this sort of argument before. One Christian I corresponded with made a serious, good-faith effort to explain why Numbers 31 was an example of God’s goodness and faithfulness(to previous promises he had made.) I was astonished at the pretzels this believer had managed to twist himself into. Most of them walk away from the argument much sooner. But I am convinced that a sufficiently determined believer can rationalize anything. The only hope we have is that if we make them work to justify their beliefs, eventually some of them will reconsider whether the prize is worth the effort.
“Ok. And..believing that the complex world that we live in, has no Creator, makes sense .
Good one! :P”
Ok. And..believing that the complex creator, has no Creator, makes sense .
Good one! :(
“The websites I included above do speak of evidence of some sort of water flooding event in the Middle East of antiquity.”
So we downgrade your “World Wide Flood” to “some sort of water flooding event”, this proves what exactly?
Aside from the commonality of all civilzations centered around plentiful water supplies (rivers that Flood).
hey, I remember first time I questioned the bible. I was with some fellas reading about that part when Jesus prays in Getsemani and when it said that all the disciples were asleep I said “well, if everyone was sleeping who wrote this?”
…
i got one answer “don’t think about weird stuff”
the I said, “come on, tell me, who did it?”
another short answer, “it was revealed afterwards”
and me “where is that stated?”
…
and then everyone “hey, you’re so funny, come on, don’t be an ass, let’s have a good time, stop joking”
Given that Egypt was part of the known world, I don’t think that’s any more supportable. Especially as we’re not talking about a single tidal wave (not that those are common in the Mediterranean, anyway) but floodwater that stood for a year and was deep enough to deposit fishes at the top of mount Ararat. Do you posit some kind of force field around the region that stopped the water from flooding the rest of the world?
And, besides, isn’t the point of the Noah story that everyone in the whole world was wicked and deserved to die? If the Chinese and Americans were all living sinless lives and weren’t going to be killed, what’s the point? Or was Jehovah just a local godling who didn’t have any influence over most of the world? Why would Noah need to save all the animals, if they’d be fine in the next valley over?
There have no doubt been many “water flooding events” in the Middle East during that well-defined period known as “antiquity”, but that’s hardly proof that any aspect of the Noah story is true.
”Ok. And..believing that the complex creator, has no Creator, makes sense .
Good one! :( ”
Oh, but it has a lot more sense than believing that we came to life out of nothingness. somebody was saying that you need more faith to be an atheist, and i agree. I somehow am amazed that so many people can live by believing they came from nowhere and that they are going nowhere. Well done you! Dont know if you’re right,but nevertheless, well done!
Anna:
“Oh, but it has a lot more sense than believing that we came to life out of nothingness”
Hmm, coming to live out of nothingness, or an even MORE complex super deity coming to life out of nothingness then Poofing us into existence.
Fail again.
Sunny Day, i am not trying to gain anything, honest. :- ) I am just saying what I BELIEVE in, based on what i see .
As for a complex deity coming to life out of nothingness, well, tough. We live in a world with supernatural powers. Supernatural can come out of nothingness, but science hasnt proved yet that we came out of the blue, with no influence from a supernatural ‘deity’.Not yet [and i doubt they will in the near future].
Have a… sunny day indeed. And a Happy Christmas! :)
Shorter Anna: Because I say so.
it is not enough im afraid, sunny day. :-)
Poor Anna doesn’t understand….
“Sunny Day, i am not trying to gain anything, honest. :- ) I am just saying what I BELIEVE in, based on what i see .
As for a complex deity coming to life out of nothingness, well, tough. We live in a world with supernatural powers. Supernatural can come out of nothingness, but science hasnt proved yet that we came out of the blue, with no influence from a supernatural ‘deity’.Not yet [and i doubt they will in the near future]. ”
Next time instead of typing out all that incredulus crappo you can just type the shorter phrase, “Because I say so!”
Theres less thinking, less typing and still sums up your point succinctly.
Jesus said, “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
-Luke 19:27
Ex 4:11 - “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?”
“C is for Cookie, thats good enough for me”
-Cookie Monster
@Anna
Believers make this mistake a lot. Just because I don’t believe that life was created by a creator IN NO WAY means that I believe that life came from nothing.
Why do people think that there are only two options here? While a discipline such as science may not definitively answer where life came from, I am confident that it can come up with some pretty good ideas. Most of which are a heck of a lot more reasonable to me than the easy idea that a supreme being just made it all happen. Not being able to understand the complexities of such things as chemistry and physics as they pertain to the origins should not make the answer of GOD more reasonable.
Besides all that, if we never truly know the answers to the origin questions, will it change how you put your pants on in the morning? Will it change how you drink your coffee? How you go to work? How you feel about your friends and family? No. I makes no difference.
You fail to understand that the fact that you (and many others) think that it is unreasonable to imagine that we do NOT have a creator, a purpose, or life after death, is purely a human made ego issue.
@Sunny Day
“C is for Christian, who gives nonsensical arguments.”
-McBloggenstein
“C is for Christian, who gives nonsensical arguments.”
-McBloggenstein
You Sir, Slander the great letter C with your truthful comments about some christians!
I hope you will take the time to review your harsh words and apologize to the letter C.
Defination of God (ALLAH) : -
When the polytheist asked Mohammed (PBUH) what is the defination of your god. So the following was revelaed to him (pbuh)
112.001 Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
112.002 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
112.003 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
112.004 And there is none like unto Him.
Al-Qur’an, 112.001-004 (Al-Ikhlas [Sincerity])
Defination of God (ALLAH) : -
When the polytheist asked Mohammed (PBUH) what is the defination of your god. So the following was revelaed to him (pbuh)
112.001 Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; - Along with all the other Farie Tales
112.002 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; - Just like all the other Farie Tales
112.003 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; - Sad because hes all alone :(
112.004 And there is none like unto Him. - He’s a unique mythological snowflake, just like all the other unique mythological snowflakes.
Al-Qur’an, 112.001-004 (Al-Ikhlas [Sincerity]) - The Big Book of Make-Believe.
Then explain Mr.Sunny Days your version of God. Or if donot belive in any God prove and enlighten me how the complex life in this world exist and live.
If you do belive in Darwin’s theory of evolution, he him self disclaims his theory in the Book of Orgin of Species where he describes the Difficulties of theories. And today its very easy to proove he made a total fool of him self by coming up with un sceintific, without any facts theories .
Today we can observe and look at things at a very microscopic level and nano level. 150 years ago that did not existed at Darwins time.
If you look at the fosils found which dates back millions of years(as per the sceintist) and compare them with todays living organisms you will not find any much difference.
You don’t think a humongous supersaurus is much different than any living species? Or perhaps an extinct giant aquatic lizard, or a bird with teeth?
I think you need an education.
Sunny Day: ”Next time instead of typing out all that incredulus crappo you can just type the shorter phrase, “Because I say so!”
Theres less thinking, less typing and still sums up your point succinctly.”
So, you are allowed to have a ”because i say so” opinion, naming everything i have said as crap, but i cannot explain my point of view to make it my own [even if it is not true] because …why? You’re just not bothered to read it all?
It is not uncommon to find people ridiculing your opinion when you have ridiculous opinions. In this case Anna, you believe that nothing can exist without a creator, and yet you claim that creator can exist without a creator. That is right up there on the scale of ridiculousness, and I am always disappointed when the people that make those statements can’t see the elementary flaw. On top of that is the nonsensical idea that this particular creator is not just any creator, but a very specific creator based on a very specific interpretation of a very specific bronze age cultic god.
If you can’t see why that opinion doesn’t earn you any respect then you simply have not thought things through.
Aor, i didnt invented this opinion, it existed before me and will keep exist without me as well. And besides this, i rather prefer the way you explained my point of view was crap, than sunny day’s. I am not very good with words, i admitt it, but i have the right to an opinion as much as everyone else.
Anyway, to get back to what i said, that Christians believe in a God , a creator who has no creator. It is the term self existent that is being used very often. And even more, the bible neither proves the existence of God nor it questions it. God was there and will be there. God is ‘eternal’ which doesnt necesarily means that He has no beggining and no end but that God has existed outside time [the time that we, mortal comprehend as something that has a start and an end].
Nevertheless, this is - i think-merely a reason not to believe in God. Just because we dont know the exact origin of God, doesnt mean he doesnt exist.
“In this case Anna, you believe that nothing can exist without a creator, and yet you claim that creator can exist without a creator. That is right up there on the scale of ridiculousness”
Exactly. Her creator doesn’t need a creator because she says so.
The universe needed a cause but her gawd didn’t because she says so.
“Aor, i didnt invented this opinion, it existed before me and will keep exist without me as well.”
The length of time your Bullshit has been around is no measure of its validity.
“Nevertheless, this is - i think-merely a reason not to believe in God. Just because we dont know the exact origin of God, doesnt mean he doesnt exist.”
The same for Dragons, Invisible Unicorns, Leprechauns, Pixies, Allah, Thoth, Virarocha, SuperMan and any number of Farie Tale Critters for which you want to have a presuppositional belief.
Yasser Mamood:
You mean chapters six and seven in which he lays out several objections that people might raise, and goes on to explain how his theory makes sense of them, after all? Maybe you ought to read them before you make this argument again…
Anna Condor:
Personally, I’ve never agreed with the idea that “I’m entitled to my opinion”. I mean, what if it’s my opinion that Dan Rather encodes secret messages into the news, telling me to go out and kill black people? Society has a very clear justification in preventing people from holding an opinion like that.
On a less harmful scale, what if my opinion is that 2+2=87? Should schoolteachers respect that opinion, or shoudl they try and overcome it?
I believe that everyone has the right to a reasonable opinion, and that unreasonable opinions should be quashed when possible. The idea that everything needs a creator, except for one thing which is excepted on an ad hoc basis is not a reasonable opinion. If God can exist without a creator, why can’t the universe?
@Aor
“In this case Anna, you believe that nothing can exist without a creator, and yet you claim that creator can exist without a creator. That is right up there on the scale of ridiculousness…”
@wintermute
“The idea that everything needs a creator, except for one thing which is excepted on an ad hoc basis is not a reasonable opinion.”
Near as I can tell, Anna is simply arguing an intelligent, known first cause instead of an arbitrary, unintelligent, unknown first cause for which you would argue. I fail to see how that makes her opinion ridiculous and worthy of ridicule. Oh, because you say so, I guess.
“If God can exist without a creator, why can’t the universe?”
Huh? So the universe has no creative first cause whatsoever? Not even the big bang? I dunno dude, that sounds a little outside the contemporary conventional thinking on the matter of origins…dare I say, unreasonable given our current understanding of the universe.
Which leads me to…
@McBloggenstein
“Believers make this mistake a lot. Just because I don’t believe that life was created by a creator IN NO WAY means that I believe that life came from nothing….Not being able to understand the complexities of such things as chemistry and physics as they pertain to the origins should not make the answer of GOD more reasonable.”
Why not? Because you say so? We’re not talking about how the first cell came to be AFTER the laws of physics and chemistry were already in place. We’re talking about first causes for the laws of chemistry and physics. In the absence of any proof, you can hardly blame the rational person for considering the idea of God as first cause. Oh I guess you can if you want but then you would commit the same error for which you and Sunny Day ridicule Anna. But you know this already.
So I don’t get it. A Christian comes to this thread and claims to believe in a first cause that is god basically because she has “…the right to an opinion as much as everyone else”. Ok, not very convincing I admit. However, those opposed to her beliefs make no attempt to present an alternative. Through some belittling hand-waving they dismiss her ideas as ridiculous because they say so. Good work guys.
First post 2009! YaY… happy new day… P.S. I think GoD exists therefore I must? …kidding, love the banter keep it up all…
My question is: Where can a guy find a reliable, well organized counter religious collective that is active in subverting the spread of the opportunistic disease religion?
(though I realise that with the advent of the information age it’ll be circling the drain for the next 500 years… let’s speed it up!)
Cheers all the best to you in 2009!
Jord
Jeff:
The Big Bang is a known cause, and hardly arbitrary, as there’s plenty of evidence that it existed. I’ll agree that it’s unintelligent, though.
However, I don’t believe that the Big Bang (and therefore the universe) had any cause, what with there not being any time, or cause and effect without the universe.
Assuming that there must be some cause, let alone an anthopomorhised, intelligent cause that gives a crap about a thin layer of organic slime on an unremarkable lump of rock is quite a leap, given the lack of evidence.
@Sunny Day
”The length of time your Bullshit has been around is no measure of its validity”
I think i’m done talking to you here. My bullshit is clealry too much for your brain to explore, so let’s leave it to that. I talk crap. At least i tried to have a reasonable converstion, even if in someone’s point of view i talk about similar things to dragons and fairytales.
@wintermute
”The Big Bang is a known cause, and hardly arbitrary, as there’s plenty of evidence that it existed. ”
Is there really? Can you show me the facts and evidence behind that,please? And i mean facts, not statements.
And maybe it does need a miracle to believe that a God made the universe. But to believe that out of NOTHING came what we are, a complex world, an inteligent design of an chaotic random act of ‘fate’ …that too needs a miracle to happen.
@Jeff
Thank you !
@Jeff/Anna
The reasoning is simple and clear. If a person claims that something needed a cause in order to occur, then in the same argument claims that something else does not need a cause in order to occur, then they are being ridiculous. Those two concepts are contradictory. No person who claims the universe needed a creator can simply turn around and claim that their creator in turn does not need a creator. It is ridiculous. Give your head a shake.
What it boils down to is the idea that we do not know all of the truth yet, but we are open and curious and damn well want to find out all of those answers. Contrast this with those who claim that the truth came out thousands of years ago and that truth is that one particular bronze age cultic god with his temple on a hill, like all the other cultic gods of that area of the world in that era, is the creator of everything. And his story changes a few times, but it was 100% true each and every time despite the changes.
Let me pose you a hypothetical question. Lets assume that you were interested finding out if Voodoo is real. What do you do? Do you go to a Voodoo priest, read only Voodoo writings, take only the information that supports Voodoo and then conclude that Voodoo is real and true? Or do you hold back, be skeptical, draw on information from both believers and non believers, take in any and all information the world has on Voodoo, and then make your decision on whether it was real?
If you are afraid to treat your beliefs skeptically, please be truthful and admit it.
@Jeff
No, I was talking about the origin of life on Earth.
Not just because I say so, because it just isn’t [reasonable to think God created life]. I’m not saying that God isn’t on the list of possibilities, because of course it is. I’m saying there’s no reason to believe it anymore than any other reason.
And in fact, in order to consider God as a reasonable possibility, you would have to acknowledge all that we know about the history of man, and his many tales of now dead gods that were once believed to explain countless questions that we now are intelligent enough to know the answer for. So, since all of those things that humans once attributed to their god have since been proven to have another explanation, wouldn’t that make God less reasonable on the list of explanations for things? Because “god” as an answer has failed so many times, wouldn’t that discredit it as a choice for future questions?
So, just because we don’t know the answer to something, there is no good reason to use God to fill in the gap anymore than any other possibility. I believe that given what we know, there is actually less of a reason to consider it.
Some bits of wisdom I have learned over the years…
1. You cannot reason with the religious. I grew up with a Mormon convert for a parent and now live with 2 fundamentalist Baptists. The only way to LIVE through these situations is to realize that there are some battles that are not worth fighting…
Trying to talk sense to a Christian, pagan, etc. is as good a past-time and ramming your head into a wall.
2. If a person does not believe in miracles, they will never see them.
Seriously think about that for a second. It should speak for itself. And it should tell you that no one will find the miracle of a God if they don’t believe there is a God to find.
3. Evidence is always biased.
I am not saying that the evidence PROVIDED is biased, but the interpretation will always be. Therefore, no matter how much evidence and reason a individual is given, if they do not think something can happen, that evidence will somehow be dis proven. For instance, Hitler believed in an Aran nation, and that all other races were inferior. Well, in the German Olympics while he was in power he denied Isreal entry. That sort of keeps them from proving anything some would say. And a black man won a German at both a race and a boxing match. What did Hitler do? Continued his final solution, of course.
What is my point?
That there is no point in arguing. People will believe only what they want to believe. You cannot make anyone see sense, they have to open their mind to it.
At least in the Bible, on thing was right. God gave humans free agency…. in my opinion if they don’t use it that is their loss.
@Aor
”If a person claims that something needed a cause in order to occur, then in the same argument claims that something else does not need a cause in order to occur, then they are being ridiculous. Those two concepts are contradictory. No person who claims the universe needed a creator can simply turn around and claim that their creator in turn does not need a creator”
It was said, or…i was more implying that something did need a creator to occur but that the creator’s origin is not known to us. They dont have to be contradictory as long as we talk of a world with supernatural powers… powers that we cannot understand inside our human form. Imagine this: ants would barely understand the concept of humans, let alone understand what is beyond that. In the same way, i think, we cannot understand completely the fullnes of God. We are not talking about history, or sport, or things that, in our knowledge or capabilities, happened long time ago…we talk of a God, of a Creator that is bigger than universe itself. How can one claim that they can understand God when they cant even understand the universe they live in?
**
@ McBloggenstein
”So, just because we don’t know the answer to something, there is no good reason to use God to fill in the gap anymore than any other possibility. I believe that given what we know, there is actually less of a reason to consider it.”
As i said earlier, you cannot understand God with your mind and reason. That is why christianity is based on faith[ believe in what we dont see ] and not on reasoning .Dont understand me wrong, i am not against reason, i am just saying that looking for answers sometimes takes away from seing the truth.
**
Darwin to the Mouse
Your post is interesting and your wisdom is …well very useful to those who truly want to see.
@Darwin to the Mouse
1) “What did Hitler do? Continued his final solution, of course.”
With all due respect, I think this is a very poor example. The belief in Aryan supremacy was based on little real evidence and a whole bunch of propaganda. Regardless, the Final Solution had nothing to do with Hitler’s beliefs about Aryan superiority and everything to do with German conspiratorial antisemitism.
2) “That there is no point in arguing. People will believe only what they want to believe. You cannot make anyone see sense, they have to open their mind to it.”
Quite a number of us in the online atheist community were swayed by arguments. Not, I suspect, by any one argument, but by the gradual accumulation of doubts and suspicions created by engaging in a number of arguments. While no one argument it likely to succeed, chances are better that the sum total of a number of arguments will break through.
Yes, indeed Anna. How can one claim to understand god when they can’t even understand the universe they live in. By your very reasoning, nobody in the entire history of the universe has ever understood god. Nobody. The words in the bible? The authors did not understand god, so those words are meaningless. Thanks for understanding that elementary point, and for volunteering it.
Your reasoning in this case a fallacy however, so you are off the hook and I don’t think you really mean to imply that the bible is based on the writings of people who did not understand god.
Look up the cosmological argument, that is what you are using at the moment. Then look up special pleading, which is the counter to it. You could also apply Occam’s razor, but lets just put it this way: better minds than ours have been over this issue for many centuries. If your position was logically convincing it would have been accepted for all those centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
“It was said, or…i was more implying that something did need a creator to occur but that the creator’s origin is not known to us.”
Then just take a step back and say the Universe’s orgin is not known to us. But no, you have to assume a god.
“They dont have to be contradictory as long as we talk of a world with supernatural powers… powers that we cannot understand inside our human form.”
Now you’re assuming the existence of supernatural powers.
If supernatural powers existed and they interacted with the physcal universe, we could detect them by the effects upon the universe.
“Imagine this: ants would barely understand the concept of humans, let alone understand what is beyond that. In the same way, i think, we cannot understand completely the fullnes of God.”
The difference being that the Ants can detect Humans Your god idea is invisible, untouchable and unknowable. Why even postulate that he exists except to “answer” the difficult questions you have and dont want to try to find out the answers.
“We are not talking about history, or sport, or things that, in our knowledge or capabilities, happened long time ago…we talk of a God, of a Creator that is bigger than universe itself. How can one claim that they can understand God when they cant even understand the universe they live in?”
Because you say so? Thats all your argument boils down to.
How can you claim that the Universe needed a god when you cant even explain why one is necessary?
“As i said earlier, you cannot understand God with your mind and reason. That is why christianity is based on faith[ believe in what we dont see ] and not on reasoning”
So then why dont you believe in Allah, or Yalwh, or Viranocha, or the Great Pumpkin?
“Dont understand me wrong, i am not against reason, i am just saying that looking for answers sometimes takes away from seing the truth.”
Truth without evidence is just making stuff up. The age of the belief or the number of worshipers is no measure of validity.
Anna,
I wonder why, then, believers have tried for centuries to spread their faith, attempting to get others to “know” God, when really there is no way that anyone can “know” God. If the response is that he can not be known through the mind, but only through the heart… then that is still a way to know him. And by the way, knowing something “through the heart” means nothing, zilch, nada. Name me something else, anything, that is only known through the heart. When someone says they have a feeling about something, a gut feeling, but are not sure why, it does not mean that it is not possible to determine an explanation for that feeling if rational thought is applied. They just are not able to explain it at the moment.
I said this on another post: If God can not be known through reason, then I don’t want to know him. As Daniel added.. actually we can’t know him without reason.
Looking for answers takes away from seeing the truth? In other words, if we stop looking, the truth will reveal itself to us? Again, tell me where this way of thinking is valid in any other aspect of our lives. In ANY other.
“Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the
rock!” (Psalms 137:9)
“The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled
against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to
the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” (Hosea 13:16)
“Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined
unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces
before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.”
(Isaiah 13:15,16)
“Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no
pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare
children.” (Isaiah 13:18)
Great metaphor, god hates kids.
A little more than 50 years ago, Edwin Hubble discovered that objects formerly thought to be nebulae (clouds of gas and dust within our galaxy) were actually distant galaxies. He did this by finding radio signals from those galaxies that looked exactly like the radio signals emitted from some stars in OUR galaxy (though much fainter of course). There was, however, a slight difference — for almost all these other galaxies, these signals were a slightly lower frequency than the signals emitted within our galaxy.
These differences could quite reasonably be explained by so-called “Doppler shifting,” which you experience any time you are passed by an emergency vehicle with the siren blasting. As the vehicle approaches, the sound is high-pitched. As it passes you (i.e. begins to move away from you), there is a sudden drop in the pitch. This is the Doppler effect.
When the measured frequency shift is used in the formula for the Doppler effect, one finds that these other galaxies are, for the most part, moving away from our galaxy very quickly. Further analysis shows that almost all of them are moving away from EACH OTHER very quickly. In other words, the universe is getting bigger and bigger. This agrees quite nicely with the General Theory of Relativity, the best theory of gravity at the time (and arguably still true today), which had caused something of a mystery before this finding as it implied that the universe should either be expanding or contracting, but not static (as people believed it was before Hubble’s discovery).
Since then, astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists have been able to measure the relative speed of galaxies and other large, distant bodies with much greater precision than Hubble. Furthermore, due to the finite speed of light and the fact that there are galaxies at many different distances from us, we can also measure how these speeds change over the life of the universe (when we look at an object 6 billion light years away, we see it as it was 6 billion years ago). The result is that cosmologists can reasonably conclude that about 12 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was so close together that molecules would be unable to form and the entire universe would be a giant fireball whose internal forces would push it apart. This is the big bang.
The earliest picture of the universe we have is the microwave background radiation. According to the theory, this would have been produced about 400,000 years after the big bang (a blink of an eye compared to the 12 billion years since then). Its structure and properties agree very well with modern theories about the big bang. While there is still much that is not understood about the big bang, this is one case where the theory and the information we DO have agree very well.
I see the claim “Everything must have a cause” made quite often by theists, but I never actually see them make an argument for it. There is actually no need, because this is a universal positive claim and can be disproved with one counterargument: the Casimir Effect. According to quantum mechanical theories, the difficulties in measuring very small masses lead to the admittedly counterintuitive conclusion that particle/anti-particle pairs randomly pop into existence in the presence of an electromagnetic field. The microwave background radiation is such a field, as is all the radiation emitted by the sun; in other words, there are electromagnetic fields just about everywhere, so one would expect to find these particle/anti-particle pairs everywhere.
Despite the fact that these pairs (also called quantum fluctuations) are a result of the difficulties in detecting small particles, they CAN be detected somewhat indirectly. When two reflective plates are placed very close together, only certain quantum fluctuations can appear between the plates. This is similar to the fact that when a certain fret on a guitar is pressed, the string can only vibrate at certain frequencies. As a result, one would expect that the energy density of the quantum fluctuations between the plates would be lower than the energy density of the fluctuations outside the plates. This experiment has been performed, and sure enough there is a net force pushing the plates together — the Casimir effect. It is incredibly good evidence for the quantum theoretical prediction of the random appearance of particle/anti-particle pairs. These appearances have no cause. They simply happen at random.
Here’s a freebie: all atoms have a lowest possible energy state, in which all the electrons in the atom are as “close” to the nucleus as possible. When an atom has an electron in a higher energy state, it can pass to the lower state by emitting a photon (light particle) that is the same energy as the energy difference between the two states. The amount of time between receiving the energy and re-emitting it as a photon is random, as is the direction in which it is emitted. In other words, the emission of a photon from an atom in an excited state has no specifiable cause.
Oh, another one: nuclear decay. Unstable atomic nuclei decay at a predictable rate on average, but for any given atom, it is completely unpredictable when the nucleus will decay.
So there are three events that don’t have a cause, but happen nonetheless. Does anyone care to defend the premise that “Everything must have a cause”?
@Jeff, @Anna,
By the way, the reason people are so “hostile” to your opinions is because they are uninformed opinions. For example, Anna seems to think there is not such great evidence for the big bang, but this is only because she has not done one lick of research on the subject. You could get most of what I put above by reading “A Brief History of Time,” which is a non-technical account of the state of modern physics by one of the greats, Stephen Hawking. If you truly wanted to understand the world or our arguments, you would do some independent reading. Instead, you seem to want to imply that you know more about the universe than people who dedicate their lives to studying the universe. This is arrogance, and can be very aggravating to people who know more about these subjects than you do. When talking about subjects (such as science) that you do not understand so well, you should approach the subject with some degree of humility, IMHO.
And Jeff, the claim that “A mind created the universe” (the religious claim) is a much stronger claim than “we don’t know what created the universe” (the scientific claim), especially since we don’t even know what a mind is. As for whether or not the atheist position requires a first cause, see post above for examples of events with no causes. And again, I would be happy to see your arguments as to why everything needs a cause.
I sometimes think that in Bible we see either good or evil acts but we do not dive into the some higher topics like
Who is God? How does He look like? Does He has his own likes and dislikes as we do? As Bible mentions that man is cast in the shape of God.
Who am I? Bible mentions about spirit but what is difference between my spirit and spirit of animals and plants? As the actions of humans and animals are same…So How is it that humans spirit is Holy and not the cats or dogs…What happens after the human/animal dies… Do humans go to heaven/hell based on their karma? What is Karma? Does it really hold ground? Why should I be moral or ethical if after this life i am finished?
What is my relationship with God? Can I have a relationship with God as I have with my Mother/Father/Friend/Wife/Son. I relish my relationships with all these people…So how more can i relish these relationships if i had the same with God..
Can anybody give me the answer to these questions… I cannot satisfactory answers in my church….
Sometimes I think of giving up chirstianity and head eastern countries in search of Absolute Truth.
Jayz,
First off…there is no ‘Absolute Truth’
Do you really believe there is a spirit in the sky watching over every person and sparrow on earth?
If He were real He would look like us because we are made in His image. Since we made Him up…he still looks like us.
I think He dislikes Pistachio ice-cream, and likes Barbequed beef.
The difference in Us vs. animals is we have opposable thumbs. We have self awareness, most animals probably don’t…but, nobody really knows.
Boy I hope to hell ‘Karma’ is true, cuz I know some people who are way overdue for payback.
There is no Hell…there is no Heaven. It’s all Hebrew myth, 2,500 year old superstition.
No you can’t really have a relationship with God unless you are schizophrenic. You mum and dad and siblings can actually talk to you and raise your spirits and help you out and so forth. ‘God’ won’t even talk to you…ever.
You know the ‘Golden Rule’ has been around longer than ‘Jesus,’ so we get our knowledge of right and wrong naturally…it doesn’t come from the Bible.
Remember there is no Absolute Truth, so I wouldn’t charge off to India or the Himalayas looking for something that’s not really there.
thewordofme,
It is good to know your thoughts…
It seems you do not believe in existence of God…or may be you think man created God rather than God created man…
Do you think that we are all born geniuses and all the people around and the people before and after us were fools and espeically the saints, wasted their whole life when they simply preached the Glories of Lord and pleaded with general mass to worship God with devotion and faith.
We see in every culture that ever existed on the face of earth had some conception of higher power..some sense of being looked upon…and rewarded or punished based on our activities… So all the people that existed have filled reams of literatures just describing how to develop devotion to God..
Were they all fools or schizophrenic
I do not think He is watching all from above…. but i think He is watching each of us … me and you and sparrow alike… from within… We have heard in childhood the story of “God is Everywhere”.
I firmly believe that God is present and He can show us the path from within our heart if we follow right teachings from a person who has unlimited devotion to Him…. I am looking for such a devout personality…
I know the teachings of Jesus but I feel it too much into whats right and wrong…the ten commandmants are simply that…but I cannot get real people following that, actually following word for word of real philosophy preached by Jesus and His apostles…
May be that is cause of our unfulfilment.
Man did create god.
You see, we have information on the origin of the religion that came to be called Judeism, which is holds the key to the origin of Christianity and Islam.
We know that the original books of the bible were put together from earlier works by an editor who merged separate ‘holy writings’ into one book. We know that one set of those writings came from Judea and the other came from Israel. We know that those two nations were sometimes at war with each other and supported different priesthoods, each priesthood having its own variation on the tales of their religions.
We know that one nation, whose priests claimed to originate with Aaron, chose to use Moses in its teachings, writing that Moses had powers given by god. We know that the other nation, their priests having originated with Elijah, chose to write that it was Elijah’s staff that had power and Moses had only the words of god. We know that at some point someone merged those two works together, and did a piss poor job of it. They repeated stories twice with greatly different explanations.
We know that the writers of the original works of the bible not only did not agree with each other but based their writings on the politics of the nations and priesthoods they were born into rather than on revelations.
We know that Elijah’s followers and Aaron’s followers highlighted different aspects of their beliefs, and we have some understanding of why they did so.. politics and support of power structures.
We know that Judeism sprung from an earlier Canaanite religion. We know much of their beliefs, and can see evidence of those beliefs in the artifacts that are dug out of the ground all over the region. We can see religious artifacts of Canaanite origin spread across the so-called holy land at a time when the bible claims that the land was monotheistic.
In other words, those who choose to actually learn about the true history of the land and time in question find that the origins of all the Abrahamic religions are based on mythologies of earlier cultures. Those who study religions in general find the same thing. There is no reason to assume that any religion has access to a divine truth. There is no evidence that the divine truth is possible.
The more you know, the less sense religion makes. Any religion.
Rather than study other religions, I recommend history. It helps us avoid the mistakes of the past, like believing in the supernatural.
When you get right down to it, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God … if he exists … can, logically speaking, only be malevolent in nature. No other conclusion is possible.
I know this sounds like an outrageous statement to make, but it’s true; see how, at http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/extras/theodicy.html
PsiCop,
Do you mean to say God exists but He is malevolent?
But you feel that God cannot be malevolent.. So He does not exists…
This logic seems similar to what daniel has put in his previous post. “hundreds-of-proofs-of-gods-existence”. the post is quiet funny and ridiculing.
Though God is neither malevolent nor evil, He may behave with us the same way if we approach Him with the same feelings. Just like in our case if a person has bad feelings or is envious of us, then surely we will not be lovingly disposed to that person. What to speak if he spends all his energy just in defying your efforts or defame you both in front of your face and in public….
The same is the case with God, If He is offended to that degree by somebody then He creates such situations that you will be miserable and with whatever effort you put to get happiness, you will still be miserable.
Then even if you blaspheme and shout to top of your lungs to challenge the authority of God. That will not help in getting happiness. It will only make a person frustrated.
Thinking that life has no purpose, it is created from matter, We become frustrated by life, and in that frustration we sometime at some point try to find truth in Life, Becuase we have not yet tasted what is internal satisfaction.
Then sometime in our life we may CRY with our heart for HELP… in utter helplessness … CRY out genuinely for GOD. Then GOD may send someone, some signal that will change the direction of life and will bring us closer to GOD.
GOD cannot be approched by rebels or people with envious or rebellious nature. As Jesus said “only meek and humble will reach the Kingdom of God”. With this humility we should try to approach authorotative literatures. One should never be blind faith in nature and always criticizing and questioning irrationally also will not help. But one should be open minded and try things as suggested in proper manner and see if it is helping him in any way and only then he can accept or reject.
@Aor
“The more you know, the less sense religion makes. Any religion.”
The statement that you made is very general still specfic to your encounter. To make such a statement you should have authority to say that you have studied all religions of the world.
But that is not the case.
What is purpose of religion? Pupose of religion is that we can come closer to God, develop Love for Him. If our religion is not doing this to us then there can be two things
1. We are not implementing the teachings of the religion of prophets or saints in the correct manner.
2. Even after doing step 1 if we do not get the satisfaction, internal happiness of being closer to God or Love for Him is not developed in heart then that religion is cheating religion.
This similar to Doctor specifying a medicine. If medicine does not work then either we did not follow proper steps of medication or the doctor is a quack. That does not mean that the medicine does not exist or the disease cannot be cured or there is no disease because there is no proper prescription.
We cannot consider that the diseased condition is healthy because the symptoms of disease come up again and again that is manifested by our sheer discontent and frustration.
When sometime we become humble in our life and ask for HELP from HIM. Then He can bestow His supreme mercy on all us. He can give directions from within our heart.
So let me be sure I read you correctly, Jayz.. you aren’t disputing anything else I said with regards to the origin of Christianity and the history of the middle east? I assume that if you disagreed with it in any way you would mention it. If you found a flaw, you would mention it. Since you have not I must assume that you are just wishing it away.
Face it. Christianity is based on Judeism, which is based on the Canaanite religion and others, which were based on yet earlier religions. All of which can be backed up by archeologists and historians. Since you don’t appear to disagree with any of this, please explain just how you decide at which point the religion went from being just another false religion (like the Canaanite religion) to one that is true and real. If you can do that, please please do.
I made a general statement, Jayz. You claim its specific. I couldn’t disagree more. History tells a great deal about religions in general and my conclusion is based on history. Not on fantasy. Not on one particular version of one particular bronze age cultic god, like yours. A broader interpretation, where all religions are treated equally and evaluated on how closely they match verifiable elements of history. I have just declared that your religion is at least partially based on lies, and you haven’t disagreed at all.
By the way, have you explored all possible alternative religions? Have you complete knowledge of all belief systems so that you could choose one from them in an informed manner? Yet you seem to believe that you are a follower of the one true religion, do you not? You deny the possibility of any other religion being true, don’t you? You do not believe in Thor, or Osiris do you? You do this with incomplete knowledge of other religions, right? Do you need to completely understand the old norse religion before you discount it as being simply another myth?
Of course you go off on a tangent, with purpose and love and the usual stuff. I’m afraid its not convincing. You see, since your religion is based on a story that we can prove false, your religion cannot be true. Jesus believed the Jewish mythology some of which can be shown to be false. Its that simple. You may wish it were not, but it is. You can verify this for yourself simply by reading. Even wikipedia would give you a good start.
I think you would do well to learn more of the history I mentioned earlier. If your beliefs are true then they will not contradict historical events.
Jayz,
How might I find out for sure that the Christian Yahweh, Elohim, etc. exists?
Can you prove Him? Could anyone down through history prove Him?
Could any of the genius’ or saints in our past history prove God? I posit to you that all of the ancient people that wasted their life on the myth of God were just making a living and enjoying the power that being a priest conveyed during the dark ages.
There have been many, many words written about God and Jesus, but never any real testable proofs.
Of course that why they call it faith.
I need empirical proofs, and the gods provide none…because they are not there.
thewordofme,
Yes to understand God some degree of faith is needed. Same is required even boarding a plane. Faith that plane will take us to required destination. Faith on Flight attendants, faith on the pilot,faith on government. Faith is required. You cannot board even a plane if you dont have faith.
What to speak of Spiritual subject matters…which certainly requires faith…
See our knowledge acquiring senses have a limited capacity, they are sometimes flawed. God is beyond these senses of touch, smell, vision thru these material senses made of flesh.
So to understand someone as great as GOD, We need to have faith.
Please be aware that when I speak faith means not blind faith but well grounded faith. Just as you have faith in pilot of the plane you board. You dont go and check the flying license of the pilot.
I cannot prove the existence of Christian Yahweh, Elohim, etc.
But I have firm faith on the teachings of Jesus.
What I am looking forward to is some eastern Bhakti culture which can give me deeper realizations of GOD.
Dear Aor,
You have some knowledge of History, that is good. Pls dont confine yourself to simply history.
You cannot understand religion without understanding something about GOD. You cannot understand GOD untill you ask yourself the question WHO AM I?? What is my idenntity?
Am I this hand?Am I this legs? Am I this head, brain or Heart?
Who is actually I?
Only with this question we can go further.
If we do not seek the answer to this question, I am sorry to say, what we remain is simply “two legged social animal”.
“Yes to understand God some degree of faith is needed. Same is required even boarding a plane. Faith that plane will take us to required destination. Faith on Flight attendants, faith on the pilot,faith on government. Faith is required. You cannot board even a plane if you dont have faith.”
Wrong and stupid.
You are mistaking conclusions based on past observed behavior (evidence) with faith.
Plane taking us to required destination. - You can watch other planes taking off, and see them land at their destinations. If that doesn’t happen you will be informed of the cause.
Flight attendants, Pilot, Govt…. no faith required. All are conclusions based on past evidence.
Jayz, why don’t you respond to the points I made about the origins of your faith? You just ignore them. Are you really going to pretend that the book of your faith (and those that gave rise to it) do not make claim things that can be proven false? This is not a complex question. Why not just give an answer?
All the questions you ask are metaphysical mumbo jumbo. You talk about seeking an answer, but really you have not sought one.. my guess is that you have taken up the one you were raised with and haven’t actually looked into the history of your own beliefs.
So, please Jayz.. respond to the points I raised. If your holy book makes claims that have been proven false (Herod the baby killer comes to mind) and is known to be an amalgam of often contradicting belief systems editted to suit the politics of the people in charge at the time, then how can one that sprung from it a few hundred years later somehow be true?
No avoiding, please. Answer. How can the truth be built on a foundation of lies?
Keep up the good work. I sincerely hope more people will wake up from their delusions like you have.
You’d think the people on here had lived many lifetimes. How does it feel to have lived anywhere between maybe 20 and 70 years on this ancient rock and have it all figured out?
Sure thing, evangelicals can put the blinders on; but how open is the vision of the smug folk who maybe passed science in college and now can tell you the whole story, alpha to omega?
This is the age of science and technology, just as there was the age of reason, and the golden age; but one day maybe more people will learn to integrate the observations made by people as human as ourselves who lived over the last thousands of years into the modest bit of knowledge we just learned in the last 2 centuries and love to puff our chests out with. In the modernist framework all of human experience is grounded in the natural and the material, and given the breadth of human experience, that might be a hasty conclusion.
As an example of eras building on other eras, DaVinci and Michelangelo took painting to new heights that were built on for the next few centuries. Impressionism discovered ways to depict light and pretty much ignored ideas of form and dimension that were developed in the centuries before them. The exceptional artists afterwards integrated Impressionism’s color and light concepts into the older exceptional traditions, understanding that as long as people live and breathe the book isn’t finished on any subject, and as a result they found something a little more complete while “true” french impressionism faded into a bit of a fad; but it still gave the world something substantial because a few people knew they shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. In other words, I tend to think that any idea that survives and thrives for a few generations has at least some element of truth, even if it’s mainly metaphorical.
There’s bits of truth in many places. Can’t help but think of the line (paraphrased) from Shakespeare: “There are more things in heaven and earth then are dreamt of in your philosophies.” Hamlet, (as I said, not exact.)
While we talk about an “evil god” perhaps that moral discussion might include the pitfalls of hubris.
I also like the (maybe overused) Eliot quote:
“And we shall not cease from our exploration
And the end of our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.”
Little Gidding, I think. Sorry I don’t feel like looking the quotes up.
It really is astounding how much people think they have it all figured out, especially when part of that knowledge is the millions of years that came before them. Of course people know Darwin has been mostly revised, even though he was a crucial starting point; but for that first 100 years or so people swore by it. The jury is still out on exactly what this whole world means, and I’d think that might be a little exciting; but exciting or not you’d think it should be obvious.
Oh, one other thing. We had some teenage girls come by years ago and hand us a “tract” after they told my wife she would go to hell if she wasn’t a Christian. Of course she wanted to slap them; but after a few years of exposure to fundamental Islam I think we should have invited them in for cookies.
Maybe it’s moral relativism, but as far as “oppressive” religions go in the 21st century, we have it pretty good here in the US, for now. I’d take the Bible belt over some parts of the middle east any day.
Maybe we should prioritize and condemn the religions that try to mess with our heads after we discuss the ones that want to cut them off. Of course, criticizing other cultures wouldn’t be very tolerant, would it. : )
Way back on Nov. 18 Christian apologist Eric Kemp wrote:
“To apply any kind of personal ideas or modern cultural understandings to the Bible is to start off on the wrong foot.”
The Protestant view (BTW I am not a Catholic) is that the Bible is supposed to be a fully self-contained cosmic policy and procedure manual, the be-all and end-all of what you need to know to get to heaven. This concept, known as “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone), was formulated by Martin Luther and arose shortly after the invention of the printing press. A coincidence? I think not.
Prior to Gutenberg there are 1,400 years of Christian history wherein it was generally agreed that the Church did all of the interpreting of scripture. Unlike the concept of Sola Scriptura, the idea of Church authority is actually in the Bible where Paul calls the Church the “Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.” You will not find a passage in the Bible suggesting that scripture is THE “Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.”
So within the context of Christian history the Protestant paradigm is itself a “modern cultural understanding.”
http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola5.htm
God is a loving God, He loves you so much that He lets you choose weather or not to love Him. However, you will face the consequences of your actions both on earth and in heaven.
I am also against those preachers who purely preach the good because there is a lot to be read about the bad. You can’t just think Christianity is purely good, there is difficult things that have to be accepted.
I pray that you slide forward instead of back.
“jvid” commented (8:40pm): “God is a loving God, He loves you so much that He lets you choose weather or not to love Him. However, you will face the consequences of your actions both on earth and in heaven.”
Interesting. You’re saying God leaves us free to choose him, or not choose him. Yet … if we do not choose him, we must suffer for that choice.
Sorry but that’s not actually a “free” choice! It’s actually a choice made under threat of punishment. Here’s an example of a choice made under duress: A robber walks up to you, puts a gun to your head, and says, “Your money or your life!” You give him your money (not wanting to be shot). He leaves but is later caught by police and prosecuted for robbery. At trial he tells the court he can’t be guilty of robbery, however, since you “freely” gave him your money!
By the standard you gave above … i.e. it’s a “free choice” to choose God or choose punishment … the judge would have to let him go.
Have you any idea how preposterous that is?
Why would any sane, rational person actually want to worship a being who says, “Worship me or be punished!”? Such a being ought, by all that is moral, to be defied rather than worshiped.
A Christian is someone who professed belief in Jesus as Christ. I myself am a Christian, one who spent many years on the other side of the fence. I was against religion for so long. I studied many of the worlds religions, attended different worships, read many books and then became a student of the law of attraction and quantum physics.
Then out of nowhere, after having let go I absolutely fell in love with God and Jesus Christ. I still am not a fan of organized religion I believe it can be very deceptive serving a certain group. But if you truly read the words of Jesus Christ and you will see that Jesus did not come so that we might have religion. He came to set us free, show us how to live so that we may live in peace and abundance. And not the worldly peace that only comes when things are going your way. A true inner peace. he taught us to be compassionate to all people, especially those who we view as “bad” people. He taught us to give, and love others. He taught us that by doing so blessings will pour down on us. These are the same principles that are discussed with the LOA as well, and they work. Life is not about hoarding but about love and helping. Creating a better space for everyone. We truly do choose hell or heaven (on earth) by our everyday actions, the same as we choose happiness our bitterness.
Simply be thankful. And I pray that someday you come to realize that just because you turn your back on God he will never turn his back on you.
May you be blessed in this life.
Lol, that is so true! I read the bible when i was 17 just to see what the hell it was about and realize everything in there is up to your own interpretation. It’s not a source for ANYTHING, let alone moral values, which I think you should develop for yourself instead of learn it from other sources.
I have read through your website. The only thing I have taken from the site is the fact that your a very bitter person who has nothing positive to say. I am not a religious person so I won’t be praying for you. I just hope that you find something actually worth living for that will inspire you to some sort of happiness. The only shame in living is when a person dies in bitterness.
Your section on “The Bible Can Support Anything” is very misleading. Firstly you do not quote any verse in complete context, you do not provide the entire verse, you do not provide where the verse can be found, you obviously do not understand the seperation of the Old Testament between the New Testament, and you do not understand that the Bible was in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic therefore many current day words and their meanings do not hold the same for the original word before translation and not only that but the change in English words over time since it was first translated into English.
First all I’m a born again Christian. I will never believe anything else!
The Bible can be used to support anything at any given time for any given person when you pick it apart like that. As a matter of fact anything anybody writes can be interpreted to mean anything the reader wants it to mean. The Koran is a great example. Just because it’s confusing or people misuse it doesn’t make it untrue.
And of course no one can prove God. How silly is that. Then we wouldn’t be sitting here discussing this and everyone would KNOW God exists instead of BELIEVING which requires FAITH. Any idiot can KNOW something if proven to him, not everyone can BELIEVE something without tangible proof. And that’s because God is giving us a choice, duh.
And to Spencer D. above you’re totally right. Nothing is quoted in context. When you take five or six words from a sentence all you can do is guess what it means and therefore its easy to apply your own logic and come up with all sorts of interpretations.
family hatred (Jesus says, “[whoever] does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters … cannot be my disciple.”);
i would love to know where this piece of scripture comes from. I didn’t know that Jesus preached hate.
You are really making me laugh. One thing I don’t understand is if you don’t believe in God or his Word…then don’t believe. Nobody’s forcing you…certainly not God. But why must one devote one’s life to disproving something that is so (according to this post) ridiculously untrue…. I don’t see anybody running around trying to disprove the Koran or Judaism or Buddhism.
I’ll tell you why. What you don’t realize is by trying to disprove or prove God you are actually supporting the Bible, which says that there will be people who won’t understand and will try to use their own scientific and intellectual means to try to prove something much bigger than them.
This what you said in your post:
“It is the same with God. He is a forgiving God who “forgives iniquity, transgression and sin” and an unforgiving God who sends a flood to destroy everyone on earth and banishes anyone who does not believe in Jesus to everlasting torment in hell.”
One more thing: God is a forgiving God. That’s why he sent his son to die for our sins. So that we would be able to ask for his forgiveness when we sin.
The flood God sent back in Noah’s time, was sent to destroy all the evil in the world at that time. If you read the story, you would recall Noah actually went around warning people, giving them a chance to change, warning them about the flood. So God being who he is, was willing to forgive them. But they laughed at Noah and God. So he gave them a choice and they refused, knowing what would happen.
Why did God do this? There was no other way. The people, even though given a chance refused to change their ways and he had to start from scratch. He was determined to give people the oppurtunity to CHOSE to serve him, even though he new some would go the other way.
Don’t you think he could just wave his hand and make every body perfect? Sure he could.
But why would you want a gift from someone that you forced them to give you. That sucks. You want someone to willingly give you a gift.
Living by a bunch of rules is an extremely hard thing to do, and God knows that. That’s why he had to send Jesus, to die for our sins. God repeatedly says in the New Testament that you cannot get to Him by following a bunch of rules. Only by faith can you reach God.
Therefore the Bible is not some manual you sit down and study so you could be perfect. We cannot be. Only Jesus was that. The things written in the Bible are for us to see what God would like us to be and see how far we are from that and understand WHY he had to send Jesus.
He sent Jesus so we could se ourselves in the mirror and realize we need forgiveness. And he gave us a choice, to believe and ask for it.
Just like with Noah and the other people., God is giving us a choice. If YOU choose to believe in God and Jesus and realize we are sinners and need to repent then you will be saved. If YOU choose not to believe despite knowing the punishment is hell then that’s your problem.
But you’re wrong if you think GOD condemns anybody to hell. ONLY those who CHOOSE not to believe despite KNOWING the CONSEQUENCES go to hell. Therefore if you go to hell its your choice. ALL you have to do is have faith in God and you will be saved.
God is not SENDING anybody to hell. He’s SAVING those who believe from going there.
Just one more comment and I’ll leave you alone. I’m quoting the most simple verse ever:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
I wish I could edit my last post where in the second to last paragraph I used the word ” punishment”. I well I misspoke or miswrote…lol I meant consequence.
Everybody gets so caught up in the intricacies of th Bible they forget the main point of it as the verse states.
God is not punishing anybody. Hell is a punishment in and of itself. And everyone would inevitably go there because of the way in which we live. He is offering a way out of it. If you believe, of course. That is all.
Dear Daniel
I find it sad and disappointing to see that whichever Church you previously worshiped at has given you such an understanding of the Bible.
This is because you have in the above writings you have without regard for any kind of context whatsoever put 2 passages of scripture to form contradictions of your choosing. When you do things in this way, it is not surprising that the bible can say support Anything YOU want. Unfortunately, this concept is not new, its not even modern.
Psalm 29:18
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
Your present position would be disturbing if not for the fact that this has occurred many times in the past.
Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Perhaps you could read the bible again, this time with help from a Christian friend or with a commentary such as Matthew Henry’s
Proverbs 11 : 14
Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
They way you might remember the conclusion in
Romans 10:11
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
or in Modern English,
Romans 10:11
For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed.”
This word here being the declarative “WILL”.
God Bless,
Daniel Tan
Everyone says these verses are out of context. Of course they are to some extent — I’m not going to take a page to explain each one here (though I will be putting many of them in context through this series). But if you think the meaning is different than what it seems like, then go ahead and explain them in context. Don’t just claim things like that — show me to be wrong.
@Lizzy: You say “I’m a born again Christian. I will never believe anything else!” yet you don’t even know your own Bible. How can you not know Jesus said people had to hate their family?
He says it in Luke 14:26. If you’re going to believe the damn thing, at least know what it says.
To Daniel,
I didn’t say the passage of scripture doesn’t exist, I’ve heard it before and I’ve probably read it before but as much as I am a believer I don’t learn off every single piece of scripture there is every time I read, okay. So I was genuinely asking where it was located because I certainly never interpreted it to mean “hate”.
Of course I don’t know everything in my Bible that’s why I read it. And not knowing something doesn’t make you less of a believer than someone who does. Christianity is not a talent competition and it’s not a performance. By stating that I’m a born again christian doesn’t mean I’m trying to make people feel like I’m some omniscient person.
Everyday I read my Bible I discover something new about God. But if I felt God was evil I could interpret anything in the Bible to back it up so that it suit my purposes. Just like politics or everyday life. If i want to dislike somebody I can find all sorts of ways to twist the things they say or do to make them look bad.
The fact of the matter is God doesn’t have to prove to YOU He is good or that He exists. Why are YOU so special?
You have obviously chosen to believe that He is not good, because if you had, instead of looking to and investing so much in other humans who might fail you, who might call themselves followers of Christ, for a model, you might look to the example Jesus provided.
Which is what the Bible is for.
It saddens me that you spend more time looking for bad stuff in the Bible than you actually spent trying to interpret it the way it was intended.
Yes I understand you would not put the entire scripture up here, but if you read the entire passage from vs 25 all the way to vs 33, you would see that Jesus very well explained himself as he usually does.
Who picks up a book, reads the first two lines and understands everything in it?
The verse says: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
What He’s saying is if you want to truly be his disciple:
1. your mother, your father, your brothers, your sisters, even your own life must not take precedence over me. I am number one in your life. (vs26)
2. Yes it will be hard, it will be a burden. Nobody said following me would be easy to do. It isn’t. If you aren’t willing to make a sacrifice then you don’t really want it.(vs27)
3. If you are going to follow me, knowing the cost, knowing how hard it will be, then check yourself first. Make sure you have what it takes to go to the end. Don’t jump in without understanding the cost. (vs28)
4. If you jump in without understanding what you’re getting into, how hard it will be, you will not be prepared, And when you fail in your endeavor to follow me, when you stumble…people will mock you and say, “Oh, look at you, saying you were following Jesus. How did that work out?” (vs. 29,30)
5. The next verse pretty much says the same. Make sure you are prepared. You don’t jump into a war withou knowing whether you have enough troops. (vs.31)
6. If you try and fail and you realize you were never prepared in the first place…you will have no choice but to bow out, maybe even make a few excuses for not making it. (vs 32)
7. Therefore if you cannot choose God over everything else…then know you are not my disciple. (vs 33)
Like I said I know the passsage of Scripture, but I’d never learned it off. So how you had presented it had made it only vaguely familiar.
When I was a kid going to sunday school, they would tell us sanitized versions of old testament stories. For example, the story of Jericho was all about trumpets and marching around a city until the walls fell. No one bothered to mention that the entire population of the city was slaughtered, including women, children, babies, and pregnant women.
What kind of sickos tell that kind of story to children?
Even worse, we’d sing songs like “I’m in the Lord’s army” at such sermons, basically institutionalizing genocide into young minds.
Thank god that I was given some intelligence so that later I could reject this CRAP!!!
RELIGION is DISGRACEFUL and DISGUSTING!!!!
Those of you defending the BIBLE, actually take the time to read it ALL. Read the old testament. Actually read it. You can’t tell me your god is a god of love when wars and genocide are the major themes of the old testament. Furthermore, you have ZERO understanding of the GREEK roots of the new testament, or else you’d recognize the pagan influence that ties the new testament together. Sorry to be insensitive, but I have spent years disentangling myself from a system that works very hard to rob people of their critical thinking skills.
Bible-based Christianity is built on the presupposition that language is trustworthy. Furthermore, most forms of Christianity are equally gnostic: unveiled truth revealed to those “lucky” enough or “chosen” to receive.” Furthermore, traditional Protestants accept the idea of Sola Scriptura despite that fact that what constitutes “scripture” was established by an extra-scriptural source (i.e. Jesus did not commission the New Testment and the New Testament did not self-generate a Table of Contents page).
One of the earliest errors of the magisterium was foisting upon us the belief that the story details of scripture are literal truth rather than symbolic expressions of deeper underlying truth. The magisterium eventually told us that all scripture is “God-breathed” (i.e. infallible) but that only the magisterium could determine for us which ancient writings actually qualified as scripture. How convenient for the magisterium.
God wants a direct relationship with us, as Father, as teacher, and as healer, so we can discover what Jesus came for. This relationship is “Direct” in this sense that it is beyond or aside from a relationship to an anthology of ancient writings known as the New Testament.
We want Freedom to enjoy the glorious story of Jesus, unadulterated from filters that oppress us. The original filter was written scripture which was not Jesus or the apostles preferred method of transmission. The next filter was the magisterium who decided that certain scriptures were the only scriptures and that those scriptures constituted a divine policy and procedure manual and literal record of what actually occurred back then. A 2,000 year old police report, if you will. (“Just the facts, ma’am.”)
One definition of myth is “an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.”
Notice the definition says “unproved” OR “false”. The gospel account can never be “proven” empirically (heck, we can’t even “prove” what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963). But just because something cannot be proven doesn’t make it false unless of course your whole bent is rationalistic/materialistic (i.e. Fundamentalist).
In God all narrative tensions and paradoxes are resolved – because God is Love, and, as every Hollywood director knows, only Love resolves the contradictions. This is Paul Tillich’s “ground of being”, Jung’s “Transcendental function”, Nietzsche’s “Dyonisian ecstacy”, Christ’s “kingdom of God spread out over the world but you can’t see it”. These are all different names for the same realm/state of consciousness. Consider that, without Satan, Jesus would be as useless as the Maytag repairman. Without Judas Christianity could not exist. The crucifixion image is a mandala (good thief/bad thief), an image of the human psyche with it’s two opposed poles neither of which we can ever escape but only acknowledge (bring to consciousness) and work with. This is the essence of forgiveness. How can I ask for forgiveness until I recognize my sin? And to what extent do I forgive others? To what extent do I understand that others are dealing with the same dark forces with which I contend?
What we are called to do, perpetually, is to de- and re- construct our personal and corporate narratives perpetually. We “de” and “re” construct through the forces of Eros and Logos. The dualities of Mythos/Eros/Chaos/Love/the Feminine on one side and Logos/Law/Order/Force/the Masculine on the other side. We eternally constellate between these two.
Here’s a myth for you. In the Garden of Eden are two trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. The Tree of Life is Eros. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is Logos, discernment of dualities. In our immaturity we constellate between these two but both are essential. In my conversations with religious fundamentalist I am often struck by how it is with them that everything has to be an “either/or” proposition. It can never be both. They can’t hold the paradox.
Daniel,
This is an interesting topic. Let me see if I’ve understood your reasoning properly. Are you arguing the following?
If you take any book or source, and demonstrate that it can be used to support anything, it must have been written by men, not God. Are you also trying to argue that such a source must be false?
Specifically, the source in question is the Bible, but I’m trying to get at the general claim.
Have I understood you correctly? If so, then how do you come to that conclusion? What’s the rationale for asserting that if humans can use a writing to support anything, then it must not be written by God or it must not be true?
Daniel claims:
“The Bible can support all these positions because it was written and changed by men throughout thousands of years.”
Will someone please show me the evidence to support the claim that it has been changed by men throughout thousands of years?
@Jesse: Read “Misquoting Jesus” by Ehrman for a introduction to the topic.
Re: comment by Jayz-
You asked, “Do you mean to say God exists but He is malevolent?”
No. I am not saying anything even close to that. What I am saying is that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God … IF he exists and has all the properties JCI tradition assigns to him and has done all the things JCI tradition claims about him … can ONLY be malevolent. Logic permits no other conclusion.
You also said, “But you feel that God cannot be malevolent.. So He does not exists…”
Again, no, that is NOT what I said. I said that the beliefs that JCI believers have about their God, ultimately lead to the conclusion that he is malevolent, and that means their belief that he is somehow benevolent, is not logically tenable.
You also said, “Then sometime in our life we may CRY with our heart for HELP… in utter helplessness … CRY out genuinely for GOD.”
So God will only show himself to those who come to him, slavering and groveling. If so, that can only be because he wishes it to be that way. In turn, one must ask, therefore, WHY he wants it that way. WHY would be only show himself to grovelers? What, precisely, does he get from grovelers that he does not get out of other types of people?
Do explain.
And you said, “GOD cannot be approched by rebels or people with envious or rebellious nature.”
He “cannot”? How? Who and whose army is going to stop anyone from doing so?
Let me finish by being clear. I do NOT believe the JCI God exists in the form that JCI tradition claims. JCI tradition claims he is benevolent, however, his behavior and all the other properties assigned to him by that same tradition, mean that he CANNOT be anything BUT malevolent.
Now, YOU may feel your JCI God exists, and YOU may want to worship a malevolent being like that … but no moral or ethical person should ever bow or scrape to a malevolent being willingly.
Really, though, the JCI God is a logical contradiction, an absurdity. It’s every bit as absurd and illogical as trying to show that 1+2=5. As an agnostic I acknowledge the possibility that some other sort of otherwise-undetectable deity might exist, but as I explained, the JCI God specifically cannot exist … and if he did he could ONLY be malevolent. So even if such an absurd and illogical being existed, I would be compelled — morally — to OPPOSE him at every step, and would NOT be able to worship him, or (as you seem to wish) to grovel before him. Malevolent beings don’t deserve worship, they deserve only scorn.
@Jesse
Ask yourself why one word (slave) is translated as both slave and maidservant/manservant. Ask yourself why one word is translated to mean either Church or Congregation, and which version is used depends on whether the people in charge of the translation wanted to support the pope (by translating it as church) or be protestants (by translating it as congregation).
Ask yourself why a known mistranslation (young woman/virgin) has led to the concept of the virgin Mary. Entirely based on a mistranslation, but you believe it it don’t you? Yet if you read the original greek, you would see that Mary was merely a young woman.
If you use the King James bible, perhaps you would be interested in its origins, particularly the political considerations. The translators were ordered to come up with a bible that supported the Church of England rather than the Catholic Church. Words were purposely mistranslated to suit this political consideration.
Have you heard of the Breeches Bible? Pre-KJV, it mentioned how Adam and Eve sewed breeches out of fig leaves. This was the bible of the Puritans, called the Geneva Bible. This bible was one of the sources of the KJV. This is the bible that the earliest American settlers used.
If you get the chance, study the origins of the various versions of the bible. The translation issues and the political decisions that lead to some of them are interesting reading.
Daniel,
Thanks for the response. Some day I’ll get around to reading Ehrman’s book. Can you summarize his argument? What do you think is the most compelling evidence he offers? Why should I trust this assessment of textual criticism rather than Ehrman’s earlier work in conjunction with Bruce Metzger?
Would you mind also responding to my previous post on the 29th at 12:41pm? I’d like to make sure I’ve understood your main argument.
Aor,
So the word we see as ‘virgin’ can be translated as either ‘virgin’ or ‘young woman’. Do you think Christians have never heard of this? Read the account in Matthew, cross out ‘virgin’, and replace it with ‘young woman’ and tell me if it changes the overall meaning at all.
And do you think I’ve never heard of translation problems in the KJV? That’s why I and many other Christians don’t use it.
Careful attention is paid in modern translations to match the ancient manuscripts, and we’re willing to adapt our translations if the early manuscripts do not contain what we once thought they did. We do not place our faith in one translation or another. That’s why at the end of Mark, my Bible has the note that some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20.
The discussion on this page seems to center around debating whether the Christian God exists. This seems rather unfair to generic theists, as it imposes on them not only the burden of proof for a Supreme Being but also a particular take on said Being.
Let us dispense, then, with Jehovah and his troubling child Jesus, saying for the sake of argument that they are fables. Let us also acknowledge that the question “is there a God?” has more possible answers than yes or no. There may be an Entity that is all-powerful but not good in the sense that we understand the word, a Heavenly Father who needs a parenting coach as it were. Alternatively, there may be a Being that is immensely powerful but not all-powerful, one that is, say, 90% of the Supreme Monarch of traditional theism, or a beefed up version of Zeus.
This spices the discussion up considerably, and opens the mind to all sorts of interesting speculation. For example, might humanity ultimately achieve a high enough level of technological sophistication to take upon its collective shoulders the role of Deity? How would atheist contributors to this blog react to the prospect of becoming the One they deny?
Jesse, aren’t you concerned that slavery is in the ten commandments? Aren’t you concerned that political leaders have influenced which way certain words get translated?
The entire concept of the virgin Mary is based on a mistranslation. If you are aware of it, then you must accept the Mary was not a virgin. Surely anyone who is aware that the concept of Mary being a virgin is entirely based on a mistranslation would not believe in it. If so, are you really a christian?
You asked for evidence that the bible has been changed. I told you that the word for Slave is deliberately mistranslated, that another word was translated two different ways based on whether the creators of that particular bible wanted to support the pope or not?
The evidence is there. Accept it.
PS. You speak of ‘we’ meaning, I assume, your particular sub-sect of christianity. Don’t presume to speak for all christians. That would be arrogant. I can’t think of a sect of christianity off the top of my head which does not believe that Mary was a virgin. Is your sect like that?
@Bill
A high level of technology does not a supernatural creator of the universe make, to coin a phrase. Your post sounds like half mumbo jumbo and half an attempt to troll.
Raises interesting questions:
1. Theologically, if there is a Creator and we are part of that creation then we would reflect something about that creator, but perhaps not everything, and it is just as likely that the creator is the most alien concept humans have to deal with, so addressing such as good or evil may really just be under-estimating what we are trying to talk about;
2. If the universe as it exists is due to a creator, we would expect that the phenomenal dynamics at play in creation is consistent and would be reflected in religion as any other aspect of life on this planet. Therefore, if religion is part of the substrate of existence, we might expect to see it obeying the laws of life. What are those laws and how can we judge? What is the difference between something created by God and something created by man? If laws of nature are equal to laws of God, then are there social laws of God that work in a similar fashion ie consequences for society in trying to flaunt them which becomes a rather hopeless enterprise because the system, even if perturbed, perambulates towards its ‘attractor’.
3. Historically, what then is the dynamical relationship between the evolution of human, the development of religion, the evolution of society and the social evolution of religion. In otherwords is there really a thing called religion seperate from a thing called not-religion in society.
4. Socially, from the above, if religion is part of the natural process , even if ‘revealed’ it would, like any other aspect of social life, be expected to evolve. Is there evidence for this? If so does this evidence mean there is no God or that, there is a God?
Of course christianity is only a subset of religion.
DAMN RIGHT! I DO WHAT I WANT!
Aor,
Does it bother you that the law in Exodus introduces the earliest protection of slaves, and considered them humans with rights? For instance a master was not to abuse a slave, and any serious injuries inflicted were grounds for freeing the slave. This simply was not a consideration in other ancient cultures.
As for the virgin birth, I do not think you have understood my argument. A case can be made from the New Testament for the virgin birth aside from the verses that come into question if we accept that the word translated as “virgin” can also mean “young woman”.
All you’ve asserted is that mistranslations have been made. But are there any substantial differences between the Bible on my shelf and the books that were circulated c. 100 A.D.?
Jesse said (at http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/11/17/an-evil-god-introduction/#comment-14406): “Does it bother you that the law in Exodus introduces the earliest protection of slaves, and considered them humans with rights?”
Woops. Exodus in no way represents the “earliest” protection of slaves. Hammurabi’s code (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/hammenu.asp) limited what could be done with slaves, and that was in the 18th century BCE. (It also provided legal remedies for the return of slaves, but that’s in addition to protections such as the freeing of debt-slaves after three years.) Exodus was not written until the middle of the last century BCE. Hammurabi lived over a thousand years before that.
You also said: “But are there any substantial differences between the Bible on my shelf and the books that were circulated c. 100 A.D.?” Maybe I’m leaping to conclusions but it sounds as though you believe the Bible texts (both New and Old Testaments) have not changed since 100 CE.
While many Christians believe that Bible texts have never changed, this belief is simply not true. There are many textual variations; they are well-known and have been investigated since at least the 19th century. (Arguably they were known before that, but the variations were chalked up to scribal errors and not seriously studied.) There are, in face, some distinct and identifiable “strains” of textual variation, such as the Alexandrine tradition.
Among the best-known variations is that, in the oldest-known manuscripts, the gospel of Mark ends at 16:8. Mark 16:9 and later do not appear until much later. In fact, its oldest appearance is not in any manuscript of Mark, but in a quotation by Irenaeus in the late 2nd century … manuscripts of Mark containing the later verses do not appear until the late 3rd century. Even some 3rd and 4th century Mark manuscripts still end at 16:8, so the addition of 16:9ff was not universal for some time.
Just because you may have been told … perhaps by someone you trust and presume should know it to be the case … that the Bible texts have remained unchanged since they were first written, be assured it is, nevertheless, not true — and it’s demonstrable.
PsiCop,
Thanks for pointing out Hammurabi. I stand corrected. I had no idea any other ancient culture had protections in place for slaves.
I don’t believe there have been _no_ changes in the Bible over time, though my initial post implied that untenable position. I should have thought through my question more carefully and the claim I implied.
I did acknowledge the long ending of Mark. My question is, does the insertion by a later copyist of the long ending at all change anything fundamental to the picture of Jesus that the gospels portray?
The same goes for the alleged mistranslation of the word ‘virgin’ that was pointed out. So what if that one word is a mistranslation? What does that really change?
Jesse, thanks for the gracious response. I was afraid I’d misinterpreted you and I guess I did!
The question of textual additions is a complex one in theology. There is actually a school of thought that the intended design (by God, I guess) was for scripture to be authored communally and over time, in an organic fashion. According to this sort of thinking, interpolations, redactions and amendments won’t actually change the texts’ spiritual veracity, since they’d been planned for, all along.
I can’t even begin to explain the support behind this argument, so I can’t defend it; I just know it exists and that some apologists have used it to dismiss textual criticism. I’m not even sure how seriously it’s taken among Christian denominations.
As for “virgin” in the scripture, that’s a complex question too. The Hebrew ‘almah was translated as parthenos in the Greek (Septuagint) and this in turn has come down to us as “virgin.” While ‘almah and parthenos both can include this meaning, there isn’t a direct correspondence. ‘Almah meant “marriageable young woman,” which could imply virginity, but did not necessarily do so. Greek parthenos had a similar meaning and was also sometimes used, in works outside of a Judeo-Christian context, to mean “chaste” or “pure.” Again, virginity could be implied, but is not required.
I’m not sure the problem here is of “mistranslation,” but rather, of nuancing. That is, one possible meaning among several was chosen.
I should point out that, in antiquity, among koine-Greek-speaking Christians who first read the New Testament books (and thus were not carrying centuries of tradition or, for lack of a better term, “baggage”), considered “parthenos” to have meant “virgin.” This is attested in the apostolic fathers’ writings and in other ante-Nicene church fathers. Perhaps this is a case of a generality being used as a circumlocution … in a manner similar to the Victorian-era substitution of “limb” for “leg,” because talking about “legs” was just too racy for civilized folk to do!
So, can the “virgin” interpretation be supported? Yes, that might be what was meant. But is it definite? No, because it could have meant something else.
@Jesse
I asked you if slavery in the ten commandments bothered you. I know you read the question, because of how you phrased your question to me. I think you should answer. When you avoid answering, people start to wonder why. If you are ashamed that your religion accepted slavery, had slavery built into its holy book, then admit it. I am not bothered that your religion accepted slavery, because it is not my religion and I am perfectly willing to say that it has silly and racist and bigotted beliefs built into it. Intellectually honest people are willing to admit those things. This is why I pointed it out to you, because I keep hoping to find believers who are willing to accept the obvious flaws in their own holy books. Accepting those flaws is a great first step toward improving themselves and their beliefs.
I mentioned before that the word for church/congregation was purposely mistranslated. This was done for political reasons, to support a hierarchy of priests free from the rule of the pope. I think that is a significant change to the bible, don’t you? It is at the heart of protestantism, after all. Before that mistranslation, the words of the bible reinforced the supremacy of the pope. The fact the so many versions of modern christianity do not believe this is largely due to this purposeful mistranslation. Without it, protestant bibles would be teaching them to be catholics.
@lizzyfied: “First all I’m a born again Christian. I will never believe anything else!”
If there was ever a mind there in the first place, it slammed shut.
@Jesse: “Will someone please show me the evidence to support the claim that it has been changed by men throughout thousands of years?”
COUNCIL OF NICEA
@Jesse: “But are there any substantial differences between the Bible on my shelf and the books that were circulated c. 100 A.D.?”
COUNCIL OF NICEA
@Jayz: “Then sometime in our life we may CRY with our heart for HELP… in utter helplessness … CRY out genuinely for GOD. Then GOD may send someone, some signal that will change the direction of life and will bring us closer to GOD.”
My Unacceptable Response: “You go through intensely painful doubts in your heart of hearts, you got through the dark night of the soul, you pray, ‘help my unbelief!’ and it doesn’t happen. You just know everyone but you is going to heaven and you are going to hell and you’re just not good enough, and the fear of hell and the shame burns inside you. So you grind your teeth and grunt and *force* yourself to believe, and attempt to convince yourself you’re right, and then you offer to pray for ME - to hide from the fact that it’s YOU who are in pain.”
Unless you have so few brain cells you don’t ever feel any doubt, which is always part of the structure of belief.
My Unacceptable Response: God is violent. (Eric said so!) And he’s so weak he needs illogical, disjointed, unreasoning rambling from Eric running to his defense!
@Jesse “The same goes for the alleged mistranslation of the word ‘virgin’ that was pointed out. So what if that one word is a mistranslation? What does that really change?”
mmm. maybe that she had sex to have a Jesus so that the holy ghost or some divine intervention was not the reason for her pregnancy…
i watched Zeitgeist. part 1 and 2. great series. im a Buddhist (mostly atheist coz i havent had the time to follow on any religion too much.) so im not very knowledgeable about ur faiths. so please excuse if it told something tot out. :)
Even in Buddhism, the mother of Gautama Buddha, queen Maya was said to have been impregnated through an divine or higher power. But the hardcore Buddhists do not believe in any higher powers and argue that this is a story to portray a legend.
And i saw how so many religious or such leaders had similar beginnings through Zeitgeist, that its just too good to be a coincidence.
later