Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Malevolent Design: The Death Of A Loving God


Guest Malevolent Design

Recommended Posts

Hey Rev, good to see you back again! I'll have to take a look at your sample chapters. It'll be a hard read, I know since I still hold on to some sort of deist god concept,but knowledge is power and all that.

 

There are better reads if you still hold to a belief that G-d exists. Unfortunately, those other reads all lead to the same conclusions -- if you're lazy, you have two choices: become an atheist, or go back to being a Christian.

 

Christianity is a bogus religion, constructed out of a political need to discredit Jews and Jewish morality. Whatever moral lessons and divine interaction were contained in the early Christian movement (prior to the entire church being excommunicated circa 50CE) was erased by the time Rome adopted (and subsequently corrupted) "Christianity" for itself.

 

In other words, I'd rather chew broken glass than become a Christian, but having studied the true morality that is embodied in the other two Abrahamic faiths, in their original contexts, as well as in at least one of the original languages, I'd likewise rather chew broken glass than become an atheist. Atheism is the ultimate act of being lazy. It also denies the obvious reality that "morality" is not relative or subject to personal wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Reverend AtheiStar

    59

  • Mriana

    21

  • Ariella

    13

  • LBW

    3

I'd likewise rather chew broken glass than become an atheist. Atheism is the ultimate act of being lazy. It also denies the obvious reality that "morality" is not relative or subject to personal wishes.

 

And yet year are atheist in regards to the thousands of other gods humanity has believed in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd likewise rather chew broken glass than become an atheist. Atheism is the ultimate act of being lazy. It also denies the obvious reality that "morality" is not relative or subject to personal wishes.

 

And yet year are atheist in regards to the thousands of other gods humanity has believed in.

 

Be careful what you incorrectly assert.

 

It's a mostly Christian belief that G-d's proper name is either "God" or "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" and that it's the name of their particular deity which makes that the correct deity. This is why Christains (and Atheists who hate Christians ...) think that "Allah" is a different god from "God", "Jehovah" or "Yahweh". Like, if I turn and face Meccah and pray to Allah that I'm somehow praying to a different deity than if I turn and face Jerusalem and pray to HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Or, skipping the Roman-created fictional Abrahahmic faith (that would be Christianity ...), if I pray to some other non-god-of-Abraham "creator of all that is", I'm going to burn in the fictional Christian "hell-fire" because I used the wrong secret magic name.

 

The argument of both the uneducated Atheist and the poorly educated Christian is that others view gods / goddess / flying spaghetti monsters as some kind of pantheon that must be carefully selected using the correct secret magic names and incantations. Rather than comprehending that outside of Christianity there is far more tolerance for other monotheistic belief systems, it's the argument of mostly ex-Christians that belief in G-d amounts to some kind of pig wrestling match. This can be summed up as "My god can beat up your god." Or your absurd remark "And yet year are atheist in regards to the thousands of other gods humanity has believed in." If that were true, I should be "atheist in regards to 'Allah'", and yet somehow ... I'm not.

 

Most of Atheism as its own religion is not based on a critique of "theism" or "theology" as absolute concepts, but rather as refutations of Christianity. Witness, for example, this "Malevolent Design" text that is being touted as some great refutation of G-d. Rather than seeing life / death, health / disease, joy / suffering as parts of the same whole, incapable of existing without the other, they are cast in these terms of "benevolent" and "malevolent". Without the bacteria that live in our guts and allows us to function, we'd have health issues. And yet, outside the gut those same bacteria cause problems. Without preditors that cull the herd, check the population, or consume the remains of the dead, the remains of the dead wouldn't be returned to the pool of natural resources, herds would grow and outstrip their resources, et cetera, bad stuff would happen, et cetera.

 

If, as those who properly understand the theological concept of "Evil" as "exercising a choice inconsistent with Divine Will" believe there should be no "Evil", there would also be no "Free Will" to choose between "Divine Will" and the Christian invented demi-god "Satan". Creation is neither Benevolent nor Malevolent, it is simply "What Is" -- it is what we do with what we have that makes it "Good" or "Evil". Christians, Ex-Christians, and Atheists who only know how to argue against Christianity seem mostly incapable of seeing that "Good" and "Evil" cannot exist independent of each other, any more than "up" can exist without "down".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity is a bogus religion, constructed out of a political need to discredit Jews and Jewish morality. Whatever moral lessons and divine interaction were contained in the early Christian movement (prior to the entire church being excommunicated circa 50CE) was erased by the time Rome adopted (and subsequently corrupted) "Christianity" for itself.

 

This thread is being derailed. Ariella, would you please start another thread and:

 

(1)Enlighten us uneducated and lazy ex-christians as to exactly who HaKadosh Baruch Hu is, and (2) what the teachings of this early Christian movement are?

 

Christians, Ex-Christians, and Atheists who only know how to argue against Christianity seem mostly incapable of seeing that "Good" and "Evil" cannot exist independent of each other, any more than "up" can exist without "down".

 

Some of us, believe it or not, actually do see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity is a bogus religion, constructed out of a political need to discredit Jews and Jewish morality. Whatever moral lessons and divine interaction were contained in the early Christian movement (prior to the entire church being excommunicated circa 50CE) was erased by the time Rome adopted (and subsequently corrupted) "Christianity" for itself.

 

This thread is being derailed. Ariella, would you please start another thread and:

 

(1)Enlighten us uneducated and lazy ex-christians as to exactly who HaKadosh Baruch Hu is, and (2) what the teachings of this early Christian movement are?

 

My responses are completely on topic. The concepts expressed in "Malevolent Design" are based on incorrect premises about what "G-d" is within the Abrahamic framework of "G-d".

 

(And "HaKadosh Baruch Hu" is Hebrew for "The Holy One, Blessed is He" -- sort of proves my point that y'all don't know how to study the texts.)

 

Christians, Ex-Christians, and Atheists who only know how to argue against Christianity seem mostly incapable of seeing that "Good" and "Evil" cannot exist independent of each other, any more than "up" can exist without "down".

 

Some of us, believe it or not, actually do see that.

 

Then why aren't you objecting to the premise of the book? "Intelligent Design" (and "Benevolent" or "Malevolent" "Design") cannot be supported from any of the texts. The entire text of "Malevolent Design" is a strawman. The out of context, superficial, and flat-out wrong readings of the texts aren't the fault of the texts, they are primarily the fault of Christians, and particularly Fundementalist Christians, who just don't know how to read the texts, and the way that these flawed readings produce counter-arguments that are trivial to refute. I mean, a group that doesn't know what "HaKadosh Baruch Hu" means can't be said to have read the texts in their proper language or context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[(And "HaKadosh Baruch Hu" is Hebrew for "The Holy One, Blessed is He" -- sort of proves my point that y'all don't know how to study the texts.)

 

I don't really care if we don't know how to study "the texts" whatever those may be. I assume you are referring to the Bible. I was only wondering you you would explain yourself. What a waste of time, since this is only an attack on others, not an explanation.

 

Then why aren't you objecting to the premise of the book? "Intelligent Design" (and "Benevolent" or "Malevolent" "Design") cannot be supported from any of the texts. The entire text of "Malevolent Design" is a strawman.

 

I don't care if it can be supported from texts or not. Do you ever do any thinking on your own not related to "texts"?

 

Rev Atheistars premise is:

 

I'm just reading the universe the way I see it. If there's a supernatural creator responsible for it all, the evidence points to extremely malevolent. This conclusion, at least for me, is unavoidable.

 

He states it is from his point of view and the way he sees the universe. I have not read the book, just going by what he says in this thread. God is presented as benevolent in the Bible and the evidence of our senses denies that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(And "HaKadosh Baruch Hu" is Hebrew for "The Holy One, Blessed is He" -- sort of proves my point that y'all don't know how to study the texts.)

 

That is the problem with Xianity. The original writers who wrote in Greek, could not get the Hebrew word 'alma' in Isaiah 7:14 translated right. That is not the Hebrew word for virgin, yet these Greek people took it, borrow some mythology, and wrote yet another virgin birth story for another culture. So right there the whole thing is screwed up and from what I have learned, Isaiah wasn't prophesying anything. He was talking about his pregnant wife with child.

 

Then why aren't you objecting to the premise of the book? "Intelligent Design" (and "Benevolent" or "Malevolent" "Design") cannot be supported from any of the texts. The entire text of "Malevolent Design" is a strawman. The out of context, superficial, and flat-out wrong readings of the texts aren't the fault of the texts, they are primarily the fault of Christians, and particularly Fundementalist Christians, who just don't know how to read the texts, and the way that these flawed readings produce counter-arguments that are trivial to refute. I mean, a group that doesn't know what "HaKadosh Baruch Hu" means can't be said to have read the texts in their proper language or context.

 

Well, technically that would be Hebrew for the O.T. or the Torah and Greek for the N.T. So one would have know both and understand them well. Personally, I have yet to find an honest translation. That went by the wayside with the first KJV, the worst translation of all. Sadly the mistake was translating the Latin, Vulgate, translation into English, when they should have translated it from Greek to English. So, it's all messed up because no one did it right to begin with.

 

Now I'm not fluent in any of the three languages (Hebrew, Greek, Latin), but I have studied and researched it enough that I know it's no wonder people can't get it right, because it wasn't translated correctly to begin with nor was it written from one text to another right (the use of Isaiah 7:14 would suggest midrash, but the so called virgin birth story is too screwed up to even call it a midrash). So, IMO, this explains, in part, why you feel people can't understand the texts. The texts are all screwed up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity is a bogus religion, constructed out of a political need to discredit Jews and Jewish morality. Whatever moral lessons and divine interaction were contained in the early Christian movement (prior to the entire church being excommunicated circa 50CE) was erased by the time Rome adopted (and subsequently corrupted) "Christianity" for itself.

 

I completely agree. Jesus was invented to demonize the Jews. The kicker is that they did it using Jewish scripture! They used their own mythology against them! Really, it was a brilliant move, given the outcome. I'm not saying that it was moral in any way, but it was genius.

 

In other words, I'd rather chew broken glass than become a Christian, but having studied the true morality that is embodied in the other two Abrahamic faiths, in their original contexts, as well as in at least one of the original languages, I'd likewise rather chew broken glass than become an atheist. Atheism is the ultimate act of being lazy. It also denies the obvious reality that "morality" is not relative or subject to personal wishes.

 

You think the Abrahamic faiths are moral? Wow, is your moral compass ever broken! The Torah has a few, scattered moral jewels amongst a festering dung heap of immorality. If you were outside the religion, you'd know that.

 

While you could technically become a Christian by engaging in their rituals and joining the club, you could not do the same to be a real Atheist. Atheism is the lack of belief in all gods and goddesses. It is not something that is chosen, either. I no more chose my Atheism than I did my sexuality. I was born a heterosexual and an Atheist. My Atheism, unfortunately however, was stolen away soon after my birth! No worries, though, I eventually got it back 19 years later!

 

Theism, actually, is the ultimate act of being lazy. Why? Because, instead of having to think for yourself, you have an ancient, immoral and outdated book of mythology do it for you! What is the origin of the universe? Goddidit! What is the origin of humanity? Goddidit! Why did this tsunami kill thousands? Goddidit! Now that is lazy! Look in the mirror and see yourself, please!

 

Morality is subjective -- and not exclusive to religion, whether you like it or not. Your immoral holy book and your immoral views prove that easily. Look at all the religious homophobes. They believe they are righteous! Are they? Not according to me. Point proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My responses are completely on topic. The concepts expressed in "Malevolent Design" are based on incorrect premises about what "G-d" is within the Abrahamic framework of "G-d".

 

Then why aren't you objecting to the premise of the book? "Intelligent Design" (and "Benevolent" or "Malevolent" "Design") cannot be supported from any of the texts. The entire text of "Malevolent Design" is a strawman. The out of context, superficial, and flat-out wrong readings of the texts aren't the fault of the texts, they are primarily the fault of Christians, and particularly Fundementalist Christians, who just don't know how to read the texts, and the way that these flawed readings produce counter-arguments that are trivial to refute. I mean, a group that doesn't know what "HaKadosh Baruch Hu" means can't be said to have read the texts in their proper language or context.

 

Malevolent Design is based on my observations of the universe. It is a scientific theistic hypothesis. It isn't religion specific, at all, though I tend to focus on Christianity simply because that is my ex-religion. It is aimed at all creator deities, not just your special, little, pet god. If there exists a creator god or goddess, then he/she would have to answer for what we find on this planet and in space. The entire universe becomes a moral issue. It's that simple. Visit my site, it explains the hypothesis in much greater detail:

 

www.malevolentdesign.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[(And "HaKadosh Baruch Hu" is Hebrew for "The Holy One, Blessed is He" -- sort of proves my point that y'all don't know how to study the texts.)

 

I don't really care if we don't know how to study "the texts" whatever those may be. I assume you are referring to the Bible. I was only wondering you you would explain yourself. What a waste of time, since this is only an attack on others, not an explanation.

 

Then why aren't you objecting to the premise of the book? "Intelligent Design" (and "Benevolent" or "Malevolent" "Design") cannot be supported from any of the texts. The entire text of "Malevolent Design" is a strawman.

 

I don't care if it can be supported from texts or not. Do you ever do any thinking on your own not related to "texts"?

 

Rev Atheistars premise is:

 

I'm just reading the universe the way I see it. If there's a supernatural creator responsible for it all, the evidence points to extremely malevolent. This conclusion, at least for me, is unavoidable.

 

He states it is from his point of view and the way he sees the universe. I have not read the book, just going by what he says in this thread. God is presented as benevolent in the Bible and the evidence of our senses denies that.

 

Thank you! She's got her head shoved so far inside her book she can't see anything else! All you need for Malevolent Design is 1) a creator deity 2) the universe. You don't even need a holy book! For example, if a person was to say that his god, Hjhkjhskjhtytryd, created the universe and he loved us, you could point to something like disease and show that that idea was wrong. No need for even a single textual reference! It's that easy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malevolent Design is based on my observations of the universe. It is a scientific theistic hypothesis. It isn't religion specific, at all, though I tend to focus on Christianity simply because that is my ex-religion. It is aimed at all creator deities, not just your special, little, pet god. If there exists a creator god or goddess, then he/she would have to answer for what we find on this planet and in space. The entire universe becomes a moral issue. It's that simple. Visit my site, it explains the hypothesis in much greater detail:

 

www.malevolentdesign.org

 

Your observations of the universe fail to grasp that everything exists with its opposite, except for gravity. Gravity always sucks ...

 

Little Children die because the same things that cause Little Children to die cause other things to live, or the universe to work in general. If you've got a gripe with G-d because LIttle Children who fall off Tall Buildings go "Splat!", you might want to consider whether or not Earth being bound in its orbit around the Sun is a good idea or a bad idea. The physical laws related to why Little Children go Splat make many other aspects of life possible.

 

The error in your hypothesis is that you want either G-d or the Universe to work some other way. Sticking with "there is no god because there just isn't" is far more intellectually honest, and supportable, than this notion that G-d doesn't exist, or G-d is evil, or whatever it is you're trying to advance. Disbelieving the existence of G-d doesn't usually lead one to think they are more intelligent than the Divine Creator, but trying to PROVE there is no G-d, or that G-d is evil, tends to result in absurdist arguments, like "G-d is evil because bacteria can kill.", ignoring that those same bacteria also make life possible. It's the elevation of ones Self to the status of godhood, which is a bit not at all like being an Atheist.

 

Now, I know that telling an Atheist to go read the Bible is often a bad idea, but you seem like someone who should read a few chapters. Don't worry, I'm not going to tell you to read any of the fictional Roman Pagan Religion chapters, I'm going to suggest you start close to the end of Job. Chapter 37 ought to do it. When you are done, answer this -- why must Little Children go "Splat!" when they fall off Tall Buildings? How many things are made possible in the Universe by allowing that to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your observations of the universe fail to grasp that everything exists with its opposite, except for gravity. Gravity always sucks ...

 

Your assumptions about my hypothesis are still wrong. Still too lazy to go and read the first chapter, huh? I realize that there are opposites a'plenty in the universe. In fact, I can best you in this area. Gravity does have an opposite. It's called dark energy -- and it's what is causing the expansion of our universe to accelerate. This is yet another thing I talk about in my book, in the Cosmological chapter.

 

Little Children die because the same things that cause Little Children to die cause other things to live, or the universe to work in general.

 

Ah, so you put limitations on your god? He just had to sit down at his drafting table and design the malaria parasite? Why? He couldn't have made a world without parasites? That doesn't make any sense. It certainly doesn't make sense from the standpoint of the "loving father!" As a father of three, I would never, ever make things specifically to hurt and kill them! What kind of monster would do that?

 

You assume that things have to be the way they are because they are that way now. That just isn't so. A god would have no constraints. Things could've been without disease and without danger and yet that just isn't what we find. Even if you buy into the Fall excuse, that still doesn't get rid of the problem, as that would just place the Malevolent Design later in the game! And, to top it off, it'd be a massive case of overaggerated, misplaced justice. Punish the guilty, not million of generations of innocents. Again, your god would be a monster, unworthy of worship, only of scorn and contempt.

 

If you've got a gripe with G-d because LIttle Children who fall off Tall Buildings go "Splat!", you might want to consider whether or not Earth being bound in its orbit around the Sun is a good idea or a bad idea. The physical laws related to why Little Children go Splat make many other aspects of life possible.

 

I have no gripes with any gods or goddesses. They don't exist and so I don't waste my time. What I've done with my book and here is merely explore the possibilities of a hypothetical situation.

 

It wasn't gravity, in that sense, at least, that I talked about in my book. I did, however, talk about the sun and how it didn't have to be a nuclear, cancer causing furnace. A god would not be constrained to do it that way. He could have made it perfectly safe, right, but chose to make it the opposite. He wanted us o get cancer so he could masturbate to our suffering.

 

The error in your hypothesis is that you want either G-d or the Universe to work some other way.

 

Actually, that's incorrect. Your god doesn't work in any way, he hasn't the power to move even the tiniest speck of dust, much less create something. Our universe has evolved and us along with it. That doesn't take any SkyDaddies or Mommies to accomplish. No, it's been a completely natural and godless ride.

 

What I do is point out that, if your god really was real, it could've been a billion other ways. The writers, however, of your tall tale had to deal with the way things were and so had to make their mythology fit around the facts. This is where the constraint lies. Humans came long after the universe, the planet and nearly all the life that ever lived here. We're late comers to the scene. It is because of this lateness that our options were a bit limited.

 

Sticking with "there is no god because there just isn't" is far more intellectually honest, and supportable, than this notion that G-d doesn't exist, or G-d is evil, or whatever it is you're trying to advance.

 

I am an Atheist and I can prove that no gods or goddesses exist in a great multitude of different ways. I've done it hundreds of times over the past 12 or so years and I'll do hundreds more. It's pretty fun, really! Care to dance?

 

As an unbeliever, of course, I don't believe that there are any existent evil gods. They are all the products of anthroporphism and our overactive imaginations. This much is painfully obvious! This doesn't stop me, though, from pointing out flaws in the active mythologies of believers. The universe shows an evil creator would be a reality, if it's a given, as it is with you, that said god exists.

 

Disbelieving the existence of G-d doesn't usually lead one to think they are more intelligent than the Divine Creator, but trying to PROVE there is no G-d, or that G-d is evil, tends to result in absurdist arguments, like "G-d is evil because bacteria can kill.", ignoring that those same bacteria also make life possible. It's the elevation of ones Self to the status of godhood, which is a bit not at all like being an Atheist.

 

Since no gods exist, it's easy to say that the least intelligent bacteria is smarter than all the gods combined. Therefore, with that in mind, I'm at least a billion times smarter than your god! lol..

 

Add a little to your statement and you might have something. You conveniently left out the word "designed." Let me change it for you:

 

God is evil because he designed bacteria that can kill.

 

Notice the difference? If you specify the bacteria, say Yersinia pestis, or the bacterium responsible for the plague, and the picture of your god gets a lot darker! He would have also designed all viruses, like HIV for example, Ebola (a hemmoragic fever -- can you say blood from every orifice) and the Spanish Flu (50 million dead). Sound like the (partial) resume of a loving father god, or a genocidal maniac?

 

Now, I know that telling an Atheist to go read the Bible is often a bad idea, but you seem like someone who should read a few chapters. Don't worry, I'm not going to tell you to read any of the fictional Roman Pagan Religion chapters, I'm going to suggest you start close to the end of Job. Chapter 37 ought to do it. When you are done, answer this -- why must Little Children go "Splat!" when they fall off Tall Buildings? How many things are made possible in the Universe by allowing that to happen?

 

I read the Bible all the time, as well as the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon. The more I read them, though, the stronger my case becomes. These books are just so, oh what's the word, human! They're sad, sad pieces of work! So many mistakes! These are the works of gods? If that's the case, these gods are pretty damn pathetic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity is a bogus religion, constructed out of a political need to discredit Jews and Jewish morality. Whatever moral lessons and divine interaction were contained in the early Christian movement (prior to the entire church being excommunicated circa 50CE) was erased by the time Rome adopted (and subsequently corrupted) "Christianity" for itself.

 

I completely agree. Jesus was invented to demonize the Jews. The kicker is that they did it using Jewish scripture! They used their own mythology against them! Really, it was a brilliant move, given the outcome. I'm not saying that it was moral in any way, but it was genius.

 

Mostly the Romans used swords to discredit Jews. Jewish scripture doesn't support anything in Christianity. After the war in 135CE, enough Jews had been killed or enslaved by the Romans that there wasn't really a viable counter-argument to what Rome was doing to Jewish theology. The Church did allow disputations, but many of those resulted in whatever Rabbi was dumb enough to argue against the Church being killed after besting the local Christian leadership. And then they'd kill whatever Jews weren't smart enough to get out of town beforehand. My Jewish ancestors fled the Pale in the 19th century, thank G-d.

 

In other words, I'd rather chew broken glass than become a Christian, but having studied the true morality that is embodied in the other two Abrahamic faiths, in their original contexts, as well as in at least one of the original languages, I'd likewise rather chew broken glass than become an atheist. Atheism is the ultimate act of being lazy. It also denies the obvious reality that "morality" is not relative or subject to personal wishes.

 

You think the Abrahamic faiths are moral? Wow, is your moral compass ever broken! The Torah has a few, scattered moral jewels amongst a festering dung heap of immorality. If you were outside the religion, you'd know that.

 

I didn't grow up Jewish, and I have studied all three Abrahamic faiths at great length, as well as Eastern religions and arguments against theology. I'll stick with my belief that there is a G-d.

 

While you could technically become a Christian by engaging in their rituals and joining the club, you could not do the same to be a real Atheist. Atheism is the lack of belief in all gods and goddesses. It is not something that is chosen, either. I no more chose my Atheism than I did my sexuality. I was born a heterosexual and an Atheist. My Atheism, unfortunately however, was stolen away soon after my birth! No worries, though, I eventually got it back 19 years later!

 

Most people are naturally monotheistic. It's quite remarkable that people understand that there are certain "rules" that somehow, magically, apply universally. They may not believe in any particular deity, but Deism tends to be more appealing that "I can do whatever I want and pretend it is moral, because morality is subjective." It's the people who want to cast themselves in the same role as G-d who tend to think there is no G-d. It's very appealing. It also tends to produce a lot of psychopaths and sociopaths.

 

Theism, actually, is the ultimate act of being lazy. Why? Because, instead of having to think for yourself, you have an ancient, immoral and outdated book of mythology do it for you! What is the origin of the universe? Goddidit! What is the origin of humanity? Goddidit! Why did this tsunami kill thousands? Goddidit! Now that is lazy! Look in the mirror and see yourself, please!

 

Ancient and immoral? Most of the concepts -- the real ones, the ones you can't understand because you'd rather worship yourself as a god than comprehend the purpose of universal moral codes -- are far more "moral" than the me-first, hedonistic world view that's produced by Atheist theology. Lazy? Recognizing that homo sapien is a social creature, and that society only works when we accept responsibility for the state of the planet, is a bit larger of task in life than railing against the "Jesus makes it all better!" indoctrination you received as a child.

 

As for G-d creating the Universe, I'm pretty big on both the Big Bang and Evolution. Yiyeh ohr, v'yiyeh ohr. B'erev b'bocher, yom echad. It's hard to argue with that, if you ask me.

 

Morality is subjective -- and not exclusive to religion, whether you like it or not. Your immoral holy book and your immoral views prove that easily. Look at all the religious homophobes. They believe they are righteous! Are they? Not according to me. Point proven.

 

Religious homophobes are idiots. They are also ignoring the tenets of the religion they claim to embrace. But being hypocritical ignoramuses doesn't make their religion "wrong" (I mean, Christainity IS wrong, but that's a different point), it makes those individuals hypocritical and uneducated. Of course, the goal of the early Church was insuring that the masses were kept stupid, so the Church leadership wouldn't have to explain that which is inexplicable.

 

As for morality being subjective, I think the history of the world proves that there are some pretty absolute moral absolutes. They get whitewashed in Christianity's "Sin all you, Jesus makes it okay!" approach to life, but people who've been oppressed and abused tend to know it, even if the local "subjective morality" says that injustice is really justice. "Subjective morality" has one common end-point -- mass oppression, might-makes-right, screw-you-I-got-mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly the Romans used swords to discredit Jews. Jewish scripture doesn't support anything in Christianity. After the war in 135CE, enough Jews had been killed or enslaved by the Romans that there wasn't really a viable counter-argument to what Rome was doing to Jewish theology. The Church did allow disputations, but many of those resulted in whatever Rabbi was dumb enough to argue against the Church being killed after besting the local Christian leadership. And then they'd kill whatever Jews weren't smart enough to get out of town beforehand. My Jewish ancestors fled the Pale in the 19th century, thank G-d.

 

I agree. Jews have been persecuted more than any other group of theists. The very Christian Hitler and his crusade against them tops it all! But I have a question. Where was your god during all this? Just watching with popcorn as his masterplan unfolded? Or watching helplessly because he couldn't get it up?

 

I didn't grow up Jewish, and I have studied all three Abrahamic faiths at great length, as well as Eastern religions and arguments against theology. I'll stick with my belief that there is a G-d.

 

I didn't, either. I grew up Christian, under the sect of Catholocism.

 

I, too, have studied them, Christainity mostly, but with a good aount of attention paid to Judaism and Islam. They are clearly all highly delusional and dangerous death cults.

 

Well, of course, you will. Beliefs aren't choices. You cannot opt out of your beliefs without first being convinced that what you currently believe is wrong. Religion -- the art of brainwashing -- sets up many roadblocks to this and so it's no easy task. Luckily, I never had to even try. It all just starting falling away, like a bad dream, in my late teens.

 

Most people are naturally monotheistic. It's quite remarkable that people understand that there are certain "rules" that somehow, magically, apply universally. They may not believe in any particular deity, but Deism tends to be more appealing that "I can do whatever I want and pretend it is moral, because morality is subjective." It's the people who want to cast themselves in the same role as G-d who tend to think there is no G-d. It's very appealing. It also tends to produce a lot of psychopaths and sociopaths.

 

Naturally? No, that just isn't true. You're basing this assumption on the fact that most people call themselves "monotheists," nowadays. There are several very big problems with this. First, and this is what I was alluding to, the vast majority of "monotheists" are actually polytheists. Christians, for example, believe in anywhere from a few deities to several thousand. Yet, through the art of redefining, gods and goddesses aren't gods. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Satan is a god. Jesus is a god. The Holy Spirit is a god. History disproves your silly notion, as well, as the oldest religions are highly polytheistic. Gods, you see, are like chips. It's near impossible to just have one. It's natural, therefore, to have many. Monotheism evolved out of both a need for simplicity and a concerted effort to make this the new way.

 

I don't do whatever I want simply because I realize tha fact that morals are subjective. I have a strict set of morals, just like nearly everyone else. From whence does this come? Oh, silly theist, the answer is simple. There are a few sources for our morality. One is our experience. We learn what is moral from our culture. This is complimented by the fact that we have emotional hardware to back this data up. This way you just don't mentally realize that something is wrong, but rather you feel that is is wrong, too. This takes neither any gods or goddesses or even a single religion to accomplish.

 

The "do anything" attitude, actually, is much more prevalent within the religious. Why? Well, since each person constructs their god program to their liking -- whether consciously or subconsciously -- we then have a wide range of behaviors that are ok. This is why we end up with so many versions of the same gods.

 

Psychopathic and sociopathic tendences, actually, fit perfectly within the religious sphere. Since all theistic religions are based on delusional imaginary fantasies, it takes a brain that isn't working properly and amplifies it's defects. Andrea Yates is a wonderful example of this!

 

Ancient and immoral? Most of the concepts -- the real ones, the ones you can't understand because you'd rather worship yourself as a god than comprehend the purpose of universal moral codes -- are far more "moral" than the me-first, hedonistic world view that's produced by Atheist theology. Lazy? Recognizing that homo sapien is a social creature, and that society only works when we accept responsibility for the state of the planet, is a bit larger of task in life than railing against the "Jesus makes it all better!" indoctrination you received as a child.

 

Yes, ancient and immoral. You worship in a death cult that prsecribes death for just about everything! That's moral? To you, obviously, but not to me. Sorry, my morality says differently!

 

I never said that there weren't human universals in morality. There are. But that doesn't change the fact that morality is subjective. Is killing always wrong? No. Is stealing always wrong? No. Is cheating always wrong? No. There are always instances where doing these things is actually the moral thing to do. Yet, religion cats these in black and white and ignore the billions of shades of gray. Talk about lazy!!!

 

I don't worship myself as a god. I'm real. That just doesn't make any sense and it's one of the most retarded things that theists have come up with as a retort to Atheism.

 

Why do you think that I believe that our species isn't a social creature? Why do you believe that we shouldn't care for our planet and take responsibility for our actions? Humans are just another social mammal. Duh! Evolution and biology can teach you that. Paleontology will teach how fragile ecosystems are, as 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived are now gone -- forever. It's the religious mindset, on the other hand, that fills people's heads with the idea that it's ok to destroy everything because its our gift from a SkyDaddy. It also makes this life a lot less valuable as you have the magical afterlife to look forward to. How can this world every be worth anything with that as a comparison?

 

As for G-d creating the Universe, I'm pretty big on both the Big Bang and Evolution. Yiyeh ohr, v'yiyeh ohr. B'erev b'bocher, yom echad. It's hard to argue with that, if you ask me.

 

Ah, a theistic evolutionist? At least you have that going for you. You seem to be backwards and confused in just about every other area -- and hopelessly so!

 

Religious homophobes are idiots. They are also ignoring the tenets of the religion they claim to embrace. But being hypocritical ignoramuses doesn't make their religion "wrong" (I mean, Christainity IS wrong, but that's a different point), it makes those individuals hypocritical and uneducated. Of course, the goal of the early Church was insuring that the masses were kept stupid, so the Church leadership wouldn't have to explain that which is inexplicable.

 

They are idiots, to be sure, but they're completely correct in their malevolent beliefs as this is what the OPT teaches, plain and simple. God hates fags? No, that'd only be the tip of the iceberg! God would hate just about everything, except the death and suffering of the living -- and then the dead.

 

As for morality being subjective, I think the history of the world proves that there are some pretty absolute moral absolutes.

 

No, it really doesn't, wrong word. It doesn't show "absolutes," but rather "universals." There's a big difference! An absolute is where something is always a set and rigid parameter. Killing is not always wrong. Murder isn't always wrong. No, what we have are a set of moral beliefs that are shared by a majority. That doesn't make them absolute, though. Please, spend some time with the dictionary and familiarize yourself with what these words actually mean.

 

...even if the local "subjective morality" says that injustice is really justice. "Subjective morality" has one common end-point -- mass oppression, might-makes-right, screw-you-I-got-mine.

 

Your holy book, ironically, is probably the best example of how subjective morality can be! And you're right, these religions have led to "mass oppression, might-makes-right, screw-you-I-got-mine." Thank you for making my point so well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Jews have been persecuted more than any other group of theists. The very Christian Hitler and his crusade against them tops it all! But I have a question. Where was your god during all this? Just watching with popcorn as his masterplan unfolded? Or watching helplessly because he couldn't get it up?

 

Ah, more evidence of Christian brainwashing.

 

You do understand that the Jewish god-concept doesn't include "Puppeteer"?

 

I didn't, either. I grew up Christian, under the sect of Catholocism.

 

My condolences. But you know, when you throw out the bath water, be careful not to also throw out the baby.

 

I, too, have studied them, Christainity mostly, but with a good aount of attention paid to Judaism and Islam. They are clearly all highly delusional and dangerous death cults.

 

If you reached anything like that conclusion after your vast and non-existent study of Judaism (yes, it's that obvious -- you've never studied Judaism, except for what Christians taught you about it, and probably never studied Islam either), you really missed the entire point. But that's sort of the point of a proper Christian indoctrination -- scare the "follower" so severely that they never, ever consider leaving the fold.

 

Anyhow, I got the "You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text" message and don't know how many is too many, so I trimmed this back to what appears to be the central problem here -- you've never studied another religion within the framework of that other religion. Reading what conservative Christianity has to say about other religions isn't the same as studying them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Mriana raises an eyebrow* Ariella, are you a theist under the chosen deity HaKadosh Baruch Hu? I do not disagree that those who practice one Abrahamic religion or the other do not worship the same god. In fact, I truly believe they do not worship the same deity. After all, the idea of a god is only a human concept and even Christians cannot agree on what "God" is, because they all have their own god concept.

 

Regardless, what I would like to know is why you are concerned the Rev has thrown out the baby with the bathwater?

 

I have studied many of Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon) works and I do not see the Xian god in his works or any other Hebrew writings, BUT even though Maimonides' works appear to be harmless, he none the less was living, not happily, under dhimmitude. He eventually ran from the Islamic ruler who he was a doctor for for many years. Now, in the Koran, it states that the Jews are pigs, so even if he was not treated poorly, some were and still are to this day. Taxes for not being a Muslim isn't the greatest thing.

 

Sufism is rather peaceful, as far as any branch of Islam goes, but that group is more or less the "Gnostic" group of Islam. They are the mysticists of Islam. The Khabbala is the "Gnostic" practice of Judaism, as well as mysticism.

 

The thing is they all "evolved" from what we now call mythology. They came from the various areas of Egypt, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Babylonian, Greece etc. The literature from this area was rewritten to a specific culture, such as the Hebrew and Israelite cultures.

 

Be that as it may, Jewish extremists do exist, just as Islamic and Xian extremists (Fundies) exist too. No one can deny that. However, science has also shown that a lot that has been written, is pure superstition and many of the Elohim have gone out the door with volcano and fertility deities. However, I do not wish to go tit-for-tat on the different Elohim of the Old Testament, which can be found in the Torah.

 

One more thing, if you do wish to discuss "God", then please define your concept of a god first, because without such definition, it will be impossible to know what you are talking about. In other words, give me your god concept so I know what you are talking about, please or I won't have a clue as to what you mean by "God".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just bought the PDF version. I'll let you know what I think. Glory!

 

Tell me what you think of the extra chapter I added, too. It's not in the first version, but I'm giving it away for free because I feel it's what it was missing -- and because it's only fair. I posted it here under the title "5 Christian Excuses for Malevolent Design."

Hey Rev, I haven't forgotten about your glorious book. I actually have a lot on my "Wish I Had Time to Read" list, but lately I haven't had much time to read much of anything except my Statistics textbook, which isn't exactly exciting. But don't worry, I will get to it! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing, if you do wish to discuss "God", then please define your concept of a god first, because without such definition, it will be impossible to know what you are talking about. In other words, give me your god concept so I know what you are talking about, please or I won't have a clue as to what you mean by "God".

 

On the subject of "What Is G-d?" I refer you to a sermon by Imam Ali on the subject --

 

The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute.

 

Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

 

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence.

 

There. I think that pretty much sums it up. The best way I know of explaining G-d from a Jewish perspective drives Christians and Atheists alike crazy. That sermon drives y'all crazy, but a bit less so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing, if you do wish to discuss "God", then please define your concept of a god first, because without such definition, it will be impossible to know what you are talking about. In other words, give me your god concept so I know what you are talking about, please or I won't have a clue as to what you mean by "God".

 

On the subject of "What Is G-d?" I refer you to a sermon by Imam Ali on the subject --

 

God is a human concept. I learned that a long time ago and what you quoted is just a human concept, nothing more.

 

As for craziness... I does not drive me crazy because any description of a deity is not a description at all. Again, the reason why it does not drive me crazy is because I know it is a human concept I serious doubt, if a god exist, no one really knows what it is and there are no human words to describe it, whatever it is. It could be just the universe as a whole for all we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, more evidence of Christian brainwashing.

 

You do understand that the Jewish god-concept doesn't include "Puppeteer"?

 

First of all, you're dodging the question. What was your god doing while 6 million of his "chosen" were tortured and killed? Why didn't he save them -- if he existed and had the power to? Second, of all, yes he does. Read your mythology book, please. You obviously know next to nothing about it. It's just sad, really. Why does an Atheist know exponentially more than a believer who's in the religion? Read it and weep:

 

Isaiah 45

 

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

My condolences. But you know, when you throw out the bath water, be careful not to also throw out the baby.

 

Well, if you actually looked in the tub, you'd see that there never was any baby, at all. It's always been nothing but nasty stagnant water and your imagination. It's time to pour it out and move on with your life -- in reality.

 

If you reached anything like that conclusion after your vast and non-existent study of Judaism (yes, it's that obvious -- you've never studied Judaism, except for what Christians taught you about it, and probably never studied Islam either), you really missed the entire point. But that's sort of the point of a proper Christian indoctrination -- scare the "follower" so severely that they never, ever consider leaving the fold.

 

No, I've seen it much clearer than you obviously ever will. They're all death cults engineered to control large numbers of people. It's really that simple. But I'd never expect you to understand that from the inside. You have to get rid of that pesky belief in your SkyDaddy first. Only then will you those religions for what they truly are. Till then you're trapped in your delusional world. Your words are evdience enough of that!

 

I've studied Judaism from the Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Atheist perspective. I've studied Christianity from inside it, as well as from those I already mentioned. You think just because it didn't program me into being a deluded believer, like yourself, that I haven't studied them? What a fanatical nutjob you are -- and how dare you accuse me of lying. Your behavior, though, is sadly typical of your kind, and so I've come to expect this version of morality. Thanks for not disappointing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing, if you do wish to discuss "God", then please define your concept of a god first, because without such definition, it will be impossible to know what you are talking about. In other words, give me your god concept so I know what you are talking about, please or I won't have a clue as to what you mean by "God".

 

On the subject of "What Is G-d?" I refer you to a sermon by Imam Ali on the subject --

 

The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute.

 

Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

 

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence.

 

There. I think that pretty much sums it up. The best way I know of explaining G-d from a Jewish perspective drives Christians and Atheists alike crazy. That sermon drives y'all crazy, but a bit less so.

 

Crazy? With what? Boredom? Yawwwwwnnnnnn... It's the same old, lame ass, boring theistic bullshit you hear from everyone else. Sorry, but it doesn't fly. Malevolent Design beats it hands down -- no contest! Why? Well, because we have the entire universe as a way to guage this allegedly real being's morality -- and it proves that he'd be evil. All the flowery shit you pull out of your ass does nothing to erase that. It only shows sad, sad desperation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget to add, Ariella never really did address any of the points I made, except the one, and still hasn't or am I the only one who noticed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just bought the PDF version. I'll let you know what I think. Glory!

 

Tell me what you think of the extra chapter I added, too. It's not in the first version, but I'm giving it away for free because I feel it's what it was missing -- and because it's only fair. I posted it here under the title "5 Christian Excuses for Malevolent Design."

Hey Rev, I haven't forgotten about your glorious book. I actually have a lot on my "Wish I Had Time to Read" list, but lately I haven't had much time to read much of anything except my Statistics textbook, which isn't exactly exciting. But don't worry, I will get to it! :)

 

That's fine. I totally understand. We're not kids with oodles of time at our disposal. We are grown adults who must balance intellectual pursuits with everything else. You'll get to it when you get to it. But... when you do actually get into it and then finish, please do me a favor and write me an honest review on the Lulu site:

 

http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book...ing-god/6291677

 

It's what's missing. I'd really appreciate it! Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget to add, Ariella never really did address any of the points I made, except the one, and still hasn't or am I the only one who noticed?

 

In my nearly 14 years of Atheism I've seen this tactic a lot. The Atheist posts a lot of hard questions, the theist pretends like they were never even asked and moves on. It's what they do. My counter-tactic is to just keep bringing it up. Don't ever let them get away with it, make it blatantly obvious to everyone what they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget to add, Ariella never really did address any of the points I made, except the one, and still hasn't or am I the only one who noticed?

 

In my nearly 14 years of Atheism I've seen this tactic a lot. The Atheist posts a lot of hard questions, the theist pretends like they were never even asked and moves on. It's what they do. My counter-tactic is to just keep bringing it up. Don't ever let them get away with it, make it blatantly obvious to everyone what they're doing.

 

That's funny, because I just re-read Mriana's post (prior to my longer one) and didn't see any questions, other than getting confirmation that I'm a Jew.

 

As for your "Where was G-d while 6 million Jews were being killed?", my answer is "What has happened since?" As impolitic as it can be to mention this, we got much more freedom out of the Shoah than we'd had since Rome ruled Judea.

 

Again, YOU have your conceptions of what a god should or shouldn't be, and should or shouldn't do. In theological circles that's placing oneself in the position of a god, which is why I maintain that Atheism is a religion in which the Self assumes the role of G-d. You want a sun, but not the ionizing radiation from a sun that causes skin cancers, but I don't see you creating a universe in which the Laws of Physics allow that to happen. You want microbial life, but not microbial life that could ever harm anything, but I don't see you creating a universe in which the Laws of Nature allow that to happen. You want gravity, but not the accelleration of gravity that causes babies to splat when they hit the pavement, but I don't see you creating a universe in which the Law of Gravity somehow has a variable effect based on whether or not it's a baby hitting the cement or a planet bound in an orbit. In short, you want the Happy Fun Carefree universe, not one in which good and bad exists in balance. You're not an Atheist, you're just pissed off at G-d for not giving you a free ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.