I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[Ouroboros]

Interesting. Why would a materialist even care about morality since right and wrong are immaterial concepts and thus really don't exist. Thoughts, ideas, numbers, concepts, don't exist. You cannot measure these things scientifically, therefore, they are meaningless.

I guess you skipped the philosophy class.

[LNC]

Even as machines, we are more than the sum of the parts, because we are responsive agents, interacting, adjusting, and adopting to the environment. We are not just pre-programmed machines, but we are adoptive machines which become parts of the bigger social structure. A person can't use language, unless he is in an environment of other entities to speak to and learn from. Hence the "man-as-machine" image have to be viewed as much more than just a robot/computer image. Our responses to our surroundings affects our future responses, so we are in part individuals and in part parts of the "bigger" machine, which is society, culture, humanity, Earth, life, the Universe...

 

That is a bit of circular reasoning. You cannot just assume that a machine would be able to act in such ways. This instead, points to the fact that we are not just machines. We don't see other machines, even those created by intelligent agents, acting in this way. You assume a great deal in your response for which you have not given evidence of it being merely emergent properties of machines.

[LNC]

So, maybe you could give me examples of Christians who came out of atheism who struggled with leaving atheism behind, because, I have never seen this be the case, and I have heard the stories of many of these conversions.

 

This happens more frequently than people would like to admit, but it is often swept under the rug of having a "Crisis of Faith," rather than seeing it as a struggle between the rational mind and accepting a set of principles that are irrational, malevolent, and self-destructive. I think it is obvious from C.S. Lewis's writings that he struggled intimately with leaving behind his rational past. It is very evident in the Screwtape Letters, how he had to rationalize every twinge of guilt, every nuance of doubt as the work of 'demons.'

 

You are quite mistaken in your reading of Lewis, and I am reading one of his works now, The Abolition of Man. Lewis embraced rational thinking as a Christian and is considered both by Christians and non-Christians as one of the great thinkers of the 20th century, this only after he became a Christian. However, if you have examples of Lewis struggling to leave his atheism behind I would like you to cite those references. You have misread Screwtape Letters if this is what you think he is trying to convey in that work. You may want to give it a reread.

[LNC]

You're using a lot of mumbo jumbo to mask the obvious: genocides are wrong.

 

Are you seriously asking how I know that genocides are wrong? Are you asking me how I know that killing women, children, and non-combatants is wrong? If we really need to "prove" immorality of killing (wholesale killing) little boys and girls, then I'm not sure we have much to talk about. I wouldn't know where to begin. But I wouldn't think much of any moral system if it allowed for killing three year old kids and pregnant women without mercy or even a trial.

 

Yes, that is what I am asking, on what basis do you rest your moral system? Is your moral system objective in nature, and if so, on what basis? Or, do you hold to a subjective moral system, and on what is it based?

 

Now, I agree that genocide or any murder is wrong, but then, I have a reason to believe that objective moral values exist as they derive from a transcendent God. But, I would like to know how you ground your moral values.

[Ouroboros]

That is a bit of circular reasoning. You cannot just assume that a machine would be able to act in such ways. This instead, points to the fact that we are not just machines. We don't see other machines, even those created by intelligent agents, acting in this way. You assume a great deal in your response for which you have not given evidence of it being merely emergent properties of machines.

I thought you believed in the First Cause? Or do you believe Free Will are by definition outside the causal chain?

[LNC]

This is the worst form of sophistry and semantic nitpicking. It's true that atheists generally do not believe with 100% certainty that there is no God. But I'm an atheist, and I can say that my certainty is in the high 90s, the very high 90s. But so what? I'm still an atheist because I don't think there is a God and I wouldn't worship God even if there were a God--which is the more important point.

 

Let's say that someone could prove there is a God. I still wouldn't worship the God of the Bible because I wouldn't know whether the "proved God" is the God of the Bible or the God of the Vedas. I don't see why the God of the Vedas couldn't do all the things (like create the universe or underwrite morality) in much the same way that that the God of the Bible would.

 

Even if someone could demonstrate that the God of the Bible were in fact the "proved God," I still wouldn't wouldn't worship that God because I don't worship facsists. I don't worship genocidaires. He can send me to hell for not worshiping him. That only proves that he is more powerful than I am. It says nothing about his justice, mercy, or lovingkindness--qualities that I would worship, and gladly worship, if I found them in the God of the Bible.

 

Your response is very intersting and very telling. First, you say that you only have 90 something percent certainty that God doesn't exist, which means that it is possible that God does exist. But, more interestingly, you say that even if God does exist, you wouldn't worship him. That says a lot and is a very honest response - thank you for your candor.

 

Yes, the proof of God's existence is a separate question from which God is the true God. Howver, there are good reasons to believe in one over the other. Now, for you to call God a fascists assumes that you have an objective basis on which to make such a judgment, I have asked you already to define that basis, so I won't repeat that request here. God won't send you to hell for not worshiping him, but that is not to say that he doesn't have a valid reason for which we all deserve hell. But, I am curious, suppose that God did exist, what would it take for you to trust in him?

[LNC]

Why are you evading my rather simple question about genocide? For example, in 1 Sam. chapter 15, God authorizes a genocide and the killing of "women, children, and infants." 1 Sam. 15:3. If that's not immoral, what is? Why should I worship a God that ordered the killing of babies?

 

First, I would need to know on what basis you make such a judgment. For, if you don't have a valid basis for this judgment, then the question is moot.

[LNC]

That is your definition of god. It is not Mine. For instance, I consider an omniscient god to be eternally trapped in its own perception of What Was, What Is, What Will Be.

 

OK, then I could not believe or trust in your god as he would not be, by definition, God, but just god. There is a difference.

 

Not so. In My opinion, "meaning" is wholly subjective, with no referent outside the subject consciousness. Our meaning is what we perceive that meaning to be, nothing more and nothing less.

 

In such a scenario, even an illusion of free will would be sufficient to imbue life with meaning; but it goes further than that. Meaning is not time-dependent. It exists in the here-and-now, not in the past and not in the future. And, in My opinion, intentional, conscious existence trumps the free will vs. determinism debate.

 

Then, by your definition, meaning is meaningless. If words only meant what we wanted them to mean, then they would have no ultimate meaning. As you said, you are speaking about living in some sort of illusion, but if that is OK with you...BTW, consciousness is illusion if man is a machine as well.

 

And what part might that be? I don't generally waste time contemplating "who I really am"; I work to discover and express it. If I cannot alter something about Myself, I accept it and work around it. I certainly don't go rooting around in the ethers, looking for an Imaginary Friend to pin up the hems in My being.

 

How can you work to discover and express it without contemplating it? I, by the way, don't deal in the world of imaginary friends either, nor do I spend my time in the world of illusion.

 

I do more than wish, sir. I start trying to make those changes, moment by moment.

 

As for the past... It's gone. I don't waste an inordinate amount of time pretending that I could go back and do things differently. If there's something that I can do in the present to correct a past error, I do; otherwise, I let it go. And for that, I do not need your religion.

 

I don't push religion, just promote relationship.

[LNC]

OK, the ball is in your court, as it were. Please explain how you can have a worldview that includes more than just the material world without the existence of God/gods.

 

Don't rush. Take your time. If you can explain why it was okay for God to order the killing of babies in 1 Samuel 15, I'd be much indebted to you.

 

You are an impatient person aren't you.

 

Post 1 - Yesterday, 07:58 PM

Post 2 - Yesterday, 08:23 PM

Post 3 - Yesterday, 08:40 PM

This post - Yesterday, 08:45 PM

[white_raven23]

I don't push religion, just promote relationship.

 

 

Oh. That's so wonderful!!

 

Hear that everyone??!!

 

It's not a religion at all....it's a relationship!!!

 

That's so fabulous!!!

 

And when I disagree with my "boyfriend", I can expect his justified reaction of dousing me in gasoline, setting me on fire, then telling me it's my fault it happened!

 

Woohoo!

 

Hooray for manipulative and abusive relationships!!

 

You know we all want one!!

 

So glad you came to share the Good News LNC!

[florduh]

It's not a religion, it's a relationship?

 

Well, that's different! Never heard (or said) that before.

 

To think that all these years I just had the wrong interpretation. If only I had known that I never would have left the faith after decades of church, prayer, Bible study and Bible college.

[MathGeek]

Humans really are machines and I have this coming from two evangelical Christians who had a rather thorough understanding of how the human body worked. They are self-sustaining electrical creatures that need certain compounds and chemicals to maintain optimal functioning. Hate to say it, but any religious point of view is interpreted by human beings therefore it is nothing more than a material perspective. Dare I say it is just another humanistic perspective.

 

Furthermore, I ask this of you. If I as a material atheist take up some kind of moral system of belief, why is it automatically inconsistent of me to have one and why am I called a moral parasite? If an atheist some how came up with a moral system based of keen observation of the material world, why will the Christian automatically disregard it?

 

I still can't seem to wrap my head around that one.

 

Interesting. Why would a materialist even care about morality since right and wrong are immaterial concepts and thus really don't exist. Thoughts, ideas, numbers, concepts, don't exist. You cannot measure these things scientifically, therefore, they are meaningless.

 

Wow, I guess I should my love for mathematics out the window. There goes engineering of all kinds and at least for me, a mental pastime. It's meaningless even though I derive pleasure and normalcy from it. I am sorry but I call bullhonkery on this too. Your thinking and my thinking are both derived from some kind of axioms. Since you seem to have a love for philosophy (face it, apologetics is Christian philosophy) as do I, then we both know that the law of non-contradiction is an axiom. We know that 1 + 1 = 2 and it can be demonstrated materially. You believe that God exists as an axiom. You believe that God is all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful as an axiom. You and I are both axiomatic thinkers. Why does my set of existential axioms disqualify me for making up my own morality?

 

Furthermore, Christianity is just as parasitic as atheism is. There are atheists that hold the Bible in decent regard because they agree with the teachings of Jesus, but they also do the same with say Buddha or some other great figure from the past. Christians before Thomas Aquinas held the philosophy of Plato in high regard because he was a theist, and much of what has come out of Christian philosophy has followed from the Platonic tradition. After Thomas Aquinas, much of Aristotlean philosophy has been taken up by the Christian camp as well. Tell me this, aren't Christian philosophers being parasites if they think the Aristotlean ethical golden mean is generally a good idea. In fact, I personally believe that the narrow road Jesus wants Christians to walk is just another way of describing Aristotle's theoretical golden mean of ethical behavior. Since Christianity has "inherited" those ideas, I don't see why atheists can't use religious morality as an example to derive their own. Since Plato and Aristotle followed the Greek pantheon, aren't Christians just being parasites off of their theistic worldview in terms of philosophy?

 

As for the idea that Christianity is a clever plagarism of other pagan religions, if the accusations had any bearing, then Christianity can also be accused of being parasitic in that regard. As I said, I don't think those accusations have any bearing.

[Ouroboros]

It's not a religion at all....it's a relationship!!!

Yes. It's a relationship with imaginary friends... isn't that cute. My imaginary friends name is Bob, what is yours?

[LNC]

Wait a second, I posted my first question at 8:58 pm. But LNC ingored it and responded to somebody else!

 

I guess he's not going in order after all.

 

Maybe he's taking care of the "hard" questions about science and math and chaos theory and all that before he get's to my point.

 

Listen, I am taking these posts in order. There is only one of me and many of you who want me to respond, so you will have to wait your turn. However, in the meantime, before I can even respond to your quesiton, you must let me know what is the basis of your morality so that I can respond appropriately.

 

I may have a chance to check again later, but I have to sign off for now.

 

Thanks.

[white_raven23]

It's not a religion at all....it's a relationship!!!

Yes. It's a relationship with imaginary friends... isn't that cute. My imaginary friends name is Bob, what is yours?

 

 

REINHOLD!!!

 

(Let's see how many Night Court fans we got here)

[shantonu]

Wait a second, I posted my first question at 8:58 pm. But LNC ingored it and responded to somebody else!

 

I guess he's not going in order after all.

 

Maybe he's taking care of the "hard" questions about science and math and chaos theory and all that before he get's to my point.

 

Listen, I am taking these posts in order. There is only one of me and many of you who want me to respond, so you will have to wait your turn. However, in the meantime, before I can even respond to your quesiton, you must let me know what is the basis of your morality so that I can respond appropriately.

 

I may have a chance to check again later, but I have to sign off for now.

 

Thanks.

 

Ummmm. No. I asked you a question, now you're asking me a question before you answer my question. That's hardly fair. I asked you to explain why it was moral for God to order the genocide in 1 Samuel 15:3. And you can't seem to answer a straight question. Instead, you're just wasting time. My "basis" for the astounding conclusion that killing babies is wrong is simply that I've observed that killing babies leads to suffering mothers, and the wail of suffering mothers is enough to convince me that killing babies is wrong and always has been wrong. But what does my basis have to do with it? I think killing babies is wrong. If you don't agree, then say that. If you do think that killing babies is wrong, then explain why 1 Samuel is an exception.

[shantonu]

Now, I agree that genocide or any murder is wrong, but then, I have a reason to believe that objective moral values exist as they derive from a transcendent God. But, I would like to know how you ground your moral values.

 

Really? Well then how do you explain the fact that God ordered a genocide in 1 Samuel chapter 15?

 

Did God command something that was immoral?

[shantonu]

I have to be honest. I think I've got LNC a bit puzzled. Anybody out there want to help him figure out why God ordered the killing of babies? God is a baby-killer. Right? Anyone want to help out our friend LNC?

 

Heeellooooooo is anybody out there????

 

I guess no one wants to help LNC justify the killing of babies. And here I thought atheists would jump at a chance to justify killing babies!

 

Okay, shantonu, since LNC doesn't seem ready to tackle your question, and I'm an atheist, I'm jumping at the chance.

 

Just imagine you're god and you're having a helluva time keeping your people in line. You've shown your control-freak nature by ordering them to do all sorts of atrocious things. But they're still grumbling and whining and everything. You gotta think about what would bind them to your power, absolutely. You gotta think about what would make them toss and turn with nightmares about what they did for you, so they never question you again. Sooooo..... You gotta order them to kill babies! Even tear them right outta their mama's belly! Yeah!

 

 

Yeah. You gotta think like Charles Manson.

 

 

(If this is off-base, LNC, you set me straight, okay?)

 

It's clear he was dodging me. And he continues to dodge me. He's also avoiding you because you're absolutely right about thinking like Charles Manson.

[Neon Genesis]

That is why I always tell people that I am an a-atheist. I don't believe that atheism is true or supported by the available evidence. I typically deal with the historic definition of atheism and the etymological nature of the word.

What historic definition? You keep claiming that the historic definition of atheism is that it's the claim of knowledge that there is no God when you present no evidence for this claim. I'm not aware of any such historical definition being used by anyone other than uninformed religious believers. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary that the historic definition of atheism is that it means disbelief in God as that is how atheists in the past have defined it. http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofat...reethinkers.htm You'd think atheists would know what atheism means better than Christians do, but apparently Christians act like they're God and can decide what atheists think for them. Again, you can disbelieve something is true without knowing that it isn't. A wife can disbelieve her husband is cheating on her without actually knowing whether or not he is but nobody will say the wife is being agnostic towards the status of her husband's relationship with her. They simply say she doesn't believe her husband is cheating on her. I fail to see how this is such a difficult concept to grasp. I can only imagine you're trying to change the definitions because you would lose the debate if you debate the correct definitions because you have no actual evidence for your claims.

 

You must explain how the universe came into existence (i.e., all matter, space, and time) as the best scientific models believe that it did. You must explain the existence of order from disorder and why we can even make sense of a universe that is the product of random undirected processes. You must make sense of moral standards that we consider to be objective (or maybe you don't consider morality to be objective in nature, which would leave you with even bigger problems to solve.) You also refer to logic, which you cannot just assume, you must explain how products of material, natural processes have such a thing as logic; you must explain its ontology and not just assume it as it makes no sense to even have logic arise from random processes. I don't make non-falsifiable claims, God is a completely falsfiable assertion according to the likes of Richard Dawkins; however, before you can falsify the "God hypothesis" as many call it, you must explain many other phenomena by random, natural processes alone.

I fail to see why I must do so. I'm not a philosopher or a scientist. You seem to keep forgetting that there's a third option that we don't know the answer to all these questions. But apparently, the phrase "I don't know" is a concept that you can't grasp. But just because we don't know all the answers about the origins of the universe is no reason to proclaim God must have done it. If I was in school and couldn't figure out how to solve a math problem, would the teacher let me give up and say that God did it as an answer to a math problem I couldn't understand? What if doctors didn't try to bother to understand what causes diseases and sickness and said God must have done it and that you should repent of your sins to heal yourself as a reason instead of trying to research the real cause of the illness and trying to create a medicine to or surgery to heal it?

 

Unless you're insane, you would likely find such a reaction from a doctor to be inexcusable and would hope they could find a cure. For some reason though, when it comes to the origins of the universe, if we can't understand how something works, then we can be excused and be lazy and simply say God must have done it. I don't know about Yahweh, but if I was God and I created the universe, I would feel insulted that my creations would stop trying to learn about the way my universe works and would want them to try and find the answers themselves. For some reason though, Yahweh is content with underachiever followers who are not interested in learning about his universe. Is that really a way to show gratitude to God?

 

Furthermore, if I'm not let off the hook if I can't explain how everything works right then and there, then neither are you let off the hook because you still have to explain away who created God. If the universe is so complex and orderly that it had to have been created by God in order to exist, then God would be just as complex as his creation. If complex things need creators in order to exist, since God would have to be as complex as his creation, then who was the creator that created God? If a complex God can exist without a creator, then there's no reason why the universe can't do the same and your argument fails. The same thing applies to morality. If we need a creator to have morality, then who gave God his sense of morality if God wasn't created? And if God can have morality without being created, why can't we? Also, if God gave us morality and logic, then why is it that some humans are immoral and some humans are illogical? Shouldn't all humans be moral and logical then if God gave it to us? Did God just forget to give morality and logic to some people? And if our morality and logic comes from God, why do we need to believe in the bible if we got it directly from God? Wouldn't the bible be meaningless then? And even if there was a god who created the universe, I fail to see why it's yours.

 

Two thoughts here. First, even if the Bible had contradictions, which I have not been convinced of, it would not disprove the existence of God. Second, please let me know your most troubling apparent contradiction so that I can examine whether it is a contradiction.

The contradictions of the bible may not disprove the existence of God, but it would certainly disprove a literal belief in the Christian god and would disprove the bible as a source of reliable authority. As for contradictions, if the god of the bible is so perfect and all-powerful, please explain why God lost to iron chariots in Judges 1:19

So the LORD was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.

Doesn't this prove God is not all-powerful if God could lose to iron chariots?

 

That was not my point. I said that I never have known a person who became a Christian who has ever struggled in leaving behind atheism. From the posts on this website, we already have much evidence of people struggling to leave Christianity. I have already made clear that not everyone who leaves Christianity struggles; however, no one in my knowledge has ever struggled in leaving atheism.

Did it ever occur to you that you might know any because most atheists wouldn't be gullible enough to believe in Christianity in the first place or reconvert to Christianity after later becoming atheists? Doesn't the lack of atheists that struggle in converting to Christianity prove that Christianity isn't true? If Christianity was so obviously the truth, wouldn't there be more atheists who convert to Christianity in general? Why is it that the majority of people who convert to Christianity are people who already have the predisposition to believe in God and the supernatural? Surely if Christianity was obviously the truth, we would see more atheist converts in general? You still have not explained how struggling to deconvert from Christianity proves that it's true. You simply say it is because you say so. Also, just because you might not know any examples of struggling Christian converts doesn't mean there aren't any out there. Have you met every person on Earth to claim that there aren't any? Are you so all-knowing and all-powerful that you know what every Christian thinks at all times? I also think it's hypocritical for you to say there are no struggling Christians but then when we give examples of some in this thread, you turn around and say they weren't true Christians. That's called circular reasoning, you know. You can't on the one hand say there are no struggling Christians but on the other hand say struggling Christians aren't true Christians. They either are or they aren't. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's intellectually dishonest and makes you a liar.

 

I don't know anyone who makes the claim that if this quote is authentic it means that the Bible is the innerant word of God. However, if that passage is authentic, it is evidence that Jesus was a historical person, contrary to claims of people these days who would deny that fact. If Jesus was resurrected, as I believe he was, then it changes everything. It confirms the things that he said about himself, including that he was God. Now, we base the resurrection on many accounts recorded by various people from different backgrounds. What it means is that Jesus final statement "It is finished" which literally means "paid in full" is true and our separation from God is now bridged allowing us to be in relationship with the Creator of the universe, including us. That is the good news of the Bible.

You're being hypocritical again. On the one hand, you admit that quote doesn't prove the inerrancy of the bible, but on the other hand, you turn around and say this is proof that Jesus is God when this quote says no such thing about Jesus being God. Furthermore, nowhere in the bible does Jesus actually say that he's God. That's just something the Council of Nicaea made up but there's no biblical justification for the Trinity at all.

 

It absolutely makes sense. When someone says we have no doctrines, what is that but a doctrine, that is basic logic.

No it does not make sense. You don't believe in Santa Claus, right? But does that mean your disbelief in Santa Claus has any doctrines? If your disbelief in Santa Claus is a doctrine because not having any doctrines is a doctrine itself, then are you admitting you're following a different doctrine than the bible and that you belong to the religion of the non-believers of Santa Claus? Now do you realize how illogical your argument is?

 

Can you tell me what exists beyond the material realm from your perspective? Are you claiming that the supernatural exists? Because that is all that can lie beyond the natural realm. Now, if there is no realm beyond the material realm, which is a basic assumption of atheism, then man is the sum of his parts and controlled by his DNA. That is why so many people want to find a gene to explain all sorts of behavior that we want to rationalize. My view, on the other hand, allows for the possibility of man being a free agent, with the ability to make real decisions because we have a spiritual dimension that is not bound by our DNA. BTW, I am not a "Fundie" so I don't see the need to answer your arguments in that regard as they don't apply to me or my beliefs. None of what you said is what I believe.

But you believe that atheists are somehow inherently more immoral than Christians and that we deserve to be punished by the wrath of God, right? And do you believe that God will reward Christians if they follow a rulebook to life based on out-dated morals and science? If you do, then that is a materialistic belief because then you'd only be following God for the sake of a system of rewards and punishments, not because you actually believe in the words of Jesus or because you care about saving others. If you only believe in God so you can get brownie points in heaven, please explain to me how that is not a materialistic belief. And can you please stop equating materialism with economic materialism as if they were the same thing? Because I hope you know that they aren't and it makes you look intellectually dishonest. Your argument that we're slaves to our DNA makes no sense either. If we're slaves to DNA, then since God created our DNA, do you admit God created us to be slaves to DNA?

 

But, you believe things about God and those beliefs are either true or false (logical law of non-contradiction and excluded middle), so you may have false beliefs in which you have been indoctrinated by some of the atheist websites that I am sure you peruse. So, saying you don't believe in God is not the same as saying that you don't believe anything about God. You have proved that this is not the case even in the post to which I am responding. I hope that I have made myself clear.

So since you have beliefs about Islam that you have been indoctrinated in by other Christians who disbelieve in Islam, then you admit that your disbelief in Islam is a religion and that you belong to a religion other than Christianity. And since believing in a different religion is a sin in the bible, if you believe in the religion of non-belief in Islam, then you've just admitted you've committed the sin of not believing in Islam. Congratulations, you've just condemned yourself to hell.

[Antlerman]

Guys look, LNC can go on and on about science and methods of proof or whatever, but he can't account for the simplest thing: if the Bible is trustworthy, then God must have sanctioned the killing of infants, even when other alternatives were obvious (such as adopting the infants).

I don't know if you saw this, but since it relates, this is a video my friend and classmate from Bible College made on this subject. He had me do the voice over's of God in this, ordering genocide and whatnot. It was quite a clever project he did for school. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=23449 You might enjoy it.

 

What kind of God is that?There doesn't seem to be anything "supreme" about his wisdom. He seems to lack common sense and prudence.

 

I mean, we can go on and on. Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai with really, really, really important moral rules--rules that come from the mouth of God Himself. And what are they? Kant's Categorical Imperative? No. Mill's Utilitarianism? No. Jesus's Golden Rule? No. Almighty God, after having gotten the Israelites attention by doing all these miracles, splitting the seas, and whatnot came up with the following rule: "Don't steal goats."

 

Therefore, I don't see what use there is engaging with LNC on all these technical matters if the simple stuff remains a complete mystery. Explain why God picked out a tiny sliver of humanity to be the "chosen" rather than, say, the Chinese. Explain why it's okay to kill infants yet it's not okay to steal goats or donkeys or whatever. Explain why God thought it so important that people not steal goats that he said "don't steal goats," intead of just saying "don't steal." In fact, explain why God spent a whole commandment on "don't steal," when it's pretty obvious that you shoudn't steal. None of this makes any sense. These aren't rules to live by, they're just crap.

 

Really folks, the whole thing is quite silly (if taken too literally). Of course, as many of you know, I think many parts of the Bible are wonderful, the Book of Job, the Gospel of Luke, some of the Psalms. But the inerrant Word of God? Just read the thing and you'll see it can't possibly be that.

Yes, of course I know the point you make. To pull back and look at the bigger picture of what's being said, what the end suggests is meaningful. But there is also the point of those hung up on the "strong-sounding" arguments that forces them to ignore the bigger picture. You're right to be sure, but I also know how these things are road blocks. Afterall, why do you think they manufacture them in the first place, if they didn't have some impact?

[shantonu]

This is the worst form of sophistry and semantic nitpicking. It's true that atheists generally do not believe with 100% certainty that there is no God. But I'm an atheist, and I can say that my certainty is in the high 90s, the very high 90s. But so what? I'm still an atheist because I don't think there is a God and I wouldn't worship God even if there were a God--which is the more important point.

 

Let's say that someone could prove there is a God. I still wouldn't worship the God of the Bible because I wouldn't know whether the "proved God" is the God of the Bible or the God of the Vedas. I don't see why the God of the Vedas couldn't do all the things (like create the universe or underwrite morality) in much the same way that that the God of the Bible would.

 

Even if someone could demonstrate that the God of the Bible were in fact the "proved God," I still wouldn't wouldn't worship that God because I don't worship facsists. I don't worship genocidaires. He can send me to hell for not worshiping him. That only proves that he is more powerful than I am. It says nothing about his justice, mercy, or lovingkindness--qualities that I would worship, and gladly worship, if I found them in the God of the Bible.

 

Your response is very intersting and very telling. First, you say that you only have 90 something percent certainty that God doesn't exist, which means that it is possible that God does exist. But, more interestingly, you say that even if God does exist, you wouldn't worship him. That says a lot and is a very honest response - thank you for your candor.

 

Yes, the proof of God's existence is a separate question from which God is the true God. Howver, there are good reasons to believe in one over the other. Now, for you to call God a fascists assumes that you have an objective basis on which to make such a judgment, I have asked you already to define that basis, so I won't repeat that request here. God won't send you to hell for not worshiping him, but that is not to say that he doesn't have a valid reason for which we all deserve hell. But, I am curious, suppose that God did exist, what would it take for you to trust in him?

 

I already told you what it would take for me to trust in him. He must behave morally. Given that the Bible shows ample evidence of God's immorality, God must perform a miracle. The miracle I demand is that he demonstrate that all of the immoral commandments (such as those I've described as well as those in Joshua and elsewhere) were just a misunderstanding.

 

God, for example, has to make a statue talk, or a pillar of fire or a burning bush talk and proclaim that killing babies is wrong, and that he never ordered any genocides, and that he never killed off the first born of the Egyptians, and that he never picked out a single tiny group of people to be "favored," and that he never supported slavery or the subordination of women, or the murder of gay people, and that he loves all human beings and wants to teach us how to live in harmony and brotherhood, and that while he must punish us if we do wrong, he would not punish us forever because he wants only to teach us properly, and that all of the texts contrary to this were just misguided human interpolations and edits and that all that stuff was just one giant mistake.

 

If God were to do that, I would trust in him. More than that, I would gladly trust and worship him.

[shantonu]

Guys look, LNC can go on and on about science and methods of proof or whatever, but he can't account for the simplest thing: if the Bible is trustworthy, then God must have sanctioned the killing of infants, even when other alternatives were obvious (such as adopting the infants).

I don't know if you saw this, but since it relates, this is a video my friend and classmate from Bible College made on this subject. He had me do the voice over's of God in this, ordering genocide and whatnot. It was quite a clever project he did for school. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=23449 You might enjoy it.

 

What kind of God is that?There doesn't seem to be anything "supreme" about his wisdom. He seems to lack common sense and prudence.

 

I mean, we can go on and on. Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai with really, really, really important moral rules--rules that come from the mouth of God Himself. And what are they? Kant's Categorical Imperative? No. Mill's Utilitarianism? No. Jesus's Golden Rule? No. Almighty God, after having gotten the Israelites attention by doing all these miracles, splitting the seas, and whatnot came up with the following rule: "Don't steal goats."

 

Therefore, I don't see what use there is engaging with LNC on all these technical matters if the simple stuff remains a complete mystery. Explain why God picked out a tiny sliver of humanity to be the "chosen" rather than, say, the Chinese. Explain why it's okay to kill infants yet it's not okay to steal goats or donkeys or whatever. Explain why God thought it so important that people not steal goats that he said "don't steal goats," intead of just saying "don't steal." In fact, explain why God spent a whole commandment on "don't steal," when it's pretty obvious that you shoudn't steal. None of this makes any sense. These aren't rules to live by, they're just crap.

 

Really folks, the whole thing is quite silly (if taken too literally). Of course, as many of you know, I think many parts of the Bible are wonderful, the Book of Job, the Gospel of Luke, some of the Psalms. But the inerrant Word of God? Just read the thing and you'll see it can't possibly be that.

Yes, of course I know the point you make. To pull back and look at the bigger picture of what's being said, what the end suggests is meaningful. But there is also the point of those hung up on the "strong-sounding" arguments that forces them to ignore the bigger picture. You're right to be sure, but I also know how these things are road blocks. Afterall, why do you think they manufacture them in the first place, if they didn't have some impact?

 

Thanks. I sort of have it on in the background. I'll watch it carefully soon. It's an hour long so I may have to check it later since I have a lot of work right now.

[Antlerman]

Thanks. I sort of have it on in the background. I'll watch it carefully soon. It's an hour long so I may have to check it later since I have a lot of work right now.

Yeah, I didn't warn you. It's long. I was getting pretty drunk when I was doing God's voice in it. At one point, I burst out into uncontrollable laughter when I read this verse from De. 25:11-12,

 

"

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

"

 

The total absurdity of this, along with my 6 shots of tequila, sent me into this uncontrollable laughter. He's got the blooper of it, but never posted it. I wish he would. I think it underscores your point eloquently. It's utterly laughable.

[Justin]

I will ask it again, is it because of truth that the ex-followers of a man who proclaimed to be christ returned in the flesh are saddened at leaving him? Feeling guilty about throwing it all away and feeling like they missed out on the intergalactic space journey on some far flung comet to some magical paradise?

 

As for specific claims and evidence, go to godvsthebible.com and Bibleorigins.com. Or, perhaps you need to pick up a science book as the bulk of it will go against scripture. A book on evolution, geology, natural history, paleontology, archeology or astronomy.

 

I am not sure what your question is asking. Maybe, you can rephrase it.

 

As for scientific claims and evidence, I have picked up many science books and none of them seem to go against the Bible, but if you know of where it might, I would be happy to hear. Maybe you could answer the questions for which I have been looking for a naturalistic answer. From where did the universe come? How did it begin? How did life begin from non-life? I will leave it at those two and if you can answer these, we can move on to others.

 

LOL, whats not to get? One more time, simplified just for you. The saddness and loss that people feel after leaving a cult. What is that about?

 

No science book goes against the Bible, huh. So you were reading and when you got to the age of the earth and the universe and evolution, you just stuck your fingers in your ears and closed you eyes and shouted, "Not listening, blah blah blah, not going to listen"?

 

As for how life formed, nobody can be certain about it for there is nothing left that can be analysized or studied Maybe this will help you out. http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vo...-warm-pond.html

 

As for the universe: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070...m_universe.html

 

To sum it up, no one knows exactly for sure. Like i said before, there isn't anything left to go by. However, this is no reason to just give up and assume that it was all magic and that a supernatural sky man created it all by merely blinking, or wait, he didn't blink did he, he did it in six days. Six days to do what a typical, perfect, omnipotent god could do in an instant.

[shantonu]

I will ask it again, is it because of truth that the ex-followers of a man who proclaimed to be christ returned in the flesh are saddened at leaving him? Feeling guilty about throwing it all away and feeling like they missed out on the intergalactic space journey on some far flung comet to some magical paradise?

 

As for specific claims and evidence, go to godvsthebible.com and Bibleorigins.com. Or, perhaps you need to pick up a science book as the bulk of it will go against scripture. A book on evolution, geology, natural history, paleontology, archeology or astronomy.

 

I am not sure what your question is asking. Maybe, you can rephrase it.

 

As for scientific claims and evidence, I have picked up many science books and none of them seem to go against the Bible, but if you know of where it might, I would be happy to hear. Maybe you could answer the questions for which I have been looking for a naturalistic answer. From where did the universe come? How did it begin? How did life begin from non-life? I will leave it at those two and if you can answer these, we can move on to others.

 

LOL, whats not to get? One more time, simplified just for you. The saddness and loss that people feel after leaving a cult. What is that about?

 

No science book goes against the Bible, huh. So you were reading and when you got to the age of the earth and the universe and evolution, you just stuck your fingers in your ears and closed you eyes and shouted, "Not listening, blah blah blah, not going to listen"?

 

As for how life formed, nobody can be certain about it for there is nothing left that can be analysized or studied Maybe this will help you out. http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vo...-warm-pond.html

 

As for the universe: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070...m_universe.html

 

To sum it up, no one knows exactly for sure. Like i said before, there isn't anything left to go by. However, this is no reason to just give up and assume that it was all magic and that a supernatural sky man created it all by merely blinking, or wait, he didn't blink did he, he did it in six days. Six days to do what a typical, perfect, omnipotent god could do in an instant.

 

With sympathy and respect, I think your agrument just lets LNC off the hook. Even if the Bible were 100% scientifically accurate, it still wouldn't explain the absurdity of the law that Antlerman posted above from Deuteronomy, "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

 

 

Yet this bizzare rule is supposed to represent the "Word of God." And it doesn't help to say "well we don't follow that rule today because of Paul" because that doesn't change the absurdity of the rule. It was always absurd; it was absurd when it was first proposed.

 

The Bible, if taken as the inerrant Word of God, falls apart on its own terms without any help from science.