If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?
Offline In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice.
Do you lead an attack on a non existent being?
Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable.
At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist.
Richard Wurmbrand
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
- Login to post comments
Offline caposkia wrote:it is as much as it's good reason to cast doubt on most of history of that time. see, the non-consequentials you speak of are common in texts of history... so either we take that view universally and we really have no history to understand or we have to accept that the non-consequentials really are just that and that what matters is the contextual story and not the details in between that don't change the storyline.
Every historian would disagree with you. Historians spend a significant amount of time studying inconsequential details. Did you know that the pilgrims didn't really wear buckles on their hats? Completely inconsequential, but by studying that little detail you can learn that much of the mythology surrounding the Pilgrims and the story of Thanksgiving is absolutely false. I can't remember exactly why I had become interested in belt buckles on pilgrims hats, but it led me down the rabbit hole to learn that pretty much everything I learned about Pilgrims in grade school was wrong. And that the myth of the buckles on the hat were of the same origin of several falsehoods about the pilgrims which is widely taught in grade schools throughout American as historical fact. And because of my research about the buckles, I learned that the entire storyline that had been presented to me was fiction.
yet they still came to america, settled and had feasts. Most Americans would be shocked to find that Turkey and cranberry sauce was never a part of their feasts however. Anyway, sidetrack.
Point and case, the event still took place regardless of the myth that has been put into it. The purpose of the feast for us today still stands in memory of what they did so that we can have the freedom we have today regardless of what it originally was. Therefore I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say the entire storyline that had been presented was fiction... then again, I don't know what your school taught you. It may have been. I would also claim that there was more fiction put into those stories and the likes of Paul Bunyon and John Chapman (Johnny Appleseed) than the scripture stories that strictly deal with common errors of the time.
caposkia wrote:Considering the topic of drowning people in the Noah flood, yes, we cannot back that up in history, however there are many aspects of scripture that has been supported in history, so much so that it's getting harder and harder to suggest other parts that have no support couldn't be accurate. It's almost impossible to find sufficient evidence of a comment made by someone so long ago. But what follows through is what you see. IOW, if God is real, has he since destroyed humanity???
Really? Name one supernatural aspect of the bible that is supported by history. Just one.
So you decided to take what I said above and turn it around to make it look like I was claiming I can prove a supernatural event vs. the claim that there are many aspects in general supported? Ok sure. Why not.
Is archaeology a part of history? sure why not right? ok, so the parting of the Red Sea. Archaeology has shown a land ridge in the general location that is understood to be the place where Moses and His people crossed. From here there are a few theories as to exactly what happened. Historical weather patterns show that there's a particular wind that causes the water to move like tides, but a bit more rapidly and with certain gusts could have laid bare the land ridge that is typically under water. Another theory is based around Archaeological evidence of a volcano that errupted within the vacinity close enough to cause a tsunami type effect in the water which would first draw the water back, then after a period of time rush the water back in... this one sounds a lot like the story. IF you google underwater land bridge in the red sea, you'll find a lot of results that there is in fact this land bridge. The historical theories of exactly what happened in the story are searchable too.
So I'm only on the first page of the Bible and already I shouldn't believe it any more than I believe Seabiscuit because of "poetic license". What if God saying all the people were evil was just poetic license?
was that part still Hebrew poetry? Then again, poetic licence can change the order of events, or specific wording, but still typically sticks to the core. If we want to go that far, then we can say it's poetic licence to say that God utterly destroyed humanity and therefore only some survived... all rules are out the window right? That's not exactly how poetic licence works. You're comparing an order question to a magnitude question.
Yet you claim that when God is reported as saying something that I should believe that God did in fact say it. So insofar as quotes from God, you ARE claiming it is an accurate historical record.
absolutely, but you're trying to take it to the next level and say that if it is a historical record, every aspect of it has to be 100% accurate and fully detailed and it was not written to be that way. iT was written to portray a series of events in a particular blood line.
Is there even a question that most people are ignorant? As individuals, humans remain extremely ignorant. However, as a group we are far less ignorant than we were back then. We have the tools to learn information much more easily. Unfortunately, people often don't use them. For example, your assertion above that plants could have existed before the sun is amazingly ignorant. This could easily be confirmed by googling and reading up on the latest research about the nature of the sun and the origin of plant life on Earth where you will find thousands of well researched scientific journals on these subjects. If you are skeptical, you will have access to most of the raw data, the experiments conducted, the results and criticism from other scientists all from the comfort of your home. Instead, you prefer to remain ignorant and that preference puts you with the majority.
Was the sun there though? You make absolute claims out of ignorance. for example, if it is poetic licence, then the light at the beginning before anything was created was the sun and the poetic licence mentioned the creation of it after the fact. Or despite the creation of the sun, if God is real, that would make this story more likely and nothing in Google can answer for me what the light was at the beginning of the story before the sun was created, so there's no reason to believe that the light in the story was anything that could not produce photosynthesis in plants. considering how far back it could have taken place and the many billions of stars that are in our galaxy, it wouldn't be out of the question to assume another star was close enough by to start the process of life before the sun took over. (I have nothing to back that up, it's just a random guess) If you find something though, let me know.
caposkia wrote:unfortunately for that case you post above, the more puzzle pieces I find, the clearer scripture is for me. i don't stick to any "original guess" as you say. My original guess would have left me a non-believer.
Bullshit. I pointed out the problems with the flood occurring 200,000 years ago then provided archaeological evidence and you changed the story to 2 million years ago. You are assuming that the flood happened and have gone at great lengths to rationalize it. I pointed out that it wasn't in any of the puzzle pieces we have, so you looked for an era where we have fewer puzzle pieces and claimed it happened there.
Bullshit? really? Are you spying on me? YOu know that the puzzle pieces I've found have not made scripture clearer to me? I dont' know who you've been spying on, but it's not me. What I said is true.
Now for your other claim. You are the one who claimed it would have happened so long ago based on evidences you presented. After reviewing what you researched, I agreed it was a possibility. Again, you are the one that concluded the 2 million years, not me. If you are now doubting your own research I must ask why.
YOu also claim I went to great lengths to rationalize it. I've only gone in lengths to question what you think is true. From there you've concluded that I've been working hard to rationalize something. If so, it's been a pretty easy trip.
You should be cautions accepting everything you have been taught in history. You will find that much of what is taught in grade school and high school is false. A good historian never relies on a single source before determining something is historical fact. They draw on numerous sources and seek archaeological evidence to support them.
I'm glad you see that.
Where does history show that Noah's flood happened?
archaeology shows that such severe floods are possible
What rules?
mythical rules. e.g. mythical gods typically don't care about people and more typically don't interfere in the favor of people for starters.
caposkia wrote:for me, it's consistent with what I know of God. For example.. I knew when growing up in a catholic church that this is not who God is. I also knew when my dad became a JW that this is not who God is. Everything I was taught and everything I knew taught me about a different God than I know now. scripture taught me of the God I know now and I knew that God before I had read a single word. It wasn't my upbringing that taught me that, so what was it?
Of course it is consistent with what you know of God. Everything you know of God comes from the bible and your interpretation of it. If you had grown up in an isolated culture that didn't have contact with any Christians you would not know anything of god.
funny considering that when I started reading the scriptures, I learned of a God that was not taught by my church.
Considering what you said about not having contact with Christians... this is not true. Perspectives teaches about untapped cultures who when found had god beliefs... one that I learned about in Africa had parallels to the Christian God. They claimed to know this god, but of course dont' know of the westernization of the religion or even of Jesus Christ, just of that God.
caposkia wrote:Mythology is often based on a true story
Mythology often uses real people
mythology often uses real places
mythology often uses real events
...
When then is an assumed mythological story considered fact?
When there is evidence that it is fact.
like....
If the judge ordered the child killed I would blame the judge.
so the child dies and the parent lives?
When he decided to kill them. When our society kills a parent we generally accept that it is our responsibility to provide care for the child. We don't put someone on death row and throw their kid on the street to fend for themselves. (or as God did, strap the kid into the electric chair next to daddy)
the problem in this story is there was no society left for the child to go to... everyone was to be killed.
you can also look at it as God did take responsibility and care for the child. You again are looking at death as the end, but for God to kill the children in this scenario would be to take them into His presence and take care of them. If God is real and this story is real, then you have to admit this is a realistic perspective.
Why would god ingrain a morality that makes me find him repulsive?
the morality doesn't make you find Him respulsive, your perspective does.
Kids often don't find such acts terrible, indeed kids tend to be quite gleeful about the prospect of killing. We are socialized into our morality.
my 3 year old was horrified when he happened to catch a glimpse of someone getting hurt on tv. I don't mean a 3 stooges eye poke, i mean someone getting in physical trouble... don't worry, wasn't letting him watch mature material, it was literally something the rest of us wouldn't think twice about, but to him it was a horror. the gleeful aspect comes with more experience watching movies and life experience where it is seen as comical when someone gets hurt in slapstick movies.
Since children generally don't have a sexual drive they aren't likely to rape anyone. But yeah, kids are born with a pretty blank moral slate. They are socialized into morality and then develop their own based on their experiences, preferences and values. How does that ruin my case against God's morality? My claim is that morality is subjective and has changed dramatically over time and I argue that those changes are for the better. In biblical times, rape in war was not only acceptable, it was expected as a reward. In biblical times, slavery was common and viewed as right. In our times, we call these things immoral. I think that change makes for a more pleasant society to live in, don't you?
You claim that morality is objective from God and hasn't changed since biblical times.
I do and according to scripture, God was never ok with any of that. The times don't reflect Gods morals. The Laws do.
Yet another story where God killed innocents.
actually, he allowed another entity to kill innocents, regardless their death in context of the story is vague. Job had more children born to him... were some of them the same children? if so they never actually were killed by your standards... if not, then their death was for a greater cause... unless you believe it's immoral for one to put their own life on the line to save others.
If our government were to bomb Syria and kill civilians I would find the action immoral even though they are effectively acting as judge and executioner. (Why they even warned them!) I apparently don't give judges the same leeway to murder innocents that you do. You clearly have a very perverse morality.
I don't give judges leeway to murder... but amidst the conversation you also have offered the son of pharaoh up for death vs. all the rest of the children and leaving the pharaoh alive. Thus I could say your morality is perverse, but I'm willing to bet you had a better intention behind it.... (just for clarification to others reading along, this was reference to a quote in another thread)
- Login to post comments
No it simply isn't. Your wording is so imprecise that it's difficult to tell what you even mean, but let me try to understand. You are saying that by not considering the bible (or any scripture) to even be possibly authentic, I am engaging in special pleading? Because if that's what you say, then you are wrong about what special pleading is. Special pleading has to do specifically with making an exception. What exception am I making?
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
Every historian would disagree with you. Historians spend a significant amount of time studying inconsequential details. Did you know that the pilgrims didn't really wear buckles on their hats? Completely inconsequential, but by studying that little detail you can learn that much of the mythology surrounding the Pilgrims and the story of Thanksgiving is absolutely false. I can't remember exactly why I had become interested in belt buckles on pilgrims hats, but it led me down the rabbit hole to learn that pretty much everything I learned about Pilgrims in grade school was wrong. And that the myth of the buckles on the hat were of the same origin of several falsehoods about the pilgrims which is widely taught in grade schools throughout American as historical fact. And because of my research about the buckles, I learned that the entire storyline that had been presented to me was fiction.
Really? Name one supernatural aspect of the bible that is supported by history. Just one.
So I'm only on the first page of the Bible and already I shouldn't believe it any more than I believe Seabiscuit because of "poetic license". What if God saying all the people were evil was just poetic license?
Yet you claim that when God is reported as saying something that I should believe that God did in fact say it. So insofar as quotes from God, you ARE claiming it is an accurate historical record.
Is there even a question that most people are ignorant? As individuals, humans remain extremely ignorant. However, as a group we are far less ignorant than we were back then. We have the tools to learn information much more easily. Unfortunately, people often don't use them. For example, your assertion above that plants could have existed before the sun is amazingly ignorant. This could easily be confirmed by googling and reading up on the latest research about the nature of the sun and the origin of plant life on Earth where you will find thousands of well researched scientific journals on these subjects. If you are skeptical, you will have access to most of the raw data, the experiments conducted, the results and criticism from other scientists all from the comfort of your home. Instead, you prefer to remain ignorant and that preference puts you with the majority.
Bullshit. I pointed out the problems with the flood occurring 200,000 years ago then provided archaeological evidence and you changed the story to 2 million years ago. You are assuming that the flood happened and have gone at great lengths to rationalize it. I pointed out that it wasn't in any of the puzzle pieces we have, so you looked for an era where we have fewer puzzle pieces and claimed it happened there.
You should be cautions accepting everything you have been taught in history. You will find that much of what is taught in grade school and high school is false. A good historian never relies on a single source before determining something is historical fact. They draw on numerous sources and seek archaeological evidence to support them.
Where does history show that Noah's flood happened?
What rules?
Of course it is consistent with what you know of God. Everything you know of God comes from the bible and your interpretation of it. If you had grown up in an isolated culture that didn't have contact with any Christians you would not know anything of god.
When there is evidence that it is fact.
If the judge ordered the child killed I would blame the judge.
When he decided to kill them. When our society kills a parent we generally accept that it is our responsibility to provide care for the child. We don't put someone on death row and throw their kid on the street to fend for themselves. (or as God did, strap the kid into the electric chair next to daddy)
Why would god ingrain a morality that makes me find him repulsive?
Kids often don't find such acts terrible, indeed kids tend to be quite gleeful about the prospect of killing. We are socialized into our morality.
Since children generally don't have a sexual drive they aren't likely to rape anyone. But yeah, kids are born with a pretty blank moral slate. They are socialized into morality and then develop their own based on their experiences, preferences and values. How does that ruin my case against God's morality? My claim is that morality is subjective and has changed dramatically over time and I argue that those changes are for the better. In biblical times, rape in war was not only acceptable, it was expected as a reward. In biblical times, slavery was common and viewed as right. In our times, we call these things immoral. I think that change makes for a more pleasant society to live in, don't you?
You claim that morality is objective from God and hasn't changed since biblical times.
Yet another story where God killed innocents.
If our government were to bomb Syria and kill civilians I would find the action immoral even though they are effectively acting as judge and executioner. (Why they even warned them!) I apparently don't give judges the same leeway to murder innocents that you do. You clearly have a very perverse morality.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Because the propagation of ignorance is a bad thing, that's why, especially when accompanied by the discrediting of science-based knowledge - as it often is by the fundies.
____________________________________________________________
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." – Christopher Hitchens
Ridiculous. You aren't an adult who understands highschool science, so even if such a summary of chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, algebra, and a few dozen other subjects were possible (and it isn't), you wouldn't understand it anyway.
You are missing years of education that would be required to understand how wrong you are and I'm not willing to provide that education without the same paycheque any teacher or tutor would receive for doing so.
Good try though.. want another go at it?
You think you do, but you don't. Because then you said this:
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
If you had understood, you wouldn't have said that.
Your specialty.
Yes, I have. Nothing you say will change the facts, and continuing on your childish and delusional course merely shows your foolishness repeatedly. So please do continue. Every now and then I'll mention which page I refuted the equation on so newcomers can find it easily and join me in laughing at your delusions. I'll start now.
For anyone who cares to see how I easily and absolutely ripped his equation apart; Page 13, post #628 is the beginning of a short series of refutations. The equation itself can be found (and laughed at) on the same page, post #626. I didn't bother refuting every part of the equation, because it wasn't necessary; as anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge can attest to.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It also has to do with ignoring the counter evidence, which is the part I feel you fall under. See Wiki on this (search special pleading)