philh

"There is a world of difference between God's admonishment to the King Cyrus that He (God) can either bless the king or curse him, and God claiming that he (God) is responsible for all calamities. " Just becuase you say so, doesnt make it so. Why is there a difference? God was describing himself to Cyrus , hes talking about his own qualities not just how they apply to Cyrus. Are you seriously implying that god created light and darkness only for Cyrus? now that would be laughable. Of course when god says to Cyrus I create the light and i create the darkness hes telling Cyrus that he is the creator of all things. I'll guess you dont feel uncomfortable with god being the creator of light and darkness. So why is the meaning suddenly changed when he says I create evil/calamity ? So Im afriad the verse is not out of context. Its the convenient get out clause for all biblical passages you dont like isnt it? Or do you prefer to just arrogantly assume only you know the true meaning of the bible? If only we all had your amazing undersanding of the bible. But you fail to get it, other people have studied the bible (myself included) and they dont all get the same conclusion. Perhpas thats why there are thousands of different denominations of Christian, perhaps that why Christians have fought Jews, Protestants have fought Chrstians;they are all using the bible . And of coure there are many biblical scholars who are atheists. But of course the problem must be with them , you fail to conider the possibility that perhaps the problem is with the text itself.

"Why is God responsible? Over 22 billion dollars is spent on makeup -- think that might feed a few people? " Maybe god didnt install a universal morality in us after all eh ? Maybe people assume god is responsible for suffering in the world becuase it says so in the bible: Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Now Ive heard some Christian apologists give the argument that the Hebrew word rah can just easily refer to calamity but it makes no difference, its all suffering and in the bible god claims responsibility. Is god a liar?

Of course Im open to the possibility that god exists. You forget I was brought up Jewish and believed quite strongy when I was younger. I would love it if there were an after life, but there is no evidence. I rejected the claims of religion becuase I realised that they were unfounded. There is no evidence for god. present the evidence and ill accept it, but so far youve presented nothing. I remember my Rabbi telling me he could prove god existed, I eagerly awaited his response and all he came up with was the lame old William Paley design argument. It was so pathetic. "You have never studied soteriology either. It explains it quite well. But you'd rather have it in a snippit that while fits in a forum thread that doesn't do it justice. Rather it is simply compared to "fairyology" Not an intellectually honest approach. IMHO. It is the same way many fundies ignore science. " Why should I study soteriology? What justifies such authority you vest in it? If someone says you dont understand Quanutm mechanics you should just accept it. Well i could have some sympathy with that for two reasons: 1) Physicists can rightly point to huge achievements that have been made because of understanding of quantum mechanicss. Nuclear power, the laser, polaroid sunnglasses, modern computers etc etc . alll of these arise from ou understanding of quantum mechanics. So there is some justification in investing some authority in the study of quantum mechanics. 2) Conclusion firmly drawn upon in QM are subject to very thorough testing and repeatability. Look at the LEC at CERn they are spending millions on builidng not one detector but two so that they can get independent checks on their reuslts. Following the scientific method gives conclusion credibility that no theology can ever have. So no ignoring science is not the same as ignoring theology. Science has evidence and concrete results to back it up. Theology has no such grounds for respect and so the analogy with fariology is a legitimate one.

"just as a fundy christian disallows everything science shows him that the earth is older than 6,000 years. no? " There s a huge difference here. The evidence presented by science is testable and verifiable. That is not the same fore religion so you cannot make that comparison. "I realize according to scripture true atheists will never see God unless they change their world view and core belief to open themselves up for the "possibility" of God's existence. Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" This argument is idenitcal to: "if you start with your conlcusion you will get you conclusion." Of course if you start off assuming god exists you will conclude he does. But why should we start there? because of faith? faith is just intellectual laziness. can you seriously not see your circular reasoning?

"If you studied soteriology you'd understand. " or "if if you studied fairology youd understand" how fairies really do live in the bottom ofthe garden. Now forgive me if I dont spend years of my life studying fairies or soteriology. Ive read the main Christian authors Mcdowell,Lewis, Plantiga and that will have to do. They make no sense either.

"JC, although divine, was fully human " or phrased another way JC although a perfect circle also had many straight lines and righht angles. Come one, who are you kidding? if you cant see the conradiction between JC being fully human and also divine then you will never ever see a contradiction. Think about it, if he was divin his sacrificce was no big deal. Why should an immortal being be concerned about giving up a mortal life?

"I don't fall into the fallacy of judging ancient people by the standards of the day. " Thats interesting, so you must agree then that there are no moral aboslutes? After all if you cant bring yourself to say murdering your son is wrong in an absolute sense then what is? So you wont say whether attempting to murder your son becuase a voice in you head says so was wise for an ancient person or not. Fair enough, but I also asked you whether you would do it; interesting how you dogded the question.So Ill ask it again: If you heard a voie you belived to be god and it told you to kill your son, would you do it? If not please explain how this circumstance would be any different to the story of Abraham. Of course we dont know if this story is true or not . But it has a moral message. The message appears to be obey any religious command no matter how ridiculous or evil sounding. That moral messsage is one reaosn why we should not use the bible as our main source for morality.

"Still the sacrifice of the Son is the act of a God who loves us with more love than I have. Even though I have a son serving in Afghanistan I cannot fathom sacrificing him for others. Especially when so many will not believe. " The blood sacrifice of the son is a sotry not just found in the JC myth. The founding father of Judaism, Islam and Chrsitianity was Abraham. He heard a voice form god and decided to kill his son too. Do you think this was a wise ac? If so how would you react if someone today sacrificed their son because they felt god told them too?

The last Thursdayists are heretics , the Universe began last Tuesday, not Thursday!

"he is holy, JC is his son, he paid the price for our sin, etc, etc." Well this is the whole point of the blood sacrifice that appears ridiculous to me. What kind fo justice is that one person suffers for someone elses sin? Why does JC's death atone you sins? It makes no sense. What sacrifice was it anyway for an immortal being to sacrifice his mortal life? Big deal. Amortal sacrificing his life might impress but an immortal doesnt.

"So you don't sin? I do. Theology of original sin aside I sin, I need a savior. " Well it depends upon what you mean by sin. If you mean by sin, what Chisitian theology teaches;that we all inherit sin from non exiistent people then I can confidently say no not me. Now if you want to brush Christian theology away(something I find a bit odd for a Christian to do) and say have I personally comittd a sin that requires a blood sacrifice my answey is still no. A system of justice that most pople I hope would find sanity in, is one whereby if a person commits a crime they are punished in proportion to that crime. It makes no sense to punish somone else for that crime. But yet that is the theme of the bible: blood sacrifice. The Pharoh enslaved the jews , who is punished? not the pharoh , but all the Egyptian first born. We supposedly have sinned and yet jesus is crucified as result. All of this is really beside the point; you asked what evidence would disprove JC. My example of science disproving the Adam and Eve myth whilst not disproving the exstence of JC certainly disproves the theology that we need his sacrifice to correct for thier sin. Ultimaltey whether there really was a guy called JC walking around 2,000 years ago is anyones guess , its the thoelogy that counts, right?

"What fact of science stands against "my" belief in JC right now? " The fact the Adam and Eve did not exist therefore the idea of original sin is nonsense therefore jesus (if he existed and theres no evidence for that) sacrficie was for nothing.

"that still doesn't answer my question I posed to him. How will science disprove the existence of God? He states it like that is a fact or is it simply his belief (faith) that science will do so? " Well I beliebe he said "all but disprove" thats not the same. Obviosuly its impossible to disprove thhe existence of nay invisible being. That leads to my question to you why have such confidence in a belief that cant even in principle be falsified? I presume youve heard of Karl Poppers concept of falisication? This is a very high benchmark for blief and that which passes it should invite our confidence. That which cannot be falsified well..... the story goes that Wolfgang Pauli had three ascending levels of insults : 1 wrong 2 completely wrong , and worst of all, 3 not even wrong

"And how will science do that? " Well that kind of the point isnt it? If you believe in something which cannot possibly be falsified by scientific evidence, what is the difference between that and any other delusion?

I will make this far future prediction. Any prediction of our far future socities (assuming we are still here ) will be wrong.

" or you can claim you dont know - that requires no faith, wheaaas supernatural bliefs requires lots of faith.

There is no evidence for god and there is no evidence there is not a god , so the two propositions should be treated equally right? WRONG WRONG WRONG Any imaginary being; be it god, Thor, Zeus, the flying spaghetti monster whatever has no evidence that they exist or do not exist. Repeat the above sentence with any imaginary being replacing god: There is no evidence for the flying spaghetti monster and there is no evidence there is not a flying spaghetti monster , so the two propositions should be treated equally right? WRONG WRONG WRONG

Well Its morning so I can respond to your other "hilarious"critiques of atheism, sorry for only doing 9 and 10 in my previous post, was late. "1. You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, (or in some cases six) based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since. " In fact the reverse is true, most theists believe in the religion of their parents. Going to Sunday school ( or a MAdrassa or hebrew school) is an attempt to brainwash children into religious belief. Overall its enormously effective. Are you suggesting most religious people reject their childhood indoctrination and come to their religious belief through independent free inquiry? Thats athiest your thinking of there. "2. You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy. " Imperfections in the design of the universe dont disprove god but they do disprove the design argument for a perfect god. Theisst want it both ways, they want to believe the amazing design of , lets say the eye, implies a perfect designer. But when they dsicover the eye , whilst amazing , is not perfect , they still want to claim its evidence of a perfect desginer! "3. You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them. " Your assumption that its been disproved. You say god cant pit his omnipotence against himself but its like everthing else a theist "thinker" sasy is pure assetion without evidence. "4. You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives" Thats not "fundy athiests" thatsanyone at all whose got the slightest education in the scientific method. Science has shown again and asgain the testimony of this kind is not reliable. People educated in science believe in things becuase there is verifiable independent evidence, persoanl testimony does not fall into that category. What might impress me is personal testimony of jesus Christ from people of a culture that could not possibly have heard of him. Buit of course we never see that do we? "5. You can make the existence of flying spaghetti monster the center-piece of a philosophical critique." .. and what is wrong with that? Betrand Russel did the same thing with his orbiting teapot example and hes considered one of the greatest philosphers of the 20th century. Thats for a very good reason. The example of the FSM or the orbiting teapot demosntrates a very important point. That is becuase we have no evidence either way on somethigngs existence that does not mean existence or non existence is an equal proposition. We can imagine any number of things which have no evidence be they flying spaghetti mosnters or orbiting teapots, the fact that we have no evidence of them does not imply we should be "agnostic" on their existence. Moreover those that have faith in their existence should rightly be ridculed... as it is with all imaginary beings. "6. You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense" Typical to be so American centric , are Americans a master race and the rest of the world dont count? For your guide the vasy majority of the people on this planet reject the Christian god, the vast majority of the people on this planet reject the Msulim god, the vast majority of people on this planet reject the Hindu god. Atheist just go one god further. "8. You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded". No you dont get it. We do not say it must not exist we say with no evidence of existing we will not believe it exists. There's a difference there, think about it. Anyone who believes in something with no evidence and moreover belies in something despite the evidence against it is narrow minded.

Im just about to go to bed so I dont have time to go thru all your hilaroious top ten so I hope you forgive me if I just take the last two : "9. You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith. " To see how dumb this reasoning is Ive replaced the word god with Santa Claus , lets read it again and c if its quite as cutting: "9. You say that there is no Santa Claus and that those who believe in Santa Claus do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no Santa Claus also rests on blind faith. " You can play along try substuting Santa Claus with Thor, Osiris, the tooth fairy etc "10. While you don't believe in God, you feel justified on bashing God or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn't exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness! " Agaiin lets play the substition game this time lets try Allah : 10. While you don't believe in Allah or the Koran , you feel justified on bashing Allah (and his prophet Muhhamed) or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn't exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness! " Lets just develop that last point; your saying even discussing a non existent being is the sign of mental illness? Urm no,only if you beleve in it. Is a psychotherapist who discusses his patients halluciantion suffering from mental illness? I dont think so.

"The gospels have other clues they are not the product of legend, " Other clues? We havent had any clues yet , all weve had so far is it takes more tthan 30 -40 years to make a legend which weve shown to be nonsense and the prediction of the fall of Jerusalem which since we have no idea when the gospels were written could easily have been inserted after the fact. So now we have your new "proof" that is women that found the emty tomb, so what? You say that women tesimony was not valued but there was no legal case here so from the perpective of the law its irrelevant. My understadning of old Jewish law was that a woman could give testimony if no man was present so I think your just wrong on that. You should look up in the Mishna (Yebamoth 16:7; Ketuboth 2:5; Eduyoth 3:6) to verify. From the perspective of culture maybe thier testimony was not valued in Jewish culture but was valued in the weird little sect that Christianity once was, maybe they thought thats what happened and they were wrong but others believed them, maybe they never found it and the story was a later insertion, maye they never existed,who knows? What I know is the "fact" of female testimony does not prove a man rose from the dead. Does Isis discovery of Osiris prove he resurected also? Youll have to come up with some proper evidence if you expect you myhtology to be taken serosuly.

"Legend takes time to develop. Writings within 30-40 years after an event is typically not looked at as having time for legend to develop. " where do you get that from? Just go on Snopes.com you will see many many modern day legends that are only a few years old. Alternatively the book of Mormon was finished in 1829, less than 30 to 40 years later there was certainly a strong legend concerning Jospeh Smith and his golden plates. Even if we accept yet another assertion with no evidence we dont have any complete manuscripts from AD70 so it would be irrelvant anyway.

"With authentication of ancient writings more weight is given to those writings that are closer to the date of origin. " Yes but you dont any complete texts that are less than hundreds of years later. But even if you did have the originals, which you dont, why would that make them true?

"The realibility of the New Testament is quite good. Look at the number of copies and how closely they are dated to the original in comparison to any other writings of that era." Since we dont have the original this is of course impossble. I was at the British museum and I believe they have the oldest complete NT, its dated to the 4th century. Quite frankly even if we did have the original and every subsequent copy was identicla how would that prove tht a single word in it was true? "that fact along with they were the writings of a race of people (Jews) who had no voice in the powers of their world (Rome) and it is even more remarkable. " again why does that make it true? substitue the word Jew there with Mormon, Muslim, Jainist whatever, it still doesnt make something true. Statements should be considered true when thy have high leveles of evidence not when they are copied or the words of a minority.

"Red words" are statements of Christ in the NT, not necessarily events. Yes, I believe he said them. Notice I said "believe" It is an act of faith. ------------ So you admit you have no evidence he said them you just believe it on fath.and what is the difference between that and say a Muslim believing the angel gabriel gave Muhamed gods last cmmuincaiton to humanity or a Mormon believing through faith that Jospeh Smith got golden plates of wisdowm from heaven?

"1. Why is there no credible evidence to support the story Christ in the bible? The response of Rome to the rise of Christianity is adequate evidence that there was a historic figure called Jesus. " No the repsonse of Rome to the rise of Christinaity proves there were Christians, it does not prove even that there was a Christ; let alone proving the gospels account of his life is accurate. Does the negative reaction to the Mormons prove that Josepth Smith really did have gold plates given to him by an angel? "3.Where is Noah’s Ark? I don't see how this applies to JC, but I suggest it is decayed into nothing whever it is. " It has somethign to do with JC because the OT and NT are considered 2 parts of one book. If one part is false it casts doubt on the claim that the whole thing is the infallible word of god. We have plenty of ancient remains including boats of ancient Egyptians, the fact there is no evidence of not only Noahs ark but also Noahs flood should cast further doubt on the truth of the bible. "4.Where is the ark of the covenant? I'm fairly confident it was melted down when Jerusalem was capotured by Nebuchanezzor (sp?) " Yet another assertion with no evidence. Yet again this shows the difference between a theist and a free thinker, the former doesnt need evidence to have confidence in proposition the latter does. "5. Why should I reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. Have 1.4Billion+ Muslims got it all wrong? You need to see for yourself if what those other "gods" (BTW Buddha is not a god) teach and if their truths align with each other. " No you need to see what evidence each of those claims have, no evidence= no belief. Whether they are consistent or not is irrelevant. "Whys is there not a shining cross in the night sky to remind us all? When did God say he would do that? Or is that what YOU would need? If so, you have taken "faith" out of the equation. " But in the bible many key players are shown directly gods power, whether its the angel of death simiting the Egyptaisn or jesus performing miracles . As you yourself said his miracles were to give his teaching authority. The problem is only a few people saw his miracles, so why shoudl the rest of us who have not seen them give him any authority?