Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Thumper]

“I have noticed that even those who assert that everything is predestined and that we can change nothing about it still look both ways before they cross the street.” ~ Stephen Hawking

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

**



That is untrue. If you wish to draw an analogy between a traffic light or roundabout and people who kill in the name of God, you will need to use far more accurate numbers.

Also, effective traffic lights aren't cited by humans as leading to joy, self-actualization, achievement, love and justice. On the religion side, your argument becomes we need to do away with all traffic lights to spare those 1:1,000,000 accidents. If you see the problem with that line of argumentation, you will see why I say a God-focus is a healthy lifestyle behavior, like stopping at red lights.

Regardless of how often it happens, there's a direct causal line from religions that preach that God tells people to do stuff sometimes to people who think that God has told them to do some horrendous act.

However, this certainly isn't the biggest or most common negative impact of religion. Would you like me to list off some others?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Regardless of how often it happens, there's a direct causal line from religions that preach that God tells people to do stuff sometimes to people who think that God has told them to do some horrendous act.

However, this certainly isn't the biggest or most common negative impact of religion. Would you like me to list off some others?

Why would I ask that when your first one was a staunch exaggeration of truth?

Let's review your first mistake more closely. You said religion is bad because people who claim to hear God's command to murder commit murder.

This claim would only be accurate if they actually heard (a, some) God talking to them because anyone mentally ill can use anything as an obsession, including atheism or pepperoni pizza or a dog telling them to kill (New York's infamous "Son of Sam" killer heard a dog barking kill commands).

Your very objection begged the question of God's actual existence! So no, I don't want you to try again.

Why don't we shift our focus by agreement, to discuss some evidence for God (not already bubbling from your subconscious to point the way to you in your own posts)?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The scriptures say the Earth is round and suspended in a void/vacuum

The earth is not suspended.

Also, the same Bible says that the earth is resting upon and immovably fixed to pillars:

1 Samuel 2:8 - The PILLARS OF THE EARTH are the Lords, and he hath set the world upon them).

I Chronicles 16:30 - The world also is firmly established, it shall NOT BE MOVED

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Okay, let's talk deal breakers.

Torture is prohibited in America by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. I think torture is not in God's mind or character, either. I read about a person having a 100% reasonable and reasoning conversation with Abraham in Luke 16, and he asks for some cold water to drink because he thirsts, but he is not screaming or crying (and significantly, never says, "I shouldn't be here, let me out."

Etc. I see eternal punishment and eternal life in the scriptures, but I cannot find eternal torture--it would be a deal breaker for me too, and one more reason the Qu'ran, which is explicit regarding eternal torture and God's torture methods, isn't for me.

You don't see eternal torture in the scriptures?

• Matthew 13:50 “and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
• Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
• Revelation 14:10 “that person will also drink of the wine of God’s anger that has been mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and he will be tortured with fire and sulfur in front of the holy angels and in front of the Lamb”
• Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”

Others do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We only blame non action if their is a pre-existing duty to act.

Is there a duty to act when there is suffering or death that is unjust and preventable if we act? From the co-host of a media talk show answering a caller:

"You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' .. If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." - Tracie Harris

You're going to love the reply of the caller, a self-identified Christian identifying himself as Shane::

"True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you."

Enjoy a minute of this. It was a lively discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-YIJN1aGvg

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Isn’t it interesting that religious behavior is so close to being crazy we can’t tell it apart?" - Dr. Gregory House, MD

"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and Christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd." - Sam Harris

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

effective traffic lights aren't cited by humans as leading to joy, self-actualization, achievement, love and justice.

Are you claiming that Christianity develops or promotes these qualities in its adherents?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why would I ask that when your first one was a staunch exaggeration of truth?

Let's review your first mistake more closely. You said religion is bad because people who claim to hear God's command to murder commit murder.

This claim would only be accurate if they actually heard (a, some) God talking to them because anyone mentally ill can use anything as an obsession, including atheism or pepperoni pizza or a dog telling them to kill (New York's infamous "Son of Sam" killer heard a dog barking kill commands).

Your very objection begged the question of God's actual existence! So no, I don't want you to try again.

Why don't we shift our focus by agreement, to discuss some evidence for God (not already bubbling from your subconscious to point the way to you in your own posts)?

Good choice. You don't want to invite people to list the problems caused by this religion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The earth is not suspended.

Also, the same Bible says that the earth is resting upon and immovably fixed to pillars:

1 Samuel 2:8 - The PILLARS OF THE EARTH are the Lords, and he hath set the world upon them).

I Chronicles 16:30 - The world also is firmly established, it shall NOT BE MOVED

**The scriptures say the Earth is round and suspended in a void/vacuum

The earth is not suspended.

Also, the same Bible says that the earth is resting upon and immovably fixed to pillars:

1 Samuel 2:8 - The PILLARS OF THE EARTH are the Lords, and he hath set the world upon them).

I Chronicles 16:30 - The world also is firmly established, it shall NOT BE MOVED

I’m familiar already with both of these arguments. First, the appearance from space in photos, which all schoolchildren (and most adults) find wondrous, is of the Earth sitting in space. There aren’t ancient Hebrew words for vacuum, vacuum energy, dark energy, gravity . . .

Second, you’ve never read online where Hebrew scholars say “the pillars” could be leaders or governments? Other explanations include word choices again . . .

Third, the world does move. The Bible describes a shaking as in Noah’s day and in Armageddon. Are you expecting a Copernican model to be vastly detailed in the Bible? Then it would be too obvious that God is truth and all would believe now, giving moderns an unfair advantage.

You don't see eternal torture in the scriptures?

• Matthew 13:50 “and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
• Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
• Revelation 14:10 “that person will also drink of the wine of God’s anger that has been mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and he will be tortured with fire and sulfur in front of the holy angels and in front of the Lamb”
• Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”

Others do.

Did you read the Luke 16 passage I suggested? I understand eternal punishment is different than eternal torture, just as incarceration in America is different than, say, in Saudi Arabia.

The problem also is in 1 Sam and 1 Chron you insist on literal rendering (not be moved!) but want to play fast and loose with the literal rendering in these verses (do you think the fire and sulphur are in front of God eternally or temporairily?)

**effective traffic lights aren't cited by humans as leading to joy, self-actualization, achievement, love and justice.

Are you claiming that Christianity develops or promotes these qualities in its adherents?

No, I’m claiming that being born again does so, which is different, say, than being born into a Christian household. Skeptics are quick to point to slavery in the Bible, for example, without ever once mentioning that nearly 100% of all vocal and risk-taking abolitionists in America and the UK were all devout, born again believers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Skeptics are quick to point to slavery in the Bible, for example, without ever once mentioning that nearly 100% of all vocal and risk-taking abolitionists in America and the UK were all devout, born again believers.

You classify Quakers as "born again"? Weird.

Nearly 100% of slave-owners in America were also Christian. I'm not sure if any American churches owned slaves directly, but that was certainly the case elsewhere: at the height of slavery in the Caribbean, one of the largest owners of slave plantations was the Church of England.

... so I guess the message here is that while Christians aren't necessarily immoral, Christianity isn't much use in terms of instilling moral behaviour.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

**The scriptures say the Earth is round and suspended in a void/vacuum



I’m familiar already with both of these arguments. First, the appearance from space in photos, which all schoolchildren (and most adults) find wondrous, is of the Earth sitting in space. There aren’t ancient Hebrew words for vacuum, vacuum energy, dark energy, gravity . . .

Second, you’ve never read online where Hebrew scholars say “the pillars” could be leaders or governments? Other explanations include word choices again . . .

Third, the world does move. The Bible describes a shaking as in Noah’s day and in Armageddon. Are you expecting a Copernican model to be vastly detailed in the Bible? Then it would be too obvious that God is truth and all would believe now, giving moderns an unfair advantage.

Do you think that biblical cosmology demonstrates an internally consistent and unexpectedly detailed and accurate understanding of the universe available only to an advanced intelligence not present on earth when the scriptures were written?

Probably not.

What I see are a bunch of mutually contradictory descriptions of a circular earth with edges and corners, fixed immovability on pillars and also suspension on nothing, a divided ocean with a celestial part overhead outside a giant hemisphere affixed with stars through which rain was leaked onto earth.

Did you read the Luke 16 passage I suggested? I understand eternal punishment is different than eternal torture, just as incarceration in America is different than, say, in Saudi Arabia.

The problem also is in 1 Sam and 1 Chron you insist on literal rendering (not be moved!) but want to play fast and loose with the literal rendering in these verses (do you think the fire and sulphur are in front of God eternally or temporairily?)

**effective traffic lights aren't cited by humans as leading to joy, self-actualization, achievement, love and justice.

The scriptures I posted describe the pain of gratuitous torture.

Regarding when to treat scripture as literal and when to try to make it say something more in line with personal belief, I consider the whole enterprise a shell game. If the words don't mean what they say - if you are free to loosely intepret the ones you feel you need to - then they mean nothing specific,nothing in particular.

Would you rather be in an American prison, a Saudi prison, or hell?

Skeptics are quick to point to slavery in the Bible, for example, without ever once mentioning that nearly 100% of all vocal and risk-taking abolitionists in America and the UK were all devout, born again believers.

Why is being devout or born-again relevant here? Exactly what, if anything, are you claiming for Christianity? Are you suggesting that the American abolitionism movement derived from Christian scripture or doctrine?

There were then and still are now two unrelated moral or ethical traditions operating simultaneously in the West.

In the Christian tradition, morals are commandments from God. Moral behavior is defined as submission or obedience to those commandments,and their violation is called sin. Man doesn't choose what is right or wrong.

In the humanist tradition, we use rational ethics, which is a human undertaking in which we attempt to reach a majority position if not consensus about what society ought to be like and which rules facilitate approaching that vision. It is the application of reason and empathy to the problems of what constitutes good government, good citizenship, and right living.

Which of those is able to conclude that slavery is immoral? The people who rose up against slavery may have been Christians, but they weren't being motivated by Christian moral philosophy, and surely weren't referencing their Bibles for counsel on the matter.

They were employing the humanist method.

We are continually having to point out that just because a Christian does something doesn't mean that what he did derives from his Christianity. At times we are told that the first scientists were Christians, and that most of the framers of the US Constitution were Christians.

Now, you're doing something similar with abolition.

Sorry, but all of those are due to the humanist worldview, which blossomed as the Enlightenment, and changed the world from the medieval vision crafted by the church and the kings it taught its adherents to obey unquestioningly. Slavery was no problem in that world just as it is no problem in the Bible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You classify Quakers as "born again"? Weird.

Nearly 100% of slave-owners in America were also Christian. I'm not sure if any American churches owned slaves directly, but that was certainly the case elsewhere: at the height of slavery in the Caribbean, one of the largest owners of slave plantations was the Church of England.

... so I guess the message here is that while Christians aren't necessarily immoral, Christianity isn't much use in terms of instilling moral behaviour.

While nearly 100% of the abolitionists were born again, devout people, and many of the poor Southerners who fought were also saved, the wealthy landed class wasn't born again. This is no exception from the rest of history. Today, many millions are saved in Africa, China, Russia--just not the wealthy, the totalitarian leaders, the army juntas . . . you want verses describing this phenomenon?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While nearly 100% of the abolitionists were born again, devout people, and many of the poor Southerners who fought were also saved, the wealthy landed class wasn't born again.

Yeah, right.

This is no exception from the rest of history. Today, many millions are saved in Africa, China, Russia--just not the wealthy, the totalitarian leaders, the army juntas . . . you want verses describing this phenomenon?

Seems you have me confused with someone who considers the Bible authoritative.

Instead of throwing Bible verses at me, why not back up your claims with some reliable sources?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you think that biblical cosmology demonstrates an internally consistent and unexpectedly detailed and accurate understanding of the universe available only to an advanced intelligence not present on earth when the scriptures were written?

Probably not.

What I see are a bunch of mutually contradictory descriptions of a circular earth with edges and corners, fixed immovability on pillars and also suspension on nothing, a divided ocean with a celestial part overhead outside a giant hemisphere affixed with stars through which rain was leaked onto earth.




The scriptures I posted describe the pain of gratuitous torture.

Regarding when to treat scripture as literal and when to try to make it say something more in line with personal belief, I consider the whole enterprise a shell game. If the words don't mean what they say - if you are free to loosely intepret the ones you feel you need to - then they mean nothing specific,nothing in particular.

Would you rather be in an American prison, a Saudi prison, or hell?




Why is being devout or born-again relevant here? Exactly what, if anything, are you claiming for Christianity? Are you suggesting that the American abolitionism movement derived from Christian scripture or doctrine?

There were then and still are now two unrelated moral or ethical traditions operating simultaneously in the West.

In the Christian tradition, morals are commandments from God. Moral behavior is defined as submission or obedience to those commandments,and their violation is called sin. Man doesn't choose what is right or wrong.

In the humanist tradition, we use rational ethics, which is a human undertaking in which we attempt to reach a majority position if not consensus about what society ought to be like and which rules facilitate approaching that vision. It is the application of reason and empathy to the problems of what constitutes good government, good citizenship, and right living.

Which of those is able to conclude that slavery is immoral? The people who rose up against slavery may have been Christians, but they weren't being motivated by Christian moral philosophy, and surely weren't referencing their Bibles for counsel on the matter.

They were employing the humanist method.

We are continually having to point out that just because a Christian does something doesn't mean that what he did derives from his Christianity. At times we are told that the first scientists were Christians, and that most of the framers of the US Constitution were Christians.

Now, you're doing something similar with abolition.

Sorry, but all of those are due to the humanist worldview, which blossomed as the Enlightenment, and changed the world from the medieval vision crafted by the church and the kings it taught its adherents to obey unquestioningly. Slavery was no problem in that world just as it is no problem in the Bible.

Do you think that biblical cosmology demonstrates an internally consistent and unexpectedly detailed and accurate understanding of the universe available only to an advanced intelligence not present on earth when the scriptures were written?

Probably not.

What I see are a bunch of mutually contradictory descriptions of a circular earth with edges and corners, fixed immovability on pillars and also suspension on nothing, a divided ocean with a celestial part overhead outside a giant hemisphere affixed with stars through which rain was leaked onto earth.

No creationists believe rain leaked onto the Earth from above. NONE. Genesis says subterranean water took care of things! I know we both have biases, and I think we’re fishing in the wrong pond (pun not intended).

The scriptures I posted describe the pain of gratuitous torture.

Regarding when to treat scripture as literal and when to try to make it say something more in line with personal belief, I consider the whole enterprise a shell game. If the words don't mean what they say - if you are free to loosely intepret the ones you feel you need to - then they mean nothing specific,nothing in particular.

Would you rather be in an American prison, a Saudi prison, or hell?

Hell—both believers and unbelievers will be transformed to have eternal, durable bodies. It’s like asking, “Would you rather die of thirst (Earth) or live forever wanting water (Hell)?”

Why is being devout or born-again relevant here? Exactly what, if anything, are you claiming for Christianity? Are you suggesting that the American abolitionism movement derived from Christian scripture or doctrine?

There were then and still are now two unrelated moral or ethical traditions operating simultaneously in the West.

In the Christian tradition, morals are commandments from God. Moral behavior is defined as submission or obedience to those commandments,and their violation is called sin. Man doesn't choose what is right or wrong.

In the humanist tradition, we use rational ethics, which is a human undertaking in which we attempt to reach a majority position if not consensus about what society ought to be like and which rules facilitate approaching that vision. It is the application of reason and empathy to the problems of what constitutes good government, good citizenship, and right living.

Which of those is able to conclude that slavery is immoral? The people who rose up against slavery may have been Christians, but they weren't being motivated by Christian moral philosophy, and surely weren't referencing their Bibles for counsel on the matter.

They were employing the humanist method.

We are continually having to point out that just because a Christian does something doesn't mean that what he did derives from his Christianity. At times we are told that the first scientists were Christians, and that most of the framers of the US Constitution were Christians.

Now, you're doing something similar with abolition.

Sorry, but all of those are due to the humanist worldview, which blossomed as the Enlightenment, and changed the world from the medieval vision crafted by the church and the kings it taught its adherents to obey unquestioningly. Slavery was no problem in that world just as it is no problem in the Bible.

I have a personal testimony here. I made a decision as an adult to trust Jesus. Why? Because it seemed logical that I would be barred from a utopia, because by nature, I do things that are ethically wrong, and would ruin Heaven for others. It also made sense that the perfect Christ died a horrible death by torture and rose from the grave to switch places with me—His love shedding His perfection upon my imperfection.

My anecdotal knowledge regarding abolitionists of the 18th and 19th centuries is that they had personal testimonies of trusting Jesus for salvation. The man who wrote “Amazing Grace” was a former slaver who brought slaves overseas and found Christ. What a wretch [we] were! How saved we were!

I agree that Christians do many things not deriving from their Christianity. So, what term can we use so we know we’re both discussing people who may or may not have been born or raised Christian (I’m a circumcised Jew who had a Bar Mitzvah!) but do things out of a conversion to Jesus?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No creationists believe rain leaked onto the Earth from above. NONE.

We've had creationist members here who have argued that the flood waters came from the sky.

Genesis says subterranean water took care of things!

Are you reading the same Genesis as the rest of us?

Genesis 7:11-12 (NET) (emphasis mine):

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month--on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights."

Edit: Genesis 1 also makes reference to the sky being a solid dome ("the firmament") that separates "the waters above" from "the waters below".

 

[Thumper]

No creationists believe rain leaked onto the Earth from above. NONE. Genesis says subterranean water took care of things! I know we both have biases, and I think we’re fishing in the wrong pond (pun not intended).

Genesis 7:11.

 

[leibowde84]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

I think a better analogy would be this:

There is a jar covered with black tape. You cannot see what, if anything, is in the jar.

The Atheist admits that, without further evidence, he is unable to hold any position as to whether anything is in the jar. He/she is withholding belief due to a lack of evidence either way.

The Theist is convinced that something must be in the jar because there would be no reason to put tape on the jar if there was nothing to conceal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

While nearly 100% of the abolitionists were born again, devout people, and many of the poor Southerners who fought were also saved, the wealthy landed class wasn't born again. This is no exception from the rest of history. Today, many millions are saved in Africa, China, Russia--just not the wealthy, the totalitarian leaders, the army juntas . . . you want verses describing this phenomenon?

Christians bitterly fought against abolition. You seem to want to call them non-Christians (or not saved) for that reason. I have no reason to do that. Of course they are Christians, and I have no reason to believe that anybody needs to be saved or that that phrase has any meaning.

 

[1137]

There is a jar covered with black tape. You cannot see what, if anything, is in the jar.

The Atheist admits that, without further evidence, he is unable to hold any position as to whether anything is in the jar. He/she is withholding belief due to a lack of evidence either way.

The Theist is convinced that something must be in the jar because there would be no reason to put tape on the jar if there was nothing to conceal.

A perfect illustration of the dishonesty I speak of. You're describing agnosticism and pretending it's atheism.