Scoop tells me that 1.3 billion Catholics growing from a group of 12 men is a miracle. (see comment) Yes, it’s a miracle in the same way that all of North Korea worships Kim Jung Il.
Adopted as a state religion then, about 400 CE the heralded St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo authorized the use of force as a missionary tool using this scripture; “And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled”—Luke 14:23
God works in mysterious ways. The next 1400 years (well into the 20th century) it was believe or suffer their wrath wherever they planted their flag. Here locally, the Colville Native American children were rounded up throughout the territory and compelled to Catholic education. Those that escaped Fort Spokane were captured by the Calvary and incarcerated in solitary confinement, had their shoes confiscated, and endured physical torture. It’s a friggin miracle!
How is it catholics can claim any benevolence at all at this point is beyond reason. The most corrupt organization on earth, is god working his miracles through torture.
Scoop also tells me on one hand, Gods judgment is overdue because of the wickedness and sodomites, then tells me it’s the safest time in history to be alive. Coincidentally, it is also the most secular time in history to be alive. Coincidence? I think not.
TheCommonAtheist 
When I ask people why there are innocent kids dying, being brainwashed and refugee crises all over the world, people have one answer for me. “It’s because of their own sins.”
Some say “it’s written in their fate by God, there must be a reason we can never comprehend”
What kind of genocidal maniac would orchestrate such fate?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was in an accident a few years back and lost vision in one of my eyes. A family member told me it was because I had lost the protection of The lord. Your right Bharath, it’s crazy. When something bad happens to those minded people, god is just testing their faith. If it happens to me it’s punishment for not believing. Right here we all know the truth though. Life is unpredictable, dangerous, and people die.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Damn! What happened??
God tests your faith by putting your life in peril. If you survive and still believe, you’re a true believer and be sent to heaven? Sadistic.
Right. Life is unpredictable and so I life.
LikeLike
It was a warm, May Day and I cracked the face shield on my helmet about an inch. A car driving by the other way kicked up a small thin rock (about an inch across) it went right inside my shield and in my eye. Gods will
LikeLike
Ouch! That was rough.
Did you get that driver?
LikeLike
Haha. Hell no. I did the wabble off the the side of the road. Lucky I didn’t crash.
LikeLike
But still! You should’ve got that asshole.
LikeLike
All he did was have the misfortune of running over an unseen rock in the road. What am I going to do to him, make him eat it? Give it back?
LikeLike
Ah! Okay. How’re things now?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I still have one good eye and a great family. I’m hoping someday that bad eye falls out so I can wear a patch 🏴☠️
LikeLike
You didn’t think of getting a new one?
LikeLike
I’ll get one with a gyro in it so it spins on demand. 🎯
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a real quandary for believers in my opinion. If, in fact, suffering is “because of their sins” then the implication is clear; they are being punished by god for their sinfulness. But if “innocent kids” are dying, then is god punishing the innocent for their sins (whatever they could be)? Or, as I hear more often, god is not intervening per se but allowing the suffering to persist for reasons which we mere mortals could never discern. So which is it? Does god intervene in human affairs or doesn’t he? If he does, then why does he allow the innocent to suffer and the wicked to walk free? If god does not intervene in human affairs then what is the point of prayer? Is it the Epicurean paradox? (If he has the power to intervene but not the will, then he is malevolent. If he has the will to intervene but not the power, then he is impotent. If he has neither the power nor the will, then what god is he?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
What go(o)d is he Ra(P)aR? Haha
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, LOL!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another great post, Jim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. We toured the Prison and school a couple months back and it’s been on the burner. Scoop sorta refreshed it for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was raised Catholic. Some of the worst human beings I’ve ever met are practicing Catholics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well maybe they need to practice something else for a while. 2000 years of doing the same thing over and over and has met no objectives. Time for a change methinks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How about crochet? That seems kinda harmless….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you insane? Have you ever considered the damage that can be done by a crochet hook and mushroom?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am hysterical!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was Catholic for a lot of years. I never did, nor would I have approved of, any of those things.
“How is it catholics can claim any benevolence at all at this point is beyond reason. The most corrupt organization on earth, is god working his miracles through torture.”
I agree with the problems within the upper clergy of bishops and probably the Pope’s circle. But torture? You cut the rank and file no slack.
I’m not sure it is “the most corrupt.” A bit harsh and stereotypical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well Scoop was defending it and has before too. I know most people, Catholics included are good people. Apologists say whatever, even the ridiculous to defend the faith. Sorry if I wasn’t clear in that. I had another apologist a year ago on that same site defending it as well. I think most Catholics would be ashamed of that history, but not here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree. I’m certain most Catholics (but pick a religion) do not know the history. but even if they did, it is not the Church today. I am ashamed of much regarding the USA (both history and current events) but I ain’t giving it up because of that. I am atheist because I lack belief in any god, not because I think the history of a religion is dark. Of course it is. We didn’t start the fire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Bill
It is certainly one of the most widespread organisations on the planet and its membership numbers over a billion.
If we accept that each member has been corrupted (difficult to argue they have not) then they are products of a corrupt organization,surely?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed it is the largest of Christian denominations. The stereotype is grossly unfair. I find the post and some of the comments insulting, and I’m atheist. I realize that this is an anti-theist blog site. That is why I read it. I write a lot of anti Catholic stuff myself (cuz I was), but I see no value in insulting the members (except for guilty priests and bishops). Each member has not been corrupted (stereotype on steroids).
LikeLike
I beg to differ.
If the source is corrupt then it goes without saying that the adherents will be likewise corrupted.
If you are downloading a pirate movie, for example, then you are in turn party to that corruption.
Even if were given a pirate copy and were unaware of the source you are still, in a sense, corrupted.
There is the other part to this of course which is that, once you are made aware of the corrupt source if you continue to partake then you are now just as corrupt.
Guilty by association.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We do not agree. Otherwise I am guilty (by birth and association) for the crimes of some people hundreds of years ago. I can accept guilt by knowledgeable association, but even there I find judging others wrong. But those ignorant of the history are not even close to guilty. My opinion is based on first-hand, inside experience. You are passing judgement for what you think people know. “Just as corrupt” — No way!
LikeLike
I have to agree mostly with this. Most Catholics I’ve ever spoken to know very little about the pillage. But, on the other hand, they are guilty for adhering to an organization without looking into it. This is why the founders immediately appealed to faith, even with Jesus standing right there. I messed with reason
LikeLiked by 2 people
Then you must find me guilty, Jim. I was not ignorant. I still think judging all on the actions of few is wrong. Kind of like saying all atheists are assholes cuz some are. Why would they not appeal to faith? We are talking about religion.
LikeLike
Because faith would not have been necessary if the risen lord was standing right there. It was a calculated deception to enslave minds and it works every time.
I don’t find you or anybody guilty. I’m sure I have some issues of my own, but when I know better and continue to support any cause that is immoral, I have to question my own integrity. That’s why I’m here and not there. I couldn’t excuse it any longer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You should know that people are leaving the RC Church in droves. Sadly they are not all embracing atheism.
I still think it is wrong to attack (demonize) people for what they think or believe. I will take your word for the ‘calculated deception’ but I have no way of knowing that. In the contemporary scene, yes to virtually any TV preaching. And it works for them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In modern times, Jonathan Edwards stumbles upon the holy roller techniques and thousands copied it immediately because it worked. It’s still highly calculated into the services today. There’s nothing new under the son, just refined technique.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, you are not guilty by birth – although Christianity would have you believe you are. So while you may not be knowingly corrupt, if you are part of a corrupt organisation (practicing) you have, for all intent and purpose, been corrupted.
Surely this much is obvious when one considers the reasons for deconversion?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry. I can’t seem to make that conclusion work.
It is not why I embraced atheism and I regret none of my affiliation with the Catholic Church. That was because there is no god and I did not believe what I was supposed to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We seem to be talking at cross purposes.
You not regretting your ”affiliation with the Catholic Church” suggests a degree of cognitive dissonance.
Much like declaring: ”I loved being an alter boy” even after discovering the priest in charge was a serial abuser and, unbeknownst to you, your best childhood buddy was the subject of some of that abuse.
This is a good example of you being corrupted by the system.
Yet another example of how you were corrupted and yet, you eventually saw behind the facade of lies and deceit and walked away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I suffer from cognitive dissonance, I’m not aware of it. Your alter boy analogy is preposterous to me. I may be influenced by my past (who is not, besides you?), but to imply that I was corrupted by it is another example of your perspective being much different than mine. My reasons for doing what I did are well-documented. I do not agree with you regarding my motivations. On the bright side, I needed a topic for Dispassionate Doubt…you’ve given me one. Thanks. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the teacher or the subject is corrupt, then the pupil will, in all likelihood, be corrupted by the material.
”The world is flat.”
This is false (corrupt), and if the pupil is indoctrinated to believe it then they have been corrupted.
How can he /she not be, as the beliefs, and the actions that issue from such beliefs are based upon the corrupt material/teaching.
It matters not that the pupil considers said beliefs and actions to be true/virtuous .
At some point you rejected the material, (God claims etc) and walked away, thus your journey to undo the corruption had begun.
I accept I am not a scholar in this regard, however, my command of the English language is reasonable so I’m finding it odd that you cannot grasp this concept?
If I am missing something, Bill, please point it out
Ark.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Even a cursory review of the lives of just the popes alone will inform you as to the insane level of debauchery and corruption the church promulgated over the last 16-1700 years or so. Even still, they remain steadfast in their beliefs; the sin of homosexuality (even though there are many closeted within the Vatican itself), and let’s not even bring up the egregious sexual violation of thousands and thousands of innocent children of all ages, going so far as to move known predator priests from diocese to diocese, complicit in their guilt as one can be. No, you don’t get to be a member or supporter or even an apologist for such behavior without bearing the moniker. Yes, the most corrupt religion in history, period. And you can also believe they’d go right back to those very same methods of conversion today given the power and license to do so.
Remember, all they have to believe is they are doing god’s work and they have divine power do as they wish, even to repeat all the same horrific crimes against humanity they have already displayed thoughout their past.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for informing me of what I can believe. I understand the shortcomings of all religions, but especially RC. However, I will not be judging current members for the history. Yes, power corrupts — (and the papacy is the source of that idiom), but not all are corrupt. To demonize all Catholics and to blame them for the atrocities of the past is no different than blaming all Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. I cannot agree with you either.
Regarding the sexual misconduct, I am well informed of those problems. Indeed, I criticize all deniers of those shameful cover-ups. But I do not blame all Catholics since every religion has such problems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bill, I apologize if you thought I was telling you what you should believe; I meant so such thing. However I ask, why would you want to belong to a club with such a past and such a seemingly maligned present identity? Feel free to believe what you wish, but don’t try to erase the sins of the past so easily. See all those beautiful cathedrals, churches, statuary, art and palazzos? They were paid for with the blood of many innocents and continue to be maintained at the expense of the down trodden. Why doesn’t the church sell off some of that nonsense and use the funds to help the needy around the world? Perhaps try feeding the countless starving of the world? At least they could claim to be making amends for their sins of the past but they never seem to get to that part. It’s shameful.
Go in peace my friend.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“You can believe…”
I don’t know that to be true and I doubt if you do. It is not a club.
I am a fan of all old church architecture, all art, and history. I think your emotional appeal is quite strong, but that is how it was in the world.
Perhaps you are unaware of Catholic Charities or the St. Vincent DePaul orgs in most parishes today. There are many other charitable efforts made.
Religions generally far surpass us in their care for the poor. There is no reasonable effort to erase “sins” of the past, just to not repeat them.
The picture you paint of greed and corruption is very one sided.
I love irony. “Go in peace…” is how our priest always ended the Mass. So, I will do the same…
And also with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For someone who says they are atheist you still seem to have a ”soft spot ” for your former religion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe I know something about it. My objection was for the demonizing of people. I write often about the RC Church/dogma/beliefs. Street cred!
I have no soft spot for demonizing innocent people pr making conclusion which are illogical.
LikeLike
Maybe there are others here who have also been exposed to Catholicism. You don’t have exclusivity in this regard.
In this day and age, willful ignorance is not an excuse.
I don’t consider any point (I’ve) made thus far to be illogical.
Feel free to point out such points as you consider are illogical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exposed? Man I was in the deep end of that shit. Perhaps this will help. http://skeptic.home.blog/2019/08/16/when-i-first-believed-and-didnt/
have a great week/Thnksgiving.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“To demonize all Catholics and to blame them…..”
But isn’t that what the Catholics did? Blame ALL Jews for the crucifixion? Even worse, didn’t they already KNOW that it was the Romans that actually perpetuated the execution? They intentionally edited their scripture in order to propagate this nonsense and they didn’t seem to give a hoot about it even though that accusation led to countless pogroms against Jews for centuries afterward? Furthermore, isn’t that part of the fundamental dogma of original sin? YOU are as guilty of the fall from grace as Adam was? God is more than willing – and so is the Church – to blame YOU for an atrocity of the past, namely Eve tempting Adam and getting thrown from the Garden of Eden forever! That’s your fault, Bill, and you weren’t even there! You nasty man!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lol
LikeLike
Oh, good lord.
No, I don’t recall ever blaming Jews. Yes, it was once the official position of the Church, but no longer is. I was redeemed from the original sin by baptism at 8 days of age. So, I’m off the hook. As far as fundamental dogma, do you know what it is? I do.
If you are going to attack people for their religious beliefs, at least have the grace to get it right.
Thanks for chat. I’m done here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s a billion people that know the fish is rotten from the head down, yet they still thinks is the holy church. How is that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know the answer to that, right?
LikeLike
Jesus uses corruption to advance Christianity?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Financially?
LikeLike
I wasn’t attacking anyone, sorry if you felt that way. I was merely stating my opinion and certain facts as I have learned them and I don’t see where you’ve corrected any of them. So you’ve been “forgiven” for the “original sin” since someone dumped some water on your head and now you’re ok with it? And you’re willing to give the Church a pass for correcting THEIR OWN LIE that the Jews ordered Jesus’ crucifixion, even though they have KNOWN THAT THE ENTIRE LAST 1500 years? How very Christian of you! (Whether you “ever recall” blaming the Jews or not is really not material, only demonstrates that you belonged to an organization about which you seem to know very little.) No, it doesn’t sound as though you know very much at all about the Church if you’re so easily able to accept them. I was raised Roman Catholic, my parents were very active in the Church and my oldest sister was a nun. We were what you would call devout Catholics and I find the entire catechism and Catholic/Christian dogma repulsive. I could only have been indoctrinated to such things as a child in order to believe them.
Lastly, I am not condemning ALL Catholics, I am condemning Catholicism, but if the shoe fits, by all means, help yourself. It really sounds as though you’re not ready to let such things go yet but we’re all on our own journeys so, go with…….whomever!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Okay, fine. But my post was not about you. I did not feel personally attacked by you. I do not share your vitriol, but I am sure that we can find common criticism we agree on. I am disappointed that you give me such a low grade in church history. I think I deserve better, but it really does not matter. Question: are you corrupted?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It just occurred to me that you were not talking about my blog post, just my comment here. Ooops, mea culpa. I thought you were, and I was referring to this — http://skeptic.home.blog/2019/11/28/did-the-catholic-church-corrupt-me-or-you/
Anyway …. glad you were not attacking all of them. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
miracles cover many things, including forced conversions
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it any coincidence that the church’s power and membership has declined with its ability to enforce adherence? It isn’t like being tortured or killed for disobedience was some big secret. They used to be big public spectacles. Auto de Fe in particular. Everyone dressed up in their best clothes, attended Mass, and then watched some heretics be ritually tortured and killed, garroted or burned alive.
And I don’t think Augustine was the ultimate source of compulsion in Christianity. That came from the Bible itself. The way the Bible was read in the past, they took the whole thing seriously, not just selected parts of the New Testament. Also, Jesus was considered to have been the one that Old Testament figures got orders from(appearances of Yahweh or the angel of Yahweh were supposed to have been Jesus.) These means that those orders to exterminate populations, for example, were the words of Jesus. As was the sacrifice of Achan and his family, as was the order to stone rape victims and adulterers. The Papal Legate during the extermination of the Cathars told the crusading army to kill everyone in a city, heretic or not, because god will know his own. I have seen some Christians condemn this sort of thing, but on what basis do they do so? Their own lord was just fine with such methods, and employed them himself very often. Deuteronomy says to kill an entire city and make it “a whole burnt offering to Yahweh” if there is any other religion or god being followed there. This is exactly what the crusaders did in that example. They are supposed to imitate their god and his son, correct?
Know what the argument for truth based on being widespread would apply well to? Islam. It spread far and rapidly. Not only that, it drove Christianity out of its historic heartland(Egypt, Syria, Anatolia). There have been few instances where Christianity(or Catholicism specifically) has driven Islam out anywhere where it has taken hold, Spain is about the only example(which Muslims never fully controlled). Don’t let them whine about how Islam spread by force and political power, so did the Catholic Church. This argument would also apply well to Buddhism, and in its case there was a lot less outright compulsion involved.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Augustine used that scripture to compel the Donatists back into the fold. From then on it became widespread as a conversion tactic. The conversion of Europe and Latin America is unimaginable without the sword.
LikeLike
I am aware of the context. I just don’t want to leave room for Christians to escape. Just blame Augustine, and it leaves an easy route to escape. Christians do this all the time by blaming the Catholic Church for everything. It is not some particular person or organization, it is their book that is the ultimate source. Augustine was just being an exemplary follower.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ooooh, I’ve run into this Scoop fellow before. He’s a teeth-grinder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I seem to recall you playing and also sending me some lists or something.
LikeLike
Ah, was that for him, too? Lovely chap.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yup Jim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim, what are you doing up at 4:47 AM!!
LikeLike
Up for work. Walking the dog out in 15°. Great way to wake up!
LikeLike
That’ll do it! Every time!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice to see you. How’ve you been?
LikeLike
Busy, really. Building a house on Lake Winnipesaukee in Alton Bay. Takes up a lot of our time. You?
LikeLike
Things are finally slowing down. Contractors waving town for the holidays and such. I only have two plans on desk and last week I had 20. Winnipesaukee sounds nice. Say hi to Dr Marvin for me. Dr Leo Marvin…
LikeLike
Will do, I’ll have to look him up! Enjoy the slow down for the holidays!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hilarious movie. Enjoy the holiday.
LikeLike
Yeah, 12 men – and 12 JEWISH men at that! Now THAT is a miracle!
The Catholic Church can never be forgiven for the sins they have committed. There has never been a more homicidal, deranged, and sadistic force in history as the Catholic Church. Almost the moment they came into power through a writ of Theodocius II in about 381 AD the torture began and it didn’t stop until Napoleon – who desperately despised the Church – stopped the Inquisition and relinquished their power. The numbers of people killed, murdered, tortured, etc. is unimaginable. Just the Albigensian Crusade alone killed nearly 2,000,000 men women and children, mostly Cathars, an incredibly peaceful, spiritual group spread thoughout southern France. All because they would not yield to the Church’s power. Think the wars over the Reformation, the Spanish Inquisition, the witch frenzy, their role in the slaughter of millions of indigenous Americans – literally millions – their reluctance to stand up to the Nazi’s during WWII, their silence during the holocaust and you have a collection of pogroms that can and never will be equalled. It’s a ridiculous notion that they are even considered a “religion.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
To which the typical response would likely be: ”You are just another atheist God-Hater.”
LikeLike
Of course I’ve heard that one a thousand times. My typical response is “I don’t hate god, there’s no such thing!” which, as you might imagine, pisses them off greatly!
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are millions of gods —- man made of course.
LikeLike
Yup! Every, single one!
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is evidence for that statement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim, it’s not worth trying with people like scoop or the guy who asked me the ‘specific teaching’ of the catholic church thats deadly. They will alternately defend and deny their own history however they need to in order to keep the blinders on themselves and others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ah, I had forgotten about the parable of the great dinner. A good one to remember when some Christian claims free will. IF someone ever is so stupid to tell me I’ve deserved some injury because of their god and remains in my reach, they’ll find out what their god can’t do about an injury.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Augustine used this parable to justify forcing the Donatists back into the fold. From then on it became widespread horror for the heathen and apostate alike.
LikeLike
indeed it did. I’ll be happy to use this when Christians whine at me that their religion isn’t responsible for those horrors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, I expect no less. Having potential POTUS as a subscriber keeps me on my toes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting ‘Freudian’ slip of calvary instead of cavalry…
LikeLike
Haha. Your quick!
LikeLike
Does your interlocutor also acknowledge the miraculous growth of Islam from one illiterate man to 1.8 billion followers (and gaining)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’ve spoken about that as well on a different post. Neither he nor his colleagues see the hand of god in that. Only the Holy Roman Catholic Church. They also don’t believe the spiritual experience the Muslims feel is authentic, or from god but that of the devil. It has a lot to do with your anchoring biases.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The devil(a prominent deity in their pantheon) providing spiritual experiences is a dangerous thing for them to claim. Others say it about them. I grew up mostly around people that did not like the Catholic Church. The more extreme called it the Great Whore. The only group I heard worse about was Mormons.
What excuse did Jesus come up with in the synoptic Gospels when he was accused of working magic through the prince of the demons? He said that a house divided cannot stand, so Satan cannot drive out Satan. So this could be said about any practice meant to drive away ills and evils. Interesting enough, even non-Christians and “witches” were occasionally given credit for successful predictions and cures, even by Catholics. But the Christians attributed this to Satan, which would destroy their own argument for Jesus.
I have seen Christians(including ones of the past) criticize Muhammad for being overtly violent for the sake of his religion(or his ambition). I wonder when they will condemn Moses, Joshua, or David? They were all far more merciless than Muhammad. Say what you want about the guy, Muhammad never ordered infants and pregnant women to be killed or entire populations to be sacrificed. He never sacrificed the children and grandchildren of his former patron.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess the devil works miracles through good people to deceive them into the wrong belief. Really though, and the belief, the pinnacle of religious achievement is simply a bunch if hot air.
LikeLike
That’s a rather weak argument coming from someone who claims to have converted from atheism to Catholicism. By what metric does he deem his experiences as more authentic than those of competing religions, or denominations? (That’s a rhetorical question, btw. No Christian I’ve ever asked has given me a straight answer. When pressed on the issue they revert to talking about their inner feelings and personal convictions.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hows it going Jim? your friends suggestion that gods vengeance is overdue is, for lack of a better term, generally a layman’s point of view. Christian scholars generally haven’t held it.
But that’s not really why I’m commenting. I was wandering what you thoughts were on the origins of christianity. If you expect the story as is, or subscribe to an alternate point of view. Thank
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which version of whack-a-mole would you like to hear?
There have been some masterfully played games on the human psyche. Jonathan Edwards stumbled upon a neat trick in the 18th century that was copied like wildfire. It uses the persons own hormones and physiology against them to merely believe in the ferver, even over out right lies by getting the crowd into this trance-like state of hormone dispensing belief with music, lighting and showmanship. He had to tone it down because people were killing themselves after his services. Funny thing, take away the hormones and it all goes away.
I’ve not settled in one scenario (so much evidence to choose from) but belief is also a neat trick. It is much easier to fool someone than it is to get them to see that they’ve been fooled. After faith is agreed upon, any challenge to that belief dispenses norepinephrine in the brain causing a fight or flight. Basically it challenges the validity of hope, creates self doubt and people pay dearly for the right to hope. Paul likely stumbled on to something or was a lot more keen on human nature than we’ll admit. Think of the great philosophers that bookended his lifetime.
Remember in Athens, it was the first setting where the king had no clothes. “I know this unknown god of this idol here “. Basically that is the ongoing charade. Rarely will anyone admit they really don’t see or feel anything more than hormones grossly manipulated that were meant for other things.
If you can get someone to repetitive behavior, whether there is any fact involved or not (preferably not, works better purely on faith without evidence) the neurons become hardwired and now we are arguing reason against a persons physiology. These are all scientifically sound principles. It is imperative there is no evidence for faith to work. Any amount of evidence and the faith trap and all its implications die. It wouldn’t kill religion, but it would kill the stupor of faith that has evangelicals spouting hate (not their own) from what they “believe” from the party lines. The key to awakening is unbelief. When that happens all the divisive ideologies disappear in a day and we become human again.
The rest of Christianity is evolved like a play. The stone rolled back, the immediate appeal to faith, even when Jesus was supposedly standing right there, it’s all very well done to present a mediocre awakening and the world settles for bondage like its a blessing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ok, I want to make sure I’m hearing you right. you do not have an opinion about how it started, but you belive that it was created by people who were using psychological philosophical tricks or methods to create belief in people.
LikeLike
It even works today Dave. People will believe anything. Especially children whom religion targets most aggressively.
There are other ways of being in the world. I am an atheist, but that is not the last stop on the track. It is merely an awakening to what is really happening behind the scenes, and it isn’t what you’ve been led to believe. Most likely you cannot even tell me who you really are. Who are you, in your own words besides what you’ve been told? That takes a different approach altogether, but it is not by belief. It is by unbelief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess what confuses me about your point of view is the idea that unbelief is the answer. If you don’t mind me asking, what is unbelief to you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It may take a while to condense my 5 year journey whittling down the core of the monotheistic stall.
Here’s a post from a little while back to start.
https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2019/10/26/more-than-atheism/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, so when you say unbelief you mean in gods or god. I guess this is the core of where we disagree.
From what I can tell you will not exsept an idea until it’s considered a fact. Personally I think the whole idea that thinks can be facts is a little out there. I prefer judging what I will except by how likely it is to be true. For instance, I belive that the sky’s blue, not because its considered a fact, but because I don’t have any reason to think that it’s not. So since it’s the most likely answer I except it.
This is why I belive in god. yes it’s not a fact that he’s real, however, from what I can tell it’s more likely that he does exist then it is that he doesn’t. So I except the more likely scenario.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure, you can’t escape it. It’s affected everyone. Belief has become a virtue in itself, and it’s merely a set of ideas. Even ridiculous beliefs are protected by law around the world where atheism is shunned.
I think two things are very odd. You have been promised tools as a believer. Promises that have never come true. Like “greater signs than these follow them that believe” what signs can you give me to prove you are the real deal? Nobody performs boo for miracles as promised. You don’t have the tools I’d say you’re an imposter, or the Bible is a lie.
Since we are talking religious belief, let me share with you the trick inside the trick. Belief is a temporary tool to prove a premise or hypothesis is where we make incremental advances in culture and science. We try things and if they work we improve upon them. If not, we discard them and regroup. Christianity has taken belief (which is by design a temporary waypoint) and has made it the pinnacle of religious awakening. Simply believing is the virtue of it all. Therefore, we believe even though the leaders continue to fail us and add more layers of nothing and we sit back in a 2000 year stupor analyzing which belief if the coolest, or most likely. It isn’t what you believe that is the problem. It is that-you believe that has stalled humanity.
I’ll quote the lost gospel of Thomas:2 It should be in the Bible but for some odd reason they don’t want you to think independently. “He that seeks will find, and when he finds he will be dismayed and become the master of the ALL.
The reason dismayed is such a great word here, the secret is there is no secret. There is no mystery. You are a part of it that goes on forever and ever and always has. I AM, is not just for those that claimed it for themselves and appointed themselves the way, the truth and the light. It’s all of us. The process to see it has been stripped by the churches and you get but a morsel. But the process still exists if your interested.
LikeLike
I really like your point about tools. I imagine that by tools your referencing miracles. One of the things that I have never understood about atheists, is how they often say that they would believe if they could see a miracle. but when people talk about a miracle that they experienced, it is denied. A good book that you should check out is, craig keeners book miracles. it is a massive book documenting miracles from around the world. Many have medical documentation describing body parts growing back.
He’s a well respected scholar also.
Also You do know that Tomas 2 isn’t referring to atheism?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know that scripture is not referring to atheism, and it’s also not about god or any religious “belief”. It is similar to the I AM, The ALL, I and the father are one, etc. If you read the Bible as a Hindu or zen master or other schooled in the meditative arts you’d see the experience in a completely different light, but those unschooled or unprepared for the awakening interpret it based on the culture they were raised in. I know of a surety it has nothing to do with the Abrahamic god or any other for that matter. It is us. It is how the living universe operates and has for a long long time.
As far as miracles go, no, I’m not referencing miracles. I’m referencing a reality that is available to anyone who seeks it out. It is not a religion or religious as you’d reference a god. These are the experiences that Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and others stumbled upon in their meditations that they could not help but be influenced by the Hebrew/ Christian culture they grew up in, then they mistakenly assigned self importance. Now they claim the I AM for themselves—you must listen to what I say and do what I tell you to do. It is not a god/miracle. phenomenon, but a reality that the universe is not at all what the Bible purports this experience to be. It requires no religious belief to access. It requires no belief at all, but if you do believe you have missed the opportunity through the bias of that belief. Only when you turn that off can you see the possibility by unbelief. Your belief has you somewhere you don’t belong and can’t see the real possibilities through that same belief.
Miracles are just things you don’t understand.
LikeLike
Have you read the gosple of Thomas? Its largely influenced by Gnostic though, which does have a deity. Also, the I Am is referring to a God. And the ALL, in most cases, is referring a worshiped deity or deities who created the world. So I’m not sure I get your point
It’s true that you can read the gospels from a Buddhist or whatever perspective and come out with all kinds of thing. But its important to remember that jesus and his followers were Jews. So to say that an eastern reading is a valid one, Is like saying a modern American reading is. People who do that are as dumb as a person, i know, who read Bertram Russell from a Christian perspective and conclude that he was trying to say God was real.
What you said about miracles is true.They are simply things that we do not understand. However, at the same time they tell us that many of our facts about reality are not conpleatly true. And many indicate that the world consists of non-natural realities.
Until your last reply I was under the impression that you were a naturalist. As In, you belive that the physical world is all there is. But since you pointed at Easter philosophy, which can be atheistic but is almost never naturalistic, I’m wondering if I was wrong about that??
Also, me being nitpicky, only jesus said that he was the I AM.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2019/09/20/the-idea-of-i-am-the-jehovah-effect/
LikeLike
Ok so you are a naturalist.
LikeLike
Not sure what you mean by naturalist. These are simply observations I have had while meditating. I abhor the experts and commentary because 99% of everyone wants to claim some superior truth where none exists. There is however, much more to this story and happening much longer than before Yahweh, Jehovah, or Jesus can account for. You too Dave. The visions and encounters to the information of the universe, a sort of digital library of forevermore, met by guides (not gods) gives us access to all that ever happened or will happen in this never ending play of a living entity. Think of yourself as a nerve ending or a skin cell of an infinite cosmos, observing and growing in an infinite round. These are not new ideas, but the churches destroyed the common mans ability to chart his own path.
You can never, not be. And as an infinite being, what could you possibly do to relieve the boredom of billions of eons of existence? All the information and knowledge of the universe at your disposal, enough time to visit every grain of sand in the cosmos, what do you do to occupy your time?—Enter into a realm of not knowing.
This tiny portion of life, bookended by two voids of death (our most natural state) is simply part of the way things are. When we die, all the anxiety of not knowing it’s just a game we play with ourselves, we break through to the other side and laugh our asses off. The game gets us every time. This also solves the problem of evil. Knowing full well on arrival we’d challenge ourselves in the most horrible of experiences time and time again. Simply for the thrill.
Have you ever been in a harrowing accident and had a near brush with death, only to survive? That’s what it’s like to die. Survive. It’s pretty cool.
LikeLike
What I mean by, naturalism, is a belief that only fiscal things exist. As in there is no Spiritual. No life after death, no god, no spirits, or Spiritual being. Does that describe you??
Alos, your reply makes my think that you do believe in life after death, and in spirit guides. Which, if you were being literal, you’re in contact with.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, it sounds like you subscribe to new age spiritualism and not modern atheism.
On a side note, when you said “a sort of digital library of forevermore” were you referring to the akashic recorder or Akashic library. Because if you were and you’ve accessed it, we need to talk on the phone so you can describe that experience to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had another conversation recently about this topic with another believer. He said “yes, this is the record god uses to judge humanity”. It is hard to escape the old bearded white god, the monarchial boss with the clipboard recording your deeds. This is evident in our dialogue Dave. Through belief you misinterpret nearly every comment I have made based on your presuppositions. You have this incessant need to label things, me in particular as atheist, naturalist, new ager (whatever that is) and if we continue dialogue I’m sure I will appear as everything else too because I am all of it. This is where belief limits our ability to see a bigger picture. I am nothing at all. I have no beliefs. I do have an ideative ability to connect the dots and observe the way things are, in spite of what we’ve been told. Through belief we see things as we have been trained to see them, not as how they really are.
This life after death you speak of holds an incomplete view of what is life as you have been misled to believe you are something you are not and can be punished for it.
The data stream is not a religious claim. It is accessed knowingly and unknowingly through creative minds (that often unknowingly predict future events when “in the zone”) but it is in no way the god of the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok I think I understand what you’re saying. I apologize if I offended you by using labels I was trying to comprehend how you view the world.
Again I want to make sure that I’m hearing you right so correct me if I’m wrong. But you do believe that there is some form of life after death??
LikeLike
I’m never offended Dave. It’s all part of the discussion that helps to identify introspectively your tendency to use the label, which is indicative of the expert influence that promotes belief over substance. I have literally been labeled everything, half of I don’t even know what it means.
There is a trick inside the trick that you must be able to identify when you ask the question about life after death. We are always presented with 2 wrong choices, but like everything else in life there is more than what we’ve been conditioned to believe, by belief. Very few take the time to view the world outside the men of words.
Before I can answer that question (which is ultimately no, i don’t believe anything, but there are different stages of life) you have to put the puzzle pieces together from a broad perspective, and outside of belief which is the biggest barrier to human thought. When monotheism took over through the simplicity of merely believing and obedience vs utility and practice, belief became a virtue where in fact it is nothing but feel-good thought convictions with no substance. It does lock out many other possibilities of what many have known and practiced as an integral part of the cosmos, rather than separate from it.
You are not what the preachers and the good mommy’s and daddy’s have convinced us we are. Before you can begin to understand what death is you have to recognize what life is and what role you actually play. When you think of “I” as in the sense of muscular strain, all those things that create that illusion is not who “you” really are. You breath, your blood circulates, chew, view, and think, but that does not identify who you are. Can you kill the part of you that makes you, you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Crazy man, if your really about what you’ve been saying, then you have once again surprised me. Your answer was a little vague but I think I understand where your coming from. Thanks for the answer.
LikeLike
It is intentionally vague for to truly understand one must be willing to admit that everything they ever believed was wrong and came from a violent time of widespread misunderstanding of the earth and its nature. There are still indigenous peoples who don’t believe anything in the western sense, but merely live at one with the cosmos. Core shamanistic principles that were universal in the remotest regions of the world. Whereas with gods, why never the same god twice? Where was Yahweh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A good book that you should check out is, craig keeners book miracles. it is a massive book documenting miracles from around the world. Many have medical documentation describing body parts growing back. He’s a well respected scholar also.” ~Dave/16Av
Yet Mr. Keener’s own words reveal a lack of due diligence in investigating the veracity of the claims presented. On pages 2-3 of his introduction, he writes the following:
And further down he writes:
From page 10:
And finally, this bit of special pleading from page 13:
Sources: personal notes and https://www.scribd.com/book/235009135/Miracles-2-Volumes-The-Credibility-of-the-New-Testament-Accounts (partial)
So by his own admission, these are not scientifically documented and verified miracles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I appreciate the point. The only thing that I want point out is that I never claimed that miracles were scientific.
Miracles are definitional un scientific, they go against establish laws and are unrepeatable.
The study of miracles is better likened to something like history. Where you use reason more the empirical evidence. It’s not a fact that miracles happen but there are many cases that a hard to deny.
Not saying that you should believe based on that, but (i think) it does merit investigation.
LikeLike
The thing is this: how do you investigate supernatural occurrences if they’re not subject to empirical evaluation? For instance, suppose I told you I saw the ghost of Elvis standing at the foot of my bed last night. How would you go about verifying or disproving my claim?
Plus, the biblical definition of miracle is more closely aligned to performing signs and wonders — i.e. deeds that lend themselves to empirical observation. The gospels report that Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead and restored sight to the blind.
Moreover, in Mark 16:17-20 Jesus identifies the signs that will follow those who believe:
– casting out demons,
– speaking in tongues,
– handling serpents,
– drinking poison unharmed, and
– healing the sick.
Now if that’s true, why are those claiming to be Christians unable to demonstrate any of these supernatural abilities — especially the last one?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that your making a good point. And I will admit that miracles can’t be scientifically investigated. However, we don’t live in a world were an isolated minority are reporting them. It’s most of the world. which, in my opinion, merits investigation.
I think that modern Christian’s have endorsed a false narrative about miracles. They make them sound like superpowers and I don’t think that’s accurate. The 12 could sometimes do them and other times not. Which tells me that miracles are dependent on more then just the whims of Christians.
You were right to point out that the bible defines them as signs. That’s there purpose. There not for human pleasure but are to stand as evidence.
Which is another reason why I think investing them is worthwhile. If you can show that they are all fake then you’ve debunked the whole thing. However, that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening in current studies.
Personally, I would like to see a deeper study done on miracles by atheists. I think it would be interesting.
LikeLike
If you can show that they are all fake then you’ve debunked the whole thing. Even when they are debunked, believers won’t accept it. “Faith” is a hard nut to crack.
LikeLike
It really is imperative that there is no evidence for the game to continue. Evidence would destroy faith. It wouldn’t destroy religion, but the stupor of faith and all its divisive implications.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey how’s it going? It’s been awhile.
LikeLike
Thanks for the explanation of your point of view. I think I get where your coming from a little better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I may, unbelief is described as the lack or absence of belief or absence of faith. People try and convolute this into something like “there is a god, you just don’t believe in it.” This is not the case at all. There’s nothing to believe in to begin with, it’s tantamount to believing in the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny. Just my 2 cents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Dave/16Av
Having followed your dialogue with Jim, the real question is not where /how Jim considers it (Christianity?) all started, but rather why on earth do you believe it in the first place?
And the more crucial question, what evidence can you produce to demonstrate the veracity of a single foundational claim of your faith?
Let’s clarify these points first and I am confident it will make further dialogue more productive.
Regards
Ark.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ye Jim and I have had those conversations before. And I think that it’s been establish that we won’t convince each other. So I was just interested in hearing his point of view. He is a very original thinker, his point of view makes me think about things differently so I appreciate it.
With that said, I would love to talk about why belive! But before we get in to all that I would like to know where you stand on the whole religion thing. I wouldn’t want to waste time explaining why I belive there is a God if you were Buddhist or something.
I’m a Christian, other then believing in an old earth my belief are more or less standard.
LikeLike
You are on an atheist blog. I am an atheist.
I have also tried to leave a comment on your blog but it failed to appear so I sent you an email.
There was some message in the comment box.
Do you moderate?
So, back to the questions I asked.
1. Why do you believe?
and
2. What evidence can you produce for the foundational claims of your religion/faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No i didn’t get the email or the comments. I guess there’s a bug sorry about that. Still trying to get everything squared away. Thank you for getting in contact. I’ll send you my reply later today.
LikeLike
So, are you going to answer the questions I asked here on Jim’s blog?
LikeLike
Lol yes I’m at work right now.
LikeLike
And?
LikeLike
So, evidence? Still waiting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, thanks for waiting. Let’s start at the place where I think our most fundamental disagreement is at. Is there a god?
So I approach the question by answering another question. Where did the univers come from?
Currently, most scientists agree that there was a start, and there are two main hypotheses as to what caused that start. One takes a naturalist approach and the other a theistic approach.
Now, it’s true that we can’t prove that a god created the world, however, we also can’t prove that the world was created by a natural process.
Which is why people like Dawkins say they are a little agnostic.
The reason that I believe that there is a god, is because theism is the most likely answer to the, how did the world start question.
I think that there is stronger philosophical evidence and Empirical evidence for the creator idea. The there is for the natural process idea.
Much of my thinking is inline with people like Antony Flew, atheist turned theist.
If you want to get more specific then that I’m more then down. Just point me in a direction. But that’s were I’m at.
Now I know that this doesn’t explain why I’m a Christian. I don’t think that we can productively address that until we come to some kind of understanding here.
LikeLike
Let’s get this out of the way first.
For the record, Flew apparently accepted a deist position. He was never a theist.
You need to fact check before you regurgitate such nonsense.
This is an opinion.
Support it with evidence.
To my second question.
Again ….
2. What evidence can you produce for the foundational claims of your religion/faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If your going to be nitpicky here is a Quote from his book to clarify my point.
‘I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations.”
So DNA and origins research is number 1 for me.
I also think that the long history and durability of the philosophical arguments for god speaks for itself. That would be 2.
I’ll also point to the large amount scholars that are rejecting hard atheism. As 3.
And the problem of a grounded morality would be number 4
If your not up to date with these thing I’m happy to answer questions or clarify.
Like I said, before we move on to you next question we need to come to an understanding here.
LikeLike
“ And the problem of a grounded morality would be number 4” What is this grounded morality you speak of Dave? I can tell you what it is in its simplest form. Men show restraint because of what other men think of them. Even believers will do in private with their God watching, that they would never do in the presence of even the most vile human.
LikeLike
What people do isn’t what having a grounded morality is about. Morality doesn’t make people act a certain way. It allows them to understand their actions. Hence why it needs to be grounded.
LikeLike
Nitpicky?
There is a world of difference between deism and belief in the Lake Tiberius pedestrian.
And you should really take the time to investigate the circumstances surrounding that book.
Habermas and more so Varguese – a more notable pair of disingenuous shlenters you are unlikely to encounter in Jesus circles.
Start here ….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
To clarify …
I am not interested in your objections or agreements of what others believe, I want to know why you believe include the evidence you have for that belief, and in particular evidence for the foundational tenets of your belief.
Once you have done, we can move on with pleasure.
So, Dave, no sideshows, no tangents. no theological two step.
Straightforward explanation fully supported with evidence if you please.
The floor is yours.
LikeLike
Lol I gave you 4 reasons why I think theism is a better explanation then naturalism. If your looking for pictures or diagrams I’m sorry I don’t have any.
Have you habermases work, those guys took the resurrection for a joke in scholarships to a topic of debate. You might disagree with their conclusions but you can’t deny the impact they have had. Disingenuous isn’t a good word for them.
On a side note is wikipedia your go to?
LikeLike
I used wiki as it the easiest for everyone to start with – as I pointed out.
There are several top class reviews of the book which you can find if you are at all interested in honest journalism?
Again … I want the reason for your faith (in the character Jesus of Nazareth) and the evidence to support this.
And also the evidence for the foundational tenets for your faith/religion.
If you are struggling to understand my word usage please specify what it is you do not understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hold on, again I’m happy to get there. but first we need to come to an understanding about why I belive in god in the first place. I can’t properly tell you why I belive if you won’t acknowledge where my belief started.
So do you have problems with those 4 reasons, That you want addressed? Or can we agree to respectfully disagree and move on?
LikeLike
I can’t properly tell you why I believe if you won’t acknowledge where my belief started.
Of course you can.
You are a theist and most people let alone the average Christian have no idea or understanding of dna and would not even consider this a reason for their belief, so we can scratch that.
However, as you seem to be struggling with straightforward replies I will try to make it easier for you.
What evidence do you have for the character Jesus of Nazareth being the creator of the universe and why do you consider belief in this character essential?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What were not talk about your other Christian’s. Were talking about me. An those are where my belief started. So there very relevant thing and in fact the beginning.
So again do you have a problem with
1. The DNA/origins argument
2. The morality argument
3. The arguments from philosophy
4. My point that many scientists are now dropping hard atheism.
If so, please point it out.
If not, then last agree to disagree and I will be happy to move on.
On a side not, if you don’t mind me asking what country are u from? And Damn you have strong feelings about Turkey day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it possible you can simply answer the question?
Once you do I will be more than happy to address your other points in more detail.
What evidence do you have for the character Jesus of Nazareth being the creator of the universe and why do you consider belief in this character essential?
LikeLike
Nop, You first question was why do I believe. So that’s were we start.
LikeLike
Fair enough. let’s take it one point at a time and keep the responses simple and straightforward.
1. The DNA/origins argument.
Please explain how the DNA argument relates to belief in Jesus of Nazareth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok thanks for waiting.
So first off, we’re not currently talking about why I belive in jesus. We are currently talking about why I belive that there is a god. We will get to why I belive that that God is jesus. But one thing at a time.
So, The DNA/origins argument.
I’m sure that you have heard of intelligent design. ID for a very long time was not considered good hypothesis. However, due to findings in DNA and Origins research it’s now considered a viable explanation.
The main point is that evolution hasn’t been able to explain the creation of the information found in DNA. And so it’s reasonable to think that that information in DNA was created by an intelligence.
Now, its important to note that this is not a god in the gaps argument.
According to Darwin, when determining the creation of something biological you should always reference things that are known to accomplish or create the thing your observing. Currently, the only thing that we know of, which can create information, is a mind or intelligence. Making ID not only possible, but the most probable explanation for life.
Heres a link to a video from the discovery institute which will give you a good and more in depth introduction.
Also here is a lecture from the discovery institute with more info on origins science.
These guys do not do apologetics and are not preachers, their real scientists doing real work.
LikeLike
Creationist nonsense, I’m afraid and in Meyer’s recent book he finally admits he believes (the Christian) god is responsible.
So that renders your first point null an void – no evidence for your god.
And,.please, I beg you, don’t come back and whine on about how ID is not Creationism. Far greater individuals have decreed that it is and I simply cannot be bothered to list all the links and name the people who have trashed this nonsense.
So … point 2.
2. The morality argument.
How does this relate to your belief in the character Jesus of Nazareth?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If your going to reject what I said. Please come up with something better then a ad hominem argument.
“Creationists nonsense”
If you have a problem with the evidence (as in you know of a better explanation for the information in DNA) the please state that.
Also many other “far greater individuals”, have look at the evidence presented by the ID hypothesis and concluded that there is a god. Flew being among them.
Also this idea that Meyers personal belief renders MY point null an void.
Is very illogical.
I was arguing for the idea of god, not a god.
We will get to my god, but were not there yet. Please focus.
LikeLike
You obviously were not paying attention,
I specifically pointed out that, much more worthy individuals have taken this nonsense to task and this is why it is in not allowed to be taught in public schools.
So please don’t play the whining victim and expect me to pander to your ignorance.
I did ask you not to patronize and I will also ask you not to be a condescending little shit.
If you haven’t got the integrity to be straightforward and stop being disingenuous then perhaps it better you simply go put on a new bib, and fuck yourself?
LikeLike
Lol I like u.
So let’s be clear. You asked me why I belive what I believe. We are on my belief in a god. I gave you a reason and you disagreed.
But gave me no reasoning as to why I’m wrong, other then an ad hominem, and other people say so.
It’s just not a good response.
If the science is above your head or you have already made up you mind we can agree to disagree.
LikeLike
What science?
So …. the morality argument.
Off you go … let’s here it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again if you’re going to object its should be more then a dismissal. Otherwise I’m ok with agreeing to disagree
LikeLike
I did mention that, far more competent /worthy individuals than me have explained and dismissed ID as nonsense.
And Meyer is a committed Christian and Tour is not a biologist and is ALSO a Committed Christian.
You can disagree all you like.
However, you were the one who seemed to be at pains to want to explain the veracity of your position, as if you truly expected us to be unaware of ID nonsense and we would bowled over by disingenuous dickwads like Meyer.
What next? Why Ken Ham is simply misunderstood?
The amazing archaeological find of chariot wheels on the floor of the Red Sea?
How about Justin Barrett and how we are hardwired for god belief …. oops, I am so sorry, God belief. I always forget that Yahweh needs a big G.
You see Dave … may I call you Dave? ….most non-believers you will encounter in Blogsville are been-there-done-that-got-the nail- holes-in-my-hands type of ex-Christian. Whereas you come across as quite a young(ish) fresh-faced reasonably pleasant chap, with a New Website and brimming with freshly acquired god juice … oh damn, I did it again … God juice that you can’t wait to spurt all over people in your fervent belief that all it will take are a few piss-willy pseudoscientific videos and some regurgitated apologetics and lo and behold … you’ve managed to save someone! Amen, praise to Jesus.
Well whoopy-fucking-do.
Thus far all you have done is make yourself look silly.
So, you were going to present the morality argument?
Mustn’t let the side down. I’m sure Uncle Frank and Uncle Ravi will be proud of you for at least trying.
I have my coffee and a few homemade biscuits, my movie doesn’t start for a while so off you go, then.
I’m all ears ….
Ark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not trying to convince you. You asked what convenience me. So I told you, and you objected.
You obviously have a problem with the people.
But do you have a problem with the ID argument itself?
LikeLike
I never suggested you were trying to convince me. I asked for evidence for your position.
So far you have not given any, and now you have resorted to being vague almost to the point of prevarication.
Your ID/origins examples carry no weight in any scientific field, although you have been convinced by them, but if you were truly honest you would admit that you were exposed to Christianity prior to the pseudoscience of ID.
Thus, I am not convinced by point 1.
So, point 2. The morality argument.
Off you go.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I disagree with you point that ID has no waight. There are many scientists who support it, Flew being the biggest example.
Papers suggesting that intelligence is behind DNA have been published.
So to be clear, you problem with ID is that some scientists disagree with it an Christians created it?
That’s the Impression I’m getting.
If that’s your position think that that’s reasonable. But I would suggest that you dive into the subject some
more.
So what’s your problem with the morale argument,
LikeLike
Anthony Flew was a scientist ? Really? In what field.
I’m still waiting for you to make it …
Off you go.
LikeLike
You don’t know it?
LikeLike
I thought you did?
LikeLike
Sorry that was vague.
If you don’t know the argument I’m down to explain it. But if you do, then why do you objected to it being a reason to believe that there is a god?
LikeLike
Did you forget to tell me what scientific field Flew was involved in?
Re Morality Argument.
Christians often have their own individual take.
I’d like to read yours. And of course, the evidence that supports it.
LikeLike
He’s a philosopher. I should a said academic.
There’s only one moral argument
LikeLike
Yes, he was a philosopher, not a scientist. He was not qualified to pronounce on ID.
There’s only one moral argument
Fair enough. Let’s hear it in your words … and the supporting evidence as well, please.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol
You asked my why I belive in god. I find the moral argument convincing.
if you have an objection to it an want to discuss it I’m down.
If you don’t really know what it is I’m down to explain it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, yes please. Explain it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
To save you time and avoid the unintentional possibility of you patronizing me, ( As with the ID crap you posted) in case you were contemplating referencing more specific links or videos in an attempt to strengthen your case, I should mention that, I have listened to and /or/read/watched all the relevant apologetic/religious claims from most of the usual suspects, including, Berlinski, Lennox, Craig, Wallace Strobel., Habermas,the two ‘lightening rods for Jesus’ you’ve posted here, Francis Collins, the crowd at Biologos, Mike Licona, and Kenneth KItchen etc.
And just on the off-chance you thought of referencing anything by Ehrman that you feel will help your case – please don’t.
I have a very basic grasp of the arguments for and against the Fine Tuning argument – thank you Sean Carroll – am up to speed on other more silly claims – the global flood tales and the water ”trapped” in the earth’s mantle, dino blood and, worse, the Paluxy Riverbed Trail (You know, the one with the human and dinosaur footprints, yes?) and supposed drawing of dinosaurs around the world including the depiction of a supposed stegosaurus.
There are more but you might not be familiar with all of them.
Oh, and yes, I have read the bible –
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s back up a bit, so that we are all on the same page.
In laymen’s terms, the theory of evolution addresses only one thing: genetic change over time based on observable facts. An that’s it. Nothing more. Nothing less. It doesn’t concern itself with the origins of life or the the universe (those topics are covered by other theories).
And when we speak of DNA as information we are using a metaphor. DNA presents us with information but it is not information per se. By way of analogy: if you come upon two logs in the forest lying across each other in the shape of an “X” it does not automatically mean that some intelligent being arranged them to lie that way, because it’s entirely possible for them to land in that position via natural processes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I conpleatly agree with everything that you said. But I think that DNA stands as evidence of a designer because intelligence is the only thing that we know of which can create something like DNA.
I’m not saying that nothing will ever turn up. But right now, I think that it’s a reasonable and possible explanation.
LikeLike
Science continues to give creationists fodder to claim as their god, while still rejecting whatever science doesn’t align with what they already chose to believe.
If this was 1952, there would be no discussion of how god uses dna to create things, but would be using older arguments. As we progress, so does the religious cherry picking of ideas by creationists; not to prove whatever is true, but prove what they’ve already decided on.
The entire dna argument will change here shortly, for it seems the coding is in every electron of every element and thing, in a universe whose ancient light loops back on itself. I can already imagine the creationist arguments, but most likely the universe is a self contained life form much older than Yahweh or Jehovah, who for 1500 years was only known in the area of Israel. It took serious persuasion and effort to make this god known at all. Where was he before this? Why had no tribe anywhere in the world ever record a single glimpse of this god, but had many other ideas and teaching of the earth and universe in common with each other?
LikeLike
But I think that DNA stands as evidence of a designer
80% of all genetic mutations are harmful to an organism’s fitness.
Does this speak to competent guidance, or randomness?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I see what your saying, but I’m talking about the origins of DNA. Your right in saying that randomness is not good for life. Because of this natural selection isn’t capable of explaining the origin of DNA.
LikeLike
Yes it does. Mutations are random, selection is not.
LikeLike
Given your dialogue here it seems you really don’t have a very good handle on the subject. That’s OK, being surrounded by creationists doesn’t help. There are some things you should really know, and take with you, like a brief history of research into this particular field:
In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey set out to test Alexander Oparin’s and J. B. S. Haldane’s hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favoured “chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors,” and through their experiments successfully cooked up the first manmade Amino Acids in the lab. Since then NASA’s Stardust probe triumphantly returned to earth in 2006 with Amino Acids it’d captured after intercepting the comet 81P/Wild (Wild-2) around Jupiter, proving that these fundamental building blocks of life occur naturally on earth and are found equally naturally in space.
In 2009, Dr. Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and his graduate student, Tracey Lincoln, pretty much nailed primitive ‘life’ – a progenitor of life if you like – when they developed a molecule composed of nothing but RNA enzymes in a test tube that replicated and evolved, swapping genes for just as long as the conditions were right to do so. Doing what molecules do it Xeroxed itself by using its own basic structure as a scaffolding from which to build new copies from pairs of smaller molecules. Incredibly, when incorrect copies were made mutations arose and the molecule quite happily passed on those changes to the proceeding generation, and so it slowly evolved.
Also in 2009 John Sutherland of the University of Manchester went even further when he successfully cooked up two of the four ribonucleotides found in both RNA and DNA molecules and by doing so created the first stirrings of life on earth. Remarkably, with each passing phase the molecules became more and more complex and when phosphates were added in the very last stage Sutherland found himself staring at two ribonucleotides; half a naturally built RNA molecule.
In 2012, researchers led by Phil Holliger at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge announced they’d successfully made the first synthetic RNA and DNA molecules which they called, XNA: xeno-nucleic acids. They achieved this mind-jarringly colossal leap in constructing artificial life by building synthetic versions of RNA and DNA’s nucleobase ladder rungs. By synthesizing enzymes (what they’ve called, polymerases) they could then bind the XNA molecules to DNA or reverse the process back to a single RNA strand; passing genetic information between the natural and synthetic molecules at will, leading MRC scientist, Victor Pinheiro, to observe “Thus heredity and evolution, two hallmarks of life, are not limited to DNA and RNA.”
In 2010, Dr Craig Venter, actually created synthetic life (a man-made single celled organism) by manufacturing a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply… the very definition of being alive.
In 2014, Floyd Romesberg, at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, also created synthetic life by producing completely new (alien) bases (X and Y) which bonded to DNA and were transferred in mitosis. Over time, though, the X and Y were lost, until in 2017 when the researchers simply created a new bacterium which would always retain the new bases. Alien life created.
Hope this helps.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Love. It. And we’re only a few years into it with a handful of efforts. Imagine if all the world made this type of effort vs believing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very early days, indeed. And it’s really not complicated. Homeostasis is the driver (staying together longer), and for that the first task was the dissipation of heat, just as Jeremy England had theorised.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have looked into these experiment before. When I did I remember concluding that they didn’t meet the requirements. However, its been a while and you sparked my curiosity so give me some time to go through it again. I’ll hit you up with what I find, weather its pro you or pro me.
LikeLike
This little statement carries a lot, ”weather its pro you or pro me”. This is the faith trap. If it doesn’t typically align with what you’ve already decided to believe it will be dismissed or inconclusive. All of us ex-believers partied this way for many years. This is what I meant by the key to understanding is unbelief.
I can read these results and build upon them as the experimenters are doing. The believer simply turns the page…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thats why I have you Jim if what I find shows I’m wrong, I know you’ll make sure my faith stays in check. Happy Thanksgiving btw.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is not a matter of pro this or that. What has been demonstrated is that it’s not really complicated at all to get to the RNA World, especially considering we now know the building blocks of life (20 amino acids) are easily cooked up, and are even found naturally in space. In just a decade, humans have made artificial life, with artificial RNA/DNA.
But this is chemistry, not evolutionary biology. Evolution is what you were talking about and claiming intelligent design. Well, evolution is a slow, messy, painful, error-rich process. The question you have to answer is, Why? Why evolution? What possible rational reason could the Creator have had to invent—LITERALLY INVENT—that slow, messy, painful, error-rich process?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like I said I’ll get back to you. One question at a time.
LikeLike
Ok. But what led you to conclude that the universe (and DNA in particular) is intelligently designed? In other words what would a naturally occurring, non-intelligently-designed universe or biological organism look like, and how would you make the distinction?
One of the reasons I reject your ID hypothesis is because the human body does not appear to be very intelligently designed. The most glaring design error is the tiny flap between our trachea and esophagus which occasionally fails leading to disastrous results (i.e., choking to death when food gets stuck in the windpipe). The second example of a design flaw is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which takes an unnecessary detour from your skull down to your heart before looping around the aortic arch and running back up to your larynx. And the third example is the human eye. Here’s a link explaining those design flaws in detail: https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/01/12/the-poor-design-of-the-human-eye
There are many other examples of flawed designs, but I think those three alone are sufficient evidence to disprove the Intelligent Design hypothesis.
LikeLiked by 3 people
First of I would like to thank you for the thoughtful response.
I thinks that that’s a valid point.
I’m currently on a roadtrip so I’ll have to get back to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey thanks for waiting.
So to be clear, i haven’t come to a conclusion about this yet. BE WARNED everything I’m about to say is still half baked. So any insight you have is more then welcome.
my feelings about this point are mixed. And I want to be honest, my feelings about this a still mixed. but here’s where I’m at.
My problem with this argument is that it makes an unfunded assumption. And that is the intention or purpose of the alleged creator. It assumes that the creator would only want to make the most effective creatures possible. I don’t think that this is an assumption that we can make.
I mean, maybe he created the flap because he likes to see humans randomly choke to death. (Dumb example!!! I hope you get my point)
So the objection of an assumed motivation gives me pause.
However, personally, I think that what your saying creates a big problem for creationism. Since it supports a 6000 year old earth. I think that some of our bad parts, can be attributed to God, while other to evolution. (Sorry I do not have examples I’m still working through these ideas)
Which is one of the reasons why I prefer ID over creationism. (Since the ID hypothesis allows for an old earth)
But like I said I’m still working through the argument. So this a half baked opinion and not a very sturdy on at that.
Like I said I would love to hear anything you have on this subject.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I could certainly entertain the idea of a designer who is incompetent, or a prankster, or even outright malevolent. But wouldn’t that flat out contradict the theists’ argument for an all-perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-kind, all-loving, all-merciful and all-just God?
One of the reasons I reject the argument for the existence of the biblical god is because the Christian conception of God is itself deeply flawed. Because by definition the word “perfection” implies completion and totality (i.e., without fault or flaw; as good as it gets; the highest degree of proficiency, skill or excellence; no further improvement possible). So a perfect being would be a self-sustaining entity without needs or desires. To argue for the existence of a god who creates things or desires worship, adoration and obedience is to argue for a god who lacks the quality of perfection.
And one cannot be all-merciful and all-just at the same time. If justice demands the execution of a convicted murderer, then an all-just judge must set aside any personal feelings of mercy and render a verdict in accordance with the law, and an all-merciful judge has no choice but to issue a stay of execution and violate his/her oath to mete out justice in accordance with the law. Nor can you escape this dilemma by proposing that both requirements are satisfied if an innocent third party is punished for the crimes of the guilty, because that’s not justice at all — it’s merely scapegoating.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Your right it would be a problem for the Christian idea of god. But not for the idea of god, Most theists or deities (which ever it is) stop at creator, they don’t add more attributes.
So I can see your point about the biblical god. But not the ideal of god.
And like I said I’m currently working through it. So I don’t have a cohesive answer for the biblical god yet. I haven’t learned enough about biology or theology to understand the big picture. So I’m going to have to leave it there.
Your a very thoughtful person and I don’t want to insult you with half baked ideas.
From were I’m standing now, I think that there is a cohesive answer but I don’t know forsure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I live in South Africa.
LikeLike
No way! I have friends in PE and have been there many times. SA is one of my favorite Places.
LikeLike
Congratulations on the world cup btw. I was in America at the time so I missed all the fun.
LikeLike
My b. Were not talking about other Christian’s.***
LikeLike
O happy Turkey day btw!!!
LikeLike
I am not American and furthermore the slaughter of millions of turkeys just so you can celebrate the arrival of a bunch of pilgrims on Native American soil is, quite frankly, rather gross.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, so you can’t pick and choose which tenets you’re going to believe and which ones you aren’t. This has been going on since the very beginning; is Jesus divine or a man with some divine characteristics? Is he god incarnate, or god’s “son” sent to save humanity? Are “they” all of the same substance; the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost? Even the Church fathers can’t seem to reconcile the most fundamental aspects of the faith. This of course, eventually led to the Reformation, now 502 years old and still being argued between the so-called “faiths.” But isn’t that very nature of faith itself? The belief in something for which there is no concomitant proof? In this case, I prefer to use the term “blind faith” to mean the belief in something for which there is not only no concomitant proof, but for which there is actually evidence that refutes it?
The NT does not stand up to scrutiny, period. It just doesn’t work. All indications are that Jesus was an extremely devout Jew and as such he would never have adhered to such contrarian dogma as “dying’ for the sins of others which is tantamount to human sacrifice, an idea that would be repulsive to any Jew of the era. That would be completely anathema to any form of Judaism. Additionally, there is no way Pontius Pilate takes him off the cross for any reason at all, let alone to do a favor for his friend “Joseph of Arimathea”, who conveniently pops out of nowhere from a place that has never been found on any map ancient or modern. Of course there’s much more to it than this of course, but throw in the miracles, rising from the dead, etc., and you have an absolute fairytail.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I am still curious to see if Dave is a true believer, or if the Bible lied. Where are the tools promised to them that believe? It’s a valid question.
LikeLike
So your saying that christianity is not true because people have different views?
And because it’s a fairytale. Am I right in saying that?
LikeLike
No, I’m suggesting its not true because it is full of inconsistencies, ludicrous assertions, and out right false claims. As I said earlier, it simply doesn’t not stand up to scrutiny. What you know as “Christianity” Jesus wouldn’t recognize at all as any genre of Judaism. In fact, “Christianity” is an invention of Paul, a man that Jesus never knew, never met, and decided he was an “apostle” on his own, without regard to anyone within the Jerusalem church. Read Hyam Maccoby’s “Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity.” Incredibly insightful and incisive expose of Paul and his corpus of lies.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ok
LikeLiked by 1 person
Calvary was the name of the hill upon which Jesus was supposedly crucified.
Cavalry were the pony soldiers who rounded ‘them Godless heathens’ up. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought you knew what it was?
LikeLike
Let’s get it on!
The moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God.
LikeLike
Of course this is utter nonsense as study after study shows this is not true.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So, the DNA/origins argument – Strike 1
The Morel argument – Strike 2
The philosophical argument is meaningless as it offers no evidence. Strike 3.
What’s left? …
Oh yeah, ”Hard Atheism” whatever the Hades that is. I thought atheism was atheism, the lack of belief in gods, period!
Have I missed anything?
What does this leave?
How about: ”I am a Christian because I believe I am a sinner and need the saving blood of Christ to avoid spending eternity in Hell.”
Read: ”I was indoctrinated as a child and/or had emotional issues and converted/ was born again as an adult.”
How we doing so far?
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is a good summation. So what party do you take issue with? Feel free to comment Jim.
LikeLike
First it presupposes an authority, then by belief, it dismisses hard evidence. To quote a friend who summed it better than I, “I’ve found the morality argument for a god to be the absolute weakest for the simple reason that we have hard evidence that this thing we call “morality,” which is really nothing but a formative sense of good (positive) and bad (negative) behaviour, is a product of neurological processing power. The more neurons, the more accute an organisms understanding of it. Countless studies, across numerous species, prove this beyond any rational doubt. It is not a human phenomena, and its anything but complicated”
To add further, the real innate desire of all species is for fairness, something religion has skirted through “gods will” as an excuse to demonize certain sorts.
We all know when Christians talk morality, the crux of it is sexual purity which is to control bloodlines. Something that has to be taught, then guilt (which is also taught) shapes humanity into hiding their true selves while they carry on in private.
Really the morality argument for god proves nobody really believes it anyway. It is shaped by what others will think of you, for men will do privately with their god watching, what they would never do even in front of the most vile human. Proof nobody really believes in god the way they say they do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, so a couple of things. The moral argument makes the observation that objective moral rules and duties exist. And so concludes that there was a morale law giving, since discoverable morale rules and duties cannot exist without one.
So it doesn’t assume a creator first. But concludes that there is one.
Heres the classic illustration of a discoverable morale reality. The holocaust was wrong no matter what. There is no scenario where someone could say that it was good. It Would be an objectively evil activity for anyone to partispate in, no matter what they think, believe, or feel about it.
In contrast, If there was no objective moral law then what is evil or good is dependent on personal preference. Or has to be rejected entirely. So if there is no objective moral law then holocaust was ether a morally neutral event. Or good or bad depending on personal preference.
I would say that morality is a human phenomenon. Were the only creatures that would consider the things like murder happening to someone of a different tribe to be an evil thing. Also fairness is not the desire of all species. Not by a longshot. Like just watch animal planet if you don’t believe me it’s a harsh world out there.
I also don’t think that hypocrisy always proves that someone doesn’t believe.
LikeLike
Ok, Immanuel Kant was a Lutheran, he later changed his name to Immanuel after learning Hebrew. Was born and raised in the Lutheran/Protestant faith. Why do you think he would philosophize god into the moral argument? Hmm? Just by mere chance?
The holocaust is a great example and a political taboo. How about the priests of Baal and the slaughter of women and children through divine command? Is that a convenient exemption? Was that ok then? Many high profile clergy of the time endorsed Hitler as doing gods work. It’s quite a list if you’d like it.
Even in your own religion there is no “evil no matter what” clause.
As far as morality being a human phenomenon, that is pure rubbish and countless studies among multiple species bear this out.
LikeLike
Again I don’t think that hypocrisy destroys the argument. If anything, by saying that they were wrong to do what they did and that there are bad people who are religious your kinda supporting the moral argument.
LikeLike
Ok. One thing at a time. If you need to philosophize god into existence, it is more evidence against, than for. I simply philosophize him out of existence. Poof, back and forth. Pointless as the other arguments for god. The real presence of god would be universal and indisputable.
I have to pick this up more tomorrow, but if God’s morality was universal among “his children”, how do you explain feral children. Multiple studies show that without morality being taught at a young age, it can never be learned. It is not naturally occurring at all. All of the cases of feral children adopted the morality of the host species, and none of them unlearned it. Even after baptisms and forced Christianity on them. So much for morality planted in the hearts of man by god.
LikeLike
Burtom Russell actually thought that the moral argument was one of the theist hardest arguments.
The moral argument doesn’t suggest that morality is programmed into us. But that there are objective and discoverable morale realities in our world.
I really like this one and could talk about forever but I’m with you out for the night.
LikeLike
A lot of collaborative sharing and progress has been made in animal and neurological studies since Bertrand’s time. To continue philosophy about god after 5000 years to no avail, while now handwaving hard evidence is the way of faith. Which objective moral realities have been taught exclusively by the Bible? Where is the objective morality of Christianity?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you notice how I provided evidence the moral argument was formed by presupposing there is a god, and you just ignored it and went to Bertrand Russell? This is faith. The automatic rebuttal syndrome through hardwiring
LikeLike
I don’t think that that research is as conclusive as u think it is. But I willing to look at it. Can you send me some sorses.
LikeLike
Exspesualy since I haven’t heard any athletes philosophy make a argument with it. But send me some sorses.
LikeLike
This is the whack-a-mole and religious handwaving. Certainly, but it may take a village. Through faith you have demonstrated a predictable outcome to this conversation. And me without faith, will never agree on faith.
With evidence there is no need for belief and the founders knew this. That is why they immediately appealed to faith, even with the supposed risen lord standing right in their midst.
Let’s work through this. Do you think a person that has no religious training would have formed a moral argument for god? It is only possible in an age where explanation was short on observation. In a time where devils, gods and monsters lived in the forbidden mountains. Mountains which are now fields of study. But I digress.
Do you think Kant’s religious indoctrinations as a child have anything to do with penning the moral argument for god, or why he changed his name to Immanuel?
LikeLike
I’m sure it had something to do with it. But that doesn’t kill its validity. Your kant thing is an ad hominem argument.
I also don’t think that you’ve thought through the moral ramifications of your world view.
LikeLike
Here is a more accurate version of the moral law. Will you dismiss it based on the source?
The moral argument begins with the fact that no two people recognize same moral code (that the same things are right, and the same things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we dismiss their law that they assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Various rights and wrongs imply an individual standard or law, and law requires no lawgiver. Because the Moral Law is not unique in any way, varies from region to species, this non-universal morality clearly shows no lawgiver. This, it is argued, is merely evolution at work to maintain equilibrium.
LikeLike
I disagree, the moral law is not personal. They are objective and discoverable morals. The variations in personal opinion are do to people attributing moral status to non moral law things.
I Also think that the fact that most religious have come to similar core conclusions about morals indicates that there are real objective discoverable moral realities.
But for me the the biggest issue is the idea of moral relativism. Which is what, I think, your suggesting as a moral system based on nature. don’t think that it is logical or an acute description of reality.
LikeLike
So give me an example of an objective, discoverable moral law. Or is this another hypothetical religious claim that has no examples?
LikeLike
I did, the holocaust would an example of a moral evil. It was wrong to participate in no matter a persons thought, or feelings about it.
LikeLike
That wasn’t true at the time. It was heavily endorsed by Christian clergy during the killing. If what you say is true, is the same true for the priests of Baal? See, the event may have moral implications now, but the act can only be justified by belief.
LikeLike
Actually it was true at the time. Intensity enough, it was an argument at the trials. Again, hypocrisy doesn’t negate the argument. That’s an ad hominem argument.
LikeLike
So was it true then for the priest of Baal?
LikeLike
Again ad hominem. But I’ll bite, could you be more specific, as to which priests of Baal incident your referencing to.
But before I answer the problem of hypocrisy seems to be a big issues for you and I just want to say that I do respect that position. I disagree with it but I think its respectable.
LikeLike
“and after the alter was consumed they rounded up the 450 priests and murdered them (leave no witnesses) And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.” More deceit and double speak, as they all bowed down to worship THE LORD, they were rounded up and slaughtered (1Kings 18:39) All this after a peace treaty had been negotiated.
LikeLike
Right, captainal punishment is not against the moral law. According to the Jewish law of the time, being Jew, the priests had publicly committed a capital offense.
LikeLike
Your dodging your own argument, and It was not a case of capital punishment—It was murder post treaty. They had agreed to worship Jehovah. This type of hair splitting is the reason for the holocaust. Moral argument for god is completely irrelevant.
LikeLike
No, biblical studies is my field. Not saying you should listen to me. Just saying i know the story well.
Read through the whole story, there was no treaty. No war even. The priests of Baal and the queen had been leading the people astray. A criminal offense under the existing rules of the time. Which is why the queen and priest were killed and not the king. He had allowed it to happen, but was one of the deceived and not one of the deceivers.
LikeLike
Was there not an agreement at the alter? The best god would be worshipped by the loser of the competition? Surely you see this agreement fully broken by Israel at the “command of the prophet of god” as the priests had bowed down to worship the lord.
LikeLike
Not exactly. This was not like a fight winner takes all contest. It was a test to see which god was false.
“Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”
When Baal didn’t light the sacrifice and yhwh did. that proved which one was really god and which was a deception. And so they killed the deceivers in accordance with the laws of the time.
It was a contest to discover who was really God, Baal or yhwh, which is made clear in Elijah’s terms. The one who couldn’t answer was the fake.
LikeLike
And the loser would worship the others god. I see your inability to call out “god” through fear is the root of fascism. This is the test—will mankind stand up to tyranny and immorality regardless the source. You’re also proving the James Rachel quote. Not that you can’t, but you won’t and proving the James Rachel quote to a tee.
LikeLike
I confused. There was no agreement that the winners god would be worshipped. The people could have chosen either one.
The point was to determine if baal was a false god. Under the laws of the time the priest should have already have been killed. But they hadn’t because they had deceived the people into believing that baal was a true god who was great the yhwh. So they had not been killed. The test revealed the deception and the people followed the law of the land.
I don’t get the problem. It’s a case of ancient capital punishment. I don’t get why you see murder.
LikeLike
This also flies in the face of your morality argument. You yourself cannot bring yourself to say murder is always wrong.
LikeLike
Again, only murder goes against the moral law. Capital punishment is a different thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s bullshit. Where’s the hypothetical objective morality of the moral argument? It fails when applied. It’s merely words that appease the faithful that don’t mean anything.
LikeLike
Lol the holocaust was eternal and always morally evil. Without a moral law giver that would be an incorrect statement.
And there are no moral system that excludes a god which can remain logically consistent.
LikeLike
@ Dave
Do you think you could possibly stop prefacing your comments with ”lol”? It makes you come across as a sanctimonious , smug Arsehat.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry I take all this very little heartedly. No, lol, was ment to imply smugness. I’m sorry if it did and will refrain from now on.
LikeLike
Excellent!
LikeLike
Then why did such a vast number of clergy support it? The hindsight is great, isn’t it. But mixed messages from god again. Wow, anything goes. So you support slaughter of opposing priest because god commanded it?
LikeLike
Again, hypocrisy doesn’t kill the argument. Its ad hominem
LikeLike
That’s a lame excuse, especially when your entire religion is founded in contradiction. Hypocrisy is simply enough to see that your religion is truly worthless. The outcome of belief has never produced the promised outcome. If it did, believers would not lead the world in stated hypocrisy.
LikeLike
I mean, I’m down to talk about the topic. But I’m not going to chase everything.
An like I said before I resect the hypocrisy point. I used to be on that train. I disagree with it now but I think its respectable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The futility here is in belief. The moral argument may be a fine argument, but it must incorporate a thousand tentacles to demonstrate any value. One of the reasons I gave up Philosophy for the most part in the 80’s. It was the most cleverly worded arguments that won the day. Like at the ecumenical councils, the truth was overshadowed by ambiguous wordplay, and still, the king has no clothes.
LikeLike
Ye I’m the opposite I love philosophy. The history of ideas is fascinating. I don’t know if you like podcasts. But I would recommend, philosophize this, the guy doing it is currently going through and braking down the history of thought, thinker by thinker. It’s a great crash course in the history of thought. And the guys an atheist.
LikeLike
Oh I enjoy it, but like I said, just look at the clever wording of the moral argument and how it has taken hold, but has zero utility.
LikeLike
Cool cool, this has been fun. I might call it though. I need to get work done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ye I’m out, like always Jim it has been a pleasure. Have a great week, my friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Jim sorry im contacting u so late i have a quick question. I’m writing a paper about the different ways that people use the word faith.
And was wandering if you ever use the word in reference to yourself.
As in “I have faith he will show up”.
Or “I have faith in this”.
Not trying to start a debate. Just looking for some research insight. Thanks.
LikeLike
I believe a lot of things to operate in the world. I believe “in” nothing. Faith is a con game really. I’m going to link you a post here, and in a follow up comment.
https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2019/07/16/real-faith-the-faith-of-an-atheist/
LikeLike
Interesting, part of my research is about how the word “faith” became a substitute for the word “religion”. Which makes me think that non religious people wouldn’t prefer not to use the word faith when referencing themselves. I was just wondering if that was your experience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Certainly. It’s also like the word “god”. It has been hijacked to mean the god of Abraham, and that really is the crux of most atheism. They don’t believe in god, but many don’t believe there is nothing either. Abrahamic religions leave such a sour taste of failure in your mouth when you’ve field tested the words and wasted a big portion of your life for something that adds up to nothing.
LikeLike
“Sour taste of failure” do you mind if I quote you, when explaining the atheist feelings towards the word faith. Thanks for the insight, I’m going to talk to more of my atheist friends about this.
LikeLike
Sure. This is a true story I wrote about my first experience with that failure. https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2018/10/03/bible-in-a-barrel/
LikeLike
Cool cool thanks for the help. Have a good night.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Igualmente…
LikeLike
@ Dave
You have atheist friends? Really? I’m impressed. Are they on drugs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You so toxic sometimes. I like you but be nice.
LikeLike
Toxic?
You are a fundamentalist christian endlessly commenting on an atheist blog.
What on earth for? Not to learn anything that much is obvious.
So, are you trying to point score, or convert or merely to demonstrate how much of a super duper apologist you are and how you hope to get a Gold Star from the Sunday school teacher for your homework?
And let’s be honest here, Dave, based on evidence (look up the word in your dictionary) your entire religion is toxic.
LikeLike
Ok mu man, you do you.
No it turned out to be a bigger deal. It should be fixed by the end of the week. O… and by the way. I DID GET A GOLD STAR FROM MY SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER! But it was doing the homework…. so ye….
LikeLike
Well aren’t you the little Sunbeam For Jesus, then?
LikeLike
Lololol!!!! Well said!
LikeLike
I like that. I’m going to use that latter. I have a calvinist friend whose in his, “I’m predestined to convince every Christian that calvinism is true”. (Just in case fyi calvinism is all about predestination). I don’t buy it, so he always wants to talk to me about it. I think I’m going to slide that in next time!
LikeLike
Does it matter if you buy it or not? His belief is merely an imagination, like yours only just as likely.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How interesting, and there was I thinking it was a branch of proctology.
Goodness me, we live and learn.
LikeLike
No offense intended. I just don’t know your background in theology. So just wanted to make sure I communicated effectively.
LikeLike
I don’t have a background in theology, but I do wish theology would stay in the background.
LikeLike
I’m running in to so many south Africans lately. The other day I ran into a guy from Joburg in a coffee shop. Between him and you I’m starting to want to go back. I’m planning, on my next trip, to check out capetown. Do you know of anything I should see while I’m there?
LikeLike
They have excellent psychotherapists in CapeTown.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol! I guess that’s true. One of my friends went to a big medical school there. I’m sure they have a psychotherapist wing. I’ll be sure to check it out.
LikeLike
Sometimes the riots are a real riot. That would be a forever memory…
LikeLike
The Airport?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and have you fixed the ”bugs” on your blog yet, or are comments still persona non grata?
LikeLike
Thanks for the reference I’ll check them out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And this https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/faith-by-atheism/
LikeLike
I have written a lot more in faith than anything. Hence “breaking the faith trap”. Here’s the last one. The comments of all these post can give you insight how some of the others feel.
https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2019/04/07/faith-or-pride-why-not-both/
LikeLike
Lol. Ok Dave. So I suppose you support the Chinese and there efforts on Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism to uphold their laws?
LikeLike
I’m confused. It’s not illegal to be religious in China. Most of what happens to them is illegal. I don’t get your point. And it’s a bit of a strawman argument your presenting.
LikeLike
You don’t seem to understand that the reason Christianity is even tolerable today is because of secular law. This is not a unique incident, but everywhere it planted its flag they have used your reasoning.
LikeLike
Ok
LikeLike
And that’s still an ad hominem argument.
LikeLike
”Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”
Religious faith even has you abandoning your own natural goodness and reason to handwave this crap.
LikeLike
One of the stock phrase you tend to use is this ….
Of all the things you have written this one stands out more than any other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok
LikeLike
Doesn’t seem as though you have any evidence for any of your points, Dave.
Are you about ready to acknowledge that all you have is faith via some form of indoctrination?
LikeLike
Have you ever been to whole in the wall? It’s just N of east London.
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
Sad day
LikeLike
Sad day? Why?
BTW are you going to finish answering my question?
LikeLike
Unlike you I try to be polite and express that I understand that I don’t know everything with my language. And I did present evidence, I think you missed it.
LikeLike
You believe all non Christians are going to Hell for eternity.
Most Christians indoctrinate Children – You are a perfect example of such indoctrination.
Your religion and many of its adherents are responsible for some of the most heinous crimes in history
I missed nothing of the sort. You presented claims., not evidence . I suggest you step outside you indoctrinated faith based apologetic mindset and learn what evidence is.
Have another go.
Please present evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess it’s a agree to disagree.
LikeLike
Ah … spill words.
What you are really saying is:
‘I really know that I have no evidence, only faith, but because I am a sinner and have been washed in the saving blood of Jesus Christ I shall go and pray for this atheist and if he doesn’t respond I’ll tell him we agree to disagree.
And if he still doesn’t accept that my claims are evidence I shall quote the bible, which is of course, the inspired Word of God.”
May I suggest Matt 7:6
or
Psalm 14:1
or perhaps
Matt 10:14
How we doing so far, Dave?
LikeLike
You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying. Since you never rebutted it my points. You only said stuff like, you have no evidence.
There’s nothing I can say to that. So agree to disagree.
LikeLike
You failed to answer the question. You want to define an irrelevant argument as relevant and I don’t typically bite on that. The argument for morality only can be accepted at first glance and by dismissing all other evidence. When you can no longer excuse the wickedness of “god” in the Bible, only then will you be ready to discuss anything. Not only did they slaughter, they had an agreement. God is not only mean, but a liar. And you intentionally dismiss it through faith.
“To continuously evaluate whether a being is good requires moral judgment, which requires moral autonomy. Therefore it is not possible to continuously evaluate if a being is good while also worshipping it (or submitting to it) Therefore, worshipping necessarily requires abandoning one’s moral responsibility, which is immoral—James Rachel on moral autonomy
LikeLike
I don’t need to rebut your points as other far more accomplished than me have done so . As I stated from the onset. Or did you miss that?
ID is not regarded as science, but pseudoscience – a pathetic, somewhar disingenuous mask for Creationism.
Even Christians such as Francis Collins reject it – and rightly so.
Your Morality Argument is an a priori argument that you have presented no evidence whatsoever to support it.
Philosophers such as David Hume comprehensively trashed it
Hell, I stand under correction, but <I seem to recall that it was even rejected by Aquinas.
And Jim has also done as good a job as any to show it carries no merit.
So, you may agree to disagree, but your position is untenable and the honest thing you should do is admit to faith then tell us, if you were raised as a Christian (from a child) or describe what event transpired that caused you to convert to Christianity?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol I don’t think you know much a bout the history of the moral argument.
LikeLike
Really?
So, are you going to stop with this charade,Dave & enlighten us as to why you really became a Christian
LikeLike
Ad hominem
LikeLike
What is adhominem about asking you to tell us what were the reasons you became a Christian?
LikeLike
Because your implying that my reasons for becoming a Christian de validate my points about why I belive in a god.
Ad hominem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reasons you have presented to date have no evidence to support them. Furthermore, you are being somewhat disingenuous for giving the impression that there was only intellectual reasons for you to become a Christian.
You are citing apologetic reasons, omitting entirely any emotional reasons, which are always the initial basis for belief.
So, once again, what were the primary emotional reasons for you becoming a Christian?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because we haven’t gotten there. Were still on why I belive in god. One thing at a time.
LikeLike
Yes, and you have presented the arguments and they have been shown to have no evidence to support them.
All you are doing now is continuing an exercise in apologetics.
This might be good for you personally but it is meaningless drivel to the average atheist.
This is why I am asking what were the emotional reasons for your acceptance /conversion of/to Christianity.
It will save a lot of mega bytes if you simply get to the chase.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I disagree, I don’t believe they have been shown false. But If u want to move on I’m down.
LikeLike
Again, it matters not what you believe and you can disagree ’til the cows come home. No evidence has ever been produced to demonstrate any claim of veracity by its proponents.
ID is not recognised as science by the mainstream scientific community and from what I have read most mainstream Christians, including such luminaries as Francis Collins, reject it – as I have already pointed out.
Furthermore, because of its direct association with Creationism (Meyer has now admitted as much) it has been rejected by every state educational board, and, as far as I can ascertain, in most countries across the globe.
So these are the hurdles you and the proponents of ID have failed to surmount.
Strike 1.
The moral argument is an a priori argument and has no evidence to support it.
As a reminder: Please do not say the above does have evidence as you are simply demonstrating a lack of understanding between a claim and what evidence is.
Strike 2
Hard Atheism?
Once more I have no idea what nonsense this is. Atheism is atheism. A lack of belief in gods- your god and every other.
Strike 3.
I forget what your 4th point was and am too tired to scroll through the comments to find out.
So yes, move on to the emotional reasons, please. And I sincerely hope I am going to read straightforward, honest reasons without any hyperbole or more apologetic bumph.
Over to you, Dave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again I disagree. I have had good and thoughtful conversations with others in this chat. But I don’t think that you can refute what I pointed to, with anything better or more detailed then other people say your wrong, or ad hominem arguments.
ID is also not directly associated with Creationism. ID promotes an old earth, evolution, and doesn’t claim a particular deity. Pointing to one of its promoters, personal beliefs, and saying that it undercuts the whole thing is an ad hominem argument.
And no it’s not time for my emotional reasons. Next, as you determined, is why I belive christianity true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t respond well to ignorant, disingenuous people, so I will leave you to play with yourself. But remember, Dave, Jesus watches everything and I’ve heard it makes Christians go blind.
LikeLike
I mean, I feel like if you’re going to say something like that. I should be allowed to say, lol? (It is funny)
LikeLike
Dave, you write: ID promotes an old earth, evolution, and doesn’t claim a particular deity. So if this is true, why is it called/considered “intelligent” design? Intelligence tends to be associated with some kind of source, does it not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey! How’s it going?
So, the term “intelligent” does refer to a source. But it goes no further then says that that source is intelligent, as in, it has some kind of mind, can reason, or is conscious. It doesn’t comment on What that intelligenc thing is. Or its motivation.
For instance, if the computer simulation theory turns out to be true. And we were created a programmer, that would be ID. Or if we were created by god or god’s that would be ID.
I hope that makes sense.
LikeLike
IMO, your suggestion related to the computer simulation theory comes closest to an actual possibility associated with the words “intelligent design.” However, once you reference creation by god or gods, then you’re getting into religious theory which has yet to be accepted as truth, fact, or proof.
And it’s going real good. 😊 Thanks for asking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think you got the point. Those were just examples of what an ID would look like. Not a claim.
I don’t think I communicated very well. Let me try again. Based on our experience of the world, there two things which we know of that create things. natural process and intelligence.
ID is simply stating, that because some parts of the world can’t be explained by a natural process. We should consider the possibility that they were created by something intelligent. The only other thing that we know of which can create.
And remember God, in this sense, only refers a being that is beyond humanity. Which is not an out there idea.
LikeLike
Which is not an out there idea.
Depends on who you’re talking to … *smile*
LikeLike
Lol this is true! 🙂
LikeLike
What’s left of monotheism fits in thimble, while Deism fits those who can’t seem to let natural processes be natural. There is a better option in panpsychism if you really need to have a demonstrable belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hence why I say “I think” a lot.
LikeLike
Perhaps you are simply thinking the wrong things?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hole*
LikeLike
Its probably one of my favorite Places in SA
LikeLike
Imagine a world in which every single person on earth (including yourself) thinks that genocide, slavery, rape, plunder and cannibalism are morally acceptable behaviors. How would you discover that these actions were objectively wrong? And perhaps more importantly, how would you determine that your source of information was objective?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think one big peace of evidence that there are real objective morals. is that, unlike the animals, we do not live in that imagined world.
LikeLike
Hey, mu man, I’m going to step out of the conversation. But when I have more information and form an opinion about your point, I’ll send you what I find. New ideas need to be examined and if your willing. You would be one of my first choices.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No problem. It’s not my intent to be combative or throw out “gotcha” questions; it’s to present reasons for why I abandoned my religious beliefs and became a non-theist.
I agree that my arguments pose no challenge for those who hold to purely deistic beliefs. But it definitely presents a problem for those who believe in a personal god who prescribes moral codes and takes an active interest in the affairs of mankind. So if perchance you belong to the latter camp you’ll eventually have to confront those problems and work out a logical solution. I tried but was unable to do so. Perhaps you’ll have better success and be able to come back and change my mind.
Thanks for the polite conversation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you completely. Thank you for the encouragement as I dive into this question. And for being thoughtful and polite.
Have a great week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see morality as an evolutionary thing. If a warrior of the tribe X sneaks around in the night and kills some of the strong warriors of his tribe, as he wants their women and their grass huts are better, and they have more baby boys, well he might think he’s gained a lot. Then another tribe attacks and due to a lack of warriors, tribe X is all dead.
Also, little children learn much better than adults. The morals they learn tend to stay with them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It really is a learned behavior. All species find that equilibrium, and even today people watch their behavior because of consequences, natural or legal. Objective morality is still subjective and changing. Not even god (the writers) could lay down a law that they couldn’t justify breaking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looks like another “objective morality” back and forth. Where would one find this purported “objective morality”? If it is objective, it should be obvious and observable.
To me, it is not apparent that “everyone agrees on certain moral laws”. That is far from the truth. What Christians(and occasionally others) do when they assert something like that is abstract modern, secular, Western mores and apply them as if they were universal. There was a Christian here before using slavery as an example to batter down the opposition, like the one here now used the Holocaust. Slavery is something objectively wrong, therefore objective morality exists, was the basic form of the argument. This trick works by trying to force the opponent into an uncomfortable position based on Western mores. Few Westerners want to seem like they are arguing on the side of slavery(or whatever else), so they end up avoiding the core issue and running off into a tangent.
One could just as easily turn this against a Christian. It is objectively wrong to kill babies. The Christian god(or Yahweh) killed babies and ordered such many times. According to some Christians, he even sends babies to be tortured in hell. On multiple occasions he caused infants to suffer or threatened such(in the diatribes and lists of curses). Therefore, the Christian god is evil. Therefore, the Christians are evil for worshiping him. To argue against this, one would have to argue on the side of killing or torturing babies, not a popular position. Try to argue for some special moral exception for Yahweh, and they destroy objective morality as they usually want to define it. Does any of that make a good point for objective morality? Not really. I just made an assertion. Not even a universal assertion. Biblical morality has no problem with killing babies or just about anyone else. David killed entire towns off in his raids while lying to his Philistine overlord about them, all to cover up his treachery. There is absolutely no problem with that in the Bible, and the Bible itself makes it impossible that there could be one. David’s only misstep with Yahweh was over Bathsheba, this is stated clearly.
A set of scriptures I know really well are those of Buddhism. One could easily take the assumptions of Buddhist teaching as a given and dismiss Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. How do Yahweh’s rules and actions measure up to the Eightfold Path? They are not at all compatible. Also, the Buddha did miracles, some in front of large crowds of people. I have heard many times from Christians that writing about witnesses in a narrative or parable is as good as actually having witnesses, even if the writer only numbered the witnesses. The entire Sakya court(even though some were hostile) saw Gautama’s miracle and respected him after that, many even became followers(monks or laymen). No special rule about prophets in their hometown there. Would all of that have any Christian interlocutor ready to take up the Buddhist precepts? Would threatening a Christian with rebirth in Naraka convince them? I suspect not, but they expect that similar methods should convince others about their religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks K. It would be a real awakening if people could scrutinize their own religion as easily as they do others. As a non believer, I feel (could be wrong) that I can scrutinize them all equally without bias. Through unbelief.
Have you ever seen James Rachel on moral autonomy? ”To continuously evaluate whether a being is good requires moral judgment, which requires moral autonomy. Therefore it is not possible to continuously evaluate if a being is good while also worshipping it (or submitting to it) Therefore, worshipping necessarily requires abandoning one’s moral responsibility, which is immoral.
LikeLike
I have heard that argument about moral autonomy before. It raises a fair point. It requires a definition of “good” though. We have to have our own idea of good before we can continuously judge the actions of the deity as good or not. How do we measure that? The god could easily benefit and harm at different times, for various reasons. Maybe the god doesn’t care about human mores at all. Maybe it would have other concerns besides humans, like cosmic balance or fate. Maybe the god embodies a concept or force that is amoral or ambivalent, like the Egyptian Set. Storms destroy and cause floods, but they also bring the rain that we need. And why do we need to consider the god to be all-good in order to worship them? Must we always agree with or pretend to like the actions of the god? That is an Abrahamic conceit, for the most part. Some might have a problem with admitting that their god(s) are not always comprehensible or good. I ponder this occasionally too. I see things more along the lines of “balance” or “order vs. chaos” than in moralistic terms, at least on this level.
Some early Christian writers like Clement of Alexandria liked to pick through Greek myths and find examples of the gods being naughty(like the affairs of Zeus) and use those to bash the Greeks, while trying to bolster their brand of Judaism. One could just as easily say that humans are too lowly to question Zeus and that we are in no position to judge anything he might have done. That was the go-to response back then(and today) for any criticism of Yahweh’s actions in Jewish myths. Why it doesn’t apply to anyone else’s god and religion is just special pleading. Christianity was part of a wider social shift toward philosophical abstraction, social withdrawal, and asceticism. This might seem messed up, but a lot of the late antiquity writers(Christian and even pagan ones like Porphyry) seem a lot more troubled by stories of the gods having sex or playing tricks on each other than they do about anything else. To someone like Clement or Augustine, Zeus’ dalliances with women were a lot more disturbing than Yahweh ordering infants to be killed. They addressed the minor issue of infant slaughter and brushed it off like it was nothing. Yahweh can kill whoever he wants after all. At least he isn’t having sex, that was the worst thing in the world to many of these guys. Many early Christian sects banned marriage and sex for all members, and Jesus himself endorsed self-castration according to the Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of Luke also has an anti-marriage stance, and notably lacks the prohibition on divorce.
The bill finally came due for the Christians, and the moralists have now torn the Bible apart as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Catholic Church has been a part of(and maybe the most reprehensible part)of Babylon the Great for roughly the past 1700 years. It is not even Christian. Most claiming Christian status are not. Jesus himself said it would be this way, he, Paul, John and others spoke about it in the Bible, with masterful parables and almost direct statements in some parts. The Bible itself can’t die, because it is what it says it is. I used to be an atheist, and then agnostic if that makes any difference. Hope you have a good day
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually the Bible has staying power because faith without evidence is a well calculated to play on the foibles of human psychology. Faith is actually the greatest source of pride on earth, repackaged as a virtue. There will never be evidence to support it because it was intended that way. But the minute evidence is supplied in any way, faith is supplanted by that evidence. God has gotten smaller and the Christian goal posts have gotten farther out. If there were a Christian god it would be evidenced in tribal anthropology, but they never heard of him in any way til the swords came. You are an offshoot of Catholicism, whose staying power is enforced even today as a leg of government. As a side note, shamanism had core, universal similarities throughout the world, in all corners. Truth and utility developed over thousands of years dotted the globe, yet no one ever heard of Yahweh (or any likeness of him) outside a tiny strip of land in the near east. Weird.
LikeLike
Faith without evidence? You can examine the natural world for that if the Bible is nothing to you. You know a certain scientist predicted the structure and placing of elements on the periodic table because he discerned a pattern in it? How about honeybees who make a beehive out of the most efficient mathematical shape to use for such a structure? Migration of birds and butterflies for thousands of miles on set courses? Fine-tuned galactic and nuclear forces? The water cycle, the inexplicable lack of understanding over elaborate workings such as photosynthesis, I even heard there was evidence dung beetles navigate at night by the light of the Milky Way. My friend thought they were from another planet.
Human eyes, the human brain: have you heard of irreducible complexity? It is everywhere! Yet, if you saw a house, or even a piece of wood supported by two poles, you would not say it happened by chance or over time. You would say “that’s designed by someone.” Theres a principle to be found in a park bench. The same principle is in every facet of the natural world. Those are meager examples even.
I would invite you to read what the Bible says faith is. There’s a chapter devoted to it.
Believe me, I am not an offshoot of the Catholic faith in any way. Catholicism was the first great corruption of the congregations, and is spoken about in certain ways by Jesus and his apostles prior to it’s emergence.
I don’t know much about tribal anthropology except what I know of things like the Philistines or the early Hebrews as examples. Maybe some other books I’ve read. But IF there was a rebellion in play before there were more than 2 people on the earth still, what would happen then? The Bible documents that.
Children ask questions about everything. What do you tell them if you don’t have the answer? What form would the answers take? Is a single book written over a 1600 year span with a strange congruence and harmony throughout so impossible? It’s 2000 years old and yet theres things going on right now that it talks about every time I pick it up. Like a better informed and more hopeful version of turning on the news. The issues are primarily there for all intelligent creation.
Faith was a possession of some of the humblest men in history, not proud, comparatively. It requires yielding to a superior insight BY evidence. And Yahweh, whose knowledge of was contained mostly in one tiny strip of land, is now on virtually every nation on earth.
LikeLike
“You can examine the natural world for that if the Bible is nothing to you”. It is a natural world? Not a created, synthetic world. Artificial? You’d have a hard time convincing anyone that this is a created sphere amongst billions if it wasn’t seeded by visions and primitive understanding. I’ve seen nothing yet to convince me that the world needed a god to come into form, when we can see it in action. The elements attract and repel and find their equilibrium. Oil and water is the easiest way to demonstrate that.
“honeybees who make a beehive out of the most efficient mathematical shape”, because after millions of years wouldn’t it make sense for bees to make honeycomb in the most efficient shape?
All this fine tuning you speak of also applies to viruses and cataclysms and plagues? I know, I know, fallen earth. Yet those viruses actually existed long before Adam and Eve. (It’s in the fossil record from about 3 billion years ago. That and about 5% of the earths surface is inhabitable, just for us, or just the same reason every other animal is genetically related and lives in a suitable environment. I think you’re failure to grasp how long this process has been going on, limits your imagination. How many things in religion have fallen to scientific discovery? All but one. Yet, there was never nothing, nor could you prove that there was ever nothing. If earths 4.3 billion years compressed into a day, all known forms of hominids came into being about 11:45pm, if the earth was one day old. Yet Yahweh was busy with “the word” in a galaxy 70billion light years across, tinkering with the human genome to get his Adam. Surely you’re kidding.
I know enough about the human brain to know it’s greatest attribute is imagination. Your god is proof of that. He’s even evolved into something nearly tolerable after secular law gained enough strength to say enough!
Sure a house is designed by some intelligent life, proof of the ingenuity of the evolving human. It does not correlate to an argument for god unless you can conflate faith with every discovery known to man.
You actually are an offshoot if the catholic faith. Where do you think you got your highly edited version of the Bible? Did you know that for 700 years it was heresy to deny Moses had horns, thanks to the Vulgate Bible and good ol Jerome? It’s not a single book, it’s 66 books carefully selected to reduce enlightenment. Christianity has had its chance. 2000 years of regressive tug o war and oppression. But you are getting right. Funny thing about it, everyone thinks the others are doing it wrong. In this we can agree. Not to mention all the unfulfilled prophecy, self assigned to pump up Israel’s self importance, while they’ve spent their entire existence in bondage or occupied. Many, many countries fared better without Yahweh, for Yahweh could not even repel an army on the plains because the enemy had iron chariots. Weird. The only reason your arguments make sense to you is presupposition.
LikeLike
This is nothing new, it has all been argued before Jeff. You’re suggesting that because you can’t understand something then it must be attributed to a “god” or, more specifically, your “God.” This has been man’s ignorant response since the beginning of time. Yes, there is much complexity in nature, one might even call it “miraculous,” but, in fact, much of this has been decoded through years of scientific inquiry and research. Yes, I find the Earth and the inherent biosystem quite incredible, even wondrous, but it has been honed; trial and error, creation and extinction, over 4.3 billion years. The religious and faith-based crowd has been pulling in the opposite direction of rational and logical since they started carving stone into idols.
Have fun with that, it leads exactly where they are now; ignorant; willingly and even gleefully ignorant. I would suggest that YOU read the Bible, and not line-by-line the way it’s fed to the masses, but studied carefully, fully and see what it truly is: man-made, fallible, mythology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I respect your guy’s opinions, thanks for that.
RaPar, I disagree I attribute something to God because I can’t understand it. It’s what I do understand that leads me to furtherance. I do understand much of the working of the human eye or a bird wing for example. And I realize that every evolutionary theory out there is unable to explain…pretty much anything about “the creation”, I know this is not your cup. Evolution requires just as much faith in a sense as a Christian’s faith in the Creator, but without a backup. “Irreducible complexity” again, I will stress. Darwin said something along the lines that if the human eye could not be explained by his theory when examined, his whole premise was at risk. That never changed, the human eye needs all those parts acting in tandem all at the same time, leaving the Required slow and steady, millions of years of subtle changes, down in the dirt. Another example is the flagellum on a single-celled organism. I know there are various additions and propositions to help evolutionary theory stay afloat because it just can’t explain living things structure by its own definitions; and that same pattern is compounded ad infinitum in what we know of life and even inanimate things all out there. My position is not due to “something I can’t understand.” Its what I do understand that leads to the conclusion of a Creator. Evolution is REQUIRED by atheism because they have no other option, but its riddled with holes, even when observed clinically. You know the fossil record was almost entirely completed over a 200 year period in the British Isles! The record is unexpected. It shows complex and vastly different life forms coming out of nowhere, just appearing, the Flood may have distorted the timeline due to rock layer shifting, but Trilobytes with no precedence, no slow gradations as required by traditional evolution. And I know there are adaptations of evolution theory that try to explain things like this. So far failed or were rejected by other scientists. There is not a “missing link.” There are thousands of missing links.
You just give broad generalizations without any specifics. Trial and error, as in what, mutations? DNA is very strict, any mutation or change that might occur is 99.99% harmful, it can’t account for carefully constructed, incredibly complex things even as simpler forms such as the building blocks of organisms, cells. There are scientists, biologists, who turned to a Creator because their growing knowledge made it clear to them: this is no result of chance and natural selection. Even the formation of the simplest form of life has catastrophically large odds against it, enough of a low probability to make it impossible.
You leave me with insults and presumptions, which I didn’t appreciate. Willingly and gleefully ignorant. that I read the Bible? I’ve been studying it for years now, read the Bible daily, going front to back this year, and from what I know about it so far…this is clearly the result of a higher power, for other reasons. It is not a scientific textbook, but it does harmonize with science. It answers questions in ways I can’t explain to you. It’s very, very different from mythology. Man-made? only in the secretarial sense. Fallible? Well, there are apocryphal texts and spurious texts in some Bibles. You could appreciate that the wording of Genesis 1:1 actually leave it unassailable as it is indefinite to time. Not many
I’d go back to talking to the OP. About that honeybees hive. Well, if you want to think trial and error out of a mind as simple as a honeybee effected a mathematical knowledge base precision over millions of years, I guess it sounds reasonable to you. Millions of years won’t build a house without a guiding hand. Natural selection is very, very limited with what actually exists.
Humans didn’t even know about that til recently. I still haven’t heard a word from either of you about explaining irreducible complexity, maybe because even one example is critical! I will again say it’s everywhere! Going back to faith of the proud, as you said…I think that’s much more a trait of evolutionists and atheism than any truthful worshipper of the Bible’s God.
I’m curious about one thing, Its offtopic, to Rapar. Why do you have the socalled “all-seeing” eye as your profile photo? The one like on the US dollar bill?
Back to Jim for one moment. Offshoot of the Catholic faith. Well, the “Scribes and Pharisees” preserved and were caretakers of the existing Bible and were the Jewish religious leaders. But Jesus called them the Devils offspring. The Bible could not be destroyed or kept hidden in the end, not by Catholics or anyone else. And its words condemn them terribly. Why is that? “66 books carefully selected to reduce enlightenment”…those books follow an overarching schematic and complement each other, actually causing further enlightenment within it’s own network and the unfolding of world events. Despite the original writers being from slave to farmer to fisherman to king. 1600 years of an inexplicable wholeness and harmony out of that?
I wouldn’t listen to you at all as an authority on biblical matters, for the obvious reason. Jerome was catholic wasn’t he? Not a role model to me or anyone I would listen to. What are you talking about iron chariots? If it’s scriptural maybe you don’t understand it? Can you disregard prophecy that WAS fulfilled or is ongoing? But your on the other side of the ocean!
I know this is atheism, I’m not really trying to fight with you, I’m hoping…
LikeLike
Sorry Jeff, I am not trying to be condescending but your response is chock full of cognitive dissidence. You keep stating that evolution or science can’t explain biological aspects of life and that is just nonsense. And yes, we have a very advanced knowledge of evolution and the multitude of variations there have been since the beginning of life on Earth, discoveries and theories that your kind have been denying for centuries. Unfortunately Christians, very much like Republicans, like to just make stuff up that plays to their beliefs already and downplay anything that doesn’t. I’m sorry if you can’t see the forest for the trees but that is squarely on you. Any argument that tries to minimize the value and contributions of science while trying to build up the arguments of “faith” (belief in something for which there is NO evidence or proof. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Nothing) is just pure nonsense.
The religious have been selling this nonsense to the masses for thousands of years, Christians for 2,000 years. You say you “read” the Bible (or, perhaps past tense, “read the Bible?”) but you seem completely happy to step right over all the contradictions, errors – both in story line and prophecy – inconsistencies, etc. and then declare that it is more sound than science or evolution. This is just pure folly.
Have faith in yourself and your loved ones; that’s at least based on something.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I read the Bible daily. I don’t know where you got cognitive dissonance in my post. I didn’t say science can’t explain, I said evolution can’t. Your whole post is a broad sweeping generalization of statements without given evidence. A very advanced knowledge of evolution? Why didn’t you explore what is known about the fossil record? What about the Cambrian explosion? Irreducible complexities of organisms? You never once attended to scientific facts that fly in the face of evolution. Evolutionary scientists can’t even agree on a model, a lot of Darwin’s work is beyond hope of being vindicated…why is it wrong to question the whole premise, and with the evidence against it?…I’d like to ask you what I “made up”. I’d like you to show me your advanced knowledge of evolution. Can you explain any of my examples with science? Can you explain impossibilities like life coming from inanimate matter? And from a probability viewpoint, if you research that, yes it can rightly be called impossible.
The Bible harmonizes with science, and it’s not science I’m against, but only the theory of evolution, don’t get it confused,
Can you explain to me how the first life form arose? or the first cell? Research its structure thoroughly, I’d like to know how this happened. Labelling me with cognitive dissonance…hey, I’d like you to have an open mind and go to other sources for a different perspective, simply with a scientific point of view. They can’t even agree on a model of evolution, theres too many problems with it, maybe the problem is its not true! and as for your again broad sweeping statement “no evidence or proof. None. Zero. etc” well, even scholars, even unbelieving students of history, agree that Jesus was a historical figure. One prominent one said there’s more evidence for his existence than for Caesars. Archaeological finds attest to the Bible’s accuracy. So-called contradictions within it have been explained. I think men don’t deny the Bible because it contradicts itself. Rather more like it contradicts them.
Faith follows the thing heard. Whatever you heard from Darwin or his contemporary advocates might rightfully be considered a disgrace to the scientific method, a dogma of blindness.
Here is an excerpt from an article:
Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no man has seen God. Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.
For example, scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.
Such lack of evidence causes T. H. Janabi to call the evolution theory “a mere ‘faith.’” Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.” Dr. Evan Shute takes it further. “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist,” he says.
Other experts agree. “When I contemplate the nature of man,” admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.”
The first life on earth was not “simple.”
▪ The odds against even the components of a cell arising by chance are astronomical.
▪ DNA, the “computer program,” or code, that runs the cell, is incredibly complex and gives evidence of a genius that far surpasses any program or information storage system produced by humans.
▪ Genetic research shows that life did not originate from a single common ancestor. In addition, major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record.
DNA is required for a cell to replicate. Cells themselves are terribly complex. But DNA and RNA are both needed to reproduce. The theory of natural selection gets thrown out the window here because it can’t replicate without it, despite which is part of the process of the theory of evolution, namely natural selection. But DNA and RNA are so complex, they could not have come by some happy chance but rather, by a miracle.
I’ll leave this post for now with a scripture from the book of Psalms:
“ Your eyes even saw me as an embryo;
All its parts were written in your book
Regarding the days when they were formed,
Before any of them existed”
This can be brushed aside but I find it to be a strangely insightful thought from such a ‘primitive’ mind as an ancient Israelite…let alone the real presumed author. Could he actually be talking about DNA?
P.S. I’m still curious about your pyramid eye
LikeLike
Jeff asks … Can you explain to me how the first life form arose? or the first cell? What would be your answer, Jeff?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Life can only come from pre-existing life. So, the Creator’s creative works, God’s design. But that is more than my answer, its the Bible’s answer. I see that signature on most every living creature as well as inanimate things and forces.
-Revelation 4:11-
LikeLike
Consciousness even predates your god. It is the source of life. There is no creator but an infinite happening. The idea that Jesus created the universe is actually pretty silly since the universe itself predates any hint of Yahweh in any culture in any time. 70 billion light years ago jesus was up in yonder heavens tinkering with the gene pool to get his Adam, making stars his man could never see. Seriously Jeff. Outside of a little strip of land no one had ever heard of Yahweh or Elohim, yet in all corners of the earth a universal truth was known by indigenous peoples for millennia. The earth and universe is all a happening of its own, and we are it as much so as any part of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure, this sounds like a nice writeup, almost like a professional clown. Doesn’t even make sense except I can see your direct statements of hubris-like ego coming through your pride. Thanks for adding nothing to yourself or me, your audience except the delusion of a mind who claims godlike knowledge. Did you join the new age movement or something? New Thought? “The Universe will do what I tell it” That stuff? I’m guessing. Because a statement like “consciousness predates God” is pretty…idk, stupid? Unless you have some evidence to back it up. Not your ego.
“The universe predates any hint of Yahweh in any culture.” Um…yes, but you can say “the universe predates all human cultures.” Knowledge of God among men would have to by necessity occur when they existed, not the universe. Are you REALLY that stupid? You can’t see the flaw there lol?
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you mean Jeff. What is “new age”? I don’t watch tv or videos. I don’t know if your being sarcastic or not. How could god preclude consciousness? It’s an interesting thought.
This comment you made sounds like something one would say about Abraham, but without going all the way to the part where he would be locked up for being certified crazy—but the wealthy even today get special privileges. So did he, then wrote about it. Haha. Sounds familiar…again
I really like this comment because you call out some silly random thoughts and point out the absurdities of it. I actually have as much evidence of absurdity to back it up as you do for yours. And regarding complexity of the eye, you may be over thinking it. Nearly everything has an eye. Even the most rudimentary of creatures. Some even see better than diurnal humans who have to huddle like turkeys at night in their natural state.
You do realize that reading the Bible every day is not healthy. Humans that tend to one discipline too much become unreasonable. Here we see it happening to you. Everything from evolution to eyeballs is attributed to a god. It’s literally crazy to actually think that way.
Now that you got your insult out of the way, thanks for adding nothing? Your religion is not special, nor has it achieved any objective. There are many, many legitimate ways of being in the world, and very happy people without Jesus. Just look at the Native American before Christianity compared to today? That’s no improvement. You turned a superior society sick.
“Sure, this sounds like a nice writeup, almost like a professional clown. Doesn’t even make sense except I can see your direct statements of hubris-like ego coming through your pride”. Not sure why you would say something so hurtful. All I do I write down my ideas and enjoy some discussion. I believe nothing.
I looked at the religions of the world and as a Christian til age 50. All they do is offer beliefs. That is the play on the foibles of human psychology. The problem isn’t what you believe in, but that you believe in anything without evidence. Your anchoring bias has you defending archaic brutality and imaginations of “new age” belief and hallucinations. And you read it, or something that defends it every day. You have tunnel vision
LikeLike
I’m sorry for the insults. I actually thought you were a newcomer in that post, and then I thought I sensed some kind of that “we are the chosen ones/be your own god” in the post which is spreading like wildfire. Which I really don’t like. I think I’m wrong there?
to paraphrase, its “literally crazy” to believe in a Creator who created life and the universe? His signature is all over it
“I believe nothing.” Are you a nihilist? “Reading the Bible daily is not healthy…” really? More like it’s a sustaining force, during a brutal spiritual war
“…tunnel vision.”
I don’t know where this is going but it doesn’t seem helpful in any way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“His signature is all over it”. “His” meaning your god nobody had ever heard of? This is called shoehorning. If your god was obvious there would be no need for this conversation. Indigenous people throughout the world had core practice and belief that was universal. That is actually evidence for panpsychism, not Yahweh. It also aligns more closely to science and what we know of physics than any verse in the Bible, even with the presuppositions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nobody has ever heard of…Look, I don’t know where you get this idea…but the Bible in the present day has been produced, without any comparison, than any other book in history. It is translated in over 2800 languages now, and is available to over 92% of the population of mankind in their own tongue and climbing. There is preaching work going on as Bible prophecy unfolds in world events. I stand by my belief that his signature really is there. Its the principle of design, there is glory in clouds and stars, Psalm 8, etc. As for indigenous people, I dont know what core practice and universal belief you are talking about. I do know one, the belief in the Flood, almost universal, which exists in every major civilization after it happening, from Native Americans to Babylonians. Something like the Flood doesn’t just happen, but it did. Who/what caused it? And what if I told you theres a pattern, being repeated in the modern day, that echoes it?
“If you’re God was obvious” – I know you wont believe it, but taken just hypothetically, what if theres an enemy who want to lead away from the truth about God? The primary tool: deception. Men have their own ideas. There was Nimrod who would build the tower of Babel in an effort to survive a second inundation if it happened but also to take vengeance on God for his forefathers.
Lol I know it’s kind of pointless right now…we can’t agree on anything…
LikeLiked by 1 person
The tower, I really like that story for reasons most don’t. By working together “they were about to accomplish the thing that they had set out to do, and nothing could be restrained from them”. Now humanity’s stuck with belief being the pinnacle of religious experience and we’ll remain divided because of it.
As far as cycles, this is actually the safest time in history to be alive, and also the most secular. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Safest time in history? Isnt there enough nuclear bombs to blow up the world like 8 times? What do you mean “safe” The last century two world wars killed 68 million people. There are epidemics ongoing. Massive natural disasters such as earthquakes.
What about moral safety? Were also living in the most unprecedented state of moral decay in the history of man.
They will be saying “peace and security”. It’s illusory. What about the degradation that exists in every city on the planet. You have drugs and crime and murder. Do you live in a cabin out in the woods somewhere?
LikeLike
By the way, you don’t know where I get the idea because I got it from my own observations, outside of expert opinion and the doctrines that effectively turn a personal spiritual journey into groupthink. I hope you not seriously thinking of joining the Jehovah witness. That fish has long rotted from the head long ago. Now they protect the good name of the church over the children it abuses. They’re not hard to find.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good for you. Are you proud you can think only for yourself? What about someone who knows more than you and can teach you?
Groupthink like all of Jesus’ disciples, who all experienced the same marvels? Doctrine is needed because theres so many- (“false prophets” and liars as the Bible says). The Pharisees were saying Jesus body was stolen. Others were saying the resurrection already occurred. This was like immediately after his ministry. It’s been 2000 years. The world is filled with deception and degradation on an unprecedented scale. The result of that tower of Babel defiance in every crime-riddled and terrible conditions city that you liked so much, and more than just Nimrod. I’m finished here. I don’t know what I was expecting to have going into a conversation with atheists on a blog reader…I just saw your OP using God’s name in scholarly Hebrew.
but now I’m leaving with nothing, absolutely nothing.
You shouldn’t respond, we are about a galaxy apart anyways
LikeLike
Good for you. While your at it, dismiss the abuses your church covers up to protect its good name. Speaking of degradation. Wow!
LikeLike
Good point, Jim! I don’t get the people that believe evolution doesn’t explain enough about the origin of life on Earth, but mythology somehow does. Very strange indeed…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Life can only come from pre-existing life? So then there has ALWAYS been life on Earth? Otherwise where would it have come from? That makes zero sense Jeff. YOUR answer should REALLY be: an invisible man who lives up in the sky and has been there since before time began decided after being alone(?) for BILLIONS of years to finally create something that wasn’t previously there at all. So, he snapped his fingers and VIOLA’! Life! Man, animals, plants, you name it! And you got that answer from an incredibly flawed group of independently written ancient texts composed by ignorant and superstitious desert dwellers. Sure, that makes sense….
LikeLiked by 2 people
No that life comes from God what the heck is your reasoning lol put your thinking cap on, how could you get that wrong and miss your own error? God is the lifegiver, the source of life. He designed the creatures on earth over time, and those life forms reproduced. It says he formed man out of the “dust of the ground” which actually, again, harmonizes with science. All the material a human body is made of can be found on earth, as in, the dust. According to Genesis the creation went forth in stages that could overlap. Its nice you haven’t responded to my scientific questions and just pull the invisible man mockery. He’s not a man, hes God. It’s true no man has ever seen him. But we see his qualities in ourselves and the world we live in, and in nature. As sure as wind or gravity, if you’re looking hard enough with eyes of faith. The size of the universe for instance is an evidence of his power.
Also calling them, Israelites ignorant and superstitious is a childish error. Like the men of former times were so much lesser than us? Because why? We have the accumulation of technology and knowledge over millennia? Looking on the internet it looks like most of it is deceptive, especially spiritual topics They had the same brains and the same capacity for thought. Are you going to say Isaac Newton is ignorant and superstitious because he didn’t have the latest knowhow? How about Socrates or someone else, contemporary with the Jews and the Christians? How about Christ? Yes the bible writers numbered 40 men over 1600 years, but wait. its cohesive throughout, with interlinking scriptural meanings from vast gaps in the overall Book. The extent of this magnificent network, for people who study and read it, can be mindboggling. The men who wrote it down were from varying walks of life. The themes of the Bible stays unified throughout. Shouldn’t that be regarded as evidence of higher authorship in and of itself?
As for your disbelief whereof you say “billions of years.” God is called the King of Eternity. The account in Genesis leaves the timespan of the creative days indefinite. “A thousand years in his eyes are as one day”.
Your synopsis there of the creation though. Sounds more feasible than any evolution theory proposed to date. I also can’t agree on the scriptures being somehow inherently flawed, unless you mean spurious or apocryphal texts that certain agencies slipped in.
Here is an excerpt concerning prophecy and history:
Alexander the Great, son of Philip II of Macedonia and his wife Olympias, born at Pella in 356 B.C.E. Although not mentioned by name in the Bible, his rule of the fifth world empire was foretold two centuries before his birth.—Da 8:5-7, 20, 21.
In his early 20’s, two years after ascending the throne following the assassination of his father, Alexander set out to conquer the world. (Da 8:5) This dashing young military strategist deployed his comparatively small army in deep-ranked phalanx formation, a tactic that was introduced by his father and that Alexander developed to a high degree of efficiency.
Instead of pursuing the fleeing Persians after two decisive victories in Asia Minor (the first at the Granicus River; the second on the Plain of Issus, where a great Persian army estimated at half a million met utter defeat), Alexander turned his attention to the island city of Tyre. Centuries earlier it had been foretold that the walls, towers, houses, and the very dust of Tyre would be pitched into the sea. (Eze 26:4, 12) It is, therefore, quite significant that Alexander took the rubble of the mainland city destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar some years before and built with it an 800-m (0.5 mi) causeway out to the island city. The pounding by his navy and engines of war destroyed that proud mistress of the sea in July 332 B.C.E.
Jerusalem, on the other hand, opened its gates in surrender, and according to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, XI, 337 [viii, 5]), Alexander was shown the book of Daniel’s prophecy, presumably chapter 8, where a mighty Greek king would subdue and conquer the Persian Empire. Thereupon, Alexander spared Jerusalem and pushed S into Egypt, where he was greeted as a deliverer. There he founded the city of Alexandria, the seat of learning where the Greek Septuagint was made. Looking eastward, Alexander returned from Egypt through Palestine, and with 47,000 men, overpowered a vast reorganized Persian army near Gaugamela. In quick succession Darius III was murdered by onetime friends, Babylon surrendered, and Alexander pushed on to secure Susa and Persepolis. From there he continued his campaign into India before looking westward again.
This is representative history of Daniel’s bible book, and your “highly flawed group of texts” Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were discovered in the 1950s if i remember. They compared them to modern bible and scholars found very little changes over that 2000 years or so. Most of that was minor points that did not alter the meaning of the text.
There was some guy named Allegro, however, associated with the DSS, who wrote a book claiming Jesus and his disciples were not people but metaphors for the magic mushroom. No, I did not read that book. But it’s a good example of imagination wit. I thought you might appreciate it’s existence
LikeLike
“ It’s true no man has ever seen him”. That not consistent in the Bible even. Jacobs wrestle, the finger of the LORD, and Moses on more than one occasion. Then come the explainers.
“ if you’re looking hard enough with eyes of faith. Good one. Faith is not clinging but letting go. You have so little faith you have to shore it up every day or it comes to its senses.
LikeLike
Not consistent in the Bible?
“No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.”
-John 1:8
It actually also says to see God would kill a human. Even Jesus, his Son, after being raised up, “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.”
-1 Timothy 6:16
jacob’s wrestle was with an angel. In any sense where someone “sees” God it is taken in the sense of a different understanding. You could see God through Jesus for example. Why Philip exclaimed “My Lord and my God!” But you wouldn’t actually be “seeing” God. there’s a sense to those scriptures.
I wasnt speaking about clinging to my faith. I was referring to yourself when I said that in the sense of “looking hard” meaning “past” ego or lofty ideas raised up like evolution as an example
LikeLiked by 2 people
“And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved” (Genesis 32:30)
So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (Exodus 33:11)
I have no ego. I just fail to advance or adhere the the contradictions of your Bible and biblical god. And really that stems from the outcomes of faith that has no proof nor met no objectives for way too long. I call it the monotheistic stall. While those that glimpse of enlightenment take on the Jehovah effect ©—Now you must believe what I say and do what I tell you to do.
This quote really resonated with me several years ago. “I live on earth at present and I don’t know what I am. I know I am not a thing— a noun. I seem to be a verb, an integral function of the universe”—Buckminster Fuller
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exodus 33:20 states: “There shall no man see me, and live.” Yet Exodus 24:10 says concerning Moses and some of the elders of Israel: “They saw the God of Israel.” How can these apparently conflicting statements be harmonized?—C. B., Pennsylvania.
It is literally true that no flesh-and-blood organism could see Jehovah God and live. As a spirit creature Christ is “the image of the invisible God” and “the exact representation of his very being”, yet a partial revealment of his glory was so intensely brilliant that it blinded Saul of Tarsus, and sight returned only after a miracle of God. (Acts 9:1-18; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3, NW) A full view of “the Father of the celestial lights” would be more than human flesh could endure.—Jas. 1:17, NW.
When the Bible speaks of Moses or others as seeing Jehovah God it means that they see a manifestation of his glory, and this is usually given by means of an angelic representative of the Almighty. Hence it is that Exodus 24:16 speaks of “the glory of the LORD” abiding upon Mount Sinai, rather than Jehovah himself, when Moses and others were reported as seeing “the God of Israel”. This “glory of the LORD” was due to the presence of one of Jehovah’s angels, for his glory and his angel are associated together, as at Luke 2:9 (NW) when announcement of Jesus’ birth was made to the shepherds: “Suddenly Jehovah’s angel stood by them and Jehovah’s glory gleamed around them.”
We have direct testimony that Jehovah personally did not come down to Mount Sinai and appear and talk to Moses and deliver the Law to him. That Jehovah appeared and spoke only representatively is shown by the following scriptures. “You who received the Law as transmitted by angels but have not kept it.” “It was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.” Paul referred to the Law as “the word spoken through angels”. (Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2, NW) Because at Sinai God did not speak with his own voice but by that of his angelic representative, Exodus 19:19 states: “Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.” The foregoing also enlightens us that it was the back of Jehovah’s angel or glory that Moses saw, and not Jehovah himself, as recorded: “When my glory passes by . . . I will take away my hand, so that you may see my back, while my face shall not be seen.”—Ex. 33:22, 23, AT.
Another instance where God’s Word interprets itself for us on this matter is the case of Moses and the burning bush. Exodus 3:4, 6 states that “God called unto him out of the midst of the bush” and “said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”. But verse 2 tells us that “the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush”. Hence Jehovah appeared and spoke only representatively.
Again, when Jacob wrestled with a man that was actually a materialized angel of Jehovah he was blessed with a new name, that of Israel. Israel means “ruling with God; soldier (wrestler) with God”; and Jacob called the location “Peniel”, meaning “face of God”, saying, “I have seen God face to face.” (Gen. 32:24-30) But actually it was only Jehovah’s materialized angel that he had seen and wrestled with, and who withheld his name, as was usual with such materialized spirit creatures. Also, when an angel of God appeared to Manoah and his wife they viewed this representative as God himself: “Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.”—Judg. 13:3-22.
The foremost representative of Jehovah God is Christ Jesus, and in his case also this principle is confirmed. Jehovah God is rightly referred to as the Creator of all things, yet we know from the Bible record that after he directly created his “only-begotten Son” the remainder of the creation work was performed by and through that Son, in his capacity as the Logos or Word. But since he was Jehovah’s representative and workman in this creative activity, and empowered by God to do it, Jehovah himself is spoken of as the Creator of heavens and earth. (Isa. 40:26, 28; John 1:10; Col. 1:16; Rev. 3:14) For similar reasons, and because Jesus’ course and speech on earth were so perfectly representative of Jehovah God, Jesus said: “He that has seen me has seen the Father also.” (John 14:9, NW) So this text proves no trinity teaching, no more so than do references that seeing angels was seeing God prove the representative angels were embraced in any trinity godhead.
This is another excerpt. I have read it before. It puts it better and is a lot easier than putting in my own words. The Bible does not contradict itself, only in apparencies and due to the lack of insight, sometimes faith, of a reader
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t help but ask … do you feel it’s necessary to include numerous bible quotes because you don’t think Jim (or his readers) is aware of them??!!?
Further … are you a JW? You mention “Jehovah God” quite frequently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They were also quoting, in a contest to say the scriptures contradict themselves. for one. And yes I’m pretty sure they aren’t aware of most of what the Bible teaches. But that is one of the primary topics in this conversation for the last few days.
I learn from JW’s, I’m not baptized. The OP and others were also using the scholarly “Yahweh”. I find that helpful, hopeful, a step ahead of the nameless LORD in the Bibles of antiquity used by Catholics and others.
Actually , the Revised KJV recently puts Gods name back in the Bible…a little late, not in all places, and they still think Jesus is God, but there it is.
LikeLike