Does the Bible actually contain lies?

Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Does the Bible actually contain lies?

Of course it does, though most Biblical scholars wouldn't phrase it quite so blatantly. But Bart D. Ehrman does, in a new article, Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters:

Bart D. Ehrman wrote:

Bart D. Ehrman

Bart D. Ehrman

Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

Posted: 03/25/11 08:38 PM ETApart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?

Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."

And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.

The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.

This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don't depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that -- he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul's name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history's great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.

It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the "Paul" of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as "the word of truth" (1:13); he indicates that the "truth is in Jesus"; he tells his readers to "speak the truth" to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to "fasten the belt of truth around your waist" (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul.

It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth. But we today can at least evaluate their claims and realize just how human, and fallible, they were. They were creatures of their time and place. And so too were their teachings, lies and all.

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the New York Times bestselling author of 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'Jesus, Interrupted'. His latest book, 'Forged: Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are', is now available from HarperOne.

 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi OPIE

Hi OPIE,

This is a dumb thread. This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true. Think hard on my statement before you ooz and foam at the mouth. THINK.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
...Jean says while actively

...Jean says while actively suppressing his own thought processes

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: Does the Bible contains Lies ?

   I just put all of those links in my favorites, in order to look at later, I'm very interested in this clown Jesus , like why do so many people tell me " I need Jesus in my life" WTF does that mean  ?

Signature ? How ?


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Goof

Hi,

People need Jesus because He created the world and them (Eph 1:3-4). You know this (Romans 1:18) just a little nutty nuts by denying the truth you know.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But jesus didn't create the world

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi,

People need Jesus because He created the world and them (Eph 1:3-4). You know this (Romans 1:18) just a little nutty nuts by denying the truth you know.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

The rainbow serpent created it. You see Jean, far off in the Dreamtime, there were only people, no animals or birds, no trees or bushes, no hills or mountains. The country was flat. Goorialla, the great Rainbow Serpent, stirred and set off to look for his own tribe. He travelled across Australia from South to North. He reached Cape York where he stopped and made a big red mountain called Naralullgan. He listened to the wind and heard only voices speaking strange languages.

This is not my country, he thought, the people here speak a different tongue. I must look for my own people. Goorialla left Naralullgan and his huge body made a deep gorge where he came down. He travelled North for many days and his tracks made the creeks and rivers as he journeyed North. Goorialla made two more mountains, one of the Naradunga was long made of granite, the other had sharp peaks and five caves and was called, Minalinha. One day Goorialla heard singing and said, "Those are my people, they are holding a big Bora." At the meeting place of the two rivers, Goorialla found his own people singing and dancing. He watched for a long time, then he came out and was welcomed by his people. He showed the men how to dress properly and taught them to dance. A big storm was gathering, so all the people built humpies for shelter.

Two young men, the bil-bil or Rainbow Lorikeet brothers came looking for shelter but no one had any room. They asked their grandmother, the Star Woman but she had too many dogs and couldn't help them. the Bil-bil brothers went to Goorialla who was snoring in his humpy but he had no room. The rain got heavier and the boys went back to Goorialla and called out that the rain was heavy. Goorialla said, "All right come in now." The Bil-bil bothers ran into Goorialla's mouth and he swallowed them. Then he began to worry about what the people would say when they found the boys missing. He decided to travel North to Bora-bunaru, the only great natural mountain in the land. Next morning the people found that the boys were gone and saw the tracks of Goorialla and knew that he had swallowed them.

You may never see these lakes or mountains, but after the rain you will see his spirit in the sky , which is the rainbow. This is the reason why he is called Goorialla the Rainbow Serpent.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:People

Jean Chauvin wrote:

People need Jesus...

Seek medical attention immediately.

 

Obviously, what you imagine, is a complete fallacy and delusion.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:People need Jesus

Quote:
People need Jesus because He created the world and them

No they dont, people like you just think you do.

Superstitious fictional beings didn't create anything. Just like Thor didn't make lighting.

You need to see a doctor and get a shot for your infection.

How does it feel to be property Fido.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:This may

Jean Chauvin wrote:

This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

People need Jesus because He created the world and them (Eph 1:3-4). You know this (Romans 1:18) just a little nutty nuts by denying the truth you know.

 

Think Jean, THINK!

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:This may

Jean Chauvin wrote:

This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true. 

Duh.

 

Who wants to edit their signature to add this Jean Chauvin exclusive?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 Response to the OP.Does a

 Response to the OP.

Does a bear shit in the woods?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:This may

Jean Chauvin wrote:
This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true.

 

So would you care to help us out here and list out some of the stuff from the bible which is not true?

 

Or are you just going to pussy out like you do on every single request made by, well, anyone?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Jean Chauvin

Sapient wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true. 

Duh.

 

Who wants to edit their signature to add this Jean Chauvin exclusive?

I was mad at him at first, and I still hate him,the individual, but damn, you just reminded me I have nothing to worry about,

I won't edit my sig because I am quite sure it burns him that a sitting president gave props to us cootie spreaders.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: This may shock you,

Quote:
This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true.

It doesn't shock us at all. We don't believe in Santa for adults. We know that all sorts of fiction are peppered with conflation of people and places to give a false sense of truth to hocus pokus. The original book Peter Pan mentions London but no one believes in Tinkerbell because London is a real city.

We see Superman flying around New York City in movies, but no sane person believes that a human can fly like that.

We know that George Washington existed, but the Cherry Tree myth is just a legend. And no sane person would claim that George Washington could fart a Lamborghini out of his ass because George was a real person and Lamborghinis exist.

FACT, it takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote, thus making the godsperm theory of Mary getting knocked up ABSURD AND BULLSHIT

FACT, human flesh DOES NOT survive rigor mortis, thus making the zombie god death of the fictional Jesus ABSURD AND BULLSHIT.

You lose.

How does it feel to be property Fido?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi

Hi Answers in Genesis,

Even though you are a big fat chicken and won't tell me your level in the occult, I'll answer this easy question that you ought to have been able to figure out on your own.

When the serpent said that you shall be like gods when you eat the "apple" (some fruit).

This was not true. Eve ate the apple and never became a god.

get it now, or do you need more examples?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Answers in Genesis,

Even though you are a big fat chicken  

Awww STFU already.

I dare you to jerk off, tough guy.

Go ahead.

Jerk off for once in your life, you fucking tool. Risk it that Jeebus won't save your soul, you moron...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Answers in Genesis,

Even though you are a big fat chicken and won't tell me your level in the occult, I'll answer this easy question that you ought to have been able to figure out on your own.

When the serpent said that you shall be like gods when you eat the "apple" (some fruit).

This was not true. Eve ate the apple and never became a god.

get it now, or do you need more examples?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

According to the myth WHO PUT THE FUCKING APPLE THERE?

You are advocating rigged betting.

God put the tree there ACCORDING TO THE MYTH

So if God didn't want humans suffering why put a guinea pig who is ignorant to what they are being subject to into a trap?

You advocate blaming the victim as a concept.

Eve as a literary character didn't know a damned thing. ACCORDING TO THE MYTH

God tempted her, ACCORDING TO THE MYTH, knowing she didn't know what he did.

Now you don't care that that character was punished for something she was ignorant of ACCORDING TO THE MYTH.

You advocate a concept that values blaming the victim.

None of the garden story is real at all. Thankfully so for women. Unfortunately for women this sick story has been successfully sold to their detriment throughout history.

The moral of the garden story is that women are to blame for human ills. It would be laughable as a fictional story if people didn't still sell this as fact.

I am not surprised by your stupidity considering you also value hostage taking to get at others.

How does it feel to be property Fido?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Jean Chauvin

redneF wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Answers in Genesis,

Even though you are a big fat chicken  

Awww STFU already.

I dare you to jerk off, tough guy.

Go ahead.

Jerk off for once in your life, you fucking tool. Risk it that Jeebus won't save your soul, you moron...

He'd need an electron microscope to find his dick. But he doesn't accept science so I guess he can jerk off to Eve since she was nude according to the myth.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean, how can eating the

Jean, how can eating the fruit make them 'like Gods'?

Weren't they already created 'in the image and likeness of God", according to your favorite passage??

Do you not see yet another biblical inconsistency here?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Bob

Hi Bob,

Once again, you make a classificational fallacy. That's your favorite fallacy. Is classificational Ice Scream cones, with extra absurdity sprinkles your favorite?

Genesis 3:5, the serpent was talking about them being like God ontologically speaking. We in the image of God does not mean we take on God's ontology, but his qualities.

What shall your next classificational fallacy be?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Once again, you make a classificational fallacy. That's your favorite fallacy. Is classificational Ice Scream cones, with extra absurdity sprinkles your favorite?

Genesis 3:5, the serpent was talking about them being like God ontologically speaking. We in the image of God does not mean we take on God's ontology, but his qualities.

What shall your next classificational fallacy be?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Bob is pointing at the moon and you the idiot is staring at his finger tip.

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS WORK OF FICTION, GET THAT THROUGH YOUR DENSE SKULL

The morality of the story SUCKS.

You are focused on the details when we are explaining to you the morally abhorrent claim that it is ok to treat humans like lab rats and then blame them for the trap you set, and then on top of that bet against them.

This is nothing but a MOTIF of a STORY that makes treating humans like property moral.

You can claim Eve at a banana and it still wouldn't change the MOTIF of the story. You can claim that eve didn't become a god but got god like qualities and it still doesn't change the MOTIF of the story.

IT IS STILL A FUCKING FICTIONAL STORY AND AN IMMORAL FICTIONAL STORY THAT TEACHES YOU THAT BEING PROPERTY IS OK.

Do you like being property Fido? According to you your god can do what he wants with you without your say or consent. That makes you a mere object, mere property.

How does it feel to be property Fido?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Once again, you make a classificational fallacy. That's your favorite fallacy. Is classificational Ice Scream cones, with extra absurdity sprinkles your favorite?

Genesis 3:5, the serpent was talking about them being like God ontologically speaking. We in the image of God does not mean we take on God's ontology, but his qualities.

 

 

OK, now try actually reading the passage in context.  even better, try looking up the Hebrew text.  The relevant bit is Strong's H0430 which is the plural of Elohim.  Basically, it says nothing of the ontological nature of god.  It says that when Even eats the fruit, she will know both good and evil and in that very specific sense, she will be more like god than she had been before.

 

So no, the serpent did not lie to her.

 

Try again smartass.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Once again, you make a classificational fallacy. That's your favorite fallacy. Is classificational Ice Scream cones, with extra absurdity sprinkles your favorite?

Genesis 3:5, the serpent was talking about them being like God ontologically speaking. We in the image of God does not mean we take on God's ontology, but his qualities.

What shall your next classificational fallacy be?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

"Like God 'ontologically speaking'", That is a non-sequiter, of the highest order. 

It was NOT talking about the nature of their 'being', but specifically about their knowledge - the tree was called "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Once again, you make a classificational fallacy. That's your favorite fallacy. Is classificational Ice Scream cones, with extra absurdity sprinkles your favorite?

Genesis 3:5, the serpent was talking about them being like God ontologically speaking. We in the image of God does not mean we take on God's ontology, but his qualities.

 

 

OK, now try actually reading the passage in context.  even better, try looking up the Hebrew text.  The relevant bit is Strong's H0430 which is the plural of Elohim.  Basically, it says nothing of the ontological nature of god.  It says that when Even eats the fruit, she will know both good and evil and in that very specific sense, she will be more like god than she had been before.

 

So no, the serpent did not lie to her.

 

Try again smartass.

 

Gene, don't allow him to get lost in the details, they do not matter. The tempter could have been a turtle or spider. Eve could have eaten a peach or grape. It still wouldn't change the fact that the way this fictional god is written, he treats humans like lab rats, mere property.

It is a fictional story that condones treating humans like property.

This fictional god in this story forces them into existence without their consent. Doesn't give them any knowledge to decide what they want for themselves. Sets a trap he doesn't have to set, and makes a bet against them knowing the outcome, then blames them for what he didn't have to set up in the first place.

It is a rigged game from the start, much like the cup scam with the red ball people pull on the Vegas strip. But far worse because it merely isn't about pick pocketing, but punishment and blame and pain for a game they did not set up.

It is horrible motif and horrible fictional story and would be laughable if people like Fido here didn't believe it to be fact.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Believe me Brian, I get

 

Believe me Brian, I get it. Jean Claude van dipshit engaged in a misdirection worthy of Matt Slick. He did not read the whole passage in context nor even at all.

 

The line should correctly be “you will be as god, knowing both good and evil” but he took it to say “you will be as god...” and then concluded that the passage can't possibly be true because eve then did not become a bodiless brainless brain thing. Indeed, the passage never says any such thing.

 

The only liar here is Jean Claude himself. He intentionally distorted the words of his own fairy tale to make it seem as if it was saying something very different from what it really was. In other words, when chicken little hat the nut fall on it, it claimed that the sky was falling, not that the world was expanding which would have been a very different claim.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Gawdzilla
atheist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2011-01-01
User is offlineOffline
"Lying for Jesus". A 2000

"Lying for Jesus". A 2000 year tradition of the Church.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Need Jesus

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi,

People need Jesus ....

I need Jesus, he is a great landscaper and my yard looks like crap.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: Response to

Ktulu wrote:

 Response to the OP.

Does a bear shit in the woods?

 

Isn't the correct saying

Does the pope shit in the woods?

It adds a religious tone to the religious topic of all that shit in the BuyBull.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Ktulu

ex-minister wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

 Response to the OP.

Does a bear shit in the woods?

 

Isn't the correct saying

Does the pope shit in the woods?

It adds a religious tone to the religious topic of all that shit in the BuyBull.

 

I don't know....is the bear catholic?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Ktulu

ex-minister wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

 Response to the OP.

Does a bear shit in the woods?

 

Isn't the correct saying

Does the pope shit in the woods?

It adds a religious tone to the religious topic of all that shit in the BuyBull.

No, the Pope doesn't shit in the woods, he shits in people's brains by selling them shit.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote:   I just put

Ken G. wrote:

   I just put all of those links in my favorites, in order to look at later, I'm very interested in this clown Jesus , like why do so many people tell me " I need Jesus in my life" WTF does that mean  ?

If jesus is supposed to help you not sin then how come christians keep sinning how come it requires so much of your effort to get jesus to help you out it almost seems like a placebo sorta thing if you try hard jesus will help you but really you were the one all along doing it.


ScientiaPotenti...
Posts: 20
Joined: 2011-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Of course a roughly 2000

Of course a roughly 2000 year old book can contain lies. However, as a christian you can't aknowledge that the Bible have any lies or fallancies - due to God being infallable. But as Jean previous pointed out in one of his post God himself can lie to lure ppl. The fun part here is that as a christian - one of the things you have to obey to be a good christian is to not lie. But the infinite good rolemodel is constantly lying and decieving people. Kinda ironic isn't it?


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hi,

First off, I hope Answers in Genesis and I can still get along. Look, I was having a bad hair day that day. I make homemade strawberry shortcake and the ingredients called for 4 tablespoons of baking powder. The book was wrong. It was suppose to be 4 teaspoons. It is not cool to get a cook book wrong.

Cooking is like good theology. There are culinary heresies and culinary paganism. For example, never use real shortning for any cake, this is heresy. Butter is sufficient.

For one to know as a God they logically must be a God. Remember, we had this discussion a long time ago. For one to know all, they my have a being that is everywhere, all powerful, and knowing. So yet again, you are missing the philosohy of intent behind this bob.

Elohim is indeed a plural. So is term create. But via the Hebrew, you must look at the style along with the tense. As a pluaral compound, it is singular.

Even if we want to be ignorant and say it is a plural of style along with syntax, one could argue this via the trinity. But this would be a false way to argue since the term is clearly denoted.

Also, Deut 6:4, Hear o Israel, the lord our God is one. The Lord (YahVeh) our God (Elohim) is one).

And throughout Isaiah (e.g. 43:10), there is only one God.

So yes, the serpent lied. Alone with Job's friends. It was wrong for David to murder a guy, and for Ezra not to pray. The Bible is inerrant in it's recordings of events, and the truth is that which is declared as truth by God. Context my dear watson, context.

If AiG wishes to discuss Elohim in detail, let me know, and I shall correct you my OTO friend. As you should know, the OTO guys think they're christians. These satanists even sign their letters "in Christ.'

Now that I've corrected you, I shall go make a homemade pretzel with homemade pizza dough.

Don't be a heretic, pass the salt.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


JesusChristisLord
Theist
JesusChristisLord's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-10-07
User is offlineOffline
lies as told by the father of lies...

Yes the bible contains lies as told by the father of lies, who speaks his native tongue when he speaks lies. He has a number of names.

John 8:44

New International Version (NIV)

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. <3 Jesus <3

 

 

"There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make Christian hope of 'Heaven' ridiculous by saying they do not want 'to spend eternity playing harps'. The answer to such people is that if they can not understand books for grown-ups they should not talk about them. All the scriptural imagery (harps, crowns, gold, etc.) is, of course, a merely symbolical attempt to express the inexpressible." -C.S. Lewis


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You have a book containing

You have a book containing claims about two supernatural entities, both with more than enough power to convince any mere mortal of anything.

How can we possibly come to know, by mere mortal perception, which one, if either, is actually being honest with man about their own nature and their ultimate intentions?

You have no way to know, independently, anything, with any confidence or certainty, about such beings, if they actually exist.

You can only judge the intentions and honesty of any entity, supernatural or not, by their actions over the long term. The evidence of history, of the existence of disease, bodily imperfections and infirmity, of the deaths of billions of children well before they can make moral decisions, that if there is one or more powerful entities behind existence, that they are evil or incompetent, or both.

The Bible is at least equally, if not more, consistent with a God who is just treating as his playthings, and cares not about our ultimate well-being.

It would be so trivial for such a being to arrange a few stunts, curing a few people, even a resurrection, just to impress us, so no miracle, no death and resurrection scene, can provide logical proof either way about the ultimate nature of God or Satan. This is even assuming, with little or no solid evidence, that all the events witnessed in the Bible, actually occurred as reported.

This is effectively acknowledged in Scripture as the need for 'faith'. IOW, 'trust me'. Any scam artist can say that.

At least a 'naturalist' world-view, based on imperfect empirical evidence, but checked and tested by any means available, has some real warrant as pointing to truths about existence. Whereas religious 'revelation', faith, are the purest speculation, guesswork, wishful thinking, with negligible basis to claim 'truth'.

The justified confidence in empirical truth is embodied in the technology we are communicating with here, just to give a single example. As is the conquest of many diseases, the successful medical management, or even reversal in some cases, of many nasty imperfections built in to the 'design' of our bodies, such as cancer.

The endless proliferation of many variations of religious belief is evidence for, even if not proof of,  the failure of faith. As is every single case of the early death and suffering of any innocent and/or deeply faithful person.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
JesusChristisLord wrote:Yes

JesusChristisLord wrote:

Yes the bible contains lies as told by the father of lies, who speaks his native tongue when he speaks lies. He has a number of names.

John 8:44

New International Version (NIV)

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. <3 Jesus <3

 

 

So if the bible was written by liars how is any of it true? Sounds likely that satan had it written to stray people from the true path.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jack_Glass_1903
atheist
Jack_Glass_1903's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2011-10-26
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:
JesusChristisLord wrote:

Yes the bible contains lies as told by the father of lies, who speaks his native tongue when he speaks lies. He has a number of names.

John 8:44

New International Version (NIV)

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. <3 Jesus <3

 

 

So if the bible was written by liars how is any of it true? Sounds likely that satan had it written to stray people from the true path.

The bible for me does give god and his teachings a bad rep.

Satan is known as the deceiver, so what if the bible is his ultimate deception, made to divide the world and badmouth god? Obviously it's sheer speculation and guess work, but if this were true it would be quite a master stroke from the Devil.

Scotland The Brave


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jack_Glass_1903 wrote:Vastet

Jack_Glass_1903 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
JesusChristisLord wrote:

Yes the bible contains lies as told by the father of lies, who speaks his native tongue when he speaks lies. He has a number of names.

John 8:44

New International Version (NIV)

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. <3 Jesus <3

 

 

So if the bible was written by liars how is any of it true? Sounds likely that satan had it written to stray people from the true path.

The bible for me does give god and his teachings a bad rep.

Satan is known as the deceiver, so what if the bible is his ultimate deception, made to divide the world and badmouth god? Obviously it's sheer speculation and guess work, but if this were true it would be quite a master stroke from the Devil.

Come on now, why isn't simply quoting a book enough for you? It works for the majority of all the worlds religions. Circular reasoning is ok by me, it makes for great entertainment. It's like circus bears riding tricycles in the center ring with circus music playing and clowns dancing around.

The holy book of snarfwidget, "A fool saith in their heart, there is no snarfwidget".

Or was that from the pink unicorn manual? Got my comic books mixed up.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

Jack_Glass_1903 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
JesusChristisLord wrote:

Yes the bible contains lies as told by the father of lies, who speaks his native tongue when he speaks lies. He has a number of names.

John 8:44

New International Version (NIV)

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. <3 Jesus <3

 

 

So if the bible was written by liars how is any of it true? Sounds likely that satan had it written to stray people from the true path.

The bible for me does give god and his teachings a bad rep.

Satan is known as the deceiver, so what if the bible is his ultimate deception, made to divide the world and badmouth god? Obviously it's sheer speculation and guess work, but if this were true it would be quite a master stroke from the Devil.

Come on now, why isn't simply quoting a book enough for you? It works for the majority of all the worlds religions. Circular reasoning is ok by me, it makes for great entertainment. It's like circus bears riding tricycles in the center ring with circus music playing and clowns dancing around.

The holy book of snarfwidget, "A fool saith in their heart, there is no snarfwidget".

Or was that from the pink unicorn manual? Got my comic books mixed up. 

lol

I'll trade ya my Celestial Teapot #37 (where Russell thinks he spots the Celestial Teapot orbiting Mars, but then sneezes and can't find it for 30 more action packed pages!) for your IPU #18 (where the IPU fights against the evil dragon in Sagan's garage).

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


OldandTired
OldandTired's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-11-03
User is offlineOffline
arguement

 It appears that the vast majority of 'Rational Response' is simply mockery.  While I do , on occasion appreciate good mocking, in this forum it simply makes the mockers position look weak.  If the biggest guns you have in your intellectual arsenal are mockery, you are clearly under gunned.

Because you do not believe does not make it untrue.
"The blindness of humanity is so great that people are actually proud of their blindness."
"Our country , now appears, as at no other time in her history, like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant." Sam Harris


OldandTired
OldandTired's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-11-03
User is offlineOffline
my name sake

 This argument is actually my namesake, it is simply 'old and Tired', perhaps that explains the mullet on your Avatar...  You are simply stating 'your' opinions of what the Bible is and how 'you' see it, that is not 'empirical evidence' either, yet you are clearly suggesting that we believe you.  If you are actually suggesting that we consider this medium of communication as "empirical evidence" (as you seem to be)..well...WOW!!!  Lets see, you type lots of words and show and Avatar that looks like a guy who played in deliverance...yep, I'll trust his word fer shur.  

You answer your own question in your second sentence, we cannot by 'mere mortal perception' (please jump in with the typical 'Rational Response' of mockery at this point).  Assuming the Christians are correct, it takes a 'moving of the Spirit'.  Which is , by definition, outside the realm of 'Rational Response', so the only real irrationality I see here is that the 'Rational Response' squad believes there is nothing that cannot be reasoned. That makes it a sad, small world...

Because you do not believe does not make it untrue.
"The blindness of humanity is so great that people are actually proud of their blindness."
"Our country , now appears, as at no other time in her history, like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant." Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OldandTired wrote: It

OldandTired wrote:

 It appears that the vast majority of 'Rational Response' is simply mockery.  While I do , on occasion appreciate good mocking, in this forum it simply makes the mockers position look weak.  If the biggest guns you have in your intellectual arsenal are mockery, you are clearly under gunned.

Religious belief deserves little more than mockery.

Despite that we do have threads where we do engage with actual debate.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OldandTired wrote: This

OldandTired wrote:

 This argument is actually my namesake, it is simply 'old and Tired', perhaps that explains the mullet on your Avatar...  You are simply stating 'your' opinions of what the Bible is and how 'you' see it, that is not 'empirical evidence' either, yet you are clearly suggesting that we believe you.  If you are actually suggesting that we consider this medium of communication as "empirical evidence" (as you seem to be)..well...WOW!!!  Lets see, you type lots of words and show and Avatar that looks like a guy who played in deliverance...yep, I'll trust his word fer shur.  

You answer your own question in your second sentence, we cannot by 'mere mortal perception' (please jump in with the typical 'Rational Response' of mockery at this point).  Assuming the Christians are correct, it takes a 'moving of the Spirit'.  Which is , by definition, outside the realm of 'Rational Response', so the only real irrationality I see here is that the 'Rational Response' squad believes there is nothing that cannot be reasoned. That makes it a sad, small world...

Biblical doctrine has no objective basis, so is essential all opinion or figments of individuals imagination.

Once you are speculating beyond empirical evidence, that is all you have, pure speculation. IOW, religious doctrine.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


OldandTired
OldandTired's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-11-03
User is offlineOffline
mockery...and more.

 As seems to be the case with most of the Atheist argument against religion, I must respond that you saying it does not make it so.  One of the basis of most religions is respect for anothers opinion, you can have any opinion you like and I will respect you for having one...wrong though it may be.  Mockery is seldom appropriate.

As for your statement above "Biblical doctrine has no objective evidence", that is clearly wrong and deceptive.  There is plenty of empirical evidence for biblical doctrine, I will readily agree that there is not empirical evidence for ALL biblical doctrine though, but neither is there empirical evidence for ALL scientific endeavours.  The vast majority of scientific benefits we see today were originally based on speculation, according to your argument they should not have tried them...

Because you do not believe does not make it untrue.
"The blindness of humanity is so great that people are actually proud of their blindness."
"Our country , now appears, as at no other time in her history, like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant." Sam Harris


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
OldandTired wrote: It

OldandTired wrote:

 It appears that the vast majority of 'Rational Response' is simply mockery.  While I do , on occasion appreciate good mocking, in this forum it simply makes the mockers position look weak.  If the biggest guns you have in your intellectual arsenal are mockery, you are clearly under gunned.

Once an argument has been thoroughly defeated, the only things left to do are ignore it or mock it. Since humans are social animals, and mockery is a social activity, it is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to engage in said behaviour.

The reason speculation works in science is that it is DIRECTLY tied to results. When speculating, one also defines limits, terms, and results. And then one TESTS the hypothesis for validity. And THEN the hypothesis is revised to remove speculation in favour of demonstrated fact.

Casual speculation does not have such strict requirements for accuracy.

If that was your best, you don't have much firepower.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


OldandTired
OldandTired's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-11-03
User is offlineOffline
hmmm...

 Clearly you do not understand the concept of "defeated".  If the argument against religion had actually won, as you are suggesting there would be no further argument, as there is still world wide debate you can hardly claim victory. Delusion perhaps, certainly not victory.  Your logic around mockery appears as faulty as your logic for 'defeated'...I can picture many social behaviours that are inappropriate in specific arenas, calling them "social" does not confer acceptability on them, although i am starting to understand your logic (or lack of).

I would offer the exact same for speculating with religion, my results are proven. Perhaps not to your satisfaction but you are irrelevant in the situation, much the same as any naysayer in any situation. 

Results can hardly be considered 'strict requirements'...

/sigh

 

(former Proud Canadian - now that I read this drivel, becoming an embarrassed Canadian)

Because you do not believe does not make it untrue.
"The blindness of humanity is so great that people are actually proud of their blindness."
"Our country , now appears, as at no other time in her history, like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant." Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OldandTired wrote: Clearly

OldandTired wrote:

 Clearly you do not understand the concept of "defeated".  If the argument against religion had actually won, as you are suggesting there would be no further argument, as there is still world wide debate you can hardly claim victory. Delusion perhaps, certainly not victory.  Your logic around mockery appears as faulty as your logic for 'defeated'...I can picture many social behaviours that are inappropriate in specific arenas, calling them "social" does not confer acceptability on them, although i am starting to understand your logic (or lack of).

I would offer the exact same for speculating with religion, my results are proven. Perhaps not to your satisfaction but you are irrelevant in the situation, much the same as any naysayer in any situation. 

Results can hardly be considered 'strict requirements'...

/sigh

 

(former Proud Canadian - now that I read this drivel, becoming an embarrassed Canadian)

You cant win at chess playing with checkers peices, much less have any stratigy.

The world's population once thought the earth was flat. That was defeated, and the truth of the earth being a globe won.

We know Thor didn't make lightening. We know that the sun was not a thinking being like the Egyptians falsely believed.

Now, no matter what pet diety you dream up,no matter what name you want to give this pet diety, there never was, nor ever will be a magical "entity" with no material, no brain, no location, that has magical super powers who thinks you are special. Never was a god and never will be one.

All the god/s of the past, the anthropomorphic volcano gods, the polytheism of Rome and Greece, the polythiesm of ancient Egypt, the monotheism of today, all these things are the mere imaginations and inventions of humans. They are a sugar pill, wishful thinking, dreams, bullshit and nothing more.

I am sorry if it scares you that this is all there is. It doesn't scare me. With me, I face life as it is, not through the comic book kaliediscope rose colored cosmic candyland you do.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Clearly you do not

"Clearly you do not understand the concept of "defeated". "

Theist projection.

" If the argument against religion had actually won, as you are suggesting there would be no further argument, as there is still world wide debate you can hardly claim victory."

Falsified with my response on Nov 4th here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29974

"I can picture many social behaviours that are inappropriate in specific arenas, calling them "social" does not confer acceptability on them"

Acceptability of a behaviour has no impact on its social status and effects. Acceptability is also based on ones personal ethics, which are subjective, so every social scenario is subject to disapproval by some idiot. Which renders your argument irrelevant.

Try harder little one. I may break a sweat next time.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course, there is plenty

Of course, there is plenty of evidence for Religious doctrine, IOW, yes it exists, and has been around for a long time.

There is none for the existence of God or, if he does exist, despite lack of evidence, none for the claimed attributes, ie his 'omni-' or infinite qualities

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 708
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is onlineOnline
Where

and how did you acquire "ethics".  It/they could be one or more of a group of those invisible things of creation that can be seen from creation onward.

The only possible thing the world could need saving from are those running it.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The where was in a mixture

The where was in a mixture of places. The when is my entire life. The how was experience and observation with and of others filtered through my emotions and sympathies. I wasn't born with ethics, I learned them. I'm still learning them. They are subject to change with new information. My story is everyone's story. Ethics are subjective to the being who has them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.