Atheists Respond: Tell me the Internal Logical Inconsistencies in My Doctrine

Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheists Respond: Tell me the Internal Logical Inconsistencies in My Doctrine

Hi again,

I haven’t posted here in many months but have still been following most of the threads - trying to understand more of the ideas floating around. In my previous thread >> http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/27471 (from a LONG time ago).  I think we came to somewhat of an agreement that in the case of my particular theistic belief (which I would roughly describe as Fundamental Reformed Calvinist Evangelical Christianity)

1)      That my belief in my God could not be dis-proven

2)      That my belief in my God could not be Proven


The main reason given by people for this conclusion was the fact that some aspects of my God claim are simply un-testable by science and will always remain un-testable. It is the same reason the invisible pink unicorn can never be disproven. And, even if a seemingly infinitely powerful being did appear before us claiming to be my God, and was able to demonstrate seemingly impossible ‘miracles’, this would still not PROVE that my God exists –Because it still could be any number of possible alternative explanations – such as it being an advanced alien, with superior technology that is able to do things that we think are impossible based on our current (limited) understanding of physics.   

That being said, My belief in God is fundamentally based on 2 initial premises/axioms:

1)      The unified Trinitarian God of the bible exists

2)      This God has revealed himself truthfully in the Bible (within the context of history and the context of the various authors)


Everything else surrounding my theistic belief, about God, life now, and life after death are all inferences based on these 2 initial premises being true.

As I have already said, based on previous discussions there is little point proceeding further discussing the truthfulness of Premise 1 -  as the existence of my God cannot be absolutely proven or disproven using science. Therefore these 2 initial premises will remain as naked assertions.

So, I do not intend to try and prove either of these 2 initial premises – The burden of proof continues to rest on me.

Instead I simply intend to present a clear correct general understanding of the Bible says – all of which come as inferences from Premise 2 being true. After I outline what I believe I hope that you will be able to tear apart the logical inconsistencies you find in my doctrine and provide good criticism. I am still confident that my beliefs (assuming my initial premises are true) are internally logically consistent and also reflect accurately on what we see in the world that we live in. If you feel all I am doing in this thread is preaching and bible bashing - then feel free to go on to the next thread – I do not intend to come across like this - I am only presenting this information about what I believe so that we can have something to talk about – as you do not currently know what I believe yet. A lot of what I say may well be common knowledge to you, but I say it anyway only to clearly distinguish what I believe, from the many other false sects of Christianity. I look forwards to hearing and discussing your critical and sceptical analysis of my doctrine.

 Now I could give you Bible references to support my correct understanding of the Bible. But I am not going to bother (unless it is specifically requested), primarily because from my experience, you guys couldn’t care less about the Bible, and will just tell me where to shove it.  Regardless I am the Theist, and by definition you are NOT-Theist – therefore you don’t really care where my claims come from – your position is simply to dismiss any theist position. So without further delay  - My inferences that flow from Premise 2:

> God has not revealed himself to us completely. He has only revealed what we NEED to know, NOT everything we would like to know. We cannot understand everything about God - as we are not God. There will always remain many unanswered questions about God – I won’t be able to answer all your questions. I am only able to answer questions regarding my god insomuch as God has revealed himself to me.  Beyond this is mere speculation.

> Not all professing Christians are Christians – There are many false Christian teachings / cults /sects around the world (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics etc… to name a few as broad generalisation).  We will only know if anyone was/is a true Christian when we are judged. We do not know what people think inside like God does. The existence of these distorted ‘religions’ makes no impact on the validity of true Christianity. The bible supports the existence of such cults and says this is to be expected.

> All Non-Christians are Atheists (whether they recognise it or not) All other ‘gods’ are fake. People worship all other kinds of created things (Allah, Ra, Spaghetti Monsters, Science, Reason, Logic … etc) rather than the only real True God. Therefore they reject a belief in the only God.

> All Atheists/Non-Christians Hate God – whether they think he exists or not. Non-Christians are unable to do anything else but Hate God, they cannot freely choose to do good things (God defines what Good is not us) – No-one has ‘free will’ (Ability to choose between right and wrong) – we can only choose wrong-  only do evil things all the time. People are inherently evil from conception and are born with a selfish nature which is against God. This does not remove our personal responsibility for the evil actions they carry out as they do what they want to do – which is evil. Every adult, child, baby and foetus rightly deserves God’s continual rejection as judgement for our continual rejection of Him by living in opposition to Him. God remains fair and merciful in his judgement – Judging people based on what they DO with what they are able to KNOW.

> Being a ‘good’ person will get you a first class ticket to Hell.
Nobody is good everyone is evil so deceiving ourselves into thinking we do good when we actually do evil is a gross evil. No-one deserves to go to heaven nor can they earn their way there by earning brownie points for God. The only way is to trust God will continue to keep his promise to save those who trust him. I’m sure this line has been done to death - Enough said.

> God does NOT reveal himself clearly - So that people will NOT be able to understand Him. God has intentionally made the message of the Bible in such a way so that it will sound completely ridiculous, absurd and foolish to some people – Specifically so that these people will NOT be able to understand Him. Why does God do this? For the same reason Jesus spoke in parables - Primarily because God has a “No Arrogant Jerks in Heaven” Policy (His house – His Rules). God is a jealous God, and hates people who think they know better than him when clearly they don’t (nor can they). So he makes his message seem foolish to these people so that in their pride and great ‘knowledge’  they will fail to understand Him and be further hardened against God – and later they will be rightly judged for that - and their ‘knowledge’ will result in EPIC fail – All of this will bring great glory to God. So the main reason why I am not trying to logically prove to you why my God exists is because the bible is clear that this would be a complete waste of time – God purposefully goes against Occam's razor.

> All Atheists/Non-Christians CANNOT understand the Bible or God. They are completely unable to see the Bible as anything other than foolishness, because God allows their minds to stay hardened against Him. They are unable to choose to believe in God or think anything. Only God can allow us to understand him.  

> God is Supremely Powerful - He has, and always will be, far more powerful than the entire universe, although he is not infinitely powerful in the sense that there are things he cannot do. He cannot deny his own unchanging character which is just, merciful, loving, faithful, creative, relational, ordered, truthful  etc...  He cannot lie; he cannot fail at fulfilling his promises, etc….

> God is everywhere at once - both inside and outside of space/time

> God created and is in control of everything that exists. All the laws of physics, the movement of every electron and atom, every breath we take, every earthquake, every time the earth spins, every transfer of energy only occurs because God allows it to occur. The only reason we are able to develop scientific laws is because God is a God of order and has decided to keep the laws of physics realitivly consistent (Although this doesn’t and hasn’t prevented him from being able to suspend these laws in order to achieve his purposes).

> God didn’t need to create the Universe – He did it for his own Glory. God wasn’t lonely and needing some toys to play with in his sandbox – He was in a perfectly content and satisfying Trinitarian relationship with himself. He created the universe because it is in his nature to create. He created the universe knowing and planning that Adam and Eve would sin and that ultimately this would bring Epic Glory to God the Son (Jesus) and in turn to God the Father – The universe is merely the result of a grand divine gift/birthday present to himself.  God created the universe for  Himself so he isn’t  our personal genie wanting to grant us all our wishes – God does whatever he wants to do – whatever is for his own benifit.

> The world is Screwed up because we all Hate God – We the human race has united in opposition to God and God has and continues to fairly judge us for this, in several ways.
- He allows us to live in rebellion to him and in effect screw up our own lives and the lives of those around us throughout selfishness.
- He has cursed all of the once perfect creation to decay, be hostile and cause destruction. All natural disasters, death, and violence is a result of God’s punishment, while we still remain responsible for it.
- He allows his judgement to be carried out by many different created entities which all remain under his control and who’s judgement He is ultimately responsible for. God permits Satan to have a small degree of supernatural powers to cause destruction on the world, God uses the laws of physics to cause bushfires, earthquakes and floods. God uses world leaders and powers (both good and bad) to administer His justice.  

> Its not God’s Plan to save everyone – God decides to allow some to be fairly Judged for their sin so that the grandness of his mercy would be more clearly displayed and he would be Glorified even more.

__________________

That will do for now… I may add in more points at another time if this thread takes off.

I’m sure if you have read this far most of you probably think my God is a Tyrannical, Masochistic, Nazi, Evil Dictator (or something to that effect). The Bible says I am to  expect this if you are not a Christian, but our personal feeling and opinions have no impact on the validity of a theory (Just because I don’t like gravity cos it stops me flying – don’t make it not exist) – so I would like to hear what you have to say regarding the internal logical inconsistencies of my God, or the inconsistencies you find between my theory and what we see in reality.  

Sorry for the EPIC post - just though i'd put everything down in one place

Also if you think I am a Poe or something else you are greatly mistaken - these are my genuine beliefs.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote:Instead

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
Instead I simply intend to present a clear correct general understanding of the Bible says – all of which come as inferences from Premise 2 being true.

Well, I'm not very knowledgeable about religious scriptures, but it sounds good to me. There's not much point in mentioning that your beliefs are unjustified now, so I'll just check that they're coherent and consistent.

Quote:
reflect accurately on what we see in the world that we live in.

You might have a hard time with this one.

Quote:
> God has not revealed himself to us completely. He has only revealed what we NEED to know, NOT everything we would like to know. We cannot understand everything about God - as we are not God. There will always remain many unanswered questions about God – I won’t be able to answer all your questions. I am only able to answer questions regarding my god insomuch as God has revealed himself to me.  Beyond this is mere speculation.

I don't see why we can't understand him just because we're not him. It looks like you just defined him as incomprehensible in certain ways. 

Quote:
> Not all professing Christians are Christians – There are many false Christian teachings / cults /sects around the world (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics etc… to name a few as broad generalisation).  We will only know if anyone was/is a true Christian when we are judged. We do not know what people think inside like God does. The existence of these distorted ‘religions’ makes no impact on the validity of true Christianity. The bible supports the existence of such cults and says this is to be expected.

Okay, but note that you're redefining Christians as people that follow your interpretation of the Bible, whether or not that's the correct interpretation.

Quote:
> All Non-Christians are Atheists (whether they recognise it or not) All other ‘gods’ are fake. People worship all other kinds of created things (Allah, Ra, Spaghetti Monsters, Science, Reason, Logic … etc) rather than the only real True God. Therefore they reject a belief in the only God.

I would not label science, reason, and logic as gods, but that is a digression.

It's fine, but similar to the last statement, note that you're redefining atheists as all people that don't believe in the Christian "God" as opposed to people that don't believe in any god concepts.

Quote:
> All Atheists/Non-Christians Hate God – whether they think he exists or not. Non-Christians are unable to do anything else but Hate God,

That is inconsistent. One cannot hate an entity that they don't believe exists.

You can only claim that we hate the character God or that we actually believe that God exists. The latter certainly does not "reflect accurately" on what we see in the world.

Quote:
they cannot freely choose to do good things (God defines what Good is not us) – No-one has ‘free will’ (Ability to choose between right and wrong) – we can only choose wrong-  only do evil things all the time. People are inherently evil from conception and are born with a selfish nature which is against God.

If committing any sin mentioned by the Bible at all equals rebelling against God, then I guess you could say that we are inherently "evil." I would say that we are actually predisposed to anthropomorphize and project though, so although we are technically atheists when we are born, we have some tendency to attribute blind natural processes to intelligences.

Quote:
> Being a ‘good’ person will get you a first class ticket to Hell. Nobody is good everyone is evil so deceiving ourselves into thinking we do good when we actually do evil is a gross evil. No-one deserves to go to heaven nor can they earn their way there by earning brownie points for God. The only way is to trust God will continue to keep his promise to save those who trust him. I’m sure this line has been done to death - Enough said.

Morally disgusting, but consistent by itself.

Quote:
God purposefully goes against Occam's razor.

Lol, nice.

Quote:
> All Atheists/Non-Christians CANNOT understand the Bible or God. They are completely unable to see the Bible as anything other than foolishness, because God allows their minds to stay hardened against Him. They are unable to choose to believe in God or think anything. Only God can allow us to understand him.

Again, internally consistent, but not consistent with reality.

Stating that we are can't see the Bible as anything other than a foolishness is a bit of an oversimplification. Some of the history is accurate and there are some halfway decent moral lessons.

Quote:
> God is Supremely Powerful - He has, and always will be, far more powerful than the entire universe, although he is not infinitely powerful in the sense that there are things he cannot do. He cannot deny his own unchanging character which is just, merciful, loving, faithful, creative, relational, ordered, truthful  etc...  He cannot lie; he cannot fail at fulfilling his promises, etc….

Sure.

Quote:
> God is everywhere at once - both inside and outside of space/time

Doesn't make any sense at all, but it's not internally inconsistent, I think.

Quote:
> God created and is in control of everything that exists. All the laws of physics, the movement of every electron and atom, every breath we take, every earthquake, every time the earth spins, every transfer of energy only occurs because God allows it to occur. The only reason we are able to develop scientific laws is because God is a God of order and has decided to keep the laws of physics realitivly consistent (Although this doesn’t and hasn’t prevented him from being able to suspend these laws in order to achieve his purposes).

> God didn’t need to create the Universe – He did it for his own Glory. God wasn’t lonely and needing some toys to play with in his sandbox – He was in a perfectly content and satisfying Trinitarian relationship with himself. He created the universe because it is in his nature to create. He created the universe knowing and planning that Adam and Eve would sin and that ultimately this would bring Epic Glory to God the Son (Jesus) and in turn to God the Father – The universe is merely the result of a grand divine gift/birthday present to himself.  God created the universe for  Himself so he isn’t  our personal genie wanting to grant us all our wishes – God does whatever he wants to do – whatever is for his own benifit.

Okay. He created the world so he could feel awesome. Sure.

Quote:
> The world is Screwed up because we all Hate God – We the human race has united in opposition to God and God has and continues to fairly judge us for this, in several ways.
- He allows us to live in rebellion to him and in effect screw up our own lives and the lives of those around us throughout selfishness.
- He has cursed all of the once perfect creation to decay, be hostile and cause destruction. All natural disasters, death, and violence is a result of God’s punishment, while we still remain responsible for it.
- He allows his judgement to be carried out by many different created entities which all remain under his control and who’s judgement He is ultimately responsible for. God permits Satan to have a small degree of supernatural powers to cause destruction on the world, God uses the laws of physics to cause bushfires, earthquakes and floods. God uses world leaders and powers (both good and bad) to administer His justice.

> Its not God’s Plan to save everyone – God decides to allow some to be fairly Judged for their sin so that the grandness of his mercy would be more clearly displayed and he would be Glorified even more.

What a nice guy.

Quote:
I’m sure if you have read this far most of you probably think my God is a Tyrannical, Masochistic, Nazi, Evil Dictator (or something to that effect).

Well yeah, and narcissistic, malevolent, petty, genocidal, sexist, racist, sociopath, etc.

Quote:
but our personal feeling and opinions have no impact on the validity of a theory (Just because I don’t like gravity cos it stops me flying – don’t make it not exist)

True, it doesn't affect his existence. I don't believe he exists because there's no good evidence and the entire belief system is nonsense, not because God is morally repugnant. However, morally, I can say that if the God you've described does exist, I would fight him to the bitter end. Since he doesn't exist, the only thing to fight is your pre-medieval dogma, Christianity.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


beardedinlair
atheist
beardedinlair's picture
Posts: 70
Joined: 2011-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote:> God

Phillip J. Fry wrote:


> God has not revealed himself to us completely. He has only revealed what we NEED to know, NOT everything we would like to know. We cannot understand everything about God - as we are not God. There will always remain many unanswered questions about God – I won’t be able to answer all your questions. I am only able to answer questions regarding my god insomuch as God has revealed himself to me.  Beyond this is mere speculation.

> Not all professing Christians are Christians – There are many false Christian teachings / cults /sects around the world (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics etc… to name a few as broad generalisation).  We will only know if anyone was/is a true Christian when we are judged. We do not know what people think inside like God does. The existence of these distorted ‘religions’ makes no impact on the validity of true Christianity. The bible supports the existence of such cults and says this is to be expected.
 

Hi! Hope you don't mind me giving my thoughts on these 2 ideations:

1. I'd like to use infinity as an analogy for God. If you had an infinite set of numbers you can grasp the concept as a whole, but never be able to fully reason the entire sequence of numbers individually, due to the processing limits of the human mind. So, to me that implies that you can only grasp different facets of God, which some christians believe is why God seems different in different books of the Bible. This is just a different way of saying what you said, that "We aren't God", therefore we can't understand God. The question you have to ask yourself is how much of God has revealed himself to you, and how much of your own personal culture and experience have you projected onto what you perceive to be God? You have to be truthful with yourself before you even try to answer questions for other people.

2. I like to think of the word Christian. Christ-ian. To me, pretty much anyone that believes in Christ is a Christ-ian. And according to modern doctrine interpreted from the Bible, it's not on you to judge other people. In the same way you can't know the whole of God, you also can't know the whole of Christianity. It's not your place to judge, it might be your place to offer alternatives, if you can be that certain of your view of God. But ultimately, all you can speak for is yourself.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
What a turgid outpouring of assertion

 

Mr Fry. We could pass off almost all your points as being delivered by any one of the hundreds of wee christian cults all of whom think they are the only ones who are right, all who see themselves as the ones victimised by the evil world. No doubt you a decent fellow Phillip, maybe with a family of your own. Be assured, your finest qualities are those that make you human, not these meaningless, dogmatic labels that you think make you a christian.

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I would say that the actual

I would say that the actual origins and nature of the Bible is what shows your faith to be false.  The bible is simply a collection of diverse writings that reflect different beliefs and customs of the period in which they were written. The gospels show the evolution and development of multiple Christianities none of which are Calvinisitic like the bastard Calvin so presented ...may he burn in the non-existent hell that he deserves. If there is any one evil created by Christianity it is the sick dysfunction of Calvinism.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
> I have not revealed myself



> I have not revealed myself to you completely. I have only revealed what you NEED to know, NOT everything you would like to know. You can't understand everything about me - as you are not me. 


> Not all professing Beyond Saving lovers are Beyond Saving lovers – There are many false Beyond Saving lovers. You will only know who the true Beyond Saving lovers are after I have judged them. (Cash donations may help your cause)

> All Non-Beyond Saving Lovers are Non-believers (whether they recognise it or not) All other ‘Beyond Savings’ are fake. People worship all other kinds of created things (Allah, Ra, Spaghetti Monsters, Science, Reason, Logic … etc) rather than the only real Beyond Saving. Therefore they reject a belief in the only Beyond Saving.

> All Non-believers/Non Beyond Saving Lovers are Haters – whether they think I exist or not. Non-lovers are unable to do anything else but Hate Me, they cannot freely choose to do good things (I define what Good is not you) – No-one has ‘free will’ (Ability to choose between right and wrong) – you can only choose wrong-  only do evil things all the time. People are inherently evil from conception and are born with a selfish nature which is against Me. This does not remove your personal responsibility for the evil actions they carry out as they do what they want to do – which is evil. Every adult, child, baby and foetus rightly deserves My continual rejection as judgement for our continual rejection of Me by living in opposition to Me. I remain fair and merciful in my judgement – Judging people based on what they DO with what they are able to KNOW.

> Being a ‘good’ person will get you a first class ticket to My Dungeon.
Nobody is good everyone is evil so deceiving yourselves into thinking you do good when you actually do evil is a gross evil. No-one deserves to come to my house nor can they earn their way there by earning brownie points for Me. The only way is to trust I will continue to keep my promise to save those who trust me (and attractive females). 

> I do NOT reveal myself clearly - So that people will NOT be able to understand Me. I have intentionally made the message of posts in such a way so that it will sound completely ridiculous, absurd and foolish to some people – Specifically so that these people will NOT be able to understand Me. Why do I do this? Because I like to fuck with you- Primarily because I have a “No one without a sense of humor” Policy (My house – My Rules). Beyond Saving is a jealous Beyond, and hates people who think they know better than him when clearly they don’t (nor can they). So he makes his message seem foolish to these people so that in their pride and great ‘knowledge’  they will fail to understand Him and be further hardened against Beyond Saving – and later they will be rightly judged for that - and their ‘knowledge’ will result in EPIC fail – All of this will bring great glory to Me. So the main reason why I am not trying to logically prove to you why my I exist is because it would be a complete waste of time – I purposefully go against Occam's razor. I like to have my dungeon extra full of people to torture. So I trick you into giving Me an excuse to send you there. 

> All Unbelievers/Non-Lovers CANNOT understand the my posts or ME. They are completely unable to see the my posts as anything other than foolishness, because I allows their minds to stay hardened against Me. They are unable to choose to believe in Me or think anything. Only I can allow you to understand me.  

> Beyond Saving is Supremely Powerful - He has, and always will be, far more powerful than the entire universe, although he is not infinitely powerful in the sense that there are things he cannot do. He cannot deny his own unchanging character which is just, merciful, loving, faithful, creative, relational, ordered, truthful  etc...  He cannot lie; he cannot fail at fulfilling his promises, etc….

> Beyond Saving is everywhere at once - both inside and outside of space/time

> Beyond Saving created and is in control of everything that exists. All the laws of physics, the movement of every electron and atom, every breath we take, every earthquake, every time the earth spins, every transfer of energy only occurs because I allow it to occur. The only reason you are able to develop scientific laws is because Beyond Saving is a Beyond Saving of order and have decided to keep the laws of physics relatively consistent (Although this doesn’t and hasn’t prevented me from being able to suspend these laws in order to achieve my purposes). Ok, so I suffer from a little OCD...

> Beyond Saving didn’t need to create the Universe – I did it for My own Glory. I wasn’t lonely and needing some toys to play with in my sandbox – I was in a perfectly content and satisfying Trinitarian relationship with myself. I created the universe because it is in my nature to create. I created the universe knowing and planning that Adam and Eve would sin and that ultimately this would bring Epic Glory to Me the Son (BS Jr) and in turn to Beyond Saving the Father – The universe is merely the result of a grand divine gift/birthday present to myself.  I created the universe for  Myself so I am not your personal genie wanting to grant you all your wishes – I do whatever I want to do – whatever is for my own benefit. So kneel down and kiss my feet slave.

> The world is Screwed up because you all Hate Beyond Saving – You the human race has united in opposition to Beyond Saving and I have and continues to fairly judge you for this, in several ways.
- I allow you to live in rebellion to me and in effect screw up your own lives and the lives of those around you throughout selfishness.
- I have cursed all of the once perfect creation to decay, be hostile and cause destruction. All natural disasters, death, and violence is a result of My punishment, and it is all your fault because your great great great great......great great grandmother ate my apple. 
- I allow my judgement to be carried out by many different created entities which all remain under my control and who’s judgement I am ultimately responsible for. I permit Sapient to have a small degree of supernatural powers to cause destruction on the board (moving around posts and such), I use the laws of physics to cause bushfires, earthquakes and floods (because they are so pretty). I use world leaders and powers (both good and bad) to administer My justice (which changes with my mood swings).  

> Its not Beyond Saving's Plan to save everyone – I decide to allow some to be fairly Judged for their sin so that the grandness of my mercy would be more clearly displayed and I would be Glorified even more, kind of like Duck, Duck, Goose!

__________________

Now, if this was what you knew about the all loving, all caring Beyond Saving, would you say Beyond Saving is 

A. A really great guy you want to be friends with

B. A being worthy of worship and praise

C. A complete asshole

D. A psychopath obsessed with himself and willing to hurt anyone for his own sick twisted purposes

E. A being that couldn't possibly exist. 

 

See the problem with your "logic" now?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Laughter

 

Great post, your highness. Given your omni powers, we should expect nothing less.

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


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Ooh ooh ooh!

Beyond Saving wrote:

See the problem with your "logic" now?

Oh Great Beyond Saving, perform a miracle for us and look into the future to see if you can divine the answer to this question before it is given!

I'll bet you can do it, what with your Omni-Powers and such.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
And here I was thinking it

And here I was thinking it was because Phil was trying to hold multiple mutually exclusive Christian theologies.

Thank you Lord of .. I mean Lord BS.

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Bible account itself is

The Bible account itself is definitely not logically consistent, certainly on any kind of literal reading, so it cannot serve as the basis of a consistent belief system.

Then, even a logically consistent argument can only produce conclusions which are dependent on the starting assumptions for truth.

Your beliefs are, at best, assumptions, with no warrant for truth without some kind of verification independent of the Bible/

IOW, you have nothing but faith, ie wishful thinking.

________________

That said, many of your 'inferences' are invalid in themselves.

All people who belief in a Christ figure are Christians, by definition.

There is no logically consistent way to 'prove' that any one set of associated doctrines or beliefs are more 'valid' than another, especially when their is any significant supernatural content. Once you accept any element of teh supernatural, logic either does not apply, or can be used to 'prove' anything.

It is impossible to hate an entity that one does not accept as real, only the associated ideas.

Atheists are those who do not believe in any kind of supernatural entity. That applies whether the God actually happened to exist or not.

If God deceives us in any way, then he is a liar, and if he 'deliberately' makes it difficult to believe AND punishes us in any way for not believing, let alone with anything like Hell, he is deeply immoral.

To create such an imperfect universe, with so much unavoidable suffering, for his own glory is also both illogical and immoral, delusionally narcissistic.

I could go on, but you get the picture. You are torturing logic from the beginning, and end up believing in an evil monster.

Starting from an inconsistent set of writings like the Bible, you are required to make all sorts of naked assumptions in a futile attempt to 'make sense' of it, and that is the sort of nonsense you arrive at, demonstrating why Atheism and rejection of the Bible is a vastly more logically consistent stance.

You have supported our position, ie rejection of your assumptions, by the process of Reductio Ad Absurdum, by listing the absurdities and contradictory conclusions they have lead you to.

Thank you.

BTW, there are Christians who do have far more subtle and supportable positions, although they are still based on naked assumptions, such as a God/Jesus being of some supernatural kind exists. But you seem to have little understanding of what makes a logical argument.

 

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
"> All

"> All Atheists/Non-Christians Hate God – whether they think he exists or not. Non-Christians are unable to do anything else but Hate God, they cannot freely choose to do good things (God defines what Good is not us) – No-one has ‘free will’ (Ability to choose between right and wrong) – we can only choose wrong- only do evil things all the time. People are inherently evil from conception and are born with a selfish nature which is against God. This does not remove our personal responsibility for the evil actions they carry out as they do what they want to do – which is evil. Every adult, child, baby and foetus rightly deserves God’s continual rejection as judgement for our continual rejection of Him by living in opposition to Him. God remains fair and merciful in his judgement – Judging people based on what they DO with what they are able to KNOW."
 

I thought after our little stint in the garden we were given the knowledge of both good AND evil.

"Oh my toy is broken, let me break it some more and see how it works"

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We don't care if you were

We don't care if you were claiming pink unicorns or the existence of Thor making lighting.

If you do not have an empirical way of DEMONSTRATING your claim, ON ANY ISSUE, it is nothing but a claim.

We have much better data now than an ancient book of myth, BY ANY NAME.

Your deity claim is not testable or falsifiable. As such it is NOT worthy of consideration, anymore than claiming pink unicorns.

 

 

"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
marcusfish wrote:Beyond

marcusfish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

See the problem with your "logic" now?

Oh Great Beyond Saving, perform a miracle for us and look into the future to see if you can divine the answer to this question before it is given!

I'll bet you can do it, what with your Omni-Powers and such.

 

I certainly could, but my question is a sneaky test. His answer will determine if he is to be sent to My dungeon or allowed to come to My party. Of course, I already know what his answer will be, and I already know whether or not he is going to pass the test. It is still fun to watch them squirm. I am loving like that. 


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
 butterbattle wrote: I

 

butterbattle wrote:
I don't see why we can't understand him just because we're not him. It looks like you just defined him as incomprehensible in certain ways. 


We certainly can understand Him partially – just not fully. Our brain are limited in capacity and therefore cannot grasp God entirely.
butterbattle wrote:
Okay, but note that you're redefining Christians as people that follow your interpretation of the Bible, whether or not that's the correct interpretation.

It's fine, but similar to the last statement, note that you're redefining atheists as all people that don't believe in the Christian "God" as opposed to people that don't believe in any god concepts.

That’s exactly what I am doing Smiling
butterbattle wrote:
I would not label science, reason, and logic as gods, but that is a digression.

Fair enough – I am just telling you what my God sees as worshiping false Gods (Idolotry) – eg – Holding any created entity – Logic, science, money, family, Made up Deities etc... above God
butterbattle wrote:
That is inconsistent. One cannot hate an entity that they don't believe exists.

Assuming Premise 1 (That my God exists) Then anyone who denies that my God exists, when he does in fact exist, is hating him by ignoring his existence.
butterbattle wrote:
If committing any sin mentioned by the Bible at all equals rebelling against God, then I guess you could say that we are inherently "evil."

Correct
butterbattle wrote:
Stating that we are can't see the Bible as anything other than a foolishness is a bit of an oversimplification. Some of the history is accurate and there are some halfway decent moral lessons.

The bible comes as a single package – you can’t cherry pick the bits you like and ignore the bits you don’t – that leads to liberalism which is a false sect of Christianity. Clearly you find some parts of the bible absurd and ridiculous and don’t believe in my God because of that fact. Therefore even though you may appreciate some parts of the bible You reject it as a whole as being foolish/false.
butterbattle wrote:
True, it doesn't affect his existence. I don't believe he exists because there's no good evidence and the entire belief system is nonsense, not because God is morally repugnant. However, morally, I can say that if the God you've described does exist, I would fight him to the bitter end. Since he doesn't exist, the only thing to fight is your pre-medieval dogma, Christianity.

As I said before we have already agreed that no amount of evidence would be sufficient to prove my God exists.

beardedinlair wrote:
The question you have to ask yourself is how much of God has revealed himself to you, and how much of your own personal culture and experience have you projected onto what you perceive to be God? You have to be truthful with yourself before you even try to answer questions for other people.

Very true – It would be very wrong to transpose my own personal bias onto God’s revelation. While it is difficult to separate yourself from your own bias, all the points of doctrine I have said so far I can back up multiple times in the bible. I make sure of this, to ensure I am being as objective as possible in presenting the doctrine of Christianity.
beardedinlair wrote:
I like to think of the word Christian. Christ-ian. To me, pretty much anyone that believes in Christ is a Christ-ian. And according to modern doctrine interpreted from the Bible, it's not on you to judge other people. In the same way you can't know the whole of God, you also can't know the whole of Christianity. It's not your place to judge, it might be your place to offer alternatives, if you can be that certain of your view of God. But ultimately, all you can speak for is yourself.

Correct, it is certainly not my place to judge who is a Christian and who is not a Christian individually – That is God’s job. I already said is impossible for me to do this anyway as I can’t read people’s minds like God can. However the bible teaches to judge/discern all Christian teachings you hear to ensure you are not being deceived by false teaching. This is the sort of judgement I am making when I say some Christian sects are false – this is a corporate statement based on the doctrine of the denomination – it is not an individual judgement on people in those churches – which may well contain many christians.

Atheistextremist wrote:
What a turgid outpouring of assertion
Mr Fry. We could pass off almost all your points as being delivered by any one of the hundreds of wee christian cults all of whom think they are the only ones who are right, all who see themselves as the ones victimised by the evil world.

 My initial premises are clearly assertions as I have already said, however the proceeding “turgid babble of doctrine” are all just inferences from these premises
Sure there are many many Christian cults – I don’t really care, That doesn’t invalidate my claim, it actually supports it. I am just giving you an opportunity to invalidate my doctrine through pointing out internal logical inconsistencies.
TGBaker wrote:
I would say that the actual origins and nature of the Bible is what shows your faith to be false.  The bible is simply a collection of diverse writings that reflect different beliefs and customs of the period in which they were written. The gospels show the evolution and development of multiple Christianities none of which are Calvinisitic like the bastard Calvin so presented ...may he burn in the non-existent hell that he deserves. If there is any one evil created by Christianity it is the sick dysfunction of Calvinism.

If you believe the bible has fraudulent origins then surely it will have logical inconsistencies within itself. Show me these from the doctrine points provided.
 
Beyond Saving wrote:
Now, if this was what you knew about the all loving, all caring Beyond Saving, would you say Beyond Saving is
A. A really great guy you want to be friends with
B. A being worthy of worship and praise
C. A complete asshole
D. A psychopath obsessed with himself and willing to hurt anyone for his own sick twisted purposes
E. A being that couldn't possibly exist.
 See the problem with your "logic" now?

If I was not a Christian and I was reading this I would definitely pick C and D, and possibly come to the conclusion of picking E because such a concept is so evil and absurd.
I would not at all surprised that this might be your answer too – the bible tells me to expect this from non-Christians. Sure you hate the concept of my God – So what?  Do you reject it because you think it it a completely evil idea (emotional response) or do you reject it because it sounds completely absurd (rational response). My question is still this: Explain your rational response – In what ways do you find this position logically absurd/inconsistent



BobSpence1 wrote:
The Bible account itself is definitely not logically consistent, certainly on any kind of literal reading, so it cannot serve as the basis of a consistent belief system.

Can you please explain this more
BobSpence1 wrote:
All people who belief in a Christ figure are Christians, by definition.

By your definition Yes, By God’s definition No. I speak of God’s definition not yours.
BobSpence1 wrote:
There is no logically consistent way to 'prove' that any one set of associated doctrines or beliefs are more 'valid' than another, especially when their is any significant supernatural content. Once you accept any element of teh supernatural, logic either does not apply, or can be used to 'prove' anything.

If God deceives us in any way, then he is a liar, and if he 'deliberately' makes it difficult to believe AND punishes us in any way for not believing, let alone with anything like Hell, he is deeply immoral.

I do not agree. Logic is applicable to supernatural entities, although it does become more complex. If my God claims to never change and claims to never lie and we find my God lying then my God is logically inconsistent. I may have not represented my position clearly so I will try again what I mean is this: God does not deceive us, we already deceive ourselves – God simply decides to allow some people to stay deceiving themselves by not revealing himself to them. Withholding information is very different from lying.
BobSpence1 wrote:
To create such an imperfect universe, with so much unavoidable suffering, for his own glory is also both illogical and immoral, delusionally narcissistic.

God created a perfect universe with no flaws, problems or suffering. We rebelled against God and God damaged/messed up the universe as a punishment – he did not create it this way though.
BobSpence1 wrote:
Starting from an inconsistent set of writings like the Bible, you are required to make all sorts of naked assumptions in a futile attempt to 'make sense' of it, and that is the sort of nonsense you arrive at, demonstrating why Atheism and rejection of the Bible is a vastly more logically consistent stance.
You have supported our position, ie rejection of your assumptions, by the process of Reductio Ad Absurdum, by listing the absurdities and contradictory conclusions they have lead you to.

I have made no further naked assumptions other than my initial 2 premises everything else flows from this directly. I am not making up further theories to ‘make sense of it’ all I say is comes in the bible (Premise 2). 


 
robj101 wrote:
I thought after our little stint in the garden we were given the knowledge of both good AND evil.

This is a common misunderstanding made by most atheists and some ‘christians’ – when Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree of knowledge of evil they became ‘like’ God – in the sense that they became self-determining of what good and evil is. Before they sinned they still knew what good and evil was - because God told them (they were brainless idiots as some seem to think). When they ate the fruit they started to decide what they thought was good and evil for themselves. But because they were rejecting God who is the definition of good, they ended up only doing evil in their rejection – even though they deceived themselves into thinking they had some sort of free will – which they didn’t. 
 
Brian37 wrote:
If you do not have an empirical way of DEMONSTRATING your claim, ON ANY ISSUE, it is nothing but a claim.

Your deity claim is not testable or falsifiable. As such it is NOT worthy of consideration, anymore than claiming pink unicorns.

As I already said we are in agreement that this cannot be done absolutely - as my God goes beyond our ability to measure within space and time.
I am claiming to present an internally consistent theory. Yes this is unsupported by empirical evidence. I am seeing if you can find fault in my theory and invalidate it – If you can’t it will continue remain a valid but unproven theory – Just like many current theory’s being developed in the area of theoretical physics.
If you don’t want to participate in such a discussion > No Worries, You can pass on reading this thread then


 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote:If I

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

If I was not a Christian and I was reading this I would definitely pick C and D, and possibly come to the conclusion of picking E because such a concept is so evil and absurd.
I would not at all surprised that this might be your answer too – the bible tells me to expect this from non-Christians. Sure you hate the concept of my God – So what?  Do you reject it because you think it it a completely evil idea (emotional response) or do you reject it because it sounds completely absurd (rational response). My question is still this: Explain your rational response – In what ways do you find this position logically absurd/inconsistent

So as a Christian you are willing to worship the evil and accept the absurd?

 

I initially pick E, because there is no evidence of a being that has any of the powers described. Just as I assume you would pick E in the belief that I, Beyond Saving, am not omnipotent and all powerful as I claim in the post. Since I have done nothing to prove my power, you have no reason to believe it. Since there is no evidence of god, I default to not believing, just like I do for unicorns, flying pigs, yetis and Bigfoot. Maybe someday there will be real evidence of one of those creatures, but until there is I will operate under the assumption they don't exist. It is quite irrational to go through life believing in every fantasy that man has come up with over the last several thousand years. 

 

Now suppose someone WAS able to provide me with compelling evidence that the Christian God existed. Then I would probably choose D and I certainly wouldn't worship such a being, even if it meant I would burn in hell for eternity. I'm principled like that. Which is what REALLY baffles me about Christians, especially ones who are fairly honest about what a bastard they believe god is. On one hand, they will freely tell you all the horrible things their god does, while on the other claiming how wonderfully loving and forgiving he is. It is a contradiction. A loving being wouldn't be like the Christian God as described.

 

So as a Christian, why don't you pick C or D for your god when you would for the harmless lovable fuzzball that is Beyond Saving? Or are you only a Christian out of fear of going to hell?


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

 

butterbattle wrote:
True, it doesn't affect his existence. I don't believe he exists because there's no good evidence and the entire belief system is nonsense, not because God is morally repugnant. However, morally, I can say that if the God you've described does exist, I would fight him to the bitter end. Since he doesn't exist, the only thing to fight is your pre-medieval dogma, Christianity.

As I said before we have already agreed that no amount of evidence would be sufficient to prove my God exists.

Look, dipshit. Talking past people isn't going to fly, around here.

The underlined part is what you choose to remain blissful about, so you can listen to the sound of your own voice.

You people somehow think that we aren't wise to your 'political' and 'social' agendas, masquerading under the 'no fly zone' of 'religion'.

 

The jig is up.

You people (all religions) are under the microscope now. It doesn't matter what smiley faces you have painted on your dumb ass faces, you're all wolves in sheep's clothing.

You're not 'all about' the love, so STFU with your 'spin doctoring'.

You clowns don't know how the fuck the universe was formed, anymore than scientists do, so quit your racist, bigoted, sexually repressed bullshit , based on myths and legends, as any grounds to castigate others for their civil rights to choose their lifestlye.

Your cults have no powers to govern in America. The 1st amendment will not be overturned, and America will never be a theocracy.

That's the salient point that you hoped you could detour with your bullshit tactics.

Stop wasting your time, and ours, dipshit.

 

Why don't you tell us what your real problem is, with 'non religious' people?

Don't be a pussy. Don't be a 'messenger'.

Man up, and tell us what your personal problem is.

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
"The tree was tall"You seem

"The tree was tall"

You seem to be able to take that and make it:

"The green and brown tree was tall and full and had a birds nest in the leftmost upper branch."

In other words, you pull stuff out of your ass and expect someone to think it's correct other than yourself.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
BeyondSaving wrote:So as a

BeyondSaving wrote:
So as a Christian you are willing to worship the evil and accept the absurd?

Which is what REALLY baffles me about Christians, especially ones who are fairly honest about what a bastard they believe god is. On one hand, they will freely tell you all the horrible things their god does, while on the other claiming how wonderfully loving and forgiving he is. It is a contradiction. A loving being wouldn't be like the Christian God as described.

I do not think my god is a Bastard/Evil – I do think he is loving and forgiving as you say. The bible is clear that everyone who is not a Christian thinks God is a bastard. Of course you don’t think my God’s behaviour is loving – this is because according to the bible you are biased towards hating my God and will see anything he does as evil. Only God is able to remove this bias.
 
BeyondSaving wrote:
Since there is no evidence of god, I default to not believing, just like I do for unicorns, flying pigs, yetis and Bigfoot. Maybe someday there will be real evidence of one of those creatures, but until there is I will operate under the assumption they don't exist. It is quite irrational to go through life believing in every fantasy that man has come up with over the last several thousand years.

This is a very reasonable position to come to. I too reject the existence of unicorns etc.. due to lack of evidence. While we are in agreement that there could never be sufficient evidence to ABSOLUTLY prove that my god exists, That is not to say there is no evidence that supports my claim. There is evidence - God has made sure that there is sufficient evidence for us to know of his existence. Otherwise his judgement would be unfair – which is incongruous with His character. The primary evidence for the truth of the entire bible, which God has provided is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Disprove this, and I will become an atheist immediately. This is the event in which all hope of the Christian belief rests on.     

 
redneF wrote:

You people somehow think that we aren't wise to your 'political' and 'social' agendas, masquerading under the 'no fly zone' of 'religion'.

Your cults have no powers to govern in America. The 1st amendment will not be overturned, and America will never be a theocracy.
That's the salient point that you hoped you could detour with your bullshit tactics.
Stop wasting your time, and ours, dipshit.
 
Why don't you tell us what your real problem is, with 'non religious' people? 


Wow! Firstly all I can say is you need take a chill pill – Why so serious?


Secondly I am not from America as you seem to assume. I am from the good ol’ convict colony of Australia – like our friends BobSpence and AtheistExtremist. And as far as our government is concerned we have an Atheist Prime Minister.
You seem to think I have some great political agenda to push when I do not. It seems that you might have more of an agenda than me. If you want to know my position on politics it is this:


Democracy works as the best form of government in the world only because we are all selfish people, and when humans are involved - absolute power corrupts absolutely. I vote AGAINST political parties, not FOR them. I vote to keep out the worst people from ruling us. I don’t vote for any party because honestly they all suck (including the supposed Christian parties). The party that gets my number 1 vote is the one that sucks the least. Our terms/periods of government are purposefully kept short (only a few years) so that it can be continually changed – in effect having a controlled civil revolution. All this being said I don’t think democracy is the best form of government because it is very weak and powerless – which mean it fails to achieve very much at all. A monarchy/dictatorship is far more effective in achieving its purposes – but ONLY if the leader is a good leader – which is why I think God is a king/dictator and that is a good thing. And long as people are selfish and evil any form of monarchy or dictatorship is going to fail badly and have horrible consequences for the people under that form of rule – as we see in history.

Therefore I would never desire or support any form of Theocracy in our governments as you seem to think I want.


In terms of what my REAL problem with atheists is? I don’t have any problem. I actually respect most atheist more than the Apathetic Agnostics that populate most of Australia. At least you are willing to think about stuff - rather than the "Don't Know Don't Care" attitude. And You are bruatlly honest in expressing what you think rantehr than pretending to be nice about everthing which i also respect. If I were not a Christian I would be an atheist. 
 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But what is your claim, Phil?

 

Phillip J. Fry wrote:


My initial premises are clearly assertions as I have already said, however the proceeding “turgid babble of doctrine” are all just inferences from these premises
Sure there are many many Christian cults – I don’t really care, That doesn’t invalidate my claim, it actually supports it. I am just giving you an opportunity to invalidate my doctrine through pointing out internal logical inconsistencies.

 

You make so many assertions and assumptions it's impossible to know which claim represents Fry Ground Zero. I find it astonishing that a person who has never spoken with god, never met him and never perceived him outside of his own wishful thinking is prepared to insist he knows with certainty the way god feels and how god will act. My god this, my god that. And those biblical authors you depend on had the same amount of contact with god you've had. Zero.

For all your insistence, Phil, when you kneel down to pray, there's only one voice doing that talking - yours. And that warm feeling you get is just serotonin circulating in your own brain. There simply is no proof of god - none at all. Nor is there any way for a physical being to perceive using their natural sense organs any supernatural entities.

You are indulging in self delusion through an endless loop of confirmation bias and the exploitation of your imagination to establish a parallel world that does not demonstrably exist. Personally, I don't understand the true nature of reality but the difference between us is that I am prepared to admit this and am not so weak as to need an answer to save myself from being devoured by some baseless doctrine that's crawled out from the temples of the past.  

 

 

"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
Phillip J. Fry

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

  

redneF wrote:

You people somehow think that we aren't wise to your 'political' and 'social' agendas, masquerading under the 'no fly zone' of 'religion'.

Your cults have no powers to govern in America. The 1st amendment will not be overturned, and America will never be a theocracy.
That's the salient point that you hoped you could detour with your bullshit tactics.
Stop wasting your time, and ours, dipshit.
 
Why don't you tell us what your real problem is, with 'non religious' people? 


Wow! Firstly all I can say is you need take a chill pill –

Fuck you.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
Why so serious?

Preaching people are going to go to hell is seriously disturbed, motherfucker.


Phillip J. Fry wrote:
I think God is a king/dictator and that is a good thing.

That's my problem with you fucks.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
 And long as people are selfish and evil any form of monarchy or dictatorship is going to fail badly and have horrible consequences for the people under that form of rule – as we see in history.

And as we see in the bible.

Have you read the OT?

Explain to me how the Christian god would not be despicable?


Phillip J. Fry wrote:
  And You are bruatlly honest in expressing what you think rantehr than pretending to be nice about everthing which i also respect.  

You didn't seem too impressed based on your first response.

Listen Dipshit,

The 3 biggest pet peeves I have are:

1- Cowards

2- Hypocrites

3-  2 faced liars

In that order.

Don't feed me the line of BS that it's 'God' who has a personal problem, and you're not doing any personal 'judging'. Because that's a steaming hot pile of shit.

You want to run your mouth? Tell people what you think about them.

Don't be a pussy and play messenger boy.

Man up, motherfucker.

 

Get in my face, like I'm getting into yours.

Let's not beat around the bush.

You've read the bible, no?

What parts really resonate with you?

What is 'immoral' about the way others live?

Have you got the balls to lay your cards out on the table?

 

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


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:And as we see

redneF wrote:
And as we see in the bible.

Have you read the OT?

Explain to me how the Christian god would not be despicable?

The OT is one of the best examples of power corrupting people and causing all kinds of problems. King david is the first example that comes to mind for me. Where do you think my political position comes from? My position on politics is informed by the bible - Including the OT! One of the main reasons God made sure the books of Kings and Chronicals was included in the bible was so that we would see that humans 'suck somthing aweful' when it come to ruling ourselves - and that a better king is needed - Jesus is that better King. And yes he does a perfect job of it - although i don't expect you to think that as you proably still hate God.

redneF wrote:
The 3 biggest pet peeves I have are:

1- Cowards

2- Hypocrites

3-  2 faced liars

I Agree, These 3 things annoy be greatly too

redneF wrote:
Don't feed me the line of BS that it's 'God' who has a personal problem, and you're not doing any personal 'judging'. Because that's a steaming hot pile of shit.

...

 Get in my face, like I'm getting into yours.

Let's not beat around the bush.

You've read the bible, no?

What parts really resonate with you?

What is 'immoral' about the way others live?

Have you got the balls to lay your cards out on the table?

Im not exactly sure what you are actually wanting me to say that i haven't already said. I personally agree with everything i have said and with Gods position regarding people and how they behave. I hate what my God hates and love what my God loves - But only to the extent in which i able to know and understand God. I can detail this more if you really need me to, but it seems a bit un-nessasary to me?

 


wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Fry, As many stated,

Mr. Fry,

 

As many stated, these arguments have been answered time and time again. But, you ask if your worldview makes sense, and want us to take shots at it. Take no mind that any constructed worldview can make sense and harbour itself perfectly away from outside criticism. And never mind I did not see even one statement in your argument that I could not use to construct a similiar worldview for one of the many disparate sects of Hinduism. Just as your theology tells you to advance, presuming the Bible is true and the unbelievers cannot inherently understand it, I could do the same as a Muslim, which was my previous faith.

 

But, that won't be my point. So, to that, I ask, does anyone's worldview make sense? With the limitation of individual consciousness can one ever reach a satisfactory reality? How many thousands of presumptions will you make just to reach what you define as a truth? Is this really, not just a dream? Why that leap of faith at all? Let's go back to the basics.

 

In the hopes of being excessively adorable, I'd like to do a postmodern deconstruction of what you've just said, dressed in red and lavished in curls. Every set of questions will end with a statement, in order to save a good many from unnecessary migraines.

 

I am not aware of your beliefs in particular, although you listed a group of adjectives in the beginning of your post. However, I am going to take the Westminster Confession of Faith and presume you lean towards it, or at the very least, some of it, since I realize you are from the Reformed tradition.

 

 

 

For those interested in the scriptural backgrounding of this particular confession, please refer yourself to here:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.xvii.ii.html

 

 

Note, I'm not representing the entire atheist community, or even a significant minority. I'm speaking as myself. My stupidity is representative of no one but me.

 

 

 

Quote:

1)      That my belief in my God could not be dis-proven

2)      That my belief in my God could not be Proven

 

 

 

 

The main reason given by people for this conclusion was the fact that some aspects of my God claim are simply un-testable by science and will always remain un-testable. It is the same reason the invisible pink unicorn can never be disproven. And, even if a seemingly infinitely powerful being did appear before us claiming to be my God, and was able to demonstrate seemingly impossible ‘miracles’, this would still not PROVE that my God exists –Because it still could be any number of possible alternative explanations – such as it being an advanced alien, with superior technology that is able to do things that we think are impossible based on our current (limited) understanding of physics.    

That being said, My belief in God is fundamentally based on 2 initial premises/axioms:

 

 

 

 

1)      The unified Trinitarian God of the bible exists

2)      This God has revealed himself truthfully in the Bible (within the context of history and the context of the various authors)

 

 

 

Proven in what sense? That the good LORD exists? Existing, in what sense? Existing as you or I? Or, existing differently than you or I? How does he or she or [gender-neutral pronoun here] exist differently, if the good LORD does exist differently? What is the fine line delineating the difference between our existence, and the existence of the Father? What is the fine line delineating existence and nonexistence? Agreeing, like the scientific method, that if it is reproducible logically or materially, it must be true? What if everyone reproducing it sees (or constructs) the same illusion? Existence is a social construct that creates a framework for understanding phenomena, and you will not be able to define it as an objective value,. You, and your community of believers, believe in the subjective existence of God, and presume you share with one another a common reality for delineation. There is no concrete evidence of an existence outside of your single consciousness, let alone the existence of deities.

 

 

 

 

And, most importantly, a Father in what cultural sense? In the Hebraic literary sense, with its added cultural attributes to the already presumed biological? If so, is the good LORD our Father in the Anglo-Saxon literary sense as well? 'Father' in Aramaic or Hebrew is not completely analogous to what it is in English, so, it strikes me one could erroneously call him Father, if Father in one's culture included the definition of child molestation, for example, or even for the smaller distinctions such a word would have between languages. Across languages then, Christianity can never have a consistent definition.


You go on to speak of the Trinity. The First Council of Nicea describes Christ within the Trinity as such, “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.” What is a substance? Could a substance be temporal in value, and change? Could a substance be made of several substances, none of which resembles the other? The Trinity is composed of a single substance, but a substance cannot even be agreeably defined.

 

 

 

What does it mean to reveal truthfully? Later, you admit this revelation, due to the nature of the LORD, is incomplete. What defines completion? Are their attributes of God we are not aware of? Do they influence the attributes we are aware of? If we know certain attributes of God, could things we not know potentially change our definition of God? If we know all the attributes of God that He would use to define himself in our dictum, then how do those attributes relate to man? God reveals himself in a way which his Elect (see: reformed theology) can understand him, in a certain context. 2000 years later, the contemporary Elect cannot possibly view things exactly the same as the earlier Elect, since there is a historical divorce, and not all context can possibly be transmitted through one literary work. At a single point, presuming your worldview of objective definitions, there must be such a divorce in context that finally breaks from the definition, making the contemporary Elect so dissimilar from the historical Elect that they are no longer one entity. What if, for example, we find out today that in early Judaic culture, as preached by the Old Testament prophets, that it was widely believed and symbolic that when one was raised from the dead, it was a work of Satan? There can never be a complete transmission of context in order to satisfy Sola Scriptura.

 

 

I have the rest of your points in a document, and I have segments of the Westminster Confession to go along with them, but I need to take a break and work on other stuff now. Will await your responses.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote:redneF

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

redneF wrote:
And as we see in the bible.

Have you read the OT?

Explain to me how the Christian god would not be despicable?

The OT is one of the best examples of power corrupting people and causing all kinds of problems...

I explained to you my pet peeves.

Stop bullshitting, being obtuse, and talking past me.

The Christian god in the OT is despicable.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
although i don't expect you to think that as you proably still hate God.

Here you are posing as a smart fellow, when you're an idiot.

I told you very clearly, my problem is with you people, and this sick fantasy land your cult believes in, and it's characters.

I've never thought your delusion is any more viable than Santa Claus.

What possible hate could I have for Santa Claus? He's a fucking myth.

So are any gods.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
 I personally agree with everything i have said and with Gods position regarding people and how they behave.

Perfect.

Then your morals and perspective, are a problem, to a civil, equal rights, humanistic worldview. 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nice post, Wingless.

 

As we've not met before, hi and welcome. Look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

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


wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: As

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

As we've not met before, hi and welcome. Look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

 

Thank you! Shi'a Muslim turned atheist, and very glad and excited to be here. This is the first time I am doing apologetics outside of my Muslim group of friends.


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

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
Thank you! Shi'a Muslim turned atheist, and very glad and excited to be here. This is the first time I am doing apologetics outside of my Muslim group of friends.

A very warm welcome to you, as well.

I look forward to learning more about the Muslim faith, from an apostate...

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


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Wing, Welcome aboard

Hey Wing, Welcome aboard – you sure have lots of questions> I’ll get started:

 

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
Take no mind that any constructed worldview can make sense and harbour itself perfectly away from outside criticism. And never mind I did not see even one statement in your argument that I could not use to construct a similiar worldview for one of the many disparate sects of Hinduism.



But, that won't be my point. So, to that, I ask, does anyone's worldview make sense? With the limitation of individual consciousness can one ever reach a satisfactory reality? How many thousands of presumptions will you make just to reach what you define as a truth? Is this really, not just a dream? Why that leap of faith at all? Let's go back to the basics.


I agree – I’m sure it is possible for people to generate an infinite number of possible world views which are internally consistent – But I don’t really care about those world views – as I think they are false. I am simply asking you guys to perform a internal logic check on my worldview – I am not trying to prove anything, because I can’t prove my world view, no-one can prove their world view.

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
Proven in what sense? That the good LORD exists? Existing, in what sense? Existing as you or I? Or, existing differently than you or I? How does he or she or [gender-neutral pronoun here] exist differently, if the good LORD does exist differently? What is the fine line delineating the difference between our existence, and the existence of the Father? What is the fine line delineating existence and nonexistence? Agreeing, like the scientific method, that if it is reproducible logically or materially, it must be true? What if everyone reproducing it sees (or constructs) the same illusion?


The previous thread I referenced was specifically discussing that my God cannot be Absolutely proven to exist based on science (Empirical Evidence). As you say even if repeatable evidence is observed it could still be a trick. How do we know anything is true? Well I’m an Engineer – not a philosopher – so this is how I know if something is true. Does it make sense and fit in with the world I live in? Whatever theory fits best with reality is the one I take to be true.   

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
'Father' in Aramaic or Hebrew is not completely analogous to what it is in English, so, it strikes me one could erroneously call him Father, if Father in one's culture included the definition of child molestation, for example, or even for the smaller distinctions such a word would have between languages. Across languages then, Christianity can never have a consistent definition.


Language translation defiantly presents and important issue in understanding true Christianity as presented in the Bible. This is why we must always go back to the original language and not rely on solely the English translations (Although there are many quite accurate literal translations). Sometimes a simple word for word translation is not sufficient because meaning is lost – therefore we must understand the complete meaning of each word.

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
You go on to speak of the Trinity. The First Council of Nicea describes Christ within the Trinity as such, “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.” What is a substance? Could a substance be temporal in value, and change? Could a substance be made of several substances, none of which resembles the other? The Trinity is composed of a single substance, but a substance cannot even be agreeably defined.


All this part of the creed is saying is that Jesus is equally God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. I see little point getting caught up in defining the meaning of the word ‘substance’. The bible doesn’t speak on the composition of God so I can’t speak on it either. All is said is  God is spirit – so by definition is different to space-time, however is still able to be in and outside of space-time.

wingless_sephiroth wrote:
  What does it mean to reveal truthfully? Later, you admit this revelation, due to the nature of the LORD, is incomplete. What defines completion? Are their attributes of God we are not aware of? Do they influence the attributes we are aware of? If we know certain attributes of God, could things we not know potentially change our definition of God? If we know all the attributes of God that He would use to define himself in our dictum, then how do those attributes relate to man? God reveals himself in a way which his Elect (see: reformed theology) can understand him, in a certain context. 2000 years later, the contemporary Elect cannot possibly view things exactly the same as the earlier Elect, since there is a historical divorce, and not all context can possibly be transmitted through one literary work. At a single point, presuming your worldview of objective definitions, there must be such a divorce in context that finally breaks from the definition, making the contemporary Elect so dissimilar from the historical Elect that they are no longer one entity. What if, for example, we find out today that in early Judaic culture, as preached by the Old Testament prophets, that it was widely believed and symbolic that when one was raised from the dead, it was a work of Satan? There can never be a complete transmission of context in order to satisfy Sola Scriptura.


I mean God doesn’t lie – so what he says (when understood correctly) is true. The extent of God’s knowledge defines completion. Yes there are attributes of God we are not aware of. I don’t know if they influence the ones we are aware of because I don’t know what they are. The unknown things could change our definition of God but I won’t know until I know what those unknown things are. The attributes of God relate to man because we are created in his image – though we are now fallen. God’s Character is good and right and shows us how to live best. True I won’t understand the bible the exactly the way Paul or John or Peter would understand it as I am not from that time or culture. I can understand some of their culture through reading about the culture and history of the time period however this will be incomplete. So is my version now faulty? No the reason for this is that I am only able to understand God’s revelation through the work of the Holy Spirit – which will always ensure that the correct understanding of the bible is made by God’s elect regardless of the timeframe or culture.



redneF wrote:
Phillip J. Fry wrote:


 I personally agree with everything i have said and with Gods position regarding people and how they behave.


Perfect. Then your morals and perspective, are a problem, to a civil, equal rights, humanistic worldview.


Why do you assume I am against equal rights etc…?
 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote:redneF

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

redneF wrote:

Phillip J. Fry wrote:


 I personally agree with everything i have said and with Gods position regarding people and how they behave.


Perfect. Then your morals and perspective, are a problem, to a civil, equal rights, humanistic worldview.


Why do you assume I am against equal rights etc…?

Does it seem to you that the God of the OT is 'egalitarian' and not bigoted?

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


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Does it seem to

redneF wrote:
Does it seem to you that the God of the OT is 'egalitarian' and not bigoted?

These are both loaded words with many meanings so i will try to explain clearly:

God is Egalitarian in the sense that all he created all humans (both man and woman, all races and social classes) in His image and are all equally valuable and should be treated with the same respect, human rights etc...

God is NOT Egalitarian in the sense that all he created man and woman differently  - we are not all androgonous beings and we should be treated differently accordingly. This is not disrespecting or wrongfully discriminating against genders - but rather affirming and supporting the uniqueness of them. We do this is society too and this makes sense.  If we didn't all female toilets would be fitted with urinals which would just be a bit wierd. Men don't give birth and women dont pee standing up etc...

God is a Bigot in the sense that he Hates people who worship other false gods/idols instead of Him. And in fully and unchanginly committed to His own world view.

God is NOT a Bigot inthe sense that God is not intolerant of other religons that exist. God 'Tolerates' the existance of these religions in the same sense you tolerate a thorn in your toe. God allows them to exist and have a degree of freedom even though he doesn't aggree with them. God does not destroy them even though he has the power to do so. Tolerance dosn't mean agreement

 

 

 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote:redneF

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

redneF wrote:
Does it seem to you that the God of the OT is 'egalitarian' and not bigoted?

These are both loaded words with many meanings

I disagree.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
God is Egalitarian in the sense that all he created all humans

I gave you either/or dichotomies.

You're equivocating, and preaching just like an apologist.

I wasn't looking for a sermon.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
(both man and woman, all races and social classes) in His image and are all equally valuable and should be treated with the same respect, human rights etc...

Is that compatible with how it's written in the OT, that he feels towards everyone?

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
God is NOT Egalitarian in the sense that all he created man and woman differently 

That's contradictory to your previous description, which leads to a logical fallacy.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
we are not all androgonous beings and we should be treated differently accordingly.

I disagree.

I see women as peers. As a matter of fact, I employ women in certain places over men, because they're better than men in those roles.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
This is not disrespecting or wrongfully discriminating against genders 

I disagree.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
but rather affirming and supporting the uniqueness of them.

I disagree.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
We do this is society too and this makes sense. 

I disagree.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
If we didn't all female toilets would be fitted with urinals which would just be a bit wierd.

1- That's a philosophically bankrupt statement.

2- There are places in New York City, Florida, Los Angeles, Montreal, Toronto, that have 'unisex' bathrooms in nightclubs.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
Men don't give birth and women dont pee standing up etc...

They both put their pants on 1 leg at a time.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
God is a Bigot in the sense that he Hates people who worship other false gods/idols instead of Him.

That's emotionally dysfunctional.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
God is NOT a Bigot inthe sense that God is not intolerant of other religons that exist. God 'Tolerates' the existance of these religions in the same sense you tolerate a thorn in your toe. God allows them to exist and have a degree of freedom even though he doesn't aggree with them. God does not destroy them even though he has the power to do so. Tolerance dosn't mean agreement

Do you mean to say that he is not going to be vengeful and spiteful towards them for not following his commands?

 

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote: God

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

 

God is NOT a Bigot inthe sense that God is not intolerant of other religons that exist. God 'Tolerates' the existance of these religions in the same sense you tolerate a thorn in your toe. God allows them to exist and have a degree of freedom even though he doesn't aggree with them. God does not destroy them even though he has the power to do so. Tolerance dosn't mean agreement

 

So he will tolerate other religions and people going to hell for not following his.

Worldview* made me chuckle, wouldn't it be more like "universal view" or maybe "infinite view" lol

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Phillip J. Fry

redneF wrote:

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
(both man and woman, all races and social classes) in His image and are all equally valuable and should be treated with the same respect, human rights etc...

Is that compatible with how it's written in the OT, that he feels towards everyone?

Yes

redneF wrote:
Phillip J. Fry wrote:
God is NOT Egalitarian in the sense that all he created man and woman differently 

That's contradictory to your previous description, which leads to a logical fallacy.

Things can be equal in one sense but not equal in another sense. Apples and oranges are both equally fruit but Apples arn't oranges. This is not a logical fallacy.

redneF wrote:
Phillip J. Fry wrote:
we are not all androgonous beings and we should be treated differently accordingly.

I disagree.

I see women as peers. As a matter of fact, I employ women in certain places over men, because they're better than men in those roles.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
This is not disrespecting or wrongfully discriminating against genders 

I disagree

I see women as peers and equals too. But i don't see women as men - or men as women simply because they are not - they are different physically and cognitivly.

Why do you find women more useful to work in certain roles if you think they are exatly the same as men - either gender should be equally useful for the role shouldn't they? 

Why do you treat women differently to men in how you employ them if you think this is disrespect ful and discriminating.

redneF wrote:
Phillip J. Fry wrote:

God is a Bigot

in the sense that he Hates people who worship other false gods/idols instead of Him.

That's emotionally dysfunctional.

How?

redneF wrote:
Do you mean to say that he is not going to be vengeful and spiteful towards them for not following his commands?

No, Of course he will judge them fairly for their disobediance, in the mean time he tolerates them.

robj101 wrote:
Worldview* made me chuckle, wouldn't it be more like "universal view" or maybe "infinite view" lol
yeah, not the best choice of words Smiling i think you got my point though 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote:redneF

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

redneF wrote:

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
(both man and woman, all races and social classes) in His image and are all equally valuable and should be treated with the same respect, human rights etc...

Is that compatible with how it's written in the OT, that he feels towards everyone?

Yes

That's funny, because slavery is condoned, women are to be subservient to men, they are not to be openly sexual or sensual, are meant to be feel 'unclean' after menstruation, aren't meant to compete with men, and homosexuals are to be put to death for their sexual inclinations.

Isn't raping and murdering condoned as well?

How is that equally valuable and treated with equal respect?

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

redneF wrote:

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
God is NOT Egalitarian in the sense that all he created man and woman differently 

That's contradictory to your previous description, which leads to a logical fallacy.

Things can be equal in one sense but not equal in another sense.

Don't be obtuse. I don't need a biology lesson.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

redneF wrote:

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
we are not all androgonous beings and we should be treated differently accordingly.

I disagree.

I see women as peers. As a matter of fact, I employ women in certain places over men, because they're better than men in those roles.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
This is not disrespecting or wrongfully discriminating against genders 

I disagree

I see women as peers and equals too. But i don't see women as men - or men as women simply because they are not - they are different physically and cognitivly.

Thanks for the biology lesson, but stop insulting my intelligence.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
Why do you find women more useful to work in certain roles if you think they are exatly the same as men 

I claimed I saw them as peers.

Not that I treated them any differently.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
  either gender should be equally useful for the role shouldn't they? 

Don't be obtuse.

I wouldn't expect an average woman to be able to lift as much as a man, anymore than I'd expect a man to be able to give birth.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
 Why do you treat women differently to men

I never said I did.

I said I have women in certain roles because they were better than any men I could find.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
 ...if you think this is disrespect ful and discriminating.

You're conflating 2 different topics.

I have women in certain roles because they were better qualified individuals.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

redneF wrote:

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

God is a Bigot

in the sense that he Hates people who worship other false gods/idols instead of Him.

That's emotionally dysfunctional.

How?

Do you think it's emotional healthy to hate people for not being worshipped by them, and for having the ability to make up their own minds?

Would you feel the same towards your children?

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

redneF wrote:
Do you mean to say that he is not going to be vengeful and spiteful towards them for not following his commands?

No, Of course he will judge them fairly for their disobediance

1- Are they not respected as being autonomous?

2- Or are they slaves?

3- What will the 'penalty' be for their disobediance?

4- How could any arbitrary judgment without a jury be 'fair'?

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
in the mean time he tolerates them.

I though he was supposed to be 'loving' and 'respectful'?

Does that seem either of those, in your view?

 

 

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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry wrote:I do

Phillip J. Fry wrote:

I do not think my god is a Bastard/Evil – I do think he is loving and forgiving as you say. The bible is clear that everyone who is not a Christian thinks God is a bastard. Of course you don’t think my God’s behaviour is loving – this is because according to the bible you are biased towards hating my God and will see anything he does as evil. Only God is able to remove this bias.

 

But you yourself stated that it was evil and absurd when the same description was applied to Beyond Saving. What makes god different? And no, I am not biased towards hating a god. I don't believe in his existence and I am not in the habit of hating things that don't exist. If the god you describe did exist I would call him evil because of the things that he has done. For example, sending good people to burn in hell for not believing is evil. Whether that action is performed by your god, Beyond Saving or Santa Clause, I would term all three as evil (and I love BS and Santa Clause- ask the others). No bias.

 

You on the other hand freely admit that if it was me doing those things I would be evil or at least an asshole. Why don't you apply those same standards to your god? How do you reconcile believing that your god is all loving and forgiving while admitting that your god does evil things? 


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

A good god who says you shouldn't be good because it doesn't matter thus encouraging evil.


A loving, caring being wouldn't put out a stupid, foolish message.


Being good and loving yet being cruel and unforgiving


He says he doesn't lie, but sends lying spirits.


1 cor 13 from a selfish, egotistical and petty god.


He planned and created evil, which means he is not good


It is a setup. Stockholm Syndrome. Get out while you can.

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/


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Here is a good list of

Here is a good list of inconsistencies and contradictions, one of many"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Just a couple of examples:

Quote:

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Quote:

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Quote:

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

=========

And you can't get away with ignoring the clear simple meanings of words like 'atheist' and claim consistency.

If you are going to insist on defining what the terms you use mean, against their actual usage, you are being very dishonest.

I realize such twisting of the meanings of words and phrases is totally necessary to read the Bible as being consistent. You do it because you start from the conviction that the Bible is true, and are trying to justify it, rather than honestly trying to decide whether it justifies such 'faith', which to almost anyone who has honestly studied it, it manifestly does not.

Presenting this stuff to people on this board is just making yourself look pathetic and foolish.

EDIT: Basing your worldview on a set of naked assumptions, which are against all the evidence, and only 'supported' by a book riddled with that sort of confusion, just because you like it, is being extremely self-centered and intellectually dishonest.

YOU don't get to define reality and truth.

 

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


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:That's funny,

redneF wrote:
That's funny, because slavery is condoned, women are to be subservient to men, they are not to be openly sexual or sensual, are meant to be feel 'unclean' after menstruation, aren't meant to compete with men, and homosexuals are to be put to death for their sexual inclinations.
Isn't raping and murdering condoned as well?

Slavery, Rape and Murder are not condoned in the bible, Women are certainly encouraged to be very sexual and senual to their husbands
redneF wrote:
I wouldn't expect an average woman to be able to lift as much as a man, anymore than I'd expect a man to be able to give birth.

Good we agree men and women are different, lets move on
redneF wrote:
Do you think it's emotional healthy to hate people for not being worshipped by them, and for having the ability to make up their own minds?
Would you feel the same towards your children?

If you are fully deserving of respect and honour (worship) – which the bible says God is - then it is ‘emotionally’ healthy to be angry when you are disrespected and dishonoured. Same as you would rightly feel angry when your kids disrespect you if you have been a good parent. However it would be unhealthy when you aren’t deserving of respect and honour – I’m sure you think that my God is not deserving – but I expect that.
redneF wrote:
1- Are they not respected as being autonomous? 2- Or are they slaves?
3- What will the 'penalty' be for their disobediance?
4- How could any arbitrary judgment without a jury be 'fair'?

1 - 2- They aren’t really autonomous to start with all non-christians are slaves to their own desires – they cannot do anything but evil – so yes they are slaves
3 – Eternal Rejection from God
4 – All our government, judicial and legal systems are set up based on the principle that all people are selfish and corrupt and will abuse power if they have too much of it. That’s why we have a jury of 12 to decide if someone is guilty not just 1 person. This is a human problem, however God does not have this problem he is perfect, fair, just and never corrupted or impartial – thus a jury is unnecessary – Justice is still upheld.  

BobSpence1 wrote:
Here is a good list of inconsistencies and contradictions, one of many"

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Thanks Bob, Finally an apparent inconsistency that we can discuss.
1) How is God good to all? The sun keeps rising, the rain keeps pouring etc … for Everyone - Those who trust God AND those who reject God – these are all good things
2) God Judges those who stubbornly and consistently reject him without mercy. This is completely fair and just.  This does not contradict point 1
BobSpence1 wrote:
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

This one is simple,
1)    You have to read things in context to understand things properly. There are 2 types of wisdom – Earthly wisdom and Heavenly wisdom. Earthly wisdom will never satisfy – it will only ever raise more questions and bring grief like it says. If you read ALL of Ecclesiastes you will see that satisfaction is only found in Heavenly wisdom which is far superior.
2)    This passage from 1 Corinthians supports what I was saying earlier – God intentionally makes his message unclear so that people who trust in Earthly wisdom (which is All Atheists) will not understand him and be fairly judged for it. These 2 verses do not contradict each other.
BobSpence1 wrote:
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

1)Again context is important. All this is saying is the Destruction/Judgement of Babylon has been a long time coming. God has been angry at the Babylonians for a long time because of their continual wickedness form generation to generation. And because of their continued wickedness like their forefathers God is angry with this current generation and is finally going to Judge, The current generation have benefited from the wickedness of their forefathers and continue to participate in the same evil behaviour making them rightly deserving of the Judgement they receive – they are not judged for their fathers sins – they are judge for their own sins (which are having the same wickedness as their fathers). There is no contradiction between this and Deuteronomy.
More contradictions please

BobSpece1 wrote:
If you are going to insist on defining what the terms you use mean, against their actual usage, you are being very dishonest.

I’m not redefining words against their actual usage. Lots of words have multiple meaning – each of which is valid in its own context. I am just trying to be unambiguous by stating which particular definition from the list of possible definition is intended by the bible it its context.
BobSpece1 wrote:
Basing your worldview on a set of naked assumptions, which are against all the evidence, and only 'supported' by a book riddled with that sort of confusion, just because you like it, is being extremely self-centered and intellectually dishonest.
YOU don't get to define reality and truth.

I Agree, I don’t get to define reality, as I already said I am not making any attempt to prove what I believe is true, or define reality and truth for anyone other than myself. This is what I hold to be true, that is all. I’m just seeing if you guys think what I believe is contradictory or not within itself. 
Specifically which evidence is against the bible?
Which parts do you find confusing?(I am not supprised you find it confusing – this is to be expected from atheists)\
a


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
All I can say is that the

All I can say is that the more complicated it is the more likely it is to be a religion.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Anyone can provide pat

Anyone can provide pat answers for bible contradictions from apologist books and websites and some of them really aren't contradictions anyway. However, there are lots of counting errors in the bible and there's really no explanation for that other than that it was copied wrong which assumes it was correct to begin with. It's at least equally likely that the savages who wrote it just weren't very good at counting.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 You know, when I first

 You know, when I first started coming to this site someone said that it was child abuse for a kid to be raised in a family of "true" Christians. I thought it was hyperbole at the time. Now, after seeing Christian after Christian describe their convoluted ideas of "love" and "justice" as they apply to their imaginary god, I think the claim might be accurate. I honestly don't get it, especially when it comes from the Christians that don't seem like complete nuts. With love like that, you certainly don't need any hate. You literally could love someone to death......

 


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Rape not condoned - really?

 

Fry wrote:

Slavery, Rape and Murder are not condoned in the bible, Women are certainly encouraged to be very sexual and senual to their husbands

This scripture is one of the many vile things in the Bible. This essentially condones rape. Just imagine you are this woman. You must marry your rapist. No good god would come up with this rule, but a fallible primitive desert people would. 

 

Deuteronomy 22

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 

29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver.  He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. 

 

The bible does not condemn slavery, rape and murder. The whole Exodus/Joshua genocide rampage stories testifies to that. The whole Jesus will burn you in hell testifies to that. Stockholm Syndrome, my friend. Turning a blind eye to the immorality in the Bible is dishonest and evil. If this Yahweh exists he is quite petty and vile. He creates a perfect creature who falls from his grace and instead of blaming himself for shoddy workmanship he torments his creatures forever. Nope. Not moral in any degree. That is a primary inconsistency in this book.

 

 

 

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
Religion abuse

Beyond Saving wrote:

 You know, when I first started coming to this site someone said that it was child abuse for a kid to be raised in a family of "true" Christians. I thought it was hyperbole at the time. Now, after seeing Christian after Christian describe their convoluted ideas of "love" and "justice" as they apply to their imaginary god, I think the claim might be accurate. I honestly don't get it, especially when it comes from the Christians that don't seem like complete nuts. With love like that, you certainly don't need any hate. You literally could love someone to death......

 

YES SIR. I can testify to that. Being told that I was the reason Satan was destroying my mother's heath because I didn't join the church really fucked up my mind. But if you met me you would have thought I was as normal as the day is long. Christianity teaches you to put on a happy face, to ignore reality. Layers of facades. You need to sacrifice all that you are to be for Jesus. Throw your will out the door, throw your brain out the door, but remember as Fry quotes the best you can do is still *totally vile*. I am never enough, but to illustrate I am saved I better give and give and give and take abuse. That is Jesus love. 

I still have Christian friends, even a minister friend. I see how this religion destroys their marriages, families and lives and how they their minds torment them continuously. And being stressed out all the time you are dying slowly within. Stress kills. Religion kills. It does affect your health. My mother is a prime example. It wasn't me or Satan but her imagination that torments her.  I know she would be happier and have less health issues if she had never met this Jesus. Yet this imaginary Jesus watches this pain she is bringing upon herself and he grins with love in his heart.

 

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/


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lol, wingless, your avatar

Lol, wingless, your avatar is awesome.

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
Assuming Premise 1 (That my God exists) Then anyone who denies that my God exists, when he does in fact exist, is hating him by ignoring his existence.

Eh.....so you're conflating not believing that he exists with hating him? That doesn't work with my understanding of the terms "hating" and "believing."

Phillip J. Fry wrote:
As I said before we have already agreed that no amount of evidence would be sufficient to prove my God exists.

I don't think I was in that conversation.

I suppose we could never "prove" that your God exists in that we can never be 100% certain, but in that sense, very little about reality could be proven, and no skeptic would demand a "proof" in order to become a proponent. For us, it can be a matter of probability and induction. We would invite any evidence or argument that simply increases the likelihood of a god existing to be presented. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


luca
atheist
Posts: 399
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
hope i did not forgot something

Quote:

1) That my belief in my God could not be dis-proven

2) That my belief in my God could not be Proven


while it's true that a god could not be proven or disproven, it's another thing saying that the biblical god cannot be disproven. i mean, proof is a very demanding word, but evidence could be brought that shows that the bible (and consequent god) is a fake.
so i want to point these 2 things: one, simply "a" god is not the biblical god. the biblical god comes from the bible, and evidence suggests it's human made; two, proof is pretty impossible, evidence is weaker but actually present. simply search for lexical analysis of the bible on internet.
but any god could not be proven also because of this: if a god presented in front of you, would that be a proof that this god exists? NO! because it's supernatural, may not be proven in any way! this is very important! so every experience you have of supernatural is potentially fake (and it probably is).

Quote:

1) The unified Trinitarian God of the bible exists

2) This God has revealed himself truthfully in the Bible (within the context of history and the context of the various authors)


this is not sufficient and not univocal. the above two proposition does not explain completely why you believe in christianity and not other religions, so could you tell us why you believe?
could i ask you a little question? it's this: if you were to not believe, it would hurt more you or the relationships you have with other people?

i do not believe that the problem are the inconsistencies, but what you believe good and evil are.
on the other way, you really need to be more coherent with yourself: to say that the world is screwed because we hate god is (probably, just saying, you know...) excessive: are you implying that man cannot better himself? arguing about all the things you say would be very big, but i think it isn't necessary. just in this case, however, you are justifying this affermation (humanity is fucked) with this 'evidence': societies and governments in history always fail (well, i thought you hold this position, i dont remember now exactly everything). well first, this is false, and second it's a non sequitur.

now that it comes to my mind, i don't even understand why you are arguing with us, being that we "cannot grasp" your religion...

---

you really do not submit yourself to the rules you apply to others, im sorry to say (not that they are consistent, but this is alredy being discussed).
also, jesus "the savior" ben joseph could absolutely have not existed.
last, i contest the goodness of the biblical god (punishing, hardening hearts, "the challenge" and so on). it would be useful if you submitted the verses you interpret to affirm what you believe.
and as a my jehova's witness friend says, when the time comes you heretic trinitarians will go into non-existance, for god is one, fool!


wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
After Fry's response to me,

After Fry's response to me, I realize what he's getting at, although my criticism still stands (I wanted to reply to him to clarify what he misunderstood, but that'd be missing the point). The thing is, I'm not arguing against what he's suggesting. All he's trying to state is that his worldview is consistent, and that can be argued for a myriad of worldviews. There are a few things we as atheists should understand when approaching this:

 

1) He's not stating he's right, he's asking if he's consistent. Consistency doesn't prove truth; I suspect he didn't want to get into the theism argument in this thread, or on the morality of his God. Consistency is often a matter of creating a framework and a list of rules, and exceptions to those rules. In any given mythological system, any possible inconsistency we can show can be explained. If it works for Star Wars nerds, it'll work for a more sophisticated system as well.

 

2) Somewhat an extension of point 1, I don't think pointing out Biblical inconsistencies makes sense, or is really an academic way of proceeding. There are many frameworks for reading the Bible, and understanding covenental theology in Fry's case is essential. 

 

3) Creating a caricature of the Abrahamic god won't work, even if that caricature is closer to the text's original definition. Point in case, Fry would not be defending these verses a millenium ago. The fact that he has to explain them now, rather than just a lack of context he rightfully points out, shows that for years the Abrahamic god's values were the values of perhaps most people. Most people, simply put, didn't see what we find horrible today, to be wrong. As our society has found empirical and rational basis for morality, we can state it's wrong; but Fry's apologetics, unlike the Bible itself, inherently admits the validity of our moral views by even trying to explain something that before needed no explanation, even thousands of years later on an entirely different continent.

 

4) Partially related to point 3, and I don't know if Fry ascribes to this, but, "All is for the glory of God." Whatever God does is just, because he does it. If God violently tortured all individuals with Down syndrome in hell, it would be justice, because justice should not be defined by humans but by God alone. This is a common Calvinist position, and is essentially anti-rationalist. Once again, this is outside our domain, as much as someone who claims that reality cannot be trusted, or that God put dinosaur bones on the Earth to test the faithful.

 

5) In the end, no matter what, his logic trumps ours because his confirms Scripture, by which all things can be based, because it is the work of God. In his worldview, God does not want us to understand, so his failure to make us understand is justified.

 

So, what should we do? Realize this isn't our argument. Christians who ascribe to this have successfully plugged their ears and started an infinite loop of circular logic. We aren't going to win this argument, not because we're wrong, but because we are no longer dealing with an empirical or rationalist playing field. I feel that arguing against these kinds of delusions dilutes the power of our own worldviews, and really, just should not be partaken in, with maybe the exception of trying to figure out on what grounds he started the Christian infinite loop in the first place, over trusting empiricism and rationalism, or trusting another somewhat infinite loop system such as the Athari school of Sunni Islam.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Phillip J. Fry

Phillip J. Fry wrote:


BobSpence1 wrote:
Here is a good list of inconsistencies and contradictions, one of many"

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Thanks Bob, Finally an apparent inconsistency that we can discuss.
1) How is God good to all? The sun keeps rising, the rain keeps pouring etc … for Everyone - Those who trust God AND those who reject God – these are all good things
2) God Judges those who stubbornly and consistently reject him without mercy. This is completely fair and just.  This does not contradict point 1

He even lets the rain sometimes keep pouring into excess, so that much harm, distress, and even death occurs - my house was well above the peak flood level here in Brisbane, Australia, during the floods in January this year, but many were not. Thank you God....

Are you as dumb as Bill O'Reilly - "sun goes up, sun goes down, you can't explain it" - except that the fact that the sun keeps rising requires no divine intervention at all... IOW no thanks to God. 

But apart from that nonsense, the second quote is utterly inconsistent with any meaning of 'tender mercy'. There is no justice in punishing anyone, let alone their whole family, merely for 'rejecting him'. That is the action of a vile, spiteful, and self-obsessed psychopath, not the being being described in the first quote.

Quote:


BobSpence1 wrote:
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

This one is simple,
1)    You have to read things in context to understand things properly. There are 2 types of wisdom – Earthly wisdom and Heavenly wisdom. Earthly wisdom will never satisfy – it will only ever raise more questions and bring grief like it says. If you read ALL of Ecclesiastes you will see that satisfaction is only found in Heavenly wisdom which is far superior.
2)    This passage from 1 Corinthians supports what I was saying earlier – God intentionally makes his message unclear so that people who trust in Earthly wisdom (which is All Atheists) will not understand him and be fairly judged for it. These 2 verses do not contradict each other.

It does not make that distinction. That is an invention of people like you trying to explain away such contradictions.

To make things deliberately unclear and confusing, and then punish those who apply logic and reason which then leads then to the logical conclusion that a God as described in the Bible does not and cannot exist is the act of an evil prankster, not of a 'good' God.

Except that a more insightful, honest reading of the Bible does indeed support the idea that the God portrayed does not deserve worship, but may require blind obedience because of his vindictive and hateful nature.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

1)Again context is important. All this is saying is the Destruction/Judgement of Babylon has been a long time coming. God has been angry at the Babylonians for a long time because of their continual wickedness form generation to generation. And because of their continued wickedness like their forefathers God is angry with this current generation and is finally going to Judge, The current generation have benefited from the wickedness of their forefathers and continue to participate in the same evil behaviour making them rightly deserving of the Judgement they receive – they are not judged for their fathers sins – they are judge for their own sins (which are having the same wickedness as their fathers). There is no contradiction between this and Deuteronomy.
More contradictions please

God himself is more wicked than the Babylonians, it is NOT just to punish anyone for the 'sins' of their fathers, let alone slaughter them. 

No matter how many generations some population has offended him, it is still not just to punish anyone for someone else's crime. That is entirely inconsistent with a divine, eternal being who should possess infinite patience, and never be susceptible to fits of temper. If one group has actually 'benefited' from another's actions, that brings into question why are those actions called 'wicked'? That term, in real morality, can only be based on harm being caused to others. If the whole population is involved here, who is being sinned against?

Whatever, even if someone has benefited from the actions of their fathers, which have been assisted by exploiting a third party, that does not justify punishing the son, unless they had the realistic option to consciously refuse such benefit.

Our legal system, despite its faults, is vastly more just than the God of the second quote.

Quote:


BobSpece1 wrote:
If you are going to insist on defining what the terms you use mean, against their actual usage, you are being very dishonest.

I’m not redefining words against their actual usage. Lots of words have multiple meaning – each of which is valid in its own context. I am just trying to be unambiguous by stating which particular definition from the list of possible definition is intended by the bible it its context.
BobSpece1 wrote:
Basing your worldview on a set of naked assumptions, which are against all the evidence, and only 'supported' by a book riddled with that sort of confusion, just because you like it, is being extremely self-centered and intellectually dishonest.
YOU don't get to define reality and truth.

I Agree, I don’t get to define reality, as I already said I am not making any attempt to prove what I believe is true, or define reality and truth for anyone other than myself. This is what I hold to be true, that is all. I’m just seeing if you guys think what I believe is contradictory or not within itself. 
Specifically which evidence is against the bible?
Which parts do you find confusing?(I am not supprised you find it confusing – this is to be expected from atheists).

It is not surprising that a collection of writings from multiple writers, recorded over centuries, based on various older myths and stories passed on largely by word of mouth, would, when read together, be quite confusing. This is the nature of such things, the nature of man in his desire for a narrative, an explanation, no matter how contrived.

Your responses to those three examples shows that you will have a way to argue away, to your personal satisfaction, any plain contradictions or inconsistencies by re-interpreting words and referring to 'context', so it would be futile to present any more to you.

Your 'morality' is based on 'might makes right', whatever God does is 'good' by definition, and is not to be questioned. Jawohl, mein Fuhrer! 

As has already been pointed out to you, many different 'Gods' could fit your initial assumptions.

When your basis, the Bible, requires as much interpretation as you resorts to, it can no longer be regarded as a source of knowledge, since there are many ways a text can be interpreted, once you go beyond or below the surface reading, and you have little or no way to justify choosing any particular one, least of all basing your choice on the one that best fits your presuppositions. The 'knowledge' you come away with is as much the product of your fallible human desires and misunderstandings as what is in the words.

 

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
wingless_sephiroth wrote:So,

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

So, what should we do? Realize this isn't our argument. Christians who ascribe to this have successfully plugged their ears and started an infinite loop of circular logic. We aren't going to win this argument, not because we're wrong, but because we are no longer dealing with an empirical or rationalist playing field. I feel that arguing against these kinds of delusions dilutes the power of our own worldviews, and really, just should not be partaken in, with maybe the exception of trying to figure out on what grounds he started the Christian infinite loop in the first place, over trusting empiricism and rationalism, or trusting another somewhat infinite loop system such as the Athari school of Sunni Islam.

While I agree with all the points you make, I disagree with your conclusion.  I think engaging any irrational view is important, and not because I believe I will ever show Fry the error of his ways, or in any faint hope that Fry will stop compartmentalising and marry logic with his religious views.  I believe it is important for the audience, for those sitting on the fence.  

In a historical context our arguments may be seen weak, unfair or taken out of context, but so what?  If someone stops and questions their views based on any argument, it was worth making.  They are worthy because of the seed of doubt I hope to plant in the rational mind of the believer.  As long as a slippery slope reasoning sequence is started, it will lead to the obvious conclusion.  

Once you add up all the idiocies, and you start questioning, as long as you're being intellectually honest there is only one outcome.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:In a historical

Ktulu wrote:

In a historical context our arguments may be seen weak, unfair or taken out of context, but so what?  

That's the 'rabbit hole'.

If they can get you in the 'rabbit hole' past the equivocation(s), you can go around in circles endlessly, because it's a circular argument.

 

The 1st equivocation is, that gods are 'necessary'. That our universe couldn't form by any other means.

There is nothing scientific or 'logically', that supports that assumption. Arguments from incredulity and from ignorance are merely playing into a confirmation bias.

The 2nd equivocation is, that life on earth could not have emerged by natural causes, when it's well understood how it can happen purely by natural means.

There is nothing scientific or 'logically', that supports an assumption that life could not form naturally. Arguments from incredulity and from ignorance are merely playing into a confirmation bias.

 

They really don't have any grounds to debate. They never did. Flat earth, sun revolving around the earth, what goes up must come down, etc, etc...

They never had any grounds except arguments from ignorance or incredulity, and 'logic', based on blind assumptions.

They were always ignorant fools, and remain so.

Science and technology will not stop, and are growing in leaps and bounds, in ability, and in sheer number of practitioners of science and technology.

Information is spreading, and the archives are getting larger and larger, and the accessibility is getting faster and faster, and censorship is lessening and lessening.

In order for societies and countries to remain competitive, science and technology must be at the forefront in education.

 

Religions are doomed. They will become an indulgence, like Astrology and Horoscopes.

Theists can still keep trying to breed the next generations of theists, but there's less and less vacuum from reality for their children.

Atheism is at an exponential advantage.

 

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Ktulu wrote:In

redneF wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

In a historical context our arguments may be seen weak, unfair or taken out of context, but so what?  

That's the 'rabbit hole'.

If they can get you in the 'rabbit hole' past the equivocation(s), you can go around in circles endlessly, because it's a circular argument.

Ya, I was referring to arguments from the holy texts, obviously our arguments regarding the empirical data are the only arguments worth considering.  When explaining empirically gained sensory data, the system is not a democracy.  The observations have to be consistent and the experiments supporting the theories MUST be reproducible.  Religion has nothing to offer in that regard, and anyone looking into ancient texts versus contemporary science is an idiot.  Enter the Creationist movement, banana man and 'cdesign proponentsists'.  

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


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

Ktulu wrote:

redneF wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

In a historical context our arguments may be seen weak, unfair or taken out of context, but so what?  

That's the 'rabbit hole'.

If they can get you in the 'rabbit hole' past the equivocation(s), you can go around in circles endlessly, because it's a circular argument.

Ya, I was referring to arguments from the holy texts, obviously our arguments regarding the empirical data are the only arguments worth considering.  When explaining empirically gained sensory data, the system is not a democracy.  The observations have to be consistent and the experiments supporting the theories MUST be reproducible.  Religion has nothing to offer in that regard, and anyone looking into ancient texts versus contemporary science is an idiot.  Enter the Creationist movement, banana man and 'cdesign proponentsists'.  

 

I love the rhetoric and hyperbole quote : "When future intellectual historians..." 

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


Phillip J. Fry
Theist
Phillip J. Fry's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2010-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:However, there

Gauche wrote:
However, there are lots of counting errors in the bible and there's really no explanation for that other than that it was copied wrong which assumes it was correct to begin with. It's at least equally likely that the savages who wrote it just weren't very good at counting.


I Agree -There are certainly several examples of counting/copying errors in the bible. This is to be expected as it was written by human authors who make mistakes like these. This doesn’t prove or disprove anything – it is merely circumstantial.

ex-minister wrote:
This scripture is one of the many vile things in the Bible. This essentially condones rape. Just imagine you are this woman. You must marry your rapist. No good god would come up with this rule, but a fallible primitive desert people would.

The Deuteronomy quote does not condone rape. It only speaks of what should be done if it occurs. It is certainly NOT  in any way encouraged, acceptable or condonable. This is the same when Moses allowed people to divorce – it was a concession – divoce is also not encouraged by the bible either, but instructions are given for the case if it does happen. While I’m sure you do not agree with the morality of the instructions given for making amends with the victim, all I stated was the bible does not condone rape – which it does not.
 
luca wrote:
this is not sufficient and not univocal. the above two proposition does not explain completely why you believe in christianity and not other religions, so could you tell us why you believe?
could i ask you a little question? it's this: if you were to not believe, it would hurt more you or the relationships you have with other people?

I believe Christianity instead of other religions because i beleive it best explains the world I live in – better than any other theory I have seen so far. It makes sense of other religions, the problem of evil, it makes sense of our discoveries in science, it explains WHY things happen, while science only explains HOW things happen (the mechanincs of matter/energy). When I understand science within the framework of Christianity I can know both HOW things happen and WHY they happen that way -  which in my opinion gives me a greater understanding of reality than science alone. 
luca wrote:
to say that the world is screwed because we hate god is (probably, just saying, you know...) excessive: are you implying that man cannot better himself? arguing about all the things you say would be very big, but i think it isn't necessary. just in this case, however, you are justifying this affermation (humanity is fucked) with this 'evidence': societies and governments in history always fail (well, i thought you hold this position, i dont remember now exactly everything). well first, this is false, and second it's a non sequitur.
now that it comes to my mind, i don't even understand why you are arguing with us, being that we "cannot grasp" your religion...

That is exactly what I am saying – Humans CANNOT better themselves for they are corrupt. Only God can better man. Everyone is selfish. PLEASE feel free to prove me wrong by giving me an example of any human (not Jesus) that has never been selfish.   
luca wrote:
it would be useful if you submitted the verses you interpret to affirm what you believe.

You need to be more specific – otherwise you will just get me quoting the whole bible. What point of doctrine do you want references for?
luca wrote:

and as a my jehova's witness friend says, when the time comes you heretic trinitarians will go into non-existance, for god is one, fool!

LOL Laughing out loud


wingless wrote:
All he's trying to state is that his worldview is consistent, and that can be argued for a myriad of worldviews. There are a few things we as atheists should understand when approaching this:
 1) He's not stating he's right, he's asking if he's consistent. Consistency doesn't prove truth;

This is correct. Thankyou for understanding what I said in my OP, many people here seemed to have skipped over my introduction to the topic.

wingless wrote:
In the end, no matter what, his logic trumps ours because his confirms Scripture, by which all things can be based, because it is the work of God. In his worldview, God does not want us to understand, so his failure to make us understand is justified.
 So, what should we do? Realize this isn't our argument. Christians who ascribe to this have successfully plugged their ears and started an infinite loop of circular logic. We aren't going to win this argument, not because we're wrong, but because we are no longer dealing with an empirical or rationalist playing field.

This is correct too. The bible is my ultimate source of authority – not reason, experience or tradition. And Yes - this is a circular argument – Ultimately I believe The bible is true because It says it is true (although my reason experience and tradition also support this position). While this is a circular argument this is not a bad thing – for any authority to be our ultimate/highest authority it is necessary that it is self–affirming. If it pointed to another authority – Then that authority would be higher. If reason/logic is our highest authority we can say that based on our tradition and experience this makes sense, but ultimately reason would be our highest authority because it is reasonable. It also must be self-affirming. So you are right to say we will both be going around in circles of each other. I say the bible is my highest authority, you say reason – both are self-affirming circular arguments.
 
BobSpence1 wrote:
God himself is more wicked than the Babylonians, it is NOT just to punish anyone for the 'sins' of their fathers, let alone slaughter them.

If the whole population is involved here, who is being sinned against?

Whatever, even if someone has benefited from the actions of their fathers, which have been assisted by exploiting a third party, that does not justify punishing the son, unless they had the realistic option to consciously refuse such benefit.

Correct, It would not be fair to punish someone for their fathers sin. God does not do this. 
God is the primary one being sinned against.
The Babylonians benefited from the sins of their fathers. They certainly had many opportunities to recognise this, and to declare the actions of their fathers to be wrong and attempt to make amends for their benefiting from the past wrongs – this would be acceptable repentance to God and not incur judgement. It reminds me of the Aboriginal situation here in Australia. All of us (Australians) have benefitted from their land being stolen and we enjoy these benefits – yet most of us are quite happy to not make amends by doing anything substantial for them. Sure Rudd said sorry – that’s a step of progress – but has that fixed anything for them?