My Affidavit

I’ve often been asked: ‘how do you know god doesn’t exist?’

Well, the truth is, I don’t!  After all, god means so many different things to different people.  My common reply to the above question is: “which god?”

If you’re asking me about a specific god though, say, the Biblical one, I’d say that I know he doesn’t exist.  I know he doesn’t exist, because it is irrational and logically inconsistent to believe he does, just as I know that square circles don’t exist.

Let me anticipate a theistic apologetic in advance: the inscrutability of god.  It is said that we cannot know the ways of god, and even seemingly wrong or inhumane actions must have a higher purpose.  This sort of defence comes from the same people who are quick to praise their god and all the good he supposedly does.  This is a contradiction.  And it is a big one!  So I’ll address it now and get it over and done with:

If you cannot say what is bad about god, then you cannot say what is good either.

You cannot have it both ways.  Either we are able to learn about god from his actions, or we’re not.  Either we can make our own moral judgements about god, or we can’t.  If we can’t, then no one has the capacity to read their holy book, know their god, and then declare him good.  You must use your intellect and morality to make that determination; the same intellect and morality that you could use to declare him evil.  And if god is essentially unknowable then we can’t say anything about him!

I want to show beyond reasonable doubt that the biblical god doesn’t exist.  I intend to do this using proof by contradiction.  Since the biblical god (according to Christians or anyone else who believes in it) is supposed to be loving, just, and compassionate, actions which strongly indicate otherwise show a contradiction, meaning that such a being as defined above cannot exist.  If theists want to use a different definition of god, that’s fair enough, but they won’t be talking about a loving, just, compassionate one.

I’d ask everyone from here on out, to pretend they’re a jury in court, and listen to the evidence presented before you.  I’d like to enter into evidence as Exhibit A, the King James Version of the Bible.   I’d like you to evaluate the character of the witness presented before you, using your intelligence and your innate sense of right and wrong.  This is my sworn testimony based on what I’ve learned about the defendant, the god of the bible:

Genesis 7.  God is angered by the wickedness of man.  As Ebon Musings points out, no race in human history has ever been so monolithic, where every man, woman, and child, thought and believed the same thing.  God decides to murder every living creature apart from a small family.  Animals are also included in this slaughter, for some reason.

Does god click his fingers and wipe them out of existence?  Does he put them to sleep quickly and humanely?  No.  God decides that not only does every human and animal on the planet deserve to die, but only a slow terrifying tortuous death will suffice: drowning.

Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, pregnant girls, and babies.  Every single one murdered.  The reason?  Man is wicked.  What is god’s reaction after the flood?  Regret.  In fact he says: “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”  So, mankind is evil so god kills them.  Then he promises not to kill mankind again by a flood because…they’re evil.

Does this sound like a fair, just person?  Or is this the reasoning of psychopath?

Exodus 4.  Egypt.  God’s people are captive, and god wants them released.  He sends his spokesman Moses to the Pharaoh demanding their liberation.  Every time Pharaoh says no, god sends plague after plague to hurt and curse the Egyptians.  Why didn’t Pharaoh change his mind?  God tells us why: “And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you…  So, god hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that whatever happened he wouldn’t change his mind!  Note also that god knows in advance that Pharaoh will not listen to Moses, so what was the point of this charade?!  Why not save time and precious human life by delivering his people out by some other means?

Taking away Pharaoh’s free will and then punishing him for it is unfair to say the least. But to punish millions of people for the actions of one person is cruel and sadistic: the final plague god sends is to murder every firstborn of the Egyptians.  Imagine that.  The firstborn son, of every house, at any age, is murdered, all in the same night.  Who was being punished here, and why?  Was every Egyptian responsible for the Israelites captivity?  “…and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.”

Are these the actions of a being that loves humans?  Who respects human life?  Who uses torture and murder as a very last resort?

Numbers 15.  What are you doing this Sunday?  I’m going out with friends.  We might take a walk up a hill or through the forest.  If I was living in ancient Israel, I better be careful not to pick up sticks though!

Don’t you think justice demands that the penalty for a crime should be proportionate to that crime?

Let’s see what god thinks: “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day… And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

Imagine having masses of people around you, throwing stones at your body and head until you die from your injuries.  This form of execution would be inhumane no matter what crime you committed, but picking up sticks??

This is the same god that many Christians worship.  Whether Christians claim to be under Mosaic Law or not is irrelevant.  The god of the bible deems this just and necessary.  Do you?  If you were ruler would you make a rule like this?  Would you execute anyone in this fashion?

What is your opinion of genocide?  Is it acceptable, ever?  We know that people can be evil.  We know that many people can be evil, but isn’t genocide the ultimate act of racism: the deliberate extermination of a particular people or nation, just for belonging to that nation!  It is stupidity of the highest order to suppose that every single person of a particular race is worthy of death.  Yet, this is exactly what the god of the bible demands on many occasions.

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee” – Numbers 7.

(Defending yourself from invasion is one thing.  Killing soldiers in a war or occupation is one thing.  Systematically invading other nations and wiping out all life in those cities is genocide.  It has been attempted before, most notably by Hitler, and we all have our opinions of his character.)

Even in the New Testament, god’s attention switches from people of different nations to people who simply don’t believe.  The penalty is always the same: death.

In today’s culture, the death penalty is considered the ultimate price to pay for a crime, but in most civilised countries it has been virtually abolished!

Was the god of the bible unique amongst gods of the time?  Did the Israelites and their god have an evolved morality that made them stand out for their tolerance and ethics?  Or were they just like every other nation of the time; primitive and barbaric?

Numbers 31.  The Israelites defeat the Midianites in battle, and all the male Midianites are killed.  Did Moses declare victory?  No.  There was still work to be done.  The soldiers of Israel had left alive the young males, all the women, all the girls, and all the babies.

What did god’s spokesman have to say?  Have ye saved all the women alive? …. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Would a loving, just, and caring god demand the execution of young boys?  Why were non-virgin women killed but not virgin girls?  You know why!  They were used as sex slaves.  Unfortunately for the virgin boys, since homosexuality was a sin (also punishable by death), the Israelites had no use for them, so they were murdered too.

Are these the actions you would expect from a God of Love?  Or are these actions crimes of war?  Genocide, mass murder, infanticide, and rape.  Note that all the virgin girls are given over to the men of Israel; their ages aren’t specified.

God punishes his people for the slightest transgression in the bible, yet he has nothing at all to say about Moses’ barbaric orders.  Why?

Joshua 6. Same old story.  Moses has been succeeded by Joshua, and he leads god’s armies to the city of Jericho.  The result: “And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”

Imagine if a foreign power decided to invade your community.  Imagine even that some people in your community were horrid criminals.  But if this power exterminated every human and animal where you had grown up, you’d think them a despicable inhuman band of evil murderers.  And you’d be right to.

Joshua 7.  A man called Achan steals treasure that god’s army looted in battle.  The punishment?  Achan is burned to death.  So are all his animals, his wife, and his children.  What does this tell us about the punisher?  Even if Achan and his entire family were guilty, is being burned alive a reasonable consequence for stealing or conspiracy to steal?

In the first book of Samuel, the Ark of the Covenant is stolen and then returned to the Israelites.  When it returns, the Jews make the mistake of opening it and beholding the interior.  What did our loving caring compassionate understanding all-knowing god do?  He executed over 50,000 people.  The next time you’re at a public gathering like a sports stadium, imagine everyone in there suddenly murdered.  Reasonable?

2 Kings 2.  The prophet Elisha is walking along a road when 40 children appear and start name-calling Elisha for being bald.  Elisha curses them.  No sooner did he do this, than two she-bears come out of the woods and tear the children to pieces.

Are you a parent?  Is your child a saint?  Have they ever teased or tormented someone?  Have they ever taken the mickey or acted foolishly?  Imagine if you got home from work one day and the news was given to you that your young child had been ripped to pieces by a wild animal, for the “crime” of insulting a stranger about being bald.

Would you worship a god that had such a short violent temper?  Are these the actions of a loving heavenly father, or an evil vindictive tyrant?

2 Chronicles 25.  Amaziah, god’s reigning king of Israel takes 10,000 prisoners alive in war.  It should be noted that although god punishes Amaziah for worshipping other gods, he does nothing about what we’re about to hear:

And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces.”

10,000 prisoners of war were taken to a cliff edge, and thrown off one by one by one.  Like lemmings falling to their deaths by the thousands.  This is sickening mass murder, but because these 10,000 people weren’t god’s followers does that make it ok?  Would you throw another human being off a cliff?

Although god was quick to punish the crime of false worship, he does nothing about murdering thousands of defenceless people.  We might well ask: what is more important to this person; his own glorification, or the lives of thousands of helpless people?  Choosing your own egotistical interests above the lives of others is not love.

Hosea 13.  God threatens to punish the city of Samaria. Let’s see how he intends to do this:

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

This is how god intends to punish an entire city: murder of children; murder of pregnant women.

If you heard a story on the news of somebody killing children and pregnant women en masse, what would you think of that person?

Consider the following description of god’s personality:

The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” – Numbers 14:8

We are told that god is longsuffering, merciful, forgiving, and just…and in the same verse told that he will punish children for the crimes of their great grandfathers!  How is punishing a person for the crimes of another person just?  That is the very definition of anti-justice!

When King David desires Bathsheba and has her husband killed in battle (all this whilst god watches on and does nothing), god decides to punish David.  Well, that’s not entirely true.  He has David’s wives raped whilst other people watch, and kills the child that is the product of David and Bathsheba’s relationship.  Sure enough, the child is born, gets sick, and dies.  Would you want someone you love to pay the price for your mistakes?  Do you think that’s fair?  What would you feel for the person who took the life of your child?

The atrocities we’ve covered above show a person who is anything but merciful and patient.  Also remember that this from a person who is supposed to be infinitely wise and all-knowing, yet he loses his temper and lashes out like a spoilt brat for the slightest transgression!

In the NT, the emphasis changes to the afterlife, and burning people alive with fire for all eternity, for choosing not to follow god (or not knowing any better).

I put it to you that the biblical god is cruel, evil, unjust, and unloving.  The god of the bible is simply not compatible with the idea that many Christians have of their god.  Therefore, there are only a few possibilities left:

1.       The interpretation of god I have presented here is wrong. (Which I believe is virtually impossible to maintain after reviewing the evidence.)

2.       God exists but is the not the god of the bible, therefore Christianity and anything based on the bible is false.

3.       The god of the bible does exist, but those who believe in him have an extremely distorted and erroneous image of him.  This also means that Christianity and anything based on the bible is wrong, or the bible is not totally consistent about god’s personality.

4.       Our sense of right and wrong is inadequate to judge god.  This apologetic fails, for the reasons given above: if we cannot say “god is good” then we cannot say “god is bad”.  In other words, this attempted explanation is self-refuting.

5.       The events in the bible are mythical.  (If this were true, the stories described above are still evil, whether they’re the acts of a mythical being or not.  But if the bible stories are a myth then what is the point of believing in the biblical god?)

6.       God doesn’t exist.

In my opinion, the best way to explain the entire bible, the contradictions, the atrocities in it, with the least superfluous theories, and in the most efficient and reasonable manner, is to go with option 6.  (Especially when one considers that there is no evidence to support these atrocities!  We can safely say that they are just stories.  Horrific, barbaric, evil – but fortunately, just stories.)

For those who accept the god of the bible, the only way to escape this conclusion is to deny that the disgraceful acts and despicable atrocities committed by god or those acting on his orders, were evil.

But I do not believe that any moral, intelligent, rational person can possibly call what we have considered not evil.

I rest my case.

Advertisements

131 Responses to “My Affidavit”

  1. Pedro Timóteo Says:

    An absolutely brilliant post. 🙂 I doubt any theist will actually be able to answer your points; they will just repeat the usual stuff.

  2. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    You said ” As Ebon Musings points out, no race in human history has ever been so monolithic, where every man, woman, and child, thought and believed the same thing.”

    Atheists do! 😉 At least in the blog world.

  3. evanescent Says:

    Hehe.

  4. 2008voter Says:

    “If you’re asking me about a specific god though, say, the Biblical one, I’d say that I know he doesn’t exist. I know he doesn’t exist, because it is irrational and logically inconsistent to believe he does, just as I know that square circles don’t exist.”
    I am an atheist myself but your answer is the silliest possible answer on the silliest possible question. Anybody who is familiar with Gödel’s incompleteness theorem would understand that any knowledge – even mathematics – is inherently incomplete and requires some postulates accepted on faith without a prove .
    To build reasoning of atheism on literal interpretation of Bible makes as much sense as to demand a mathematical formula of love. Religion is not science, it is a philosophy. It is the way of thinking and way of life. This way it is not better and not worse that any other way. Any attempt to frame a discourse about religion with common sense measures and terms of formal logic are silly and ignorant by definition. Same way how you cannot comprehend geometry of Lobachevsky’s geometry using postulates of Euclid
    When you are arguing in religious terms about non existence of biblical god you are de-facto a religious cleric who is just trying to prove that your religion ( which is atheism) is better than biblical religions.
    Non- believing is just another form of believing. They believe that god exists you do believe that god doesn’t exist . What is the difference? You are a believer same way as any religious man you just believe in the absence of god, not in god’s existence. It is still believing, it is still a religion. You just believe in different things and as mediaeval clerics did argue about heresies you are arguing that believing in biblical god is a heresy according to atheism.
    So, all this talk about existence of biblical god or not existence of biblical god does not make any logical sense. Then why would you care ? I will tell why: to feel yourself better. As Dostoevsky coined is his “The Brothers Karamazov” you are one of those who want to proclaim that “if there is no God, then everything is allowed!”
    Why is that today it is increasingly popular to bash a religion and Christianity first of all? Because it is the easiest way for ignorant people to feel themselves “ smart” and important. Obviously none of these religious bashers read TEILHARD DE CHARDIN or Kierkegaard . Why you are not arguing with them? Obviously religious bashers are proud of themselves for not believing stipulating that non believing by definition is “ progressive” But they are lacking not only understanding of culture and philosophy they are weak on history as well.
    Atheists through the history committed way more atrocities for example than any religious people did. It looks like for you being “ beyond of biblical religion” is only way to feel yourself at least some how significant

  5. Darren Says:

    2008voter,

    You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is, and your words of those of, at best, an agnostic, and at worst, a fundamentalist Christian.

    “Non-belief is a form of belief” is a very silly thing to say. Non-belief is the absence of belief. You are making the case that strong atheism is a form of belief because it makes a positive assertion that there is no god, but that is not the same thing. Strong atheism is also known as antitheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in god because no evidence exists.

    Similarly, to assert that atheism is a religion betrays an ignorance on your part of what constitutes a religion. Belief and religion are not synonymous, even if the latter does require the former.

    “if there is no God, then everything is allowed!” – this assertion also makes no sense, and is based on the false assumption that morality is derived from a god. It is much more likely that human morality (of that era) is represented by the character of God, not derived from it.

    Finally, I find you to be judgemental and patronizing. Your debating technique needs some work to be effective.

  6. Darren Says:

    evanescent,

    Your prosecution is that of a war criminal! This god is most unworthy of any respect, much less glorification and worship. It is also a fine demonstration of the idea that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  7. evanescent Says:

    I am an atheist myself but your answer is the silliest possible answer on the silliest possible question. Anybody who is familiar with Gödel’s incompleteness theorem would understand that any knowledge – even mathematics – is inherently incomplete and requires some postulates accepted on faith without a prove.

    Nonsense. Try that in a court of law and see what they say. I have no intentions of getting into a philosophical debate on epistemology and the totality of knowledge. Inasmuch as we can use the word “know”, then I know the biblical god doesn’t exist.

    To build reasoning of atheism on literal interpretation of Bible makes as much sense as to demand a mathematical formula of love. Religion is not science, it is a philosophy. It is the way of thinking and way of life. This way it is not better and not worse that any other way. Any attempt to frame a discourse about religion with common sense measures and terms of formal logic are silly and ignorant by definition.

    It seems that you’re the one being silly and ignorant. I didn’t build reasoning of atheism on literal interpretation of bible. I said that it is impossible to believe in the god of the bible because it is entails logical contradictions.
    Religion is more than just a philosophy, it is a belief system, one that isn’t based on reason but rather faith. So to say it is not better or worse than any other is silly political correct pandering. Some systems ARE better than others.

    Same way how you cannot comprehend geometry of Lobachevsky’s geometry using postulates of Euclid
    When you are arguing in religious terms about non existence of biblical god you are de-facto a religious cleric who is just trying to prove that your religion ( which is atheism) is better than biblical religions.

    Are you sure you’re an atheist, because what you’ve just said is total theistic nonsense. How can lack of belief be a religion? There is no belief system, and no precepts. There is only a lack of belief. If you are an atheist, you’re the most confused one I’ve ever met. Your wordplay doesn’t impress me.

    Non- believing is just another form of believing.

    And black is just another form of white, yes?

    They believe that god exists you do believe that god doesn’t exist . What is the difference?

    One of us is right and one of us is wrong. A pretty important difference. I want to find out who’s right.

    You are a believer same way as any religious man you just believe in the absence of god, not in god’s existence. It is still believing, it is still a religion. You just believe in different things and as mediaeval clerics did argue about heresies you are arguing that believing in biblical god is a heresy according to atheism.

    For all your clever wordplay and philosophical and scientific references, you are deeply ignorant and mistaken.

    If I believe in god’s non-existence, then you believe in santa claus’ non-existence. Lacking a belief isn’t a belief itself, and holding any belief doesn’t make that belief religious. I believe that the earth goes around the sun, does that make it a religion? No.

    So, all this talk about existence of biblical god or not existence of biblical god does not make any logical sense. Then why would you care ? I will tell why: to feel yourself better. As Dostoevsky coined is his “The Brothers Karamazov” you are one of those who want to proclaim that “if there is no God, then everything is allowed!”

    I’m sorry, are you trying to make a point about my article, or supposed interpretations of my personality? Your name-dropping and quote-mining doesn’t impress me. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Even if I wanted to make myself feel better, whatever that means, what does that have to do with the validity of my arguments?

    Why is that today it is increasingly popular to bash a religion and Christianity first of all? Because it is the easiest way for ignorant people to feel themselves “ smart” and important.

    Ad hominem. Your perceptions of my personality and intelligence are irrelevant to me. If you have something worthwhile to say then say it.

    Obviously none of these religious bashers read TEILHARD DE CHARDIN or Kierkegaard . Why you are not arguing with them? Obviously religious bashers are proud of themselves for not believing stipulating that non believing by definition is “ progressive” But they are lacking not only understanding of culture and philosophy they are weak on history as well.

    I have a theory: you fancy yourself a well-read person who can drop all the names and philosophical quotes in the world into a sentence. Guess what? No one’s clapping. No one’s impressed. You’ve said nothing of worth and you’ve provided no argument except try to attack me because you don’t like what I’ve said.

    Atheists through the history committed way more atrocities for example than any religious people did.

    Really? Prove that statement. Even if it’s true, it’s irrelevant to this discussion. I wrote this article to show that the biblical god is a despicable character and his existence is a logical contradiction, just like square circles. We know that square circles can’t exist, so I say the biblical god can’t exist. You have presented NOTHING of interest of argument to counter anything I’ve said.

    It looks like for you being “ beyond of biblical religion” is only way to feel yourself at least some how significant

    It looks like for you, lacing your long diatribes with as much philosophical speechifying and name-dropping, quotes here and there to make yourself look educated and well-read is the only way to make yourself feel significant.

    I don’t write this blog to make myself feel anything. I do it because I feel I’m writing about important issues, and because people who read my work either enjoy it or offer constructive criticism.

    I’ve debated with many atheists and theists online, and your post is the most convoluted self-important product of mental masturbation I’ve ever seen. I’m sure you were very pleased with yourself after writing it, but I just found it hilarious and I’m pretty sure other people did do. “Non-belief just another form of belief”; “atheism just another religion”; Haha, ok. Keep reading that Dostoevsky, you’ll be debating with adults in no time.

  8. evanescent Says:

    Darren said:

    Your prosecution is that of a war criminal! This god is most unworthy of any respect, much less glorification and worship. It is also a fine demonstration of the idea that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    I agree Darren. In almost any civilised court of law on earth, the actions we’ve considered would be considered gross atrocities. I see no need for any double standards.

  9. tobe38 Says:

    Geno said,

    You said ” As Ebon Musings points out, no race in human history has ever been so monolithic, where every man, woman, and child, thought and believed the same thing.”

    Atheists do! 😉 At least in the blog world.

    I think 2008voter has just proved you wrong! 😉

  10. Soitgoes Says:

    Nice job.
    Reminded me of some of the writings of George H. Smith in “Atheism – The Case Against God”
    I have often dreamt of having this whole crappy defense of religion being raised in a court of law. Although how it could actually be presented (without any evidence) is beyond me.
    Case closed.

  11. Marsha J. O'Brien Says:

    Isn’t it wonderful we are able to think and choose our own thoughts and beliefs? Truly the only thing we can prove is what we “think” in the moment we are alive. It’s actually all theory…….can you prove it isn’t?

    …..Except of course, that which is truth to me!:) I choose to believe in God and the truths in the Bible, and the way it “interprets itself” to me as I study. For those who study, light will come, and nothing will diminish the power within the pages.

    I don’t need to write a VERY LONG post condemning
    your thoughts because they are not mine. I don’t need to convince anyone you are wrong and I am right. You have the right to choose. It even says so in the Bible! 🙂

  12. armilnov Says:

    evanescent

    You are wrong.

    Read definition of faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

    Read definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    Let me ask you: what physical experiment did you perform, results of which prove that G-d does not exist?

    I, for instance do NOT believe in F=ma. Do you know why? Because I know that F=ma. I can go to any physics lab and produce experimental proof that that F=ma is true. That is called science.

    On other hand, I can believe or not believe that G-d exists, but I will never know it, because it is a matter of faith, meaning, it cannot be proven experimentally (scientifically) either way.

    Your trying to prove that G-d does or does not exist makes as much sense as demanding that I believe without proof in F=m*g, instead of F=ma.

    It is absurd to demand that any faith — even Christian — be supported by any proof, as much as it is absurd to demand that science be based on anything else but proof.

  13. Bad Says:

    “Anybody who is familiar with Gödel’s incompleteness theorem would understand that any knowledge – even mathematics – is inherently incomplete and requires some postulates accepted on faith without a prove.”

    Actually this is sort of misleading. Godels proof may have deeper implications for some things, but it really only directly applies to formal systems of a particular type. It’s a mistake to think that the result is unarguably generalizable.

    However, I share the opinion that it not only makes no sense in this case to claim to know that God doesn’t exist, but it simply isn’t necessary. If you have no reason to believe in something, then you simply don’t believe it. When someone asks if you believe it, you can say “no, I don’t.” There is no need to claim anything else.

    The burden is on the people who assert that some claim is true. By claiming to “know” that God doesn’t exist, you are incurring that burden even though there was no need for you to do so.

  14. evanescent Says:

    Hi Bad, I agree with you! By saying “I know the Christian God doesn’t exist”, I WAS incurring a burden of proof, which is what the article was about.

    The article wasn’t about why god (per se) is impossible. It was about why a logically incoherent god is impossible.

    As an atheist, I don’t want to shirk my responsibilities. I cannot say that any god doesn’t exist, but there are good reasons to “know”, in the real sense of the word, that SOME gods can’t exist. And that is why I wrote the article, and also to shed a little light on the horror of the bible that some people are sadly ignorant of.

    I’m sure any intelligent reader could understand what I wrote and why, and my motives for doing so.

    Welcome to my blog Bad, thanks for the comment.

  15. evanescent Says:

    Marsha said:

    I don’t need to write a VERY LONG post condemning your thoughts because they are not mine. I don’t need to convince anyone you are wrong and I am right. You have the right to choose. It even says so in the Bible!

    I don’t need to convince anyone either, Marsha. My purpose was to expose the immorality of the bible, and to show that because of that immorality, the biblical god is a contradiction to believe in.

    It’s as simple as that. I didn’t ask you or force you to read my article, and you’re welcome to believe whatever you want.

  16. evanescent Says:

    armilnov said:

    You are wrong.

    Thanks for cutting to the chase!

    Read definition of faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

    Read definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    I’d agree with those definitions.

    Let me ask you: what physical experiment did you perform, results of which prove that G-d does not exist?

    I didn’t say my disbelief of the biblical god was based on a scientific experiment!

    I, for instance do NOT believe in F=ma. Do you know why? Because I know that F=ma. I can go to any physics lab and produce experimental proof that that F=ma is true. That is called science.

    Yes, of course.

    On other hand, I can believe or not believe that G-d exists, but I will never know it, because it is a matter of faith, meaning, it cannot be proven experimentally (scientifically) either way.

    I’m not quite sure what your point is. There is no lab experiment for god, and the question can never be settled scientifically. I agree. What is your point?

    Just because there are two possibilities for something, doesn’t make the odds of each 50/50! I’m sure you’d agree with that.

    Whilst it is a fact that the moon is either made of cheese or it isn’t, doesn’t make the likelihood of either 50%!

    So, although it might not be possible to know (anything?) with 100% certainty, does not make all propositions equally likely. We can take a guess, or a reasonable estimate, or form a very sound logical argument based on the available facts.

    Your trying to prove that G-d does or does not exist makes as much sense as demanding that I believe without proof in F=m*g, instead of F=ma.

    Urm, no. If the definition of a being is presented, the acceptance of which would entail a logical contradiction, we can say that being cannot exist.

    Just as A cannot be A and also ~A, a god cannot be loving and also cruel and immoral at the same time. You wouldn’t debate this for a second, so I fail to see the point in anything you’ve said.

    This article was why the biblical god is a contradiction.

    It is absurd to demand that any faith — even Christian — be supported by any proof, as much as it is absurd to demand that science be based on anything else but proof.

    I think what you’ve said here is totally true, but you’ve missed a glaring point: that faith cannot be supported by proof makes it, BY DEFINITION, irrational! But, this article wasn’t about faith.

    As I seem to have to keep explaining, this article was showing why, because of the atrocities and immorality committed by the biblical god, it is illogical to maintain that he is also all-loving and just.

    Does that sound like an attack on religion? Does that sound like an argument of science vs faith? Did I even mention science in my article? Is my article a claim of “no god can exist!”??

    No, no, and no.

    I appreciate all the comments I’ve received, but NO ONE has yet to discuss the actual article itself.

  17. 2008voter Says:

    “I appreciate all the comments I’ve received, but NO ONE has yet to discuss the actual article itself.”
    because there is nothing to discuss! the whole idea that the Biblical god does not exist “because it is irrational and logically inconsistent to believe he does” is absurdity because you cannot logically verify a matter of faith. End of story

  18. evanescent Says:

    2008voter said:

    …because there is nothing to discuss! the whole idea that the Biblical god does not exist “because it is irrational and logically inconsistent to believe he does” is absurdity because you cannot logically verify a matter of faith. End of story

    So, you’re saying that the biblical god MIGHT exist because some people have an irrational belief that he does??

    This is nonsense.

    Of course you can verify a matter of faith! Moving a perfectly ascertainable issue to the realm of “faith” is dishonest and meaningless. It relegates a simple matter of logic to an ethereal realm where we’re not allowed to say anything more about it, because, well, we’re not! What kind of thinking is that?

    Ok here goes: “I believe the moon is made of cheese, and I have faith in it”. Care to prove me wrong? Or is my expression of faith here unverifiable?

    If you’d understood anything I’ve written you’d see that my claim wasn’t that A GOD cannot exist. It was that a being that entails logical contradictions cannot exist. To pretend that it’s a matter of faith is intellectual cowardice and pussy-footing sophistry. There is an issue: the existence of the biblical god. We do not have to consider faith or the supernatural, or philosophy of science. The biblical god is called “x”, yet it demonstrates qualities that are “not x”: a contradiction of logic, the system which all knowledge is predicated on. Therefore, either we abandon knowledge, or we don’t. If certain people want to abandon it and flee to faith, that is THEIR choice. But I won’t make that choice, and you know neither would you!

    This is good enough for a court of law, and it’s good enough here. You try raping someone then telling the jury “I had faith I was doing the right thing”, and see if that makes your claim verifiable or not. Again, hypocritical double-standards.

  19. Jon Says:

    My own reasoning goes as follows:

    If a god exists, no one has shown it. Therefore I live in skepticism until such a time.

    I’ve never seen evidence for any of the following assertions, that A) the existence natural world predicates the existence of a supernatural world, B) that a god, if it does exist, is necessarily benevolent, omnipotent, et cetera, or C) that holy books and holy men have anything valuable to say concerning god’s existence.

    A) Every time a religion sets the limits of observable inquiry, we seem to break those limits. After repeated such offenses, religion lacks the credibility to make claims of these kinds, and should stop. The “supernatural world” is simply a convenient mnemonic for “things science hasn’t yet figured out”. It’s an easy way to claim to know what you’re talking about when you really don’t.

    B) It does not necessarily follow that a god, if it does exist, is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

    For example, assuming a god does exist, how do we know that he is omnipotent? Maybe he only knows how to initiate big bangs, and nothing else. There exist no credible documentations of miracles, ghosts, visions, creation events, or any other such thing. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the creator of the universe has unlimited power. Maybe he just has that specific power.

    Assuming an omnipotent god exists, how do we know that he is benevolent? He could intervene in world affairs and then just erase everyone’s memory, could he not? He could be manipulating us all like dolls at all times, while giving us the illusion of consciousness. He could be doing any number of things which contradict his supposed benevolence. And it doesn’t say much, either, that the world is full of pestilence, inequity, iniquity, and war. It’s easy to ask the question, “If I were omnipotent, could I do a better job?” I could. Especially if I had this god with which to judge myself against.

    C)
    The holy books contradict one another and themselves. The prophets and priests contradict one another and themselves. They have no credibility whatsoever. They rely on inherited authority. They don’t earn it.

  20. armilnov Says:

    to evanescence

    “a god cannot be loving and also cruel and immoral at the same time…because of the atrocities and immorality committed by the biblical god, it is illogical to maintain that he is also all-loving and just.”
    Why not?
    Nobody knows what G-d is, not even you or me. Did it ever occur to you that maybe G-d is something that neither you nor I can encompass with our limited human minds?

    According to Bible humans are created in image of G-d. Look at yourself. Are you always just? Have you ever been cruel to someone? Have you ever been loving to someone?

    “faith [that] cannot be supported by proof makes it, BY DEFINITION, irrational!”
    Guess what: faith IS irrational. Faith that requires logical proof is not faith at all.

  21. Jon Says:

    Guess what: faith IS irrational.

    I respect you for saying that, armilnov. Most religious folks will try to argue that religious faith has a rational basis.

  22. tobe38 Says:

    @ armilnov

    Nobody knows what G-d is, not even you or me. Did it ever occur to you that maybe G-d is something that neither you nor I can encompass with our limited human minds?

    If you did actually read the article all the way through, I think you need to have another, closer look at this bit:

    Let me anticipate a theistic apologetic in advance: the inscrutability of god. It is said that we cannot know the ways of god, and even seemingly wrong or inhumane actions must have a higher purpose. This sort of defence comes from the same people who are quick to praise their god and all the good he supposedly does. This is a contradiction. And it is a big one! So I’ll address it now and get it over and done with:

    If you cannot say what is bad about god, then you cannot say what is good either.

    You cannot have it both ways. Either we are able to learn about god from his actions, or we’re not. Either we can make our own moral judgements about god, or we can’t. If we can’t, then no one has the capacity to read their holy book, know their god, and then declare him good. You must use your intellect and morality to make that determination; the same intellect and morality that you could use to declare him evil. And if god is essentially unknowable then we can’t say anything about him!

  23. armilnov Says:

    tobe38

    Your logical fallacy is in that you assume that human morality applies to G-d.

    Yes, G-d (supposedly) created morality for people. Does it follow from that that G-d himself has to follow it? Absolutely no! At the very least, nobody here proved that claim or provided any evidence to support that.

    Your attempt to apply human morality to G-d is out of scale — it is essentially like trying to apply Newtonian F=ma to quantum mechanics, or to black holes. Newtonian physics does not work for quantum mechanics — that does not mean that Newtonian physics is wrong, or that quantum does not exist (or that it defies all logical rules). It merely means that at a quantum scale, different rules apply for whatever reason to be.

    I encourage you to look into the window. Do you see the light? What is it — a stream of particles , or waves of electromagnetic energy? Guess what — it is BOTH. It is one of the greatest paradoxes of science, yet it exists. If humans were unable to decompose light into neat human-understandable concept, how can you decompose G-d into neat human morality?

  24. evanescent Says:

    armilnov said:

    Yes, G-d (supposedly) created morality for people. Does it follow from that that G-d himself has to follow it? Absolutely no! At the very least, nobody here proved that claim or provided any evidence to support that.

    In that case, whatever god says is right. So rape and paedophilia would be good if god said so, ok?

    On the contrary, I did prove in my article that we CAN apply our human meanings to everything, because if something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong everywhere, to everyone, at any time.

    Or are you a moral subjectivist?? I believe there are things that are always immoral because that is how the term is defined. Rape is always immoral, and so is murder. If you wish to use another term instead that’s fine, but that doesn’t stop these things being wrong, because the word wrong has a meaning. That meaning is a real thing, and it applies to all existence. Just as the word “earth” has a meaning and it does not mean “fish”. It doesn’t mean “fish” even if god wants it to, and even if it did, and ‘earth’ meant ‘fish’, the earth would still exist!

    I assume you’ve heard of the Euthyphro dilemma?

    Besides, whether human morality applies or not to god is actually irrelevant to this discussion. As I said in my post, and which Tobe repeated to you, IF we can use our morality to judge god to be good, then we can also use it to judge god to be bad.

    Although objective morality does exist and god would be bound by it, this really isn’t the issue here. This article was intended for those who claim to be able to judge god to be good, but who say that we cannot judge god to be bad. This is an illogical double-standard.

    So if we can’t apply human understanding to god, then we can say NOTHING about him. Of course, believers wouldn’t agree with this because they WANT to be able to say all sorts of things about him, unless it’s bad of course! That was the purpose of the article. Your analogy to science and wave-particle duality is totally misplaced.

  25. armilnov Says:

    I am not going to comment more, because I have to do other stuff 🙂

    “Besides, whether human morality applies or not to god is actually irrelevant to this discussion.”
    but it is exactly what you are engaging in — declaring that G-d is immoral, because he did things incompatible with human morality.

    “IF we can use our morality to judge god to be good, then we can also use it to judge god to be bad.”
    The emphasis on IF, which I do not believe is true. It is out of scale — it is like applying morality of ants to a human being (or reverse).

    You can say that morality of humans is absolute among humans — I agree with that. But morality is not an absolute thing in itself — animals, for instance, have no morals. To apply human morality to G-d is as absurd as to hold your pet morally responsible for his actions.

    Thanks for good discussion though.

  26. evanescent Says:

    Armilnov said:

    To apply human morality to G-d is as absurd as to hold your pet morally responsible for his actions

    Well, I don’t agree with your analogy at all, but I can agree to disagree with you on this, because what you’re effectively saying is that we can’t say anything about god.

    Which is fair enough. My only gripe was with those who want to say only good things, but never bad. It is a double-standard, and that was one of the points of the article.

    Thanks for taking part.

  27. armilnov Says:

    Just wanted to point something out to you (it just occurred to me).

    You said:
    “My only gripe was with those who want to say only good things, but never bad”

    Let us assume, for a second, that G-d can be judged, for the sake of the argument.

    So your argument goes like this:

    1. religious people point out only the good things about G-d

    2. you point out only the bad things about G-d (to counter-act the positive bias of religious people)

    You are not impartial. You throw out all good things about G-d — such as Act of Creation, for instance — just the same as religious folk throw out the bad things about G-d.

    That does indeed make you a religious believer in “Atheist Church” or maybe some “G-d is bad Church”, as 2008Voter said. The only difference is, while bias of Christianity towards G-d is obviously positive, your have an obvious bias too — only it is negative.

    just a thought.

  28. tobe38 Says:

    @ Armilnov

    You seem to have missed a vital point: We’re not listing the bad things God did to criticise him – because we don’t believe he exists! The Christian god is portrayed as ALL-loving, ALL-powerful and ALL-knowing. The purpose of Evanescent listing these atrocities was to show that such a god CANNOT logically exist. It doesn’t matter how many good things he did, if he did just ONE bad thing, then he can’t be ALL-good.

  29. evanescent Says:

    armilnov said:

    Just wanted to point something out to you (it just occurred to me).

    You said:
    “My only gripe was with those who want to say only good things, but never bad”

    Let us assume, for a second, that G-d can be judged, for the sake of the argument.

    Well if it can’t, then there is no point talking about it in ANY capacity, so this is a necessary assumption.

    So your argument goes like this:

    1. religious people point out only the good things about G-d

    2. you point out only the bad things about G-d (to counter-act the positive bias of religious people)

    Not necessarily. I wrote an article a few weeks back about the good things in the bible:
    https://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/nor-the-battle-to-the-strong-tue-3rd-jul-07/

    This post was to illuminate the horror in the bible for those ignorant of it. And there are those out there who believe there is no evil and horror in the bible. Are you blaming me for trying to increase knowledge?

    You are not impartial. You throw out all good things about G-d — such as Act of Creation, for instance — just the same as religious folk throw out the bad things about G-d.

    Aren’t you missing something? God is supposed to be ALL-loving and ALL-good. Therefore, god cannot be 95% good and 5% evil. I am well within my rights to point out evil actions committed by god in the bible, because they are contradictory to his supposed nature.

    That does indeed make you a religious believer in “Atheist Church” or maybe some “G-d is bad Church”, as 2008Voter said.

    That’s a non-sequitor. Pointing out the evil acts a character has committed doesn’t make me religious, any more than pointing out the mistakes Macbeth made makes me faithful. What you’ve said here makes no sense.

    The only difference is, while bias of Christianity towards G-d is obviously positive, your have an obvious bias too — only it is negative.

    My only “bias” if you call it that, is that I don’t believe god exists. You can no more call me biased against god for pointing out evil acts then you can call me biased against Hitler. For all his atrocities, I’m sure Hitler did a few nice things for people he cared about in his life. Should we take these into account to?

    I’m not the one with a contradictory belief system based around an all-loving being. Now, if I point out the problems with that belief system and evil acts committed by an all-loving being, what is the problem? You are equivocating for some reason that I cannot fathom; if I was talking about a human mass murderer would you be as generous in its defence as you are of the biblical god? I doubt it.

  30. 2008 voter Says:

    to evanescence:
    you are writing : “Of course you can verify a matter of faith! Moving a perfectly ascertainable issue to the realm of “faith” is dishonest and meaningless.”
    “hypocritical double-standards.”
    “To pretend that it’s a matter of faith is intellectual cowardice and pussy-footing sophistry”
    This is ironic: you are talking about dishonesty and cowardice and in the same time you still have my posting for the 2nd day “under moderation” .
    So , you keep pumping you responses to me and in the same time you are withholding my comments.
    You are censoring the discussion , and by doing that you are imitating your ability to withstand a dispute. You are very brave man indeed.
    So, if you want to maintain at least an illusion of your ability to dispute the issue , then post all my comments or, at least ,accept that fact that you are censuring this discussion (as any other religious zealot would do).

    2008 voter

  31. evanescent Says:

    2008voter, you are correct, after your first comment which added nothing to the discussion and was just an attack on me, I added you to the spam list (and you were left on there).

    Apologies if you felt I was censoring your comments, this wasn’t my intention.

    I think given the discussion since though, I’m sure you’ll agree that your initial comments were unjustified.

  32. tobe38 Says:

    @ D

    If you’re reading this, your silence is deafening.

  33. 2008 voter Says:

    2008 voter to evanescence::
    This is your blog and it is up to you what to do.But to post a response on my comment without posting comment itself is a very safe way to conduct a discussion. You do not want ( cannot? ) to argue with what I am saying ?This is fine and it is understandable: your blog ,your rules ! But ,then, do not post your responses against me without letting others to see my posting .To post comments against me without publishing my comments on which you are responding is an imitation of discussion it is a faking of a discussion .However it is a very safe to conduct a discussion :)) Way to go!! this is the only way how you can win!:)
    “I’m sure you’ll agree that your initial comments were unjustified.”
    Why would I agree with that? This is you who are cowardly hiding from a discussion not me.:))
    case closed!

  34. evanescent Says:

    2008voter. You’re right, this is my blog, but I’m not above the rules.

    Your comments are the only comments in the history of my blog I have ever held for moderation (except one by Geno by accident). What does that tell you?

    My only responses to you have been on those comments of yours that are visible! I haven’t made any responses on anything of yours that isn’t visible.

    Your ranting about “this is the only way I can win” I find rather childish. I think my article and everything I have said so far stands on its own merit, and you have said nothing relevant to THE ARTICLE ITSELF. If you really believe there is nothing to be said on the subject, I don’t understand why you commented.

    The reason I’ve not released your moderated comment is because by the time I got to it the discussion had already moved on and I felt it would’ve broken the rhythm to return. (As my blog this was my call to make.)

    Rather than get on my high horse, I can only apologise if I’ve given you the impression that I’ve been debating unfairly with you. I think anyone who’s read the article and all the comments so far can see I have made a very good case and supported it very well, thank you very much.

  35. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Coming to this a bit late:

    I thought it was a wonderful,illustrative post on why it is illogical and irrational to believe in a Biblical god. (That’s GOD, armilnov, not G-D). I certainly saw nothing above proving god’s overall non-existence.

    A couple of things:

    2008voter said:

    I am an atheist myself…

    I don’t believe this. Sorry, but how’s that for a statement of beliefs? You say four words to establish your bona fides, then proceed to expend the rest of your vocabulary and knowledge contradicting yourself. If you’re here because you really don’t know what you are, and need the give and take of healthy debate to help sort it out, then be honest, and tell us that. But don’t assert you’re an atheist, then open your mouth and prove the opposite.

    I suspect a lot of theists show up on atheist boards and blogs, say they are an atheist, then make theist statements hoping that we would take them seriously. It’s what you say that matters, not how you describe yourself. And I found no help on your blog. Nothing there about your atheism.

    So tell me, 2008, why exactly do you think you are an atheist?

    E. said

    Well, I don’t agree with your analogy at all, but I can agree to disagree with you on this, because what you’re effectively saying is that we can’t say anything about god.

    That phrase, “agree to disagree”, sounds so familiar. Where have I heard that recently? Hhmmmm. No matter, it’ll come to me.

    Anyway, don’t you really mean that rather than agreeing to disagree, you should be thanking him for his concession? Because that was one of your points, that we can’t say anything about god.

    One other thing. Who invented this thing called “faith”? I’d really like to know who invented this concept that allows a species with the most advanced gray matter in the history of life, to effectively shut off their brains, reject contrary evidence, and accept “truth” on the say-so of a book written two thousand years ago by a bunch of bronze age sheep herders. I want to know who this guy is so I can wring his scrawny little neck. He’s done more damage to the advance of human knowledge and understanding than anyone.

    Does anyone know his name? How about an email address?

  36. D Says:

    An absolutely brilliant post. I doubt any theist will actually be able to answer your points; they will just repeat the usual stuff.

    I beg to differ. Give me a few days to type up all the words, and the next thing you know, evanescent will desperately trying to prove me wrong, and we’ll both be saying the other is wrong, and I’ll have to keep repeating myself, and we’ll somehow end up on a completely different subject while simultaneously arguing over many other points including the main post, and we’ll possibly end up arguing over the definition of several words and quickly people like Span. will join in so I’ll be arguing several athiests at once and eventually everyone but evanescent and I will be the only ones left and the thread will not cease to end until evanescent makes another post and then we start over again. You know, the usual.

  37. D Says:

    I can’t argue with the original post yet, but this caught my eye.

    One other thing. Who invented this thing called “faith”? I’d really like to know who invented this concept that allows a species with the most advanced gray matter in the history of life, to effectively shut off their brains, reject contrary evidence, and accept “truth” on the say-so of a book written two thousand years ago by a bunch of bronze age sheep herders. I want to know who this guy is so I can wring his scrawny little neck. He’s done more damage to the advance of human knowledge and understanding than anyone.

    So I take it you think we shouldn’t be sure of anything and you don’t agree with being an atheist as atheism takes a load of faith to believe.

  38. evanescent Says:

    D, you don’t have to type up a really long reply.

    The way I see it you have two options:

    1. Claim that ALL the acts committed above by god and his followers ARE NOT evil.

    2. Admit that your god doesn’t exist.

    That’s all.

    D also said:

    So I take it you think we shouldn’t be sure of anything and you don’t agree with being an atheist as atheism takes a load of faith to believe.

    False dichotomy. The choice is not between accepting irrational beliefs without any evidence at all, or believing nothing. There is at least one other option: only believing in things for which there is evidence.

    You’re being disingenuous yet again: does it take faith to not believe in the Easter Bunny?? Your god is no different to the Easter Bunny.

    Instead of making that irrelevant statement above, D, why didn’t you address the issue that Span Inquis raised about faith??

  39. evanescent Says:

    Spanish Inquisitor said:

    One other thing. Who invented this thing called “faith”? I’d really like to know who invented this concept that allows a species with the most advanced gray matter in the history of life, to effectively shut off their brains, reject contrary evidence, and accept “truth” on the say-so of a book written two thousand years ago by a bunch of bronze age sheep herders. I want to know who this guy is so I can wring his scrawny little neck. He’s done more damage to the advance of human knowledge and understanding than anyone.

    I think this is really well said, I might even save it for reference in future articles!

  40. D Says:

    Your god is no different to the Easter Bunny.

    Then why isn’t the Easter Bunny argued over concerning existence?

    What I was saying is that it takes faith to believe that you’re right no matter what your opinion is on a subject. It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist, though you won’t admit this. There are plenty of things in life that take faith, and if you hate the idea of it, you are probably insecure.

    I’m going to make a post on the impression I’ve gotten from atheists as soon as I answer this post which should be later today or sometime tommorrow. I’m not sure when I’ll get to it. Have a nice day. God bless.

  41. D Says:

    I am an atheist myself but your answer is the silliest possible answer on the silliest possible question. Anybody who is familiar with Gödel’s incompleteness theorem would understand that any knowledge – even mathematics – is inherently incomplete and requires some postulates accepted on faith without a prove .
    To build reasoning of atheism on literal interpretation of Bible makes as much sense as to demand a mathematical formula of love. Religion is not science, it is a philosophy. It is the way of thinking and way of life. This way it is not better and not worse that any other way. Any attempt to frame a discourse about religion with common sense measures and terms of formal logic are silly and ignorant by definition.

    I like this guy.

  42. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    Then why isn’t the Easter Bunny argued over concerning existence?

    Are you trying to say the fact that people argue over god somehow proves it? Two thousands years ago people argued over Zeus, Aries, Neptune, etc. Were they real?

    What I was saying is that it takes faith to believe that you’re right no matter what your opinion is on a subject. It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist, though you won’t admit this. There are plenty of things in life that take faith, and if you hate the idea of it, you are probably insecure.

    There are very few things in life that require faith. Faith is the committed belief in a proposition for which there is insufficient or contradictory evidence. Faith only comes into play when we’re asked to believe ridiculous things.

    Unless evidence for god is presented, the default position is atheism. Despite what you desperately want to believe D, only Christians are convinced of Jesus. Only Muslims are convinced of Allah. Only Hindus are convinced of Vishnu. What a coincidence! You can’t all be right. But you can all be wrong!

    I’m going to make a post on the impression I’ve gotten from atheists as soon as I answer this post which should be later today or sometime tommorrow. I’m not sure when I’ll get to it. Have a nice day. God bless.

    At the end of the day D, although I don’t want to offend you or anyone else, I don’t really care if you think atheists are evil arrogant fools. What matters is whether there is proof for god or not. And the article I’ve presented here is a very very good reason why the main character in your book cannot exist.

    As for 2008voter, you said you liked that guy. Hmm, I wonder why. Could it be because of what he said, as oppose to the lack of structure or content in anything he said? It’s amazing how some people will side with anyone who seems to agree with them. Personally, I’ve known some very intelligent theists who would laugh out loud at what 2008voter and yourself say.

  43. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    From your article “Would you want someone you love to pay the price for your mistakes? Do you think that’s fair?”
    Hmm… abortion – who pays for the mistakes of the parents? Only an atheist or an evolutionist can come up with this abortion idea.

  44. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    You continue to show the ignorance that comes out of you inept bible training. But considering you were trained by a polytheist, non christian cult, I guess I need to accept your shortcomings.

    “Does god click his fingers and wipe them out of existence? Does he put them to sleep quickly and humanely? No. God decides that not only does every human and animal on the planet deserve to die, but only a slow terrifying tortuous death will suffice: drowning.”
    God pleaded with the people through Noah for 120 years to change their wicked ways and get on the boat. God’s choice was for the people to live. If I told you that the dam was ready to break and I am here to rescue you with my boat – who is at fault if you don’t get on? Why can’t you accept that all of these people failed themselves?

  45. tobe38 Says:

    @ Geno,

    God pleaded with the people through Noah for 120 years to change their wicked ways and get on the boat. God’s choice was for the people to live. If I told you that the dam was ready to break and I am here to rescue you with my boat – who is at fault if you don’t get on? Why can’t you accept that all of these people failed themselves?

    Can you quote the Bible verses please?

  46. Geno Says:

    tobe,
    look at Genesis 6:3 as God tells Noah that he will only put up with the people’s wickedness for another 120 yrs – and look at 1 Peter 3:20 to see that God waited patiently for those people to stop being and acting like ATHEISTS! 😉

  47. evanescent Says:

    Geno said:

    From your article “Would you want someone you love to pay the price for your mistakes? Do you think that’s fair?”
    Hmm… abortion – who pays for the mistakes of the parents? Only an atheist or an evolutionist can come up with this abortion idea.

    Did you read the Samaria judgment by god, where he threatens to murder children and pregnant women? Where was your anti-abortion rambling then?

    You continue to show the ignorance that comes out of you inept bible training. But considering you were trained by a polytheist, non christian cult, I guess I need to accept your shortcomings.

    If the way you intend to address my article is by ad hominems I’ll just ignore your comments.

    Funny that my training was so inept Geno, I’ve demonstrated time and again a better bible knowledge than you.

    Geno said:

    Look at Genesis 6:3 as God tells Noah that he will only put up with the people’s wickedness for another 120 yrs – and look at 1 Peter 3:20 to see that God waited patiently for those people to stop being and acting like ATHEISTS!

    So, it’s ok to drown millions of people as long as they’re atheists? So, not believing in god makes you wicked then? I take it if someone killed me and my atheist friends Geno, you’d sit back and be very happy to see that happen? Thanks for the illumination. Very revealing indeed. Ah Christianity, truly a religion of love!

  48. Geno Says:

    evanescent,
    Once again you show that you cannot address the issue. My point was that God tried for 120 yrs to get the people to change and get on the boat. You have not addressed that.

    As to abortion, atheists have killed over 50 million unborn human persons in the past 34 yrs in the US alone. That far outnumbers anything you think God did.

  49. evanescent Says:

    Once again you show that you cannot address the issue. My point was that God tried for 120 yrs to get the people to change and get on the boat. You have not addressed that.

    Urm, yes I did. I didn’t deny that god tried to get them to change their mind, although the bible is sketchy at best on the issue. What I said is, it’s ok to drown millions of people as long as their atheists yes? Now YOU haven’t replied to that.

    As to abortion, atheists have killed over 50 million unborn human persons in the past 34 yrs in the US alone. That far outnumbers anything you think God did.

    Irrelevant. Is murdering pregnant women right or wrong?

  50. tobe38 Says:

    @ Geno

    Genesis 6:3

    And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

    I have no Biblical training. Break it down for me, Geno, how does this support what you said? How is God even talking to Noah, he hasn’t been introduced yet?

    Peter 3:20

    Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

    You said:

    and look at 1 Peter 3:20 to see that God waited patiently for those people to stop being and acting like ATHEISTS!

    How fascinating. In this debate you said that the Bible never mentions atheism. Have you changed your ming? Please do not skip over that question, I’d really like an answer.

    Once again you show that you cannot address the issue.

    Geno, you are not dealing with the issues Evanescent has raised in the article. You’re picking on one of his examples which you think you can justify, does that mean you concede on all the others?

    As to abortion, atheists have killed over 50 million unborn human persons in the past 34 yrs in the US alone. That far outnumbers anything you think God did.

    Geno, you’re trying to pull us off topic into a discussion on abortion. We’d be here for ever. My views on abortion are here, feel free to comment there.

  51. tobe38 Says:

    I meant “mind” not “ming”.

  52. Geno Says:

    my comment about ATHEISTS was followed by a 😉 – try adding some context.

    You would have to show me that it was murder and not a justifiable act of war. You have misused terms all through out your many articles. Words have meanings – murder, rape and pedophilia are all terms used in a legal sense. If you wish to produce for me the verses, where God, outside of military strategy & actions tells people to MURDER another I will listen. (remember, murder and kill have different legal meanings – that’s why we have different words.)
    Can you point to the verses where God tells people to Rape another person? How about the sex with children – this verse I have to see. Now, I don’t want to hear your interpretation of verses, I want to see the real language there. They don’t have to start with “thus says the Lord” but try to keep it close.

  53. Geno Says:

    I forgot to add – yes MURDERING pregnant women is wrong. Now you have to show that MURDER occurred.

  54. Geno Says:

    tobe,
    “How fascinating. In this debate you said that the Bible never mentions atheism. Have you changed your ming? Please do not skip over that question, I’d really like an answer.”

    See atheists do think with one mind. Just as evanscent did, you too ignored my 😉 after my atheist comment.

  55. tobe38 Says:

    Geno,

    Ah! The get out of jail free smiley. I didn’t realise that was to indicate a deliberate, rhetorical contradiction.

    While you’re demanding strict Biblical quotes from Evanescent without any interpretation, can you please explain how Genesis 6:3 literally means:

    God pleaded with the people through Noah for 120 years to change their wicked ways and get on the boat. God’s choice was for the people to live.

  56. Geno Says:

    tobe,
    my point is that his article is based on flawed information. Evanescent misuses the scripture to prove his point. That is what I am commenting on.

    1.) God gives fair warning to his enemies
    2.) God offers a way out
    3.) people still refuse, so God acts.

    His (evanescent) use of terms like murder, rape and pedophilia just cannot be backed up and justified. Murder presumes innocence. Can you show me why these people did not deserve getting what they got? Do you know all of the circumstances and motivations? If not, then what makes you a judge of these situations? Perhaps what these people were guilty of was much more of a danger to the world and humanity than the punishment they received. Do you know? Perhaps wiping them out saved the rest of humanity – do you know?
    What do you know other than the little thoughts that bounce around in your 25 yr old head?

  57. evanescent Says:

    Ok Geno, you’re gone. And if you want to think that’s because I can’t handle your arguments and I’m afraid of debating with you go right ahead, but for the benefit of everyone else I’ll explain: your constant sniping and ad hominems aren’t welcome here. You have nothing worthwhile to say, and your constant stream of insults shows a frightened childish mind afraid that his favourite invisible friend is under threat, so instead of using argument and reason, you use insult and personal attacks.

    That’s why I’m blocking you from commenting here again.

  58. Geno Says:

    tobe,
    yes, Genesis 6:3 says, in light of the description given of mankind’s activities at the time, that God will put a limit on the life of mankind (not individuals).
    Noah, the passage says was a godly man. He spent the next 120 yrs building the ark and preaching repentance to the people (2 Peter 2:5). It didn’t take 120 yrs to build the ark – it took 120 yrs to preach God’s message of repentance. In other words, Noah told the people “get on the boat – it’s gonna rain!” – Now, if the people didn’t get on the boat, whose fault is that?

  59. evanescent Says:

    Now, for the adults who are left in the conversation: the definition of murder does not necessitate proof of innocence, and who makes that judgment call? Were all the babies and children guilty? Guilty of what?

    As for rape, the Midianite incident is self-explanatory, as are God’s threats to have David’s wives raped. The bible verses are all above.

    I made no accusations of paedophilia (but then I wouldn’t expect Geno to actually read another person’s opinion), but I did point out that the bible says nothing about the age of the “young girls”, just that they were virgins. You work it out.

  60. D Says:

    Despite what you desperately want to believe D

    Hey! That’s my phrase.

    At the end of the day D, although I don’t want to offend you or anyone else

    Sure you don’t…

    ______________________________________

    I haven’t started on my comment yet, but I’ll get started right now.

  61. D Says:

    I think I posted twice.

  62. D Says:

    Ok Geno, you’re gone. And if you want to think that’s because I can’t handle your arguments and I’m afraid of debating with you go right ahead, but for the benefit of everyone else I’ll explain: your constant sniping and ad hominems aren’t welcome here. You have nothing worthwhile to say, and your constant stream of insults shows a frightened childish mind afraid that his favourite invisible friend is under threat, so instead of using argument and reason, you use insult and personal attacks.

    That’s why I’m blocking you from commenting here again.

    WHAT!?!?! I can’t believe you are blocking Geno!! And not even for a good reason. You can call me despicable but Geno can’t say that you aren’t showing much intelligence?

  63. D Says:

    I think I have to shorten my post or just divide it.

    I’m finished with my post, evanescent. Have fun.

    If you’re asking me about a specific god though, say, the Biblical one, I’d say that I know he doesn’t exist. I know he doesn’t exist, because it is irrational and logically inconsistent to believe he does, just as I know that square circles don’t exist.

    That’s just an assertion. I expected more. This post doesn’t look like it’ll be much.

    It is said that we cannot know the ways of god, and even seemingly wrong or inhumane actions must have a higher purpose. This sort of defence comes from the same people who are quick to praise their god and all the good he supposedly does. This is a contradiction. And it is a big one! So I’ll address it now and get it over and done with:
    If you cannot say what is bad about god, then you cannot say what is good either.

    I don’t happen to be one of those who says you cannot understand God’s ways. Sure, you can’t fully understand God’s ways, but it is pretty simple to understand a lot of those ways. God’s actions are never evil, and that you can realize when you think about it. I’m sorry to say it, but there IS thinking involved, so try your best. Lol. Just poking fun at ya; I respect that you know what you are talking about to an extent. Seriously though, through deep thought, you can realize that all of God’s actions are beneficial and morally right.

    I want to show beyond reasonable doubt that the biblical god doesn’t exist. I intend to do this using proof by contradiction.

    Good luck with that.

    Since the biblical god (according to Christians or anyone else who believes in it) is supposed to be loving, just, and compassionate, actions which strongly indicate otherwise show a contradiction, meaning that such a being as defined above cannot exist. If theists want to use a different definition of god, that’s fair enough, but they won’t be talking about a loving, just, compassionate one.

    Just get to the point already! I am fully aware of your OPINIONS on the subject. Please skip to the explanation.

    no race in human history has ever been so monolithic, where every man, woman, and child, thought and believed the same thing. God decides to murder every living creature apart from a small family. Animals are also included in this slaughter, for some reason.

    For some reason? Did not the Bible JUST say that the humans were wicked excluding Noah? The humans did not all think the same thing, but they were all evil. Nowhere in history –including the Bible—does every human being believe the same thing. No, this doesn’t say that they believed the same thing, rather, it says that humans had all been overcome by sin and were wicked to a point where God decided to punish them for it. Earthly punishment. Not necessarily eternal punishment. The humans chose to be evil, so they were punished for it.

    Before you bring it up, no, the children would have suffered a much much much much much much much MUCH worse fate if they had stayed on earth living with so much sin and wickedness around them. No, Noah could not adopt all of the children, that’s way too many to take care of.

    Does god click his fingers and wipe them out of existence? Does he put them to sleep quickly and humanely? No. God decides that not only does every human and animal on the planet deserve to die, but only a slow terrifying tortuous death will suffice: drowning.

    Wouldn’t that leave Noah wondering? The humans were punished justly on earth, but they could have easily turned to God before they died, and the earthly punishment is nothing compared to eternal punishment or eternal life in Paradise.

  64. D Says:

    You know what, I think I’m just going to e-mail my response.

  65. D Says:

    Taking away Pharaoh’s free will and then punishing him for it is unfair to say the least. But to punish millions of people for the actions of one person is cruel and sadistic: the final plague god sends is to murder every firstborn of the Egyptians. Imagine that. The firstborn son, of every house, at any age, is murdered, all in the same night. Who was being punished here, and why? Was every Egyptian responsible for the Israelites captivity? “…and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.”

    God DOES harden Pharaoh’s heart a few times, but on the last plague, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. This shows that God wanted to display his power some, but still let Pharaoh decide, and on the last plague, Pharaoh hardened his own heart and even chased after the Israelites. So you can’t say that God took away Pharaoh’s free will then punished him for it.

  66. D Says:

    Numbers 15. What are you doing this Sunday? I’m going out with friends. We might take a walk up a hill or through the forest. If I was living in ancient Israel, I better be careful not to pick up sticks though!
    Don’t you think justice demands that the penalty for a crime should be proportionate to that crime?
    Let’s see what god thinks: “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day… And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”
    Imagine having masses of people around you, throwing stones at your body and head until you die from your injuries. This form of execution would be inhumane no matter what crime you committed, but picking up sticks??

    On the Sabbath day, no one was allowed to work. Why? I’m not quite sure, but it probably has something to do with the butterfly effect: One person revolts and the next thing you know, everyone has turned against you. That might be one reason. Later in the chapter, God tells the Israelites to put a blue tassel on their garments, and this tassel is to remind them to keep away from the sins their hearts and eyes are inclining them to commit. If I had to guess, I’d say that the sticks thing was to either/both show Israel that God should be followed and not rebelled against and/or keep the Israelites from starting a revolt (after all, if this guy could get away with this one sin, they might be inclined to commit a sin themselves).

    (Defending yourself from invasion is one thing. Killing soldiers in a war or occupation is one thing. Systematically invading other nations and wiping out all life in those cities is genocide. It has been attempted before, most notably by Hitler, and we all have our opinions of his character.)

    I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to leave the rest of the country in sin and suffering. Especially if they were still enemies and had the same hatred that they already had before. If the Israelites just killed the army, the women and children would be left to suffer and live in sin and eventually suffer a much more horrible fate. The Israelites could not adopt everyone. In one account or more, the Israelites gave the families to other countries so that they might have shelter.

  67. D Says:

    Why were non-virgin women killed but not virgin girls? You know why! They were used as sex slaves

    Oh come on! Did I not already explain this to you? Not to mention that that is the most absurd assertion ever asserted. That was just an opinion on your part. First you complain that they couldn’t adopt some of the people, but when they do provide shelter to the young girls, you accuse them of rape! What kind of argument is that?

    and rape

    There was no rape.

    But if this power exterminated every human and animal where you had grown up, you’d think them a despicable inhuman band of evil murderers. And you’d be right to.

    But what if you had lived in a society of murder and all kinds of immorality and suffering? I’d rather be dead than have a 95% chance of torture, suffering, and lots of pain before death.

    Even if Achan and his entire family were guilty, is being burned alive a reasonable consequence for stealing or conspiracy to steal?

    He wasn’t burnt alive. He was already dead. They cremated him. I don’t recall the Bible saying, “and they burned his family.”

    In the first book of Samuel, the Ark of the Covenant is stolen and then returned to the Israelites. When it returns, the Jews make the mistake of opening it and beholding the interior. What did our loving caring compassionate understanding all-knowing god do? He executed over 50,000 people. The next time you’re at a public gathering like a sports stadium, imagine everyone in there suddenly murdered. Reasonable?

    Mind telling us what chapter?

  68. D Says:

    2 Kings 2. The prophet Elisha is walking along a road when 40 children appear and start name-calling Elisha for being bald. Elisha curses them. No sooner did he do this, than two she-bears come out of the woods and tear the children to pieces.
    Are you a parent? Is your child a saint? Have they ever teased or tormented someone? Have they ever taken the mickey or acted foolishly? Imagine if you got home from work one day and the news was given to you that your young child had been ripped to pieces by a wild animal, for the “crime” of insulting a stranger about being bald.

    Children? The Bible said “youths,” and that means that they were teenagers (around that age). No, the bears did not tear them to pieces; they mauled them, but they did not kill them. If they had been killed, the Bible would have said that (the Bible tends to be very specific most of the time). I still cannot believe you said that the bears “tore them to pieces.” You have the talent of twisting words to benefit your argument; you should be a politician.

    10,000 prisoners of war were taken to a cliff edge, and thrown off one by one by one. Like lemmings falling to their deaths by the thousands. This is sickening mass murder, but because these 10,000 people weren’t god’s followers does that make it ok? Would you throw another human being off a cliff?

    OH COME ON!! No, but Amaziah was not doing that for God. As a matter of fact, here’s a verse you should look at that comes right after Amaziah commits such a wicked deed:

    2Ch 25:15 Therefore the anger of the LORD was aroused against Amaziah, and He sent him a prophet who said to him, “Why have you sought the gods of the people, which could not rescue their own people from your hand?”

    Now tell me God wanted Amaziah to do that.

  69. D Says:

    This is how god intends to punish an entire city: murder of children; murder of pregnant women. We are told that god is longsuffering, merciful, forgiving, and just…and in the same verse told that he will punish children for the crimes of their great grandfathers! How is punishing a person for the crimes of another person just? That is the very definition of anti-justice!

    Actually, evanescent, God said that this would happen, and not by God’s doing, but by Samaria itself.

    The atrocities we’ve covered above show a person who is anything but merciful and patient. Also remember that this from a person who is supposed to be infinitely wise and all-knowing, yet he loses his temper and lashes out like a spoilt brat for the slightest transgression!

    I believe that almost to be the most un-backed up statement I’ve ever seen, but there have been worse, all of them from you.

    In the NT, the emphasis changes to the afterlife, and burning people alive with fire for all eternity, for choosing not to follow god (or not knowing any better).

    GOD DOES NOT SEND PEOPLE TO HELL. I thought I already told you that about 1,000,000 times.

    The interpretation of god I have presented here is wrong. (Which I believe is virtually impossible to maintain after reviewing the evidence.)

    NOT EVEN CLOSE TO IMPOSSIBLE.

  70. D Says:

    But I do not believe that any moral, intelligent, rational person can possibly call what we have considered not evil.

    In that case, what you believe is wrong. I just showed you why what we have considered is NOT evil.

    I rest my case.

    You have yet to rest your case.

    I respect you and your beliefs, and although I respect that you at least believe in what you say, I expect another desperate attempt at my beliefs from you. I mean no disrespect or offense with what I am about to say, though I may be exaggerating: A 14 year old could have proved your post wrong.

  71. D Says:

    A part of that is missing. I don’t intend to argue with you. I explained my point well enough that you should not have any reason to object — well, no good reason anyway.

    Because you have kicked Geno off, I am preventing you from ever posting on my blog and I think I’ll erase your comments since there are not that many.

    God bless.

  72. D Says:

    @ evanescent

    Amazing. Normally, you answer right away, but this seems to be taking a while.

    Regardless, I just wanted to clarify that I have not meant any disrespect or offense with anything that I have said (at least I don’t think I have). I respect your ability to think things through and find problems in an argument, though you don’t always succeed in your efforts (no human is perfect). Truthfully, I enjoy debating as long as the debate is more challenging than aggrevating. Make sure not to get too wrapped up in all this arguing or you’ll go insane. 🙂 And seriously, have a nice day. 🙂 God bless.

  73. Jon Says:

    There’s no point arguing theology with religious folk. They have rationalizations for every argument you throw at them, none of which reside in their holy books.

  74. tobe38 Says:

    It’s like beaten wife syndrome: “No, he only did it that once, or maybe twice. He was drunk! He’s a good guy really. I was asking for it, I provoked him. He’s a good, sweet man. He only broke 6 of my ribs. He was really sorry afterwards. He’s promised me he’s going to change. I couldn’t leave him, I couldn’t live without him. He couldn’t live without me. He’s just got a bit of a temper, but who hasn’t? He’s a good man.

  75. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    God’s actions are never evil, and that you can realize when you think about it. I’m sorry to say it, but there IS thinking involved, so try your best. Lol. Just poking fun at ya; I respect that you know what you are talking about to an extent. Seriously though, through deep thought, you can realize that all of God’s actions are beneficial and morally right.

    At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. You can say all the good things you want about god, but if he acts evil then I’ll think he is.

    The humans did not all think the same thing, but they were all evil. Nowhere in history –including the Bible—does every human being believe the same thing. No, this doesn’t say that they believed the same thing, rather, it says that humans had all been overcome by sin and were wicked to a point where God decided to punish them for it. Earthly punishment. Not necessarily eternal punishment. The humans chose to be evil, so they were punished for it.

    Unfortunately, the bible doesn’t specify what “crimes” made them evil, so we can but guess.

    Your defence fails: it is ridiculous to suppose that every single being on the planet was evil. God made no attempt to distinguish between innocent and evil. This is obvious, since he also murdered all the animals too. What did they do wrong?! Worst still, children and babies would have been drowned to death too. Murdering the innocent along with the guilty is never just, regardless of your rationalisations.

    Before you bring it up, no, the children would have suffered a much much much much much much much MUCH worse fate if they had stayed on earth living with so much sin and wickedness around them. No, Noah could not adopt all of the children, that’s way too many to take care of.

    Again, this defence fails: god is all-knowing and all-powerful, are you seriously saying he could prevent this happening, or provide a better option than mass murder and killing of babies?

    I’m not god, but here is what I’d have done: click my fingers and get rid of all the deliberately evil people at once. Then, I’d have transformed the earth back into a paradise for Noah and his family, and all the innocent people and children would be kept alive. This way, no one innocent is murdered, no animals are wiped out, no damage is done to the earth, and no one suffers drowning (a hideous way to die).

    Wouldn’t that leave Noah wondering? The humans were punished justly on earth, but they could have easily turned to God before they died, and the earthly punishment is nothing compared to eternal punishment or eternal life in Paradise.

    This avoids the issue: killing the innocent along with the guilty is not justice. Drowning someone is the most deliberate sadistic way to kill them. It is not even a merciful death.

    Also, you’re overlooking the most absurd part of the text: god kills them all because they’re evil, then he promises never to do it again because they’re evil! What?! If man is inherently evil, what is the point murdering them for it and then feeling regret. God is a psychopath.

    God DOES harden Pharaoh’s heart a few times, but on the last plague, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. This shows that God wanted to display his power some, but still let Pharaoh decide, and on the last plague, Pharaoh hardened his own heart and even chased after the Israelites. So you can’t say that God took away Pharaoh’s free will then punished him for it.

    Even granting that Pharaoh had free will on the last plague, it was HIS decision to imprison the Israelites. The millions of firstborn adults, teenage boys, children, and babies in EVERY house being killed to punish ONE person is evil and unfair! If Allah did this in the Koran you’d call it despicable, so why the double standard here?

    I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to leave the rest of the country in sin and suffering. Especially if they were still enemies and had the same hatred that they already had before. If the Israelites just killed the army, the women and children would be left to suffer and live in sin and eventually suffer a much more horrible fate. The Israelites could not adopt everyone. In one account or more, the Israelites gave the families to other countries so that they might have shelter.

    What sin were the women and children living in?? Why didn’t god or the Israelites just teach them better?? Or was conversion or evangelising not bothered with back then? Why not remove the threat of military conflict (e.g. the army) and then help the survivors to get to know god better? Isn’t that the Christian thing to do?? No, it’s not, because Christianity wasn’t invented here, and this is the story of a Jewish god that is a ruthless deity of war, used to scare the Jews and their enemies.

    Oh come on! Did I not already explain this to you? Not to mention that that is the most absurd assertion ever asserted. That was just an opinion on your part. First you complain that they couldn’t adopt some of the people, but when they do provide shelter to the young girls, you accuse them of rape! What kind of argument is that?

    It’s not my opinion, virtually every bible scholar agrees that the Midianites girls were taken as sex slaves. The text is pretty transparent.

    But what if you had lived in a society of murder and all kinds of immorality and suffering? I’d rather be dead than have a 95% chance of torture, suffering, and lots of pain before death.

    What are you talking about? Being in a society were evil happens doesn’t make you evil. The earth contains evil people now, but that doesn’t make me one! And personally, I think life is a gift to be made the most of. Your defeatist attitude is not something I or many others share! You might prefer to die, but who are you to make that decision for other people?

    He wasn’t burnt alive. He was already dead. They cremated him. I don’t recall the Bible saying, “and they burned his family.”

    That is blatantly avoiding the facts! The bible DOES say that his family were killed too! Go back and read the passage I mentioned! What is your excuse for this?

    Mind telling us what chapter?

    D here wants to know which chapter contains the story of 50,000 people murdered for looking at a box. I have a better idea first D, since the listing is above: you tell us whether this is fair or not, regardless of what the bible says?

    Children? The Bible said “youths,” and that means that they were teenagers (around that age). No, the bears did not tear them to pieces; they mauled them, but they did not kill them. If they had been killed, the Bible would have said that (the Bible tends to be very specific most of the time). I still cannot believe you said that the bears “tore them to pieces.” You have the talent of twisting words to benefit your argument; you should be a politician.

    First of all, the words young are “young children”, which is exactly the same words used elsewhere in the bible to describe boys under the age of 12.

    The bible says the kids were torn to pieces, not mauled. You are blatantly changing the words of the bible. AND even if they were mauled (which they weren’t) does that make it ok??

    OH COME ON!! No, but Amaziah was not doing that for God. As a matter of fact, here’s a verse you should look at that comes right after Amaziah commits such a wicked deed:

    2Ch 25:15 Therefore the anger of the LORD was aroused against Amaziah, and He sent him a prophet who said to him, “Why have you sought the gods of the people, which could not rescue their own people from your hand?”

    Now tell me God wanted Amaziah to do that.

    D, are you blind?? Read the passage: Amaziah was punished for worshipping false gods!! He wasn’t punished for sending 10,000 people to their death! In fact, god says that these false gods couldn’t save the 10,000 people that Amaziah just killed. He didn’t mention the murder at all. READ your bible.

    Actually, evanescent, God said that this would happen, and not by God’s doing, but by Samaria itself.

    (Referring to his threat to murder children and pregnant women) God threatens this action as punishment, does it matter who he uses to commit the action?

    GOD DOES NOT SEND PEOPLE TO HELL. I thought I already told you that about 1,000,000 times.

    So many different contradictory interpretations of hell…how am I supposed to know which one your particular preference is? My mistake, here was I just reading the bible!

    In that case, what you believe is wrong. I just showed you why what we have considered is NOT evil.

    You haven’t even come close. You’ve just tried to rationalise evil. Perhaps that works in your mind, but in the mind of a just moral person, I don’t think so.

    A 14 year old could have proved your post wrong.

    Well maybe you should ask him for help then!

    Because you have kicked Geno off, I am preventing you from ever posting on my blog and I think I’ll erase your comments since there are not that many.

    I blocked Geno because of his constant personal attacks. That is the only condition under which I will block somebody on my blog.

    So, you’re taking Geno’s side because…. Oh wait, you both have the same invisible friend? Or is insulting posters on my blog ok because Geno’s a Christian?? Do you agree with his actions?

    Block me and delete my posts if you will. If you respect petty revenge over doing the right thing that’s your choice. (But then, you are a Christian after all).

    Truthfully, I enjoy debating as long as the debate is more challenging than aggrevating. Make sure not to get too wrapped up in all this arguing or you’ll go insane.

    This would be more believable if every theist I argued with didn’t ALWAYS end up getting personal. I wonder why that is.

    What Jon said is true: it doesn’t matter what I say, you will always rationalise evil away because you care about faith more than truth.

    What Tobe said is also spot on: you’re a victim D. A victim of abuse, only your abuser isn’t real. You apologise for him and say he isn’t that bad, and he must have had his reasons. I’ve heard this kind of thinking before, by apologists for the Nazis and Holocaust deniers.

    Do me a favour, pretend you’re reading the Koran and substitute “god” for “Allah” in the passages above, and then still tell me it’s not evil.

  76. D Says:

    It’s like beaten wife syndrome: “No, he only did it that once, or maybe twice. He was drunk! He’s a good guy really. I was asking for it, I provoked him. He’s a good, sweet man. He only broke 6 of my ribs. He was really sorry afterwards. He’s promised me he’s going to change. I couldn’t leave him, I couldn’t live without him. He couldn’t live without me. He’s just got a bit of a temper, but who hasn’t? He’s a good man.

    Make whatever assertions you want about my comments, I gave you a perfectly good explanation for each an every point evanescent gave. Some of those points she made were kind stupid if you ask me.

    I blocked Geno because of his constant personal attacks. That is the only condition under which I will block somebody on my blog.

    So, you’re taking Geno’s side because…. Oh wait, you both have the same invisible friend? Or is insulting posters on my blog ok because Geno’s a Christian?? Do you agree with his actions?

    Block me and delete my posts if you will. I blocked Geno because of his constant personal attacks. That is the only condition under which I will block somebody on my blog.

    So, you’re taking Geno’s side because…. Oh wait, you both have the same invisible friend? Or is insulting posters on my blog ok because Geno’s a Christian?? Do you agree with his actions?

    Block me and delete my posts if you will. If you respect petty revenge over doing the right thing that’s your choice. (But then, you are a Christian after all).

    I don’t recall any of Geno’s personal attacks. I can give you one of yours:

    If you respect petty revenge over doing the right thing that’s your choice. (But then, you are a Christian after all).

    I took Geno’s side because I agree with him. I may not have read much of what Geno wrote, but what I have read impresses me, so I take his side.

    So many different contradictory interpretations of hell…how am I supposed to know which one your particular preference is? My mistake, here was I just reading the bible!

    You were not reading the Bible. I doubt you’ve ever even picked up a Bible, seeing your post. The Bible does not say that God sends people to hell.

    First of all, the words young are “young children”, which is exactly the same words used elsewhere in the bible to describe boys under the age of 12.

    The bible says the kids were torn to pieces, not mauled. You are blatantly changing the words of the bible. AND even if they were mauled (which they weren’t) does that make it ok??

    This is why we disagree. You are using a less accurate translation of the Bible than I. I am using several very accurate translations at once while you are probably using something like NIV, which can make a difference. Mauled; as in attacked and injured. Sounds pretty fair to me. Besides, that wasn’t God’s doing. My Bible says youths, which I think means teens which would be an accurate translation. I honestly think the story is pretty funny. Some youths start making fun of the prophet who then curses them to be attacked and injured, but not killed. If they were killed, the Bible would have said that; it tends to be pretty specific.

    What are you talking about? Being in a society were evil happens doesn’t make you evil. The earth contains evil people now, but that doesn’t make me one! And personally, I think life is a gift to be made the most of. Your defeatist attitude is not something I or many others share! You might prefer to die, but who are you to make that decision for other people?

    Like anyone would want to suffer before they die. This is considering the fact that God exists. If yo claim the events in the Bible happened, then at least consider them a hypothetical scenario in which life after the life on earth is far better unless you choose eternal death, in which case, you should enjoy your life on earth while it is here.

    D, are you blind?? Read the passage: Amaziah was punished for worshipping false gods!! He wasn’t punished for sending 10,000 people to their death! In fact, god says that these false gods couldn’t save the 10,000 people that Amaziah just killed. He didn’t mention the murder at all. READ your bible.

    I did. I did not think that you would twist the words so much. It seems pretty clear to me the the Bible did not need to say that Amaziah was punished for killing the people as well as worshipping false gods that caused him to lead the people off in the first place. You called God violent because some guy push some people off a cliff. What is that?

    It’s not my opinion, virtually every bible scholar agrees that the Midianites girls were taken as sex slaves. The text is pretty transparent.

    Virtually every Bible scholar disagrees. You see? I can make a sweeping generalization, but it doesn’t have to be true. Although Bible scholars know that even if the girls were used as such, they weren’t raped. That’s different.

    This avoids the issue: killing the innocent along with the guilty is not justice. Drowning someone is the most deliberate sadistic way to kill them. It is not even a merciful death.

    Also, you’re overlooking the most absurd part of the text: god kills them all because they’re evil, then he promises never to do it again because they’re evil! What?! If man is inherently evil, what is the point murdering them for it and then feeling regret. God is a psychopath.

    You are a psychopath. Saying it does not make it true, evanescent. You should really try this new method called READING. Nowhere in the Bible, does it say God “regretted” His desicion. Maybe He regrets it, but not the way you are putting it. God never wanted to make the desicion in the first place, but He knew He had to. Quit making me repeat myself.

    At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. You can say all the good things you want about god, but if he acts evil then I’ll think he is.

    If God acts good you’ll think He is evil. If you pose a bad argument, I’ll think you are terrible when it comes to debate. I also think your morality is despicable as you think that children should suffer before they die and that they should live long enough in sin and suffering so that they don’t end up in Paradise. What kind of person are you?

    This would be more believable if every theist I argued with didn’t ALWAYS end up getting personal. I wonder why that is.

    I always end up getting personnal because that’s who I am. I compliment you, you insult me. I tell you that I have respect for both you and your opinion, and through implication, you call me an idiot. I try to give you advise, and you get angry. I win an argument, you refuse to accept that. That’s just how it works on your blog, and I don’t want to be a part of it. My mission is to follow Christ and help others. All I have accomplished here is getting yelled at for being “too personnal.” If Christians are not welcome here, rather despised, I am happy to leave. Although I can’t resist telling you that a 14 year old not only can defeat your argument, and 14 year old has defeated your argument, no matter how much you refuse to accept it.

    Have a nice day!:)
    God bless.

  77. D Says:

    Weird. It all ended up as a blockquote

  78. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    There’s no point arguing theology with religious folk. They have rationalizations for every argument you throw at them, none of which reside in their holy books.

    Jon

    The irony is in the term “rationalization”, which comes from the word, rational, meaning using reason. It’s really a sort of pseudo-reasoning process they use, when rationalizing their beliefs. They don’t see it, I’ll bet because they are always in a defensive mode, so they don’t see the forest for the trees. They take each issue as it’s presented, and use a simple rationale to support their defense, which, in a vacuum, does appear reasonable, but when compared to other issues and stances they take, is entirely inconsistent and hypocritical.

    I pointed to this post before, but I think it should be re-read and re-read and memorized by anyone arguing with a Christian.

    God exists because God exists because…

  79. tobe38 Says:

    @ D

    Are you saying you’re only 14? And you had no problem with Geno taking a cheap shot at me for only being 25?

    Just out of curiousity, do you agree with Geno that micro-evolution has taken place within species?

    Also, you haven’t commented on Evanescent’s reference in the main article to Numbers 15:32

    Numbers 15. What are you doing this Sunday? I’m going out with friends. We might take a walk up a hill or through the forest. If I was living in ancient Israel, I better be careful not to pick up sticks though!

    Don’t you think justice demands that the penalty for a crime should be proportionate to that crime?

    Let’s see what god thinks: “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day… And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”

    You skipped over it in your response. How do you reconcile this with a loving God?

  80. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Wait a minute. You people are arguing with a 14 year old?

  81. tobe38 Says:

    @ Span

    I’m not sure, I think so. I’m going off this little clue dropped by D,

    Although I can’t resist telling you that a 14 year old not only can defeat your argument, and 14 year old has defeated your argument, no matter how much you refuse to accept it.

    I think that’s the implication.

  82. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    I don’t recall any of Geno’s personal attacks. I can give you one of yours:
    If you respect petty revenge over doing the right thing that’s your choice. (But then, you are a Christian after all).
    I took Geno’s side because I agree with him. I may not have read much of what Geno wrote, but what I have read impresses me, so I take his side.

    It doesn’t surprise me that Geno impresses you. This is my blog, and Geno has always been welcome to comment, and so are you. I might find your arguments poor and your reasoning awful, but the only reason I’ll block someone is for constant personal attacks.
    I bet the thought of blocking me and deleting my posts from your blog gave you that buzz of righteousness that only Christianity or mass murder can give you eh?

    You were not reading the Bible. I doubt you’ve ever even picked up a Bible, seeing your post. The Bible does not say that God sends people to hell.

    I’m not going to dignify this with a response.

    This is why we disagree. You are using a less accurate translation of the Bible than I.

    Hang on, are you saying that god hasn’t made sure that ALL translations of the bible are perfectly accurate and understandable?

    Mauled; as in attacked and injured. Sounds pretty fair to me. I honestly think the story is pretty funny. Some youths start making fun of the prophet who then curses them to be attacked and injured, but not killed.

    For any onlookers, D here is saying that not only is young boys being torn to pieces by she-bears for teasing someone justified, it is FUNNY!
    It is unsurprising that D finds the other actions in the bible not evil, given this is his mentality. There is a phrase for people who find others being hurt and killed amusing: mentally ill.
    Oh, and the bible says the boys were torn to pieces, not mauled. Get over it.

    Like anyone would want to suffer before they die. This is considering the fact that God exists. If yo claim the events in the Bible happened, then at least consider them a hypothetical scenario in which life after the life on earth is far better unless you choose eternal death, in which case, you should enjoy your life on earth while it is here.

    But these people couldn’t just make their choice and live with it could they? They couldn’t just enjoy their life on earth whilst they were there, because god had his people murder them, young and old, for living how they wanted to live.

    I did. I did not think that you would twist the words so much. It seems pretty clear to me the the Bible did not need to say that Amaziah was punished for killing the people as well as worshipping false gods that caused him to lead the people off in the first place. You called God violent because some guy push some people off a cliff. What is that?

    This is pathetic. You’re not even offering a defence.

    Virtually every Bible scholar disagrees. You see? I can make a sweeping generalization, but it doesn’t have to be true. Although Bible scholars know that even if the girls were used as such, they weren’t raped. That’s different.

    Again, pathetic. This isn’t worth answering.

    You are a psychopath. Saying it does not make it true, evanescent. You should really try this new method called READING. Nowhere in the Bible, does it say God “regretted” His desicion. Maybe He regrets it, but not the way you are putting it. God never wanted to make the desicion in the first place, but He knew He had to. Quit making me repeat myself.

    Pathetic.

    If God acts good you’ll think He is evil. If you pose a bad argument, I’ll think you are terrible when it comes to debate. I also think your morality is despicable as you think that children should suffer before they die and that they should live long enough in sin and suffering so that they don’t end up in Paradise. What kind of person are you?

    So murdering children is ok, as long as they go to heaven? Hmmm.

    I always end up getting personnal because that’s who I am. I compliment you, you insult me. I tell you that I have respect for both you and your opinion, and through implication, you call me an idiot.

    I’m soooo sorry D, I really am. So when you said: “you are a psychopath” above, you meant that I’m a NICE psychopath! How could I have misunderstood you?!

    I win an argument, you refuse to accept that. That’s just how it works on your blog, and I don’t want to be a part of it.

    I think you’re confusing fantasy with reality. But as a Christian you have plenty of experience doing that.

    My mission is to follow Christ and help others.

    Why not go around killing children and babies of atheists? You’ll make sure they go to heaven, and because you’re acting in god’s name, he won’t even mind the murder of children!

    All I have accomplished here is getting yelled at for being “too personnal.”

    You mean “personal”. Personal attacks of any kind aren’t welcome here. There is a difference between saying “atheists are losers” and saying “you are a loser!”

    If Christians are not welcome here, rather despised, I am happy to leave. Although I can’t resist telling you that a 14 year old not only can defeat your argument, and 14 year old has defeated your argument, no matter how much you refuse to accept it.

    It all makes sense now!

  83. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    For any onlookers, D here is saying that not only is young boys being torn to pieces by she-bears for teasing someone justified, it is FUNNY!
    It is unsurprising that D finds the other actions in the bible not evil, given this is his mentality. There is a phrase for people who find others being hurt and killed amusing: mentally ill.

    Or at a minimum, juvenile.

  84. evanescent Says:

    Agreed.

  85. D Says:

    @span.

    Wait a minute. You people are arguing with a 14 year old?

    Yes, I posted a fourteen year old’s response, and it couldn’t be any funnier.
    ______________________________________
    @ span and eva,

    Actually, I am saying that having some teens making a prophet mad so the prophet makes bears maul them is somewhat humerous. Where did the Bible say that they were killed or even seriously hurt? It just said some bears attacked them. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe he really did make bears kill them. Regardless, that is his mistake, not God’s. Sure, that sounds a bit odd (thinking that to be funny), but that doesn’t make Christianity violent.

    I apologize for any misunderstandings.

    I used a fourteen year old’s argument, and I agree with every bit of it. Although I love the idea of you all being outsmarted by a 14 year old, so I had to break the bad news (or for me, good news) to you that I used a 14 year old’s argument. Quite a good argument, though, wouldn’t you say?

    Oh, and the bible says the boys were torn to pieces, not mauled. Get over it.

    Tell me then, what version of the Bible are you using, 3rd grader? I apologize for the insult, but that was just pathetic (I know, pathetic is your favorite word for the week, but I had to use it).

    It doesn’t surprise me that Geno impresses you. This is my blog, and Geno has always been welcome to comment, and so are you. I might find your arguments poor and your reasoning awful, but the only reason I’ll block someone is for constant personal attacks.
    I bet the thought of blocking me and deleting my posts from your blog gave you that buzz of righteousness that only Christianity or mass murder can give you eh?

    I don’t remember any personnal attacks; a quote with a link to the attack(s) would be nice. Actually, blocking you was mostly a burning sensation often refered to as sympathetic anger (hey look! the word “pathetic” again!). Mass murder? Yeah, that statement shows intelligence.

    __________________________________________

    lol. This is too much fun. First I give you an argument from a 14 year old that is too much for you to handle while simultaneously looking up verses in the Bible so as to understand more clearly and I get to study them (which I enjoy). Then, I get a bunch of angry responses (as expected) while getting to enjoy the fact that even you cannot stand up to a 14 year old’s argument. To me….that’s hilareous.

    I’m not going to dignify this with a response.

    I didn’t expect you to respond; I expected you to be unable to answer, and I believe that I was right.

    This is pathetic. You’re not even offering a defence.

    Sure I wasn’t.

    I’m soooo sorry D, I really am. So when you said: “you are a psychopath” above, you meant that I’m a NICE psychopath! How could I have misunderstood you?!

    lol. This is too funny.

    Seriously though, where did “psychopath” come into this? I was responding to your response to the advice I gave you as I told you that I enjoy a good debate as long as the debate isn’t aggrevating. The word “psychopath” did not have anything to with that.

    I think you’re confusing fantasy with reality. But as a Christian you have plenty of experience doing that.

    Wonderful argument. Thanks for the compliment. I wasn’t aware that if you are a Christian, you automatically lose every argument. I’m sorry for not knowing that. You realize I could say the same thing to you only replace the word Christian with the word Atheist?

    Why not go around killing children and babies of atheists? You’ll make sure they go to heaven, and because you’re acting in god’s name, he won’t even mind the murder of children!

    This is getting stupid, eva. Now you are just proving my point that you are trying to win arguments with insults and mud-slinging.

    It all makes sense now!

    When did I say that I was the 14 year old? I just said a 14 year old defeated your argument, but I didn’t say that I was the 14 year old. Although I agree completely with the argument. I added in a few comments in there myself.

    I apologize for any misunderstandings I may have caused.
    _____________________________________________
    I’m sorry, eva. I didn’t know that when you said the word “personnal,” you meant personnal
    attacks. Of course, you DID blockquote my paragraph in which I gave you advice, which is probably where this problem started. My apologies, but I advise you be more specific or at least quote the appropriate words for the appropriate reasons at the appropriate time. Otherwise, you’ll cause some confusion.

    ___________________________________________

    I’ve never felt such a strange sense of pity, aggrevation, and happiness. I pity you although you aggrevate me while at the same time I feel a kind of Christ-like love. Must be what happens when you argue with atheists (or just you strange people). Chances are, though, it is really that I am going insane from so much arguing…yeah, probably the second one…

    Have a nice day.
    God bless.:)

  86. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Tell me then, what version of the Bible are you using, 3rd grader?

    New International Version

    23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Go on up, you baldhead!” they said. “Go on up, you baldhead!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

    New American Standard Bible

    23Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and (AB)mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!”

    24When he looked behind him and saw them, he (AC)cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.

    25He went from there to (AD)Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

    King James Version

    23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

    24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

    25And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.

    New King James Version

    23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”
    24 So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
    25 Then he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

    Young’s Literal Translation

    23And he goeth up thence to Beth-El, and he is going up in the way, and little youths have come out from the city, and scoff at him, and say to him, `Go up, bald-head! go up, bald-head!’

    24And he looketh behind him, and seeth them, and declareth them vile in the name of Jehovah, and two bears come out of the forest, and rend of them forty and two lads.

    25And he goeth thence unto the hill of Carmel, and thence he hath turned back to Samaria.

    New Life Version

    23 Then he left there and went to Bethel. On the way, some young boys came out from the city and made fun of him. They said to him, “Go up, you man with no hair! Go up, you man with no hair!” 24 He looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came from among the trees and tore up forty-two of the boys. 25 Elisha went from there to Mount Carmel, then returned to Samaria.

    English Standard Version

    23He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24And he turned around, and when he saw them,(W) he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. 25From there he went on to(X) Mount Carmel, and from there he returned(Y) to Samaria.

    OK. That’s it for now. There are a lot more versions that even a third grader can look up.

  87. D Says:

    I’m using NKJV. Well then, I guess the only option is that Elisha was wrong to do so or that he wasn’t. Have you considered the fact that they weren’t just calling him bald? Of course the author couldn’t write everything down, so he paraphrased it. Rend doesn’t exactly mean kill, so obviously the bears cause injury, but that does not necessarily mean that the youths were killed. If they were killed, they must have been insulting Elisha pretty bad. I’m sorry that the Bible wasn’t completely specific, but that does not mean that it means whatever you want it to. Before you even think of saying that same thing to me, remember that I am not. I am giving every possibility to show to you that you can’t just take the Bible and define the words as you please.

    I still think the story is somewhat humerous. Lighten up.

    Regardless, you can’t blame God or Christianity. Only Elisha or the youths.

  88. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Humorous? (humerous means of or relating to the humer, a bone in your arm) Whether they were mauled, rent or tared (torn), I don’t think it was a very pleasant experience for those youth who’s sole infraction was making fun of Elisha’s male pattern baldness. Have you ever seen what a bear can do to a human? It’s not pretty. Check it out here, here and here. Still think it’s humerous?

    C’mon Derek. Fess up. You’re the 14 year old, aren’t you? Bored with school? Need something fun to do? Thought you’d taunt the atheists? Have you got it out of your system yet? Wait, let me guess. This is Sunday School project, right? Go find some atheists and practice your apologetics on them?

    Don’t lie. God won’t be happy with you if you lie.

  89. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Hmmm. My guess is we won’t hear from him until after school’s out.

  90. D Says:

    Humorous? (humerous means of or relating to the humer, a bone in your arm) Whether they were mauled, rent or tared (torn), I don’t think it was a very pleasant experience for those youth who’s sole infraction was making fun of Elisha’s male pattern baldness. Have you ever seen what a bear can do to a human? It’s not pretty. Check it out here, here and here. Still think it’s humerous?

    I didn’t look at the links, just to inform you. I’m quite aware how dangerous bears are. As a human, I am naturally inclined to find humor at others’ expense. I know it isn’t right, but that is just my nature.

    _______________________________

    Is school out already, Span?

  91. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Is school out already, Span?

    Obviously. You replied. But please, look at the links. I want to hear you laugh.

  92. tobe38 Says:

    D,

    If you’re still there, I’m still waiting for your response to Numbers 15:32, the stoning of the evil sabbath stick gatherer.

  93. D Says:

    I apologize; my computer broke down or I would have replied sooner.

    _____________________________________________

    Reread my comments, tobe, I’m positive I addressed that. If not, that’s fine. I said a part of it was missing, and I apologize if that happened to be the Numbers part. Look again, and if you cannot find it, I might as well address it, although it was not my original intention to address every little point. I would look myself, but I have not the time.

    ________________________________________

    I’m really not interested with arguing with any of you anymore. As soon as I reply to tobe, I’m leaving. At least for a while. It has been great fun debating with you all, even if you are a bit aggrevating (no offense). I respect and acknowledge your reasoning, regardless whether you are right or wrong.

    _________________________________________

    Believe what you want about my age, Span.; my argument never changes; one’s age does not affect one’s argument. I got the argument from a 14 year old, and I could not resist breaking that news to you; it was too good to pass up. Although Span was the only one to say anything about that, I decided to be sure to disspell any false thoughts concerning that subject.

    _____________________________________________

    Have a nice day, friends.
    God bless.

  94. evanescent Says:

    Instead of apologising for missing the response out D, and promising to present it if necessary, why didn’t you just save time and address it anyway?

    For the sake of anyone who’s not sure that the issue is or to save scrolling up through pages of comments, Tobe asked D’s opinion of the man who was stoned to death for picking up sticks.

    D has yet to reply.

  95. D Says:

    Why save you the time scrolling if you don’t save me the time scrolling?

    Here’s a quote from my comment that you obviously missed.

    On the Sabbath day, no one was allowed to work. Why? I’m not quite sure, but God rested on that day, and although that may be the reason, another reason is it probably has something to do with the butterfly effect: One person revolts and the next thing you know, everyone has turned against you. That might be one reason. Later in the chapter, God tells the Israelites to put a blue tassel on their garments, and this tassel is to remind them to keep away from the sins their hearts and eyes are inclining them to commit. If I had to guess, I’d say that the sticks thing was to either/both show Israel that God should be followed and not rebelled against and/or keep the Israelites from starting a revolt (After all, if this guy could get away with this one sin, they might be inclined to commit a sin themselves and eventually, Israel would end up a wicked, despicable, and evil people.).

    Now that I’ve answered, I feel no reason why I should stay here and repeat myself as I have had to do many many times.

    I propose that we agree to disagree, because this argument does not seem to be going anywhere, nor will it get anywhere.

    I propose we agree to disagree. Agreed?

  96. D Says:

    sorry, it didn’t end up in a blockquote as I had intended.

  97. tobe38 Says:

    D,

    My apologies for missing that section you quoted, I skimmed over it because it was in blockquotes.

    What, if anything, would God have to do for you to consider his actions evil?

    Ironically, I’ve just written an article on agreeing to disagree, and to be completely honest Derek, I had you in mind (among others) when I wrote it.

  98. D Says:

    My apologies for missing that section you quoted, I skimmed over it because it was in blockquotes.

    No problem.:)

    What, if anything, would God have to do for you to consider his actions evil?

    He would have to torture someone with the intention of being evil, and He’d have to make that clear.

    Ironically, I’ve just written an article on agreeing to disagree, and to be completely honest Derek, I had you in mind (among others) when I wrote it.

    Cool. I think I’ll check that out when I can.

  99. evanescent Says:

    No D, I will not agree to disagree. This conversation is not at a stalemate because we have both presented excellent cases and our disagreements are unresolvable.

    This argument is at a stalemate because I have presented an excellent argument and you won’t admit defeat.

    Murder is wrong. Genocide is wrong. Rape is wrong. Even threatening to have pregnant woman and child murdered is evil. Stoning a man to death for picking up sticks is wicked and unjust. I cannot “agree to disagree” because I have a conscience, and my morality forbids me from compromising when I feel something is wrong.

    I’m surprised you wish to “agree to disagree”, after all, on your blog you say:

    I am told that I am quite intelligent (I honestly hope that does not sound as if I am complimenting myself, because I am not), and it isn’t difficult at all for me to defend the Bible regardless of the fact that I haven’t read the whole thing yet.

    I made a comment on your blog by the way, giving you some advice, which you have moderated. This is unfortunate. I’ll paraphrase the advice here:

    It’s best not to start off by saying how clever you’ve been told you are. It looks like you’re trying to gain credibility up front. People will judge your intelligence based on what you write and how, not on how clever some people have apparently told you you are.

    However D, your concession on this argument is gratefully received. It takes a big man to be able to admit defeat, and surely turning the other cheek is truly the Christian thing.

  100. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    He would have to torture someone with the intention of being evil, and He’d have to make that clear.

    Why torture, not kill?

    How exactly would he make that clear? Let’s imagine:

    “Ok everyone, I’m going to have hundreds of people throw rocks at a man’s head until his skull is caved in and he dies of his injuries. This is what you get for picking up sticks on a certain day. But, I want to make it clear that I’m loving and caring, and want only what’s best for mankind. By the way, I’m very merciful, just, and slow to anger!”

    Hmmm. We judge people by their actions, not just by what they say.

  101. D Says:

    No D, I will not agree to disagree…
    This argument is at a stalemate because I have presented an excellent argument and you won’t admit defeat.

    I can’t believe what I’m hearing, yet I can, since it is coming from you.

    It’s best not to start off by saying how clever you’ve been told you are. It looks like you’re trying to gain credibility up front. People will judge your intelligence based on what you write and how, not on how clever some people have apparently told you you are.

    I was explaining why I don’t need to read the entire Bible in order to defeat an atheist’s argument.

    _____________________________________________

    I believe I have thoroughly defeated your argument, and I don’t feel a need to repeat myself. If you won’t agree to disagree, I’ll just take that as an admition of defeat, and leave.

  102. D Says:

    You’re right, I checked the spam comments, and there it was (your comment). I blocked you, so you’ll always be marked as spam, and I have no problem with that. I actually took your advice (I know, a miracle), and I changed my post. I didn’t realize how bad it all sounded. Thanks.

    God bless.

  103. evanescent Says:

    Ok D, I’ll let you leave and pretend you’ve won. You can have the last word if you want to reply to this, that’s ok.

    (Note: trying to defend someone who kills people for picking up sticks by picking up your ball and storming off doesn’t mean you won the argument, it just means you’ve forfeited without realising it.)

    If your ambition is to write about your own beliefs, then write away until your heart’s contents. But another word of advice: please don’t think you’re kidding anyone or convincing anyone. I’m sure a few people think you’re clever (fellow believers I’m sure), and maybe you are bright for a teenager (which I’m guessing you are), but you’re in for a shock when you debate properly with atheists. I’m telling you this for your own good: your critical thinking and reasoning needs work, and your knowledge of religion and philosophy needs (much) improving. I’m saying this in the hope that one day when you acquire the necessary skills to argue with people, you might even see all the flaws in your beliefs. Here’s hoping.

    As for your blog, you blocked me because I blocked Geno. You failed to mention that I blocked Geno because he was being insulting. (Incidentally I’ve since unblocked Geno now.) I didn’t delete his comments, but you felt the need to not only block me, but delete all my comments on your blog! Why is that I wonder? And why aren’t I blocking you? Could it be because I trust my readers to make their own minds up, and because I have nothing to fear? Hmmm.

    I noticed you changed your blog based on my suggestions. Funnily enough, my suggestions weren’t enough for you to allow the comments, or not pretend that the alterations weren’t your idea. 😉 You’re an interesting one, D.

    By the way, this is what D has to say about his debates on my blog and others:

    It still is not hard for me to defend the Bible, and I have yet to lose a debate. I have merely started arguing with atheists, and found that it isn’t that hard for me, then I thought, “Is it this easy for everyone else?” I doubt so.

    So, offering to “agree to disagree” is, in your mind, a victory. It’s funny that you once accused me of arrogance. I especially love the “I’ve yet to lose an argument; is it this easy for everyone else? I doubt it.” Hilarious. And I mean that genuinely, I did laugh pretty hard.

  104. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Yes. That was truly laughable. Reminds me of the self-adulation of Mohammad Ali in his prime. “Floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee”. Fortunately, Ali had the right stuff to boast about, D doesn’t.

  105. D Says:

    Agreeing to disagree isn’t a victory. I won the argument, I believe, but since you refuse to accept it, I asked if you’d agree to disagree.

    I’m sorry if my post sounds bad when you take it out of context, but I don’t really care. I’ll just make the post a draft again and edit it so you can’t take it out of context and make it sound like I’m gloating, if that makes you happy.

    ________________________________________

    Ahaziah was 22.

  106. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    Ahaziah was 22.

    Interesting.

    2 Kings 8:26 agrees with you:

    Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.

    But 2 Chronicles 22:2 doesn’t:

    Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.

    So D, which is it?

    (And before you say these are different people, Ahaziah’s mother is the same in both verses.)

  107. D Says:

    I’ll let Clarke’s study notes answer for me.

    2Ki 8:26 –
    Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign – In 2Ch_22:2, it is said, forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; this is a heavy difficulty, to remove which several expedients have been used. It is most evident that, if we follow the reading in Chronicles, it makes the son two years older than his own father! for his father began to reign when he was thirty-two years old, and reigned eight years, and so died, being forty years old; see 2Ki_8:17. Dr. Lightfoot says, “The original meaneth thus: Ahaziah was the son of two and forty years; namely, of the house of Omri, of whose seed he was by the mother’s side; and he walked in the ways of that house, and came to ruin at the same time with it. This the text directs us to look after, when it calleth his mother the daughter of Omri, who was indeed the daughter of Ahab. Now, these forty-two years are easily reckoned by any that will count back in the Chronicle to the second of Omri. Such another reckoning there is about Jechoniah, or Jehoiachin, 2Ki_24:8 : Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign. But, 2Ch_36:9, Jehoiachin was the son of the eight years; that is, the beginning of his reign fell in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, and of Judah’s first captivity.” – Works, vol. i., p. 87.

    Although I agree mainly with this one

    Here Ahaziah, . . . king of Judah, is said to have been twenty-two years old when he began to reign; in 2Ch_22:2 his age is given as forty-two years. Most evidence points to twenty-two as the correct age. The other figure is probably a copyist’s error.

    These are direct quotes.

    Here’s one from Gill.

    2Ch 22:2 – Forty two and years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign,…. In 2Ki_8:26, he is said to be but twenty two years old at his accession to the throne, which is undoubtedly most correct; for this makes him to be two years older than his father when he died, who was thirty two when he began to reign, and reigned eight years, 2Ch_21:20, different ways are taken to solve this difficulty; some refer this to Jehoram, that he was forty two when Ahaziah began to reign, but he was but forty when he died; others to the age of Athaliah his mother, as if he was the son of one that was forty two, when he himself was but twenty two; but no instance is given of any such way of writing, nor any just reason for it; others make these forty two years reach to the twentieth of his son Joash, his age twenty two, his reign one, Athaliah six, and Joash thirteen; but the two principal solutions which seem most to satisfy learned men are, the one, that he was twenty two when he began to reign in his father’s lifetime, and forty two when he began to reign in his own right; but then he must reign twenty years with his father, whereas his father reigned but eight years: to make this clear they observe (b), as Kimchi and Abarbinel, from whom this solution is taken, that he reigned eight years very happily when his son was twenty two, and taken on the throne with him, after which he reigned twenty more ingloriously, and died, when his son was forty two; this has been greedily received by many, but without any proof: the other is, that these forty two years are not the date of the age of Ahaziah, but of the reign of the family of Omri king of Israel; so the Jewish chronology (c); but how impertinent must the use of such a date be in the account of the reign of a king of Judah? all that can be said is, his mother was of that family, which is a trifling reason for such an unusual method of reckoning: it seems best to acknowledge a mistake of the copier, which might easily be made through a similarity of the numeral letters, מב, forty two, for כב, twenty two (d); and the rather since some copies of the Septuagint, and the Syriac and Arabic versions, read twenty two, as in Kings; particularly the Syriac version, used in the church of Antioch from the most early times; a copy of which Bishop Usher obtained at a very great price, and in which the number is twenty two, as he assures us; and that the difficulty here is owing to the carelessness of the transcribers is owned by Glassius (e), a warm advocate for the integrity of the Hebrew text, and so by Vitringa (f): and indeed it is more to the honour of the sacred Scriptures to acknowledge here and there a mistake in the copiers, especially in the historical books, where there is sometimes a strange difference of names and numbers, than to give in to wild and distorted interpretations of them, in order to reconcile them, where there is no danger with respect to any article of faith or manners; and, as a learned man (g) has observed of the New Testament,”it is an invincible reason for the Scripture’s part, that other escapes should be so purposely and infinitely let pass, and yet no saving and substantial part at all scarce moved out of its place; to say the truth, these varieties of readings, in a few by-places, do the same office to the main Scriptures, as the variation of the compass to the whole magnet of the earth, the mariner knows so much the better for these how to steer his course;”and, with respect to some various readings in the Old Testament, Dr. Owen (h) observes, God has suffered this lesser variety to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search of his word

    No, they are not people I know personally, but they are true Bible scholars, and they make a lot of sense. My favorite one is Gill, since Gill used everyone’s explanations then gave his own.

    Are you satisfied now?

  108. evanescent Says:

    Hi D. I am not totally satisfied with the explanation, but since this is one of many contradictions in the bible I am not intent on debating the explanation offered, rather let me ask:

    If it’s a copying error, doesn’t that mean that the bible isn’t actually inerrant. How many other copying errors might there be? Don’t you think the idea that god has allowed some “lesser” errors to slip through is the ultimate ad hoc unfalsifiable theory? Isn’t this just like saying: “the bible contains absolute no errors, except for the small ones that god allowed to happen.” How convenient.

  109. D Says:

    I may not know where you’re getting your ideas from, eva, but I do know that not all the symbols in Greek/Hebrew (it depends on if you are talking about the New/Old Testament) look the same. It is a mistake that could have easily happened in the copying process, but you shouldn’t try and use the excuse, “How do you know if there aren’t more errors?” because that’s just a stupid argument, as you well know. If the numbers looked that similar, they could have easily been mixed up, but you know as well as I do that there aren’t really that many symbols in either language that look that similar. I don’t care if you flat out say I’m wrong, you know I’m right and these scholars know what they’re talking about. If you still don’t believe me, then look at the original text yourself and study it. Then try to copy it all down. I garuntee I will find more than one error in your translation. The teams that translate and copy the Bible check themselves many times, and they know what they are doing, but they cannot possibly get everything perfect.

    Now then, will you finally accept defeat or agree to disagree, because I know that I did not lose this argument, and therefore you are left with the two options:

    1: Accept defeat.

    2: Agree to disagree.

    If I were you, I’d think about this before replying with a heated remark as I well know you will do.

    If you reread everything or just look into the Bible yourself or ask a Bible scholar, you will probably find that you are wrong. I say probably, because it is unlikely that even if you are proven wrong, you will accept that Christians are right.

    If you don’t choose number 1, at least make things easy on yourself and agree to disagree, which would be wiser than going on stubbornly with this useless attempt to try to prove me wrong. You know that neither of us will back down, so just agree to disagree. At least for a while. We have reached a stalemate because whoever is wrong isn’t accepting defeat, whom I believe to be you unless you can show me that I’m wrong. If you I am wrong, you should be able to show me in a simple outline and by breaking it down more, because your argument is flawed in its current state. I won’t even try to explain myself to you. I already have explained everything to you, and I know that you refuse to admit defeat, especially to a Christian, not to mention that you can’t change a person’s mind over the internet, but you sure can give that person something to think about.

    Now please, for the sake of everyone reading, agree to disagree or admit defeat, because this argument is getting nowhere.

  110. D Says:

    I missed a part.

    No the Bible has no errors, but the copies might. The original text is what matters more. There have been errors in the copies found many times in many places, but they are improving. Still, the original Bible is without error.

  111. D Says:

    Hey, eva.

    You blocked the thread we first argued on, and I just ignored your post there, but I found this part,

    That’s a non-sequitor. No atheist believes that anyway.

    and I decided to ask you: What do you believe morality is and where it comes from?

  112. Bad Says:

    D, what original Bible?

    All we have of most of the documents, especially those in the NT, are copies, copies which disagree with each other on all sorts of matters. In most cases, “recovering” what the original text was is simply impossible, and for several reasons, even that wouldn’t necessarily be reliable in any case.

  113. evanescent Says:

    D said:

    I may not know where you’re getting your ideas from, eva, but I do know that not all the symbols in Greek/Hebrew (it depends on if you are talking about the New/Old Testament) look the same. It is a mistake that could have easily happened in the copying process, but you shouldn’t try and use the excuse, “How do you know if there aren’t more errors?” because that’s just a stupid argument, as you well know.

    What?! Ah the old “that’s stupid” counter-argument. Errors in the copying process? Hang on, didn’t god use his omnipotence to make sure ALL versions of the bible are clear, understandable, and free of error??

    What original bible are you talking about anyway?? Do YOU have a copy of it? No, you have a copy of a copy that the Roman Catholics pieced together nearly 2000 years ago.

    If the numbers looked that similar, they could have easily been mixed up, but you know as well as I do that there aren’t really that many symbols in either language that look that similar. I don’t care if you flat out say I’m wrong, you know I’m right and these scholars know what they’re talking about. If you still don’t believe me, then look at the original text yourself and study it. Then try to copy it all down. I garuntee I will find more than one error in your translation. The teams that translate and copy the Bible check themselves many times, and they know what they are doing, but they cannot possibly get everything perfect.

    Maybe not, but god can. And he could EASILY have made sure the bible was free of errors of any kind, but obviously he wasn’t able to, or, he doesn’t exist.

    Now then, will you finally accept defeat or agree to disagree, because I know that I did not lose this argument, and therefore you are left with the two options:

    1: Accept defeat.

    2: Agree to disagree.

    You are delusional.

    If I were you, I’d think about this before replying with a heated remark as I well know you will do.

    If you reread everything or just look into the Bible yourself or ask a Bible scholar, you will probably find that you are wrong. I say probably, because it is unlikely that even if you are proven wrong, you will accept that Christians are right.

    D, this is just waffle and drivel.

    If you don’t choose number 1, at least make things easy on yourself and agree to disagree, which would be wiser than going on stubbornly with this useless attempt to try to prove me wrong.

    You’re right. It is useless to prove you wrong, because proof means nothing to you.

    You know that neither of us will back down, so just agree to disagree.

    No. I will not agree to disagree with someone who has no morality and refuses evidence.

    At least for a while. We have reached a stalemate because whoever is wrong isn’t accepting defeat, whom I believe to be you unless you can show me that I’m wrong.

    Already have done.

    If you I am wrong, you should be able to show me in a simple outline and by breaking it down more, because your argument is flawed in its current state. I won’t even try to explain myself to you. I already have explained everything to you, and I know that you refuse to admit defeat, especially to a Christian, not to mention that you can’t change a person’s mind over the internet, but you sure can give that person something to think about.

    More waffle. More drivel.

    Now please, for the sake of everyone reading, agree to disagree or admit defeat, because this argument is getting nowhere.

    You sound about 12, D. Trust me, everyone reading this can see exactly who has lost. Your comments consist of waffle and assertion. You have said nothing worth responding to.

    Here’s question: why do Matthew and Luke give different genealogies for Jesus?

  114. Spanish Inquisitor Says:

    Now then, will you finally accept defeat or agree to disagree, because I know that I did not lose this argument, and therefore you are left with the two options:

    1: Accept defeat.

    2: Agree to disagree.

    You are delusional.

    Are we back to the Black Knight?

  115. D Says:

    D, what original Bible?

    All we have of most of the documents, especially those in the NT, are copies, copies which disagree with each other on all sorts of matters. In most cases, “recovering” what the original text was is simply impossible, and for several reasons, even that wouldn’t necessarily be reliable in any case.

    The original Bible is the text that is not a copy of the original texts that make up the Bible. Is that not clear?

    Ah the old “that’s stupid” counter-argument

    Give me a break! That WAS NOT THE ARGUMENT. I don’t even need to give you the argument; if I do, you aren’t very bright at all. Not only that, I explained why that was a stupid argument.

    Hang on, didn’t god use his omnipotence to make sure ALL versions of the bible are clear, understandable, and free of error??

    Where did that come from? He made sure that the Bible was understandable (with the exception of the End Times prophecies which aren’t meant to be understood entirely for reasons that could probably be explained, but I won’t go into that right now), and He was pretty sure that humans were smart enough to figure out what the words meant, because He wrote it through humans themselves. The ORIGINAL texts are not flawed, but copies of those texts can be. As I said before, go look it up yourself then copy it all down, then tell me there are no errors in your translations. I don’t think God even needed to make sure that copies made by humans were perfectly identical to the original texts because He knows that we should be smart enough, but apparently some people just aren’t smart enough.

    You are delusional.

    Ah, the old “you are stupid” argument again.

    Well, I have to leave now, it’s Wednesday. I’ll get back to you although I’m an idiot for even continuing my arguments here considering the fact that you aren’t paying the least bit of attention to me. You’re just taking my words and changing the subject gradually and…you know, the whole atheist way of arguing.

  116. Bad Says:

    The original Bible is the text that is not a copy of the original texts that make up the Bible. Is that not clear?

    Uh… yeah, that’s not very clear at all.

    There is no such thing as an “original Bible.” The various documents that compose the modern Bible were all written at different times, and many of them were successively edited and changed to become the versions we know today. For most of these documents we have no clear “original” meaning for various passages: the number of copies and all the differences between them make it impossible to sort out.

    And given the way that these texts were originally dictated: i.e. orally, even the documents themselves may not be what was said.

  117. D Says:

    I suppose the Old Testament isn’t easy to find in the original version, but I was referring to the New Testament. This could mean that the older copies of the Old Testament were flawed, I agree, but I’m sure that the original texts were flawless because look at how almost flawless our modern copies are. It just shows that the original Bible (the original texts of the parts that make up the Bible) was perfect and flawless.

  118. D Says:

    ok, now I’m leaving. I had to answer that last bit before I left. See ya.

  119. Bad Says:

    No, it’s just as true, if not moreso, with the NT. The OT documents at least have some scholarly traditions and providence associated with them. Many of the NT documents, however, were copied and passed around endlessly by a myriad of different sects all with different agendas.

    The modern copies are often inconsistent with older ones, and of course, your opinion that the modern version is “flawless” is just your opinion.

  120. D Says:

    I never said the modern version was flawless. I said it is entirely possible for it to have flaws, but it is very close to flawless. Your opinion about the original texts being flaw-filled is just that, an opinion. As long as we don’t know for sure, you shouldn’t be making such conclusions about the Bible, and just go with whatever is more likely, which I believe is that the original texts are/were flawless. Don’t say there never was an original texts, because there was/is. The texts that are the source of the copies are the original texts.

    Ok, seriously, now I’m leaving.

  121. evanescent Says:

    You believe it is MORE likely that the original texts were flawless?? Isn’t the idea of perfection and inerrancy SO rare that the most likely situation is that neither is flawless.

    How can copies of texts be original texts?? That’s totally illogical. Even if the copies we have today were perfect (which they’re not) and even if the original copies (which don’t really exist, all you have is older versions of copies from stories probably told by word of mouth), were flawless, this still proves nothing. An inerrant bible is necessary but not sufficient to prove it is inspired. No, for that we have to look at:

    Internal consistencies? Fail.

    Knowledge of world and science that man couldn’t have known at the time? Fail.

    Representation of relative ideas and beliefs or representation of universal timeless principles? Fail.

    Representation of a world not consistent with enlightened knowledge? Fail.

    Anyway, if the modern version contains errors of any kind, how do we know which apparently inerrant parts are actually erroneous or not? How much confidence can we have in it? Why didn’t god make sure ALL versions of the bible are identical, clear, perfectly translatable, and culturally ubiquitous? Substitute ‘bible’ for ‘koran’ or ‘torah’, and you start to understand…

  122. D Says:

    Christianity and Judaism would have been refuted and abandonned long ago if the original texts were faulty.

    I told you, I will no longer post here, so just agree to disagree already. If you don’t, I’ll just accept that as your failure to refute my arguments.

  123. tobe38 Says:

    D said:

    Christianity and Judaism would have been refuted and abandonned long ago if the original texts were faulty.

    Non-sequitur. You could say the same thing about Islam and the Quran.

  124. tobe38 Says:

    D said:

    I told you, I will no longer post here, so just agree to disagree already. If you don’t, I’ll just accept that as your failure to refute my arguments.

    I’ve lost count of the number of “last comments” you’ve made. If you’re going, just go. Personally, I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to get through to you, so I don’t see any point in carrying on the conversation with you. And if anyone else is reading this debate and they’re still not sure who’s really defended their points here, then I doubt anyone will ever get through to them either.

    I, for one, am not agreeing to disagree. If you want to take that as “failure to refute” your arguments, that’s fine. Whatever helps you sleep.

    All the best.

  125. D Says:

    You all keep trying to have the last word. I’ve had 4 “last” comments, and this would make 5.

    I could say the same thing about the quaran. What really confuses me is the growth of islam; it is more violent than you say Christianity is, yet all anyone (well, most of you) on this site cares about is proving me wrong and attacking Christians.

    I’ll let the readers decide for themselves, of course, it isn’t like anyone controls their actions. I’ll leave this time (hopefully), allowing the readers to decide for themselves, they’re smart enough to know who’s right and who’s wrong. It really is hard to believe that Christians are violent, regardless of your opinions. I am not complimenting myself, instead, I am giving all the credit to all the other Christians who know that Christianity is an improvement on the world. I refuse to believe that humans are just an accident, because if we are, then we are worth nothing, therefore morality is just a figment of our imagination. Besides, if this “singularity” somehow got here without assistance, how, then, did time come about? You can say that the explosion made it, but that still doesn’t answer my question, “how?”

    Atheists are not just people who don’t believe in God/a god. Atheists are people who go around, calling others idiots to believe that something created them on purpose instead of on accident. I know this because atheists practically rule the internet, and you all seem very hateful towards Christians (in particular), and you seem to be saying that you know everything or that you are just smarter than most people, and you don’t know everything, and it is arrogant to automatically assume yourself more intelligent than your opponent when in debate, which you seem to do. I don’t mean to attack you personally, if I am, but I become extremely frustrated with attitudes such as the ones shown here.

    You are very prideful people, eva and tobe. For not agreeing to disagree, you’ve shown that you refuse to accept defeat or even a friendly stalemate, and you would never stoop so low as to quit a heated argument without forcing your opponent to surrender, even if the opponent won the argument.

    I still respect your intelligence, and I know that you are very clever, but your pride exceeds your knowledge.

    You say that anyone who doesn’t say that you won the argument is thick-headed, and what does that statement show? Of course false beliefs won’t be believed by everyone. I believe you are wrong, and I have backed up my arguments well, but then again, that would be up to the readers to decide. I don’t care how you twist the words, I know that humans are no accident, and I have logically proved this. If not here, I have proved it on my blog, which the readers can visit so that they can get the argument directly from me without you trying to take my words out of context for them. You do realize that it is possible that I won the argument? If you can’t accept that possibility, you are more prideful than I thought.

    All I am saying is that it isn’t up to me to decide who won the argument, and the readers have a right to decide for themselves what is reality. I encourage the readers to think everything through before deciding; to look at every angle and eventually come to a conclusion all the while being ready to accept the possibility that their conclusion might be wrong, therefore they should keep an open, non-biased mind.

    So far, I am the only one that has shown any respect for my opponents (excluding Geno). I don’t mean to brag, rather point that out to you, since it would be wise if you showed a little more respect when debating. It is just an act of respect that will help you gain the respect of your readers.

    Have a nice day.
    God bless.

  126. tobe38 Says:

    @ D

    You all keep trying to have the last word. I’ve had 4 “last” comments, and this would make 5.

    D, you’re the only one who keeps saying you’re leaving. Are you saying you’ll only stick to it when nobody replies to you? Who’s really trying to have the last word?

    I could say the same thing about the quaran. What really confuses me is the growth of islam; it is more violent than you say Christianity is, yet all anyone (well, most of you) on this site cares about is proving me wrong and attacking Christians.

    You’re a Christian Derek, so obviously we’re going to debate Christianity with you, just as you’re going to argue it’s position as opposed to atheism, not Islam, with us.

    I’ll let the readers decide for themselves, of course, it isn’t like anyone controls their actions. I’ll leave this time (hopefully), allowing the readers to decide for themselves, they’re smart enough to know who’s right and who’s wrong.

    How do you know that? How do you know anything about the people who are reading and not commenting? Nobody’s “controlling” their actions, but we are all influencing them, by definition.

    It really is hard to believe that Christians are violent, regardless of your opinions.

    We’re not saying Christianity is violent, if anything it teaches the opposite. What we’ve tried to show is that you have to reconcile those teachings with horrific violence commited by your god in the OT.

    I am not complimenting myself, instead, I am giving all the credit to all the other Christians who know that Christianity is an improvement on the world.

    Unsupported assertion and continued, relentless misuse of the word “know”.

    I refuse to believe that humans are just an accident, because if we are, then we are worth nothing, therefore morality is just a figment of our imagination. Besides, if this “singularity” somehow got here without assistance, how, then, did time come about? You can say that the explosion made it, but that still doesn’t answer my question, “how?”

    “refuse to believe” are the key words here. Your questions have already been dealt with. Even if they can’t be answered without God, that still doesn’t leave your God as the correct answer.

    Atheists are not just people who don’t believe in God/a god. Atheists are people who go around, calling others idiots to believe that something created them on purpose instead of on accident.

    Maybe some atheists, but not this one nor anyone I’ve seen on this blog. Not believing in god is the only requirement for being an atheist.

    I know this because atheists practically rule the internet, and you all seem very hateful towards Christians (in particular), and you seem to be saying that you know everything or that you are just smarter than most people, and you don’t know everything, and it is arrogant to automatically assume yourself more intelligent than your opponent when in debate, which you seem to do.

    Again, D, you say you “know” something and then go on to use the word “seems” twice with your reasoning. This is your perception, your opinion which you are entiteld to. I don’t assume myself more intelligent than anyone by default, nor do I claim to know everything. You are the one who keeps telling me what you “know”.

    I don’t mean to attack you personally, if I am, but I become extremely frustrated with attitudes such as the ones shown here.

    The feeling is mutual.

    You are very prideful people, eva and tobe. For not agreeing to disagree, you’ve shown that you refuse to accept defeat or even a friendly stalemate, and you would never stoop so low as to quit a heated argument without forcing your opponent to surrender, even if the opponent won the argument.

    Do you not see the irony here D? You call us prideful, and then go on to say that we should just admit defeat. I’ve directed you before to my article on agreeing to disagree.

    I still respect your intelligence, and I know that you are very clever, but your pride exceeds your knowledge.

    Thank you for the compliment. I think your pride also exceeds your knowledge. Opinion in both cases.

    You say that anyone who doesn’t say that you won the argument is thick-headed, and what does that statement show?

    I said nothing of the sort.

    I’ve run out of time, I’ll respond to the rest of your comment later.

  127. tobe38 Says:

    @ D (continued)

    Of course false beliefs won’t be believed by everyone. I believe you are wrong, and I have backed up my arguments well, but then again, that would be up to the readers to decide. I don’t care how you twist the words, I know that humans are no accident, and I have logically proved this.

    Still misusing the word “know”, and you have logically proved nothing.

    If not here, I have proved it on my blog, which the readers can visit so that they can get the argument directly from me without you trying to take my words out of context for them.

    I’ll take your word for it.

    You do realize that it is possible that I won the argument? If you can’t accept that possibility, you are more prideful than I thought.

    I absolutely accept the possibility, I just don’t think you did. Do you accept the possibility that you lost?

    All I am saying is that it isn’t up to me to decide who won the argument, and the readers have a right to decide for themselves what is reality. I encourage the readers to think everything through before deciding; to look at every angle and eventually come to a conclusion all the while being ready to accept the possibility that their conclusion might be wrong, therefore they should keep an open, non-biased mind.

    I agree.

    So far, I am the only one that has shown any respect for my opponents (excluding Geno).

    I still find your defence of Geno beyond belief.

    I don’t mean to brag

    Perish the thought.

    , rather point that out to you, since it would be wise if you showed a little more respect when debating.

    Your request it noted, D, but remember to practice what you preach.

    It is just an act of respect that will help you gain the respect of your readers.

    See above.

    D, if you really want the last word, no problem. If you reply to this I won’t respond, unless you ask me too.

  128. vjack Says:

    This may be a relatively minor point, but when you say that you know that the Christian god does not exist, you might want to say that this is so because you know that this god cannot exist. How? An entity with the properties attributed to this god is logically impossible.

  129. evanescent Says:

    Hi vjack, I thought that is what I meant here:

    I know he doesn’t exist, because it is irrational and logically inconsistent to believe he does, just as I know that square circles don’t exist.

    You’re correct I don’t believe in it because this being cannot exist. Apologies if I didn’t make this clear.

  130. Zeus Almighty Says:

    Evanescent:

    As of yet I would have to say that you have proven your case against Yahweh (by zeus!) and no one has of yet posted a good argument in his defense.

    Though I do not wish to offer this into evidence for the defense I would like to remark on something you said.

    ” If God is essentially unknowable then we can’t say anything about him.”

    It is still possible to say what God is NOT and that is saying something about what he IS, this is the “Via Negativa” way of knowing something.

  131. evanescent Says:

    Zeus said:

    As of yet I would have to say that you have proven your case against Yahweh (by zeus!) and no one has of yet posted a good argument in his defense.

    I agree with this assessment.

    It is still possible to say what God is NOT and that is saying something about what he IS, this is the “Via Negativa” way of knowing something.

    If god is inscrutable then indeed we cannot say anything about him, whether positive or negative.

    Of course, no theist really believes in an inscrutable god, which means it is open to criticism as much as praise.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: