Antillian wrote on 06/09/10 at 12:55:37:

Maybe I was loud, but I get a bit fired up by unthinking fundamentalists (of all religions). You're a reasonable man and I'm sure you could make a much better case for christianity than BirdBrain has.

MNb wrote on 06/08/10 at 02:35:13:


The point is that the structure of the Cosmos does not confer any particular importance upon this planet -- quite the opposite.  The model of the Cospos prevalent before Copernicus maintained Earth as the center around which All moved. Nobody today would seriously posit that.  That no point can be asserted to be the center of the Cosmos; that equations of motion can trivially be rewritten with any particular point as a central reference; are hardly challenges to this.  Nobody says, "Well, Earth could be the center if you rewrite all the laws of motion," for the reason that the only economical expression of these laws relegates this planet to insignificance.  There are no forces that emanate from Earth and cause the planets to move in epicycles, as the Ptolemaic model would have required. 

If you don't see that Copernicus dealt a powerful blow to religion, I really think you should look again.  For one thing, the bishops and cardinals of his day very well understood that he did.  Indeed I think the blow that Copernicus dealt to religion was at least as powerful as that dealt by Darwin. 

OK, this is worse than I thought. You are willing to defend the killing of children as long as someone claims or writes that it was ordered by God. This is one of the most effective excuses for genocide ever invented.

And you're not at all willing to consider the obvious possibility that the God of early Judaism was simply conjured up to give them the justified self-righteousness to decimate their enemies, which they considered almost sub-human. By the way it's extremely easy to point to some element of a different people's culture that one finds immoral from one's own perspective, and use that against them. It happened to the jews in the past and there are signs of muslims in the west suffering from it now. As for the "sins" of the Canaanites, idol-worship is a victimless crime, and I don't care what sexual practices (adult) people engage in as long as it's consensual. As for child sacrifice it's hard to approve of, but the right response surely can't be to kill lots of those children and their parents! En passant, one of the founding myths of Judaism actually praises the willingness to sacrifice a son, on blind faith.

I won't be coming to you for moral guidance any time soon. And you can drop the threats about the afterlife and God's judgement; there's not a shred of evidence that such a thing as "the soul" exists.

Btw. my point about Jesus was to ask: why does God require a sacrifice at all? He made the world, he makes the rules. And that rule looks very strange and arbitrary. God could easily identify the faithful and the sinners without, in effect, going through suffering himself.

@ BirdBrain:

I don't understand your way of arguing. You give many examples of christian theology and how that worldview is supposed to work. But most of the other posters here already know these views well whether they agree with them or not, and you're just stating these things (because they're in the bible maybe?), not really defending them from the objections that have appeared!

How do you answer, for example:

- Why God the creator who knows everything creates a world that he "sees is good" and then a number of years later he is suddenly dissatisfied with it, and destroys large parts of it? Regret really is a strange trait in an all-knowing God.

- Why God has to send his son (or himself incarnated, whichever you prefer) to earth to repent for sins he knew about beforehand. There was no need to go through all that; He could simply have declared that everyone would be forgiven. Also the very idea that you need to repent for something you couldn't avoid (if sin is inborn) is a concept from ancient systems of law where revenge and punishment ran in families. I'm not ever going to apologize for being human, however the priests try to make me feel guilty.

- The evident immorality of the God of the old testament, for example his willingness to inflict unspeakable violence on the inhabitants of Canaan and their children, just because his favorite people happened to want that land. Also killing every firstborn of the Egyptians is something I sincerely hope everybody in the modern world would condemn. The obvious explanation (favored by most nonpartisan historians of religion) is that Jahve evolved from a tribal warrior god. He is very much a human invention.

Together these points (and more generally the four philosophical points I mentioned earlier) lead me to think that a) There are so many logical and evidential problems with christianity that I can't believe it, and b) even if it were somewhat believable it is so deeply immoral that I wouldn't want to.

MNb wrote on 06/08/10 at 02:35:13:


If you don't like God because He struck the people with plagues, have you stopped to consider why He did it?  He destroyed the world with a flood due to its wicked activity.  Jesus prophesied that in the end times, it would be like it was in Noah's day.  Genesis tells us that mankind was corrupt and wicked.  It is even happening today.  You don't like a God who punishes wickedness.  But do you think it is justice if a man who murders his children gets set free by a judge?  God is over all things.  Including you.

Exodus 21:7 - why not include verse 8, since you only like parts of the Bible that you can twist to your liking, to show someone else that God is, in your eyes, unfair, and hence, not real.  In verse 8, if the man has dealt deceitfully with her, he must redeem her.  If you had a daughter, and you gave her to another man, and he treated her bad, would you want her to remain there?  God is merciful to not allow things to continue.

Leviticus 25:44 - why not get deeper into the context?  God promises the land of Canaan unto Abraham and his seed.  Why do you think he called Moses and the Israelites out of Egypt in the first place - to go into Canaan's land and destroy the heathen.  The people that existed in that land worshipped other gods - they did not follow the one true God.  God was exacting judgment upon them through the Israelites.  However, those that were strangers that were bought bondmen - better to be a bondman than to be destroyed. This also has to do with becoming a bondman, or a servant, of the Lord Jesus Christ.  When you accept Him as your Saviour, you follow Him.  You don't live for yourself anymore.  He gave His life on the cross, that all who believeth upon Him might be saved.   

Exodus 35:2 - God rested on the Sabbath.  Haven't you read that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and on the seventh He rested.  So His servants were to rest on the seventh day, in respect to God.  However, that was under the law.  All the law came once God called Moses into the picture, to convict mankind of their sin - they had a way to understand God's laws.  When Jesus came into the picture, He worked on the Sabbath, and they wanted to kill Him.  But He said He was the Lord of the Sabbath, and since His Father worked, He worked also.   

There will be a time of rest for those who are faithful unto Christ.  In Revelation 20, we read that Christ will set up His throne for 1,000 years upon the earth - before this, it must be cleansed by fire.  God will send fire upon this earth that will consume all those who were not worthy to be saved - it will be cleansed and purified.  Then there is 1,000 years of peace.  This is akin to the Sabbath that we read about in Genesis, and also in 2 Peter 3:8 - <b>"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."</b>  Peter wrote this prophecy, given by the Holy Ghost, before John the Beloved saw the vision given from heaven, which is in the book of Revelation.   There are 6,000 years (6 days) from Adam to the end of the tribulation period.  Then we see 1,000 years (1 day) of peace - this is the seventh day.  It is a day holy and sanctified to the Lord.

MnB, you have a lot of hostility towards God, but what is so wrong with a God who hates sin?  You say sin doesn't exist, but isn't murder wrong?  Lying?  Stealing?  Where did the thoughts of those things being wrong come into play?  The Word says that God gave you a conscience - an internal guide of right and wrong, that was designed to lead you towards the True Light, Christ.  Some men follow the light, and find the Light.  Some reject it.  You read about Plato's cave, or whatever it is called.  Of course, without the light of Christ, all is dim.  It is like a sky full of stars - just a tiny bit of light.  But God wants the Sun to shine in your heart.  He cannot let it shine as long as you reject Him.

You want to chew on Scriptures?  I have some you should read.   

John 3:16 - <b>For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.</b>

Luke 23:33-34 - <b>And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. / Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.</b>

Matthew 22:35-40 / <b>Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying, / Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law? / Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. / This is the first and great commandment. / And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. / On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.</b>

You get mad that God judged the world for its sin...but what about the judgment that Jesus endured so that you could have eternal life?  He not only was crucified - they tore his beard out of his face - they slapped him - they mocked him - they spit on him - they made him drag a rugged cross upon a back stripped of skin and oozing blood down a path to a hill where they shoved nails in his hands and his feet.  Then he hung in the hot sun for nine hours suffering.  Then he went into hell for three days, and arose.

WHY would He do that?  Someone had to pay the price.   

MnB, there is nothing any one of us can do that is truly worthy to make us clean in the eyes of God.  To be real about it, you were born into sin.  You got it from the beginning.   

If you saw a dirty baby, wouldn't you change its diaper if no one else was around?  It can't change its own diaper.  So it is with us.  We are soiled with sin, full of it.  God sent His own cleansing agent into the world, Jesus Christ, to cleanse us from our sins.  But how to be cleansed?  Jesus says in John 15:3, <b>"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you."</b>  If you accuse the Word of God of being insufficient to live by, then what will cleanse you in the eyes of God?  If you don't believe on God, that is your choice.  But you will have to stand before Him one day and give account of what you have heard.

BirdBrain wrote on 06/07/10 at 12:35:33:

A good reason not to worship your god. I don't like him. Btw, if you take Exodus so seriously, what about these?

Exodus 21:7, about selling your daughters into slavery.
Leviticus 25:44, about purchasing slaves from neighbouring nations.
Exodus 35:2 about the death sentency put upon people who work on Sunday.

Just curious.

BirdBrain wrote on 06/07/10 at 12:41:29:

Very clarifying. Or are you not identifying yourself with Jesus while calling a professional scholar, who worships the same god as you, a Pharisee, just because he says something that displeases you? You are putting your particular brand of religion above science. That's unacceptable to me. From now on you can quote from the bible as much as you want; you have definitely scared me off.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/07/10 at 13:04:51:

Denying the ugly sides of Renaissance is painting a false picture and leads to misunderstanding. I do not deny the great achievements btw.
Galilei was way past Renaissance, which ended around 1530.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/07/10 at 13:04:51:

A better read is Popper's epistemology. There are no proofs, just confirmations.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/07/10 at 13:04:51:

Wrong. That someone only needs faith, as already pointed out by Kierkegaard, who published before Darwin.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/07/10 at 13:04:51:

You are repeating yourself. See Kierkegaard.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/07/10 at 13:04:51:

For me it is. As it is an emotional and subjective argument it isn't necessarily for someone else.

That article of Dawkins you have posted contains exactly nothing new. He only repeats that "god exists" is not a scientific statement. By proving that fanatic christians are wrong he does not prove or make it even probable that god does not exist.
This is what I meant. He fell into the same trap as the people he argues against.

Stigma wrote on 06/07/10 at 21:00:14:

This is a non-sequitur. It shows once again that Dawkins tries a scientific approach to metaphysics. That is meaningless. Metaphysic phenomena by definition can't be empirically tested. No empiry, no science.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/07/10 at 13:04:51:

Another golden oldie. I wrote before that possibly Epicurus pointed this out. Essentially the point is this. If an atheist assumes that good and evil stem from mankind (s)he cannot use it as proof.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/07/10 at 13:04:51:

Subjective. For quite a few people god is not hidden at all.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/07/10 at 13:04:51:

Same as the evil argument.

Mortal Games wrote on 06/07/10 at 13:04:51:

Gods ways are inscrutable. Proves nothing.

Markovich wrote on 06/07/10 at 22:22:42:

This is a meaningless statement. The universe has no centre. If it were not for mathematical problems we might as well take the Earth as the centre of the universe. Copernicus and Galilei were also wrong on this one.
What parts are significant then? And how to compare? As far as I know astronomers are not particularly interested in the question of significance, whatever that means in this context.

I agree with Markovich.
In prehistoric times, God was a naive explanation of natural phenomenons like thunder, the succession of day and night, floodings...
Then it became apparent that these phenomenons could be explained without God.

As Napoleon asked Laplace about his Celestial Mechanics "I see you didn't mention God ?"
Laplace famously answered "Sir, I had no need of that hypothesis."

If religion survived science, it's only because of its "usefulness to rulers" as Gibbon said.

Dawkins realizes of course that he can't prove God does not exist. He merely claims that God is very improbable and therefore we should demand very good evidence before believing. His "ultimate Boeing 747 argument" states that the creator of a complex and improbable world must himself be complex and improbable.

But there seems to be a fundamental flaw in Dawkins' main argument, since "improbable" may only be a meaningful description of something that is part of the natural world and/or has come into existence at some point. Many christians believe in a God that exists necessarily (i.e. if he exists he is the first reason for everything and a precondition for the universe, not merely a part of it). Also many theologians think that God is simple. For them Dawkins' argument doesn't matter.

Several arguments debated by philosphers and theologians would worry me much more if I were a theist. These are all evidential arguments; instead of pointlessly trying to "disprove" God they merely point to a nonexistent (or indifferent) God as much more likely than the christian one given various particular kinds of evidence we have:

The evidential problem of evil (Paul Draper, William Rowe)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_evil#Evidential_problem_of_evil

Divine hiddenness (John Schellenberg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_hiddenness#Introduction_to_the_problem_of_di...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_schellenberg/hidden.html

The problem of natural evil/pain and pleasure (Paul Draper)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/pain-and-pleasure.html

And finally, inconsistent revelations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations

There's lots of stuff on all of these on the web; the Secular Web Library http://www.infidels.org/library/ and Common Sense Atheism http://commonsenseatheism.com/ are good starting points.