[split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2016, 11:21 PM
[split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Yep. This is gonna be a long one.

Feel free to throw your own logical dissections at any time.


GENESIS


First off, I'm skipping the whole "how were plants created before light/photosynthesis, how was light created before the sun, contradictions of which was created first" word games. Those take up too much time and words and pie.


1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

-The moon is not a light, it is a reflection of the sun's light. This is the first of many examples that suggest that God's omnipotence seems to be limited to the knowledge of the demographics and time period of when the Bible was written. Strange.


1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

-Our? Just how many gods are there?


2:2 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

-even though they say that God only "rested" to set an example of how would should rest on the 7th day, couldn't the Bible just say "rest on Sunday" ??(question mark)? It clearly says God rested, which means that this all-powerful being was worn out from all those valleys and hills and Wyoming and platypuses.


The Garden and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil


-Sooooo... God takes these 2 newly formed, ignorant to life humans, puts them in a garden with a tree bearing food, nonchalantly goes "don't eat from it" ... then leaves... to go make Venus, I guess. And you know the rest.

So... WHY did he put them near the tree? WHY did he have that which he didn't want humans to attain be edible and tempting? WHY did he leave? WHY did he allow Satan the Snake to be in the garden, knowing full well that he would tempt them? Why did God design these 2 humans to be susceptible to temptation?

Then God comes strolling by (3:8 "walking in the garden in the cool of the day") at the PRECISE moment after they eat the fruit and goes "whoa whoa, what's going on here?" (I'm paraphrasing, of course)

It's like having a 2 year old child and going "Now son, I'm going to leave these delicious chocolate chip cookies sitting right here within reach of you. I'm going to the store to buy some Funyuns. Don't eat them. Bye!" When any caring parent would remove temptation, knowing that the child doesn't know any better.

So it's quite obvious to me that God WANTED man to F up royally. God created man with the sole purpose of imposing "original sin" upon him, so that he may feel guilty and grovel and ask forgiveness for something that wasn't his fault for all eternity.

That child who ate the cookies is now 40 and the parent is still bringing it up daily. "I don't care if you saved an orphanage from burning down today... remember when I told you not to eat those cookies and you did?"


Cain slays Abel and is "cast out" arbitrarily from one remote location of this empty world to another random remote location. Then he worries that "every one that findeth me shall slay me."

-This is a strange worry since he is 1 of 3 people in existence. Then he sleeps with his wife to start the incestual chain of humanity... but where did his wife come from?


6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days"

-I'm assuming these are literal giants and not "intellectual giants" or some modern term.


Then the Lord decides that all humanity is corrupt and needs to be massacred via flood.

-One... why the need for an elaborate flood? Why not just use your God powers and make every one not exist? You can only create from nothing, not turn into nothing? Two, were we not already told that men were made in His image? So either God is evil and corrupt, which is why we turned out like we did before and after the flood... or he is incapable of creating things how he wants. God is a flawed designer.

Maybe that's why he doesn't show his face anymore. He tried once, messed up and started over. Then he was like "whoa hold on, hold on. No, stop making more people. Wait, why did you kill that guy? Stop fucking! There's too many of you already! You know what!? Fuck this, I'm out!"


Then there's the Ark which I won't discuss do to redundancy. There are thousands of videos mocking this obvious nonsensical fairy tale already. The average thinker explaining the flaws of Noah and his ark is analogous to a world renowned chemist giving a lecture on the validity of alchemy.


Then Noah (the only righteous man in the world) gets hammered on wine and passes out naked.


Then the humans build an impressive tower and God (completely caught off guard) confuses them by making them speak multiple languages because their tower was more impressive than the one he made in shop class.


Many pages of slaves and servitude and historical inaccuracies and more incest


18:9 "And God said unto him, 'Where is Sarah thy wife?'" You're omnipotent, God. Quit messing with me. And stop asking about my wife, perv.


Lot offers his virgin daughters to a mob of rapists to appease their lust for the sexually attractive angels


God burns Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground, including all those "evil" children and newborn babies.


God turns Lot's wife in a pillar of salt just for kicks and giggles. Why exactly was it so wrong to look back at a village being assaulted by fire raining from the sky? If no one was supposed to look, perhaps God could've made the destruction a little more subtle.


Lot's daughters got their father drunk, then raped him." Yeah, I've been really drunk before, even drunk, high, and on acid at the same time. And not once during that time would I have "mistakenly" slept with my family members. Especially since they lived in a cave, separate from anyone that could have been confused for a bar skank.


21:1 "And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived..."

-God made a booty call


For some reason, God takes human form and wrestles Jacob. He is losing so he cheats and gropes Jacob's inner thigh.


Various pages discerning which parts of the penis to chop off.


Onan is murdered by God for spooging on the ground instead of impregnating his brother's wife.


A 7000 page story about Joseph being thought dead, but actually not.


INTERMISSION


For those of you that read this far... Bravo, you bored and dedicated souls. Obviously all the books aren't as interesting or important as Genesis, and will be skipped over (I'm looking at you Psalms).

Now I continue on with Exodus. Ahem...

I will be honest and admit that I didn't read the entire thread, but I wanted to offer some initial thoughts.

First and foremost, what is Atheism? What is the argument here? Is it against a "god"? Or is it some writer's interpretation of "god"?
Further, if everyone's concept or definition of "god" is wrong, does that mean the concept doesn't exist?

As an analogy to that, let me offer this;
Back in 1996, it was discovered that the universe is expanding exponentially. That is, it is expanding, and doing so faster and faster.
So, it was observed that something is present that causes this expansion. No one has any idea what it is, how it works, where it comes from! (there are MANY theories, but no consensus)... what everyone basically agreed on was a NAME for whatever is happening. That name is "DARK ENERGY".

SO! What if everyone just agreed that there was a first cause to the beginning of the universe (and let's be honest, even the big bang is not a complete consensus these days), would most of us just concede that THAT first cause is called GOD?

Now, this exposes one's true argument. What most Atheists argue has more to do with what god IS rather than whether god exists. (face it, your arguments are about semantic things like omniscience and omnipotence than actual existence)... and THAT is what I am talking about here.
In general, the Atheist argument AGAINST god has to do with semantics that the general lay population won't understand, thus (to me) creating a straw man argument.

You're right. The "god" that Christians generally prescribe DOESN'T exist. But, that doesn't prove (nor is that evidence) that there isn't a first cause. It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't sentient. Atheists tend to point out semantic problems in stead of actually arguing the issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 08:29 AM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2016 08:57 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  
(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Yep. This is gonna be a long one.

Feel free to throw your own logical dissections at any time.


GENESIS


First off, I'm skipping the whole "how were plants created before light/photosynthesis, how was light created before the sun, contradictions of which was created first" word games. Those take up too much time and words and pie.


1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

-The moon is not a light, it is a reflection of the sun's light. This is the first of many examples that suggest that God's omnipotence seems to be limited to the knowledge of the demographics and time period of when the Bible was written. Strange.


1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

-Our? Just how many gods are there?


2:2 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

-even though they say that God only "rested" to set an example of how would should rest on the 7th day, couldn't the Bible just say "rest on Sunday" ??(question mark)? It clearly says God rested, which means that this all-powerful being was worn out from all those valleys and hills and Wyoming and platypuses.


The Garden and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil


-Sooooo... God takes these 2 newly formed, ignorant to life humans, puts them in a garden with a tree bearing food, nonchalantly goes "don't eat from it" ... then leaves... to go make Venus, I guess. And you know the rest.

So... WHY did he put them near the tree? WHY did he have that which he didn't want humans to attain be edible and tempting? WHY did he leave? WHY did he allow Satan the Snake to be in the garden, knowing full well that he would tempt them? Why did God design these 2 humans to be susceptible to temptation?

Then God comes strolling by (3:8 "walking in the garden in the cool of the day") at the PRECISE moment after they eat the fruit and goes "whoa whoa, what's going on here?" (I'm paraphrasing, of course)

It's like having a 2 year old child and going "Now son, I'm going to leave these delicious chocolate chip cookies sitting right here within reach of you. I'm going to the store to buy some Funyuns. Don't eat them. Bye!" When any caring parent would remove temptation, knowing that the child doesn't know any better.

So it's quite obvious to me that God WANTED man to F up royally. God created man with the sole purpose of imposing "original sin" upon him, so that he may feel guilty and grovel and ask forgiveness for something that wasn't his fault for all eternity.

That child who ate the cookies is now 40 and the parent is still bringing it up daily. "I don't care if you saved an orphanage from burning down today... remember when I told you not to eat those cookies and you did?"


Cain slays Abel and is "cast out" arbitrarily from one remote location of this empty world to another random remote location. Then he worries that "every one that findeth me shall slay me."

-This is a strange worry since he is 1 of 3 people in existence. Then he sleeps with his wife to start the incestual chain of humanity... but where did his wife come from?


6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days"

-I'm assuming these are literal giants and not "intellectual giants" or some modern term.


Then the Lord decides that all humanity is corrupt and needs to be massacred via flood.

-One... why the need for an elaborate flood? Why not just use your God powers and make every one not exist? You can only create from nothing, not turn into nothing? Two, were we not already told that men were made in His image? So either God is evil and corrupt, which is why we turned out like we did before and after the flood... or he is incapable of creating things how he wants. God is a flawed designer.

Maybe that's why he doesn't show his face anymore. He tried once, messed up and started over. Then he was like "whoa hold on, hold on. No, stop making more people. Wait, why did you kill that guy? Stop fucking! There's too many of you already! You know what!? Fuck this, I'm out!"


Then there's the Ark which I won't discuss do to redundancy. There are thousands of videos mocking this obvious nonsensical fairy tale already. The average thinker explaining the flaws of Noah and his ark is analogous to a world renowned chemist giving a lecture on the validity of alchemy.


Then Noah (the only righteous man in the world) gets hammered on wine and passes out naked.


Then the humans build an impressive tower and God (completely caught off guard) confuses them by making them speak multiple languages because their tower was more impressive than the one he made in shop class.


Many pages of slaves and servitude and historical inaccuracies and more incest


18:9 "And God said unto him, 'Where is Sarah thy wife?'" You're omnipotent, God. Quit messing with me. And stop asking about my wife, perv.


Lot offers his virgin daughters to a mob of rapists to appease their lust for the sexually attractive angels


God burns Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground, including all those "evil" children and newborn babies.


God turns Lot's wife in a pillar of salt just for kicks and giggles. Why exactly was it so wrong to look back at a village being assaulted by fire raining from the sky? If no one was supposed to look, perhaps God could've made the destruction a little more subtle.


Lot's daughters got their father drunk, then raped him." Yeah, I've been really drunk before, even drunk, high, and on acid at the same time. And not once during that time would I have "mistakenly" slept with my family members. Especially since they lived in a cave, separate from anyone that could have been confused for a bar skank.


21:1 "And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived..."

-God made a booty call


For some reason, God takes human form and wrestles Jacob. He is losing so he cheats and gropes Jacob's inner thigh.


Various pages discerning which parts of the penis to chop off.


Onan is murdered by God for spooging on the ground instead of impregnating his brother's wife.


A 7000 page story about Joseph being thought dead, but actually not.


INTERMISSION


For those of you that read this far... Bravo, you bored and dedicated souls. Obviously all the books aren't as interesting or important as Genesis, and will be skipped over (I'm looking at you Psalms).

Now I continue on with Exodus. Ahem...

I will be honest and admit that I didn't read the entire thread, but I wanted to offer some initial thoughts.

First and foremost, what is Atheism? What is the argument here? Is it against a "god"? Or is it some writer's interpretation of "god"?
Further, if everyone's concept or definition of "god" is wrong, does that mean the concept doesn't exist?

As an analogy to that, let me offer this;
Back in 1996, it was discovered that the universe is expanding exponentially. That is, it is expanding, and doing so faster and faster.
So, it was observed that something is present that causes this expansion. No one has any idea what it is, how it works, where it comes from! (there are MANY theories, but no consensus)... what everyone basically agreed on was a NAME for whatever is happening. That name is "DARK ENERGY".

SO! What if everyone just agreed that there was a first cause to the beginning of the universe (and let's be honest, even the big bang is not a complete consensus these days), would most of us just concede that THAT first cause is called GOD?

Now, this exposes one's true argument. What most Atheists argue has more to do with what god IS rather than whether god exists. (face it, your arguments are about semantic things like omniscience and omnipotence than actual existence)... and THAT is what I am talking about here.
In general, the Atheist argument AGAINST god has to do with semantics that the general lay population won't understand, thus (to me) creating a straw man argument.

You're right. The "god" that Christians generally prescribe DOESN'T exist. But, that doesn't prove (nor is that evidence) that there isn't a first cause. It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't sentient. Atheists tend to point out semantic problems in stead of actually arguing the issue.

Where is your evidence that the universe had a first cause?

Where is your evidence that a sentience created the universe?

So let's even allow your unfounded assertion that a god created the universe, where is your evidence for this god? Does it still exist or did it destroy itself in the act of universe creation? What would be your evidence for either? Drinking Beverage

Bonus question - Can you define god in a falsifiable manner.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
09-06-2016, 08:32 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  First and foremost, what is Atheism? What is the argument here? Is it against a "god"? Or is it some writer's interpretation of "god"?

Atheism is a disbelief in any God. No more, no less. It really isn't complicated nor an argument. It's a lack of belief.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
09-06-2016, 08:59 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  But, that doesn't prove (nor is that evidence) that there isn't a first cause. It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't sentient. Atheists tend to point out semantic problems in stead of actually arguing the issue.

Brother, the problem is with "it doesnt prove that X wasn't" That murder last night. You can't prove it wasn't you, so it WAS you. That's Christian (and religious in general) logic.

For a start, you have flat out stated that there must have been a first cause. Doesn't strike you as an assumption? What it your knowledge of time? What is a cause? What does it mean for a cause to come before another cause? Are you aware that simultaneous events are not simultaneous in all time frames?

Religious people are arguing for the sentient first cause. It's up to you to show it. I'm not arguing for any particular interpretation. I'm content with "I don't know" but I'm also willing to say that a sentient creator doesn't seem helluva likely.

If it does to you, please enlighten me why you think Christee God more likely than Oompa Loompas as a creator?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
09-06-2016, 10:16 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  I will be honest and admit that I didn't read the entire thread, but I wanted to offer some initial thoughts.

'kay.

(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  First and foremost, what is Atheism?

Atheism is defined as lacking a belief in god. It is usually a response to a question, but can also be a statement of belief.

(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  What is the argument here? Is it against a "god"? Or is it some writer's interpretation of "god"?

It is my understanding that the OP no longer frequents the forum. I don't recall seeing them, in any case. Thus, I'll have to respond with my personal view.

My atheism is in response to the various gods that have been postulated or presented for worship. It's not an argument per se, more a statement. Concepts of deities have been presented. I remain unconvinced.

Every theist, writer or not, has their own personal interpretation of a god.

(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  Further, if everyone's concept or definition of "god" is wrong, does that mean the concept doesn't exist?

No.

(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  SO! What if everyone just agreed that there was a first cause to the beginning of the universe (and let's be honest, even the big bang is not a complete consensus these days),

All of our science indicates that our universe began with the Big Bang. It is the consensus, with the exception of ark-building fuckwits in Kentucky.

The cause of the Big Bang is still unknown. It is my understanding that models have been proposed, but there is no consensus as yet.

(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  ..would most of us just concede that THAT first cause is called GOD?

No. That would be the god-of-the-gaps. Way back when, gods caused thunderstorms, disease, earthquakes, etc. Saying "we dunno, goddidit..." is another way of saying "let's remain ignorant".


(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  Now, this exposes one's true argument. What most Atheists argue has more to do with what god IS rather than whether god exists.

A minute ago you didn't know what an atheist was, now you're telling us what we think? Go fuck yourself. Ask us what we think and argue. Don't tell us.

(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  (face it, your arguments are about semantic things like omniscience and omnipotence than actual existence)... and THAT is what I am talking about here.

Did your imaginary friend give you that insight or did you think it up all by yourself?

(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  In general, the Atheist argument AGAINST god has to do with semantics that the general lay population won't understand, thus (to me) creating a straw man argument.

Yes, when you create the argument for the opposition, it is easy to debunk. That is the strawman fallacy. Nice try, but no cookie for you.

(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  You're right. The "god" that Christians generally prescribe DOESN'T exist. But, that doesn't prove (nor is that evidence) that there isn't a first cause.

If you have something to present, feel free. The fact that a first cause exists does not evidence a god. Define the nature of your First Cause.

(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't sentient. Atheists tend to point out semantic problems in stead of actually arguing the issue.

Theists tend to walk around posting about things they barely or partially understand and making atheist arguments for us rather than asking us straight up.

Pointing out glaring logical fallacies is not semantics, however doing so is considered intelligent, rational argument and discussion.

This is probably a foreign concept since theistic argument tends to consist of slack-jawed moaning of phrases like "gawd did it".


Welcome to the forum. Thumbsup

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
09-06-2016, 10:34 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  
(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Yep. This is gonna be a long one.

Feel free to throw your own logical dissections at any time.


GENESIS


First off, I'm skipping the whole "how were plants created before light/photosynthesis, how was light created before the sun, contradictions of which was created first" word games. Those take up too much time and words and pie.


1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

-The moon is not a light, it is a reflection of the sun's light. This is the first of many examples that suggest that God's omnipotence seems to be limited to the knowledge of the demographics and time period of when the Bible was written. Strange.


1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

-Our? Just how many gods are there?


2:2 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

-even though they say that God only "rested" to set an example of how would should rest on the 7th day, couldn't the Bible just say "rest on Sunday" ??(question mark)? It clearly says God rested, which means that this all-powerful being was worn out from all those valleys and hills and Wyoming and platypuses.


The Garden and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil


-Sooooo... God takes these 2 newly formed, ignorant to life humans, puts them in a garden with a tree bearing food, nonchalantly goes "don't eat from it" ... then leaves... to go make Venus, I guess. And you know the rest.

So... WHY did he put them near the tree? WHY did he have that which he didn't want humans to attain be edible and tempting? WHY did he leave? WHY did he allow Satan the Snake to be in the garden, knowing full well that he would tempt them? Why did God design these 2 humans to be susceptible to temptation?

Then God comes strolling by (3:8 "walking in the garden in the cool of the day") at the PRECISE moment after they eat the fruit and goes "whoa whoa, what's going on here?" (I'm paraphrasing, of course)

It's like having a 2 year old child and going "Now son, I'm going to leave these delicious chocolate chip cookies sitting right here within reach of you. I'm going to the store to buy some Funyuns. Don't eat them. Bye!" When any caring parent would remove temptation, knowing that the child doesn't know any better.

So it's quite obvious to me that God WANTED man to F up royally. God created man with the sole purpose of imposing "original sin" upon him, so that he may feel guilty and grovel and ask forgiveness for something that wasn't his fault for all eternity.

That child who ate the cookies is now 40 and the parent is still bringing it up daily. "I don't care if you saved an orphanage from burning down today... remember when I told you not to eat those cookies and you did?"


Cain slays Abel and is "cast out" arbitrarily from one remote location of this empty world to another random remote location. Then he worries that "every one that findeth me shall slay me."

-This is a strange worry since he is 1 of 3 people in existence. Then he sleeps with his wife to start the incestual chain of humanity... but where did his wife come from?


6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days"

-I'm assuming these are literal giants and not "intellectual giants" or some modern term.


Then the Lord decides that all humanity is corrupt and needs to be massacred via flood.

-One... why the need for an elaborate flood? Why not just use your God powers and make every one not exist? You can only create from nothing, not turn into nothing? Two, were we not already told that men were made in His image? So either God is evil and corrupt, which is why we turned out like we did before and after the flood... or he is incapable of creating things how he wants. God is a flawed designer.

Maybe that's why he doesn't show his face anymore. He tried once, messed up and started over. Then he was like "whoa hold on, hold on. No, stop making more people. Wait, why did you kill that guy? Stop fucking! There's too many of you already! You know what!? Fuck this, I'm out!"


Then there's the Ark which I won't discuss do to redundancy. There are thousands of videos mocking this obvious nonsensical fairy tale already. The average thinker explaining the flaws of Noah and his ark is analogous to a world renowned chemist giving a lecture on the validity of alchemy.


Then Noah (the only righteous man in the world) gets hammered on wine and passes out naked.


Then the humans build an impressive tower and God (completely caught off guard) confuses them by making them speak multiple languages because their tower was more impressive than the one he made in shop class.


Many pages of slaves and servitude and historical inaccuracies and more incest


18:9 "And God said unto him, 'Where is Sarah thy wife?'" You're omnipotent, God. Quit messing with me. And stop asking about my wife, perv.


Lot offers his virgin daughters to a mob of rapists to appease their lust for the sexually attractive angels


God burns Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground, including all those "evil" children and newborn babies.


God turns Lot's wife in a pillar of salt just for kicks and giggles. Why exactly was it so wrong to look back at a village being assaulted by fire raining from the sky? If no one was supposed to look, perhaps God could've made the destruction a little more subtle.


Lot's daughters got their father drunk, then raped him." Yeah, I've been really drunk before, even drunk, high, and on acid at the same time. And not once during that time would I have "mistakenly" slept with my family members. Especially since they lived in a cave, separate from anyone that could have been confused for a bar skank.


21:1 "And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived..."

-God made a booty call


For some reason, God takes human form and wrestles Jacob. He is losing so he cheats and gropes Jacob's inner thigh.


Various pages discerning which parts of the penis to chop off.


Onan is murdered by God for spooging on the ground instead of impregnating his brother's wife.


A 7000 page story about Joseph being thought dead, but actually not.


INTERMISSION


For those of you that read this far... Bravo, you bored and dedicated souls. Obviously all the books aren't as interesting or important as Genesis, and will be skipped over (I'm looking at you Psalms).

Now I continue on with Exodus. Ahem...

I will be honest and admit that I didn't read the entire thread, but I wanted to offer some initial thoughts.

First and foremost, what is Atheism? What is the argument here? Is it against a "god"? Or is it some writer's interpretation of "god"?
Further, if everyone's concept or definition of "god" is wrong, does that mean the concept doesn't exist?

As an analogy to that, let me offer this;
Back in 1996, it was discovered that the universe is expanding exponentially. That is, it is expanding, and doing so faster and faster.
So, it was observed that something is present that causes this expansion. No one has any idea what it is, how it works, where it comes from! (there are MANY theories, but no consensus)... what everyone basically agreed on was a NAME for whatever is happening. That name is "DARK ENERGY".

SO! What if everyone just agreed that there was a first cause to the beginning of the universe (and let's be honest, even the big bang is not a complete consensus these days), would most of us just concede that THAT first cause is called GOD?

Now, this exposes one's true argument. What most Atheists argue has more to do with what god IS rather than whether god exists. (face it, your arguments are about semantic things like omniscience and omnipotence than actual existence)... and THAT is what I am talking about here.
In general, the Atheist argument AGAINST god has to do with semantics that the general lay population won't understand, thus (to me) creating a straw man argument.

You're right. The "god" that Christians generally prescribe DOESN'T exist. But, that doesn't prove (nor is that evidence) that there isn't a first cause. It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't sentient. Atheists tend to point out semantic problems in stead of actually arguing the issue.

Pretty much everything you wrote is incorrect. Atheists are not arguing against God.

Atheism is a rejection of god claims due to lack of evidence for those claims.
I have no definition of any god; definitions are supplied by theists. They just don't supply any evidence. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
09-06-2016, 11:59 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't sentient.

It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't purple.
It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't insane.
It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't square.

When you reach a point where you don't know the answer then the proper response is to say "I do not know". Making up attributes that it might have is pointless unless you have some method to test to see if those attributes can be verified. "You can't prove it wasn't" is right up there with "I'm rubber, you're glue" as far as valid arguments go.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like unfogged's post
09-06-2016, 09:22 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
Quote:For a start, you have flat out stated that there must have been a first cause. Doesn't strike you as an assumption?

I am going to require a quote there... because I stated no such thing! I stated that pointing out bad semantics and religious nonsense doesn't prove that there is no first cause. HUGE difference!

Quote:What it your knowledge of time? What is a cause? What does it mean for a cause to come before another cause? Are you aware that simultaneous events are not simultaneous in all time frames?

What I know is that all "time" began a few plank times after the big bang, so anything before that well... there was no such thing as before that.
Also, there either was a first cause, or the universe is eternal... can't be both! Of course, there are membrane theories that have us as part of a larger multiverse (though most of those are obsolete with the discovery of gravity waves)... but the point is, our universe either had a beginning or it didn't.


Quote:Religious people are arguing for the sentient first cause. It's up to you to show it. I'm not arguing for any particular interpretation. I'm content with "I don't know" but I'm also willing to say that a sentient creator doesn't seem helluva likely.

I have always found "I don't know" to be one of the more intelligent things a person can say! As far as "show it" goes, I would argue that there is a double standard when it comes to what is "pseudoscience" and what is not. If Krauss makes the case that the "laws of nature" may actually pre-date the universe, be responsible for the universe coming into being and may still affect the universe (think about this for a second... you have a "force" that exists outside of the universe and outside of space-time that is literally responsible for creating the universe and its effects can still be seen in our world today)... this is still science! But, if I say the EXACT SAME THING but use the word DESIGNER rather than LAWS OF NATURE, it becomes pseudoscience and I have to offer proof...

Also, I want to make a distinction here between religion and theology. Theology is a science that requires curiosity and independent thought, whereas religion requires rhetorical process and obedience.

Personally, I am a areligious. It is a man made construct generally designed to control populations.

But, you have to admit... whether or not there is a first cause is still pretty hotly debated, even in the science community!

Quote:If it does to you, please enlighten me why you think Christee God more likely than Oompa Loompas as a creator?

Again, you are talking religion. I am talking first cause. Whatever you call it, it is still there. There is another perfect example of this argument in physics! In 1996 it was discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. No one has any idea WHY this is happening, though there are many competing theories... the difference here is that everyone generally agrees to call whatever it is by one name, DARK ENERGY. Personally, I don't care what you call the first cause, either way, every religion will claim it as their own! It just seems to me that the primary argument among most Atheists is that since everyone has it wrong about god, there must be no god.
Nobody has ever had ANYTHING in science right! Even now! Until the 1920s, it was generally accepted that the universe was static and eternal. Einstein's General Relativity showed that the universe should be expanding... and he hated it! It didn't jive with his world view, so he invented lambda (the original cosmological constant) to "fix the problem" with his equation. He even wrote to a colleague that the idea of an expanding universe "irritated" him, because there were "religious implications"... Then Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe was indeed expanding! (of course it was a Catholic priest that published that very theory 2 years earlier but was completely ignored, but that isn't really important right now). It still irritated Einstein, but he was happy to be able to erase lambda from his equation.
The point is... even after that, the community was sharply divided about the idea that the universe had a beginning. There were even "steady state" theories published that allowed for Hubble's observations. In the 70s when they discovered what they call DARK MATTER, a lot of physicists (especially theoretical physicists) found roads that would eliminate the "religious implications" that many feared... and of course, the discovery of what they call DARK ENERGY in the 1990s basically created the New Atheist movement (classic Atheism - Hume, Lewis, Flew, Ruse - were concerned with philosophy, whereas New Atheists are all about "prove it to me")...

Anyway. My point is simple (though it doesn't seem like it) - waxing semantic doesn't really prove anything except that religion is generally a bad idea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 09:31 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
Quote:It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't purple.
It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't insane.
It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't square.

But you aren't arguing those things... you (Atheists in general) ARE arguing that the first cause wasn't sentient.

I mean, this is the problem with "critical thinking"... it doesn't allow for imagination, creativity or even curiosity! It is all about PROVE IT! Empiricism is a fine thing! But if no one is out there thinking about what could be and then looking for the evidence to back it up, eventually there is nothing empirical to look to!

It's like the New Atheist movement has just stopped to let everyone catch up! They don't seem to care about moving forward.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(09-06-2016 09:31 PM)aserwin Wrote:  But you aren't arguing those things... you (Atheists in general) ARE arguing that the first cause wasn't sentient.

I am arguing there was no first cause.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: