ASA Calls It For Us!
22.01.09 | Ariane |
The UK Advertising Standards Authority has ruled in our favour, decided not to investigate the 326 complaints about the Atheist Bus Campaign adverts, and closed the case. Hurray!
It’s a great day for freedom of speech in Britain. Atheists are officially allowed to be represented in public for the very first time (adverts are not pre-vetted by legal organisations before they go up) and a rational counter-view can now be visible at any point to balance out evangelical advertising.
Most people have recognised that ours is a gentle, philosophical advert aimed at non-believers and fearful agnostics. We’re really pleased that the ASA has recognised this too. At last, we have a truly free voice – and it feels good.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:47
re.93 Samir
You are absolutely right, I don’t understand a word you say so its hard for me to argue with you. Hence my original light-heartd request.
I assure you I wasn’t trying to deny you the right to comment here but if you are going to bore the s**t out of everyone with tirades of rubbish you will lose your audience.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:49
What! two of them on the
same bus? – Gawdelpus!
Oy you! I’m the loony on this bus!
Fahkorf! go and get your own bus!
_____
January 29th, 2009 at 13:05
Reply to Comment #101
To quedula,
I wasn’t expecting anything else from a mediocre atheist like you. Regarding your great great great audience : There is no point in retaining an audience of illiterate stupids who do not understand simple arguments. Those Yahoo! kids can read a paragraph on “Collaborative Opinion” available at http://samirsp.blogspot.com
From : Samir
January 29th, 2009 at 15:45
@Samir
I have to apologise for taking so long to reply to your last few posts…I think I actually died a little inside reading #93. Anyhow, I’m not going to respond to #71 as Ian G so eloquently made my point for me – thanks for that Ian. On that comment though, I will say one thing and that as Ian pointed out, it’s pretty insulting to a lot of people when you say:
‘As the intelligence level of Homo Sapien improved, he started believing in God. That also explains why atheists don’t believe in God.’
Which essentially implies that Atheists are some less evolved (if you’ll accept the term) form of humanity – something you state with no proof or evidence. This is not the sort of statement that leads to a constructive debate about anything.
Reply to #93
When I first read this comment I was at a loss of what to say. I showed it to a colleague and he too was stunned into silence. Now – I refuse to accept that you’re medically insane, and so I still hold some hope that we can have some sort of constructive dialogue with you so here’s what I think of your comment and some questions I’d like you to answer. If you can’t answer them in a reasonable, logical way, showing your reasoning behind each statement (i.e. z this implies y because of x and therefore this) – then I will consider you a lost cause for not be replying again for fear of losing my self control/sanity.
Right!
Firstly:
‘Why don’t you make it a rule that only atheists should submit comments here ? The birds of the same feather can f*** together.’
As quedula said in #101, her comment did not imply any desire to stop theists posting on this website – it was a joke. I know that there is a slight language/cultural barrier here but why the need to resort to swearing? To call on a classic phrase, ‘It’s not big and it’s not clever’.
‘Competing in this global market is NOT your cup of tea, you mediocre Britons ! So long as hopelessly incompetent European atheists keep providing funds to the third class atheists within India, we will keep pointing out your mediocrity, inefficiency & absurdity.’
So you’re judging the entire British nation in terms of economics? How on earth is this relevant to the discussion of belief? Do you mean global market of religious views? Also – it seems like you’re only really able to spout random insults about atheists and not actually engage in a rational discussion.
‘So called scientists working on Large Hadron Collider must have realised that defeating mediocre atheists in the field of science is damn easy.’
This just doesn’t make any sense. Sorry but it doesn’t.
‘Whatever you know from science is already known to theists. In addition, theists know something which is beyond your grasping power.’
Question 1: What is the basis behind this assertion? How can you state that ‘Whatever you know from science is already known to theists’?
Question 2: What is it that theists know that atheists do not, and how is it beyond our grasping power?
‘Have you understood a single word from the article “Truthfulness” ?’
Yes – I took a look at it yesterday when I was thinking how to reply to this and I’ve got to say I was quite shocked. I eventually came to the conclusion that it was essentially nonsense, and to show what I mean, here’s an extract from your blog:
‘>>>>> The fundamental belief of atheist intellectuals is : “Theists are at junior level of morality development.” Without logical arguments, you cannot assume your opponent to be wrong. But atheist intellectuals don’t agree with this very foundation of LOGIC. For them, “collaborative opinion” alone is sufficient to prove their point.’
Question 3: Where did this fundamental belief of atheist intellectuals come from? Have you asked a lot of them about it? Is it a quote? If so – from whom?
You then go on to say that atheist intellectuals rely on collaborative opinion to prove their point. As you’ve been talking a lot about science, I don’t see how you can defend this statement. My beliefs are based on empirical evidence and theories support by that evidence. This leads me to ask:
Question 4: How does justification of religious belief not rely on collaborative opinion alone?
Finally:
‘Don’t ever try to find my whereabouts. Easy going creatures like you are fit for nothing. British citizens don’t know the basics of gambling. Ha, Ha, Ha !!!’
This I admit has me thinking you’re at least slightly insane but that aside – I’m afraid we don’t have to try too hard to find your ‘whereabouts’ as you list your address at the top of your blog that you keep touting (My address — Samir S. Palsuledesai Mahajan Building (2nd floor), Shiv Mandir Road, C-321, Ramnagar, Dombivli (East) PIN : 421 201 Dist. : Thane State : Maharashtra (INDIA))
So anyway – if you can answer my questions in a calm, logical manner showing your step-by-step reasoning, I will keep replying. If not, then I give up. I look forward to your response.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:27
For all you mediocre illiterate stupids out there.
Atheists are more intelligent than
religious people |Chris Barker
Freethinker |July 2008
Chris Barker argues that there is nothing racist about
suggesting that atheists are more intelligent than believers.
http://tinyurl.com/dn63bc
_____
January 30th, 2009 at 5:18
Reply to Comments #104
To Chris,
Perhaps you mean to say that only atheists should have the exclusive authority to ridicule theists as & when they want. When Western model of morality development, which is drafted by half baked atheist intellectusls, almost explicitly states that theists/believers are at junior levels of morality development, a large number of believers are obviously offended. That’s why we have come here to test the calibre of mediocre atheists who claim to be the whole & sole defenders of scientific temper.
You say, “This is not the sort of statement that leads to a constructive debate about anything.”
As you sow, so you reap. Comment #93 was a reply to comment #92. I don’t think Comment #92, in an way, was aimed at promoting constructive debate about anything.
You further say, “Now – I refuse to accept that you’re medically insane…”
How kind of you ! It is only your ego which prompts you to assume that I am so much dependent upon a favourable opinion from a mediocre atheists like you. Constructive debate won’t be possible unless & until half-baked atheists come out of their cocoon of superiority complex.
You want my reasoning behind each statement I have made.
Right!
1) Regarding ‘only atheists should post comments …’ : I don’t think I am the only person to raise doubts about impartial nature of this site-owners. Check Comment #7. Richard W has mentioned that some Stephen Green also had raised similar doubts. I agree with you that language/cultural barrier should not become a hurdle for constructive debate.
2) Regarding efficiency of British citizens : Check comments #57 & #85. What was it exactly that prompted these two eminent(!) members of this board to conclude that I might be using Google’s Translator service ? Those comments simply indicate that British citizens fail miserably when it comes to guessing the characteristics of a stranger. You fail to exhibit the qualities that are crucial when you are moving in a casino like this Public discussion board. Is it not sufficient to conclude that the members of this board do not have as much common sense as they should have had ? It is this general lack of common sense which prompts you to say, “God doesn’t exist”. So, my remarks about atheists are very much relevent to the discussion of BELIEF.
3) Regarding my comment about Large Hadron Collider : You may not be from the field of science. That’s why you feel that my comment doesn’t make any sense. My comment on LHC comment makes perfect sense. It is aimed at proving that atheists don’t have as much scientific temper as they claim. And it is this lack of scientific temper which prompts atheists to say, “God doesn’t exist.” When atheists fail to understand the basic tangible science, it is quite natural that understanding subjects like metaphysics is beyond their capacity. So, this too is quite relevent to the discussion of BELIEF.
4) If you check your own Western model of morality development, you will understand that you were in a bit hurry while calling my article “Truthfulness” as nonsense. Chris, you do not know many things. You seem to be a junior member of the atheist camp. Answer to your Question 4 will come up if this board really really engages itself in a constructive debate.
5) Now your final question regarding my whereabouts : I doubt whether a junior atheist like you knows the difference between “crude” world & “subtle” world. When I used the term “whereabouts”, it was with reference to my position in the system hierarchy. That’s why I have given a hint at the top of my blogspace that even if you know my correct postal address, it is NOT possible for you to know my SOURCE – an entity to which I am supposed to be answerable. That’s why I said British citizens do not know the basics of gambling !!! Dear Britons, Your PAST may be glorious but your PRESENT isn’t. Only God knows about your FUTURE. Amen.
That’s all.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:20
Samir: Remarkably, you’re wrong again!!
My comment #7 started:
Stephen Green’s reaction to the ASA’s rejection of his complaints about the Bus Ads has been an excellent example to all fair-minded people, on how we should take defeat with good grace and quiet dignity…
It’s called “irony”.
Try googling it, then feed it to your Babel fish!
“I am the most intelligent person on this globe, but nobody agrees with that” – Samir.
Bless him!
January 30th, 2009 at 9:58
Samir
Just a quick recap.
This blog is about atheism.
I say god doesn’t exist; you say (as far as I can understand you) “Yes he does”.
I say “Prove it”: and you then cite ancient texts, philosophical treatises, supposed revelations etc. to try to convince me of god’s existence.
Please note in this game personal opinions and other things going on inside your brain do not count as evidence.
Bye,bye, take care, q
January 30th, 2009 at 16:04
Some great posts on Ruth Gledhill’s “Labour does God” article in the Times.
We need to keep our eyes open and counter this kind of stuff whenever possible.
http://tinyurl.com/b49q4e
January 31st, 2009 at 3:36
Reply to Comment #107
To Richard W,
Grow up Richard. Your brain is still loitering around your childhood. It seems that you want to play with the words. Right!
I never said that Stephan Green had raised doubts about this particular site “atheistbus.org”. He had raised similar doubts about the impartial nature of atheists/secularists on planet ASA. As per my observation, this site works in a manner exactly similar to that of ASA. Half baked atheists/secularists are given more weightage than people of faith. That’s why I said, “I don’t think I am the only person to raise doubts about impartial nature of this site-owners.” Concentrate on the words I DON”T THINK. I haven’t said, “Other persons have raised similar doubts…” My statement implicitly means that chances of finding some persons who might have raised similar doubts about the owners of this site are not too small. (When it comes to playing with the words, lawyers from Indian Judiciary are much more competent than lawyers from British judiciary. Ha, Ha, Ha !!!)
By the way, we don’t use Google for doing petty things. That’s the characteristic of Yahoo! kids.
So, should I delete the second half of my profile caption ? Only first part i.e., “I am the most intelligent person on this globe.” may be sufficient.
I think, It would have been more appropriate had you used the term “May God bless him” instead of “Bless him!” But egotist atheists don’t believe in God. Hmmn…
(I had deliberately left an error in comment #89. Why is it that an efficient proof-reader like you hasn’t yet noticed it ?)
Reply to Comment #108
To quedula,
There seems to be some confusion. I haven’t cited any ancient text etc. All I have said so far is : “God exists, He knows & that shouldn’t mean we have no choices.”
January 31st, 2009 at 16:15
Attenborough: Genesis?
It can go forth and multiply
The Bible is to blame for devastation of the planet,
says Sir David Attenborough
Steve Connor |The Independent
http://tinyurl.com/alguwn
_____
February 3rd, 2009 at 0:01
Sorry for the late reply, and the book, I just got busy doing other things.
Regarding Chris J’s comment #69:
CHRIS J said:”You mention the dinosaurs. Why would this god cause the dinosaurs to suffer and die out? In fact, why were they around in the first place if humans were his ultimate goal – the favourite species, the only ones who would be allowed eternal life?”
I guess He couldn’t relate to a dinosaur, nor to a horse. But wanted us, those who stand upright. Maybe in a physical form He took on the shape of a man. Scripture does say that Yahweh came and walked with Adam, stood with Moses, walked with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, appeared before Samuel, walked the earth as Yahshua and will come back as a man, and even appeared on His throne in a figure of a man. My guess is that we’re made in His image, and to get to a human looking type of creature the universe had to go through a pretty awesome process.
CHRIS J said: The fifth day doesn’t mention any reptiles. In fact, on day six the animals were supposed to have come from the land, not the sea.”
Genesis 1:21 “God created the great (gadowl – great, large, numerous) monsters (tanniyn – dragon, serpent, sea monster, dragon or dinosaur, sea or river monster, serpent, venomous snake) and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good and He approved it.” Unfortunately some versions are obscured by the translators bias towards a certain view, take for instance the KJV in its first prints said “whales.” I take Genesis Day 5 to mean that life started in the waters and produced numerous and great creatures, which made their way on to land, eventually sometime during this epoch birds appeared. Here is a simple link I came across this past week which summarises chapter 1 of Genesis, I haven’t searched the whole website to know if I agree with everything the person says, even on the Genesis summary I have one or two discrepancies with it, but I this is a goodish summary nevertheless: http://www.hpcisp.com/~kls/page2.html
CHRIS J said: “If a day doesn’t mean a day in Bible talk, why are an evening and morning mentioned? More metaphors? On the subject of stars, why does the Bible talk of stars falling to the Earth? It’s like God thinks stars are meteorites!”
God loves metaphors, the whole Temple situation is one big grand metaphor to explain our spiritual life, read/browse The Owner’s Manual by Ken Power to see what I’m talking about. Throughout the Scriptures you’ll hear of phrases with the words evening and morning, like “wash and bathe with water and you’ll be clean at evening.” But taking the Genesis account of “there came to be evening (‘ereb – evening, night, darkness; the mixing together of an interwoven fabric; the mingling and joining together of things) and there came to be morning (boqer – morning or sunrise; from baqar, meaning to seek, search, enquire, consider, and reflect)” into account the word order is important as well as their deeper meanings, the Biblical day starts at sunset and ends the following sunset, in other words darkness always precedes light, light always triumphs over darkness. In this life we are unclean, our bodies are mortal, and if we wish to stand before God we need to become clean, we need to wash with water (a metaphor for God’s Word and the cleansing work He does to our lives) so that at the start of a new day at the end of our lives (when the following evening comes), we’ll be raised to life and given clean immortal bodies. But look closely at the Hebrew words, maybe you can figure out why He used that specific phrase to describe the act of creating, notice putting things together first and then reflecting on it later?
Well if you looked up at the sky and saw a meteorite you would think its a falling star too, just thankfully these days we have science being in a position able to tell us exactly what it is, still doesn’t discredit Scripture though. But obviously one needs to check context in which the verse appears to get the full meaning what was being described.
CHRIS J said: “How do you know that day 4 of millions of years corresponds with the dates 3000-4000 BC? What key are you using?”
Here is a short cut and pasted section concerning Day 2 (separation of the waters) from the book called Yada Yahweh, from chapter 2, called Chay-Life, of the Genesis section: “Scientifically, our solar system was created during this period. It happened in the manner God has testified. Water was present and essential. There is an association between all things. Relativity and time are linked. And separation, the repulsive nature of dark energy and matter, lay at the heart of what we observe. Spiritually, two is the number of choice. The second day is focused on separation. We need to decide whose side we want to be on—the side of light or darkness. Are we going to remain mired in the realm of matter and space or are we going to relate to our Creator in such a way as to exist eternally in time with Him? Likewise, from the perspective of our redemption, the second creative day is linked to the second Miqra’ [Feast], or Called-Out Assembly, the seven-part path which enables us to camp out with our Creator. Unleavened Bread [the second Feast in line of the seven annual Biblical Feasts] is about removing yeast, which is symbolic of sin, from bread, which represents our natural bodies. It is this separation which makes us acceptable to Yah. Historically, the second millennium of human history [since the fall of Adam], consistent with Yahuweh’s creative witness, is punctuated with the ultimate story of water separating mankind from life and from God. Noah was called out and separated from the midst of evil men, living in a wooden ark of protection designed by God while the waters rose and consumed those who chose the wrong side of the divide. If you want to live with Yahweh you will have to trust Him, too. And in that regard, His Ark of His Covenant was also built of wood—not unlike the upright pole [errantly called cross] upon which He [Yahweh as Yahshua on earth] hung.” Day 4 is just too long to post here or explain, but you get the drift. Yahshua (Jesus) often spoke in parables, and it would be wise of us to consider His use of words. God speaks in practical, literal and non-literal, prophetic and spiritual terms but we also need to look at the scientific and historical side as well.
CHRIS J said: “I’d agree death and natural suffering has always been a part of life, and that some things are the fault of man. But I’d still call creating earthquakes and volcanoes an evil act, and part of the suffering man must endure. I hope you understand AIDS is a virus and that it infects anyone it comes into contact with – that straight people can get it, as can gay people. Just incase you were about to go down the ‘gays = AIDS’ argument, I think you’d better research that first. Again, saying others reap what we sow isn’t a very just thing. And your god saying it doesn’t make it just either. I don’t blame it on a god, because I don’t believe in one, but you’d have to blame it on your god – who else decided the innocent would reap what evil people sow? Your god, right?”
Earthquakes and volcanoes are just a natural occurences due to the shifting in the earth’s crust. However, Yahshua did tell us in the last days there would be an increase in these things, including tsunamis, hurricanes, war, diseases, etc. Reaping what we sow is a very just thing, it shows that we are accountable for our actions, if I don’t study for an exam I can’t blame the teacher for my poor results. If I make a habit of it and be a lazy bum, my children will end up suffering as a result of my doing, they’ll probably go to worse schools and also have a poor education. They’ll reap what I sow. Just for interest sake: close relatives of mine have delved into same-sex relationships before. And yes, I do actually understand the nature of the HIV virus and won’t pin it as a “gay-only” disease, simply because it’s not.
CHRIS J said: “Does it matter if God’s chosen people were wandering the desert? A click of the fingers and there could have been plumbing! Didn’t he stop the sun so that a battle could be won? Oh whoops, another Biblical mistake there, seeing as the Earth travels around the sun!”
Everything in the desert was to be temporary, as they were on their way to the Promised Land, they weren’t to settle there, they ending up wandering for 40 years though.
I’ve been trying to research these past few days on this Joshua battle and the sun appearing to stand still, I’ve read some interesting scientific theories, none that I’m too happy with for the meantime. It could very well have been a supernatural event but I’m considering verse 11 of Joshua 10 in that stones came from the sky and helped to defeat the enemy, which could indicate a natural event. For interest sake: the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are situated exactly where specified, on the banks of the Dead Sea, somewhat inland though, but archaelogical evidence does reveal that they did exist and are still covered with evidence of sulphur. The cause destroying these cities is also believed to be a natural event, that of subterranean petroluem-based bitumen (which contains a certain percentage of sulphur) that was forced out of the earth, possibly due to an earthquake because of its location over a fault line in the earth’s crust. Do a Google search, pretty easy to find.
CHRIS J said: “I want you to know, I am extremely happy to be alive. It means there had to be a continuous chain of life lasting billions of years just for me to be here – how lucky are we?! So to want more then seems rather selfish to me. I wish more people would be grateful for the life they have, rather than trying to justify a belief which claims they’re the best species on the planet and that they know how to live forever. Still, why create the suffering too?”
I don’t think its a question of wanting more but that of wanting the truth, to understand purpose. Its hard for some of us to just to accept it all came from nothing, whereas to you that seems the logical choice.
CHRIS J said: “Original sin – your god knows everything, apparently. So, did he know that out of all the humans he could have chosen to put a soul into, this Adam character would turn from him? Well, yes. So wasn’t it actually a set up to doom humanity? You do know we’re not all the descendants of a man who lived 6000 years ago, yeah? Even if one man was tested by God, most of us wouldn’t have inherited any sin. The Bible talks about God walking with Adam, and you believe that part – so what about the naming (and checking of sexual compatibility – huh?) of all the animals, the woman from the rib, the talking snake? Were they really ashamed to be naked, when most of humanity had invented clothes by that time? Did man really live for hundreds of years back then? I get the feeling you like some parts but ignore others.”
Yahweh made the Law (an instruction manual that promotes loving one’s neighbour, being productive, living healthy and implementing a justice system that works) especially too difficult so that none can boast of good works, but He didn’t leave us in the dirt, He provided a way out. I don’t get what you mean by checking sexual compatibility, but as far as I’m aware its pretty obvious to distinguish between a crocodile and a duck. They weren’t ashamed of their nakedness but ashamed of their sin, but if you look deeper there’s a seriously deep spiritual principle in this story, if you try put together your own figtree number to cover up it won’t do you justice, but you’ll need an animal skin to do the trick, obviously hiding behind plants is referencing man trying to hide from his own folly while the animal skins provided are a reference to Yahshua’s sacrifice. Yahweh didn’t come down and smack them, He came down and lovingly provided for them, He still adored His creation. The snake and the rib we’ll have to take the Word as it is, obviously like all things in Scriptures they do have a spiritual meaning as well. Age length I’m not hundred percent sure of now at the top of my mind, but with eating naturally and possibly with a decent atmosphere and less diseases it’s likely they did live much longer.
CHRIS J said: “Another question on the matter of a just god – you say even if someone is good, but doesn’t choose your god, it’s no salvation for them! So for all those who happened to be born in the wrong time or place, through no fault of their own, who were raised to believe in different gods, or saw no reason to believe – will miss out!”
Man is reaping what man has sowed, generations will be lost because of man’s doing. Those leading astray will reap their reward, while unfortunately the victims of these deceptions will pass away into nothingness after their death. At least being non-existent, then having a life and then going back to nothingness is better than the errant teaching of the church that says one is born and then goes to burn in hell for all eternity, because that’s really unfair. No amount of good works will inherit an entrance ticket to heaven, it’s insulting to God to say to Him “no thanks in regards to following Yahshua, but I prefer to do good works and believe what I want and do the things I want, and in return I expect an entrance ticket to heaven.” A person cannot buy their way in, only acceptance of Yahshua will earn it, its a gift, not something you can work for.
CHRIS J said: “Try getting back to the idea of original sin as is in the Bible (inspired by your god, yes?), instead of talking about Jesus’ spirit giving us a conscience (mentioned nowhere in the Bible). You’re making stuff up. Weren’t people accountable to God before Jesus’ death?”
The only difference between those before Yahshua’s crucifixion and those afterwards is that they looked forward in time to the Messiah while we look back in time to Him. If you dig into the Hebrew words you’ll get what I mean by being conscious, like animals are, and being both conscious and having a conscience, like humans. The difference is mentione there in Genesis already, just need to look for it.
CHRIS J said: “Rape victim – I’m interested, how is seeking the permission of the father to get out of marrying a rapist a just thing? Why is it even an option? It’s a rapist! What scripture says there’s a way out if the father (note: not the mother, or not the victim!) chooses? I did notice the rapist who raped a betrothed woman was to face death, but I also noticed if the woman didn’t scream loudly enough, she too was to face death!”
The laws concerning a rapist are there to discourage rape, not to promote it. You’re reading through the wrong eyes. Rape of a bethrothed virgin brought death, and rape of an unbetrothed virgin was costly, about US$ 25000 equivalent, just a guess though as a shekel was determined by weight followed by the price for gold. It was a costly thing to rape, not something a person would take lightly on the matter. And the rapist had to pay that regardless of whether or not it proceeded into marriage, and if for some reason the husband let the marriage proceed (due to the fact that in that time of history is wasn’t often a daughter was still a virgin) the rapist was married for life to the woman. And I’m stressing “for life” here as in God’s eyes marriage is sacred, a guy can’t just decide he wants a different woman even if he’s wife turns out to be nasty, if he were to commit adultery he would suffer death as a result.
Spiritually if unbelievers try and rape/seduce believers (who are betrothed to Yahweh) will suffer death as well, but we’re talking about eternal death here. Also, Yahweh continually tells us that we are betrothed to Him, if Satan comes to us to force his way, usually through seduction, on us then we have the option of calling out to Yahweh for help or not, if we don’t it means we are going ahead with the “rape,” agreeing to it. In that case we are betraying God, our Husband, by jumping in bed with another husband/god, punishable by eternal death.
And today’s humanists (and other groups) are pushing the removal of God from schools and promoting sex-education to very young children already, rather than enourage marriage they encourage safe-sex, a recipe for disaster. So much for tolerance from Humanism, instead we must buckle to their rules.
CHRIS J said: “Disobedient children – however bad a child gets, is it okay to stone them to death? Really now. Why couldn’t God have invented boot camp or prison or something instead? Even locking someone away seems a more moral thing than stoning them to death! To compare a life to tax payers’ pockets seems quite immoral. People can have a change of heart, ask for forgiveness, pay back what they stole, or even be wrongly accused of a crime – there’s no way to settle situations like that in a just way if the person is dead.”
The greater truth is this, if you reject God (Father) and blaspheme the Spirit (Mother), in other words reject God’s gift of eternal life by rejecting your Eternal Parents, you will suffer eternal death. Being stoned to death was a public thing, in other words everyone will see it. However, the Torah (and Bible) does stress foregiveness in many places, unfortunately people don’t read those parts, except prefer to try contradict or make Yahweh to be a mean God. The whole Torah is about reconciling us to Yahweh so that we might live with Him. You are right though in your last sentence, people can have a change of heart, and if you just read the Scriptures you’ll see it mentioned over and over again where people are forgiven of their death-derserving crimes.
February 3rd, 2009 at 16:14
[...] to the UK Advertising Standards Authority, which issued a precedent-setting decision in favor of the campaign and closed the case (see ruling here). No God Bus Ad in [...]
February 3rd, 2009 at 17:47
(These are getting long!)
Thanks for the reply, Matthew.
I made a mistake in the way I spoke about waste being taken away before. The real question is why act as if God passed on this valuable information as guidance for the unknowledgabe humans when humans already knew all about the importance of waste disposal?
Here’s a picture to illustrate what we’re talking about now – the timeline of Earth.
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/Earliest%20Piece/Images/28.jpg
One look makes me question how anyone could believe it’s all about us as the most important species ever, but anyway, questions come up. Could you smash a rock into a cat’s head? Could you burn it? Could you starve it of food? Hopefully, your answer would be ‘No, I’m not that cruel.’ and yet if what you say is true, the god you worship did that to thousands or millions of species with the meteorite. How come humans have a higher sense of morality than the creator of the universe?
Evolution doesn’t require a deity intervening to guide things. But as you seem to be saying it does, why let dinosaurs evolve at all if they weren’t his type? Why let them survive for millions of years before wiping them out? Why wait billions of years before getting the Cambrian explosion started?
Why all the false starts for humans? Our recent ancestry looks more like a bush than a tree. We almost went extinct at one point too! Yet, it’s still all about us..?
Made in God’s image – again, evolution requires no divine guidance, but – which sex organs does God have – male, female or both? Does he have a blind spot in the eye? How about a tailbone? Does he get hiccups? Why does God look like an assemblage of body parts which evolved over billions of years on this planet due to a blind process?
As Bertrand Russell wrote: “If God is indeed omnipotent, why could He not have produced the glorious result without such a long and tedious prologue?”
If day five means the start of life all the way to birds (after the dinosaurs) what room for day six? It overlaps day five? The first mammals (which you say come on day six) evolved about 100 million years before the first birds. I tried to plan out the Bible days on the timeline picture and got all in a muddle.
I’m reminded of the section about the cook book at the end of Sam Harris’ The End of Faith book, where he takes a recipe and turns it into a spiritual metaphor, much as you’re doing. Many of the verses HAD to become metaphors in order for people to cling to their faith, and only when science had proven them to be wrong.
- Why does it say evening and morning?
- It doesn’t mean evening and morning. The original words can mean something else.
- Why not just say what he means then – i.e. ‘God reflected on what He had done’ – if this is the most important book ever for the salvation of humanity? He must have known that for thousands of years humans would have been wrong. No wonder there are so many translations of the Bible, and so many schisms in religion.
It’s true that people living then would have mistaken meteorites for stars. I just assumed if the creator of the universe had written or inspired the book He wouldn’t have been as unintelligent as those people.
To take the number two and twist it in all these colourful ways really is beyond me. Same too with the seperation of water also meaning the seperation of man from God, and a flood. I certainly hope you don’t believe the Noah’s flood story as is written – with ALL the high mountains under the ENTIRE heavens covered, two of EVERY animal saved. I think you take those phrases to be metaphors, as you have said before you believe the flood only took place in one part of the world (so obviously not covering the highest mountain – in that area even – to a depth of more than 20 feet). We’re also not all the descendants of 8 people from 4000 years ago.
Earthquakes and volcanoes are just a natural occurence – yes. But who do you think created the Earth with these natural things? I’ve asked this a couple of times now. We both know the answer your worldview inevitably leads to. Is it so hard to say your god created an unstable planet right from the get go? Why is this? It’s not the sort of thing a loving being would do?
Who created the system in which children would inherit diseases? Your worldview leads to… your god! There are things we can control to stop our children being affected, but diseases? Some perhaps, but certainly not all.
It’s more the way it’s said than the events with the sun standing still. An all knowing god writing or inspiring a book should have said it was the Earth which stood still if the story is correct. I saw a pretty interesting documentary about Sodom and Gomorrah which showed there could have been a meteorite strike miles away which sent up burning debris which travelled back to those two cities and destroyed them. It makes sense that stories would arise around these terrifying events the people couldn’t explain. It wasn’t too long ago we were blaming ‘witches’ for failed crops; more stories made up around natural events we felt needed explaining.
There might not be purpose to the universe. Or there might be. The most rational thing to say is ‘I don’t know’ which is what I do. But to think the purpose is mostly to do with our species makes no sense when the big picture is considered. I don’t have enough data to say if we came from nothing or not. We’re made of the same elements found elsewhere in the universe and the only part which is still a little hazy from that to us is abiogenesis. Before the big bang there may not have been nothing, because we can’t explore that far back yet. The universe (not just ours) could have existed forever in some form or another. Or maybe ’something’ is more natural than ‘nothing’ and there was no ‘before’ the big bang. Just like you can’t go North of the North pole. I know I’ll never know as much as my descendants, and I’m fine with that. But I also know whenever we’ve believed a supernatural explanation for some unexplained event in the past, we’ve been proven wrong every time.
With the sexual compatibility, I could be wrong but I was under the impression God didn’t want Adam to be alone, so he went through the entire list of animals before saying ‘Oh my Me! It’s a WOMAN Adam needs! I must have forgotten!’ and proceeding to make a woman for him, even though they already existed. I’m sure with even the best diet and health, humans didn’t live up to around 900 years like many of the Biblical characters.
More metaphors – nakedness = sin. Plants = folly. God giving them animal furs = Jesus’ death 4000 years later.
You’ve said the Genesis account makes sense to you, and I can see how it’s done now. You have to change the meanings of practically everything. This can be done with any creation story, not just the Biblical one. Here’s a Hindu one-
“Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.
From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu’s navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu’s servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord’s command.
Vishnu spoke to his servant: ‘It is time to begin.’ Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: ‘Create the world.’
A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.
The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.
The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma’s creation.”
Anyone could say this is a metaphor, and that Vishnu is real. It wouldn’t convince me, or you I doubt. Yet you make an exception for the Biblical tale. It’s inconsistent.
Being led astray by being born in the wrong place doesn’t seem fair, but even with the knowledge of many religions available, how can someone pick your beliefs over say, the Hindu ones? The same mental tricks can be done to either, so there’s still no way to determine which is correct, if any are.
Are you saying Jesus’ death allowed for all humans after Adam (who are also his descendants) to stand before God?
How do you get around the fact we’re not all descendants of a man who lived 6000 years ago, yet we still all have a conscience?
I’m still waiting for the scripture showing the father can stop the rapist/victim marriage taking place.
I’m sorry if you think I’m metaphorically raping you. It’s a failsafe for many believers to think that if there are tough questions to think about, there must be an invisible dragon trying to turn them away from what they believe. If you want to think I’m being controlled by this invisible dragon, that’s up to you. The way I see it, I’m speaking as a human to another human, bringing up the same kind of thought processes you yourself use to dismiss all the other religions, and applying them to your particular belief system.
Atheism doesn’t have to lead to humanism. Plenty of atheists wouldn’t want young children taught about sex in schools, and want them to wait until they’re mature enough before having sex. Young people will have sex if they want to, and suggesting they wait won’t actually make them wait. Those who would rather wait will do so anyway, regardless of what adults suggest. So if there are those who will do these things no matter what, it makes sense to have the information out there so they do it safely. Teaching is not the same as encouraging at all.
America does things more in line with your way of thinking, and yet there are more teenage pregnancies there on a percentage basis than in the UK. It’s obvious it doesn’t work. Teaching safe sex can at least reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
More metaphors, or half metaphors – going against your father and mother = going against God and the Spirit. If you had a child who disobeyed, would you forgive them or stone them to death? What if they didn’t repent? Would you stone them then? You can highlight the forgiveness for my benefit if you like, but if the writer of the Bible is the ultimate moral law giver, aren’t they both on equal footing? Stone them, forgive them, it’s all from God so it’s all okay. My conscience screams out at me ‘No! Stoning is not okay under any circumstances at any time!’ I expect yours does the same. Except I can say ‘Wherever I get my morality from, it’s certainly not the Bible’ and you are forced to focus on scriptures more in line with how you think.
February 5th, 2009 at 23:21
A book for Chris!
Regarding waste removal, it is possible and likely that they knew this already, but which ever way you look at it God told them to make sure they removed their waste, especially for their own physical safety. And of course there’s a spiritual meaning as well, as believers we must “cover up” our human condition, in other words we shouldn’t walk in sin and let it pollute our environment.
I like the picture you linked to, it doesn’t contradict Scripture. The Genesis account doesn’t go into detail regarding science, it leaves a lot of room open actually. We know that Scripture says that sea-life and animal life produced within species, and hard-shelled fossils prove this. But even if science were to discover a common soft-tissue ancestor it still wouldn’t discredit the Genesis account. Genesis just lists the major events.
A rock smashing cats heads with rocks is a good way to put it, never thought of it like that, but this is Yahweh’s creation (the easy answer), and since animals live and they die they wouldn’t recall being in pain or not. Sounds mean, doesn’t it? Maybe even hypocritical of God you might say. But we are told to be good stewards of the earth, to look after it and treat it with respect, but not to worship it because it cannot offer salvation. I have knee troubles, due to being a serious squash player, but I don’t blame God for my suffering, I just now have come to learn that my legs weren’t designed for such harsh treatment. I know a person who suffered serious knee issues as well, and rather than curse God she learned patience and perseverance from it, so when her and her husband adopted nine children, half of which are handicapped in some way or another, she was prepared to help them and love them through her own experiences.
I’ve even seen animals sacrifice one of their own for the survival of the rest, in this case its natural and not cruel. One buffalo was being attacked by lions but kept warding them off, after a couple of hours a few buffalos ganged up and knocked the buffalo down and left it to the lions. The one buffalo had to suffer for the survival of the rest. We are the purpose of His creation, to share a loving relationship with us, loving companionship, something in which He does not posses within Himself. He even sacrificed and suffered Himself in order that we could be reconciled with Him. It all comes down to choice, and attitude. If for example there was absolute proof that the earth was suddenly created it would leave you with no choice but to accept God, and God doesn’t want that. He doesn’t want submission, but wants people to choose Him and trust Him, the essence of loving companionship. He doesn’t want a relationship with a robot, an animal you could say.
My above paragraphs should also answer your section on evolution not needing a deity, God let it all happen naturally so we wouldn’t be forced to accept that God exists. This should answer Bertrand Russel’s statement as well. It’s all about choice. What choice would you have if God appeared before you and said “submit!”? There’s no love and trust in that.
God is both male and female, and all about family, held together by pure love, at least on His part. The Father encompasses the male traits while His Spirit the feminine traits.
Scripture doesn’t say that periods couldn’t overlap, like you mention about getting in a muddle. The first mammals could’ve very well appeared in Day 5 or dinos could’ve overlapped into Day 6, the latter being more logical, and when looking at science reptiles flourished first and mammals only flourished later, so Scripture is in accord with science about the order. The earliest mammals could’ve very well appeared during the fifth epoch but they only became prominent after the dinos had disappeared, or the dinos overlapped into Day 6 when small mammals began to appear, and after the dinos got wiped out mammals flourished. Does Scripture allow for overlaps? I certainly think so because it certainly does’t forbid it.
Concerning why it says Evening and Morning I’m gonna request you read a section from the link http://yadayahweh.com/Yada_Yahweh_Genesis_Owr.YHWH, use your browser search and either enter the word “evening” and locate the first time the word appears it or the sentence “The creative act of the first day,” it’s a few paragraphs long but short nevertheless, in short God is telling us to look at things from His perspective as well. Each word in Scripture is exact and specific, hence the way in which it is written.
Also, I can just take Genesis as it is in its simple form and still find it links with science and is logical in order. One just needs to know the meaning of “day “and that the word “create” does not appear in the original Hebrew for Day 4, where it actually says the celestial bodies “appeared.” Taking Genesis deeper only highlights the magnificence of Yahweh in laying a perfect foundation and opening chapter, which sets up the rest of the Book.
Concerning Noah’s flood I do believe it to be a translation error of the word “erets”, the Hebrew word can mean land, dirt, ground, soil, territory, region, realm, and area. I don’t take it to mean every single mountain in the world to be covered, but every single mountain in the region where the flood occured, hence why there are so many flood myths from around the world from that time. It is thought that an asteroid struck the Indian Ocean (burckle crater) sending tsunamis to flood the Middle East basin and causing torrential rains across the earth, hence why there are so many stories of floods and strange weather surrounding this time.
As to the age the of people from Adam to Noah there is a lot of discrepancy in this area as to the actual ages of these people, and I can see how it annoys you. A book by John Sanford called Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome provides a plausible reason as why it is possible for people to live longer lives. In this case climate pre-flood would’ve been very different than now, especially in regards to a better ozone-layer, check the latest discovery on the news regarding the remains of a monster prehistoric snake being found indicating temperatures have been vastly hotter on the earth in previous times as well as being more tropical in nature. You should also check out Dr Cynthia Kenyon’s work in regards to the aging process. But yes, some of the years of the early Bible guys do seem a little high, and this can be due to scribal errors plus papyrus damage over time causing specifically the letters used for numbers to fade due to the way the letters were written on the papyrus.
Some say the earth is unstable, but others say it’s stable. Is the glass half empty or half full? Again, God is about choice, if everything was peachy and there was undeniable evidence, proof of a sudden creation, then it leaves us with no real choice.
Regarding a woman from Adam’s rib, there is obviously a spiritual principle behind this as well. God was informing us that Chavah (who the Catholics changed to Eve in honour of the Mother Earth goddess) who was to be our helper and this is symbolic of how God’s Spirit is also to be our Helper.
I’ve researched Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, at least the majors, and to me Yahweh’s Scriptures is the only one that’s consistent, being scientifically, historically, prophetically (and that’s a real big one considering the hundreds of prophetic claims) and spiritually accurate.
From Adam onwards everyone will stand before God to give an account of Himself. Well this is what our Scriptures say.
“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17) Our father’s have more experience than us when it comes marriage, so for fathers to select brides for their sons is a wise thing, they know what makes a marriage work and what does not, today’s generation are sex-obsessed and is a major cause for divorce and broken families, though this has been a problem for thousands of years. Same goes for father’s not wanting their daughters to marry losers, parents know what’s best, or they should at least know what’s best.
Concerning stoning and metaphors: Numbers 15:32-36 “While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then Yahweh said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as Yahweh commanded Moses.” God has told over and over again that man will have 6000 years followed by 1000 years where He’ll be reigning on earth in person, man works for 6 days and rests for the 7th. The Sabbath day is symbolic of the 7th Millennium – coming to a planet near you. This man is symbolic of all those rebelling against God, those who say “I don’t want this Man called Yahshua (Jesus) to rule over me” and prefer to trust in themselves rather than trusting God. People who trust in God are symbolic of those who rest on the Sabbath day, and who will get to rest on the Sabbath (7th) Millennium. The rebellious people are in the process of collecting their own firewood for their own judgement. This passage is deeply prophetic in nature. If man would only just understand the symbols/metaphors/parables used and took God’s Word seriously then we wouldn’t be in this awful mess.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:35
Matthew,
Suggest you take a look at this article in the current New Scientist:-
http://tinyurl.com/aqmsnn
February 9th, 2009 at 15:08
I pity the person who has to check these before allowing them on the site!
Matthew,
I’m glad you admit your god instructed man to write down something man already would have known. It makes it easier for any rational person to accept these books were written by man alone. Especially as you didn’t even mention the stars/meteorites and sun standing still – maybe because they are such obvious man made mistakes we’d expect to see from 3,500 years ago, or a very embarrassing error from an all knowing god if he exists. Which do you think it is?
Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. I’m not cracking up. It’s a metaphor. The names Jack and Jill show it’s both males and females being discussed. The hill represents a struggle, as it is harder to go uphill than along a flat area. Water is required to sustain life – as many scientists say, water is needed for life to exist in the first place. It quenches our spiritual thirst. Therefore, we can’t expect it to be easy to attain a full spiritual and eternal life, yet it is there for those willing to try.
Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after. Breaking the crown is representative of man losing his privileged place. Woman too fell from grace. But the hill still exists, and the life giving water at the top. Mankind needs to pick itself up and continue on the journey.
It should be obvious to you that the writer of Jack and Jill was inspired by the creator of the universe to pass on an important message to us all. Do you accept this? If so, hehe! If not, why do you make an exception for the Genesis account? I brought this up with the Hindu creation story too, but alas, it was another unanswered point. Can you answer it?
I don’t believe animals live on after death, but that still wouldn’t make it okay to cause them deliberate pain. I also don’t have to worship animals to know causing deliberate pain to them is wrong. My feelings of compassion toward them doesn’t rely on whether they can offer me salvation. I expect it’s the same for you, when you think about it. Why is our morality so far ahead of your god’s?
God designed the world, or guided evolution, so a person would have bad knees, but the benefit of this was that the person was better equipped mentally to look after children God had ‘designed’ to be handicapped. The silver lining in the ironic cloud?
Lions and buffalos. I’m not a god, but let’s see if I can imagine a world with less suffering for a moment. …Okay, I think one in which animals didn’t have to tear other animals to pieces just to survive might have less suffering. God couldn’t do better than my imagination when ‘lovingly’ creating the rules of this planet – in other words, nature? Even Jesus is quoted as saying “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?”, so should he have added “Forget about the dinosaurs and buffalos though, they are of little value to God. Come to think of it, birds get a hard time of it too”?
I don’t ask for absolute proof for a god, just one good reason to believe. I don’t see one, and seeing as you’re saying it’s a choice rather than anything based on reason does this mean you’re basing your decision to believe on a choice and/or blind faith?
Knowing a god existed still doesn’t mean everyone would worship it. Inbetween leaving my childhood religion and being atheist, I was prepared to die for my higher sense of morality than worship the god of the Bible. I saw very little love. I saw the threats and cruelty of a powerful bully, and I wanted no part of it.
Does God in human form have the human ailments I spoke of?
Overlap – You’re at a restaurant, and on part of the menu you see:
Steak and chips – £4.99
Shepherd’s Pie – £3.99
Ham salad – £3.50
You order the shepherd’s pie, and are surprised to see it arrives with a piece of steak and some cucumbers. No doubt you would question this. Would the following answer satisfy you? “Sorry sir, perhaps you didn’t realise. The menu overlaps, so technically this is the right order. Check again – the menu certainly doesn’t forbid this, does it?”
You make an exception for the Genesis account, and say things like day six is when mammals flourished, when the scripture says they were created then, not that they were around already and then they had more offspring. You have to add all this guess work and words that simply aren’t there. You go on to say ‘each word in scripture is exact and specific’ so is it or not?
Noah’s flood – earth can mean a patch of land, sure, but what about the rest? ‘Entire heavens’, ‘every animal’? More translation errors? If water covers a mountain, it overflows. It doesn’t carry on for another 20 feet.
If you want to reduce the number of years these people lived and blame it on more translation errors, this only shortens the amount of time between Adam and Jesus. Assuming Jesus existed, I expect you’d say it was around 2000 years ago, bringing the start of our ‘conscience from God’ story hundreds or thousands of years forward. You already couldn’t explain away the fact humans already had clothing, language, and a conscience 6,000 years ago, or that woman already existed or Adam’s naming of all the animals, so you might have just shot yourself in the foot to now claim it all happened much later.
God created a world of suffering which lasted several billion years so that he could start making real friends (less than?) 6,000 years ago who would come to him of their own accord, and hopefully brush the billions of years of suffering he caused under the rug and call him loving for giving us a free choice. I’ll add it to the list of excuses I’ve heard, it’s a funny one.
If Eve was a metaphor for God’s spirit or nature, why all the story about her coming from Adam’s rib, the eating of fruit, experiencing pain in childbirth, being the mother of all humans, becoming Adam’s wife? Come on!
God: Adam, did you eat the fruit of the forbidden tree?
Adam: Your spirit/mother nature tempted me!
God: Spirit/nature! Is this true?
God’s spirit/nature: The talking snake told me to.
Who’s to blame now for man failing God’s test? God’s spirit? The nature God created to help man, which already existed before man, and didn’t come about (less than?) 6,000 years ago as the Bible says if Eve means nature? Does God want friends who are completely irrational and who put wishful thinking over common sense?
Exodus 22:16,17 is not talking about a rape victim. Where is the scripture showing the father can prevent the rape victim/rapist marriage taking place?
If the command to stone people to death had a great big metaphorical meaning to it, you still can’t get out of saying it was a literal command too. You think trusting a being who wants people stoned is good? Oh, if only people would follow God’s word and go back to stoning people! Then we wouldn’t be in this awful mess! No, you pick the bits you agree with.
There’s parts I agree with too. Society probably would be better if there was less promiscuity and certainly if people didn’t steal, but instead treated others as they would like to be treated. But slavery? Women being second class citizens? Stoning disobedient children? Killing quiet rape victims? Forcing rape victims to marry their attackers (unless you can show me the scripture, although it should still be the victim’s choice)? Killing people who promote a different faith? If it was real, I would rebel. You do it now without realising it, perhaps. Imagine standing before God when you die.
God: So Matthew, I saw that your son was extremely naughty.
Matthew: Yes Lord. But we persevered, and he turned out alright.
God: I said clearly, disobedient children were to be stoned.
Matthew: Well yes, but he’s alright now. It’s lucky we gave him a chance.
God: Chance?! Excuse me, that was using your own judgement. Why didn’t you trust me? Don’t you think I know better?
Matthew: You do know better. It’s just, um…
God: I was following your debate with Chris J. You clearly knew about the command so you can’t claim ignorance. You even said I should be trusted. Yet you didn’t obey. This means you rebelled against me, deliberately. No eternal heaven for you. I don’t want people who think for themselves. *trapdoor*
As well as ones I’ve pointed out, this is another unanswered question. Perhaps the most important. How do you get around the fact we’re not all descendants of a man who lived [much less than] 6000 years ago, yet we still all have a conscience?
February 9th, 2009 at 15:49
@quedula:
The article is written by an atheist and is extremely biased to his own understanding, especially with phrase such as “So how does the brain conjure up gods?,” as if to say God doesn’t exist and this is just a person’s imagination. Plus an overwhelming majority of the “scientific evidence” is provided by an atheist pshychologist.
This artilce confirms why man is different to animals, except the author is blinded by his atheism beliefs and cannot arrive at a truthful conclusion. The answer is simple: Yahweh had a purpose for us, to establish a relationship with us. He gave us a conscience, the breath of life, that which makes it possible for us to have a relationship with Him, hence why we have the ability to think concerning physical things and spiritual things.
Also, this article confirms that Yahweh was right all along, especially when describing Israel during Hosea’s time, Rome during the time of Paul and man of today:
Romans 1:20-23 “For since the creation of the world His invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, both His everlasting power and Mightiness, for them to be without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not esteem Him as God, nor gave thanks, but became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and changed the esteem of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds and of four-footed beasts and of reptiles. ”
This passage in Romans describes our academic, political, societal, and religious institutions. They have put man at the front, worshipping man instead of the Creator, I can’t help but think of the symbol used by Humanism, that of a figure of a man. Also, Darwinists use the classic walking-fish logo, similar to the four-footed beast described in the Scripture passage. And reptiles refers to unclean and errant doctrines, man choosing to follow the lie rather than the truth.
The last paragraph of the article says: “Would a group of children raised in isolation spontaneously create their own religious beliefs? “I think the answer is yes,” says Bloom.”
In other words, mankind is different from the animal kingdom, and has a special ability to tap into the spiritual side of things. This article confirms yet again that God exists and was right all along and that man is just a fool who claims himself to be wise.
February 9th, 2009 at 17:10
I want to quote below from Gershom Scholem’s Sabbatai ?evi, The Mystical Messiah (1626-1676) For those who don’t know, ?evi is the famous pseudo-messiah of kabbalism who lived in Smyrna, Turkey and whose ideas swept all of Europe , Africa and Middle East with millions of believers in the 17th century. Even after he was caught and imprisoned by the Ottoman authorities; his followers continued believing in him up to this day.
This is a description of mass prophecy in Smyrna and I am posting it to show how easy it is for people to be persuaded into false belief.
Imagine, just how recently – only in the 17th century – such a phenomenon could have taken place.
“..Smyrna was in a festive mood, and the believers moved in a dizzy whirl of legends, miracles and revelations. Abraham Yakhini, who was in Smyrna at the time, well summed up the mood of the period when, a few years later, he spoke of “those blessed days.” The transition from mere factual reality to the transfigured reality of the heart, that is, to legend, was rapid. Collective enthusiasm quickly surrounded events with a halo. Tales of the appearance of a pillar of fire and similar miraculous signs became indubitable facts. The people of Smyrna saw miracles and heard prophecies, providing the best possible illustration of Renan’s remark about infectious character of visions. It is enough for one member of a group sharing the same beliefs to claim to have seen or heard a supernatural manifestation, and the others too will see and hear it. Hardly had the report arrived from Aleppo that Elijah had appeared in the Old Synagogue there, and Elijah walked the streets of Smyrna. Dozens, even hundreds had seen him: he was the anonymous beggar asking for alms, as well as the invisible guest at every banquet. Solomon Cemona, one of the wealthiest Jews in Smyrna, had invited friends to a great feast. One of the guests, his gaze falling on the shining brass plates hanging on the wall, started from his seat and, bowing deeply, exclaimed: “Arise brethren and behold the prophet Elijah”-and all rose, bowed and beheld Elijah. …..A Dutch merchant writing early in April …described the scene (another scene) : ‘At that time..more than two hundred prophets and prophetesses upon whom there fell a mighty trembling so that they swooned. In this state they exclaimed that Sabbatai ?evi was the messiah and king of Israel who would lead his people safely to the Holy Land…”
Isn’t it easy to guess how Moses’ or Muhammed’s revelations/visions convinced those around them – a few thousand years before this incident?
February 9th, 2009 at 17:16
The name is Sabbatai Sevi.
February 9th, 2009 at 19:06
Matthew,
I ask you to reflect on all the modern benefits that the study of science and the scientific method have bought you. Presumably you must agree that science gets results!
The News Scientist article is written by accredited scientists who are part of that movement and who are trained to assess their evidence as objectively as possible. Do you have any special reason for doubting the scientific method in this particular instance, or it it just because their findings are uncomfortable for you
I suggest it is you who are interpreting their evidence entirely subjectively to defend your own entrenched position.
I do realise that there is a lot at stake here for someone who has obviously spent a great deal of his life on theological studies but that doesn’t make you right.
February 10th, 2009 at 14:44
Matthew,
As I said to Christian a while ago, even if your god existed, it still means most of humanity has been completely wrong about their gods. There are many, many gods, religions and ‘holy’ books which contradict yours. You have to agree with the article Quedula linked to when it says people have conjured up these gods in their imagination. That’s exactly what you think has happened to most people throughout history. Even if they were tapping into something spiritual, their beliefs were made up and passed from person to person.
I understand you think you’re one of the few people to actually know the truth about the one true god in the entire history of belief in different gods, so just see the article as talking about everyone else.
The morality of mankind making decisions on their own seems to concern you. Countries with a mostly atheist population do better than you probably think they would, and there were moral teachings around before the Bible was written too. There are many things in society that need improving, but belief in a god is no guarantee those things will be fixed. In fact, it’s possible for people to act less moral if they believe it’s what their god wants.
If we all wait around for our different gods to return and save us from ourselves, we won’t get anywhere. Those who believe we really are on our own are more likely to make the changes neccessary to make our world better, and this certainly doesn’t mean it will have to lead to a sex obsessed culture where people only care for themselves. Stabbings and wars and corruption and so on concern atheists just as much as they concern you. We’re probably not as different as you think.
February 10th, 2009 at 16:19
@quedula
While I can agree that religion can be adaptive, especially in the case of Muhammad and Islam (please read Prophet of Doom by Craig Winn), I don’t agree that this proves God does not exist.
Also, it’s not that I don’t have respect for New Scientist magazine, but rather little respect for authors such as Michael Brooks. To me his article was a white-washed cover up to promote atheism, he could’ve used a million other psychologists but, alas, he chose another atheist.
February 10th, 2009 at 16:21
@quedula
Oops, hit the enter button but wasn’t finished yet.
All the article did for me was to confirm what I already know to be true: that God made us different from all the other species on the planet, with a special ability to converse with Him, to have a loving relationship.
February 10th, 2009 at 19:35
Matthew,
I frequently reflect that the ” god seed’ was planted in my brain at a very early age but I had probably completely dismissed it by age 10 even before i studied science. Yet I know that others, who I would never suggest are lacking in intelligence or learning, retain belief for the rest of their lives.
This difference is due either to different neurological functioning or to the existence of a god that is choosing to reveal himself to them (including yourself) and not to me.
This doesn’t sound very god-like!
February 11th, 2009 at 23:30
@quedula:
I can see your argument, and yes you are right, the seed was sown in me at a young age so I had a natural tendency to lean towards God’s existence.
And just this morning my daughter started talking about a friend, my wife quickly told me that this was my daughter’s imaginery friend. Can you believe it? And she’s only 4! But she also plays role playing games with my son as well. I went through that, but to me this doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist like that article seems to suggest.
And I still do have an imaginery friend, well real to me that this, you can call Him Yahshua.
Scripture does teach us to train our children in the way they should go, so that when they are older they will not turn from the path, Proverbs 22:6. Something I better pay serious attention to.
It’s up to you whether or not to accept the gift of salvation. God doesn’t make the decision, but you do. If you think “revealing” Himself means He’ll physically pop in for a cup of tea you’re mistaken. You’ve heard it before: ask from a sincere heart that He reveal Himself to you, knock on His door and He will answer, and seek Him and He will answer.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:19
“Scripture does teach us to train our children in the way they should go, so that when they are older they will not turn from the path, Proverbs 22:6. Something I better pay serious attention to.”
It’s called childhood indoctrination. Young minds will believe whatever they’re told, and it’s why children of Muslims grow up to be Muslims most of the time, children of Mormons grow up to be Mormons most of the time, and so on.
It doesn’t take a genius to see how it works, and how unfair it is on the child, who should be free to make their own decisions without such strong, possibly life lasting influence from an age when they don’t know any better, and when the parents should.
Don’t forget all the unanswered questions when you get chance.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:09
@Chris
And then you ask why teenagers these days have no fear of authority, why they pull out knives and stab people (sometimes innocent businessmen and young toddlers), why they disrespect their parents and teachers, why they treat the elderly with disrespect, why there are so many teenage pregnancies, etc. etc. This is what happens if you leave children to their own choices and without parental care/supervision/discipline. Britain, under the influence of Humanism, is destroying itself from the inside.
Christianity (not that I support most denominations, nearly all of them really) teach intolerance to anything false, and there is a reason to it. We stand up against Islam and condemn it, but no, Humanism says we shouldn’t, Humanism says we should shut our gaps (due to their human rights movement) and let the “religion of peace” be a part of British society. Did they not learn with the terror attacks on the trains that Islam is not peaceful and it should be stopped? These terrorists weren’t extremists but were following the example set by Muhammad. Humanism teaches that we shouldn’t judge and be discerning, that we can’t choose between right and wrong, that there is no such thing as absolute morality, but rather relative morality. Humanists don’t realise what Islam truly seeks: to force submission to Islam, or kill non-believers, and to obtain world domination. The Quran teaches Muslims that it is OK to lie in order to obtain your goal, it even condones making false peace treaties in order to gather strength to kill at a later stage, it is the reason why Yassar Arafat referenced the Treaty of Hudaybiyah in his famous 1994 speech when discussing the Israeli-Arab peace process in mosque which he thought wasn’t being recorded and would be a secret speech. He had no intention of peace but was hoping Israel to honour his earlier peace agreement in order to give Palestinians time to gather military strength. Islam in Britain is gathering strength under the radar, and one little thing to irritate them will bring the whole Islamic community to war. Again, Britian, under the influence of Humanism, is destroying itself from the inside.
Humanism is its own enemy, and it doesn’t even realise it.
I’m still contemplating whether to answer your previous post, I have started already but haven’t gotten around to finishing it!
February 12th, 2009 at 12:06
Matthew,
I should have made it clearer. I was talking about choices regarding religion. Not about letting children do whatever they want.
I’m not a part of any official Humanist group so I’m not sure of everything they are for or against. I was under the impression they were trying to diminish the role religion plays in our lives.
As long as it doesn’t harm others, people should be free to believe whatever they want. It’s the harm itself that the Humanists address.
Most Muslims are peaceful, but their numbers support a smaller number of people who aren’t. It would be better if people stopped spreading the Islamic myths to begin with – that way no one would be killing in the name of Allah. I think we agree there.
It works for Christianity too, though. Some people do things in the name of Yahweh which are questionable. Even though most Christians don’t, their numbers support the smaller number who do. If your son grows up and has a different interpretation of the Bible than you, one that makes him do something bad, it will have been your fault for telling him the book comes from a god to begin with. Without that belief, there’ll be no chance of him taking any bad actions based purely on what’s written in there.
Religion isn’t needed to do good, but it is needed to do some bad things.
What matters ultimately is if the beliefs are true or not. I see no reason to believe they are. I see humanity leaving behind superstition as a good thing, but this doesn’t mean forcing people to stop. A lot of religious people thrive on the idea of persecution and it only makes their faith stronger.
You wouldn’t want to be stopped believing what you do by force, so you can’t expect Muslims to be forced out either. It works both ways. The only thing you’re being faced with is questions on a site from people hoping you’ll come to see reason. The very fact you can contemplate whether or not to answer these shows you’re not being forced out of your beliefs. You can stop at any time, but if you do, it will be intellectually dishonest of you.
If your beliefs are true, they should be able to stand up to scrutiny, and if you discover they’re not, you’ll still be the same moral person you were before.
February 24th, 2009 at 16:43
[...] to the UK Advertising Standards Authority, which issued a precedent-setting decision in favor of the campaign and closed the case (see ruling here). No God Bus Ad in [...]
September 4th, 2009 at 0:23
[...] content with submitting complaints to the ASA – that were quite rightly overturned, one bus driver, a Mr. Ron Heather, was “shocked and [...]
September 18th, 2009 at 19:10
I’d just like to draw your attention to this:
“The Atheist’s Guide To Christmas” is the UK’s first atheist charity book, featuring contributions from Richard Dawkins, Derren Brown, Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh, Claire Rayner, David Baddiel, Charlie Brooker and many more. It’s been edited by Ariane Sherine, the creator of the hugely successful Atheist Bus Campaign. It’s out on Oct 1st and all royalties are going to the HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust. Please pre-order now:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheists-Guide-Christmas-Ariane-Sherine/dp/0007322615/
The Atheist’s Guide is a mix of humorous and poignant contributions from over 40 various prominent atheists. It’ll make an ideal Christmas gift for your atheist friends. Your religious friends will love it too, or, even better, it’ll put them in a foul mood for Xmas! So a win-win situation! More info on the Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=128903634833
Your support will not only maintain the profile of atheism in the UK, it will also help raise funds for the very worthy THT charity. Please note that the contributors, and Ms Sherine, have waived payment for their considerable input into the “Guide”.
Thank you, and please pass this message on to everyone you know!!
[My apologies if you already know about the Guide!]
December 19th, 2009 at 3:16
For discussion on Determinism & Free Will >>>
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_thread/thread/985b5a9d91d4cc1c?tvc=2