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 22nd, 2009 at 5:00
Nice. Now keep up the good work and make more ads. =)
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:19
Morons hate God
“Understanding God” is beyond the capacity of these new age morons who claim to be whole & sole defenders of scientific temper. Beating these mediocre atheists in the field of science is kid’s play….
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:24
Samir, you silly billy.
Atheists don’t hate God. They just don’t believe God exists. With your terrible lack of understanding of what atheists actually are, I think you’re the only one engaging in “kid’s play”.
January 22nd, 2009 at 13:14
It’s amazing how Steven Green STILL managed to see this as a partial victory for Christian Voice – read their press release, it’s very amusing!
@Samir
This campaign isn’t about hating god…it’s about raising awareness of the alternatives and responding to frankly threatening advertising already in the public domain to give people some reassurance that hey – they might not go to hell after all. I’m glad that you also think you understand God – please enlighten us!
January 22nd, 2009 at 13:53
Samir, why are we morons? Why do you think we hate your God? Does it matter to you so much that I am indifferent to religion? I’m fine with you being a believer, why am I a moron if I do not believe the same as you?
January 22nd, 2009 at 15:27
@Samir
What a moronic comment!
How can anyone hate something that doesn’t exist!
On the other hand it is sometimes difficult not to hate human beings who, religiously inspired, incite or perpetrate violence and murder.
January 22nd, 2009 at 17:54
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:
An extract from yesterday’s be-spittled Christian Vice website:
“ ‘On planet ASA, complaints from people of faith are not given the same weight as those from secularists. But what do you expect when the ASA Council is appointed and run by a campaigning homosexual, Chris. Lord, Smith of Finsbury?’ Last year the ASA ruled against Sandown Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster when the church published an advertisement ‘The Word of God against Sodomy’…”
My simple message to Mr Green, is: If you don’t like our atheist adverts, then start a campaign to fund your own message. And if you don’t want to engage in sodomy, just say “no thanks”, beforehand.
End of.
Later in the same, rather moist, Christian Vice article, Mr Green states:
“[The ASA] get 326 complaints and decide the bus ads were not causing serious or widespread offence. They get a mere 4 [complaints], and say Sandown’s [anti-sodomy] ad was [causing serious or widespread offence].”
Hmm, well maybe the ASA thought that many of the 326 complaints had been sent by an assortment of offensive, foamy-mouthed wingnuts, wackos, wannabes, and associate members of the NRA? I’m just thinking outside the box, of course…
Chill.
January 22nd, 2009 at 22:02
Guys, guys, guys. Let’s make one thing clear, the Scriptures say in John 3:16 that those who do not choose to believe in Yahushua (errantly called Jesus) will perish. To perish means a cessation of existence, to disappate, an annihilation (sorry for the harsh word) of one’s soul. From non-existence to existence to non-existence is the life of those who do not choose to be with Yahuweh (which means I Exist by the way). If man wants to believe that earth naturally evolved without the direction of a Creator and that man is simply another animal then its quite ironic for atheists because neither wanting to be with God nor knowing Him will get their wish, to die as an animal. God respects your decisions, if you don’t want to know Him then He doesn’t want to know you. To love requires a choice, and it also requires the choice not to love, hence there is evil in the world. Man has simply chosen to not love, rather than to heed God’s advice and love Him and one’s neighbour.
Remember, or rather should I say learn the truth: that the word “fire” mentioned in Scripture is used symbolically to define passing through judgment. Once passing through judgment there are two destinations for those who do not choose to be with God. 1) The overall majority of mankind will simply cease to exist once passing through judgment, these people simply went about life doing as they please, often being victims of errant doctrines, like most Muslims and Catholics and Atheists and, well you get the picture. 2) Eternal separation in the lightless Abyss, utter darkness and nothingness, but one’s soul still alive. This place is reserved for those who line themselves with Satan, wilfully leading the masses astray, teaching errant doctrines that are all contrary to the salvation found in Yahushua, as if there is another way to God. Fire as a physical torturous place is a deceptive and errant teaching started by the Catholic Church to line their own pockets by causing people to fear, the opposite of what Yahuweh actually wants.
But for those who are in Messiah there is no judgment for we are His children. Yahuweh is love, He is kind and forgiving. A loving Father that can be reached if you just ask with a sincere heart. In fact Scripture teaches that He personally walked the earth seven times, one of those times He appeared as Yahushua (Yahuweh as a man) and one is still future when He returns at the end of the 6th day. In order for us to live in His presence for eternity we must have His Spirit living in us. And this requires acknowledging one’s sin, something of which atheists are too proud to do.
Eternal life is a gift, those who do not accept it will perish, ceasing to exist, neither knowing life nor remembering to have ever lived. Don’t be fooled by the Catholic Church and most mainstream Christian churches, but find Truth in Yahushua, His Name means Yahuweh is Salvation or simply put Yah-Saves.
January 22nd, 2009 at 22:42
I do apologise if my first post #8 wasn’t exactly based upon the initial heading. But I’ve noticed a lot of Scripture (Bible) passages pasted around the site, but being completely quoted out of context and without a thorough knowledge of Scripture. But guys, God doesn’t want you to fear death, He justs wants you to realise that one’s choices have consequences and He fully respects your decision not to choose Him.
January 23rd, 2009 at 0:54
But Matthew, it is not a question of not choosing god – I simply do not believe that there is such a thing and the supernatural ideal of such is irrelevant to me. There is no choice.
And perhaps interesting for one of faith, I really don’t fear death and nor should anyone – it is the one inevitable thing in life – perfectly human one might say.
January 23rd, 2009 at 0:57
@Matthew
While I respect your opinions and beliefs, I don’t see any reason to treat the bible differently to any book on my shelves. As such, what you have said doesn’t have much meaning to me except as a story. I don’t mean to be insulting, it’s just how I think about these things. Maybe it’s how I’ve been trained – as a scientist – but I can’t help thinking ‘but where’s the evidence for all of these remarkable claims?’ whenever I come across analysis of the scriptures used to make a point. Sure, you could say that these things require faith and so evidence just isn’t relevent, but if that is the case, can’t I equally have faith in anything? How can you know what you have faith in is true?
Just for the record, I’m with Prof Dawkins when it comes to atheism, I believe in god as much as I believe in santa clause. I’m 99.9999999999999999% sure he doesn’t exist but know I can’t ever be certain. Such is rationality.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:59
Matthew:
“…But guys, God doesn’t want you to fear death, He justs wants you to realise that one’s choices have consequences and He fully respects your decision not to choose Him.”
So, bad news if we don’t choose your (Matthew’s) particular God.
But how do you know you’re believing in the One True God?
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:06
Chris, there really is no need to respect opinions & belief when they are based on utter twaddle.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:37
Chris:
I’m glad you’re a scientist, you might be interested in reading Gerald Schroeder’s (an MIT Prof) book called Science of God. It really puts Genesis under a microscope. It really boggles my mind how some Christians believe in a literal 6 day creation account followed by the last 6000 years of man’s history in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. I wouldn’t believe in Yahweh (the God mentioned in the Bible) if it was proven wrong in the areas of Science, History, Prophecy and Spirituality, in any area actually. A great book is Yada Yahweh by Craig Winn, it puts the entire Bible under a serious microscope, into every single word (in the original languages of course) – but most people don’t enjoy his book, even Christians don’t because it exposes many of their errant doctrines, his previous book called Prophet of Doom which exposes Islam for what it really is is especially disliked in the Muslim world.
The thing is the Church require blind faith, and that’s not a good thing, hence why atheists simply can’t accept it. Most Churches fit nicely into Hosea 6:4! Even the word church is based on the Greek words of circus and circle (hint of sun-god worship), go figure? I don’t blame you for the way you think, as it turns out I’ve come to the knowledge that God wants us to use our brains, see if He’s telling the truth or not. He actually wants us to know with certainty that He exists, and then with that certainty we trust Him to provide eternal salvation as promised.
Yahweh is about free choice, if He just put everything in one’s face then it would leave us with no choice. God is Pro-Choice and Pro-Life, but obviously against abortion in the sense of this term. Those people who really want to know Yahweh will find Him and He will answer if we ask.
Christmas is so pagan it’s unbelievable, the whole of Christianity has been fooled by Catholic traditions which are based upon the Babylonian sun-god religion. Even the words “the Lord” are the title and name of the Babylonian sun-god called Baal. In fact the Name Yahweh exists in the originals, God wants us to call upon Him by Name, like we do friends and family, and not like we’re addressing some high and unreachable God. Catholics want us to submit in worship but Yahweh actually requests we walk with Him, big difference.
For the record, my wife’s an atheist!
January 23rd, 2009 at 13:45
Richard:
You could say bad news, yes
By analysing other beliefs one can determine which are speaking the truth and which aren’t. At the end of the day there can only be one way. I can’t stand the saying “there are many ways to God” because that means that God is confused, how can polar opposite ways such as Atheism, Christianity and Islam all result in eternal life with God???
As I mentioned in Comment #12 (God from the Bible) wants us to use our brains to figure this out, put His Word under a microscope, an unbiased microscope if possible. Atheists assume most Christians actually understand the Word, especially when it comes to the Genesis creation account, but most Christians haven’t the faintest idea and are stuck in their mindsets. Atheists need to go out an objectively study the Scriptures, a task not many have the time and patience for, especially when it comes to digging into the original Hebrew. Through an objective study we can come to the conclusion that God exists.
January 23rd, 2009 at 14:23
Atheists need to go out an objectively study the Lord of the Rings, a task not many have the time and patience for, especially when it comes to digging into the original edition. Through an objective study we can come to the conclusion that Gandalf exists.
January 23rd, 2009 at 14:38
Matthew – I have to disagree with your notion that “many paths” do not make sense.
I could take the easy way out and just quote the Bhagavad Gita on this and assert it has the same authority as your bible. After all, why not?
What. in your opinion is God? Exactly? Bearded man in sky? Vague fuzzy god-ness? Can you define Him/Her/It/They? All you have is what presents itself to your mind, which if any of the theistic religions is right must be a tiny subset of what “God” is.
I think the only difference we can ask is whether the type of belief that says that all humans are sinful and must be saved is better or worse than, say, the belief that all humans are inherently divine and just need to find this. Whichever way you look at it the direction of change is the same. The difference seems to be in what each of these beliefs encourages you to think about others. I prefer the idea of humans being inherently divine – all of us being capable of good within ourselves. I know real life is actually quite complex with a real mix.
Why are we arguing this anyway? Where is the real proof that any form of god exists, whether Jehova or Brahman? All we can know is that certain patterns in life seem to work. There are certain ideas that actually seem common across religions if you look in the right places and I believe stand independently of religion.
Surely just caring for others, not being greedy, all these things are more important than which if any god you worship.
January 23rd, 2009 at 15:05
Matthew
Why do you think the people who wrote the bible thousands of years ago were particularly well qualified to know about “god”.
January 23rd, 2009 at 15:17
@quedula
Actually I think you so need to respect peoples right to an opinion on this, as long as that opinion isn’t directly infringing on your or other peoples rights. i.e. if belief in a god is a personal thing that only affects you – why not? Twaddle or not, it’s an opinion. When however it affects national decision making like who can get a place in a state run school – that is a different matter.
@Matthew
You’ll have to forgive my lack of knowledge of the Bible (or any other religious doctrine for that matter), your references to say ‘Hosea 6:4′ are lost on me I’m afraid. One day, I really need to read them all so I can further understand these discussions. That aside, firstly – I disagree that Christianity and Islam are polar opposites. Why so you think that’s the case? Surely the Koran and Bible share rather a large amount of material as they’re both Abrahamic religions. We certainly do agree though when you say ‘The thing is the Church require blind faith, and that’s not a good thing’, but this seems at odds with the rest of your comment about how you came ‘to the knowledge that God wants us to use our brains, see if He’s telling the truth or not. He actually wants us to know with certainty that He exists, and then with that certainty we trust Him to provide eternal salvation as promised’. How exactly did you acquire this knowledge with any degree of certainty?
—
Finally, the development of the rules of society that are enshrined in many religions from non-religious roots has always seemed pretty clear to me. So imagine you live in a tribe, competing with other tribes for the same resources. By deciding as a tribe that it’s a good idea not to kill others (except during tribal warfare) is beneficial to everyone in the tribe. Sure – you lose the freedom to kill your neighbour and steal their possessions, but that loss is far outweighed by the lower risk of your neighbour killing you! And of course, the whole tribe benefits from this agreement, meaning it will be more successful than it’s neighbours (who are too busy killing each other to defend themselves) and expand, spreading the idea with them. If you look at the basic moral rules we live by, in the end, they exist for selfish reasons.
January 23rd, 2009 at 15:40
quedula:
I think that was a perfectly reasonable question.
Just because a book was written several hundred years ago, or even longer, doesn’t make it more meaningful than if it had been written last week.
Matthew:
You’re giving far too much credit to one dusty old tome. People have been inventing belief-systems throughout history, then writing about them. It’s a means of controlling others with menaces.
January 23rd, 2009 at 15:52
this is very go0d way to make relegion quite light!-ultra light-!!!
January 23rd, 2009 at 20:44
[...] Toronto. It emulates the very successful Atheist Campaign started in the UK, and which has recently enjoyed a victory that will ensure its ability to continue [...]
January 24th, 2009 at 22:38
Some questions, Matthew.
Glad to see you accept humans evolved extremely late in Earth’s history, so if it’s assumed your god exists…
Why did he create a planet full of pain and suffering, then blame it on us? Afterall, it had nothing to do with ‘man’s fall’ if man wasn’t even around.
Seeing as we haven’t inherited any ‘original sin’, what was the point of Jesus’ death? Not to redeem us from that, obviously.
If your god is against abortion, why did he create a world in which miscarriages would kill even more babies?
January 24th, 2009 at 23:31
David Aaronovitch, Julian Baggini, Ophelia Benson,
Paul Berman, Colin Blakemore, Alain de Botton,
Marcus Chown, Nick Cohen, David Colquhoun,
Heather Couper, Ben Goldacre, A.C. Grayling,
Johann Hari, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Holloway,
Howard Jacobson, Susan Jacoby, Oliver Kamm,
Kenan Malik, Jonathan Meades, Douglas Murray,
Phil Plait, James Randi, Marcus du Sautoy,
Simon Singh, Peter Tatchell, Laurie Taylor,
Francis Wheen, and many, many more.
On the UK’s very
own secular humanist
Little Atoms Radio Show
If the show has a dominant and recurring theme, then it coalesces around the ideas of the Enlightenment, by which we mean freedom of expression, free inquiry, empirical rationalism, scepticism, the scientific method, secular humanism and liberal democracy. These ideas find their antithesis in superstition, religious fundamentalism, fanaticism, medievalism, totalitarianism, censorship and conspiracy theory.
“Shining as a beacon of hope
for all rationalists, atheists
and humanists out there.”
- The Independent
http://www.littleatoms.com/
_____
January 25th, 2009 at 13:36
Reply to comment #3 :
idiot Amy,
What atheists actually are ? Ha, Ha, Ha. They are nothing. Atheists are those who misappropriate funds through silly projects like “Large Hedron Collider”…
January 25th, 2009 at 13:43
Samir: Just visited your site and you write:
“I am completely isolated from my vicinity. Most of the persons around me think that I am a crackpot.”
Enough said.
January 25th, 2009 at 13:52
Yes Richard,
If you know anything about Free Will, you will understand what I have said. I did not understand your motive behind mentioning one single line.
Yes ignorants always fail to understand the knowledgeable.
January 25th, 2009 at 14:13
Samir:
My point was that maybe the persons around you are, in fact, correct in their opinion of you.
January 25th, 2009 at 14:16
@Samir
Atheists are nothing? I don’t understand, are you going to explain?
January 25th, 2009 at 14:34
He’s an obvious loony; what can be
gained from this? – let’s save it for
the knaves and the fools.
_____
January 25th, 2009 at 15:08
Reply to Comment #4
To Chris,
No problem. I will be too happy to enlighten all of you on the subject.
Reply to Comment #5
To Colonel Leisure,
It is nice to see that you do not hate God. You have the right to be indifferent to religion. Mere denial of the existence of God is no proof of scientific temper. But most of the atheists think so. That’s why we call them morons…
Reply to Comment #6
To quedula,
Atheists deny the existence of God without understanding the true nature of God. Just for opposing violence & murders, you don’t have to be an atheist. God never tells me to go for violence & murder…
Reply to Comment #9
To Matthew,
You say : He justs wants you to realise that one’s choices have consequences and He fully respects your decision not to choose Him.
Yes, God won’t reject you simply because you are an atheist. If someone does not believe in science, it won’t make any difference to science. Just like that, if someone does not believe in God, it won’t make any difference to Him.
Unless your decisions/choices are in line with Absolute Truth, they won’t be acceptable to God.
Reply to Comment #10
To Jake,
Supernatural ideal is irrelevant to me as well. Realisation of God has got nothing to do with supernatural element.
Reply to Comment #11
To Chris,
You can treat Bible at par with any other book. But don’t treat it at par with any book on Evolution Theory. Those Anthropology kids do not know what is to be considered as scientifically verifiable data. Fairy Tales are somewhat more logical than Evolution Theory which is mistaken for scientific theory by atheist morons.
Reply to Comment #12
To Richard W.,
There’s just one & only one omnipotent Almighty. A strong urge to unearth the Truth will ensure that you keep moving towards Him.
Reply to Comment #13
To quedula,
Yes. That’s why sensible persons reject the stuff presented by anthropology-kids. These kids want that rubbish to be called as scientifically verifiable evidence.
Reply to Comment #15
To Matthew,
You say : I can’t stand the saying “there are many ways to God” because that means that God is confused, how can polar opposite ways such as Atheism, Christianity and Islam all result in eternal life with God???
These are not exactly “polar opposite ways”. Almighty resides at a point of Absolute Truth. So, an urge to unearth the Truth forms a common thread that binds all these seemingly different ways. This strong urge to unearth the Truth will take you closer to God – no matter whether you are an atheist, Christian or Muslim…
Reply to Comment #17
To Richard W,
You say : Where is the real proof that any form of god exists, whether Jehova or Brahman?
God or Brahman is to be realised through higher conscience. Here, the term “higher conscience” does not suggest any supernatural element…
Reply to Comment #23
To Chris J.,
You asked : Why did he create a planet full of pain and suffering, then blame it on us? why did he create a world in which miscarriages would kill even more babies?
Why have we created a system in which criminals are punished ? Just like that, you will face sorrow if you commit a crime of deviating from Truth.
You have to practice Equinimity/Stoicism to see beyond life’s ups & downs. Sorrows & pleasures are part of illusion. You cannot realise God unless you move beyond illusion.
January 25th, 2009 at 15:19
Where do you get all this stuff Samir? Were you instructed by someone or did you dream it all up yourself?
January 25th, 2009 at 15:43
Crikey, this guy’s got more fingers than our dear Fran!
Samir: Also on your site you claim: I am the most intelligent person on this globe, but nobody agrees with that.”
Well, Samir, I can understand everyone else’s reservations about your claim.
For instance, you’ve addressed your reply to #17 to me, “Richard W”, but it was actually written by someone else, just calling himself “Richard”. So we now know your powers of observation are fallible, Maybe your powers of reasoning are also infallible?
And you seem unable to answer to answer Chris J’s question: “If your god is against abortion, why did he create a world in which miscarriages would kill even more babies?”
So your own knowledge and powers of logic would also appear to be in doubt.
Finally, your website suggests you have more than a passing interest in “porn”. Can I suggest you widen your material to books without pictures?
January 25th, 2009 at 15:44
Reply to Comment #28
To Richard W,
Ignorants have the right to stick to their stupidity. Very few persons in my vicinity understand the term “FREE WILL”. To them that’s an alien concept from western philosophy. So, you are doing a nice job of aligning with ignorants in my vicinity. By the way, have you understood a single word from that article “Truthfulness” ? Don’t worry. Many atheists will be just like you.
Reply to Comment #29
To Chris,
Yes, I will prove that atheists are nothing. They are morons of course. Ask those sci-fi fellows from “Large Hedron Collider”. We have already crossed our swords.
Reply to Comment #30
To Adam Tjaavk,
It seems that atheist morons are running short of arguments. So, why don’t you conduct a cute little referendum against me on this site ? That’s the only way atheist morons can resort to when they are left with no rational justification.
January 25th, 2009 at 16:36
Reply to Comment #32
To quedulla,
Was I instructed by someone ? You will get the answer if you check my blogspace http://samirsp.blogspot.com
Reply to Comment #33
To Richard W,
Regarding Your comment about my profile caption : “I am the most intelligent person on this globe, but nobody agrees with that.” It simply suggests that in all probability you maybe a person having no common sense at all. That makes a perfect moralist. So, now I don’t think I should answer your childish remark regarding porn content on my blogspace.
Regarding Chris J’s question: “If your god is against abortion, why did he create a world in which miscarriages would kill even more babies?”
But for God, no one can have the authority to decide the life-span of a living organism. Under normal circumstances, terminating life of an embryo/foetus by implementing methods like miscarriages is the sole prerogative of Almighty. Through abortion, some half baked stupids want to annex God’s powers to themselves. That is not acceptable to many others.
And thanks for clarification about “Richard” & “Richard W.” Obviously, “Richard” does not seem as mediocre as Richard W. After reading your replies, I understand that on this globe, there are persons who are more ignorant than people in my vicinity.
January 25th, 2009 at 17:25
Hi Ariane, three humanist organizations have begun a bus campaign in the Netherlands too! See their website: http://verlichtingshumanisten.web-log.nl/
January 25th, 2009 at 19:45
Hi,
why do you call yourselves atheists. How can you have a name for not beleiving in something?
maybe your existence is so meaningless you need to prove that the existence of something else is insignificant to make yourselves feel better. Any way im with the Jesus Bus campaign all the way, they seem to have the right idea. http://www.jesusbus.org.uk
January 25th, 2009 at 19:53
@Samir
So you say you will prove atheists are nothing?
‘They are morons of course. Ask those sci-fi fellows from “Large Hedron Collider”. We have already crossed our swords.’
Is that your proof?
Also – why do you assume that only atheists are working on the LHC?
Finally – you talk of the need for ’scientifically verifiable data’ when you discuss the theory of evolution – so surely you must place the same restrictions on religion and religeous belief. Where is the scientifically verifiable data concerning God?
January 25th, 2009 at 19:58
Hi,
to answer the last point you may want to read what Ben Stein had to say:
http://www.awonderfullife.org.uk/confession.html
The majority of the world believe in God, and those that really are educated and seek the truth will end up beleiving in God because the evidence for God out weighs the evidence against.
Its funny because i contacted A wonderful life for a discussion and they said one argument from an atheist was a video clip of a foul mothed comedian giving his point of view…lol, we read books written by scholars, and theologians and atheists get their arguments from comedians, now thats a joke.
God Bless everyone
January 25th, 2009 at 20:05
Oh by the way, the foul mouthed comedian was George Carlin, i was not refering to Arianne. Although do you see a pattern emerging here…..
January 25th, 2009 at 21:31
…really are educated…
…we read books written by scholars…
Too bad none of it has rubbed off,
judging by all the illiteracy.
_____
January 25th, 2009 at 21:36
Hi “Christian”
Welcome to this site.
I posted the clip of the late, great George Carlin. He spoke a lot of sense in that 10 minute clip, more than I ever heard in any churches I’ve been to, nor seen on TV run by the money-hungry evangelists.
And Ben Stein makes an awful lot of money out of the gullible… Christian, do you see a pattern emerging here?!
“The evidence for God out weighs (sic) the evidence against”. Hey, it sounds like you also have a future in comedy, Christian!
Peace.
January 25th, 2009 at 22:35
Why do you call yourselves atheists?
How can you have a name for not
believing in something?
Karen Armstrong writes that “During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word ‘atheist’ was still reserved exclusively for polemic … The term ‘atheist’ was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist.”
So atheists didn’t invent the word – but now very many of us accept it as a suitable name. We look askance at such as Bright as yet another in the long line of lily-livered euphemisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
_____
January 25th, 2009 at 22:43
Samir,
You missed my point. Pain, suffering, miscarriages, etc all existed BEFORE humans evolved. So no, those things cannot be blamed on anything we do. You seem to be saying it’s not for humans to mess with the natural lifespan of living things, so does this mean you also don’t think babies and children should be given vaccines? If you were involved in a car crash, you’d prefer to be left to die than taken to a hospital? I need to know if you’re being consistent or not. You also failed to answer why this god would create miscarriages – just that he’s allowed.
Christian,
While most of the world does believe in a god, they believe in DIFFERENT gods, which contradict each other. For the sake of argument, even if one of these gods actually does exist, it still means there are millions upon millions of people who are completely wrong about the god they believe in. That’s just common sense, right?
January 25th, 2009 at 23:25
Billions of years pass – God is at rest. Then all of a sudden God sends into the world Moses/Jesus/Mohammed one after the other within a few thousand years and with conflicting messages. On the other hand, space is full of galaxies and galaxies – but No! God focuses all His attention to a tiny tiny point on earth to deal with Jesus’ cheek, Mohammed’s wives or Moses stick. This sounds so ridiculous that we need no proof for God’s non-existence.
January 25th, 2009 at 23:28
Hi,
i am not here to have a Theological debate, all that i am saying at the end of the day is that i have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and i can tell you that he is real. As for the rest, God gave us free will and he allows many things to happen. Its not hard to understand that if theres a God then theres a devil also. God does the good and the devil does the bad.
We cannot explain the universe so why do we spend hours trying to explain God. Either beleive or dont beleive, but if you make the wrong decision, it will affect you.
January 25th, 2009 at 23:54
Christian,
If a Muslim told you Allah was real and that he/she had a ‘personal relationship’ with him, would that convince you Allah existed? I doubt it. You’d need more than that, so try to understand we need more too when it comes to your god. Also, think of how you were raised. If it had been in a Muslim family, don’t you think there’s a high chance you’d be defending Allah right now and attributing all your feelings of a ‘personal relationship’ to him?
We can explain many things about the universe and we learn more all the time. You don’t think your god is completely unexplainable – you’ve narrowed down the list of gods available to one (without much research into them, I imagine) and you think you know his mind well enough to know what he wants. Can’t you produce one good reason for this belief?
Danny too,
If you support the Jesus bus campaign, which seems to welcome debate on the topic of whether a god exists, perhaps you could offer one good reason to believe. Unfortunately whenever I’ve debated this subject in the past, my ‘opponent’ ends up choosing not to, or being unable to answer all my questions. As is happening in this thread, by the look of it.
January 25th, 2009 at 23:56
“Christian”:
Whatever keeps you happy, though I note you were never able to come up with your “evidence for God”.
No worries, but some friendly advice: Don’t give too much of your hard-earned cash to people like Ben Stein, Ted Haggard, & their cronies – they’re always wanting more of your money to fund their amazing lifestyles.
Think about it…
Peace.
January 26th, 2009 at 0:16
From the website running the ‘Jesus Bus’ campaign (http://awonderfullife.org.uk/atheists.html)
‘What if there is a God? what if there’s a small chance that by not believing in God you might end up in hell like the scriptures say? Is it worth the risk? Surely it is better to live with the love of God and His principles than anything else, even if you just apply logic?’
So – do you really subscribe to this arguement Danny/Christian? What logic is there to a statement like that? If I told you that there was a being out there that was going to hunt down and kill anyone who wore a tie, would you destroy every tie you owned and take to the streets to preach tie-lessness in the hope of saving the lives of the poor, misinformed public? Sure…I could be talking rubbish, but ‘Is it worth the risk? Surely it’s better to live with the love of Me and My principles than anything else, even if you just apply logic?’ (quote slightly altered – obviously)
January 26th, 2009 at 1:12
Christian, we keep asking you whether you have any evidence for your belief? You don’t answer. Belief without evidence=Faith. I had faith in God, Jesus and Father Christmas (and the Tooth Fairy) because my parents in the kindness of their hearts told me so. But, to quote St. Paul, when I became a man (about 50 years ago now) I put away childish things. I wish Osama bin Laden and Torquemada had also grown up at the age of 17.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:35
Nice one johnnyesS. The essentials of atheism in just 6 lines! I wonder why the religiosi can’t be so succinct? (See answer below)
>
>
>
Because they have to disguise their lack of a proper argument with verbiosity.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:30
“The essentials of atheism in just 6 lines! I wonder why the religiosi can’t be so succinct.”
God cannot be summed up in a few lines, paragraphs or book. You are asking me for evidence but i have told you i cannot get into a theological debate about this.
All i am saying to you all is, if you want to know the TRUTH. you must really desire and seek it.
IF you do, then call out to Jesus to show you the way and start to follow HIS ways. If after six months you have had no supernatural experience then come back to me.
I was into Drug dealing and Violence, and Jesus Christ saved me, I dont need to prove it, But i would love for you to experience it.
Love is an action.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:10
Christian, when you are ready to call out to Odin he will still be there waiting for you.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:21
@Christian
Sorry but ‘I dont need to prove it’ = ‘I can’t prove it’
It’s not that I expected you to as it’s impossible to right? Just as impossible as it is for me to say with 100% certainty that some supernatural (however you define that!) power/force/being does not exist. One other thing though, I’m glad you turned your life around but you should know that it was you, your will power and determination that made that change. You don’t need a ‘higher power’, you’re obviously strong enough on your own so don’t sell yourself short.
January 26th, 2009 at 13:07
Christian,
If you were at rock bottom and your brain really desired to find a supernatural being to send telepathic help rays to you, is it any wonder you came to believe it was so?
Is it also any wonder for you to have picked the most popular god in your society to believe in? Would you have found Jesus if you were going through difficult times in say, ancient Egypt – or would it have been the sun god Ra you found? Ask yourself that, and be honest.
If you’d be skeptical about Krishna existing just because a Hindu overcame difficult times, you have to be skeptical about your own experience. In fact, people of all different religious backgrounds have done the exact same thing as you – do all their gods exist, or are they sincere yet mistaken individuals who had certain misplaced feelings which helped them out?
Applying the same critical thinking to your own feelings is the honest thing to do. Either you struck lucky and happened to seek out the correct god and religion out of the thousands available and were given help which could have been got by just having a belief in a higher power – as all the other religious people have demonstrated – or you’re just as convinced as they are, but also just as wrong.
One look at an optical illusion will show you how easy it is to trick the human mind. This is why critical thinking is essential if you really desire to seek truth.
January 26th, 2009 at 15:13
Reply to Comment #37
To Danny,
It is obvious. Only the things of higher value can stand on their own. Atheism is such a ridiculous thing that it has no alternative than originating out of its opposite. It can’t have an ORIGIN of its own.
Reply to Comment #38
To Chris,
Is that my proof ? Yes, why shouldn’t it be ? It clearly shows that the atheists who claim to be the whole & sole defenders of scientific temper are, in reality, hopelessly nonscientific in nature. It doesn’t make any difference whether some theists – pseudo theists, I presume – are working on that silly project LHC or not.
Now regarding that atheist delusion promoted as “Evolution Theory” : The stuff presented as scientifically verifiable evidence by anthropology kids clearly indicates that atheist morons do not know what scientifically verifiable data is. Failure to prove your scientific temper is sufficient enough to disqualify you for participating in the discussion regarding existence of God. Those, who cannot understand basic science, do not have the capacity to Realise God.
Reply to Comment #45
To Christian,
I agree with your statement that “Either beleive or dont beleive, but if you make the wrong decision, it will affect you.”
There is just One & only one omnipotent God & He resides at the point of absolute Truth. In my opinion, your real Jesus Christ is one of the many parts of that omnipotent Almighty. By using your personal relationship with real Jesus Christ, is it possible for you to verify whether that real Jesus Christ has given consent to Indo-US nuke deal ? If answer is “no” then your real Jesus Christ is closer to Truth. If answer is “yes” then other parts of that omnipotent God are likely to be closer to Truth than your real Jesus Christ.
January 26th, 2009 at 16:35
Samir,
Are you writing your posts in another language and running them through the Google translator before posting them here?
January 26th, 2009 at 16:37
Of course atheism originates out of its opposite; its sole purpose is to leave the shit behind. Religion too has equal origin – but got us into the shit in the first place. Unlike most atheists I’ve known, I’ve never regarded religious ideas as primitive, but as derivative and degenerate. Positive knowledge must come first. Pass it on and what a travesty comes out at the end.
_____
January 26th, 2009 at 17:18
@Samir
Two things, firstly your reply to Danny. You say that atheism depends on its opposite? Well, the word may have been first used as an insult relating to non-belief, but the idea itself certainly doesn’t require belief to exist. So, I believe that the theory of evolution explains our origin from a simple, single celled (or in fact, even more basic but I’ll not go in to that) starting point, and as such, it doesn’t make sense to assert that belief came before non-belief. When exactly did everyone start believing in God? At what point did it become the default state of mind? Even if you don’t subscribe to evolution and prefer the creationist explanation, surely when Adam was first created, he had no knowledge of any god until that god spoke to him or showed that he existed in some other way. So – Adam was, very briefly, an atheist.
Secondly, to your ‘proof’. What exactly is your scientific objection to the LHC project at Cern? All your proof seems to consist of is personal opinion. Also – I think we have different definitions of what you call scientifically verifiable evidence. Are you a scientist by training? In fact, I challenge everyone reading this to give me your definition of a ’scientific theory’. Don’t just use Google or an online dictionary, this isn’t about proving yourselves. I’m not pretending to have exactly the right definition either, but I’m curious to see what you come up with.
January 26th, 2009 at 17:42
@ Chris J: “This is why critical thinking is essential if you really desire to seek truth.”
That’s what I have done with the Bible, I don’t want to believe in rubbish so I checked it out. To me the Bible solves the riddle of why we are here. Which painter steps up to a canvas without an objective, which architect has no objective when designing a building, who designs a universe with an objective? Isaiah 45:18 “For thus said Yahwew, Creator of the heavens, He is Elohim (God), Former of earth and its Maker, He established it, He did not create it to be empty, He formed it to be inhabited: ‘I am Yahweh, and there is none else.’”
@ Chris: “I disagree that Christianity and Islam are polar opposites. Why so you think that’s the case? Surely the Koran and Bible share rather a large amount of material as they’re both Abrahamic religions.”
Once a person studies the Islamic scriptures and the life of Muhammad its quite clear that Muhammad plagiariased the material he purchased from the Jews, he stole Bible stories to provide some authentication to his deeds and to try prove to the Jews that he is their Messiah, you’ll notice as they reject him he becomes ever more violent towards them and Christians (read: Westerners). Islam is prophecied many times in Scripture (read: Pslam 83 for example), plus Islam comes from the descendents of Ishmael, Abraham’s son from his slave-girl. Muhammad saw it fit to break every one of the 10 Commandments, he was everything the Bible said one shouldn’t be. If you have time you should read Prophet of Doom by Craig Winn.
@ Chris: “We certainly do agree though when you say ‘The thing is the Church require blind faith, and that’s not a good thing’, but this seems at odds with the rest of your comment about how you came ‘to the knowledge that God wants us to use our brains, see if He’s telling the truth or not. He actually wants us to know with certainty that He exists, and then with that certainty we trust Him to provide eternal salvation as promised’. How exactly did you acquire this knowledge with any degree of certainty?”
Let’s take for example the Genesis creation account, most churches of today teach a 6 day (24hr/day) literal creation, in this case it would be blind faith, going against every bit of evidence to the contrary. But I am certain Genesis is in perfect sync with scientific findings of an old universe, therefore I am convinced it is speaking the truth, added to that is accuracy in history, prophecy and spirituality so it doesn’t become such a big leap to believe Yahweh for my salvation. Note: I don’t believe Adam was the first human on earth, but the first human to of been given the Breath of Life, that which set him apart from other humans, having a conscience, being able to choose between right and wrong, to learn language, to communicate on a deep level and most of all being able to love which requires being able to make choices.
@ Chris: “Finally, the development of the rules of society that are enshrined in many religions from non-religious roots has always seemed pretty clear to me. So imagine you live in a tribe, competing with other tribes for the same resources. By deciding as a tribe that it’s a good idea not to kill others (except during tribal warfare) is beneficial to everyone in the tribe. Sure – you lose the freedom to kill your neighbour and steal their possessions, but that loss is far outweighed by the lower risk of your neighbour killing you! And of course, the whole tribe benefits from this agreement, meaning it will be more successful than it’s neighbours (who are too busy killing each other to defend themselves) and expand, spreading the idea with them. If you look at the basic moral rules we live by, in the end, they exist for selfish reasons.”
In other words its not about wrong or right, which humanism preaches, but about convenience and inconvenience. When I study Humanism I find that its main aim is to prevent people from using their judgement, searing their consciences, making it impossible for them to distinguish between a truth and a lie. Humanism teaches tolerance of other peoples beliefs, such as Islam, which to me is a serious mistake. Humanism together with media teaches people to shut up and not speak out against Islam (the other tribe), whereas Islam demands that nonbelievers either submit to Islam or face death. Islam is currently using Humanism to their advantage, they’re playing the Human Rights card, and eventually when they get big enough they’ll simply enforce their way of life, submit or die. Humanists aren’t aware that the Islamic scriptures teach it’s OK to lie, to make false peace treaties in order to strengthen themselves and attack at a later stage even if it means breaking the peace treaty. Read about the peace treaty of Hudaybiyah, it gives Muslims the right to fake peace in order to become stronger and then retaliate, it’s no wonder that Yasser Arafat referred to it when pledging reforms and elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council and peace to Israel. Terrorists aren’t the problem but the religion of Islam is, and it’s roots are in the Quran.
@ Chris J: “Why did he create a planet full of pain and suffering, then blame it on us? Afterall, it had nothing to do with ‘man’s fall’ if man wasn’t even around… If your god is against abortion, why did he create a world in which miscarriages would kill even more babies?”
Of course, with our poor decisions let’s blame God?! It comes down to free-will, God told what would happen if we choose Him and what would happen if we did not. It’s our choices. People wonder why societies are dysfunctional, but society of today encourages unbridled sexual relationsips, encourages promiscuity, gives more human rights to the criminal rather than than the victim, encourages poor eating habits, puts no curb on garbage spewed out over media, encourages the growth of many different religions, encourages greed, lust and selfish ambitions, governments remain blind to laboratries who design products from cosmetics to food with harmful chemicals which poison us, etc. etc. So the who’s to blame? Man or God? You can teach your child what to do, but at the end of the day he has his own mind and makes his own choices. God’s Word is full of advice but Man reckons it’s irrelevant in the 21st century. I can understand this view but it stems from a lack of understanding the true nature of the Scriptures. For exampe, people (even some Christians) laugh when the Bible says in Deuteronomy 23:12-13 “And you shall have a place outside the camp, where you shall go out, and you shall have a sharp implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your excrement.” But do a quick study on war deaths and we find a great percentage of deaths are caused by diseases due to poor sanitation, open wounds with someone doing a dunk nearby is not good. Was God being stupid? No, in fact today we know why He told us, because He created germs and knows how they operate. What about foods in which He said there are animals we can and animals we cannot eat? Studies show us that unclean animals are far more prone to toxins than clean animals. God knows our bodies and what’s best for us, yet we see it fine to eat junk all day long, backed by a society who encourages it, and then we see it fit to blame it on God because our reproduction systems fail and we have miscarriages. I’m not saying eating poorly is to blame, but it’s the principle of rejecting Yahweh that counts. He loves us and wrote a whole book detailing everything, from how to look after ourselves to what would even happen in the world. We have no excuse when things fail.
@ Richard: “I think the only difference we can ask is whether the type of belief that says that all humans are sinful and must be saved is better or worse than, say, the belief that all humans are inherently divine and just need to find this. Whichever way you look at it the direction of change is the same. The difference seems to be in what each of these beliefs encourages you to think about others. I prefer the idea of humans being inherently divine – all of us being capable of good within ourselves. I know real life is actually quite complex with a real mix. Why are we arguing this anyway? Where is the real proof that any form of god exists, whether Jehova or Brahman? All we can know is that certain patterns in life seem to work. There are certain ideas that actually seem common across religions if you look in the right places and I believe stand independently of religion. Surely just caring for others, not being greedy, all these things are more important than which if any god you worship.”
To me the Scriptures do the trick of proving God’s existence, added to that is Him being personal in my life and I can see Him working in me. And concerning “certain patterns in life seem to work” you’ll notice the Scriptures laid it all down long ago, it teaches us how to be productive, how to live healthy, how to love our neighbour, how to be morally good, and how to establish a justice system that works. Man hates being responsible for his actions, therefore he rejects God or denies that He even exists, all because of his quest for power, sex and money which causes him a lot of strife and misery.
The major problem I have with humanism is that they promote the idea that a person is not accountable for their actions to a God, therefore this means humanists can do whatever (I’m stressing the word whatever) they wish without any fear of judgement. And this is very dangerous.
To all of you: Would you guys (humanists/atheists) consider Adam Weishaupt the father of Humanism?
January 26th, 2009 at 18:02
It should be obvious that I was subsuming the concepts of antitheism and nontheism under the single atheism. Religious ideas arising out of nontheism through a process of symbolism and semantic blunder – antitheism at last our way of pulling the chain.
_____
January 26th, 2009 at 18:46
Matthew,
Do you know what happened between just after the big bang and now? How the first stars formed, how heavier elements were created within the stars and sent out, how planets form, and how life goes from very simple beginnings to more complex results given enough time? There are natural explanations for it all, and several places you could find them. None require a god.
If you want to mistakenly choose a god who designed it all, why pick the Biblical one and none of the others? The Genesis creation account doesn’t help, seeing as it says the sun and stars came after the Earth, that Adam named all the animals and that there was a talking snake. You ignore some parts, turn others into metaphors (with no justification) and twist verses in so many ways just to have it make sense to you.
As I’ve made clear a couple of times now, man cannot be held accountable for all the evils of the world when they existed BEFORE man evolved. Is it the fault of humanity that there are earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis? Disease existed BEFORE man evolved. Some babies are born with disease – how is it their fault? You can blame the parents, but again, why set up a system in which the innocent would suffer because of others? You have to blame your god for that. You cannot get away with saying it’s man’s fault, not if you accept the real age of the planet and the late arrival of man. The question remains unanswered.
The Deuteronomy passage you speak about was written when the Babylonians had already invented plumbing to take away waste. Surely the creator of the univere would have known about that, instead of telling his people to cover it up with dirt like the other animals.
While humans can do much to improve their chances of a healthy life, the point is that you have to accept if your god exists, he created all the problems to start with. He could have made it so we’d lose weight if we ate lots of chocolate. He could have made it so we’d die naturally without pain. Is it man’s fault so many of us succumb to a slow, painful end to our lives? If so, how so? It’s just natural that the human body deteriorates after a time. Natural in my eyes, but for you, you’d have to blame your god.
You failed to even address the question of what Jesus died for if not original sin (as the Bible very clearly states). If one man was given the breath of life and failed God 6000 years ago (if you believe it to be longer, explain away the genealogical line from Adam to Jesus) it still means most of us are not his descendants. Humans had already spread far and wide.
Also, if you honestly think we should get our morality from the Bible, then you can’t have read it all. I don’t feel like forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist, or stoning disobedient children. Whether that was meant for our time or then, both those rules (and plenty of others) are still completely IMMORAL. You pick and choose.
January 26th, 2009 at 18:55
Matthew:
“The major problem I have with humanism is that they promote the idea that a person is not accountable for their actions to a God, therefore this means humanists can do whatever (I’m stressing the word whatever) they wish without any fear of judgement. And this is very dangerous.”
This statement is seriously flawed, based on false logic, and not supported by HO data on criminal statistics.
History has proved that there are many, many believers that are happy to break their own commandments when it suits them. Some believers may care little about what they do because they believe their gods will forgive them at “judgement”. It’s called an “abdication of responsibility” and it can be very dangerous.
There was little merit in the rest of your rambling post, which relies heavily on discredited and unreliable sources. I’m not surprised that you have still been unwilling (or unable) to give any evidence of your particular god, despite your earlier post insisting that such evidence was “strong”, as you seem incapable of rational discussion.
January 26th, 2009 at 20:04
Matthew
Have you ever considered the possibility that your god exists ONLY within the confines of your skull?
January 26th, 2009 at 20:10
Matthew, you say: ” its quite clear that Muhammad plagiariased the material he purchased from the Jews”
But all religions plagiarise from the earlier one. It is how religions evolve. Take the creation myth and you find that in Sumerian tablets as well. Take the Noah flood, you find it almost every where a civilization has come to be – because a civilization starts by a river and the river floods. Take virgin birth, and you find that even Buddha was the son of a virgin mother. Take son of god, and you find that all the Roman emperors, Alexander and pharaos of Egypt were sons of god. The myth that comes later is always a distortion of the earlier one with some additions and subtractions that suits the life-style of a particular society. I am really surprised that with all this knowledge available to us through history of religions, you can still claim that a certain myth is true. I will finish with a Dostoyevski quote: “Man has such a prediction for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny evidence of his senses only to justify his logic.”
January 26th, 2009 at 23:11
@Mathew who in post 15 suggests if only one reads the Bible in the original Hebrew it all becomes clear — I suppose one also needs to read the New Testament in its original Greek as well ? What nonsense. So God arranges it that in order to be properly convinced — and save one’s oul one must learn two ancient languages to properly understand his Word. Wow he really makes things easy!
January 26th, 2009 at 23:29
@Chris (I address each paragraph of Chris)
“Do you know what happened between just after the big bang and now? How the first stars formed, how heavier elements were created within the stars and sent out, how planets form, and how life goes from very simple beginnings to more complex results given enough time? There are natural explanations for it all, and several places you could find them. None require a god.”
I believe Yahweh (which means I Exist) released the exact amount of energy required to let all those things happen naturally. He even allowed a natural asteroid strike to wipe-out the dinosaurs to allow for the appearence of mammals from which man would come later. He doesn’t have to mention it the Genesis creation account, all we need to know is that on Day 5 that life first started in the sea and that large reptiles would also roam the earth during this epoch and only then did mammals show up in Day 6 of which man is the last on the scene.
“If you want to mistakenly choose a god who designed it all, why pick the Biblical one and none of the others? The Genesis creation account doesn’t help, seeing as it says the sun and stars came after the Earth, that Adam named all the animals and that there was a talking snake. You ignore some parts, turn others into metaphors (with no justification) and twist verses in so many ways just to have it make sense to you.”
I think I mentioned before why I chose Yahweh and not some other religion, like Islam or Humanism.
The word day in Hebrew is yowm which can mean “to be hot, warm, day, time period, year, sunrise to sunset, from sunrise to sunrise, or from sunset to sunset, a lifetime, an indefinite period in time, a generic temporal reference, today, yesterday, or tomorrow.” Day 4 is not of of sync, it just so happens that plant life in Day 3 produced oxgyen allowing for the sun, moon and stars to appear on Day 4, and only in Day 5 did animal life start to appear once sufficient oxgyen was available. Read the Scriptures closely and you’ll notice that God is telling us to look up on Day 4, to read the signs. The word “create” does not appear in the original text during the Day 4 account. The atmosphere went from being translucent to transparent during that epoch, ask any scientist about the early atmosphere of earth. Now here it gets interesting: Day 4 of millions of years ago also correlates with the years 3000-4000 (since the fall) on the Biblical calendar, or 2967 BCE -1967 BCE on the Gregorian calendar, we can say the 4th Millennium. Now during this stage of mankind’s history, since the fall of Adam, the prophet Isaiah named Satan (symbolosied by the lesser light, the fake light, moon) by name, that of Halal ben Shacher. And right towards the end of the 4th Millennium Yahushua (symbolised by the greater light, the source of light, the sun) was born. Not only is Day 4 of Genesis scientifcally accurate with the appearence (not creation) of the moon, stars and sun, but it is also prophetically accurate of the 4th Millennium in that Satan got named, it was also the period of all the prophets and Yahushua appeared. And in Day 6 of Creation man appeared last on the scene of all the major animals, and since the year 1033 CE (year 5000) until now the population of man and the religion of man has exploded and increased. You guys should read Gerald Schroeder’s Science of God and Craig Winn’s Yada Yahweh. Check out http://www.bethlehemstar.net/ about how the Magi read the stars and realised a Jewish king was to be born.
“As I’ve made clear a couple of times now, man cannot be held accountable for all the evils of the world when they existed BEFORE man evolved. Is it the fault of humanity that there are earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis? Disease existed BEFORE man evolved. Some babies are born with disease – how is it their fault? You can blame the parents, but again, why set up a system in which the innocent would suffer because of others? You have to blame your god for that. You cannot get away with saying it’s man’s fault, not if you accept the real age of the planet and the late arrival of man. The question remains unanswered.”
Death has always been a part of life, earthquakes have always been a part of life as are volcanoes, but broken families, ruined societies, disease ridden people, etc. can all be traced back to the behaviour of Man. The spread of AIDS can easily be stopped in its tracks, but no, Man cannot bridle his own passions and still continues to promote promiscuous behaviour. Poverty can easily be stopped, but trying to stop Man’s greed that’s causing it is another story. God simply said we reap what we sow, He even said we sow and other’s reap, so don’t be alarmed that parents with HIV pass on the virus to their child, and don’t blame it on God.
“The Deuteronomy passage you speak about was written when the Babylonians had already invented plumbing to take away waste. Surely the creator of the univere would have known about that, instead of telling his people to cover it up with dirt like the other animals.”
I’ll overlook what you’re saying here because at this time the Jews were wandering the Arabian Peninsula (not the Sinai Peninsula as commonly believed), but the principle still applies in that waste should be removed.
“While humans can do much to improve their chances of a healthy life, the point is that you have to accept if your god exists, he created all the problems to start with. He could have made it so we’d lose weight if we ate lots of chocolate. He could have made it so we’d die naturally without pain. Is it man’s fault so many of us succumb to a slow, painful end to our lives? If so, how so? It’s just natural that the human body deteriorates after a time. Natural in my eyes, but for you, you’d have to blame your god.”
Man has a history of blaming his actions on someone else, and yet not once do you find man being thankful for being given the gift of life. If it wasn’t for your nervous system you wouldn’t be walking, nor would you feel any pain to let you know that you’re burning yourself on the stove. For heavens sake, without a nervous system you wouldn’t be able to feel the pleasure of sex! Thank God for nervous systems!
“You failed to even address the question of what Jesus died for if not original sin (as the Bible very clearly states). If one man was given the breath of life and failed God 6000 years ago (if you believe it to be longer, explain away the genealogical line from Adam to Jesus) it still means most of us are not his descendants. Humans had already spread far and wide.”
This is where one really needs to study the history of mankind, plus a deep dig into Scripture. All living beings have a soul, but what makes man different is a conscience. Up until Adam mankind was just another animal, however slightly more intelligent than all other animals. Adam was singled out, and placed within a garden to have a relationship with God, God even saw it fit to come down to earth and personally walk with Adam. Once Adam chose evil instead of life, he got booted out and severed his personal relationship with the Creator. You’ll even notice that Cain was fearful of the nomadic wanderers (cavemen) that would kill him after he killed his brother. These sons of God (those with a conscience) from Adam’s line used there superior intelligence and took advantage of the daughters of men (cavemen), eventually they became really evil which resulted in Noah’s Flood which we gather to be caused by a natural event, namely a asteroid strike, which literally flooded the Middle East basin. Compelling evidence is the Burckle crater as well as the numerous flooding evidence in the area during that time. I don’t believe the whole world was flooded but that the land (misunderstanding on the Hebrew word eretz) where the story took place was completely flooded. The whole world would’ve been affected by it though. This gives possible reason to the hundreds of flood myths surrounding that time from across the globe all telling of a similar event. How many people today live without a conscience? Probably not many, maybe even none. Yahushua (errantly called Jesus) died so that He could impart His Spirit within us, so that we can stand before God. Our mortal bodies are not capable of eternal life, therefore God has provided a way for us to live eternally. But we first need to go through the act of choosing Him because then He’ll adopt us into His family, He only wants to be those who choose to be with Him, we inherit what He has because of our relationship to Him. You can’t earn salvation, doing good works won’t get it, nothing you can do to merit it, we’re simply not good enough, you can be Bono and do all these kind deeds but at the end of the day if you don’t want a relationship with Yahweh don’t be upset when He says to you at judgement day “Sorry, I don’t know you, and even though your works are great they have no meaning to me, you’re not my child, I only give my inheritance to those related to me!” You can choose to love or choose not to love. With doing good, there has to be the option of doing evil. Doing evil separates us from God, but now thankfully when we die His Spirit will protect us and raise us up at the last day. There’s always a way out.
“Also, if you honestly think we should get our morality from the Bible, then you can’t have read it all. I don’t feel like forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist, or stoning disobedient children. Whether that was meant for our time or then, both those rules (and plenty of others) are still completely IMMORAL. You pick and choose.”
No Chris, people fail to understand Yahweh’s instructions. In the case of the rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28) the unbetrothed girl can object to the marriage through her father, her father has the final say in the matter but one would need to read the rest of the Torah to figure that out. Laws like this keep rape and all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage to a minimum, but notice that if the rapist raped a betrothed virgin he was to suffer death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). So the question is: is God concerned about sex or about betrayal? Healthy marriages and healthy families are the backbone of any society, God knew it and that’s why we are told these precepts. I won’t take a smack at your understanding of God’s Torah/Law, but will rather take a smack at Christians who don’t understand it and teach it errantly to the world at large. The precept in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 concerning stoning a disobedient son really puts teeth in the Fifth Commandment of honouring one’s parents. This son was a stubborn, rebellious, a glutton and drunkard, in other words up-to-no-good and it would lead to other people becoming like that if his behaviour was not stopped. The Torah creates a society that is devout, hard-working and respectful of God and man alike. Those who are rebellious, lazy, and self-indulgent don’t have a place, they are mischief makers. God’s Torah is not harsh, it’s all about restitution and not retribution. If fact you won’t find prisons mentioned in the Bible because God says the perpetrator must pay back what he stole and then some, in this case the criminal gets forgiven and the victim receives back what was stolen, in todays world the victim doesn’t receive his possessions back, the criminal gets put behind bars, and the taxpayers pay for it, while the justice system profits from it as well. God’s system is perfect, man’s system is costly and pathetic.
Man looks through a stained glass when reading the Word, obscuring its intended meaning. You guys should read The Owner’s Manual by Ken Power on how to understand the Law as it is intended.
January 26th, 2009 at 23:45
Oliver R:
Jeremiah 8:8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of Yahweh,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”
Even the Bible tells us of errors worked in by people. Thankfully the Dead Sea Scrollls prove the Bible is still very similar to the originals, even over a period 2200 years. Unfortunately ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek are far richer in word meanings than English, one Hebrew usually has many more meanings and can often be translated incorrectly. It’s not that one loses a lot but in some cases one can lose an important revelation, and in some cases we lose the history of the word.
Thankfully with the Internet we have numerous tools to use at our disposal helping us to understand the meanings of words in their original format.
You can still know Yahweh without knowing the original languages.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:24
Matthew,
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?
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.
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!
How do you know that day 4 of millions of years corresponds with the dates 3000-4000 BC? What key are you using?
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?
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!
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?
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.
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!
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?
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!
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.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:02
Matthew
I’ve got news for you – not everything you read on the internet is true.
By the way have you managed to find time to consider my question at 64?
January 27th, 2009 at 13:07
Reply to Comment #59
To Chris,
You asked, “When exactly did everyone start believe in God ?”
As the intelligence level of Homo Sapien improved, he started believing in God. That also explains why atheists don’t believe in God. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY should not involve speculation of any kind. There should not be much scope for any personal opinion, interpretation etc. Such theory must stand on its own. It should not require any support from public opinion. Evolution Theory does not fulfil any of these requirements. Even fairy tales are somewhat more logical than evolution theory. So, only persons like you who have some different “personal” definition of scientifically verifiable evidence, will accept evolution theory as a scientific theory. Intelligent Design Theory is nonscientific in form as well as in substance whereas Evolution Theory is scientific only in form and not in substance. I also can label myself as creationist by churning out a theory that speculates on “beginning of life”.
Now, coming to that LHC. Only idiots will ask for funds for a project that involves smashing of Protons. Hunt for “God’s particle” is simply a nonscientific nonsense originating out of Meson speculation. This Mesonic babble itself indicates that so called scientists associated with this project do not know the basics of Physics. There is no point in allocating a single penny, cent or paisa for this silly, childish & absurd LHC project…
January 27th, 2009 at 15:39
Re. Comment 71,
So, remind me Samir, what exactly are the basics of physics?
January 27th, 2009 at 16:40
I think you should look at the cartoon in the current PRIVATE EYE.
It shows a bus with your rather unoriginal slogan on its side: the bus is being driven by the Devil, wearing a triumphant sneering grin, and, as the terrified passengers raise their hands to an empty Heaven, HE STEERS IT OVER A CLIFF!
Well, it’s funnier than anything Dawkins has ever said …
January 27th, 2009 at 17:42
Re. Comment 71:
Let me tell you, translating your confused babble of a reply in readable English was really worth it. I recommend reading this comment to everyone for the good of their health – a laught does your body good.
It’s quite hard to dissect your arguments though, on the basis that they are impenetrable and your mistakes numerous.
“As the intelligence level of Homo Sapien improved, he started believing in God. That also explains why atheists don’t believe in God.”
That conclusion makes no logical sense. I like cake, therefore caterpillars. Could you please enlighten our humble selves as to the logical steps involved? Are you perhaps suggesting that humankind is getting less intelligent, and thus atheism flourishes? Or are you suggesting that atheists are idiots – something easily disproved by a quick search for notable atheists.
The jump to evolution from there confuses me also. And the actual content of your commentary on it is near gibberish. However, the one clear point is that you consider evolution to be un-scientific. Since you fail to make clear the assumptions upon which this assertion is based I can only address the idea of what is ’scientific’.
Falsifiability: one of the most important elements of science, the idea that something can be proven to be false. This is the test of what is scientific, can a theory be proven to be false? It’s a confusing idea, since this is not the same as asking if something is false, but whether it is possible for it be proven false. You quite rightly make the point that Intelligent Design is unscientific, and it is so because it postulates the existence of a non-falsifiable creator. God cannot be proven not to exist, because you cannot prove a negative. Thus, intelligent design is unfalsifiable, and non-scientific.
Evolution however could be proven to be false. If for instance we found the wrong kind of fossils in the wrong layers of strata, we might have to say that evolution was proven false. In this way evolution is falsifiable. This makes it a scientific theory. All evidence currently suggest that it is correct, though we do not fully understand all the mechanisms involved in it, much like the Theory of gravity.
This is not a “different ‘personal’ definition of scientifically verifiable evidence”, but he basis of science as we know it.
To be honest, that is all so much bumf, because such arguments are fought and re-fought across the internet all the time. Logic wont convince you because it isn’t really logic that made you come to your decisions, but upbringing and a ‘feeling’ that you have decided is more important than logic. I think you should leave logic alone if you refuse to listen to it, and let science be. The personal and religious judgement that evolution is not true, should not be brought up in scientific discourse. It is not based on logic, but on belief. Evolution is based on evidence and logic. Leave logic alone.
“Now, coming to that LHC”… oh dear.
I’m a reasonably intelligent fellow (immodest I realise), and even after much reading on my part, I only have very basic understanding of the concepts and mechanisms involved in the LHC. However, your problem appears to be with language (quite apart from your inability to create paragraphs, coherent sentences and logical steps in your writing).
The ‘God particle’, is not in fact called any such thing. It is called the ‘Higgs boson’, and gained the nickname ‘god particle’, after the title of a layman’s guide to particle physics, called “The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What is the Question?”. The theory it is quite sound from my limited understanding. It is predicted to exist in the most accepted theoretical model of particle physics. If discoverd by the LHC, it could explain (as the prediction suggests) how the transfer of mass works. Essentially we currently have a diagram with a big Higgs boson-shaped hole in it, which needs to be filled for our current model of particle physics to work. Other predicted models do exist however, and I would suggest you read about them for yourself. A couple of hundred words isn’t enough I’m afraid.
But “silly, childish & absurd” it most certainly is not. It is exciting, marveloous, and a testimony to the efforts and achievements of science and human curiosity. It also creates hope and enthusiasm about the future of scientific discovery.
£5.3billion to build a venue for the olympics, now that is silly, childish and absurd.
Beside, if you think there is no Higgs boson, then it could prove you right. And imagine how you coudl sneer at scientists then.
I apologise to those with a greater knowledge than me of the scientific method, and particle physics for any and all mistakes (to those with less knowledge I’ll just pretend I made no mistakes).
And sorry for the length – it’s obvious I have an essay to hand in. Still, doubtless it has doubled the size of the comments page.
TTFN,
Ian
January 27th, 2009 at 17:43
Wow, even I’m amazed at how long that turned out. The small comment box made me think it was going to be long – but not THAT long.
Sorry chaps,
Ian
January 27th, 2009 at 18:08
Ian,
No need for any apology. Well said.
January 27th, 2009 at 19:46
@Mathew
“Thankfully with the Internet we have numerous tools to use at our disposal helping us to understand the meanings of words in their original format.”
Such as what? babelfish?
January 27th, 2009 at 21:06
It is arguable that as man’s intelligence has developed he has sidelined religion more and more. The notion of a single, hands-off god who only takes one morning a week of your time is practically atheism already compared to most of the older religions which required so much more observance. This bus campaign is just mostly run by people who want to get the process over and done with.
Christianity paved the way for Atheism when it rejected complex practices in favour of something you can do on your day off. No divine wrath followed and people started wondering if they could do even less.
January 27th, 2009 at 22:17
Oliver R:
You’ll be amazed at just how many available tools are on the market to help with translation, especially with Biblical translation, there are literally hundreds of dictionaries, lexicons, concordances, and commentaries available. Just check this link for what’s available if you’re willing to pay some cash, not that I am: http://www.logos.com/gold You can get a handful on what’s offered here on some free software programs as well.
January 27th, 2009 at 22:55
@quedula: “Have you ever considered the possibility that your god exists ONLY within the confines of your skull?”
Of course I have, in fact Yahweh does reside literally in me in Spirit form!
January 27th, 2009 at 22:56
And guys, I don’t come from Camberwell, I’m not even sure if I’ve ever been there, closest I reckon was using the trains running through Stockwell
January 27th, 2009 at 23:28
Matthew: If Yahweh does reside literally in you in Spirit form, then do you or don’t you have free will?
January 27th, 2009 at 23:54
Matthew wrote:
“You’ll be amazed at just how many available tools are on the market to help with translation, especially with Biblical translation, there are literally hundreds of dictionaries, lexicons, concordances, and commentaries available.”
And while you’re the subject of transcriptions and translations, Matthew, lets not forget all those hundreds of disparate scribes over the centuries with poor memories, dodgy handwriting, too much wine, cholera, bad syntax, myopia, insect bites, too few women, flatulance, writer’s cramp, piles, and even the odd noisy goat, for getting the Bible stories all mixed up.
Well, that neatly explains all the contradictions, mistakes, untruths, fallacies, physical impossibilities, in the good book, and its obsession with death, disease, togas, fallen women, stones, locusts, temples, boils and sores, sandles, and a goat called Harry (Deut. ch 6, v 17).
Thanks for clearing that up, Matthew.
PS Before it gets written into the next version of your book, I was joking about the goat. His name was Bob.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:28
Reply to Comment #82
To nilgün oven,
I will slightly modify your question to Matthew & try to answer it.
Is “Free Will” really free & what is the relation between Free Will and System Opinion? Almighty’s axis represents Truth, logic & sanity whereas Devil’s axis represents falsehood, absurdity & intolerance. Through Free Will, one can move either towards God or towards Devil. If you are a member of some school-of-thought, you are not considered as a person with Free Will because you have no alternative than working within the guidelines set by that school. Almost every school-of-thought has got some rational agenda & some irrational agenda. The moment you start defending irrational agenda of your school-of-thought, some Free Will person will point out your deviation from Truth. In short, a Free Will person continuously moves in an area that lies in between different schools-of-thought.
System always tries to push Free Will persons towards illogical stand. System wants them to believe in religious fanatism, evolution theory, space-missions or some stuff like that. If aggregate “Free Will” perfectly aligns itself with Almighty, then System will have to embrace irrational stand forever…
January 28th, 2009 at 9:39
Samir:
Your Babel fish definitively needs feeding. Try thinking harder.
Peace
January 28th, 2009 at 12:10
@nilgün oven:
I still have my choices, but I also have God’s Spirit to guide me in the way that I should go.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:33
Can I say what great news this is. If you have not seen it, I recommend everyone reads the Christian Voice press release at http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press122.html It is hilarious.
January 28th, 2009 at 13:20
I doubt whether Babel fish is of an use to me. Your opposition to Google will take you nowhere. Google is many steps ahead of Yahoo!
I am trying to put things in as simple manner as possible. By the way, have you understood a single word from “Truthfulness” ?
January 28th, 2009 at 13:50
Reply to Comments #57 & 85
To Simon Bishop & Richard W.
Hey, you Yahoo! kids, What is this translator babble ? I hope you know the difference between transliter & translator. My mother tounge is MARATHI. I don’t think Google has developed any translator for converting content from Indian languages into English.
It seems that you have failed miserably in finding out my whereabouts. That means, you still could not verify whether my Free Will is really intact or not. Keep it up kids. God is great.
(Pls. note : Comment #87 was addressed to Richard W. as reply to his Comment #85. Correction : First line should have been “I doubt whether Babel fish is of any use to me.” )
January 28th, 2009 at 15:41
Matthew: I don’t know how you can have your choices with an all-knowing God beside you. If the outcome of any choice is known – not predicted – prior to the decision, then there is no choice. On the other hand, if this God is literally in you, then actually it’s God and not yourself who makes the choices. In both cases, either you have no free-will and you cannot be held responsible for any action of yours or God is not all-knowing.
January 28th, 2009 at 16:23
Reply to Comment #90
To nilgun oven,
I hope you won’t mind if I, once again, interrupt your interesting discussion with Matthew. The reluctance of a Free Will to align with Devil’s axis cannot be equated to a known choice. In other words, if a Free Will person keeps moving towards God, you can’t say his will is constrained or his choice is known. Ultimate aim of such Free Will person is to get the same set of choices as that of Almighty. When this goal is achieved, then that Free Will person is said to have become one with God. During the process, a person will always be held responsible for his actions.
January 28th, 2009 at 16:45
Samir, please dry-up you are making my head ache.
January 28th, 2009 at 18:03
Reply to Comment #92
To quedula,
It is quite natural. When things go against you, you suffer from headache. I will quote a line from original post : “… It’s a great day for freedom of speech in Britain…” I feel sorry for the European Public Transport system which is carrying the burden of atheist-ignorance.
Why don’t you make it a rule that only atheists should submit comments here ? The birds of the same feather can f*** together.
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 called scientists working on Large Hadron Collider must have realised that defeating mediocre atheists in the field of science is damn easy. Whatever you know from science is already known to theists. In addition, theists know something which is beyond your grasping power.
Have you understood a single word from the article “Truthfulness” ? That article is available on my blogspace at htttp://samirsp.blogspot.com
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 !!!
January 28th, 2009 at 19:27
@nilgun oven
Yahweh does influence my decisions but at the end of the day I choose to go left or right. However, Yahweh does know the choice I’ll make beforehand and that’s the advantage I have.
How much esteem to you place on Dawkins, does he influence your decisions? But does he personally make decisions for you?
January 28th, 2009 at 19:56
Samir, what I’m saying is, when I have choices A-B-C-D and God knows that I’ll choose C, and I actually choose C, then it means I don’t have free will. If I choose B, then it means God doesn’t know.
You say: ” Ultimate aim of such Free Will person is to get the same set of choices as that of Almighty.” Though still illogical, this may be argued concerning ethical choices; however, I’m talking about choices like whether I should wear a blue shirt or a white one. God still knows my choice, and I have no clue as to what the Almighty’s special preference would be so that I could make it my ultimate aim.
For this reason, I say, if God knows, then there’s no choice.
January 28th, 2009 at 20:08
There is never anything to be gained engaging with loonies; all you will ever get is tedious megalomania, non sequitur, and gratuitous insult. Wouldn’t be so bad if they could be entertaining with any of these.
_____
January 28th, 2009 at 20:13
Matthew,
I respect Prof. Dawkins’ knowledge and it is true that I’m influenced by his views. But those qualities you attribute to God – all-knowing; all-powerful; all-good – I’m sure Prof. Dawkins would refuse them, even if I wanted to define him that way.
In any case, the concept of free-will causes problems for the theist because of the qualities he attributes to God.
January 28th, 2009 at 22:11
Matthew,
I get the feeling your belief is based more on an emotional need now rather than any logical arguments. I could be wrong, but it’s as if you have to ignore my questions in order to hold to your worldview. Hardly an honest thing to do. It might be you’re afraid of not existing when you die, or you just don’t want to admit you’ve lived a lie, or something else. Just as long as you understand that.
Unless my points are addressed, what other conclusion can I draw except that evolution undermines the idea of ‘original sin’ and the idea of Jesus dying for our salvation – probably the most important belief in Christianity – becomes meaningless. Even if let you get away with saying his death gave us a spirit of some kind to let us stand before God, we wouldn’t have all inherited this ‘Breath of Life’ from Adam. Just the fact that language existed earlier than 6000 years ago shows this idea is in error to start with.
It seems to me like a failed attempt to water down the harshness of the OT rules when you spoke about the father of a rape victim being able to stop the marriage taking place. I’ve honestly never heard of this before, which is why I requested the scripture. Does it exist?
I’m willing to change my mind on everything I’ve written, if my points can be answered at a satisfactory level. Are you willing to change your views on what you believe if flaws are pointed out that you have difficulty with? All too often, especially with a belief based on emotion, the next step for someone in your shoes is to say to oneself ‘whatever I’ve heard and have difficulty reconciling with my current beliefs – it doesn’t matter too much because the debate over whether my god exists is beyond human understanding.’
You might want to think about whether it is a belief based on emotion, because if it isn’t you shouldn’t have to leave my questions unanswered, hoping they go away.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:45
Reply to Comment #95
To nilgun oven,
Almighty has created this beautiful world alongwith the universal rules of science. As per the rules of biological science, every living organism has to follow a cycle of birth, life & death. When we come to this world, our brains are not pre-loaded with knowledge. That would not be in line with the rules of biological sciences which suggest that we have to develop our personal knowledge-base in a logical manner. That means God doesn’t pre-programme us to be criminals or non-criminals. He doesn’t want to violate His own laws of biological science. That’s why He has given us Free Will with which we make choices. Why should it push you to a conclusion that if God knows then we have no choices ? God knows everything. That’s why He wants us to use our Free Will & move from ignorance to knowledge, from darkness to light.
You said : “I have no clue as to what the Almighty’s special preference would be so that I could make it my ultimate aim.”
That’s precisely the reason why philosophy is developed. Omnipotent God is Omnipresent entity as well. Our ignorance prevents us from sensing His presence all around us. He continuously keeps giving us hints. As we wipe out our ignorance, we can get those hints. Whether you consider ethical choices at macro level or simple choices at micro level, logic remains the same. Whether one should wear white shirt or blue shirt depends upon many things. What will you say about those who go for cross-dressing ? When your intention is to fool others through cross-dressing, you move against God. We do have a Free Will but many a times our ignorance (ego or urge to exploit others etc) forces us to make choices which push us away from God. That obviously doesn’t mean that God does not know !!!
January 29th, 2009 at 8:19
Adam Tjaavk:
Very true Adam. Looks like a couple of the Dulwich gnomes have managed to board the bus.
It’ll be just my luck if one of them comes and sits next to me.
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