The Anti-theist Thread

[Andúril]

The fact is Anduril, that there are contradictions in the Bible that can't be explained. No one is denying that.

Would you be so kind as to give a few examples of these?

Actually, some, if not most fundementalists deny the existence of biblical contradictions. It is really entertaining to see some of the reconciliations that they provide, that in their eyes make the problematic passages sensible or coherent.

Maybe I am a simpleton, but I need not know the indentity of what temps me - that is uneccessary hair-splitting.

Your needs aren't the issue here, contradictory text is.

God uses sin to strengthen us and teach us of our own sinful ways - and how great the glory of redemption is through him (as Twilight so eloquently said).

Not interested. This has nothing to do with the identity of the provoker.

The explanation is that God (whom is omnipotent, and at times wrathful) allows Satan to temp us and use painful experiences to grow and to learn.

Apart from being pointless regarding the question at hand, this opens up a new can of worms. God is at times wrathful? What does the prefix omni represent? All. God is claimed to be 1) Omnibenevolent (can/does not perform evil acts and does only good, therefore no possibility of wrath) and 2) Outside of time (by some) - so the statement "...at times wrathfull" is meaningless.

Why wouldn't an omnipotent creator also be wrathful or want to us to prove our mettle? In the end, it is how we handle such tests (not who they come from) that is important.

Really? Is it really important how we would act in actuality, as opposed to our actions in thought? What I mean is, if God is omniscient, hence knows the future, he would know exactly how we would act, before creating us. Actuality therefore becomes a rather pointless exercise, don't you think?

But taking such suffering at face value misses the point that it can all be resolved in a manner more beautiful than you can imagine. This is where the faith part of the equation enters (and that is where we may forever be divided): that an omnipotent creator has a plan, and even though said suffering is horrible and greiving, it is part of a plan that is greater than we as humans can imagine. Nature's complexity has already proved baffling to us, why then do you strive against understaning the mind of a holy, imnipotent being? The simple fact is we can't - nor can we ever hope to.

In short, you are saying that you have absolutely no idea of what God is thinking. You don't really know what you believe in, do you? You have answered a mystery (why pointless sufferering/natural disasters? etc) with another mystery, even more mysterious/unknowable than the first one.

Through science we can, in whatever small way, continue to learnn the hows of the small rock we live on, but it will never tell us the whys

Assumption that there is an actual answer to Why?.

And that I will continue to doubt until you see my sources (who are from times both ancient, and modern), and can unequevicoally disprove them.

If you plan on positing evidence about historical events such as tribal relocations and other non-mythical and non-supernatural events, don't bother. As I said before:

...the Bible (which probably has some truthfulness, regarding certain historical events...)

it is possible that many events as described in the bible, actually happened. Non-theists have no problem with that. It's the supernatural make-believe fantastical faith-requiring myth that makes point and laugh.

[Lelondul]

Would you be so kind as to give a few examples of these? (contradictions)

Um, I don't understand - you are stating a contradiction between the verses in Samuel, and Chronichles, and I ackowledged their confusing nature. Have you not given yourself an example already? There is also confusion about the day of Christ's resurrection, which boils down to the difference in cultures interpretations of which day 'The Sabbath' was. There are others, but if you don't believe the bible is accurate, why are you even interested? It's all hogwash to you anyway, right?

Your needs aren't the issue here, contradictory text is.

You're right, but since you're attempting to validate your own opinions as everyone else in this thread has, I'll throw mine in too As for your question, I'll say it again: there are contradictions in the Bible that can't be wholly explained. I don't pretend to understand them all.

If you plan on positing evidence about historical events such as tribal relocations and other non-mythical and non-supernatural events, don't bother. As I said before:
quote:

...the Bible (which probably has some truthfulness, regarding certain historical events...)

I have no such sources. Mine simply evaluate the Bible's accuracy as compared to the other historic documents we consider canon for basing higher thought on. They also show how the potential for errors (especially the New Testament) are very small when comapared to these same sources.


Hmmm, I also never thought that omnipotence meant omnibenevolence - neither does the dictionary..Omnipotence: "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful."

This certainly leaves room for wrath. It is shown in several instances in the Bible (again, whose accuracy you doubt, making much of our debate moot) where God is shown to be wrathful. And yes, I am saying exactly that: we cannot know the mind of God because of his omnipotence - a trait we humans do not posses. How can we possibly know an ominpotent mind if we are not ourlseves, omnipotent?


Being one that doesn't question why, my evidence/knowledge/what-not is pretty meaningless to you. I do ask the why, and have come to my own conclusions based on that fundamental part of my nature. Your nature is one that questions the how, and I can't provide you anything that would be valuable for you to gain insight as to why I beleive what I do. Somone else of like mind will have to do that.

If you're ever interested in reading pro-christian works. I'd highly suggest "Mere Christianity" by C.S.Lewis. A short, but very logical, and methodical approach to understanding God's existence on a very basic level. At least read it to disprove it.

Regards,
- Lelond

[Earniel]

Originally posted by afro-elf
and a horde of minons

Yeay, I'm a minion! Not bad for something that evolved from the primevil goo if you ask me...

This debate has really helped me define a few issues for myself. Although I can't really participate without:

a) entangling myself in my arguments untill I can't remember which side is up

and

b) making a total fool out of my self,

I hope you do keep up this debate. I've enjoyed reading all (uck) 44 pages, since they are really interesting.

[Andúril]

Have you not given yourself an example already?

I have evidenced one such contradiction, but upon hearing your admittance regarding additional unsolved problems, I thought I'd make my life a little bit easier, and recieve my ammunition directly from the opponent. How's that for a strategy, eh?

There is also confusion about the day of Christ's resurrection, which boils down to the difference in cultures interpretations of which day 'The Sabbath' was.

Thanks. I'll look into it. Any others of particular interest?

...but if you don't believe the bible is accurate, why are you even interested? It's all hogwash to you anyway, right?

Good question - why am I interested? I have no idea. Maybe I want to reinforce my beliefs (similar to the reinforcement Christians recieve by repeatedly going to church, praying, talking about God, etc). Maybe it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside? Maybe I have a subconsious desire to believe, but my concious won't let me, although my subconsious is not wholly subdued? But that's really not the point. I guess a legit reason for wanting additional evidence of biblical contradiction is to strengthen my overall agrument against Christianity. Is that not fairly obvious?

You're right, but since you're attempting to validate your own opinions as everyone else in this thread has, I'll throw mine in too

By all means, go ahead. But if you are going to address any of my points, perhaps you could stick to it (the point) and not introduce unecessary elements that serve no relevant purpose, okay?

there are contradictions in the Bible that can't be wholly explained. I don't pretend to understand them all.

Well, as long as they are labeled contradictions, not much understanding is necessary, is it?

Mine simply evaluate the Bible's accuracy as compared to the other historic documents we consider canon for basing higher thought on. They also show how the potential for errors (especially the New Testament) are very small when comapared to these same sources.

By all means, submit your evidence. I'm always interested in what theists have to say. But what is this "higher thought"?

Hmmm, I also never thought that omnipotence meant omnibenevolence - neither does the dictionary...

I never said it did, but I see how one might interpret that part of my post in such a way. What are was trying to show is that the omni prefix negates the potential for wrath, when attached to benevolent. It follows that the depiction of a wrathful god is incompatible with his nature (omnibenevolent), even though the potential for wrathful actions is there for omnipotent beings. I can infer from here that a being cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, and conclude that the biblical god, who is claimed to be both, cannot exist.

How can we possibly know an ominpotent mind if we are not ourlseves, omnipotent?

And you would gladly (blindly) worship something that you can't even understand?

[Andúril]

a) entangling myself in my arguments untill I can't remember which side is up

and

b) making a total fool out of my self,

Well, if it is not a general opinion around here, then at least it is mine: participate! Get down and dirty, throw yourself into the deep end; test yourself.

But if you choose to take a back seat, and merely observe, I have absolutely no problem with that.

[Lelondul]

One thing that the Bible never deviates from, contradicts, or otherwise confusticates is what it takes to be saved from our sinful nature. The main message, as it was intended, is there in crystal clarity. Just because you can sift through a 2000+page book and find some inconsistencies (which have nothing to do with salvation mind you), doesn't mean has no truth.

'Higher thought' was perhaps too general a phrase, I meant thought that does or leads one to, question our being, how we got here, and why.


That is how I am able to worship something I can't understand. What I can understand is what is ultimately vital, and understandable to all who believe the Bible is historically accurate.

Damn it - this is the last time I get into a spiritual debate at work! I'll post my sources later tonight if nothing unforseen happens....


take care,
- Lelond

[Wayfarer]

First, Todays amusement:

smitten by the gods

When it comes down to being smitten, I'd much rather think in terms of a goddess. One that was smitten with me, of course. ]: )

You been talking to Blackheart lately?

Not lately. I haven't had a good metaphysics discussion with Xandre for months. But we used to have a real good time with that kind of discussions. He's one of the smartest guys I've ever met.

Belief in something proclaimed as truth at face value, while there are facts to the contrary, is intellectual weakness, in my humble opinion.

Let's think this through:

Based on your statement, anyone who believes something at face value, and refuse to accept evidence otherwise is intellectually weak.

What does that say about those people who repeatedly claim that athiesm and evolution should be taken as fact, despite evidence to the contrary?
What does that say about those evolutionists who claim that to disagree with their viewpoint is 'ignorant', 'perverse', or best of all 'wicked'?
What does that say about those posters in this thread who automatically assume that anyone who purports to disagree with thier viewpoint are engaging in religious, 'anti-science' propaganda.

What I hope you see is, the knife cuts both ways. I've given you my (excellent) reasons for believing that God is much more reasonable than Nature. You have not (as far as I can tell) given any reasons to believe otherwise.

Anyway. Subjectivism, truth, etc, etc.

I thank you for clearing up what you believe. You understand that I got a wacky impression from some of the things you said.

Now, I'd like to apply this to the question of the hour. Everyone participating in this thread has a (subjective) opinion. Some of us are Theists, and some are Naturalists. Now, I've given my reasons for believing that philosophical naturalism is flawed in principle. I have also asked repeatedly that you attempt to resolve them. You (collectively) haven't made much of an effort, and certainly haven't had a great amount success. However, you don't seem to have changed your minds. Is there some reason of this? Or are you merely sticking to the subjective, a priori assumption that naturalism is true? I'll leave that where it lies...

What I have seen is a large amount of speculation based on what God is supposed to be like, and whether or not he can actually be that. And even though I do have my own beliefs, I haven't taken my argument that far yet. I will be happy to do so- once we've all agreed that the source of all reality is far less likely to be the total system than it is to be a single, concrete, literal, thinking, entity with a definite character, who created everything else.

This would, of course, move us to the sort of thing that Anduril has been getting at all along. Making a concerted study of that sort of thing would be more to my liking than repeating myself and waiting for you guys to answer. I doubt it would be as easy.

What do you say?

[Wayfarer]

More humour:

can I be the anti-christ?

I'm afraid not, BoP. However, it's not to hard to be an anti-christ. Simply display the attributes opposite to what he was: Selfishness, Pride, Dishonesty, etc. Enjoy yourself.

Yeay, I'm a minion!

That's one item to check off of my shopping list. Now, where to get that castle...

Anyway, back to serious matters:

parting seas, talking burning bushes, multiple headed creatures, animal headed humanoids, the list goes on and on.

I don't know where you get multiple headed creatures in the bible, but animal headed humanoids (and young women with fauns for breasts) are rather obviously not serious. Hebrew metaphor is odd that way.

What we have is the conflict of two modern schools of thought: Literalists and, uh, Metaflorists. Or something .

The one believes that every word of every sentance should be taken literally. Which seems odd, when you consider that this would mean my last sentance depicted them picking up words and carrying them somewhere.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have people who assume that, since people use metaphors, we should read between the lines of everything. I can't think of anything witty to say, except for the observation that this statement must have some hidden meaning.

I, along with most reasonable people, take the route I like to call, well, being reasonable. Which means that I understand the comparison of men to lions and rocks, or of women with fawns and young birds, to be meant metaphorically. But when I get an obvious, in your face statement like 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', I assume it means what it says.

Having taken care of that particular quandry, I am afraid that I am not in possesion of any citations regarding the accuracy of the bible. However, the number and precision of different copies of the bible that have been found are greater than any ancient book.

Anyway. The many purported contradictions in the bible seem to be rather desperate attempts on the part of critics. The one which you quoted is actually one of the few which presents any problem. However, as noted, this is rather a difference between modern though (concerned with direct causes) and hebrew thought (concerned with ultimate causes). In any case, it's not particularly convincing as an argument. Aswith most of these cases, it's a matter of overinterpritation.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Having taken care of that particular quandry, I am afraid that I am not in possesion of any citations regarding the accuracy of the bible. However, the number and precision of different copies of the bible that have been found are greater than any ancient book.

That is debatable. Certainly, a biographer, such as Plutarch, revealed more about history, than the bible can lay a claim to. And since it's apparently okay to acknowlege outlandish claims as "metaphor" then I'd also like to include Herodatus, the "father of lies", because, surely his ethnographic accounts mean something? Right? They can't ALL be metaphorical.... All in all, there is a wealth of information to be garnered from reading ancient texts, so I wouldn't be so quick to write them off, they were of course written perhaps a few hundred years before the bible, but not THAT much earlier. Thus, you could almost say that the conjecturing of these early historians permeated also, into the writing of the bible.

[afro-elf]

Wayfarer

we HAVE answered your queries about evolution, we have the evidence that was provide is tangible.

YOU have FAILED to convince us.

Eventhough anduril and yourself i engaged in some through logic discussions

what I have seen from you is bad science HAVE been refuted one these points many times

WHERE HAVE YOU PROVEN THE EXISTANCE OF YOUR CHRISTIAN GOD

YOU KNOW WHERE? NO WHERE

first you failed trying to discredit evolution. POINT FOR POINT Bop and Cirdan answered your call.

then you tried with the design with the design argument
You failed there because
A) its a false analogy that there is a significant resemblance between the natural objects and ones we know have been designed.
B) evolution which you have failed to discredit in another alternative.
C) it does not in ANYWAY SOLELY support your christain god.
1)why not a team of lesser gods?,
2)does not support an all powerful one all knowing or all good, hardly. to many design flaws if we lowly humans can see that if this is the best possible world that it.s !@#$%^ up

then you go to the first cause argument
A) everything has a first cause EXCEPT god. so you say what caused god? well he is self created always was. Hell the universe could have always been.
B) there is no highest number it can go on forever, why not in the past?
C) even if something god like was the first cause STILL does prove your CHRISTIAN god. does not support an all powerful one all knowing or all good,

At least you only resorted to the telelogical and cosmological arguments and did fall into that supreme idoicy of theoloegical debate the ontological argument.

YOU HAVE FAILED
to PROVE your CHRISTIAN GOD.
with logic

At BEST you have shone support for more than one god or a lesser god.

[afro-elf]

do you wish to move on to the problem of evil?
the prblems of miracles?
the gamblers argument

NAH lets deal with the previous post first

[BeardofPants]

What I hope you see is, the knife cuts both ways. I've given you my (excellent) reasons for believing that God is much more reasonable than Nature. You have not (as far as I can tell) given any reasons to believe otherwise.

Wayfarer, your total subjectivity weakens your arguments. I'd refrain from it, if I were you, and stop needlessly antagonising the opposition.

While I agree that yes, our arguments are subjective, our conjecturing is based on viewable, empiracle objective observation. Can you honestly say the same? Your evidence is based on historical interpretation, and dubious at that.

And I'll say it again, subjectivity, to some extent, is needed to understand the human psyche... provided it is backed up with empiracle data.


Also: Thanks A-E, for the defence.


Later Edit: Click here to find out which box you fit into.

[afro-elf]

I just wanna say

That one good thing about wayfarer is though we may draw blood here.

It does not affect our friendly banter on other threads

kudos kid

[Cirdan]

Wayfarer wrote:

Based on your statement, anyone who believes something at face value, and refuse to accept evidence otherwise is intellectually weak.

What does that say about those people who repeatedly claim that athiesm and evolution should be taken as fact, despite evidence to the contrary?
What does that say about those evolutionists who claim that to disagree with their viewpoint is 'ignorant', 'perverse', or best of all 'wicked'?
What does that say about those posters in this thread who automatically assume that anyone who purports to disagree with thier viewpoint are engaging in religious, 'anti-science' propaganda.

Evolution should be taken as a theory. People will believe what they want to believe. I have yet to see and valid evidence to the contrary. The rule still applies. If I had never heard of the theory of evolution and someone says, "Living organisms change over time and new species resulted"; I would expect a good deal of evidence before acccepting the idea as valid. I would want to know if there is other evidence against the concept. I have yet to see any real, plausible evidence against it.

Name is pointless and irrelevant to this discussion. What does it say about religious people who call atheists "doomed sinners")and the "wicked" moniker usually comes from the other side of the house)? What does that have to do with intellect? Just bad manners, really?

If someone denies a well proven and documented scientific fact based on one's religious beliefs founded in mythology (age of the earth in billions of years vs 600 year old noah with giant boat floating on an additional 5 mile deep layer of water on the earth) would be displaying the weakness of which we speak.
It would be an anti-science position. As for the "propaganda" reference; seems to be propping up this straw man of the theist poster as victim of slander. You have been guilty of the "ad hominem" strategy as any poster on this thread.

Yes, anyone who accepts concepts without evaluating the evidence, both pro and con, is exhibiting intellectual weakness. I don't think it is a crime; just annoying

[Cirdan]

Wayfarer wrote:

Now, I'd like to apply this to the question of the hour. Everyone participating in this thread has a (subjective) opinion. Some of us are Theists, and some are Naturalists. Now, I've given my reasons for believing that philosophical naturalism is flawed in principle. I have also asked repeatedly that you attempt to resolve them. You (collectively) haven't made much of an effort, and certainly haven't had a great amount success. However, you don't seem to have changed your minds. Is there some reason of this? Or are you merely sticking to the subjective, a priori assumption that naturalism is true? I'll leave that where it lies...

What I have seen is a large amount of speculation based on what God is supposed to be like, and whether or not he can actually be that. And even though I do have my own beliefs, I haven't taken my argument that far yet. I will be happy to do so- once we've all agreed that the source of all reality is far less likely to be the total system than it is to be a single, concrete, literal, thinking, entity with a definite character, who created everything else.

This would, of course, move us to the sort of thing that Anduril has been getting at all along. Making a concerted study of that sort of thing would be more to my liking than repeating myself and waiting for you guys to answer. I doubt it would be as easy.

What do you say?

I have no reason and would find no satifaction in resolving all your problems with "philosophical naturalism"; not without getting paid. I have addressed many issues such as the inaccuracy of the biblical text with respect to the age of the earth and the nature of the universe. The other atheist posters have provided a good deal of fact and reason to support the various aspects of the non-theist view of reality. I've provided references to you for the notable texts that provide the level of detail that is inappropriate for posting. You say that you haven't taken your argument that far; you have declared your belief in god and continue to hypothesize about how god operates. What do you call that; just playing "god's advocate".

All the labels you use may be useful for you to draw a black an white picture, but it is sophistry. What you see in the way of speculation with regard to the nature of god is coming from the theists. The atheists are defining their reasons why god doesn't exist. You don't seem to understand what a priori means.

Example:

I believe god exists, therefore evolution is not possible because god created everything.

As opposed to:

We found fossils; we discovered DNA which agrees with Darwin's theory on the origin of species; we confirmed the geologic record using radiometric dating, therefore evolution is a theory that is well founded in physical evidence.

So, all you ask is that once we agree that reality was created by a single, concrete(?), entity; then we can discuss whether or not god exists?

HHHHMMMM. Doesn't really make sense if you think about it.

Sounds like a topic for the theist thread.

[Blackheart]

Hrmmm.

Before I even bother, all of you people have to prove to me that you exist first.

[BeardofPants]

"I think, therefore I am."

[Blackheart]

Can you prove to me that you're thinking?

You might be a hallucination you know.

But assuming that you aren't, can you prove that it's actually you doing the thinking, and you aren't instead merely listening and reacting to a pre-programed litany under the illusion of free will?

[Andúril]

One thing that the Bible never deviates from, contradicts, or otherwise confusticates is what it takes to be saved from our sinful nature.

That's onething. You shouldn't base the integrity of an entire set of documents on one topic.

. The main message, as it was intended, is there in crystal clarity.

How do you know what was intended? After all, you said:

How can we possibly know an ominpotent mind if we are not ourlseves, omnipotent?

.Moving on,

Just because you can sift through a 2000+page book and find some inconsistencies (which have nothing to do with salvation mind you), doesn't mean has no truth.

Can we trust an inconsistent source? Is salvation physical, or spiritual? Spiritual ofcourse. This "accuracy" or "truthfulness" that you claim is only regarding certain historical events (and physically determinable ones at that), right? What about claims of the supernatural; the spiritual? How do you validate such claims without concluding a priori that they are true?

I already stated that there may be some truth to the bible.

...the other historic documents we consider canon for basing higher thought on.

...thought that does or leads one to, question our being, how we got here, and why.

I don't base my thoughts on such matters on these historical documents.

That is how I am able to worship something I can't understand. What I can understand is what is ultimately vital, and understandable to all who believe the Bible is historically accurate.

We are questioning the validity, truthfulness and integrity of the bible. You have claimed that the bible is historically accurate (which you have not supported as yet). Now you are claiming what is "vital", regarding a supernatural, spiritual issue. Totally non-sequitur. You've jumped the gun.

[Blackheart]

"You're all just a pack of cards!"