The Anti-theist Thread

[Andúril]

Humour for the day:

Anyway, back to serious matters:

Serious matters? You're joking right?

I don't know where you get multiple headed creatures in the bible...

Forgive me, I thought I saw it in there somewhere. But seeing as you have already noted my error, I see no point in going back to edit my post.

but animal headed humanoids (and young women with fauns for breasts) are rather obviously not serious. Hebrew metaphor is odd that way.

Why not? If God can exist in your opinion, then why can't animal head humanoids exist as well? Not only have you assumed that it was indeed metaphorical speech, but you claim it is "odd". What exactly to you mean by odd?

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.

So basically what you are saying is that the interpretation of biblical passages is purely subjective, and the tool that you use for discerning metaphorical speech from literal is one devised by your own mind. You say that you are using a reasonable approach, which means that you are applying what you are reading to a certain guideline - your reason, we could call it. What do you base this guideline on?

However, as noted, this is rather a difference between modern though (concerned with direct causes) and hebrew thought (concerned with ultimate causes).

So, looking at it from Hebrew thought, who was the ultimate cause in the David census issue? Chronicles says Satan was the provoker, while Samuel says God was the provoker. If your statement regarding Hebrew thought has any validitiy, then both accounts must be looked at with the same guidelines for validification. How can you say that only one of these accounts refers to Hebrew thought? Which one is it? Chronicles, where the "ultimate" cause would be Satan, or Samuel, where the "ultimate" cause would be God? It is a clear contradiction.

Also, if you admit that God was the ultimate cause (in the case of Chronicles), then God must be the ultimate cause of every action performed by entities that have free will. However, it cannot be any clearer that Satan was the provoker.

If there is any doubt as to the ultimate cause of the provocation (in Chronicles), and you attribute this to the way Hebrews thought, why is there no doubt as to the ultimate cause of the provocation in Samuel?

Aswith most of these cases, it's a matter of overinterpritation.

And as with most of the explanations, it's a matter of unsubstantiated declaration, subjective speculation, unsupported baseless assumptions, or wishful thinking.

[BeardofPants]

"Now for the evidence," said the King, "and then the sentence."
"No!" said the Queen, "first the sentence and then the evidence."
"Nonsense!" cried Alice, so loudly that everybody jumped, "the idea of having the sentence first!"

[Andúril]

Lelondul, I have been inspired!

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.

I will try to get hold of a copy at once! I will submit my review in the next couple weeks/months.

But thanks, I normally suffer from a lack of inspiration...

[emplynx]

Anduril, It doesn't surprise me that you still don't see any proof for the Existance of God, I don't think you would believe in him if he walked up and tapped you on the sholder.

[BeardofPants]

Emplynx, you wouldn't know evolution, if natural selection came along, and acted upon you.

[Andúril]

Anduril, It doesn't surprise me that you still don't see any proof for the Existance of God, I don't think you would believe in him if he walked up and tapped you on the sholder.

Well, that's pretty much the same as a square circle tapping me on the shoulder...

Emplynx, what is this proof you speak of?

[afro-elf]

Anduril, It doesn't surprise me that you still don't see any proof for the Existance of God, I don't think you would believe in him if he walked up and tapped you on the sholder.

That IS evidence. We have CONTINOUSLY shot down your attempts at psuedo science.


Yet you still accept fable, legends and myths. I will not worship such.

If god ever got around to existing i'd give him a good bit o' sam gamgee

[Cirdan]

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

"If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying 'Let us go serve other gods', you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But surely you will kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all the people. So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the lord your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery"


nice... real benevolent. Well, I guess you christian theists better heed the word of your god and slay us wicked atheist posters.

Please, not the face, not the face!!!

[Blackheart]

"OFF WITH HER HEAD!"

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Anduril
Emplynx, what is this proof you speak of?

Me, you, BeardofPants, Cirdan, Afro Elf, Blackheart, Wayfarer.........

[emplynx]

Here is an interesting verse.
Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.


You all should get a kick out of that

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by emplynx

Me, you, BeardofPants, Cirdan, Afro Elf, Blackheart, Wayfarer.........

Emplynx, that is not evidence of a divine creation.... "How arrogant is man..." I take our existance as continued proof of evolution; all our faculties were developed over millions of years, not least that which we reason with. Some people, of course, haven't managed to be so lucky, and haven't evolved their higher consciousness much since 4004BC. Sure, it'd be easier to bury my head in the sand, take up obscure chants, shave my head, get married to some guy, who already had 3.... But, you know, I sunburn relatively easy, so I'm gonna pass on the head buried in the sand bit....

_____________________________

"Who are YOU?" said the Caterpillar.
This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation.

Alice replied, rather shyly, "I--I hardly know, sir, just at present-- at least I know who I WAS when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then."

[Blackheart]

You’re all just a bunch of organic Von Neuron machines, an infinite progression of paradoxes.

Only the universe would allow intelligent morons to exist, for the sole purpose of debating metaphysical epistemology as it relates to the discovery of the universe that doesn't actually exist.

There’s nothing out there, outside your head. Quit worrying about it, and it will go away.

Reality isn’t.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart
There’s nothing out there, outside your head. Quit worrying about it, and it will go away.

Didn't I just tell you that my bottom burned easily?

Even if your suppositions are right, (and they could be, there is no evidence to the contrary) I'm still not going to bury my head, and pray for it all to go away. I like searching for what made us "human", what turned us into complex carbon thinking vessels.

[Blackheart]

Soo, what did turn us into complex carbon thinking vessels?

Random process?

In which case that's a process of the universe.

And the universe is a process of the chaos found in the quantum field.

And the quantum field is a zero sum equation.

The universe sprang from nothing.

So you know what's out there?

Nothing.

So what made you a complex carbon thinking vessel?

Nothing.

It's all just a dream.


Besides- you look all cute with your bottom sunburned and your head in the sand

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart

Random process?

Firstly, does 'random' really exist? Personally, I don't think it does. Evolution is not random, natural selection is not random, the big bang (or expanding/contracting) are not random. They're all parts of a complicated process, of which, could be a dream. It could be the Red King's dream. Or we could be dreaming of him....

Besides- you look all cute with your bottom sunburned and your head in the sand

Oi!

[Earniel]

Originally posted by emplynx
Anduril, It doesn't surprise me that you still don't see any proof for the Existance of God, I don't think you would believe in him if he walked up and tapped you on the sholder.

He might, but he would probably question him until your god would wish he never tapped Anduril on his shoulder.

It reminds me of a book too:

The Great God Om: You don't even believe in me!
Simony: But I'm a practical man.
The Great God Om: And brave, too. To declare Atheism before your god.
Simony: This doesn't change anything, you know! Don't think you can get around me by existing!

(Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by emplynx
Here is an interesting verse.
Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.


You all should get a kick out of that

To war it is, then!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
You’re all just a bunch of organic Von Neuron machines, an infinite progression of paradoxes.

Only the universe would allow intelligent morons to exist, for the sole purpose of debating metaphysical epistemology as it relates to the discovery of the universe that doesn't actually exist.

There’s nothing out there, outside your head. Quit worrying about it, and it will go away.

Reality isn’t.

Why bother posting... we're not really here.

[Lelondul]

My appologies good ladies and sirs, for yesterday afternoon I was informed by my employer that my services would no longer be needed. Now I really won't start these things at work!
(Didn't my Mom tell me not to go into the tech industry?)

Now, why we all try to figure out if we even exist, I will post some small excerpts from a book that was my foundation to believing the Bible's historical accuracy (New Testament to be exact). Find More than A Carpenter By Josh McDowell for much more detailed and substantive explanations of all of the following concepts.

The noted military historian C. Sanders has an effective set of tests that can be used to validate any historical document. The test are the Bibliographic Test, The Internal Evidence Test, and the External Evidence Tsest.

The Bibliographical test is basically an examination of how historical documents reach us over the years. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MMS), and the time interval between the original and extant copy?

For example, the History of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) is available to us from eight MMS dated about A.D. 900 - that's 1300 years after he wrote it. The MMS of Herodontus are likewise late and scarce, yet as F.F. Bruce concludes "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that that the authenticity of Thucydides or Herodontus is in any doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are are over 1300 years later than the orginal.'
Now, whether you base your 'higher thought' on these manuscripts is beside the point - determining their historical accuracy compared to the Bible is.
Some more examples? The great Aristotle wrote his poems around 343 B.C. yet the earliest copy we have available is from A.D. 1100 - a 1400 year gap and we only have 5 MMS in existence.
Caeser, composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C. - the copies we use are from 8 or 9 MMS written 1000 years after his death.
The manuscript authority of the New Testament is pretty embarrasing in contrast - over 20,000 copies of MMS of it are available today. Want to know how long after Christ's death they were written? Estimates range from the time he was living to 50 years after his death.

The Internal Evidence test is where we can to begin to determine the credibilty of these sources.

At this point, the literary critic still follows Aristotle's dictum: "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself and not to the critic to himself." Bascially meaning that unless the document drastically contradicts itself (again we're talking New Testament), we have no reason doubt to the documents accuracy.

I remind the Darwinians of the missing link- a far greater stretch - and indeed, a drastic contradiction anything you may find in the Bible, New Test. or Old.

The ability of a document to 'tell the truth' is closely related to the witness's nearest geographically and chronoligicaly to the recorded events. See Luke 1:1-3, 3:1, John 1:3, Peter 1:16 for insight relating to the accuracy of what was recorded. Now of course, there can and are those that are able to delibrately falsify events or change details in their telling, but where the scriptures hold up is in this one way: copies were circulating around this whole corner of the globe in the same lifetimes of the authors themselves.
It is one tihing for the disciples to say "We saw this," or "We heard that..", but the tables were turned when they, to their most adverse critics (many of whom tortured and killed the disciples)proclaimed openly, "You yourselves know of these things, you saw them." Don't you think you had better be careful when telling someone what they saw? If you're not right, it will be shoved back down your throat. No king, warden, or otherwise refuted a single word of the disciples claims. Not many historical documents have that kind of detail or clout.

I appolgise, for this is a long, but important point that I will summarize with a qoute from Will Durant who spent his life in the investigation of historic documents and analyzing records of antiquty: "Despite the prejudcies and theological preconceptions of the evangilists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed - the competition of the Apostles for high places in in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus's arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles at the Sea of Galilee, the reference to some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertanty to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his desparing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher criticisms the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Jesus Christ remain remarkably clear and constitute a the most fascinating feature in the history of Western Man."

I'm almost done...

Finally, the External Test. This is where we see if other historical material confirms or denies the Internal Evidence.

Two friends of the Apostle John comfirm the internal evidence from John's Accounts. The Historian Eusiebius preserves writing of Papais, Bishop of Hieropolis (A.D. 130): "The Elder [Apostle John] used to say this also: Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, wether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer or a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teaching as neccesity required, not as though he was making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then, Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to included and false statement among them."
And oh no, one exmple will not do here either Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (A.D. 180 Ireaneus was a student of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had been a disciple of John the Apostle) wrote: "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After thier departure (death, which strong tradition places at the time f the Neronian persecution in 64), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also learned on his breast (in reference to John 13:25 and 21:20), himself produced hos Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."

There are at least some intelligent, objective ways to prove the Bible's accuracy. One other intersting note to add is that if you doubt these sources or find reason to question them, consider this: The Apostles were all eventually subjected to the cruellest forms of torture and death on the basis of two basic beliefs: 1.) the ressurection of Christ, and 2.) that they belived him to be the Son of God. John was the only Aspotle not stoned, crucified, or otherwise killed with swords, spears, and arrows, all the while their beliefs never wavered. These men would have not only died for a lie, but died knowing it was a lie. I'd have a hard time finding eleven people in history that would die for a lie knowing it was a lie...

Josh McDowell was a strict theist who thought Christians were crazy, and thusly began his mission to disprove them. The material above is pretty telling to what actually discovered. Again, I highly recommend "More than a Carpenter" of which the above material is take from, and "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" A much more detailed account of his findings...


Regards,
- Lelond