The Anti-theist Thread

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Anduril
I have a proposal.

I think it would be interesting if we examine the bible book by book, going through all the verses in a critical manner. In our current environment, christians and others have the ability to respond to the criticisms, and this should generate a lively debate, perhaps answering theological and philosophical questions, as well as those pertaining to other fields of study.

Now, being aware that there are two threads open (Anti-theist and Theism), if my proposal is accepted (which I have no doubt it will by the non-theists here), I will post an invitation on the opposing thread, calling for respondents to our criticisms.

Anybody interested? One affirmative response will be sufficient.

Why sure. It should last all of about 5 minutes, after which we start wondering WHICH version of which book of Moses to critically analyze.

Perhaps you'd like to try for something a bit more challenging, such as a critical analysis of whether or not humans can act as rational creatures?

Perhaps a little bit of historical explanation will help people understand where I'm coming from. I used to be a theist. But the behavior I saw people engaging in, trashing other people for their beliefs, hating other people for their ideas, and generally feeling smug and superior turned me off. I thought to myself, this can’t be rational, and it’s certainly not honest.

So I became an atheist. And then I was doubly shocked. Because I saw the exact same behavior, and if anything, (I noticed it) to a greater degree. Trashing other people for their beliefs, hating other people for their beliefs, and generally feeling smug and superior. And I thought to myself, well this certainly isn’t rational either. And it’s no more honest than I can see.

At which point I decided to examine my own attitudes, which is how I arrived at agnosticism and skepticism as a more "balanced" and rational and honest belief system. No, I don't know. This is what I believe however (which is why I refer to it as a belief system), To trash anyone else’s beliefs (or disbelief’s if you like) is merely a means to make me feel better about myself. It's their actions which should be of concern.

If you feel insulted by this, then I can only ask you to examine your feelings, and ask you, what is your motive for focusing on other people’s beliefs, instead of their actions? Do you lump people into groups, and judge them by what they believe? Or do you take the time to evaluate them as individuals? I have the odd idea (belief) that when we begin to do this, as a species, then we can actually begin to refer to ourselves as rational beings, and perhaps we won’t be lying to ourselves.

Oh and in case anyone thinks I'm being prejudiced in my attention, I'll get over to the "other" thread sooner or later. It's just that I find that athiests, or "believers in the non-existence of god" or "disbelievers" or however you would like to term yourself, to be sometimes more amenable to rational thinking than theists.

[Cirdan]

BH,

Your language will get you a hand slap from a moderator. It does n't make the argument any stronger.

Agnostic... you believe that god may exist based on....what? Are the theist and atheist arguments equal in "usefulness" in your mind? The atheist is closer to what you argue as your position. Since there is absolutely no real evidence for the existence of god, except the ancient ravings of some agrarian culture. Do you find the theist creation "theory" intelletually and equally useful to the evolution theory? Choosing not to chose is still a choice, albeit the easiest one.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
BH,

Your language will get you a hand slap from a moderator. It does n't make the argument any stronger.

It might be helpful if you point out what exactly you are referring to?

Agnostic... you believe that god may exist based on....what? Are the theist and atheist arguments equal in "usefulness" in your mind? The atheist is closer to what you argue as your position. Since there is absolutely no real evidence for the existence of god, except the ancient ravings of some agrarian culture. Do you find the theist creation "theory" intelletually and equally useful to the evolution theory? Choosing not to chose is still a choice, albeit the easiest one.

I'm going to point out something. Agnosticism isn't a belief. It's a position on knowledge. What I believe doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying. People do find that a confusing concept at times, when they've been discussing beliefs for a while.

I believe that god may exist based on the idea that we don't have any way of knowing for sure. I also beleive that he may not exist, based on the exact same point. That's a beleif system, which as nothing to do with being an agnostic persay, it merely follows taking that position seriously. I could also as easily take the position that god exists, and I can't prove it, or god doesn't exist, and I can't prove it.

By the way, if your limiting the term "god" to the judeo-christian-muslim idea of a god, then no, I don't find that concept "useful". Perhaps the term diety would be more apt to discussion?

Coosing not to choose is a choice. Never claimed it wasn't. In fact, I'm trying to point out it's the most rational one. Perhaps that's why it IS the easiest one.

As for creation theory vs evolution, thats sort of silly. Evolution fits the previous succesful models in a much more useful form, but that doesn't mean that you can present metaphysical statements about it as facts. One way or the other.

[afro-elf]

At which point I decided to examine my own attitudes, which is how I arrived at agnosticism and skepticism as a more "balanced" and rational and honest belief system. No, I don't know. This is what I believe however (which is why I refer to it as a belief system), To trash anyone else’s beliefs (or disbelief’s if you like) is merely a means to make me feel better about myself. It's their actions which should be of concern.

NOW the elf speaks outta the mouth of an orc.

I would just say beliefs can cause action. so examining beliefs in not important.

then you MAY find these interesting

It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man."

Science is a way to teach how something gets to be known, what is not known, to what extent things are known (for nothing is known absolutely), how to handle doubt and uncertainty, what the rules of evidence are, how to think about things so that judgments can be made, how to distinguish truth from fraud, and from show.


and finally the one I was going to use for my signature
but choose not to

You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing

I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong

I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I do not know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask 'why are we here?'

I do not have to know an answer.

I do not feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which it is as far as I can tell.

It does not frighten me.


These are all by richard feynman

it APPEARS that our beliefs are the same.

It just seemed you jumped in flailing away " neh neh neh"

I don't think there was anything in my posts that contridicted the above quotes

but I think we in the thread ( or at least i perceived so) had moved beyond the uncertainty into discourse

Just staying in the you do not know loops just keeps you in that loop

and it gets stagnant real soon

[afro-elf]

PS

i will say thanks for making me re-articulate, at least mentally, my similar thoughts to feynman

[Blackheart]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by afro-elf

NOW the elf speaks outta the mouth of an orc.

I would just say beliefs can cause action. so examining beliefs in not important.

[\quote]

And I would counter by saying that accepting beliefs as facts is what causes actions. Which is why it is important to critically examine exactly what it is you believe, and then accept as a "fact". You can believe all kinds of wooly things, fine with me. When you statrt killing people over them, and dancing naked on your roof then I start to get worried.


At least, I think that's counter to what you are saying...? You are trying to say examining beliefs is important? I'm trying to say that examining why people accept their beleifs as facts and act on them is what's important.

then you MAY find these interesting

It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man."

Science is a way to teach how something gets to be known, what is not known, to what extent things are known (for nothing is known absolutely), how to handle doubt and uncertainty, what the rules of evidence are, how to think about things so that judgments can be made, how to distinguish truth from fraud, and from show.

Why yes, I'm quite familair with it. And if that was how humans operated, you'd ne'er here from me no more. Whenever science gets entrenched in a belief system however, I'm going to magically appear, like a thousand fringe lunatics from the woodwork.

and finally the one I was going to use for my signature
but choose not to

You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing

I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong

I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I do not know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask 'why are we here?'

Very rational. Very nice, I like it. Very possibly you aren't one of those people I pointed out, who have a tendancy to ignore this, and lambast people for what they choose to believe. Call them on their actions all you want, I do.

I do not have to know an answer.

I do not feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which it is as far as I can tell.

It does not frighten me.

Thats a favorite one. The as far as I can tell part is very nice.

These are all by richard feynman

Would you like some more by the original meglomaniac himself? (The man was notorious for manufactuting "anecdotes")

Cargo cult

When I'm at work, I'll find a wonderful site full of anecdotes, I have the URl saved somewhere.

it APPEARS that our beliefs are the same.

It just seemed you jumped in flailing away " neh neh neh"

I don't think there was anything in my posts that contridicted the above quotes

Probably not. But then, are you sure I was directing my diatribute at you? And yes, I do jump in and flail my arms around. It's a wonderful way to get attention

[quote]
but I think we in the thread ( or at least i perceived so) had moved beyond the uncertainty into discourse

Just staying in the you do not know loops just keeps you in that loop
[quote]

Hmmm. No, I didn't percieve that. It just appeared that it was more of the same old, these people are wrong, haha, how silly of them. But then, it IS a long thread, and perhaps I can be forgiven for missing a few things.

and it gets stagnant real soon

Well, I think I can move it out of stagnancy then. Here's an interesting article. Perhaps you'd care to peruse it?

Myths of Skepticism

[afro-elf]

And I would counter by saying that accepting beliefs as facts is what causes actions. Which is why it is important to critically examine exactly what it is you believe, and then accept as a "fact". You can believe all kinds of wooly things, fine with me. When you statrt killing people over them, and dancing naked on your roof then I start to get worried

At least, I think that's counter to what you are saying...? You are trying to say examining beliefs is important? I'm trying to say that examining why people accept their beleifs as facts and act on them is what's important.

Oops shoddy typing and no proof reading keeps my moniker secure

I was saying what you were.

Probably not. But then, are you sure I was directing my diatribute at you

for the former part the meaning was we may not be counter and may be heading in a similar direction

as for the latter just keeping $hit clear

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf


for the former part the meaning was we may not be counter and may be heading in a similar direction

as for the latter just keeping $hit clear

Ahh, well maybe, maybe not.

You'll have to read the stuff here

He's a bit more erudite than I....

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by afro-elf
hey BoP here's some info for you



The oldest written language in existence is said to be Sumerian. The first records in Sumerian have been traced to 3100 BC, in southern Mesopotamia.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

Also, don't forget to configure the Harappan civilisation into the equation. I believe they sit on around the same time frame... 3.000 - 3,500 BC?

[emplynx]

I was just reading galadriel88's (is that her name) sig, and it has the famous Edison quote. It think it pertains to my attempts to get you to believe in a Creator:

I haven't failed, I've just found 2,000 ways that don't work.
~Thomas Edison

If he would have given up, we might not have the modern lightbulb! Just think what we might loose if we give up on God

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by emplynx
I was just reading galadriel88's (is that her name) sig, and it has the famous Edison quote. It think it pertains to my attempts to get you to believe in a Creator:

"Okay, I've tried Protestantism... that makes 2001 religions that didn't work...."

[Smart alec comment] Insert here. [/Smart alec comment.]

[Andúril]

Why sure. It should last all of about 5 minutes, after which we start wondering WHICH version of which book of Moses to critically analyze.

I'm sure that we can keep that under consideration (the various versions) throughout the analysis of the text. If for no other purpose, I have made this proposal with foresight of the entertaining nature of the apologetics - basically, I need a little humour in my life...

Perhaps you'd like to try for something a bit more challenging, such as a critical analysis of whether or not humans can act as rational creatures?

Much more challenging, but I fear less accesible to some of our readers, than the current topic. Perhaps we could start a new thread; or maybe that topic would be better suited to a forum such as this one.

To trash anyone else’s beliefs (or disbelief’s if you like) is merely a means to make me feel better about myself. It's their actions which should be of concern.

I agree partly; it's something that I have noticed myself doing lately, finding fault in others' beliefs, in order to obtain that warm and fuzzy feeling, reinforcing my own beliefs, fortifying my "comfort zone". I guess until I find some other hobby with equal or better emotional payoffs, I will be sticking with this one.

It is easy to punish someone for what we deem an unlawful act (as if any one of us has non-selfobtained "authority" over anyone else....), but we must ask the question relating to the cause of these actions (whether lawful or not). And of course it is often the fundemental belief system of an individual that dictates his/her actions (in conjunction with certain external causal elements). I do not, however, believe that all actions are based on this fundemental belief; that is something we may determine during analysis of the individual as a whole.

When it comes down to it, I must ask myself: Why am I giving thought to some other people's actions? I must label them as "wrong" or "misguided" or similar, in order for them to qualify as suspect; candidates for examination. But what guidelines do I compare these actions to? My own belief system? Should I trust my own moral guideline? Eventually, I end up in a mess, stuck in the vague obscurity of the non-knowable realm...so I don't even start this line of reasoning (although it could get interesting when I feel inclined...)

I have the odd idea (belief) that when we begin to do this, as a species, then we can actually begin to refer to ourselves as rational beings, and perhaps we won’t be lying to ourselves.

When you say "rational beings", do you mean "absolutely rational beings"? I would think of our "lying" as a sort of subconscious lowering of our standard of rationality. I do strive for intellectual honesty, but it can be difficult to think rationally 100% of the time...

It's just that I find that athiests, or "believers in the non-existence of god" or "disbelievers" or however you would like to term yourself, to be sometimes more amenable to rational thinking than theists.

To be honest, I've noticed that as well. No offence to theists.

[BeardofPants]

Okay, this has alread been posted over in the middle earth thread.... in fact there's a whole thread devoted to it; but just in case, I thought I'd bring it over to the anti-theist thread, just to give us the willys.

Tolkien leads our children to Satan.

Once more.... scaaaaaary....

And now, for my cynical song lyric of the month....

Randy Newman
God's Song (That's why I love mankind)

For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:

Man means nothing he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest Yucca tree
He chases round this desert
'Cause he thinks that's where I'll be
That's why I love mankind

I recoil in horror fro the foulness of thee
From the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That's why I love mankind

The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said, "Lord, a plague is on the world
Lord, no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
And the Lord said
And the Lord said

I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind
You really need me
That's why I love mankind

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by emplynx
I was just reading galadriel88's (is that her name) sig, and it has the famous Edison quote. It think it pertains to my attempts to get you to believe in a Creator:
If he would have given up, we might not have the modern lightbulb! Just think what we might loose if we give up on God

Edison was a thief, and a liar. After what he did to Tesla, I'm surprised anyone has any respect for the man.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Anduril

I'm sure that we can keep that under consideration (the various versions) throughout the analysis of the text. If for no other purpose, I have made this proposal with foresight of the entertaining nature of the apologetics - basically, I need a little humour in my life...

Tsk. You like shooting fish in a barrel. Very well, I shall give you your answer. The entire Bible was divinely inspired, written by hundreds of people, changed the course of civilizations, caused much suffering and joy, all for one ultimate purpose. To irritate you, personally. I heard god talking about you the other day, and he said, "HAH- wait till you see what he does when he finds out! Oh it's better than that stupid MTV Osbournes show!"

:
Much more challenging, but I fear less accesible to some of our readers, than the current topic. Perhaps we could start a new thread; or maybe that topic would be better suited to a forum such as this one.

Pity... I thought rational behavior was one of the "tenants" of atheism.. in as much as there are any... I just thought it might be pertinant to the discussion. But then, maybe your right, it would be much like lambasting Baptists for drinking and dancing. Humans will be humans.

I agree partly; it's something that I have noticed myself doing lately, finding fault in others' beliefs, in order to obtain that warm and fuzzy feeling, reinforcing my own beliefs, fortifying my "comfort zone". I guess until I find some other hobby with equal or better emotional payoffs, I will be sticking with this one.

You could volunteer at the homeless shelter....

It is easy to punish someone for what we deem an unlawful act (as if any one of us has non-selfobtained "authority" over anyone else....), but we must ask the question relating to the cause of these actions (whether lawful or not).

OOh- here we are back to causal factors already!
That's quite a sticky predicament, trying to figure out why humans act as they do.

And of course it is often the fundemental belief system of an individual that dictates his/her actions (in conjunction with certain external causal elements).

Is it? what do you mean by Fundamental Beleif system? Things like the ground won't open up and swallow me? Or are you talking about an ethical/moral/philosophical world view?

I do not, however, believe that all actions are based on this fundemental belief; that is something we may determine during analysis of the individual as a whole.

Errg. Brain scans

When it comes down to it, I must ask myself: Why am I giving thought to some other people's actions? I must label them as "wrong" or "misguided" or similar, in order for them to qualify as suspect; candidates for examination. But what guidelines do I compare these actions to? My own belief system? Should I trust my own moral guideline? Eventually, I end up in a mess, stuck in the vague obscurity of the non-knowable realm...so I don't even start this line of reasoning (although it could get interesting when I feel inclined...)

Pity. The unexamined life isn't worth living you know. Of course, being forced to drink hemlock, kind of sucks too.

When you say "rational beings", do you mean "absolutely rational beings"? I would think of our "lying" as a sort of subconscious lowering of our standard of rationality. I do strive for intellectual honesty, but it can be difficult to think rationally 100% of the time...

Would a rational person lie to themselves? If we're not capable of rationality 100% of the time, I think we could be satisfied with doing much better than we do currently.

To be honest, I've noticed that as well. No offence to theists.

Of course, I've met some theists who are quite rational, scarily so. In retrospect, I probably should have said I find that non-theists are generally able to see and respond when you point out the areas where they are exhibiting blind faith, while theists just say, "yes I know, isn't it nice?"

[Cirdan]

Pity. The unexamined life isn't worth living you know. Of course, being forced to drink hemlock, kind of sucks too.

I always liked that quote. I think it depends on the life. I'll bet there is no shortage of people with "unexamined lives" that would go running for the hemlock if they really sat down an thougfht about it. And some probably do....

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


I always liked that quote. I think it depends on the life. I'll bet there is no shortage of people with "unexamined lives" that would go running for the hemlock if they really sat down an thougfht about it. And some probably do....

Anything's better than being cursed to walk around with a lantern, and look for an honest man.

Or woman in my case. And a box of wine instead of the lantern.

Come to think of it, I'll settle for a dishonest woman.... again

[Andúril]

I shall start with Genesis, and I will be referring predominantly to the KJV, unless the version becomes a point of contention.

=================

[1:3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[1:14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. [17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, [18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

First of all there is the obvious issue of ambient light existing without the existence of light-emitting objects.

Next, in the first passage, which occurred on day 1, God separates the light from the dark, which essentially means that he separates the Day from the Night (these terms are mentioned in verse 5). The words "evening" and "morning" are mentioned as well, which relates directly to Night and Day.

Then, in the second passage, which occurred on day 4, God creates the light emitting celestial objects (sun, moon and every other star in the universe), with the purpose of dividing "[14]...the day from the night". Note that this has already been done, by God, on day 1. How can one divide night from day, and then later perform the same action? Night and day must have been one (a strange scenario indeed) on the fourth day for it to involve an action of division. Verse 15 states the purpose of giving "...light upon the earth", but as per verse 3, on day 1, God had already created light, and in verse 5 we already have an impression of morning, day, evening and night.

Also, in verse 17, God set the light emitting celestial objects in this firmament, and one of the purposes of doing so was "...to give light upon the earth. Really? Why then are only a tiny fraction of stars visible to the naked eye, a few thousand visible under the correct conditions, while there are many others which can't be seen (trillions, if not more)?

Verse 18 continues, stating that the sun and the moon were "...to rule over the day and over the night" respectively. However, the moon spends a significant amount of time moving through the sky during the day.

Now, look at verses 6-8: [1:6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament: and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. God spends one sixth of his entire creation effort (day 2) on a solid firmament, which, if it existed, should at least be visible, as well as a considerable impact on any type of space exploration. And what exactly is this "upper" water? The source of rain?

In verses 11 and 12 it is stated the God created plant life. However, the sun had not been created as yet (plant life created on day 3, sun created on day4) to drive the necessary photosynthesis.

Verse 16 shows God creating the sun and moon, and treats the creation of the rest of all the celestial light-emitting objects as an afterthought: "he made the stars also.". On day 1 God created light, which he divided. On day 2 God created a firmament to seperate water. On day 3 God gathers water, names dry land, and creates plant life. On day 4 God created the sun and the moon, and at the end of a long, hard day, as an optional extra, creates trillions of additional stars.

Verse 20 states: [1:20] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. But later: [2:19] And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Therefore, all fowls were created out of water, and all fowls were also created out of the ground.

According to verses 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, and 31, we read that "God saw that it was good". The bible itself states that God did not create perfectly, or even excellently, merely good. Verse 31 states that "it was very good", which shows while each little creation on its own may have been merely good, all together it was very good. Why wasn't each little creation very good? Why weren't they perfect, for that matter?

In verse 25 God creates Man (both male and female), after creating animals (verses 20-21). However, according to Chapter 2, God creates a man (verse 7), then creates animals (verse 19), and afterwards creates a woman (verse 22).

In verse 29 God tells Man : [1:29]...I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. But he says later: [2:17]But of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.... Therefore, Adam was not allowed to eat fruit from a tree, and he was allowed to eat all fruit.

According to verse 30, God created all creatures apart from humans as herbivores. However, not all non-human creatures are herbivores.

Looking at verse 31, we see that God has seen "...every thing that he had made...", and he gives it all a very good rating. This includes Man. Some people advocate for a timeless God, and if this were so, God should not have been pleased with himself - after all, he destroyed virtually all life in the flood soon after: [6:5] And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [6] And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

This shows that:

1) God was happy at the end of chapter 1, on day 6.
2) God was unhappy in chapter 6.

This is not possible with a timeless being.

Going into chapter 2, but ending this post on verse 2, God rested. An omnipotent being does not need rest. A timeless being cannot exist in a state of performing actions and simultaneously resting. A perfect being does not require a resting period, either.

[Blackheart]

"And the 5th dimensional extrusion into the 4th dimensional space did convert itself into a mass of energy, from which light, and heat, and matter did eventually arise. Eventually, as it did unto itself create time by it's appearance."

"After much of this time had passed, it saw that it was good, because the monkeys had created much of interest on a small ball of mud, and it had been exceedingly bored until then."

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Edison was a thief, and a liar. After what he did to Tesla, I'm surprised anyone has any respect for the man.

*flips on the tv and the light*
I love Edison!