Evil means a Christian God cannot exist?

[Brain]

Simply because the question posed is designed to attack Christianity does not mean an answer to it pre supposes Christianity. My point was not that Christianity is correct, indeed the first thing I do is dismiss Christianity's view on morality as being philosophically unsound. I merely purport that the existence of a 3O god is not inconsistent with the existence of what is perceived as evil.

What do you think "omnibenevolent" means, if not that God should maximize the occurrence of what we perceive as good? If good and evil are ill-defined, then so is omnibenevolence, so God isn't omnibenevolent. If it is well-defined, then evidently omnibenevolence is meant to match up with that definition.

Imho, it is impossible to use logic and philosophy to prove whether god exists (yes I do think Descartes made some illegitimate logical bounds to reach his conclusions), or doesn't exist.

Of course, but that's because existence suffers from similar flaws to those you attribute to good and evil - that is, there is no universal definition of existence. For instance, if it is impossible to observe something, does it exist? What about things that are semantically different but not functionally different, such as various equivalent space-time models? In the end, the existence of God is a fruitless question - the right question is: is it useful to believe he does?

Further, as a second point, even if you assume the universal definition of good does exist by virtue of God being the only being capable of comprehending it, then you cannot assume that evil things actually happen. Since only god knows what things are evil, we can only guess, and if we think something is evil and happening in the world, then we have guessed wrong.

Terms such as "good" exist for one unique purpose: communication. There is no other purpose. The very notion of a universal definition is an exercise in silliness - the quality of any instance of language is measured by how faithfully it can transfer an idea from a speaker to another, not accordingly to some "universal definition". As you said yourself, such a definition would be unusable.

Basically, any discussion about what evil means that doesn't involve two or more speakers trying to transfer ideas between themselves is complete rubbish. Language is an abstraction of brain representations, God wouldn't have anything to do with it even if he wanted to.

The other problem is it is a circular argument. What you want to say is that if there is a universal definition of evil, then god cannot exist.

I think you misconstrue the argument. No useful argument ever depends on definitions, at least not when reasonable people are involved. The argument of evil should thus be understood more pragmatically: the point is to identify an inconsistency in one's belief system under their own definitions. The morality of most humans overlap considerably. I simplify a lot, but say P believes God is good, that murder is bad, and that God murdered people, then P's belief system is inconsistent. It doesn't matter at all what good and evil really mean, heck, it doesn't even matter what you believe they mean. All that matters is what P believes and whether or not P's beliefs are consistent - and if they are not, you have an angle to attack from. The whole art of arguing against someone or a group of people is to pit their beliefs against each other until they realize they can't have their cake and eat it too. The argument of evil hinges on the presumption that God's omnibenevolence and the presence of evil, as commonly understood, are at odds.

Since a definition's only purpose is communication, it can only be an obstacle to idea transfer. Sometimes I admit it can be a heck of a puzzle (or plain impossible) to get abstract ideas through to someone. The main reason why this is the case, I conjecture, is poor internal categorization of concepts: when one's idea of God is inextricably linked to one's idea of morality, and your argument depends on triggering these ideas independently, you end up with no linguistic recourse. I don't think there's a magical way to change another person's understanding of language so that there's a way for you to tell them what you mean, it seems to vary from a person to another.

Let me summarize: an argument is never about being right. An argument is about making others see things your way. So when you say the argument of evil presupposes that there exists a universal definition of evil, you are wrong. According to my understanding of good and evil, God is not an omnibenevolent being. Since I believe that my intuitive understanding of evil is fairly standard, clearly, appealing to it seems like a good angle from which to convince others to think my way. See, I don't care about objective or universal definitions of good or evil. I think I got neat ideas, and I'm using language to push them - I'm not trying to tell others the truth (whatever that means!), I'm trying to make others think what I think, using various weapons I enjoy using, and know to be effective, such as thought experiments, analogies, logic and so forth.

But when you define good- and by extension evil- to require God's existence, then showing an inconsistency only shows that your definition of good is flawed and nothing about god.

A definition is only flawed when it fails to convey the intended meaning from a person to another.

 

[Deck Knight]

This is, for the most part, the usual historical revisionist boilerplate that Deck Knight has graced us with countless times, but I did a double take when I noticed the inclusion of Iran in that list. Are you seriously suggesting that a country recognized as a theocratic republic, the population of which is 98 percent Muslim and where blasphemy is illegal is an example of atheism run amok? I'm speechless.

If you have an issue with me SSBM Roy, my User CP comments and my PM Inbox are always open. That J-man is wrong in his assessment of Iran is rather beside the point of this annoying tic you have. I've no reason to sully your name when I post on any particular topic, I'll ask you to refrain from sullying mine.

Rather than going into an extended analysis of how silly your recent link and it's author are, I'll simply ask you how you can seriously link to a site called "No Beliefs [for freethinkers]." A might bit arrogant, never mind the tortured semantic game the author engages in.

 

[SSBM roy]

If you have an issue with me SSBM Roy, my User CP comments and my PM Inbox are always open. That J-man is wrong in his assessment of Iran is rather beside the point of this annoying tic you have. I've no reason to sully your name when I post on any particular topic, I'll ask you to refrain from sullying mine.

Rather than going into an extended analysis of how silly your recent link and it's author are, I'll simply ask you how you can seriously link to a site called "No Beliefs [for freethinkers]." A might bit arrogant, never mind the tortured semantic game the author engages in.

I would accuse you of projection, but since you managed to respond to one of my posts without mentioning Media Matters out of context I'll give that a pass. If you wish, I can use someone other than yourself as a synecdoche for the conservative lunatic fringe from now on. Still, if you want to be taken seriously you have to do better than criticizing the name of the source I provided.

 

[MetalGearSamus]

Well Hitler's religious beliefs have long been debated. He certainly professed Christianity in public, but that may have been for political reasons. In Mein Kampf he repeatedly expressed his belief in God however. While Hitler may not have been Christian, he was certainly not an atheist.

Adding to this: Nazi troops wore belt buckles with the words: "Gott mit uns" on them, "God is with us."


As for morality: Who is more moral? The man who needs God to keep him from killing, or the man who does not kill either way?

 

[J-man]

This has to be the worst argument ever. Solely Opinionated... People in general cause each other suffering. As to point out, people in general were in control of those regimes And they will do that whether or not they believe god exists. nothing contradicting here... Honestly, if you are going to rely on your statement above, look at what I have below. By your logic the only acceptable religion is Buddhism, I suppose India is a good place to live in. because their virtues don't lead to death, destruction and corruption. Their virtues demand you be perfect, something humanely impossible.
FUN FACT: Iran had a democratically elected president in the 1950s, who wanted to interfere with Big Oil companies because they were cheating his people out of tons of money and he wanted control of his own country's resources. Eisenhower declared he was a communist, had the CIA over throw him, and install a the old religious zealots back in power, throwing the country into turmoil with the entire educated population holding a grudge against the US (and for good reason). The entire reason Iran is like it is today, was so the US oil companies could milk more money from a corrupt government in iran Christians aren't perfect... We do bad stuff as well.

Lets not even get into what attrocities The Church Has commited in His glorious name. Slaughtering hundreds of Muslim civilians during the crusades... Various inquisitions, using ruthless pre suppositions of guilt, and merciless executions of entire villages of heretics for no other reason than they practised the Mass slightly different than the Church... the list goes on and is not pretty. Lets not forget that the Church followed "God's morals" and not "societies"

Ahhh, Ye olde "bring up the crusades argument". Let us not forget about the muslims, who also committed atrocities during that time. Don't judge a religion by its abuses, judge it by its founder and his teachings. Was the Founder able to keep his own teachings perfectly?

So don't point your finger at the mistakes of other countries and blame their actions on their godlessness. Its just childish. I believe the quote is something like people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

People do actions based on beliefs. If there is no God, you don't have to be held accountable for your actions.

The argument I made earlier for why there is no universal definition of good stands. And your "example" does nothing but attempt to invoke dogma, propaganda, and sentiment to disprove it. I am not arguing against you. I am in fact arguing from your point of view that there is no God. I'm saying that there can't be a true universal definition of good or evil without one who is more powerful than man to enforce what is good. From the Christian's point of view, it is good to love God and his commandments and it is not good to disobey God. Read the ten commandments and answer me this: Would society be perfect if everyone could keep the last 6 commandments?

Good grief, i open my mouth, and i get this...

I'll answer more, but i haf to do mah homework.

 

[Brain]

Don't judge a religion by its abuses, judge it by its founder and his teachings. Was the Founder able to keep his own teachings perfectly?

You're the one who is judging atheism by its abuses (even though atheism has little to do with any of them). If you can associate atheism with communism and fascism, not to mention regimes that are to the polar opposite of atheism, as if you didn't give a shit about actually checking anything, we sure as fuck are going to bring up the crusades (or, for that matter, all the instances of ecclesiastical pedophilia). Your hypocrisy is so blatant that it's despicable. It's like you chugged down a whole bottle of Jack Daniels for your standards to be so double.

People do actions based on beliefs. If there is no God, you don't have to be held accountable for your actions.

It's called law enforcement. It's also called touch-my-wife-and-I'll-tear-you-a-new-hole, or lie-to-me-and-we're-over. People hold each other accountable for their behavior all the time. Not to mention that if there's one thing these terrible regimes you've mentioned were efficient at, that was to make people accountable for what they did (in so far that what they did was disapproved by the state).

Read the ten commandments and answer me this: Would society be perfect if everyone could keep the last 6 commandments?

I can't answer that, there's too little information. As far as I can tell, neither raping someone nor keeping slaves is incompatible with the ten commandments, so both a "perfect" and a terrible society could follow them to the letter. Quite frankly, the ten commandments are ridiculously incomplete and poorly worded, not to mention that the first four are completely worthless (and you seem to agree, as you specified "the last six"). They aren't worth the stone they are carved on and certainly infinitely inferior to modern law in democratic countries.

 

[J-man]

You're the one who is judging atheism by its abuses (even though atheism has little to do with any of them). If you can associate atheism with communism and fascism, not to mention regimes that are to the polar opposite of atheism, as if you didn't give a shit about actually checking anything, we sure as fuck are going to bring up the crusades (or, for that matter, all the instances of ecclesiastical pedophilia). Your hypocrisy is so blatant that it's despicable. It's like you chugged down a whole bottle of Jack Daniels for your standards to be so double.

No, i am judging the religion by it's founders, who were godless people who didn't want to be held accountable for their actions. That's where atheism ultimately leads to. If i'm wrong, then point out to me the purpose of Atheism. As i would like to point out Hitler, the bible states that there will be many who will come "in the name of christianity". (Matt 7:15-23) Is a good explanation for Hitler's case. Since we're talking atheism, i will admit that i shouldn't have brought up Iran, as it is not an Atheist regime, rather it is a godless one.


It's called law enforcement. It's also called touch-my-wife-and-I'll-tear-you-a-new-hole, or lie-to-me-and-we're-over. People hold each other accountable for their behavior all the time. Not to mention that if there's one thing these terrible regimes you've mentioned were efficient at, that was to make people accountable for what they did (in so far that what they did was disapproved by the state).

Yet we still have criminals who screw the rules. No one man has more power than another man.You can breath threats, but people will still commit crimes no matter the consequences.


I can't answer that, there's too little information. As far as I can tell, neither raping someone nor keeping slaves is incompatible with the ten commandments, so both a "perfect" and a terrible society could follow them to the letter. Quite frankly, the ten commandments are ridiculously incomplete and poorly worded, not to mention that the first four are completely worthless (and you seem to agree, as you specified "the last six"). They aren't worth the stone they are carved on and certainly infinitely inferior to modern law in democratic countries.
I only pointed out the last six because i knew they were worthless to you. Obviously i should have asked using all ten commandments. I never personally read it, but my father and mother who had said that the Bible states that Slavery for gain is basically murder. The only except able slavery is that of one involving repayments. Raping can go under Adultery, as it's extramarital. Do you have another "Sin" that the 10 Commandments don't cover? try me.

I'm gonna try a step by step here-

There Is No God -> Man is highest being on earth -> Man can not be held responsible for his actions, as no man is higher than another man -> Man can do whatever he wants -> Nazi Regime, Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Korea, Venezuela ect...

 

[Altmer]

Atheism isn't a religion. It's inherent in the very definition that atheism is a lack of religion. Nobody "founded" atheism.

 

[SSBM roy]

Raping can go under Adultery, as it's extramarital.

I assume most people can see quickly what this logic leads to...

 

[J-man]

Atheism isn't a religion. It's inherent in the very definition that atheism is a lack of religion. Nobody "founded" atheism.

Which means i can take a shot at Atheism without risk to contradicting myself in terms of religion. (wheres i was called a hypocrite above)

I assume most people can see quickly what this logic leads to...

I'm not understanding, care to explain?

 

[Altmer]

No, i am judging the religion by it's founders, who were godless people who didn't want to be held accountable for their actions.

Who founded atheism? Genuine question.

That's where atheism ultimately leads to. If i'm wrong, then point out to me the purpose of Atheism.

There is no "purpose" to atheism. There is no purpose to Christianity either.

As i would like to point out Hitler, the bible states that there will be many who will come "in the name of christianity". (Matt 7:15-23) Is a good explanation for Hitler's case. Since we're talking atheism, i will admit that i shouldn't have brought up Iran, as it is not an Atheist regime, rather it is a godless one.

Iran is a MUSLIM (!) theocracy. Muslim. MUSLIM. RELIGIOUS. what the hell???

There Is No God -> Man is highest being on earth -> Man can not be held responsible for his actions, as no man is higher than another man -> Man can do whatever he wants -> Nazi Regime, Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Korea, Venezuela ect..

And all the good societies in the world are religious? Let's take a look which countries are most religious; African countries. Guess where poverty is biggest? Africa. :) Clearly I can do this too.

Besides none of those regimes committed atrocities in the name of atheism. Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches, is it the moustaches that made them commit evil?

Communism is a specific doctrine (that happens to be atheist but might as well not have been) in whose name atrocities were committed but that has nothing to do with the doctrine being atheist.

Hitler was a Catholic. CATHOLIC. AS IN ROMAN CATHOLIC. AS IN CHRISTIAN. ALSO KNOWN AS RELIGIOUS.




Stop spouting plain untruths. Learn your facts. Come back when you know what you are talking about.

 

[J-man]

Who founded atheism? Genuine question.
Heaven knows, not i. But i'll use Atheism's apparent not being a religion and having no founder to my advantage, as stated above.

There is no "purpose" to atheism. There is no purpose to Christianity either.

Explain to me the purposelessness of Christianity.

Iran is a MUSLIM (!) theocracy.

Do you think i'm brainless? I've known this for a very long time. Iran is a garbage place to live in. Being Muslim, it is anti-anyone who is not Muslim.

Stop spouting plain untruths. Learn your facts. Come back when you know what you are talking about.

I know my facts, which is why i am here. If i'm mistaken, then point out where i'm wrong.

Hitler was a Catholic so I don't know what you're on about there.
As explained above, you should really read that Bible verse provided.

 

[Obsessed]

J-man:

You seem to suggest that regimes that do not follow the moral codes of the old/new testament are doomed to be corrupt. Of course, if the Bible was written by man then there is no reason to assume that your moral code is supreme, and the only one capable of working.

So again:

How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?

Why should we believe the Bible?

How do you know that the Bible is infallible?

 

[Altmer]

Heaven knows, not i. But i'll use Atheism's apparent not being a religion and having no founder to my advantage, as stated above.

What advantage exactly? You've only pointed out that God giving us morality would be desirable. The fact that you cannot have morality without God (which is plain moronic obviously) doesn't mean God exists, just that we should want him to exist. But, uh....That kind of shoots a hole of your theory.

Explain to me the purposelessness of Christianity.

Nothing has a purpose. There may be a reason why something exists (conjecture, evolution, whatever), but nothing has an ulterior meaning beyond what we ascribe to it. Neither does Christianity.

Do you think i'm brainless? I've known this for a very long time. Iran is a garbage place to live in. Being Muslim, it is anti-anyone who is not Muslim.

But if it's Muslim, it's not godless. You can't have your cake and it eat too, buster.

For the record, I think you're brainless.

I know my facts, which is why i am here. If i'm mistaken, then point out where i'm wrong.

Except you don't and I already did. Reading's hard, innit?

As explained above, you should really read that Bible verse provided.

What does that Bible verse have to do with anything? Many people will commit atrocities in the name of Christianity, so? Does that make Hitler not a Christian? He believed in Roman Catholicism, he committed his atrocities (Gott mit uns, remember?), of course he is religious and responsible. To claim anything else is beyond ignorant. By any sane definition of Catholic, he is Catholic.

Then there's this little thing called selective quoting. I could selectively quote things from the Bible to support Hitler's Catholicism. I'm not going to be arsed to do it because you know very well that this is true and you need only a cursory read to do this yourself. For a second the Bible does not command ultimate truth (nothing but ultimate truth commands ultimate truth). It is pointless to refer to the Bible as a source of truth because it is rickety, inconsistent and ill-defines just about everything, not to mention half of it is plain theft from Sumerian mythology.

 

[Obsessed]

Also I'd like to say that I think J-man is trolling us now. I think it became most obvious when he did the following things:

"Athiest regimes like IRAN"

"Ok fine IRAN isn't an Athiest regime but it is godless."

"My facts are right. I know IRAN is a Muslim regime."

I mean jeez, if he isn't trolling then just... wow

 

[Brain]

No, i am judging the religion by it's founders, who were godless people who didn't want to be held accountable for their actions.

Atheism has no founders. It has been and still is independently derived by countless people. There's also a fairly strong argument that communism, as it has been implemented, is a sort of religion, or at least behaves suspiciously like one.

That's where atheism ultimately leads to. If i'm wrong, then point out to me the purpose of Atheism.

The... purpose of atheism? Atheism is the position according to which God does not exist, it doesn't have any more "purpose" than the position according to which Santa Claus doesn't exist. What the hell, dude.

Since we're talking atheism, i will admit that i shouldn't have brought up Iran, as it is not an Atheist regime, rather it is a godless one.

Godless? Iran is godless? It's an islamic republic, for fuck's sake. It's a theocracy. If that is godless, then what the fuck does that make western regimes, which are almost completely secular?

There Is No God -> Man is highest being on earth -> Man can not be held responsible for his actions, as no man is higher than another man -> Man can do whatever he wants -> Nazi Regime, Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Korea, Venezuela ect...

You know, there's a big difference between state atheism and secularism. State atheism, as in the persecution of religious leaders and followers, is just as bad as (and no worse than) an equally intolerant state religion. But this is completely irrelevant - atheism doesn't lead to state atheism or intolerance of religion. When state is orthogonal to religion, it is secular, and that seems to work out splendidly.

Take France. France has about 30% of agnostics and atheists. It's still a fine, secular country. Take the Czech Republic, where that figure soars to 60%. Still a fine country. Europe, right now, is (I think?) the part of the world where irreligion is the most widespread. And right now, it's arguably amongst the best places to live in. Forget the past. Right now, irreligion is working fine and the largest threats to society now come from religious extremism.

Heaven knows, not i. But i'll use Atheism's apparent not being a religion and having no founder to my advantage, as stated above.

The general principle is that you judge an idea for what it is, not for what people do in its name, especially when it's clear not everyone who holds the idea is a psychopath.

Edit: oh, right, I had forgotten the worst one:

Raping can go under Adultery, as it's extramarital.

Because one cannot rape their spouse. Right. Sexual intercourse between married people is always consenting. They're married! Nothing could go wrong, right?

Do you ever think about what you're saying?

 

[Zach]

man J-man you are like this kid I know from school. I told him I was an atheist and he says:

"Oh, so do you like, have holidays, to like celebrate the harvest?"

v.v


except you are more like

"Oh, so like, do you like, have festivals where you slaughter innocent god-fearing Christians?"

or even more accurate

"the most important part of the atheism is to kill people"

 

[cantab]

I'm saying that there can't be a true universal definition of good or evil without one who is more powerful than man to enforce what is good.

Indeed there can't be. That is only a problem for someone who wishes to insist that their definition of good and evil is the "true universal" one.

If i'm wrong, then point out to me the purpose of Atheism.

To think for oneself, instead of simply doing as religious leaders tell you.

Raping can go under Adultery, as it's extramarital.

Can we get Akuchi here please? I think she'd do a better job of correcting you on such a ridiculous statement than I can.

There Is No God -> Man is highest being on earth -> Man can not be held responsible for his actions, as no man is higher than another man -> Man can do whatever he wants -> Nazi Regime, Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Korea, Venezuela ect...

There Is No God -> Humans are the highest beings on Earth -> Humans can hold each other responsible for their actions, as we are all equal (and must hold each other responsible, for nothing else will) -> Humans must respect each other as well as all life on Earth -> Oppressive regimes are either forced to reform or brought down.

On the other hand...

There is a God -> This book is the word of God -> I think this book says I can do X, Y, Z -> I can do X, Y, Z and no person can criticise my actions because God says I can do them.

Oh, and stop replying to posts with bold in the quote tags. It makes it harder for people to respond to you.

Who founded atheism? Genuine question.

Being as atheism is simply the lack of belief in any God, it has no 'founder' in the sense that (most) religions do. The earliest known atheist is Jean Meslier, though his writings in favour of atheism were only discovered after his death.

As explained above, you should really read that Bible verse provided.

More phantom references...I interpret 15-20 as saying that someone claiming to be a prophet should be judged not on their words, but on what happens to those who follow them. 21-23 say that it is ones actions, not ones claims of Faith or to be following God, that will determine how one is judged by God. (I'm reading the NIV here - do you favour a different translation?)

Regardless of the phantom reference, your claim appears to be the No true Scotsman fallacy, or else case of circular reasoning.

Normally I don't set much importance by 'logical fallacies' - there's more to arguements than logic. But your posts sure do seem to have a lot of them.

 

[J-man]

Here we go again -_-

J-man:

You seem to suggest that regimes that do not follow the moral codes of the old/new testament are doomed to be corrupt. Of course, if the Bible was written by man then there is no reason to assume that your moral code is supreme, and the only one capable of working.

So again:

How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?

Why should we believe the Bible?

How do you know that the Bible is infallible?
Ok, i'll start

Starting from the Period in history where the first book of the Bible (where we actually have our first known civilizations on record) was written to today, has history contradicted The Bible?

What advantage exactly?
According to many here, Atheism isn't a religion and has no founder. Therefore, when someone told i had double standards because i was judging atheism by its abuses and not by its founder. But since atheism is apparently not a religion (which is wrong) and has no founder, i am judging atheism by what it ultimately leads to, since without a higher being than man, man can't be held accountable for his actions.

You've only pointed out that God giving us morality would be desirable. The fact that you cannot have morality without God (which is plain moronic obviously) doesn't mean God exists, just that we should want him to exist. But, uh....That kind of shoots a hole of your theory.
It's only moronic to an atheist who doesn't want to hear that he can't be good without God. Of course, the Bible is the exact opposite of Man's fallible reasoning (you should check out my sig).

Nothing has a purpose. There may be a reason why something exists (conjecture, evolution, whatever), but nothing has an ulterior meaning beyond what we ascribe to it. Neither does Christianity.
So if there is nothing but purposelessness, than why don't you go rob a bank and rape a couple of women. It doesn't really matter since there's no purpose in being "good". However, Christianity has a purpose, as explained several pages back. That purpose is to bring glory to God (which i apologize for not getting to the person who brought that issue up) And it brings more glory to God that he rescues us from our sins.

But if it's Muslim, it's not godless. You can't have your cake and it eat too, buster.


Reserved for a later argument when i get back from supper


For the record, I think you're brainless.
For the record, name calling is a terrible tactic in debating. You know better.




Except you don't and I already did. Reading's hard, innit?
You are greatly mistaken. If i didn't know my facts, i wouldn't be arguing. It's simply logic. I wouldn't argue in a topic about football, because i know little about football. I know a great deal of stuff when it comes to christian theology.



What does that Bible verse have to do with anything? Many people will commit atrocities in the name of Christianity, so? Does that make Hitler not a Christian? He believed in Roman Catholicism, he committed his atrocities (Gott mit uns, remember?), of course he is religious and responsible. To claim anything else is beyond ignorant. By any sane definition of Catholic, he is Catholic.

Then there's this little thing called selective quoting. I could selectively quote things from the Bible to support Hitler's Catholicism. I'm not going to be arsed to do it because you know very well that this is true and you need only a cursory read to do this yourself. For a second the Bible does not command ultimate truth (nothing but ultimate truth commands ultimate truth). It is pointless to refer to the Bible as a source of truth because it is rickety, inconsistent and ill-defines just about everything, not to mention half of it is plain theft from Sumerian mythology.

Rest of stuff reserved for after supper

I have to go to supper, so feast on these set of responses in my absent.

 

[MrIndigo]

Until J-Man answers the questions that Obsession and I have posted and reposted for him a number of times, none of his arguments have any relevance at all (not that they did before).

 

[Altmer]

Being as atheism is simply the lack of belief in any God, it has no 'founder' in the sense that (most) religions do. The earliest known atheist is Jean Meslier, though his writings in favour of atheism were only discovered after his death.

I'm aware of this, you should have let J-man give the answer.

 

[Obsessed]

Starting from the Period in history where the first book of the Bible (where we actually have our first known civilizations on record) was written to today, has history contradicted The Bible?

Yes, in a way. The Bible talks about an event known as the exodus. Supposedly millions of Jews left Egypt, after being slaves. They lived as nomads, setting up massive camps throughout the desert over the course of 40 years.

Of course, there is no record of such a thing. No evidence whatsoever. Egypt has no records of a massive number of Jews leaving, nor does it have records of holding a mass number of Jewish slaves. It has no records of the ten plagues. Archaeologists have found no evidence either. With 1+ millions Jews setting up camp you would expect to find tons of artifacts buried under the sands of the desert. But there are none. There isn't a trace of evidence that a group of 1+ million nomads ever set up camps.

Also you seem to be saying: The Bible says X happened, can you prove that X didn't happen?

That doesn't do anything to prove the Bible's accuracy of historical events. You need to provide evidence that those events actually happened.

Oh and things like a global flood, and a 6000 year old earth have been disproven by modern sciences (mainly geology). So two "historical events" have pretty much been shown to be false.

Also please try to answer all three questions at once.

Again:

Why should we believe the Bible?

How do you know the Bible is the word of God?

How do we know the Bible is infallible. (You can't simply assume that its historical record is correct, and then use that assumption as proof of its inerrancy.)

 

[J-man]

Yes, in a way. The Bible talks about an event known as the exodus. Supposedly millions of Jews left Egypt, after being slaves. They lived as nomads, setting up massive camps throughout the desert over the course of 40 years.

Of course, there is no record of such a thing. No evidence whatsoever. Egypt has no records of a massive number of Jews leaving, nor does it have records of holding a mass number of Jewish slaves. It has no records of the ten plagues. Archaeologists have found no evidence either. With 1+ millions Jews setting up camp you would expect to find tons of artifacts buried under the sands of the desert. But there are none. There isn't a trace of evidence that a group of 1+ million nomads ever set up camps.

Also you seem to be saying: The Bible says X happened, can you prove that X didn't happen?

That doesn't do anything to prove the Bible's accuracy of historical events. You need to provide evidence that those events actually happened.

Oh and things like a global flood, and a 6000 year old earth have been disproven by modern sciences (mainly geology). So two "historical events" have pretty much been shown to be false.

Also please try to answer all three questions at once.

Again:

Why should we believe the Bible?

How do you know the Bible is the word of God?

How do we know the Bible is infallible. (You can't simply assume that its historical record is correct, and then use that assumption as proof of its inerrancy.)

How do you choose which texts are the truth? The Quran states it's the word of God too, but you reject it in favour of the Bible. My question is how you differentiate between godly sources and nongodly sources.

http://www.biblica.com/bibles/about/7.php
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canons.stm

Here is a response to Obssessed

http://www.rbc.org/uploadedfiles/Bible_Study/Discovery_Series/PDF/Can_I_Really_Trust_The_Bible.pdf

This is a pamphlet i had. I was stalling out because i wanted to get ahold of it. I found it online for your viewing pleasure.

Yes, in a way. The Bible talks about an event known as the exodus. Supposedly millions of Jews left Egypt, after being slaves. They lived as nomads, setting up massive camps throughout the desert over the course of 40 years.

Of course, there is no record of such a thing. No evidence whatsoever. Egypt has no records of a massive number of Jews leaving, nor does it have records of holding a mass number of Jewish slaves. It has no records of the ten plagues. Archaeologists have found no evidence either. With 1+ millions Jews setting up camp you would expect to find tons of artifacts buried under the sands of the desert. But there are none. There isn't a trace of evidence that a group of 1+ million nomads ever set up camps.

Then explain to me how the Jewish Passover came about? Explain how Jews even exist then? What about the Archeological evidence for King Solomon and King David? No Evidence isn't Evidence against.

Also you seem to be saying: The Bible says X happened, can you prove that X didn't happen?

That doesn't do anything to prove the Bible's accuracy of historical events. You need to provide evidence that those events actually happened.

We know of ancient Egypt as a vast and powerful empire, as depicted of the Bible. We know of the empires of Babylon, the predicted empire of Alexander the Great (Daniel). There's also the Medes and Persians (pardon for the ill chronological order). It would be ignorant to say there was no Ceasar Augustus (or Pilate). You can look up anything the Bible says about history, and

Oh and things like a global flood, and a 6000 year old earth have been disproven by modern sciences (mainly geology). So two "historical events" have pretty much been shown to be false.

Have you studied it, or did you here it and immediately and excepted it? I'm guessing you've studied. I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate science, but here's an interesting argument for the flood - http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory#Criticisms There's also a response to Talk.Origins http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory_(Talk.Origins). I could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure Hydroplate isn't catastrophic plates. 6000 year old refutations are also debatable.

Also please try to answer all three questions at once.

Again:

Why should we believe the Bible?

How do you know the Bible is the word of God?

How do we know the Bible is infallible. (You can't simply assume that its historical record is correct, and then use that assumption as proof of its inerrancy.)
See the link i pointed out... or i'll just repost it http://www.rbc.org/uploadedfiles/Bible_Study/Discovery_Series/PDF/Can_I_Really_Trust_The_Bible.pdf

I am so confused... If i've missed anything important, post it and i'll respond...

 

[Obsessed]

J-man. I really wanted YOU to answer, I didn't want you too just c/p some answers from a pamphlet. I wanted short concise answers, not 33 pages.

And... the pamphlet didn't really do that great a job of answering the questions. In fact, it really only hurt your case as it said "if one portion of the Bible were proven false the rest would be suspect."

6000 year old earth, flat earth, geocentricism, demons causing epilepsy, a giant global flood, and several other things have all been disproven by modern day science.

The pamphlet really just boils down to: "Hey some of the stuff alluded to in the Bible was right. So we can assume everything else is too!"

It counts all the hits, but ignores all the misses.

 

[lati0s]

http://www.biblica.com/bibles/about/7.php
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canons.stm

Here is a response to Obssessed

http://www.rbc.org/uploadedfiles/Bible_Study/Discovery_Series/PDF/Can_I_Really_Trust_The_Bible.pdf

This is a pamphlet i had. I was stalling out because i wanted to get ahold of it. I found it online for your viewing pleasure.

To respond to the "10 lines of evidence" from the pampnlet

1-completely circular reasoning
2-also circular reasoning
3-even more circular reasoning
4-the bible actually has much more disunity than this pamphlet claims, especially between the old and new testaments, the old testament solicits a much more brutal and xenophobic society than the new testament. In the old testament it says that god wants adulterers to be stoned but in the new testament jesus disapproves of this. Its style also changes greatly from book to book, psalms is poetic, matthew is a fairly straightforward story, revelation is metaphorical etc. I realize that this last point does not necessarily mean that it is disunified, it just shows differences between different authors works
5- this is fairly irrelevant to whether it is true or not, If it starts off false and is well preserved it will still be false
6-As obsessed already stated there are events in the bible that are historically very unlikely to be true, also even if the historical events are correct that does not imply that the supernatural events are correct, we have much less reason to doubt the historical events than the supernatural events.
7-This is an extremely weak point, the pamphlet only says that when the bible talks directly about science it is correct and that we cannot interpret science from its anecdotes, the bible says nothing directly about science that is not completely obvious, so this is quite irrelevant
8-circular reasoning
9-the qaran also has a large impact on society(see the very nonatheistic country of iran), as do many books of philosophy and religion
10-same as above