Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[BilliardsBall]

No, you are repeating a promise that doesn't have to be kept. Nor do we know that it can be kept. That's not really offering much.

In the meantime, how about supporting the humanists as they try to make this a better world, utopian or not?



It put an end to witch burnings. Does that count? And it ended the crime of blasphemy.

How has Christianity been doing at reducing crime? Have you seen the statistics comparing more religious countries and more religious American states with less religious countries and less religious American states? We're doing better than the church. Humanism wins hands down.

Would you like to see the studies? I'm not going to bother to list the links again if you aren't interested in looking at data, but will gladly do so it you are.





Sorry, but you're out of compliance with your Bible:

Romans 12:2 - "Do not conform to the pattern of this world"

John 15:19 - "The world would love you as one of its own if you belonged to it, but you are no longer part of the world. I chose you to come out of the world, so it hates you."

1 John 2:15 - "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them."

But good for you for being a part of the world anyway.



That doesn't seem to be the message the Christians are getting. They've more or less taken over the new American president's cabinet, and their first order of business includes dismantling almost everything they can to protect the environment, including restrictions on coal mining and funding for climate science study and education. The Bible says that the world will be destroyed soon. That removes all incentive to preserve it. Their actions are consistent with that belief just as James Watt's was, who I quoted earlier

How do you feel about those two issues?

And thank you for answering the questions asked.

I DO support humanists, even secular humanists, HERE on Earth. Yes, why would I not? My goodness, I'll take freedom of religion, for example, whether from the White House or the ACLU. I don't care--and if I can make a better way, I try. I support several families overseas, monthly, from a limited income. This while I'm accruing debt in a Master's program. Also, I am activist on a number of issues from sustainability to human trafficking. Yes!

Before we study the Inquisition or crime statistics, I want to make you aware that I don't consider 70% of America as Christians. I'm thinking maybe 10% are born again. And I KNOW that in many countries the number is higher but only VERY rarely are the military, the intelligentsia and the politicians saved.

I DO KNOW that the Roman "church" killed 1,000 people for every witch killed over here, but I also know that the OVERWHELMING majority the Romans killed were Christians and Jews. I'd be put to death three times by Torquemada:

1. I'm a Jew

2. I'm a born again who says I'm saved by trusting Christ and in no way saved by the Roman church

3. I OWN A BIBLE AND READ IT

And yes, I know how many people twist the Bible for their ends. Do they LOVE the Bible or love TWISTING the Bible? That's an important distinction.

As for the new issues you raised:

1. ROMAN monks can hide in monasteries away from women and witnessing, but not me. I can give 500 more verses on being fully involved with this world--just not corrupted by it. There's a difference between me going downtown to share my faith with drug addicts, or going downtown to have a glass of beer with you--which I would enjoy fully--and me going downtown to BE a drug addict. I think the verses are clear there, especially in the C Word of context. I mean, I am to love my wife (wanna see a couple of dozen verses on that?) and she is IN the world and OF the world. C'mon.

2. I hear you loud and clear on the Trump initiatives. It's clear he's not a Bible lover of any kind. I don't know what is. He's pandering to a base, isn't he?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Learn what? What you believe by faith?

I've already told you that we have different uses for evidence and different ideas of how truth is discerned. If you want to convince a skeptic, you'll need more than a claim. Remember the Hitchens quote?

I believe truth is discerned in the same ways as you:

1. By hard effort

2. By sifting through the lies in this world

3. By careful thought and contemplation and study

4. Truth evolves--or at least, my knowledge of it

5. Truth is often with the older and more experienced

Now, I also have a friend who I believe tells me only truth. I'm sure you have the same. I just don't appreciate the warnings that my best friend is doing me wrong, because He isn't.

 

[Thumper]

...
1) I've studied Greek and Hebrew - surely there is NO text where we would say the translation to another language is more authoritative than the original language?
...

Interesting. Then you know that Greek was not the "original language" of the mid-East at the time of the New Testament.

And of course your study of the more ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament made it plain that the ancient Israelites envisaged a universe made up of a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water (the Tehom) with heaven above and the underworld below.

And you know that in Genesis, God created the Firmament (the Raqia) to divide the Tehom (mythological cosmic ocean) to reveal the dry land. Above the Firmament was the dwelling place of God (the shamayim). The firmament itself was a solid inverted bowl over the earth which extended down to touch the Earth at the horizon, colored blue from the heavenly ocean above it. The raqia had "windows" to allow for rain, snow, etc.. The waters for Noah's flood entered when the windows of the firmament were opened.

But of course you knew all of this from your Hebrew readings.

...
2) I have a relationship with God. We talk about the scriptures often.
...

Talking to God is called prayer. Believing that he talks back is called schizophrenia.

 

[ArtieE]

Talking to God is called prayer. Believing that he talks back is called schizophrenia.

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

 

[Thumper]

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

“George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.” – Sam Harris

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Good points all, again.


I DO recognize when God does nothing (rather than seemingly does nothing). We are in a special court today, judging a murder based on determinism and the divine. Your honor, IAN So, I present the facts of the case:

a) Billy shot Sharon to death

b) Sharon failed to duck fast enough from Billy's premeditated bullet

c) God failed to knock the gun from Billy's hand


Your honor IAN So, who should we hold responsible for this heinous act?

a) Billy moved from free will

b) Sharon didn't move quickly

c) God didn't move from His free will


Before you answer, consider that is reasonable for ANY person to COMPLETELY be cross with Billy and hold him responsible.

We blame Billy for his actions, and if there was an agent that could have intervened but didn't, we blame it as well

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I agree almost 100%! I HATE when "Xians" use some of these "proofs".

Here IS what's valid to me:

1) I've studied Greek and Hebrew - surely there is NO text where we would say the translation to another language is more authoritative than the original language?

2) I have a relationship with God. We talk about the scriptures often.

3) I've read the entire Bible with care, the same way you read a lover's letter with care, over and again, savoring the words. I don't need Google to look up references, much of the time, not because I'm some genius, but because I've studied the Bible and ancient culture with care and love studying it. If I said we have now one verse condoning rape and one not condemning rape, or even if I said there are a dozen passages where the Bible condones rape--we've discussed some of them here--I still have thousands of verses on the love and mercy of God. It would be like me or my parents condoning rape--or you--all of us are too loving for that--so is God.

OK. Not valuable to me, however.

4) Psychology is the underpinning of textual study--I know you agree if you accuse me of confirmatory bias--but Bible study tends to go smoothly with a concerned Christian who asks me about rape in the Bible, and less smoothly with "Do you admit God condones violent rape or not, dammit?!" If you say you are free of biases against the Bible, I'll believe you--if you will likewise admit I have no confirmatory bias.

Confirmation bias is irrational.

There are other biases that are rational, such as a bias against pedophiles and drunk drivers. I also have biases about restaurants, the best way to get from here to there, and what kind of music to purchase. Another name for the process is learning. As I go through life learning that A is preferable to B and C to D, I add a new rational and useful bias to lean one way over another to optimize outcomes.

I do not claim to be free of biases regarding the Bible, just free of irrational biases. I have tried to support my claims with evidence and what I believe is valid argument.

My experience is that a confirmation bias is erected whenever somebody has chosen to believe something by faith for which there is conflicting evidence. It's a coping mechanism to quell cognitive dissonance. We don't expect the affected individual to be able to identify this.


You seem to be more conciliatory. That's helpful. We got off to a bad start.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1) It's fun to try to reconcile conflicting passages. I'm likewise an apologist for Lucas's original trilogy, for example. I like to sit around and see if we can make Jar-Jar the central figure of Phantom Menace and etc.

2) I AGREE there ARE conflicting passages until you add the following:

*original language study--surely it's reasonable to see if Hebrew and Greek were put in English poorly or not - I mean the Bible is a LARGE volume of writing

*context--the Bible says there is no god! After all, the context is "Immoral people say there is no God. God sees this in Heaven and laughs." I know YOU hear about context often from born agains as if it's ONLY important to the scriptures. Context is important in all human communications. Even smiley face icons have completely different meanings in China than the US. Let's get passionate about semiotics. Example: Romans 12 says feed a hungry enemy, in so doing, you place burning coals on his head.

I should get TICKED OFF reading that! WHO DOES GOD THINK HE IS TO HAVE ME PUT FIERY COALS ON MY ENEMY'S HEAD!

Five minutes of Google searching or reading the right texts demonstrates--taking near-extinguished coals from a colder, older fire--you know, the black and white coals not aflame on the old grill--then placing them in a towel on a neighbor's head--was like giving a person with a bad back a warm water-filled bottle. It's a kind gesture to make to an enemy.

Here's the problem, however--when I first read Romans 12 and for years after, I thought, "what the heck?" But knowing the rest of the scriptures, I just kind of let it sit in the back of my mind. I might have prayed about the verses, I don't know. You can imagine how dumb I felt reading coals on the enemy's head is like taking my enemy out for a three-course gourmet dinner!

I think you can get there regarding rape, Creation, genocide, anything in the Bible. The question is am I in some cult? Am I a totally insane doofus? I don't deny the moon landings. I don't deny a spheroid planet Earth. Heck, I even considered voting for HRC when Trump won the nomination! But I'm not a moron.

I'm just some dude who has learned over MANY experiences that God's ways are indeed higher (more moral, more just, more loving, more ethical, more logical) than yours or mine.

I don't think that you are a moron, and I do not think that the Bible god as depicted is moral. Torture alone is a deal breaker.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Interesting. Then you know that Greek was not the "original language" of the mid-East at the time of the New Testament.

And of course your study of the more ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament made it plain that the ancient Israelites envisaged a universe made up of a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water (the Tehom) with heaven above and the underworld below.

And you know that in Genesis, God created the Firmament (the Raqia) to divide the Tehom (mythological cosmic ocean) to reveal the dry land. Above the Firmament was the dwelling place of God (the shamayim). The firmament itself was a solid inverted bowl over the earth which extended down to touch the Earth at the horizon, colored blue from the heavenly ocean above it. The raqia had "windows" to allow for rain, snow, etc.. The waters for Noah's flood entered when the windows of the firmament were opened.

But of course you knew all of this from your Hebrew readings.


Talking to God is called prayer. Believing that he talks back is called schizophrenia.

Greek was the lingua franca of the intelligentsia, including many Jews, including Paul, but I believe you already knew this.

The scriptures say the Earth is round and suspended in a void/vacuum, regardless of musings on "ancient Hebraic thought".

You are also adding interpretations to Genesis that aren't in the text, for example, "mythological cosmic ocean".

Most concerning from your post is the concept that people who hear from God are schizophrenic. First, this would put a large majority, not plurality, of persons as having been schizophrenic at some point in their lives, which is ridiculous on its face. Second, I hear voices in my head--called an inner dialogue (or monologue), including Sean Connery's voice, my wife's voice and James Earl Jones as Darth Vader, which voice now says in my head, "I find your lack of faith disturbing."

 

[BilliardsBall]

We blame Billy for his actions, and if there was an agent that could have intervened but didn't, we blame it as well

In precedential law, who has found, based on the strength of the evidence, that God was guilty for not intervening?

You believe in determinism, yes? In precedential law, who has found that we can not trace a chain of events back to first mover, an agent?

 

[BilliardsBall]

OK. Not valuable to me, however.



Confirmation bias is irrational.

There are other biases that are rational, such as a bias against pedophiles and drunk drivers. I also have biases about restaurants, the best way to get from here to there, and what kind of music to purchase. Another name for the process is learning. As I go through life learning that A is preferable to B and C to D, I add a new rational and useful bias to lean one way over another to optimize outcomes.

I do not claim to be free of biases regarding the Bible, just free of irrational biases. I have tried to support my claims with evidence and what I believe is valid argument.

My experience is that a confirmation bias is erected whenever somebody has chosen to believe something by faith for which there is conflicting evidence. It's a coping mechanism to quell cognitive dissonance. We don't expect the affected individual to be able to identify this.


You seem to be more conciliatory. That's helpful. We got off to a bad start.

I agree. I am currently talking to some people I DEEPLY respect who are advocating a Flat Earth, and all over Facebook!

However, I'm not a cultist wearing flowers in my hair (though I enjoy flowers). I'm not a troll here to attack and attack and never listen. In fact, lots of times I ask nonbelievers questions and CRAVE their answers but they say, "Your question is moot!"

Again, I agree 100% that people have these VERY powerful defense mechanisms to quell dissonance. So how should I experience someone who rejects some of the things I believe? "They must have powerful coping mechanisms to quell their existential fears . . . without such mechanisms, if someone believed Heaven and Hell might possibly exist, they would think about these destinations constantly."

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think that you are a moron, and I do not think that the Bible god as depicted is moral. Torture alone is a deal breaker.

Okay, let's talk deal breakers.

Torture is prohibited in America by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. I think torture is not in God's mind or character, either. I read about a person having a 100% reasonable and reasoning conversation with Abraham in Luke 16, and he asks for some cold water to drink because he thirsts, but he is not screaming or crying (and significantly, never says, "I shouldn't be here, let me out."

Etc. I see eternal punishment and eternal life in the scriptures, but I cannot find eternal torture--it would be a deal breaker for me too, and one more reason the Qu'ran, which is explicit regarding eternal torture and God's torture methods, isn't for me.

 

[Curious George]

We blame Billy for his actions, and if there was an agent that could have intervened but didn't, we blame it as well

We only blame non action if their is a pre-existing duty to act.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I murdered a man, it would be objectively moral to kill his children (or entire extended family) lest they grow up wanting to seek revenge? That better safeguards my future and that of my kids.

You think that perpetuating the idea - through your actions - that people should kill each others families to prevent potential vendettas somehow safeguards the future of your children?

It seems you're working from a different definition of "safeguard" than the rest of us.

 

[ArtieE]

Most concerning from your post is the concept that people who hear from God are schizophrenic. First, this would put a large majority, not plurality, of persons as having been schizophrenic at some point in their lives, which is ridiculous on its face. Second, I hear voices in my head--called an inner dialogue (or monologue), including Sean Connery's voice, my wife's voice and James Earl Jones as Darth Vader, which voice now says in my head, "I find your lack of faith disturbing."

I find people who think God talks to them disturbing. One example: Suspect says 'God told me to do it' after fatal crash and there are plenty more examples.

 

[Augustus]

You think that perpetuating the idea - through your actions - that people should kill each others families to prevent potential vendettas somehow safeguards the future of your children?

It seems you're working from a different definition of "safeguard" than the rest of us.

No.

I think you are missing a bit of context from that discussion. You'll need to read the whole thing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I find people who think God talks to them disturbing. One example: Suspect says 'God told me to do it' after fatal crash and there are plenty more examples.

I find people like this aberrant person also disturbing. I didn't say all who think God talks to them are accurate.

However, since most people talk to God--I mean the overwhelming majority of persons, we are talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction who are obviously mentally unstable. I won't say, "x % of atheists are causing fatal crashes," so why would you pick the 1 in one million persons who behaves this badly?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find people like this aberrant person also disturbing. I didn't say all who think God talks to them are accurate.

However, since most people talk to God--I mean the overwhelming majority of persons, we are talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction who are obviously mentally unstable. I won't say, "x % of atheists are causing fatal crashes," so why would you pick the 1 in one million persons who behaves this badly?

If 1 in a million vehicles travelling through an intersection are involved in crashes, this is often enough risk to say that there's something wrong with the intersection and that it should be changed.

You talk about the mentally unstable as if their mental state somehow excuses the religion. In reality, an important negative impact of religion is that it often covers up mental illness and delays treatment.

If someone who hears voices spends every Sunday with people who tell him that hearing voices is normal and expected, he's not going to seek the treatment he needs.

 

[Thumper]

If 1 in a million vehicles travelling through an intersection are involved in crashes, this is often enough risk to say that there's something wrong with the intersection and that it should be changed.

You talk about the mentally unstable as if their mental state somehow excuses the religion. In reality, an important negative impact of religion is that it often covers up mental illness and delays treatment.

If someone who hears voices spends every Sunday with people who tell him that hearing voices is normal and expected, he's not going to seek the treatment he needs.

"Isn’t it interesting that religious behavior is so close to being crazy we can’t tell it apart?" - Dr. Gregory House, MD

 

[BilliardsBall]

If 1 in a million vehicles travelling through an intersection are involved in crashes, this is often enough risk to say that there's something wrong with the intersection and that it should be changed.

You talk about the mentally unstable as if their mental state somehow excuses the religion. In reality, an important negative impact of religion is that it often covers up mental illness and delays treatment.

If someone who hears voices spends every Sunday with people who tell him that hearing voices is normal and expected, he's not going to seek the treatment he needs.

**

If 1 in a million vehicles travelling through an intersection are involved in crashes, this is often enough risk to say that there's something wrong with the intersection and that it should be changed.

That is untrue. If you wish to draw an analogy between a traffic light or roundabout and people who kill in the name of God, you will need to use far more accurate numbers.

Also, effective traffic lights aren't cited by humans as leading to joy, self-actualization, achievement, love and justice. On the religion side, your argument becomes we need to do away with all traffic lights to spare those 1:1,000,000 accidents. If you see the problem with that line of argumentation, you will see why I say a God-focus is a healthy lifestyle behavior, like stopping at red lights.