Feasts, Arks, And Temples, A Recipe For God’s Love.
Note the subtlety of religious thought.
After a long absence, I am back. And dammit, we’re still in Exodus. WTF?? I thought that maybe some friendly gnomes and elves might at least labored during my long truancy and got us as far as Leviticus. By the blackened bowels of Christ, must I do everything around here! Damn supernatural creatures! Ever notice that they’re never quite as reliable as their reputation suggests. Think about that! We can’t just make shit up and expect it too work. Who’d have thought? Well, on second thought that would seem to be common sense, but alas, not as common as we would like.
Again Exodus 23/14… So Moses it still on the mountain listening to God’s rambling and faithfully jotting down every word, or maybe he’s smokin’ some weed and munchin’ on local the mushrooms. That’s actually the more likely scenario, but we must assume the first is true to proceed. Here we come to another of those so frequent sections where God outlines his plan for humankind, not for the benefit of us but for him. You see, it’s not enough for us to sing praises and follow his laws regarding sheep and virgins and such, and mere bloody animal sacrifices are insufficient to please him any longer. Now to make him happy, we must build great things to glorify him and have great feasts with him as the guest of honor.
God wants us to build him a house and throw a party. Yeehaw! Break out the steak, baby. God’s coming! And what kind of buildings would make God happy? Oh, don’t worry about that. Yahweh gives a precise blueprint for the temple that he demands to be honored in. Well, perhaps I should say a detailed description. Precision would indicate that I could figure out what the hell he was talking about. Detail? Well, any schizophrenic could give me rabidly detailed accounts of their inner thoughts. I still won’t understand, but they’ll be detailed, and you know, God is in the details… Or is that the devil? I forget. At any rate, ten-and-a-half freaking pages of detailed instructions are laid out in my Bible for building a temple and all its accouterments and how to use them. Remember the Ten Commandments? Those incredibly important instructions for how humanity was supposed to live with itself? Yeah, they have less than a page. And as for the ones that really deal with humanity rather than those glorifying God? 13 lines.
God allots a mere 13 lines for the greatest rules we are to live by, you know the ones theists want plastered throughout every school and courthouse as a panacea against all forms of evil, but then he goes on for a rather verbose 824 lines to detail the building and decorating of his house, the taxes to pay for it and a complete guide to the dress and comportment of his servants within. In case you wondering, yes, I counted every line, all 824 of them. This number doesn’t include the notes or the elaborate drawings included in my Bible detailing what God really meant. Pardon the irony, but thank God for those drawings. Without them, I’d have no idea what the hell he was talking about, and I build shit for a living. If an engineer walked onto a jobsite today with such blueprints, he’d be hanging from a tree by sundown.
And in case you’re wondering what kind of ratio this makes between those six commandments concerning people and those regarding the Temple building fund, (yes, some of you may actually wonder!) God spends 63 times more effort on his personal residence. Kind of shows us our relative degree of importance, doesn’t it. God spends more time explaining the temple’s candelabra than he does with us. Feel the love, baby. Feel it!
Of course, there are many other regulations outside those most important of commandments and we have seen some and will see many more. Many, many more. But are they for our good? Meh! We’ll see later.
First, let’s delve into the three great feasts demanded by God to honor him.
“Three times a year you shall celebrate a feast to Me.”
To him? Well… all right, as long as it’s a feast. Although it seems quite arrogant for someone to declare a feast and insist it’s for his own glory, and still demand you bring all the food. But hey, it’s still a party, right? I love parties! Not to mention, I’m a fat guy. I especially love parties that are feasts! Count me in.
You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread; for seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt. And none shall appear before Me empty-handed.
What? Unleavened bread! That stuff tastes like shit! What kind of party is this? Feast appears to be a bit of a misnomer here. Feasts to a fat guy have special meaning — tables laden with a wide variety of succulent dishes where I can gorge myself into a caloric coma, quivering and shuddering as my arteries slowly seal shut, gasping for breath as my abdomen expands into territory normally reserved for my lungs. (Damn, I think I just got aroused. BRB… Uh, where were we?) Ah yes, now that’s a feast, not a thick and chewy chunk of rough bread. Talk about a let down. I’d have had to grill the fat kid from the other tent to make up for my disappointment. At the very least, Yahweh would certainly be off of my Christmas card list for next year. Of course, this is in remembrance of the exodus from Egypt. But how boorish is that. ”Hey, remember that time when I saved you by forcing you to flee into the desert and almost starve? Yeah? Still remember it? Um… How about now? Hmmm… Just to make sure you never forget how great I am (Isn’t that a song?) I’m going to demand a yearly celebration in my honor because I’m such a great guy.” BYOB. (Bring your own bread… as long as it’s unleavened.)
“Also you shall observe the Feast of the Harvest of the first fruits of your labors from what you sow in the field; also the Feast of the Ingathering at the end of the year when you gather in the fruit of your labors from the field. Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord God. You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread; nor is the fat of My feast to remain overnight until morning. You shall bring the choice first fruits of your soil into the house of the Lord your God.”
Ah, this is better — real food but seemingly only for the men. I’m not sure what the women did except for cook it. But again with the attitude, “I’m going to throw a great party in honor of me and you’re going to bring all the best food, and you’re going to pay for it all, and it’s mandatory, and only for men…” Bon Appetit!
Oh, the passage ends with one of my favorite non sequiturs of the entire Bible, “You are not to boil a young goat in the milk of its mother.” Yeah, I hate when they do that. It just seems rude.
As for the temple… Sigh. What in the hell could I possibly say about the ten pages of complex confusion encompassing the design of the temple and its furniture? Not much. Let me just state an example now. Here is the lampstand God demands to light his glory. You’d think that he’d make something slightly more impressive to illuminate the inside of his house like ball lightning or hawking radiation from a nano-black hole or something, but to do something that cool he’d actually have to exist. Since that nonexistence seems to be the real limiting factor in all his miracles, this is what he came up with.
“Then you shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The lampstand and its base and its shaft are to be made of hammered work; its cups, its bulbs and its flowers shall be of one piece with it. Six branches shall go out from its sides; three branches of the lampstand from its one side and three branches of the lampstand from its other side. Three cups shall be shaped like almond blossoms in the one branch, a bulb and a flower, and three cups shaped like almond blossoms in the other branch, a bulb and a flower–so for six branches going out from the lampstand; and in the lampstand four cups shaped like almond blossoms, its bulbs and its flowers. A bulb shall be under the first pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the second pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the third pair of branches coming out of it, for the six branches coming out of the lampstand. Their bulbs and their branches shall be of one piece with it; all of it shall be one piece of hammered work of pure gold. Then you shall make its lamps seven in number; and they shall mount its lamps so as to shed light on the space in front of it. Its snuffers and their trays shall be of pure gold. It shall be made from a talent of pure gold, with all these utensils. See that you make them after the pattern for them, which was shown to you on the mountain.”
Got that. OK then get to work. This is really how it goes for several pages, and we thought the assembly manuals for a new bookcase or desk were written by the criminally insane. Yeah… Um, no comment, except to say, within does lie the description of Ark from Indiana Jones fame, one of my favorite movies as a child, and yes, the drawings in my Bible do look like the movie’s Ark. I wonder if its still stored in that warehouse? Damned government, hiding the proof for the existence of God like that… I’ll bet it’s right next to the film stage where they faked the moon landings too! Anyway, other than that bit of movie trivia, this section has little to offer. Let’s just jump ahead to chapter 28.
Alas, here it’s even worse. This whole chapter deals with how God wants his priests dress, and holy sheep shit, Batman, the level of detail here is numbing. I can barely read through this section without feeling like some set my brain to puree. I desperately want to cut and paste the entire section here to give you an example, but I am sure I’d lose half my readers if I did. So… Here’s a link. I urge you to peruse the inanity exhibited so proudly. Read it and tell me it doesn’t sound like grown men dressing up Barbies. Put the little ribbon here and the stone there… Oh that’s just so cute! Damn, if you don’t look divine!! Which, I guess, is the point. You can pull off the scam of the millennia if you just look good. It doesn’t matter how you feel, as long as you look mahvelous!
And that’s precisely what religion does — puts a veneer of glitter over a implausible and illogical core of fear — the ultimate carrot and stick– in fact, it’s a carrot wrapped around a stick… or a turd… I’m having trouble with the metaphor, actually. Anyway, Beauty and the Beast. But people are so desperate to see the beauty, they look no deeper than the surface. If they did they would see the beast lying directly under the gilding and glitter. They would see the fear guiding their every move. They may go to sleep with visions of holy sugarplums dancing through their heads, but it’s the fear that jolts them awake in the middle of the night.
Are they good enough? Are they saved? Will they burn? Will my parents? Will my children? You and I know that the answer to all this is no, but it really doesn’t matter. They’ll never know that all their fear is baseless. Sad really.
Christians always pity us for the fear of death they assume we have. Death to us is nothing. In the words of Hutchinson Hudson from Aliens, “Game over, man. Game over.”
It’s way nicer that way.
Damn, it’s good to be back!
Wonderful, KK! I’ve missed your biting and entertaining commentary.
This area is one of the few that I recall from my own adventures in bibledom, somewhere around 9 or 10 years of age.
Even then I had the wit to wonder at the specificity of the ‘house’ which, naturally, was pushed aside under the banner of ‘mysterious ways’.
At any rate, good to see you back!
Yep! welcome back, when you finally get to the end of the old testament I believe you will be due a medal. Anyone who achieves this feat certainly deserves one.
It’s odd (or maybe not) how often religion boils down to fear. Fear of hell, fear of God, fear of being kicked out of the church, fear that if you are kicked out, your soul will be in peril merely because the priest/vicar/shamen won’t be interceding with God for you. If religion was a country, it would surely be considered the most hateful despotic tyranny ever known.
Isn’t the Vatican considered a country? And, since it is the core of Catholic belief (with the pope encouraging his followers’ fears every time he speaks), can we not call it “the most hateful, despotic tyranny”?
I vote ‘yes’.
I’ll add a ‘yes’ to that one!
Wonderful read again, keep up the good work!
btw…it was Hudson from the movie ‘Aliens’
Damn, I knew that too. One of my favorite movies of all time and I screw that up. Grrr! I need a fact checker. But then I guess I’ve got you people. I’ll cross it out and and put the real one beside it. Thanks.
Nice post. Very entertaining reading!
woah! reading of exodus from an atheist perspective! this is hilarious! I bet you’ll be awakened one of these days
about passover: here’s a video on youtube which talks about celebrating it today (Christians and Jews Alike) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAaaH4Dci24
I would love to take that bet. Present Jewish celebrations of Passover don’t bother me a bit. I’ve attended some unofficial ones and as traditional celebrations they’re great. Any religion that doesn’t believe in converting the world has my whole-hearted support. It’s the Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant word of God that I take issue with. It’s against those that this site is dedicated.
All the rules and regulations in the old testament show us that we can never be good enough no matter how hard we try– only by His mercy are we saved, not by what we can muster in our own human strength. A lot of Christians use Hell to fear-monger, well I think its the wrong way to spread the word- Hell is a real place whether you believe in it or not, but true Believers should want not to simply save others from the fiery lava lake… but to share with others the hope and the joy that God gives us. True joy–not fleeting happiness that comes and goes like the wind, and a hope that transcends death. A hope that when death comes knocking at your door, you aren’t scared, you aren’t frightened, you are glad, glad your father in heaven is waiting for you. You say death to you is nothing, I think that deep down you are fearful of it, or else why would you waste your time looking at the Bible – if not to maybe, just maybe find some answers that you aren’t finding any where else. I love you brother.
Marcolepolo, my response to your first point will always be “Why would a perfect God create a people so flawed that not a single one of them will ever be good enough to be ‘saved’ on their own?” Why do we have to sell ourselves into slavery to finally be good enough to please our creator so he’ll not torture us for an eternity? What kind of sick being would create a race of feeling and thinking beings with those limitations? How great would we be if we demanded that our creations be subservient slaves before we’d consent not to torture them? Forever? This is the sticking point with the fundamentalist image of God whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim. This is the question that no theist can answer without twisting the argument into some kind of logic mobius strip. I fail to see the draw of such a god save for fear.
As to the fear of death, you’re wrong. Obviously evolution injects a strong avoidance of death. This is natural in any animal. But only when religion hammers a myth of eternal torture if one doesn’t to submit to The One True God, whichever one that is, does a real fear of death spring forth. When death is the merely the end, it may be regretted and even scary, but it will never be laden with the terror your side brings to the table. You’re just so used to it that you don’t realize that it’s not the norm.
I have taken up the hobby of reading the Bible because I detest and fear the consequences of a literal Biblical interpretation and a belief in Young Earth Creationism on this world. People who demand that the earth is only 6000 years old and are viciously out to spread that view terrify me. They will return us to the Dark Ages. We need to look and advance forward with science and reason, not backward into darkness and superstition.
I fully support and admire the Jewish people. They have done and are doing incredible things. In science, their contributions are unequaled, their importance unparalleled. But… but, like Islam or Christianity or Hinduism or The Greek Gods or those in Vahallah, the religion itself is still a myth. There is no proof, no evidence. Nothing.
I’m always looking for answers, Mr. Marcolepolo, just not the way you are. I look for my answers in this world, not in some mythological, supernatural and unprovable realm outside of it.
“only by His mercy are we saved”
Precious little hope there then, if we judge his character by his actions as shown in the Bible.
Why would God create people in order for them to simply live on earth and save themselves, (and from what?) of course he created man to have a relationship with Him. Man chose to disobey and step away from that relationship, so God showed his justice. Read “Mere Christianity”, everyone on earth knows there is a right and wrong, they know that we “ought” not to do some things and “ought” to do other things. Like saying he “ought” not walk into a nursery and murder children. Wouldn’t you agree that a murderer should be punished? Well when we disobey the standards that God put into place from the beginning, we are judged by His standards, not man’s, He is perfect and if He doesn’t judge than he wouldn’t be good. If he let someone kill, steal, and destroy all they wanted and did nothing, He wouldn’t be a good God.
Therefore we have all broken his commandments, even while we were kids. We are born into sin, life is broken as it stands without God. God gave us His Word so that we can learn the truth. You said “not a single one could be saved on their own” well God’s son, Yeshua (Jesus) did just that – He lived perfectly without sinning once, and it was God’s plan that he should die and be a sacrifice for the sin of man – *All this was foreshadowed in the Old Testament, with the sacrificial system. When we let go and realize that we cannot save ourselves, that we are wicked, and that only through making God the reason for living—then He makes us as if we didn’t sin at all , because of what Yeshua did. Man– its not SLAVERY!!! Its Joy beyond expression! We are freed from the burden of Sin! We are freed from the burden of eternal death! We have the Joy from the realization that God loves us despite all the evil malicious things we’ve done in our past, he knows us by name. Look at the god of Muslims- you’ll see that the idol they worship does not love, only judges, Nothing we can do with works can save us–but putting our faith in God and loving Him back can we be saved from ourselves. You say humans have limitations—of course we do! I can’t run 145 miles an hour, no one will ever be able to. We aren’t god, we’ll never be, if we think we are, our self pride is worse than Odysseus’ !
Daz – little hope… correct. We all deserve horrible punishment. Another reason to rejoice when we read about His grace to those who put their faith in Him! Ephesians 2:8
Also – You hold on tight to your evolution – in a world where science changes ever other year, to believe that life came from non-life.. is preposterous, read this article: http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm (ever seen that video that shows how a single cell works)
I believe God’s working on your heart even right now… He loves you so much, Moses was a murderer, God forgave him and used him to free the Israelites. God doesn’t look at the outside circumstances, he looks at your heart. He knows that without Him, we all live in sin and may not even know we are sinning-but He gave you knowledge of His saving grace, search your heart bro!
But if god is perfect how come he couldn’t create a being that wouldn’t stray? Surely being all knowing and all powerful and all seeing and with no sense of time then he knew that we would stray before he even made us. Doesn’t that make him a bit of an arse if he punishes us doing exactly what he knew we would do?
How can you say “to believe that life came from non-life.. is preposterous”. Making us out of a lump of dirt in a couple of seconds seems far more unlikely to me.
Your argument in the first paragraph is confusing. If you conjecture that God has “no sense of time” which we would call “infinite,” then there is no “before He even made us.” There are no befores and afters if a being is not limited to time. That argument is fallacious logically.
“Conjecture…”
Do you have any evidence that this conjecture is even possible? Care to show us the equations proving that something can exist outside time, or not be limited by it? Or maybe you could take a stab at defining what those terms actually mean.
Just using Muppet’s words to make the point. He’s the one that said our God has no sense of time. I’m just stating that if his first statement is true then his second one is fallacious. I’m not trying to prove anything. Straw man.
Point taken. You did, however manage to ignore Muppet’s major point; that your god is apparently perfect, yet punishes part of his ‘perfect’ creation for being ‘imperfect’. Wanna take a stab at that paradox? Or is it three paradoxes?
i: That a perfect being could create an imperfect creature.
ii: That a perfect creation could contain an imperfection
iii: Or that a perfect being could create an imperfect creation and go on to punish his said creation for the imperfections he built into it, yet still attempt to pass himself of as being perfect.
A person could get dizzy thinking about that…
“We all deserve horrible punishment.”
Right… Thus speaketh the brainwashed ones. Please show me one ounce of evidence for the existence of this god. Not supposition, but evidence. I don’t want to hear about gaps in scientific knowledge, or why you find particular theories implausible. (I beg to doubt you have any scientific expertise by which to judge plausibility, as evidenced by you making the common mistake of confusing evolution with abiogenisis.) What I want to see is actual evidence for the existence of god, not have him/her/it arbitrarily introduced into the gaps you perceive in other theories. Until you can show real evidence, you’re just wasting our time.
Done it again, damnit!
“Humans out of dirt”… impossible through an atheist’s reasoning – but with a Creator – incredibly easy to believe.
I’ll show you the evidence when God reveals it to all of us at His time. In the mean time, show me the evidence of how the universe was created…. (big bang… yeah thats provable…)
God is beyond our human understanding, but about your question about making “perfect humans” – If you created a robot that sits there and says “I love you, you are good, you are awesome…” all day over and over again. Would you feel any love for it? I doubt it, God created us with free wills, He wants us to love Him, just like you’re wife wants you to love her, not out of forced robotic function, but out of self will.
Proof of God-
If we all had definite proof of God’s existence in our back pocket, would we serve Him out of Love? or would we serve him out of Fear only? God looks at our hearts and wants us to Love him because of true faith and repentance, not because “Oh, God’s big eye is staring at me and I better do right or He’ll get me.” Yeshua (Jesus) came to earth, it is proven, he said what he said and did what he did, its documented historically.. You have to do something with Him, you can’t just write Him off. He loves you guys beyond belief. and I love you too.
Bullshit. Chemistry out of ‘dirt’ is easy to imagine. Break life down, and that’s all it is; chemistry.
You have no evidence or proof whatsoever that your god hypothesis is correct, and expect it to be believed, yet at the same time you grumble about small gaps and what you perceive as faults in scientific theory. Either apply the same standards to both, or shut the fuck up, hypocrite.
Daz,
Ouch! Slow down a bit, friend. You have no evidence or proof whatsoever that your evolutionary idea about the origin of life hypothesis is correct, and expect it to be believed, yet at the same time you grumble about small gaps and what you perceive as faults in scientific theory.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Whaoh there! I haven’t grumbled about small gaps in any scientific theory. Let me quote my own post:
We’re not talking, here, about whether the theory of evolution is correct, or how good various ideas about the big bang or abiogenisis are. Their correctness, or not, has no bearing on the correctness of your god hypothesis. Please address the subject in hand instead of trying to shift the focus to other matters.
This world is only what has been created, our souls are eternal, and our souls are what makes us different than a yak or an orangutan. I’m not going to go through each scientific proof or disproof, I only wish to share about my savior who came close to 2000 years ago to spread the good news to not only the Jews but to the whole world. From looking at this blog-it doesn’t appear to be a scientific study, its a reading of the Word – some things like love, faith, hope, are real things you and I know they are real, but we can’t measure them with barometers and rulers. Not every thing in this world is empirical. Seriously, if you haven’t, do check out Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. He says it better then my poor grammar does, I’m nothing, and I admit I can be hypocritical at times, and I pray God helps me with that. God loves you.
Faith is real, yes, as is belief. It doesn’t mean the object of that belief is real, though.
What scientific proofs and disproofs? If you can quote one proof of the existence of god you’ll be doing better than any christian commenter I’ve ever seen in the hundreds of examples I’ve had of this very same conversation! (Note: poking holes in other theories and hypotheses does not constitute evidence in support of your god hypothesis.)
hear hear!
Sorry that I’m a little late out of the gate. I don’t get reception where I work so I just downloaded the comments and worked on them during breaks. If I’m behind the times, forgive.
Mr. Polo, again you come to us preaching the love of a God who destroys civilizations for rising too high and butchers children for the sins of their fathers, and at the same talking about the Muslim God as wrong and evil. Can you truly not see that they are virtually the same being? Every attack you make on Allah and his religion is also made on your cruel and capricious little God. Yet you are so adept at finding excuses for Yahweh that you ignore the most blatant of absurdities, and at the same time point out the inconsistencies of others. How are you any different from the Muslims? How are your superstitions so much better that theirs? Everything you find ridiculous in their religion, we see in yours. You see superstitious nonsense in their beliefs. We see the same in both of yours.
How do you know your truth is right. You feel it? Do you not think that they feel theirs? Why is their religion growing faster than yours. Do they feel it more? The question is always: Where’s the proof? Your going to show us all the proof when God finally reveals it to the world. Really? Will that be before or after the astrologers and the TV psychics finally prove that their particular brand of manure is the Truth, before or after the witches, and other purveyors of sorcery prove that magic really is the foundation of the world, before or after the vociferous believers of the end of the world coinciding with the end of the Mayan Calendar have their day in the exploding sun? How is your brand of unprovable nonsense any better than theirs? And don’t even start on the “Science not proving anything” either path. Science has led us to the pinnacle we are at now. Religion and other superstition have only held us back. Just because science can’t prove every little detail doesn’t mean you get to fill in the gaps with whatever bit of nonsense most appeals to you.
“God is beyond our human understanding, but about your question about making “perfect humans” – If you created a robot that sits there and says “I love you, you are good, you are awesome…” all day over and over again. Would you feel any love for it? I doubt it, God created us with free wills, He wants us to love Him, just like you’re wife wants you to love her, not out of forced robotic function, but out of self will.”
God gives us free will but then will torture us for eternity if we use it to choose anything but him. Wow! What a sweetheart! So we’re supposed to love him because we choose to, not because of that huge freaking gun he holds over our heads ready to cause us indescribable pain forever. WTF? He doesn’t want a robot to say “I love you” over and over but will destroy anyone who does not choose to do that on their own. Isn’t that going to come to the same result? To change your analogy of building a robotic wife who parrots her love, to follow God’s example, I would go get a wife who I would threaten with permanent screaming agony if she ever left me. Nice. There are abusive men like that all over. Do you you know what we call men like that? Assholes. Fucking assholes! And here is your beloved God acting the same way. And here you are making excuses. Pardon me, but in today’s world, excuses for being an asshole are passee.
Proof of God-
If we all had definite proof of God’s existence in our back pocket, would we serve Him out of Love? or would we serve him out of Fear only? God looks at our hearts and wants us to Love him because of true faith and repentance, not because “Oh, God’s big eye is staring at me and I better do right or He’ll get me.” Yeshua (Jesus) came to earth, it is proven, he said what he said and did what he did, its documented historically.. You have to do something with Him, you can’t just write Him off. He loves you guys beyond belief. and I love you too.”
Do you ever think about what you say? Does it really make sense when it comes out? Is it in code? How the hell is Jesus coming to Earth proven? Just because you say it, doesn’t make it true. God wants us to love him for himself so he gives us no definite proof of his existence?? WTF?? So if I want my children to love me I should leave them alone, hide from them, give them no proof of my existence beyond some vague and confusing writings on the toilet paper in the upstairs bathroom, but lurk on a far away hill and shoot them with a high powered rifle when they demonstrate a lack of affection for me and my rules? Will that work? For a lack-of-Christ’s-sake, pull your head out of your ass. You prove you and your God are bigger jackasses everytime you open your mouth, and since he doesn’t exist, you’re left holding the bag.
You, sir, have partaken it too much of the Kool Aid, and like any other cult, it has brainwashed you into believing in everything it says without question while at the same time giving you the impression that you have already questioned everything and have found every other explanation wanting. Give me a break. You believe because believing makes you elite and important. You believe because you want to. And I hate to break it to you buddy, but believing because you want to is one of the worst reasons to believe. Desire to manufacture the truth will always lead you astray.
There is no Truth. The truth, with a small “t”, is in science. Everything else is make-believe.
Jeebus KK, that was one hell of a comment. Complete, coherent, insightful, all things I wish I could be when I write. Damn shame that the intended recipient won’t take in a word of. But not to fear, the rest of us will be quoting you.
Sorry I’m a bit behind again, but here is what I meant to say this morning. It would appear the entire political landscape has changed again. Alas, It’s still valid.
Dave: Thank you, I try. Everyone here has done so well.
Nancy, You make an excellent point, well said and insightful. The whole reason I started this blog was to battle all superstition but mostly concerning those superstitions regarding literal Biblical interpretation. I, too have to fight these people on a weekly basis and am tired of just letting them think they’ve won the point. Only by pointing out their folly in public forums can we even hope to reduce the sheer volume of their lack of reason.
So Nancy, you go ahead and feed the trolls. Feed them reason and logic. Will it work? Not for most. Like the Muslims or Hindus or any other brainwashed-at-birth religion — that’d be all of them — most will continue to believe the tripe fed to them from the beginning. But every now and then, one will wake up like Dan Barker and see the light, or to put it better, realize that the light they have been following for so long has really been a paltry reflection of reality, a twisted and warped view of the world, in short, a fantasy.
Just keep and mind, Nancy and the other troll tenders out there, that go ahead and feed them but don’t coddle their religion, don’t nurture their superstitions and above all, don’t play respectfully with their beliefs. Poke and prod ‘em, shake and rattle ‘em, slap ‘em around a bit, make their beliefs look to them just how it appears to us. I feel that’s our duty.
If others don’t want to, they can pass by that particular cage and see the rest of the zoo. Me, when time and my patience allow, I’m feeding the trolls. They won’t like their meal, but it’s about time the fat bastards changed their diet.
If God is a perfect being, as Christian’s often like to state, then why would he create anything at all, let alone humans to have a relationship with? A perfect being is a complete being without needs or desires. Nor would a perfect being create imperfect beings, because that would be contrary to its nature. So your entire premise unravels right there.
And healthy relationships are built upon trust and mutual respect, not threats of violence and intimidation. What you describe is a master/servant relationship: a relationship in which the stronger entity dictates the terms and the weaker one’s only option is to submit or face punishment for failing to do so.
The rest of your argument amounts to little more than begging the question because you haven’t proven your god exists, let alone what it desires.
Also – You hold on tight to your evolution – in a world where science changes ever other year, to believe that life came from non-life.. is preposterous, read this article: http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If you’re going to argue on a topic it’s imperative that you at least familiarize yourself with the terms you’re arguing against.
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
That’s it; and nothing more. The Theory of Evolution does NOT attempt to explain the origins of the universe (that’s covered by the Big Bang Theory), nor the origin of life (that’s Abiogenesis).
Nicely put Ron. Glad you’re on the team.
Ok – I agree that evolution isn’t abiogenesis, nor is it the origin of the universe, both things you can’t explain, but the article I linked does speak into evolution. I have faith in God, I believe he does marvelous things here on earth even now. It was by His grace that I even came to have this faith, not by my own merit. You have faith in science (the study of nature), and we both are sticking with our beliefs. However, like I said in my first post, I believe God can work on your heart no matter where you are, or what your title is, or what you’ve done in the past, or what you currently believe in. Why do you guys feel so inclined to defend against the existence of God, if he is only a fairy tale like you believe why waste your time? God loves you guys, he really really does. He doesn’t wish anyone to go to hell. If what I say is true than I’d be a jerk if I didn’t tell anyone about this good news.
*Sigh*
I do not have ‘faith’ (in the way that you are using the word) in science, and I couldn’t care less about what you believe about this putative god. Your belief doesn’t count as evidence for his/her/its existence, just as any belief I might have for the existence of a colony of nymphomaniac women hungrily awaiting my arrival on the planet Venus shouldn’t sway you into believing that they exist.
As for why we ‘waste out time’ examining the moral behaviour of god as portrayed in the Bible; unfortunately there are many people who promote that behaviour as a shining example which should be instituted as law. As such it’s worth examining. But then, I’m pretty damn sure you knew that anyway.
Still waiting on that scientific proof you mentioned…
The Venusian nymphomaniacs don’t exist? Nooooooo! I have nothing left to live for, goodbye cruel world!
Sorry Dave. They moved to Mars. Apparently the neighbours are nicer.
You do have faith in your atheism-Faith is : firm belief in something for which there is no proof – You have no empirical proof as to how we as humans came to be and how the universe was created, but you firmly believe it wasn’t by a supreme being-
As for scientific proof- I already mentioned I wasn’t here to prove anything through science and evidence. But I would say this, go to mount everest, go to the jungles of costa rica, to the grand canyon, look up into the sky on a dark night in the deserts of Arizona, and say to yourself–this is all by chance…. It’s pretty hard to do. God reveals himself in nature and its beauty and He reveals himself through the Word, He loved the world so much that he gave his only son as a sacrifice so that we can be reconciled, He didn’t come to condemn the world but to give everyone a chance to see heaven even though we don’t deserve it. See John 3:16-17,
“but you firmly believe it wasn’t by a supreme being-”
No, I have a firm conviction that I’ve seen no convincing evidence for the existence of this being.
As for your argument from incredulity, I shall treat that with the disdain it deserves. I would say this though: If you are honestly proposing the bounteousness of nature as an argument for the existence of your god, I don’t see any train of thought that leads from ‘just look at it: there must be some kind of intelligent creator’ to ‘the Bible is true’.
BTW, you did not say you weren’t here to prove anything through science and evidence, you said, and I quote: “I’m not going to go through each scientific proof or disproof”, thus intimating that you had such proof, but could not be bothered to present it to us. Or maybe I read that wrongly, and you mean in regards to flaws in the scientific theory, in which case it’s not pertinent anyway. Poking holes in the prevailing theory does not validate your hypothesis. But anyway, if all you’re going to do is talk about blind faith and offer us no evidence, please do us all the favour of shutting your obviously uneducated mouth. We’ve all heard it many times before and, frankly, it gets damned boring.
So your firm beliefs are basically as follows: “There isn’t enough evidence!” I respect what you believe but that doesn’t hold much conviction about anything.
about scientific proof or disproof:
I gave you a link with not just holes, but gaping chasms in the theories about this world…(if you aren’t satisfied with that I’m sorry)
I’m sure you’ve researched back and forth over the evidence of God so I won’t repeat conversations you’ve already had.
KKbundy: “It’s the Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant word of God that I take issue with. ” If a Christian doesn’t believe the Bible, than he wouldn’t be a Christian and would know absolutely nothing about God other than things nature gives us about and the rationale behind the phenomena of right and wrong (law of human nature) again.. “Mere Christianity” tells this better than I.
I haven’t spoken to you in disrespect, I’ve given points, I’ve heard your side of things, you cannot prove God does not exist. You can sing songs about how theists are such ignorant fools but what joy does that give anyone. All I can do is say Christ loves you more than you know : here are a couple great vids that explain it better than me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGFc3kuAao http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Ex2FpwqvI
If I’m wrong, you’ve got nothing to worry about, but if I’m right than you have everything to worry about. I’m not better than you in any way, I don’t feel that I am, I am only joyful for the grace God has shown me. God has changed my heart and I’m so thankful He did.
I didn’t say I haven’t seen enough evidence. I said I’ve seen no evidence (a handily selective bit of ‘misunderstanding’ on your part, I’d say). On the other hand I’ve seen plenty of evidence that the idea of godhood is a completely human-created idea.
I don’t care, as it impinges on the discussion in hand, about what holes and gaps there may be in current scientific theories. The whole of body of science could be as full of holes as a fishing net, and it still wouldn’t tell me anything about the existence of gods. For the 3rd, or is it the 4th time?, I tell you: finding problems with one theory or hypothesis does not prove another one right.
I’ll also point out, as you’ve alluded to it in a couple of places, as if it were a problem, that science doesn’t ‘know everything’. Saying ‘I don’t know’ is perfectly okay in science, unlike religion. The intimation is, I suppose, that because religion ‘explains’ these unknown things, it must be a better explanation. Well that’s tripe. I’d rather say I don’t know something than clutch onto the first explanation that comes along, regardless of the fact that it’s totally ungrounded and evidence-free.
Pascal’s bleedin’ wager again. Change the record, for pity’s sake.
I note you decided not to bother addressing my point about how you get from the general idea of a creator to the specific idea of the christian god. I suspect you believed in the latter before rationalising via the former. I also suspect you’re too dishonest a debater to admit the fact. You’re very good at talking generalities, aren’t you. Not much substance, though.
Daz,
On the other hand I’ve seen plenty of evidence that the idea of godhood is a completely human-created idea.
Ok, let’s hear some of this evidence. And remember, finding problems with one theory or hypothesis does not prove another one right.
Let’s narrow this down then. How many of these gods do you, believing in only ‘one true god’ as you do, consider not to be a man-made concept? Then you can tell us how yours differs from any of them.
My personal beliefs have nothing to do with your evidence. Stay on task. Again, finding problems with one theory or hypothesis does not prove another one right.
Eh? Your personal belief in the concept has everything to do with the discussion. We wouldn’t be having it otherwise. I see no difference between your god and the many others on that list. You would, I assume, agree with me that every other god on the list is a man-made concept.
As far as direct evidence goes, all the ideas I’ve ever seen about godhood have been formulated by people. What’s more, many ideas about gods can be traced from one culture to another, changing as they go, becoming more ‘sophisticated’ in the process. Indeed, even your vaunted Israelites believed in the gods of other tribes — they just didn’t worship them. All myths and stories, nothing more.
Again, what I believe has nothing to do with what evidence you have. While my beliefs are pertinent to the overall discussion, your evidence is solely based on what YOU have found, and involves nothing about me.
You would, I assume, agree with me that every other god on the list is a man-made concept.
Indeed, even your vaunted Israelites believed in the gods of other tribes — they just didn’t worship them.
Finding problems with one theory or hypothesis does not prove another one right.
As far as direct evidence goes, all the ideas I’ve ever seen about godhood have been formulated by people.
All myths and stories, nothing more.
You’ve only re-stated your conclusion. Where are the facts to support your evidence?
I find, on introspection, that my original statement was badly worded. What I meant, and should have said, was that I’ve never seen any evidence that godhood is anything but a man-made concept.
BTW, I love the way you’ve concentrated on this one part of the issue whilst avoiding all the others. Can we say ‘easy target’?
I still want to see evidence (not conjecture) in support of the existence of gods, I’d still love to know how you get from the general idea of a creator to the specific god of the biblical god, and how you resolve the issue of imperfections in a perfect creation by a perfect being, in that order of importance.
KK mentioned elsewhere recently that he always manages to make himself look like an illiterate bastard in comments. KK, You are not alone my friend!
Make that last paragraph:
“I still want to see evidence (not conjecture) in support of the existence of gods, I’d still love to know how you get from the general idea of a creator to the specific biblical god, and how you resolve the issue of imperfections in a perfect creation by a perfect being, in that order of importance.”
Am I the only one that thinks marcolepolo and hubbo are the same person?
There’s an amazing similarity in styles, isn’t there. I was starting to wonder, myself.
Yep it’s truly amazing what unity there is under the banner of Christ. I’ve never met the fellow, to be honest. I think he possesses a lot more passion in his arguments than I do in mine. My arguments are more from a deductive reasoning and logical standpoint, because I’ve tried the passionate arguments here before and found the responses to be scathing and intolerant.
Thanks KK. I love that, feed them reason and logic. Not their usual diet, obviously, but maybe others at the table will have a bite.
Evidence that god doesn’t exist can be found here:
http://www.godisimaginary.com/index.htm
“It was by His grace that I even came to have this faith, not by my own merit.”
No. It was because other humans told you that a god exists and you believed them.
“evolution isn’t abiogenesis, nor is it the origin of the universe, both things you can’t explain”
and
“You have no empirical proof as to how we as humans came to be and how the universe was created, but you firmly believe it wasn’t by a supreme being- ”
There is proof – for the Big Bang, for how life began, and for evolution. You may not be aware of the proof – certainly your church didn’t give it to you – but the proof exists. The evidence for these things has been found. If you really wanted to know, you could google it.
“But I would say this, go to mount everest, go to the jungles of costa rica, to the grand canyon, look up into the sky on a dark night in the deserts of Arizona, and say to yourself–this is all by chance…. It’s pretty hard to do.”
Atheists don’t travel?
“God reveals himself in nature”
Science reveals itself in nature. Geologists know how to read rocks to find out what’s happened in the distant past. Biologists know how to read DNA to find out who all your relatives are, from your parent to as far as your amoeba ancestor. This is exactly like Hubbo’s argument that if you can’t observe something it must be god; the logical replies exist elsewhere on this blog, under the Screwtape Letters, IIRC, to-date still ignored by all believers.
There is proof – for the Big Bang, for how life began, and for evolution. You may not be aware of the proof – certainly your church didn’t give it to you – but the proof exists. The evidence for these things has been found. If you really wanted to know, you could google it.
I completely agree with the Big Bang theory as to how it happened. That does nothing to disprove God. I just disagree with when it happened. But the Big Bang doesn’t make your point either. Take this from Wikipedia, “Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant.”
As for the proof to how life began, I’m too lazy, so can you just find it for me? And remember, I want proof, not evidence, since that’s what you claim exists.
Ron’s quote – “I’d say that the concept of vicarious redemption (human scapegoating) is quite possibly the most vile and morally reprehensible tenet of all the Christian doctrines. ”
Really – and by what standard do you feel this? Where does this standard come from? science? rocks? chemicals? There has to be an ultimate standard by which to compare everything to.
Ron’s quote-”If someone claimed that killing granny was the only way they could forgive their neighbors for trampling the flowerbed you’d consider them insane.” Same thing here..
There has to be something outside of us who distilled in us these standards. (paraphrase of CS Lewis)
God created the world perfect – no issues whatsover ie no moquito bites, birth defects, disease, whatever… Its when humanity (starting with Eve) went out of the bounds set by God (disobeyed/sinned) that all these things were allowed to take place, yes, by GOD. (Read Genesis) Should He just allow mankind to enjoy perfectness without being perfect? Nope. Then God set into place the sacrificial system by which man could be redeemed, which was only a shadow picture of a better way- The Cross! Hallelujah for the Cross! It gives everyone the chance to be reconciled, back to how things should be. Once you accept that He is Lord of your life, and repent from your past life, then you begin your journey as a child of God, and you won’t be perfect ever—while on earth, until you get to heaven and then you’ll be complete. All the chains of earth shall be loosed and you wil have a new body and be united with the King of Kings. How awesome is that. How could I not be excited about it. How could I not want to share this with others?
) If we had no faith, how could we love Him? Therefore any atheist or agnostic reading this… God doesn’t expect you to love him right now. He understands that backgrounds, friends, circumstances, etc has caused you to not believe. But he doesn’t want it to stay that way, he wants to have a relationship with you that doesn’t flutter about. All the proof I need is the way He blesses me, the way He pursues me, the way he loves me enough to keep after me despite my short comings. There are so many testimonies even better than mine out there. http://www.iamsecond.com/ You cannot look people in the eyes and tell each of them — placebo! brainwashed! ignorant! delusional! – There are false teachers out there yes! there are false religions yes! The Bible talks about them all the time. There is also an enemy – Satan, do you think he just sits on his hands and does nothing to try to lure people away from God. But true believers in the true God are known by their fruit.
We don’t have to religiously do a certain list of rules to be saved, no!! while we are yet sinners, He died for us and gave us hope! No matter where you are in your life, no matter what has happened in the past, Yeshua (Jesus) is right there with open arms, he doesn’t expect you to be perfect, only He is perfect. He just wants you to follow him and believe in him wholeheartedly, thats the thing with faith-(believing in God despite our circumstances or attitudes or what people on blogs tell us
You act as if “theists” are all backwoods ignorant fundamentalists who can’t read. Here are a couple theists you may have heard of, Einstein, Mendel, Isaac Newton, Descartes, Kelvin, and more…
God is a personal God, he isn’t just something out there that snapped his fingers and “BIG BANG!” and then let it all sort itself out while took a 5 billion year nap. He is real – and he loves you- and he wants to have a relationship with you today. The gospel of John is a great place to learn more about Christ. Search your heart.
Not to go against a fellow theist, but Einstein wasn’t a theist by any stretch of the imagination. He has a few quotes that may seem sympathetic that way, but he was at best a deist.
But the rest of your comment I like.
There’s always something that’s niggled at me when talking with theists of any flavour. They all base their need for a god on the premise that there’s some bit of me that will hang around after I’m dead. Every one of them presupposes the existence of the eternal soul. Maybe there’s a published experiment out there that I’ve missed, but when did anyone ever prove the existence of the soul? Human beings are conclusively animals, and no one seems to worry about the eternal fate of their hamburger. I’m a monkey with delusions of grandeur (I know, I know, humans aren’t monkeys, they belong to the great ape family, whatever). I am a biological engine that will one day break down beyond our capacity to repair. What need do I have for a god, if in a hundred years time, I’m nothing more than decomposing meat?
First prove the soul exists, then I’ll listen to your arguments for the validity of your particular deity.
That sounds a little bleak, so let me just be clear. I love life! There’s a multitude of truly amazing and wonderful experiences to be had. I intend to try as many of them as possible. But I don’t fear death, not in the slightest. I will live as full a life as I can, for as long as I am able, then I will utterly cease to be, with no regrets. Why on earth would I need a god?
Damn, that’s a great comment!
Thanks
I’ve been trying to figure out how to put that into words for a while now.
Evidence for the existence of soul begins with the notion that intangible things exist (i.e. emotions, morality, ideas), and the scientifically reasonable conclusion that tangible can’t produce intangible, because production in the natural order can only be after its own kind (taxonomy, genetics, etc. support this).
So if these intangible things exist, where do they come from, since the brain is tangible but these concepts are intangible? That is where the strong evidence for something intangible to produce these concepts comes into focus. And lo and behold, theism has an answer for that too.
So there’s my evidence. Where’s yours to the contrary?
Emotions and ideas are neurological in origin, anything with an advanced enough brain is capable of them. Ravens have ideas, some wonderful experiments done giving them a hard to reach piece of food and some materials and observing them fashioning crude tools to get to it. Dogs have emotions, anyone who has owned one has no doubt about that. Morality is a social construct, advancement as a society requires that we work together, morality is simply the bounds we’ve invented to facilitate that.
Monkeys have been observed to form tribal groups who work together, punish any member who hurts another of the tribe, and perform impressively coordinated raids on other tribes to kill and steal their food. Sounds an awful lot like our society which condemns murderers and rewards soldiers for killing whichever people group is currently the “Them” to our “Us”. Does the monkey moral code require an omnipotent monkey judge to enforce it?
The brush you’ve chosen to paint in the criteria for our intangible soul is far too broad. By your logic there are many species out there who have souls too. Why aren’t you preaching to them too? Surely the god who created the universe died for their souls too, right?
No, actually, you know what? I gave you too much credit. Your “evidence” was essentially “I don’t know how the brain comes up with ideas, therefore it must be a soul”. Which is the same argument that so spectacularly fails when used as “proof” of god. My previous reply stands, but we’ll pretend it was given to someone who actually presented evidence.
I make no claims as to whether or not animals have souls. All dogs go to heaven, right? That’s the age-old question, and I’ll admit I don’t know the answer, and I’ll also admit that on this earth we’ll probably never know.
That said, can you prove the neurological origins of emotions and ideas? Last time I checked a head CT only shows neurons firing, not emotions or ideas. Can you also give me evidence of anything tangible producing something intangible that is outside the scope of what we’re talking about here?
Lastly, under your definition of morality, there can simply be no bounds. If morality is a social construct, and all societies have differences, then morality has different “bounds” within each society. So hypothetically, if my society says it’s legal (and even encouraged) to kill all people named Dave, then if I kill you I ought to get a medal. How would your “social construct morality” hold up against that?
Actually, I think that’s the most accurate thing you have ever said on this site. It is demonstrably obvious that all societies do have a different accepted morality. In Holland, marijuana and prostitution are legal and profitable industries, despite being considered horrifying to the law and the, predominantly Christian, morality of North America. In countries under Sharia law, the rules governing the behavior of women are vastly different, yet encouraged under their morality. How many more examples do you need? Because I could go on for a while here.
Not only is morality variable by society, but it also changes drastically over time. What is morally and legally acceptable now will not be the same in 50 years, or even the same as it was 50 years ago. “Absolute morality” has never, and will never exist.
So hypothetically if my morality says it’s OK to kill your mother, you’re cool with me doing that? You would support my legal defense that it was a perfectly acceptable act based on my morality?
PS I notice you ignored everything about evidence for something tangible producing something intangible. Please speak to that in your next comment.
Speak to it? It is semantic playing that attempts to obscure the issue. It requires no address.
Your personal morality is less important than the morality of the society you inhabit. I see nothing morally wrong with taking my neighbours TV, because its better than mine. However, I know that there are people out there who are bigger and stronger than me who want my TV. In order to enjoy the protection offered by society, in this case the police, I must submit to the morality of that society and not take my neighbours TV.
If you kill my mother then you have gone against society’s morality and are subject to judgment and punishment under its laws regardless of your own personal morality. Therefore, morality is and MUST be a societal construct if it is to have any value. The alternative is anarchy.
“So hypothetically if my morality says it’s OK to kill your mother, you’re cool with me doing that?”
How about marriage by rape? Seeing as how Christian morals are absolute and unchanging, and that it was considered a moral action by christian men (I should imagine most women would have been less happy about it) until surprisingly recently, it must still be moral to Christians, yes?
No my evidence is tangible doesn’t produce intangible, and so if there’s something intangible to produce intangible, is there any evidence for such a thing to exist? Theism has something, and that something was evident in writings that pre-date your neurological science.
Your “evidence” is essentially “It’s the brain. No evidence needed. Deal with it. Your argument is no good.” Forgive me, but your evidence lacks any actual facts. If all you can is attack my position, it shows only one of us has an actual leg to stand on, and it isn’t you.
Haha, not even close my man. My answer is, and has always been… We don’t know, yet.
There are brilliant men and women out there, dedicated to neuroscience who will spend countless hours and millions of dollars, if necessary, to find those answers.
Unfortunately, I am not one of them, my talent lie more in engineering than biology. But you know what? When someone has the answer, I will trust it. Because I know that thanks to the scientific method, that answer will be subjected to extensive scrutiny by every person who works in that field. It will be tested and retested and peer-reviewed and modified until it finally passes muster in the scientific community, and then gets granted the exclusive title of scientific Theory.
Because that’s what brought us to where we are now. “Science, it works bitches!”
So your entire worldview is based on “We don’t know…yet.”
Wow, and you think theists are crazy?
I challenge anyone on here to look at your answer to the question of “we don’t know…yet” and my answer of “look at the support from the sciences of taxonomy and genetics to see that something tangible can’t produce something intangible, ergo something intangible pre-exists to produce the intangible” and say that your answer is better, and give me some good arguments in defense of Dave’s position. Note that I say IN DEFENSE OF DAVE’S POSITION, and not attacking mine.
This is not obscuring the issue. This is bringing it into full light. The only thing attempting to obscure it is your dodging the question of evidence to support your statement. That, sir, is the real offense here.
There was a time when the question was “where does lightning come from?” Some people answered Zeus and left it at that. Some people said “I don’t know…yet” and went on to discover the meteorological sciences.
There was a time when the question was “where does the earth fit into the universe?” Some poeple answered god put it at the center and left it at that. Some people said “I don’t know…yet” and went on to discover astronomy.
There was a time when the question was “where did people come from?” Some people answered god and left it at that. Some people said “I don’t know…yet” and went on the discover evolution.
Now the question is “where do ideas come from”. You say, what, the soul? I say “I don’t know…yet”. My answer will come, in time, when we at last understand. And until then, it helps no one to fill in the blank with pixies or souls or (insert a god here).
And on and on, ad nauseum. Noticing the pattern? Religion leads to stagnation and ignorance. Science leads to advancement and knowledge. I know which I prefer.
But I’m offering scientific evidence in support of my position, not God. All I’m saying is that there’s evidence that something intangible such as the soul exists; I’m not even saying God created it. That’s where you assume, which just makes an…well, you know the cliche. I’d rather not use profanity.
Where’s your evidence to support “we don’t know…yet”? And you can’t use history, because history’s method of conclusion is different than science. Try again, and this time without attacking a straw man.
NO you are bloody well not! You have never once, in all the time you have been here, offered any peer-reviewed accepted scientific evidence for ANYTHING. Rambling statement about tangibility =/= evidence. My brain creates ideas, I don’t know how, but it is not a failing to admit I don’t know. It is only a failing if you willingly choose to remain ignorant.
How can I offer evidence for ongoing research in a field I don’t specialize in? For every previous question, the answer to “I don’t know…yet” is a matter of historic and scientific record. And when this one is solved, its answer will be added to libraries everywhere. If I attempt to answer now, I will be as bad as any theist, inserting my own damn fool ideas where they don’t belong.
My statement that things reproduce after their own kind is rooted in taxonomy and genetics. Tell me how that’s wrong. I don’t need peer-reviewed articles to explain scientific fields that are widely accepted. I’m simply asking for your own evidence to show me something, ANYTHING that is tangible and produces something intangible that is not already at play here.
This “No! You’re wrong! We don’t know! That is the only right answer!” without any deductive logic shows you are not really listening to the argument with reason. You are allowing your own biases to circumvent the evidence at hand, and just flat-out shoot it down without any support for doing so.
I’ve tried to maintain some civility in discussing this with you, sir, but it is clear to me that you are so hard-hearted that even when the evidence you ask for is presented, you are still unwilling to even consider it, let alone concede it. Unfortunately, it is at that point that I have to bow out of the discussion and hope that you find out another way, because to allow you to continually stray off topic and just blurt out answers with no support is futility.
The funniest part of the whole thing is that you truly believe that. I know I’m never gonna convince you of anything, but it is so very fun to see what rubbish you are gonna come up with next. Thanks for stopping by, you certainly livened up my boring afternoon.
I concentrated on this part because it was the part of the discussion that made a positive claim. I see you’ve retreated from that because you actually don’t have the evidence you initially claimed to have. Score one for theistic logic and reason!
You want evidence? I want an all-expense paid trip to Australia for a week. You don’t get to attack my position until you’ve shown evidence to support your own. Not that it will stop you, but in a purely logical sense, you have to put the first foot forward. Quid pro quo, Mr. Daz.
If you believe that an honest self-correction is the same thing as a retreat, what does that say about your willingness to self-correct?
My own position is that there is no evidence to support the existence of god(s). If you want me to concede that such beings do or could exist, then you need to furnish evidence in support of your claim. I believe it might be time for Russell’s teapot to make yet another appearance…
But see, therein lies the fallacy of an atheistic position. What you’re saying is “I have no evidence to support my worldview, but if I can attack any evidence that you offer, then my worldview is right.” Your whole position is contradictory to the one argument you made over and over to marcolepolo and which I made over and over to you: Finding problems with one theory or hypothesis does not prove another one right.
If atheism is true, then it should be able to stand alone without having to attack other theories. Until you can show me the positive arguments for atheism, you have no right to attack any of my positive arguments for theism. The problem for you is, there ARE no positive arguments for atheism, so even if you could do the impossible task of deconstructing theism to show that it is patently false, there are still no good grounds for believing that atheism is true based on the above bolded argument that you made yourself.
Again you avoid the issue. I ask what evidence you have in support of the existence of gods – you attack my worldview instead of defending your own. I am not here to discuss scientific theories, I am here to discuss the existence of gods. Please provide evidence for such existence, or admit that you have none.
I’m not avoiding the issue. I’m saying, show me the evidence in support of your position and I’ll show you mine. Since you started the asking, you start the offering too. Failure to offer your own support leads to the conclusion you have none. I’ll present mine once you’ve presented yours. Quid pro quo.
But then which society is right if two sides are on opposite sides of the coin? Hypothetically, if my society’s morality says kill all of your people and your society’s morality says that’s wrong, then how do we know what’s right? Under your definition of morality, they’re BOTH right, even though they are exact contradictory opinions. So how do we know what morality is in that instance?
Where’s your evidence to support this claim?
Your Christian morality is, in some places, directly at odds with the Muslim morality. And yet you both maintain that your morality is the absolute, being handed done from on high by your deity. You both have ancient texts that you insist directly prove the validity of your god and his ultimate morality. And there was a time when the Christians and the Muslims waged all-out war on each other over who had it right.
Hell, there are even sects within the broad definition of Christianity who interpret the same book differently, and refuse to agree on the exact same definition of morality.
Morality exists only at a specific time for a specific society. It changes constantly, it evolves to suit the times and people who inhabit it. There is no RIGHT morality. It is an excellent example of evolution in action. What works best for a specific people group at a given time in their development is what their morality will become.
In answer to your hypothetical, the right morality is the one that wins out in the end. Your society’s morality says you must destroy my society. Then my society’s morality will evolve to include killing enough of yours to ensure my own survival, even if that means wiping you out. If my society gains the upper hand, then its likely that your society’s morality will change to one that attempts coexistence to preserve itself. And it will be up to my society to decide if our morality includes genocide or not. There are many examples throughout history of this particular choice going both ways.
There are no absolutes in there, everyone has a flexible morality when it comes down to it. THOU SHALT NOT KILL easily becomes Do Not Kill Unless Its In Self Defense.
Wow, so you’re saying that you support genocide, as long as enough people agree? I assume that means you support the war on terrorism, the search for WMDs, the invasion of Iraq, the oppression of Hutus on the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Holocaust? Enough people agreed, and by your definition of morality the societies that prevail are the ones that are right. So all of those people are and/or were right morally.
By the way, use a correct translation if you’re going to quote the Bible. The literal translation of the Hebrew is “You shall not MURDER,” not “You shall not kill.” I’ve beat this horse to death enough times I think.
Actually, I have two bibles here in front of me, KJV and NIV. Admittedly they are both about 20 years old, dating back to my youth when I actually believed the nonsense my parents drilled into my head about god. One says “you, the other says “thou”, but they both clearly say “kill”.
I like the attempted diversion by the way. It was your hypothetical, I just played it out to its logical conclusion. Nowhere did I suggest I supported genocide.
Mr Hubbo, marcolepolo. Let’s simplify this:
You have come onto an obviously atheistic comments board and implied that we are wrong in our assertion that there is no god. Fine. Prove it.
All else is window-dressing and distraction.
Using your above statement, you have asserted that there is no God. Prove that first, and then we’ll go onto our own position.
See my comment regarding Russel’s teapot. You are asserting the existence of something. Stop obfuscating and show your evidence.
No I’m not asserting the existence of something. I’m arguing against your assertion. You are the one making a claim.
To your Russell’s teapot: Finding problems with one theory or hypothesis does not prove another one right.
Now show me evidence IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM. We cannot move on to any of my or marcolepolo’s claims until we have finished with yours.
“No I’m not asserting the existence of something. I’m arguing against your assertion. You are the one making a claim.”
You are asserting the existence of a god.
“Finding problems with one theory or hypothesis does not prove another one right.”
I’m not saying there’s any problem with your theory that god(s) exist. I’m merely asking to see your evidence for that existence.
“Now show me evidence IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM”
See (and understand) Russel’s teapot, or Carl Sagan’s dragon. My claim is merely that there is no evidence in favour of your claim.
Still obfuscating. Show your evidence.
See (and understand) Russel’s teapot, or Carl Sagan’s dragon. My claim is merely that there is no evidence in favour of your claim.
That is not in support of your claim. That is in attack of the supernaturalist worldview. Are you willing to renounce your atheism and call yourself an agnostic based on your claim of “not enough information”? Because your claim is one of agnosticism.
I’m not in the business of showing evidence when none has been shown to me first. I’m not saying I don’t have evidence; I just can’t give evidence until we’re on a level playing field, which means you show me your evidence first, and then I show you mine. Until you show me your evidence, I will not be showing you mine.
If you are willing to admit “I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic,” we may be able to go a different route. Until then, evidentiary ball is in your court.
I am making no claim except that I’ve seen no evidence (not ‘not enough information’, but no evidence) for the existence of gods. You are making the claim that there is a god.
Still obfuscating. Show your evidence.
I’m not making a claim to the existence of God yet. Stop assuming.
So are you saying that there is no evidence, or just that you haven’t seen it?
Stop talking about how we might phrase the questions, or whether you consider me atheist or agnostic. The plain fact is that I am willing to look at any evidence you present for the existence of gods, and have said so many times. Surely if that evidence was good enough to convince you, it’s good enough to show to me.
Haven’t seen it. Please show it. I strongly suspect, to the point of basing my worldview on its lack, that there is none, but if you have some, feel free to present it. That’s what I’ve been asking for for two or three days on this thread.
Perhaps I will show it, if you will cop to agnosticism because you “don’t have enough information,” which is what I said before.
Agnosticism says that there may be a god, but that it’s unprovable. Based on the lack of any evidence, I say that the very concept of godhood is fiction. Present me with trustworthy evidence (not conjecture or logic-games), and I’ll change that stance.
But don’t you see? Your very claim in that last statement means that we have to be on you still. Because you said “Based on the lack of any evidence, I say that the very concept of godhood is fiction,” we have to tackle that first before we can move on to anything I would say. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We’re moving slowly, and I apologize for that, but we have to use deductive reasoning to make sure that our arguments make sense logically. We are still missing the middle portion of your deductive argument. Here’s what we have so far:
1. I have seen no evidence for God’s existence.
2. ???
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
Or, we could go this way:
1. I have seen no evidence for God’s existence.
2. This does not mean there isn’t evidence, just that I haven’t seen it.
3. Therefore, God may in fact exist, I just need more evidence.
The first way makes you an atheist, but we have to fill in the blank with the “how I know there is absolutely no evidence for God’s existence” part, which is what you have to demonstrate or prove. The second way makes you an agnostic, and we have covered all the bases to arrive at that conclusion.
So I’ll let you make the choice as to which path you want to take, and then we can go from there.
Oops, replied in the wrong thread. See above.
But again, taking one position you make a claim that requires defense and evidence, and in the other you don’t. We need to clarify your position first before we can move on to mine.
It’s fine to me if you take the atheistic stance and don’t complete logical step #2, so long as you admit that your argument is incomplete and lacking evidentiary support. Then we’re at least beginning on the assumption that from a deductively logical standpoint my argument is on firmer footing because I’m fulfilling the step #2 requirement of evidence, even if you don’t agree with that evidence.
But I’m just not willing to go forward with my arguments and let you sit on the fence. I need clarity FROM you before I can provide my own clarity FOR you. I’m not trying to be petty or deceiving; I’m just trying to be fair and start from a reasonable position.
Obfuscating again. I don’t care what starting assumption you assign me in your thoughts or if you think of me as an atheist, an agnostic, or as a pink inflatable banana; a rose by any other name etc. Either you can show evidence or you cant.
But don’t you see what’s going on here? You made the initial claim, then when I asked you to clarify, you refuse to do so but then ask me to do the same? You’re asking for the quo before you give the quid.
You need to assign YOURSELF a position before we can go on to mine. I’m not obfuscating; I’m trying to bring it to light so we can move forward. You’re stalling.
A valiant effort Daz. But he can’t provide what he does not have. So the only recourse left is obfuscation. Might as well stop asking, everyone of us, Hubbo included (whether he will admit it to himself or not), knows he’s got nothing. It would have been posted a long time ago otherwise.
My position, regardless of what labels you wish to put on me, is that I want to see your evidence for the existence of gods. Your obvious unwillingness to cut to the chase and show that evidence is tedious. Show or go.
Dave:
It do look that way, don’t it. Oddly enough, he’s not said anything that I haven’t seen a hundred times before, either. Though he dresses it in more learned-sounding words than most, the plot hasn’t deviated a jot.
My unwillingness to cut to the chase has to do with my strong desire to keep the playing field level. You can’t have it both ways, asking for my claims and supporting evidence but unwilling to show your own. I just won’t do it. Call me all the names in the book that you want, but one thing you can’t call me is unfair.
I have evidence, though it’s probably not a whole lot new from what you’ve heard before. But we can’t walk through those logic doors until we bust these ones down. You’re the one holding the cards here, Daz. Just clarify your position and I’ll open the floodgates. It’s a very simple, tiny request that I’m asking in exchange for all of this. Can’t you even grant me that?
My Hubbo, you obviously have no intention of telling us what convinced you that your god exists, because you know damn well that your belief isn’t evidence-based. You ‘just know’. You believe it because you believe it, and are not intellectually honest enough to admit the fact.
I’m not even asking you to justify your much more specific belief in the Christian god, just the existence of a god or gods in general, and you can’t even manage that.
Fuck off and go bore someone else. I’m done.
Sorry folks, I very seldom swear on comment-boards, but Mr Hubbo’s been insulting my intelligence for the last five hours. It kinda slipped out.
S’alright Daz. Gets to all of us sometimes.
Hubbo, you came to us. This is an ATHIEST website. All you need to know of our position is in the title. Atheism – the absence of belief that any deities exist. That’s it, it requires no evidence because it is making no assertions.
You have a belief, whatever it is, and you would like to share it. Give us your evidence, now, without anymore pointless demands or convolutions. Or stop talking.
Last chance, because after this, I and Daz, and doubtless others, will no longer be listening.
And I cannot believe I misspelled atheist. Damn do I feel stoopid!
gee you guys can talk. I go away for one day and a whole book has been written. Though looking at it not much ground has been covered.
I was just curious though but surely the lack of evidence is all the evidence an atheist would need right now to posit a pretty strong hypothesis that there is no god(s). And this weird obsession with ‘a level playing field’ is confusing me too. If god existed and you had proof then it wouldn’t matter how unlevel any playing field was because, as rationalists/atheists/materialists/scientists we would be obligated to view your evidence and once we had tested it (as good scientist type people do) either accept it or throw it out meaning you had ‘won’.I know personally, as a scientist, I would be quite happy to accept the existence of god(s) should the tested evidence hold up. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t think he/she/it was an arsehole, just exist.
Also an agnostic is that it cant be proven, and never can be proven that god does or doesnt exist. I feel quite comfortable in assuming that Dave and Daz, like myself, believe it is well within our abilities to find an answer…just maybe not yet with the current data (or complete lack of positive data). Making us all Atheists. I don’t go around assuming purple and green elephants exist until proven otherwise and it seems strange to assume that god exists until proven otherwise too.
Not sure if that made sense. It’s late on a friday and Im waiting to go home from work.
There is an excellent book on the history of the scientific search for evidence of the soul. Spook, by Mary Roach.
Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife
The results are in: There is no evidence whatsoever for souls, spirits or ghosts.
It’s worth reading if you like skepticism and humor. (Why else would you be reading KK?) Mary Roach is very funny.
You might enjoy her Stiff, about death, and Bonk, about sex.
The comments section of this blog is getting pretty boring. I may decide to just read KK’s articles and skip the comments.
I agree with Mary Roach being funny. I read Bonk a study of sex and found it hilarious. I’ll have to get that one.
You guys call yourself atheists and rational and logical, you also claim that there isn’t enough evidence for a god figure. Well at one point there wasn’t enough evidence for germs, for a round earth, for cancer cells, so I guess if you lived during that time, you’d say to someone who believed there were germs (with or without evidence), “You are a fool, there’s not enough evidence for the existence of germs, I am anti-germ, NO GERMS! and I’m sticking to it!”
Hubbo’s point is that you are just like people who claim there is a God. You have a position but can’t give enough evidence to prove it. You automatically assume there is no God (thus being called an atheist), even though nothing has been found to disprove God. So you guys need to just own up and call yourselves agnostic as hubbo has said, or declare that your own position is fatally flawed. – You keep telling us to prove our position, when you can’t even prove yours. You just say there isn’t enough evidence. you say that the answer is coming… well why assume that you are right without the evidence?
I applaud sabepashubbo because he has some real tenacity, more than I, and about me being compared to him- well that is an honor, because I feel he’s much more intelligent and well versed than I. You are the man Hubbo.
This position is also fatally flawed – You’re claim that “there is no Truth” …”everything else is make-believe” is an absolute claim of your own so called Truth. Thus you are completely contradicting yourself.
People, It seems clear to me that you’ve heard what Christians and Theologians had to say about God, and you are stuck in your own position no matter what comes at you. Even if we give you some proof, you’d say its not enough.. therefore there is no winning. I would just say this, God still loves you and wants to have a personal relationship with you. No other so called “god” is a personal God. My heavenly father loves you in a way you can’t imagine. He’s so merciful he’s willing to forgive you for any evil deeds you’ve done (and we’ve all done ‘em). I promise that if you give God a real chance, and seek His face— Not become a religionist who has a habit of going to church, and does good works out of self-pride—but to truly seek out God. He will come to you in a way you couldn’t imagine, and he can give you joy that can have you singing while in prison, forgiving others even when they are beating you to death, and loving your enemies even though it makes no sense in the human mind. Christ died for each one of you. Seek Him and He will not fail you.
Been there, done that. Sang the hymns, said the prayers, traveled to the far corners of the earth to bring religion to the “lost”. Truly believed my own bullshit.
Then I went to university, studied the world, and finally opened my eyes and saw the lies and fear-mongering for what it was. I still kinda wish I could go back to those places I did missions trips and apologize to the people I lied to.
One of my favourite characters in Bible was ol’ Doubting Thomas. Only sensible one in that fairy tale. Wouldn’t believe til he saw the evidence with his own two eyes. A bit of fiction, but still a good lesson for us to take in. No proof, no belief.
To quote you “Even if we give you some proof, you’d say its not enough.” You admit to offering no proof.
I have this box with a dragon in it, even if I offered to prove it, you wouldn’t believe me, therefore I’m not showing you my dragon. But you are still very wrong and will suffer eternally for not believing in my dragon.
Sound silly? Because that’s the position you just took about god. Meh, still better than Hubbo, your emotional appeal is far easier to understand than his convoluted knot of bad logic.
Sorry, I’m done. Dropping the subject.
I just keep hoping that somehow we can convince one of these people to see reason, then maybe I’ll have something I can use to show my parents the truth. Until then, it continues as it has since I renounced their religion, and believe me that’s not fun.
Polo and Hubbo, Sigh! You continue to speak of the equality of faith and science and to claim an equivalence of evidence because we can’t yet find evidence for our beginning. But the truth is, gentlemen we have found evidence. Vast amounts of evidence to support evolution and some type of big bang. Uncounted numbers of fossils in unmixed layers through increasingly more ancient rocks indicating absolutely the extinction of certain animals and their replacement by others. There are now thousands of transitional fossils found. In one sense, they are all transitional. We can trace development of certain animals very well, whales, dolphins and other marine animals especially. Fossil formation favors marine animals. We also have an unbelievable amount of genetic correlation between species that are next to each other on evolutionary branches. We can trace how closely animals and plants are related just by comparing their genomes. There is an orderly progression evident to any who really want to know the truth. We see micro evolution every day in bacteria and well studied animals. We have put bacteria in isolation for 20 years and watched them grow multistep biochemical pathways that they didn’t have before. This evidence is overwhelming. Only by completely ignoring the mountain of data can you ever suppose that this isn’t true and that the earth is only 6000 years old. That is a child’s explanation of the world.
Then you use these logical convolutions to avoid the big questions in your own mind. Shit like this is hilarious,
“KKBundy :
There is no Truth. The truth, with a small “t”, is in science. Everything else is make-believe.”
This position is also fatally flawed – You’re claim that “there is no Truth” …”everything else is make-believe” is an absolute claim of your own so called Truth. Thus you are completely contradicting yourself.
By the blackened bowels of Christ, do you think that really means anything? You continue to make only variations on the theme a positive claim of Truth or God or Morality — all with capitals — and equate that claim as equal with our claim there are none. You make an incredibly complicated claim, a Rube Goldberg explanation for the world based in sorcery, and we reply with a much simpler one based in science, yet you demand they be taken as equals. Equals?? WTF?? It’s like comparing a two-year-old’s finger painting to the Mona Lisa! It might be cute on the fridge but you’re unlike to hang it in a museum.
This is all horseshit! Your vapid chanting about how magic is what make it all tick simply can’t stand up to the well understood processes that make computers work or diseases evolve resistances to antibiotics. You can preach spells and spirit appeasement all you want but it will never hold up to actual science.
As I see it, many these arguments are based on complexity not being able to form on its own. You continually cream that the universe could never have just formed on its own. Something must have made it. Complexity demands requires further complexity. Why do you think this is true and where could it end? Where is your proof that this basic concept of your dogma is even accurate. This is your constant refrain, yet why do you refuse to consider the same question regarding your god. He can always be but the universe can’t. He ( an infinitely more complex item) doesn’t require a creator but the universe (complexity involving interaction of simple rules) does. You solve complexity by postulating without the slightest proof, infinitely more complex beings.
You substitute supposition for proof and demand we take it.
Shit no!
Gentlemen, you don’t stand on the shoulders of giants, you live off them. Like parasites, you use the work of those people who are your mental superiors and then claim that the credit for their success is really yours because you have rung your prayer bells and shaken your sacred sticks and have chanted to a giant sky fairy. Only this has appeased him from killing us all.
You demand that because of our lack of complete understanding of the beginnings of the universe that we must count the Christian God as just as likely as any other possibility. This is nonsense. I can look back at the long history of science and proudly point to it’s accomplishments, the times when it has pulled the superstitious mass of humanity out from the mire. I dare you to look at your history and prove the same. What has religion done to equal such a legacy? You haven’t pulled us from the mire; you are the mire.
I’ll tell you what. You just continue to preach your magic and spirit theory of everything and leach off those who really move the world forward. Enjoy the ride knowing that it is those with a lack of faith that allow you live as you do, to sponge off of your betters is all you are able.
From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.
Sound familiar?
None of those things; and definitely not from OT god whose moral code follows the ‘might makes right’ maxim of “do as I say, not as I do.” And why does there have to be an ultimate standard?
Ron’s quote-”If someone claimed that killing granny was the only way they could forgive their neighbors for trampling the flowerbed you’d consider them insane.” Same thing here..
There has to be something outside of us who distilled in us these standards. (paraphrase of CS Lewis)
Why does there have to be something outside of us? Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps objective standards of right and wrong can be deduced through logic and reason?
God created the world perfect – no issues whatsover ie no moquito bites, birth defects, disease, whatever… Its when humanity (starting with Eve) went out of the bounds set by God (disobeyed/sinned) that all these things were allowed to take place, yes, by GOD. (Read Genesis) Should He just allow mankind to enjoy perfectness without being perfect? [...]
How could Adam and Eve have known that disobedience is a sin if the ability to discern right from wrong manifest itself only after partaking of the forbidden fruit? Is that really the best plan your supposedly infinitely wise and loving god could come up with?
According to Christians, we are all God’s children. So how do parents normally act?
Well…
Responsible parents assess their children’s capabilities and focus on creating a safe environment. They actively monitor their children’s activities and take action before things get out of control. Unsafe items which might appeal to a youngster are placed out of reach or locked away. During extended absences, guardianship is entrusted to caregivers who value and support those goals.
Loving parents provide guidance, teach self-discipline, acknowledge honest efforts, praise achievements, and offer encouragement. They have reasonable expectations, set appropriate rules and guidelines, communicate them clearly, and apply them with fairness and consistency. Physical punishment is reserved for extreme misbehavior, and administered only as a last resort once all other alternatives have been exhausted.
With that in mind, how does God stack up as a parent?
Based on the creation story, he acts like a father who tosses his toddlers a pack of cigarettes, warns them not to smoke and sends in a smooth-talking tobacco lobbyist to test their resolve. After discovering his kids were deceived into lighting up, he throws a tantrum, then kicks his kids, pets and houseplants out into the street as punishment. And it doesn’t end there — he curses ALL their descendants to a life of torment and misery as well.
In short, your god comes across as a cruel and inept parent.
I am prepared to present evidence in support of my beliefs. Daz, your stubbornness in refusing to clarify your position shows me two things: 1) A realization of what your position actually is–an atheist with no good grounds for being so, and 2) You are going to show the exact same stubbornness when it comes to my evidence, and so won’t really listen at all.
That said, the issue goes beyond who you are, so in spite of your unwillingness to play fair, I will begin my evidence in my next post. What I need from all of you to present the evidence is an agreement to the groundrules for the discussion. Any disagreement or deviation from these and the discussion is over. Fair enough?
1. The only viewpoint to be discussed in this evidence is supernaturalism vs. naturalism. We are not here to discuss “which God,” merely the existence of something supernatural.
2. Any responses to my evidence are to deconstruct what I have presented, not offer your own opinions as to how it really is (i.e. objections to the existence of soul are OK, stating I’m wrong because ideas come from the brain is not OK because it’s interjecting your own opinion).
3. Any objections should be either raised questions to which I can respond or an argument in response SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND/OR EVIDENCE. No “this is hogwash” or “that’s just not true” without anything behind it.
Those are my terms, ladies and gentlemen. If we can stick to those, we can have a meaningful discussion and I can feel comfortable in presenting my evidence. Again, fair enough?
Stop prevaricating. Either you have evidence or you don’t have evidence. Either you will show it or you won’t. I don’t intend to spend another five hours trying to get you to do so. Show it or shut up. I don’t intend to reply to you again until you do.
Not until you at least concede something. I’m not about to let you have free reign on my opinion alone. Agree, and you get the kitchen sink.
Very well Hubbo. I said quite clearly that this was your last chance. Instead you decided to make unreasonable demands yet again. Opportunity offered, and rejected.
Not my site or I’d be asking you to leave. You clearly have nothing to offer this discussion, so I see no further reason to speak with you.
Good day sabepashubbo, I sincerely hope you see the truth one day, and don’t waste your whole life with this foolish bronze age superstition.
You’re right. I’m through trying this way. I’m willing to present all of my evidence, but on my terms. If anyone actually wants to hear it and have a reasonable dialogue, I will post it on my blog and will post and respond to comments that follow my terms above.
http://sabepashubbo.wordpress.com
There are no ground rules for providing evidence. You either present it or you don’t.
If I told you I drive a Porsche and you said prove it, all I have to do is show up at your door driving a Porsche to demonstrate my claim was true. While you could conceivably argue that I’m not the registered owner, the physical existence of the vehicle in my possession would be undeniable.
Right, but what’s going on here is I’m asking you to show me that you drive a Porsche, and you’re saying “I don’t have to show you anything. Show me you drive a Camaro.” That’s not how the game is played. If you say you drive a Porsche, show me you drive a Porsche, then I’ll show you my Camaro. If you won’t show me you drive a Porsche, but still want to see my Camaro, you see it on my terms.
Ergo, go read my blog and comment away…on my terms.
Ron, you have to remember that Mr Hubbo is dishonest, and will twist anything you say rather than admit he has nothing to offer. He will accuse you of hypocrisy whilst committing it himself.
The game ain’t worth the candle, my friend. Best not to play.
Daz,
Wrong. Read my blog. Plenty of offerings for the table. What is missing is what you yourself are offering, which is a bunch of backtracks and unsupported claims, followed by attacks, distractions and straw man arguments, followed by ad hominem statements like calling me dishonest.
As a debater, sir, you break all the rules. Laugh all you want, but your position is a most tenuous one, and anyone with half a brain can read back through all we’ve done and see that.
I haven’t made any statements regarding the existence of gods, other than to request evidence in support of those claims. The onus of proof always lies with the person making the positive claim, not the other way around.
And I think you are being hypocritical, because the opening statement on your blog refers to “God” (with a capital “G”) and in point four you refer to the Bible, which effectively betrays your intent and violates your own first condition to entering into the debate:
“The only viewpoint to be discussed in this evidence is supernaturalism vs. naturalism. We are not here to discuss “which God,” merely the existence of something supernatural.”
I’m not making a claim. I’m saying I have evidence to support my position. There is no positive claim as to proof, which again you fail to see. Your onus is the same as mine: evidence to support your worldview. But again, you haven’t said anything. The only claiming anything from your side is Daz, and he won’t commit to any type of worldview at all. Seems fishy to me that someone offered me a look at a Porsche and when I asked to see it, that offer was rescinded. Tells me there might not be a Porsche after all.
The arguments stand without defining “which God” or even using the Bible. When I get to my fourth point, you’ll see that for yourself. And I think my point #1 speaks for itself. Until then, horse before cart, my friend.
Seems even fishier to me that I have multiple people claiming to have access to the Porsche, and yet no one can produce it. Even more suspicious that this Porsche is non-existent. And yet my Camaro’s not only in plain view, but I’ve even shown you the interior and let you start the ignition. Now who’s playing games?
Once again with the twisting people’s words! You know full well that, to use Ron’s metaphor, you are the one failing to show the Porsche, and you know full well that that’s what Ron meant.
A Porsche Named God. Hmmm… good title.
I’ve copped to the Camaro. Ron told me he drove a Porsche. See above: “If I told you I drive a Porsche…”
Let’s not mince words. The point speaks for itself. You have not shown a single thing in support of your position, Daz, so butt out until you’re willing to either do so or make a reasoned argument against mine.
Oddly, I inserted my arguments against yours into the post where I pasted from your blog, but instead of answering my objections you chose to pretend I’d broken some arbitrary set of rules.
I’ll sum up my position re your ‘evidence’, here:
I see no evidence, merely conjecture and loose thinking.
Camaro’s not only in plain view, but I’ve even shown you the interior and let you start the ignition. Now who’s playing games?
In actuality, all you did was provide us with a philosophical treatise of why you think you should own a Camaro. (Cars exist, cars are designed, there are traffic laws, you’ve experienced Fahrvergnügen)
But where is the tangible evidence to support your claims?
Wahay! Finally we see Mr Hubbo’s ‘evidence’:
1) Cosmological argument – The universe has a Cause, and that Cause is uncaused and supernatural in origin
Now, I’m not a physicist but I seem to have read somewhere that the law of cause and effect breaks down at a singularity, of which the big bang is an example. In other words there doesn’t have to be a cause, no matter how nonsensical that might seem to our everyday common sense. Forget the physics, though. How did you get from ’cause’ to ‘intelligent creator’? Helluva jump there, Sparky!
2) Teleological argument – The overwhelming evidence of design and order to the universe implies a Designer
What evidence of design? All you seem to be saying here is ‘It looks complicated — must be designed.
3) Moral argument – objective moral values exist, and the only way we can know what is morally right and morally wrong is with an objective standard for these values, which can only be found supernaturally
Morals are not absolute and unchanging. Or do you still uphold marriage by rape, slavery and conversion at sword-point as christian values?
4) Intangibility argument – intangible things, such as ideas, emotions, etc., exist, and since the natural order shows that things must reproduce after their own kind, these intangible concepts must proceed from something intangible. This something intangible is akin to what the Bible refers to as “soul”
‘I can’t see it, feel it or taste it, and I don’t understand it. Therefore it must be supernatural.’
Bravo! I’m sure the Nobel committee will be in touch soon.
Didn’t follow the terms (i.e. unsupported arguments, inserting your own opinions, went to a “which God” attack), therefore, no response to your statements.
Try again. I’d be happy to edit your comments on my own blog for the reasonable content and respond. See what I’ve done with Shamelessly Atheist’s comment. All the good stuff is still there, trust me.
But I’m not about to be baited, thanks.
Ya see, here’s the thing about computers and the WWW. The whole thing is based around the idea that all documents are viewer-editable, and we all have the ability to copy and paste to wherever the hell we like.
You started this here, and you don’t get to pick up the ball and run home just ’cause you don’t like the rules.
Absolutely I do. I stated the rules for the discussion. The discussion continues when the rules are abided by. If you don’t abide by the rules, you don’t get to be a part of the discussion, no matter where it takes place. If you don’t agree to the rules, the discussion never starts. That’s how it goes.
I’ll gladly debate on this blog if you adhere to the rules of the discussion. Otherwise I have no reason to feel inclined to respond to you. Ball’s in your court. You choose the direction this goes, either with courtesy and fair play or with vitriol and the door slams shut.
Dude, you said you had posted evidence on your blog, yet had posted nothing but half thought-out conjecture and childish philosophising. I’m perfectly happy to leave it at that. It’s there for all who took part to gaze upon in amusement.
And that just shows your stubbornness and unwillingness to listen and engage in discussion objectively. This will always be a big fault of yours until your ready to close your mouth (figuratively) and open your ears.
Case in point: notice how I asked a simple question about how to explain the unexplainable in the blog on Screwtape Letters, and how quickly people turned it into me pushing God of the gaps. There’s a serious lack of objectivity and evidence here, and I’m sure it’s clear to any outside readers which way it’s headed.
Kind of OT, but this is a subject I feel strongly about. I raise it here because Mr Hubbo has invited readers here to comment on his blog rather than here.
Be warned. He takes it upon himself to edit people’s comments. Not ‘delete’ or ‘disallow’, both of which I could agree with under some circumstances, but ‘edit’. Bits that he doesn’t think are pertinent or within his prescribed rules of debate get deleted out of the post. Personally I find this a dishonest, abhorrent and despicable practice; the very antithesis of free speech. I also feel that anyone capable of entertaining the idea of doing so is probably only a step away from rationalising the actual alteration of commenters’ words.
Mr Hubbo. Before, I thought you were just a slightly wordy, slightly misinformed man. Now I find that you’re a total wanker. Please do not bother replying. I want nothing more to do with you.
I have to agree with Daz, Mr. Hubbo. Your demands that everyone stick within your very narrow set of rules, a set of rules where you assume your victory is assured, is preposterous. As long as everyone views everything using your incredibly warped and twisted logic they will see things as you do. While it may be true that everyone who shoves their head up there ass as far as a young earth creationist does may see things your way, it is unreasonable to demand such a conession. We are unwilling tomrectally injure ourselves in such A manner, and you are unable to see reality. Therefore, this argument has become useless.
As Daz says, you have proven yourself a wanker. Please take your superstition back to your own site where it can ferment peacefully in its airless environment. Your irrational vomit is stinking up our play area. Begone ye. Get thee hence!
I don’t get why people still use the argument from design. 99.999999999% of the universe is uninhabitable, and even a good whack of our planet is not suitable for human life. That’s a pretty poor “design”.
To quote one of my own old posts, in the form of questions for god (I wasn’t being 100% serious):
Not to mention that most of the universe is not only uninhabitable, but unreachable. I wouldn’t let that designer build me a garden shed, let alone an entire space-time continuum.
I cannot believe all that time was wasted. I knew I was on to something when I said I came on here for light hearted banter with like minded people.
I think Mr Hubbo has wasted enough time here for us all to have read A nice Carl Sagan book. I know what I’d rather be doing.
I couldn’t agree more Paul. I still hesitate to ban him but… But…
I have to say Mr. hubbo, that as much as I disagreed with what you said, I never once even considered editing your comments on this site. The fact that you seem to do this on a regular basis to narrow the scope of the argument disgusts me. This is typical fundamentalism. If people restrict your freedom, it a terrible violation of your rights. If you restrict others freedoms you’re just following the dictates of your god. But I understand why you did it. In the free market place of ideas only the best will rise to the surface. Those that are lesser always require some degree of intellectual protectionism to stay afloat. To put it bluntly, there was no possibility of your point staying on top on its own merit necessitating a steep tariff of evidence. This would be natural to you for this is certainly what you do in your own mind, evidential revisionism so to speak.
I pity you, Mr. Hubbo. I really do.
But I’m also done with you. Completely. Utterly. Irrevocably.
It’s unfortunate to me that you all missed the point of this entirely. The point was not censorship; if I really wanted to do that don’t you think I wouldn’t let any alternate viewpoints to be comments on my blog?
What I was hoping to get into was a debate. A reasonable argument of viewpoints that is governed by logic and reason. Ask Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens–debates always have agreed-upon terms. All I asked was for us to follow some groundrules. No one here would accept any such thing, so I simply moved it to a place where groundrules could be met. Anything that has been commented that has met the standards for debate was included; that is more than fair.
What I pity is the idea that you guys think it’s OK to throw around inflammatory arguments that have no basis in logic or reason, not supported by facts or even evidence suggesting a trend in that direction, and yet sit here and tell yourselves that what you’ve posted is an argument. It’s views like that which really put your position in a backwards motion, because no one in their right minds could sit here, look at both sides of what’s being offered, and think that you guys have anything to stand on.
When you are ready to have a formal, structured debate, I’m ready, willing and able. I don’t even feel the need to have a corner on the rules–KK can draw them up himself, and as long as they’re logical and reasonable, I’m in. But I’m not about to be baited and try to defend my position against someone who has established nothing on his/her own. Until then, you can keep your little clique of illogical staters in full force here, and I’ll just pipe in from time to time with the logic and reason that may be warranted. Or you can just ban me and show your true colors. Either way, I’ll sleep at night.
Hmmm censored debate… Surely that’s not a debate at all.
Oh and this comment isn’t for you mr hubbo so please don’t give me a verbose reply I won’t read it.
He didn’t ignore it. Furthermore, you ignore stuff ALL the time. I’m still waiting for you to prove that your god isn’t a figment of your imagination. I’m still waiting for you to prove he’s not a leprechaun. I’m still waiting for you to explain why you go against the words of the Bible, the part in Matthew 6 where it says to keep your religion in the closet, and the part in Romans where it says if you debate, you deserve to die. There are a million other things you’ve ignored from various posters here. Please speak to that in your next comment.
Oh Nancy, you just can’t let it go, can you? He did ignore it, and then addressed it in his next comment, so there was no long-standing issue, and it was dropped.
You are waiting for a proof that will never come. The simple reason for that is because I didn’t make a positive claim as to God’s existence. I have not made a definitive claim; I have given evidence to support the God hypothesis. The only proofs necessary are those to support a positive claim, and as you are the only one who has made a definitive positive claim (“we know it isn’t God because gods don’t exist”), you are the only one with a burden of proof.
I’m glad you’ve done your homework on Romans, because it’s clear you looked at the context and applied hermeneutics to the passage you referenced. Oh wait; you didn’t. If you had you would have seen verse 28, which speaks of the people in question as those who “did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer.” You see, that passage is talking about people like yourself, who “exchange the truth of God for a lie.” (See Romans 1:25) Those attributes are being spoken of those who don’t believe in God as the ever-reigning Creator. Call me crazy, but I think that implication only fits one group of us, and it isn’t the one I’m a part of.
Your reference to Matthew 6 is also foolish, because if you looked at the context for these verses you would see that the meaning of the passage is to not go about seeking praise for praying to God and being “holier than thou.” But you should earnestly seek a personal relationship with God that is not dependent on what other people see you doing. It doesn’t mean to hide your faith; it means don’t let the external influences be the only reason you have it. I wish you would do your due diligence before throwing these things out, though I do appreciate the chance to explain and refute your arguments with relative ease.
Your turn to defend your position. What are the positive arguments in favor of atheism, so that I can see some evidence of why atheism is true? Quid pro quo.
“I will post it on my blog and will post and respond to comments that follow my terms above.” (Insert plug here)
I will not be going to your blog. Unlike you, I’m not a troll.
“As a debater, sir, you break all the rules.”
As a debater, sir, you abuse them.
“so butt out until you’re willing to either do so or make a reasoned argument against mine.”
You have ZERO right to tell someone to “butt out.” This isn’t your blog.
“1) Cosmological argument – The universe has a Cause, and that Cause is uncaused and supernatural in origin”
Circular argument, which, according to hubbo himself, is illogical and invalid.
“What I was hoping to get into was a debate.”
What you wanted was to shove your beliefs down others’ throats, ignore everything that was inconvenient to you, twist around everything else, and insult everyone who proved you wrong. It’s what you’ve been doing all along.
“Ask Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens–debates always have agreed-upon terms.”
YOU don’t set the terms here. This is not your blog. It’s KK’s blog. His terms have already been made clear – his commitment to free speech has been astoundingly generous as your very presence proves.
“But I’m not about to be baited and try to defend my position against someone who has established nothing on his/her own.”
Many of us feel the same way about you.
“Or you can just ban me and show your true colors.”
I once defended you from those who wanted you banned. I’ve since changed my mind. However, even if KK didn’t ban you, he wouldn’t edit your posts the way you do at your blog. He’s more honest than you are, which says something about morality needing a god.
“Oh Nancy, you just can’t let it go, can you? ”
Like someone else said, you accuse people of being hypocritical while being hypocritical yourself.
” He did ignore it, and then addressed it in his next comment”
He didn’t ignore it. He answered correctly, in fact.
“You are waiting for a proof that will never come.”
Truer words were never spoken.
“The simple reason for that is because I didn’t make a positive claim as to God’s existence. ”
You lie. You said that you had a personal relationship with god.
“you are the only one with a burden of proof”
Again, you abuse the rules of debate.
“I’m glad you’ve done your homework on Romans, because it’s clear you looked at the context and applied hermeneutics to the passage you referenced. Oh wait; you didn’t”
Hermeneutics means interpretation. My interpretation is based on what the bible actually says, as I’ve said before, the words that are actually in it. You have to twist the words of even the bible around, to prove your point.
“Your reference to Matthew 6 is also foolish”
More personal insults. Jesus says clearly to keep your religion in the closet. That’s what it says. In the bible.
“I wish you would do your due diligence before throwing these things out, though I do appreciate the chance to explain and refute your arguments with relative ease.”
Again, you lie. If you had “relative ease,” it wouldn’t have taken you so long to answer, and you wouldn’t have had to depend on a personal “hermeneutics” to do so, and you wouldn’t have insulted me, which is what you do to everyone that proves you wrong.
“Your turn to defend your position.”
I already did, and you ignored it. Now, you said the discussion was over. You were lying about that too, weren’t you?
To your last point, where is this defense? Where are the positive arguments for atheism? Can you please re-state them?
I am in no way telling you what to do Nancy, but personally I would give up. He’s wrapped tight in a blanket of delusion. But I do love when he and his ilk say things like “look at the context and apply hermeneutics to the passage”. That just kills me. Hermeneutics, for those of you not in the know is — And I paraphrase — taking the Bible as a whole and not as a collection of parts. Therefore, all those bad parts that make you so uncomfortable are always balanced by parts that seemingly have nothing to do with the initial passage but have been declared instrumental to understanding it by a variety of Religious “Experts” Of course, different “Experts” use different passages to accent to change or warp the initial troublesome passage into what they feel is important. So you will have a huge variety of choices to make, but this difficulty is really just an illusion because it is shockingly easy to find a choice that lines up well with your views. Don’t like gays take interpretation 4678a. Like gays but think they shouldn’t get married? 8674ff. Think gays should be burned at the stake? Interpretation #1 will do nicely. I mean, you can do anything with this book, anything at all.
In other words, hermeneutics is simply a way of deciding out the meaning you really want and then cherry picking the appropriate verses to support that preconceived notion. Basically, hermeneutics is a tool to make the Bible say anything you want it to, and a simple glance through the widely differing evangelical interpretations proves that it is used constantly. The Westboro Baptists are experts at hermeneutics. But then again all Christians are for how else could you possibly follow such a beast. The only way is to make the beast into just what you always wanted. This is what they mean when they continually claim that the Bible hasn’t a single error. With hermeneutics you too can edit any error right out by simply changing the meaning of any passage you want.
God’s Will — Surprisingly akin to your own opinions!
P.S. If you ever want a Lawyer, you should definitely seek out a Christian. Their vast training in twisting the Bible into whatever they want gives them a huge advantage when it comes to reconstructing the law. I just wouldn’t hang around them much after they get you off that genocide charge.
Or to put it another way:
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
—George Bernard Shaw
Talking of biblical experts, though, here’s a breath of fresh air. Possibly.
For those that are interested, I have posted the second piece of evidence in favor of supernaturalism (and more specifically theism) as the most plausible worldview on my blog. Anyone willing to have a meaningful dialogue and intelligent discussion, and not just a baseless attack, feel free to come on over.
Posted my third point of evidence for God’s existence on my blog here for anyone who’s interested. Figured Daz and Amy might be most interested, but still, just making good on my word. Have a good day all!
Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you penning this
write-up and also the rest of the site is really good.