Slashdot Mirror

That's an interesting reply, and different from what I expected. I wonder how inaccuracies in the scripture will convince you that the whole god thing is a scam, but you said it so let's roll with that. (Then again, Paul the Apostle wrote to his friends in Corinth that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, their faith was in vain, so you follow him in that.)

I'm by far not a bible expert, so I'll pick one where I happen to be a little familiar with the topic: The gospels.

It's very common knowledge that the four gospels included in the NT were hand-picked from a much larger number. Several of the non-canonical gospels include versions of Jesus' life story that differ considerably. The total number of gospels is quite impressive.

The rediscovery of the gospel of Judas sheds considerable doubt on the objectivity of the canonical gospels. It makes it clear that they are witness reports, and from witnesses with limited information.
Also, remember that there are no non-christian sources from the time who document the resurrection, which - if it happened - was certainly newsworthy. A list of authors who we would expect to mention this event can be found at the end of this article, which also gives evidence near the start that at least the earliest gospel was altered after the fact.

There's also a longer discussion about the resurrection thing, and I'll leave the topic with that because I wanted to write about the gospels.

Regarding altering of the gospels, christians don't call it that way, the proper term appears to be "harmonizing". It's been going on for a long time, too. this article puts it nicely:

"To
bring the different stories into agreement, the church often modified
or even rewrote the scriptures. Tatian, a disciple of Justin, tried to
solve the problem by writing the "Diatessaron", a composite of the
stories of matthew, mark, luke and john. "

It also contains the following claim, unfortunately without mentioning the source:

""the most radical alterations", writes Kronos, "date from the
nicene Council and were motivated by the understanding between
Pope Damasus I and Emperor Constantine. It was on this occasion
that the oldest Gospels, Notably the Gospel of the Hebrews(the
original Gospel of Mathew) were declared to be hidden (apokruphos
== Apocryphal). Furthermore additions, ommissions, and alterations
were made in the four remaining Gospels. St Jerome, who had been
commissioned to translate them into latin, was surprised by this."

So let's move away from the sceptics, here is the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it says:

"Another factor which contributed to the alleged distortion of the Gospel story was the necessity imposed on primitive Christianity of altering, if it were to last, the conception of the Kingdom of God preached by Jesus in person. On His lips, it is said, the Gospel was merely a cry of "Sauve qui peut" addressed to the world which He believed to be about to end. Such was also the persuasion of the first Christian generation. But soon it was perceived that they had to do with a world which was to last, and the teaching of the Master had to be adapted to the new condition of things. This adaptation was not achieved without much violence, done, unconsciously, it is true, to historical reality, for the need was felt of deriving from the Gospel all the ecclesiastical institutions of a more recent date. Such is the eschatological explanation propagated particularly by J. Weiss, Schweitzer, Loisy; and favorably received by Pragmatis

So far no one has pointed out any contradictions for the Bible... tell me some. I do not know of any.

Ill still go google them, but it sounds like you had some in mind, id like to hear them.

I didn't have any particular ones in mind, just the general ones that people always point to in these online forums whenever the topic comes up.

Here's one list that somebody compiled:

I don't necessarily agree with everything on that list. I think he kinds of reaches for some, like different prophets lamenting that the righteous all die, and rejoicing that the righteous live. But others, like what Jesus said on the cross, or the entire creation story, are kinda important.

Other people have made their own lists, for example this one or these.

Or, you could just read through the thing with a critical eye and you'll find many more, I'm sure.

You may well be trolling, but assuming you're serious:

he inspired people to write it over a period of 2000 years.

What, this omnipotent god of yours had to work through a bunch of balding monkeys, rather that just saying "Zotz! Biblios appearus!" or something?

I can walk into the library and find dozens, if not hundreds, of books that claim to be inspired by gods or other supernatural entities, from the Upanishads to the latest New Age bestseller from someone channeling telepathic transmissions from Sirius. The Bible just ain't special.

including prophecies that are fulfilled hundreds (if not thousands) of years after they are written

What, prophecies like Jesus's that the world would end during the lifetime of some of his followers (Luke 9:27: "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.", and 21:32: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.":)

Let me write and edit a book in which I get to report both the prophecy and the outcomes, and I could make all sorts of prophecies come true. But Biblical authors and editors couldn't even do that.

with no contradictions in the book.

I'm afraid you're again in error.

Look, if you find churchgoing a rewarding expereince, great. Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy.

But if you believe that the Bible is any guide to history, cosmology, metaphysics, or pretty much any aspect of objective consensus reality, you're sadly mistaken.

Just a quick couple of references on coral reefs and the oldest tree you may find interesting.

-Mike

Just a quick couple of references on coral reefs and the oldest tree you may find interesting.

-Mike

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logi c.html

I suggest you take particular note of the sections labeled "Argumentum ad hominem", "Converse accident / Hasty generalization", "The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter", "Fallacy of division", and "Ignoratio elenchi". "Plurium interrogationum" and "The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy" may also be relevant.

Of course, no true slashdotter would bother to use logical arguments, so I guess you must be a true slashdotter! :)

More than once

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_dr ange/bible.html

"Many famous people and mythical heroes were said, by one group or another, to have been born of a virgin. Among them were Julius Caesar, Augustus, Aristomenes, Alexander the Great, Plato, Cyrus, the elder Scipio, some of the Egyptian Pharaohs, the Buddha, Hermes, Mithra, Attis-Adonis, Hercules, Cybele, Demeter, Leo, and Vulcan. For this reason it seems likely that Matthew and the Greek translators of the Septuagint did not discover the virgin birth idea in Isaiah, but imposed it upon the text."

Sure:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

It only gets worse once you start to dig. Inconsistencies will yield several more. Most of these are technical, says one thing here, another thing there. There are host of philosophical contradictions too.

Gerry

Blah, blah, totally agree. Show me one of these "historically stable" nations that hasn't engaged in war. Agonism is part of the human experience, wired into our psychology, and an unforntunately inevitable part of existence.

Are you sure you aren't a Scientologist? I'm surprised at people's willingness to let them off so lightly. Obviously you haven't researched the group's history.

We have people who have been killed by Scientology. We have people who proteest it and end up bankrupted by lawsuits. My lawyer friends tell me they read quite a bit of case law having to do with Scientologists just because they litigate so frequently.

Don't you wonder why they aren't litigating against the Pledge of Allegience or In God We Trust, but instead to protect their "secrets"?

Repeat until it sinks in: NO other religion charges you money to believe. Or to find out just WHAT you are supposed to be believing in.

Scientology is a cult. A cult has a specific meaning in this case. It isn't a smaller (vs. Christians) persecuted (aren't they all?) religious (it might not be) group. It's a brainwashing group which keeps you from leaving. And other things.

With its plethora of lawyers and infiltration into the IRS and other governmental branches, Scientology has gone from being a harmless cult to a "religious" mafia.

Take the recent example: A misdemeanor which wouldn't normally be enforced gets you a year in jail. WTF? I'm worrying.

Random people attempt to define cult:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-c ult.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09.html
http://www.ex-cult.org/General/identifying-a-cult
http://www.cultfaq.org/

Disclaimer: I'm Christian, so maybe I'm just offended at being lumped in with these people. I think my rights are more endangered when Scientologists' rights are being protected. At least as they've been protected so far.

We need a reform whereby when litigants have dramatically unequal net worth, the plaintiff is required to reimburse defendant's lawyers up to the amount that they themselves spend on legal services.

This won't work, and here's why:

Most cases, say 98% or so, never make it to trial. Why? If the lawyers figure out that one side or the other had a clear advantage, they will settle, because it's in their clients' respective best interests. So going to trial is (usually, roughly) a coin flip. Which is how it should be: you go to trial because both sides have good arguments and you need a neutral third party to analyze (judge) the relative merits of both sides and render a decision. (And don't forget, the overwhelmingly vast majority of the RIAA cases settle. Why? Because the defendants really did violate the copyright law, and they know it.)

Now on top of that you want to impose a system-wide penalty, where if you lose the coin flip you're out twice as much? That's going to act as a disincentive for people with legitimate problems to seek help in the courts. People will only sue if they think they have such an overwhelming advantage that they must win (and the case will likely settle anyway). This keeps close cases out of courts, which is exactly contrary to a primary purpose of the court system (namely, to decide close cases).

The plaintiff can then argue for whatever damages they can convince jury the defendant can pay based on their income level.

Plaintiffs do this already.

The same should hold true in criminal cases.

Criminal cases are about more than the harm the defendant allegedly did against the victim, they're about the harm to everyone else. If you are robbed, that sucks for you, but it also sucks for your neighbors who are now scared about being robbed, property prices fall, more cops are needed to patrol your area, etc. etc. Which is why criminal cases are brought by the State, not the victim. The public policies behind crime have little to do with the defendant's ability to pay.

When prosecutor feels the crime is grave enough to justify calling dozens of expensive expert witnesses, surely the suspect should be given a chance to prove themselves innocent.

Go down to your local District Attorney's office some day. Really, call up and schedule an appointment. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to know that a random member of the public is taking personal interest in what they do. Ask them how many cases they've called dozens of expensive expert witnesses on. Heck, ask them how many cases they've called more than three witnesses on, where two were at the scene and one was the cop who wrote up the report. They just don't have the money.

Seriously, more people should do this. Courts are open to the public, but the public doesn't show up. Then people say the system is all wrong and needs to change.

Justice shouldn't depend on your bank account, especially since we all know how many rich guys are crooks.

Leaving aside the argumentum ad lazarum implication, I ask you this question: would you rather have a justice system where everyone can afford quick-and-dirty justice, where complex issues are resolved by each side getting 5 or 10 minutes to talk, where judges take a few minutes and rule from the bench? Or do you want a system where people take the time and energy and money to do things fairly, where both sides have the chance to address all of the issues, where everyone has a chance to be heard?

Being fair and impartial is HARD. For the most minuscule example, read the Federal Rules of Evidence. An example: hearsay. In order to avoid the problem of "he said-she said", the rules are that witnesses can't generally talk about what someone el

I think you understood the definition reasonably well. God is indeed the universe.

So an synonym. Saying universe is clearer, and universally (hah!) understood.

God is also everything that is not described by the word "Universe".

Since universe is everything, that is an empty set.

God is not restricted by time or space, those things are just parts of God. God is the all-powerful, all-encompassing, all-knowing all. If your definition of the universe, or of God, has any exclusions, that's not the God I'm talking about. God is all.

(The universe being) all-powerful and all-knowing is logically inconsistent. So that is obviously wrong.

A
Pantheism has existed in many forms for over 2000 years. We don't know when the Chandogya Unpanishad was written, but it is at least that old and perhaps much older. Accusing me of playing semantics, of redefining words, is not useful. I'm using the same definition that various religions in China and India have been continuously using since at least 8 BC. It's a very popular definition among scientists who are religious, because it does not contradict observable phenomena. For example, the problem of evil does not exist for pantheists.

Obviously, the universe is not evil nor good (or logically self-conflicting, for that matter).

I think you might have strong religious beliefs, like every other atheist I've ever met. Perhaps to you, God MUST be an anthropomorphic phantasm - this may be an article of faith to you, just as it is to Christians and Muslims. Are you willing to consider other ideas? If the nature of your non-existent God is not open to debate, that's a religious position, not an open-minded or scientific position.

I have never said so, nor do I believe that. I said that god, as defined commonly defined, is such a fantasy. That you want to use the word as a synonym for a sort of sentient, logically inconsistent universe is not my problem. Hate to tell you less, but nothing suggest that the universe is sentient as such.

If you cannot consider any other form of God, then you do not have an "absence of religion" - far from it.

As I've said many times already: I can consider anything... more than you probably, since my training lies that way. I only said that it is better to say what you mean clearly and unambigiously if possible. If you are in love with the word "god" and want to use it for whatever you should qualify this so that people know what you're talking about. I don't believe this is very difficult to understand, but if it is still not clear, let it lie, since it is just sematics and not very important.

How one defines God is the essence of one's religion. It is the entire point of theology; to know God. I'm not trying to insult you, here, I am quite willing to respect any belief system that doesn't go around murdering people and destroying things in the name of God. Many people who attend my church call themselves atheists and also call themselves members of the UU religion. Many people consider Jains and Buddhists to be atheists. So-called "elite" taoists consider themselves to be religious atheists and are very proud of this.

Since I am not a religious man, I wouldn't know about what is important for a proper delusion of the religious persuasion.

I'm very willing to consider that a person might have a form of atheism that is not religious, but I don't think I've met any yet. All the forms of atheism that I've encountered are centered around unproveable premises, a faith unsupported by objective evidence.

I have unreasonable faith in many things (such as my wife, the basic goodness in most people etc), but I know very well how baseless this faith is. It is not very comparabl

I think you understood the definition reasonably well. God is indeed the universe. God is also everything that is not described by the word "Universe". God is not restricted by time or space, those things are just parts of God. God is the all-powerful, all-encompassing, all-knowing all. If your definition of the universe, or of God, has any exclusions, that's not the God I'm talking about. God is all.

Pantheism has existed in many forms for over 2000 years. We don't know when the Chandogya Unpanishad was written, but it is at least that old and perhaps much older. Accusing me of playing semantics, of redefining words, is not useful. I'm using the same definition that various religions in China and India have been continuously using since at least 8 BC. It's a very popular definition among scientists who are religious, because it does not contradict observable phenomena. For example, the problem of evil does not exist for pantheists.

I think you might have strong religious beliefs, like every other atheist I've ever met. Perhaps to you, God MUST be an anthropomorphic phantasm - this may be an article of faith to you, just as it is to Christians and Muslims. Are you willing to consider other ideas? If the nature of your non-existent God is not open to debate, that's a religious position, not an open-minded or scientific position.

If you cannot consider any other form of God, then you do not have an "absence of religion" - far from it. How one defines God is the essence of one's religion. It is the entire point of theology; to know God. I'm not trying to insult you, here, I am quite willing to respect any belief system that doesn't go around murdering people and destroying things in the name of God. Many people who attend my church call themselves atheists and also call themselves members of the UU religion. Many people consider Jains and Buddhists to be atheists. So-called "elite" taoists consider themselves to be religious atheists and are very proud of this.

I'm very willing to consider that a person might have a form of atheism that is not religious, but I don't think I've met any yet. All the forms of atheism that I've encountered are centered around unproveable premises, a faith unsupported by objective evidence.

If you really want to know more about pantheism (I'm actually more interested in discussing atheism, because it is much more puzzling to me; pantheism seems totally self-evident and obviously correct) I recommend this entry in the Stanford encylopedia of philosophy. I just read it, and although it's long and might bore you I thought it did a good job of representing Schopenhauer's dismissal of pantheism as a religion (very similar to your "semantic" objections) - and it's certainly less boring than reading Schopenhauer! :P It's got some discussion of the really hard problems of pantheist theology too, the places where we all disagree with each other (sort of like how all the Christian sects constantly squabble over things nobody else really cares about).

Some people say pantheism and atheism are the same thing; sort of like in "The Incredibles" when the guy says "when everybody is special, nobody is." I guess that's Schopenhauer's argument in a nutshell - if everything is divine, nothing is. I disagree, and I think you might also.

I just referenced Schopenhauer and Disney in the same post. I'm not sure if that's good or bad...

"Opera had it long before any other browser..."

"No it didn't, Netcaptor did. Not Opera. Opera didn't have true tabbed browsing until after a few others had implemented it (Skipstone, Galeon, Mozilla)."

Doesn't that apply just as much to science, especially established scientific theories?

No, it doesn't. With science, I can study the scientific method. I can read the research and reproduce the experiment. I can see for myself what the evidence is. I can think about the evidence and come up with the same theories.

However, nothing I do or say will make God appear. Nothing I do or say will show me that the earth is truly 10,000 years old, or that man lived with the dinosaurs. The only source of information I have on Creationism is the bible, which was written by several people, many of whom had agendas, and has been translated and edited dozens of times before it came into my hands. In addition, the bible has many obvious contradictions, so therefore it cannot be considered an infallible text on its own right. Since it is impossible to believe in the entirety of the bible, one must use reason to decide which parts of the bible should be believed. Once you accept the possibility of ignoring parts of the bible that don't make sense, it's very easy to believe in evolution.

Assuming you are a programmer or scientist or engineer or someone in general familiar with logic, I would highly recommend considering Pascal's Wager, at the very least...

You're the one who needs to look things up.

Atheism is from "a-" meaning "without" and "theism" meaning "belief in god". It literally means, without a belief in god.

Agnosticism was defined by T.H. Huxley, who was quite specific as to his meaning: An agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know whether god exists.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-h uxley.html

Argumentum ad Novitatem, is that you?

One last commen. If you have questions about Christianity and you go to the Bible, how do you reconcile all the inconsistencies? And what do you do about the things that are not mentioned in the Bible? I mean, how many ecumenical councils did it take over how many hundreds of years to hash out all the important bits that weren't even mentioned in the Bible? Is Jesus devine? Is he a man? Is he both? If so, are his two parts seperate or divided? Where in the Bible does it really, clearly answer any of these questions? Are those answers open to other interpretations, or is it so clear that only one answer is possible? If so, why did it take hundreds of years of sometimes violent conflict to come to the commonly accepted answers and why are there still branches of Christianity such as the Nestorians or the Eastern Orthodoxies that differ on basic fundamental tennants of faith? What kind of God would do that to his followers?

some will say that there is no evidence save the christian bible (and they'd be correct)

the problem is that each of those sources are disputed for a variety of reasons, some good and some not so... Thallus, Mara-Serapion (scroll down/search for "Mara")... Pliny the Younger talks about the sacrifices of Christians but never saw Christ himself. Tacitus, who may be the most reliable reference, may have only been repeating hearsay and does not report seeing anything himself either. Finally, all evidence points to Josephus' text being revised to say certain things about Jesus, which frankly makes the entire passage suspect - which is unfortunate for christianity in that it is the best secondary source for his existence. Meanwhile (from that last link):

It is worth noting that in his earlier work, The Jewish War, written shortly after the revolt under the auspices of the Emperor Vespasian, he mentioned neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor James, while in Antiquities, written in the early 90s C.E., he mentions all three.

So uh, I am actually interested in this thing, and there is no historical basis for the existence of Jesus besides some heavily contested references, all of which have serious problems.

There isn't? Really? hmm, wow, thats something new. http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder /jury/chap5.html

This is a claim for which you have provided no proof.

Wow, just wow. How much proof do you need? Seriously.


Nice work twisting my words. I am saying that people should not question what they believe to be true based on fiction.

Well, you're saying they should not question what they believe based on facts either. Logically, it follows that you believe people shouldn't question their beliefs.


What does that have to do with anything? There is a lot in the Genesis that is similar to contemporary stories. The Geneis creation story is very similar (with important changes, largely the removal of muliple gods and the replacement with one God).


What it has to do with anything is that you're trying to claim that the existence of some old manuscripts is proof that a person mentioned in said manuscripts existed. Therefore, the fact that the myths being recounted in the manuscripts predate the "person" who is supposed to have been an actual character in said myths is entirely relevant.

Your point there is entirely equivalent to finding a copy of the Iliad written a hundred years after Homer died and claiming that that is proof that Achilles existed 100 years after the time of Homer.

The problem with that attempt at reasoning is that not only do we have no proof that there ever really was an Achilles, but even if there was such a person, he didn't live at the time you'd conclude he did.


And once again you think I have not done that research.
Why is this a circular argument? There are strong reasons why the gospels have credibility. One is that there are early manuscripts (which I mentioned), and manuscripts up til today that satisfy historians that the gospels we have today are original or very close to. In other words the "church" has not doctored them.

I didn't say that the church (or anybody for that matter) doctored them. The previous point, that the stories were far older which you just admitted to knowing (or at least very strongly implied as much) proves that to be false.
They can't really be the originals, now can they?


Secondly there are methods historians apply to texts such as these to test the authenticity. I'd list them out but I don't think you are really listening.

You keep making the same silly mistakes.
Nobody is saying that when whoever wrote the particular documents in question that they were later altered.

What I am saying is that the authors are unknown and were not contemporary with the supposed lifetime of Jesus.
Further, the stories they were telling were older even than that.


As for the Josephus quote, could you substantiate that please.


Since you're the one clinging desperately on to it as your sole hope of finding any evidence whatsoever for your viewpoint don't you think you owe it to yourself to spend 5 minuted checking it out instead of blindly swallowing nonsense spouted by whoe3ver sold you that line of crap?

However, just so you can pick out some trivial meaningless detail to use as an excuse to ignore the whole subject, here's one link.


Hey thanks. I love being called an idiot and a liar by someone who claims in the face of all historical evidence and all credible historians that the person of Jesus never existed.


Well, when you keep pretending that "no historical evidence whatsoever and no credible historians" means "all historical evidence and all credible historians", how can you expect any decent person to treat you as anything but an idiot and liar?
When you continue to repeat idiotic lies, you *are* an idiotic liar.
Don't blame me, that's just how it works.

Throughout these comments you have been insulting, closed minded and pretty much everything Christians are accused of.

I'm not closed minded at all. The thing is that I have researched these issues, and so I *know* that you

You are right to be frustrated by the kind of reasoning that the OP was using, but not because it's impossible to prove a negative, but because it is impossible to completely prove anything so broad as 'Mobile phones do not cause cancer'. The article talks about taking the best bet, which is just looking at the evidence which is of course what everyone does every day with just about every action.

Pedantry regarding provability is pointless. And that sentence was quite nicely alliterative:)

There, you asked for it.

Says you. Somewhere you have to start off with the assumption that this god exists and the bible is his word. Exactly as you point out, your saying that it is the case does not make it so.

Now we are getting somewhere! Not me, says the Bible. And this is exactly what I am trying to point out about evolution -- same situation exists there. You have to start out with the assumption that this God DOESN'T EXIST in order to move forward with any evolutionary conclusion! I'll gladly admit the belief in God and the Bible as His Word. And I'll also agree 100% that my saying it is the case does not make it so, neither does your saying it is NOT the case doesn't make it not so. Truth is immutable. It is not more true because people believe it, and it is not less true because people don't believe it.

Ok, so you're saying that god says god exists? But why do you actually believe anything about god in the first place? Personally, I am not arguing that god does not exist. I do not know that, because I do not even know for sure what you mean by the word "god." Rather, I am arguing that your argument doesn't make any sense without starting with your core mystical beliefs as axioms. Moreover, I don't see why one couldn't have a framework in which a god creates a world containing creatures that evolve. Nor do I think that truth is necessarily a knowable quantity—we live by approximations.

By the way, are you at all familiar with formal logic? It can't answer every question, but it does give useful insight into human reasoning. For example, let's say my assumptions are X = {all of my observations of the natural/physical world}, and let's say your assumptions are Y = {X and "god exists and the bible is correct"}. Now, it follows that any proposition I can verify is true under my assumptions, you can verify as true under your assumptions; and similarly, any proposition I can prove false under my assumptions, you can prove false under your assumptions. But moreover, there are additional propositions which you can prove true or false, but I cannot. This is because you're making a stronger assumption than I am. This is why I contend that my arguments and conclusions are simpler and more universal than yours.

Now, if some of your additional assumptions are contradictionry with real-world observations, you'll be able to prove both a proposition and its negation—this is troublesome, because it makes it easier for someone to persuade you into believing contradictory statements. You might think that's a bunch of nonsense, and that's because in practice, the human mind operates on a precedence system, where certain assumptions are deemed more valid than others. Thus if you arise at a conscious contradiction, you work to resolve it by deciding which side—or which side's assumptions and reasoning process—is "more right." This is why people who don't believe in god say you're illogical. But that is not entirely correct; you actually are reasoning under essentially the same system of logic as they are. The key difference is that your assumptions of the existence of god and correctness of the bible are gratuitous, and, for you, override the arguments offered by people who make fewer ontological commitments.

As for logical errors and discrepancies, I know of none, and since you are the one making the claim, go ahead and cite one.

Here's a couple of lists of them:

• Biblical Errancy
• A List of Biblical Contradictions

Your request doesn't really ask for anything specific -- and as for "predictable behaviors" there's so many prophecies in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, which fall outside of this category I'd be quoting large po

Because they get in my way. They bring up religion and then expect me to be tolerant of them. I'm tired of people spouting off religious bollocks at me and keeping silent.

As a Christian, I agree with this in a way. People bring up atheism and then expect me to conform to its supposed neutrality and superiority. I'm tired of having people spout off atheistic bollocks at me and keeping silent. ;-)

Seriously, though, we are both in the pursuit of truth here, we just happen to have reached different conclusions. More importantly, it's admirable that you're willing to make your views known. These days, people are often branded "intolerant" and "biased" when they speak up against falsehoods. "Tolerance" used to mean "respectful disagreement," but now it frequently means "never, ever criticize anyone's beliefs."

Christians are guilty of forgetting that we have an obligation to create a level playing field for all ideas to be aired. This is implicit in our duty to treat others better than we treat ourselves, and our conviction that this is the best vehicle for truth. Whenever Christians have failed to do this, throughout history, it has been disastrous. Whenever Christians have adhered to this, truth has been served.

Of course, atheists don't escape criticism here, either. There's a common misconception that atheism is an obvious, default, and neutral starting point; add "God" and you get theism. This "presumption of atheism" is only possible for "weak" atheism or agnosticism. The assertion that God is a "fairy tale" is epistemically equivalent to the theistic assertion -- and since both assertions carry a number of nontrivial implications, atheism cannot be viewed as the "rational" subset of theism. They are distinct sets that are almost disjoint.

In other words, some propositions have no neutral ground. Occam's Razor does not apply to such situations. This is easy to see if you take certain other binary examples: humans are either equal, or they are not equal. The axiom of choice is true, or it's not. God exists, or God doesn't. Which position is neutral? One of them will be true, but neither of them is neutral. But invariably, one position -- or its implication -- gets promoted as neutral, and is therefore taught in every grade school. Hmm.

Or take, for instance, Christopher Reeve's statement regarding stem cell research: "When discussing matters of public policy, no religions should have a seat at the table." This is hardly a level playing field; in fact, it is espousing strong atheism over theism while claiming to be neutral.

Perhaps I'll dig at this a bit more: I've given reasons why Christians should welcome debate (even though they often don't). Is there a comparable duty within atheism?

(Finally, though you may be sick of hearing this, it's relevant to note that the premier exponent of the presumption of atheism argument was ex-atheist Antony Flew. So even the "weak" position has come under well-deserved scrutiny. =)

--
Dum de dum.

If the whole Bible is literally true, why does it repeatedly contradict itself?

See, for example, the list at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morg an/inconsistencies.html

If your faith depends on the literal truth of the Bible, then you have built it on sand. The Bible repeatedly asserts 'X', then asserts 'not X', contradicting itself. I think that fundamentalists get around this by doublethink. Not a very solid foundation.

If you want to give a statement like this at least give some evidence to back it up ... Give me proof (or at least an argument founded on something) and I'll consider your point.

Thomas Paine, Deist, famously agreed with you in his book The Age of Reason :

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

And ironically, the Bible's got its own clear policy on censorship: Deu 13. But historically, it was probably banned for that content far less often than for the fact that it encourages people to worship something other than the State.

False Choice and Appeal to emotion.

No, neither. The choice is not a false one; it is mutually exclusive to say "there exist behaviors X for which it is ethical to force parents into X" and "there do not exist behaviors X for which it is ethical to force parents into X."

Of course the examples given have emotional impact, but that does not make the argument fallacious. The point is that they are behaviors that almost every sane person finds ethically abhorrent; a set of ethical principles that fails to condemn them is at odds with our intuitive understanding. It is this intuitive understanding, not raw emotion, to which the appeal is made.

Arguments of this sort are common in ethics, the equivalent of a reductio ad absurdum: "by such-and-such argument, murdering innocents is acceptable. But we know murder is not acceptable. Therefore such-and-such argument is flawed."

You may reject such axioms as "murdering innocents is unacceptable" or "beating kids with a two-by-four is wrong and justifies the use of force to stop". They are (at the level at which we're working) axioms, not provable statements. But if that is your position, then we have nothing more to discuss.

If, however, you agree that there exist behaviors X (such as refraining from severe beatings) for which is is ethically right to force parents into X, then we must ask what conditions characterize the set X. There is no answer to this that does not rest on a "value judgment": what things do we value strongly enough to use force?

There is a strong consensus in our society that a basic education for children is something we value that strongly, that compulsory education is ethically justified.

Such an education must be based on what is true according to our consensual best knowledge about the universe; the process of setting school curricula is political so that a consensus of some sort can be reached. Yes, it can be an ugly process, and doesn't work 100% of the time. Consensus and best knowledge are sometimes at odds. People are a problem.

Some of this consensual best knowledge may contradict prejudices and superstitions held by the parents. Saying that "a person's skin color has no bearing on their ability to think or feel", "the Earth goes around the sun", or "species are related through common ancestry, differentiated through natural selection" are examples of such truths.

Comparing the above [child abuse, etc.] to teaching children values *you* might find objectionable is disingenuous, at best.

That's an example of the "fallacy of the Extended Analogy".

Again, let me point out that there are two questions: "are there behaviors X for which is ethically right to force parents into X", and "what is the criteria for membership in X"?

If they want to teach thier kids that the invisible pink unicorns created the world by wishing really really hard, that's thier concern. You can question it, condemn it, and ridicule it all you want, but you have no right to stop them.

Anyone is free to tell anyone that invisible pink unicorns created the world by wishing really really hard; that's free speech.

Parents, however, are obligated to see to it that their children are given a decent education. Such an education includes that the child will encounter and be given the opportunty to fully consider alternate theories, theories which are based upon the consensual best knowledge about the universe.

That may mean that a homeschooling parent has to tell the kid about the Big Bang during a science lesson, and then after the lesson tells the kid that scientists who don't believe in the invisible pink unicorns are liars and are condemned to spend eternity in the region of Thud. Fine. The kid has been exposed to the idea and, in the fullness of maturity, will be able to make an informed choice about which theory has more explanatory power.

I know of no atheist willing to do such a thing when attacking religion.

It's easier, it seems, to act based on prejudices than to seek good information and answer it point by point.

When will we see a "Summa Against God"? Never, I bet.

Otherwise you'd know that religions (actual ones, not this thing Americans usually take as such) follow the first pattern, not the second.

If religion worked as you say it does, then after this much time there would be at least a few things that were beyond contestation. But religion hasn't even proved that the things it talks about (god, souls, reincarnation, supernatural things in general) exist. If biology was in the same state, there would be some people that have strong, reasonable arguments that suggest that living things don't exist!

If this is a troll, masterfully executed and I salute you.

If not, then you have some fairly bizarre notions. I think it is not, so allow me to make some comments.

You knock “religious fundamentalists.”

Certainly the desired intent.

What happens if 80% of the world is right, and that God does exist? Are you prepared to roast in hell?

Alright, 80% of the world population is theistic. Seems right. But in addition to many divisions of belief, what has been believed has changed for all recorded human history. Religion that has fallen out of fashion is regarded today as silly nonsense. We do not revile people because they reject Zeus or do not call pharaoh a god. We have evolved improved sensibilities about the natural world and society. It may take a thousand years, but we will one day laugh at all the religions of today the same way we now laugh at river gods and fire spirits.

If you believe in God, and God doesn't exist, then you've lost what?

Perhaps a lifetime. Instead of engaging myself with the task of improving the human race, I have wasted it chasing after an invisible man in the sky. One might as well spend a life believing in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

A little time hanging out with nice people who have high morals?

I am an atheist and I too have morals. I know I should not commit violence against people because I would not want others to commit violence against me. I know I should not steal or cheat for the same reason. It is purely logical for me to follow certain principles and adhere to morals, without some supernatural entity threatening me with punishment. It is logical because I have a survival instinct which makes me avoid injury. Also, human beings are social creatures since society increases our chances of survival. Harming others harms the group, thus diminishing our prosperity. In my opinion, these are much better reasons to live morally than threats of eternal fire and brimstone. Morals do not come from religion and they never have. Furthermore, not all religious people have “high morals,” such as those whom use their religion to write moral blank checks which they cash to commit acts of rape and cold-blooded murder.

Or you could go back to whining and complaining about the world

But do you not see that critism is the only way to progress! I “complain” because I care. I see faults and I want to understand those faults such that they can be corrected. That is akin to the scientific method which seeks to disprove claims so that only those which are true become establish facts. And then they are questioned again and again. Critism is the crucible of knowledge and it is an ever-tempering force. If we resort to patting each other on the back, proclaiming to one another of how righteous and great we are, we will go nowhere.

[L]aying on the couch living off government welfare, eating cheesy poofs bought with government food stamps, drinking malt liquor and fortified wine, having abortions, and beating your 4th wife's stepchildren until they can't function in society, and then whine about the poor state of our education system, and then whine about the lack of taxes paid by the rich people.

Whew. Where to begin. Thank you for your concern, but I am well-employed. I prefer natural food to cheesy poofs, but I must admit I enjoy a fine glass of wine and even, dare I mention, a nice dry, gin martini from time to time. Such are lifes little pleasures. I personally have had no abortions given that I am a male, ho

Lots of people criticise Richard Stallman, ...

I've seen a lot of attacks against RMS personally, but very, very few which try to refute his basic thesis. Even those which address his ideas tend to avoid the use of facts or logically sound arguments.

Personally, I'd like to see some quality in the counter arguments for a change.

Try reading Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell for a detailed listing of historical and archeological evidence supporting the Biblical accounts.

And then read The Jury Is In, which carefully analyzes the infamous Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

Genetic algorithms are proof that mutations are a source of new information and variation. There is experimental proof from computer simulation now that Darwinian Evolution does work:

The following is an excellent article about unguided simulated evolution (URL at end of paragraph). Reproducing programs in a virtual machine that can mutate randomly result in evolution without the need for imposed "fitness criteria" or any ideal "goal solution". The programs either reproduce or crash (die) on their own without any human designed selection process or selection of any particular trait. The system automatically, implicitly selects for "fitness" (the ability to successfully reproduce and/or survive). "Survivor survives"; perhaps a tautology, and very very true.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/meta/getali fe/epgp.html

Another page on Tierra:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/origins/tierra.htm

A quote from the above page on complexity increase through evolution:

"The unrolled loop is an example of the ability of evolution to produce an
increase in complexity, gradually over a long period of time. The interesting
thing about the loop unrolling optimization technique is that it requires more
complex code. The resulting creature has a genome size of 36, compared to its
ancestor of size 80, yet it has packed a much more complex algorithm into less
than half the space."

Either you misunderstand my position, or you misunderstand the argumentum ad ignorantiam. It applies to the argument that because we do not know that X is true, it therefore MUST be false, or vice versa.
I am not arguing that anything must be true, or that "we should trust" anything. I am saying that I choose to believe that it is true (because it might be), and that I choose to trust (because I can, without compromising logic). I have repeatedly stated that my position cannot be supported logically (nor can it be refuted logically, without further evidence). It may be utterly false. I acknowledge that.

You are arguing that because we cannot know God's masterplan, it must be assumed that it is evil. This is a much better example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam than my own argument is. Please demonstrate how your argument is any more logical or less fallacious than mine.

And I repeat that no one is saying that natural disasters are a good thing. We are saying that they may be a good thing. We do not know. We cannot know. The judgment, either way, is a choice. To decide either way is an act of faith. I would prefer to believe in a benevolent universe; some prefer not to believe that, and that is their (your?) right.

You can read more about the fallacy here and here.

"There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions. My purpose in this paper is to argue that there is sufficient evidence at present to warrant the conclusion that the universe probably began to exist over ten billion years ago, and that it began to exist without being caused to do so. I believe accordingly that the positions held by many if not most contemporary philosophers concerning this issue are unjustified, for their beliefs typically fall into one of three mutually exclusive categories, (1) the universe is probably infinitely old, (2) the universe began to exist and its beginning was caused by God, and (3) insufficient evidence is available to enable us to decide about whether the universe began to exist or is infinitely old."

I never said I didn't have beliefs. Again, you are assigning things to me that I never said, and then attacking them. This doesn't help your arguement. I'ts not me being childish, sir.

You seem to take great offence to the fact that I found it funny that you're skeptical of this, while claiming to be a creationist. I always wonder if people who are skeptical of a fossil (not just this one, all of them, and all the other evidence of evolution), something you can see, touch, and taste, I wonder if they apply the same skepticism to the bible?

You dont seem to know anything about what constitutes an offense that can send you to hell

Actually yes, I do. I was brought up Catholic, my mother is a religion teacher at a Catholic school. When I do see her, I like to debate religion with her. I'm well versed in Catholic and Christian dogma, as well as several other religions. Call it a hobby of mine.

why else should I believe something is likely to be true, other than the odds and evidence point towards it being so? I don't subsrcribe to the notion of 'blind faith'.

You do not subscribe to the notion of blind faith, yet you are capitalizing god. Why is this? You appear to believe in a god. Which god and why?

what exactly isn't "good" about having faith

I never said anything was wrong with having faith. It is a source of strength for a lot of people. It can also be a weakness though. Often it is a crutch used by the people to explain things they cannot understand, and have no desire to seek 'why?'.

Life is meaningless if all there is to it is what we see

Life is never meaningless. You did touch on the meaning of life though. Life's meaing is the meaning we assign to it, on an individual basis. Your life's meaning may be different then others. Religion gives us a way to assign meaning to our lives, but we don't need religion for that. I can happily give my life meaning without believeing in a higher power.

though science has yet to come up with an explanation on how to spontaneously create life

This is outside of the realm of evolution, therefore really outside of the realm of this discussion. The shortcomings of abiogenesis do not equal the shortcoming of evolution. Abiogenesis is also just one possible explination, but the search for an answer is not helped by throwing up your hands, saying I don't know, and then attributing it all to god. Even if god did do it, how did he do it? That's what abiogenesis and science seek to answer. You seem to think science is attackign religion. IF it helps you sleep better at night, think of science as asking 'how did god do it?'? Then you'll see there is no real attack on religion from science, just a made up war that some religous nuts made up to increase church attendance and therefore get more money.

dont know any 'inconsistencies' that are not explained from a lack of actually knowing the bible. What am I denying that I see right in front of me?Here's a start.
Here's more.

my mind still boggles as to why you think this

I'm sorry, have you read your writing? I assumed you were from another country, honestly. It's like you know the words, just stringing them together properly is hard. This is a common in people who's first language is not english. Here's some examples just so you don't think I'm crazy.

I used to read a lot of books, not even including having read the bible It's not a pretty sentence to say the least.
You do have beliefs, even if you dont think you do, that's your belief that you don't have a belief Again, just plain ugly. It could stand to be made two sentences.

Many of your sentences are really three or four sentences that you joined together into one multi-lined atrocity. Your grammar is just.. wow. Also, just because I do not point out a mistake, do not assume I missed it.

Again, I apologize, I really as

See here for a critique of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." The possibility of a resurrection is dealt with specifically in this section.

Hopefully Josh McDowell is a better lawyer than he is an apologetic.

See here for a critique of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict." The possibility of a resurrection is dealt with specifically in this section.

Hopefully Josh McDowell is a better lawyer than he is an apologetic.

er, that's agnostic, not atheist.

Well, I agree - it *should* be called an "agnostic" position. But it is commonly called the "weak atheist" position. See here, e.g.

I disagree about the strength of the positions, BTW, but that's another story.

And the worst and most bigoted religous are the atheists.

Hmmm...have any atheist politicians ever suggested that religious people should nor be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots, because this is (as provided for in its founding documents) a secular nation? Not to my knowledge.

Have any religious politicians ever suggested that atheists should nor be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots, because this (according to a mythology deliberately planted in the mid 20th century) is "one nation under god"? Yes.

The Lord's Resistance Army is a truly bizarre creolization of fundamentalist Christianity and animistic witchcraft much like voudon and santeria only with a lot more insane brutality mixed in. Christianity's been the excuse used by a lot of brutal warlords in the past, but I'm not sure that I'd blame Christianity for this one because this is a really, really weird offshoot of the religion.

The LRA is truly one of the worst horrors of the modern world, and I think it's a real shame that no one with the military might to do something about them has. I think a large part of the reason for that is the horror and revulsion that most military leaders feel at the thought of having to send their soldiers out to fight against an army of traumatized child conscripts. A war like that could psychologically devastate an entire generation of soldiers, and there's little economic gain to be had for a country for stepping into this mess, so the world just closes its eyes and hopes it will go away on its own. It's an utterly disgusting tragedy that will take decades to end and decades more to heal.

And what proof do you have that Hitler was an atheist? Or that his atheism was the excuse

Atheism isn't, you can be religious and be a nazi.

So stop with the atheism bashing, we are better then you, just face it.

I suppose you are referring to this http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/w edge.html Yes, it is possiable that the Discovery Institute is an evil anti-science conspiracy. They have almost certainly received alot of money from religious/political organisations. The question of,"Is the world around us showing evidence of an intentional Creator" is alot older than the Discovery Institute, or the scientific method. The questions raised by the Discovery Institute are no less valid becuase of their funding, or long term intentions. Why is it so easy to accept the 9 extra spacial dimensions in super-string theory that we can't see or test for, and so difficult to accept a sentience that we can't see or test for? I'm not trying to say "I have all the answers", I'm trying to say "let's not ignore the questions we don't like" Isn't it the tough uncomfortable questions that have always lead to sciences greatest advances? How is that anti-science?

This tends to be my ultimate point in arguments with religious nuts. Even if you can convince me that faith is better than proof, etc., I still don't like God very much. I mean, we tend to put people who behave like that in prisons or asylums, and I'm supposed to worship the guy?

However, I asked why belief in god(s) would make one illogical, and since you fail to give any logical (or other kind, for that matter) proof against the existance of god(s), you fail to answer that question.