 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Personal de-conversion testimonials submitted to ExChristian.Net
sent in by Nicholas Brosz
Logic versus religion. Thus is the concept that many people have fought and died for throughout humanity's existence. Some have fought and died for it, while far more have fought and died against it. Here is the result of my thoughts concerning the Bible and stories/miracles mentioned therein.
First, one of the most logic-defying miracles appears in Joshua 10:13. "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on [ Or nation triumphed over ] its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." Now, in order for the sun to stand still, the earth naturally would have had to cease rotating. However, this would have caused not only gravity itself to cease, but also this would have caused worldwide temperature changes, a temporary changing of the Earth's magnetic field (causing all creatures that use said field for navigation to be thrown into turmoil as their "north star", so to speak, disappeared) as well as giving everyone on the bright side of the Earth a potentially lethal dose of UV radiation due to the deflection power of Earth's magnetic field being temporarily "shut off". And then, if the world had suddenly gone from rotating at 465.11 m/s (at the equator) to no movement at all, everything on the earth would have been shot out into space as if from a slingshot.
Second, according to Genesis chapter 17, Abraham's wife managed to give birth to a son despite having passed menopause. Even if she had a single egg cell left in her ovaries, the chances of that egg being fertilized by Abraham during the narrow window in which it would be possible is so unlikely, it could practically be called impossible.
Third, Noah's Ark. In order to build a boat large enough to hold two of every species of creature on Earth as well as the food required would have without a doubt caused the Ark to be so heavy, it would have undoubtedly sunk. Furthermore, such a construction task would have taken one man's family many decades to build working alone, especially since according to the technical specifications the Bible gives for the ark, it was 450x75x45 feet, which would be 1,518,750 cubic feet, hardly enough to hold 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal on Earth (including many species that are now extinct, such as dinosaurs). And then there's the problem of food. How would he feed these creatures for the 150 days in which he resided in the Ark? How would he and his family have managed to single-handedly give all these creatures fresh water (since the new oceans of the Earth would have been quite undrinkable if not due to salt content then due to the microbes from all the decomposing creatures that had died in the flood), cleaned out the dung (which, again, would have gone into their water source), and kept the animals from fighting or in any other way getting riled up? My parents claim that God put them all into hibernation, but that still doesn't explain how they would all fit on the Ark, and most creatures wouldn't be able to go into hibernation and be sustained for 150 days on nothing but body fat (reptiles included, don't store near enough body fat to survive a 150-day hibernation without any food and then, when it was all over, having to wait until other creatures either reproduced or flora returned before they could eat). Then, Noah was informed of the water having drained from the earth (apparently to an undisclosed location, since there doesn't seem to be that much water on Earth now) by a dove having brought him back an olive tree leaf. The problem with this is that olive trees need "average" rainfall. Being submerged for 150 days would have been more than enough to drown any olive tree (and probably any other tree as well for that matter) or at least cause it to die due to lack of sunlight. Furthermore, it would have taken much longer than just a the few days that the water was drained for a new olive tree to sprout and grow to the point of bearing leaves.
Of course, there's also the miracles in which the dead are brought back to life. The problem with this is that by the time 3 days had gone by (in the case of Jesus or Lazarus), the body would have gone into an extended state of decay, all tissue in the body being dead and the brain having suffered irreversible damage. Unless Jesus and Lazarus (and others who were resurrected) could spontaneously regain the chemicals and electric signals that made up their memory (which defies all proven laws of the inability for matter to appear out of nothing), they would have been brought back to life with almost complete memory loss, not to mention their muscles being stricken with rigor mortis (which beings after 3 hours and takes over 72 hours to dissipate), which would have made them unable to even hold their bodies upright and stand.
I could go on, but it is unnecessary. Suffice it to say that I realized how many impossible (by proven scientific facts, versus faith and biblical theory) many (if not most or all) the miracles described in the Bible are. From there I came to realize that religion was not worth what it asked for (not including the weekly church donations that costs my family some 5,000 to 7,500 dollars or more yearly) and the blinding of people to what could be a foreseeable truth, meaning if a scientist discovered groundbreaking evidence that could change the way Humanity worked but would contradict the Bible, Christians, against all logic and reason would stick to their false faith rather than go towards what may cause Humanity and the Earth as a whole to become enlightened.
McLaughlin
South Dakota
United States of America
Joined: Approx. 4
Left: 17
Was: Assembly of God member, Baptist, non-segregated church member
Now: atheist, logician, free thinker, idealist
Converted because: Because I was brought up believing it was the correct way to live.
De-converted because: After much thinking I realized the Bible has no proof.
email: nhbfan AT gmail DOT com
Logic versus religion. Thus is the concept that many people have fought and died for throughout humanity's existence. Some have fought and died for it, while far more have fought and died against it. Here is the result of my thoughts concerning the Bible and stories/miracles mentioned therein.
First, one of the most logic-defying miracles appears in Joshua 10:13. "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on [ Or nation triumphed over ] its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." Now, in order for the sun to stand still, the earth naturally would have had to cease rotating. However, this would have caused not only gravity itself to cease, but also this would have caused worldwide temperature changes, a temporary changing of the Earth's magnetic field (causing all creatures that use said field for navigation to be thrown into turmoil as their "north star", so to speak, disappeared) as well as giving everyone on the bright side of the Earth a potentially lethal dose of UV radiation due to the deflection power of Earth's magnetic field being temporarily "shut off". And then, if the world had suddenly gone from rotating at 465.11 m/s (at the equator) to no movement at all, everything on the earth would have been shot out into space as if from a slingshot.
Second, according to Genesis chapter 17, Abraham's wife managed to give birth to a son despite having passed menopause. Even if she had a single egg cell left in her ovaries, the chances of that egg being fertilized by Abraham during the narrow window in which it would be possible is so unlikely, it could practically be called impossible.
Third, Noah's Ark. In order to build a boat large enough to hold two of every species of creature on Earth as well as the food required would have without a doubt caused the Ark to be so heavy, it would have undoubtedly sunk. Furthermore, such a construction task would have taken one man's family many decades to build working alone, especially since according to the technical specifications the Bible gives for the ark, it was 450x75x45 feet, which would be 1,518,750 cubic feet, hardly enough to hold 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal on Earth (including many species that are now extinct, such as dinosaurs). And then there's the problem of food. How would he feed these creatures for the 150 days in which he resided in the Ark? How would he and his family have managed to single-handedly give all these creatures fresh water (since the new oceans of the Earth would have been quite undrinkable if not due to salt content then due to the microbes from all the decomposing creatures that had died in the flood), cleaned out the dung (which, again, would have gone into their water source), and kept the animals from fighting or in any other way getting riled up? My parents claim that God put them all into hibernation, but that still doesn't explain how they would all fit on the Ark, and most creatures wouldn't be able to go into hibernation and be sustained for 150 days on nothing but body fat (reptiles included, don't store near enough body fat to survive a 150-day hibernation without any food and then, when it was all over, having to wait until other creatures either reproduced or flora returned before they could eat). Then, Noah was informed of the water having drained from the earth (apparently to an undisclosed location, since there doesn't seem to be that much water on Earth now) by a dove having brought him back an olive tree leaf. The problem with this is that olive trees need "average" rainfall. Being submerged for 150 days would have been more than enough to drown any olive tree (and probably any other tree as well for that matter) or at least cause it to die due to lack of sunlight. Furthermore, it would have taken much longer than just a the few days that the water was drained for a new olive tree to sprout and grow to the point of bearing leaves.
Of course, there's also the miracles in which the dead are brought back to life. The problem with this is that by the time 3 days had gone by (in the case of Jesus or Lazarus), the body would have gone into an extended state of decay, all tissue in the body being dead and the brain having suffered irreversible damage. Unless Jesus and Lazarus (and others who were resurrected) could spontaneously regain the chemicals and electric signals that made up their memory (which defies all proven laws of the inability for matter to appear out of nothing), they would have been brought back to life with almost complete memory loss, not to mention their muscles being stricken with rigor mortis (which beings after 3 hours and takes over 72 hours to dissipate), which would have made them unable to even hold their bodies upright and stand.
I could go on, but it is unnecessary. Suffice it to say that I realized how many impossible (by proven scientific facts, versus faith and biblical theory) many (if not most or all) the miracles described in the Bible are. From there I came to realize that religion was not worth what it asked for (not including the weekly church donations that costs my family some 5,000 to 7,500 dollars or more yearly) and the blinding of people to what could be a foreseeable truth, meaning if a scientist discovered groundbreaking evidence that could change the way Humanity worked but would contradict the Bible, Christians, against all logic and reason would stick to their false faith rather than go towards what may cause Humanity and the Earth as a whole to become enlightened.
McLaughlin
South Dakota
United States of America
Joined: Approx. 4
Left: 17
Was: Assembly of God member, Baptist, non-segregated church member
Now: atheist, logician, free thinker, idealist
Converted because: Because I was brought up believing it was the correct way to live.
De-converted because: After much thinking I realized the Bible has no proof.
email: nhbfan AT gmail DOT com
Sometimes I think that all of these people are playing a grand joke on us atheists. The stories are so rediculous that only a child who had yet to learn logic and reasoning skills would accept them. Can you believe that anyone over the age of 12-17 wouldn't reject them?
Now, all that said, I do believe that as a group of loosely related myths the bible does have some value to it. Especially if it is studied in the context of the ancient mythology that spawned it, and the later mythology that it spawned.
The psychological, Sociological and anthropological studies of the true believers are also fascinating. The cultish/tribal characteristics of the thousands of denominations give us page after page of knowledge. If humanity manages to survive the next thousand years we will be looked at as a primitive people who acquired way too much technology way too quickly.
Christians may be right, the end times may be near, though not at all the way they imagine them.
Now THAT may be the sign the end is near, and that they may be just the ones to help usher it on in! What say you 59?
Now that would have accomplished something! What did raising Lazarus do for anyone?Who is this incompetent diety that raises dead people,but allows evil to reign and torture humans for eternity? Why all the drama "King Jesus",...Why all the drama?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/damnable.html
OK, this one pained me to read, if you are going to talk about logic, it definitely needs to be held to that very standard.
The cessation of rotation of a large body (i.e., the earth), would not remove its mass that is used in the calculation of gravity. If anything, the slight difference in outward motion (from rotation) would cause a slight increase in perceived weight of items from having fewer forces countering the gravity, but gravity itself would remain the same.
Other than that, welcome.
Because you believe in no moral law.
Because apart from God's Word, there is no morality in this fallen world.
So don't be hypocrites when a psycho murders your children. You should rejoice, and say, Praise be to Entropy !!!
Because you believe in no moral law.
Because apart from God's Word, there is no morality in this fallen world.
So don't be hypocrites when a psycho murders your children. You should rejoice, and say, Praise be to Entropy !!! "
Would you say there is a humor law that objectively defines what is or is not funny? How about a surprise law that determines whether or not you are surprised? Suppose somebody told you that you didn't really love your parents because your feeling failed to meet the criteria set by their love law?
There is a big difference between recognizing and appreciating the existance of morality and presuming that there is one, and only one, set standard by which morality is to be defined.
There are millions of non-christians on this planet that live sane, peaceful, harmonious lives. They are kind, friendly, civilized people who manage to co-exist happily within their society without adhering to or believing in your god's moral laws.
Now tell us, Mr. self righteously anonymous, Mr moral law believer, if a bunch of christians decided that your children were enemies of god and joyfully bashed their heads against some stones, would you have any problem with that? If they enslaved your family or took your virgin daughters as "wives" against their will, would that be ok with you? If you heard a voice that claimed to be god and it told you to prove your faith by butchering your own children would you do the morally right thing? Do you even know what the morally right thing is?
Thing is, that Egyptian army was coming to slaughter them. It wasn't like a bunch of harmless live-and-let-live types were killed by God and God's people were dancing with glee--they were praising God for SAVING THEIR LIVES.
Actually many people on this site believe in some kind of moral law (although whether it's a holdover from when they were Christians or part of a new belief system they have adopted since depends on the person).
You're not going to reel any of these folks back by generalizing like that.
Faith meaning that you are supposed to blindly believe anything written down in a book by any person claiming to have been inspired by an invisible god.
By having faith, you are not to question, nor analyze, nor have any doubt, you are to accept those tales as absolute truth, no matter how much your built-in common sense rejects them as false.
By having faith, you are to follow the teachings of the bible as 100% truth and focus on those teachings as a brainless zombie and reject all truisms and scientific knowledge that anyone says, especially Atheist's and scientest's and non-believers.
By having faith, you are to believe that the written scripture intercedes all knowledge past, present and future.
By questioning the Bible and by having one single doubt, or lack of faith about the infallable innerant word of God, will send you straight into hell for all eternity.
So a True Loyal Christian will not ever question, nor doubt, nor have lack of faith in what the innerant infallable word of God says, this is the sign of a True Christian.
Should a Christian ever cast one shred of doubt of the Bible's worthyness or a lack of belief, that any part of the Bible not being the true word of God, then you will be judged by God as an Atheist and non-believer and you will be cast into the lake of fire to burn forever and ever. Amen?
Not me brother, you cannot shake my faith with your common sense and logic, no! no! I'm not falling one bit for your deception, you want me to accept your scientific (demonic) explanations and me loose my soul in hell? No way! I know without a single doubt, that the Bible is the breathed word straight from the mouth of God.
God breathed on the disciples as they wrote, that's how close he was to them at the time it was written, he was right there, invisible of course, and told them directly what to write and pushed their hands and pen to write exactly as he said, although they wanted to write what they wanted, but uh uh God put a stop to that, he inspired them what to write, that means it is directly from God, that is a proven fact, this way it cannot be questioned, well except from infidels like Atheist's and non-believers.
I'm a 100% True Christian, and I've been washed in the Blood of the Lamb of Christ, my feet are firmly planted into the true written word of God, the Bible.
You're not going to shake my faith in God's Holy Written Word, no way, you cannot do it, no matter how much you all may try!
I will be praying for you to receive his holy spirit that you may one day believe like me and mq, that the Bible is God's inspired word sent to earth for man to believe, by faith.
Plato's Euthypryo - is something good because the gods (or God) choose it or do the gods choose it because it is good?
If the gods choose genocide is genocide good?
As humans our ethics leave us judging God. We know that the god character in Job is acting in a deeply evil way. We use our ethical sense to judge all actions. Believers and non-believers are in the same boat except that believers in gods, manifest destiny, historical materialism and varied other teleological memes override their ethical antennae and do evil in the name of what they call a greater good.
Assessing ethical behaviour can be tricky but it is what all but the perverse try to do.
Too succinct. That's where it begins and ends for me as far as the religious debate goes.
Steve
The Book of Jasher is pretty cool. It's way more exciting than the Torah. The sons of Jacob are like Herculean action heroes, each making Brad Pitt in Troy look like a wimp.
They leap over city walls and single-handedly slaughter entire armies. They almost wiped out the whole of Egypt on their own, before the captivity even happened!
There's also even more mythical creatures, aswell as more backstory for all the major events in the Torah, like the measurements of the Tower of Babel, or who killed Nimrod (aha, so that's why Esau was so exhausted the day he traded his birthright for lentils...) and more!
It's cool stuff if you're into fantastical ancient action-adventure stories, but not if you think slaughtering thousands of women and children is a bad thing...
Even though it's even less believable than the bible I suppose it's still a must for any christian though, seeing as the bible itself appeals to it as an authority.
(and so and so on),....blah,blah!
Face it, the bible god is a sadistic warlord. By the way, they have proven recently that the jews were not slaves, and that Moses was probably just a military genius who kicked the Egyptians asses!
Do a lttle research man!
Noah's Ark. Noah was a real person. He was some Sumerian King around 12,000 years ago. There is scientific evidence of a great deluge in the Mediterranean basin around that time. You MUST take into account the poetic nature of writing in biblical times. Someone took a TRUE story and embellished it through an oral tradition, then someone else wrote it down generations later. When the book says that, "the whole world was flooded", their whole world at the time was the Mediterranean Sea and some bits of land now called The Holy Land. I doubt Noah had two kind of every animal. He probably had some sheep, goats, and maybe a cow or two. The story was added to over time. It doesn't mean that it's TOTALLY false. But the kernel of truth was added to by other people on through the ages until someone wrote it down.
Yeah we all believe it now, thanks for straightning us ignorant nonbelievers out.
I know you don't exist, but I wish you did, so you could dissolve the rage I feel when I read ignorance like this,
"Because apart from God's Word, there is no morality in this fallen world."
Maybe you are such a pervert that you need a super-being to stop you from serial killing. The rest of us are just find.
Idiocy has no limits, as illustrated by you retard comment.
"The only Biblical incident I can think of where mass death is PRAISED by believers is when the Egyptian army is drowned in the Red Sea and the Hebrews rejoice."
Oh my goodness MG59! You actually having read your holy book, have you?
Geeezzz! Have you forgotten why Saul was was debunked from the throne? His firt mortal sin was not to kill all the humans and animals of Amalec--as order by loving God.
I have to say, I actually thought you had read the thing. Oh, well, now you have to depend on us well-studied people.
Geezzzz... I sit here in amazement.
Bill, as I said, the Bible claims that the sun stood still, not slowed down.
Mrfun103, I'm not debating whether or not Noah existed, I'm just saying that the concept of he and his family single-handedly saving all animals, insects, birds, reptiles, etc. on earth is just ridiculous.
It is true that Saul was rejected as king because he did not obliterate the Amalekites.
However, what I'm referring to is rejoicing by the bulk of either Israel (OT) or the Church (NT) at the prospect of mass slaughter of unbelievers, especially the harmless sort.
I do not recall anything of that nature connected to the fall of Jericho or the Amalekites. Any Biblical description of Hebrew victory parties or the like?
The only other OT thing I can think of that remotely relates to this is, "Saul has killed his thousands and David his tens of thousands" which pertains to the defensive war against the Philistines, not the aggressive conquest of Canaan.
And in the NT, there's only one example of this that I can think of, and that's in Revelation, where martyrs in heaven praise God for "destroying the destroyers of the Earth"--this is another case where it's not ordinary non-believers but murderous types who are on the receiving end.
Anyway, here's a question for you MQ: Please notate here one single verse where the ancient Hebrews mourned the killing of their non-Hebrew enemies.
Just one verse... Can you?
An analogous situation would be the sudden collapse of the Nazi government in the mid-1930s, enabling the persecuted Jews to turn the tables on the local hooligans who'd wrecked their shops and homes (Kristallnacht).
And in Judges, the Jews were often on the receiving end of attacks by their neighbors.
You will concede it is a different matter to rejoice over defeating an enemy bent on your enslavement or extinction than it is to launch an aggressive campaign and glory in the slaughter.
Of course, you do raise the good point about the Jews' reactions to the deaths of non-Hebrew enemies. I will have to investigate that.
Correct. Yes, I know. I did not say the Sun slowed down. I said that the Earth's rotation would have to come to a sudden stop for the Sun to stand still in the sky. I believe this would cause big time problems are Earth if that were to happen. Josuha's army would not be standing on their feet fighting the five armies near Gibeon. Now, I do not know what would happen if the Earth's rotation were to slowly, slow down to a stall...could we handle that? Now, it says the Sun stood still in the sky for a day or so...So that means the Earth's rotation started back up again. Slowly? or real fast? 0 - 1,000mph in six seconds is pretty fast. Would that effect us on Earth at all. My bet is YES it would..yes it would. Of course gravity exists without rotation, but what happens to humans on Earth when you suddenly stop or start that rotation? I'm no scientist but my bet is action and reaction action taken place. thanks for listening.........
bill
Now if we were to suddenly say Christianity and Jesus and the Bible were true, mq59 would say it is false.
There are just people like that, why I think they want to be different or instigators or something.
Anyway if the Sun suddenly stood still, meaning that the Earth suddly stopped rotating, there would be instant tsunami's all over the world, millions would be killed or if now it were to happen, billions would be killed.
Also people and objects would weigh slightly more, we weigh less because of the Earths rotating sling, infact the circumference of the Earth's longitude is bigger at the equator, as opposed to the circumference from North Pole to North Pole latitude, because of the Earth's rotational sling outward.
Actually you and objects weigh less at the equator than you would at the North Pole or South Pole.
But one must remember when reading the Bible, that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the Earth is flat, and the heart is the center of all thoughts and emotion..
Actually, MQ, an unjust plot had been formulated against the Jews where their neighbors would be allowed to slaughter them without the Jews being allowed to defend themselves, but the plot was thwarted. The threat had been averted, so nothing happened. The King then unjustly authorized the Jews the license to wreck vengeance on their neighbors, and the Jews exercised that right with impunity. The neighbors were restrained from defending themselves. They were unarmed. The Jews showed no forgiveness, no turning the other cheek, and gave no quarter. I’m sure that the voracious bloodlust of the Jews against their neighbors endeared the Jews to their surviving Pagan neighbors. Even the King was upset when the body count was given.
MQ59 said: “An analogous situation would be the sudden collapse of the Nazi government in the mid-1930s, enabling the persecuted Jews to turn the tables on the local hooligans who'd wrecked their shops and homes (Kristallnacht).”
Frankly, I’m unfamiliar with the event you cited, but Esther doesn’t mention anything about turning tables on hooligans. It talks about full-scale mob killings against men, women and children — anyone who was not a Jew.
MQ59 said: “And in Judges, the Jews were often on the receiving end of attacks by their neighbors.”
Now, let’s talk about this. Who was attacking whom here? From the time the Hebrews departed Egypt, the Hebrews were the admitted aggressors. Jericho was a sovereign walled city, and Joshua and his hoard attacked it. Except for one traitorous prostitute and her family, every man, woman and child met a gruesome death at the hands of the Israelites. In fact, the Book of Joshua is filled with similar stories. In Judges, the Hebrew heroes are frequently documented as goading neighbors into aggression, just so they could kill them and take their land, virgins, whatever.
Would you see the wholesale slaughter of your relatives as good? Even if the aggressors claimed to be the people of God? For some reason, Islamic fundamentalism comes immediately to my mind. They believe they are defending their way of life, fighting for God, and the most hideous acts of terrorism are seen as defending the world against the “Great Satan.” I suppose, following your train of thought here, that when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the American response of imprisoning US citizens whose roots traced back to Japan was not only just, but it would have been equally as just to exterminate them altogether. After all, they were Japanese. Nazis were not slaughtered after WWII. Those who had committed atrocities were tried, and those who had not committed atrocities returned to regular civilian life, to rebuild as best they could. Many emigrated to the US and other countries. We didn’t take their land and their virgins.
There are big differences between merely defending yourself, attacking someone else to take their land, and committing genocide against an entire people group. Is genocide, or attempted genocide, ever the right thing to do? No matter how awful the enemy?
MQ59 said: “You will concede it is a different matter to rejoice over defeating an enemy bent on your enslavement or extinction than it is to launch an aggressive campaign and glory in the slaughter.”
Absolutely, but to glory in the heinous butchery of defeated humans for any reason, then stealing their property and virginal women, is barbaric.
MW59 said: “Of course, you do raise the good point about the Jews' reactions to the deaths of non-Hebrew enemies. I will have to investigate that.”
Good luck.
A suggestion: When reading about the atrocities in the OT, try reading the stories as if they are historic events written by a nameless ancient tribal people group. See if you still like what you read. See if you would still want to find ways to justify and excuse their behavior.
Try honestly believing that God really did have a son with Mary, a virgin who was betrothed to Joseph, and the off spring of that mixed marriage was pure human, although he was also God himself, and something called the holy Ghost.
Try believing with all your heart that the "Arrangement" whereas, Jesus was killed as a sacrifice to his immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent father really has any significant meaning at all, especially when this supposed son knew he would only be dead three days and then float up through the clouds and rule the kingdom of paradise forever.
Really, really try to believe that you are bad to the core, and the only way you can amount to anything is to believe this stuff with every fiber of you being. Every time you are doing something pleasurable, try reminding yourself that all things in this life are fleeting, and you really should be keeping your attention turned towards "The next life"
Try drowning your children because you don't want Satan to get them. Try drinking cyanide laced Kool Aid, so you can go to heaven with your group leader Try hitching a ride on a comet, DEAD!
Dan (It's so much easier just being the heathens that we were when we were born)
Check this shit out: With a success rate of about 99.5% accuracy, the sphincter muscle(butt hole) can "translate" to the human brain the difference between needing to pass gas, and having to defecate......yet, here we all sit and listen to how a presumable omnsicient and omnipotent "God" needs to have some dude(MQ59) "translate" this god's "Divine" plan for all of mankind. It's thick with irony---a butt hole is smarter than God. Thppppt!
How trashy and immature.
How trashy and immature."
Way to go, Boom! (Hey, if you can annoy the self-righteous, you're doing something right!)
Trust me, MQ59 has the market cornered on "annoying"...I just made an observation that I believe holds true. Whether it's viewed as "trashy" or not, is irrelevant. Think about what I said...it's true....::wink::(pun)
He cast them down to earth to cause more battles ,death and destruction!
Your god is a "GOD OF WAR!"and to BE A GOOD CHRISTIAN YOU MUST ACCEPT THIS !
Now it's so very obvious that mq59 puts more merrit in an invisible word invented over 2000 years ago called faith, invented to make one feel guilty for not following the invisible myth lie called the bible.
I myself happen to put more merrit in things I know is true and can be proved to exist.
I therefore choose logic over imaginary faith anytime of the day, week or year.
So mq59 is suffering from a mental disorder in which he either refuses to recognise or chooses not to recognize truth and logic.
He's cerainly not alone, there are billions suffering from the same mental disorder, it's not easly recognized by society, but it is easly recognized by us non-believers in myths and lies and fairytales.
mq, you desperately need psychotic help, you may fit in your surrounding environment, but you certainly as shit do not fit in here on this website.
Please take your nonsense and foolishness elsewhere! Thanks and get a life!
David
The difference between what mathematicians do and what MQ59 is doing is epistemological.
Mathematics doesn't begin with faith, but definitions. Any mathematical principle that is not merely tautological is subject to disproof using the basic definitions and well tested methodology.
The whole point of faith is that you believe in things that are not subject to disproof. You claim to receive truth from a Higher Source that cannot be questioned.
If you ever question it, people like the earlier anony in this post say you have no basis for a moral life.
Well, there's no evidence that the Higher Source exists or created morality. There's lots of evidence that human beings created the Higher Source and the morality they ascribe to divine authorship.
Just look at the prisons, and how many prisoners find religion.
An excellent cover for almost any criminal is to pretend to be a God fearing Christian.
Usually when serial killers are discovered, the first thing you see is someone saying "He was such a good church member"
In summation, I submit that pretending to give up rational thought and masquerading as a good Christian is NOT all that illogical for someone looking for instant status in society!
(Dan (Who asks. Who is sitting in your pew?)
What if all those Christians are right . . . ?
What if the Bible is true . . . ?
Couldn't a God exceed what science says is impossible? ? ? Could a real God do the impossible? ? ? isn't that what a miracle is? If there is a real God, would he be limited to only what man claims to be possible?
What if it is all true? ? Would Hell still exist whether I believe it or not? What if a man or woman --you or I -- could have a relationship with this God?
What if God can put his Spirit and power into our lives?
What if you die tomorrow? - if hell exists - I don't want to go there.
Please be free thinking enough to think about the "what if's"
We are all quick to read something in a science book or history book and put "blind faith" in what we read as "fact."
Let's take free thinking to a new degree
That's the thing, we've asked these questions, and have found ALL the mythologies to be just that: mythologies lacking in any basis of reality.
I for one, do not accept history and science on "blind" faith, as far as science, I believe those things which are shown to be factually correct, or at least to be the best plausible explanation thus far. Science is reliable because it can change when new evidence is presented, unlike the dogma of religion, which will always remain ignorant
What you said about science not being infallible is true, many ideas are only theories, but science is a self-perfecting system. . .anytime new evidence is shown to discredit old ideas, the new evidence is accepted.
Now, if one holds a concept of god, it's a lot easier to stop scientific inquiry, to just say "Oh well, god did it". Likewise with the unjust suffering in the world, if we don't just push off all the responsibility to a god concept, we're more likely to work towards making a change in this life, since these children won't have any justice in an afterlife.
Isn't the idea of a god up there taking all this suffering into account even worse than no god? If there were a god, they'd just be sitting on their ass while innocents are suffering. . .yay god.
It's more likely that all this came to about thru something man cannot even conceive or grasp with our limited minds and knowledge.
A person of faith may solve this problem by choosing the number 10 to replace the question mark; 10 being an even and familiar number that is easy to understand and relate to. Certainly, they would point out, there is no reason why x + y couldn't equal 10. So x + y = 10 as far as they are concerned.
The logical skeptic, though, is quick to point out that, without knowing what x and y are, there is no way of knowing that their sum would actually be 10. But the true believe is just as quick in answering that, since x and y are unknown, then there's no way to logically prove that their sum is not 10. They claim the "intellectual high ground" because they at least have a solution whereas logic can only make unprovable guesses.
As research into values of x and y begin to show that x can't be less than 11 and y is appearently a billion and something it becomes clear to the logical mind that, while x + y is still not a completely defined value, it definately can't equal 10.
Enter the apologists who either refutes the research calling it all lies and deceptions or interject new values into he equation such as "negative(a billion and something + 1)". But they build their arguments, not on facts, but (and they freely admit to this) on faith. They begin with the assumption that x + y = 10 is true and instantly conclude that anything that contradicts their assumption must be flawed.
What is really weird, though, is that were it discovered that x actually equals 4 and y equals 6, then the equation x + y = 10 would be proven to be true. And, once proven, there would no longer be a need for faith. It is only in the in the world of the unknown - in ignorance - that faith can exist.
Etymologically faith's primary meaning is trust and this seems apt for a world where we cannot prove cause and effect.
As for the fallibility of science, the Hegelian triad seems a fitting description of science's method and, indeed, its very business - thesis, antithesis and synthesis. We start of with a given thesis which is then examined and attacked, this resulting in its antithesis. Further examination leads to a synthesis of the ideas found sustainable in both the thesis and antithesis.This synthesis becomes now a new thesis and on we jolly well go.
"Let's face it from ape to human is a pretty damn big leap. And if so why haven't our primate cousins evolved in all the so called millions of years they have been here."
You have just illustrated that your understanding of evolution comes from the church, and not from any science outlet. MAN AND APES EVOLVED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR THAT NO LONGER LIVES!!!! Man did not evolve from apes, "Apes" did not exist at the time humans were evolving, they evolved alongside humans to the current state they are in today. Proto-hominids that were neither ape, or human, were the species that today all primates can claim decent from. And evolution is a SLOW process, every species is evolving today, only we consider it the "current" species because we do not know where it is heading, evolution has no purpose. It is like saying nothing else can ever be invented, so we should just close down the patent offices.
Humans evolved differently than chimps or bonobos because of many reasons, some of which would be climate and food sources, but we did not evolve from apes or chimps, and NO scientist has ever claimed that. The church says this BECAUSE it sounds insane, and that is the point. Apes are our COUSINS, not parents.
This really was an eye opener for me when I was leaving the church. I bought some books on evolution, and realized that what I thought I knew about it from the church was NOTHING but flat out lies or distortions of the actual theory. The question then arised "why would the church lie if they had the revealed truth?"
Because if the church admits that man has evolved, then there was no Adam and Eve. If there was never an Adam or Eve, then there was never an "original sin". If there was never an "original sin" then there is no need for salvation. If there is no need for salvation, then there would be no need for a blood sacrifice. If there is no need for a blood sacrifice, then there is no need for a jesus. If there is no need for jesus, then there is no need to get up on Sunday and give 10% of your hard earned money to the church. If you do not give your money to the church, they will all need to go out and get REAL jobs and actually work for a living, and that is not something they want. Money talks...
Could you explain why humnans and chimps share some 97% of our DNA without evolution? If god created everything in a unique and seperate way, why would he need to re-use most of the code for lower primates in humans, espically if we were the whole reason for the creation in the first place? If humans are some divine creation, than why are we made from the same carbon as any other animal? Why do we reproduce sexually just like any other species on the planet? Why do we need to eat, sleep, shit and piss just like every other species on earth? Because we ARE animals that are NO DIFFERENT than any other, except that our brains are of an order that allows to wonder why we are here. Comon man, think!
David
"It seems to me that bendigeiduran might be on to something by citing Hume. Perhaps the fight of "Logic versus Faith" is one whose resolution will be properly found in the domain of philosophy. Is there a philosopher in the house?"
David
Dan asks,
If you have a choice between logic or faith, why would you choose faith?
If you choose faith, you may never know the truth.
If you demand empirical proof, you are open to learning truth whenever it is discovered.
I am sure there are people in insane asylums who keep saying over and over: "Jesus help me".
As no verifiable, repeatable proof that a man named Jesus, who could do magic, ever lived, or could help them, especially after he has been dead for two thousand years, these poor souls should have stuck with rational thought.
Dan (Who can be happy without knowing how the universe was created)
I suppose that the word "faith" is a bit of a hot button word around here. That word doesn't get me all stirred up I suppose. I think it's because I am aware that the only thing that I can really be aware of is myself. The existence of an "external world" or public domain is something that is POSITED or taken on as tenet of faith by a private self.
David (who doesn't need to append statements after my name to be happy :)
"Hey Dan,
I suppose that the word "faith" is a bit of a hot button word around here. That word doesn't get me all stirred up I suppose. I think it's because I am aware that the only thing that I can really be aware of is myself. The existence of an "external world" or public domain is something that is POSITED or taken on as tenet of faith by a private self"
"David (who doesn't need to append statements after my name to be happy :)"
Dan replies to Anonymous David:
So what does that make you? Are you a Christian, Ex Christian, Christian apologist, Agnostic, atheist?
Do you have faith in a mythology, and or what?
Do you prefer to not put a label on your self?
Do you just like to discuss philosophy?
Do you believe that evolution disproves the whole Christian religion?
I do!
Dan (Who uses the appendix thing to distinguish myself from all of the Anonymouses around here, because it is irritating to respond to Anonymous, when it is so easy to hit the other button and make up a unique screen name. At least I have you pegged as some kind of defender of faith, named David.)
David Hume was of course either a negative atheist or a deist. He was specifically opposed to the idea of revealed religion.His emphasis was always on the inevitability of the empirical being the only way forward.
And what are we to say of logic?
A thing is not logical because it is sensible - logic describes methods of sound argument from a given premise not a guarantee of good sense. The given premise might be absurd but the argument stemming from it perfectly logical.
There is the story told about a certain extremely intelligent yet hugely unpopular Britsh politician that he would always accept a mistaken premise and then argue from it with impeccable logic.
'The moon is made of green cheese; cheese comes from cows; therefore there must once have been cows in space,' is both absurd and logical.
I recognise that you might want to point out that the cheese could have come from another species of lactating mammal but that would simply be to continue a logical argument based on an absurd premise.
I suggest that the way to tackle theists of any stamp is to undermine the historical, the empirical, roots of their belief system. There is no point in tackling faith, ie. trust, as we all share in that.
If people find they can believe in a benevolent universe that wishes us all well - as Mother Julian of Norwich put it,'All will be well, all manner of things will be well' - they can be left to that. Trust is necessary and if not misplaced, as in in mythic systems, perhaps a great and good thing.
I'm an ex-Christian, an apostate like most of you. I don't consider myself a philosopher. I sometimes wish that I knew more about it though.
I don't think that acceptance of the theory of evolution necessitates the denial of a God. That is, I think that it is possible to both accept evolution and maintain a belief in a God. However I do think that accepting the theory of evolution destroys any notion of a "literal interpretation" of the Bible. The phrase "literal interpretation" strikes me as an oxymoron in any case, with or without the theory of evolution.
I'm not an apologist either. What you may be sensing in me is a live and let live attitude that I have developed towards Christians. I am after all an EX-Christian, so for me attacking or mocking Christians is like attacking or mocking my own childhood. I still have friends and family who are Christians, and I don't think that they are complete fools. That's just where they are right now. I hope that all that gives you a sense of where I'm coming from.
Well said Bendigeiduran.
David (who no longer posts anonymously thanks in part to Dan)
I'm an ex-Christian, an apostate like most of you. I don't consider myself a philosopher. I sometimes wish that I knew more about it though.
Danagain!
I agree with every thing you said.
More later, the boss just called me to dinner.
Dan (Who enjoys talking to "David M" (My brothers name is David and got Parkinson's that affects his mind, the same year he retired after 40 years of hard work)
"I do think that accepting the theory of evolution destroys any notion of a "literal interpretation" of the Bible"
Exactly, the bath water is filthy from a dirty rotten baby who must be tossed out also!
There are so many holes in the bible that there can be NO literal interpretation of it at all. The christian "god" is a farse.
I will never be sure that there is no god, but I can say with certainty that the bible god does not exist!
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Inference: "The reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
All knowledge comes from the senses, period. To deny ones' senses, is to deny their identity and existence awareness. In short, in order for someone to make such a claim, renders their own comments sterile, whether their comments are logical or not. A person can logically, disable themselves from experiencing reality. People murder all the time, and are capable of justifying their actions, in some form, however, it doesn't remove the act or empirical evidence of the act.
Truth is what it is, not what it may be inferred as. There are logically good arguments, and bad arguments, and its the job of the logician to make a determination on what logical arguments, are fallacious and which ones aren't.
Thus, I may agree that people make the "attempt" to reason and use logic in their everyday lives, but, many do in a fallacious capacility. To say a supernatural deity exists, in a natural world, or can/has existed in a natural world, is a contradiction of the terms, supernatural and natural.
One could argue that there are schools of logical thought, and many people seem to exist well in some schools better than others. An empirical logistician is not going to accept another persons' reasoning when they start making comments like, you can't trust your senses, etc. like descartes, etc. One could suggest both are a form of logical reasoning, but "not really", and perhaps, that's my own logical bias, but until someone communicates to me, without using their "senses", will I entertain the notion that there is logic beyond natural sensory communication.
Faith, is the alibi used by those who use fallacious reasoning as their primary mode of logic. One may suggest that a person at a minimum has to have "faith" in themselves, in the form of "trust and confidence", but I choose to use the word "trust", instead of "faith". No reason to allow ambiguity to enter a discussion on "faith", as different definitions are "not" equal, and there's no reason to let those who use "faith" as a crutch in life to keep their crutch during an honest and non-ambiguous discussion.
Religious "faith", is for those who need to build a bridge between the natural reality, and their "self-declared" imaginative state of platonic existence where a perfectly objective god resides.
Faith is the issue - the only issue - that you ever really wrestle with when it comes to theism. They may dress it up in rationized regalia and treat it as though it were a self-evident fact, but, as long as they have it, they are free to close their eyes and their ears to anything that threatens their trust in their beliefs.
"And what are we to say of logic?
A thing is not logical because it is sensible - logic describes methods of sound argument from a given premise not a guarantee of good sense. The given premise might be absurd but the argument stemming from it perfectly logical."
Dan agrees: (And with David M, also who said "I still have friends and family who are Christians, and I don't think that they are complete fools. That's just where they are right now. I hope that all that gives you a sense of where I'm coming from"
I have been guilty of calling Christian evangelicals illogical and stupid. I now understand that most of the most prominent ones have led extremely logical lives. Professing to believe or even actually believing is not all that dumb sometimes, and many believers seem to live happy healthy lives.
People like Billy Graham have been advisors to presidents, been revered wherever they went, looked up to, had enormous amounts of money at their disposable, and for all practical purposes lived like royalty.
All he had to do to was to give the same sermon over and over every where he went. You know what it is. We have all heard it a million times. (God loves you, this I know, cause the bible tells me so.)
Even though very little of the bible makes any sense when rational examination is applied to it, it still makes a lot of sense to pretend to believe it, elect your self as someone who speaks for God, and go around telling everybody that you were called by him to try and convince as many gullible people as possible to believe it, and SEND IN THEIR MONEY.
The Binny Hinn's, and the Jerry Falwell's, and the Pat Robertson's, are not fools. They live very well.
I will even go so far as to say that a belief in a magical deity gives a lot of little people confidence to get up in the morning. IF you have to go out of the cave and kill something, it makes a lot of sense to believe that the God of the hunt is right there watching and rooting for you.
I don't suppose there is any way to explain to somebody, whose whole psyche depends on a trust in a benevolent God, the irrationality of it. THEY DON'T CARE! Their religious book essentially tells them to just believe that God will take care of everything. It is sort of being high on opium. Nothing else matters.
But here is the problem; Around the world there are millions of people being taught that their particular religious belief is the only true religious belief, and anyone who believes different should die.
Right now, right here on planet earth, those folks in the middle east who are essentially all pretty much physically and intellectually equal, are killing each other as fast as the can, because of differing religious acculturation.
You have a nut case running Iran, and they have all the billions of dollars that we have paid them for their oil, and they can buy weapons from North Korea which is run by a little fat pervert who inherited the country from his father. He has insisted and received compliance to the edict, that everyone start worshiping him from the moment they are born.
Both of these whackos are making nuclear weapons as fast as they can, right now, right here, on planet earth.
It is just a matter of "how l