How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[Pieman333272]

i was just kidding.

To quote my favorite comic strip, “Everybody hates a literalist!”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You misunderstand. As far as i see it, you have to believe that if you are an atheist. If you believe that nothing existed before the big bang because you have no evidence for it, then you have to believe, in absence of that evidence, that the universe popped out of nothing by itself. You have to believe that particles come in and out of existence by themselves. Or are you willing to accept that something non-physical is at work? Its an either or. To be agnostic about it is to entertain the possibility that particles can come out of nothing by themselves. No such option exists for a rational person.

Thus i have to believe in the supernatural: that is to say only that i believe in a non-material being.

 

[tonyrey]

Doesn’t everyone when it comes to ‘God’ and the unknowns?

What are **your **assumptions?

 

[donsnow]

Frankly, I accept the Holy Bible and anecdotes of historical miracles, as well as the Church’s attesting to certain miracles, as evidence of God’s existence.

It’s been my experience that most atheists seem to try to disqualify the Bible and the Church as evidence. I reject their attempts as ad hominum to the Bible and Church.

I view the rejection of anecdotal evidence by skeptics and atheists as a manipulative ploy and intellectually dishonest. In real life, outside of courts and universities, anecdotal evidence is acceptable.

In closing, and as I’ve mentioned before, comparing God to fairies, leprechauns and unicorns is a false comparison…the [alleged] creature is not comparable to its [alleged] Creator.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7190398:

Let me be more direct. Until reasons have been given for or against the existence of Superman, Superman may or may not exist, but would it be justified to assume Superman exists without proper evidence?

Superman is influenced by media. My question for you (going on your belief) would you have discovered Superman without the influence from an external source? This is a big issue, because many find “God” individually.

That’s what they say, but God is concept very ingrained in our culture which is often deeply internalized (one might say, “I’ve felt Jesus”, etc.).

It’s difficult to know who has found “God” individually. It’s also hard to discern if they didn’t find “God” out because of various psychological needs.

To answer your question, if the idea of superman did not come to me from an external source, I probably wouldn’t have conceived of that superhero. However, if intelligent human-like life exists in another part of the universe, it’s likely that they would conceive of the broad idea of a God or higher power (for internal, psychological reasons), but would not likely conceive of a particular God of a particular religion here on Earth (if they did prior to contact with earth, I’d take that as anecdotal evidence that that God is somehow real).

TruthSeeker60;7190398:

Forget about talking to another person. If you learn about the idea of a Superman, would you be justified believing in it without having evidence?

once again, this depends on where one learns the idea from.

If I “discovered” Elephantman internally, I still am not justified believing in Elephantman without evidence.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7189675:

This is a strawman.

Most people who label themselves as atheist don’t claim to know how the universe exists. I don’t. I certainly don’t think that the universe popped into existence.

You misunderstand. As far as i see it, you have to believe that if you are an atheist.

Why can’t an atheist be “agnostic” regarding what naturally caused/causes the universe to exist?

If you believe that nothing existed before the big bang because you have no evidence for it, then you have to believe, in absence of that evidence, that the universe popped out of nothing by itself.

Not all people who don’t believe in a god believe that there nothing existed before the big bang. The fact that they don’t think that “god” initiated the big bang doesn’t mean that they think the big bang came from nothing.

Cosmologists do have evidence regarding the cause of the big bang. However, not having any evidence for any particular theory about what happened before the big bang doesn’t mean one assumes that the universe popped into existence. One can be justified to lack belief in a particular theory without evidence though.

I don’t know what happened before the big bang. Scientists have been doing tests and making observations to expand our understanding of cosmology. It will be interesting to find our more and more about our universe as time goes on. Here’s where cosmologists are at now:

youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

You have to believe that particles come in and out of existence by themselves. Or are you willing to accept that something non-physical is at work? Its an either or.

This may be a false dichotomy. What about anti-matter or many of the other things cosmologists are investigating? It’s interesting that empty space has weight, which would be an indicator that more than particles exist:

youtube.com/watch?v=TQ4Ofvh7FL4

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Frankly, I accept the Holy Bible and anecdotes of historical miracles, as well as the Church’s attesting to certain miracles, as evidence of God’s existence.

It’s been my experience that most atheists seem to try to disqualify the Bible and the Church as evidence. I reject their attempts as ad hominum to the Bible and Church.

I view the rejection of anecdotal evidence by skeptics and atheists as a manipulative ploy and intellectually dishonest. In real life, outside of courts and universities, anecdotal evidence is acceptable.

I’m an atheist. I reject the Bible as evidence in favor of the existence of a god because it is filled with problems. The Bible is filled with contradiction. For example, Matthew chapter 2, and Luke chapter 2 give contradictory information regarding the nativity. Matthew 2:1 says that Jesus was born in the days of Herod (before 4 BCE), while Luke 2:1-2 indicates that Jesus wasn’t born until the rule of Cryenius (after 6 CE). Luke 2:1-7 says that Jesus and Mary lived in Nazareth, and traveled to Bethlehem because of a census, while Matthew 2:12, 11, 22-23 says that they lived in Bethlehem, and moved to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. There are hundreds of other contradictions that scholars have noted in the Bible. A few of them are potentially reconcilable, but many are not. Here are more contradictions:

youtube.com/user/nonstampcollector?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/18/RB3g6mXLEKk

There are also moral problems with the Bible, including Psalm 137:9 indicating that dashing babies against rocks is a potential source of joy, and Yahweh mandating in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 that virgins who are raped marry the person who raped them. In Deuteronomy 28:53, Yahweh threatened to force people to eat their own children. In 2 King 2:23-23, God had bears kill 42 children because they mocked Elijah for being bald.

I view the rejection of anecdotal evidence by skeptics and atheists as a manipulative ploy and intellectually dishonest. In real life, outside of courts and universities, anecdotal evidence is acceptable.

Extraordinary claims does require extraordinary evidence. One can use anecdotal evidence to justify belief, however, the evidence in favor of that belief needs to be very strong to justify belief in something extraordinary.

I’ll accept anecdotal evidence in favor of a god only if it is sufficiently strong to justify such a belief. However, I’ll also be open to anecdotal evidence against a personal god who is omniscient, omni-potent, and omni-benevolent, if that evidence is strong enough.

 

[ddarko]

I’m an atheist. I reject the Bible as evidence in favor of the existence of a god because it is filled with problems. The Bible is filled with contradiction. For example, Matthew chapter 2, and Luke chapter 2 give contradictory information regarding the nativity. Matthew 2:1 says that Jesus was born in the days of Herod (before 4 BCE), while Luke 2:1-2 indicates that Jesus wasn’t born until the rule of Cryenius (after 6 CE). Luke 2:1-7 says that Jesus and Mary lived in Nazareth, and traveled to Bethlehem because of a census, while Matthew 2:12, 11, 22-23 says that they lived in Bethlehem, and moved to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. There are hundreds of other contradictions that scholars have noted in the Bible. A few of them are potentially reconcilable, but many are not. Here are more contradictions:

youtube.com/user/nonstampcollector?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/18/RB3g6mXLEKk

There are also moral problems with the Bible, including Psalm 137:9 indicating that dashing babies against rocks is a potential source of joy, and Yahweh mandating in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 that virgins who are raped marry the person who raped them. In Deuteronomy 28:53, Yahweh threatened to force people to eat their own children. In 2 King 2:23-23, God had bears kill 42 children because they mocked Elijah for being bald.

oh man, sad to hear about your position.

First, about the contradictions, I take it you are not a biblical scholar. There are tons of resources that address each of these contradictions. The problem is in the way you interpret things. This is not just a problem only in atheist but in most ‘‘Christian’’ denominations as well. So my best advice, don’t believe me, do a good search on scholarly articles and you will be able to get an interpretation that is coherent. You would be surprised at how the ‘‘contradictions’’ disappear away.

Now about immorality in the bible (aside from your interpretation), I am surprised that you can make such a claim that they are immoral considering you are an atheist. What is your grounds for an objective morality? Is it simply your opinion that killing 42 babies was immoral? Because under Christian view, it really is not immoral. God is the giver of life, he can take it as he pleases. We are all sinners. For God to take what he freely choose to give us is not unjust in any sense of the word. But as I said, there is the question on how you determine the immorality of such actions if they were done by humans? What is the difference between pedophilia and love between two grown people under the atheist view? Aren’t both just actions of animals? What makes one action greater than the other in the atheist view? That’s something for you to think about.

Extraordinary claims does require extraordinary evidence. One can use anecdotal evidence to justify belief, however, the evidence in favor of that belief needs to be very strong to justify belief in something extraordinary.

Thats quiet the extraordinary claim there. Do you have extra-ordinary evidence to back it up? If not, needless to say, its self-refuting.

Second thing, there is definitely more evidence for a God than against one. I have not heard a single, yes, SINGLE good argument as to why God cannot exist. Yet there are tons for the existence of a God. Now I would have respected your stance if you were an agnostic, but since you claimed you are an atheist, I am interested to hear the best argument that convinced you that there was no God.

I’ll accept anecdotal evidence in favor of a god only if it is sufficiently strong to justify such a belief. However, I’ll also be open to anecdotal evidence against a personal god who is omniscient, omni-potent, and omni-benevolent, if that evidence is strong enough.

Good stance.

So you might want to consider reading up on the argument from morality. I think that is best evidence for a morally good God and they are not anecdotal. Then you can start reading the Kallam argument. They are arguments from deductive logic so its as sound as they come. If the premises are true (or probable if you will), the conclusion inevitably follows.

A word of note though, 90% of the people on Youtube are not educated scholars. So its not really the type of place you want to get good information from. I would advice you to go for good texts on philosophy.

God Bless

 

[donsnow]

I’m an atheist. I reject the Bible as evidence in favor of the existence of a god because it is filled with problems. The Bible is filled with contradiction. For example, Matthew chapter 2, and Luke chapter 2 give contradictory information regarding the nativity. Matthew 2:1 says that Jesus was born in the days of Herod (before 4 BCE), while Luke 2:1-2 indicates that Jesus wasn’t born until the rule of Cryenius (after 6 CE). Luke 2:1-7 says that Jesus and Mary lived in Nazareth, and traveled to Bethlehem because of a census, while Matthew 2:12, 11, 22-23 says that they lived in Bethlehem, and moved to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. There are hundreds of other contradictions that scholars have noted in the Bible. A few of them are potentially reconcilable, but many are not. Here are more contradictions:

youtube.com/user/nonstampcollector?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/18/RB3g6mXLEKk

I have non-critically read the Holy Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I found that many apparently contradictory passages actually had two opposing viewpoints, each serving as a marker to the path between them. Subsequently, I have found many paradoxical passages, but no real contradiction in my reading.

As far as the difference between the Matthew and Luke accounts of the Nativity, Herod could have been Tetrarch of Judea while Cryenius ruled Syria. Their respective rules could have easily overlapped. Getting right on dates from 2,000 years ago … well… a prudent scholar, to me it seems, would leave a few years + or - for each ruler’s reign.
Now, to that governor’s name.
Luke 2, 2 in different translations has different names.
Douhay-Rheims (Challoner): has Cyrinus as govenor of Syria.
The Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition has Quirinius governor of Syria
All the NRSV, REB, NAB and NJB have Quirinius.as governor of Syria.
Ah, here it is, the KJV has Cyrenius as governor of Syria.

So, are you a Protestant Atheist, then?

Information from lay students of the Holy Bible leads me to believe that Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem and Jesus was born. That it took the Magi until two years after Jesus’ birth to arrive in Bethlehem; and so Jesus, Mary and Joseph had lived in Bethlehem for two years after Jesus’ birth. The Magi went to Herod, were afterwards warned in a dream by an angel and warned Joseph and Mary to take the child and flee. They did flee to Egypt; and some time after Herod’s death returned to Nazareth. It’s all in the interpretation.
I will naturally accept the interpretation which reconciles any differences in translation.

There are also moral problems with the Bible,

Whose moral problems?
I would like to point out, in the first place, that in our progressive contemporary society, it is permissible for each person to have their own set of morals.

Second, I would like to ask, “Who is the creature to judge its Creator?”
I will not judge God Most High the Holy Trinity, lest He judge me.
God is just, in all His doings.

to eat their own children. In 2 King 2:23-23, God had bears kill 42 children because they mocked Elijah for being bald.

Well, I’ll tell you what, Truthseeker: after you’ve created an infinite universe and all the creatures in it, then you consider what God hath wrought in the OT and NT. Until then, seek the morality that God says to do.

Extraordinary claims does require extraordinary evidence. One can use anecdotal evidence to justify belief, however, the evidence in favor of that belief needs to be very strong to justify belief in something extraordinary.{/QUOTE]

(This without sarcasm)Thank you, for bringing up “extraordinary requires extraordinary”.
(This next also without sarcasm) Please let me relate an historical anecdote, which has been documented. During WWII and our early battles in the Pacific, when the Japanese enjoyed crushing victory after crushing victory, our Admiral Nimitz is quoted as saying: “There are no extraordinary men. There are only ordinary people who must meet extraordinary events.”

And, with that in mind, I submit, there are only ordinary explanations for God.
I am, very respectfully, disagreeing that I have to produce extraordinary evidence. The Holy Roman Catholic Church has already done that; when she investigated and ruled true or false on many alleged miracles and some validated miracles. There is your evidence. It is documented.
TruthSeeker60;7194688:

I’ll accept anecdotal evidence in favor of a god only if it is sufficiently strong to justify such a belief. However, I’ll also be open to anecdotal evidence against a personal god who is omniscient, omni-potent, and omni-benevolent, if that evidence is strong enough.

That’s reasonable. I have anecdotal accounts of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and all loving God in my life. I hesitate to offer it, for fear you’ll mock it.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Touchstone]

Second, I would like to ask, “Who is the creature to judge its Creator?”

Why the creature with a rational mind and values derived from its (biological) nature of course. How would a man with with a rational mind excuse not judging his creator? To do such would seem to signal abdication of his senses and faculties, as well as moral cowardice.

I will not judge God Most High the Holy Trinity, lest He judge me.
God is just, in all His doings.

Yes, this is the kind of moral abdication and cowardice I just referred to. To say God is just, by definition, no matter what “all His doings” are, is the definition of moral abdication in the mind of a man. It’s one thing for a man to review the actions of a putative god and say “these actions are just”. That’s possibly reason based. But to say that some imagined creator is just by definition, as a given, is amoral fideism.

One who won’t judge out of fear he will be judge really should be judged, and a slave.

-TS

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 1/2

TruthSeeker60;7194688:

I’m an atheist. I reject the Bible as evidence in favor of the existence of a god because it is filled with problems.
. . .]

oh man, sad to hear about your position.

First, about the contradictions, I take it you are not a biblical scholar. There are tons of resources that address each of these contradictions. The problem is in the way you interpret things.

Some info about myself. I grew up Catholic. When I was a teen, I got my family to go to daily Mass. I chose to go to a passionately Catholic college. I’m currently a senior at that college, on track to graduate with theology as one of my majors and philosophy as one of my minors. I took a graduate class on “biblical foundations” with Dr Scott Hahn. I changed my views because after three years of studying Catholic theology, in order to fulfill my obligation from 1 Peter 3:15, I studied what many atheists had to say against religion.

Some alleged contradictions in the Bible can be reasonably reconciled, but many cannot. If the Bible is an infallible book, then I invite you to reasonably reconcile the differing times of the birth of Jesus found in Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:1-2.

Also, if the Bible is a perfect book made by a perfect being, it couldn’t be improved by anyone. However, I submit it can be easily improved by virtually anyone. One such way is to add passages that condemn slavery.

BTW, the Bible is a huge book (well over a thousand pages), which makes it easy for a Bible scholar to pull some alleged contradictions out of it, show that they are reconcilable, and claim that the Bible has no contradictions (when it has many).

BTW, it seems like your largely appealing to authority, and accepting things because they come from authority. Hence, the fact that most people on youtube aren’t considered experts may lead you to excuse the content within their videos. It’s best to watch their videos, look the Bible verses up yourself, and use your reasoning to come to a conclusion.

Is it simply your opinion that killing 42 babies was immoral? Because under Christian view, it really is not immoral. God is the giver of life, he can take it as he pleases.

Reading this response sent chills up my spine. You’re saying it’s ok that your god is a murderer. This could justify drowning one’s children in a bathtub. You’re saying that the morality that your god endorses receiving happiness from dashing babies against rocks and forcing raped women to marry rapists! That scares me.

If god kills 42 children for mocking another person for being bald, then he is not omni-benevolent

Now about immorality in the bible (aside from your interpretation), I am surprised that you can make such a claim that they are immoral considering you are an atheist. What is your grounds for an objective morality? Is it simply your opinion that killing 42 babies was immoral?

Why does there have to be absolute or objective morality? Why can’t we adopt a moral system that is best for society?

I think that the principle “don’t do unto others as you wouldn’t have them do unto you” has proven to be a very solid moral principle. In general, my morality is largely base off concern for others, and doing what’s best for society. I don’t see any reason to have to appeal to authority to know how to behave.

The morality people have today is much better than morality that is presented in the Bible. For example, we don’t condone slavery anymore. The Bible never condemns slavery. Christians generally wouldn’t have a man stoned for gathering sticks on a holy day like Yahweh did (Numbers 15:32-36). Christians today wouldn’t force raped women marry the rapist, like Yahweh did (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). They wouldn’t typically be happy while dashing babies against rocks (Psalm 137:9). They wouldn’t threaten them to eat their own children, like Yahweh did (Deuteronomy 28:53). They wouldn’t go through a city and kill all, including women and children, who don’t have a certain mark, as Yahweh ordered (Ezekiel 9:5-6). Christians today also wouldn’t do many of the other things Yahweh did or order other people to do.

Basically, both Christians and non-Christians today have better moral standards than what Yahweh does. If any of those parts of the Bible I mentioned were instead in the Qur’an, you would probably think that that shows the evil of Allah.

TruthSeeker60;7194688:

Extraordinary claims does require extraordinary evidence. One can use anecdotal evidence to justify belief, however, the evidence in favor of that belief needs to be very strong to justify belief in something extraordinary.

Thats quiet the extraordinary claim there. Do you have extra-ordinary evidence to back it up? If not, needless to say, its self-refuting.

This is the heart of this thread.

This is a statement of reason. If one was naive enough to believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, then one may believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, or the claims of Sathya Sai Baba] ( which includes claims of divinity and of raising people from the dead, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba). That absurdity is my evidence that extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 2/2

Second thing, there is definitely more evidence for a God than against one. I have not heard a single, yes, SINGLE good argument as to why God cannot exist. Yet there are tons for the existence of a God. Now I would have respected your stance if you were an agnostic, but since you claimed you are an atheist, I am interested to hear the best argument that convinced you that there was no God.

Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? If not, then presuming you don’t believe in Santa, I don’t believe in God in the same sense you don’t believe in Santa. For belief in Santa, Yahweh, or Zeus to be justified, there has to be evidence shown to justify such belief. In other words, if there is no evidence in favor of the existence of something, the default justified belief is to not believe in it.

I’m betting that the only evidence you have that Santa doesn’t exist is lack of reasonable evidence that he exists, yet you believe he doesn’t exist. This is why one doesn’t need evidence against God’s existence beyond lack of reasonable evidence the god does exist. In order for his/her belief that there is no god to be justified.

There is philosophical evidence against an omniscient, omni-potent, and omni-benevolent god. For example, if god knew that someone was going to go to hell, couldn’t such a god just prevent him from being born? Or couldn’t that omni-potent god just forgive and prevent him from going to hell? There are other things, but I don’t want to get too into this here (it’s a little off topic)…

So you might want to consider reading up on the argument from morality. I think that is best evidence for a morally good God and they are not anecdotal. Then you can start reading the Kallam argument. They are arguments from deductive logic so its as sound as they come. If the premises are true (or probable if you will), the conclusion inevitably follows.

I think I’ve already shown that Yahweh has horrible morals compared to the average person today.

In the following thread which I started to challenge people to show evidence to justify belief in Christian theology, or at least theism, no sufficiently good evidence was shown. In that thread, the Kalam cosmological argument and argument from morality (which might be the worst argument for god) were presented:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=501433

A word of note though, 90% of the people on Youtube are not educated scholars. So its not really the type of place you want to get good information from. I would advice you to go for good texts on philosophy.

Regardless of whether someone is an expert or not, they should neither be tacitly followed, nor automatically excused. If someone refers to the Bible, if your uncertain about their understanding of the Bible, look up the verses yourself and do research.

There seems to be a central theme in your reply, that being authority. I just want to say that one aught to use one’s own reasoning prior to tacitly following someone else as an authority on interpreting the Bible, morality, etc.

Have you heard of Asch’s conformity experiment (youtube.com/watch?v=iRh5qy09nNw, youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA)??) It showed that many people will conform to others, even when they are obviously wrong. The scary thing is that when this experiment was done at my highly Catholic college, the rate of conforming to others against what was correct doubled. Also, a study by Stanley Milgram showed that most people will torture and kill others if they are instructed to do so by authority (youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w). I guess my point with this paragraph is, use your own reasoning, and don’t automatically accept or reject information you are presented.

 

[Pieman333272]

@TruthSeeker on Baba’s Miracles - I don’t see anything there saying he raised ANYONE from the dead. Let alone someone who’s been in a tomb for a good four days. As for claims of divinity, there’s a lot more people than just Baba and Christ making these claims throughout history. He also lacks morals I would attribute to a god, but maybe that’s just because the (highly unreliable) Wiki you linked to didn’t list it. That’s off topic, I know, but I felt obligated to comment on that. I am to presume you yourself don’t swallow his miracles, correct?

 

[ddarko]

Page 1

Part 1/2
Some info about myself. I grew up Catholic. When I was a teen, I got my family to go to daily Mass. I chose to go to a passionately Catholic college. I’m currently a senior at that college, on track to graduate with theology as one of my majors and philosophy as one of my minors. I took a graduate class on “biblical foundations” with Dr Scott Hahn. I changed my views because after three years of studying Catholic theology, in order to fulfill my obligation from 1 Peter 3:15, I studied what many atheists had to say against religion.

Some alleged contradictions in the Bible can be reasonably reconciled, but many cannot. If the Bible is an infallible book, then I invite you to reasonably reconcile the differing times of the birth of Jesus found in Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:1-2.

Ok, I assume you have better ‘irreconcilable contradictions’ because the one you presented is really not even valuable from the perspective of historicity.

I am sure as a student of theology, you would agree that the time of birth is really unimportant. What’s important in the story is however consistent in both accounts. The virgin birth which is an important aspect for an example is common to both. So you might be looking at the wrong things and to put more precisely, the unimportant things. After-all, the gospels were written not to give you the time of Jesus’s birth. I am sure each author would have taken his artistic liberty to present it if they deemed necessary and as a Christian its perfectly fine for me.

Also, if the Bible is a perfect book made by a perfect being, it couldn’t be improved by anyone. However, I submit it can be easily improved by virtually anyone. One such way is to add passages that condemn slavery.

Aaah, this is rather a bold claim considering you are a philosophy major. What would you call a perfect book? A book that has an explicit passage on slavery?

I believe you might be missing the point of the NT. The NT gives two commandments, Love God and Love thy neighbour. These two commandments summarize everything from slavery to abortion to the ten commandments. If God were to spell out every little thing, I would argue that he might as well not have given human beings intelligence. So in short, to argue that “If I were God, I would have put a passage on slavery” from a personal view of what it means to be “perfect” is surely a very weak argument?

BTW, the Bible is a huge book (well over a thousand pages), which makes it easy for a Bible scholar to pull some alleged contradictions out of it, show that they are reconcilable, and claim that the Bible has no contradictions (when it has many).

Well you have to make up your mind here. If contradictions can be reconciled, then there are no contradictions. As long as there is a at-least one logically consistent interpretation, there are no contradictions. But, there might be multiple possible interpretations, and this in no way means bible is contradictory. This might be what you are confusing as contradictions. On the contrary, all that means is that we need the Tradition to tell us which view is right and a Church to guide us.

BTW, it seems like your largely appealing to authority, and accepting things because they come from authority. Hence, the fact that most people on youtube aren’t considered experts may lead you to excuse the content within their videos. It’s best to watch their videos, look the Bible verses up yourself, and use your reasoning to come to a conclusion.

Of course. I did watch the specific video you sent and that is why I realized you were getting second rate information. A good example from the video you presented is ‘‘salvation by faith alone’’ vs ‘‘salvation by faith and works’’. What the video fails to realize is

1. Those are two different interpretations. Not contradictions
2. As Catholics we know salvation by faith alone is a wrong interpretation since to interpret it as such actually DOES lead to contradictions in the bible
3. Therefore faith and works is the consistent interpretation

So it appears that you are confused between multiple interpretations vs. contradictions. As I said before, for something to be logically contradictory, it must be such that there is no logical consistent interpretation of reconciling two ideas/propositions. Evidence of multiple possible interpretations is however not evidence of a logical contradiction.

Reading this response sent chills up my spine. You’re saying it’s ok that your god is a murderer. This could justify drowning one’s children in a bathtub. You’re saying that the morality that your god endorses receiving happiness from dashing babies against rocks and forcing raped women to marry rapists! That scares me.

If god kills 42 children for mocking another person for being bald, then he is not omni-benevolent

Actually, I was simply pointing out to you the fact that there is nothing unjust if God wishes to do so. Since you tell me that if God kills 42 children, God is not omnibenevolent, I would like to see how you logically went from ''God killed 42 kids" to ‘‘God is not omnibenevolent’’

 

[ddarko]

Page 2

Why does there have to be absolute or objective morality? Why can’t we adopt a moral system that is best for society?

Well, for one, that would be taking the stance of moral relativism i.e. ‘‘It is whatever works best for us’’. But moral relativism IS logically self-contradictory.

For another, you are starting with the initial premise that we want to do what is best for society. That it self is a objective moral choice. Otherwise why do we want to do what is best for society? Why not anarchy?

For a third, under moral relativism, you can’t really condemn any religious atrocity or things like the Nazi regime. Nazi Germany simply decided that the extermination of Jews was what worked well for that society. Is that what you really believe?

I think that the principle “don’t do unto others as you wouldn’t have them do unto you” has proven to be a very solid moral principle. In general, my morality is largely base off concern for others, and doing what’s best for society. I don’t see any reason to have to appeal to authority to know how to behave.

Well this works well as long as people objectively agree on how to treat one self. Some people derive pleasure in hurting themselves. Is that ok? What about issues like pedophilia? How do you logically argue against that view using the rule of reciprocity?

The morality people have today is much better than morality that is presented in the Bible. For example, we don’t condone slavery anymore. The Bible never condemns slavery. Christians generally wouldn’t have a man stoned for gathering sticks on a holy day like Yahweh did (Numbers 15:32-36). Christians today wouldn’t force raped women marry the rapist, like Yahweh did (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). They wouldn’t typically be happy while dashing babies against rocks (Psalm 137:9). They wouldn’t threaten them to eat their own children, like Yahweh did (Deuteronomy 28:53). They wouldn’t go through a city and kill all, including women and children, who don’t have a certain mark, as Yahweh ordered (Ezekiel 9:5-6). Christians today also wouldn’t do many of the other things Yahweh did or order other people to do.

That was rather interesting bunch of observations but the problem is that how do you consider ''The morality people have today is much better than morality that is presented in the Bible". Under what grounds? If morality is simply what works for a society, then you can’t do ‘‘better’’. That would have worked well for that society.

Secondly, I once again ask you to present how Yahweh, the creator of life, can not take away life at his own will. Is this just your view based on ‘‘what works best for society’’? If it is, as a philosophy student with some background in logic, you clearly should see what I am going to say next

Basically, both Christians and non-Christians today have better moral standards than what Yahweh does. If any of those parts of the Bible I mentioned were instead in the Qur’an, you would probably think that that shows the evil of Allah.

Again, you are making moral judgements with respective to a objective morality. But you were arguing for moral relativism before. Under moral relativism, there is really no such thing as ‘‘BETTER’’. So I am very confused.

And as I said before, you make a lot of charges against Yahweh, but you are still not saying how it logically comes about that the giver of life can’t take away life.

This is a statement of reason. If one was naive enough to believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, then one may believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, or the claims of Sathya Sai Baba] ( which includes claims of divinity and of raising people from the dead, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba). That absurdity is my evidence that extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence.

Ok, issue on Sai baba aside, I think we have some brushing up to do on your logic.

The problem here is you are committing a fallacy through use of circular logic. You have already pre-suppossed that Sai Baba is false due to ‘‘lack of extraordinary evidence’’. Then you present it as proof of ‘‘extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary evidence’’. But you already assumed it was true to discredit Sai Baba. So it’s circular. Do you see the logical problem in your argument?

 

[ddarko]

Page 3/4

Part 2/2
Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? If not, then presuming you don’t believe in Santa, I don’t believe in God in the same sense you don’t believe in Santa. For belief in Santa, Yahweh, or Zeus to be justified, there has to be evidence shown to justify such belief. In other words, if there is no evidence in favor of the existence of something, the default justified belief is to not believe in it.

I’m betting that the only evidence you have that Santa doesn’t exist is lack of reasonable evidence that he exists, yet you believe he doesn’t exist. This is why one doesn’t need evidence against God’s existence beyond lack of reasonable evidence the god does exist. In order for his/her belief that there is no god to be justified.

Ok, please forgive me, but I feel that you weren’t honest when you said you were a minor in philosophy. The above of ‘‘lack of evidence = evidence of absence’’ is usually a lay man’s scapegoat. No philosopher or mathematician will agree with you that the logic is sound. This goes by the different name ‘‘Proving a negative’’ as well.

What you should know, or rather should have learn’t is that it’s possible to prove a negative and that absence of evidence is not same as absence of evidence. That is why if you believe that there is no evidence for a God, and you have no good argument to the contrary, then you must be an agnostic.

About Santa, very popular argument among lay people but not philosophers. Existence of Santa can be verified if there are constraints. For an example that Santa lives in the North Pole. you go there, you visit it, find out he is not there. Simple as that. It’s definitely harder, but not impossible. Mathematicians try to not prove negatives because it’s usually very very hard. Not because it’s impossible.

So first, I think you need to be a little more logical when you approach this problem. As an atheist, you do need an argument as to how you know that there is No God. Lack of evidence simply does not cut it.

There is philosophical evidence against an omniscient, omni-potent, and omni-benevolent god. For example, if god knew that someone was going to go to hell, couldn’t such a god just prevent him from being born? Or couldn’t that omni-potent god just forgive and prevent him from going to hell? There are other things, but I don’t want to get too into this here (it’s a little off topic)…

Ok, since you claim you took theology, these questions baffle me. They are ancient problems and have been answered long time back. You can ask Dr. Hahn and I am sure he will assist you with finding answers to these problems. If you are interested I can refer you to a text.

Catholic Apologetics by Peter Kreeft. It’s a very basic book but at this moment, it looks like you are missing lot of the basics though you entered theology.

I think I’ve already shown that Yahweh has horrible morals compared to the average person today.

Actually you haven’t. You just mentioned it. But you didn’t show the logical steps from lets say "God killed 42 children’’ to ‘‘God is immoral’’. Keep in mind that you also have to deal with the premise that ‘‘God is the sole giver of life’’. As far as I know, no one in history has managed to come up with logical steps to show God is immoral this way and I am looking forward to this possible new argument you might have

In the following thread which I started to challenge people to show evidence to justify belief in Christian theology, or at least theism, no sufficiently good evidence was shown. In that thread, the Kalam cosmological argument and argument from morality (which might be the worst argument for god) were presented:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=501433

Well, you present a lot of talk about them being the worst arguments. But from your display so far on your grasp of logic, I am not really sure you might have understood the arguments to their fullest. The moral argument I believe is one of the most powerful and I for one am willing to take it up again with you if you are interested.

Regardless of whether someone is an expert or not, they should neither be tacitly followed, nor automatically excused. If someone refers to the Bible, if your uncertain about their understanding of the Bible, look up the verses yourself and do research.

I am not sure what you mean. You want me to look up the bible as a cure for your misunderstanding on it? Shouldn’t it be the other way around??? Actually, I think if you have a misunderstanding, the best place to go to is someone with authority. This is not just with the Bible btw. This is with any field.

 

[ddarko]

Page 4/4

There seems to be a central theme in your reply, that being authority. I just want to say that one aught to use one’s own reasoning prior to tacitly following someone else as an authority on interpreting the Bible, morality, etc.

Actually, I am all for authority. In any field you go to, it’s all about authority. You submit a paper to any scientific conference, it’s all about authority. If you are anti-authority, it’s not just religion that you will have problems with in your life.

Have you heard of Asch’s conformity experiment (youtube.com/watch?v=iRh5qy09nNw, youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA)??) It showed that many people will conform to others, even when they are obviously wrong. The scary thing is that when this experiment was done at my highly Catholic college, the rate of conforming to others against what was correct doubled. Also, a study by Stanley Milgram showed that most people will torture and kill others if they are instructed to do so by authority (youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w). I guess my point with this paragraph is, use your own reasoning, and don’t automatically accept or reject information you are presented.

Yes, very very famous experiments and usually taught in Psychology 101 courses at Universities. I happen to know this because I did take a few Psych courses during my undergrad. These experiments highlight the human condition. It simply shows that you have to be careful which authority you trust. If as a Scientist, I consider YOUTUBE as my authority, well, I am going to be in for a nasty surprise. Same with a theologian who trusts Youtube to enlighten him about theology.

The results of these experiments were not to show that you should NOT conform or you should NOT obey authority. I am afraid you might have missed the point during your psychology class as well. Some mental tendencies are built in to humans for their own good. Getting rid of them will probably make you anti-social (forget about being anti-religon here). The point of these experiments were to show that you need to be careful when you choose your authority and what group/society to hang out with. That seems to be one of the biggest problems in your case.

I hope this gave at least some answers to get you back on track. You will be in my prayers.

God Bless

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I have non-critically read the Holy Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

It’s great that you’ve read the entire Bible! Very few Christians have. It’s a big commitment.

As far as the difference between the Matthew and Luke accounts of the Nativity, Herod could have been Tetrarch of Judea while Cryenius ruled Syria. Their respective rules could have easily overlapped. Getting right on dates from 2,000 years ago … well… a prudent scholar, to me it seems, would leave a few years + or - for each ruler’s reign.
Now, to that governor’s name.
Luke 2, 2 in different translations has different names.
Douhay-Rheims (Challoner): has Cyrinus as govenor of Syria.
The Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition has Quirinius governor of Syria
All the NRSV, REB, NAB and NJB have Quirinius.as governor of Syria.
Ah, here it is, the KJV has Cyrenius as governor of Syria.

Quirinius and Cryenius are two different translations into English of the same name. The senses that he mandated was done in 6 and 7 CE.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0674397312, page 246

There is solid historical evidence that Herod died in 4 BCE.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
Peter Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and friend of the Romans, (Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999) pages xv-xx.
Jerry Knoblet, Herod the Great (University Press of America, 2005), page 179.
hermetic.ch/cal_stud/ph01.htm
hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1996&month=12

There are many other conflicting accounts among the gospels. For example, Luke 23:39-42 says that one of the two thieves crucified with Jesus rebuked the other for mocking Jesus, while Matthew 27:44 says that both thieves reviled Jesus.

TruthSeeker60;7194688:

to eat their own children. In 2 King 2:23-23, God had bears kill 42 children because they mocked Elijah for being bald.

Well, I’ll tell you what, Truthseeker: after you’ve created an infinite universe and all the creatures in it, then you consider what God hath wrought in the OT and NT. Until then, seek the morality that God says to do.

So if I created a universe, it would be ok for me to have children in that universe killed by beasts, have babies dashed against rocks, and torture those people forever! I strongly disagree.

Ok, I assume you have better ‘irreconcilable contradictions’ because the one you presented is really not even valuable from the perspective of historicity.

I don’t have time at the moment to reply to your entire post. However, in this post I did present more information that backs up my view that the stories don’t fit historically. There are lots of other contradictions as well, which I wouldn’t want to spend the time to dive into at the moment.

 

[ddarko]

Quirinius and Cryenius are two different translations into English of the same name. The senses that he mandated was done in 6 and 7 CE.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0674397312, page 246

There is solid historical evidence that Herod died in 4 BCE.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
Peter Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and friend of the Romans, (Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999) pages xv-xx.
Jerry Knoblet, Herod the Great (University Press of America, 2005), page 179.
hermetic.ch/cal_stud/ph01.htm
hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1996&month=12

There are many other conflicting accounts among the gospels. For example, Luke 23:39-42 says that one of the two thieves crucified with Jesus rebuked the other for mocking Jesus, while Matthew 27:44 says that both thieves reviled Jesus.

I don’t have time at the moment to reply to your entire post. However, in this post I did present more information that backs up my view that the stories don’t fit historically. There are lots of other contradictions as well, which I wouldn’t want to spend the time to dive into at the moment.

Ok you can answer me when you have the time. But I also couldn’t help but see this reply from you about contradictions and come to the same conclusion as I did in my earlier posts.

All these “Contradictions” cases that you mention so far are either that of

1. Different interpretations OR
2. irrelevant narrative information in gospels

Take the two thieves for an example. It really doesn’t matter if there were two thieves, three thieves or if one reviled the other and the other didn’t. What’s important is the message. Luke uses the tale to highlight a different message from the same event than what Mathew uses. Which of them ACTUALLY took place is irrelevant. Whats more important is the message. As a theologian, you are stuck on the device used to put forth the message than the message it-self. Not very good biblical exegesis on your part if you ask me.

Now an important contradiction would be if Mark said Christ was not Crucified while Luke said Christ was crucified. But as you might know, thats not the case. All gospels match in terms of events that are of ACTUAL importance. Crucifixion, the Virgin birth etc. The rest can be written by each author under the guidance of the spirit to reveal the religious messages that the spirit was guiding them to reveal.

As I said before, its not the two thieves that matter, its the message we can learn from it. In this sense, there is no contradiction. Once again, considering you are a student of theology, I can’t believe that you are stuck on contradictions of things that are unimportant. Whats going to be next? Some “Contradiction” in numerical accounts in the Bible?

To try and highlight your problem with a non-biblical example, it’s like saying Caesar and Cleopatra did not really exist because there are many stories that have contradictions. What you as a historian should focus on is what are the things these stories agree on. Whether the actual events of IMPORTANCE are agreed upon by each of them. If one story says Caesar was born in August, another in December or five years later DOES not mean Caesar didn’t exist. Or take one story that says Caesar met Cleopatra in a certain way while the other says differently etc. It does not mean Cleopatra and Caesar did NOT meet. To do such historical conclusions is… well unacceptable in any authoritative academic circle on history.

I can’t help but think along the lines of the psychological experiments you mentioned and that you have been hanging out with the wrong group and been reading/watching the WRONG authoritative sources.

I pray the holy spirit will guide you to see your errors.

God Bless

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 1/6

I am sure as a student of theology, you would agree that the time of birth is really unimportant. What’s important in the story is however consistent in both accounts.

It is important if there is a contradiction in the Bible regarding when Jesus was born. A book that is inerrant would have no historical inaccuracies and no contradictions. This would destroy Providentissimus Deus, which indicates that everything in the Bible, even the most insignificant term, falls under inspiration.

The principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to History. . .] But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it – this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.

Providentissimus Deus 20

In other words, the Catholic Church teaches absolute innerancy of the Bible, as opposed to innerancy solely in matters of faith and morals.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

Even if the Bible was only inerrant in matters of faith and morals, how would one know? I would expect a book that’s inerrant in matters of faith and morals to not contradict itself, even on matters not directly related to faith and morals. Even Providentissimus Deus aside, why would an omniscient god allow there to be any inaccuracies of any sort in a book he would make as a foundation for his religion?

I believe you might be missing the point of the NT. The NT gives two commandments, Love God and Love thy neighbour. These two commandments summarize everything from slavery to abortion to the ten commandments.

In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says that he has come to fulfill, not abolish, the law, and “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (KJV). This is affirmed by Luke 16:17 An apologist would probably argue about what Jesus meant by “law”, but basically, teachings of the OT still apply.

In Leviticus 25:44-46, Yahweh tell the Israelites that they may own slaves. Verses 45-46 say “You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance” (NLT). Exodus 21:2-6 specifies how slaves are to be treated. In Exodus 21:7-11, Yahweh provides rules for selling one’s daughter as a sex slave! Later, in Exodus 21:20-21, Yahweh says that a slave can be beaten, as long as the slave doesn’t die right away. In Exodus 21:21, Yahweh says, “But if the slave survives a day or two, he [the slave’s owner] is not to be punished” (RSV2CE). Cultural context doesn’t make it ok to own a person, torture them, and beat them so badly that they die a day or two later.

In Ephesians 6:5-9, which is in the NT, slaves are told to obey their masters. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 says that slaves should respect their masters. Jesus mentions slaves (often translated to “servants” or “maids”) in parables many times. If slaves aught to obey and respect their masters, isn’t that indicating that it would be immoral to run away or refuse to be property?

Basically, if god actually did opposed slavery, he could have done so much more clearly with fewer words.

TruthSeeker60;7196997:

BTW, the Bible is a huge book (well over a thousand pages), which makes it easy for a Bible scholar to pull some alleged contradictions out of it, show that they are reconcilable, and claim that the Bible has no contradictions (when it has many).

Well you have to make up your mind here. If contradictions can be reconciled, then there are no contradictions. As long as there is a at-least one logically consistent interpretation, there are no contradictions. But, there might be multiple possible interpretations, and this in no way means bible is contradictory. This might be what you are confusing as contradictions. On the contrary, all that means is that we need the Tradition to tell us which view is right and a Church to guide us.

You misinterpreted me, so I’ll put is this way:

Lets say I wrote a 2,000 page book. In that book, there are 1,500 apparent contradictions. Out of those 1,500 apparent contradictions, 300 of them are easily reconcilable, 200 of them are potentially reconcilable, and 1,000 of them are not reconcilable. Someone who wanted to make the point that there are no real contradictions in this book could easily mention hundreds of apparent contradiction, show how they are reconcilable, and say that the idea that there are contradictions in this book is preposterous. That could also be done with the Bible, which is what I was trying to say.