I am an atheist

[Pax]

I read the bible in english and critically. If you are reluctant to restate your clear and unambiguous instructions, that’s OK with me.

The material is in my prior posts where I directly addressed some of your opinions on scripture. Since they are readily available on this thread for your perusal, I see no reason to restate them. I am not your gopher.

 

[Pax]

This is not an opinion unless you stretch the ‘better’ to mean some spiritual stuff. If you use any reasonable measure, you will quickly see that the theories science have offered make more accurate predictions which are more useful in dealing with the real world. My guess is that the ‘better’ theories religion offers in your “opinion” are all going to reward you but not in any tangible way, and likely only after you are dead.
If I am wrong, you have a real rational reason why religions offered theories are better.With science, if you can demonstrate that some theory is incorrect, it is discarded in favour of a better one.Are you listing my beliefs, and backing up your claims, or are you just making vague accusations?Atheism is a term that applies to one who hasn’t been tricked by one belief or another.So you are going to try to tell me his newly discovered truths were accepted? I am not off to read those threads. I think it is pretty clear that he was mistreated for bringing important knowledge to the world.
Eppur si muove.

When it comes to the origins of the universe science has very little to offer. Likewise, when it comes to matters of philosophy science has little to offer. Competing theories? In these areas science may be at a distinct disadvantage.

 

[Pax]

I know there are several versions. Many different versions, actually. How did that happen?

If you go to the original languages it is amazing how congruent the manuscripts really are. The versions that you speak of are translations. Translations will always have variations. The variations are almost always linguistic nuances, although there are some translations that do demonstrate a bit of doctrinal bias. No one claims that translators are inspired.

 

[notself]

cont. from prior post

God used a natural disaster as the direct cause of punishing the evil doers and it is also a symbol of cleansing. …

It is not unreasonable to think that at the time of Noah man was perhaps equally evil and debased. The evils would have been inculcated into children both directly and indirectly by their parents and society. Even infants may not have been free of this influence. Ineutero influences can be substantial. When man is this debased he is like a feral animal and his off spring are likewise similarly feral.

This is the biggest justification for abortion in the case of rape that I ever saw. After all, feral fathers produce feral offspring.

What a load of bull.

You should be ashamed for even suggesting that the moral condition of an unborn child can be influenced by the state of the parents souls.

Try again to justify the Flood. This one does not float.

 

[Aleii]

The scripture does not indicate that anyone was acting justly except for Noah and his family. In fact the scripture goes on to say in verse 11 and 12 that, “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.” From the perspective of the Supreme Being it is clear that everyone is corrupt except for Noah and his family. God’s punishment is apparently “just” in that everyone lost in the flood were evil and corrupt. The narrative does not indicate that God punished by death any innocent people.

What do you do with a teenager or child that is violent? Counseling and rehabilitation. You intervene early as soon as the signs are present that there is a problem. What do you do with a violent adult? Time apart from the outside world and subsequent rehabilitation through classes, etc. You can say that here and now there is no perfect person, everyone in the world today is evil and corrupt in some ways. Let me ask you though, how can a society survive if every inclination was only evil all the time? How would people live? Children would be abandoned, chaos would reign, and it would be mob rule. Noah would not have been able to create an ark for it would be destroyed and pieces stolen, his sons wives would have been stolen away and raped, why, marriage would not even exist nor would families, yet marriage is mentioned several times in Genesis 6.

God used a natural disaster as the direct cause of punishing the evil doers and it is also a symbol of cleansing. We can recall any and all historical instances that we are aware of in regards to man’s most barbaric acts. A good example is that of the Aztec/Mayan civilizations of Mexico. The following is an excerpt of something I recently read on the subject:

Right, so instead of a quick death, such as poisoning the air or water supply, or, lightning, or death in sleep, or death with a finger snap, a slow death by flood is used.

We can recall any and all historical instances that we are aware of in regards to man’s most barbaric acts…

"The law of the Aztecs required a thousand [sacrifices]to their god Huitzilopochtli, the god of death, sun and war, in every temple every year.

They did not kill people because they enjoyed it, they sacrificed people because they thought it would stave off the end of the world. They did what they thought was necessary to appease the gods. Purpose has a massive implication on whether or not something is immoral. You have not proved to me that the Aztecs were a terribly evil culture.

It is not unreasonable to think that at the time of Noah man was perhaps equally evil and debased. The evils would have been inculcated into children both directly and indirectly by their parents and society. Even infants may not have been free of this influence. Ineutero influences can be substantial. When man is this debased he is like a feral animal and his off spring are likewise similarly feral.

…do we kill off children whose parents have abused them, or call them evil? Do we blame them if their parents push them into a store strapped with explosives? How can you say that the evils of the parents have any influence on how the child should be treated? Children don’t ask to be born nor do they have a say of who they are born to. How can you say that they will be judged by that? Are you honestly suggesting that children of terrible people should be prejudged and punished? And what are you referring to when you say in-utero influences? I have racked my brain and can not think of what that might refer to.

In your view the solution may seem extreme, but knowing just how evil man can be would lead me to a different conclusion… Likewise, I would hope that man would not deserve such punishment as death or such a thing as the flood but it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

You are in a room with Hitler and have a choice: either burn Hitler alive or sedate him and then inject him with potassium to kill him quickly and without pain. Which would you choose? What benefit would there be to the slow suffering option?

… All in all this seems both just and appropriate to me.

Ugh… Really, all you’ve seemed to say is that mankind was wicked and therefore god killed them with the flood. I see no justification in what you have written for the methods used and not used.

So, a summary of the most glaring problems:
1: Early intervention not attempted when god knew all along this would happen
2: A stable all-evil society rationally conflicts
3: A slow, terrifying, painful death is chosen over a quick one with no visible benefit for the former.
4: Children are punished for their parents actions.

 

[Aleii]

This is the biggest justification for abortion in the case of rape that I ever saw. After all, feral fathers produce feral offspring.

What a load of bull.

You should be ashamed for even suggesting that the moral condition of an unborn child can be influenced by the state of the parents souls.

Try again to justify the Flood. This one does not float.

Agreed, that is quite an appalling statement you made, Pax. It needs some serious substantiation.

 

[phooney]

@Pax

You keep going on about eyewitness accounts for Jesus as if they were meaningful.

There’s no contemporary accounts of Jesus. The eyewitness accounts you like so much weren’t written down at the time of Jesus either.

Perhaps he wasn’t so important, perhaps he didn’t exist, perhaps he is a mixture of several characters, perhaps he was just the latest version of one of the many other virgin-born man-gods.

Science has very reasonable speculation about the beginnings of the universe. Reasonable, and mathematically consistent. As per our previous set of exchanges, I’m not advocating believing any of these scientific hypotheses either, but they are at LEAST equally plausible. I happen to think they are inherently better as well due to accurately mathematically modelling what we CAN observe. I still don’t believe in any of them, and that’s the rational stance to take. I await the evidence with great interest.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If the city of Tyre has never been found, how is it that you presume that someone scraped it into the sea?
Has the rubble in the sea been found? Has it been identified as the ruins of Tyre?

Again, there is no presumption, nor any assumption for that matter. I reiterate that modern historians, archaeologists, and other scientists have examined the evidence. Their scientific findings are that the remains of the ancient mainland city of Tyre were dumped into the sea by Alexander the Great’s army and slaves more than 2,300 years ago (just as Ezekiel predicted 200 years prior to Alexander the Great’s birth). The causeway the Greek general created to connect the mainland to the island city has become a peninsula from the build up of sediment over the last 23 hundred years.

I don’t understand why you are still making this objection, A. Are you saying the information from the National Geographic article is a deliberate fabrication?

news.nationalgeographic.com/n…der-great.html

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

@A

Sorry about your friend as well, I’m glad you are coping, and my best wishes go out to all those who will miss him.

Futile as it might be from an anonymous person on the internet, I still mean it.

Same here. I’m saddened to hear about your loss, A.

 

[_A]

That’s funny, I thought you said in your previous post that longevity indicated a closeness with Yahweh. That would suggest that our recently expanded lifespan (due mainly to biological sciences) indicates a closeness to your god. I guess since stem cell research well likely expand our life, it makes no sense for the churches to be opposed. Also, birth control for women has lengthened their lives. That must bring them closer to your god. This suggests that the catholic church has been wrong to oppose birth control.
I wonder if the pope would agree with you…

Ineutero influences can be substantial. When man is this debased he is like a feral animal and his off spring are likewise similarly feral.

My guess is that these ‘inutero influences’ stain the babies ‘soul’, right? I do wish you would back up your claims with more than imaginings.

God makes a covenant with man through Noah in which He promises never to destroy the earth by way of a flood again. All in all this seems both just and appropriate to me.

Like the wife beater who apologizes after he breaks her teeth that he will NEVER do it again. Sounds impressive to me.
Why does this seem just to you? If it was just that time, it would be just again.
Another point you miss on was when you said that the flood was cleansing. Have you ever visited the site of a serious flood? Was it good and clean? By whose standards?

 

[justinthemartyr]

A

the quote at the end of you posts mentions “love”

where does love come from?

Give us a real specific layout of where you think love comes from and how it is scientifically possible.
.

 

[_A]

Please return to the original elements as presented…that is the eye witnesses to Jesus. There is a difference between Jake or Ali having “faith” in something and the actual eye witness knowledge of what I happen to believe. The eye witnesses and their testimony is data that you simply dismiss.

OK, I see you misunderstand, so I will try again.
Ali (in my opinion) was deluded. Jake was deluded. Both could believe quite completely that they were right, but both could also have been tricked, or both could have hallucinated.
Jake is a fake name used to describe your ‘eye-witness’.
Just because you believe one more than the other doesn’t make one right - they are still equally ‘true’. Until you can show why your ‘Jake’ is more likely to be right than your ‘Ali’.
Your belief doesn’t weigh more than someone else’s belief, Pax.

 

[justinthemartyr]

A

the quote at the end of you posts mentions “love”

where does love come from?

Give us a real specific layout of where you think love comes from and how it is scientifically possible.

 

[_A]

When it comes to the origins of the universe science has very little to offer. Likewise, when it comes to matters of philosophy science has little to offer. Competing theories? In these areas science may be at a distinct disadvantage.

Don’t change the subject please. You were asked to show us which theories (from religion) are ‘better’ than the ones offered by science.
Religion does not have usable theories about the origins of the universe, except to say that ‘goddidit’. That isn’t a theory, it is a demonstration of ignorance on the subject.

 

[_A]

If you go to the original languages it is amazing how congruent the manuscripts really are. The versions that you speak of are translations. Translations will always have variations. The variations are almost always linguistic nuances, although there are some translations that do demonstrate a bit of doctrinal bias. No one claims that translators are inspired.

So, since all current versions are translations, it is safe to say that none of them are inspired.

 

[justinthemartyr]

what is love A?

 

[_A]

Again, there is no presumption, nor any assumption for that matter. I reiterate that modern historians, archaeologists, and other scientists have examined the evidence. Their scientific findings are that the remains of the ancient mainland city of Tyre were dumped into the sea by Alexander the Great’s army and slaves more than 2,300 years ago (just as Ezekiel predicted 200 years prior to Alexander the Great’s birth). The causeway the Greek general created to connect the mainland to the island city has become a peninsula from the build up of sediment over the last 23 hundred years.

I don’t understand why you are still making this objection, A. Are you saying the information from the National Geographic article is a deliberate fabrication?

news.nationalgeographic.com/n…der-great.html

Nope, I am saying that if scientists had not ‘found’ the city, you would not be able to claim that it had indeed been pushed into the sea.
Either it has not been found, in which case you can’t say for sure that it happened, or it has been found, which dumps the prophecy into the sea with the rubble of Tyre.

 

[_A]

Same here. I’m saddened to hear about your loss, A.

Please try not to be sad. I don’t know what the man’s beliefs were in detail, but he would be trying to cheer you up if he thought you were sad. This suggests to me that he preferred the people around him to be happy.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

@Socrates4Jesus

Welcome back! I hope your project at work is going well

I’m glad you’re here again, nobody else has responded to me in a couple of days!

It’s going extremely well. I’m glad, because I work with the best group of programmers, technical support and sales people with whom i’ve ever had the privilege of having a professional relationship. My only fear is that i’ve spoiled this considerate and talented group by joining it!



“I’d never join any club that would have me as a member.”
–Groucho Marx

“Is it possible for you to find for me today the twin towers of the World Trade Center that once stood in New York City?”

I would say probably, until all the pieces of the rubble are recycled into something else, it is technically possible to find most of the twin towers.

Precisely my point. The ruins of the ancient city on the coast were recycled into a causeway that is now a peninsula.

However, I think I see the parallel you are attempting to draw here, but I’ve already discussed this in regards to Tyre. Either it was found, in which case the prophecy was flat out wrong. Or, if you consider that the city cannot be found just due to definition of what it now is, then the information given was superfluous, uneccesary, irrelevant and not what a rational person could reasonably expect of a God who is trying to communicate important things to us humans in only a limited space. In addition, RELEVANT information for a prophecy was left out in favour of what just boils down to what looks like a simple letter of intimidation to the enemy or inspiration for the ‘good guys.’ I mean, hasn’t every single army had ‘god’ on their side? According to them anyway?

I would not call the information irrelevant. I think you are putting too much emphasis on the words

(A) I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD."when the remarkable prediction is

(B) They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. and

(C) They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. The point of (A) is not to describe the mysterious disappearance of Tyre but to predict the utter destruction of the ancient Tyrian city on the coast of what today is Lebanon. Again, it is important to allow the context of a passage of ancient literature determine it’s intended meaning. Ezekiel’s words give the context:

I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. (Ezekiel 26:21)

… you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.(Eze. 27:36)

… you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.*(Eze. 28:19)*Far from being irrelevant, these words are the whole point of the passage. Ezekiel is predicting the complete destruction of the ancient coastal city of Tyre.

I’m my opinion this in fact is a remarkable prediction that is highly relevant to us today. The ancient historian Herodotus wrote that Tyre was founded around B.C. 2700, i believe. For more than a millennium the city was the greatest naval power in the ancient world. Its trade made it arguably the most wealthy nation of its time. It’s people founded the ancient city of Carthage as a colony. If you recall from history, Carthage came close to defeating the Roman empire in a series of wars lasting many years. If the mainland city of Tyre never fell, the Romans might have never matched the combined naval power of Carthage and Tyre. Instead of the Roman empire, we would likely have had the the Carthaginian empire. All of ancient history as we know it would be changed.

America has only been a leading world military and economic power for the last 50 years or so. Would the USA fall today, it would be less remarkable than the fall of ancient Tyre, which had an empire that lasted many hundreds of years longer.

How can you say the fall of Tyre was in unimportant event in the history of the ancient world?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Regarding your Benjamin Franklin hypothetical, I’d need to know more before I can tell you how I’d react to it. Such as the exact wording, and just how many predictions Old Ben made. I note you mention that Old Ben’s claim has 3 unprecidented parts to it (flying machines, buildings into the clouds and the crashing of one into the other), whereas Ezekiel only has the part where the city gets scraped into the ocean, so it’s probably a ‘better’ prophecy already, lol. Did you ever read that Nostradamus prophecy that people tried to shoehorn into fitting with the 9/11 attacks? Imagine how much easier that is to do in the process of translations.

Let’s worry about Isaiah and Cyrus after we’re done with this one!

I’ve asked you before if you’ve read any books on cold reading, but the question has been lost admidst everything else, so I put it to you again here.

…

Yes. Please let me know if you want to move on to other predictions of the future in the Bible.