I am an atheist

[Pax]

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…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.

This is all well and good when thinking in terms of modern western society withn the comforts of an advanced and relatively civilized society. Rehabilitation?..I don’t think Dr. Phil and Dr. Laura were available. The narrative makes it clear that a long time passed before God punished man. Likewise, the narrative made it clear that the evil was continuous. Evil and corrupt societies don’t survive over time. The Aztecs were no exception and neither was Hitler’s Nazis Germany. I would think that by our standards there was an awful lot of chaos in Noah’s day. Perhaps Noah found some protection in living in a remote area. Afterall, the world was not nearly as populated as it is today. Somehow, Noah and his family were protected. I am merely speculating on how that may have happened.

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.

What makes you think that poisoning would be quick or relatively painless. Drowning doesn’t take all that long and it is one of the least painful deaths that a person can experience. Likewise, who is to say that one method is more appropriate or just than another?

They[Aztecs] 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.

Actually, the Aztecs took great pleasure in their sacrifices and even a cursory level of research would confirm that for you. Moreover, if you are not convinced that they were a cruel and evil society then you will not be convinced of anything whatsoever.

…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.

I am simply speaking of the results of nurture and environment on children. We are born in unbelief and disobedience to God as a result of man’s fallen nature even under the best of circumstances. Nurture and environment begins in the womb and proceeds from there. There is no mystery here.

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? .

You are quite wrong about this. I have a choice to do nothing. Murdering Hitler would have been against everything I believe. Furthermore, murder is expressly forbidden in the narrative of Noah and the deluge.

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.

I have answered most of this but I need to address point #2. This is simply erroneous. The Aztecs and many other societies that were savage and brutal were relatively stable for extended periods of time. Conversely, some rather civilized societies have lasted relatively short periods of time. There is no rational conflict.

 

[Pax]

@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.

Excuse me but it really doesn’t matter if the eye witness accounts were written while Jesus was alive. The eye witnesses wrote the accounts. Likewise, the apostle Paul indicates in his first letter to the Corinthians that, “…he [Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive…” [see 1 Cor 15:6]. So even at the writing of the NT scriptures many eyewitnesses were still living. This is credible recorded evidence.

You do not accept this as evidence and you even went so far as to say “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.” Well, this kind of speculation needs to be supported by credible evidence. The truth is there is none.

 

[Pax]

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.

You are wrong about this. Philosophical arguments are quite strong and they provide good reason to accept the existence of God. This is a lot more than simply saying “God did it.” I would suggest that you read Peter Kreeft’s book The Handbood of Christian Apologetics. You can examine all of the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God as well as the arguments against each and their strengths and weaknesses. At the very least you will come to the understanding that there is a whole lot more going on than merely saying, “God did it.”

Scientific theories are simply that. They are not philosophical arguments. Since science does not provide a credible theory about the ultimate origins of the universe and probably cannot do so, it is reasonable to apply the tools of philosophy. This may not appeal to you, but it is the logical and reasonable thing to do.

Your condescension and sarcasm are unwarranted.

 

[notself]

First of all there is absolutely no justification for abortion in anything that I have said. You are very confused. The narrative of Noah and the deluge ends with the following from Gen 9:1-6:

I did not make the argument that “that the moral condition of an unborn child can be influenced by the state of the parents souls.” I made an argument concerning the negative impacts of nurture and environment by savage and evil people upon children and infants. There is a huge difference.

Here is a copy of your post where you talk about “in utero” influences. See the section of your post that I put in bold. In utero means within the uterus, before the child is born. Now if you want to say that you misspoke yourself, I totally understand.

Originally Posted by Pax
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.

 

[Pax]

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

You are wrong…not all current versions are translations. We have many manuscripts available in the original languages. Likewise, a great deal of scholarship goes into most translations and most of the translations are very close to one another. I personally have 8 to 10 English translations in my possession. I enjoy comparing them. Most of the time there is little difference. Even if a translational bias exists in some versions it is usually not a significant factor in understanding and appreciating the message of scripture.

I think that you are making way too much of this. Almost all disagreements are due to interpretation rather than translational issues.

 

[Pax]

Here is a copy of your post where you talk about “in utero” influences. See the section of your post that I put in bold. In utero means within the uterus, before the child is born. Now if you want to say that you misspoke yourself, I totally understand.

I know exactly what I wrote and it no way fits your criticism. I even explained a little further to clarify that for you. I don’t understand your complaint. Are you denying the influence of nurture and environment? Are you denying that children in the womb are affected by what is going on with their mothers? Check the scientific data on this. It is ample and clear.

 

[Pax]

notself,

It’s late…I’ve got to sign off…have a good evening.

 

[notself]

I know exactly what I wrote and it no way fits your criticism. I even explained a little further to clarify that for you. I don’t understand your complaint. Are you denying the influence of nurture and environment? Are you denying that children in the womb are affected by what is going on with their mothers? Check the scientific data on this. It is ample and clear.

Let me give you an example. A prostitute murders her live in boyfriend who is a pederast and a thief right before their child is born. If the child is put up for adoption as soon as it is born, will the child in any way be affected by the pre-birth behavior of the parents? No drugs or disease is involved in this example.

From your statements, it appears to me that you are saying that science supports the idea that the child is damaged mentally, physically or psychologically in the womb by the immoral behavior of the parents. I would be very interested in seeing the scientific evidence. Could you provide a reference?

I am always willing to learn.

 

[phooney]

Excuse me but it really doesn’t matter if the eye witness accounts were written while Jesus was alive. The eye witnesses wrote the accounts. Likewise, the apostle Paul indicates in his first letter to the Corinthians that, “…he [Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive…” [see 1 Cor 15:6]. So even at the writing of the NT scriptures many eyewitnesses were still living. This is credible recorded evidence.

You do not accept this as evidence and you even went so far as to say “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.” Well, this kind of speculation needs to be supported by credible evidence. The truth is there is none.

Excuse me, but that is ridiculous. It doesn’t matter if the eyewitness accounts weren’t contemporary to Jesus? Paul was hardly capable of verifying these eyewitness reports, he never saw Jesus in real life. 40-odd years for anybody to think Jeus as important enough to write about him is a suspiciously long time. Especially difficult to reconcile this with the notion of them being actual eyewitness accounts considering the life expectancy back then.

 

[_A]

is killing okay?

Absolutely.

if someone believed killing you was okay, would that be okay with you A?

I would resist. Even the fish I kill and eat resist.

If they gave you notice previous to doing it, would they have your permission?

What a ridiculous question. Of course not. Do you have a point?

 

[_A]

You are wrong about this. Philosophical arguments are quite strong and they provide good reason to accept the existence of God. This is a lot more than simply saying “God did it.” I would suggest that you read Peter Kreeft’s book The Handbood of Christian Apologetics. You can examine all of the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God as well as the arguments against each and their strengths and weaknesses. At the very least you will come to the understanding that there is a whole lot more going on than merely saying, “God did it.”

Scientific theories are simply that. They are not philosophical arguments. Since science does not provide a credible theory about the ultimate origins of the universe and probably cannot do so, it is reasonable to apply the tools of philosophy. This may not appeal to you, but it is the logical and reasonable thing to do.

Your condescension and sarcasm are unwarranted.

Calling me condescending and sarcastic don’t make it true. I have asked several times for you to show which theories offered by religion are better that those offered by science. You switch to namecalling. I ask everyone reading to look at the glaring **lack **of examples you have offered here. You can keep using namecalling to distract from your lack, as well. Just remember, though, everyone can see.

 

[_A]

Almost all disagreements are due to interpretation rather than translational issues.

I agree. I interpret the various bibles with my brain and using English. I am told that this is not the correct way. The man with the collection plate tells me I need to understand in a special, inspired way.
Sure looks suspicious to me.

 

[AliciaCL]

Well, I just about give up on you. Regardless of what you say. You are NOT an atheist since you havwe admitted you are not sure that there is no God. To argue otherwise is mere semantics.

Science is your secular god. I actually feel sorry for you because you apparently lack any spiritul feeling. Wouldn’t you like to feel like the Christians feel? Can’t you see they are content, motivated, at peace, have made major contributions to the world despite wars and bad things too, etc. You cite over and over situations which you see as immoral and you find the church or a Christian at fault. That is no surprise. The church and Christians aren’t perfect. There will always be situations of institutional or individual failure. It’s faulty thinking for example to use the church’s sex scandals as proof of the futility of God and truth of Christianity. You are citing to specific scenarios then arguing that you see immorality in applied Christianity, i.e., a justified abortion case.

You apparently deeply want to remain as you are. For that I feel sorry for you and your blindness. No one will ever show you the “evidence” you seek. Faith will never come to you in the form of scientific evidence. I can only suggest that you seek some silence on a regular basis and consider that there may be a God. Pretend to ask the God (that you don’t believe in) for the gift of faith. Give it some time. Be open to it. You have nothing to lose.

In every round of conversation here, the upshot is that you think you are sooo right about your view. Thousands of years of generations of the faithful are all fools in your mind. Oh, how superior your view must make you feel. It appears a bit like a game to you, where you set an unrealistic rule: prove it by scientific evidence. Wish you the best. You’ll be a heck of a convert hopefully someday! You will be in my prayers.

 

[Aleii]

This is all well and good when thinking in terms of modern western society withn the comforts of an advanced and relatively civilized society. Rehabilitation?..I don’t think Dr. Phil and Dr. Laura were available. The narrative makes it clear that a long time passed before God punished man.

Noah was there, god could have worked through him. God also could have used himself to teach these people the right way instead of just killing them when they go in the wrong direction, or, could have intervened for the parents. There was plenty of time for intervention.

Likewise, the narrative made it clear that the evil was continuous. Evil and corrupt societies don’t survive over time. The Aztecs were no exception and neither was Hitler’s Nazis Germany. I would think that by our standards there was an awful lot of chaos in Noah’s day. Perhaps Noah found some protection in living in a remote area. Afterall, the world was not nearly as populated as it is today. Somehow, Noah and his family were protected. I am merely speculating on how that may have happened.

Yes, the bible does make it clear that every single thought was 100% evil. Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

So, supporting one’s family is considered good, so that’s out, marriage is good, so that’s out(though the bible clearly talks about marriages), helping is good, so that’s out, being kind to another is good, so that’s out, supporting another’s business is good so that’s out, following the rules is good so that’s out… etc. Even Nazi Germany still has some good in its people.

What makes you think that poisoning would be quick or relatively painless. Drowning doesn’t take all that long and it is one of the least painful deaths that a person can experience. Likewise, who is to say that one method is more appropriate or just than another?

You can use carbon monoxide 12,800 ppm (1.28%) to get a person unconsciousness after 2-3 breaths with death in less than three minutes. (wiki) And drowning would be a terrifying way to die. You can see the waters rising, you use all of your strength to swim, the water is cold, you see your children, your loved ones drown, your muscles burn as you do everything you can to stay afloat for what seems like an eternity, some water gets breathed in and you laryngospasm, increasing the terror even more. Eventually, you cardiac arrest. The brain goes after 6 minutes without oxygen.

And you call that a quick, least painful way to die?

Actually, the Aztecs took great pleasure in their sacrifices and even a cursory level of research would confirm that for you. Moreover, if you are not convinced that they were a cruel and evil society then you will not be convinced of anything whatsoever.

Like I said, they thought they were giving pleasure to the deity. I’d be happy to look at proof that pleasure was derived from the killing itself, and not religious related.

I am simply speaking of the results of nurture and environment on children. We are born in unbelief and disobedience to God as a result of man’s fallen nature even under the best of circumstances. Nurture and environment begins in the womb and proceeds from there. There is no mystery here.

Are you referring to that if the mother is stressed then it could affect the fetus’ health? It does not seem like you are… You need to clarify the in-utero effects you are referring to. And while parents do affect children, we do not condemn a child who was in a terrible home. Instead we attempt to put them in a loving foster home so they can live a more normal life. You have yet to justify how parents being bad gives any justification in punishment to children.

You are quite wrong about this. I have a choice to do nothing. Murdering Hitler would have been against everything I believe. Furthermore, murder is expressly forbidden in the narrative of Noah and the deluge.

Thank you for blatantly dodging my question. Let me simplify my question for you to nullify that dodge: What benefit would be gained by burning Hitler alive rather than killing him by lethal injection? Or if you prefer: What benefit is there to giving a person a slower, more terrifying, more more painful death as opposed to a quick, less painful/terrifying one?

I have answered most of this but I need to address point #2. This is simply erroneous. The Aztecs and many other societies that were savage and brutal were relatively stable for extended periods of time. Conversely, some rather civilized societies have lasted relatively short periods of time. There is no rational conflict.

You avoided question 3 entirely. See above for further clarification of the other questions. Your responses have not answered any of the glaring problems to conclusion.

 

[_A]

Well, I just about give up on you. Regardless of what you say. You are NOT an atheist since you havwe admitted you are not sure that there is no God. To argue otherwise is mere semantics.

I am certain that Yahweh is a farce. I can tell you that I honestly don’t believe in a god or gods. That first statement does not make me an atheist - the second does. I can’t disprove a god, but I don’t need to. If you don’t believe in the tooth fairy, you would also not be able to offer disproof. This does not suggest that the tooth fairy is real, it just suggests that disproof won’t be available.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god or gods.
I would assume that you don’t believe in Zeus. If this is true, then prove Zeus doesn’t exist. If you cannot, you then believe in him. (that is where your ‘reasoning’ would lead, anyway).

Science is your secular god.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘secular god’, but I don’t believe. I will test and check when I need to, but it is belief that I reject.

I actually feel sorry for you because you apparently lack any spiritul feeling.

I actually feel sorry for you because you apparently lack any ‘balderdash detector’.

Wouldn’t you like to feel like the Christians feel?

Wouldn’t you like to feel like rational people feel?

Can’t you see they are content, motivated, at peace, have made major contributions to the world despite wars and bad things too, etc.

Can’t you see they are content, motivated, at peace, have made **all **the major contributions to the world despite the interference of religious dogma, etc.?

You apparently deeply want to remain as you are.

Nope, I want to grow. You are the one who seems deeply intent to remain as you are.

For that I feel sorry for you and your blindness.

You can’t even tell the difference between ‘I don’t believe there is no god’ and ‘I believe in god’. I feel sorry for you and your blindness.

No one will ever show you the “evidence” you seek. Faith will never come to you in the form of scientific evidence.

No one will ever be able to show you the truth about the bible, since you wish so hard for it to be true

I can only suggest that you seek some silence on a regular basis and consider that there may be a God.

I can only suggest that you seek some education on the matters you have been making assumptions on.

Pretend to ask the God (that you don’t believe in) for the gift of faith. Give it some time. Be open to it. You have nothing to lose.

Why don’t you pray to Krishna for awhile? Give it some time. Be open to it. You have nothing to lose.

In every round of conversation here, the upshot is that you think you are sooo right about your view. Thousands of years of generations of the faithful are all fools in your mind. Oh, how superior your view must make you feel. It appears a bit like a game to you, where you set an unrealistic rule: prove it by scientific evidence. Wish you the best. You’ll be a heck of a convert hopefully someday! You will be in my prayers.

I would prefer you put that prayer time into reading. Not your bible, either. Read about geology, biology, and most of all, ethics.
I responded to you as almost a copy of the way you spoke to me. I found you manner condescending and needlessly insulting. If you have only this kind of nastiness to share, then I’ll pass. Remember that many here are reading, and they will all see how judgemental and accusatory you have been here.
By the way, I will still answer your questions, but try not to answer your own questions. If you are going to do that, I might as well not be participating.

 

[_A]

Just as an aside, I have finally found a good definition of ‘faith’ I would like to share it with you all.

The word translated as “faith” in the New testament is pistis, which means “actions arising from conviction”. I doubt many Christians would know this though,

The analogy I draw is a person standing on top of a high building. If he believes he might not be hurt if he fell, he does not have faith, but if he jumps, then he is demonstrating faith. I wonder why the church spends so much effort getting rich when the bible said something about not getting into heaven if you have a lot of riches.
Many claim to have faith, but don’t ‘jump’. Should there be a different word for both kinds of ‘faith’? ( I mean the believe kind vs the action kind)

 

[rboo124]

I guess my only remaining question on all of this is ‘why are you here’?

If you’re not here ‘seeking’, which you’ve stated you’re not, than are you here to convert people here to your point of view? I just don’t see that happening, as those that do believe have ‘faith’, and until you experience faith, you’ll never understand it’s power and comfort…why would ANYONE want to abandon that? For what? Where’s the payoff?

Our belief is that having no ‘faith’ is empty, and entails total darkness in the after life. No matter how hungry I ever am, that will never sound appetizing to me.

I’m just asking out of curiosity…it’s fine with me if attempting to convince others to abandon their faith is your mission, though I don’t understand the motive (aside from Satan using you as a pawn, which you would have no awareness of).

Perhaps you’ve mentioned previously your motive and I missed it.

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread, but at the same time, it seems like an exhausting amount of time has been wasted by you and all other participants. We can all push a building for hours a day and exhaust ourselves, but the building hasn’t moved…so what’s the point?

To me, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result. Maybe I’m wrong, but from the looks of this thread, I’d say this is going nowhere and time could be better spent on productive matters. No one can force you to believe, just as no one can force people not to believe…the bottom line is, it comes down to faith, and you don’t have any. It’s not possible to convince someone to have faith. That comes from God, not theory or proof.

 

[_A]

I guess my only remaining question on all of this is ‘why are you here’?

If you are asking this question it shows me that you haven’t read my posts in this thread. This has been asked before, and answered.

If you’re not here ‘seeking’, which you’ve stated you’re not, than are you here to convert people here to your point of view?

Nope, but I admit that I would be glad to discover that someone had looked something up because they doubted my words. I would be thrilled if someone examined critically something that they had not in the past examined critically, because I inspired them to examine critically.

you’ll never understand it’s power and comfort…why would ANYONE want to abandon that? For what? Where’s the payoff?

I hope you don’t mean that. It would be quite sad to need a ‘payoff’ before accepting reality.
I think it is quite easy to see that faith such as the catholic church is powerful. I can accept that many find it comfortable.
Have you considered that neither of these items has anything at all to do with whether it is true or not? People claim the same benefits from following the mormon faith, or wiccan. They can’t all be right, can they?

Our belief is that having no ‘faith’ is empty, and entails total darkness in the after life.

Sounds reasonable to me.

No matter how hungry I ever am, that will never sound appetizing to me.

So what matters to you is how ‘appetizing’ something is? I will do my level best to accept reality even if it is unappetizing.
Maybe *especially *if it is unappetizing.

I’m just asking out of curiosity…it’s fine with me if attempting to convince others to abandon their faith is your mission, though I don’t understand the motive (aside from Satan using you as a pawn, which you would have no awareness of).

Good thing I don’t believe in that angel either, eh? If your mythos suggests that one can be used against their will and without their knowledge, how do you know that isn’t happening to you right now?

I’ve enjoyed reading this thread, but at the same time, it seems like an exhausting amount of time has been wasted by you and all other participants. We can all push a building for hours a day and exhaust ourselves, but the building hasn’t moved…so what’s the point?

If you see no point to being here, why are you here?

 

[Pax]

Excuse me, but that is ridiculous. It doesn’t matter if the eyewitness accounts weren’t contemporary to Jesus? Paul was hardly capable of verifying these eyewitness reports, he never saw Jesus in real life. 40-odd years for anybody to think Jeus as important enough to write about him is a suspiciously long time. Especially difficult to reconcile this with the notion of them being actual eyewitness accounts considering the life expectancy back then.

Paul was contemporary with Jesus, but he was not a disciple while Jesus lived. Paul knew the eyewitnesses and knew their testimonies. What’s the problem?

 

[_A]

Paul was contemporary with Jesus, but he was not a disciple while Jesus lived. Paul knew the eyewitnesses and knew their testimonies. What’s the problem?

I knew a guy who said a secret society of lizard-men was ruling the planet. What’s the problem?