Hey there, David.
I am commenting here, not because I responding to your article or any of the ensuing comments, but because I stumbled upon it on Google while looking for reasons to be atheist (hence your title name "Top 10 Reasons I'm Atheist") to deflect judgmentimposed inferiority of two buddies of mine that are adamantly Christian.
The two recently discovered that I am atheist (mostly because I keep quiet about it to avoid conflict and because of me not being able to back my belief up, but I'll get into that in just a bit), and they are now beating it into my head. Quite frankly, I don't give a (and excuse me for being vulgar) fuck! It's so irritating having to eat lunch with that non-stop that I dread going to lunch now. Can I just enjoy my lunch, please? Damn!
The only reason I opened my mouth up was because they were discussing how gays shouldn't get married, and I adamantly disagree with homosexuality inequality (mind you, I am a straight man, and I am in love with this girl to the point where it is consuming my life).
And also, if you haven't noticed yet, I am still in school, so I (and the two friends) are young (I am 17, and the other two are 16).
Because of my repugnance over this, I reacted on impulse and said that I hated religion, and that just made things worse.
Now, the two were advocating religious indoctrination (i.e. force religion to be taught at school) because it teaches morals (I personally believe that it REINFORCES them, as morals exist without religion, and even if they did 'come from' religion, man made it, so the morals it teaches comes from the writers' own thought and reason) and that it makes people happy -- gives them comfort, and I couldn't come up with anything to refute the last point and I was wondering if maybe you could answer that because I disagree with anything that represses personal freedom. Basically, he's saying that having beliefs on something hopeful and possible is better than not having them at all.
I mean, I have never really sat down and thought why I'm an atheist (or why theism is a man-made theory, rather) -- I just am -- and why I oppose religion for its intolerance -- I just do. I do not deliberately set out to attack religion or berate it in any way, but I do get offended when I am judged and criticized for my beliefs (which is hypocritical that they do that, but they continue to persist).
I'm sorry, but I have better things to do with my time than to listen to mumbo-jumbo about how there is historical evidence to prove Biblical stories and that "there's better odds to worship" (i.e. when you worship, you either go to Heaven or nothing happens, whereas when you don't worship, you either perish in Hell or nothing happens).
But what makes it even worse for me is that even though I grew up into a Christian family, my dad was always (and still is) too busy to take me to church, so I never went much and I never had the interest to look into the Bible. Thus, I have a very limited knowledge of it and thus my beliefs are considered to be questionable at best(which is fair, I admit).
So I reach out to you so that you can please help me counter this beleaguerment! Help me stop this nonsense! Basically, can you please explain why his rationale that religion is good and should be forced is faulty.
Thanks.
-Taylor
42 comments:
Reading the bible divides previously christian people into 3 groups:
-The atheists. The people who see how little sense it makes.
-The interpreters. The people who disagree with their religion, but feel a need to cling to it.
-The literalists. WBC and the other horrible people who read the bible, and take it word for word.
I disagree with mainstream religion, but I am not atheist. I do not feel that God is waiting up in a cloud with a righteous hammer ready to strike at you for stealing some bread or sacrificing your sheep wrong. I see it more in terms of the ineffable universe beyond corporeal things, the realm of the nonphysical self and mind rather than mass and dimensions, as well as the inscribable laws of aesthetics (for God is perfect beauty).
Hello there! I am a friend with Taylor and after reading your posting, I wanted to leave a comment.
I personally do not believe with the contemporary view of God, therefore I am often referred to as atheistic. I dislike this dogmatic term as it carries the connotation of somebody who screams "COINCIDENCE!" at every chance, but I believe God is more of a human network of connections. At the climax of these connections, you find some sort of power. Do note that this does agree with the Judeo-Christian theory of God is omnipresent.
Now my belief system is more Buddhist than anything else, but still my belief in a lack of omnipotent God often leaves people questioning what I live for. I fervently dislike nihilism, I do believe that you must create your own goals. Your reason to live is personal, make it what you wish. As my friend recently mentioned, I am an existentialist atheist.
So I have two questions for you:
- How do you view the Buddhist belief of escaping this world of deception to reach true blissfulness?
- What reason do you have to live?
Jake Sheehan
Hello!
I am one of those "Christian guys" who Taylor talks with at lunch. I used to be an atheist, and not only that, but one who studied many religions so I could better argue against them! While studying them I came to the conclusion that Christianity was the most logical of all religions. Also, to your invisible unicorn...what is he/she/it saying? How long has the unicorn be saying such things? Is what the unicorn is saying have any evidence behind it? Because the Bible has plenty of evidence behind it. As a bonus fact, the Bible has been written of a very long period of time; all by different authors. Who (If you didn't know) all depict the same message, with no contradictions.
As a last note, my English is not that good; so if I have a mistake, I apologize.
Let us all stay civil.
-Cole Huther
To SLT & JPS:
Both of you have decided that you can't deal with Christianity as it's stated, so you've created your own belief that won't send you to Hell.
You're avoiding the damnation that comes with rejecting Christianity, but adopting the ideology of what 'God' is to fit into your lifestyle so that you won't be judged or labeled.
However, by creating your own version of what you WANT 'God' to be, you can still have that warm tingly feeling inside, that something's watching over you so that you're not fully responsible, yet authoritatively projected from evil. - That's not a belief, it's a hope without evidence.
First to SLT:
The 'God' you suggest is not one that has been defined, named, proved, or otherwise backed up by a shred of evidence. The philosophy you presented has not been socially accepted, chronicled, or deemed relevant in society. What you have presented is simply your idea—a creation in your mind that you have conjured up. That's fine with me, as I don't think you're hurting anyone.
God is perfect beauty? Sounds poetic, but I see through it. There's no substance to that. No religious doctrine or historical count of any accepted religion agrees with your stance. You might as well put your faith in Ritz crackers.
Possibly, this idea makes you feel better about living in this big scary world all alone. You are simply deist; and I do not think you should insult your theory by calling it 'God.'
Now, to JPS (Jake):
'Atheistic' simply means 'without belief in a god.' It is only as dogmatic as the believers have made it to be by suggesting that atheists scream "THERE IS NO GOD!" and claim to have proof. That's not always the case.
We can prove that believers don't have the proof they think they do, but that's a different blog for a different day.
Atheism stands aside from all religions—discrediting each of them, not opposing them. An Atheist is no more opposite of a religion, than a doctor is the opposite of a disease. We fight against it's disgusting actions, oppression, and segregation, but we are not the opposition, as if to say we are 'another religion.' That is an oversimplification. Atheists lack the belief in gods and support a consequentialist approach to ethics. Most religions are nonconsequentialist, and follow dogma and ancient doctrines for their ethics. Big difference.
We do not scream "coincidence!' at every chance. We scream things like "we don't know yet!" and "we're still looking into it!" We also scream "just because you can't explain it right now, doesn't mean belief in magic is the default answer!"
A person who lives without the assumption of some powerful being controlling the universe is by definition, a-theist (without theism). Embrace it. It's not a bad word. It's a scientific, logical realization.
A network of energy is a plausible, scientific theory that many atheists lean toward when explaining the universe's phenomena. But your universal power is not 'God' by a single name. That term begs dogma, and dogma is not what you have.
To correct your point, your description of a network of human connections does NOT support the Judeo-Christian ideology in a single way. Yes, both would be omnipresent, but the religious ideology you've cited has specific names for their gods, (as they are entities separate from mankind) and each have specific commands from their gods. It is never once suggested that Yahweh or Elohim is a 'human network of connections.' In fact, it sounds more closely related to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, with all living organisms sharing common ancestors, than any religious doctrine.
Me debating either of these stances is akin to me debating your dreams. You both created them in your minds. There is nothing to debate. There is nothing to disprove. You are each entitled to your own fantasy, if that's what you feel you need to get through life.
Thanks to both of you for posting. I appreciate your insight. But keep in mind, I have no problem with people maintaining their own belief in whatever they choose.
My issue arises when you extend that myth to become real life rules that you expect me to follow. Neither of you seem to be willing to do that, so I take no issue with your thoughts, although I happen to disagree with your world views.
To answer your questions...
I view the Buddhist lifestyle as a humble, respected one. If I were to ever fall and bump my head on something, causing me to think reincarnation or spiritual rewards actually existed, I could easily become Buddhist. I think it's a peaceful, meaningful way to live.
What reason do I have to live? My kids. My family. My friends. Several people look to me for guidance, entertainment, friendship, and love. I hope to leave this world better than I found it, even if just by a little. If I lost them all in some horrible accident, I would live for a different cause... probably whatever the accident was. I feel that we all have the evolutionary responsibility to help each other progress in society—so that each generation may do a little better than the one before—not hold one another down for power and privilege according to what myths we hold true.
Cole,
Thanks for coming by to share your insight of Taylor's message to me. It will be interesting to debate with you, as I've been in your shoes.
And rest assured, I will always remain stern and aggressive, but civil. That's one thing my debate site has always been known for in the Christian community—you can come here and have a good, religious debate without being offended or offensive. Posts that get nasty are deleted. I have no room for that.
Let's get right to it:
The Bible has no contradictions? It was written by 40 different authors (with countless scribes actually doing the writing) over a period of 1600 years in 3 different languages, and canonized for political reasons by the Emperor Constantine in 325 CE.
There are no contradictions?
Malachi 3:6 - God doesn't change
Ezekiel 32:14 - God changes
Exodus 20:5 - Man inherits sin from parents
Ezekiel 18:20 - Man does not inherit sin
Psalm 145:9 - Everything God does is good
Isaiah 45:7 - God creates evil
James 1:13 - God does not tempt
Genesis 22:1 - God tempts Abraham
Exodus 20:13 - Do not kill
Exodus 32:27 - Slay your brother in war
Leviticus 25:44 - Slavery is acceptable
Isaiah 58:6 - Slavery is not acceptable
Romans 15:33 - Yahweh is a god of peace
Exodus 15:3 - Yahweh is a man of war
John 14:27 - Jesus came to leave peace
Matt 10:34 - Jesus did not come for peace, but for division
John 1:18 - No man has seen God
Exodus 33:11 - Moses sees God
There are hundreds more to list, but I'm out of room and bored with that topic. The Bible was man's first modern attempt at philosophy, psychology, government, religion, astrology, and science, all wrapped into one book. It is a wonderful historical account of the fantasies of archaic, suppressive men; but is far from infallible.
There are tons of mutually incompatible properties within the description of the Christian god.
My invisible unicorn is telling me to give you one commandment:
Thou Shall Readest Thou Bible Before Claiming Beliefith. ;)
Greetings again!
It appears that you are quite familiar with the Bible, but not quite good enough! I shall disprove all contradictions you have! You are also taking verses out of context, not to mention you are most likely using a KING JAMES ENGLISH Bible.
-Ezekiel 32:14 says nothing about god changing.
-Exodus 20:5 If you read before and after the verse, it clearly states that you will inherit an Earthly punishment from their sin. Ezekiel 18:20 speaks of Heavenly punishment.
-Pslam 145:9 If you actually read the entire Psalm before and after(Not to mention the Psalm itself), you can tell it is talking about followers of God. God will only perform good deeds to his followers. Isaiah 45:7 Says that God creates evil for those who attack those who believe.
-James 1:13 God will not tempt you to do wrong with malcontent. Genesis 22:1 He tempted Abraham to strengthen his faith.
-Exodus 20:13 In the original Hebrew and classical it uses a different word, very similar to what we in English use a MURDER. Some English Bibles use this accordingly. Exodus 32:17 Slay your brother in war if he is trying to kill you and he is against your nation.
-Leviticus 25:44 Another translation error! In the original Hebrew/Greek text is uses a word that would correspond to indentured servant. Which would only be held for 6 full years. Isaiah 58:6 Yeah...your not supposed to OWN someone...
-Romans 15:33 Yahweh is a God of peace, yeah that is God... Exodus 15:3 Another translation and out of context issue! It means that Yahweh is a warrior for his followers, defending them from evil.
-John 14:27 Jesus came to bring peace with God, and peace within oneself. Matthew 10:34 Jesus didn't come to make the whole world peaceful, but to bring people to peace! Sounds like another translation/context issue...
-John 1:18 No man has been able to see God in his full glory! Exodus 33:11 Moses only saw God in partial glory, not full glory.
Are you starting to see a pattern? On a final note, it would be 2325 CE not 325 CE. The calenders are different.
Maybe your unicorn was talking to you?
Godspeed
-Cole Huther
@Cole
I was going to post a long and rational respose to your ummm... discussion, but I thing the best response is:
Ha! Hahahahahahahahaha! Mwahahahahahahahaha! *snort* Oh dear...
Trying to justify your position from an abstractly chosen collection of books 100's of years old is laughable. Ha!
And yes, I choose to remain an anonymous coward for this! lol
Maybe I am the one laughing at you [Not so] kind sir?
I am assuming that you are a non-christian...
Yet, I can defend every bit of "contradiction" and "logic flaw" you have? As I said before! I used to be a non-christian!
You do not need post any name with your response (Assuming that you respond), but let's hear your "so-called" "rational" response. If i can defend everything I believe in to the word, and you can only laugh at me? I believe you are the fool. I resent resorting to name calling! Alas, sometimes to speak with dogs, you need to learn to bark!
Godspeed
-Cole Huther
@Anonymous
While I agree with you conceptually, I will ask that we dial back the insulting nature. There are hundreds of sites that insult Christians, but this isn't one of them. I appreciate your post, and I'm sure you have plenty to offer. But insults only make people tend to shut down and stop listening. That won't get us anywhere. I'm actually trying to make progress with the other side. I hope to have you back soon with a slightly different approach.
@Cole
I will hash this out one more time, but I won't spend an entire debate thread going over YOUR interpretations of 2,000 year old texts, trying to make sense of them. The fact remains that there are countless books published on the hundreds of contradictions and anti-scientific rhetoric in the bible. Here we go one more time...
-Ezekiel 32:14 Says that "God repented" That means he changed his mind and regretted his actions. That's a contradiction to "God does not change." Does he change or not? The bible says both.
-Exodus 20:5 This is still a contradiction no matter how you spin it. Do we inherit sin or not? The bible says 'yes' to both.
-Pslam 145:9 If everything your god did was good, he could be incapable of bringing evil upon anyone. Also, it doesn't say that 'God' ONLY does good for believers. It says EVERYTHING he does is good. However, he kills more than 2 million people in the bible, and 'repents' in Ezekiel 32:14. If everything he did was good, why would he ever repent? Another contradiction.
-James 1:13 You said "God will not tempt you to do wrong with malcontent." Those are YOUR words. That's not what the bible says. Is this God's word or Cole's word we're debating? For the record, I'm not interested in how you as an individual interpret these texts to conform with your lifestyle. I'm interested in getting to the details of what the texts mean and how they contradict one another. The bible wasn't written for Cole. It should be understood by everyone if it was expected to be followed. [Genesis 22:1-19] He tempted Abraham to strengthen his faith. He tempted Abraham to murder his young son. In the Christian belief, he 'tempts' people by making them gay. He tempted Adam and Eve by making a fruit tree they couldn't touch, and now we're all screwed. Come on, Cole. You are constantly tempted. That's why your god can't exist. He has mutually incompatible properties.
-Exodus 20:13 As for killing and murder, what about 1 Samuel 15:3 where Yahweh orders Saul to destroy the Amalekites, and kill "every man, woman, child, and nursing infant."?
-Leviticus 25:44 Was NOT talking about indentured servants, sir. Exodus 21:7 says that men can sell their daughters into slavery and they are NOT to go free as menservants would after 6 years. Further, slaves were taken during war, and Yahweh even told us how often we could beat them. Does your god support slavery or not? Contradiction.
Besides, I'm growing tired of your translation error excuse. If your god was perfect and powerful, why would he allow translation errors of his mighty word? You tend to place human limitations on him when it's convenient for your fallibility. He's either a god or he isn't. Once again, mutually incompatible properties means it doesn't exist.
John 14:27 (peace) and Matthew 10:34 (not peaceful) - Have you actually read these? The latter specifically states "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword, to set a man against his father and a daughter against her mother. A man's enemies will be those of his own household." That's who you worship and defend—the peaceful, non-peaceful walking contradiction that is Jesus Christ.
-John 1:18 You said "No man has been able to see God in his full glory!" Give me a break here, Cole. Now you're just making things up. Once again, you're adding things to the text to make yourself feel better about this not making sense. God's word or the word of Cole?
On a final note, the bible was canonized in 325 CE. As in 325 years after the alleged death of Jesus. You would call it 325 AD, but in the scientific, literal world where fantasies are not tested or taken seriously, we refer to time in CE (common era) and BCE (before common era). Please make sure your ducks are in a row prior to correcting me. I've done this once or twice.
I guess this is one of those things that we will NEVER agree on! You state a verse that has "contradiction" with another, and I refute it! Then you say I was wrong because what I said proves you wrong?
First, I will address the "Translation errors." The Bible states that when it [the Bible] is translated, that the beliefs of salvation will NEVER change. You know what? Lets say that Apostles got mixed up on whether Jesus healed a leper before or after his scene in the temple. It really doesn't change the WHOLE MEANING OF THE BIBLE. You still need to obey the laws of the Jews, or except Jesus to get to Heaven. You may say this, "Well then! It looks like that your Bible is tainted!" It is all how you look at it! I see no logic error, yet you see a logic error! It is just how we perceive things due to free will.
As for the CE/BCE, modern secular historians decided that civilization started at 2000 BC at the first evidence of the Sumerian civilization. By the way, AD does not mean "After death", it means "Anno Domini", which means "In the year of our Lord" This doesn't matter really, but I proved you wrong.
I will only cover a few of your "anti-refute" statements. This is because NO MATTER WHAT I SAY, and no matter how logical it may be. You will just make something up (As you say I do), and say I am lying.
1.) Still don't see it.
2.)We only inherit the consequences of our parent's sin! Not on a spiritual level. This doesn't really matter any way because we will all sin eventually.
3.)AND YES! I have read that verse. You must attempt to understand that Jesus preaches internal, and eternal peace. This WILL create conflict with others, as we are doing right now.
Yes, I can explain away anything you say.
So unless you actually attempt to believe it (Which you must likely won't and never will), it won't affect you at all. You may say, "It is impossible for me to believe something that makes no sense!" or "He must be a corrupt, evil god." You will believe this and ONLY believe this if you want to believe this. You can twist everything to your view. It doesn't matter. You obliviously do not have a open mind as you stated in another debate. Twisting everything to your opinion (As you say I do), is not logic.
Good day to you sir.
Godspeed
-Cole Huther
Cole,
It's all interpretation, no matter how you look at it. You believe in God because YOU want to, and any evidence/logic/reasoning against it falls flat to YOUR interpretation. It looks like you're the one "twisting everything to your opinion." You even said so yourself that religion is good because it gives us morals AND because it gives people comfort in believing in something hopeful rather than nothing at all!
And follow the laws of the Jews? Because killing your children for disrespecting you is totally something that should be followed, right?
-Taylor
So what you are saying is...that we both believe/don't believe in God because WE do/don't want to? All your evidence falls to your interpretation as well. You are twisting everything to your opinion as well. That is why I said it was impossible for us to agree.
As with the laws of the Jews. It was necessary to ingrain these laws into our minds as a child so that we won't break them. Some people still broke them, and they had to be put to death. This is a side-effect. Just as civilian casualties in war; they are not wanted, but they are inevitable. So it is right.
No, my perception is that the Bible is flawed because of contradictions that David (and other people) have pointed out and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously, and since the Bible is the only evidence you have (and that historical evidence is still based on stories in the Bible), I cannot trust that there is a God, whereas with you, your perception is that the Bible isn't flawed because you believe that the Bible has the same "MEANING" and that gives you a reason to believe in God.
Alright, more than that but...you are correct on my beliefs. As I say before, all opinion. You think it can't be taken seriously because of very minute contradictions that don't negate any of the doctrine. You might disagree, saying that I am "Twisting it into the word of Cole." But I am not. You may believe what you believe, but at the end of the day, when all is said and done; you have nothing to look forward to. All because you put too much faith in man's power (Which is not a lot). You may call me "crazy", but I can do the same for you.
Basically, you and Mr Smalley, can believe that the Bible is flawed and that there is no God. That doesn't mean your all based on fact.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti
-Your latin loving friend, Cole Huther
The reason why I disapprove of (not hate) religion is because it teaches unnecessary intolerance, and intolerance with anything is not good. Because of your beliefs, you believe it is right to judge people for not having your beliefs.
Actually, the Bible teaches against judging people. We may not judge because we are not God, the Omniscient being. And the only "intolerance" it speaks of, would be that against homosexuals or other unmoral acts (Which go against science, logic, and the Bible).
But that's the thing though. I do not believe it is fair to call homosexuality "immoral". While there are general, universally-agreed upon morals, there are some (actually, a LOT of) morals that are controversial. For example, polygamy. Did you know that it is scientifically proven that humans are not naturally monogamous? I'm not necessarily endorsing that, but I think it should be tolerated IF the partners agree not to have such boundaries.
You said atheism is the lack of belief, but you also have to consider that to not believe in any god means you must have enough faith that you are right and what other people believe is wrong. What you said about following an invisible unicorn is absolutely correct.
The difference between the unicorn and God, is that God is in no way invisible.
take a look at your house. How was it made? Someone had to design and build it. You can't expect a house to build itself out of nowhere, it needs a creator. Same concept with the world. I'm not saying its my God, but whats for certain is that someone had to make the world we live in. Just the way our eyes are designed is amazing: we were given the ability to focus on objects and restrict/ allow light into our eyes all in a millisecond, traits that could not have come solely from natural selection. To sum it all up, everything has to have been created by another being.
If our world was created by someone else, he would also give his rules to get everything functioning. This is where our morals come from. Whether we chose to follow those rules is up to us, but somehow the conscience will give everyone a sense of what is right. Thats God's way of reminding us to do right.
Although it may seem from direct quotes that God constantly changes, I assure you that He never contradicts himself.
I'll number the sets of contradictions you gave me:
1) Ezekiel 32:14 had nothing that said God changes
2) Man inherits sin because thats the way his ancestors have lived; nobody is sinless. It says that the sins of a parent and child are not connected but the punishment can be. The inherited punishment explains random diseases and mental disabilities that people are born with.
3) Everything God creates is good, meaning everything that happens glorifies God in some way. People worshipping brings him glory. People helping others glorifies Him. Even when people are doomed to hell it glorifies God. God creates things that are liable to become evil, such as the angel Lucifer, who decided to turn against God. He is what is known as the Devil, Satan, etc.
4) God does not tempt people because He is a God of love and cannot do anything wrong. But he does allow us to be tempted by evil things. He promises us that we will never be given anything we can't handle, which includes resisting temptation. God didn't tempt Abraham, He merely tested his faith. Abraham knew he was to do whatever it was God called him to, so God tested him by telling him to offer his son as a sacrifice. So Abraham was preparing to, and just before he killed his son God commanded him to stop. God tested his faith.
5) God says do not murder. This is what WE are supposed to live by because we do not know if that person will one day see God's gift and take it, only God knows whats going to happen. In this instance, God was speaking directly to moses, commanding him how to lead his people. God knew those people would never walk in God's light, so what difference would it make if they died at that time than later? If they stayed around, they would only tempt the ones who really followed God. Since they could do no more good for God, he had to get rid of them.
I could go on to help you understand how these verses don't contradict each other at all, but for the sake of time I'm moving on. The truth is, God loves you very much and he would love for you to come home to him, but he gives you the freedom to chose for yourself. You can either be a slave to rightousness or a slave to sin, but its your choice.
Let us all know the truth.
@Taylor,
You're doing a great job with these rebuttals. Your logical approach is all you need to get started to a rational debate. Continue to research the bible and ancient history of gods, religions, psychology, and sociology, and you'll have the ammo you need to keep these types of discussions from being dragged into Christian-language.
Keep up the good work, your book is shipping out to tomorrow.
@Cole,
The bible teaches against judging people? Really? Very good! Matthew 7:1 does say not to judge others. I'm proud of you.
But have you read John 7:24? Because that verse commands you on specifically how to judge others! Yet another contradiction. LOL Thanks for bringing that up, I forgot about that one.
Oh wait, that means to 'judge' them emotionally, not physically, right? Or... is it, 'judge' them according to the holy scripture, and that's okay... or maybe it's that 'judge' is a Hebrew interpretation error that God allowed to test our faith... and that really meant to make a decision to be their friend or not... I'm sure you'll come up with something, but it doesn't mean that it will make sense.
You seem to be taking this as we're both reading the same words and each twisting it to our own opinions. That's not what's happening.
You are twisting the bible as an apologetic spin to force nonsense to comport with your way of life—we are reading the text verbatim and telling you to stop adding your own verses and meanings.
We have no agenda, but to find the truth, so we read it subjectively. Your agenda is to defend every word of that bible and try to make it make sense for your daily life so that you can sleep at night with your beliefs. We live just fine without that pressure.
That's why we quote the ACTUAL words. And instead of defending the texts and accepting their meanings, you say "Well, that mean 'spiritually'" or "that was back then..." or "that was an error in a so-called perfect book."
We are not twisting anything. We are reading the literal text, and it doesn't make sense unless an apologists adds words to it. That's not good enough for us. We want the ACTUAL truth, not your bias spin on what you HOPE it means.
Your excuses for my contradictions are only unique spins on the actual words. You are not scientifically, nor biblically supporting your answers.
You're just rewording the verses so that you feel better about them. The bottom line is, the bible contradicts itself MULTIPLE times, so YES, that DOES prove it is fallible, which deems it not trustworthy, therefore making it impossible to be the infallible word of a living god.
@Jesse
It was Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." He changed.
I've argued the creationist theory several times on my site. Scroll and click around. But basically, in quantum physics, we've found virtual particle pairs that randomly pop into and out of existence.
My house is not built with self-replicating cells. Our bodies did evolve with them.
You said "when people are doomed to hell it glorifies God." That's a scary thought and that's why religion is poisoning society. How can you honestly say that the eternal suffering, burning of flesh, and horrid torture of another human, simply for not believing is glorification of any type? I'll give you an opportunity to retract that statement.
As for Abraham, what is a test, if not temptation? It's interchangeable in that phrase, but you're re-wording it to feel better about your belief. He was commanded to murder his son to prove a point to a god that's supposed to already know everything. That's both disgusting and ridiculous to believe.
You also said "God knew those people would never walk in God's light, so what difference would it make if they died...? Really Jesse? Are you sticking with that, too? Just because someone doesn't believe the way you think they should, let's just cut off their heads?
And you think the Muslims are crazy...
If being a slave to righteousness means wanting people dead that don't believe in the same god, and torturing other humans by burning their flesh is glorification of an all-mighty creator, ummm... you can have it. I'll take the sinner route ;)
You're basically committing the straw man fallacy. You took bits and pieces of what I said into an argument easier to attack.
So please point out the straw men arguments....rather than saying the whole thing is one.
So, Cole and the other guy (actually, other GUYS now) are saying that you are "taking verses out of context" to make it conform to your beliefs and that if you actually read the 'original' text in Greek and Hebrew, you will find no contradictions. I can quote the other guy saying, "He should read the original text before (something to do with you claiming there to be contradictions) because he doesn't what the f*ck he's talking about." And they were saying you were being antagonistic. <_<
I, for one, have not read the original text, nor CAN I read them, as I do not know any language other than English, but it seems awfully out of place that these are all translation issues. Perhaps you know something about it? Besides, why wouldn't God write in all languages if he meant for everyone to follow his word?
In addition, I find it funny that Cole was claiming that we don't believe in God because we don't want to believe in a being higher than us (or whatever he he said that was similar to that), yet he complains at you for saying that he is twisting the words around to make him feel good about himself (which he denies, by the way). And he also said that even if there are contradictions, it doesn't change the whole meaning of the Bible, and he doesn't understand why we don't believe in God because following him will teach you good morals and it makes logical sense and whatnot.
On a final note, he says that he is getting tired of talking with you because you are too close-minded to get any of it. LOL, the same thing can be said about him (and any other Christian) as well!
ok. I take none of that back. i'm glad i've read this because instead of turning me away all you've done is made me search for more answers, and the more i search the more i find about this incredible God that lets us choose for ourselves to follow him or not. I'm becoming much more sure of my faith, and the relationship i have with God is becoming stronger than its ever been, so thanks. I've tried what i can to give you an idea of the truth, but none of it matters if you continue to resist him and not let him in. Just remember He wants to help you, He wants to forgive you and love you and have you live with Him, but if you don't want that He won't make you. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. I'll always tell you if you ever want to know more about our God, but you have to be able to understand the things i tell you.
If I may. You should look at this:
http://outofthegdwaye.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png
Part 2 of 2
I understand why religion exists. Its quite simple actually. The need to know our origin and our future. It brings peace of mind to believers to know the origin of everything, and to know where we'll end up after this merely mortal life. Its this peace of mind that is heavily threatened by the concept of atheism. Its difficult for a believer to really grasp the unknown. To be able to live without knowing whether or not "The Big Bang" or "String Theory" are true. To live knowing that when you die, your consciousness just fades to black forever. These are insanely atrocious concepts to the believer. Worst case of wishful thinking ever. It certainly seems like a waste that when one dies, there's no soul to carry on your persona beyond the physical realm. (Hopefully all) Atheists look at it differently; through one's good actions toward one another, and the replication of one's original ideas, one in a sense "lives on". Much like historical figures who leave their indelible print on our reality. People from thousands of years ago that we still talk about. Plus, living forever in complete blissful peace isn't possible because in order to have something, its negative must be present. This is true throughout the entire universe. There is day and night, life and death, good and evil. The concept of heaven with pure goodness is incoherent because without evil, there is no point of reference for that good to exist. Again, an abstract concept to grasp, but makes sense nonetheless.
I'm an atheist because religion, God and it all just basically makes no sense. I find much more peace and happiness in the information available to me presently with science and logical reasoning.
The system of belief is built around ensuring that belief is maintained, which is why there are so many rituals and practices in place that reinforce the irrational concepts until they are part of the way a believer thinks, they become logic and there's no possibility of a different way. The human mind is extremely impressionable in the early stages, and indoctrination at a young age causes the brain to become "hard-wired" to a certain way of thinking, making it very difficult to change. "Old dog can't learn new tricks", at its simplest. Believers find the thought of atheism atrocious simply because their brain is literally incapable of assimilating a different outlook. Its only through repeated questioning, research, learning and affirmation that new synapses can be created in the brain to gain the realization that God is not real.
Stubbornness and ungrounded conviction seem to dominate the drive that keeps religion going.
I can rest assured that we are currently experiencing another time of enlightenment. Much like the previous renaissance, the internet has helped logic and reason reach more people faster. Factually, more and more people are becoming atheists, and there will be a time when the majority of people have no belief in God.
http://tinyurl.com/mlnzxv
Many religious leaders and followers alike are under the impression that the internet is "the devil" because it threatens their world view entirely.
@Jesse H.,
http://www.wimp.com/eyeevolution/
That video depicts a wonderful animation on our current theory of how the eye was formed through natural selection.
I hope you realize that you're an atheist too. We disbelieve in your God for the same reasons you disbelieve in Zeus and every other god that ever existed.
Shed the fear of losing faith in God, for eternal damnation is unfair and unreal.
Choose to be human. Do good to others. Be decent. Have fun. Shed the guilt and fear that your God imposes and direct those responses to the immediate situations in your life. Feel fear for outcomes, feel guilt for wronging others. Each other is all we have, and its time to stop subscribing to an ancient and destructive way of life. Its time to be better and to evolve. Progress is inevitable.
I have never posted here before but feel inclined to do so after reading this debate.
A lot of contention is coming from both sides about "interpretation" and translation, of which are highly fallible do to mans innate subjective nature.
Considering that there are more languages than religions on this planet (some dead, some unwritten), and that every locality has individual jargon and syntax (y'all v. you all in the United States), it makes any "interpretation" completely subjective.
For every verse in the Bible one can counter it, logically, with any claim made in an alternate holy text (or even a different translation of the same text), and where does that leave us? Exactly where we were before the Bible was even written: being subjected to mans whims and desires.
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." — Susan B. Anthony. Just look at the Crusades, the Dark Ages, and current Afghanistan for support to this quote (religious based persecution).
Now this is what I don't get. Christianity and Islam both proclaim to have an omnipotent, perfect, being; on top of the "ours is the only one" claim. Yet for a "perfect" god, one that can see all that was and will be, they suffered an extreme oversight, which negates perfection.
As I said there are thousands, upon thousands, of written and spoken languages that have, and do, exist. Yet back 2000 (or 1500) years ago these "holy" texts, words of an infallible being, were written in a limited language scope (Hebrew/Aramaic, Arabic). So if these words are to be read by all, to save all, why then are they limited in language? What about the Native Americans or cultures of Central and South America that existed at this time? What about the Aborigines of Australia? They, due to language and location oversight, had no ability to be "saved" for over an entire millennia from when Jesus lived; and almost a millennia from Muhammad.
So why then did this "perfect" creator make such a huge mistake? Since it is regarded as having unlimited powers, and subsequently produced the whole of existence, then surely a god would have thought to create a universal language that is readable by all living beings, regardless of local literacy?
Now before any one claims "free-will", making something universally readable is not the same as compulsory belief, as you can still choose to read it or believe it. Having a universal language encoded into our genetics would have been the best way to reach all people, at all times, without human subjectivity, while still allowing the concept of free-will to safely exist.
And before someone claims "gods-plan" I counter with this: so it was gods plan to have millions of non-Eurasian peoples die unsaved? Or to allow countless millions to die from ideological wars? If that was gods plan that the word benevolent can never be applied to them, only malevolent.
While you argue over the semantics of a single books translation("King James says this", "Well the NIV says this"...), all of you have missed the most fundamental point: why is gods words, regardless of religion, written so only a select few can read it or understand it? Why is it written in what is a humans creation?
Surely if I, a mere mortal human, can think of something better and more efficient than a perfect being what does that say about that being?
Part 1 of 2
This debate is amusing. I'm having a great time reading this. Thanks for recommending it, David. I've heard so many of these arguments before.
I must say I find it patently absurd that someone can shake faith in Christianity, only to go back. That attitude is monumentally fickle.
Odds are that most of us have played broken telephone at some point in our lives. Right? Similarly to the way reverse osmosis filters dirty water, a message that gets passed on from individual to individual changes drastically over time, (except it doesn't become cleaner, like with a filter, quite the opposite in fact) and that is not my opinion, that is just what happens. Thus, rendering the bible astoundingly incorrect. This alone does not disprove God of course, but I think it rules out the bible as an adequate guide for morality. Its (quite obviously) far too outdated and diluted to apply to our time. Religion, with all of its old prohibitions is holding back humanity from achieving its true potential. We could have "heaven" on Earth now. We have the capability through technology to achieve monumentally beneficial things for our condition and environment, yet time after time, religion halts its progress. That's where I have a problem with religion and the people who refuse to remove God from the picture.
I have come to learn that morality came from humans' primal need to survive. Basic things like not killing each other, would ensure better odds of "us" making it farther. Expanding upon that, not stealing, lying, raping, and just not being an asshole in general all ensure a positive and optimal experience through this life. Which brings me to my next point:
I've observed that some believers' logic goes something like "Atheists don't believe in God, therefore they must be free of guilt to commit sin." I see how one can come to this conclusion, but its entirely wrong. Atheists rely upon humans' ability and choice to do good. There are countless amazing Atheists out there that want nothing but the best for their fellow man. John Lennon and Isaac Asimov being a couple of my favorites. According to the bible, these people are "fools", despite their sizable contributions to mankind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU
This is pure and amazing. Brilliant. Deepest respect to you David.
-Paul
Why does everyone have to be a theist or an atheist?
I don't believe in any gods but I object to being called an atheist or a non-believer. Why not call theists 'a-scientists' or 'anti-logics'? How about 'non-believers in science'? Don't put the negative on me.
@Anonymous...
Atheist is not a negative. The (a) simply means 'without.' Because 'theos' originally means 'gods' or 'god' a person who is a-theos, is without that belief.
You've only been taught that 'atheist' was a negative term, just like you've been taught that 'heathen' and 'infidel' were negative terms. They're not, that's society's brainwashing at work to make you want to belong to a group of believers.
If you live without the assumption that a god or gods exist, you are an atheist. Embrace it, it's not a bad word.
I have embraced my atheism since before I knew the word and I am well aware of its origins.
I live without a lot of assumptions society would have brainwashed me with. What's so special about this fairy tale that it deserves to label me?
I may be an atheist, but people who don't believe in the scientific explanation of our world are non-believers.
I know it's just semantics, but my viewpoint is one I have not read so far. Is there a discussion where this has been brought up before?
Thank you
I have been an atheist for over a year now and i have told hardly any one. I am afraid being judge and argued with at school. I know it will happen too. I told some one right when i decided its all bull shit. He first asked why? then he told me that i am going to hell. Then he finally brought out a bible and tried to show me how God was real (We were at his house, he doesn't carry a bible around with him). I am afraid that it will happen at school. Also I live in a very strong christian community, and school (Public school but God is brought up during the day) so I might be "hated on". Is there something I can do to not get criticized at school?
Houston,
There is nothing you can do to not be criticized at school. No matter what you say, someone will have the opposite opinion. That's actually a good thing about school, it should be about bringing together different viewpoints so we can all share them.
So find your opinion and stick to it. You don't have to shove it down anyone's throat but if the subject comes up, you know that god is an illusion and you don't buy anything you can't prove. Hell is an illusion, too, so you're not going there or anywhere else when you die. Your body will be buried or cremated or whatever but your time to do good or bad on this earth will be done.
You sound like someone who will do good.
A common theme I've noticed throughout these comments and comments on other blog posts by David is this: In their refutes, those who side with Christianity or Religion only answer the points which they believe they can respond to (albeit, with flawed logic). On the other hand, David and others who share his view strive to answer every single topic brought up by those offering opposite viewpoints.
Isn't it amazing that those who support religion and Christianity will suddenly stop arguing and resort to the "He will forgive you, he will love you, if you accept him.....etc" spiel when they run out of answers for the many, many, questions we atheists/agnostics have for them?
@SLT so you're a pantheist, then?
My favorite comments so far have been the ones about god wanting to forgive you. If there was a god why would it no just then forgive you? This in no way shows that there is a god, and also reinforces the notion that your logic is shallow and therefore not going to change anybodies minds. If you really want to show me there is a god, stick to concrete arguments instead of switching to this. I will say that I highly doubt you will change my mind, but this route will be the only route that will work as far as I can see.
to accept the idea of the Xtian god............you have to believe that there is a creator god of the entire universe (millions of galaxies......billions of solar systems) who gets personally offended by things that we say, the manner in which we procreate, and seems to be overly concerned with womens fashions. Then you have to believe that in order to forgive us for these various transgressions, he must see BLOOD!!! No forgiveness without blood! THEN you have to believe that he will forgive you if someone ELSE sheds blood. I am lost already, but it gets worse, because the bottom line is that he then came down here, to sacrifice himself TO himself, in order to make a loophole in this already preposterous system. AND THEN you have to believe that this only actually applies to you if you believe it! I am sorry, this makes absolutely no sense to me
Top that off with the fact that the new testament is a completely unreliable document as far as being a record of what happened. We have no idea who wrote most of it, and we have no idea what they actually wrote. We know that there was NO consensus about ANY of this in the first couple of centuries after the supposed life of Jesus. Not to mention that there is virtually nothing original in the stories........Check out any of the many dying-ressurecting-man-gods of antiquity and you will see the similarities.
Post a Comment