understanding the god God
There are a few things about the god God that I don’t quite understand. I thought it might be nice to display them in public and see if any of my kind readers can provide any missing pieces from these puzzles.
- Why did the god God create all of human kind in his image to populate the world, but for most of the existence of humanity only take an interest in one tiny group of people? Was every non-Jewish person who lived in times before Jesus irrelevant?
- Why does the god God insist he’s the only god in existence, but then have to tell his top followers (who have actually heard him speak) to stop worshipping other gods who don’t exist? How could top followers with maximum exposure to the only deity in existence possibly get so confused?
- Why does the god God think men are more important than women? Why does the god God present himself as a man, why did he come to Earth as a man, why is his holy book filled with mainly male characters and why does it give instructions for women to be submissive to men?
- Why does the god God take a special interest in the lives of Christians who pray correctly but not intervene in the lives of others? How does he find time to send fire down to earth to demonstrate his power, or find time to cure some people of diseases, or find time to ensure some devotees get parking places, but not intervene in child abuse, starvation and endless natural disasters?
- Why does the god God give us free will and expect us to follow his rules, but allow many people to live without seeing his rules, and many people to be born with the inability to follow or understand his rules because they have disabilities or mental health problems?
Great questions and I will attempt to answer
1. the rest were control group, the Jewish class is the chosen group
2. marking territory besides he is a jealous god
3. that one I don’t know
4. he likes watching football and some porn maybe the prayers come in at those times
5. you are asking too many questions
Thanks! Interesting answers that give me food for thought. Perhaps he does exist. 🙂
First, I take exception with several of your notions of what many Christians think God believes. For example, I don’t think God thinks women are less important than men. True, a lot of men (not just Christians – not even just religious men) try and twist their religion (or non religion) around to push this notion, but that is not any god’s fault. I put the blame where it lies: bitter, scared, brutish men and the weak (or bullied) women who allow it (or who are forced to submit to it).
But let’s for a moment just roll with all your assumptions. Let’s say the god God is the petty, irrational god you describe AND He actually DOES exist. It doesn’t much matter whether I (or you) agree or disagree with His actions or non-actions. Our indignation does not send God running in shame (at least I don’t think it does). He is God and gets to be God. I’d rather not tick Him off. I’m practical that way. I learned a long time ago that the world doesn’t revolve around me and rarely does it respond to my outrage regardless of how righteous it is.
Now for another scenario. Imagine for a moment that we don’t know HOW we got here, WHY, or even IF we have any purpose other than taking up space and breathing air. Why did the fates, over millions and millions of years, through the gradual process of survival of the fittest and natural selection, deem that five fingers were better than six? Surely I could achieve more with an extra finger on each hand. How about those eyes in the back of my head or that third arm that mothers need? And how about a bigger birth canal for that huge human brain we’ve developed over the millennia? I mean. Other animals have birth canals that are bigger relative to the size of their offspring’s head. If evolution deemed it it’s good enough (better) for them, why not us? Does our smaller birth canal serve us in another way that makes us more able to survive? Just who or what do I shake my fist at for that one? And does the fact that there are things we can’t understand, or that seem counterintuitive, prove that evolution alone, without any type of divine guidance, could not have actually occurred?
Thanks for taking the time to give your thoughts. I don’t feel like I’m misrepresenting the views of Christians here, I’m really only going on what’s in the Bible. You may think that men are twisting religion when they portray women as lesser beings, but seriously, there’s not much to twist. Women do not feature in any part of the Bible except as supporting characters to provide male heirs, and there’s plenty of clear guidance about the subordinate place of women in society.
The god described in the Bible is indeed petty and irrational. I don’t believe that any such creature could exist as its behaviour is entirely inconsistent with intelligence and benevolence yet unsurprisingly completely consistent with the behaviour of the often petty and irrational humans who invented the notion. However, if I’m sadly wrong and such a deity does indeed exist, I certainly wouldn’t want to waste my free will singing its praises in the hope of a cosy afterlife.
Here’s a scenario for you: we’re not at the end of evolution, imagine in 30,000 years’ time we may well have eyes on the back of head and six fingers. I don’t believe evolution ‘deems’ anything – it’s not a creative force. It’s the simple fact of what manages to successfully reproduce.
The Bible is also full of love. We can choose to ignore those parts. Many do. Sadly, many Christians do. A lot of Christians would feel compelled to try and convince you the Bible is true and to try convert you. I am not that person.
I’ve often wondered if Jesus came when He did because men had gotten it so wrong. They just didn’t understand what God was about. Jesus certainly was pretty disgusted with the religious leaders of His day. Whether or not you believe what is in the Bible is true, you can’t ignore those parts containing the story about a man who embraced all people; men, women, prostitutes, mentally ill, maimed, tax collectors, rich snobs, poor widows, etal. The man who said that the two most important commandments were to love God and love your fellow man. You can’t point to all the bad things to prove God doesn’t exist any more than someone can point to all the good things to prove God does. God doesn’t exist because of anything written in the Bible. That is something that gets lost in these discussions.
I agree with you that the story of Jesus and his interactions with people is usually inoffensive, and that he is reported to have given useful guidance in some situations. But that could be said of a lot of philosophers and religious leaders throughout time. I’m afraid I don’t see anything remarkable there, and I find some of is reported behaviour and utterances at best slightly bizarre.
I think it is of value to point to all the terrible things in the Bible (and there are many) and use this to illustrate that lack of likelihood that this god creature exists.
I believe that the best you can hope for with that argument is to shed doubt on the god God or our interpretation of the god God. It really does not prove there is NO god.
I completely agree with you, there’s no way to disprove the existence of any invisible supernatural force. But casting doubt on this very popular interpretation of a deity can have a snowball effect on the rest of them.
I’m curious. What is the effect you would desire to bring about?
There are plenty of things we don’t understand or things we have understood wrongly. It didn’t make them cease to exist.
I would like to encourage people not to accept the harmful teachings of organised religions. You seem to be a good example of someone who usefully questions everything, but I’m afraid not many religious people are like you.
I think that all of those questions are pretty unanswerable by anyone who isn’t locked into the ‘it is written’ mentality. Of course, the ones who still believe in the bulk of it but do have a few braincells to rub together will deny that those are the right interpretations.
These kinds of religious thoughts fitted the mentality of the people who started them, (and were also manipulated to give them the divine right to exercise power – over women for example) but have become increasingly ridiculous as time has passed. Unfortunately, there are still numbers of people who haven’t evolved enough in their thinking to move away from such concepts, or are too lazy to do the mind-shift it requires.
Thanks for stopping by Colonialist, I’m a big fan of your comments on Ark’s site, and was delighted to hear your write children’s books! I’m slightly confused by your comment here as I understood you do believe in a god or gods of some description. Do you believe that the Bible has any connection to an actual deity?
I am actually a very devout agnostic! 🙂
However I am also convinced that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in an atheist scentist’s philsophy, however brilliant they may be in their fields.
Haha, I thought you were a Christian from your arguments with Ark! I’d like to think there are more things in heaven and earth than we can dream about, but I haven’t seen evidence to suggest it’s anything more than natural human imagination and superstitious tendencies driving me there.
A lovely line for speculation. For starters, whether the human imagination is simply a pre-conditioned natural response or something more …
Also, in the field of ‘supernatural’. I have come across enough personally verified, inexplicable, but not-accepted-by-science happenings to be satisfied there are probably many undiscovered ‘natural laws’ (or whatever). To me, if something wacko is reported
by enough reliable observors it postulates another part of nature, even if the incidence is random and stubbornly refuses to operate in a laboratory.
Interesting. Were you thinking of any particular examples?
Just some of the usual phenomena I have personally experienced or known other practical and non-imaginative people to have done – a flying object doing an instantaneous right-angled turn and accelerating madly (I saw that one), strings of synchronistic happenings, precognition, seeing ‘ghosts’ under convincing circumstances, variations of ‘dowsing’ – that kind of thing. My first reaction is always to think of all possible rational reasons. When the only such reasons become even more fanciful than the so-called supernatural ones, I tend to take due note.
A thought provoking list. Surely weird things in the sky are just testing top secret military equipment. I haven’t personally experienced enough of the others to believe anything other than confirmation bias and mind tricks are in play. I did a post about some occurrences that have given me pause for thought – and the reasons I didn’t take them too seriously.
Interesting! I have commented there.
I do believe that I am reasonably good at thinking of all possible ‘known natural’ reasons for what I have experienced. For example, I dismissed one ‘flying saucer’ which I and many other saw moving slowly contrary to prevailing winds as possibly being an inverted paper packet heated by a candle and in an inversion layer.
Still, enough remain unexplained for me to be satisfied the supernatural is out there – but which is probably simply as-yet-undiscovered ‘natural’.
Tis a mighty leap from potential UFO’s dowsing, and ghosts to God or a creator, don’t you think?
One mighty leap for a scientifically constrained mind, perhaps, but the tiniest of steps for the god.
Which god would that be, exactly?
Any one of the ones that MAY exist.
More than one? Interesting. And how would you characterize such a god?
All the usual omnis.
Why the evasive and vague reply? You feel so strongly about this why not give a straightforward answer?
That WAS completely straightforward. Sheesh, everyone knows the ‘omni’ qualities a god would need to have to be a god – they don’t need spelling out.
I didn’t intentionally ignore your evolution question. I rally don’t think we’re going to evolve an extra digit or arm in the next 30,000 years. There just is not enough time; especially as it is easier to lose a digit than gain one – evolutionarily speaking.
Yeah, but you know what I mean. It’s all random and we are constantly evolving. You can’t claim we are currently the end product of a ‘perfect’ design.
Evolution is NOT all about randomness. You have to believe that some of it is random to give it creative power (Big Bang, Primordial Soup, etc.), then you have to have some “beneficial” mutations, but once you get past that, it really isn’t random. Evolution chooses the types that are the best at surviving AND reproducing.
The bible says that God looked at what he created and called it “good” NOT “perfect”. But you have to admit, when we look at how we all work, everything from worm to man, we are pretty awesome!
I find that way of discussing evolution totally bizarre – evolution ‘choosing’ something. I know it’s used by scientists and atheists but it makes no sense to me, and I always get really irritated by nature programs that present facts in that way. Evolution is simply a way of describing how organisms change – surely all mutations aren’t only ‘beneficial’ – some are random and just happen to be in a lucky place where conditions mean they flourish.
I agree that the current stage of world development is interesting and often beautiful to my eyes and ears. But I can’t help but wonder that if I didn’t feel that way I would be carrying a bored, depressed and doomed suicidal gene.
It may not be the best choice of words. I am thinking about that. But if my name came up in a lottery, I would probably say something like, “they or it chose me” or “I was chosen.” I might even say, “the machine picked my number.” Hmmm. Perhaps I would just say, “I WON THE LOTTERY!”
There are some who believe that being snotty and condescending equates to intelligence. The jury is out on that one.
The truth. The absolute truth. The undeniable truth is that trying to disprove the bible, disdaining the bible, making fun of the god God, or disparaging the people who believe in him or feeling superior in your disbelief….none of these things… proves there is NO god. In fact, you could potentially uncover something that could prove the bible is fake, a fraud, a fabrication and still not be able to prove there is NO god.
Personally, I would love to see just a little equal opportunity time spent calling out the “problems” with the beliefs of other religions. If I spent most of my time blogging about how Muslims or Hindus had their heads up their butts because they were religious (Muslims and Hindus have a history of hating and hurting each other) and quoting their scripture to try and show how silly they are, I’m pretty sure many of you would have a problem with that.
@Cindy0803. I agree with you that there is not enough time – evolutionarily speaking – in 30 000 years for us to grow extra digits or eyes on the back of our heads. However, I must admit, I really do not understand how that fact would defend a notion that the evolution must be divinely guided. Or what ever would defend that notion? Are you saying that your god deliberatly designed human females to have pains while giving birth as it is suggested in the Bible? Why? To punish women for the crime of one mythical individual?
I hope you do not take this too personally, but it sounds to me that your approach towards your god is “practical” not different of a beaten wife being “practical” not to cause her abusive husband to “tick him off”. Do you think might makes right?
I agree with you that every religion deserves the same amount of ridicule and disdain. As they are equally absurd. But it is natural for people to approach these issues from their own cultural heritage. Just as natural as it is, that most theists believe in their pariticular gods just because of their respective cultural heritages. I expet, that includes you? Even though I am an atheist in the third generation and come from a rather secular society, I have had my first and foremost encounter with one particular religion. So, it is natural for me to critizise that religion more than others. It is a cultural phenomenon in my own backround culture. Nothing more. And besides, it is not like the Islam, or Hinduism were really threatening the secularity of the western society I live in, as much as Christianity does. They simply do not have that much social power in our societies at this point of history.
I highly respect your approach not to try to convert anybody here. I think the point of such conversations, we here have, is not to convert, or deconvert anybody, but to give us all new angles on complicated issues. You certainly have provided some for me, thank you very much.
Yes indeed, there are some good ideas in the Bible also. Not very originally good, though. Wich kind of casts a shadow on the idea that they ever were divinely inspired. Both before and after people of many other philosophies and religions have come up with exactly the same, or similar enough kind of ideas and there are lots of mythical characters who have been described to act in a loving way not really different from Jesus.
I for one do know exactly HOW and WHY I got here. I happen to know my parents, you see. I decide what IS my purpose here, since, Is’nt that exactly what the term “free will” describes?
@Violet, a fabulous flower. What is that?
Q & A
1:Because god God is a tribally moralistic idea of the ancient Hebrews.
2: Because god God was a tool of the theocratic demagogues of the ancient Hebrews.
3. Because the theocratic demagogues of the anceint Hebrews had a patriarchal cultural heritage and all gods share the moral of their adherents.
4. Because people tend to see the world and imagine gods from self centered perspectives.
5. Because there is no point in trying to find any religious mind set logically sound, as faith will fill any holes in the logic. That is what faith is for.
Thanks for your very sensible answers Raut! It seems so obvious and yet so many people are unwilling to see what’s in front of them.
And thank you also for noticing the lovely flower. I’m afraid I have no idea what it is. There’s a wildflower planting scheme here in all the city parks – I guess to halt the decline in the numbers of bees. This plant is popping up in all the wildflower sections, and I’ve never seen it before. It’s stunning, I took loads of pictures but love this close up.
@cindy0803 Scientists like Hawking are quite satisified that they have proved there is no god. I don’t have that sort of vast intellect, but on what I have I take it as unproven, because the arguments always come back to an even more unsatisfactory conclusion of something that had all the potential to become all-that-is which spontaneously started going, without a nudge or any controlling or adjusting by any internal or external intelligence. One cannot DISPROVE that. At the same time, they have, as you say, failed to DISPROVE god, or a guiding intelligence, or anything of the sort. Their conclusion is that by showing things can work without one, they prove there isn’t one. They seem unable to appreciate that their arguments boil down to ‘it just was’ and/or ‘it just happened’, and they have no theories at all on ‘why’.
At least in the latter area the theist takes speculation to a higher level.
My point about evolution was just this: Because I can highlight the fact that evolution has not resulted in animals perfectly adapted to their life/purpose (i.e., big head, small birth canal, lots of deaths in childbirth), or even animals whose purpose is to survive very long at all (fruit flies), does not mean that evolution does not exist. It just is not a very good argument. Just as pointing out that the Old Testament has this petty, jealous, angry, seemingly irrational god without viewing him in light of any other parts of the bible (Old and New Testament) that give a different picture of god is not a very sound argument against the god God or any god.
If you were to be provided a montage of my life where all you see are the times that I have been angry, unforgiving, petty, jealous or irrational, you could probably convince (quite easily) yourself or anyone else that I am an awful person. You might even be able to convince ME. If I had hurt you, personally, and you were hearing all these people around you talking about how great I was, you might very well take out that montage and shake it at them, saying, “She isn’t all that! She is a fraud!” You might call them stupid for being taken in by my lies. But that wouldn’t necessarily be fair or accurate.
I have grappled with all of the questions that Violet raises. Are there difficult passages in the bible? Yes. Many. The truth is, Christians do not have all the answers. Some of them will try and convince you they do. Maybe they HAVE received some special revelation, but it is just as likely that they have not. But the basis of Christianity is a “personal” relationship with the god God.
Anyway, if you will allow a tired cliche of approaching the gates of heaven, and then entering with St. Peter or our loved ones (I think I would like my dogs to come and greet me along with my Granny) or the god God himself, when I die, I suspect that there will be a whole slew of things that will be revealed to me that I’ve gotten wrong; things I’ve believed, things I haven’t believed, things I’ve done and things I haven’t done. If I still care about those things then, I imagine I will be as bad as any four-year-old trailing after God asking, “Why, why, why.”
For me, maturity has brought some humility. This is very different than I am by nature. So, when I talk about not wanting to tick god off, it isn’t really about fear. It most certainly is not like an abusive husband. It is more an awesome respect. I’ve moved past my anger at the god God because everything isn’t perfect or fair. Things don’t become perfect or fair when we don’t believe in the god God or any god. The fact that we expect that from a benevolent god seems kind of childish; at least to me.
When we see a horse and his handler, I don’t think we get angry with the horse for allowing itself to be broken. I don’t think we walk up and berate the horse for what he has given up by deciding to bend to the will of this booted thug standing beside him. No, I think most of us see the beauty in the relationship because we see the end result. When you see the horse and his handler in their “relationship”, both appear beautiful. Yes, a wild stallion has beauty, but in the wild, horses can live in unforgiving, harsh environments. We rarely see the pictures of that, because we like to focus on those of the horse running with his long mane flowing back behind him; the pictures that express freedom. But does that tell the whole story? Is that truth?
@cindy 0803, thank you for your respectfull answer. To me the Bible was not a very difficult book. I have read lots of ancient myths and I enjoy long reads. 🙂 It got a bit boring at times, but it was also very interresting in respect to other myths from that same georaphical area and roughly the same era. And also in comparrison to other human stories with mixed historical and bogus elements.
I see your point about looking at a person from a narrow perspective, but I do not think this the case when we make estimations about the reliability of this particular alledged contact information to the entire humanity by the claimed one and only creator of the entire universe.
We could make out a case that Stalin was not all bad. At one time he was a young rebel who bravely rose against an opressive empire degrading human value. Perhaps he was even a loving hubbie and father. At what point are we entiteled to make the claim that someone is a terrible person? I would at least say, that when they abuse the power they have for petty reasons, could be counted as one way to measure this. Correct?
The god of the Old Testament is a petty and jealous mass murderer who obstructs ethics by arbitrary commands. If you honestly think that the god of the New Testament is better, then how do you explain this? Did that god get better? What happened? I think the New Testament is not really much better than the old one. It seems to corroborate with all the worst ethical problems of the earlier version like homophobia, misogynia and condoning slavery. Simply discarding the rules about eating pigs. The New Testament also presents as a new idea the eternal torture type of punishment for sins and nonbelief, wich is a terrible idea. Jesus did not bring mercy, he brought the threat of hell. The gods of both Testaments are moral monsters.
Age has brought some humility to me also. But my experience is, that the ethical path lies between humility and arrogance. Generally speaking one is better at witholding extreme self centered arrogance, but sometimes one should and needs to stand up boldly against injustice. Humility alone is no virtue.
If I humour the thought, that there might be a god and an afterlife, and if that god is the same god described in the Bible (and not one of the many others), then allmost all of my loved ones will surely end up in eternal suffering. I can not imagine myself feeling eternally happy in some heaven, even if later in life I learned there was a god and at the last moment repented my sins. How could I? None of my relatives, or loved ones really deserve such punishment as prescribed on them by the tenets of Christianity.
The horse analogy is interresting, but does not carry very far with this. If the handler of a horse would be compared to the god of the Bible, it would be a handler that at wanton wrath sends some horses to suffer for eternity for following their natural instincts. Or rather, breeds horses with characteristics, for wich he claims the right to cause pain on them. Breeds horses to have smaller birth canals to make all mares suffer for the trespassing of one of their ancestral mothers into a forbidden pasture and so forth… You do see the problem?
The god of the Bible is alledgedly weilding absolute power, but with absolute power also comes absolute responsibility, as with all power comes responsibility. The moral judgement we pass on the persona with the power depends on how that persona uses their power. But before we really take any such claims about gods as true, we really should need to be given evidence of their existance first. The fact that all gods are andropomorphic with the emotional ranges clearly given to us by our natural evolution speaks tons about the possibility that all such gods are inventions of humans. Does it not?
I cannot disagree with you that a lot of the bible is boring. I’m not sure what you mean by “difficult”, but I am not one that needs what I read or watch to be exceedingly high brow. That is not to say that I do not appreciate great literature or great art in all its forms, but I would just as soon watch an episode of Frasier as I would watch High Noon or The Seven Samurai. And I thought Moby Dick was the absolute worst book I’ve ever been forced to read. Good story. Tedious book.
Anyway, if there is a creator, there is only one. Even though the Greeks envisioned a bunch of childish, petty gods battling to try and outdo each other, I don’t think that is a sustainable view. In fact, the very fact that we call that myth would support my claim. Yet, despite all the problems you have outlined regarding Christianity, it has endured.
Neither the Jews of the Old Testament nor the Christians of the New Testament ever tried to explain the god God by depicting Him throwing down lightening bolts and clanging cymbals together to explain things in nature. Neither did they create a bunch of different gods with different personalities to try and explain away the dichotomy we see around us; a beautiful calm sea one moment that gives life which turns to a violent, stormy abyss in the next that takes life away.
Yes, I know some will say that we created Jesus to counterbalance the harshness of the god of the Old Testament. But that is not really what happened. A man named Jesus really did exist. He did great things such that the people of his day followed him and gave their life for him. But besides that, he came saying things that were completely counter to what Jews had been taught for as long as they could remember. 2,000 years later, his message still resonates with people.
And I understand what you are saying about humility. It is not possible to achieve all the nuances of what we want to say when writing responses to blog postings. My humility is about ME vs. God. I can take very little credit for what I am; trust me, for many years I tried to. But if you are going to allow people to take credit for their brain cells then you have to also let them take responsibility for their lack, thereof. I can’t accept the latter, therefore, I can’t accept the former. Yes, we can take responsibility if we waste our talents and our opportunities to a certain degree, but even that might be a result of things beyond our immediate control.
The type of humility you are speaking of, I believe, would be the type of humility that would stand by and let someone be mistreated. If you have read what I have written about Christians, you must know this is not true of me. Principles do not change because you call yourself a Christian. They should not change. I can’t speak for atheists or agnostics, but I would assume that your resistance and outright anger, in many instances, toward Christianity is because of how you see people being unfairly treated in its name. Therefore, I would also assume that there are principles that should not change because you are an atheist and are speaking to a Christian just because you do not hold that person’s beliefs.
rautakyy, my experience is that you are very polite and try and be unoffensive or to NOT offend. However, just as I see Christians feel like they can speak disparagingly (disgustingly so) to people they disagree with, I see that from atheists toward Christians or people who do not hold their beliefs. I have no tolerance for either (not saying people here do that by-and-large). Principled people, people of high moral character, whether that comes from the cosmos or from their belief in a deity who has expectations of them, should seek to apply their principles at all times. Otherwise, they are useless and have no lasting impact on the world and they are powerless to make anything “better”.
@cindy 0803, oh I agree with you totally, that some good stories may be in tedious books. I love books, not all of them, but a lot of them. And to be honest, I also share your sentiment, that a story being good is a subjective matter, not about wether it got good critique from others or not. Art is like that – about subjective experiences. You referred to the Bible as difficult and it just left me wonder, since it was not that hard to read. Everything is in short chapters and it is a collection of stories rather obviously describing the cultural phenomenons and myths of the place and era it has been collected. What’s so difficult?
I am sorry, but the Christian depiction of a god is as every bit as childish and andropomorphized as the ancient Greek counterparts. I really do not see any difference. The ancient Greeks also imagined some mysterious power behind their gods, just as the Christians have imagined a mysterious creator intelligence behind a bunch of less mysterious human like representatives. Such as Jesus, the Devil, and all the angels and such.
Jewism, Zoroasterianism, Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism among many others have endured far longer than Christianity, but that gives no more truth value to their claims, than endurance gives truth value to the claims made by Christianity. Does it?
The old testament is very much about explaining obvious natural phenomenons as wrath of god, and so have Christians done for at least a couple of thousand years. Now, is there not a very influental Christian televangelist, who recently claimed that the hurricanes in the US were some kind of presentation of your god’s wrath? Was he right or wrong, and how can you tell? Does your god not ordain every event? You may not share his sentiments about such issues, but if he is being honest and sincere in his beliefs, why does no god straighten him up?
Besides, in the Old Testament this god is depicted by several different names, that come from a pantheon by the Kananite ancestors of the Hebrew. In the Psalms god God even enters a convention of gods to tell the other gods what he thinks of them.
Yes, I think it is quite possible that a man named Jesus, or Yeshua, or even several of them did existed. Most myths have their origins in some extraordinary events, but that does not mean anything supernatural ever really happened. Does it? I also think it is quite possible, that a man called Achilles lived and that the stories in the Iliad are based around actual events, but that does not mean we should believe he was the son of Tethis goddes of the sea. Do we? Why not?
The story about Achilles still resonates with people just like the story about Buddha, the story about Muhammed, or the story about Elvis. The three last mentioned are a lot more easily verifiable as historical characters, than Jesus. All of these men have been equally connected to supernatural phenomenons. Their stories have been and are evermore being transformed to fit the stereotypes of our imaginations as our cultures evolve and change. Are they not?
I take full credit and responsibility of my actions as an adult human being. I give due credit to my parents, my cultural heritage and the unavoidable biology. I see no god there. None of them. Not yours any more than I see Vishnu. Ask yourself. Why is it that you would give credit for these things to your particular god, and not for example to Vishnu? Could it be, your cultural heritage has more to do with it, than the comparative truth value of your deity versus Vishnu?
You keep coming at me with this theme, that I have outright anger at Christians, but believe me when I say, I see you lot more like the victims of a pyramid scheme for wich the responsible sods have long since died off. And even they were not that clever, but rather were betrayed by their own cultural heritage and even more so, by their very low level of information about the reality. After all, we are talking about people who tried to bargain with the alledged creator of the galaxies, by burning birds (and in the case of Christians also some humans) and hoping, the smoke was somehow pleasing to this spirit entity. Right?
People are not responsible for what they are, nor what they believe in, but for what their actions and inaction are. And same applies to gods. Gods may have zero accountability, but they still do bear the burden of responsibility, if they exist at all. Correct?
I respect you highly for holding higher standard of morals, than your god claims in his holy book. But is it not an indication, that the people who wrote that book, and came up with this not so novel idea about a god, were not inspired by the absolute source of morals, but by their cultural inheritance and limited information about how ethics work? Yes, I could be wrong, but honestly it does not seem like that? Does that make me entiteled for an eternal punishment, or even somehow less entiteled to an eternal reward? Eternal???
Yes, you are right, some principles should not change because of what religious belief we hold, or do not hold. The understanding of ethics is important. It is very important indeed, to understand how morals and those principles are formulated. How is it defined what is right and what is wrong and especially why. That is universal to us humans regardless of our religious, or cultural heritages.
My main concern about religion is, that if morality is derived from arbitrary commands by an authority, then there is a high risk that the person interpreting or just “transfering” such commands from said authority – be it a god, a pantheon of gods, or mere dictator – the people who take their morals from such a source are under terrible influence by that interpretor – a demagogue. And we have examples throughout history of many religions and ideologies where this sort of approach towards morals has been disasterous. No gods have ever anywhere appeared to set these atrocities right. Have they? Why not? Perhaps, because they do not even exist. None of them.
Here’s an even more peculiar one: why create an organic species in the first place? If everything was once part of the godhead (which must mean bliss) why create an environment which is essentially a torture chamber?
Oh come on, the god God can’t help being a poor decision maker. He seems to regret a lot of his action. ‘Oooops’ said the god God and sent a big flood to kill them all.
Hehehe… but still, i’d like to hear a theist answer that one. Why?
I always keep an old copy of the bible in the loo. You have no idea the number of times SOMEONE forgets to put a fresh roll on the holder.
Needless to say my old KJV copy is slowly becoming very expurgated.
Anyone who considers a god had a hand in “all this” has not the integrity to at least try to understand science.
The term Intelligent Design is an oxymoron and those that follow this diatribe can dispense with the first three letters and use the remainder as a badge of honour.
Okay, I get that you’re using a Bible as toilet paper. But I can’t understand the joke about losing the first three letters and badges …
Oxymoron without the oxy
Let’s forget going into the usual mobius twists of scientific reasoning and bring this down to simple practicalities. If you find some elaborate machinery on a planet, ‘intelligent design’ would not be derided as an explanation for it. However, one finds how elaborate the mechanics of the universe or multiverse or cosmos or drop of pond water are, and the term Intelligent Design has the scientific atheist (the most pitiable kind because they lack the excuse of brain deficiency) shuddering. Maybe just a knee-jerk reaction at the suggestion of a god and creation contained there, although that is not necessarily a corollary?
Proper scientists do not support Intelligent Design…therefore, I don’t. And also why I do not bother reading all the sooper dooper science ID writers publish.
Proper scientist spend years and years and years ding what they do and generally never invoke a deity in any form nor credit one on any published papers….thank the gods for that right?
When proper science and proper scientists recognise ID (ie Faux Creationism) then I’ll throw my ignorant lot in with it.
Meantime….I’d rather read the info printed on a chappie wrapper as it is more likely to have some factual information.
As I thought, your ideas of a proper scientist certainly don’t coincide with mine. They spend so long doing what they do that they end up not even seeing the trees, much less the wood. They are too focussed on the atoms.
Ah…so Noah really did have dinosaurs on the Ark, right? These are the same scientists that you are currently ridiculing.
Difficult sell that, I feel.
Noah, I don’t think so. That omission is how they became extinct. No wonder those scientists are ridiculed.
So which scientists are we reffering to?
The ones you said said Noah had dinosaurs on the Arc.
Now you’re losing me. Might be better if you at least offered a couple of names of scientist that are proponents of ID.
If we are going to discuss this let’s do it properly.
Also, any discourse or dissension among the ranks is highly discouraged among this branch of science, especially. As with any politicized group, actual independent thought is seen as a liability and NOT an advantage. Scientists led by the same philosophy as Ark are every bit as dogmatic as the staunchest Young Earth creationist.
Ark, colonialist’s position that the intricacies of everything in nature on our planet, and even the cosmos, suggests something similar to the most elaborate machines is not the same as Intelligent Design and certainly not the way that I’m sure you interpret it. Not everyone who believes in a creator believes the earth is 10,000 years old or less and to try and force us all into that box is disingenuous.
Here is the bottom line. Accepting that there is the possibility that everything is not random and was created in some fashion, which may have used evolution on some level, does not mean you need to wear out the knees of your knickers before an altar.
I think you will find, Cindy, that proper scientists are just a tad fed up having to defend good old fashioned common sense. To genuflex in any way to ID and Creationism is a slap in the face to virtually every single respectable education institute in the world, and by extension every graduate.
However, if you are so enthusiastic about ID and Creationism then I trust you will stand firm and send/ have sent your kids to a school that teaches this stuff and demonstrate you understanding of these topics by explaining either of them to me, here and now in a succinct and straightforward fashion.
Every other visitor to this blog will be keenly awaiting your erudite exposition.
If not, then at least name half a dozen proponents of these topics and a list of their relevant qualifications.
Take it away…the floor is yours.
I don’t understand you. About the only thing that I can count on is your angry tone. I most certainly will not teach my daughter creationism of ID as you describe. I will teach her what you believe and the evidence in support of that belief and I will teach her that some people believe that there was a creator and show her the evidence in support of that belief (which I know you don’t consider evidence at all). I want her to reach her own conclusions as I did.
I think many of you presume that everyone who questions the traditional “fact” of evolution is anti-intellectual and has no scientific background whatsoever. I studied math and science in college (one of the most liberal, secular colleges in the U.S.). I have a keen interest in both. I use math in my job. Science is one of my passions.
I question everything. EVERYTHING. I sometimes question whether I exist at all or am just an electrical impulse in someone else’s dream. I am not out to try and disprove evolution like today’s evolutionists are out to disprove god (to the detriment of the science, in my opinion). I find there are questions that remain unanswered looking at the world from your perspective and I find that branch of science to be more like a religion than any other out there.
You have made up your mind. You throw jabs like Mohammed Ali. Like your life depends on it. You, and many other scientists like Dawkins, for example, resort to bullying by calling people stupid who don’t agree with you. You refuse to believe that there are those of us who have a few brain cells who don’t buy the whole evolutionary package as it is presented today. Yes, there are some academically challenged individuals who jump on the bandwagon because it fits in with their religious beliefs (or more so than the “fact” of evolution), but that doesn’t make the questions any less relevant. Do you think that every atheist who believes without any question or research or study of their own is any intellectual giant just because they have chosen to bat for your team?
You remind me of the education elitists in this country (U.S.) who insist on determining that THEY are the only ones who know what education looks like because they are the professionals. They get to define the parameters, thereby excluding anyone who disagrees with them from the party. Education, GOOD education, is whatever THEY say it is. Pishaw and poppycock!
”The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.”
Try and find a single peer reviewed paper.. (this means by Proper Scientists, just in case you weren’t sure)
Let me know if you do and maybe I’ll read it?
Of course it has no place (as yet) in a science curriculum! The thinking there is too narrow, as evidenced in that interesting link. The idea in the sense I use it transcends science. Maybe others with street cred you would respect have similar impressions, but if they don’t I couldn’t give a darn.
Your definition of a Proper Scientist and mine are probably streets apart, anyway.
Ah, so your definition generally adheres to what sciences currently considers it to be – ie an interesting theory and they they insert an intelligent designer, ie God.
Maybe God (in a general sense) maybe not.
In essence, though, the whole idea of everything groping along at the whim of sets of natural laws, and nothing else, is not an intellectually satisfying concept.
Let’s suppose for a moment that there IS a god and he has come down to your living room and revealed himself to you. Now, working from the position that YOU now know/believe god exists, but proper scientists do not, under what branch of knowledge would we put your research into the god you now know exists? You don’t want to call it science. Proper scientists, as you describe them, work from a presumption that god doesn’t exist. They reject any theory or postulation that even HINTS at an intelligent designer. As someone who seems to respect science, it doesn’t bother you that this science is not really open to differing theories based on the evidence in existence?
Sorry to jump in Cindy, but I find this line of argument bizarre to say to the least. Surely if your god exists you believe he has created (from start to finish) a scientifically sound universe. The part where Christians and people of other religions look for ‘proof’ in design is kind of ridiculous. If you accept your god is hiding and invisible, why do you want to believe he’s leaving little clues in the physical world that would contradict what he’s created?
I don’t fully understand your question. If god exists, it does not make me any less curious about the world he created. Ark has said that any evidence or research that looks at the world “scientifically” can’t include the possibility of a creator, even if that creator created all those things that follow our “scientific” laws. Therefore, I want to know what it can be called so that we can stop arguing semantics.
Science to me is where you look for answers to what you observe happening around you through testing and retesting or through observation and the collection of data. The moment someone observes that “life” reflects something more similar to “design” rather than random coincidence, it is determined to be “not science”. This is a definite unscientific position in my opinion.
One more thing. If my daughter comes to me with a theory about what she thinks will happen and I KNOW that her theory is wrong based on my experiences, as long as she does not endanger herself, I let her experiment and come to her own conclusion. “Proper” scientists should follow the same philosophy. They, and those that believe in a creator, might just learn something new.
You clearly know more about science than I do, and yet I have more faith in scientists. I’m afraid I can’t help thinking that if all the really clever people see no evidence for a deity, there is no evidence for a deity. I would be worried if scientists saw something they didn’t understand and decided it pointed in the direction of a creator force, because that’s what was done in ignorance for centuries, and it would clearly still be the wrong assumption today. Your god is invisible, absolutely silent and left no clues except for interventions that can be mistaken for madness or coincidence. It’s not much to go on.
Well, all those “clever” people to which you refer would like you to think that they are the only clever ones out there. They have made up the rules for what “clever” is. They are like the bully on the playground who keeps changing the rules if they see they might be legitimately challenged.
The fact is, there HAVE been disagreements, even among scientists, about evolution. Scientists like Gould, Eldredge, and Goldschmidt were pretty much crucified for their observations that the fossil record does not support Darwin’s theory of gradual descent with modifications, but, instead, shows life bursting upon the scene all at once, fully formed, and exhibiting stasis. Gould, Eldredge and Goldschmidt would argue that they were NOT suggesting there was a “creator”, but those with an agenda – to prove there is no god and to keep creationsists at bay – saw this an opportunity for creationists to use their findings as support for a creator. Therefore, their theories were rejected out of hand.
You can put your faith in the scientists that hold that there is no god because it supports your world view, but I believe it makes you every bit as susceptible to manipulation as a religious person who follows blindly a fundamentalist religion. You could become one of those people who for 40 years believed what the scientists were telling them based on an elaborate hoax (Piltdown man) or on a single tooth that turned out to be that of a pig and not a hominid or even an ape.
This thread is getting thin…I shall answer at the bottom.
Well if there IS a god he has so far been a NO SHOW.
If he is around then he has proved to be an indifferent bastard.
And for the record….YOUR god is Jesus, so let’s make sure we are all telling the truth and are prepared to put our cards on the table, okay?
My cards ARE on the table and in the patois of poker players everywhere, “Babe, read ’em and weep!”
You are angry with me or at me. What difference to YOUR argument does it make that my god is Jesus? I am the one willing to consider ALL possibilities. You, however, are not. I presented you with a hypothetical (this is reasonable, even in the scientific world) and asked you what we can call an honest consideration that evolution does not have creative powers and then look and observe and experiment and test if that is our belief.
The staunchest evolutionists will concede that evolution has not answered all the questions about the origins of life, but they say until something better comes along, that is the best theory we have. They determine that any theory that includes a creator (or any theory that could even SUGGEST a creator from within their own ranks) is NOT science.
This is not a level playing field and it is not the type of science I adhere to. It is every bit as dangerous as the worst totalitarian government or the most repressive fundamentalist religion on the planet.
Your hypothesis is dishonest. Firstly because one is obliged to ask where YOU first learned of your god, Jesus? Unlike a theist, who has no religion, you consider your man-god to be both human and the creator of everything., and all this is derived from the bible, the most ridiculous collection of nonsense to ever have been published. And you do NOT want to go down that path.
So, until you can demonstrate your god, then science will win the day, it admits it doesn’t have all the answers. It is at least that honest.
My assertion is this: how dare you posit a god in the blank space – and even worse, an all too likely narrative construct called Yashu’s and teach that this is truth, and worst of all inculcate children with this drivel.
Now, you might consider this faith. No problem. It sure as hell is not truth.
You cannot use ME to disprove a god or a creator. All you have is bullying.
I believe in a creator. My SCIENTIFIC mind leads me to this conclusion. I have chosen Jesus as the god I will follow.
If I discover a cure for cancer are you going to reject it because it can’t possibly be real because I believe in Jesus and that is stupid?
You obviously have been damaged by Christianity or Christians or a Christian, in particular. But your lashing out against all Christians, on general principals, is pointless and really is just mean. Rarely do respectful people berate and bash like you do just because they disagree with them. Show me where you are berating Hindus and Muslims like you do Christians. When you provide the link to those sites, then we can discuss your beefs further.
”You cannot use ME to disprove a god or a creator. All you have is bullying.”
Bullying? Good grief, Christians and other religious folk have been doing this for thousands of years.
They have even conducted wars. Still are in fact. Turn on your telly. You are a tad late with that epithet, my dear.
”I believe in a creator. My SCIENTIFIC mind leads me to this conclusion. I have chosen Jesus as the god I will follow.”
Your scientific mind is thus mashed potato, as not a single scientist in the NAS considers your worldview valid.
”If I discover a cure for cancer are you going to reject it because it can’t possibly be real because I believe in Jesus and that is stupid?”
Clever rejoinder! But not very intelligent. Think about it and you will understand why.
”You obviously have been damaged by Christianity or Christians or a Christian, in particular. But your lashing out against all Christians, on general principals, is pointless and really is just mean. Rarely do respectful people berate and bash like you do just because they disagree with them. Show me where you are berating Hindus and Muslims like you do Christians. When you provide the link to those sites, then we can discuss your beefs further.”
Damaged by Christians? Oh, my word. You truly think so? Okay…yes, I was. They ruined my life. I was an altar boy that was molested by two priests and the choir master forced on my knees and made to perform felatio. and I am now suing the Cathilic Church for a bizillion Dollars, so help me god.
Sorry dear. That just isn’t the case.
And I have had several goes at Muslims…pop over and have a read. I’ll link the posts if you are REALLY interested.
But I, like you, is more familiar with christianity than the others so it is natural that I will highlight the stupidity of christianity first. But to make you feel better, I think ALL religion is solely for SIlly People
The bible is a crock, and demonstrably so. I don’t really care an iota what you personally believe, truly I don’t. Just don’t punt it as truth, and let kids reach adulthood before jumping out of the bushes at them with your man god, okay?
You simply cannot have such strong animosity towards Christians and not have an ax to grind. You do not have to have been sexually molested to be hurt by Christians.
You are an atheist. If you are angry at religions because they are hurtful, then it is illogical that all of your anger would be toward Christianity. You are more likely to be physically hurt by religions other than Christianity – since you want to keep bringing war into the picture.
Again, link me to the sites where you are bashing Hindus and Muslims or any religion other than Christianity. That would provide some “proof” that you do not have it out for Christians. Based on what I have read from you, you are NOT anti-religion, just anti-Christian.
My bullying comment was personal. Indeed, there are Christians who are bullies. When I see them, I tell them so. But I have not tried to bully YOU. Can you say the same thing? If you are bullied by someone with red hair, do you then go out and bully all red-headed people or do you give them the respect they deserve as an individual?
Aside from the fact that you think I’m an idiot for believing there is a god, and even more so that I have chosen Jesus as the god I follow, have I done anything to deserve your utter contempt?
Most of the world believes in a god or some deity. Do you hate them all?
I’ll say this once more.
It’s nice you are venturing out a bit on different sorts of blogs but you are treading in really murky waters, Col, peddling this ID stuff.
I’ll pull your leg a bit and rag you if you push it but there are others out here who will really tear this diatribe to absolute pieces.
I know you are a big boy and thick skinned too, but you are going to be asked to put up and show if you tout this crap.,
And I will repeat slowly:
Just as you feel an urge to tell fundamental religionists what twits they are, so I enjoy bashing against the thick skulls of the so-knowledgeable scientific community, and pointing out that their answers aren’t answers at all. I have looked at every argument against the POSSIBILITIES I consider, and they are simply inconclusive and bogged down by severely limited thought processes. They may be right (and if so the world will be a poorer place) but they still don’t make a good case against intelligence or design. I use those terms in a general sense, and not in the quasi-scientific ones which has come to be associated with it.
Do not become a victim of the cramped thinking that Science-As-God demands of its followers.
So in what way does your version of Intelligent design differ from the run of the mill ID.?
I would love to answer that in depth. To do so, however, I would have to delve further into the morass of superfluous semantics. The simple version is that everything demonstates some degree of intelligence and autonony in the way it follows the objectives the intelligence of evolution gives them. It is all intelligence.
”The simple version is that everything demonstates some degree of intelligence and autonony in the way it follows the objectives the intelligence of evolution gives them. It is all intelligence”
Yes, you KEEP saying this but up to this point have not produced a single reference or citation..
The minute you are prepared (able) to do so, then some form of constructive dialogue can begin.
Until then…this is merely piddling in the wind..
Is this a ‘different sort of blog’? I’m sure Col is safer here than he ever is on your blog. Or perhaps the danger is that you won’t behave as nicely as you do on your own blog. 🙂 I don’t know anyone more frightening for a non-atheist than you in blogland. I’m sure no-one will attempt to tear anything from anyone in my shrine of wisdom. Except you.
Oh, put away your bible and all the holier than thou…
o we really want a lesson in ID?
You are welcome to comment on my blog. I can’t imagine that I would boot any comment except for something truly vulgar.
Yes, it is sad that many have been sexually abused. It is even sadder that people would hide behind religion in order to have freer access to do so. We should be vigilant. We should punish when vigilance fails. But surely you do not think that only religious people sexually abuse? Would it be fair to make you answer for atheism because atheists abuse children?
I would be happy to follow any links where you have posted to other non-Christian sites, limited though they might be.
You were raised Christian, but you are an atheist. I would think that in order to be an atheist (at least with any credibility), you would have had to have observed or test-driven several other religions to determine that they are all useless and based in superstition and ignorance. That is why the fact that you were raised Christian is not as relevant to me as you seem to think it should be.
Contrary to your statement that I assume simple aggression is bullying, that is not the case. It is not simple. Aggression is, by definition, an unwarranted level of confrontation. You go beyond assertiveness. I call that bullying. But you would consider the mere fact that I would come on here at all, a Christian, and converse with Violet, as bullying. That is even a narrower interpretation than mine. Again, I liken that to the kid on the playground that wants to change the rules midstream in order to squash his opponent. Violet, however, has said that all comments are welcome. I have to believe, therefore, that she would not consider a difference of opinion, even a firmly held one, as bullying. But if she concurs with your definition, then I will bow out.
One of the reasons I do not comment on your blog is that you have made it clear that you do not wish to hear from anyone that believes any differently than you. You say you are willing to listen to a “new” idea that could prove there is a god, but you have already determined that any new idea devoted to such mindless rubbish is already outside the realm of science and is invalid. You see the problem? You aren’t really interested in discussion.
Do you need to be surrounded by people who like the same kind of ice cream as you? Like the same kind of movies? Listen to the same kind of music? Read the same kind of books? If so, then you and I are probably going to have little in common, even if I was an atheist. Do I have to have the same non-religion as you? If so, you are similar to the fundamentalist Christians who dismiss everyone else as unworthy.
‘’You simply cannot have such strong animosity towards Christians and not have an ax to grind. You do not have to have been sexually molested to be hurt by Christians.’’
No, I have not been sexually abused. But many thousands have. Sad isn’t it?
‘’You are an atheist. If you are angry at religions because they are hurtful, then it is illogical that all of your anger would be toward Christianity. You are more likely to be physically hurt by religions other than Christianity – since you want to keep bringing war into the picture.’’
I reiterate. I was brought up Christian and therefore am more familiar with its culture and doctrine; hence my interest. I don’t see any further explanation is needed, do you?
‘’Again, link me to the sites where you are bashing Hindus and Muslims or any religion other than Christianity. That would provide some “proof” that you do not have it out for Christians. Based on what I have read from you, you are NOT anti-religion, just anti-Christian.’’
While I have visited and commented on several sites hosted by other religions, there are actually very few Hindus or Muslim blogs. Also, as I disagree with everything they post my comments have rarely been posted, languishing in Pending or dumped straight into Spam. As a matter of fact almost every Christian blog has a Moderator facility running and of the many sites I have visited only a few have bothered to post my comments. I can give you a short list of these if you like?
Furthermore, it seems it is mostly Christians that want to sing Yashua’s praise and all things god like.
Maybe because you lot are ordered to proselytize?
While we are at it, would you allow me to post on your blog?
Though one Muslim lady, Corbin, and I engaged for quite a while until she got upset that I criticized the death penalty in Islam for apostasy, then she banned me. John Zande too for that matter.
cindy0803 on June 25, 2013 at 2:05 pm said:
‘’My bullying comment was personal. Indeed, there are Christians who are bullies. When I see them, I tell them so. But I have not tried to bully YOU. Can you say the same thing? If you are bullied by someone with red hair, do you then go out and bully all red-headed people or do you give them the respect they deserve as an individual?’’
You assume that simple aggression is indicative of bullying? You do NOT come onto these blogs with an open mind as you have absolutely no intention of reconsidering your stance on Christianity.
This too is bullying. However, if you can demonstrate your god to me then I am quite prepared to reconsider my atheism. Of this you have my word.
‘’Aside from the fact that you think I’m an idiot for believing there is a god, and even more so that I have chosen Jesus as the god I follow, have I done anything to deserve your utter contempt?’’
Actually I don’t think you are an idiot. Foolish, yes, misguided certainly. I most certainly believe that WHAT you believe is idiotic. What I write is not always what it seems. 🙂
‘’Most of the world believes in a god or some deity. Do you hate them all?’’
I hate nothing. Hate is for idiots and people with limited intelligence.
And thank the gods that the number of believers is shrinking every day. Amen to that!
I think I “stupidly” replied in the narrow thread. I assure you it was not on purpose.
Swear on the bible?
(Ark replied to you at the bottom – it got stuck in pending)
‘’You are welcome to comment on my blog. I can’t imagine that I would boot any comment except for something truly vulgar.’’
Excellent ! Then I shall visit shortly and trash every post! Don’t say you weren’t warned.
‘’Yes, it is sad that many have been sexually abused. It is even sadder that people would hide behind religion in order to have freer access to do so. We should be vigilant. We should punish when vigilance fails. But surely you do not think that only religious people sexually abuse? Would it be fair to make you answer for atheism because atheists abuse children?’’
Of course I do not believe only the religious abuse. What a silly thing to say. What IS the issue is that god is so often used against the children as a weapon to prevent them from coming forward. How could anyone trust in such a deity that stood by and let this heinous crime be perpetrated? Unfortunately your book is replete with such examples and worse. And you lot seem to be okay with it. Genocide, rape, incest, slavery, etc . etc. Strange god you worship.
‘’I would be happy to follow any links where you have posted to other non-Christian sites, limited though they might be.’’
You will have to give me a bit to dig them out…I can think of two Muslim sites that I can link in the next comment, will that do?
Although I did mention that most of the sites I could link you to were Christian.
‘’You were raised Christian, but you are an atheist. I would think that in order to be an atheist (at least with any credibility), you would have had to have observed or test-driven several other religions to determine that they are all useless and based in superstition and ignorance. That is why the fact that you were raised Christian is not as relevant to me as you seem to think it should be.’’
Ah…well the premise of pretty much ALL religion is belief in the supernatural, so one daft god is as much as the other. I have a passing knowledge of several of the world religions and a bit more of the Abrahamic ones and the most with Christianity.
Besides, when Christianity eventually collapses it won’t be long before the others follow suit. By that time critical thinking will be a major force among humanity and religion will, gods willing, be regarded as little more than a quaint oddity – as well it should be.
‘’Contrary to your statement that I assume simple aggression is bullying, that is not the case. It is not simple. Aggression is, by definition, an unwarranted level of confrontation. You go beyond assertiveness. I call that bullying. But you would consider the mere fact that I would come on here at all, a Christian, and converse with Violet, as bullying. That is even a narrower interpretation than mine. Again, I liken that to the kid on the playground that wants to change the rules midstream in order to squash his opponent. Violet, however, has said that all comments are welcome. I have to believe, therefore, that she would not consider a difference of opinion, even a firmly held one, as bullying. But if she concurs with your definition, then I will bow out.’’
My opinion is my opinion and I would NEVER presume to speak for Violet.
However, I could show you several Christian bloggers that I consider bullies. One comes to mind straight away, UnkleE (whom John Z is familiar with) whose severely biased blogs and asinine comments simply allow no margin for open discussion because their initial stance brooks no challenge to their worldview that Jesus is the Alpha the Omega and any other watch you care to name. Period.
Theologics is another, Roy another. Prayson, yet another. All filled with the Holey Spirit and each one as confrontational as you could wish. Don’t take my word for it Ask Violet.
A classic is Physics and Whiskey, who is a lot more subtle yet just as scathing and intolerant of any that will attempt to take him to task.
‘’One of the reasons I do not comment on your blog is that you have made it clear that you do not wish to hear from anyone that believes any differently than you. You say you are willing to listen to a “new” idea that could prove there is a god, but you have already determined that any new idea devoted to such mindless rubbish is already outside the realm of science and is invalid. You see the problem? You aren’t really interested in discussion.’’
I am interested in discussion, providing you do not come on and churn out the same old diatribe that has been the hallmark of religion for 2000 thousand years. If you have a new, refreshing perspective that can enlighten the topic, feel free to pop over. But if all you are going to say is Jesus is the Lord and such like then why would you waste your energy on an atheist like me?
‘’Do you need to be surrounded by people who like the same kind of ice cream as you? Like the same kind of movies? Listen to the same kind of music? Read the same kind of books? If so, then you and I are probably going to have little in common, even if I was an atheist. Do I have to have the same non-religion as you? If so, you are similar to the fundamentalist Christians who dismiss everyone else as unworthy.’’
In a non-blogging situation we could probably get along fine, as religion would not dominate conversation. I have several religious friends and we don’t have any problems. My family are quite spiritual for that matter.
John Zande is an Australian for the gods sake, and if I can put up with him I am sure I could survive exposure to a Christian like you for a short while: In small doses and providing you carried a Health Warning…or something.
The Muslim chappy regularly visits Marcus’s blog http://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/my-post-on-evolution/#comment-3445
This is his own blog, though he doesn’t allow me to post any more so I stopped. If you trawl right back to the beginning you may find several posts with dialogue between us. http://realitydebate.wordpress.com/
Nate is a deconvertee. I highly recommend his blog. Read his story. It will give you serious pause for thought. An amazing chap and a true gentleman…not like me. 🙂 http://findingtruth.wordpress.com/
That little lot should keep you busy for a bit.
Remember, many Christians come on my blog and engage me. There’s one which has just popped over right now and left a scathing comment that I am about to tear into!
“A classic is Physics and Whiskey, who is a lot more subtle yet just as scathing and intolerant of any that will attempt to take him to task.”
I’m drawing the line here, no PeW bashing on my blog. He’s not a subtle bully of any sort. He’s a nice chap. I never had to delete his comments because I always won our discussions. 🙂
Riiight…ask John. And you never ‘won’ anything that he didn’t let you…
All very reasonable questions. The answer to all your questions, either directly or indirectly, is that the god of the Old Testament is not God, The First Cause. I could go into a lot of detail if you would like.
Thanks for commenting Chicagoja. I remember discussing these things with you before. Whereas I draw the conclusion that all these inconsistencies make it more than unlikely that the god God exists, you have found a way to make it consistent with deity belief – and aliens?
Just because the Bible reeks of inconsistency, doesn’t men that God doesn’t exist. After all, why should the wolves in sheep clothing tell anyone the truth about the Absolute? Beginning with the great Greek philosophers the esoteric knowledge about the Divine was communicated to the elite through something called The Mysteries. Even in the Bible, both Jesus and Paul supposedly commented on keeping the secrets of the Kingdom of God from the masses. Many of the stories in the Bible have been made up, but there is usually some historical basis that resulted in that story, which was typically based on oral tradition. For example, Genesis appears to be based, in part, on “The Epic of Gilgamesh” from Babylonian mythology. There are other stories of Sumerian, Egyptian and Indian origin, as well as esoteric Jewish writings and the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible (the Book of Enoch) which give similar details of the ancient gods, which I believe are the basis for the Old Testament stories, which include references to the Annunaki and the Nephilim. As for aliens, it was Francis Crick, who along with James Watson won the Nobel Prize for identifying the double helix structure of DNA, who said that the entire human race is an alien race. Fancy that, we are the aliens. The scientific world has never recovered from that disclosure and is still trying to explain man’s evolution on this planet.
But do you not just despair of all people down through time with their own theory of the origins of life and any potential supernatural forces? I can’t help but think it makes more sense to leave the scientists who are interested to keep investigating and researching, and the rest of us to accept that superstition and conspiracy theories are are defunct evolutionary bi-products that are best avoided. Why are you interested in looking for another ‘truth’?
I’ve never been interested in looking for another truth. It just “found” me. As for the deists’ search for the supernatural, it was Voltaire who said, “If God didn’t exist, he’d have to be invented.” With respect to science, I’m afraid that they won’t be of much help either since they cannot observe what exists beyond space and time.