How could you tell the difference?
Despite common misconceptions, as an atheist I don’t worship the Satan. (Thankfully that misconception is getting less and less common.) So when I ask the question “What if Satan wrote the Bible?”, I’m asking purely for the purpose of understanding the thoughts of believers.
I’m often told by Christians of certain stripes that they know God is good because the Bible says so. And thus, all the things he says in the Bible are good, regardless of how morally reprehensible they may seem to a secular humanist like me.
But if the Bible is all your evidence for God’s goodness, what’s to have stopped some powerful evil being from penning it and calling himself good? It certainly seems to match up with some of the Hebrew scriptures’ more wrathful picture of their deity. Not to mention a few of the more heinous teachings in the New Testament. (I’m looking at you, Paul and Revelation!)
Which brings up another group of believers: those who say it is through private revelation or their own feelings that they know that God is good.
But again, what is to stop a sufficiently powerful evil being from convincing you that it is a good deity? I’m sure many believers think this is in fact the truth about other believers. But how do you know it isn’t true for yourself?
Aren’t you relying on your own feelings and opinions about what is good to determine that God is good and Satan is evil?
And if that’s true, and you have at least somewhat reliable feelings and opinions about good and evil, what’s the need for a god or a holy book to tell you those things?
Think about it.
Of course, with my luck, I’ll have accidentally converted a believer to Satanism with this little thought experiment.
Suddenly Atheist 
You should so print this up and snail mail it to those crazy Answers in Genesis people! I would love to hear what Dr. Lisle would say in his talk after reading it 🙂
Yeah, all those Christians who have a “feeling” are total nuts!!
By: Aaron on August 23, 2009
at 3:42 pm
Wow! You really know the Bible. Not bad for an ex-RC.
I may check in on your blog, just to listen 🙂
Jodi
By: jodiq on August 29, 2009
at 6:35 pm
It is interesting you make postulate this question, as it is very similar to one accused of Jesus by the Pharisees in which 3 of the Gospel writers found memorable enough to write about (Lk 11:15, Mk 3:22, Mt 12:24) when they said Jesus was casting out demons because he was Satan.
You know Jesus’ response in which he basically said “a Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand”. If Satan did write the Bible, then what purpose would it afford him to have his butt kicked all throughout it?
By: Jedi on September 2, 2009
at 5:20 pm
sick kicks? What purpose is there at all behind God’s existence? We exist to serve him, but ultimetely he is without any meaning. So it is irrelevant if it is somewhat inconvenient to pretend one thing.
Also, the fact that Jesus could have been satan is still a very live one. According to the Jews, he is somehting that is supposed to toke the place of god. Remember the first commandment? Deception is the entire point. If it was all a ploy to begin with, then there is no “division”. What jesus said was a non-sequiter, plain and simple.
By: Rickr0ll on September 2, 2009
at 11:49 pm
excuse me: “the possibility that Jesus…”
By: Rickr0ll on September 2, 2009
at 11:51 pm
“If Satan did write the Bible, then what purpose would it afford him to have his butt kicked all throughout it?”
Because if he wasn’t beaten in the book, people would know that Satan wrote it. Unless you don’t think Satan is smart enough to do that. But then, why be worried about Satan if he isn’t smart or powerful enough to perform a bit of routine fraud?
By: morsec0de on September 3, 2009
at 8:13 am
Did Satan write the Bible? Is Jesus really Satan? These sound like the thoughts and actions of one who would truly like to see us deceived in thinking that there could be no God, no goodness apart from ourselves. Why would Satan whose very plan from the beginning is to separate, over throw, and destroy God’s creation (man included), write a collection of 66 books that cover a span of 1500 years using 40 different authors to say the same message: God is the salvation for mankind?
The answers lie not in the world, the media, you or me, but in our own hearts and the built-in consciousness wired to our very souls from a loving and holy creator. The simple fact that we question our existence, purpose, and plan in this life suggest complex reasoning, and a thought process leading toward the “eternal” not to the internal.
Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
We can’t possibly rely on our own reasoning and goodness because it is limited. Our knowledge can only go as far as man discovers, understands, and interprets the information at hand. Our goodness only last as long as we can tolerate the situation we’re placed into. When those two factors have been exhausted and there is no solid truth that has formed a basis for reasoning, chaos ensues.
2 Timothy 3:1-7
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God–having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.
By: livin4givin on September 4, 2009
at 3:05 pm
Maybe Satan has a Good younger brother and he let’s him play and be nice. Assuming Satan is ultimately in control changes nothing: in fact, the gratuitous evil of the world is a key peice os support for the assertion Satan is more popwerful or equal with God. Benevolent dieties would never allow the world to perpetuate such miserable existances. People who live wretched short lives in starvation and sorrow.
By: Rickr0ll on September 6, 2009
at 10:04 pm
Aren’t you relying on your own feelings and opinions about what is good to determine that God is good and Satan is evil?
I enjoy that you and the other regulars are able to write some good, thought provoking posts & comments that usually get a few new comment-ees that have no idea that you already have the answers. Of course, you are relying on your own feelings and opinions about what is right in your own eyes. Hey, it makes for good discussion!
BUT, in all seriousness, since you appear to have honestly asked the question to Christians in your post… I have hope in what the Bible says. I have hope in how I have interpreted the events in my life. I have hope in knowing and believing that YHWH is who he says he is and that the complete Bible accurately portrays his overall message. So, far I have nothing to make me question this hope.
So, that’s the honest answer. If history repeats itself, there will most likely now be comments discussing:
-God’s quoted mined character
-Non existent contradictions in the Bible
-Unfounded psychological trends among Christians (i.e. juvenile insults – typically NOT from Morse or Rick)
-Funny stories made up about Jesus’ younger brother (oh, that one’s already been done) …wink…
I like you guys. Keep up the good work!
By: tree63fan on September 10, 2009
at 1:55 pm
Hey, I tried to find your email on here somewhere but I couldn’t so I hope you don’t mind if I post this here.
At any rate, I obviously don’t know you, but from reading some of your posts you seem like a man who feels compelled to embrace Atheism as true because he has many, many questions about the Christian faith. But what’s wrong with questions (even unanswered ones)? I mean, since when did having *everything* all figured out become so important. What if there’s just stuff that you don’t or can’t know? Is that a problem? I think the same thing applies to a Messiah that walked the earth 2000 years ago, to the scriptures, and to the Church even. There’s always room for questions. In fact, if you don’t have questions about what you believe then what you believe is too small and manageable to be of much worth.
So, as a Christian that doesn’t know everything, I can totally understand the questions that you’re asking. In fact, I’ve been kicked out of a lecture in a church and fired from a job as a pastor in a (different) church for asking questions about life and God and scripture!
But my question to you my friend, is, did your questioning (and do your questions) *necessarily* have to lead you to Atheism?
Grace and peace.
JT.
By: jt* on September 14, 2009
at 2:51 pm
There is only one question that “leads to Atheism”. And that is “Is there any convincing evidence for a god or gods?” One doesn’t “embrace Atheism”, one simply doesn’t embrace any of the myriad superstitions (religions) proposed as Truth, and by default one is an atheist.
The problem with the majority of religions is that they claim to have all the answers, regardless of the lack of evidence or implausibility.
By: The Talented Chimp on August 18, 2010
at 10:42 pm
“but from reading some of your posts you seem like a man who feels compelled to embrace Atheism as true because he has many, many questions about the Christian faith.”
Wrong, actually. I was a Catholic for over 20 years. And I’ve studied the other types of Christianity as well. Still do.
“What if there’s just stuff that you don’t or can’t know?”
There’s plenty of that sort of thing. Never said there wasn’t.
“But my question to you my friend, is, did your questioning (and do your questions) *necessarily* have to lead you to Atheism?”
As that is where the evidence points, yes.
By: morsec0de on September 14, 2009
at 3:01 pm
morsec0de (what is your real name anyway? I’m Jonathan),
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that you *knew* nothing of Christianity, I mean, you would know more than me if you’ve been involved with the Church for over 20 years! However, I don’t think that knowledge or experience are enough to vito questioning. In fact, knowledge and experience have only multiplied my questions. So, my knowledge of Christianity, for example, doesn’t necessarily mean I don’t have many questions about Christianity. I was simply commenting on the fact that you, like I, have many questions.
If there is “plenty” of the sort of thing that you can’t fully comprehend then couldn’t this also apply to God? If it’s not possible to know God entirely then questions about God and frustration over how God acts shouldn’t bother us that much. Those types of things could just fall under the category of “stuff we don’t know about God, because He’s so damn big and beyond our comprehension.” And, if we can say this then it’s possible to have questions *and* believe that God is real and loving and beautiful and all of that. And if that is possible, then even if “that is where the evidence points,” having questions doesn’t *necessarily* lead to disbelief. At least for me they haven’t.
By: jt* on September 14, 2009
at 3:28 pm
“If there is “plenty” of the sort of thing that you can’t fully comprehend then couldn’t this also apply to God?”
Certainly.
But when I see something I don’t know, I say that I don’t know. Many Christians see things that we don’t know and say “that’s god”. Which is wrong.
Look to the evidence. If there is no evidence for something, you can’t say that’s what it is.
By: morsec0de on September 14, 2009
at 4:08 pm
Well I agree entirely. It’s sad but true that many Christians pretend to know things that they don’t. This makes me cringe (although, I’m guilty as well) and I attribute it to fear, among other things. It’s my hope that Christians will come to a place where they are confident enough to admit that they don’t know it all.
I would edit your last statement to say, “If there is no evidence for something, you can’t *necessarily* say that’s what it is.” But just because you can’t know something entirely doesn’t mean you can’t know it at all, does it?
So, do you still think that “the evidence” necessarily leads to Atheism? And if so, why (because I’m looking at much of the same evidence)?
By: jt* on September 14, 2009
at 4:15 pm
It’s not evidence that leads to Atheism, but *lack* of evidence.
By: The Talented Chimp on August 18, 2010
at 10:44 pm
Actually, you are describing Agnosticism. There isn’t any evidence, and since you mention no counter-evidence, then that would lead to a position of skeptical Agnosticism. There is no Reason to believe in a god. I have reasons Not to believe in god. So i am, in fact, an atheist.
By: Rickr0ll on August 26, 2010
at 12:17 am
“But just because you can’t know something entirely doesn’t mean you can’t know it at all, does it?”
It’s not about being able or unable to know things. It’s what the evidence shows. Period.
“So, do you still think that “the evidence” necessarily leads to Atheism?”
Yup.
“And if so, why”
The lack of any good evidence for anything supernatural.
By: morsec0de on September 14, 2009
at 4:19 pm
Would you say that evidence *necessarily* has to lead absolutely everyone to the exact same conclusion? I don’t think so. Astronomers have differing opinions about space just as sports fans have different opinions about who was the greatest ball player of all-time (was it MJ or Magic?!!). So, it’s not merely about “what the evidence shows,” so much as it’s about *how* you interpret the evidence that you see.
Also, you’re not being fair here because you’re holding me to a different standard than you are yourself. You’re telling me I can’t argue that God exists from a “lack of any good evidence,” while at the same time arguing for atheism using the exact same *lack* of evidence. So, if you’re telling me that my evidence (or lack thereof) for God isn’t valid then you can’t turn around and use the exact same evidence (or lack thereof) to argue that God *doesn’t* exist.
You may want to say that I can’t argue for a God, but I would counter by saying you can’t argue for the *lack* of a God. We have some evidence and then we have all of our presuppositions and experiences that we bring with us when we look at the evidence.
If this is true, which I believe it is, then a lack of evidence not only doesn’t, but *can’t*, necessarily lead to atheism. All it could lead to would be agnosticism, and that’s entirely different than atheism.
By: jt* on September 14, 2009
at 4:54 pm
“Would you say that evidence *necessarily* has to lead absolutely everyone to the exact same conclusion?”
Yes. That is the nature of evidence.
Now, if you have very little evidence, then you can have multiple competing ideas that explain the evidence equally well. Then you search for more evidence, and see idea fits the evidence.
If you have no evidence, you can’t claim to know anything.
“to argue that God *doesn’t* exist.”
I don’t argue that a god doesn’t exist. I just say that there is no evidence that one does.
By: morsec0de on September 14, 2009
at 8:40 pm
Sorry for the delayed response. I’m a student, so sometimes I have to cut myself off from technology and just read! Anyways, I disagree that the nature of evidence is to lead everyone in every context to the same conclusions. I just don’t think this is true, and I don’t think we need to think very hard to see that it’s untrue. People look at the same evidence all the time and come to different conclusions. The reason for this is that no one is able to look at evidence from an *entirely* pure point of view. Everyone views the evidence through a lens that is made up of their presuppositions and experiences. Even if there is loads of evidence, that is no guarantee that everyone will see it the same way because everyone is bringing to the table their own assumptions about the evidence.
Anyways, I’m not trying to argue and be difficult, so I’ll end it there. I look forward to reading your blog though,
Peace.
By: jt* on September 18, 2009
at 9:20 am
“Astronomers have differing **opinions** about space just as sports fans have different opinions about who was the greatest ball player of all-time (was it MJ or Magic?!!).”
“Opinions” are not the same as interpretation of evidence. Astronomers have different *explanations* of evidence (theories), but the evidence itself is not in dispute. Their opinions are irrelevant.
Who *you* think is the greatest ball player of all time is *irrelevant* in light of the statistics (evidence) that show who actually *is* the greatest (depending on how you define “greatest”).
By: The Talented Chimp on August 18, 2010
at 10:50 pm
Heh, are you accounting for deviations in the strength of the entire team, field, etc? I can see why is Would be debatable. They say you can’t compare eras either. At least, in baseball.
By: Rickr0ll on August 26, 2010
at 12:19 am
“Even if there is loads of evidence, that is no guarantee that everyone will see it the same way because everyone is bringing to the table their own assumptions about the evidence.”
Which is why we have science, and the peer review process, to mitigate these very human traits.
By: The Talented Chimp on August 18, 2010
at 10:52 pm
I know this is old but that’s a great response!!
By: tnmusicman on April 26, 2013
at 9:48 am
long time no post…hope everything is ok…
By: jodiq on September 18, 2009
at 8:34 am
[…] As An Evil Super-Alien September 22, 2009 gonovelgo Leave a comment Go to comments Via morsec0de, an interesting observation: I’m often told by Christians of certain stripes that they know God […]
By: God As An Evil Super-Alien « First Time Novelist on September 22, 2009
at 5:08 pm
To a selfproclamed ateist youa re so subjective ateist in normal have faith in what they see,
well i think bible its truth because jesus existed, if was realy de devil who wrote it I think this devil its more powerfull than the supose god who let him make its bible make follower and etc, if this god allow devil call him self god and make people biblive in it he as he wish. Of two one:
1- Dont care about anything
2- Its not srong enjouy to stop devil
If the fristh its true there is no reason to make the universe and atc and in anyway he dont care about us its better worship a date who cares or say care about me
If the second well he is not God at all…
but think its nok because the christians you will be hit by a airplane, the musolins will kill you so, in this case thalk with them about the alkhoran be write by divel ^^
By: Fantom7 on October 1, 2009
at 6:09 pm
I replied to your poor reasoning here:
[click his user name if you’d like the link]
By: Javier on October 8, 2009
at 11:51 am
Paul didn’t write Revelation. John did. All it takes is reading the first four verses of the book to find that out. Nice try though.
Perhaps reading the Bible in context, and without a disdainful heart would help. Remember that if God is absolutely holy and perfect, then everyone who doesn’t love him and confess their sin to him deserves punishment and judgment. That’s what Christians believe and in the context of our belief, it makes perfect sense. Of course it doesn’t make sense to you.
What would make absolutely no sense is a God who just loves every and passes out suckers and golden stars even though they trample upon his glory and worth. That is why there is so much violence in the Bible: people sin, don’t repent, and deserve death. It is more honest than any book you’ll ever read, but it gives more hope than you could ever deserve.
This won’t change your mind, but just think about this: if God is holy, then he deserves to destroy everyone who’s not on his side. But remember that he gives every person ample time to repent (namely, their entire lives).
By: james on October 28, 2009
at 9:02 am
“Paul didn’t write Revelation.”
I never said he did. I said Paul AND Revelation. Perhaps if I had written “Paul and the author of Revelation” it would have been more clear.
“Of course it doesn’t make sense to you.”
Correct. Or the majority of the world, I would imagine. (The majority being the two-thirds of the world who aren’t Christian.)
“What would make absolutely no sense is a God who just loves every and passes out suckers and golden stars even though they trample upon his glory and worth.”
How about a middle-ground? A god that actually shows itself to all people of all times, has a way of doing things and can rationally explain why they are good with more than ‘because I say so, and I’ll punish you if you disagree’ as a reason.
“This won’t change your mind”
Correct. Evidence would. Appeals to authority will not.
“if God is holy, then he deserves to destroy everyone who’s not on his side.”
Wrong.
That would be reprehensible if a human leader did it. And a god is supposed to be better than a human leader, not the same or worse.
It is absolutely revolting and disgusting, and I feel very sorry that you think a god like that exists and feel the desire to worship it.
By: morsec0de on October 28, 2009
at 9:34 am
“That would be reprehensible if a human leader did it. And a god is supposed to be better than a human leader, not the same or worse.”
God is not a human leader. He isn’t even a human. You can’t put God in your humanistic box and make him do the things you do. If Christianity made sense to the whole world, that would defeat the point. God’s not doing this for a popularity contest. The Bible itself says that God chooses the weak things, the poor things, and the things that are not to shame the things that are.
You ask for evidence, but you aren’t going to change your mind over some written evidence on a blog post. I’ve been in enough debates in a forum like this to know. Your problem is NOT evidence. It’s the fact that you don’t want a Supreme Being ruling over your life. But, morsec0de, examine at your life. There are plenty of “gods” that are reigning and controlling you; you just don’t see them. So you really aren’t an atheist, you just worship a “deity” of your own making other than Jesus. You worship creation, not Creator.
By: james on October 28, 2009
at 11:15 pm
“God is not a human leader. He isn’t even a human. … God’s not doing this for a popularity contest.”
How do you know? Christians claim that their god is unknowable and then state what it is not and what it is not doing.
“You can’t put God in your humanistic box and make him do the things you do.”
But revenge IS a very human emotion. If your god doesn’t at least relate in some way to the human condition, what relevance is it to us?
“If Christianity made sense to the whole world, that would defeat the point. ”
What point? I thought the goal was to save (convert) the whole world to your superstition.
“The Bible itself says that God chooses the weak things, the poor things, and the things that are not to shame the things that are.”
Why? How? What does this even mean and how does it relate to humanity?
By: The Talented Chimp on August 18, 2010
at 11:10 pm
Interesting also that you avoided the part I mentioned about hope.
At the end of the day, you still have “bad” things you do on your conscience (even if you don’t call them “sins”). Someone has to pay for those. Jesus did.
By: james on October 28, 2009
at 11:22 pm
“You ask for evidence, but you aren’t going to change your mind over some written evidence on a blog post. ”
Correct. Because ‘written evidence’ is crap evidence.
I’m looking for real, scientific evidence. And that won’t be found by appeals to authority or quoted bible verses.
“It’s the fact that you don’t want a Supreme Being ruling over your life. ”
Actually, I don’t want a supreme being that is clearly an ego-maniacal monster ruling over my life.
Depending on the supreme being, I might like it.
“you just worship a “deity” of your own making other than Jesus. ”
I don’t worship anything, actually.
Don’t try being a psychic.
“Someone has to pay for those.”
No they don’t.
By: morsec0de on October 29, 2009
at 5:57 am
Hypothetically, even if Satan did write it, he would still be writing about the only precondition for morality and the laws of logic to be realitites, namely because it tells of an all-good eternal personal standard, and an eternal mind. Scripture accounts for these, while naturalism and atheism does not, and cannot.
So even if the Christian worldview really did come from Satan, then he would still be giving us something which comports with reality far beyond atheism.
The question on this thread seems to be “how can you know the difference between who really wrote the Bible?” The question I have for the atheist is “how can you know anything at all, or even trust what you know within a Naturalistic atheistic worldview were everything is just matter in motion and our thoughts are just randam neuron firings based on our biological makeup?”
By: Cameron on November 4, 2009
at 11:00 pm
Actually, naturalism (I’m assuming you mean science.) can. Read up on kin selection and reciprocal altruism.
Atheism doesn’t have to account for anything as it is merely the non-acceptance of a god or gods due to lack of evidence. How many more times must we say this?
“how can you know anything at all, or even trust what you know within a Naturalistic atheistic worldview were everything is just matter in motion and our thoughts are just randam neuron firings based on our biological makeup?”
The “How do you know reality is real?” strawman argument. The simple answer is “Because it works consistently.”
By: The Talented Chimp on August 18, 2010
at 11:19 pm
Interestingly, naturalism doesn’t exclude figures of great power, only the ones that don’t have to rely on advanced technology to have said power. And science never has and never will PROVE anything: Proof is only possible in truth tables and mathematics, because there is always some error, and there is always some room for things to be different later than they are now. Correlation does not equal causation, but if you’re stupid enough to think this argument makes god more rational to believe in, then you have no understanding of probability, evidence, or logic, and you are a sham of a human. Such a waste of an otherwise useful brain….
By: Rickr0ll on August 26, 2010
at 12:25 am
The Talented Chimp, by “naturalism” I don’t mean science. This is the science = naturalism fallacy (which I made up – b/c I’m a talented person in the image of God). When I die and am in the presence of Christ, I will still do science (and will for all eternity) and it wont preclude God just because I’m doing science.
Sure, your definition of atheism doesn’t have to account for anything if it’s merely a negation of a belief, but your worldview still does! Nice try!
Me asking “why do you trust your 5 senses or what you think you know to be real” is not a strawman! It’s simply a question! I crack my Bible and start with an eternal, personal, all-good, being (God, or Jesus Christ more specifically) to account for all of reality. You crack your Bible which is the starting point “because it works”. You’re starting point is arbitrary because it doesn’t account for reality, just assumes “what is”.
By: Cameron on October 24, 2010
at 12:13 am
Rickroll, I agree with your statement “Correlation does not equal causation”. But you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. I would say correlation infers God, and does not 100% prove him. It does prove him in the inductive sense, etc. You are OK with using inference to prove things when it suites your needs, but wont allow others to use inference to prove God. That’s the profound inconsistency.
By: Cameron on October 24, 2010
at 12:22 am
“but your worldview still does!”
Like he said, Reality isn’t a worldview. Actually, you can”t escape naturalism. everything that exists is Natural. It may be that is it created by a process that only exists with the aid of an intelligent being, but i DEFY you to procure for me something out of nothingness. I DEFY you to perform alchemy or spontaneously grow someone’s lost limbs back or eliminate the persistence of Cognitive defects.
It isn’t a fallacy. There is nothing OUT of nature that is also IN reality. Nature=Reality, and since Science is the quantitative analysis of Reality, science = naturalism.
“I crack my Bible and start with…” A pathetic presupposition that you can trust your senses, first of all, becasue you Think the book is in front of you. Another is that the book has anything to do with the world (and is not the same as any allegorical tale about Hobbits and Orks). A third is that there is anything other than “What is.”
By: Rickr0ll on October 29, 2010
at 7:05 pm
So your view of the world isn’t that there is a reality and that it’s all only “natural”? 1. that makes it a worldview, and 2. it’s begging the question what is ultimate “reality” or ultimately “natural”. Here you’re just getting into semantics. I define God as ultimate reality and nature. I go further and say that ultimate starting point is eternal, personal, and all-good. Scripture is the only revelation which begins with presents that starting point. You don’t have to believe Scripture, just the starting point, but then you’d be a theist, and would believe something extremely similar to Christ.
Without that starting point you have finite, impersonal, non-morality accounting for the world around, and having to account for yourself, which doesn’t comport.
Your bible is that your starting point which doesn’t comport, accounts for everything.
By: Cameron on October 30, 2010
at 2:01 pm
And Morsecode,
Some of your assumptions are a bit off. An absolute standard of goodness doesn’t prove why it’s good, otherwise it’s no longer the standard. That which proves it would then be the standard, and would be God.
This is why we cut to the chase and say that the standard of goodness is God. God’s eternal character and relationship within the 3 persons of God is how we ought to act, think, and intend. Scripture is God’s revelation to us of His character, hence why it’s then perfectly fine to say that the Bible shows us what is right, because it shows us the standard of an all-good eternal person.
And what kind of “proof” do you want for God’s existence? Forensic proof or theoretical proof? I’ll wait to see what you say before I dive in.
Lastly, proof of God’s existence is that without Him you can’t prove anything. Proof, in and of itself, requires 3 major things, namely, observers who observe the observable. Naturalistic atheism can’t account for either 3.
By: Cameron on November 4, 2009
at 11:14 pm
The bible is right, excpet where it is absolutely wrong. For example, in Daniel it says that King David’s lineage is erased. Hmmm, doesn’t that present a problem. Also Tyre, never abandoned or completely destroyed. Same with Egypt. Additionally, there was no Flood or Tower or Babel incident.
Many of the passages of the Bible are utterly the work of other preists who cobbled together what was supposed to be some universal text. Granted, even by the time Jesus was supposedly alive, there was more than one Bible to work with.
You can’t prove God, so i guess you really can’t prove anything at all.
Why assume there muct be an absolute standard as opposed to a standard that exists within us more or less as a collective? Our entire social system in a paradigm built upon morality of primates. So maybe it should be the monkey’s bible we need to read before yours. Oh wait, they don’t have one. They don’t need one. And niether do we
By: Rickr0ll on November 5, 2009
at 3:10 pm
Rick! Some new contradictions to debunk! Please give me the details about the Daniel stuff. Must have left that one out of the huge list Tom and I already responded to a while back.
Monkey Bible, that’s funny. You should hang out with Ray Comfort. He can hold the banana and you can make the Monkey Bible that doesn’t exist disappear!
By: tree63fan on November 5, 2009
at 4:58 pm
Yes, debunking atheist’s surface level Bible contradictions are one of the funnest things to do. I’ve debunked many of them, and every time I do, for some reason the atheist never says “oh, I haven’t consider that”, but just remains completely hostile to the Lord Jesus Christ regardless.
Proving God isn’t the bases to prove other things, but assuming God is the bases to prove other things. Those are different statements and you’re only assuming the former in your argument, when I specifically made the latter.
You can’t have a standard within us, because then there’s no bases to say someone is more right, thus no one is more right and “right” really is non-existent, thus all is permissible. Thanks atheism! Having a standard within us (being subjective) reduces to no standard whatsoever. Nice try. Silly atheists!
By: Cameron on November 5, 2009
at 6:31 pm
“You can’t have a standard within us, because then there’s no bases to say someone is more right, thus no one is more right and “right” really is non-existent, thus all is permissible.”
All, ultimately, is permissible, depending on how you define “permission”. There is no-one to actually stop you from doing whatever it is you desire. All, however, is not *acceptable* within the structure of our society, for the functioning of our society and the continuation of a population.
Right and wrong is a collective agreement based on how we, as individuals, want to be treated. It is because we can consider ‘the other’ that we can sympathise with them and share in their real or imaginary pain and suffering.
“An absolute standard of goodness doesn’t prove why it’s good, otherwise it’s no longer the standard.”
But you claim that your god delineated an absolute standard of good in your Bible, and you use it as a standard. By your statement, you admit that there is no proof as to why it’s good. “Because it’s in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God.” is not proof, it is circular reasoning at it’s most obvious.
By: The Talented Chimp on August 18, 2010
at 11:34 pm
If all is really permissable then what is acceptable is only based on opinion. Go to my blog and look under the thread ‘Why Naturalistic Atheists Can’t Account For Morality” and I’ll give you all the reasons why this doesn’t work. I know you try so hard though, bless your atheist heart. I’ll spoon feed a bit though. The reason this doesn’t work is because what is considered “acceptable” is subjective, thus always able to change. A could be wrong today, then right tomorrow.
You’ve also conveniently straw-manned the Christian position. God did not invent morality or what is “good”. What is good is a reflection of the eternal relationship existing within himself as he is 3 in 1. The Bible reveals God’s nature and will to us so we can go off of it if we want to look more into the microscope of what is moral. If you don’t like Christ, but still want to believe things are really right and really wrong, then you must assume an eternal, personal, all-good standard. I would call that God though.
By: Cameron on October 24, 2010
at 12:56 pm
“Having a standard within us (being subjective) reduces to no standard whatsoever.”
Absolutely wrong. A standard, by definition, is something that is agreed upon by those who voluntarily adhere to it. It is not individually subjective, more collective.
A set of rules imposed from above is NOT a standard. Think Microsoft ActiveX and the WC3 HTML standards.
By: The Talented Chimp on August 18, 2010
at 11:39 pm
Lol, when I talk about a standard of morality it’s assuming a standard we ought to follow. People agreeing on something doesn’t determine that a standard ought to be followed, because other could disagree or they could change their mind, thus the standard would change. I’m referring to a fixed standard. Even realists understand that the reality of morality must exist independent of use finite humans. Look up ‘How to think about weird things’ by Theodore Schick, who’s not even a Christian by the way.
Computer programming is only prescriptive based on upon a desired function we wish to use it for. You’re begging the question with this comparison and using bad circular reasoning (as opposed to good circular reasoning, i.e. starting with the eternal when it comes to accounting for “oughts”). Computer code can change and the commands can be reversed if we willed and this isn’t said to be immoral. When we act contrary to God’s eternal good nature, however, it’s always evil.
Nice try though. *high five!*
By: Cameron on October 24, 2010
at 1:06 pm
I is scared!
By: Jonathan on November 10, 2009
at 7:11 pm
I think the more likely scenario is that neither God nor Satan exist. The very idea seems as ridiculous as the tooth fairy. Who created the universe? Who knows. Nobody. It’s silly to just make stuff up to explain away the unexplained. There will always be mystery in the universe, i’m cool with that.
By: Jonathan on November 10, 2009
at 7:16 pm
We live in a universe where there is morality, logic, design, intelligence, etc. We can infer that these are better accounted for by the personal, not the impersonal. The personal being would be called “God”. It’s not a matter of making stuff up but asking what best accounts for reality.
Naturalists think it’s star dust which accounts for all this. Congradulations!
By: Cameron on November 10, 2009
at 8:31 pm
“We live in a universe where there is morality, logic, design, intelligence, etc.”
All of which, evidence tells us, come from human beings.
No magic man required.
By: morsec0de on November 10, 2009
at 8:58 pm
Yeah, a necessary precondition to humans having logic, design, intelligence, and morality isn’t important, just star dust is needed.
By: Cameron on November 11, 2009
at 1:04 am
Who needs an argument, when only a strawman is needed?
No need to justify any of your beliefs with things like evidence.
By: morsec0de on November 11, 2009
at 7:46 am
I knew you’d say that was a strawman! But it isn’t! The guy on the Discovery Channel the other day said that “the stars are our family tree”. I’m still trying to rack my brain with how Mr. Naturalist reconciles going from star dust to logic, design, intelligence, and morality. What great faith.
By: Cameron on November 11, 2009
at 2:01 pm
““right” really is non-existent, thus all is permissible. Thanks atheism!”
Ridiculous. Ask any atheist if he thinks its OK for anybody to do anything. I think you will find that atheists are just as moral as your average christian. Morality HAS changed over time and is therefore mutable. There are core elements of morality that have remained very static over time. I attribute these to humanities need for societal integration and harmony.
“We live in a universe where there is morality, logic, design, intelligence”
Morality and logic all derive from our human intelligence. Therefore I don’t attribute these things to a God-thing but rather simply a manifestation of our own minds. By design I am assuming you are talking about the structure of the universe. Again, the universe is what it is. I can question where it ultimately came from but it is ONLY speculation and ultimately not constructive. If by design you are referring to “intelligent design”, please just stop. The human body was not designed. It has evolved gradually and attributing complexity to God isn’t logical.
“Naturalists think it’s star dust which accounts for all this. Congradulations!”
Yes, I think that star dust accounts for everything you see around you. Every atom in your body was forged in the life or death of a star. Stars have forged all the matter in the universe which allows for all the myriad of permutations of matter, including life. I think it is very elegant and beautiful.
By: Jonathan on November 11, 2009
at 1:17 pm
Scripture accounts for why even atheists act moral, but atheism doesn’t, because in atheism there is no such thing as “moral” until it can account for why we ought to act, think, and intent certain ways. Christians can account for why we behave morally and SHOULD behave morally, while atheism cannot. Go to my blog and you’ll see why at the top post.
Logic can’t derive from our own minds because our minds are finite and concepts are absolute, meaning they must be the case before we get here, if when we get here are going to use them. I agree that concepts correlate to the mind, but finite minds still can’t account for absolute concepts. Only an eternal mind can account for them. Oops.
If the Universe wasn’t designed then its profound fine-tuning was un-intentional to you. That’s great faith. If the human body wasn’t designed, then even the human eye isn’t for seeing because it can’t be said to be intended to see by anything that brought it about. That’s great faith.
Lol! Morescode said this: “Who needs an argument, when only a strawman is needed?” when I mentioned that star dust accounts for everything.
Then Jonathan said this: “Yes, I think that star dust accounts for everything you see around you.”
You guys need to work these issues out with each other.
And everything coming from star dust isn’t elegant and beautiful, because you can only ask “how” things happen in that worldview. In my worldview I get to ask “how” and “why” in accordance to an eternally glorious purpose. That’s way more exciting because I get to ask what you ask and more.
And explain to me how star dust accounts for the law of logic which says we ought to not contradict in order to think rationally along with accounting for absolute concepts. And how does star dust account for a standard which determines how we ought to act, think, and intent rightly? What great faith!
By: Cameron on November 11, 2009
at 2:18 pm
@Cameron,
You’re logic eludes me entirely.
“Logic can’t derive from our own minds because our minds are finite and concepts are absolute”
Concepts are absolute… So the concept of a taxation system is absolute? The concept of a spoon is absolute? A concept is nothing more than idea, again something produced by our minds. What do you mean by absolute concepts? You are not making sense to me.
“If the human body wasn’t designed, then even the human eye isn’t for seeing…”
You say “for seeing” as if it was designed for that purpose. It has evolved to allow us to perceive light in sophisticated ways because it was favorable to our survival, nothing more.
“If the Universe wasn’t designed then its profound fine-tuning was un-intentional to you.”
I live in a universe whose rules allow me to exist. If the laws of the universe didn’t allow me to exist, I wouldn’t be here to think about it. Just because the laws of the universe allow for intelligence to arise, doesn’t mean I should attribute that to a God-thing.
“And how does star dust account for a standard which determines how we ought to act, think, and intent rightly?
the world is composed of star dust, yes. How this relates to a “stardard” which determines how we “ought” to act “rightly” has nothing to do with how the world formed. It doesn’t even make sense.
You are approaching everything from the creationist point of view. Everything you see around you is explained by your absolute view of God. It clouds your perceptions.
“What great faith!”
You keep saying that but my belief systems are based entirely out of empirical observations that have been deduced by science over hundreds of years. Science is the best tool we have to understand the universe because it is based off of testable theories. It isn’t perfect but it is the best system we have. Perhaps there is a super being that created our universe. I don’t see any testable evidence that could convince me of this. It is truly an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Haven’t see in yet.
By: Jonathan on November 11, 2009
at 3:58 pm
What you quoted were human conventions or classifications which derive from other concepts being put together once determining somethings function. If concepts aren’t absolute then when you say “A concept is nothing more than idea, again something produced by our minds.” we could change the concept of “idea” to mean “non-idea”, thus you’d be saying “a concept is nothing more than a non-idea” which would make no sense. Hence why there must be absolutes in order for us to think.
“favorable to our survival
So you don’t believe the eye is for seeing. I’m glad you’re being a consistent Naturalist. You’re still advocating intelligent design here because you’re assuming something intends for us to survive as opposed to not survive. Nature has us dead way longer then we live so it’s actually more consistent to say nature intends for us to die, but that still advocates that mindless nature is intending something.
Just because the laws of the universe allow for intelligence to arise
This is your fundamental presupposition which I am challenging. How do you account for star dust, or mindless matter in motion, accounting for life?
Everything you see around you is explained by your absolute view of God. It clouds your perceptions.
And I can say everything around you, such as morality, logic, design, etc is explained by mindless matter in motion, which requires great faith because this is an impossible starting point.
No your beliefs themselves aren’t empirically observed, so your belief system isn’t entirely based on the empirical. Further, science doesn’t account for itself. You need observers who observe the observable to have science be a possibility, all which star dust can’t account for. I agree science is a great tool for know “how” things happen. So what?
I don’t see any testable evidence that could convince me of this.
You’re assuming that you can only know things by testing them, when that statement itself is not testable, so you’re contradicting yourself if that’s really your standard for knowledge. Dying is a test for God’s existence. Also, proof of God’s existence is that without Him you can’t prove anything. That’s goes back to what accounts for science.
It is truly an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Is this Carl Sagan’s saying? You know what, the laws of logic and morality are extraordinary things, and it’s an extraordinary claim that they came from start dust.
By: Cameron on November 11, 2009
at 8:11 pm
“You’re still advocating intelligent design here because you’re assuming something intends for us to survive”
You obviously don’t understand the concept of evolution as you keep anthropomorphizing.
“it’s actually more consistent to say nature intends for us to die..”
Death is an unfortunate (from a subject point of view) side effect of metabolism, which is a messy process. Natural selection has exerted pressure for various species to survive for different species of time so that their genetic information can be passed to the next generation.
“You need observers who observe the observable to have science be a possibility, all which star dust can’t account for. ”
Come again? Still don’t follow you. Do you not agree that the elements we find in nature are forged in stars? If not, where do you think they come from? Created directly from God?
“You’re assuming that you can only know things by testing them, when that statement itself is not testable”
I still am not quite sure I understand what you are saying. Well for the big questions, yes, I would like them to be testable. If someone comes to me and says “There is a spaghetti monster who controls our destiny”, I would be highly skeptical without great evidence.
“Is this Carl Sagan’s saying? You know what, the laws of logic and morality are extraordinary things, and it’s an extraordinary claim that they came from start dust.”
Yes, it is Sagan, yet highly applicable. Again, you come back to your “laws of morality” like they have been engraved in the universe since the moment of existence. As for logic, it is a result of our human mind. To reiterate on the points that you seem not to get:
1) the earth and all matter in it comes from matter ejected from stars. this matter has been forged over billions of years, probably from numerous stars.
2) logic and morality are not universal truths and instead derive from our human mind. If there were no humans (or sentient creatures), there would be no logic and certainly no morality.
I think we will probably just have to agree to disagree. You don’t agree with my logic and I certainly don’t agree with yours. BTW, I am right =P
By: Jonathan on November 11, 2009
at 8:42 pm
With natural selection it’s assumed that “nature” intends for us to survive as opposed to not survive (while it does intend for us not to survive too, because we eventually don’t for a long time). But that is the “mechanism” of natural selection. Since it intends survival, intelligent design is inadvertently being advocated.
Science requires observers (life) to observe (laws of logic) the observable (finite matter, space, time, and electromagnetism). Science doesn’t account for this, neither does life-less, logic-less, and finite matter. That’s why I argue that proof of God’s existence is that without His existence you can’t prove anything (or account for science).
“There is a spaghetti monster who controls our destiny”
Spaghetti is a finite thing. God is un-created.
you come back to your “laws of morality” like they have been engraved in the universe since the moment of existence.
No, they are absolute, thus must be the case even before the finite universe came about.
As for logic, it is a result of our human mind.
So absolute concepts come from the finite? How? And concepts are abstract. How does matter account for non-matter?
(1)the earth and all matter in it comes from matter ejected from stars.
Nice theory. Another question is where did the stars come from, etc all the way back to what or who caused the Big Bang (which I prefer to call the Big Existence because explosions occur in time).
(2) 2) logic and morality are not universal truths and instead derive from our human mind. If there were no humans (or sentient creatures), there would be no logic and certainly no morality.
So murder is not universally wrong then. Are you pulling your arguments out of a hat? And logic is not a universal truth? So then what you mean is that logic IS a universal truth, since it’s not universal… wait? Sorry, that doesn’t work. Morality and logic must be absolute to be real, and we live every day like they’re real.
BTW, I am right
Again, if logic isn’t universally true, then your statement that “I am right” according to your logic can mean “I am wrong” since there’s no universally true logic.
I’m ok with agreeing to disagree. I had fun and enjoyed our conversation. Go have a beer for me. 🙂
By: Cameron on November 12, 2009
at 2:24 am
Uncreated. Wow what a worthless assertion.
Absolute concepts. There are none. You need to assume YOU are right before ever even making such a statment, which only causes the hubris we all witness here.
But, assume logic is implacable. Is God therefore Logically necessary? Does that not contradict the notion that god is “above” logic? Yes it does. Is god then logically unneccessary, and our existence is not contingent on him? Well that would corrolate nicely with naturalism, in which case: why god?
Thank you for you time.
By: Rickr0ll on December 5, 2009
at 12:51 am
C. S. Lewis, following St. Augustine before him, answered that question.
Dualism can’t work because two equally powerful deities would just cancel each other out. Or if we discern one deity as “good” and the other as “evil,” how do we tell which is which unless there is something superior to both?
That leads them to the question of whether the Supreme Being is actually what we consider “evil”. In Lewis’s terms, “What if God is a Cosmic Vivisectionist?” In that case, we’re doomed anyway, so we might as well hope for the best.
That’s why I don’t give much credence to the alleged intelligence of atheists. You posit inane questions that you think are original, that you think never occur to believers, but we believers have actually *read* the philosophers who have grappled with these questions in the past and developed perfectly good answers to them.
By: GodsGadfly on December 8, 2009
at 11:02 pm
except “Hope” isn’t a good answer. You admit this yourself. So forgive me if i find you comment, while illuminating, misplaced. Why hope for a god at all would be a much more apt and succict answer for the whole discussion. or even assuming God is nuetral.
By: Rickr0ll on December 11, 2009
at 5:56 pm
Rickroll,
Uncreated. Wow what a worthless assertion.
Saying it’s a worthless assertion is ITSELF a worthless assertion, without reasons given for the assertion. Yes, people equate the prime cause to everything as God, otherwise if something created God then IT would be God. I cut to the chase and say God.
Absolute concepts. There are none.
If this we’re really true then we couldn’t know anything, even that there are no absolute concepts. Further, if this were true then the concept of “none” really means “some”, thus you’re actually saying “there are some” and would be refuting yourself at the same breath you try and refute absolute concepts.
But, assume logic is implacable. Is God therefore Logically necessary? Does that not contradict the notion that god is “above” logic? Yes it does. Is god then logically unneccessary, and our existence is not contingent on him? Well that would corrolate nicely with naturalism, in which case: why god?
No, logic can neither exist independent of God nor be created by God. It can only be a function of His eternal mind (thus entails absolutes and is prescriptive, ie. we ought to not contradict to be logical). It can’t exist on it’s own in a naturalistic finite universe because concepts are abstract (non-physical) and absolute (thus eternal). Further, on what bases do you say logic is “natural” when no one knows what the natural is comprised of? You don’t know if there is infinite smallness to matter or if it stop at some basic component. Also, God can’t create logic because He would need logic to create it, thus assuming He already has it.
By: Cameron on December 12, 2009
at 2:27 pm
Rickroll,
Why hope for a god at all would be a much more apt and succict answer for the whole discussion. or even assuming God is nuetral.
According to Scripture, atheists are hostile to their Creator and suppress the obvious truth about Him everyday. Thus, the atheist hope’s that there were no god by trying to conjure up supposedly intellectually satisfying reasons for denying His plain existence, as only God can account for real morality, logic, design, and empiricism. Otherwise, you account for this by non-morality, non-logic, non-intention, and non-life. That’s great hope, but what I would argue, is misplaced hope.
By: Cameron on December 12, 2009
at 2:35 pm
Actually, if you’ve read Descartes’ Meditations, you would realize there are no absolute concepts.
If God can be uncreated, then by the same logic, so can the universe.
Ah, so God cannot create logic? So, logic is equal to God? Therefore God is Not omnipotent. therefore he is not God. You have to assume God Must exist because logic commands it to be so. Well then we have a problem assuming logic is equal to god, don’t we?
Of course, we all know logic is superior to myth.
“No one knows what the natural is made of” you’ve never taken ANY science classes? remarkable! matter is energy. it’s all made of quantized packets of energy. simple.
By: Rickr0ll on December 14, 2009
at 4:04 pm
there are no absolute concepts So according to this logic, the concept of “no” can mean “indeed”. Therefore, I can interpret you as saying “there are indeed absolute concepts”. With that argument you argue against yourself with little help from me.
For theological purposes, “eternal” and “finite” are separate things. What you would mean is “the universe is infinitely old” not eternal. Eternal implies something is outside of time, thus is able to cause time, which scientists believe the “singularity” or what was before the “singularity” did. Then you’d be like me arguing for a prime cause, yet I would then demonstrate theoretically why that prime cause must be personal, not impersonal. So in this sense, the universe as we know it isn’t eternal, and you can’t really argue that it’s infinitely old either. B/c then we would never arrive in the present b/c an infinite amount of time would have to pass first, which is impossible. Infinity can only be in process, never reached.
You’re assumption in your argument about God and logic is that logic is some entity by itself apart from God. My worldview is that God eternally has logic and is eternally logical, thus is more of a reflection of His own eternal nature. The two are inseparable in this way.
Matter is energy? What is energy made of? What are the quantized packets comprised of? I know atheists who have made the same arguments I’ve made about “nature” and it being “?”. Your argument is with other Naturalists and atheists, NOT just me. Just so you know.
By: Cameron on December 14, 2009
at 9:22 pm
If you were to interpret me as saying that, it would be already under the assumption that were were no absolute concepts to begin with. therefore FAIL
What point is south of the south pole? What point is before the beginning of the universe and time? nonquestions.
What is energy made of is another silly question that is easily resolved. information. Just a sin curve radiating out amounst other sin curves in the fabric of spacetime. even so, that isn’t much of an answer, but then again you’re just begging the question.
Spinoza has a wonderful way of avoiding this whole issue: Nature equals God. Nature is logical, therefore there is no need to add entities and thus violate Occam’s Razor
Also, see the posts on the “nuclear power” thread in discussion of multiverse possibilities and so forth.
You state that god is eternal but why do you say so? Becasue it is Logical to arrive at that conclusion. What prevents God from spontaneously erupting from the extra-dimentional aether? “Nothing, nothing tra la la.”- David Bowie
And there are SEVERAL aspects of god’s alleged Word to indicate that logic is not an intrinsic property of his mind.
By: RickrOll on December 18, 2009
at 2:09 am
This just kills me. The use of Occam’s Razor is so…misplaced. Both sides of the debate clearly feel that their opinion is the simplest explanation.
It’s like trying to prove the existence of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich by looking at the components at a molecular level. Sure, we can get information and great data, but in the end simple ocular observation does a fair job of answering the question. Heck, take a bite and you’ll have tons of info.
You both (Rick and Cameron) seem to drown in the data and fail to view things from a simpler perspective. Another observation is that typically, from my experience, most spiritual conversations here tend to get baited and switched into a molecular survey of a PB&J sandwich. I believe it could also be described as “drowning in a glass of water”.
So, why did I comment? I’m interested in Rick’s list of “SEVERAL aspects of god’s alleged Word to indicate that logic is not an intrinsic property of his mind”. Very interested.
Blessings!
By: tree63fan on December 18, 2009
at 10:42 am
oh dear, a good read of the old Testament is enough to satisfy you. 42 children slaughtered by bears (for a simple insult), God fearing bronze-age man (tower of Babel). “Adam, where art thou?” the list continues indefinitely.
And bats aren’t birds thank you.
By: RickrOll on December 19, 2009
at 12:28 am
Hi Rick,
It’s very apparent you lack the simple understanding of the holiness of God. It’s quite logical why you see illogical statements.
By: tree63fan on December 19, 2009
at 8:31 am
RickROll,
If you were to interpret me as saying that, it would be already under the assumption that were were no absolute concepts to begin with. therefore FAIL”
What does this mean? Were you trying to make a point and it just didn’t come out right?
How are my questions “non-questions”? Throwing out blank assertions without reasons is worse then using the internet for all Christian polemics.
So energy (nature) is ultimately made up of a “space time fabric”? So there is no smaller or more basic component to “nature” than this? You’re absolute sure of this? I’m not begging the question because I’m the one who asked it silly!!!
You say out of both sides of your mouth that “nature is logical” and that you don’t want to violate Occam’s razor. The huge problem with this is that one’s own bias tells them whether or not Occam’s razor is being violated. So then we need reasons to better determine which worldview violates it the most (assuming that this razor is really a standard for truth, which it isn’t – just a standard for convenience). Yours so far violates it because you try to say that “nature is logical” when “space time fabric” (nature to you) cannot account for logic to begin with! Logic comes from logic, NOT non-logic.
You keep arguing against yourself more than I’m arguing against you. I’m just putting the magnifying glass over your worldview.
If God “errupted” then He would be finite, created, and caused thus wouldn’t be God. I skip to the chase and say God who is eternal and the prime cause of everything, even the prime cause of supposed multiple universes (which would themselves exist within time), which is only a theory as this universe is a closed system. Again, a prime cause would be outside of time, because something in time would be finite.
So 42 evil people (“naar” can refer to a child or anyone up to 30 or so) divinely get slaughtered and this is illogical? What? What law of logic is violated here? This story is cool because it reveals God’s holiness, our utter sinfulness (hence disdain for God’s people and will), and God’s sovereignty over the animal kingdom!
By: Cameron on December 19, 2009
at 10:34 pm
Tree63fan,
You both (Rick and Cameron) seem to drown in the data and fail to view things from a simpler perspective.
God owns all “data” and so by nature points back to Him, as only He can account for it. That’s simply what I’ve pointed out. Namely, the reality we live in entails a world with real morality, laws of logic, and a planet and Universe which looks awesomely intended. I am not an silly naturalistic atheist who has stupid faith and tries to account for these by non-morality, non-logic, and non-intention! Sorry.
By: Cameron on December 19, 2009
at 10:42 pm
Hey Cameron – just to clarify, I’m on your side, I’ve already gone down the path you are embarking on with these guys. They’re nice guys here, they just like to over analyze and that’s what I was pointing out… Blessings!
By: tree63fan on December 19, 2009
at 10:49 pm
Thanks tree63fan,
Sounds good. I’m actually a fan of tree63 too. My favorite song is ‘a million lights’! I expect to go down endless paths with atheists and people who supress the truth in unrighteousness. But only so God will sovereignly use my efforts to change their minds and hearts to know Truth, namely, Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of the world!
By: Cameron on December 19, 2009
at 11:39 pm
just a thought if satan is tring to be like god and has about the same influence could he not make the new testiment and end up taking over all mankind by saying no man can get into heaven unless they put me first and also saying ask in my name and you shall have it. it sort or puts him first at this point he is in the lead and everything must go by his name first then god according to the new testiment again just a thought.
By: burt on January 3, 2010
at 5:05 am
sorry about spelling but it’s sorta late
By: burt on January 3, 2010
at 6:09 am
I have a question. What if Satan confuses and tricks people into trying to confuse and trick other people into believing that Satan could have written the Bible? Wow! Being a miniature Sacratice is fun for the whole family! Or the whole atheist family at that!
By: Cameron on January 3, 2010
at 11:53 pm
i am talking about only the new testament half of the bible not the old testament part let’s say satan was trying to take as many people as he can and he knows everybody is following the old testament laws so he come’s up with a plan and we know he want’s to be like god so he get’s a group to write up his bible so he can be equal to god or better since now everybody does what the new testment say’s can that be since he is the father of lies why cant he say a house divided can not stand and get away with it? the reason i am wondering is in (malachi 1,6) where it states if i be a father where’s my honer this sounds like he’s saying he is not a father and someone has taken his laws away.
By: burt on January 4, 2010
at 11:25 am
Ask a jew if Jesus is christ. Then tell me they aren’t believers in god. Do it.
Burt has a completely valid point.
By: RickrOll on January 4, 2010
at 2:33 am
So if you believe Satan could have done that burt and RickrOll you’re theists. I hope you’re both at least theists for worldview consistency sake. If Satan could have hypothetically written the NT then you can just as easily arbitrarily asign him to write anything e.g. the OT, the Quran, the Constitution, the Iliad, etc. What’s your standard to know if God or Satan has written something? That’s what you first need to provide.
And RickROll, why are you making a connection between Jew’s opinion of Christ and them believing in God? I don’t get it. Yes they deny Christ yet are monotheists. Yet they deny the true Yahweh who is Christ (Rom 10:11-13, John 12:41) and worship a false “Yahweh” whom has been replaced with empty tradition.
By: Cameron on January 8, 2010
at 3:32 am
as to my thinking that satan might have written the nt and his reason for it is everyone was fallowing the old testament and turning only to god but ln the nt jesus took over now everyone does whatever the nt says which leaves all the old laws out and by doing so the ot and god is out and the nt and jesus in that’s why satan did not write the ot only the nt ln order to be just like god or now better because he got everyone to learn nt ways.i am not trying to turn anyone away from what they belive in it’s just a thought.
btw john and rom. are nt writings
By: burt on January 10, 2010
at 1:31 am
Yes, John and Rom are NT writings. They’re inspired Scripture. You’re starting with the presupposition that’s only the OT text is true, and the NT is not. That’s not the presupposition I’m starting with so I have no problem quoting the NT. You’ve given no reason why 1. Satan couldn’t have also written the OT, and 2. why only the NT should be disregarded and not the OT.
By: Cameron on January 10, 2010
at 3:19 pm
The SAME EXACT standard you use to assign the authorship to God. And it is pointless to say that Jesus is Yehweh by using NT text in this conversation about JEWISH beliefs
/facepalm
And how is it that Jesus, who didn’t even exist 2000 years ago, superceded the ORIGINAL and altogether more authoritative Old Testament Diety?
By: RickrOll on January 9, 2010
at 1:55 am
What standard is that then? Who said this conversation was about Jewish beliefs only? Remember, you’re the one begging the question so far about how you know if Satan wrote anything, and this even includes the OT!
Jesus didn’t exist 2000 years ago? That’s funny when today’s date marks the amount of time since His existence. Further, secular scholars such as Bart Ehrman and Dominic Crossam even believe He historically existed, so take it up with them, NOT me. You fulfill Scripture which say you’ll supress the truth of God’s existence with your foolish unfounded beliefs. Your inconsistency cries out in that you probably believe Alexander the Great lived when the cosest sources of his lifer were 400 years after He lived, while we have contemporary sources of Christ’s life. Sorry.
Jesus doesn’t supercede Yahweh you fool. Jesus IS Yahweh. Yahweh can’t supercede Himself!
By: Cameron on January 10, 2010
at 1:10 am
cameron (remember mat.5;22) hay guys i just got into this post for a little something to talk about not meaning to stir up any ill feelings most of my friends and my cousins are preachers and pastors and i do this sort of thing with them just to keep them on track and we go on for hours i attended the green house bible school for quiet some time in fort lauderdale fl.and i do know a little about most of the bibles greek hebrew concord.dictionary lexicals texts and so on i am not out to prove anyone wrong i am just here to see what people realy think is true about the written word of god. and Cameron remember the way to heaven is to go right and stay strait.
By: burt on January 10, 2010
at 2:31 am
sorry that’s turn right and walk strait. it’s sorta late here nite all zzzzzzzzz
By: burt on January 10, 2010
at 2:49 am
What about Mat 5:22? I try to consider ALL of Scripture because that way I’ll stay away from heresy and from becoming a torch to lights men’s path to hell.
By: Cameron on January 10, 2010
at 3:24 pm
cameron do you even know what (mat 5;22) says or means if not do yourself a favor and read what what happens to a man who calls another man a fool and where he will end up if he does call a man a fool.
By: burt on January 11, 2010
at 9:15 pm
burt,
the context of Mat 5:22 is hating someone in your heart, so as to have a spirit of murder. But I am calling Rickroll a “fool” in the context of Psa 14:1 in that the fool says in his heart there is no God. Thus, the atheist isn’t a fool in the name calling sense, but his mind and worldview is foolish as it supesses the truth in unrighteousness and chooses inconsistency instead of truth. For example he tries to say that Jesus supercedes Yahweh when I have already pointed to NT texts which clearly show that Jesus IS Yahweh. Before trying to be the Bible police, you’ll have to quote passages in context.
By: Cameron on January 13, 2010
at 1:33 am
Use the date extablished by the church. Wow, that’s not an argument from authority is it? Oh and that would imply he didn’t exist before 2000 years ago. Nice
Wow, Then let me just say that those two (who are absolutely NOT secualr) are All Alone in their field to consider such a ludicrous idea, as Bethleham wasn’t even occupied in the first century.
Furthermore, It is question begging to say that the Bible is written by God becasue it says its written by God. Certainly the Vedas and the Iliad, The Quaran and the Many anceint texts and pantions that accompanied them (as Yahweh is himself in the Ugaritic pantheon) are not felt to be inspired nor the product of something true or divine. Simply your word on top of thiers, forgetting that many of the Holy books ahev been discarded or do not exist in your denomination.
Now A simple question is posed: Why Couldn’t have Satan written the Bible? it’s Just. That. Simple. The chances are equiprobable of God and Satan having written any or all of it. Well actually the chances are much higher that Satan in fact wrote the Bible becasue he’s such a sadistic freak, which fits alot better.
Accourding to OT rules, Jesus Must supercede yahweh. If he did not, then he could not be an intercessor for our sins. As it states, No gods before me. It makes NO stipulations about sons of deities or spirits, No conditions whatsoever. God is the one and ONLY. No variants, no facets, not anything else.
Which Brings me Back to the Jews, who simultaneaously are Believers and Nonbelievers, even though it is Xians who created unto themselves a NEW figure of worship (actually several if you go towards Catholicism, and then Anything branching from that would be even more heretical). So who would be the heretic? not hard to guess.
Yes it is hard to believe that the man who conquered half of the Old World and named several cities after himself (and his horse), could not have existed (Aristotle would certainly have written about him, as he was his tutor! or did HE not exist either/), it’s not like he changed all the countries in the area or amassed an actual history behind himself. As opposed to One of many false prophets that shared the name Yeshua in the desert at that time and place
P.S. Every religion is persecuted except christianity and perhaps islam. Why? BECAUSE two thirds of the world fall into those faiths! You can’t have a persecutions complex when our courts require you to swear ON the Bible, and our Money says, In God We Trust.
By: RickrOll on January 11, 2010
at 2:42 am
Rickroll,
A.D. means in the year of our Lord. That’s my point. The Lord being referred to there is Jesus Christ. I know the date isn’t exact, but so what. It’s still the general time period.
Bethlehem wasn’t occupied in the first century? Yes it was.
I never said the Bible is true because it says it is. You’re arguing against yourself again. But if it IS God’s word, and whatever God says is true, then it would naturally be true if God says it is.
Yahweh is not the Ugaritic pantheon. Isn’t throwing out assertions fun for the whole family! I could go all day doing this!
The question I have is “why couldn’t God have inspired the Bible?” It’s just that simple. 🙂 The chances are NOT equiprobable of God and Satan having written any or all of it. Well actually the chances are much higher that God in fact wrote the Bible becasue it tells so much of His awesome glory and Satan’s demise.
And you saying that Satan is a sadistic freak is question begging Rickroll!!! Maybe he wanted to trick you and make you think he that way. Maybe he’s really a swell guy apart from lying about himself.
Ummm, Yahweh is the one who is the Savior of Israel Rickroll in the OT, thus again Jesus doesn’t supercede Yahweh, but IS Yahweh. I’ve already gone over this with you. Do I really have to spoon feed you. Rom 10:11-13 is referencing the book of Isaiah in the OT where Yahweh is the one whom people should call upon for salvation, yet the aposltes linked that same one to Jesus Christ. Sorry, you’re argument is still with Scripture, NOT me.
Dan 9 says the Messiah will come and the temple with be destroyed. The temple was destroyed in 70 ad. If Jesus doesn’t fulfill this then who does? Who fulfills Isaiah 53 if not Christ? More correctly, it’s not all Jews are worshiping a false Yahweh, but only those who are not the remnant (Rom 9). Many Jews have always rejected Yahweh, hence in the OT when they worshipped false gods and killed their prophets. It was not different then with Jesus. But the remnant always remain faithful. Just like Jeremiah 31 says, God will make a new covenant and write His laws on our hearts. That is the true Jew, just like Rom 2 talks about the the whole NT fulfills.
So I assume by your sarcasm which sounds like it was studied from a book that you do believe Alexander the Great existed. Again, here your profound inconsistency cries out. The NT manuscirpts of Jesus life are contemporaneous, while Alex’s are not even close, and there is more NT manuscripts then any work from antiquity. It’s not wonder secular scholars believe in Jesus’ historical existence, yet you are a fulfillment of Rom 1 in that you supress the truth in unrighteousness and borrow to the internet as a source of Christian polemics over a matter which has already been settled at the scholarly level.
p.s. Christianity was persecuted the most during the 1st century and pretty much up till Constantine. Have you heard of Nero? He used Christians as human torches. Christianity has been persecuted all over the world and still is today, just not in the U.S. (well it is in subtle other ways). Do you just make this stuff as you go along man?
By: Cameron on January 13, 2010
at 2:02 am
“A.D. means in the year of our Lord.”
Yes, latin. CATHOLIC
“Yes it was.”
Now Hold on, so you’re saying It was as a direct contrarian point to what i just said?! Well, that clears it all up nicely thank you.
“Maybe he wanted to trick you and make you think he that way….becasue it tells so much of His awesome glory…”
/EPIC FACEPALM
Not throwing out assertions! Read up on Hector Avalos’ Work. as Well as this wonderful piece:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html
http://www.georgeleonard.com/yahweh.html
“Christianity was persecuted the most during the 1st century ”
BOO. Fucking. Hoo. hey what about the Jews? they’re truth must be intrisically higher becaue Everyone wants to kill them.
What about all the religions and cultures Xians trampled underfoot (particularly Jews)? And what evidence is there xianity existed extensivly as an out and out religion?! None. It was most likely a set of mystery religions (christianities, plural)
“Again, here your profound inconsistency cries out.” Wow, i bet you think the whole fukcing planet is 6000 years old and that it’s flat and has a dome above it and… Oh fuck it.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/c/126AFB53A6F002CC/1/ZFrkjEgUDZA
By: RickrOll on January 15, 2010
at 6:11 am
Callisthenes of Olynthus was the personal historian (and it absolutely contemerary with) Alexander III
By: RickrOll on January 15, 2010
at 7:03 am
RickrOll,
You use the date established by the church. Congratulations. You don’t have to believe it points to the time of Christ’s actual existence, but because countless people have believed that, that’s why today’s date is today’s date. So according to your logic, the person who divided history in half, didn’t exist. But I’ve already provided reasons why that’s bogus and inconsistent to believe which I’ll get to more in a bit.
Now Hold on, so you’re saying It was as a direct contrarian point to what i just said?! Well, that clears it all up nicely thank you.
Exactly! You never gave reasons for your assertion, so why should I in rebut to your assertion? That’s why I said “I could do this all day!”
“Maybe he wanted to trick you and make you think he that way….becasue it tells so much of His awesome glory…”
The former is you begging the question. The latter is my supposed assertion in response to your assertion. So what?
BOO. Fucking. Hoo. hey what about the Jews? they’re truth must be intrisically higher becaue Everyone wants to kill them.
Your conceding here to your original assertion that Christian hasn’t been persecuted. Now you’re changing the subject. And Christians shouldn’t mind being persecuted, Jesus said it would happen! And I never said truth is determined b/c of the degree of persecution. So why are you bringing it up. And the Jews murdered their own God and the greatest Christian. But this was God’s plan (Acts 2). All can turn to Christ and receive forgiveness of sins. There is no other way. Just like the Jews who murdered God in Acts 2 did.
If Christians have trampled Jews, then that’s a problem with sinners. Scripture accounts for why that is and why that’s wrong. Naturalistic atheism doesn’t.
Wow, i bet you think the whole fukcing planet is 6000 years old and that it’s flat and has a dome above it and… Oh fuck it.
Why do you think this? Try asking me first. You don’t seem to be interested in real dialogue nor the truth so I don’t expect you to. 🙂
Callisthenes of Olynthus was the personal historian (and it absolutely contemerary with) Alexander III
The earliest sources of Alex’s life are from antiquity, where only one author, Arrian, claims he consulted sources of those who were with Alex, sources we don’t have today. The NT sources we have today are transmissions of the originals, originally written by contemporaneous authors, thus I say the NT is contemporaneous in this way. Even if you want to say What we know of Alex is contemporaneous in this way, your profound inconsistency still cries out in that Jesus’ historical record is FAR more contemporaneous in this way and documented then Alex. Sorry.
By: Cameron on January 16, 2010
at 1:07 am
Helpful i think:
http://newageofreason.wordpress.com/
By: chocolate bonaboo on March 4, 2010
at 2:27 am
Here is a debate about the issue of Christianity supposedly evolving from pegan myths. The one making this claim loses so bad it almost hurts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00WOGeGcjYo
The funny thing about the phrase “Christianity came from pegan beliefs” is that “pegan” itself is usually defined as something polytheistic and non-Christian. Therefore, these people are claiming that Christianity, which is neither polytheistic and IS Christian, came from polytheism that which is non-Christian??? That doesn’t even make any sense.
Also, these kinds of claims, which even the Zeitgeist film advocates, are easily debunked by non-Christians! One only has to read the original sources to see there facts are way off, leaving little comparisons between Christianity and pegan myths.
It’s been said that this debate has already been won in Christian’s favor at the scholorly level, yet keeps being rehashed and resurfacing because of the internet and hear say.
Conclusion: people who do this aren’t interested in the truth, but are only interested in suppressing the truth. Scripture says in Rom 1:18-20 that people will do this, so chocolate bonaboo, you are fulfilling Scripture when you pose links which make bogus claims against Christianity. Nice try though!
By: Cameron on March 4, 2010
at 5:48 pm
Wow…this debate has gone so far off-topic it’s not even funny! Cameron, you’ve been strung around and baited into a bunch of arguements that don’t even answer the questions originally posted.
How do believers know God is good? What if Satan wrote the Bible?
What purpose would it serve Satan to write the Bible? The only answer I can think of is to mislead them. Mislead them from what? Logically it would be from a Powerful Opposing force. What’s that force? Well that must be Satan’s opponent from the Bible: God. So it’s a very strange question for an athiest to ask, as it starts with one assumption in a person from the Bible and leads to a confirmation of another.
It is also an extremely irrelevant hypothetical question not worth answering. I assure you, it doesn’t shake my faith in the Bible any. Onto the next.
Your problem seems to be the classic ‘bad things happen to good people so how can there be a loving God?’ I can answer this, but you have to be willing to read through the whole thing with a temporary assumption that there is, in fact, a God.
I noticed there was some chatter earlier on about the NT erasing all the OT laws. This isn’t true, and is really an error in theology and the modern Protestant churches. The only laws abolished by Jesus were those on sacrifices, since He became the only Sacrifice needed for sin. Jesus is quoted in the NT as saying he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Therefore the NT isn’t greater than the OT, or vice versa.
Just to warn you, I am willing to discuss, not debate. The difference being that each side takes the time to consider what the other person says, instead of immediately bashing it over the head.
By: Lauren Claire on March 25, 2010
at 11:29 am
“It is also an extremely irrelevant hypothetical question not worth answering.”
Well then, I don’t really see a reason to address anything you’ve written after that.
By: morsec0de on March 25, 2010
at 12:25 pm
It is irrelevant. Even ‘if’ (and that’s a very big if) Satan wrote the Bible, the question still leads to the conclusion that there is a Being powerful enough in the world to undertake such a task. And regardless of what you believe, there is archealogical evidence that the seperate books of the Bible were written at different times through history. This Being would have to be not only powerful in the human sense, but also unnaturally long-lived. And if something is unnatural, then it is, in fact, not from nature. (Sorry if that sounds like I’m talking down to you; I’m really just stressing that point for any less astute readers) With this being said, what do we lose by following the Bible either way?
I mentioned earlier that I prefer to discuss, not debate. If you want me to clarify my line of reasoning or something, please just ask instead of trying to goad me into a response.
Disclaimer: To any Christians who might be reading this who have a strong desire to yell, “heretic!” at me, relax. I don’t believe Satan wrote the Bible.
By: Lauren Claire on March 25, 2010
at 1:06 pm
Yehway is evil. Satan is evil. Coincidence? Hardly
By: RickrOll on March 26, 2010
at 1:16 am
*laughs* Welcome back, Rickr0ll.
You guys have said God is evil, but I haven’t seen where you offer proof. Why do you think He is?
I’m assuming from earlier posts that at least Rick is a Big Bang theorist. So, is it coincidence that ‘stardust’ suddenly changed its molecular formula and became life?
By: Lauren Claire on March 26, 2010
at 8:29 am
“You guys have said God is evil, but I haven’t seen where you offer proof. Why do you think He is?”
I don’t know…genocide is a pretty good piece of damning evidence. The only thing that protects your god from that claim is that the events in the OT almost certainly didn’t happen. But if they did, killing entire nations and everyone in the world sound pretty evil to me.
By: morsec0de on March 26, 2010
at 8:47 am
Steller Nucleosynthesis. look’er up. Also Abiogenesis. Have a good one. And it’s Inflationary Big Bang Cosmology now. Look up Alan Guth. I will be back with a link.
By: Rickr0ll on March 28, 2010
at 2:21 am
here’s that link. yay!
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/strings_c03/guth/
If you hae any questions about it i’ll be happy to help 🙂
By: Rickr0ll on April 1, 2010
at 5:39 pm
“So, is it coincidence that ‘stardust’ suddenly changed its molecular formula and became life?”
Christians assert that their magic man spoke a magic word and poofed all of creation into existence. How is this any different than asserting that molecules of inanimate matter became arranged in such a manner as to create life (in it’s widest definition)?
“You guys have said God is evil, but I haven’t seen where you offer proof. Why do you think He is?”
Atheists don’t say anything about your god, because we reject the assertion that it exists due to lack of evidence. It’s pointless to postulate the alignment of an entity that has not yet been proven to exist. Ergo, we don’t have to offer any proof of anything regarding your superstition.
We can only state that the OT god is *portrayed* as what we consider to be evil, based on our innate sense of what is right and wrong, at this time.
Genocide is due to in-group out-group feelings, usually fomented by stating that the others aren’t human or moral like us. Mostly for material resource gains.
By: The Talented Chimp on August 19, 2010
at 12:01 am
Your response here demonstrates your unfounded bias against Christ. Saying a magic man creates life out of dust is saying life come from life which we’ve only inferred. Your worldview is that life comes from non-life which we’ve never observed (which is your pet standard, thus are being inconsistent). Your worldview is that magic ? starts with dust and evolves it to absolute morality and a pre-commitment to rationality.
By: Cameron on October 24, 2010
at 12:21 pm
Morsecode, you’re not critiquing Christianity with that argument. You should know this by know now but for some hostile to Christ reason you don’t. The Biblical and Christian position is that ALL people are evil and only God is good, therefore God killing anyone is perfectly just. It would actually almost be unjust for God to spare any, as He did in the flood or even in redemption, but that’s all for His glorious purpose in demonstrating His grace.
Lauren, I think you raise some great points that haven’t been answered yet by anyone. Especially that this entire thread was written by an atheist and also assumes the supernatural realm within its very critique of the supernatural. This would be more of a question we’d expect from a skeptical theist, not an atheist.
Now if I may rebut some of your other points Lauren in regard to the OT law still being valid for today. 1. it’s not just the sacrificial laws because the apostles also teach that circumcision is obsolete in the NT, 2. Jesus said HE would fulfill the law, NOT that we are all supposed to, (He also fulfills it in the sense that He is the reality of what it pointed to (Col 2), 3. no one has upheld all the OT laws for 2000 years because there hasn’t been a temple for that long, 4. YOU haven’t upheld those laws, not even close, since you’ve been alive, hence observing all of the sabbath holidays or stoning sinners, 5. Heb 8 says the old covenant is obsolete, 2 Cor 3 says we are in the new (brand new) covenant, 6. Rom 6:14 says we are no longer under law (for controlling sin) but under the Spirit, 7. Gal 3:25 says we’re no longer under the supervision of the law.
Finally, the civil and ceremonial laws are not eternal, just like they weren’t being upheld before Moses, nor are they after Christ. However, the moral law is eternal because the moral law is the very thing that is a reflection of God’s eternal Triune nature and IT is what even the civil and ceremonial laws are judged according too (i.e. someone may still sacrifice animals but be sinning if their heart isn’t for the Lord while doing it). No where in the NT do the apostles prescribe that the church is to uphold the civil and ceremonial laws, rather it’s the complete opposite! It’s the moral law that they repeatedly stress however because now we are under the supervision of the Spirit.
By: Cameron on March 27, 2010
at 12:29 am
“The Biblical and Christian position is that ALL people are evil and only God is good, therefore God killing anyone is perfectly just.”
Which demonstrates why the Biblical and Christian position is morally corrupt and perverse.
By: morsec0de on March 27, 2010
at 10:41 pm
Indeed it is.
Fortunately, it’s not quite that bad since the modern, liberal Christians – a sizeable proportion – don’t actually draw their morality from the bible, but instead do what atheists have always done and use the morality of their society, i.e. that which came about by human social evolution.
Over time they’ve abandoned slavery, homophobia, gender inequality and the slaughtering of unbelievers despite the bible’s endorsement of such unjust and evil practices. We just have to hope they’ll eventually cast aside the last lingering shackles of their pointless superstition and realise that reality is infinitely more satisfying than fantasy.
By: Wowbagger on March 30, 2010
at 6:40 am
Sorry, that argument doesn’t make any sense. There’s nothing perverse about the statement that if God is perfectly holy, righteous, and good, and we lawless and evil then we deserve death and punishment. Nothing! In fact, that’s makes perfect sense. It’s actually perferse to say that is perverse because then you’d be concluding that justice ought to be overlooked! You’re arguments lead to a dead end once again.
By: Cameron on March 28, 2010
at 12:44 am
“There’s nothing perverse about the statement that if God is perfectly holy, righteous, and good, …”
It is if you provide no evidence to support that your god is any of those things. Again, “Because it says so in the Bible.” isn’t proof. And if it’s an absolute morality, against what do you measure it? How can you be sure that it is good, as opposed to what?
“… and we lawless and evil then we deserve death and punishment.”
So, we are not evil, we are simply “lawless”? Vengeance or retribution for not adhering to a set of rules is a very *human* emotion. Can you be *absolutely* sure that you are not projecting your own prejudices into what you perceive your god to be? With your imperfect mind how can you know what perfection is?
By: The Talented Chimp on August 19, 2010
at 12:08 am
actually it is a stupid argument. If god is so fucking ggod and perfect and shit, why are we so evil and sick and damned? MAKES NO SENSE. BEING CREATED PERFECT, MANKIND WOULD HAVE never SINNED. It’s just that fucking simple.
By: chocolate bonaboo on March 28, 2010
at 1:53 am
Again, the Bible and the Christian worldview has a perfectly fine answer for that. God had a purpose for it and ordained it for the glory in revealing His justice and grace. Also, the pain in the world is a few seconds compared to eternal perfection which Christ will bring about soon. You’re compaint shows you don’t study and is unfounded. And in the atheists worldview, remember, you’re only outraged at star dust, NOT God. I’ll be more consistent for you.
By: Cameron on March 28, 2010
at 1:51 pm
So God created Evil? That’s impossible.
Unfounded? Try the whole concept of sacrificing your child (which is you) to Yourself, punishing human beings for the purpose of absolving the sins You created. Wooow. concrete logic failure there.
By: rickr0ll on March 30, 2010
at 1:08 am
*sighs* It looks like the arguement is back in full gear again. Sorry I missed commenting earlier, but there is more to life than monitors and keyboards.
To Rick, morsec0de, and chocolate bonaboo, I will admit that I am struggling here…not because of your ideas, questions, and comments, but because I don’t want to phrase things in the wrong way. I am not here to try and cram Christianity down your throat, but merely to explain my faith and try to answer some of what you say. This is a difference between debating and discussing. It would appear that I lost control of my discussion in my absence from the computer, so I apologize for backtracking through the conversation.
From Morsecode: “I don’t know…genocide is a pretty good piece of damning evidence. The only thing that protects your god from that claim is that the events in the OT almost certainly didn’t happen. But if they did, killing entire nations and everyone in the world sound pretty evil to me.”
First, a small minor point. In your original post, you didn’t seem to think highly of Christians using their own feelings to explain how God is good, but in your final sentence you said ‘sound pretty evil to me’. It looks like we have a common problem. As seen from the other person’s viewpoint, we both have to rely on our own feelings of what is good and evil.
Now, with that being said, you’re right. That does sound bad…when you put it that way. It sounds to me like you’re talking about two different events in the Old Testament: the Great Flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. These are excellent examples of Scipture passages being pulled out of context without understanding the very beginning of Christian theology, which starts, well, in the beginning with Adam and Eve.
God created everything, including a man and his wife, and the Tree of Knowledge (of Good and Evil). He commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from this specific tree, but they were free to do whatever else they wanted. He warned them eating from the tree would bring death. Does this sound harsh? Like children around a hot stove, they were told the consequences of touching the ‘stove’. Yet, just like most children with the stove, Adam and Eve disobeyed anyways.
It’s important to note, since the conversation came up, that perfection doesn’t mean one lacks the ability to sin. Humans were granted Free Will from the very beginning. And what is Free Will without a choice to be disobedient?
At this point in the story, according to what God told them, what should happen to Adam and Eve? well, they should die. But instead of immediate death, God gave them more time on Earth. But the consequences of their disobedience, the first sin, remained. They would eventually die.
In Christian theology, this sets up the basis for the rest of the Bible. It establishes several things. 1) God, as Creator, sets the standard for Good and Evil. 2) Humans rebelled against God. 3) This rebellion is sin, or evil. 4) God still loved Adam and Eve, even after their disobedience. (Well, I would have to quote Scripture instead of summarizing to show this.)
These things are extremely critical to understand. According to a literal reading of the Bible, the human genealogy should have ended in the first generation! I know this doesn’t answer the specific examples you brought up, but I don’t want a post so long you’ll never read it. If you want, I can attempt to address those situations.
Rick, I have to look at those things you mentioned, but due to have to sort through Scientifical terms and time constraints, it could take awhile. I was asking though if any of it explained WHY various things happened, or if they were just hypothesises/theories on HOW. Basically, is it coincidence that ‘this happened, and then that happened’, or was there some guiding force along the way?
By: Lauren Claire on March 28, 2010
at 1:58 pm
“God created everything …”
Everything in your theology is irrelevant if you can’t provide evidence for your central axiom. Yes, it may have internal logic and sound plausible, but it is all supported by this one sky-hook.
By: The Talented Chimp on August 19, 2010
at 12:14 am
You are proof of God. You have a pre-commitment to be rational as opposed to non-rational. Do you account for this by being created in God’s image, who has an eternal mind, or star dust (a non-mind), or something else? Also, proof of God is that without him you can’t prove anything. Observation (thus science) isn’t even possible without a pre-commitment to rationality.
By what absolute standard can you tell me that “everything in your theology is irrelevant if you can’t provide evidence for your central axiom”? You’re making an absolute statement here. On what bases do you absolutely know this?
Again, you’re cracking your Bible by starting with the assumption that you should and can trust your 5 senses which are comprised of ? (“nature” = ?).
By: Cameron on October 24, 2010
at 1:36 pm
All else being equal, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things.
But to get good people to try and justify genocide, you need religion.
By: morsec0de on March 29, 2010
at 8:48 am
If good people used religion to justify genocide, there would be a lot fewer people on this Earth. As it is, what about Hiroshimo? Who’s religion justified that? Or do ‘good people’ only need to feel their own lives and family threatened to commit mass murder?
Several claim Hiroshimo was justified because it “saved lives”, but if Japan had nuked America, it would be one of the most vile evil acts ever committed. Your ‘good people’ may never personally murder or rape, but Hiroshimo shows one instance where these ‘good people’ decided some lives were not as important as others. What gives them the right to do this? Do some people have this right, or do all?
What do you define as ‘bad people’? Murderers? Rapists?
By: Lauren Claire on March 29, 2010
at 6:12 pm
The good people I was referencing were you and Cameron. Although my opinion of you as good people is diminishing the more you try and defend genocide. Have fun with that. I’m just never going to let you near my kids.
By: morsec0de on March 30, 2010
at 5:59 am
morsecode, no single moral principle or term, i.e. “genocide” is always evil. First, things must be determined evil by examining the motives, intentions, and context by which it is carried out, NOT just the action in and of itself. Otherwise “morality” becomes self contradictory. Even other atheists recognize this. 1. It’s only evil by being contrary to an eternal good standard (which you’re worldview can’t account for), and 2. I’ve givnen a sufficient context in which “genocide” would be good, if an eternal all-good being is punishing evil, thus justice is not being overlooked.
By: Cameron on March 29, 2010
at 4:56 pm
Evil is simply a word we use to describe an act; it doesn’t stem from a concept of absolute morality because there is no such thing. If there were, human concepts of ethical behaviour would never have changed – and we have ample evidence that what we call morality today is vastly different from what it was even a hundred years ago.
The act of genocide meets the criteria for what we humans refer to as evil. The Christian god, if he existed, would be correctly described as an unjust, vicious, evil monster for both causing genocide himself and ordering his people to do it in his name.
Fortunately, we don’t have to concern ourselves because he only exists in the minds of the deluded, credulous and ignorant.
By: Wowbagger on March 30, 2010
at 2:36 am
wowbagger, what you’re talking about isn’t morality but ethics. Morality is what we “ought” to do, while ethics is just”what we do”. If morality, in this sense, can change, then all is permisable and is what atheism leads to logically. Then you contradict yourself. You say there is no bases for evil and that it changes, then you want to say it’s absolutely evil. I already pointed out that if God is perfectly holy and we are evil, then in that context genocide is good because then justice isn’t overlooked. You haven’t dealt at all with this argument.
By: Cameron on March 30, 2010
at 4:57 pm
“First, things must be determined evil by examining the motives, intentions, and context by which it is carried out, NOT just the action in and of itself.”
If this is true, why do we need your god’s absolute morality?
Is “Thou shalt not kill” to be interpreted in light of *human* motivations and intentions? Who decided that?
A massive fail of biblical proportions.
By: The Talented Chimp on August 19, 2010
at 12:30 am
Wowbagger, i salute thee 🙂 i do hope this will not be a one time fly by. Your presence soothes the cerebellum.
even if there were an absolute morality, human morality would never be able to distinguish it as such. Therefore it would be worthless. There is a semi-universal morality however: I scratch your back, you scratch mine. Quid pro quo.
Also, shift key is broken, forgive my un-grammatical-ness
By: rickr0ll on March 30, 2010
at 4:38 pm
yo empirical boy, rickroll, prove that you’d never be able to distinguish absolute morality. But if it’s worthless to figure out, then you might as well live like all is permissible. Therefore, you have no bases to conclude that Hitler was evil. It’s just your opinion. In fact, “evil” just means nothing, like “blah”. Hilter was “blah” to you. It’s worthless to figure out if what Hitler did was REALLY evil. But if you wanted to figure this out and be correct, then you’d first have to account for why “evil” is a reality, not just a mere opinion. Good luck with your worldview.
By: Cameron on March 30, 2010
at 10:22 pm
Not really. The word ‘evil’ has a definition, so acts which meet that definition can justifiably be called ‘evil’.
Again, many acts which we would call evil – human sacrifice, slavery, subjugation of women, persecution of homosexuals, genocide, unjust capital punishment for apostasy and so forth – were not considered evil by the people described in your bible and the followers of your religion.
But it’s funny you mention Hitler; the acts of his we call evil were the result of him trying to please his god by doing what he believed that god had commanded him to do. So much for the worldview that believing in a god provides, huh?
By: Wowbagger on March 30, 2010
at 10:58 pm
Hitler was a DEVOUT Roman Catholic. “Got mit uns” was a famous slogan of his: “God is with us” Yeah. You just keep digging.
Hitler was evil becasue it is universally regarded that his rascist, Bible-based program of mass genocide was abhorrant. I guess your reaction is that Neonazis exist. However, they too are regarded as evil by the Overwhelming majority of the global population. Like Wowbagger keeps stating, there is a definition- and all language only exists in terms that are agreed upon by the users of that language.
Or do you believe all languages have an absolute structure? Then lies would be impossible by default. Words have an agreed upon meaning, and as we know this meaning changes. A LOT. New words could never be created and old ones forgotten becasue Meaning cannot be caused according to your absurd logic
By: rickr0ll on March 30, 2010
at 11:12 pm
rickroll, Scripture accounts for why any person who professes any faith (or lack of) will commit atrocities. Further, why they really ARE atrocities! You’re actually digging further because all you can offer is that “star dust” did this. I have a right to be outraged with Hitler because in my worldview I can account for why he was really wrong. You don’t even have to be outraged within your worldview, but then the holocaust was really just star dust bumping into other star dust, remember?
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 2:08 am
“First, things must be determined evil by examining the motives, intentions, and context by which it is carried out, NOT just the action in and of itself. Otherwise “morality” becomes self contradictory.”
Situational morality, or Relative morailty. you contradicted yourself immediately. good work idiot.
By: rickr0ll on March 30, 2010
at 4:43 pm
It’s amazing how you get to call people idiots, not use your brain, and not even bother to explain WHY I’m contradicting myself, all because you rickroll. Impressive.
By: Cameron on March 30, 2010
at 10:17 pm
Well maybe becasue if morality is Relative then by definition it Cannot be Absolute.
I thought that x and not-x were incompatible ideas, but in your Orwelian view of the universe double-think is a wonderful, empowering practice.
By: Rickr0ll on April 1, 2010
at 2:50 pm
Cameron, try reading what I wrote for comprehension and then have another go because, as it is, you’re making very little sense – particularly when you’ve accused me of contradicting myself.
I explained quite clearly what the word ‘evil’ means, and I did not at any point deviate from that definition. Your god, if he existed, would be evil because he commits and orders acts of genocide, and we consider genocide to be an evil act under any circumstances.
All the special pleading in the world won’t change that.
By: Wowbagger on March 30, 2010
at 5:11 pm
Wowbagger, you are being inconsistent. Just because you want me to to re-read your reply doesn’t take away from the fact that you said that “there is no such thing as absolute morality” while then in the next breath you try to say that “genocide is evil”. This is self-contradictory because the logical conclusion is that genocide isn’t always absolutely evil. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
And you don’t get to just throw around the word “evil” as though your worldview can account for it. You’re worldview can’t account for evil to be a reality. There first must be an eternal, unchanging, all-good standard before something can then be contrary to that standard, thus be called “evil”, and really be evil.
In my worldview, being based on Jesus Christ, I can account for all of this, and I’ve also consistently shown why God would be just to kill all humans (within Christian presuppositions) and to get mad at this or want to change this would itself be unjust. At least I have been totally consistent in my worldview. I believe consistency is a sign of truth. We all should believe that. But Rom 1:18-20 shows we all don’t.
By: Cameron on March 30, 2010
at 10:11 pm
Cameron wrote: ‘You’re[sic] worldview can’t account for evil to be a reality.’
It can’t? That’s news to me – and certainly to anyone else who read my comment for comprehension. I clearly stated that evil is NOT absolute and that it’s just a word we use to describe something – the fictitious actions of the vile god character of your mythology, for example. Genocide meets that definition of evil, whether it’s your monster-god doing it or someone who’s read the bible and thinks butchering thousands of people will appease him and increase his chances of going to heaven doing it.
Perhaps you should start basing your worldview on someone who emphasises critical thought rather than poorly-though-out post hoc rationalisations of what is entirely an emotionally held (rather than rationally acquired) belief.
By: Wowbagger on March 30, 2010
at 10:51 pm
Wowbagger, I love how you use [sic] over “you’re”, especially considering that people type fast responses over internet blogs. So silly! You’re still being inconsistent. Read my responses comprehensively and you’ll realize that! If evil is not absolute (meaning nothing is absolutely evil), then it’s only your opinion that genocide is evil. The rest of your pot shots I wont respond to because there’s no substantive argumentation there.
You still haven’t accounted for an eternal, fixed, all-good standard. Without this “evil” is not even a real possibility, because that which is contrary to an eternal, fixed, all-good standard would then really be evil. I’m still waiting patiently for you to offer something.
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 1:46 am
–Morality is what we “ought” to do, while ethics is just”what we do”.
Prove it
By: rickr0ll on March 30, 2010
at 9:46 pm
rickroll, proof for this type of statement is found in doing your homework on how philosophers use these terms. I’m not going to spoon feed you. Sorry.
By: Cameron on March 30, 2010
at 10:15 pm
“You still haven’t accounted for an eternal, fixed, all-good standard. Without this “evil” is not even a real possibility, because that which is contrary to an eternal, fixed, all-good standard would then really be evil.”
Cheese and rice. WE DON’T NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM BECAUSE WE DON’T ACCEPT THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTE GOOD AND EVIL!
Why can’t you get this? Is it deliberate? YOU need to provide evidence that such things exist. Until you do that any discussion is merely semantics (the meaning of words).
By: The Talented Chimp on August 19, 2010
at 12:38 am
The Talented Chimp, so there’s no absolute good and evil? So murdering and eating children for the fun of it isn’t absolutely wrong? Stay away from my family. It blows my mind on how inconsistent all the Christ hostile atheists are on here. I’m condemned (by an arbitrary empty standard) when I say that lawlessness deserves justice, yet those who’s worldview gives them every reason to act however they want since there are no real “oughts” get a free pass and a pat on the back! Congratulations on your worldview! Too bad you don’t live like a consistent atheist but live like a Christian because you still know certain types of behavior is absolutely wrong.
You are evidence that absolute morality exists, because you live as though not all is permissable. You can’t say all is not permissable unless you can consistently account for why. Hence, give a consistent reason why we “should” behave a certain way as opposed to other ways. Uh oh, the word “should” assumes absolutes and the metaphysical! Yet without that word you’re free to do whatever you want, and all consequences wold then be arbitrary!
By: Cameron on October 24, 2010
at 12:31 pm
you can’t spoon feed me your false statements. That’s precisely my point. And if you did your homework, you would realize the disdain with which philosophers regard the theistic worldview you hold dear. You’re a deluded shrimp-brained idiot.
By: rickr0ll on March 30, 2010
at 10:58 pm
Many philosophers are theists too. They come in many shapes and sizes. You’re conceding to my point on how philosophers generally use the terms “ethics” and “morality”, and changing the subject. Then you try to win an argument by name calling since your real arguments offer nothing.
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 1:37 am
I don’t get how Cameron can say that God is justified in killing all humans simply because he is God.
So because God is the standard by which we measure goodness, he cannot commit evil acts? So anything that we would consider evil when done by a human is not evil anymore because God did it?
Sounds to me like you are just making excuses. I mean, you have said before that Christianity offers some kind of universal morality. A universal morality that comes from God. He sets the standard. And God commits acts of genocide. So then genocide must be morally acceptable? Or is this more of a “do as I say not as I do” kind of thing? Or is it only morally acceptable when God does it? And if that is the case, then morality isn’t really universal is it?
By: Blammo on March 31, 2010
at 2:49 pm
Blammo, he’s saying exactly that. There are allowable double-standards in his worldview – his monster-god can kill humans whenever, however, and in as many numbers as he wants. It’s the same kind of logic that justifies Christians killing non-believers, straight people killing homosexuals, men beating women, rich oppressing poor and so forth.
Some folk are just better than others, y’see? And they get to do what they want.
By: Wowbagger on March 31, 2010
at 4:46 pm
Wowbagger, you’re borrowing from the Christian worldview if you’re going to try and say there are things we really ought not do. Any standard you provide, other than an eternal, immutable, all-good standard will fail. You can go to the top of my blog and read about why more in depth. Are you a naturalist? Are you like rickroll and believe we all come from star dust? If so, then murder and genocide is really nothing other then star dust colliding with star dust. Then when you try to borrow from my worldview and say “we shouldn’t murder” you really mean “star dust shouldn’t collide with star dust”.
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 2:02 am
Blammo, READ WHAT I WROTE! I never said God is justified just because He’s God, but because the Christian God is defined as being perfectly holy, righteous, and good. Within Christianity, all humans are un-holy, un-righteous, and evil. Therefore, if that’s true (you don’t have to believe it is) then it’s consistent and rational that God could kill anyone He wants to. Justice would be upheld in this scenario. It would be unjust for God to ignore justice and unjust for us to say He should in this instance.
Note: God never commits genocide, and can’t commit genocide on those who never sinned! It’s so simple!
According to Christianity and Scripture, no God cannot commit evil b/c 1. He is immutable, and 2. eternally defines what is good (He doesn’t invent it, but it is a reflection of His eternal character).
If you read this reply carefully, you’ll see that I addressed all of your points and questions either indirectly or directly.
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 1:55 am
Actually, I’m not borrowing from anyone’s worldview; mine is my own and is the result of years of human social evolution.
To say ‘don’t hurt each other’ is a specifically Christian attitude is laughable in its ignorant arrogance; are you implying that, prior to Christ’s alleged appearance, people in societies around the world were openly attacking and murdering each other simply because they felt like it and didn’t have a reason not to?
I’m guessing you don’t know much history. Or anthropology, sociology or psychology.
What’s wrong with accepting the fact that we’re made (in the loosest possible sense) out of star dust anyway? You believe your god made people out of mud – who are you to criticise? And a person made of star dust is still a person.
But here’s a question for you: if your god determines what is good or bad, would you – if your god ordered you to – start killing babies of atheist parents? Would that cease to be wrong if he told you it was okay?
By: Wowbagger on April 1, 2010
at 2:14 am
wowbagger, Scripture accounts for why all societies have a moral compass upon their minds and hearts. Star dust doesn’t account for that! Morality accounts for morality, whereas you would have it, non-morality accounts for morality. That’s the problem and you’ve skipped right over it. Talk about what’s laughable.
I’m attaching a pejorative to “star dust”. But going along with what I said above, God creates us with mud AND in His own likeness (being conscious of right and wrong, rationality, etc). That’s what you’ve missed and if you read the Bible comprehensively you’d know that.
if your god determines what is good or bad, would you – if your god ordered you to – start killing babies of atheist parents? Would that cease to be wrong if he told you it was okay?
Again, you haven’t read comprehensively what I’ve already stated MANY MANY times on here. God doesn’t determine what is right and wrong in my view (the thing you think you’re critiquing). What is right is a reflection of His own eternal Triune nature. Thus, that which is contrary (“wrong” and “evil”) is then a possibility. But to answer your question, yes it would be wrong to do this within a context of murder. And you can’t say “would it cease to be wrong” with respect to my worldview because again I’m appealing to an immutable standard (where context is taken into account). Things can cease to be wrong within any other worldview, however, because there’s no immutable standard (especially atheism).
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 2:38 am
Cameron, after reading what you’ve written I have come to the conclusion that you are delusional.
I will leave you with this though. Your religion isn’t the only one. Gods who were just as real to their worshipers as your god is to you have died. None of them have come back to take vengeance on humanity for no longer worshiping them, and I am confident that your god would blow away like a fart in the wind under the same circumstances.
My all time favorite quote: “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest” – Denis Diderot
Some day, some day…
By: Blammo on April 5, 2010
at 1:19 pm
Blammo, you have no idea how real YHWH is to me so you are just speculating at best when you say that. Christ says He’s returning to beat up His enemies and turn other enemies into friends by grace. I’ll take His word over yours (considering He’s at least more consistent in accounting for reality then what you’ve offered (nothing) – and I believe consistency is a tell tale sign of truth).
Actually, Scripture teaches Christ is both King and Priest so Diderot’s quote doesn’t apply to Him.
By: Cameron on April 5, 2010
at 11:40 pm
Nice; Blammo indeed. I think we’re closing in on checkmate. Thanks to all the wonderfully helpful, rational beings who have spent thier time in the thankless work of enlightening the stupid.
Ok not entirely thankless :p
By: Rickroll on March 31, 2010
at 11:47 pm
Cameron, are you sure you’re reading for comprehension?
In every post I’ve made on the topic I’ve said – quite clearly (I thought) – that evil isn’t an absolute concept but a term we use to describe something that meets a definition, like the alleged actions of your supposed god.
To illustrate how evil is not an absolute concept, I’ve provided examples of what your bible and your co-religionists considered (and, sadly, many still consider) to be acceptable behaviour – murder; slavery; human sacrifice; persecution of unbelief, homophobia and religious non-crimes; genocide; infanticide etc – but which now most civilised people consider to be evil.
Really, I’m sorry but I don’t know how to put it any more plainly than I already have. If your god existed it would be accurate to call him evil. Sorry, but there aren’t any logical defences for double-standards; we call that sort of fallacy ‘special pleading’.
By: Wowbagger on April 1, 2010
at 2:00 am
Wowbagger, you have no standard for “evil” then. If it’s just a word to describe behavior then fine. That still doesn’t account for why we really ought to do things or really ought not do thing. That is special pleading!
If “evil” isn’t absolute, then all those things you say my imaginary god does which are evil, then even those things can’t be absolutely evil to you! Because that’s what you’re saying!
Also, if you would have comprehensively read what I’ve been saying, you’d know that I (and God) take into account context when it comes to morality, NOT just mere actions in and of themselves. This point rebuts some of your repeated assertions in your last reply. And still, with atheism (rationally speaking) all is permissible with only the illusion that it’s not, until you assume an eternal, immutable, all-good standard.
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 2:22 am
Ah, I understand now why you were unaware that saying ‘but it’s okay when my god does it!’ is special pleading – it’s because you don’t know what that means.
Perhaps you should look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
When did I use the term ‘absolutely evil’? You really shouldn’t try to put words in my mouth; it makes you look either disingenuous (to put it politely) or very silly.
But it’s nice to know that you and your god are both so generous as to allow context to be taken into account. However, I have to wonder: how do you know that that’s what this god of yours does? Did he tell you that himself?
By: Wowbagger on April 1, 2010
at 2:36 am
Cameron, you didn’t answer the question. One day you hear a voice in your head that says ‘This is your god speaking: Cameron, I need you to kill the babies of atheist parents for me because I want them dead.’
What do you do? Would you kill the babies? Do you think you would you feel bad for doing so? If so, why?
By: Wowbagger on April 1, 2010
at 2:46 am
What part of “no” within my response did you not understand? So because it would be wrong for me to do that, yes I would feel bad. So you’re against abortion? Because it is killing innocent babies which our U.S. laws protect and allows! Further, let me ask you, what shouldn’t you kill and murder anyone at anytime? On what consistent bases is that really wrong? Please offer more then “star dust” in your response.
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 2:58 am
You didn’t say ‘no’. Re-read your post; the word ‘no’ does not appear there.
Hmm, you said it would be wrong – but you didn’t (tellingly) say that you wouldn’t do it. But if you were doing it for God then it wouldn’t be wrong – he must be right for wanting it, and by extension, so must you for doing it.
God has done this before. Why would it be wrong now?
Oh, and while it’s mostly off-topic, I don’t have a problem with abortion, since they aren’t ‘babies’ until they’re born. As for why that isn’t ‘wrong’ – well, that’s because an actual person’s rights supersede those of a potential person’s. Simple as that.
But I don’t know why you would have a problem with it either, since the overwhelming majority of pregnancies result in miscarriages – meaning that, if your God exists, he wants them to happen. Or are you saying that, once again, the double-standard is okay? God as an abortionist is fine but for a human to do it it’s not?
By: Wowbagger on April 1, 2010
at 3:13 am
Wowbagger, it is OK when God kills anyone, if He’s completely holy and we’re completely un-holy. But not OK for God to change His mind on what is “moral”. Neither of these is special pleading. You’re trying to argue that it is instead of dealing with my actual arguments!
And you did say “I clearly stated that evil is NOT absolute and that it’s just a word we use to describe something”. I’ve already told you I assume you mean “nothing is absolutely evil” by this. So I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to get you to clarify more instead of repeating your vague and seemingly contradictory statements.
And atheists, such as Dan Barker, take context into account for morality. In fact, a person MUST take it into account otherwise morality eventually contradicts itself. I know this because if God inspired Scripture, then He gave examples in Scripture where context is taken into account. Now you don’t have to wonder! It’s so simple. If you’d study the very thing you’re attempting to critique comprehensively then you’d know all this by now!
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 2:53 am
Also, I was saying that you are special pleading that you get to determine what is evil, while yet you offer no consistent bases for it. Star dust isn’t a consistent bases. That’s what I was implying earlier just to clarify.
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 3:03 am
Cameron, you wrote: “If ‘evil’ isn’t absolute, then all those things you say my imaginary god does which are evil, then even those things can’t be absolutely evil to you!”
That’s not the same thing as evil being absolute; evil can – because it does – still exist without it having to be absolute.
Would your god (if he existed) be ‘absolutely evil’? No, because there’s no such thing – though if there was he’d have to come pretty close based on the monstrous acts he’s performed.
He certainly would be non-absolutely evil, though.
“I know this because if God inspired Scripture, then He gave examples in Scripture where context is taken into account. Now you don’t have to wonder! It’s so simple. If you’d study the very thing you’re attempting to critique comprehensively then you’d know all this by now!”
But I could look at scripture where your god has performed genocide and ordered people to murder others and take that as my context: I could say that it’s okay to murder people because I know that’s what God wanted me to do.
Using your logic, what’s stopping me from doing that? If I murdered someone and told you God said it was okay, you’d have to agree with me.
By: Wowbagger on April 1, 2010
at 3:04 am
Also above I meant to say: “I’m NOT attaching a pejorative to “star dust”. But going along with what I said above, God creates us with mud AND in His own likeness (being conscious of right and wrong, rationality, etc). That’s what you’ve missed and if you read the Bible comprehensively you’d know that.”
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 3:05 am
How is that vague? It’s evil because it’s wrong and it’s wrong because of the standards of our society. No absolutes about it.
Like I’ve mentioned before (and which you’ve avoided mentioning) the bible contains plenty of acts that our society would consider evil, yet weren’t considered evil by the people – or your god – at the time. If there is as you claim an absolute standard, why has that changed? Is our society wrong to consider those things evil?
And no, I’m telling you that God told me that it was okay; he said he’s changed his mind before and he’s now choosing to do it again. I expressed my doubts and he told me to look in Numbers, so I did and I found plenty of justification for my actions.
So, that being the case, How am I wrong when God himself has told me it’s okay and shown me scripture to justify it?
By: Wowbagger on April 1, 2010
at 3:28 am
Wowbagger, I know atheists and realists who would completely disagree with you. If you read my blog at the top about morality then I wouldn’t have to be explaining these things over and over and over. You’re ultimate standard for “evil” so far is “society”. But societies change their minds, and could potentially determine that “A” is no longer evil, if while today “A” is deemed as evil.
It doesn’t matter if society thinks the Bible is evil because that’s not a sufficient standard for “good” and “evil” to be realities to begin with!
Numbers is “descriptive” of God’s dealings with Israel and judgment upon evil people at that time, and is NOT “prescriptive” for the entire church age. That would be more like the Quran (which you don’t talk about because you’re not against a false god, only the real God).
Even if you don’t like YHWH being an eternal, immutable, all-good standard for morality, you still need to identify something that is. Otherwise, there’s no consistent bases for morality.
By: Cameron on April 5, 2010
at 11:19 pm
“That’s not the same thing as evil being absolute; evil can – because it does – still exist without it having to be absolute.”
This still doesn’t make any sense and you’re still being very vague. If killing someone innocent out of a hateful and prideful motive is evil, then it is absolutely evil. If this context for killing isn’t absolutely evil (which you’re seeming to argue for) then it could be OK as well (maybe only on Tuesdays). Wow, the atheists superior moral arguments. You’ve still given no bases by which ANYTHING is really wrong, but just complain against what you think star dust brought about (even the idea of God).
“But I could look at scripture where your god has performed genocide and ordered people to murder others and take that as my context: I could say that it’s okay to murder people because I know that’s what God wanted me to do.
Using your logic, what’s stopping me from doing that? If I murdered someone and told you God said it was okay, you’d have to agree with me.”
1. We’d have to look at the context of each instance where God does this instead of just a surface level study whereby you can make straw men for convenience. 2. It’s mostly God killing, not the Jews. I’ve already explained why that context if OK and perfectly rational and just. 3. The people of God are now spiritual in the NT, no longer a physical nation. God doesn’t deal with His people’s enemies in that fashion any longer. And if you lived back then you would have loved the command to kill evil people who wanted to kill you and your family. So stop complaining as a comfortable 21st century American critic on ancient history.
By: Cameron on April 1, 2010
at 3:17 am
Sorry, I posted the reply in the wrong comment – it’s in the one above.
Btw I’m not American.
By: Wowbagger on April 1, 2010
at 3:39 am
So stop complaining as a comfortable 21st century (whatever you are) critic on ancient history.
By: Cameron on April 5, 2010
at 11:21 pm
You. Are. SO STUPID. How is it evil when two evil men murder each other? In my conception, that would be a way for justice to be upheld. Justice doesn’t require prfection (which does not exist!).
You are stating it is perfectly just for God to murder, preciely becasue they deserve it? How is it any different when anyone else kills or murders? Justice is still being upheld. One more crime is being commited, but then again, the crime is that of MURDER. Murder is never allowed by anyone. God is therefore a hypocrite, a liar, a charletan, and a sick twisted evil being.
Yehweh is Satan. There really is no two ways about it.
Oh, and i call BULLSHIT on your statment that it is mostly god (which makes no freaking difference regardless) . What about the Canaanites, amalekites, Hittites, and the various other groups (even within Isreal people are told to kill one another, such as if a child speaks up against his parents). Either god is commiting evil himself or Commanding that evil be committed. It’s a lose-lose situation.
Stardust is preciely what we are. But what we aren’t is inanimate. We have thoughts, motives, and more importantly, social obligations to uphold. Murder is a violation of all social obligations and that is why it is considered abhorrent (unless crazy fuckwits like you think it is religiously justified).
In your mindset almost all the evil in the world cannot BE evil because everyone acts according to the will of thier perfect divine god. You see that any other faithholder in the world considers your arguments disgusting and a testiment to the fact that you are a brainwashed Nazi- excuse me, member of an elaborate deathcult (same thing). The problem is then that they have the same cognitive dissonance with thier own beliefs.
By: Rickr0ll on April 1, 2010
at 2:45 pm
I also put this for your consideration:
By: Rickr0ll on April 1, 2010
at 2:55 pm
Rickroll, I already said that CONTEXT must be taken into account to account for real morality, NOT just mere actions in and of themselves. Even atheists acknowledge this. With God killing evil people, I’ve explained (based on Biblical presuppositions) why that’s just and why to contend otherwise (given those presuppositions) would itself be advocating injustice. Instead of spoon feeding I’ll wait for you to talk with other atheists who at least acknowledge these things. Call the guys on ‘the atheist experience’ because they at least understand this much.
By: Cameron on April 5, 2010
at 11:28 pm
Rickroll, you don’t get to use the term “evil” or even “good” until you can account for it. To really account for “evil”, however, and not just throw the word out there as though you were created in the likeness of something other than star dust (which has no pre-commitment to how it OUGHT to think, speak, and behave), you must provide an eternal, immutable, all-good standard. You don’t have to believe it’s YHWH like I do, but then tell me… what/who is it? Whatever it is, I call that God or “god” anyways.
And when I say Israel I mean the tribe or nation of Israel (descendants or relatives to Jacob), not people living in the country of what we consider modern day Israel.
If we are all stardust then there is no such thing as murdering, let alone that it’s a bad thing, but only the illusion that it is. You’ve given no bases why we ought to really listen to any standard and do so consistently at all times. I’m waiting for you superior worldview.
I’ve at least offered what the standard must entail, namely, an eternal, immutable, all-good standard. Therefore, I’m consistent in saying I have a pre-commitment to not murder (hence Jesus is that standard and says not to murder or murder in your heart), and you’ve only given the standard of star dust. Wow. All is permissible with star dust. It’s just stuff moving around. That’s all murder is really.
By: Cameron on April 5, 2010
at 11:51 pm
“Rickroll, you don’t get to use the term “evil” or even “good” until you can account for it. To really account for “evil”, however, and not just throw the word out there as though you were created in the like ……. ” Blah, blah. Repeated drivel.
I posit that you are too stupid to debate.
By: The Talented Chimp on August 19, 2010
at 12:46 am
Bless your heart, but just saying I’m too stupid to debate doesn’t offer any real argument.
By: Cameron on October 23, 2010
at 11:19 pm
Also, with stoning of habitually evil disobedient children in the OT caused there to be very very good children within that community. Israel was to mimic the holiness of God as a community. The children then would have put your childhood obedience and my childhood obedience to utter shame because of God’s strict laws. They didn’t live in spoiled autonomous America like we do. Those laws were for the nation of Israel at that time and reflected God’s holiness. The holiness of God is the issue. I see myself and all others as utterly sinful, you don’t. Therefore, I have no problem with God doing these things, and you do. That’s fine.
By: Cameron on April 6, 2010
at 12:01 am
Right, you think disobedient children should be maimed or killed. Of course you don’t have a problem with that; you’re a monster just like him.
Sadly, unlike your non-existent god, people like you actually exist.
Happily, our civilised society has created laws to protect our children from people like you.
By: Wowbagger on April 6, 2010
at 12:10 am
Cameron, make up your mind – either context is important or there is an absolute standard; it cannot be both. That’s what absolute means.
Maybe you should read up on the Euthyphro dilemma; it outlines how people dealt with the absolutist moral argument well before anyone came up with Christianity.
Oh, and – since you brought it up – why do you assume the god of the Muslims is a false god? Why cannot their god be the author of this standard you continue to assert exists, and your god be the false god? After all, their god is far more consistent than yours, making it much more likely to have determined absolutes.
By: Wowbagger on April 6, 2010
at 12:03 am
No I don’t believe we should stone completely evil and wicked children in the new covenant (except for protection of life) because Heb 8 says the old covenant is obsolete. I believe they should have back then, only under the temporal civil laws given to Israel. With those types of laws it probably was hard to find completely evil and wicked kids. Deut 21 may also not be referring to a young child, but an older child. Lol, Jesus is the one who punishes people for eternity and sends them to hell because of their hostility towards him and their lawlessness, 2 Thes 1, Rev 19. He was the lamb for a while, now he’s the lion.
Wowbagger, no, it’s not either absolutes or context. It’s both absolutes and context. Given context A being wrong, it’s absolutely wrong, etc. Maybe you should read up on other atheists even agreeing with me, i.e. Dan Barker. I know about Euthyphros dilemma. And no it doesn’t answer the problem of morality. It posits that morality must either be invented by God or exist independent of him. But what is ALWAYS overlooked by atheists is the dilemma with the stupid dilemma. Morality, what we “ought” to do and “ought” to not do, assumes an eternal all-good personal standard. Only a God who is eternally 3 in 1 who eternally defines what all-good relationship is (thus anything contrary to that standard is all-bad) can consistently account for this standard. Thus, Euthyphros dilemma is bunk because morality is rather a reflection of God eternal nature.
This ties into your last question. The Islam god cannot account for an eternal all-good personal standard of morality because 1. Muslims don’t claim to know if Allah is eternal, and 2. Allah is a monad (there is no eternal relationship taking place like there is in the Trinity). So I don’t buy your point that Allah is more consistent. Nice try though.
So you’re not American? Where are you from then? How’s the weather there?
By: Cameron on October 23, 2010
at 11:46 pm
He is right you know, Allah is loads more consistant than the god who was defeated by “iron chariots” and feared for his being in Genesis Chapter 11 and repeatedly made it clear he was manipulation people to sin and therefore follow his plans better (Samson and Delilah, King David, Judas, even Satan himself).
Your mentality is disgusting. Why do you think you are all alone out here? I don’t think any reasonable christian could agree with you. I don’t think anyone who doesn’t worship Evil would understand your hypocrisy and pretend that you weren’t just making excuses to treat people horribly presicely as Jesus commands us Not to do.
Eternal punishment is not a sign of love. God cannot be love. The bible is a lie. Move into the 21st century. Oh by the way, slavery, genocide, and misogyny must be endorsed by you becasue the bible says it is so in days past when God approved.
By: Rickr0ll on April 6, 2010
at 1:07 am
Also you don’t even try to have a conversation or note that i have made points. you revisit old Topics, disproven arguments, and resort to bold-face lying. Your are on top of all other counts of stupidity and hypocrisy a truly shitty arguer.
Wowbagger, you sure you don’t want reinforcements to smash this scum into the ground and Keep him down?
By: Rickr0ll on April 6, 2010
at 1:13 am
What else can we do? He’s revealed what he is: someone who’d enjoy killing and maiming children for disobedience. He can’t really sink any lower.
By: Wowbagger on April 6, 2010
at 1:57 am
Aye. I just want him to get steamrolled. It’s sick fuckers like him that enlist to become a soldeir for the gratuitous death and bloodshed. It’s people like him in positions of power that keep the world miserable, stupid, and oppressed.
But maybe i give him too much credit.
By: Rickr0ll on April 6, 2010
at 2:32 am
If I’m really a shitty arguer and such a big poo poo head like you think, then don’t blame me. Be consistent and blame “nature” if you’re a “naturalist”. It’s the invisible vibrating string consisting of non-matter which holds my being together and forces me to reply like this. There’s no free-will in such a worldview, only the illusion of it. That dang “nature” makes us fiz at each other. I’m Mountain Dew. What are you? Maybe Pepsi? Congratulations on what a consistent alternative to Christianity looks like!
By: Cameron on October 23, 2010
at 11:53 pm
Oh, and the Muslim god is your god too. You just missed the last patch, when Mohammed came in with the hotfixes.
By: ambulocetacean on April 6, 2010
at 1:50 am
Or not. The Quran teaches (Surah 6) to obey the gospels of Scripture. But you can tell that Mohammed probably never had access to them because he would have noticed that the gospels teach Jesus to have qualities which make him far more then a mere prophet or rasul. Thus, the Quran, coming 600 years after Scripture, is inconsistent.
By: Cameron on October 23, 2010
at 11:58 pm
False. This depends on which version of the Bible Mohammed had at that time. No Real scriptural evidence points to Jesus (Yeshua- a common name) being the “Christ”- a title, which could have been given to any Messianic figure (which, according to OT LAW- could not BE a type of God, stated in the 1st and 2nd commandments. There was to Be no intercessor between God and HIS PEOPLE) as being “Divine” any more than any of the other patriarch.
IF the story were even so clear cut in the OT. WHICH IT IS NOT
By: Rickr0ll on November 1, 2010
at 11:12 pm
No real Scriptural evidence points to Jesus being the Messiah? You don’t know what you’re talking about. This is a blank assertion too by the way. Dan 9 says the Messiah will come before the destruction of the temple. Only Jesus fulfills that. Also, no OT text gives a disclaimer that “the following text is a Messianic text”. One has good reason to assume who the Messiah is based on consistent criterion. E.i. who fulfills the promises given to Israel, whom do the Psalms point to, etc. Only Jesus does this.
According to the 10 commandments, people could not worship a false god. Jesus being the true God, however, is the real Messiah and can ONLY be! Psa 110:1 for examples is a huge Messianic text in the OT which says “the LORD said unto my Lord, sit at my right hand”. This is mind boggling for the Jewish mindset because David calls someone Lord who descends from him, which would never be the case in Jewish thought. Yet Jesus can descend from David and still be called Lord, because he’s also divine.
John 1:1, Jesus is the divine and eternal logos.
By: Cameron on November 4, 2010
at 3:23 pm
Thing is, Rickr0ll, I don’t believe that Cameron would actually enjoy stoning children; it’s just telling that he would prefer to be thought of as being okay with that rather than admit that his god ordering such an act makes his god a monster by every definition of the word.
Which is the real tragedy of Christianity. It allows people to defend real injustice rather than condemn it for what it is.
By: Wowbagger on April 6, 2010
at 2:46 am
I don’t see it as merely an enabler. I see it as an actual evil institution. History has shown that.
By: Rickr0ll on April 6, 2010
at 11:28 pm
Satan could have, after all satan was there! And as scripture states, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.” James 2:19.
And it would still have come the same…the Bible is really graphic even now. God ordering genocide and causing incest among His believers. Not lite reading and not always a pretty picture.
And don’t forget, the Catholic Church, not exactly the prefect Christian role models, interpreted the Bible. Remember the crusades and the inquisitions? All that good Catholic stuff? I think somehow the same interpretations would result pretty close to the Bible today. After all history is history; good, bad, or otherwise.
Glen
“Lov’n the Lord & Liv’n the Life…”
By: Glen on April 16, 2010
at 5:35 pm
Oh sorry, just noticed you were Catholic. My last comment to your post had nothing to do with YOU being Catholic, I would have blasted them anyway.
Glen
By: MenAfterGod.com on April 16, 2010
at 5:43 pm
God/Satan didn’t write the bible, people did.
Otherwise I like your post 🙂
By: Spirit Drum on October 9, 2010
at 4:03 pm
Right, that is precisely the conclusion that must be reached in matters such as this, or in any such idea of “referred knowledge” or “deep mystical insight.” We have no way to establish credibility. The mind lies to us all the time. There is a whole category of optical illusions illustrates this point (pun intended).
So delving into the subconscious doesn’t reveal reality, but the taint of our perceptions upon the actual world and i particular the relationships we have formed.
By: Rickr0ll on October 11, 2010
at 12:36 am
Christians also believe that people wrote the Bible. We just believe more then that and have for thousands of years. It’s that God, by his Spirit, used humans as secondary causes (or means) to bring about his over-arching inspired words and meanings which ultimately proclaim that all humans are with sin, Jesus wasn’t, our sin will be crushed in us or him, those who believe and repent in Jesus Christ will know all their sin was crushed in Christ and wont be in them.
By: Cameron on October 24, 2010
at 12:02 am
Yeah, the Gnostics didn’t even believe in the Christ as a flesh and blood person, and it wasn’t until the 2nd Century that Christ was even given Divine status. Decided by PEOPLE. Ever heard of the Apocrypha? Ever wonder why they are the FIRST copies we possess of the books of the Bible? Because, “when legend becomes history, print the Legend.” Erase and scratch out the older versions, because they aren’t what happened. Like a novel.
By: Rickr0ll on November 1, 2010
at 11:04 pm
You’ve got it backwards. Gnosticism wasn’t even around until the 2nd century. And the epistles were written during the 1st century and are drenched in language referring to to Jesus as the eternal, true, God. There’s 6 places in the NT where there is a definite article placed be “god”, making it in Greek, “the God”. (Mat 1:13, Titus 2:13, John 20:28, 2 pet 1:1, Heb 1:8, and Rev 21:6,16)
By: Cameron on November 4, 2010
at 3:27 pm
Sources?!
By: Rickr0ll on November 7, 2010
at 11:23 pm
http://www.youtube.com/user/DrOakley1689#p/u/99/00WOGeGcjYo
By: Cameron on November 13, 2010
at 7:47 pm
“Christians also believe that people wrote the Bible.”
No you don’t. you believe people were God’s ghostwriters. you said so yourself. Contradiction.
By: Rickr0ll on October 29, 2010
at 6:39 pm
Me saying they wrote the Bible doesn’t mean I’m implying they wrote all by themselves apart from God’s Spirit. You’re not allowing the Christian position because you’re not allowing the Christian position, so you can have your cake and eat it too and force contradiction upon whatever you don’t accept because you don’t accept it.
By: Cameron on October 29, 2010
at 6:54 pm
“Me saying they wrote the Bible doesn’t mean I’m implying they wrote all by themselves apart from God’s Spirit.”
Oh i get it, cherry-picking scripture. I’m so glad that’s an Effective solution for faith!
The contradictions are there in the archeological facts and the scientific facts and the scriptural inconsistencies.
By: Rickr0ll on November 1, 2010
at 10:57 pm
That’s not cherry picking Scripture. Cherry picking Scripture would be me 1. saying some parts are inspired by God’s Spirit and some parts aren’t, or 2. me only listening to some parts and ignoring other parts (which atheists do all the time with the Bible).
Me believing the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God to say what he wanted it to say, while still preserving the human angle to it isn’t cherry picking. It’s been a belief held for centuries.
You’ve only offered blank assertions. Those aren’t arguments. Just because I say I’m surrounded by naked cheerleaders doesn’t make it true.
By: Cameron on November 4, 2010
at 3:32 pm
http://www.georgeleonard.com/yahweh.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html
Those!!! Aren’t BLANK assertions. If you had bothered to go to the Godless Bible Study Thread instead of trolling this one you might have seen this for yourself.
By: Rickr0ll on November 7, 2010
at 11:19 pm
Why should I have to read your entire blog? Since I don’t have time to read through it all, tell me one major archeological contradiction that is just so convincing to you. Give me a Scriptural one and a scientific one as well.
I’ve still never found a Scriptural inconsistency when an atheist has presented one. And after I clarify, they still don’t care, which is a fulfillment of Rom 1:18-20.
By: Cameron on November 13, 2010
at 6:39 pm
I’ve already presented my evidence. Your refusal to even look at it tells me you don’t have a shred of intellectual honesty in you. Not that the fact surprises me in the least.
But. The whole Exodus book: Not a SINGLE piece of archeological evidence supports it. No linguistic studies support Genesis 11.
Any parasitologist/epidemiologist can tell you Billions of people are infected with horrible diseases, and millions upon millions of people die every year from disaster and disease. This is called the Problem of Evil. It’s a very famous argument to the existence of a theistic God.
As far as Scriptural evidence, i present Luke 6: 43-45: “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.. People do not pick grapes from thorn-bushes, nor figs from briers. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored in his heart. For out of the overflow of the heart his mouth speaks.”
How then does Satan Exist? Or is Jesus lying? Satan is the fruit of God’s labors, and yet he is the primordial vessel of evil.
Or does scripture here indicate that Evil is greater than or equal to Good, and ontologically co-determinate with it? Either way, it matters not. Also just LOOOOOOOOKKKKKKK!!!!!! at the yehweh.html paper. If you have counterarguments, you better be DAMN specific and convincing to refute either him and/or his sources.
I’m waiting to be impressed.
By: Rickr0ll on November 13, 2010
at 7:07 pm
Lol, I didn’t expect you to have that bad of an argument. If you’re going to simply disregard the OT on the bases of there being no archeological evidence, then to be consistent you’ll have to disregard a great deal of historical writings. You only reveal your unfounded bias towards the Bible here.
When God creates Lucifer with the potential to become Satan, God intends it for good. God can intend it for a good thing since God is sovereign and Satan is a secondary cause to God. Satan is a means unto God’s ends. Just as in Gen 50 Joseph says about God, “you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good”. So, even if God ordains evil, he does it with a good intention which ultimately terminates in his glorious plan. Like I tell all atheists, all of Scripture has to be taken into account, just like we would when we interpret Richard Dawkin’s meaning in ‘The God Delusion’.
“Good” cannot be an equal opposite to “evil”. Evil is only possible by good first existing, because evil by definition is contrary to good, not the other way around. Just as dark is only possible by the lack of light, not the other way around, hence why God refers to himself as light.
I’ll go to that website in the future when I have more time. But I asked you to provide one major argument that convinces you and I’ll get back to you on it.
By: Cameron on November 13, 2010
at 8:02 pm
Why don’t you just take a good hard look at AronRa’s videos on youtube as well. Keep your bible handy.
By: Rickr0ll on November 13, 2010
at 7:12 pm
There’s so many youtube videos and website which expose the surface level contradictions proposed by atheists. So I hope you have your Bible, Greek lexicon and Hebrew lexicon handy!
By: Cameron on November 13, 2010
at 8:06 pm
“then to be consistent you’ll have to disregard a great deal of historical writings.”
Name 3 examples of this.
“When God creates Lucifer with the potential to become Satan, God intends it for good. ”
So God is an idiot. Or he’s not all knowing. Same difference.
“Evil is only possible by good first existing, because evil by definition is contrary to good, not the other way around.”
That’s pointless. You just contradicted Jesus. or did evil come FROM NOTHING? If that’s the case, Then yes, it IS ontologically equivalent with God, not requiring him to exist. Oh wait evil comes from GOOD. You are an idiot. Also, on any scale, any time good is diminished is an act of EVil!
Just like you can’t make an acid basic without adding a BASE in chemistry. It’s the same damn principle.
also:
oh, and FACTS can’t be argued.
By: Rickr0ll on November 16, 2010
at 12:05 am
And actually, it’s a Zondervan Study Bible. It goes into all the little details, cross-references, original hebrew wordings. Doesn’t in the LEAST detract from my points. Occasionally, it strengthens them.
By: Rickr0ll on November 16, 2010
at 1:04 am
I’ll name one for now. Where’s your archeological proof of Socrates? Even a non-Christian liberal Bible scholar Bart Ehrman uses this same type of argumentation for atheists who have this wild-eyed inconsistent biased standard.
Here’s a link for Bible archeology: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/historical_evid.html
God can intend evil for his own purposes. It’s your assumption that he can’t do that. That’s doesn’t necessarily make him an idiot or not all knowing. That would just be your opinion.
Good and evil don’t exist as physical entities. You’re confusing categories. They are abstract realities. Good is a reflection of God’s eternal relationship within himself. Anything contrary to this is by definition evil. It doesn’t mean evil comes from nothing, but that by definition it is contrary to what is good, not the other way around. Evil is eternally possible, but not eternally an equal opposite.
Good is not diminished by evil. As Aquinas said, “evil can do nothing but by virtue of good”. Evil can only be recognized because we first recognize what is good, then what is contrary to good, thus can recognize what is evil.
Thus, your acid base example is off. Good and evil aren’t equal opposite antagonists of each other. That which is false, wrong, and bad and only exist by being contrary that which is absolutely true, right, and good.
By: Cameron on November 16, 2010
at 6:17 pm
So, the name calling begins. Seems vaguely like most other debates with an Atheist. Anger, disbelief, disillusionment… next step… quit to be never heard from again. See my Discussion Zone tab on my blog.
By: tree63fan on November 16, 2010
at 7:58 am
Actually, i’m the only consistent commenter here. And the fact that i make insults depreciates my humane qualities, not my logical capacities.
By: Rickr0ll on November 17, 2010
at 2:34 am
“God can intend evil for his own purposes.”
SO. “GOT MIT UNS” you’re a disgusting shell of a wrecked mind. eternal suffering and damnation is Evil, no matter what. Condemning billions to die pointless horrible deaths and suffer pitiless, empty lives is not good, no matter WHO the fuck you are.
You are PROVING in fact, that Satan could VERY well be God, because being good actually helps him curry spiritual favor or what have you.
Furthermore, you would NEVER know for a fact there ever was such an absolute standard, because it does not and cannot exist within yourself. You are basing your argument on ignorance.
Amazing *sarcasm* how your sources are NEVER science sources. Give me one god damn peer-reviewed article that shows that Moses existed or that they found Anything of Isrealite origin in Sinai or Any effect of ANY supposed curse. It’s simple. Look up on google scholar or Arxiv. Look up a list of archeological journals and give me ONE
It’s so FUNNY you mentioned Socrates. Dawkins covered that in the video you moron. you don;t even take the time to look into my sources. I watched that video. That one pastor believes that humans are only 20,000 years old!!! Anything he says about human history is immediately rendered worthless because he is obviously incapable of even acknowledge a FACT like radiometric dating of the Freaking fossil Record!
“evil can do nothing but by virtue of good” Bullshit. I can state emphatically that the opposite is true!! and you cannot even deny that possibility. This discussion is over. You LOSE.
By: Rickr0ll on November 17, 2010
at 2:49 am
Was this the “I quit” post?
Now one of the “debaters” gets to say who won? Rick, you are better than that, get some sleep.
By: tree63fan on November 17, 2010
at 9:50 am
I quit the insanity. There is no point in shouting at a horses ass, much less try and make it think and read with some semblance of comprehension or intellectual honesty.
And you’re still completely missing the point of the topic at hand.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/stinketh.html
This does not.
By: Rickr0ll on November 17, 2010
at 2:03 pm
So if Hitler gets God’s eternal wrath, that’s an evil thing? I think you’re the one who’s evil and has a perverted sense of justice if you think that. And God can allow Hitler to cause evil and have a good purpose behind it. He can save the people who were persecuted and condemn Hitler forever.
In an atheistic worldview, there is no purpose even behind atrocities, thus no hope! Sucks to be an atheist.
Show me one peer-reviewed article that says that the Babylonians and Alexander the great didn’t conquer Tyre, which very well could have fulfilled the prophecy of Ezekiel 26.
“That one pastor believes that humans are only 20,000 years old!!!”
It’s hard to define a species since we supposed to always be evolving into new ones. He also didn’t have a definite opinion but gave a range. Barker never gave any evidence for “humans” (whatever criterion he means) being around for 100,000 years.
What archeological evidence does Dawkins have for Socrates? Just tell me. And if there is, I’ll find more people who don’t have any but whom you probably have no beef about existing!
Radiometric dating and the fossil record depend on the given scientists assumptions. Even if we have been here for a trillion years, that doesn’t’ necessarily disprove God or the Bible. We don’t know how far back the genealogies go since they are abridged.
I gave the context for Aquinas’ quote. Just stating the opposite doesn’t do anything since I’ve already shown how evil by definition is contrary to good, not the other way around. Good is good all by itself. Nice try. I think it’s obvious to many readers who’s lost.
By: Cameron on November 17, 2010
at 5:14 pm
nothing!! nothing humans can Ever do is eternal. So yes. a trillion trillion trillion years of punishment is enough. Do you understand the concept of infinity? Do you understand that ANYTHING divided by an infinitesimal number is ZERO. It’s not the finitude of human lives that makes them pointless, it’s the idea that there is a “forever after” that does that.
And you’re just saying that God instigated the Holocaust- and in fact is responsible for every atrocity that has ever happened. You deserve the right to be that stupid but i’m afraid that kind of thinking is cancerous and in 50 or so years will hopefully be a relic, only being a distasteful reminder of our lust for egomania. YES. Egomania: thinking that You know the special, secret truths of the universe because you have some “divine perspective” over some bronze-age and originally PAGAN collection of fables that in and of themselves are stopgaps for our lack of knowledge.
Also God >>>>>Satan on the evil scale. You’ve just proved it. Because not only did he Directly create the embodiment of evil, he enabled that being to walk all over his world, ruining everything, and then blaming his innocent human pets for something that is not their fault.
“conquer Tyre”- That’s not the prophecy. “No stone atop another” was the phrase, and Tyre was never completely abandoned. And neither was Egypt as was prophesied in Daniel
“since we supposed to always be evolving into new ones”
no wrong again. if you cannot create fertile hybrids with another organism, then you are separate species. CDK007 on youtube goes over that mechanism EXACTLY
And 20,000 years was the LOW part of his range you idiot. We have dated cave paintings to over 30,000 years alone.
Why don’t you watch the god damn videos?! You are so pointlessly dull. I’m tired of the same old shit coming out of your mouth. You don’t even want to have an argument you want to have a hundred trillion meta-arguments because you know there is no peer-reviewed science backing ANYTHING that is supposedly true in the bible. NOT one god damn thing
Also your statement about Radiometric dating is so breathtakingly stupid i’m reluctant to tell you there are hundreds if not thousands of resources that exp laing the OBJECTIVE FACTS!!! behind radiometric dating
Also does 4=/= 2+2?!!!! that’s so damn weird because i know 4-2=2!!!! and that 2+2=4 and 2=4-2. Reversing the argument is completely valid. You have never not even once proved that good exists. Becasue you have to assume it does to prove it does. It’s SPECIAL PLEADING and it’s a fallacy. ANDDDDDDD if GOD is ultimately responsible for everything, then Evil can’t exist by definition, rendering once again the impossibility of Luke 6:43-47 to be true. It doesn’t take context to realize 5×8=29 is absolutely WRONG. NOT ANY. Jesus is talking about the Ontological properties of Good and Evil, and if he can be trusted as GOD, then evil must be Coexistant with good.
By: Rickr0ll on November 17, 2010
at 11:41 pm
Eternal suffering and damnation is Evil, no matter what, is Evil.
/edit
By: Rickr0ll on November 17, 2010
at 2:50 am
Infinite, not infinitesimal. I was thinking in y head that maybe it is infinitesimal. But then Hell= Heaven. Reward and punishment fit to be doled out for eternity.
By: Rickr0ll on November 18, 2010
at 12:51 am
“… but just saying I’m too stupid to debate doesn’t offer any real argument.”
QED. It wasn’t meant to.
By: The Talented Chimp on November 19, 2010
at 11:03 am
“What is good is a reflection of the eternal relationship existing within himself as he is 3 in 1.”
This is meaningless rubbish.
“I define God as ultimate reality and nature.”
And this makes you a deist. Make up your mind!
By: The Talented Chimp on November 19, 2010
at 11:28 am
god and satan were created by… the church, to make everyone bow down to their iron fisted authority,burn fifty thousand at the stake,molest a couple hundred thousand more and all the other millions of sheeple willl be scared so badly ,they will be in our control, and fill the ,$ collection$, plate everytime we mention hell, the origins of the terrorists hatred of the western world are the crusades against the east, holy wars started by …the church,what a bunch of sadistic ,greedy, ‘human monsters’……
By: mike on May 28, 2011
at 7:51 am
Here Here!! 😀
By: rickstphns68 on June 14, 2011
at 9:59 pm
there is no satan….ADMIT IT !!!!!…there is no god….ADMIT IT!!!!!….humans created these “imaginary beings” to justify our own barbarism!!!….like when countries go to war,each army is praying that god will lead “them “to victory over the otherside the “enemy”…WHAT AN EVIL, “LIE”,THAT ALL THE STUPID SHEEPLE FOLLOW BLINDLY!!!,
By: mike on June 27, 2011
at 8:03 am
U r on right track … but their is a high power
By: matthew on July 8, 2011
at 8:02 am
BULLSHIT
By: Rickr0ll on July 9, 2011
at 7:48 pm
“Aren’t you relying on your own feelings and opinions about what is good to determine that God is good and Satan is evil?”
Nice. I actually think it is the reverse because, well, that is my opinion of what is good and evil.
– kk
By: kirkomrik on January 14, 2012
at 3:49 am
Well Jesus is the prince of satan, so there for he wrote the new testament.
Revelations 13:11-18
11 Then I saw another beast which rose out of the earth;
it had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon.
12 It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence,
and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast,
whose mortal wound was healed.
13 It works great signs, even making fire come down from
heaven to earth in the sight of men;
14 And by the signs which it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast,
it deceives those who dwell on earth, bidding them make an image for the
beast which was wounded by the sword and yet lived;
15 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that
the image of the beast should even speak, and to cause those who would
not worship the image of the beast to be slain.
16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor,
both free and slave, to be marked on
the right hand or the forehead,
17 And that no one can buy or sell unless he
has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.
18 This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding count the number
of the beast, for it is the number of a man,
and his number is six hundred threescore and six.
The answer to the number 666 or the Mark Of The Beast is very simple.
If you look on the Internet, there are millions of answers. Anywhere from barcodes to
chips implanted under the skin. The answer is simply 9 or Tet in Hebrew. It is
the numerical symbol of truth and eternity in the Hebrew language.
Here is the simple answer to 666 or The Mark Of The Beast!
A 1 x 9 = 9
B 2 x 9 = 18
C 3 x 9 = 27
D 4 x 9 = 36
E 5 x 9 = 45
F 6 x 9 = 54
G 7 x 9 = 63
H 8 x 9 = 72
I 9 x 9 = 81
J 10 x 9 = 90
K 11 x 9 = 99
L 12 x 9 = 108
M 13 x 9 = 117
N 14 x 9 = 126
O 15 x 9 = 135
P 16 x 9 = 144
Q 17 x 9 = 153
R 18 x 9 = 162
S 19 x 9 = 171
T 20 x 9 = 180
U 21 x 9 = 189
V 22 x 9 = 198
W 23 x 9 = 207
X 24 x 9 = 216
Y 25 x 9 = 225
Z 26 x 9 = 234
L U C I F E R
108 + 189 + 27 + 81 + 54 + 45 + 162 = 666
M E S S I A H
117 + 45 + 171 + 171 + 81 + 9 + 72 = 666
J E S U S
90 + 45 + 171 + 189 + 171 = 666
G O S P E L
63 + 135 + 171 + 144 + 45 + 108 = 666
C R O S S
27 + 162 + 135 + 171 + 171 = 666
Christians have already taken the MARK OF THE BEAST!
Satan is the master of deception.
You have put the MARK OF THE BEAST everywhere.
GOOD Christians will write this off as a COINCIDENCE!
By: Dale on April 27, 2012
at 11:18 pm
Extremely interesting alternative telling Dale. I approve!
By: rickstphns68 on April 27, 2012
at 11:33 pm
First off i’m not athiest or religious but I do know there is a higher power or “God” that is responsible for us. I just did the word Petrol with this numerology and it came up 666 as well. Makes perfect sense.
By: truthh on June 19, 2013
at 6:36 pm
Lawl
By: R1ckr011 on June 28, 2013
at 12:34 am
So whoever wrote Revelations also created those words Jesus, Lucifer… to fit their secret agenda.
By: Truthh on August 8, 2013
at 8:12 am
My guess is it’s a secret sect of the RCC. Sieg Heil!!
By: R1ckr011 on August 22, 2013
at 11:42 pm
I like this one A LOT! I thought I came up with a good thought experiment in relation to something else, but I do believe this perhaps trumps it.
I kind of liken it to the brain in the vat. For all I know I could be a brain in a vat.
Any chance I could reblog your post or link to it?
By: Perspective Collector on November 13, 2013
at 8:34 am
[…] so I love thought experiments. I collect them and make up my own. But I came across this post What if Satan Wrote the Bible? and I was like, “Now that is a great thought […]
By: Did Satan Write the Bible? | Idea Becomes Fact on November 14, 2013
at 12:25 am
If God really does not exist how did U know a satan exist?
By: Tide on December 26, 2014
at 5:41 pm
If God really does not exist how did U know a satan exist
By: Tide on December 26, 2014
at 5:48 pm
If there is no good, am does one define evil. If really there is no God, aw come a devil exist.
By: Tide on December 26, 2014
at 5:51 pm