Thread: Any Atheists Here..?

^^ Hmmm... the way I see they use to prove Darwin's theory to be false, sounds to me like telling kids that Santa Claus is real. They eat it as long as they don't realize it's their parents who put the gifts around the tree.

There's a lot of families around the world, which their last of their worries is who created the universe, and perhaps they could be the first ones in not eating the cake of mud, I think. On the other hand, when I see things like that about kids being abused because of witch hunting which took place in Nigeria (without counting the recent ones perpetrated in the name of another only god) I wonder about the people behind it, I don't see they actually care about the damage they are doing, perhaps they are the famous 'psychopaths among us' that tells that book written by Robert D. Hare.

Originally Posted by StephL

Wow! Thank you dutchraptor for this reality check!! The video shows a young homosexual couple and religious violence, not nice, the latter, but shame you can't watch it! It's a beautiful song, even without paying close attention to the lyrics, let alone watching the video, isn't it? That was what first captured me - but I initially thought it would be gospel - except I heard: "I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife..."

It shows a much more serious aspect in combination with the video! Do you really think it is actually unavailable in Ireland for reasons of religious "respect"?
It's pretty crucial to interpreting the text, though - reminds me of cartoons, this does - even if it's about copy-right in the end!

It's the goddess of love who is meant with "she" in the very beginning before it's the Catholic church I would say, but the lovers are male.
Since I edit like the devil anyway - here goes:

Had to look what others think - call me anal, guys, go ahead, but I don't subscribe to Freud: Hozier - Take Me to Church Lyrics | SongMeanings
I found this honestly after writing the above, that was just a starting scratch anyway, but I won't read all of this now...

I've seen the video, luckily the one you posted was from a german uploader and the original proper one is irish, so I could still watch. I actually thought it was gospel to for the first week I heard it.

My statement towards the youth in Ireland, while I didn't elaborate on this, was targeted at the fact the the whole christian attitude in our country is a facade. We mention it likes its a special entity, we beat around the bush when it comes up in a conversation but really nearly no one strictly follows the rules of the church. This was highlighted by the fact that people will listen to an anti-christian song purely because it's catchy.

Christianity is a habit engrained in our culture by this point. So it may seem extreme here, and the people push it like it is but it truly isn't.

It annoys me to no end that we are like that, when a morally heavy case is evident we all become Christians but when it's not we live by entirely "forbidden" rules. The only light in this is that it's a sign that Christianity is in it's final stages of existence before the youth of our next generation will have dropped it completely.

Originally Posted by StephL

Basically I don't understand the bigger picture of the Christian moral framework.

On the one hand you need to believe that god knows what he is doing, that there will be divine justice for all of us anyway after death, and the rewards in the afterlife will be so high, that they can completely redeem any suffering somebody went through on earth, if she deserves it. So theoretically you could just leave it be. But on the other hand it's all about you finding god's plan for you personally and put it into practice, and those plans often entail alleviating the suffering of others. Which feels very good anyway, while watching suffering feels bad to all of us because of empathy. But ultimately it looks more like a game to me, the plan fulfilling, the whole set-up of reality, I can't help it. Your goal then is not primarily to achieve something, but to give your very best and to not ever give up. To keep coming no matter will be superior to giving one's unbelieving best, but later on giving up in frustration. If the work is actually justifiable, that is, but let's say it is.

I think it might be best to do some separations in Christian thought. Some brands of Christianity believe that you are justified by your faith alone. The ONLY ticket to heaven is belief in Jesus - that's it. To a Christian like this... it might be better just to leave suffering alone because... well... "god's plan". This isn't to say that they don't do anything, because these brands tend to think that because they have this faith, they will give it the ol' college try to act that faith out in the world in some meaningful way. But this isn't a requirement. On the other hand, there are brands of Christianity that believe you are justified by the works that you do when you acted out of your faith in Jesus. These are the "I'm looking for god's plan for my life" Christians; belief in Jesus is required, but what you do with that faith is also "required".

In reality, most Christians I know will bob and weave their way through these two distinctive thoughts no matter how dogmatically they are very different. I don't really see it as gaming their thinking as much as I recognize it's as a duality that was there from the beginnings of the Christian church and has been one of the divisive factors throughout their history.

Originally Posted by StephL

Looking at it cynically and from another angle, I could say that there needs to be evil in the world just so that you can "play" out your fee will. That would be a pretty ghastly outlook, though. I have to think of Christian determinism now, of which I have no idea at all - only the suspicion that it would get even more convoluted under that premise..?

I've heard some Christian apologists use this argument - it is logical that one needs to know evil in order to know good and man had to fall in order to taste the contrast and overcome it (or witness to it being overcome, because you are "too weak" to do it yourself... whatever). This is a deep f'ing rabbit hole! If you wish to jump down it, I'll follow you.

Originally Posted by StephL

What about the devil? Maybe he could theoretically justify "the game"? I want to ask you and anybody having this knowledge, I probably once knew and forgot it. How is it - when and how is god supposed to have created the angels? How is it possible for one of his creations, if they are, to wage war with god? Is this maybe purposefully tolerated by god, this conflict? Did he even set it up? It must have started before the garden Eden - the snake was Satan, wasn't it?
Is there not a Lilith stalking about, too?

There really are no real answers to these questions. And some of what you mentioned isn't specifically "Christian". The character Lilith is from the Talmud. Though many Christians will say all these answers are in the bible, my opinion is that one has to make many assumptions from what you already know in order to make the scriptures work. It wasn't until I started reading scriptures outside of the bible (i.e. the book of Enoch, Gospel of Thomas, etc...) that I got an idea of where these Christian thought traditions may be rooted from.

In the end, I don't think anyone will ever be able to answer these questions satisfactorily because they are just stories... convoluted and contradictory stories at that. I could type out what I think, but that is pretty much all I could give you - a cobbled together storyline drawn from many sources. It wouldn't be worth much to anyone nor add any value to this conversation. But again, if you want to jump down this rabbit hole, I'll follow you.

Originally Posted by StephL

Also - isn't hell rather an institution god makes use of in order to punish? But he isn't in control of the facility himself? Entities will come pouring out for wargames, and we know that already, but have to go through it anyway? Do you need to be saved from the devil, or from the guilt of original sin or both?

Man - I have no idea, as you can see - please help me sort my head out here a bit!

If your view hell as a specific location, then yeah... I guess Satan made it and god allowed it. However, I when I was a Christian, I don't think hell was ever described as this physical location where you burn for all of eternity. The context I recall was that "hell" was state of being where you were separated from god. Additionally, being dead, you are no longer under the purview of god's grace (Jesus dying of the cross), therefore you can't repent. So you would eternally be in this state without any means of escape. What they are doing here is making YOU the reason for hell rather than being cast there because you fell short. Personally I think it is an amazing sleight of hand and works logically (if it were real that is).

I can answer your last question though. Whichever system one subscribes to, hell being a physical place or a state of being, you need to be saved from sin (original or of your own design). The Lucifer character only tempts one to sin, but ultimately it's YOU that sins and YOU that must repent. Think Jesus in the desert being tempted by Satan.

Originally Posted by StephL

I do my existential nihilistic best to draw some meaning from these numbers, yepp! Of course I have no idea about what made these people change their voting behaviour. All of what you mentioned up to someone feeling very clever and voting undecided/contra only to officially count as gained vote later on for what she should have voted for in the first place. I wonder why you are so much in doubt about the potential to change a mind by debate in general, though - I know it didn't work for you, maybe couldn't ever have worked - but I really believe that it can and does, even if that's the minority of switched voters in this case, who come to see this debate as one step of the way to a real change of mind, not only about who did a better job at arguing, but also ultimately about question number one in my eyes: Is it true?

I am not saying that debates aren't able to change people's minds. But debates are very rigid and set up an adversarial tit-for-tat situation where points aren't about to be "explored" (for lack of a better word). This is my problem.

I will say this though, if a person is in a state where they are willing to challenge their belief, then a debate can, at least, reinforce that a deeper exploration is possible. I seriously don't believe that someone, who once kind of believed one way, went to a debate and suddenly reversed their thinking. Perhaps me saying that I don't know what a real substitution is though (at least I don't know how to vocalize it). Perhaps all I am saying is that if the goal is to create a change in thinking, when you debate, don't be a prick; rather share what you know and aid someone in deconstructing their own conventions. But if the goal is your entertainment, then by all means, rocket shit at them left and right until they have no answer (it isn't that difficult to do).

Originally Posted by StephL

More important to me than the numbers in this respect is what I wanted to express with quoting Darkmatters - namely that for example Hitchens can indeed be a source of inspiration and input with which to crystallize and sort out one's own thoughts and ideas, compare them, refine them.

However, if you are ensconced in your beliefs and you know that Hitchens is going to push your buttons, what is the point? I think that Hitchens speaks to those already in that frame of mind. Therefore, it's just entertainment (sort of - I am not saying no one is able glean wisdom from his debate style). But again, it all comes back to the goal.

Originally Posted by StephL

I can almost hear you say it - and it's right, too - what this means is that I watch a debate and afterwards I am even more firmly atheist than before...

And so it might go for most really religious people listening - but why then, if it really systematically only hardens one's own position - why then the numbers?
Maybe one notion is simply better than the other, not only better argued for? This is the second such thing I watched - I don't even know if it's unusual that both sides gain numbers?

Whatever - we will not agree on this, I can't see it - lets simply say that I enjoy watching these things, believe that I learn something and indulge in a bit of schadenfreude, too!

Shit... I did say that... didn't I. I am so damn predictable!

I will say it again though, these numbers you keep pointing at are meaningless because they don't really say anything. I admit that I think about this from my own experience. My deconversion ebbed and flowed over several years. In those years I read a lot. From there I developed thoughts. I took those thoughts and shared them with others and invited them to share what they thought back with me. And I listened... really listened. Even if it challenged the shit out of new new, precious thoughts. It was flipping exhausting sometimes. At times I stumbled. Other times I grew. The point is that it took effort to deconstruct a version of reality, which was very real to me. I guess the bottom line is that I have a hard time believing that anyone can change their worldview so flippantly. Maybe I'm just stupid or afraid of change in some way. I couldn't tell you.

Either way, I wouldn't say that I "disagree" with you on the subject. Perhaps I am just trying to say this... If your goal is to invoke real change in another person's worldview to something you feel is "better" for them, I would drop the debate format and chose to share your deconversion experience and aid them in deconstructing their own thoughts like you did. But, if you are looking to entertain yourself (and others for that matter) at the expense of what you see as a silly worldview, then by all means, debate the shit out of it and show no mercy. However, in saying that, I don't think you can have it both ways... you should choose a path and roll with it, because the past has a way of coloring present conversations in the minds of who you are talking with. Does this make any sense?

Originally Posted by StephL

But religion is special, you can't simply substitute it with any of these or something not "transcendental" and reap in the same sort of fervour. This notion of something absolute, all-powerful beyond human direct experience, beyond practical questioning and the claim to know what the will of the divine is - that's a different category than these other motives. You have a vastly stronger power base, if you refer to having the key to eternal life in bliss and to eternal torture after death as opposed to just wielding worldly threats and promises. Once you believe the claims - you will obey, how could you not? But what if you don't believe in an afterlife at all - would you be swayed as easily to give your life for a war - any war, religious or not? I don't think so...

Would you be offended if I basically came right out here and said, "Bullshit!"? Politics, border lines, hell... whether or not my soccer teams wins or loses have all proved to be really, really galvanizing forces that motivates groups of people into real action with real life or death consequences. Religion is not special in this regard. The most recent example is the implosion of Ukraine.

Ah - thank you balban!
I completely agree with all what you're saying, including on the issue of the debate format and it's pros and cons, it's limitations.
Except that religion is no different, I would continue to hold that the power base of claiming to have the key to eternity is of another magnitude than mere worldly propaganda. It doesn't offend me in the least, though, that you consider that to be Bullshit!

And you confirm me in this feeling, that a truly consistent construct of all these matters of hell and sin is dearly missing from Christianity.
But again - do you know where the angels supposedly come from? Does anybody know more about this?

Originally Posted by LouaiB

I still wonder though. Are all the codex gained through life experience and parental guide, or do some of them develop naturally, like instinctively?
Any ideas Steph and Darkmatters?

Some animals kill without a rational reason?! How come? This makes me wonder.

Well - I think, it's really this system of having mirror neurons fire and make you miserable, when you witness suffering, and the other way round, and that it is gratifying per se to show altruistic behaviour should be intrinsically based in neurological pathways as well. In the end - nobody knows about it more specifically yet I would say.

And I wonder with this cat - you could say, she is practising, acting on her instinctive hunting pattern without being hungry of course. But maybe it's "fun"?
Killing kittens, which are not yours could be argued for as making evolutionary sense, by the way. And not adopting any odd furballs is good for saving resources for the next attempt, etc....
At least of primates I know, that they have mirror neurons and empathy as well and I rather feel as if we humans tend to underestimate animals.
It will take us a while until we can really appreciate what goes on in terms of their consciousness and ours and where the exact differences between species might lie.

tl/dr: I don't know!

Originally Posted by HeWhoShapes

And that girl is really cute, though it kinda makes me uneasy because she might be indoctrinated to science which is better than religion, but still indoctrination. BUT she's so cute!!!

Ah - but how can you be "indoctrinated to science", though? Science is not dogmatic whatsoever - you can't go wrong with science. "Even" atheism isn't a belief system, it's just the absence of belief in god(s). What could make one uneasy with this picture is the possibility of her being agitated against religious people by her parents. It made me a bit uneasy, too. She is super sweet, though - I hope her parents are as well, and that she's got a spaghetti monster somewhere!

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Yeah tell me about it.
Here, my cousin (12th grade life science class), they told his class that Darwin's theory about human evolution was PROVEN FALSE!! Can you believe it?! The school would lie like that to the student just to protect the religion (Islam). Yeah my cousin shocked me with this a when I was using evolution to explain why we think that we must have a creator to everything( I believe the world doesn't have a creator because only our logic tells us it needs to have a creator, but our logic, mixed with self awareness, can't be used outside nature and survival related 'matter' or it will create questions that don't even exist. Logic evolved as a tool for survival and growth, not for mystical stuff. It's like trying to figure out how to remove a bolt using a screwdriver! (Though this is only a possibility, I'm not sure of it(can we anyways?!)))

Steph, did anyone prove Darwin's evolution theory as false? (I'm asking you cause you're like the smartest one here )

Only the most prolific and ramblesome, make no mistake, but thanks!

I wouldn't say our mental faculties are out of their league with such questions, it's our intuitive preconceptions that are. Nothing wrong with logic, if your basic assumptions are sound. But there seems to lie the general problem with people using deductive arguments for "proving god's existence" - they assume certainty where they really have no clue - and where maybe nobody, maybe yet, has a clue.

Darwin disproved - ha!

We know much more these days than Darwin did, and either this claim just simply betrays utter ignorance, or somebody plays a dirty trick with something.
At Darwin's time nobody knew what genes are - so maybe there is something to be found in his work which is incorrect as to how evolution came to pass exactly, but there is no doubt about the concept of evolution, common ancestry and natural selection whatsoever.
Absolutely certain by any normal standards. As certain as that the earth goes around the sun. There are sub-theories of evolution and when people come along and claim that somebody was wrong with something, or that there was dispute within the scientific community - it is about some aspect of how exactly it occurred.

Good opportunity to salvage some evolution material from the Christian sister thread!
These two videos are courtesy of Universal Mind - the first one is maybe the best I've seen in terms of educative videos and the second one is is dead-funny and utter stupidity. Evolution doesn't even deal with the question of abiogenesis - how life came to pass initially.





A very good link to further material: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

And I've got this quite huge, sorry for that, info graphic about common misconceptions about evolution, which has the "Darwin was wrong" thing as well:

Originally Posted by StephL

But again - do you know where the angels supposedly come from? Does anybody know more about this?

Here are some things that I found when I considered this at some stage in my life. I will warn you that you probably won't find any of it to your satisfaction. So... take it for what it's worth.

In Genesis 1:1 - 1:25... it is just god in all the "lets"; let there be light, let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water, etc... This pattern continues through these passages. However, in 1:26, the "lets" change. Rather than saying "Let there be man", it says, "Let US make mankind in OUR image". Why the change? I've read several interpretations, but these two, in particular, stand out in my mind. I won't go into the logical problems or what I think about them (doesn't matter). I'll just regurgitate.

1) On the 6th day, god created the angels before he created man (whether or not it was before or after the land animals is kind of irrelevant since there is no direct evidence of their creation anyway and "logically" the order wouldn't matter). So the 'US' god is referring to, at the time of man's creation, includes himself and the sentient angels he had already created. To further rationalize this, a comparison between the beasts of the earth, the angels and man is made. The beasts of the earth and the angels are not created in two complete parts - flesh and spirit. The beasts of the earth are strictly flesh, which is one of the reasons why many, if not most, Christians don't believe that animals have spirits and/or go to heaven (sorry Spot... you just die!). The angels, on the other hand, are strictly spirit. To be encased in flesh means that you must die at some point. The angels didn't die; they were just created. Finally, the reason man is the greatest of god's creation is that he is both flesh and spirit, an amalgamation of the beasts of the earth and the angels. So in this frame, day 6 is when the angels were created.

2) The 'US' that is being referred to is the 3 parts of god - father, son and holy spirit. This is rationalized like this. First there was god. In Genesis 1:1, god's spirit hovered over the waters. It was then that the second part of the trinity (holy spirit) manifested (not created, just revealed). Then when god invoked man, the third part of the trinity (the son) popped into existence just before man. Jesus is 100% deity and he is 100% man (being the key point). It was through this third manifestation (not created, just reveled) of god's being that man was created through. The thought being was without the creation of man, this part of god could not have been revealed (no man, no Jesus). This is also used to explain the duality of man as opposed to everything else created by god. Jesus was two complete parts (spirit and flesh), which was how man was created and why man is the greatest of all god's creation. But this doesn't specifically answer when the angels were made... that is obviously nebulous in this frame. However, people that use this interpretation tend to say that when the heavens were created, god created the angels too - so day 1.

I don't think there is solid answer to your question out there. You could stray outside of the biblical canon and find some things, but most of the texts that I have seen are just as confusing as what is in the canonical scriptures.

Wow!! It would be great to have an atheist studying theology!!

I used to have a bible as a consulting book to find contradictions and stuff like that. As a converted satanist , the 'evil side' of life played an important role in my education, in spite of its most representative figure never appeared in front of me for more that I challenged its vanity, etc.

Anyway, I think there's a lot of confusion about all of these figures that conform the holy buffet of evil and good. As I see it, there was a lot of mixture and exchange between different religions along the history of mankind, each one taking what it was convenient for their purposes of indoctrination. Making it a little bit difficult to figure out what's the origin of each figure, for example: If we talk about Angels we should talk about Fallen angels because of Lucifer, although not him but Satan. And who was him? the Devil!! or was it a Demon??? But weren't they the Jinn?? The Hell!! Apparently the history of evil is worse than good!!! It's a lot of reading!! but if we could discard all of the newer stuff to let just the oldest one, it would be easier to catch the first people who thought about it.

I think the best way to have an understanding about the origins of these figures is to draw a timeline for the history of religions first, that way we could be able to determine that certain figure has its origin in certain region of the globe during a certain time. Does anyone have an accurate graphic without the influence of any belief system, for the evolution of religions including those of the 'new world'?

Well, at least there's a beautiful explanation of how religion could have started, perhaps it may give us a clue... or not?:



I don't know, perhaps the whole thing could be explained on how people considered what death meant, and they built everything else around its definition.

"Yeah tell me about it.
Here, my cousin (12th grade life science class), they told his class that Darwin's theory about human evolution was PROVEN FALSE!! Can you believe it?! The school would lie like that to the student just to protect the religion (Islam). Yeah my cousin shocked me with this a when I was using evolution to explain why we think that we must have a creator to everything( I believe the world doesn't have a creator because only our logic tells us it needs to have a creator, but our logic, mixed with self awareness, can't be used outside nature and survival related 'matter' or it will create questions that don't even exist. Logic evolved as a tool for survival and growth, not for mystical stuff. It's like trying to figure out how to remove a bolt using a screwdriver! (Though this is only a possibility, I'm not sure of it(can we anyways?!)))"

Wow, just lying like that?? that is really messed up. I'm pretty sure that if he asks for proof they will come up with some weird explaination since iv'e never seen evolution been offically disproven(unless someone actually considers religous people as evolutionary biologists, which most aren't).

I'm not really that logic creates questions that don't exist, they might exist but we don't know they do, Immanuel Kant pretty much says there are whole expriences that we don't know about and never will(he call it the neumonal world, as opposed to the phonomnal one).
But yeah according to evolution mankind evolved mainly to survive so that's kinda true



"Ah - but how can you be "indoctrinated to science", though? Science is not dogmatic whatsoever - you can't go wrong with science. "Even" atheism isn't a belief system, it's just the absence of belief in god(s). What could make one uneasy with this picture is the possibility of her being agitated against religious people by her parents. It made me a bit uneasy, too. She is super sweet, though - I hope her parents are as well, and that she's got a spaghetti monster somewhere!"

Leaving aside that fact that she might become and anti-theist(assuming that her parents educate her like that) I think the problem isn't science per say, it's what people will use science for.
If people use science to improve our understanding of the physical universe then great, if people use it to fight religion and indoctrinate people into mechanistic materialists than in my opinion it's just abuse of science for political or social gain.

I think people should study religion and science on their own and choose for themselves what they want to believe in, I am always agianst any indoctrination of any form and any kind!

Also Atheism is a lack of belief in god which is a belief in it of itself since there isn't any emperical proof against an intelligent being/s(not god neccaseraly) creating the universe which is my main reason for being agnostic.

Holy Shit!
This is a major embarrassment for Christianity in my eyes!
So it wasn't me having forgotten something quite crucial at all - there really is a gaping hole in the story!!

Thank you balban for these interpretation aids and Box for doing the brute force checking up on terminology for me!
This is amazing - wouldn't one expect it to be a bigger issue for Christians, not to know what exactly to believe here?
I quite comprehensively baffled my husband some days ago, when I asked him about it and he came up dry, he's looking back on proper Catholic indoctrination as a child and has in his addiction to listening to university lecture series at night brought through hours upon hours of comparative religious studies lately. At least he's back on scientific topics at the moment...

So I was bracing myself for this already - shame I can't ask - I would like to know, if Sensei for example would be able to give an answer spontaneously, if he ever wondered on his own.

Later Christians inherited Jewish understandings of angels, which in turn may have been partly inherited from the Egyptians. In the early stage, the Christian concept of an angel characterized the angel as a messenger of God. Later came identification of individual angelic messengers: Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel, and Lucifer. Then, in the space of little more than two centuries (from the 3rd to the 5th) the image of angels took on definite characteristics both in theology and in art.

By the late 4th century, the Church Fathers agreed that there were different categories of angels, with appropriate missions and activities assigned to them. There was, however, some disagreement regarding the nature of angels. Some argued that Angels had physical bodies while some maintained that they were entirely spiritual. Some theologians had proposed that angels were not divine but on the level of immaterial beings subordinate to the Trinity. The resolution of this Trinitarian dispute included the development of doctrine about angels.

The angels are represented throughout the Christian Bible as spiritual beings intermediate between God and men: "You have made him (man) a little less than the angels ..." (Psalms 8:4-5). The Bible describes the function of angels as "messengers" but does not indicate when the creation of angels occurred. Some Christians believe that angels are created beings, based on (Psalms 148:2-5; Colossians 1:16): "praise ye Him, all His angels: praise ye Him, all His hosts ... for He spoke and they were made. He commanded and they were created ...". The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared that the angels were created beings. The Council's decree Firmiter credimus (issued against the Albigenses) declared both that angels were created and that men were created after them. The First Vatican Council (1869) repeated this declaration in Dei Filius, the "Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith".

So the Catholics needed more than a thousand years to decree the "guys" to be created after all - and they just inserted the small matter of when that supposedly happened out of thin air/divine papal inspiration. Looking closely - these meagre passages don't even state who created them - I mean it should be obvious - but it doesn't spell it out.
Also - the angels must be a bit more than immaterial, if I'm right in remembering that there's a story somewhere in which sexual intercourse between humans and angels leads to offspring even? This throws over another set of assumptions. Wasn't that something god didn't like in his first attempt at humanity - one of the reasons, why he brought on the flood, his lack of foresight in that respect?

I mean - it's all hopeless from a rational point of view anyway - but this angel-business looks like a treasure trove in terms of weirdness. It really only makes sense to me to think of them as imported from older ideas - something pretty complex in terms of set-up but not thought through properly and reasoned out in the actual book. But isn't it crucial?
God/Satan is the basic Christian dichotomy - but then - it can't be, it doesn't make sense - the power imbalance should have never allowed for it.

This story is so god-damn weak - how come people don't notice?! Rhetorical question, of course...


I have something else to salvage on over - it's really beautiful - a short story of one of my favourite authors, K. J. Parker, about a group of high-born and mischievous students in her fictional world, having the genial idea to invent a religion from scratch, intelligently, in order to rip people off their money. But their god takes on a life of its own - very funny and insightful - a gorgeous story in my eyes - and you can read it for free:

The Sun And I by K. J. Parker — Subterranean Press

Enjoy!

Originally Posted by StephL

Also - the angels must be a bit more than immaterial, if I'm right in remembering that there's a story somewhere in which sexual intercourse between humans and angels leads to offspring even?

Of course!! I almost forget about these guys. You're talking about the Incubus and Succubus here... it looks like the story is becoming darker than before when it comes in terms of Christian demonology.

Anyway, apparently the belief system was always adapting to generate more fear around its followers for a better control than any other thing. Curious to see that possibly it all started by praising the dead because of love.

The public have lost interest in the established religions,” I said. “They view them , quite rightly, as corrupt and discredited. Therefore, given Mankind’s desperate need to believe in something, the time is absolutely right for a new religion

Sounds familiar to me...

Edit:

Originally Posted by HeWhoShapes

Also Atheism is a lack of belief in god which is a belief in it of itself since there isn't any emperical proof against an intelligent being/s(not god neccaseraly) creating the universe which is my main reason for being agnostic.

You're right! According to the principle of Falsifiability, it's impossible to prove or disprove his existence to be false. Believing in his non-existence would be another way of believing after all.

Ah - you started, Box!
I really hope someone comes to like the story from my last post and maybe the whole author K. J. Parker as much as I do!

My take on terminology:

Lack of belief is the lack of belief. Lack of absolute knowledge is the lack of absolute knowledge. Not mutually exclusive at all!
For this reason, it is neither enough for me to call myself an atheist alone, nor is it enough to call myself an agnostic alone.

I am an agnostic atheist because:

a) I know about the "can't prove a negative business" and I could even imagine stuff like being in a simulation or even a created universe*

b) But I really don't believe it anyway, can't see a reason to do so, not one

Some would even say, these labels give too much credit to a silly idea - anybody here who would go out and call herself an a-unicornist, or an a-hobgoblinista?
I am an open anti-theist, too - but that's something for grown-ups and something I don't want to see getting instilled into children.

It's similar with existentialistic nihilist - only nihilist and I would be mislabelled - only existentialist and it wouldn't be explicit that I don't believe in ultimate and objective meaning, only in self-made, personal and socially shared meaning, knitted together a la existentialism.



*not by an ultimate first cause creator, though - but maybe by one who evolved or was created by evolved beings outside of our frame of existence...

Originally Posted by StephL

Ah - you started, Box!
I really hope someone comes to like the story from my last post and maybe the whole author K. J. Parker as much as I do!

Perhaps you know Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451"? That's a good one too!

Talking about books, I must check on some Epistemology to be sure:

I've just remembered that in my analog times, I had an Etymology dictionary as another consulting book , although sometimes I sinned of being too literal. I think sometimes there could be a misconception between the meaning of 'Belief' and 'Faith' from my side.

I understand 'evil' to be the absence of 'good', the same as black could be the absence of light or silence the absence of sound, cold-heat, etc. As I see it, just one thing exists, the opposite could be just its absence. The same I could say about ignorance to be the absence of Knowledge, and as I understand knowledge, belief is one of its primary components. I used to consider belief as it was faith and I was wrong.

Online Etymology Dictionary - Belief

Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of Latin fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (a sense attested from early 13c.).

The idea of god could be just that, an idea that exists as a thought, consequently it remains in the brain as a figure I can create with my imagination. Therefore every person must have its own idea about what it is and it doesn't mean that all are the same. In this matter, I don't find logic to say god doesn't exist. It exists as an idea. What I find incongruous is believing that this idea created the universe and therefore have faith on it. It's possible to say that this idea do affect reality, since some humans act on nature because of this idea, but at the end, the only responsible of those actions is the human being itself, no gods, no demons, no ghosts, no angels, just humans and their thoughts.

Originally Posted by Box77

Perhaps you know Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451"? That's a good one too!

Big cultural deficit of mine, I'm aware of that, but no - I didn't read it nor watch the movie. Why did they burn the books in the first place?

I understand 'evil' to be the absence of 'good', the same as black could be the absence of light or silence the absence of sound, cold-heat, etc. As I see it, just one thing exists, the opposite could be just its absence. The same I could say about ignorance to be the absence of Knowledge, and as I understand knowledge, belief is one of its primary components.

Ah - no. I think evil is a word, which is useful, even while it has supernatural baggage. But not just for an absence, for that I would say one doesn't need that strong a word, and I would rather leave it be, since it invokes the devil to an extent. I would use it for somebody, who deliberately tortures and/or kills for entertainment lets say, would use it for effect. What am I doing anyway, judging words in "your" language? You're saying there is a moral continuum, and it's only one sort of thing, which can be "measured", right? I like stuff like "the spirit of things" and "soulless", but I would steer clear of using these, when I want to talk about consciousness. It's all a bit different in German of course - linguistics can be fascinating, a friend of my husband was a linguist and it was fun listening, she died, though, very sad.

The idea of god could be just that, an idea that exists as a thought, consequently it remains in the brain as a figure I can create with my imagination. Therefore every person must have its own idea about what it is and it doesn't mean that all are the same. In this matter, I don't find logic to say god doesn't exist. It exists as an idea. What I find incongruous is believing that this idea created the universe and therefore have faith on it. It's possible to say that this idea do affect reality, since some humans act on nature because of this idea, but at the end, the only responsible of those actions is the human being itself, no gods, no demons, no ghosts, no angels, just humans and their thoughts.

Does the name Anselm mean something to you?


Edit: Can't find it now - but what I was trying to get at, was that atheism isn't a belief-system, which it isn't.

Originally Posted by StephL

Big cultural deficit of mine, I'm aware of that, but no - I didn't read it nor watch the movie. Why did they burn the books in the first place?

perhaps the author was sort of pyromaniac?

Originally Posted by StephL

Ah - no. I think evil is a word, which is useful, even while it has supernatural baggage. But not just for an absence, for that I would say one doesn't need that strong a word, and I would rather leave it be, since it invokes the devil to an extent. I would use it for somebody, who deliberately tortures and/or kills for entertainment lets say, would use it for effect. What am I doing anyway, judging words in "your" language? You're saying there is a moral continuum, and it's only one sort of thing, which can be "measured", right? I like stuff like "the spirit of things" and "soulless", but I would steer clear of using these, when I want to talk about consciousness. It's all a bit different in German of course - linguistics can be fascinating, a friend of my husband was a linguist and it was fun listening, she died, though, very sad.

Yeah! linguistics can be a very entangled thing too, specially when it's not your first language. And your English is by far, better than mine.

Originally Posted by StephL

Does the name Anselm mean something to you?

Until you asked, nope. I knew a couple of persons with similar names, but I don't think you meant them. I googled it and found a guy who founded some philosophical argument that sounds similar to what I said but not the same because of as I see it, beings like Darth Vader or Pippi Langstrumpf have the same nature of God: conceptions of the mind that cannot be more than electrical impulses.

Originally Posted by Box77

perhaps the author was sort of pyromaniac?

Hehehee - I expected a question-mark, you know!
Nothing against Bradbury, but he has a tendency to not really construct his stories properly - more the emotional, allegoric kind of writing, isn't it?

Yeah! linguistics can be a very entangled thing too, specially when it's not your first language. And your English is by far, better than mine.

Was I fishing that obviously?! Bullshit of course, but you know - it's kind of weird - I don't have something German to write at the moment and sometimes I wonder, if I at least still know, where the commas go in German - never learned that properly for English - one thing, which leads to those endless ellipses and either too many or too few of them things. That's often causing edit-impulses - adding and taking away and feeling unsure all the same. I'm aware of that - placing words could be a bit more consistent, too.
Can you give me a crash-course on commas, maybe in a spoiler? Don't worry though - I have the whole internet to find out eventually...

Until you asked, nope. I knew a couple of persons with similar names, but I don't think you meant them. I googled it and found a guy who founded some philosophical argument that sounds similar to what I said but not the same because of as I see it, beings like Darth Vader or Pippi Langstrumpf have the same nature of God: conceptions of the mind that cannot be more than electrical impulses.

I know how you meant it and it's a proper thought, no doubt about it - I just really had to think of this thread here, for which I had written tons of stuff a long time ago, shortly after signing up, but then I didn't post it for some reason - I think, somebody was faster with the heart-piece, I had cobbled together, that was it I believe. It really did intrigue me, though, and it was one of those matters where I searched for sources and felt compelled to do something, which can only be called "work" - I think, I could even find it, still...

http://www.dreamviews.com/religion-s...tence-god.html

Thnx for the explanation Steph!

So evolution, basically, is:
_Species mating, creating slightly different offsprings, and with many generations, the difference becomes big, creating more species.
_parents modify their offspring's genes to suit environmental changes.
_the fittest survives

Did I get it right?

Also, I have a little thought about how our universe began. (This is only one explanation I keep in my head, and I'm skeptic about it, as mist things too(good to have a skeptic eye)

Universe being created is a wrong thought by itself. Why? We evolved to have powerful logic to help us survive and expand. We started then thinking about how the universe was created, when it started, and who created it. Like we apply this logic in how a baby cub came to life, we seem to apply it to our existence. Here is the problem, we evolved powerful logic to be used for our environment issues ONLY! Using it for things out of context is like using a screwdriver to undo a bolt! It just doesn't work! Our logic tells us that a universe has a beginning, and we believe this so much because we have nothing except our logic to tell us stuff.
Our logic is like a tool, an app, it can only be used in our environment sense.
So the logic of a beginning of everything is a law of logic only, and it is told by our logic to be used for our environment. It cannot be used outside our environment.

Tl:dr: We evolved out logic as an app to help us make sense of our environment. It can't be used outside our environment, it's not programmed to. This is why we can't find an answer to when or how the universe existed.
So yeah, the universe has an infinite past. Illogical, right?? Exactly!!

Holy hell!!

I was wondering about some curiosities of history, looking for more information about a couple of trips which took place some time ago because of a comparison I saw somewhere about the routes made in the myth of exodus that lasted apparently around 40 years and what Alexander the Great made in 11 years. If someone is not familiar with those, I let the maps here:





Then I found a funny site explaining in a bit more detail what happened in the first map (the second one is just a reference to help visualizing what I mean): 2M Jews spent 40 years making an 11 day trip and left no evidence | de-conversion

Anyway, that lead to another interesting link I liked to read: Thoughts from a Sandwich: The Amalekites

Just some more curiosities to take into account I think...

Universe being created is a wrong thought by itself. Why? We evolved to have powerful logic to help us survive and expand. We started then thinking about how the universe was created, when it started, and who created it. Like we apply this logic in how a baby cub came to life, we seem to apply it to our existence. Here is the problem, we evolved powerful logic to be used for our environment issues ONLY!

LouaiB that's actually a great "little" thought. Probably such a nessesery thought that it might have the power to solve alot of non-problem too I think. And with that said, im not being sarcastic if anyone believe it so. But non-problems are simply like a dog trying to catch hold of it's own tale. It's simply for no good reason, except to notice that it's just for the fun to try to catch hold of it. That's why it could be potentially good to realize wich problems is this non-problems to begin with. Logic is probably a good enough tool to eventually realize with it. That it wont have the potential to solve every question there is, even if we lived a billion years in this human form.

So logic will be almost like a knife. It can cut anything except itself. And that applies to many more things else than logic and a knifes of course.

The competition action has me quite busy at the moment - there's something of a draft rotting somewhere - but what the heck.
I'm not going to take that up again just yet, instead I'll just answer to your latest post(s maybe later on per edit) - for now!

Originally Posted by Box77

Holy hell!!
...

Indeed - thank you for these links! Might answer today later, or later yet, but will! What about the beautiful goings on in the region at the moment, too?! Desolate desert-region, but such powerful grip on minds since thousands of years with constantly more or less violent, hateful aftermaths of Abrahamic religion branching off.. Okay - not only that - but very much indeed.

How is it going over there at the moment - I hope you and yours are safe, HeWhoShapes?

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Thnx for the explanation Steph!

So evolution, basically, is:
_Species mating, creating slightly different offsprings, and with many generations, the difference becomes big, creating more species.
_parents modify their offspring's genes to suit environmental changes.
_the fittest survives

Did I get it right?

Also, I have a little thought about how our universe began. (This is only one explanation I keep in my head, and I'm skeptic about it, as mist things too(good to have a skeptic eye)

Universe being created is a wrong thought by itself. Why? We evolved to have powerful logic to help us survive and expand. We started then thinking about how the universe was created, when it started, and who created it. Like we apply this logic in how a baby cub came to life, we seem to apply it to our existence. Here is the problem, we evolved powerful logic to be used for our environment issues ONLY! Using it for things out of context is like using a screwdriver to undo a bolt! It just doesn't work! Our logic tells us that a universe has a beginning, and we believe this so much because we have nothing except our logic to tell us stuff.
Our logic is like a tool, an app, it can only be used in our environment sense.
So the logic of a beginning of everything is a law of logic only, and it is told by our logic to be used for our environment. It cannot be used outside our environment.

Tl:dr: We evolved out logic as an app to help us make sense of our environment. It can't be used outside our environment, it's not programmed to. This is why we can't find an answer to when or how the universe existed.
So yeah, the universe has an infinite past. Illogical, right?? Exactly!!

Well - Luoai - I sort of agree, but not really with what I marked, even while I believe I understand, where you are coming from.
To evolution - I guess, this is just in the way of expression, but parents as such, or their organisms, don't modify anything purposefully or in a goal directed manner. At least not per classical genetics - maybe and probably by epigenetics, though.
Maybe you mean, they put half of a genome quite randomly into sperm and egg, and by this they produce unique offspring - that is so.

Secondly - survival of the fittest is not correct, not really and surely not exclusively, to explain the drive behind evolution, behind life. If you're just fit, and never have kids - your gene-combination won't descend further - except you enable other kids in your wider family to procreate, who have similar genes, which is also good, so to speak.
I's better phrased with "descent with modification by natural selection and from common, single celled ancestors".
It is not about the survival of the individual, it is about generating offspring and raising it to be fit to reproduce themselves!

To enable this, altruism and empathy obviously have their justification as well.
Consider parents giving up their own lives for their children, bringing such a high sacrifice makes perfect sense in this light. Only human and killer whales, as far as I know, have females survive menopause - no more use of a life to Life - except as teachers of complex things to grandchildren in the case of whales. I hope I don't distort something, but I guess, I don't. We as sapient mammals have some more ideas about how to think of the value of life, and what do do with it, and try to codify morality into best-possible ethics and law - that's when it works well. And those are evolving, just as we are, and good that we are not prepared to sacrifice children to a god any more, and if we did - we get locked up, hopefully!

Taking this phrase "survival of the fittest" literally and proclaiming "Social Darwinism" (without looking it up now) doesn't make sense, isn't what follows from accepting evolutionary theory - quite the opposite - we are not programmed to kill off the weak and helpless - for example children, or wise old teachers - not only not your own, but also not those from within your social context, at least not those.

Here also lies the background on understanding, why some "historical" figures were so keen on killing baby boys, who themselves would be able to procreate numerously and fight, besides, but what you want to keep alive are the virgins to rape and then marry. Why virgins? Well - not much peace to have with a mother, whose child you killed, to be expected fertility will be lower anyway. Niice to find such instructions in "holy books"!!
That's a primitive and to us immoral war strategy - understandable, but surely not as guided by some philosophical, let alone divine justice concept. We are able to transcend our impulses, from when group-size was limited, and the other was really the other. Evolutionary theory shows us, how we are very, very similar to apes, chimpanzees being our nearest cousins, and how we are all the same sort of human, how there are no races. Even while evolutionarily programmed intuitions cemented in religious and racist dogma still tell many people otherwise, and they listen...

Needed to look it up, but my husband told me from a lecture on evolution of consciousness, that there is now a Bonobo, who is even much better than his famous mother, who could communicate with language by using a keyboard with symbols, including grammar. They lack the throat for it, maybe not much more...


Universe and logic - you're certainly right in that there are matters, like aspects of quantum physics, or the concept of a beginning of time itself, where we can't wrap our intuitive minds around - but that doesn't mean we can't get a grip on it logically, esp. mathematically, it won't hold physics back ultimately, I guess.
We can mentally transcend environmental experiential confines - that much is sure. Just consider microscopes and telescopes for a simple example. You could say - yeah - but humans were never selected for seeing this small or far away stuff - but hey ho - we do, don't we?! Or mathematicians dealing with multiple dimensions etc.
Funnily - on my last page of the hopefully amazing stuff thread (see sig) I have posted something about a Latvian mathematician, who was able to crochet hyperbolic space models, to make visible for example how Euclidian rules fail in this geometry - and people were convinced for a long time, that such a modelling wouldn't be doable for them.

That's exactly what humans do with their minds - transcend our biological boundaries in ever new and amazing ways and create new environments! We haven't figured it out yet, what to think of the beginning or everlastingness of the universe (rather the former as it seems), but that doesn't mean, we won't get there eventually. It also doesn't mean, that we ever will or even that we can - but I see this much less dramatic and absolute than you do. I recommend this video - Lawrence Krauss starts at about 12:50 min. He by the way is the cosmologist who showed, that the universe is not slowing down in expansion, but accelerating:




It's also true, that there are non-questions, @DreamyBear, and it's good to keep an eye out for them - I count "why are we here" as such a one...

Read your links now, Box - very interesting. I guess, this sort of material is what one should give to a literalist, whom you wish well, and who would dare to take a look at a historical (also scriptural) analysis of the OT.

Spoiler for 2M Jews spent 40 years making an 11 day trip and left no evidence article - see maps:

2M Jews spent 40 years making an 11 day trip and left no evidence

June 18, 2007 at 11:11 am The de-Convert 79 comments
In response to a previous post, Marcel made the following comment:
Children of Isreal in the desertYou know why the Jews spent 40 years in the desert ? Because just like Atheists they refused to have faith. The truths they heard [were] of no value to them because they did not combine it with faith.
In Hebrews 4:2 (New International Version), Paul says “For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.”
What makes the answer so troubling is the fact that this generation had so much evidence of God’s leading. Go back over the story of the Exodus and of what happened to them in the desert. God performed miracle after miracle, everything from the parting of the Red Sea to the daily provision of the manna. And yet, they still lacked faith!
It is pointless to know the truths of the Bible if you decide to lack faith and refuse to ask for it. Jesus said you can pray for faith.
As usual, DagoodS gave this great response:
marcel: You know why the Jews spent 40 years in the desert ?
Yep. When the Jews created their myths they often used similar numbers. Whether a mnemonic device, or because of religious significance, is a theory that remains up for grabs.
The reason the flood was 40 days, Isaac was 40 when he married Rebekah, Moses was on the mountain for 40 days, they spied the land for 40 days, on two occasions, Judges gave peace for 40 years, and one occasion war for 40 years, (not to mention the Judge who had 40 sons), Eli was priest for 40 years, Saul, David, Solomon, and Joash reigned 40 years each, Elijah was 40 days in the desert, Egypt is prophesied to be barren for 40 years, and Jonah walked Nineveh for 40 days.
marcel: Go back over the story of the Exodus and of what happened to them in the desert.
Thank you, I have. I have studied the archeology, and there is no direct proof of the Ten Plagues, the Exodus or Joshua’s conquest. There is no writing of these events occurring in any other nation. There is no social, economic or political ramifications as demanded by the claims.
I have studied, a little, the development of the Hebrew language which is Phoenician, not Egyptian. How does a slave nation in Egypt develop its own separate language with almost no influence whatsoever from the dominant country, yet direct development from a country that is north of Canaan?
Where are the Egyptian artifact influx from the wandering or the conquest of Canaan from the East? (Hint: we DO see Egyptian artifacts in Canaan from the south during this period along the trade routes. Exactly what we would expect to see if trade was occurring at the border.)
In fact, marcel, Christians are so aware of the difficulties of the Exodus, that they cannot agree as to the millennium within which to place it! I have reached a point I will not debate it, until they agree to the time period plus or minus 100 years, because each proposed date (2500 BCE, 1500 BCE or 1300 BCE) has its own set of unique problems.
I have studied God’s petty anger over the Amalekites. I have studied the possible route. I have studied the various claims surrounding the beginning, the ending and the middle of the Exodus. I have even studied the approximate time it would take to cross the Red Sea. (60 – 90 days, given 2 Million people.)
So…er….what was it you wanted me to study about this myth? Oh, that’s right, their lack of “faith.” You are right, it DOES seem a bit unbelievable. They had witnesses the Ten Plagues, and then spent 60 – 90 days, walking across a sea floor, literally camping next to a wall of water. God then wipes out the entire Egyptian Army. (But curiously avoids the Philistines because they were too war-like, and God didn’t want his nation to encounter battle. Color me confused???) God saves them from the Amalekites with the miracle of Moses’ raised hands.
God provides food and water in a wilderness by miraculous means. Think about human nature—the people are fed, are free from oppression, and are winning battles against enemies. Yet within a little over a month, they become faithless heathens. All while being fed!
Does this read like reality or myth? It wasn’t that they historically lacked faith—it was that the author was making a severe point—follow God and things go well. Don’t and things go bad. The myth fits the point.
marcel: It is pointless to know the truths of the Bible if you decide to lack faith…
And equally, it is pointless to have faith, if it is not based in the truth. I would hope that you would want us to have faith in the truth—not in a lie, correct? As HeIsSailing said in his blog entry, “I want to believe” and a reflection of my own thoughts in this regard: “Belief without evidence is faith. Belief contrary to evidence appears to be delusion.”
Understand I am NOT saying Christians are delusional. What I am saying is that most Christians have not studied the facts that underlie the basis of their belief. If you have studied Exodus, and have come to the conclusion that it was a historical event, I would be curious as to what persuaded you in light of the damning evidence against it.
See, it is not that we lack faith. Or don’t want it. Far, FAR from it! We just want to make sure we are not having faith in the wrong thing.
The Christian Research & Apologetics Ministry (CARM) gave these three reasons on “Why isn’t there any record of millions of Jews wandering in the desert?“
First of all, no archaeological find has ever contradicted the Bible.
Second, lack of evidence doesn’t mean there wasn’t an Exodus.
Third, it may be that the traditional site of Mt. Sinai is incorrect.
Here we have 2,000,000 people wandering in the desert for 40 years on a trip that should have literally taken a few days and they left no evidence behind of their trip. Marcel, do you see why it’s so hard for us to find the faith to believe?
- The de-Convert

What I liked was especially the last part of the second link, about what Christian apologists have put forth in arguments, why genocide would be okay for god and his really excellent and erudite replies - esp. also historically, which I didn't quote from.
Arguments include that the Amalekites matter was no genocide (the divine order of killing them all, including babies breastfeeding, explicitly, until final wipe-out - because of their forefathers having attacked the Israelites wandering about in the desert), with the most cynical of deliberations, false to boot, except the last point:

It was not a Genocide

...The article goes on to make four (5) distinctions between the Amalekites and other genocides:

“1. They are NOT an internal group
2. They are NOT a minority group
3. Amalekites are NOT targeted because of their Amalekite-ness (since they were welcome as immigrants in Israel)
4. They are never under the government control of Israel.
5. They are not pursed and hunted in other countries for extermination.”

But the better ones are no better. This is also nice:

God is Moral

Another statement brought up is that God is moral, so His ordering this genocide must be moral. Besides assuming the conclusion (again) this doesn’t provide us any new information. It is God’s morality that we are questioning, here. To simply declare, by definition, that “God is moral, so what he did was moral” is completely unhelpful.

Look, assume I told you that “Bob” did something against the law. To confirm or deny my statement, you require two key pieces of information—what it was that “Bob” did, and what the law is. If I simply tell you, “That Bob killed someone” we are still left with the inability to determine whether it violated the law. What if it was self-defense? What if Bob’s job was an executioner? What if Bob was a soldier in war? Likewise, if I told you that the Law says “Do not step on the grass” but fail to inform you as to how Bob acted relative to the grass, you are still left puzzling as to how Bob infracted the law.

In this situation we see God order what is apparently genocide. From what we have observed of genocide in history, we would declare this was an immoral act. Yet the Christian is informing me God did NOT violate some law. When I ask what law it is—it cannot be verified and is assumed to be…what?

What, exactly, is the law by which God can order Genocide and God cannot? When is it acceptable? When is it not?

Those questions (and inability to answer them) is what demonstrates this is an after-the-fact defense of God’s actions. There is no predictability in this method. If God orders Genocide—it must be moral. If God does not—it may or may not be moral.

Although to a Christian talking with another Christian, the blanket statement of “Whatever God does is moral” may be met with nods and affirmation, to a skeptic, we question two things—what is it that God did, and what is the law regarding those actions. Since the Christian has no way to verify that second statement, we are left wondering: If God did something immoral—how would you know?

And this one:

A small story to make my point:

When I was in the early stages of deconversion, I was struck by the unsettling issue of whether we were giving the benefit of the doubt to incidents in the Tanakh, simply because they were “Christian.” How do I remove my own bias from the equation and treat the story as if it came from another religion? How would it be considered then?

One day, in Sunday School, I mentioned how I had been studying the Qur’an. And that within the Qur’an it indicated that Allah had granted the land of Palestine to the Muslims, giving them the right to kill all non-Muslim inhabitants within. Further, that the Qur’an clearly states those of us outside of Palestine are Infidels, and if we did not convert to Islam, the Muslims are entitled to kill all the males, taking the females and children as rightful plunder.

There were statements of “Tsk, tsk” and “How awful” and “Can’t they see how wrong that is?”

I then indicated that those statements were NOT actually from the Qur’an, but were taken directly from Deut. 20:10-18. That it was YHWH, not Allan. And the Hebrews, not the Muslims. After an uncomfortable silence, and a few “Harumphs” as the people openly displayed their indignation at being deceived into condemning the Bible, a person coughed out, “Well, that was a different time…let’s move on!” and the whole uncomfortable affair was left behind.

I didn’t care. My fears were realized. We DO give the benefit of the doubt, and grant the God of the Bible concessions we never would in any other religion.

If Chemosh ordered the Moabites to wipe out the Hebrews for their attacks on them in the past, would any person claim that this was a moral act? Why would we do so for YHWH?

Finally, a common trend is to sweep the Tanakh atrocities under the rug. We see people emphasizing the God of the New Testament, and basically try to ignore the God of the Tanakh. I hear focus on “Love your neighbor” and not “Kill the Amalekites.”

At times Christians act as if their Old Testament is an albatross they wish would quietly go away. Oh, the Psalms and Proverbs can stay. And those neat prophecies in Isaiah. But when it comes to the conquest of Canaan, and the killing of people for some historical event…well… that is when the fidgeting begins, and the “hurry-up-let’s-get-this-over-with” comes in.

That distinct reluctance to embrace the God of the Genocide is more telling and screams louder about the immorality of the situation than anything I can write.

What this also cries out, is that we humans have our much more sensible and sensitive evolving morals from within ourselves and in cooperation, not from holy books. Otherwise we would still be thinking and acting like this and feel justified (well - some will, I hope it's in decline). We use this morality of ours, to judge the holy books, if only unconsciously so - we simply pick and chose, we don't really obey and concur in blind faith, we just pretend - well - the religious do I mean...

On a less serious note,
What is it with history and cool names being replaced by terrible "civilized" ones.
Whether it's Amalekites, fionn mac cumhaill or Artemis every culture in the world had really powerful sounding names. Why would you change Andros to Andy, or Apollo to Paul.
Sometimes I feel like I'm one of the few people that wants to retain the power and grandeur expressed by ones name. Or maybe I just fantasize too much....

On a less serious note,
What is it with history and cool names being replaced by terrible "civilized" ones.
Whether it's Amalekites, fionn mac cumhaill or Artemis every culture in the world had really powerful sounding names. Why would you change Andros to Andy, or Apollo to Paul.
Sometimes I feel like I'm one of the few people that wants to retain the power and grandeur expressed by ones name. Or maybe I just fantasize too much....

Because back then people had the time to pronounce every word. Nowadays we got to get moving to the next thing so we dont miss the next thing after the thing that comes after that. We got to run to the future maaan. Or maybe there names are just to hard to pronounce, so with the risk of not saying them right. Then it's safer to say something easier so you not take the risk of sounding uncool you know.. Got to stay cool maaan

I get ya, but frankly I think that having to type dreamybear or stephL every few posts is too cumbersome. So congratulations, your new name is.......X92B

Ah so you are one of those productive guys.. Well in that case, you could also just copy paste then..

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

On a less serious note,
What is it with history and cool names being replaced by terrible "civilized" ones.
Whether it's Amalekites, fionn mac cumhaill or Artemis every culture in the world had really powerful sounding names. Why would you change Andros to Andy, or Apollo to Paul.
Sometimes I feel like I'm one of the few people that wants to retain the power and grandeur expressed by ones name. Or maybe I just fantasize too much....

Perhaps just because when you have kids and you have to call them every now and then, it's a pain in the ass to be every time like: Baal-berith do your homework, Baal-berith eat all your vegetables, Baal-berith time to sleep, Baal-berith don't eat that shit... Baal could you simply stop doing that shit!?? Baal?

I couldn't imagine those families with hundreds of kids (like those in the old testament) and putting tons of cool names to every single demon