The Anti-theist Thread

[emplynx]

1000th Post!
Anyway, I have heard that there is a $1,000,000 reward for accurately disproving the bible that has been set up for along time. I can't find it on the 'net. Anyone know anything about it?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by emplynx

*flips on the tv and the light*
I love Edison!

HA. If it were up to Edison, you'd be sitting in the dark!

The man wanted to use DC to transmit electricity. And he never got over the fact that Tesla was able to do things with AC that he couldn't understand.

Like transmit electricity more than 100 feet. Or run an (oscillating) cathode tube for that matter

Most modern inventions wouldn't do very well working on just DC.

But Edison gets all the credit, because he had more powerful industrialist backers, and insitgated a smear campaign against Telsa.

[Andúril]

Anyway, I have heard that there is a $1,000,000 reward for accurately disproving the bible that has been set up for along time.

I wonder how one disproves something that has not yet been proven. Perhaps a better word may have been "debunking". I also wonder why the word "accurate" is used. Maybe one proof can be more accurate than another...

Is it? what do you mean by Fundamental Beleif system? Things like the ground won't open up and swallow me? Or are you talking about an ethical/moral/philosophical world view?

In a broad sense, ethical beliefs, or morals, or philosophical world views, are synonomous with the term fundamental belief. An atheist, who has no belief in any deities, may be a naturalist, or perhaps a metaphysical naturalist, or whatever else. That would be his fundamental belief. An atheist would hold no beliefs of a more important nature. An agnostic believes that he knows nothing for sure, or, stated another way, takes the position that he can know nothing for sure. This is his fundamental belief; much, if not most of the rationalization undertaken by an agnostic would lend itself to this idea of uncertainty. A theist believes in the existence of God, and that could be the theist's fundamental belief. Similarily, a theist may hold supernaturalism as a fundamental belief, and the existence of deities as another, albeit less dominant belief.

There are doubtless many books on this issue - none of which I have read. You've probably noticed that.

[Andúril]

Just think what we might loose if we give up on God

Suddenly I believe in almighty God. He must have splayed me in the spirit, or sent his holy ghost into my body. I now magically want to do the will of God. Yay! Praise his name!! Jesus loves you! With the lights on! Halleluiah! Amen.

Rather, you might want to think about what we might lose if we consume ourselves in a false concept. The above is an example.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Anduril
In a broad sense, ethical beliefs, or morals, or philosophical world views, are synonomous with the term fundamental belief. An atheist, who has no belief in any deities, may be a naturalist, or perhaps a metaphysical naturalist, or whatever else. That would be his fundamental belief. An atheist would hold no beliefs of a more important nature. An agnostic believes that he knows nothing for sure, or, stated another way, takes the position that he can know nothing for sure. This is his fundamental belief; much, if not most of the rationalization undertaken by an agnostic would lend itself to this idea of uncertainty. A theist believes in the existence of God, and that could be the theist's fundamental belief. Similarily, a theist may hold supernaturalism as a fundamental belief, and the existence of deities as another, albeit less dominant belief.

There are doubtless many books on this issue - none of which I have read. You've probably noticed that.

And so.. you think these beliefs determine people's behavior?

*looks askance at him*

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Anduril
Rather, you might want to think about what we might lose if we consume ourselves in a false concept. The above is an example.

Which false concept? The one that we can actually know something?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Which false concept? The one that we can actually know something?

...or the one that we can't know anything.

[Blackheart]

Or is it the one that says, the only thing you can know with certainty, is the fact that you can't know anything with certainty?

Oh wait, is that a false concept?

[Andúril]

And so.. you think these beliefs determine people's behavior?

I have an idea that they may be the dominant contributing factor towards certain actions. I mentioned the word "dictates" which is, in hindsight, incorrect. I also stated earlier that I thought this "fundamental belief" was often the dictator of these actions - not always.

Which false concept? The one that we can actually know something?

Can one know a square circle? Can a omnibenevolent vindictive murderer exist? These are illogical concepts, which I termed "false".

[BeardofPants]

Humanity without ideology?! Hah! As much as I would LIKE for God to bugger off with all his infidels, it ain't happening anytime soon. Humans happen to like looking for patterns, whilst at the same time castigating themselves.... You think we're going to buck of something like 35,000 years, possibly more, of belief systems? I WISH!

While your waiting, I think I'll just go and roast my butt some more in the sand.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Anduril
Can one know a square circle? Can a omnibenevolent vindictive murderer exist? These are illogical concepts, which I termed "false".

Oh please. Not the square circles.

Illogical concepts are "False" then. But what does that have to do with the fact that you can't prove a negative?

Or for that matter, what does it have to do with the concept of existence? I can assure you, much that is illogical in the universe does in fact exist, and it resides in Washington D.C.

I have an idea that they may be the dominant contributing factor towards certain actions. I mentioned the word "dictates" which is, in hindsight, incorrect. I also stated earlier that I thought this "fundamental belief" was often the dictator of these actions - not always.

Odd. I have a different idea. For some reason I hold that the beliefs are used as RATIONALIZATIONS for things that people do, and the real motivations are at a much baser level. Like personality, determined by environment and genetics.

Otherwise you can't give me an explanation why out of two people raised in the exact same environment (say a fascist youth camp) one might go on to become a hideously cruel monster, while the other will become a man of troubled conscience.

To me, the belief system is unimportant. You can point out such individuals in any belief system, from religious to social, to humanistic. Stalinism, for example, is a wonderful example of turning the beast on it's ear. The excesses of that belief system, came close to 20 million lives in purges.

So, no, I can't say I agree that it's the belief system, so much as it is the monkeys that learn to manipulate the belief system. You could counter by saying that some belief systems promote uncritical thinkers willing to follow blindly, however, I would counter that any belief system promotes uncritical thinkers, because that is unfortunately the lot of humanity. Even "Science" in quotes because I'm referring to the belief system here, has it's blind adherents, the gas guzzling, energy depleting, environment polluting masses who are certain that before the inevitable consequences happen, science will once again "save us" and we will be allowed to continue with our present lifestyle.

In short, it's not belief systems that are the problem. It's the Monkey Brains.

mmmmm- Monkey Brains.... SLUUURP.

[Andúril]

Anduril's Bible Review - Part 2

Continuing from Genesis, Chapter 2:

Verse 17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thall shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Adam ate from the tree [3:6]. Adam, however, lived through the day, and continued to the age of 930 [5:5]

Verse 20 shows that out of all of the creatures that God had created, none were suitable for Adam. Therefore, in verse 20 God creates a woman with one of Adam's ribs, to solve this problem. An omniscient being would have known beforehand that Adam would not find any suitable creature, and dealt with it.

Moving on to chapter 3, verse 1 tells us that snakes are the most subtle (subtil) beast of the field. They can talk, too. This snake is so clever that it persuades Eve to sin.

According to verse 9: And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?This is problematic, considering God is meant to be both omniscient and omnipresent.

In verse 14 we see God cursing the serpent to crawl on its belly, and eat dust for the rest of its life. Therefore, the snake had been using some other form of transport, perhaps it had legs. Also, snakes are known to eat rodents. Did God curse that particular snake only, and not all other snakes? That would explain the eating habits issue. But not the transportation issue. What did the other snakes do to deserve this curse? They must surely have been just as subtle, and seductive. Note that there is no mention of God taking away the ability of snake-speech, so we should be safe in assuming that all existing snakes (at that time at least) were able to communicate with humans. I wonder what happened to them? Maybe Noah took two of the mute ones...

[3:22] And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: However, God said that all fruit was Man's for the eating [1:29], and he also said that he must not eat from the tree of good and evil [2:17]. God does not inhibit the eating of the fruit of the tree of life. If he did not want fruit from that tree to be eaten, he would have mentioned it with the other in [2:17].

Even though Adam and Eve did not die from eating the fruit (as God said they would), it is interesting to think about the complications of the subsequent eating from the tree of life. If God's prophecy came true (which it didn't), and the tree of life lived up to it's name, what would have happened to them?

Also, God mentions the word "us" in this verse, as well as in [1:26] and [11:17], which serves as evidence of multiple Gods, along with:

Exodus [12:12], [15:11], [18:11] and [22:28]
Numbers [33:4]
1 Samuel [6:5] and [28:13]
Psalms [82:1 and 6], [96:4], [97:7] and [136:2]
Jeremiah [10:11]
Micah [4:5]
Zephaniah [2:11]
John [10:33-34]
1 John [5:7]

So the bible advocates multiple Gods. Or does it? Contradicting verses include:

Deuteronomy [4:35 and 39], [6:4] and [32:39]
Isiah [43:10], [44:8], [45:5-6], and [46:9]
Mark [12:29 and 32]
John [17:3]
1 Corinthians [8:6]

Moving on to chapter 4, verse 4 states "...And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:". That goes along with :

Exodus [2:25]
Leviticus [26:9]
2 Kings [13:23]
Psalms [138:6]

...which all tell us of the respect he has for certain people. However:

Deuteronomy [10:17]
2 Corinthians [19:7]
Acts [10:34]
Romans [2:11]
Galatians [2:6]
Ephesians [6:9]
Colossians [3:25]
1 Peter [1:17]

...say otherwise. More contradictions.

Verse 15: And the Lord said unto him, therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

First of all, what does it mean to be punished sevenfold? To be killed seven times?

Secondly, God gave instructions in [9:6] that whoever kills someone should be killed. So his own law is a contradiction to his actions in [4:15].

Then, in verse 16, "...Cain went out from the presence of the Lord..." More evidence for the argument against omnipresence.

Verse 18 stipulates that "...Mehujael begat Methusael: and Mathusael begat Lamech...", but [5:21] says "And Enoch...begat Methuselah (father of Lamech [5:25])" Apparently Methusael and Methuselah are the same person, both being the father of Lamech. Also, in chapter 4, Methusael is Enoch's great-grandson. In chapter 5, Methuselah is Enoch's son. Strange - no. Very strange.

Verses 23 and 24 relate Lamech's statement that it the punishment for killing Cain is sevenfold, the punishment for killing him (Lamech) should (for some reason or another...) be seventy-seven fold.

[Cirdan]

Or for that matter, what does it have to do with the concept of existence? I can assure you, much that is illogical in the universe does in fact exist, and it resides in Washington D.C.

Yes, it's the distillation of the ignorant voting (or non-voting) of the rest of the country (especially big, dumb, old Florida).

I agree with BoP, as always.

While some individuals extract themselves from the fbs (fundamental belief system) by which they were raised, most stay true to the fbs, judging by the general population. Some fbs' are more into the intense indoctrination aspect than others. Culture and nationalism play a critical role in the fbs power as well. Recent awareness of groups like the taliban and many other sects of the muslim religion teach intolerance and exclude non-theistic teaching to limit the individual ability to think independently.

Does atheism qualify as a fbs? It lacks the qualities of a central set of formal doctrines. Atheism has one defining concept, that being the non-belief of deities. Arguing that non-belief is a belief is like saying that nothing is something. It is important to recognize voids in order to define matter, but that still doesn't make the void matter itself.

Atheism has never been used as a justification to wage war, to kill non-believers, to collect money, to wield power or to control minds. It has been abused by other fbs' like marxism, but it was a ploy to take power from the existing, predominant fbs. Atheism is a description of a state of rational awareness. Having found no concrete evidence of the existence of a deity, the atheist chooses not to believe. This does not preclude the possibility that, upon discovering such evidence, the atheist becoming aware of the existance of the deity. Upon discovering the deity, beliefs would not be needed.

Since no beliefs are required for one to become atheist it fails the criteria as a fbs.

[BeardofPants]

Carl Sagan:

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

Monty Python:

(spoken)
Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Brown,
And things seem hard or tough,
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft,
(sung)
And you feel that you've had quite eno-o-o-o-o-ough,

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at 900 miles an hour.
It's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned,
The sun that is the source of all our power.
Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars;
It's a hundred thousand light-years side to side;
It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light-years thick,
But out by us it's just three thousand light-years wide.
We're thirty thousand light-years from Galactic Central Point,
We go 'round every two hundred million years;
And our galaxy itself is one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

(waltz)

Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
In all of the directions it can whiz;
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!

[Cirdan]

A woman who quotes Sagan and Python together.... makes me wish I was 20 years younger and on a flght to Middle Earth.

*sighs and sails away in elven ship*

[BeardofPants]

Thanks, Cirdan.

John Lennon:

God

God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain
I'll say it again
God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain

I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra
I don't believe in Gita
I don't believe in Yoga
I don't believe in kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles
I just believe in me
Yoko and me
And that's reality

The dream is over
What can I say?
The dream is over
Yesterday
I was the Dreamweaver
But now I'm reborn
I was the Walrus
But now I'm John
And so dear friends
You'll just have to carry on
The dream is over

Guybrush Threepwood:

Somehow I knew in hell there would be mushrooms.

Monty Python... (again.)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan

While some individuals extract themselves from the fbs (fundamental belief system) by which they were raised, most stay true to the fbs, judging by the general population. Some fbs' are more into the intense indoctrination aspect than others. Culture and nationalism play a critical role in the fbs power as well. Recent awareness of groups like the taliban and many other sects of the muslim religion teach intolerance and exclude non-theistic teaching to limit the individual ability to think independently.

Hmm, I'll have to point out here that if cultural memes are as powerful as you claim, how can social revolution ever occur? Why don't they affect everyone equally? (even controling for differences in environment). How are these individuals ever able to extract themselves from their "belief system"?

Does atheism qualify as a fbs? It lacks the qualities of a central set of formal doctrines. Atheism has one defining concept, that being the non-belief of deities. Arguing that non-belief is a belief is like saying that nothing is something. It is important to recognize voids in order to define matter, but that still doesn't make the void matter itself.

Yes, however the term gets appled, or misused if you like, to humanist groups who do have agendas. (Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with agendas.. persay) And indeed technically, non-belief is more akin to agnosticism than athiesm. Athiesm is a bit closer to the belief that there is no diety. At least, that's the most commonly occuring usage I come across.

Atheism has never been used as a justification to wage war, to kill non-believers, to collect money, to wield power or to control minds.

I'll add one little word. Yet. And that's only because no clever monkey has come along to figure out a way to do it. Yet.

It has been abused by other fbs' like marxism, but it was a ploy to take power from the existing, predominant fbs.

Certainly true. However, the same argument can be made for many such incidents that occur within theocracies, governments, and even "popular" movements. When I say "politics is the root of all evil" how strongly is anyone going to argue?

Atheism is a description of a state of rational awareness. Having found no concrete evidence of the existence of a deity, the atheist chooses not to believe.

Err. a·the·ist Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

I'm not sure where all the rational awareness stuff comes in, that obviously varies form person to person. A negative belief, refusal to believe etc. still involves reaching a state of acceptance about the information available. It may be a rational belief, but it involves acceptance of a measure of uncertainties.

What level of preponderance or importance you assign to those uncertainties is an individual process. I myself choose to withhold acceptance, which means that I assign a significant amount of preponderance to the idea that such things cannot be tested empirically. Which Is why I term myself an agnostic. I find it a rational state also. Rational thinking isn't only limited to those who profess athiesm, or agnosticism however.

I object to the idea that gets popularized that belief systems are the bane of humanity, and the cause of all our ills. You of course are not being quite that simplistic, but it is often advanced in such a simplistic manner. I object to it on the grounds that it is perhaps as dangerous (potentially) as human behavior gets.

Such behavior is part of the human condition, and in part stems form our need for a "group identity". Identifying an "other" is one such way we go about doing this. My personal objection is when I see otherwise rational people using stereotypes to lump all individuals who adhere to a belief system into a single set. (Especially when it's often the individuals who don't adhere to the tenants of any particular belief system that are generally the problem. i.e. the politically adept.)

Theocracy, nationalism, and other examples of group formation are generally the problem, once a group reaches a certain critical mass, politics takes on quite a different role.( No, I'm not an anarchist either. Just a cautionary voice. It's my good deed for this Millenium)

This does not preclude the possibility that, upon discovering such evidence, the atheist becoming aware of the existance of the deity. Upon discovering the deity, beliefs would not be needed.

For a die-hard agnostic however, there would always be the question of the absolute validity of the empirical data.

Since no beliefs are required for one to become atheist it fails the criteria as a fbs.

Err. I disagree. We can quibble about the nature of belief if you like (as I pointed out earlier), but there's a lot more to a belief system than just what it's adherant's profess. There are cultural memes, political association, and other bonds. What you identify as a belief system, I view as a culture, or subculture, depending on how you define it. As such, there is nothing particularly different about the group dynamics between atheists, theists, nationalists, and other groups, except for the important distinction that athiests are currently not socially organized.

Hopefully there is such a wide disparity among atheists that it will never occur, because once it does, the same ills that befall any other human organization will come home to roost.

I find this particular line of discussion particularly interesting.

[Andúril]

Genesis 6:

[6:2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

[6:4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Sons of God? More than one? This contradicts the following verses:

John [3:16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[3:18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 John [4:9] In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

To throw the spanner in the works, Job mentions the "sons of God" in [1:6] and [2:1].

Genesis [6:3] points out that the lifespan of humans is 120 years. However, Psalms says that age is 70 (80 is possible), and we see in Genesis [11:32] that Terah, Abram (Abraham)'s father, lived to be 205...

[6:5] And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Then, in [7:21-23], he kills everything except a handfull of people and some animals. Now read:

[8:21] ...and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground and more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Firstly, the reason for God repenting is the same reason for God "smiting" every living thing, which makes absolutely no sense...

Secondly, if God in omniscient, he would have known all about the "imagination of man", even before his flood.

According to verses 6 and 7 of chapter 6, God repented. However, according to the following verses God does not repent:

Numbers [23:19]
1 Samuel [15:29]
Ezekiel [24:14]

Then again, all of these verses involve God repenting:

Exodus [32:14] And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
Deuteronomy [32:36] For the Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants.
1 Samuel [15:11] It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king.
1 Samuel [15:35] The Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
2 Samuel [24:16] The Lord repented of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, it is enough: stay now thine hand.
1 Chronicles [21:15] The Lord beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand.
Jeremiah [15:6] ...I am weary with repenting.
Jeremiah [18:8] ...I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jeremiah [26:3] ...That I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them...
Jeremiah [42:10] ...for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you.
Amos [7:3] The Lord repented for this...
Jonah [3:10] ...and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them...

Besides all this, why would a timeless, omnibenevolent and omniscient being have to repent?

Looking at Genesis [6:9] ...Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations... However, according to the following verses:

1 Kings [8:46]
2 Chronicles [6:36]
Psalms [14:3] and [53:3]
Romans [3:10, 12 and 23]
Proverbs [20:9]
Ecclesiastes [7:20]
Mark [10:18]
1 John [1:8 and 10]

...there are no good or righteous people, and everyone sins. Then again, these verses indicate differently:

Genesis [7:1]
1 Kings [15:14]
2 Chronicles [15:17]
Job [1:1 and 8] and [2:3]
Luke [1:6] and [2:25]
James [5:16]
2 Peter [2:7-8]
1 John [3:6 and 9]

The above verses indicate good, perfect people that do not sin.

Additionally, if Noah was a perfect man, that means that to be perfect one must be drunk, and naked in the view of family members [9:21-22]

According to [6:16], God tells Noah to make one small window (probably for ventilation), about 18 inches squared. The boat was 135 meters long, 22.5 meters wide, and 13.5 meters high, and the entire boat was ventilated by a tiny window...

Regarding the creatures entering the ark, [6:19] says that two of every kind of animal must go with Noah. Then, in [7:2] Noah is instructed to take some animals in groups of seven. If God is timeless, and omniscient, he wouldn't have given a different instruction.

[Blackheart]

*Chuckles*

If god were timeless, omnipotent, and perfect, then why would he bother with humans?

There's another fun concept. The idea of existence without limits. It's one of those metaphysical puzzles that defies rationality.

[Cirdan]

Hmm, I'll have to point out here that if cultural memes are as powerful as you claim, how can social revolution ever occur? Why don't they affect everyone equally? (even controling for differences in environment). How are these individuals ever able to extract themselves from their "belief system"?

The marxist fbs failed due to a nice combination of anti-economics and totalitarian repression by the bms (monkey business system). The marxist get pretty far in cultures where things are so messed up that the tactics then to create a functional system from chaos, in the short term. My analogy is a disfunctional (corrupt and dictatorial) state is like a cancer, with marxist being the surgical cure. The problem is that surgery isn't healthy on a regular business. Also, an ammendment to my earlier post regarding the marxist use of atheism. I would say that it was more a case of, like the name of this thread, anti-theism. In russia, the orthodox church functioned as a part of the state of the czarists.

The short answer is economic and cultural history (and mbs).