The Anti-theist Thread

[Wayfarer]

Actually that goes quite contrary to my experience AND observation. Ethical behavior is not innate to the human species.
Altruism might be a heritable trait, but ethical and moral behavior are developed from childhood. If it were not so, then children would need no discipline, they could turn themselves into "model citizens".

Isn't it? Because the very fact that we have a 'model' of citizenship suggests that we know something more than we put into practice. If humans were merely the product of our universe, then we shouldn't know that we're doing worse than we ought. Those that are born blind don't have any concept of sight.

Humans very rarely behave in the manner which we feel we should. But the fact that we feel that way, that we know otherwise, suggests that we're more than a result of our environments.

That's a teleological explination. You are saying that because X happens it must be meant for X to happen by grand design. It neither proves nor disproves any purpose.

However, there is still difficulty with interpreting the current observations to mean that humans are "hardwired" to do so. The alternate explination is that it is a distortion in the normal perception of self identity. Which is quite a different matter.

The human brain structures that account of 'supernatural experiences' could be a distortion of something else. But I doubt it. Our brains our not arbitrary, and our neural patterns behave a certain way for a reason. We gain pleasure from sensory experiences-food, drink, sex, and whatnot. And also from more abstract things-love, respect, security, and so forth. But in all cases these desires are there for a reason, and there are actual things which can satisfy them.

And so when we find that our brains work in such a way that we can be induced to feel 'the supernatural', is it not more likely that there is something behind it? There are a number of examples we could cite of people taking something legitimate the wrong way and ruining it, but I think we'd be hard pressed to say that there are things which humans desire which don't exist. Even athiests have a tendency to endorse the greater good, and things like that. And so it seems perfectly reasonable to me to presume that there's something behind it after all.

Of anything you've said so far, this is the only thing that is internally consistant. But to make it rational, you are going to have to confess to the subjective bias about what you "know".

One of the many problems in dealing with our language. Or perhaps in just being human. Of course we can admit that we don't know anything for sure. But that's not something that's going to hold throught the conversation. Because of course we have a tendancy to think that we do know. And it's not practical to try and qualify everything we say.

You may mean "your personal brand" of christindom, but you haven't specified that.

Well there's christianity, and there's christianity. Or something. ]: ) Something I've found is that the title is applied more liberally than it really fits. The church of christ scientist, for example, or the church of jesus christ of latter day saints, are greatly different from anything that you can get from the bible.

My personal viewpoint is that there's a bunch of stuff that's been tossed in over the years, from the priesthood to dancing is bad (I know a girl who'se parents believe that) to whatever. Heck, most of my problems are things come from trying to be some sort of psuedo-intellectual. But I try to base everything I can on the new testament, which as lelondul pointed out happens to be the best preserved document on record. And I'm often surprised to find there are a number of others who do the same. I hope you can understand my thinking that the most important thing is the basics, and that everything should be looked at critically.

In any case, I really do hope that the only things peculiar to 'my brand of cristendom' are the habit of metaphor and my love for tolkien. In short, things that don't make much of a difference.

Incidentally, I have good friends who've come out of a number of different religious and social backgrounds, and we very rarely dissent or compete in what we believe. It seems to me that's because we're trying to find out the right way to do things and follow it. I certainly agree with you guys on a number of flaws in the modern church(es). But, having accepted the basics of christianity as likely true, I try and get as good a picture of reality as I can. I'll let you know if I make any stellar progress.

[BeardofPants]

Another Monty Python song...

All things dull and ugly.

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Amen.

And again... because I'm a sucker for pain...

Oh Lord please don't burn us.

O Lord, please don't burn us.
Don't grill or toast Your flock.
Don't put us on the barbecue
Or simmer us in stock.
Don't braise or bake or boil us
Or stir-fry us in a wok.
Oh, please don't lightly poach us
Or baste us with hot fat.
Don't fricassee or roast us
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don't stick Thy servants, Lord,
In a Rotissomat.

[BeardofPants]

And also...

The meaning of Life.

Why are we here? What's life all about?
Is God really real, or is there some doubt?
Well, tonight, we're going to sort it all out,
For, tonight, it's 'The Meaning of Life'.

What's the point of all this hoax?
Is it the chicken and the egg time? Are we just yolks?
Or, perhaps, we're just one of God's little jokes.
Well, ça c'est 'The Meaning of Life'.

Is life just a game where we make up the rules
While we're searching for something to say,
Or are we just simply spiralling coils
Of self-replicating DN-- nay, nay, nay, nay, nay, nay, nay.

What is life? What is our fate?
Is there a Heaven and Hell? Do we reincarnate?
Is mankind evolving, or is it too late?
Well, tonight, here's 'The Meaning of Life'.

For millions, this 'life' is a sad vale of tears,
Sitting 'round with really nothing to say
While the scientists say we're just simply spiralling coils
Of self-replicating DN-- nay, nay, nay, nay, nay, nay, nay.

So, just why-- why are we here,
And just what-- what-- what-- what do we fear?
Well, ce soir, for a change, it will all be made clear,
For this is 'The Meaning of Life'. C'est le sens de la vie.
This is 'The Meaning of Life'.

[Blackheart]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wayfarer

Well there's christianity, and there's christianity. Or something. ]: ) Something I've found is that the title is applied more liberally than it really fits. The church of christ scientist, for example, or the church of jesus christ of latter day saints, are greatly different from anything that you can get from the bible.
[quote]

The title as applied by who? Not to mention that a great many of the sects, even the more well known ones, are greatly different than anything you are going to get from the bible. They all have a tendancy to ignore certain parts while elevating others.

I can make a case from even the new testiemant, that it's OK to "smite" certain people. It's been done before. I can also make a case that pacifism is the only "sacred" path. You can pretty much get anything that you want to from the bible.

My personal viewpoint is that there's a bunch of stuff that's been tossed in over the years, from the priesthood to dancing is bad (I know a girl who'se parents believe that) to whatever. Heck, most of my problems are things come from trying to be some sort of psuedo-intellectual. But I try to base everything I can on the new testament, which as lelondul pointed out happens to be the best preserved document on record. And I'm often surprised to find there are a number of others who do the same. I hope you can understand my thinking that the most important thing is the basics, and that everything should be looked at critically.

Then why should I exempt the basics from critical examination? I find some of the basic tenants extremely problematic, given what we know about human behavior and capabilities. Not to mention that the new testament is also problematic, in that it was written many years after the events it describes, and the writers are anonymous, and quite probabaly are not Mark, Luke John or any of the other apostles. Although I think revelations might have been written by one of them... It seems... plausible for some reason.

In any case, I really do hope that the only things peculiar to 'my brand of cristendom' are the habit of metaphor and my love for tolkien. In short, things that don't make much of a difference.

Incidentally, I have good friends who've come out of a number of different religious and social backgrounds, and we very rarely dissent or compete in what we believe. It seems to me that's because we're trying to find out the right way to do things and follow it. I certainly agree with you guys on a number of flaws in the modern church(es). But, having accepted the basics of christianity as likely true, I try and get as good a picture of reality as I can. I'll let you know if I make any stellar progress.

Perhaps one sign of such progress would be if you find a new label to apply to yourself. You keep saying that you have accepted these "basics", but are they indeed the same "basics" held by a majority of others who identify themselves as "christians"? Or are you trying to say that they are wrong, and it's you that has the "correct" interpretation? Are you sure they are the "basics", or is that just your perception of what the "basics" are?

Sure you can believe whatever you want to. But your either going to have to critically examine how you arrived at such a belief, the information you used to arrive at the belief, and even, the implications of holding the belief. Otherwise it's pretty much worthless in any real spiritual sense.

One of the things I do grant to serious athiests, not anti-theists, but athiests, is that they have been through this process. So have many theists. However, the majority of theists are merely blindly accepting what they have been told (along with a small sample of athiests, and a lot of anti-theists). I find the concept of accepting something blinidly difficult to reconcile with any concept of spirituality. It leads to all sorts of problem behavior, because it breaks down the ability to judge for one's self what is right and what is wrong, or healthy and unhealthy.

[afro-elf]

wayfarer will you will you please fish or cut bait

you have not show any proof of a SOLEY christian god

simply can you or can't you

or at least why you think a CHRISTIAN god more plausable than others

[Andúril]

According to Genesis [8:13], the earth was dry on the first day of the first month. However, the next verse states that the earth was dried only on the 20th day of the second month.

One wonders what the carnivorous creatures ate after leaving the ark. Surely this would lead to the extinction of certain species? What did these animals eat while in the ark, anyway? Where did they excrete their bodily waste. How was the stench combatted (I know - by that tiny window...)

How exactly did marsupials find their way to Austraila, anway?

[8:21] ...and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake...

But in Malachi [4:6] And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

So, in Genesis he will never again curse the earth, but according to Malachi he might.

According to [9:24], Noah woke up and "...knew what his younger son had done unto him." Firstly, Noah had three sons, not two, so "younger" doesn't make much sense. In [5:32], [6:10] and [7:13] Noah's sons are mentioned in the same order, which presumably is that of age: Shem, Ham, and Japeth. Perhaps the "younger" of Noah's sons is Ham. But according to [9:22], Ham only saw his naked father and told his brothers - he did nothing else. His actions resulted in his brothers performing an act that warranted praise from their father. Ham did not do anything to Noah. Perhaps "youngest" is meant by "younger"? In that case, Japeth would be the youngest. But what did he do? He performed a act with Shem, his oldest brother, which warranted praise from Noah. He didn't do anything wrong, as we can see from Noah's blessing. So why does Noah curse Ham's son in verse 25? Ham did nothing wrong, and Canaan had nothing to do with the whole event. Here we have an example of the child receiving the punishment for the father's sin (whatever "sin" it was...). Besides this, according to [6:9] and [7:1], Noah was just and perfect. So does the bible advocate the punishment of the child for the father's wrongdoing?

The answer is no. This is made evident in the following verses:

Deuteronomy [24:16] The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Jeremiah [31:30] But every one shall die for his own iniquity...
Ezekiel [18:20] ...The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Wait. The answer is yes:

Exodus [20:5] and Deuteronomy [5:9] ...I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Exodus [34:7] ...Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Numbers [14:18] ...Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Deuteronomy [28:18] Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body...
2 Samuel [12:14] ...the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
2 Sameul [21:6-9] Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord .... And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord.
1 Kings [2:33] Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever...
1 Kings [21:29] Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house.
2 Kings [5:27] The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever...
Isaiah [14:21] Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers...
Jeremiah [16:10-11] ...Wherefore hath the Lord pronounced all this great evil against us? ...Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the Lord...
Jeremiah [32:18] Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them...

So, if we ask the question: Does the Bible advocate the punishment of children for the sins of the parents? The answer is no, and the answer is yes.

Besides that, an affirmative answer does not sit well when advocating an omnibeveloent god, or even a just god.

In 1 Timothy [1:4], as well as in Titus [3:9] we are told to avoid genealogies. The entire chapter 10 of Genesis is a genealogy.

[11:5] And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. Where exactly did God come down from? Heaven? That means heaven is above us, somewhere in the earth's atmosphere (although probably in a dimension innaccesible to us...). Why couldn't God see the city and tower from where he was? A sign of non-omnipotence. Why did he have to see it at all? Didn't he know what was happening? A sign of non-omniscience. Also, very untimeless-like.

According to verse 6, seeing as all of the earth's inhabitants spoke one language, that meant that they could do anything they imagined. In other words, they had the attribute of omnipotence. However, this omnipotence was not as powerful as God's omnipotence, because they were unable to abate God's scattering.

According to verse 7, God decides to "...confound their language...", probably because he did not want them to be omnipotent (as he was). This doesn't bode well for the argument of free will, because God purposefully scatters these people in the next verse, thereby changing the course of their future actions.

[Andúril]

Come on theists!! Where's your enthusiasm? Refute me. Debunk me.

And to non-theists: I have up until know not asked the question....

....are you enjoying Anduril's Happy Bible Review? I sure hope so!

Bye bye now.

[Blackheart]

I am neither a theist, nor a non-theist, nor an a-theist, nor even an un-theist.

So you haven't asked me.

[Wayfarer]

Anduril, I'd be happy to play... but yould you mind doing me a couple very small favours?

1) Start another thread.
2) Slow down and listen when you're answered.

Thatnk you.

BoP... I really liked that first poem. I've always been a fan of the creepy, crawly, nasty, scary, and generally unlikeable creatures. I find them fascinating.

The title as applied by who? Not to mention that a great many of the sects, even the more well known ones, are greatly different than anything you are going to get from the bible. They all have a tendancy to ignore certain parts while elevating others.

The most concise definition of a christian is anyone who has accepted Christ as lord and savior. But since we can't know that, the best working definition is anyone who accepts the basic tenants of christianity.

You keep saying that you have accepted these "basics", but are they indeed the same "basics" held by a majority of others who identify themselves as "christians"?

Here you go:

1)God created the heavens and the earth.
2)Man is fallen and in need of serious help
3)Jesus Christ was the son of God. He was both fully human and fully divine.
4)Christ provided paid for us all through his death and ressurection.
5)Accepting him as your savior is the only way.

Now, there are those who would argue with my phrasing (I do disdain theobabble) or who would say that there's more to it (the virgin birth, baptism, etc) but those are the basics of christianity, and a substantial majority of those who call themselves christians hold them.

Then why should I exempt the basics from critical examination?

Why indeed? Amen, Brother Wheeler!

Let it never be said that I want anybody to become a Christian 'just because'. Or accept it without really looking a it. The only thing I find more irritating than that is people who decide something is false and then go trying to prove it. So I ask that you look at it seriously, but with an open mind.

I find some of the basic tenants extremely problematic, given what we know about human behavior and capabilities.

I'm tempted... Very tempted... Ok, spill it. If I can answer you, good and well, but in any case it will give me something to think about.

Not to mention that the new testament is also problematic, in that it was written many years after the events it describes, and the writers are anonymous, and quite probabaly are not Mark, Luke John or any of the other apostles.

I understand how you can wonder about that. It does seem rather odd that they didn't name themselves in their writings, but I have been told that this was a peculiarity of arabic writings.

However...

When one looks at some of the claims made by the authors, it does give one pause- the authors claim to have an eyewitness account of the things that they tell. But the really shocking claim comes from some of the corrospondance. The author actually tells the intended recipient of his letter what they have seen. Now, considering that the earliest manuscripts found have been less than 100* years after the events, and christianity had been very active for long before that, aren't there grounds for surmising that there would have been eyewitnesses left? And if these writings are that erroneous, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there were plenty of people who would have known it? And if there were, wouldn't we expect them to say something?

*"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80" -Dr. William Foxwell Albright

If there were hundreds and possibly thousands of eyewitnesses who could have nipped christianity in the bud. Why didn't they? I think it's because the text of the new testament was and is substantially correct.

It seems... plausible for some reason.

I'm afraid your logic is irrefutable there, my friend. ]: )

Sure you can believe whatever you want to. But your either going to have to critically examine how you arrived at such a belief, the information you used to arrive at the belief, and even, the implications of holding the belief. Otherwise it's pretty much worthless in any real spiritual sense.

I'd like to introduce you to my good friend Paul... I think you'll find you have much in common...

I suppose it's sort of pointless to quote your last two paragraphs just to agree, but I do. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one christian who I look up to who hasn't had to actually look at what it means before deciding that it's correct.

[Wayfarer]

(show) why you think a CHRISTIAN god more plausable
than others.

First of all, I do think this is sort of like endorsing tolkien to someone who doesn't like books. Or asking a fascist which party they belong to.

Also, in order to do this I must make a lot of comparisons between christianity and other religions- especially when it comes to the state of man and etc.

Ok, that aside, I shall begin at the beginning:

--"In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth"

I think that's simple and pretty straightforward. God, who is all powerful, and who has always existed, created everything else.

Compare this to other creation stories, for example:

Greek
Norse
Hindu
Egyptian
Japanese

All of these suffer from certain problems- We have gods spontaneously appearing out of nothing, the earth and sky being formed from eggshells and the body parts of giants. We have pantheons springing from the armpit, thigh, mouth, breath, and all parts of giants. At every point we come up against difficulties.

On the other hand, the hebrew, christian, and muslim story is profound in it's simplicity. God simply creates matter, space, and time out of energy. He doesn't create the sun and moon out of infants or body parts, he just thinks them up and sticks them there. He doesn't make the plants and animals from blood or sweat, he just causes them to exist.

--The state of man:

Most religions take a rather humanistic look at man. Islam, for example, teaches a man needs to do X and not do Y. Buddhism and hinduism teach that a man can gradually obtain something like perfection through effort. A number of the other, legend-oriented religions don't even bothet, sticking instead to stories about men.

Not so christianity. The bible makes very clear what we all knew anyway- that man is fallen and unable to make it on his own. If mankind can better itself, why don't they? Christianity makes it clear- we can't do it ourselves, and we need help.

--Directives for living

Religious thought almost invariably sets up two lists: one of things to do and another of things not to do. Islam, as I have mentioned, does this. And yes, christians have a tendancy to do this as well.

But when asked what the most important thing to do, Christ himself replied 'Love God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". This is admittedly much harder than not eating beef or covering your face, but it certainly makes more sense, doesn't it?

--The Criteria

Most world religions, in addition to having lists of rules, say something along the lines of 'if you do this you'll get into heaven'. Christianity, well, yes, it does do something along those lines. But the big difference is that rather than asking you to make it on your own, it says that the issue has been completely taken care of. All you have to do is ask. And once you're certain to get into heaven, then god helps you out with living correctly here on earth. But you never have to do it alone.

That's a few reasons I think christianity works better than anything else. I'll try and come back with more.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

So Wayfarer--where did God come from? That is not explained in the creation story.

[BeardofPants]

Go EG!

...

I think that's simple and pretty straightforward. God, who is all powerful, and who has always existed, created everything else.

Probably why it's so simple then... doesn't even attempt to explain where the creator came from. :evil look:

Besides which, the Egyptian story about how the gods were born by er... slapping around some monkeys.... sounds much more interesting!

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

See, in the "flawed" mythos/creation stories of the other cultures you posted about, Wayfarer, there was usually an explanation of where God/the Gods came from, but in the Christian/Hebrew/Muslim creation story, it simply says that God has always existed, and I have to agree with BoP's statement (and the evil look. . .) on that. . .

First of all, I do think this is sort of like endorsing tolkien to someone who doesn't like books. Or asking a fascist which party they belong to.

Well, at least he has a sense of humor, even if I don't agree. . .*laughs*

[Cirdan]

Long time no post... Had an "anti-theist moment today. A young man selling magazines "to work through school". The topics were the nature of the universe, and life...., and JESUS!!! He even wanted me to take the pamphlet for a "donation of a few dollars". Satan should be so devious and brazen.

I'm not boing to catch up on older posts, other that to comment on Anduril's Happy Bible Review. Be careful, you may become a theologician. I started the same sort of effort on my own after looking up a few posted references. Then my head became filled with so many contradictions and re-writing of the same events over and over, I got a headache. There is some nice poetry here and there, but waaaay too much smiting and maditory killing.

I then moved on to the new testament, hoping it would be a bit more polished. The dialog is an improvement and christ is charismatic, but the same old cerebellar storm occured. I think the bible was meant as a reference for preists to cull foder for the flock. Reading in it's whole takes away the "suspension of disbelief" that makes the message palitable.

Have fun... I will try to read them but may not respond to all.

BoP: Nice follow with the Lennon. I paraphrased "God" for my sig cause it seemed a better match to my view, even if it didn't rhyme. The song selection reminds me of Firesign Theatre. They had an album called "Lennon and Marx" (john and groucho

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Here you go:

1)God created the heavens and the earth.
2)Man is fallen and in need of serious help
3)Jesus Christ was the son of God. He was both fully human and fully divine.
4)Christ provided paid for us all through his death and ressurection.
5)Accepting him as your savior is the only way.

Now, there are those who would argue with my phrasing (I do disdain theobabble) or who would say that there's more to it (the virgin birth, baptism, etc) but those are the basics of christianity, and a substantial majority of those who call themselves christians hold them.

*delete quote*


Why indeed? Amen, Brother Wheeler!

Let it never be said that I want anybody to become a Christian 'just because'. Or accept it without really looking a it. The only thing I find more irritating than that is people who decide something is false and then go trying to prove it. So I ask that you look at it seriously, but with an open mind.

I'll try wrapping my mind about being objective about a closed system of dogmatic belief (the tenets of which are clearly stated in your post above).

1) God created the heavens (whatever you may interpret those to be) and the earth (the dirt or the planet???). The only objective solution to this problem, while maintaining vigorous objectivity, is to go with the "god as nature" argument (finite causality is a human need for certainty). This is what most christians accept today as pragmatic. It's a moot point because the biblical story is written as fairy tale, even if it were true. The dirt or planet reference is actually a serious one. The people that wrote the bible were probably commiting to parchment an ancient verbal myth that all cultures develop to explain the "what's the point?" itch in our cranky cerebellums. These people didn't have a way to express the concept of zero or infinity. The earth can be easily seen as a translation of the ground from which food is grown and raised.

2) Man is in serious need of help. The net effect of christianity on the troubled little cerebellum is break even. Great moral principles and art versus concentration camps and endless wars. Yes, I know that what evil is done is man made, but a religion that requires complete commitment to the exclusion of the non-believers breeds separatism and group hate.

3) Christ was human and divine. Nice paradox isn't it. That is all tidied up after the fact with the virgin birth and resurrection myths.

4) The concept of of christ suffering for our sins is a bit weak since we all suffer for our sins; and suffer for no misdeed at all. The idea of salvation broadened the audience, and gave people hope that they could be saved despite sin. This may have the tendency to allow repentant murderers into heaven while the best of the billions of non-saved souls go to hell. This is a double edged sword cutting both ways and muddying the water for people who are thinking about thier existance.

5) The only way... another paradox. As a hebrew, jesus held all the tenets of hebrew law, why would gods laws change to exclude the very people he spent so much time on? The muslims accept the god of abraham but see jesus as a prophet. Same god, different rules ( sorry guys, still infidels).

* Hey AE, how is "The Satanic Verses" coming? Is it worth reading?*

Anyway, I tried, and of course, failed (BH) to be objective, but i did my best. I hope your happy with christianity as a social group if you're only interested in the basics. I'm going to keep seeking a nice set of "truths" to live by that don't require me to stop thinking, doubting, and questioning, posting, sleeping.....

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Go EG!

...



Probably why it's so simple then... doesn't even attempt to explain where the creator came from. :evil look:

Besides which, the Egyptian story about how the gods were born by er... slapping around some monkeys.... sounds much more interesting!

I may have read about a micronesian tribe that thought the gods were born by flogging a great white dolphin

The anti-theist thread is like ice cream. Too much can make you sick, but after a week your ready for more!

IT'S ALIVE, IT'S ALIVE!!!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Well, at least he has a sense of humor, even if I don't agree. . .*laughs*

Have you been smited yet?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Cirdan


Have you been smited yet?

Nope. I am not smited; I smite people!

I am greatly tempted to bring in literary (yes, fictional) references again, but I will resist that...I guess nobody has read American Gods. Too bad, there's a great theory behind it. Okay, cannot resist any longer...anyone read The Golden Compass?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf


Nope. I am not smited; I smite people!

I am greatly tempted to bring in literary (yes, fictional) references again, but I will resist that...I guess nobody has read American Gods. Too bad, there's a great theory behind it. Okay, cannot resist any longer...anyone read The Golden Compass?

I did go to amazon to read about "american gods". It's on my wish list (along with i wish i could buy and read any book. any time!)

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Cirdan


I did go to amazon to read about "american gods". It's on my wish list (along with i wish i could buy and read any book. any time!)

Well, that's good, I hope you get it so you can read it soon! It's a very good book! (I just finished it). Then maybe I could talk to someone about it!

[afro-elf]

.

There is no single Hindu myth of origin. There are as many myths as there are texts; sometimes, the same text has more than one.

you seem to have missed the above

in the upanishad's in the begining there was the great self

or from your link

The most celebrated of these is the hymn that contains the earliest known reference to varna. Creation is the result of the sacrifice of Purusha (Man), the primeval being, who is all that exists, including “whatever has been and whatever is to be.”

Well that is rather poetic so i guess its like christainity. you want it literal or poetic.





Greek Creation Myth
In the beginning there was an empty darkness


Japanese Creation Myth
Long ago all the elements were mixed together with one germ of life

Norse Creation Myth

At the beginning of time, nothing existed. The earth, the gentle oceans lapping up against its shores, man and animal had not yet been created. Only a great yawning abyss was present in the void of nothingness


at least the very begining makes some sense


the other examples you gave are quite sub-standard for you

basically you are begging the question by assuming that the bible is divine and using it as you "proof"

can you use external "proof" of a christian god