God is Evil

[oumahexi]

You seemed to have only picked the part off the definition that suits your argument.

Yep, I'm only human after all

 

[Mike375]

As for disproving the bible well I don't think it is something to be disproved. Some of it happened, some of it didn't. There are plenty of contradictions and difficulties with it. See http://www.atheistsbiblecompanion.com/ for more info.

If you search around you will get the Bible basher sites that counter it all. I think we had that on the Atheist thread Alisa started.

The "born agains" have a good answer on the age of the earth etc. God made it that age just as he could make someone today and make them 50 years of age.

The one point that knocks the religious people is the fact that if we can make changes so we go to heaven then God did not know the answer.

As a side note, has anyone read the section in Job about what could be two dinosaurs. The tail like the cedar rules out the elephant and hippo. Th eother does noot fit a Nile crocodile and is closer to one of the pilosaurs.

In my opinion if the Bible is examined from the perspective of God being all powerful etc then it totally collapses. But from the perspective of a god with limited power it shapes up much better.

But one thing is for sure and that is both the born agains and atheists see things in a manner that is clear compared to most people. I don't think many people are true atheists but rather agnostics.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

The "born agains" have a good answer on the age of the earth etc. God made it that age just as he could make someone today and make them 50 years of age.

Sure, but when you consider the implications of this, it makes God out to be the biggest fraud or hoaxer ever - all those fossils of organisms that never actually lived - fossils with evidence of injuries from battles they never actually fought, etc.

Plus the starlight thing - if the starlight from objects appearing more than 6,000 light years away is fake, that means the events portrayed by it (supernovae, for example) never actually happened.

It's easy to accept that God would need to create humans, trees, etc in mature form - just so they would function, it's not so easy to see why an honest deity would create fictional histories for other things, especially when those fictional histories so sharply contradict the supposed truth.

In my experience, creationists can't decide which side of the fence to inhabit on that topic anyway - they'll quite merrily be arguing, in the same breath, that:
There IS abundant evidence of a young universe, here, here and here..
There IS NO evidence of a young universe, because God tricked it all up to look old.
(Usually, the second of these arguments gets wheeled out when the examples given in the first case are shown to be false).

As a side note, has anyone read the section in Job about what could be two dinosaurs. The tail like the cedar rules out the elephant and hippo.

I heard the word translated 'tail' can also mean 'penis' (the selfsame passage does also go on about 'stones' and 'loins', as I recall)

 

[Mike375]

Sure, but when you consider the implications of this, it makes God out to be the biggest fraud or hoaxer ever - all those fossils of organisms that never actually lived - fossils with evidence of injuries from battles they never actually fought, etc.

Hitler was a bad boy but he existed.

Plus the starlight thing - if the starlight from objects appearing more than 6,000 light years away is fake, that means the events portrayed by it (supernovae, for example) never actually happened.

But God as opposed to go could make the galaxy 6000 light years away and have the light arriving here even though he might have made the galaxy only 10000 years ago.

It's easy to accept that God would need to create humans, trees, etc in mature form - just so they would function, it's not so easy to see why an honest deity would create fictional histories for other things, especially when those fictional histories so sharply contradict the supposed truth.

But you are assuming God is a certain type of person. You are also assuming that God would think like us.

In my experience, creationists can't decide which side of the fence to inhabit on that topic anyway - they'll quite merrily be arguing, in the same breath, that:
There IS abundant evidence of a young universe, here, here and here..
There IS NO evidence of a young universe, because God tricked it all up to look old.
(Usually, the second of these arguments gets wheeled out when the examples given in the first case are shown to be false).

Partly agree and partly because they vary.

I heard the word translated 'tail' can also mean 'penis' (the selfsame passage does also go on about 'stones' and 'loins', as I recall)

If you read it the it takes a big stretch to get elephant or hippo out of it and ditto for crocodile.

I think the other one they go on with is the animals mentioned in the Bible are the domestic ones and dragons. But you are righ in the sense that translations are an issue.

But just as the "born agains" can be rough around the edges so can the anti Bible people and one case being the issue of translations. For them to give what they believe are the correct translations must mean they have some belief in the book.

 

[Alc]

Why do atheists deny the possibility of a higher life form than the human?

The only reason I can think of is to acknowledge the possibility of a higher life form than human means the idea of being an atheist falls to pieces.

So do atheists not accept the possibility of life outside earth and also evolution? Are atheists anti science for any particular reason?

I assume this one is aimed at me, since I was the first to object to your 'logic'. The answer is that I don't deny the possibility. Your inital statement was that if you believe in evolution, you MUST believe in a higher life form than us. All I said was that if something must be the highest - and, again, I'm not arguing with that - why can't it be man?

 

[oumahexi]

I assume this one is aimed at me, since I was the first to object to your 'logic'. The answer is that I don't deny the possibility. Your inital statement was that if you believe in evolution, you MUST believe in a higher life form than us. All I said was that if something must be the highest - and, again, I'm not arguing with that - why can't it be man?

I think that scares a lot of people because what hope have we if THIS is the BEST? People need something to aspire to, something better than they are, a perception of perfection, whether it's perfectly good (as in god-followers) or perfectly evil (as in satanists). Find me the perfect man (or woman) and I'll concede that we could be the highest form of life.

On reflection, this thread seems to state that god is less than perfect, so perhaps there's something higher still?

 

[Mike375]

I assume this one is aimed at me, since I was the first to object to your 'logic'. The answer is that I don't deny the possibility. Your inital statement was that if you believe in evolution, you MUST believe in a higher life form than us. All I said was that if something must be the highest - and, again, I'm not arguing with that - why can't it be man?

I said evolution and life elsewhere.

Well to believe that man is the top dog in the universe would take some very heavy duty believing.

On the other hand if man is the top dog in the universe and that could be proven then I think seating room at the churches next Sunday would be in short supply

 

[chergh]

Why are you so intent on something being at the top???

 

[Mike375]

Why are you so intent on something being at the top???

Maybe because we are talking about gods and God

 

[oumahexi]

Just seems natural, if you're going to grade something from good to evil you'd grade it up and down as opposed to left to right, I think you'd lose most of your audience if you were to talk about good being on left and bad on right (or vice versa). I'm happy to hear of any other scale you think may be appropriate to measure godness with though.

 

[chergh]

If I was going to measure godness it would be a scale using the square root of -1

Anyway the somethign at a top discussion I referred to was talking about the development of different species that may or may not exist. Species will be adapted to their own environments and humans are only the top dog on this planet when armed. We can't even reach the bottom of the deepest ocean ourselves.

Saying there is a "top dog" in the universe in nonsensical.

Good and evil are complete misnomers as to have any real meaning they need some absolute moral scale which really doesn't exist.

 

[oumahexi]

Anyway the somethign at a top discussion I referred to was talking about the development of different species that may or may not exist. Species will be adapted to their own environments and humans are only the top dog on this planet when armed. We can't even reach the bottom of the deepest ocean ourselves.

Physically, perhaps, but we have other advantages, our minds can reason, think, adapt and create in ways that no other animal on the planet can, and I think that this is what people tend to percieve as our greatness - our ability to build and destroy without breaking into a sweat. Like it or not, it is a fairly unique ability.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Hitler was a bad boy but he existed.

Not really seeing the relevance of that. I was talking about fossils that appear to have been real living animals, but that would in fact be fakes, if they date before the supposed creation of the earth.
In cases where we find, say, a tyrannosaur tooth embedded in the skull of something else, and they date before the supposed creation of the earth, then it means a fictional story of conflict has been woven.

But God as opposed to go could make the galaxy 6000 light years away and have the light arriving here even though he might have made the galaxy only 10000 years ago.

Again, the light isn't the problem - the story it tells, is. If we see a supernova happening to a star, say, 25,000 light years distant, it means the star never existed at all - but was created in already-exploded state, along with an arrangement of photons that tell the fictional story of a supernova.

But you are assuming God is a certain type of person. You are also assuming that God would think like us.

Actually, I'm not, but your point here undermines the whole discussion - on everyone's side. If any argument about anything can be supported or dismissed on the basis that God is too spooky for us to understand, predict, or make sense of, then all bets are off, all discussion of the topic is pointless.

Partly agree and partly because they vary.

Well, OK, but that means that God tried to trick it up to look old, but failed to do the job properly or completely.

 

[Mike375]

Anyway the somethign at a top discussion I referred to was talking about the development of different species that may or may not exist. Species will be adapted to their own environments and humans are only the top dog on this planet when armed. We can't even reach the bottom of the deepest ocean ourselves.

To animals humans are gods.

Man can determine outcomes for animals that are outside nature.

The animal sees the hunter and runs off a couple of hundred yards. Everything in its experience and instinct says it is safe.

 

[chergh]

Physically, perhaps, but we have other advantages, our minds can reason, think, adapt and create in ways that no other animal on the planet can, and I think that this is what people tend to percieve as our greatness - our ability to build and destroy without breaking into a sweat. Like it or not, it is a fairly unique ability.

Wrong there is a lot of evidence some of the great apes can reason, think, adapt and create. There is one story reccently of an ape collecting stones to throw at people. Jane Goodal did research which showed apes creating and using tools. These 2 examples of the top of my head shows reason, thinking, adapting and creating in non human species and I am sure there are many more examples.

We are not as unique as you may like to think.

 

[Alc]

To animals humans are gods.

No, we're not.

Unless I missed some documentary/book about it, there's no evidence to suggest anything other than humans have found it necesary to invent the idea of a god. Animals may see us as different, but I doubt they all think like you.

 

[chergh]

To animals humans are gods.

Man can determine outcomes for animals that are outside nature.

The animal sees the hunter and runs off a couple of hundred yards. Everything in its experience and instinct says it is safe.

Yeah good arguments Mike you've convinced me. Well maybe not.

If we were gods to animals they would be building us churches and laying down before us when ever we pass. With your belief that you are a god to animals please feel free to go for a walk past some hungry lions and watch them worship you.

man is a part of nature therefore I would contend nothing we can do is outside nature.

Your last point makes no sense and I've no idea what the point of it is.

 

[oumahexi]

Wrong there is a lot of evidence some of the great apes can reason, think, adapt and create. There is one story reccently of an ape collecting stones to throw at people. Jane Goodal did research which showed apes creating and using tools. These 2 examples of the top of my head shows reason, thinking, adapting and creating in non human species and I am sure there are many more examples.

We are not as unique as you may like to think.

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where I said "like no other animals can"?

 

[dan-cat]

To animals humans are gods.

My dog doesn't hold the mailman in reverence I can assure you.

 

[chergh]

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where I said "like no other animals can"?

Yes but that part is so ambiguous and open to interpretation that I took it to mean that other animals are purely creatures of instinct that do not plan or create so I gave a counter example.

Also just because other animals don't think and create like we do doesn't necessarily mean they can't. Maybe they can and have decided it isn't worth the trouble?