The God Delusion

157 posts / 0 new
Last post
LogicFTW's picture
You can say there is no way

You can say there is no way to separate facts and belief all you want. You can say there is no such thing as truly objective, as everything is sensory data interpreted and calculated in our brains.

I am curious, if you have pain at one point, say an ache from sitting in a chair for far too long and your back hurts. Can you decide internally hey, this pain is only subjective, It is not objective, and simply "turn off" those pain signals flooding your brain? Try it next time, see if you can decide everything is subjective and suddenly have no concern for any pain you have. I think both you and I already know the result of such an attempt, your back will go right on being painful no matter how much you try to think everything is subjective. It will occupy your thoughts.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Apollo's picture
You example of a pain in your

You example of a pain in your back is unconvincing.
Your arguement seems to be,
I can't turn off the pain in my back, therefore all my interpretations of my observations must be true. Its not logical.

I think you misunderstand "subjective".

The subject is a sentient being, usually a person. The object is the thing the subject is observing, attending to, apprehending, and the like.
Hence we have what is called the subject-object relationship. Objectivity requires apprehending the object without any influence by the subject.

In your example, the object the subject is apprehending, is pain in the back. You might report the pain as severe, but an oberver might say you have no pain at all, and you are just malingering. Now what is your objective criteria to prove the matter one way or the other? Both can refer to their own "sense data", and never resolve the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_data#Criticisms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

As you can read here, the sense datum theory used to be popular, but has been abandoned except by the naive.

LogicFTW's picture
@Apollo

@Apollo

Your arguement seems to be,
I can't turn off the pain in my back, therefore all my interpretations of my observations must be true.

Using the definition of objective on a google search: "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
I apologize, I guess I did not present my argument well. I never intended to connect a pain in the back to all observations. Just the observation of back pain it self. I do not know of anyone that has a severe pain of any kind (okay let us keep going with back pain example.) That can go: hey my back pain is only subjective to me in my head and thoughts.) I will simply decide the thought is strictly subjective, and voila! back pain is banished from my thoughts because it is a subjective thought that I want to stop thought on. I argue that back pain, or any kind of intense pain is actually objective. Because it will be present and is not influenced by personal feelings or opinion no matter how much we would want it to be. We may be able to lesson or strengthen the back pain feeling with personal feelings and opinion, but regardless those pain signals to the brain will keep arriving and intruding upon our thoughts. Ask any person that suffers chronic pain their thoughts about the pain being strictly subjective. We can also objectively measure the signal of pain going from the source of the chronic pain to the brain. If anything, by if we managed to sever that pain communication passageway the pain will stop.

Here is another way to look at it as well: you can have any amount of subjective thought and consideration, but if I objectively temporarily stop the flow of blood to the brain, all those subjective thoughts will rather quickly disappear and fade away as the loss of fresh blood to the brain gets acute. Subjective thought is completely reliant upon objective realities. I think it is safe to say there is plenty of objective reality, even within our brain and thoughts. Not everything is subjective, there are ways to separate fact and belief. We only get in trouble with facts and subjectiveness when there is a total absence of any objectivity, such as the thought concept of the various god ideas. They are completely devoid of objective evidence, where other things like pain, and sensory input, are not completely devoid of physical testable objective reality.

As you can read here, the sense datum theory used to be popular, but has been abandoned except by the naive.

I looked at your wikipedia criticisms page, and did not see the word "abandoned" anywhere in it. I did see at the top of the page: "Talk of sense-data has since been largely replaced by talk of the closely related qualia." I also was not alluding to or trying to go by "sense data" theory. I actually only heard of the term in passing in a few other conversations here on these boards or others like it. I am simply refuting your "In the meantime, your claims to objectivity is faith in an illusion. There is no way to seperate facts and values, and no way to seperate facts and belief." quote. By pointing out something like back pain can be separated from belief by the person perceiving the back pain.
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Sheldon's picture
Subjective opinion involves

Subjective opinion involves bias, objective methods like science and logic are designed to remove that bias. They work exceptionally well, as the demonstrable results show.

If you reject objective evidence, and those methods, then you can't rationally assert anything, though you can of course believe anything you want, which is why some theists seem to think this idea is a compelling argument for their beliefs, it;s not of course.

Apollo's picture
"Objectivity"

"Objectivity"

I often encounter the word "objective" in posts here and elswhere, but I have long believed objectivity does not exist. I'm very skeptical, and I take it that being skeptical is allowed here. But I don't find too many athiest using the method of doubt, or skepticism, on their own terminology, and their own claims.

What the heck does "objective" mean? Apparently it means that their is a criterion, a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided that is fixed, and external to the person who is making the claim to objectivity. Objectivity implies that the criterion for truth is outside the knowing person.

So when you guys, whoever you are, use the term "objective", you never elaborate on precisely what that fixed external (to you) criterion for truth is. I have long suspected it is a fairy tale, some kool aid, swollowed with out any skepticism or critical thinking.

I suspect that anyone who uses the term "objective" is using it as a smoke screen to cover their assumptions, beliefs, and faith.

Sheldon's picture
"I often encounter the word

"I often encounter the word "objective" in posts here and elswhere, (sic) but I have long believed objectivity does not exist."

Who cares, that's a subjective claim.

A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias.

"I suspect that anyone who uses the term "objective" is using it as a smoke screen to cover their assumptions, beliefs, and faith."

Who cares, that's another blatantly biased and subjective opinion. Used to risibly try and justify your belief in unevidenced archaic superstition, for which you can demonstrate no objective evidence. I'm sure you think dismissing the best criteria we have for validating claims and beliefs is a sly way for you to justify beliefs that can't be validated by any objective means, the trouble is we could believe anything using your dishonest verbiage.

.

Apollo's picture
Sheldon, I'm not claiming

Sheldon, I'm not claiming objectivity, you are. I'm well aware that objectivity doesn't exist.

I went through all this a couple of years ago here on this forum. the objectivists on the forum who cared to try and formulate a criterion and or method to be objective failed. I don't see objectivity in your posts, just your personal opinions.

Getting back to The God Delusion, and other Dawkins ramblings, it is interesting that he formulates 'the god hypothesis' after he has already concluded God doesn't exist. Why would he do that? its convoluted.

I'm looking forward to your "objective" and therefore indubitably true response.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Apollo - I often encounter

Apollo - I often encounter the word "objective" in posts here and elswhere, but I have long believed objectivity does not exist....What the heck does "objective" mean?

What is objective and subjective is similar to what is fact and what is opinion.

The proper distance between the end points of a board is objective. Meaning that people will not disagree on this distance.

What the best color to paint the board to match the rest of your house is subjective. People will come to different conclusions.

Apollo's picture
Well "proper distance" is a

Well "proper distance" is a value judgement. there is no criterion external to the subject to determine "proper". Proper seems to be a human (subject) construct applied to a board (object). What is the board for? It is probably some human (subjective) purpose which then defines "proper" to achieve the human (subject) goal.

yes, "best color" is a personal preference. Even if the goal was to reflect heat, and white was a candidate, the goal is still defined by a subjects purpose. Physical measurements of a board, or reflective properties of a color do get close to the ideal of objectiviety. Classical physics comes close to objectivity, but out side that, we have to increasingly rely on values, skill, and judgement to arrive at accurate conclusions, which, despite every effort, could be mistaken conclusions.

But the closeness to the ideal of objectivity in picking board lengths and colors, doesn't really transfer to "God Delusion" topics as far as I can see. A similiar issue arose in another thread where it was proposed that Pepsi had more calories than coke, or somthing like that. It was proposed that it was objective fact. However, all facts rely on unproven beliefs, other wise known as assumptions. For example, how was the calorie content determined? did he just read it on the can? Oh so believeing what one reads is objective? did he send a sample to a lab to verify whats on the label? Maybe the lab was mistaken. but even if the lab wasn't mistaken, how would he know the sample was representative of all cans of Pepsi and Coke? What if they changed their fourmula over time? What if they had different formulas to suit different cultural tastes for sweetness?

It goes on an on. Objectivity does not exist. Not even in seemingly easy things such as Pepsi and Coke. When we get out of the soda arena into God talk, objectivity becomes even more elusive.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Apollo - Well "proper

Apollo - Well "proper distance" is a value judgement.

Proper distance is invariant (it is the same for everyone).

Apollo's picture
Please elaborate on that.

Please elaborate on that. Give me a concrete example.

arakish's picture
You are thick. Can't get any

You are thick. Can't get any denser. Does the IQ test score that low?

It is called personal space.

rmfr

Nyarlathotep's picture
It is essentially a

It is essentially a consequence of the postulates from special relativity. That all inertial observers will agree on the proper distance between the end points of a rod.

Or to put it in English: that everyone will agree on this "length" of a rod, that rods have this property independently of observers, that rods have this objective property.

Sheldon's picture
"I suspect that anyone who

"I suspect that anyone who uses the term "objective" is using it as a smoke screen to cover their assumptions, beliefs, and faith."

Who cares, if objective evidence doesn't exist, then I can just dismiss that with a subjective opinion, so you're talking bollocks.

Cognostic's picture
The phrase "objective reality

The phrase "objective reality" means that reality exists independent of our minds. The description "objective" doesn't make a lot of sense on its own, but it does in comparison to the competing theory of the relationship between consciousness and existence.

http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture22.shtml

Discussing the "objective nature of reality" only works when it is compared to the above relationship. Beyond that the word is probably being misused.

Apollo's picture
Darwin became an atheist?

Darwin became an atheist?
I'm skeptical that he became an atheist. Reportedly he changed his views on the Bible, from a literalist view, to interpreting it figurativley. That's all for the better in my opinion. Its not uncommon for Christians to reform their beliefs as they get older and learn more. I believe it is important for people to be open to reform.

Sheldon's picture
"Darwin became an atheist?

"Darwin became an atheist?
I'm skeptical that he became an atheist."
------------------------------------------------
You're biased, and don't even understand objectivity or it's value, let alone have any.

In November 1880, Charles Darwin received a request from a young barrister named FA McDermott. “If I am to have the pleasure of reading your books,” McDermott wrote, “I must feel that at the end I shall not have lost my faith in the New Testament. My reason in writing to you therefore is to ask you to give me a Yes or No to the question Do you believe in the New Testament.”

Darwin’s reply, penned on 24 November 1880 – exactly 21 years after the publication of On the Origin of Species – was blunt:

"Dear Sir,

I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.

Yours faithfully

Ch. Darwin"

"For decades Darwin had avoided publishing his ideas about evolution in order to shield his family, especially his religious wife, from any hint of scandal. On this letter to McDermott, he scrawled the word “private” across the top, a significant addition considering the provocative content. Even at the age of 71, he was wary of expressing his true thoughts about his faith. “Darwin never flaunted his disbelief, but he never denied it,” said David Quammen, author of The Reluctant Mr Darwin and editor of the illustrated edition of On the Origin of Species. He also never put it on paper quite as candidly as he had to McDermott."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/15/charles-darwin-letter-auct...

Apollo's picture
You continue to be funny. I

You continue to be funny. I believe in God, but I don't, like Darwin, believe Jesus is literally the "son of God". It doesn't mean that I or Darwin is an atheist.

You don't seem to clue into the reality that people believed in God long before Jesus lived, and the New Testament was written, as if the existance of God relied on the New Testament.

The new testament wasn't written in English, and translations into English require interpretation. Reportedly, the original language is is almost devoid of adverbs. So if they wanted to say somone was an utterly perfect carpenter, they'd say he was the "son of carpentry". So when they want to say Jesus is godly, they say he is the son of God in the origional language. When it gets translated to English it suggests something that was not originally intended. It doesn't mean he is literally the son of God, it means they thought he was a godly person.

Of course, the fundamentalists will disagree with that interpretation, but I don't care. They are mixed up, and so are you.

Sheldon's picture
https://www.theguardian.com

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/15/charles-darwin-letter-auct...

Get a literate adult to read the article to you, and if necessary explain what it means. Darwin died an atheist, get over it. Why do theists get their panties into such a bunch about Darwin being an atheist? Usually just after they claim to not care, bless.

"The new testament wasn't written in English, "

Gerraway! Honestly this has to be a set up, doesn't it?

I am going to dumb this down as much as I can for you. I don't give a fuck what the bible says, or what anybody claims it is supposed to mean. Why would I, it's just a book? If an omniscient omnipotent deity exists, then the idea it's message is handicapped by the limits of human linguistics is too absurdly stupid for anyone with a 3 digit IQ not to notice.

There is a simple reason it has to be rationalised, that's because it is superstitious nonsense written by ignorant humans who understood nothing about the world they lived in.

" It doesn't mean he is literally the son of God, it means they thought he was a godly person."

Once again I don't fucking care, and once again why would I? I am an atheist, so I don't believe *ANY* deity exists, why don't you understand this?

LogicFTW's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

If an omniscient omnipotent deity exists, then the idea it's message is handicapped by the limits of human linguistics is too absurdly stupid for anyone with a 3 digit IQ not to notice.

Very well summed up. I made a new post talking about this, but you presented the point I was trying to make in a very distinct way that I will, (slightly edited) use my self when explaining a major flaw of religion and religious text to those that have not heard it before.

A flaw all by it self is more than enough for any rational person to discard any religious god idea as they are presented.

And to think this is just one of many huge flaws in regard to religions and god. In the face of such flaws it makes me feel theist have to operate in a purposefully ignorant manner to ignore or deny them all. But then: religion does give people warm fuzzy lies they want to hear, such is the trap of religion, all refined over and over, over thousands of years to make it such a ridiculously flawed and obvious lie embraced by so many.

God and religion is the addictive "cocaine" of organized thought, sold and peddled to people by drug dealers that want control. In a highly perfected and practiced scheme of going after the vulnerable, (kids!) or in much of human history, by brutal force to over take the original "god idea" drug of the area.
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

arakish's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

"The new testament wasn't written in English, and translations into English require interpretation. Reportedly, the original language is is almost devoid of adverbs."

Now you are being an outright liar. Just like ALL Religious Absolutists. Most, if not all, of the NT was written in Greek. And they did have adverbs back then. Even in Ancient Greek there were adverbs. I should know. My wife was Greek, my parents-in-law are Greek, their parents, whom we visited in Greece were, wait for it..., Greek.

You, kind sir, are nothing but an ignorant, illiterate, retard. Take your lies somewhere else.

rmfr

Apollo's picture
The Hebrews had their own

The Hebrews had their own language, namely Hebrew, so the original language was Hebrew, so your implication that the original language was Greek, is misleading. Their texts were apparently translated to Greek, then to English and other languages, but that doesn't make the original language Greek, as you seem to imply.

Its possible I was misinformed about the matter, but I am not convinced since the original language was Hebrew. Keep digging, and we may get to the bottom of this.

Also, in the Bible, when Jesus was asked who he was, he said he was the "son of man". I am the "son of man" simply means, I am a person. Moreover, in the well known Lords' Prayer, Jesus apparently said, "Our father...." If God is "our Father", then we are all "sons of god". Presumably, daughters as well. so the "son of god" taken literally as some claim to divintiy is very muddy to me, and I don't accept it.

(Since the original language was Hebrew, not Greek, I suppose I could retaliate and call you a liar, but Sheldon says we are adults talking here.)

arakish's picture
@ Apollo

@ Apollo

You are speaking of the old testament, not the new. The new one was written mostly in Greek. The Romans had their Latin, but they also used Greek. Why? Because of Alexander the Great had been there first. He left behind the legacy of the lingua franca of Greek.

"Keep digging, and we may get to the bottom of this." I have already spent at least 35 years researching the Bible outside of the Bible. How much have you done? None.

Old Man said it perfectly once, and I paraphrase, "It is a damned shame these apologists come here and spew their nonsense having never researched the Bible outside of the Bible, nor its actual history."

================================================================================
================================================================================

Some Additional Interesting Information

Dude. You really need to study up on history. This is just a VERY SMALL portion of all the research I have done. Most of it was done while on vacation to the Levant and surrounding areas.

BTW: This is the artifact (Merneptah Stele) I have seen in person. Furthermore, all the below artifacts had a date range. I chose the date that makes the artifact oldest within those date ranges. Thus, making anything Hebrew/Israel as old as possible. Just so you Christians would not cry foul, I actually ceded in favor for your cause. Honestly, and this is a Ripley's Believe It or Not, and I could care less which you do, I honestly spent 20 years researching (during vacations) spread across a time of 30 years trying to prove the Bible historically correct. Reason: I wanted to know from a scientific point of view why someone would put so much faith into something that has never been proven correct.

Merneptah Stele; Location: Cairo Museum; Found: 1896, Thebes; Date: circa 1200 BCE; Writing: Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Biblical archaeologist translate the set of hieroglyphs on Line 27 as "Israel." Ancient Egyptian archaeologists differ saying the hieroglyphs actually translate as "Jezreel," a city and valley in the Land of Canaan. This also constitutes the only record in Ancient Egyptian that mentions Jezreel/Israel.

I have to admit that I got the dates reversed in my Exodus to Nowhere essay. I am certain I flipped them between this artifact and when the Hebrew people actually came into being and the first mention of them in Egypt. The above artifact does not mention "hebrew" or "israel." It actually mentions "jezreel people," not "israel nation" as the biblical persons would have one believe. However, ALL archaeological evidence proves "hebrew" or "israel" was NEVER in the empire proper of Egypt (near the Nile). They may have been within Egypt's Sphere of Influence in the Levant, but the Hebrews/Israel did come into existence until around 850 to 800 BCE. Six hundred, SIX! hundred years after the dates given by biblical scholars for the Exodus (circa 1440 BCE).

Additionally, if I remember my biblical history correctly, was not Israel (Jacob) before the Exodus? And the Exodus was supposed to have begun in circa 1440 BCE? And this record is over 200 years younger? Moses supposedly died in 1400 BCE (just before the Hebrew Invasion), and later that same year Joshua began his campaign to rape the Land of Canaan? All of this going by what biblical scholars preach...

The next oldest Egyptian Artifact even mentioning anything about Israel is the Mesha Stele, (dated circa 850 BCE), written by the Moabites with reference to "house of David," constituting the earliest mention of a "David." This does not prove Israel was a nation, just there was a house/family with the name of "David" near the Moabites. Also see next two entries.

Saba's Stele (dated circa 800 BCE) details the accounts of an Assyrian army's campaign (see below) in Philistia circa 800 BCE, yet has no mention of any "Hebrew/Israel" nation/people in the Land of Canaan through which they would have had to march to get to Philistia. Strange.

Then there is the Nimrud Slab (dated circa 800 BCE) which details Adad-nirari III's Assyrian conquests of Palastu (Phillistia), Tyre, Sidon, Edom, and Humri. Humri is said to be the Akkadian translation for Hebrew (Israel). The earliest mentioning of Hebrew. I got that date wrong from another document since it stated the word Hebrew did not appear in the Assyrian (Akkadian) language until circa 1000 to 800 BCE. It was kind of right, just gave a broader date range.

Gezer Calendar dated circa 950 BCE is the earliest appearance of Paleo-Aramaic/Hebrew written language.

The walls of the tombs of Ahmose (dated circa 1500 BCE), son of Ebana, sometimes said to be the basis of the Moses myth, and Ahmose Pen Nekhbet (dated circa 1450 BCE) detail the earliest records of Egyptian control of the Land of Canaan. The Bible's depiction of Israel does not allow for Egyptian control over the Land of Canaan.

The Great Hymn to the Aten (dated circa 1400 BCE) is seen to possess strong similarities to Psalm 104 (circa 1440 to 585 BCE (Why such a huge range?)), which may be based on it. Of course, biblical achaeologists and biblical scholars refute this. I could care less. I thought it was interesting.

Ipuwer Papyrus (dated 1850 BCE (400 years before the supposed Exodus)) contains a poem that describes Egypt as afflicted by social anarchy and in a state of chaos. This archaeological evidence does not support the story of the Exodus, and most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider it relevant to the story of Israel's emergence. Nevertheless, the Ipuwer Papyrus is often put forward in popular literature as confirmation of the Biblical account, most notably because of its statement that "the river is blood" which naturally occurs due to iron rich sediments during the disastrous floods of the Nile. Additionally, it states that the social disruption may have actually been caused by the "arrival of Asiatic servants." Asiatic meaning Oriental? Wow.

Khirbet Qeiyafa shrines (oldest dated to circa 860 BCE) are cultic constructs many see as evidence of a "cult in Judah of David" and with features (triglyphs and recessed doors) which may resemble features in descriptions of the Temple of Solomon.

Ophel Inscription (dated circa 1100 BCE (300 years after the supposed Hebrew invasion cicra 1400 BCE)) is an inscribed fragment of a ceramic jar found near Jerusalem's Temple Mount by archeologist Eilat Mazar. It is the earliest alphabetical inscription found in Jerusalem written in Proto-Canaanite script. Some scholars believe it to be an inscription of the type of wine that was held in a jar.

Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions (dated circa 850 BCE) are inscriptions in Phoenician script including references to Yahweh. The earliest record of the mention of "yahweh." Still is 550 years after the supposed Hebrew Invasion circa 1400 BCE detailed in the book of Joshua.

Khirbet Beit Lei (dated circa 700 BCE) contains oldest known Hebrew writing of the word "Jerusalem." "I am YHWH thy Lord. I will accept the cities of Judah and I will redeem Jerusalem" And later, "Absolve us oh merciful God. Absolve us oh YHWH."

After this, artifacts just get younger. I chose the oldest ones found to date. Showing that the Hebrew/Israel nation did come into existence until many centuries after the dates put forth by biblical arhaeologists and biblical scholars.

If biblical scholars got all their dates wrong, then I am damned certain ALL Religious Absolutists have all their dates wrong as well.

Still want to talk about digging a little deeper?

================================================================================
================================================================================

"Sheldon says we are adults talking here." Excepting you because, with you, we are dealing with a Religious Absolutist. As Robert A. Heinlein said once (I paraphrase): "Men rarely create any god superior to themselves. The gods they create all have the manners of a childish, spoiled brat." Childish, spoiled brat is a very exact description of Religious Absolutists also.

Using your own religious words against you: "God created man in his own image: Angry, Spiteful, Murderous, Bigoted, Homophobic, an Ethnic Genocidal Cleanser, Intolerant, Misogynistic, Jealous, Violent, Hateful, Abusive, Torturer, Sacrificer, Oppressive, Terrorizer, Bodily Mutilator, Rapist, Molester..." And the list can go on evermore...

You, like quip and Deme3, really and truly need to read and study God's Nastiest Turd. However, like all cowardly Religious Absolutists, you do not want your Sky Faerie and Magic Zombie Virgin shown to be what they truly are.

rmfr

Apollo's picture
You're funny. I haven't

You're funny. I haven't believed the Bible is history for some 50 years. Its not my cause to try and prove the bible is history. If you read my recent posts, you might (objectively) notice that I wrote the Bible is literature.
I do admire your passion however.

I have long debated the Fundy's over this. They say things like Jericho was discovered by archeologists, therefore the Bible is history. Their reasoning is flawed. Its similiar to saying that some best selling novel refers to New York City, and since New your is a real place, the entire novel must be history.

Anyway's your historical interest is admirable, but it really isn't relevant to "the God hypothesis". Many atheists seem to think if they sucessfully attack the 'Bible as history' thesis, then God doesn't exist. That doesn't make any sense.

arakish's picture
Apollo: Anyway's your

Apollo: Anyway's your historical interest is admirable, but it really isn't relevant to "the God hypothesis".

Yes it does. NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE! Thus, the probability is about 99.9999999% that your Sky Faerie does not exist. Since there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, this means your fantasies are just that. Unless of course you can provide Objective Hard Empirical Evidence, your Sky Faerie does not exist.

And you are also a Fundy as you call them. I prefer Religious Absolutist. All of you at least suffer from schizophrenic delusional disorder.

Apollo: Anyway's your historical interest is admirable, but it really isn't relevant to "the God hypothesis".

And your lack of it makes you an ignorant and illiterate Religious Absolutist.

You should look into the history of your schizophrenic delusions before you spew diarrhea. Interesting fact I discovered. The OLDEST copy of the old testament in Hebrew/Aramaic dates back to only circa 450 BCE. The OLDEST copy of the old testament in Ancient Greek dates back to circa 550 BCE. Hmm...

And if memory serves, the OLDEST copy of anything like the Hebrew Torah is written in Akkadian and dates back to about 800 BCE.

And you are the one who said the Bible was originally written in Hebrew. Hmm...

rmfr

Edit: broke the blockquotes again and added another thought

arakish's picture
Apollo: "I haven't believed

Apollo: "I haven't believed the Bible is history for some 50 years."

I am up to 60 some years.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"seem to think if they

"seem to think if they sucessfully attack the 'Bible as history' thesis, then God doesn't exist. That doesn't make any sense."

Of course it does, it's absurdly stupid to believe a message is inspired by a being with limitless knowledge and power, yet can get the most basic historical facts right.

The usual theist cliche is that the message has been corrupted. Of course no evidence is or can be demonstrated for that claim either. So in the bin it goes with Hitchens's razor applied. Except to mention if it were corrupt it would of course be useless without any objective means to establish what if anything remained that can be established as divine in origin.

You're the one who is funny. Anyone would think you were offering staggering new profound insights here, instead of the same tired old irrational cliches apologists have always offered.

The bible is erroneous and dated with obscene "moral" teachings because humans wrote it centuries ago, and humans are fallible. This doesn't evidence a deity as the source, just the the opposite in fact.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity exists?

None is the answer and you've already given it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Apollo - Since the original

Apollo - Since the original language was Hebrew, not Greek...

As other have told you, most of the New Testament was written in Greek.

Randomhero1982's picture
Incorrect.

Incorrect.

If you read his autobiography as well as his letters, he clearly states that he does not feel qualified to discuss religion and that he migrated from theism to agnosticism.

He even claimed that as he got older he felt more atheist but would never claim if there was or wasn't a God.

Apollo's picture
Given the documentation

Given the documentation concerning his beliefs about the New Testament above, I agree with Darwin on that matter.
The apparent fact that he "would never claim if there was or wasn't a God" doesn't make him an atheist.

Too, the church he belonged to did not reject him, and in fact honored him. He got a burial in Westminster Abby, and it was a major event. Claiming that Darwin was an atheist is a leap of faith. Also, I don't have documentation he was agnostic. I'd like a reference quoting him claiming he was agnostic.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.