A Question For Supernaturalists

155 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
@Jo "I think one of the

@Jo "I think one of the main issues is a misunderstanding of the intent of the Bible." For FK SAKE. The bible is a collection of books. It is an ANTHOLOGY. To even begin discussing 'INTENT' you must separate out all the books and look at each one separately. John's Intent - to turn Jesus into a God is no place near Paul's intent . You don't get to collectively talk about "Intent of the Bible without sounding ignorant.

RE: "The Bible is not intended as a document to explain or educate us in science, history, or geography." And yet it does contain information in all these areas and frequently gets the information WRONG! How is anyone to trust such a source in the modern world when the CORRECT information is at our finger tips. You would think a book inspired by the all powerful God and creator of the universe would have gotten a few things right.

RE: "It is more about the reason and purpose." As you are focusing on the book of Genesis, what reason or purpose does god give for the creation of the universe in Genesis? Genesis says nothing at all about "WHY GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE." "NOTHING!" Genesis is in fact an early scientific explanation that explains in ignorant Iron Age scientific terms 'HOW THE UNIVERSE CAME TO BE." There is no "WHY" in Genesis.

RE: FALSE ANALOGY Grandfather is not the same thing as the all powerful and mighty creator of the universe. The mental masturbation you have to do to get her is astounding. You are making the assertion that an all powerful creator god, could not, in 100 words or less, clearly state how and why he made the universe. 1. How do you know that? 2. Why are you limiting god's ability? I LOVE THIS PART " If you had no knowledge of engineering and architecture, and were illiterate. He wouldn't waste words trying to explain precisely when each part was built, how it was built, and what it is made out of. He would focus the information he provides you with, on the purpose and significance." GENESIS SAYS NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT PURPOSE OR SIGNIFICANCE.

What does Genesis actually do?
It fucking explains the engineering and architecture to the illiterate Iron Age population of the time. It wastes words trying to explain precisely when each part was built and how it was built and what is made out of. It provides no information about PURPOSE OR SIGNIFICANCE. NONE!!!

1 WHAT HAPPENED: In the beginning [before the creation] God created the heaven [the expanse of empty space] and the earth [the planet earth].
2 HOW DID IT HAPPEN?: And the earth [the planet earth] was without form, and void [empty and dark - there was nothing alive on it, and there was no light of the sun to shine on it]; and darkness was upon the face of the deep [the waters]. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 HOW AND WHAT? And God said, Let there be light [the light of the sun - which he created]: and there was light [the sun shined brightly - on earth].
4 HOW LIGHT AND DARKNESS ARE DIVIDED: And God saw the light [the sun], that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 HOW LIGHT AND DARK GOT THEIR NAMES: And God called the light [the light side of the revolving planet] Day, and the darkness [the dark side of the revolving planet] he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day [as the world turned (figuratively)].
6 HOW THE FIRMAMENT CAME TO BE: And God said, Let there be a firmament [an expanse of empty space] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters [a gigantic bubble - the vacuum of empty space].
7 HOW THE WATERS WERE DIVIDED: And God made the firmament [the expanse of empty space], and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament [the waters above and below the bubble]: and it was so.
8 HOW THINGS GOT THEIR NAMES: And God called the firmament [the expanse of empty space] Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day [as the world turned (figuratively)].
9 HOW DRY LAND WAS MADE: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 HOW THE EARTH GOT ITS NAME: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas [the oceans]: and God saw that it was good.
11 HOW GRASS AND SEEDS BEGAN GROWING: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind [each kind of plant makes it's own kind by it's own seed], whose seed is in itself [plants reproduce by replanting and growing their seeds - by wind and water], upon the earth: and it was so [all plants were (created, formed, and made) from the elements in nature, and abundantly filled their place of destination - the earth - and of course also the oceans and rivers (which are not mentioned)].


12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day [as the world turned (figuratively)].
14 And God said, Let there be lights [the stars, the planets, and the galaxies, etc.] in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years [the constellations and planetary objects - which change form in time, and give us a way to measure the seasons, days, and years]:
15 And let them be for lights [the stars in the night sky] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth [at night]: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights [the sun and moon]; the greater light to rule the day [the sun], and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them [the sun, moon, stars, etc.] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth [both day and night],
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day [as the world turned (figuratively)].
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven [all creatures of the water and sky were (created, formed, and made) from the elements in nature, and abundantly filled their place of destination - the oceans, rivers and sky].
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth [all creatures who live in water], which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind [each kind of creature is makes it's own kind by procreation], and every winged fowl [birds of the air] after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful [productive], and multiply [have offspring], and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply [have offspring] in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day [as the world turned (figuratively)].
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind [each kind of creature is makes it's own kind by procreation], cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so [all creatures of earth were (created, formed, and made) from the elements in nature, and abundantly filled their place of destination - the dry land].
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us [the Lord as one God] make man in our [the same Lord as one God] image [spirit], after our likeness [holiness]: and let them [the man and woman] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth [man and woman were given power over all living creatures - large or small (nothing could harm or frighten them in any way)].
27 So God created man in his own image [spirit], in the image of God created he him [man and woman]; male and female created he them [both man and woman were created by God (who is one God) in "his" (Gods) "image" which is spirit - therefore like the other creatures; man was formed from dust, made alive, but man alone was given the spirit of God upon him on the condition of obedience to his word].


Delaware's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

You are right that there are a lot of "how's" in Genesis and I did not do good job of explaining my point. I should have said that when I mention the Bible I was primarily referring to the first couple of chapters of Genesis.

Yes, there are a lot of "how's" in Genesis 1, but is the main point to teach a lesson in cosmology? Just to explain scientifically how everything came to be? What is the theme or what is the story leading up to? One of the primary themes it is leading up to is why all this was done. Genesis 2:8 "Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man he had made."

The theme is that God prepared a paradise for us to live in and to have a relationship (communion) with him. This theme is repeated in other stories in other books of the Bible, such as in the Tabernacle, the Temple, and as Jesus "God with us" living and communing with us. The ultimate goal is to make this complete as in Rev 21:3+4. ... "God’s home is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them. He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.”

The theme is more about God preparing a paradise for us to live in, to be part of his family, and to commune with him. It is not to just teach science or history. There are a lot of how, when, and wheres in Genesis, but they are given as groundwork towards a larger theme and not just to give facts.

Cognostic's picture

"Genesis 2:8 New International Version (NIV)
8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." And then he planted two trees and forbade the man to eat of one of them, (and he did all that without indicating a reason or purpose) And then he created Eve who he knew full well would eat from one of them. And then he threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden for gaining the knowledge of good and evil. Just like he knew he would because he is omniscient. "Why" is not there.

Why do you get to stop here? There is no indication that this is the reason "why" God did anything. Perhaps he did it all so Cane could kill Able. Your claim is just not justified. Any point can be picked as the reason why. God did all this so he could throw the man and woman out of Eden. (My assertion is just as valid.)

The ultimate goal is to make this complete as in Rev 21:3+4 NOW YOU ARE CHANGING BOOKS and skipping around. Back to Genesis my friend. There is one book we are discussing, Genesis. Either Genesis says "Why god created everything or it does not." I am fully aware of at least 10 verses that indicate why the world was made. NONE IN GENESIS. It's not there.

The theme is about God preparing a paradise. Agreed. It is a story about how the first man and woman came to be.Agreed. At no point does God indicate why. (a reason or purpose) Genesis is a story about what happened and how it happened. No place is it indicated "Why."

God is omniscient, he could have done it all so he could later kill everyone in a flood. But then I would be referring to a source outside of Genesis as well. So, back to Genesis.,

I fully get Theists believe there is a why, a reason and purpose, in Genesis. But if you look for it, it just isn't there.

Sky Pilot's picture


Delaware's picture
@ Diotrophes

@ Diotrophes

If it ever was "ethnocentric" it stopped being that 2,000 years ago.

Sky Pilot's picture


Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Once again your lack of knowledge puts you at a disadvantage: Matthew 10 5-6 5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

In fact all the early christians before 'Paul' became jews by conversion, the rite of circumcision and observance of the Law.

In fact Paul started his ministry in the same manner, and only after he realised that only women and slaves were joining him, he unilaterally changed the rules. Which got him in all sorts of strife with the Temple in Jerusalem. Circumcision for an adult is a messy and painful business and not attractive, never mind the deep rooted Graeco Roman antipathy to bodily mutilation.
So Paul had a very convenient (for him) revelation (we are expected to believe) that allowed him to preach and convert the gentile to christianity without the need to convert to Judaism. Within a very short time gentiles (naturally) outnumbered jewish Christians although some sects to this day still practise infant and adult circumcision, or genital mutilation as it should be termed.

Nowhere in the Matthew version does Jesus directly command his disciples to preach to the gentiles. Many apologists bend various verses to justify their missions but Jesus was pretty much adamant if we believe the reports of Matthew.

Are you closer to living your life by truth yet Jo? Reading your conversations you seem intent on being an apologist instead of taking a clear eyed look at yourself and your beliefs.

(Edit to reflect meaning and explicatory additions re Paul)

toto974's picture
@Old man shouts...

@Old man shouts...

I like the "very convenient" revelation, how people can be so gullible that the claim for a revelation, that as far as we know happens only in the mind of the person in question.7

Same thing for the arabian bedouin who meet angels in a cave... alone...

Delaware's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

I agree that all the early Christians were Jews.

Didn't Jesus grant the request of the Canaanite women, when he was in her land (not Israel). Wasn't the Roman centurion also granted his wish in Matt. Didn't he tell his disciples in Matt 28:19 to make disciples in all nations.

Sky Pilot's picture


Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Hi instructions to his disciples were very clear. No gentiles, no Samaritans (a jewish sect). Please do not bring isolated examples of his own rule breaking to the table and then use that as an argument.

The unspoken instruction to the centurion was to become jewish and then follow him. As ALL those who lived by the Law had to do. Think of context and the times Jo. The ONLY christians were jewish, they had to convert to judaism, obey the laws, observe the holidays and only then could they accept Jesus as a messiah.
He first called the Canaanite woman a 'dog' and only when completely humiliated did he grant her request to heal her daughter.
Again the subtext in context is convert to Judaism and "follow me"

The meaning of the verse in Matthew 5-6 is clear. Jews only.

You seem to be more and more an apologist Jo, where is the acknowledgement of truth you said you craved? Why are you avoiding this question?

Cognostic's picture
@Jo Jo Jo.... You are a lying

@Jo Jo Jo.... Your statements are the lies of Christians who want to select bits and pieces of the bible to justify their prejudicial beliefs and condemnation of all non-believers, even those among their own families.

Do not turn Angry Jesusyour steps to pagan territory, and do not enter any Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:6, NJB.)

I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel” (Matt. 15:24, NJB.)

“And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matt. 6:7–8, NJB.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------- This one is a bit long -----------------
He left that place and set out for the territory of Tyre. There he went into a house and did not want anyone to know he was there, but he could not pass unrecognized. A woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard about him straight away and came and fell at his feet. Now the woman was pagan, by birth a Syrophonecian and she begged him to cast the devil out of her daughter and he said to her ‘the children should be fed first, because it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the house dogs’. But she spoke up ‘Ah yes sir’ she replied ‘but the house dogs under the table can eat the children’s scraps’. And he said to her ‘for saying this, you may go home happy; the devil has gone out of your daughter.’ So she went off to her home and found the child lying on the bed and the devil gone” (Mark 7:24–30, NJB.)

Jesus was drawing an analogy. The children were his fellow Jews, who were to be fed first. Gentiles were referred to as dogs, (when Jews wished to insult someone they often referred to them as dogs) whom Jesus would rather not help. Jesus hesitated before healing jesus do you reallye girl because her mother was not Jewish. The woman had to remind Jesus that he should love his neighbour.

Matthew 7:6 - Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen 19:24). Matthew 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21 (Deliver up your own non-believing family members. Jesus is a fucktard.)

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34-36


Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. BIGOT!

Delaware's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic
@ Old Man Shouts
@ Others who have addressed my posts on this subject

I am pretty sure I am not understanding the question or the point of your posts. I think you are addressing my assertion that Christianity is not just for the Jews. Is that what you are saying, that the Bible has only ever been for one group, the Jews? That in order to be a Christian you also have to become a Jew and keep the law? I am trying to understand what specific issue I am being asked to address . Is it about ethnocentrism or bigotry in the Bible? That God only cares about Jews or believers? That only Christian who were practicing Jews were accepted into the kingdom. I am not trying to be dishonest, I really don't understand what charge I being asked to respond to.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo
You made this statement:

@ Diotrophes, If it ever was "ethnocentric" it stopped being that 2,000 years ago

I am pointing out that that was not the intention of your prophet figure.

It may be that subsequent political developments by other figures led to a more inclusive place, but that was not the original intent of your jesus figure.

How far do you go to deny his alleged words before you cease to be what you claim?

Once again you made a claim about your religion that is in error.

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: Is that what you are

@Jo: Is that what you are saying, that the Bible has only ever been for one group, the Jews?

I have never made such a claim. My posts make my positions quite clear. Extremely clear in fact. That is how you are able to address them equally clear with quotes and evidence. I generally do not say things without first looking them up. As far as I know, The old testament is the Jewish Text and the New Testament whose texts were written for sects of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, were later collected and canonized for the new Christian faith. Asserting the Bible was written for the Jews appears a tenable position in my eyes; however; it is not one I would care to defend and I have never stated such a position. The New Testament was collected and put together for the new sect of Jews who broke from Jewish tradition and called themselves "The Christians."

What is confusing for you is the fact that you keep making one inane assertion after another. Every time you attempt to defend yourself, you make 3 more utterly vacuous comments. This is an extremely common way of avoiding real conversations among theists. Instead of focusing on one and only one idea at a time, you jump all over the place justifying one inane assertion with three more. It's really annoying to engage with theists who do this. AND IT IS THE REASON YOU ARE NOW LOST.

Cognostic's picture
@ Calilasseia: Sorry, I am

@ Calilasseia: Sorry, I am not as eloquently proficient in the use of literary devices or vocabulary selection but sometimes the posts are just so inane that I can not resist stepping in.

arakish's picture


I'll say only one thing. You definitely do not understand the Bible or any religious text.

Not one has any truth in it. NOT ONE. The Bible has been rewritten and retranslated so many times there is nothing left in it but a bunch of lies plagiarized from FAR older sources. The only thing the Bible can teach anyone is how to be as immoral a monster as the monster it portrays.


Delaware's picture
@ arakish

@ arakish

I have a question about your previous statement.

Why didn't any of the editors and redactors correct some of the glaring mistakes and embarrassing stories during one of the many rewrites or re-translations? I am no great writer and certainly not an editor, but I could have corrected these presumed "lies" None of them noticed there was light before the sun? No one thought to delete or clean up God telling someone to kill their son, or when he killed a baby? What about all the embarrassing stories of people in Jesus family tree? Couldn't they have come up with something more believable than a talking snake?

Sky Pilot's picture


Cognostic's picture
@Jo. Why didn't any of the

@Jo. Why didn't any of the editors and redactors correct some of the glaring mistakes and embarrassing stories during one of the many rewrites or re-translations?

Wow! You really know nothing about the writing of the Bible do you. Everything in the bible is a correction of a mistake that came before it. Each generation of biblical writers attempted to correct the mistakes of previous versions. We have actual manuscripts uncovered in the middle of this process. We have passages added, words changed, notes in margins, omitted passages and more. There are over 500 thousand alterations in your modern bible when it is compared to ancient manuscripts.

Misquoting The Bible

How Jesus Became God

Jesus Interrupted

Richard Carrier Why the Gospels are myth

The Bible as we know it today is a book of "Fixing and Correcting Errors." Each generation of Christians has written its own bible. Can you explain the origin of the King James Version and why is does not match ancient manuscripts. Why do the Mormons have a separate book. Why is the Eastern Orthodox Bible different from yours? Which verses have the Jehovah's Witness removed from their version of the Bible. (EVERYTHING IS ABOUT REWRITES AND FIXING ERRORS TO MATCH THE FAITH AND BELIEF OF THE SPECIFIC SECT USING THAT SPECIFIC TEXT. EVERYTHING.)

Calilasseia's picture
Item number one. Editors of

Item number one. Editors of the text of the Bible living in a pre-scientific age did not have the knowledge to recognise that various assertions were wrong. Though, in a moment of unusual prescience, Augustine of Hippo issued a famous proclamation on the subject of rejecting even the limited scientific knowledge of his age, in De Genesi et Litteram, viz (emphases mine):

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

The original text in Latin reads as follows, in the interests of rigour:

Plerumque enim accidit ut aliquid de terra, de coelo, de caeteris mundi huius elementis, de motu et conversione vel etiam magnitudine et intervallis siderum, de certis defectibus solis ac lunae, de circuitibus annorum et temporum, de naturis animalium, fruticum, lapidum, atque huiusmodi caeteris, etiam non christianus ita noverit, ut certissima ratione vel experientia teneat. Turpe est autem nimis et perniciosum ac maxime cavendum, ut christianum de his rebus quasi secundum christianas Litteras loquentem, ita delirare audiat, ut, quemadmodum dicitur, toto coelo errare conspiciens, risum tenere vix possit. Et non tam molestum est, quod errans homo deridetur, sed quod auctores nostri ab eis qui foris sunt, talia sensisse creduntur, et cum magno eorum exitio de quorum salute satagimus, tamquam indocti reprehenduntur atque respuuntur. Cum enim quemquam de numero Christianorum in ea re quam optime norunt, errare comprehenderint, et vanam sententiam suam de nostris Libris asserere; quo pacto illis Libris credituri sunt, de resurrectione mortuorum, et de spe vitae aeternae, regnoque coelorum, quando de his rebus quas iam experiri, vel indubitatis numeris percipere potuerunt, fallaciter putaverint esse conscriptos? Quid enim molestiae tristitiaeque ingerant prudentibus fratribus temerarii praesumptores, satis dici non potest, cum si quando de prava et falsa opinatione sua reprehendi, et convinci coeperint ab eis qui nostrorum Librorum auctoritate non tenentur, ad defendendum id quod levissima temeritate et apertissima falsitate dixerunt, eosdem Libros sanctos, unde id probent, proferre conantur, vel etiam memoriter, quae ad testimonium valere arbitrantur, multa inde verba pronuntiant, non intellegentes neque quae loquuntur, neque de quibus affirmant.

Unfortunately, a number of pedlars of apologetics in the present appear never to have read this.

Exactly how Augustine of Hippo would have resolved clashes between science and mythology is not made clear, but he was aware of the dangers inherent in making ridiculous assertions that brought his religion into disrepute. Assorted literalists and fundamentalists in the present appear to be completely oblivious to this.

Item number two. Any attempt to edit out the various ridiculous assertions in the light of modern science, leaves the entire mythological edifice in tatters. Creationist Kurt Wise actually undertook this exercise physically, as reported in Wikipedia:

Later, as a sophomore in high school, he took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and cut out every verse which could not be interpreted literally if scientific determinations on the age of the earth and evolution were true. He pursued this task with a flashlight under the covers of his bed for several months; at the end, he had removed so much material that "with the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two."

Richard Dawkins responded to Wise's statement that he preferred to treat mythology as true, regardless of how much scientific evidence destroys the assertions contained therein, as follows:

[Wise] volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless ... We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism's most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.

This is merely one of the instances of observational data I point to, when I describe the position of such individuals as "if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right". Bear in mind that Wise enjoyed the tutelage, during his Ph.D in palaeontology, of none other than Stephen Jay Gould, who doubtless in life regarded Wise's subsequent adherence to creationism as a neuropathology.

In addition, any attempt to bring mythology into line with modern science, will almost certainly result in screams of "heresy" even from quarters that are not literalist or fundamentalist.

Item number three. The section of my earlier post in this thread covering Nietzsche's castigation of those who erect a metaphysic, in order to impose an ethic, applies here. Those who pursue this discoursive path are frequently not interested in the factual status of their metaphysic, so long as said metaphysic succeeds in imposing the desired ethic. This phenomenon is writ large in religious mythologies.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "Why didn't any of the

Jo "Why didn't any of the editors and redactors correct some of the glaring mistakes and embarrassing stories during one of the many rewrites or re-translations?"

I get the impression here you're trying to avoid the obvious answer that they were in fact ignorant of the errors. Which of course is entirely the point you seem to have missed. Errant nonsense we can expect from archaic ignorant and fallible humans, but no rational objective person can seriously expect this from a being with limitless knowledge and power.

Theists are left to speculate that the deity was either being deliberately duplicitous, or disingenuous, or that the message was corrupted by the human authors. Either way the theistic claim it is the inerrant words of an omniscient omnipotent being is utterly and manifestly destroyed.

A simpler explanation that fits the facts and doesn't outrage reason, deny scientific facts, or fall foul of Occam's razor, is that the contents are fallible because its provenance is entirely the product if the imagination of one species of evolved primate, at a period when their knowledge of the world they had evolved into was woefully ignorant by contemporary standards.

The same reason it is asinine to claim the moral teachings in both biblical and koranic texts are from a perfectly moral being, as such a claim is undone by the contemporary morality of modern humans being superior to much of it. We generally see stoning people for things like adultery now as unnecessarily cruel and barbaric, as one obvious example. Again the obvious explanation that both books provenance is entirely human, fits all the evidence.

It's too obvious for any objective reader to ignore, so it requires indoctrination and the championing of idiotic ideas like blind faith over rational reasoning and objective evidence.

The results litter this forum for all to see, in the desperate attempts theists make to justify their personal unevidenced beliefs.

Get off my lawn's picture


plagiarized from FAR older sources.

Specifically, there are a lot of parallels to ancient Sumerian mythology in the Old testament, and it would sure seem like that bible book was heavily inspired by those myths. For a list of some well (and perhaps some not so well known, and even some dubious ones), see "The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character" by Samuel N. Kramer (https://www.amazon.com/Sumerians-History-Culture-Character-Phoenix-ebook...) (yes, it's an old book - the first edition was published in 1963, but it is still readable), we find the following (location 3176 in the Kindle edition):

here are a number of Biblical parallels from Sumerian literature which unquestionably points to traces of Sumerian influence:
(Since I cannot copy and paste from the Kindle app, I will have to copy by hand/keyboard, but since it is an awful lot of text, I'm just giving a summary)
1. Creation of the Universe (a primeval sea existed before land was created)
2. Creation of Man (man was fashioned of clay and imbued with the breath of life)
3. Creation Techniques (by divine command and by actual making or fashioning)
4. Paradise (no direct Sumerian parallel, but there are other paradise motifs)
5. The Flood (This one I'm quoting in full) As has long been recognized, the Biblical and Sumerian versions of the Flood story show numerous obious and close parallels. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that according to at least one Mesopotamian tradition there were ten antedeluvian rulers, each with a life span of extraordinary length, which is reminiscent of some of the Biblical antediluvian patriarchs.
6. The Cain-Abel Motif
7. The Tower of Babel and the Dispersion of Mankind (probably no direct Sumerian parallel, but a possible parallel may exist in a Sumerian epic)
8. The earth and its Organization (the Sumerian god Enki organized the earth and established law and order)
9. Personal God (the Sumerian concept of a personal god bears resemblance to that between Yahweh and the Hebrew patriachs)
10. Law (biblical law is similar to the Hammurabi law code, which in turn is based on Sumerian prototypes)
11. Ethics and Morals (the ethical concepts and moral ideas developed by the Sumerians were essentially identical with those of the Hebrews)
12. Divine Retribution and National Catastrophe (like Yahweh often strikes down on humankind in rage, Enlil, the leading Sumerian deity, destroys almost all of Sumer after having been deeply angered by the blasphemous act of a Sumerian ruler)
13. The Plague Motif (plague motif that to some extent parallels the Biblical plague motif in Exodus)
14. Suffering and Submission: The "Job" Motif (a Sumerian poetic essay has a central theme that is identical with the biblical book of Job)
15. Death and the Nether World (Sheol and Hades has its counterpart in the Sumerian Kur, a dark, dread abode of the dead, a land of no return)

The poems and epics containing this was written down centuries or millenia before Elohim/Yahweh/God was invented. In other words, the Bible does not really contain much original thought. Only variations and elaborations of old mythology, interspersed with some musings on relatively contemporary history from when the hebrews wrote it down.

(I lifted this, with modifications, from here: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/atheist-hub/i-m-worried-about-hell... Nobody seemed to notice that post, so I'm reusing it here.)

Sky Pilot's picture
Get off my lawn,


Get off my lawn's picture
The primary purpose of the

The primary purpose of the biblical stories is to illustrate one or more of the Ten Commandments in action.

Tell that to the biblical literalists, who take the Old testament as an infallible documentary history book. Or even the regular, moderate christians of the naive kind, who believe these are actual stories that happened, and thus treat the bible as a book of actual history.

However, my point was to illustrate some of these myths that are lots of other places than just in the Bible (but which lots of followers of the abrahamitic religions believe are unique to the Torah/Bible/Quran), and from independent sources far, far older than even the concept or idea of a monotheistic religion, or even Elohim/Yahweh/God/Allah him-/her-/itself, essentially proving that these books are based on old myths.

Don't you think it is ridiculous that the stories contain dialogue?

Yes, I do. Especially since it can be more or less proven that oldest parts of the New testament were scribbled down on parchment at least decades after the death of this Jesus figure, whether he was an actual person or not.

Sky Pilot's picture
Get off my lawn,


chimp3's picture
Calilasseia: Normally I avoid

Calilasseia: Normally I avoid long original posts because they are usually drivel. Your OP stays succinct in a way that I am not capable. Great argument!

Tin-Man's picture
@Chimp Re: Calilasseia

@Chimp Re: Calilasseia

Yeah, Cali came on board during your hiatus. One thing you will soon learn about good ol' Cali is that he has some kick-ass language skills. I always enjoy reading his posts.

Cognostic's picture
I am pretty sure I am not

@Jo: "I am pretty sure I am not understanding the question or the point of your posts."


1. Your assertion to the OP, Calilasseia. (He does not understand the meaning of the book of Genisis. It explains god's purpose and meaning. YOU GET OWNED BY ME after attempting a cherry picking venture into Revelation and an assertion of an overall theme; BOTH DEBUNKED. You never admit your error but move on to engage Old Man Shouts

2. EARLY CHRISTIANS WERE JEWS: You admit this but make the assertion Jesus preached to gentiles. This assertion is completely debunked. First by OMS. Then by DIO... Finally by Me.....

3. Now you assert you do not understand. Cognitive Dissonance is a bitch. Again instead of admitting you were wrong in your assertions you attempt to move on to yet another topic. (WHY DON'T YOU JUST START YOUR OWN THREAD?)

4. Now you are on about "Why didn't the editors fix biblical mistakes?" FUCK! DID YOU GET OWNED AGAIN ON THAT ONE!
YOU GOT COMPLETELY TRASHED!! This question literally demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge concerning the creation of biblical texts. It is yet another of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard from a theist.
I have cited 4 videos, that if watched and understood, may change your life forever and actually drag you out of your ignorance.

YOU ARE LOST BECAUSE YOU KEEP MAKING INANE ASSERTIONS AND PEOPLE ARE RESPONDING TO THOSE ASSERTIONS. GO START YOUR OWN THREAD. Calilasseia's OP was quite clear, well thought out, and well argued. All you have done is hit a brick wall and instead of admitting it you are bouncing around looking for some wriggle room where there is none. Your problem is COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. All you hold to be true has sufficiently been challenged and your mind is unable to deal with it.

Delaware's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

You are right, I did not stay on topic and I should have. I should have continued to respond to OP, Calilasseia. Thank you, and I apologize. I will go back to where I should have stayed.


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.