I am presently writing a book about animal suffering tentatively titled: The Darwinian Problem of Evil: Christianity and the Problem of Animal Suffering (four chapters so far!).
I think this particular problem of evil is the most serious one for believers. I'm also looking at what the Bible says about the treatment of animals and the various theistic responses to this issue. Think about just one thing. The Bible commands animal sacrifices in the OT, and for some national ceremonies we're told thousands of them were sacrificed, and done so gruesomely. But then we read in the book of Hebrews that these sacrifices never helped take away any sins. So God purportedly had his people slaughter animals for no good reason at all. Is this a God who cares for animals? No, not on your life, and that's just one thing we find about the treatment of animals in the Bible, and that's just one aspect to the whole problem of animal suffering.
I'm curious when I see my name mentioned on a forum to read what they're saying about my work. Let me say that it's no fun getting shot at from both sides in this debate, but that's what I see. Let me tell you also that I know what I'm doing. I know the evangelical mindset very well. I know how to speak to them. I said in my book that skeptics won't all appreciate why I argue the way I do, and that's true. But I am interested in changing peole's minds. And while Christians will assail me for it from time to time I know how to speak their language. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN PREACHING TO THE CHOIR! For a case in point over at the Rational Response Squad forum there has been a discussion about an argument I made and my work. They don't even list my book on the sidebar as an important one.
I have no clue who these people are, but one person said this:
I think the most impressive thing Loftus brings to the table is his apparent credentials in the scholarly-believers/apologists circles. He's the only 'new atheist' I know of who's gotten significant positive blurbs from apologists such as Norman Geisler.
I'm reading his book right now, and while it is not particularly thought-provoking to me, his real target audience is educated believers, and he takes the time to address them thoroughly, as opposed to say Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, or Harris. He approaches it from their perspective, moreso than not.
To put it one way, he 'takes the ridiculous seriously'. In other words, he takes likely arguments theists might make and takes the time to thoroughly debunk them. Whereas other 'new atheists' would basically just blow off the ridiculous arguments with a brisk "... but that's an obvious non-sequitur".
I think Loftus makes a good bridge from atheist language to apologist language. For instance, his arguments do not go into depth into logic, but instead use argument from authority and other informal fallacies which -- like it or not -- actually do hold weight with believers.
Another useful thing Loftus brings to the table is how he repackages old atheist rejoinders into full-fledged arguments against theism. Probably his strongest example of this is his Outsider Test (chapter 4; 10 pages). Whereas an atheist will respond to theist arguments with something like: "Well if you believe in biblical miracles, why don't you believe Mohammed flew on a horse to heaven?" or "The burden of proof is on he who claims". Instead, Loftus takes the time to spell out all the gory details about why these rejoinders make sense. He makes a thorough case for why theists have an intellectual responsibility to examine their own beliefs as if they were outsiders from the belief. Christians should look at Christianity from the perspective of non-Christians, etc. Loftus uses his own personal deconversion story to add emotional/anecdotal weight to his argument.
In short, while I agree his arguments are not as strong as other 'new atheists', he brings a valuable angle to the table that other 'new atheists' do not, probably because it doesn't occur to them that they need to take the time to explicitly detail what 'should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about logic'.
I'm quite excited actually, that Loftus can start a new phase in the conversation that Sam Harris said he was trying to start with The End of Faith. I hope Loftus inspires other hardcore-theists-turned-rationalist-atheists to pick up the baton and run with it. The goal after all is to actually convince people, remember. If it takes a little anecdotal reasoning to get people to start to question, it can't hurt. There is no one way. It takes all kinds.
Now I dispute some of the things he said, but you can read through that thread beginning here with his post. (scroll up to start reading).
I wish I could convince more skeptics that I know what I'm doing and why I argue the way I do. If they could just get behind my work we could make a bigger impact. Ahhhhh, but after all, we're freethinkers, and you cannot corral freethinkers like you can believers. ;-)
An excerpt from my new book, due out by the end of the year.
Young Earth Creationism is just another discipline found on a long inventory of pseudosciences. There is even a brand of pseudoscience quickly gaining popularity in my primary field of study called homeopathy, which offers a terrific illustration on how someone can manipulate information before presentation. Homeopathy is the principle that a disease can be cured by giving very small amounts of a substance that produce symptoms similar to the ones produced by the disease. According to homeopathy, as you further dilute the concentration of the medicinal substance that you administer to someone, the active ingredient will accomplish an increasingly desirable result. Mainstream pharmacologists (who all realize that homeopathy is bunk) understand that most drugs work on production inhibition or under enzyme-receptor theory. We know that as you increase enzymes levels introduced to the body, more receptors will become stimulated and produce greater effects. We also know that as more inhibitors are introduced to working processes, fewer enzymatic goals will be accomplished. These are currently undeniable facts of science; and the field of nonsensical homeopathy is in direct contrast to these foundational theories of medicine.
Substances that follow the principles of homeopathy cannot actually work to any appreciable degree if they are not present in sufficient concentrations.* Manufacturers of homeopathic products can even legally sell their products in the US as long as they carry a warning that the Food and Drug Administration does not evaluate their claims. As an alternative, you will find many supporting studies referenced on the product labels that support their claims. So if the products do what the manufacturers say they do, and there are studies to support their claims, why do these products not go through the FDA approval process? The answer is very similar for both homeopathy and creationism.
The FDA serves as the governing body that orders drug manufacturers to present all relevant evidence for review–not just evidence favorable to the manufacturer. If you run enough studies, according to the statistical laws associated with chance, you will eventually get a result that you want.** One of the shortcomings with our administration of scientific research is that there are no governing bodies controlling what studies are published and advertised to consumers. The best that the scientific community can do is separate journals that publish only peer-reviewed findings from ones that will publish anything offered. Creationists do not publish in peer-reviewed journals because those involved in the appraisal process know that their methods are too flawed for other scientists to consider seriously. This observation came to light in the 1987 United States Supreme Court Case Edwards v. Aguillard, which decided that teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it a religious belief that cannot be factually supported.***
* This is not to say that all homeopathic medications fail to work since some really aren’t following the principles when they aren’t diluted very much, and the side effects of such substances just happen to mimic the disease itself. Dawkins (167) also points out a possibility that I had not considered too heavily before. “Homeopaths may be achieving relative success because they, unlike orthodox practitioners, are still allowed to administer placebos – under another name. They also have more time to devote to talking and simply being kind to the patient.”
** The standard level of confidence for running a statistical analysis is 95%. This means that the researchers want to be 95% sure that their result did not occur by chance, which leaves a false positive in 5% of cases. If you run twenty tests, you’re likely to get a false positive that you can use to support your product.
*** Also relevant is Stephen Jay Gould’s observation of the Arkansas State Supreme Court case McLean v. Arkansas. He realized early on that his side would win because court hearings require proof – not speeches.
This article will show how the concept of the Trinity was derived from the Design Deficiency of incomplete representation in scripture leading to "Garbling" causing Scripture to map to a meaningless state. The Bible has many instances of incomplete representation but for the sake of brevity, this article will focus on "Jesus as God". It highlights some disconfirming evidence which refutes the proposition that "Jesus was God" can be rationally determined from the text.
Presuming that Jesus was Jewish, and that Jesus was a rabbi, and that Jewish rabbis were experts in Jewish theology, and Jesus was an expert in Jewish theology, in John 14:6-11 Jesus was not referring to himself as god but more likely referring to a Jewish teaching regarding their view of the relationship between God and Man with respect to the soul. It can also be seen that Jesus did not clearly and unequivocally state that he was the incarnation or personification of God.
The example used in this article could be used for two types of IDQ deficiencies depending on the context. If we presume for the sake of argument that it is true that Jesus was God, then the example falls in the category of the IDQ deficiency of Incomplete representation. If we presume that Jesus was not God then the example would fall under the category of Ambiguous Representation. However, I would prefer to use the presumption that Jesus was God and handle it as a an Incomplete Representation and save the Ambiguous Representation for another example.
As described in my article "Overview of IDQ Deficiencies Which Are Evident In Scripture"(1), in order for an information system to accurately represent real world events, each of the Information System data must "map" to a real world event. A brief review of Incomplete Representation and Mapping to a Meaningless State(2) follows.
Incomplete representation If the Information System is missing some information about the real world, then the information system cannot accurately represent the state of the real world for which it was intended. This is termed as "incompleteness". Figure 1 illustrates this point by showing three instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and two instances of Data in the D column. One instance of a Real World state is not represented by the Data in column D.
Figure 1
Operation Deficiencies - Garbling: Meaningless State In human terms, garbling occurs at the point of "consumption" or reading and interpretation. In Information Systems, it occurs at operation time or when the database is being accessed. Garbling occurs when a Real World state is incorrectly mapped to a wrong state in the Information System. There are two cases in which this occurs. If a meaningless state exists, then Real World mapping will be to a meaningless state, or the mapping might be to a meaningful but incorrect information state. This can occur as a result of inaccurate data entry or omissions of real world states at the creation or origin of the data. Analogous examples of this type of garbling are legends, folktales and the "Artistic License" of the author or originator.
Figure 2 illustrates this point by showing two instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and three instances of Data in the D column. One instance of an information state is not represented by or does not map back to a real world state and a Real World state in incorrectly interpreted as being represented by the superfluous datum.
Figure 2
The Trinity The concept of the Trinity was a hotly debated topic for generations that came to a head in 325ce when it was formally adopted as a tenet by the Council of Nicaea(3). It lead to accusations of Heresy, religious persecution and according to sources lead to the poisoning of Arius(4).
Jesus was Jewish and a Jewish principle is that the "soul" is part of God that God has hidden in us, and we are to show it to other people through our lifestyle, and by doing so Gods influence on the earth will be released. On the website Askmoses.com, Rabbi Shlomo Chein(5) responds to a request to define the Jewish soul. He says
" A person is known as a "miniature world". The soul can perhaps be explained as a "microcosm of G-d". By allowing his G-dly soul to be expressed within his own existence the Jew can bring G-d into all of existence." … "So the next time you face adversary, feel ostracized, or question your ability to carry out your Divine mission of Judaism, remember, G-d is not only with you, He is in you."
But Scripture tells that Jesus said the following about himself which has been used to justify the concept of the Trinity. If Jesus really said this and he was a Jewish Rabbi it is not likely that he meant that he was God on Earth.
John 14:6-11 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." 8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.
So if John 14:6-11 represents the type of thing Jesus said about himself, and Jesus was a Rabbi, Jesus probably had the same concept as Rabbi Chein and was not saying that he was God incarnate. It seems to be a misinterpretation of a Jewish teaching that was not part of Gentile culture. Understood as the Jewish viewpoint of the soul, it makes more sense, but understanding it as Jesus saying that he was God on Earth, can only be described as DOUBLETALK.
Jesus never clearly said that he was God on earth, and he never said that he, God and the holy spirit were one substance. Therefore, if it is true, and it was not included in the scriptures, it is the design flaw of incomplete representation. It has been shown through IDQ research that "Poor data quality can have a severe impact on the overall effectiveness of an organization"(2) and "Poor data quality can have substantial social and economic impacts"(6). Christianity has had a relatively poor adoption rate compared to Mathematics which was developing about the same time(13). Mathematics adoption is practically ubiqutious where Christianity is not. These results can be explained, when compared to Christianity by the relatively high quality of information about Mathematics, its relevance, utility, reproducability, and resultant plausibility.
The scriptures recognized the problem with Information and Data Quality, but the insight they demonstrated was typically human and poor when compared to their peers. They had no divine guidance about how to handle this "divine revelation". Instead, they handled it inadequately by warning against false prophets and worrying about the "correct" interpretation of scripture which has resulted in a very splintered church(7). Not even the "Holy Spirit" has been effective in preserving the true meaning of the text across Christian Churches and denominations. Due to lack of clarity, many interpretations have been derived from poorly designed scripture and have resulted in the three major divisions which are The Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant Churches. Further competing interpretations have lead to each of those divisions having various subdivisions resulting in tens of thousands of denominations. Furthermore this has historically led to Christian on Christian violence which leads to a doubt about the Holy Spirit(8) and is not likely to be something intended by Yahweh or foreseen by him, or those that put words in his mouth. Christians will equivocate this point calling it "the body of Christ" pointing to the parable of the grape vine, but we know through real world experience, trial and error, applications in business, war strategy and a field of research that it is a weakness and a sign of poor performance, so much so that there are sayings addressing it, "United we stand, divided we fall", "Divide and Conquer" and "Divide and Rule".
God showed remarkable lack of insight by not providing instructions for ensuring the Quality of Data and Information, or in picking the right people that would have done it naturally or that would have figured it out without compromising their free will. The Fact that Jesus verifies scripture as Gods word and it can be shown to be of such poor quality is further disconfirming evidence that the scripture is the word of god and that Jesus was god on earth. From the text, it cannot rationally be determined whether Jesus was God or not and interpreting John from the view point of a Jewish Expert, Jesus was just repeating a Jewish teaching about the soul.
Below are some lists showing how poor quality data has lead to the splintering of Christianity and its poor 33% performance world wide over 2000 years(9).
A Short List of Christian Denominations 1 Catholicism 1.1 The Catholic Church: Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome 1.2 Other Churches that are Catholic, But Who Are Not In Communion With Rome
2 Eastern Churches 2.1 The (Eastern) Orthodox Church 2.2 Western-Rite Orthodox Churches 2.3 Other Eastern Orthodox Churches 2.3.1 Assyrian Church of the East 2.4 Oriental Orthodoxy 2.4.1 Oriental Orthodox Communion
3 Anglicanism 3.1 Anglican Communion (in communion with the Church of England) 3.2 Independent Anglican and Continuing Anglican Movement Churches
4 Protestant 4.1 Pre-Lutheran Protestants 4.2 Lutheranism 4.3.1 Presbyterianism 4.3.2 Congregationalist Churches 4.4 Anabaptists 4.5 Methodists 4.6 Pietists and Holiness Churches 4.7 Baptists 4.7.1 Spiritual Baptists 4.9 Apostolic Churches - Irvingites 4.10 Pentecostalism 4.11 Oneness Pentecostalism 4.12 Charismatics 4.12.1 Neo-Charismatic Churches 4.13 African Initiated Churches 4.14 United and uniting churches 4.15 Other Protestant Denominations 4.16 Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
5 Messianic Judaism
6 Restorationism 6.1 Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement 6.2 Southcottites 6.3 Millerites and Comparable groups 6.3.1 Sabbath Keeping Churches, Adventist 6.3.2 Sabbath-Keeping Churches, Non-Adventist in north Pennsylvania 6.3.3 Sunday Adventists 6.3.4 Sacred Name Groups 6.3.5 Other Adventists 6.3.6 Bible Student Groups 6.4 Anglo-Israelism
7 Nontrinitarian Groups 7.1 Unitarianism and Universalism
8 Religious movements related to Christianity 8.1 Manichaeism 8.2 The New Church also called Swedenborgianism 8.2.1 Episcopal 8.2.2 Congregational 8.3 New Thought 8.4 Christian mystery movements
9 Ethnic or syncretic religions incorporating elements of Christianity
10 Christianism
A List of Inter-Christian controversies - Trinity or no? - Arianism - The disputes that drove the creation of Protestants. - Denominations of Protestants - Denominations of Catholics - War between Catholics and protestants - Holy Spirit male or female? - Holy Spirit is a person or not? - Salvation, faith or works - Baptism - Infant Baptism - Hell is real and fiery or not? - Purgatory - Snake handling - Once saved always saved? - Where do Suicides go? - Speaking in tongues - Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit - New covenant theology - The 'two natures' in Christ. - The Ordination of Women - The attitude towards gays - The various parts of the Bible that seem to be later additions, such as the 'story of the woman taken in adultery' and the 'Great Commission' that ends Matthew, etc. - The Rapture - Slavery - Biblical inerrancy - Christendom - Papal Infallibility - Double Predestination - Just War Theory - Penal Substitution - God as a Male - Sin - Unforgivable Sin - Second coming has already happened - The point in time that the holy spirit indwells and fills you - Gifts of the spirit given to everyone or different people at different times - 'pre-Nicean' controversies
1. Preliminaries: 1.1 Topic: the design argument for the existence of a god 1.2 Defining ‘design’: 1.2.1 What do we mean when we say that something is designed? We mean, roughly, that a person of some kind intentionally made or altered something for a purpose. 1.2.2 A word that is often associated with the notion of design is ‘teleology’ and its derivatives, such as ‘teleological’. 1.2.3Etymology: telos: end, purpose 1.2.4 ‘Teleological’: exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature 1.2.5 Thus, the design argument is often called the teleological argument 1.3 The design argument has often been called the most rationally compelling and intuitive argument for the existence of God. 1.3 It attempts to provide strong reason for believing that the universe, or at least parts of it, is the product of an exceedingly intelligent being, viz., God. 1.4 The basic idea: 1.4.1 Many of the features of the world have the appearance that an intelligent agent – i.e., a person – made it. 1.4.2 Other explanations for this appearance, e.g., that it looks that way by chance, seem implausible compared to the hypothesis that it was designed by an intelligent agent. 1.4.2.1 For these features of the world are too complex and orderly to make it probable that they got that way through chance or other natural processes. 1.4.2.2 By contrast, we know by experience that intelligent beings are able to create these features 1.4.3 So, probably, it really was designed. And if so then, probably, an intelligent designer of the world exists. 1.4.4 But such a being is what we refer to as ‘God’. 1.5 The most widely-known defender of the design argument: William Paley (1743-1805). His most famous exposition of the design argument is found in his book, Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature. 1.6 He compared the universe to a watch: 1.6.1 Just as a watch has features from which one justifiably concludes that it was designed, so, too, does the universe and its parts. 1.6.2 Therefore, it is probable that just as the former was designed by an intelligent being, so too was the universe.
2. Setting Up the Argument 2.1 When and why do we infer that something has been designed? 2.1.1 If, walking through a field, you came upon an object, and were immediately convinced that a person made it, what is it about that thing that would lead you to think that a person had made it? 2.1.1.1 Complexity: having parts 2.1.1.1.1 This might be necessary for a thing to be recognized as designed, but it isn’t sufficient by itself 2.1.1.1.2 E.g. rocks, piles of sand, etc. are complex, and yet no one says “design!” when looking at them 2.1.1.1.3 So there must be something else, in addition to complexity, that leads us to infer design 2.1.1.2 Functionality: the parts work together to perform a function 2.1.1.3 (If the parts weren’t fit together in just the right way, then it wouldn’t carry out the function) 2.1.1.4 Examples: plastic cups (with plastic lids and straws), mousetraps, tables, chairs, houses, bicycles, cars, computers, etc. 2.1.1.5 Let’s call the combination of these two features – complexity and functionality – design indicators 2.2 How do we come to learn that complexity and functionality indicate design – i.e., that they are the design indicators? 2.2.1 It doesn’t seem that it’s an innate idea, i.e., we’re not born knowing this 2.2.2 It doesn’t seem to self-evident that they are the design indicators, either. Compare: “All bachelors are unmarried males”, “and “nothing can be red all over and green all over at the same time”, vs. “all complex and functional things are designed”. The first two are self-evident; the last one is not. 2.2.3 So it must be that we learn that those are the design indicators by experience. 2.2.3.1 Step 1: we observe a constant conjunction of one type of cause (intelligence) producing one type of effect (complex, functional things). This justifies the belief that there is a causal connection between intelligence and complex, functional things. 2.2.3.2 Step 2: after our observations justify this causal connection, we no longer have to observe the cause of a thing to know that it was intelligently designed; rather, we just observe the effect (the complex, functional thing) and then infer the cause (intelligence).
3. Paley’s Design Argument 3.1 Most of the things that we observe to have design indicators are human artifacts: i.e., human-made objects 3.2 However, many things in the natural world have these same design indicators! 3.3 But if so, then, probably, these things were designed as well! For example: 3.3.1 the human eye (Paley’s favorite example) 3.3.2 the wing of a bird 3.3.3 the human circulatory system 3.3.4 whole organisms 3.3.5 whole ecosystems 3.3.6 In general: living organisms and their parts 3.4 But of course, these things weren’t designed by humans 3.5 And to say they were designed by, say, aliens, only pushes the issue back a step: aliens are complex and functional, and so they, too, would require a designer 3.6 So we need some designer that escapes this regress 3.7 That would require an intelligent being that’s not part of the biological realm 3.8 This being we all call ‘God’. 3.9 Standardizing the argument 3.9.1 Human artifacts are intelligently designed. 3.9.2 Living organisms and their parts resemble human artifacts (in that they both have several parts that work together to perform a function). 3.9.3 Therefore, probably, living organisms and their parts are intelligently designed as well.
4. Four main criticisms 4.1 The “Weak Analogy” objection: the analogy between human artifacts and biological organisms (and their parts) is too weak to confidently infer that the latter were intelligently designed 4.2 The “Design Mimickers” objection: it seems as though other, non-intelligent causes can mimic the effects of designers (i.e., complex, functional things) 4.2.1 We see in nature that there are also many non-intelligent causes of complex, functional things (e.g., spiders produce spider webs by instinct; tiny seeds contain an internal principle of order that lead to various kinds of vegetation (e.g., plants, trees, vegetables), etc.). [1] 4.2.2 Neo-Darwinian evolution can produce the complex, functional structures seen in living things 4.3 The “Who Designed the Designer?” objection: 4.3.1 Either all complex, functional things require an intelligent designer, or some don’t 4.3.2 If all entities that have parts that work together to perform a function require an intelligent designer, then since the mind of the hypothetical designer of the natural world seems to bear these traits, then it, too, would need a designer. 4.3.3 On the other hand, if some entities with these features don’t require an intelligent designer (e.g., God), then why can’t we say that same thing about living organisms, or at least the universe? 4.3.4 Therefore, either God needs an intelligent designer, or we have no good reason to think that living organisms – or at least the universe – needs an intelligent designer 4.3.5 The basic point here is that *both* key hypotheses -- theism and naturalism -- have brute functional complexity (i.e., functional complexity that has no prior cause), and so it's special pleading to say that one sort of complexity requires an explanation while the other does not. 4.4 The “Even if it Worked” Objection: Even if the argument works, it doesn’t prove that the designer is the god of theism. I.e., it wouldn’t prove that: 4.4.1 the designer is all-knowing 4.4.2 the designer is all-powerful 4.4.3 the designer is perfectly good 4.4.4 the designer is an immaterial spirit 4.4.5 the designer is eternal 4.4.6 the designer is omnipresent (present everywhere) 4.4.7 the designer is also the creator 4.4.8 there is just one designer 4.4.9 the designer still exists
--------------- [1] One might wonder: "but what is the cause of the functional complexity of the spiders with their instincts and the seeds with their internal principles of order?" See the "Who Designed the Designer?" Objection for one reply to this. But before you do: remember, the proposition, 'All functional complexity comes from intelligent designers' isn't self-evident or otherwise a priori. Rather, the argument states that we come to learn of the causal connection between intelligence and functional complexity via experience. Now the theist, the atheist, and the agnostic are all interested in the most basic direct causes of functional complexity. And in their inquiry, all parties appeal to observed causes of functional complexity. But these are all non-basic direct causes. Now the hope is that such non-basic direct causes resemble the most basic ones. As it turns out, though, we observe various non-basic direct causes of functional complexity besides intelligence. But if there is more than one non-basic direct cause of functional complexity, and all we have to go on are our observations of such causes, then the grounds for accepting any one of the known non-basic direct causes as an analogue of the basic one(s) are basically the same as for any of the others. And if that's right, then the inference to intelligent design is undercut.
To the Biblically illiterate, the so-called Ten Commandments appear to be the ideal theocratic bases for the rule of a religious society. Within the past year, debates raged about posting these ancient Jewish legal codes in court rooms, schools, capitals, and public squares. When the Supreme Court ruled against the public display on the bases of separation of religion and State, churches here in the South passed out weather resistant Ten Commandment posters on wire frames which could (and are) displayed in private yards throughout the upstate of South Carolina as well as decals of the Commandments which were stuck on many a conservative Christian’s vehicle’s rear window.
However, when taken in the context of ancient Israelite socity as record in the Hebrew Bible, of what real value are these ancient Israelite Codes many call the Decalog. Then too, it should be noted that in ancient Israelite society, the penalty for breaking any of the first nine codes was death!
(Since Exodus 20: 1 - 17 is repeated in Deut. 5 6 - 21 as part of the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings) I’ve used the popular section of the Sinai story in Exodus to adds some short comments on. The first 40% are dealing strictly with Israelite religion and Israel’s contract with their God.)
1 Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 You shall have no other gods before Me.
(This establishes an exclusive contract / Covenant with Israel only based on God’s deliverance of Israel form Egypt. It does acknowledge other equally real Gods)
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
(This further defines the bounds of Yahweh’s contract with Israel and will be the bases for future the fall of Israel (722 BCE) and Judea (586 BCE).
7 You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
(An oath sworn to Yahweh must be carried out even if it meant the death of ones own daughter. See story of Jephthah and the sacrifice of his daughter. Judges 11)
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
(This establishes the a rest day drawn for the creation myth and the anthromorphic nature an ancient Near Eastern Semitic god called Yahweh. This is the main Commandment Jesus is often found breaking in the Gospels and the religious section of this Decalog was the reason the religious Jews felt Jesus must died.)
12 Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
(A son or daughter’s days were “prolonged” if one was not killed for a rebellious actions.)
The following are exclusive laws which apply only to Israelites who had the contract / Covenant with Yahweh. Israel’s neighbors were viewed as in violation to the first 4 religious codes and were thus free to be killed. raped, lied to, and plundered for sexual needs and human sacrifice.
13 You shall not murder.
(Exodus 20: 13) תִּֿרְצָח׃ לֹא רְצָח (qal: kill, murder, strike down. A very limited verb used to protect only righteous Israelites. Out of this violent Hebrew society which employed 10 different word of killing often with their gods approval, slaughter and murder; ratsach is used only six times mainly to protect only Israelites.)
הִרְג is a word meaning roughly the same thing as רְצָח, but is used with Yahweh’s approval in Holy War.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
(This Commandment is far from what adultery means today. In Israelite society a girl was property of her father until married and then property of her husband after marriage, adultery meant the use of another man’s sexual possession to pleasure and children.
Plus, the fact that prostitutes, polygamy, concubines were protected sexual rights for all men under Yahweh’s Commandments, males were always assured of sexual gratification and while women remain uneducated property.)
15 You shall not steal.
(Applies only to Israelite clan property be it women or animals. Since non-covenanted countries were not protected, the conquest of Canaan in Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua reveal how (even after these commandments were given) the children of Yahweh killed, raped, stole and plundered the land with God‘s orders and blessings.)
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
(“neighbor” רֵעֲ is only used for Israelites. The rise of King David revels how the most famous figure often abused his Hebrew neighbor.)
17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
(To ensure any legal violations were deterred, an Israelite was to protect his own life by not planning a violation which could mean his death.
Within this commandment, one can see how women were equated with slaves, donkeys and material goods of other male Israelite.)
The other day, I found myself needing to hang a wicker basket shelf in my bathroom. But the shelf was too heavy for tacks and glue, so I had to fetch a hammer and nails to do the job. After some milling around in the ever-useful “junk drawer,” I found the nails and a Stanley claw hammer dad had left at my place. I took some time to take a look at the flashy thing; it was relatively new, nearly all metal, with a duel-pronged claw on one end and the head at the other. It had a tremendously ergonomic rubber handle too, with curves and ridges along its surfaces, making it a perfect fit for the hand. I said to myself, “Now this is a well-made hammer!”
It was when the job was done that I found myself thinking of how the elements of the hammer work together so well. I thought to myself that if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that the universe was “fine-tuned” just for the sake of producing this very useful hammer I was still holding in my hands.
Of course, I did and do know better. I understand that the handy instrument I held in my hands was indisputably designed and existed for a purpose, and before I gave it a name and was able to appreciate its worth, it existed in other, less useful forms. I realize that a “hammer” is just matter manipulated by humans into a tool to fulfill a small range of tasks.
I understand that the entire cosmos did not come to be for the sake of that practical-but-petty item known as the hammer. The universe doesn’t revolve around it. It doesn’t really matter in the cosmic scheme of things if it exists or not, and in no sense can it be said that the universe was “fine-tuned” to produce that instrument—even though the nice rubber handle whereby I held onto the hammer was designed to fit neatly into my hands, and even though the weighting was just right for swinging and tapping, and even though the shape and construction of the instrument made it ideal for the task for which we humans made it. The hammer has a place in my life, albeit a very small place.
But I also understand something else; I understand perfectly well what many Christians do not understand—that all teleological arguments (arguments based on the “intelligent design” of the universe, including the anthropic or “fine-tuning” arguments) are worthless and false. We exist like the hammer, and for most of the same reasons as the hammer; we fit nicely into our environment and we are a manipulation of matter, being made of the same stuff that the universe is composed of.
But we are also not like the hammer; we manipulate matter based on our intelligence and the hammer doesn’t, and the hammer was designed while we have no proof that we were. But we do know that we designed the hammer, and we don’t have any reason to believe that anyone designed us, and that is the central fallacy of all versions of the design argument—they just assume what they want to prove (that we and other life forms, as well as objects like houses and watches, were designed by an intelligence).
It is intellectual folly to assume that the universe was “fine-tuned” for the formation of life, just as it would be to assume that the universe was made so that a nicely crafted, shiny hammer can be built for the purpose of nailing a wicker shelf to a wall. The universe was “fine-tuned” for neither purpose. At least, if it was, there are no logical arguments or observations that lead us with any gusto to accepting that conclusion.
And we must ask the really big question here—why must a designer be posited to explain our sensory observations of the world? Does the fact that 9 or 7 cannot be divided evenly mean that there must be a Creator? Is e=mc² less true if God doesn’t exist? Can atoms not revolve around one another and have stability without a Master-designer? Would the atoms making up concrete and steal suddenly fly apart on an atomic level, or else lose their “hard” properties and become like Jello without a deity? Does the survival of fish in frozen ponds due to water freezing from the top downward mean that the universe was fine-tuned for life? Does the fact that gravity is strong enough to keep us on this planet, and yet not strong enough to liquefy us constitute proof that God made this world to house life like us? Does the fact that oxygen/nitrogen – as we have them on this planet for breathable air – instead of toxic gases, like methane and ammonia, mean that the earth must have been designed for habitation?
Robert G. Ingersoll, in his oh-so-eloquent 1872 work entitled “The Gods,” pointed out the grotesque absurdities of intelligent design thinking when he said…
“Even the advanced religionist, although disbelieving in any great amount of interference by the gods in this age of the world, still thinks that in the beginning, some god made the laws governing the universe. He believes that in consequence of these laws, a man can lift a greater weight with, than without, a lever, that this god so made matter and so established the order of things that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so that a body once put in motion will keep moving until it is stopped, so that it is a greater distance around, than across, a circle, so that a perfect square has four equal sides, instead of five or seven. He insists that it took a direct interposition of providence to make the whole greater than a part, and that had it not been for this power superior to nature, twice one might have been more than twice two, and sticks and strings might have had only one end apiece…These religious people see nothing but design everywhere, and personal intelligent interference in everything. They insist that the universe has been created, and that the adaptation of means to ends is perfectly apparent.”
Then we must ask why God needed to even bother with awkward designs like the flawed and ridiculously concocted ones we see in nature; why, for instance, did God give us skin as protection from germs and foreign particles, and yet not make us to thrive on what we know as harmful radiation? Or, if God gave us ears to hear with, noses to smell with, eyes to see with, taste buds to taste with, and nerve cells to feel with, then why did he only give us those senses? Why not also the ability to see gamma radiation and rays of light not visible to the human eye? We see them with telescopes, we detect them with finer instruments, so why not with the eye? God was not limited in having to create cardboard creatures as flimsy as ourselves. He could have made us to exist and thrive in black holes or within the hearts of blue stars, and yet he went through the senseless trouble to create (or some would stupidly say, “evolve”) these bundles of bunions called human bodies. Words don’t describe the asininity of it.
And this is the real foolishness of the fine-tuning argument—its limited focus. Just look at how much of the universe is inhospitable to any type of life. If the universe was fine-tuned for life, why is there so little life in it? Why is most of our world trying to kill us, let alone all of space and time beyond this odorous outhouse called Earth? Not even a seedling can grow and thrive on Mars, and yet Mars is the closest to habitable planet in this solar system we have knowledge of outside of our own. This realization makes our own evolution rather unique and spits on the dumb notion that the universe has been tailor-made as an environment for the growth of carbon life forms (and even more arrogantly, for the growth of the human race, so that we may fight and quarrel and give credit to a fictitious being for its existence).
First, the universe was, and then it evolved us. Only later did theologians come along, with their suits and ties, and their hymnals and sermon notes, and their calfskin-covered New International Version Bibles, standing in their pulpits, proclaiming that the way things are is the way they had to be. When an apologist says, “the stability of atoms makes the material world possible,” that means to him that matter was fine-tuned by God Almighty on the atomic level to make all substances possible. But using this reasoning, any given order of nature that managed to bring about any type of sentient life at all would have to be considered designed, in which case teleology’s assumptions are unfalsifiable. In other words, we humans are no different than some really big, smart fish—we’re going to think that the proverbial river we are swimming in was “made” for us no matter what! And there’s no point in stopping there! We might as well say that the riverbed beneath it was intelligently designed to be just big enough for the river!
No, Mr. Theologian, the universe exists in some form or fashion with or without us. We, and our petty, self-aggrandizing perceptions of it come after it and as a result of it. We are not special and we are not wanted. Our perceptions of the cosmos are subjective and only valuable to us as tools to understand it, but those perceptions cannot be used to question reality. We can use our perceptions of metal beaten into a hammer to categorize the instrument made and give it a name, but we cannot argue that because metal can be shaped into a hammer that therefore a cosmic mind fine-tuned the universe to work together on an elemental level to make that product possible, and the same has to be true of humankind’s existence.
The flakey idea of a fine-tuned universe reminds me of an encounter with a mystic I had several years ago who insisted that apparent faces spotted in nature (such as in clouds or in natural formations like wood and sand) are evidence for the divine and man’s destined place in the grand scheme of things. Of course, we have to get booster seats for these mental midgets by correcting them: in truth, the “faces” seen in nature are only faces when homosapien brain-farts come along and call them “faces.” But until then, they are only one among many possible visible formations of matter, and nothing more.
We have no evidence – not even a smidgen of it – to believe that the universe has been finely tuned by a cosmic entity for any purpose whatsoever. But we do have minds, and as with the so-called faces showing up in nature, the minds by which we perceive and understand nature also sometimes project false images onto it. We find “evidences” for a fine-tuning God because we humans create and fine-tune things ourselves. So it should come as no surprise when uninformed people come along and assume that someone like us (but higher than us) does the same things. It’s a classic case of projection and a very humbling sign of our own cosmic level of ignorance, arrogance, and juvenility.
In September 2008, Bart Ehrman delivered one of the 2008 Foerster Lectures on the Immortality of the Soul at the University of California, Berkeley. The lecture series commenced in 1928, and has included lectures by Oliver Sacks, Thomas S. Kuhn, Aldous Huxley, and Paul Tillich.
There are things in this video I don't agree with, and certainly neither will Calvinists. But there are a couple of interviews in it that are instructive of the kind of God Calvinists worship. [The script is hard to read so I've posted it below, sorry about the language].
Script of the video:
Have you ever heard of this brand of Christians?
You haven't? Well let me briefly summerize the difference between Calvinism and arminianism...
Calvinists believe in so called predestination coupled with limited atonement This means that they believe that Jesus didn't die for everyone but only for specific people whom God choose before he created them. And only those people are saved, the rest will go to hell
So basically it comes down to this: God created a whole bunch of people who are just forever fucked
Yup a fucking cosmic lottery If you don't have the right number, well that is just too fucking bad How lovely right?
The calvinist's view is that mankind does have free will, but that free will shall always lead people to hell
Because sinning is just so fucking great right?
So God basically just violated some people's free will so that they would choose to obey him. That way some of the people can go to heaven.
Let me introduce you to some famous calvinists: (picture of the westboro baptist church)
You know how most christians say that God is love and such Well at least the calvinists are honest to admit that their God is a God of hate... and a little tiny bit of love on the side
(video)
Can somebody please kick this guy's teeth in?
Now calvinists will say that God is not obliged to save everybody, since we all deserve to go to hell. It is actually very merciful for him to save at least some. Now what kind of fucked up logic is that? Because according to calvinists it is in our very nature to go against God. The unsaved people simply CANNOT do anything else but sinning.
This is the important part; we CANNOT choose anything else but sin. It is in our nature to sin, it is impossible for us to either choose to live a sinfree live or to choose to accept God's salvation. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE
So God is going to torture his creatures forever for doing what comes naturally with no way out...
But calvinists will say that God doesn't make people sin, they do it because they want to (because they cannot want to do anything else by nature)
But if God created our nature, it is HIS fault, not ours. Of course they have a pathetic answer to this as well.
(video)
Okay so God did not fuck us over, but adam did.
So send adam to hell you fucking idiot!
It is impossible for a calvinist to get around the fact that God simply created most people for destruction, even though they are not to blame and have no way out.
If God created evil (or let evil be created by adam, whatever... that is the same thing) then God is infinitely evil for doing so
And everbody who believes, accepts and follows this God is therefore also infinitely evil
And you can see to what kind of horrible people calvinism leads to.
The weirdest thing is that calvinists actually DO evangelize, because the bible commands them to. However, even if they wouldn't the exact same amount of people would go to heaven
So why don't you just go around shooting people in the face? That would work a lot faster right?
Why would anybody's life matter? They are already fucked or "blessed"
Also how are the unelect supposed to live? Their lives are completely worthless since eternal hell is unavoidable for them.
So why shouldn't I just torture as much calvinists as possible in my life?
It doesn't matter right? After all, if I am elect I will go to heaven anyway even if I would live a life of torture and murder.
And if I am unelect, so what? I was simply already fucked from the start. Can't make it any worse right?
Calvinists are simply the sickest psychotic people on the planet and don't deserve any respect whatsoever. They don't give a crap about people so neither should we care about them.
I cannot possibly conceive of a God who is more evil than the God of calvinism. That is not meant as an insult, I honestly cannot conceive of any possible God which would be more evil.
Even a God who would send everybody to hell would not be more evil because at least he would treat everybody equally. I mean if a judge would randomly let murderers go you wouldn't call him merciful or good right?
The only two words which apply to calvinism are: Infinite Evil
The originators of scripture had a remarkable lack of insight when creating scripture considering it was revealed to them by God. Apparently God didn't reveal to them some fundamental principles in ensuring they were creating quality information and data that would stand the test of time and generations.
What are Design Deficiencies? As the saying goes "Do it right the first time" many industries recognize and practice the principle of ensuring quality early in the production cycle to avoid problems later in the cycle or in the market(27). As a marksman knows when taking aim, a tiny deviation from the target at the source can lead to large deviation at the target. By not ensuring data integrity and quality at the creation of scripture, many problems have manifested themselves and continue to appear as the scripture gets older. Metaphors do not retain their integrity in meaning over thousands of years. Some of the problems have led to persecution for heresy, divisions in the church and division of the Churches into denomintations until there are tens of thousands of variations of Christianity in existence. For example, they may all agree that Jesus died on the Cross, but they don’t all agree on his nature.
With these kinds of problems it is no wonder why after close to 2000 years, Christianity has only a 33% mind share while all other religions together total 66%(28). Its not that people are evil so they don't believe, it is that there are no compelling reasons to believe in Jesus. Comparing all these religions to some other philosophical ideas that were developing in parallel about the same time, Mathematics has become ubiquitous while the various religions are still languishing under the weight of implausibility(26).
The originators of scripture had a remarkable lack of insight when creating scripture considering it was revealed to them by God. Apparently God didn't reveal to them some fundamental principles in ensuring they were creating quality information and data that would stand the test of time and generations. And furthermore God had a choice in who he revealed scripture to. Using the law of large numbers, he would have been able to analyze and consider any number of millions of starting points for his desired outcome to include the one person that would start a path of reliable transmission of the data from person to person(29). He, like no one else, had the ability to choose the one in ten million starting point that would have gotten the scripture to this point uncorrupted.
Overview of Proper Representation and Design Deficiencies Some fundamental deficiencies in data design and creation have been identified in the field of Information and Data Quality through research and trial and error(3). Each of them will be defined in this overview and then how they relate to scripture will be elaborated on separately in follow on articles. They are as follows. - Incomplete representation - Ambiguous representation - Meaningless representation - Garbling by mapping to a meaningless state - Garbling by mapping to a wrong state
Proper representation In order for an Information System (IS) to accurately represent real world events, each of the datum in the Information System must "map" to real world states. Each real word state must be accounted for in the information system. Having more than one instance of a Real World state (a record) is appropriate if it represents an aspect of the Real World state that hasn't been previously accounted for. To have more than one instance of a record of the same Real World state doesn't add any significant value, but a record of the same Real World state that has related data, in another context for example, adds value if it doesn't lead to a meaningless Real World state such as a contradiction. For example, having two instances of the same story do not add any value unless one of the stories has different information in it which does not contradict the other. Figure 1 illustrates this point by showing three instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and four instances of Data in the D column. Each Real World state is represented by a datum in the information system with one instance of a Real World state being represented by two instances of data in the Information System.
Figure 1.
Incomplete representation If the Information System is missing some information about the real world, then the information system cannot accurately represent the state of the real world for which it was intended. This is termed as "incompleteness". Figure 2 illustrates this point by showing three instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and two instances of Data in the D column. One instance of a Real World state is not represented by the Data in column D.
Figure 2
Ambiguous representation While it is permissible to use to a multiple datum to represent one real world state, it is not permissible to use one datum to represent two real world states. If multiple Real World states are represented by one datum there is not enough information with which to accurately represent either Real World state. This situation is called "Ambiguity". It is similar to incomplete representation because it can be considered an instance of missing information, even though one datum could incompletely represent two instances of a Real World state because it is not specific enough. It is analogous to using the term "she" in a conversation when discussing an event concerning multiple women. By not specifying which "she" is being referenced, the details of the event become unclear because the "she" being referred to is ambiguous.
Figure 3 illustrates this point by showing three instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and two instances of Data in the D column. One instance of a Real World state is not represented by the Data in column D but instead, two instances of Real World states are represented by one instance of an information state.
Figure 3
Meaningless representation When the information system contains superfluous information then it can lead to a situation where the Information System does not accurately represent (map back to) a real world state. For example this can occur by the use of too many descriptive terms, undefined terms or some minor addition to the story intended as an elaboration. To say that in a battle some person or group chose a brilliant strategy and exhibited exceptional strength or bravery may mean that an unintended desperate situation has been incorrectly represented and will be incorrectly interpreted. This situation happens often in television, movies and songs about historical events such as the Spartan battle with the Persians at Thermopylae depicted in the movie "300" or Egyptian Hieroglyphs documenting events in the lives of pharoahs.
Figure 4 illustrates this point by showing two instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and three instances of Data in the D column. One instance of an information state is not represented by or does not map back to a real world state .
Figure 4
Operation Deficiencies - Garbling: Meaningless State In human terms, garbling occurs at the point of "consumption" or reading and interpretation. In Information Systems, it occurs at operation time or when the database is being accessed. Garbling occurs when a Real World state is incorrectly mapped to a wrong state in the Information System. There are two cases in which this occurs. If a meaningless state exists, then Real World mapping will be to a meaningless state, or the mapping might be to a meaningful but incorrect information state. This can occur as a result of inaccurate data entry or omissions of real world states at the creation or origin of the data. Analogous examples of this type of garbling are legends, folktales and the "Artistic License" of the author or originator.
Figure 5 illustrates this point by showing two instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and three instances of Data in the D column. One instance of an information state is not represented by or does not map back to a real world state and a Real World state in incorrectly interpreted as being represented by the superfluous datum.
Figure 5
Map to a wrong state Figure 6 illustrates this phenomena by showing two instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and three instances of Data in the D column. One instance of an information state is not represented by or does not map back to a real world state and a Real World state in incorrectly interpreted as being represented by a valid however incorrect or unintended information state.
Figure 6
In successive articles I will explore each IDQ design deficiency and give a biblical example.
The striking fact that I’ve read over and over from most all Christians trying to apologetically defend the Bible is that the only thing that separates them from our DC staff posters is a word called faith.
Since the active Biblical God is now “Dead in the Water” we non-religious fully developed atheist are given apologetic theologies replete with platitudes as to why a once active Biblical God only appears dead in the water.
I’ve asked regular apologetic commentators such as our District Supt. Harvey Burnett about healing. Harvey assures me he and his church have the ability to heal via God and prayer.
Harvey states: “I have done that Harry. I have first hand experience of seeing some who the doctors had medically gave up on before believers gathered, prayed and God raised them up and or reversed their physical illness. In fact Harry, I have some people in my church that were medically diagnosed with cancer and in at least 1 case cancerous tumors. Those tumors no longer exist and cancer is either inremission or cannot be found.”
He further claims: “That's the problem with your thinking Harry, I cannot heal anyone...ONLY God can and that's the part that escapes you. So far as taking what seems to be an impossible situation and healing it, there have been credible testimonies gathered over the years for such phenomea INCLUDING the regrowth and extension of limbs development of organs etc. in response to believing prayer.”
Here’s the problem with Harvey’s claim. There is no objective external proof that anything but random events and positive thinking did any healing. In light of the more positive Religious Atheist I’ve debated here, our charismatic Pentecostal Christian, Harvey is at least attempting to make the Bible claims live today as much as it did 2,000 years ago even if our boat (God) is dead in the water and only appears to be acting, but which is in reality, is only drifting with the wind.
On the other hand, another commenter named David is more inline with what I call a hard-core Religious Atheist. Like most Fundamental Baptist, he sees the New Testament miracles (called in Greek “Signs and Wonders”) some how as having officially ended.
Except for faith, David has only wishful thinking (or positive energy called prayer) to hope one is healed or God’s will is done. For me, David is less of a believer that Harvey and is left with only God called Faith.
To push my point, I took a stance in line with claims given by Jesus and the New Testament that “Signs and Wonders” are proof of the truths Christian over classical and stagnant paganism. David emphatic stated them to be over.
Harry stated: “Please quote me chapter and verse where the Bible states these gift have ended.” David replied: “No sir, your claim is under question here. Please quote me chapter and verse where the Bible states "signs and wonders" should still be manifest.”
Since I like case studies, I have posted below an event that happened at a local Baptist church. In order to prove that there are Religious Atheist commenting here and that the ONLY thing they have is a God called FAITH, I want any Bible Believing Christians to explain why, in your apologetic defense, God failed to act by either sending this rabid fox down the road to attack and bite the “debauched men and women” at the local strip club or, as Daniel in the Lions Den, protect these Christians as they cried out to God (or anyone else that would listen) for help!
My thesis is that, except for their God called Faith, their explanation will be just like the explanation of any secular person or what I now call Religious Atheist (“Religious” in the same sense that Buddhism is called religious, but, in fact is a philosophy.)
Fox Attacks Family Inside Church
Greenville News Published: November 6, 2008 A fox attacked two adults and a 6-year-old child inside a Spartanburg County church Wednesday evening, that’s according to the Greenville News.
Other members of Liberty Baptist Church, on Bishop Road, were scratched by the fox as they tried to get the animal out of the church fellowship hall. The Rev. David Duncan said the attack occurred around 6:55 p.m. when his daughter, 20-year-old Alicia Duncan, opened the fellowship hall door. The fox jumped on her and bit her several times before biting another woman’s leg when the animal latched onto her ankle, he said.
The fox then went into the fellowship building and started attacking those inside, even as they used metal chairs to hit the fox, the pastor said. The animal went into the hallway of the church’s main building and back into the fellowship building before it was forced outside, under a car, where it later died.
Duncan said those who were bitten were treated at Spartanburg Regional Medical Center. Spartanburg County Environmental Enforcement Director Don Arnold said results to determine whether the animal was rabid will be available Friday.
Arnold urges those who live in the area to make sure all outdoor pets have been innoculated against rabies.
Up Date: The local news tonight (11/07) confirmed the fox was rabid.
I'm doing some research into this issue and it should spark some debate. Answer the question. Don't merely parrot back an answer to me. Think about it. Then reply. Does Dawinian evolutionary biology best explain what we see with the law of predation or does creation by a perfectly good God?
November 4th is upon us. Please vote. If you have any reasons to vote for your Presidential candidate tell us here. In the meantime my plea is that everyone vote your conscience, everyone.
I am struggling hard to know whom to vote for. I live in Indiana. My vote may finally count this time and I don't like anyone. Do I "waste my vote" by voting for Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate, or Ralph Nadar? Unless you're paying attention you probably didn't even know there are other choices. Does voting for these other candidates really send a message?
Damn political parties. They are almost always extremist. Damn party politics. The government cannot, and I mean cannot, keep spending my (our) money like it does. The local Libertarian candidate said it plainly today: "We cannot afford it." He made a great deal of sense to me. Again: "We cannot afford it."
Since the balance of power has been extremist in both dominating political parties our only hope may be to reign them in with another extremist party until the third party helps brings spending in check, and spending will not be brought into check when we vote for politicians who compete with other politicians to buy our votes with things like earmarks and special interest projects. Our district Congressman, Mark Souder, a pragmatist, said he doesn't like doing it but when the other Senators are taking away Indiana's tax money for their special projects, he needs to get in there and fight for Indiana. Go figure.
We are in a financial crisis, an energy crisis, a health-care crisis, an infrastructure crisis, and a crisis in Iraq. The way this election is being treated it's like my former professor Strauss would say: "They think rearranging chairs on the Titanic will help." It won't. Don't bet your ass on it. I have seen politicians come and go. They always make promises, and most of them lie. That's the nature of the political beast. Neither Obama nor McCain can deliver what they have promised. Mark my words. They cannot do it. Even if they try, when Congress doesn't go fully along with what they hope to achieve they will blame Congress. That's what will happen. Again, mark my words. That has always been the excuse for most any President who doesn't deliver on his promises. So on the campaign trail they can promise us the sky! Just don't say what President Bush (Senior) said. He said, "No new taxes" and then later signed a bill with additional taxes. His hand got caught in the cookie jar.
Is it truly a wasted vote to vote for a candidate who has little or no hope to win an election? Well, not if enough people vote their conscience. Is it possible to get people to vote their consciences? I don't know. But that's my plea. Don't vote for what the political parties throw out on the table, as if those are your only two choices. Of course you may want to. But vote your conscience. Our biggest problem is spending. We are spending money like there's no tommorrow. If we continue to do this there will be no tommorrow. Send them all a message loud and clear.
Within a few days of each other last week, on opposite sides of the world, on opposite ends of the wealth and privilege spectrums, the faithful filled two stadiums. In one, in Kismayo, Somalia, 1000 Muslim believers watched the stoning of a 13 year old girl—Aisha was her name--condemned for adultery because she dared to complain about being gang raped. In the other, in San Diego, California, thousands of Evangelicals sang and swayed and pledged their bodies and souls to the purpose of stripping gay men and women of equality under the law and specifically the right to marry. Like Aisha, those men and women have names. One of them is named David. Another Will. I know because I love them , as Aisha’s broken parents loved their daughter.
The horror of imagining a thirteen-year-old raped and stoned is so enormous that it is hard emotionally to put the two events in the same bucket. And yet we must, if we are to understand what is happening to our country and to our world. We must, because they belong there. Both events can be understood only in terms of a single human phenomenon: the worship of specific brutal words that were written in a brutal time and place. Those 1000 Muslims and thousands of Evangelicals are “People of the Book,” the ideological Sons and Daughters of Abraham, bound by a lineage of clay tablet and papyrus and vellum and paper to moral priorities of our Bronze Age ancestors. These ancestors were sworn enemies of sex--outside of the relationship in which a man controlled and jealously guarded his females: wives, slaves, and daughters. He owned them all, and to violate one of them was to violate his property (“You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20.) He owned their offspring, and if he was vigilant enough he could be reasonably confident about whose DNA his females carried in their bellies. When he went to war, he raped or kept the women of his enemies, as a part of the plunder. (“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Numbers 13.) The stoning, like the urgent need to bar gays from acceptance as full members of society comes straight out of the Books, chapter and verse. And though one seems more vile than the other, both reflect the widespread human willingness to deny to others the rights we want for ourselves: liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or even life. How quickly we turn brutish when we idolize the fears and angers of our ancestors or our own fear and anger –and thus give divine sanction to our darkest impulses. In the end, in California, over 30 million dollars were spent in an attempt to deny one of the world’s most basic human rights to young couples, and old lovers, and pairs of moms and dads with kids in school or highchairs. An equal amount was spent in defense of fairness. How many thirteen-year-old girls might have been saved—from malaria or starvation or even stoning-- if the American People of the Book could let Books be books and could freely turn their moral energy toward alleviating suffering instead of causing it. Valerie Tarico Seattle. November 3, 2008 www.wisdomcommons.org
In a second debate with John Lennox on October 23rd, it's being reported that Dawkins said: "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." Here is the link.
Melanie Phillips saw the live debate and comments:
This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force.
She approached him afterwards and asked him "whether he had indeed changed his position and become more open to ideas which lay outside the scientific paradigm." She reports: "He vehemently denied this and expressed horror that he might have given this impression."
I didn't see the debate. Maybe it'll be posted on the web before long. But how can we reconcile what Dawkins said in his book with this admission? In any case, I agree with Dawkins's recent admission. Glad he said it. It's a much more reasonable position to leave his previously held belief that God "almost certainly doesn't exist." But then I'm an agnostic atheist.
Nonetheless, I don't see why this admission does anything to support the Christian case. The Christian must come to grips with the differences between a full blown Christianity and deism. Moving from deism to Christianity is like trying to fly a plane to the moon. It cannot be done. A distant God is no different than none at all.
Six Egyptian "loanwords" cited by Triablogue are debunked.
In the near future, I may issue a more thorough rebuttal to some of Triablogue’s recent and comically uninformed posts (e.g. “The Avalos Legend,” “Au Chocolat,” “The End of Hector Avalos,” etc.), but here I will concentrate on the SIX so-called Egyptian loanwords that Dr. James K. Hoffmeier uses to deny that the Moses story in Exodus 2 could have been composed in the post-exilic era.
The six words (TEBATH, GOME’, ZAPHETH, SUPH, HAYE’OR, and SAPHAH) are listed and discussed on pp. 138-140 of Dr. Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt. These six words also will show how poorly Mr. Steve Hays reads scholarly materials, and how uncritically he reads Dr. Hoffmeier.
This critique was written by Principia Atheologica based on exapologist's critique of Craig's Tristram Shandy paradox, which supposedly demonstrates the impossibility of an actual infinite.
The apologetic defense of religion is so illusive and illogical that it is a basic mental default; a remnant left over from the mystical and superstitious childhood years fed and modified by the professional (paid) clergy. The rush to lock a young mind into a god complex is the main goal of all denominations, sects and cults. The old Catholic maxim “Given be a child to the age of twelve and I’ll give you a Catholic for life.” can also be seen in fervent missionary movements especially in the LDS Mormons, who, like the Blues Brothers Jake and Elroy, are “on a mission from God”.
Those who have remained religious have commented here at DC representing one of two Positions:
The Deist and Theist Position: Easiest to defend since there is no religion or cult attached to it and this position draws in many agnostics.
Without a Bible, there are very little, if any dogmas or doctrines to defend, and, thus very little emotionalism (if any) is found here. All one need do here is take a past event and say, “It’s of god!”
A good Comparison would be: “A cat died. God killed it.” When this cat lived and how it died are not relevant to this apologetic defense. The debate is simply, “It’s of god". (An example here is our agnostic commenter Charlie.)
The Biblical Religionist Position: This apologetic defense is associated with an established belief usually either Judaism or Christianity. Unlike the Deist or Theist position, some form of salvation is involved in that since God is now personal and has a plan for all his creation (especially humans), thus he demands morals and ethics.
These apologists usually feel empowered by the Holy Spirit and debate believing that religious truth is singular and orthodox. This position has an evangelical goals in mind, usually viewing Jesus as a personal savior and God as a “Heavenly Father”. (An example here is our fundamentalist commenter Rick.)
Finally, no matter how much time John, Evan, or Lee puts into writing a very logical argument, the apologetics that defends this illusive God are still just as un-phased as the magical and religious Ouija Board which spells out the future and the unseen world for its believers despite logical fact against it for the last 120 years.
So, just how would an atheist defend God? Easy! An ancient nonfunctioning entity is so illusive, it simply defies logic. As such, any illogical mental construct that is pro god is good to go!
Simply remove the Bible and the Biblical Religionist position becomes the Deist / Theist position. Remove the illusive term “god’ and the Ouija Board now has all the answers.
