Does Atheism make sense?

[organiccornflake]

Please answer the question at the bottom of this post before responding.

No it doesn't because my assumptions rely on what the bible states and not what you personally believe.

Please cite the scripture that states the age of the earth. To save you time; there isn't any. Assuming that you are referring to the genesis story; you still have no means. Genesis was written as a vision to Moses, and interpreted my moses. Moses wrote what he saw. Visit this link to understand my belief on this matter.

I have the right to stop either of those things from occurring and have a murderer or rapist arrested assuming that I either catch one of them in the act or I have evidence to provide that they have committed murder or rape, are going to commit murder or rape, or some such thing.

Huh. I believe we went over some scripture from the OT that said they were to do the same thing. Perhaps you aren't so different afterall.

So, yes, I have the right to impose my morals on others because my morals and those of others formed the social contract of American society where we all agreed and wrote a law saying that murder and rape are crimes and there are circumstances in which average citizens can take measures to defend themselves from such acts (killing can be justified if it is done is self-defense but doing so involves imposing your morality of "rape and/or murder is bad" upon another.)

And where do you suppose those laws came from? What influenced those laws?

So yes, I give and have the right (to a limited extent) to impose my morality upon others and indeed this is the nature of the social contract of any society or government.

So I ask again; in another society, if laws were written that rape and murder was A-Okay, would it then be morally correct? And I ask again, where do you derive your morality from?

I've provided scripture that states otherwise, at least in regards to rape, murder, and paedophilia.

This is simply not true. For an athiest who's agenda is to disprove the bible, of course you would refuse to dig deeper into the culture and meaning of scripture, as you are content with believing that the bible condones rape and murder as it fits your agenda.

None of those things are UNIVERSALLY condemned in the bible and many biblical figures kept slaves, concubines, raped, and murdered people - sometimes at god's behest.

Once again, you must understand the source of the scripture before you critizise it. The books of law were written by Moses for his people. Why would he condemn these things universally? Does a single country write laws for the world? Of course not.

And yes, I do have a say in what is and is not moral because I have a sense of morality and the nature of a democratic society allows me to, if enough people agree with me, change the law and therefore I can legislate my morality upon others, so you are wrong on both counts.

So, then the crusades were justified? The crusaders thought their morality to be higher than those they murdered. Their society allowed them to kill innocent people because of their "morality." So, I assume that it was okay for them to do so, is it was legislated by the theocracy of the time?

He didn't make rape, slavery, murder, or anything I've been talking about any more moral than in the old testiment

.

Jesus didn't abolish slavery, just simply restated what the old testiment said with more clarity. He time and time again taught everyone to interact in love. If everyone did this, then slavery wouldn't be a problem.

In Ephesians 6:5-9, Jesus tells Masters to act in love, and tells slaves to serve in love.

In Colossians 4:1, Jesus commands Masters to be "fair and equal," as they have a master too.

In 1st Corinthians 12:13, Jesus says we are all equal.

On top of this; we have the various parables that teach "the gold rule," togetherness, love, and mercy.

Certainly these scriptures must show you that their slavery was not what modern slavery is; but is instead more closely to a job.

He went out of his way to tell people to turn the other cheek to the bad behavior of others (a moral modern christians seem to forget)

This is true. Do not judge jesus for the sins of his followers.

but he also tells people to love him more than family and friends - something cult leaders typically tell their followers in order to get them to leave their families and join their group marriage in a secret compound somewhere in Utah. (Why is it always Utah?)

Being our divine creator; I would say he deserves more love than anyone else. For a person that has never experienced christ, I dont expect you to understand that.

So yeah, even if Jesus did "fix" everything (he didn't) - all it does is make the old and new testiment inconsistent within itself because god changes his mind (something an omnicient being shouldn't be able to do because he can see the goddamn future), among other issues. The New Testiment is just a waste of time and a story about a man who sacrifices himself because god can't be bothered to change the stupid rules he imposes on his own people depsite the fact that he makes exceptions all the time in the old and new testiment.
Therefore, "Jesus fixed it" isn't an excuse.

You said it; he is omniscient. He never changed his mind, it was a part of his plan.

Slight problem - before christianity, people believed in other gods or no gods but another spiritual belief system or even something radically different from that.

For the sake of this argument, we must assume that god does exist. That means god would predate all other false beliefs. Many of the other idols worshipers are mentioned in the bible.

Keep in mind that this is a god who, in the bible, created the world 6000 years ago and the first and all of the following humans from that point recognized god as god for what he was.

The world wasn't created six thousand years ago. It was created 4.5 billion years ago, and the universe was created around 15 billion years ago. The bible gives no dates.

Your opinions on the matter are irrelevant because you've admitted that you only take some things from the bible but not others.

Where have I admitted this?

If you believe that god is a jealous god who has more than one of his ten commandments basically telling you to worship him and him alone, then it wouldn't make sense that this insanely jealous god would, for tens of thousands of years, make people believe in other gods right up until the times described in the bible.

He didn't force anybody to believe anything. It was the human's choice. Free will and all that.

It's terribly inconsistent with god's personality as described in both the new AND old testiment.

Either that; or the authors wrote to portray such. The books that you have the quoted from; the books of law, were written by Moses. Moses was trying to keep a struggling and easily-turned nation in check, which is why he focused on the vengeful and judgmental side of god.

God murdered Noah's wife (I think it was noah, I'm working off memory here) by turning her intoa pillar of salt because she witnessed the destruction of S&G.

It was Lot's wife (I don't blame you for not knowing this, as I often am forgetful of names and such) that was turned into a pillar of salt. God granted all of the righteous people in the city a passage out to a nearby town. They were clearly told to "Flee and not look back" (Genesis 19:16-17.) Lot's wife was hesitant, and looked back. God did not murder her, she was being stupid and did exactly what she was told not to. It is often thought that the way god destroyed Sodom was by making some loud, conspicuous show, and everyone that looked at it disintegrated into what looked like among the chaos a "pillar of salt."

Further, read genesis 6 from beginning to end. He felt that humanity had grown wicked because the 'sons of god" and giants were interminging with human women. I'm sure there were other reasons too, but there's actually more than one issue here other than the one I brought up, which is that this omnicient god apparently didn't see this happening beforehand and regretted making humankind and wanted to hit the great ctrl+alt+del buttons in the sky.

Okay. I just read it beginning to end.

Depending on the translation you read, "Regret" could also mean "grief" or "troubled." God felt grief when his son died, and he knew that he would have to (see all of the prophecies about Jesus); but he did not regret it.
If anything this passage shows that god is capable of human emotion, as we were made in his image. God was upset that his creation grew to such evil.

In any case, it's no coincidence that the only thing god brought up in terms of his reasoning for humankind's wickedness was because the human race was intermingling with giants (a race that never existed) and the "children of god" (angels? something else?) and didn't like either the non-human--human fornication or the resulting children.
I believe growing violence was also mentioned, but that is in addition to the above reasons likely among others, but those were the only two worth mentioning, apparently. Thus, it seems pretty clear that god wiped out all life in the world except noah, his sons, and their wives because he didn't like humans breeding with beings he didn't personally approve.

1. The passage that refers to God's sons, and the next passage that talks about god wanting to send the flood are in separate paragraphs. Also, god mentions nothing of the Son's of god after he states his anger. He does however, say that "every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart were evil."
2. The bible says that the Son's of God had children with humans. Given the gestation period (Typically 9 months) and the fact that their children had become "heroes of old" and "men of renown." (Genesis 6:4) I have a few thoughts here. That is a long time lapse between that, and when god said that man had become wicked. Also; why would the author use such positive words when describing the children of the Son's of God (such as hero, and men of renown) if it was wrong?
3. In genesis 6:13, god said, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them." God gives his reason for destroying the earth very clearly in this verse. No need to connect the sons of God to this, as there is no connection.

So in other words, in a chapter that describes god's decision to cause a global flood, god just casually mentions that this is happening and it's completely unrelated to the surrounding points that leads to god choosing to end the world except for Noah, his family, and everything else that travelled with him in the arc?
You're cherry picking and ignoring pertinent details on the matter. It's no coincidence that god mentions that women are bearing the children of god's children and giants and then states that he's going to murder all humankind because they're wicked.

See my above text.

If I told you that Fred had sex with my wife and then I told you that Fred had to die becuase he's a wicked person, are you telling me that the two is unrelated and that the point of "fred slept with my wife" just means that he was just communicating his affecting for the good deeds she has done for him?"

This metaphor is flawed. I find something inherently wrong with adultery, thus the conclusion is much more logical to draw. I don't find anything inherently wrong with having babies.

A better metaphor would be,

"I bought a new house. It's pretty nice. It has two bedrooms, a master bedroom, and two bathrooms. Im happy with my purchase.

The local school is awful. It has all sorts of drug problems."

Is it reasonable to assume that the school is awful because I moved there? Of course not.

Are you so entrenched in your belief system that you can't even see what's literally written before you? Your explainations require so much spin that you're distorting the words to mean something completely different than what it says in context.

It's funny. I would say this same thing to you.

It's not murder if there's a good enough reason. Gotcha.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. If it is; then I would say that you yourself said killing was okay, as long as it was in self defense, or warranted.

Also, a reasoned killing is not murder.

Secondly, why should I follow Jesus or God in terms of using the bible or god or jesus' teachings if the bible tells me any of the points I've brought up if the bible is okay with things that are completely amoral?

Once again. You say, "Amoral" like you have a sense of morality without god. You don't. You would agree with much, if not all, of the new testament (the current law we are under). Why don't you start poking holes in the morality of the law that applies to you (the same law that much of your country's modern laws are based off of)? For this is the only morality you could even grasp, as every developed country has it to this day. You may find ancient cultures immoral; as they would find you immoral. You couldn't possible grasp why they would see your thoughts as immoral, because this era is all you know.

Third, yes, women of the bible had little value, which makes being forced to marry your rapist WORSE not BETTER. Did you listen to yourself when you spoke that line? Do you really think a book that tells me that women have such little value that if she gets raped she has to marry her rapist?

You aren't listening. Women in the time had little value, and NO value once their virginity was lost. Who would have taken her after that? Certainly not another man, as there would be virgins available. Her family? Maybe; although she would live in shame the rest of her life, or perhaps she could sell herself into slavery in order to stay alive.

I grow tiresome of saying this; you cannot view scripture through the eyes of our culture. Marriage now is not what it was back then. Even in the classical era, marriage was more of a legality reason than anything. It was foolish to marry over love. Marriage was used to carry on a family lineage, and there was often an exchange of property or cattle as a result of marriage.

These passages were to protect the women of that culture. (They don't apply anymore. Which is why you find it wrong.)

As someone that loves women - especially if they were my mother, sister, wife, daughter, or whatever, how is this acceptable to anyone at all? Do you have any idea what women who were raped go through? Especially if the rape was particularly brutal?

It was acceptable to their culture, and the times they were in. I make this point again; mosaic law would be very unacceptable today. But it doesn't apply anymore. Not to you, not to your sister, not to your wife, and not to your daughter. Start finding immorality in the law that we are currently under, and maybe you will have a point.

There is nothing anywhere in this that results in anything resembling justice and certainly not a moral guideline that any reasonable modern person should follow.

I could not agree more. Good thing we don't have to.

I honestly hope you can see the mess you're in in attempting to defend the bible here because I see that you're trying to defend it by saying "oh it was a different time..." but that's not a defense if I'm supposed to use this book to see the kinds of morals that GOD is trying to tell me to live by

These aren't the morals god is trying to tell you to live by. Read the NT.

because so far he's telling me that a woman's only value is determined by whether or not she's a virgin and if and who she's married. There isn't a single damn positive thing about that. God didn't condemn it.
Not now. Not then. Not ever.

Back then; a woman's value was only determined by her virginity. Now it is not the case.

Jesus taught equality and forgiveness. He taught love.

Jesus was sent because the law had been twisted and re-written so much by humans, that it was perverted. He treated women and men as equals, and broke countless Traditional Jewish laws in the process. (See this link)

No, the man who rapes an unwed virgin is not PUNISHED WITH DEATH - he's "punished" with a fine and a marriage.

As I discussed earlier, that was a very heavy fine, as now he had to support another woman.

The only instance in which a man who rapes a woman is punished with death is if they're in the country and they're found.
That is the ONLY instance in which can result in death for the rapist. In every other instance, he lives and SHE is punished - with death and/or with marriage to the rapist.
That is of course, not acknowledging the fact that she has no say in any of this and her opinion doesn't matter.

They don't have to be in "the country," it's common sense to assume that means, "anywhere." Punishment could only be given out if they were found for obvious reasons. How else were they supposed to convict the man? DNA testing?

Marrying the rapist was a punishment for the rapist, and security for the victim.

BULLSHIT!
It does not say anything about whether it is consentual or not. The criteria is explicitly dependant upon whether or not she cries out or not. Her consent is NEVER RELEVANT!

What do you think "if she does not cry out," is trying to say? To take this literaly wouldn't make any sense. The man cannot be charged with adultery, as long as she is unconscience? Obviously not. Adultery was one of the worst of crimes back then. This verse is clearly saying "If she is okay with it; then they are both guilty of adultery."

It seems pretty clear to me.
What reason do you have to believe otherwise?

Even IF the passage was about consent, it's still punishing the woman for consenting to sex and it would just be an arguement for the bible's misogyny, which frankly doesn't make your arguement better.

Ive already covered this point previously. For the sake of time, lets try to shorten the redundancy down on both ends.

It's a "silly assumption" that is completely within the context of the bible's own statements in regard to the subject matter.

Within you atheistic interpretation with the agenda to prove its immorality.

So then you're acknowledging that the morality of the bible has aboslutely no place in modern society?
Well, that's ONE of the points I've been making anyway.

No. The old testimant doesn't. Which is one of the points I have been trying to make also.

I rejected your silly beliefs a long time ago.

This is obvious, as you are 100% against any probable interpretation that would validate it's morality.

The bible is garbage and I wouldn't miss it if every version of it disappeared from the earth forever.

Neither you, or I, would last a day.

It' fails at everything it intends to do.

You aren't the first literary critic to say that. However, I do know hundreds of people whose lives were changed from the words of god. (and billions more that I don't know personally). Plus, my own life... im sorry, but you will never convince me that the bible has failed in it's purpose.

It is a terrible novel and not one of the characters depicted in it make a good role model for a person to follow.

At least the ones in the OT.... And of course your post-jesus morality would say this.

I didn't demonize your stupid book - I only pointed out what was in it and I didn't twist the words in it to validate my ridiculous beliefs.

Incorrect. You took the words of 4000 year old law, applied them to modern culture and pointed out the differences, and the only reason there are differences is that Jesus changed the rules.

Apparently you didn't catch it the first time.
God impregnated Joseph's 14 year old wife.
God - the ultimate moral authority of the universe who can see the future as easily as an average human can see in front of him and whose morals exist beyond time and culture, impregnated, without Mary's knowledge or consent, a woman who is 14 years of age (age being an issue in the modern age and SHOULD have been a blip on God's moral radar)

The fact remains, it wasn't uncommon for a 14 year old girl to be married and pregnant in that culture (this practice even extended into Shakespeare's era).

who was Joseph's wife. This being an act that, if another man did it, would be considered rape and the man would be put to death by god's own rules.

But another man didn't do it. And marry gave consent.

So what I'm saying is this: This act is immoral both now AND then and it is just as all-round horrifble act whether or not Mary was cool with being impregnated against her will.

She wasn't impregnated against her will.

Matthew 4:30-32 tells that the angel told Mary that she bear a child named Jesus, and told her of what he would do.

In the next few verses, Mary asks how it would be done.

Then, in verse 38, Mary says, "Be it unto me according to thy word."

By all means, if there's soemthing in the New Testiment that over-writes the old,

I don't have the time to write down that much scripture. Read it for youself. Time and time again jesus taught love, equality, compassion, and forgiveness. He said that he "fulfilled" the law.

then by all means, point to where it is and I'll tell you why you're wrong and how it shows that the bible is internally inconcisstent and still proves that god is not omnicient enough to see two feet in front of him, let alone the future, just like I did with the rape passage.

No, all you did was prove that rape is wrong. Which it is. Even the OT said so. If it was okay in the OT, why make any laws about it at all? Why make punishment for it?

Surely you cannot possible believe that you have the know-how to judge an ancient culture that you know so little about.

What you personally believe is utterly irrelevant.

What I was saying is that there is a belief (based on alternate meanings of the original greek words) that the bible never claimed hell to be eternal.

God created hell and he judges us and whether or not humans go there is entirely dependant upon his judgements. My analogy is enitrely correct. Our "free will" and choice to follow god is entirely analogous the mob boss telling you that you have the choice of paying money or getting your family killed becuase the non-christian's choice is to either follow jesus or be tortured forever.

Not necessarily "forever."
I'm sorry that you aren't happy with the way things are set up. Either you are worthy of god's presence, or not. You decide.

The fact that you don't believe hell to be eternal is irrelevant. It is written as such in the cannon christian mythology and I'm going to go by that in the discussion unless I am wrong about the cannon mythology.

I am only qualified to argue my beliefs. If you have a problem with somebody else's, take it up with them.

It's a relationship with a cult leader who claims to have magical powers and everyone should love him who is also a zombie. I've heard crazier things from cult leaders as they explain themselves in front of a jury of their peers.... and sicentology and mormonism.

You are truly far-gone.

Your faith in Jesus is no more or less sensible than those examples.

Except my cult leader has historical backing, my cult leader was morally perfect, my cult leader commanded me to love my neighbor as myself, and better myself. My cult leader still manages to piss off people that don't like his kind and loving words 2000 years later.

Again - every human being is being punished for being born.
That is not justice - it is the judgement of a sadistic, evil being.

So I suppose since you believe that you don't deserve punishment for your sins, then you believe that you deserve to be in the presence of a perfect god?

God's ultimate morality allowed him to murder every single human being, plant, animal, and everything else in the world with a giant flood.

1. It wasn't murder. He had cause.
2. God only killed the wicked
3. Shall we discuss some of the more famous atheists' ultimate morality has achieved?

He impregnated a 14 year old wife of another human without her knowledge or consent.

Already addressed this.

His "ultimate morality" changed the moment he tortured his own son for rules he made to punish humans for being exactly the way he created them for doing everything he should be aware of at all times being an omnipotent and omnicient being.

He didn't torture Jesus. We did.

He was aware; he just understand the importance of free will, so he had to let us play it our way at times.

Without god's "morality" we went from converting serfs to christianity at swordpoint to inventing nanotechnology, talking robots, space stations, GPS satilites, and voyager space probes.

...What? Are you saying that there hasn't been a Christian since the Crusades? Or that there hasn't been Christian influence since the crusades? I don't realize what god's morality has to do with our scientific progression, other than the fact that Jesus' morality is still in practice even by our scientists (theist and otherwise) today.

Whatever you think Christianity's influence on "society" is is entirely fictional.

... Wha-... What? Assuming you live in a developed country of any kind, you are wrong... However, If you truly believe this to be true, than this whole argument is pointless.

So, answer me just this one question before we continue, Do you truly believe that Christianity has no influence on modern society?

[/quote]