So I'm just looking to brush up on my knowledge regarding Christian beliefs so that I'm better prepared to explain my position of disbelief when the discussion arises (it has been a much more common topic around the house than I'd like, especially being the sole atheist of the family). I have some general questions mainly concerning timelines, tailored beliefs and context of things relating to the Bible. Any insight or helpful links would be greatly appreciated. Alright, so here's what I'd like more info on:
1) Does the Bible condone slavery? Every Christian that's confronted with this seems to flat out deny that it does, stating that those "slaves" were people who volunteered themselves to serve.
2) Over what period of time was the Bible written?
3) What's the story of Abraham killing his son?
4) Who are Cain and Abel?
5) What misogynist things does the Bible say about women?
6) Why don't Christians like to follow the Old Testament?
7) What has the Bible "predicted"?
8) Does the Bible have any racist implications?
9) Who was Mary Magdalene and what was so special about her?
10) What other religions does the Bible "borrow" from?
Thanks in advance! <3
Me too Diane... had to rub mine eyes there, twice, then I discovered "God is a postulate"
LOL Well he is sort of a whore, he gives pleasure for prayers. LOL
PrayerPrayer is the active effort to communicate with a deity or higher being. →
Oh my... I first read that as, "God is a prostitute." I was wondering what kind of a discussion we had going on here.
I saw "God is apostate" until I blinked and rubbed my eyes. It was late.
Remember how 'intelligent design' used to be 'creationism'? Nothing changed except the crackpots renamed the same feeble concept with a less embarrassing and more scientific-sounding term. Lookee here, they said, it's just like science now, so the "debate" is reinvigorated!
'God is a postulate' used to be 'theism'. Both are the same unsupported claim that God exists. Nothing has changed.
This was quite amusing. @Gallup has created a whole mythology of theist argumentation. In that way any challenge can be referenced to his mythology and dismissed without actually engaging.
Note the challenge that Bob and billions of other theists have failed to meet for thousands of years: provide evidence for the claim that God exists. We cannot be any more engaged, as there is no bigger challenge for an atheist to offer a theist.
It is the theist (as Bob admits) who then disengages. I posted the list of examples he uses to cover his escape earlier in this thread. But please do see the end of this post for Bob's astonishing (and quite revealing) explanation as to why theists won't engage us on this point.
"God is a postulate."
There is no dispute on this. It's simply restating the point that you have no evidence and that God is an supported assumption.
Theists routinely assert that God is an evidence-based claim. Google "proof of God" and you get 100 million results citing everything from mathematics to intelligent design to first cause to newborn babies.
As for theists who claim God exists and admit there is no proof? One may "postulate" bigfoot, leprechauns, astrology, cold fusion, and cosmic beings with supernatural powers. But until there's evidence, it's perfectly reasonable to be an a-bigfootist, a-leprechaunist, a-astrologist, a-cold-fusion-ist, and a-theist. So I am.
[God] is taken "on faith", or as an axiom.
Taken on faith is a euphemism for lack of evidence. There is no dispute on this either. It's simply restating the reason I don't believe you.
Whether one chooses to accept or reject that system of thought depends on its usefulness.
I accept or reject the claim of God based on whether or not it is true. The scientific method (including empirical evidence) is the best means we have for knowing what is true. That the claim of God is useful (or not) does not make it true.
What's interesting is that some here seem to think that our lack of engagement means that they must be right, or that we're dodging or something. It's really not that, it's that it's so far off it's difficult to engage politely or without coming off as "superior".
Professor Doctor Robert Bob totally nails us to the wall here. He could engage with atheists on this point, but he chooses not to. Why not? Because we're soooo far off the mark. He'd set us straight with such devastating effectiveness that he'd end up looking too superior.
Good thing he restrained himself.
RE: "he'd end up looking too superior" - that has always been a big concern for Bob.
"Good thing he restrained himself."
Theists routinely assert that God is an evidence-based claim.
Yes, it's somewhat silly. The reality is that almost no theist believes in God because of any evidence - based claim. The entire notion of "faith" for the most part precludes that. Theists get this way when they try too hard to talk to atheists in their own language. Or when they're just having fun with speculative theology.
One may "postulate" bigfoot, leprechauns, astrology, cold fusion, and cosmic beings with supernatural powers.
Well, those aren't good examples because none would really be foundational assumptions for a philosophy/way of looking at the world or a discipline. I suspect they would tend more to be theories within a different discipline; cold fusion certainly would fit that bill.
Again, we distinguish between philosophies that are based on different postulates not by evidence, but by utility. There's no proof of the axioms of geometry or mathematics, we accept geometry or mathematics because we find them useful. We disregard lots of other things because we don't find them useful.
But until there's evidence,
No, there can never be evidence of postulates. That's why they are postulates and not theorems.
it's perfectly reasonable to be an a-bigfootist, a-leprechaunist, a-astrologist, a-cold-fusion-ist, and a-theist. So I am.
I agree completely that there's nothing irrational or unreasonable about being an atheist. I certainly have never made that claim. I think the people here are generally quite reasonable.
For me personally, I don't find atheism useful as a philosophy. It doesn't seem to contribute any substantive knowledge or insight, doesn't help answer any questions, doesn't help societies or individuals improve. In fact, some here insist that it's only not believing in god(s).
OK, but that doesn't seem to me to be very worthwhile as a construct. Indeed, for the most part the atheists here couldn't really come up with very good reasons why pedophilia was "wrong" without relying on a Christian cultural context.
See my reply here.
Bob: Parallel lines will never meet.
Gallup: Evidence, please.
Bob: There is none.
Of course there is. One can look at two parallel lines and see they do not meet. We have empirical evidence to support the claim.
Gallup: I don't believe you.
Shame on you for this latest bit of feeble dishonesty, Professor Doctor Robert Bob. Of course I believe parallel lines will never meet and it's because there is evidence to support the claim.
That parallel lines will never meet, is something that doesn't require even geometric proof, in that by their very definition, in order to remain parallel, they must remain equidistant from one another. If any two lines violate that description, even infinitesimally, they cease to be parallel with one another.
False. Review your geometry.
parallel |ˈparəˌlel; -ləl|
(of lines, planes, surfaces, or objects) side by side and having the same distance continuously between them
Review your English.